County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles

Citations: 61 Cal. App. 3d 91; 132 Cal. Rptr. 167; 6 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20758; 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1799Docket: Civ. 13886

Court: California Court of Appeal; August 17, 1976; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The appeal by the County of Inyo challenges a second interim pumping rate order imposed on the City of Los Angeles by the Sacramento Superior Court. This case centers on the City’s obligation to adhere to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before increasing subsurface water extraction from the Owens Valley Basin. The Court of Appeals previously determined that such an increase constituted a "project" under CEQA and mandated the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR). 

The litigation also involves establishing an interim groundwater extraction rate while the case is ongoing. The Court referred the issue to the Sacramento Superior Court for evidentiary proceedings to determine this rate based on a specific averaging formula. The Court reasoned that the City’s need for groundwater correlates inversely with natural precipitation levels. 

On October 12, 1973, the Superior Court set an interim pumping rate of 221.4 cubic feet per second (cfs), which was later contested by Inyo County. The Court of Appeals found this computation flawed and provided a revised formula for the Superior Court’s consideration. Subsequently, the Superior Court established a new interim rate of 178.5 cfs in May 1975. Inyo County appealed again, asserting that this rate was excessively generous and harmful to the environment. The Court of Appeals acknowledged miscommunication regarding its previous directives and clarified that the Superior Court should not apply a strict mathematical averaging but should instead consider equitable factors. Consequently, the Court vacated the May 12 and May 13, 1975, interim orders.

The City of Los Angeles submitted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in response to a court's peremptory writ of mandate, which was certified on July 15, 1976, by the city's board of water and power commissioners for increased groundwater pumping from the Owens Valley Basin. Inyo County has raised concerns regarding the EIR's legal sufficiency, highlighting the significant social, economic, and environmental stakes involved, particularly the conflict between environmental preservation and the water needs of California's largest population center. The court has taken original jurisdiction over the matter, bypassing further superior court references after oral arguments on July 21, 1976. 

The court emphasized the need for a final judicial determination of the EIR's validity and established the requirement for an interim groundwater extraction rate pending this resolution. Both Inyo County and the City proposed conflicting extraction rates: Inyo County suggested limiting the rate to 89 cubic feet per second (cfs), based on a historical rate, while the City requested affirmation of a 178.5 cfs rate set by the superior court. The court found neither rate appropriate, as they failed to incorporate equitable considerations. It noted that the 89 cfs rate was arbitrary, unrelated to ecological welfare or the city's legitimate water needs, while the 178.5 cfs rate was an average that did not account for the county's disadvantages. 

The court highlighted the importance of evidence showing that the three-year period (1970-1973) included unusually dry years, which inflated the average pumping rate. It referenced the city's long-term plans, which anticipate an average utilization rate of 147 cfs based on normal precipitation conditions, indicating that the superior court's interim rate was unreasonably high. Therefore, the court rejected both proposed rates and underscored the necessity of establishing a more equitable interim pumping rate.

The document addresses the context of water supply management during the atypical winter of 1975-1976, marked by low rain and snowfall. It highlights a current strain on water resources, with a permitted short-term withdrawal rate of 178.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), which exceeds the city’s estimated long-term needs. An interim pumping level of approximately 147 cfs is supported by evidence from Inyo County indicating an "available precipitation pumping year," based on annual precipitation and snowpack estimates. Historical data reveals that between April 1970 and April 1971, the city pumped an average of 60.31 cfs during a wet year, while in a dry year from April 1972 to April 1973, it pumped 238.81 cfs, leading to an average of 149.56 cfs for future maximum extraction considerations. This three-year period (1970-1973) is deemed appropriate for evaluating pumping needs, as it reflects actual operational conditions influenced by water collection capabilities and system capacity, without court-imposed restrictions. The city disputes using its long-term average of 140 cfs as a benchmark for short-term needs during drought, arguing it could allow for up to 315 cfs of underground pumping. However, the document emphasizes the necessity of balancing the needs of both parties involved. It is assumed that an average extraction of 149.56 cfs over an extended period could lower the water table and cause environmental changes, but no evidence suggests that this short-term limit would result in environmental damage. Future adjustments to pumping limits may be warranted based on evolving conditions. The document critiques the wet-versus-dry-year management approach, advocating instead for a twelve-month extraction cycle starting April 1, aligned with natural precipitation patterns, and suggests avoiding a rigid average extraction formula in favor of a cap on maximum extraction rates.

Inyo County seeks to address groundwater management by emphasizing the importance of seasonal water availability in a semi-arid region. The county argues against a request for a maximum groundwater pumping rate without considering average water availability, asserting that a coordinated withdrawal system is necessary. The county believes that an interim limit on groundwater extraction is insufficient, as it fears the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will reduce groundwater supplies for local consumers while exporting the same amount of water to Los Angeles.

The court's prior rulings focused on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concerning groundwater drawdown, but the city's long-term plan to increase water exports via the Los Angeles Aqueduct was deemed outside the scope of the litigation. The city contends that this plan was initiated before CEQA's effective date, making it exempt from the act.

Both parties exhibit mixed intentions; while Inyo County's pleadings aim to restrict groundwater use pending CEQA compliance, it also seeks additional constraints on surface water use, implying broader issues related to the city's water management. Initially, the city claimed that the lawsuit addressed groundwater pumping for export, but its stance later shifted to asserting that increased pumping would solely serve Owens Valley.

The court distinguishes between the main action's limited scope and the broader implications of any interim injunctive order, emphasizing the need to protect public interests. Groundwater is part of an interconnected water resource system, and limiting groundwater pumping may be undermined by surface water diversions. A judicial reduction in groundwater extraction could negatively impact local users if compensatory surface water is exported to Los Angeles, as surface water used locally contributes to aquifer replenishment.

Since May 1975, the city has operated under a court-ordered pumping rate of 178.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), which, despite initial misconceptions about the court's expectations, has been maintained as a practical operating standard, fulfilling local needs alongside available surface water.

A customary standard for water supply to local uses in Owens Valley has been established since May 1975, requiring the Department of Water and Power to supply water at current levels, utilizing both surface and subsurface sources as necessary. The court has determined that the order regarding interim pumping rates will be effective immediately, starting September 1, 1976, which vacates the superior court's previous interim pumping rate order. Respondents are prohibited from withdrawing water from the Owens Valley Groundwater Basin above an average rate of 149.56 cubic feet per second from September 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977, and this limit extends to an annual average for subsequent years. Additionally, water quantities supplied to Owens Valley users cannot fall below the levels maintained since May 1975. The excerpt references several legal precedents regarding the court's authority to impose such orders and mentions related environmental reports and legal considerations regarding the city's water extraction practices.