Sonoma County wins appeal to keep well-permitting ordinance amendments

Sonoma County appealed a lower court's decision to invalidate amendments to its well-permitting ordinance under the public trust doctrine.SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The county of Sonoma did not violate the public trust doctrine when it amended an ordinance related to groundwater well permits, a California Court of Appeal said Tuesday, reversing a lower court’s ruling.In Sonoma, part of the Russian River is considered a navigable waterway, protected by the public trust doctrine — a legal principle that holds the government responsible for protecting certain natural resources available for public use. After a 2018 decision in the Third District Court of Appeal, it was determined that counties, as subdivisions of the state, must share the state’s “responsibility for administering the public trust.”A three-judge panel in the First Appellate District determined that, while Sonoma didn’t violate the public trust doctrine by amending the well ordinance, it also upheld the lower court’s ruling that substantial evidence did not support Sonoma’s claimed exemptions from a California Environmental Quality Act review.The Russian River is an important habitat for three vulnerable fish species: Central California Coast coho salmon, the California Coastal Chinook salmon and the Central California Coast steelhead trout. For the fish to successfully breed, they require a certain amount of water depth to reach spawning areas.In 2022, the county drafted proposed amendments to groundwater well ordinances to comply with the public trust doctrine and sought the board’s approval. The board advised the county to provide further analysis on the impacts to the Russian River.Sonoma has the most water wells per capita of any county in California, with more than 45,000 wells supplying water for agricultural, industrial and residential use in unincorporated areas. Between 2017 and 2022, the county issued approximately 320 permits for groundwater wells each year.In 2022 and 2023, working groups made up of public agencies, scientific experts, conservation groups and community members evaluated well classifications, monitoring and metering requirements and conservation measures over several meetings.After six months of meetings, the working groups recommended options for how Sonoma could meet its public trust obligations, and the board adopted the amendments in April 2023 based on those recommendations. It did not conduct an independent environmental review under CEQA because it believed it was exempt.The ordinance detailed Sonoma retained the “right to inspect well sites before and after permit issuance, to deny noncompliant applications, and to revoke or modify permits if ‘circumstances under which the permit was granted have changed and the public health, safety and welfare require’ or if the permitted work violated applicable ordinances,” Associate Justice Tara Desautels wrote in the 44-page opinion.Additionally, to comply with monitoring requirements, well owners were required to install, maintain and report monthly readings measuring groundwater extracted from the well and well water levels to Sonoma’s Permit and Resource Management Department.In May 2023, Russian Riverkeeper and the California Coastkeeper Alliance filed a petition for writ of mandate in Sonoma County Superior Court and sought to invalidate the amended ordinance and enjoin the county from issuing groundwater well permits, claiming its amendments didn’t meet the public trust doctrine standards and failed to comply with CEQA.In October 2024, the lower court ruled Sonoma had to set aside the amendments, rescind the categorical exemptions from CEQA review and stop issuing well permits. Sonoma appealed that same month.Desautels disagreed with the lower court’s judgment, saying Sonoma provided the necessary evidence for its analysis and review of the ordinance amendment.“Unless it is entirely lacking in evidentiary support, we will uphold a legislative act regardless of whether ‘there is evidence, even substantial evidence, supporting’ an alternative decision,” she wrote.She further said that the concept of public use is “flexible, accommodating changing public needs” and there is “no set procedural matrix for determining compliance with the doctrine.”Ultimately, the panel concluded the environmental nonprofits failed to satisfy their burden of showing Sonoma’s public trust analysis was arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support and reversed the lower court’s decision.The panel did not provide direction on its decision to uphold the lower court’s judgment about CEQA review exemptions.“We also express no opinion as to the manner in which CEQA should be complied with or whether any moratorium or intervening measures concerning non-emergency well permits are appropriate,” wrote Desautels in a footnote.The panel denied the nonprofits’ petition for writ of mandate to challenge the amended ordinance under the public trust doctrine, making the amendments valid. The case is remanded.Associate Justices Marla Miller and James Richman rounded out the panel.Sonoma County and Russian Riverkeeper did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads