Steinbeck Vineyards et al. v. County of San Luis Obispo et al.

Santa Clara County

Superior Court Judge Peter H. Kirwan

Defense Lawyers: Jeffrey V. Dunn, Wendy Y. Wang, Best Best & Krieger LLP; Elizabeth Ewens, Shawna Grady, Ellison Schneider Harris & Donlan LLP; Barbara Brenner, Churchwell White LLP; Andrew Ramos, Bartkiewicz Kronick & Shanahan PC; Rob Saperstein, Jessica Diaz, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck LLP

Plaintiffs Lawyers: Richard G. Zimmer, Clifford & Brown

In a significant chapter in California's water wars, more than 600 San Luis Obispo County landowners sued governmental entities over groundwater rights. The case developed into a showdown over whether counties can use their police powers to address unsustainable water pumping as populations grow, agricultural production increases and drought is a chronic threat.

It was the first case to arise since 2014, when Sacramento lawmakers passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, and the first time a jury has been asked to decide complex questions of priority rights and prescriptive groundwater rights.

"It was the first jury trial ever on groundwater rights between citizens and public entities and only the third time that all the elements of public entities' claim to prescriptive rights were tried in court," said lead defense lawyer Jeffrey V. Dunn of Best Best & Krieger LLP, who explained that such disputes are almost invariably settled in administrative proceedings.

"The plaintiffs wanted a jury, and the judge said all right," Dunn added.

After a four-week trial, jurors found the defendants had acquired rights equal or superior to those of the plaintiffs during the 1980s, one of three historical use periods at issue as the basis for future pumping. Steinbeck Vineyards et al. v. County of San Luis Obispo et al., 1-14-CV-265039 (Santa Clara County Sup. Ct., filed May 8, 2014).

Further proceedings are pending to address allocation questions, but because water demand has increased over the last 30 years, the draw the court decides for public entities could be less than they wish.

Richard G. Zimmer, the plaintiffs' lawyer, disputed that the outcome counts as a defense win.

"Through the lens of history, this was the biggest attempted water grab since 'Chinatown,'" he said, referring to the 1974 film. "The public entities attempted to take our water rights away but failed in two of the three periods claimed. This was a victory for the plaintiffs."

Adam F. Keats, a senior attorney who studies water rights law at the Center for Food Safety in San Francisco who is not involved in the case, said the outcome of the proceedings to quantify specific amounts the parties are allowed to draw could disfavor the public agency defendants in the end.

"If it's true that the agencies' prescriptive rights based on the '80s withdrawals will be a lot lower than what they've been recently pumping, this case will end up being a pretty big disaster for the agencies," Keats emailed.

Undisputed was the hydrological maze the case involved. "There's not plenty of water," Dunn summed up. "And water rights aren't simple."

The litigation was tried on neutral turf in Santa Clara County.

-- John Roemer