The O.W.L. lawsuit challenging the Water
Supply Assessement (WSA) produced by Rohnert Park was
resolved on May 31st in Superior Court of Sonoma County.
Judge Knoel Owen upheld his tentative ruling in the case:
Several people have asked for the "Supplementals"
in the case. These are the additional briefs filed for
the second hearing. The judge limited the briefs to a
discussion of the boarder used in the WSA. The law, SB
610, specifically states that the study area for a WSA
should be the groundwater basin, however Rohnert Park's
WSA shows the border of the study area to be the surface
water watershed, a completely separate hydrologic unit.
There are two supplemental briefs, one
from the City of Rohnert Park and one from the O.W.L.
Foundation, as well as a joinder from the real parties
of interest who intervened in this suit.
It is clear from this
"second chance" that the judge bent over backwards
to help Rohnert Park explain what appears to be a huge
disparity between the law and the WSA. Obviously the
City failed to explain the difference to the judge's
satisfaction. Furthermore, the judge underscored the
importance of the groundwater basin or subbasin by
intimating that the City cannot merely assess underground
water that lies within the city limits but that the
entire basin must be accounted for. This makes a great
deal of sense. There are other water consumers drawing
water from this very basin in addition to Rohnert Park:
Cotati, Sonoma State University, numerous private well
owners, Santa Rosa and three Sonoma Water Agency Wells
located in the Laguna de Santa Rosa.
What's in the future?
From the June 2nd
2006 edition of the Press Democrat
Water
future
What
Rohnert Park court ruling could mean to
other cities
Sonoma County cities
have seen their future, and Rohnert Park is it.
OK. This may be a slight exaggeration.
But if Wednesday's decision by Judge
Knoel Owen stands, local governments could be held
to strict standards when it comes to determining whether
they have adequate water for new development.
Penngrove residents challenged a
Rohnert Park water supply assessment used by the city
used to approve the construction of 3,600 new homes.
Penngrove's OWL Foundation argued that Rohnert Park's
assessment didn't meet the requirements of state legislation
approved in 2001. The judge agreed, ruling that Rohnert
Park must look beyond its own water basin when determining
whether there is an adequate supply of water for new
residents.
One of the main proponents of the
2001 legislation was the East Bay Municipal Utility
District. "Everyone involved in writing the bill
would tell you that (cities) could never satisfy obligations
by looking at just their own wells. That's too narrow," said
Randy Kanouse, a lobbyist for the district and the
main architect of the bill.
Kanouse explained that the intent
of the bill was for cities to look at the impact on
neighboring communities "that had a 'hydrological
continuity' to their pumping activity."
The question is: Where does that "hydrological
continuity" end? Cotati, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol
and Rohnert Park are all served by a regional water
agency and a subregional wastewater system. An argument
can be made that the water needs of these four cities
are interconnected.
If so, all these cities could be
required to conduct studies that take into account
the water demands and supply of areas beyond their
boundaries. This could be especially problematic for
Santa Rosa, where residential development is planned
in the southeast and southwest.
While cities like to pretend that
they are distinct entities, when it comes to water
supply and development, the courts may believe differently.
