Court Upholds Groundwater Basin Rule
11.26.2012
Santa Maria Times
Nossaman Partner Henry Weinstock is quoted in the Santa Maria Times article "Court upholds groundwater basin rule" about the recent Court of Appeal ruling upholding 99% of the initial Santa Clara County Superior Court decision in a Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin lawsuit, which commenced in 1997. Nossaman represented Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District in the trial court.
Although the Court instructed the trial court to modify the judgment slightly to declare that the appellants, because they are landowners, have overlying rights in unquantified amounts, the Court upheld the "physical solution" that allocates and manages groundwater in the basin's three management areas and rejected all of appellants' challenges to our clients' water rights, upholding 100% of their superior right to use 7,300 acre-feet of ground and surface water per year in their area of the basin.
"It's pretty much a complete victory," Mr. Weinstock is quoted as saying. "They made over 100 arguments," he said of the appellants. "(The court) really only agreed with them on one. They didn't reject any fact or conclusion (in the original decision)."
Mr. Weinstock was also quoted in a similar articles in the Nipomo Adobe Press and the Times Press Recorder.
Although the Court instructed the trial court to modify the judgment slightly to declare that the appellants, because they are landowners, have overlying rights in unquantified amounts, the Court upheld the "physical solution" that allocates and manages groundwater in the basin's three management areas and rejected all of appellants' challenges to our clients' water rights, upholding 100% of their superior right to use 7,300 acre-feet of ground and surface water per year in their area of the basin.
"It's pretty much a complete victory," Mr. Weinstock is quoted as saying. "They made over 100 arguments," he said of the appellants. "(The court) really only agreed with them on one. They didn't reject any fact or conclusion (in the original decision)."
Mr. Weinstock was also quoted in a similar articles in the Nipomo Adobe Press and the Times Press Recorder.