OPV Coalition et al vs Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 06/07/2024 - 15:30

Nature of Proceedings

Case Management Order; Motions Re Phasing of Trial

Tentative Ruling

(See below)

Background:

(1)       Issues Presented at May 10, 2024, CMO

For the case management conference (CMC) held on May 10, 2024, the court considered the following filings of the parties:

Motions have been filed with respect to phasing of trial by the following:

(1)       OPV Coalition, et al. (Plaintiffs) (the Plaintiffs’ Motion).

(2)       City of San Buenaventura (Ventura), Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas MWD) (the Ventura-Calleguas Motion).

(3)       Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) (the FCGMA Motion).

(4)       United Water Conservation District (UWCS) and City of Camarillo (Camarillo) (the UWCD-Camarillo Motion).

The following parties have filed joinders in these motions:

(5)       Marathon Land and Certain Defendants (Marathon 100) partially join the proposals in the UWCD-Camarillo and Ventura-Calleguas Motions.

(6)       The David F. Laubacher Trust etc., et al., join the proposal in the Plaintiffs’ Motion.

(7)       The Nature Conservancy joins the proposal in the FCGMA Motion.

(8)       Dignity Health joins the proposal in the Ventura-Calleguas Motion.

Opposition or responses were filed by:

(1)       Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA Opposition).

(2)       Marathon 100 (Marathon 100 Opposition).

(3)       City of Camarillo, City of San Buenaventura, Calleguas Municipal Water District, United Water Conservation District, et al. (Camarillo Opposition).

(4)       United States of America (US Opposition).

(5)       OPV Coalition, et al. (Plaintiffs’ Opposition).

Replies and other post-opposition documents were filed by:

(1)       OPV Coalition, et al. (Plaintiffs’ Reply).

(2)       City of San Buenaventura, Calleguas Municipal Water District, United Water Conservation District, et al. (Ventura-Calleguas Reply).

(3)       Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA Reply).

(4)       United Water Conservation District and City of Camarillo (UWCD-Camarillo Reply).

(5)       Marathon 100 (Marathon 100 Reply).

(6)       United Water Conservation District, City of Camarillo, et al., reply statement regarding CMO procedures (UWCD-Camarillo Reply re CMO).

(7)       OPV Coalition, et al., response re CMO procedures (Plaintiffs’ Reply re CMO).

(8)       John W. Bochard Jr., trustee, et al., limited response.

In support of these motions, the following proposed orders have been lodged:

(1a)     Plaintiffs’ Motion proposed order (original).

(1b)     Plaintiffs’ Motion proposed order (alternative).

(2a)     UWCD-Camarillo Motion proposed order.

(2b)     UWCD-Camarillo proposed order re bifurcation and phasing.

(3)       Ventura-Calleguas Motion proposed order.

(4)       FCGMA Motion proposed order.

There are also objections, a response, and a proposed order to the declaration of William Blomquist, which declaration was filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motion.

In addition to the trial-phasing motions, the court considered a proposed revised case management order (CMO), together with a statement filed by a number of defendants regarding the CMO procedure, and a response to that statement by the plaintiffs.

(2)       Conclusion of May 10 CMO

At the May 10 CMC, the court determined not to make any substantial changes to the CMO procedure at this time. The court adopted two uncontroversial proposals that were presented prior to the hearing and also accepted the stipulation of the parties to the use of remote court reporting for these proceedings.

The court did not resolve the trial-phasing motions, but provided the following guidance to the parties:

Without discussing the merits of each motion individually, the court provides the following guidance to the parties for further discussion. The following is intended only as a general discussion. For ease of writing, the court will not add or repeat qualifiers, such as “generally” or “among other things,” but recognizes that the following statements may be subject to conditions, qualifications, and exceptions.

The court agrees that trial should be in three phases: (1) the determination of a safe yield (as discussed below); (2) the determination of groundwater rights; and (3) a physical solution, i.e., sustainable groundwater management consistent with all applicable law. The determination in each phase will necessarily affect the scope and issues of the following phase or phases. The court expects substantial settlement efforts to eliminate or to narrow the scope of disputes requiring adjudication throughout this litigation. This sequencing rejects Plaintiffs’ initial proposal for a different sequencing.

With respect the first phase, the court notes that one area of disagreement is the scope of the “safe yield” as that term is used in the previous paragraph. “ ‘Safe yield’ is defined as ‘the maximum quantity of water which can be withdrawn annually from a ground water supply under a given set of conditions without causing an undesirable result.’ The phrase ‘undesirable result’ is understood to refer to a gradual lowering of the ground water levels resulting eventually in depletion of the supply. [Citation.]” (City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 278, disapproved on other grounds in City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1248.) This definition is a more generalized description of the definition of “sustainable yield” in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: “ ‘Sustainable yield’ means the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result. (Wat. Code, § 10721, subd. (w).) Thus, the “safe yield” is an outflow calculation determined, in part, based upon the inflow. The inflow part of “total safe yield” is axiomatically the sum of native sources and non-native sources of water.

While native and non-native inflow sources and outflow uses may be treated differently for purposes of ascertaining water rights, the total safe yield, as distinguished from native safe yield, is nonetheless also an important concept in understanding and determining appropriate groundwater management. As a result, “total safe yield,” divided into its component inflows, will need to be determined at some point. Because all inflows and outflows have factual connections, addressing these issues together makes for a reasonably efficient adjudication (to the extent the parties are unable to fully resolve these issues by stipulation). Additionally, the determination of inflows and outflows, with necessary and appropriate breakdowns into component parts, will provide the court and the parties with a stronger foundation upon which to make further determinations and to promote settlement with a fuller understanding of the total picture. The court thus is inclined to address all inflow and outflow issues at one time within phase  1.

The court made no determinations, but left the parties to further meet and confer. The parties engaged in substantial meet and confer efforts, all of which are appreciated by the court.

The result of the meet and confer efforts are two unopposed proposals and broad agreement as to phasing with the objection and alternative proposal of FCGMA.

Analysis:

(1)       Unopposed Proposals

The first unopposed proposal is for the next CMC to be held on July 19, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. This proposal is adopted.

The second unopposed proposal is to streamline appearances at CMCs by mostly eliminating oral appearances in favor of written appearances in the Zoom chat or by email. With a couple of clarifications, this proposal is also adopted:

The typing in the Zoom chat box needs to be a chat to everyone (as opposed to a chat limited to particular Zoom participants) in order to assure that the information reaches the courtroom clerk and the court reporter.

For attorneys or self-represented parties appearing in person, the courtroom clerk will coordinate the recording of appearances. Each person appearing in person will be required to submit to the courtroom clerk in writing in advance of the start of the hearing a business card or other slip including the name of the person appearing (attorney or self-represented party) and the party represented (if not self-represented).

(2)       Phasing of Trial

The following parties agree and make a joint proposal attached as exhibit A to the lodged proposed draft CMO (the Joint Proposal): Plaintiffs; Defendant United States of America; Defendants John W. Borchard, Jr., Trustee, et al.; Defendants ECO-Farms, Inc., et al; Intervenor Marathon Land, Inc.; Defendant-Intervenor City of San Buenaventura; Defendant Calleguas Municipal Water District; Defendants The Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company, R. N. Daily Ranch, LLC, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles, et al.; Defendant Camrosa Water District; Defendant Intervenor United Water Conservation District; Defendant California-American Water Company; Intervenor/Defendant City of Oxnard; Defendant City of Camarillo; Defendants Port Hueneme Water Agency, Channel Islands Beach Community Services District, and the City of Port Hueneme; HNS Properties, LLC; Intervenors Guadalasca Mutual Water Company and Pleasant Valley County Water District and Defendants John S. Broome and Rancho Guadalasca, LLC; Defendant Dignity Health, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation; Simon Property Group, Inc. and Premium Outlet Partners LP; Defendants A&R 1995, LLC, et al.; Southland Property Investments LLC; Defendants The David F. Laubacher Trust Dated June 30, 2020, et al.; Alta Mutual Water Company; and Local Bounti Corporation; Store Master Funding XXXI, LLC; Sun Valley Group, Inc.; and Noel Daily as Trustee for the Daily Family Trust. The proposed orders in the Joint Proposal are:

“1.       The Court will divide trial of this comprehensive groundwater rights adjudication into phases. See May 10, 2024 Minute Order.

“2.       The Court will set a Phase 1 bench trial on the determination of the total and native safe yield(s) of the Oxnard Subbasin (Department of Water Resources (‘DWR’) Basin 4-004.02) of the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 4-004) (‘Oxnard Basin’) and the Pleasant Valley Basin (DWR Basin 4-006) (‘Pleasant Valley Basin’). The Court will reserve for a later phase or phases determination (if necessary) of projected future yield enhancement from potential new water supply projects that have not yet been developed or implemented. The Court will also reserve for a later phase or phases determination (if necessary) of rights to storage space.

“3.       The Court will set a Phase 2 trial to adjudicate all claimed rights to use groundwater in the Oxnard Basin and the Pleasant Valley Basin, including any federal reserved water right claims.

“4.       The Court will set a Phase 3 bench trial to consider establishing a physical solution for the Oxnard Basin and the Pleasant Valley Basin.

“5.       The determination of each phase will necessarily affect the scope and issues of the following phase or phases. The Court expects substantial settlement efforts to eliminate or narrow the scope of disputes requiring adjudication throughout this litigation.

“6.       Discovery and evidence will be limited in each phase to the issues in that phase.

“7.       With that said, this Order should not be interpreted as foreclosing the parties from seeking discovery or seeking to introduce evidence that is relevant in that current phase that may also be relevant to other phases. Nor shall this Order be interpreted as foreclosing the parties from engaging in efforts to settle issues that may also be relevant to other phases or introducing the fact of any such settlement as evidence. If disputed, the scope of phase-specific discovery or relevance of particular evidence can be determined by the Court and/or an appointed discovery referee/special master, as appropriate or requested by the parties, after consideration of the parties’ arguments, applicable law, and the facts at hand.”

This proposal largely tracks the guidance given by the court at the May 10 CMC.

FCGMA submitted a supplemental brief which reasserts and updates the arguments made in its papers filed for the May 10 CMC. While fully appreciating the concerns expressed by FCGMA, the court nonetheless concludes that the basic approach of phasing by first determining safe yield and then determining water rights is the preferred approach here. Based on FCGMA’s points, the court makes the following comments:

Phasing of trial does not limit what must ultimately be determined, or finally ordered, but only determines the sequence by which particular issues are addressed. The purpose of phasing is to focus the parties so as to efficiently direct the parties’ and the court’s resources towards these ultimate resolutions. The court is hopeful that when the parties are able to discuss the issues within the scope of Phase 1, that discussion will lead to broad agreement as to many issues and to the refinement of issues for which agreement is not possible. The court expects robust participation in this process by all concerned, especially by those with experience and expertise.

FCGMA makes the further request that the question of total safe yield be referred to the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Water Resources for an initial investigation and report. This remains an option available to the court in the future. For the present, the court prefers Phase 1 to proceed as now determined.

The court will adopt the Joint Proposal with two qualifications relating to order Nos. 6 and 7. As the court noted in connection with the May 10 CMC:

“In any case, the court is not inclined to lift the discovery stay so as to permit uncontrolled discovery. Discovery in a complex case of this sort is constantly the subject of competing concerns over timing, breadth, and completeness. (See generally Code Civ. Proc., §§ 840, subd. (b)(7), 2017.020, 2019.020, subd. (b), 2019.030.) To allow discovery to proceed expediently and efficiently, discovery needs to occur pursuant to an organized discovery plan. The court requests the parties to discuss this issue and also the appointment of a discovery referee/ special master to create, monitor, and enforce such a plan and to resolve discovery disputes.”

In adopting the Joint Proposal, the court is not lifting the discovery stay at this time and without a Phase 1 discovery plan in place. The court will require the parties to meet and confer as to such a discovery plan, including whether the participation of a discovery referee/ special master is appropriate in the formulation of such plan. This will be a subject of discussion at the next CMC. The timing of the discovery plan will necessarily drive litigation deadlines to be set for Phase 1.

Also, particularly with respect to order No. 7, it bears repeating that the purpose of phasing is to focus efforts and to narrow issues in dispute. The statement in order No. 7 that the Joint Proposal is not intended to foreclose useful discovery that may also be used in other phases or to limit the scope of agreement among the parties is correct as far as it goes. But the scope of litigation activity within Phase 1 must ultimately be directed towards the efficient resolution of necessary Phase 1 determinations.