GROUNDWATER RULING MARKS BOUNDARIES JUDGE RULES BASIN IS EDGE.

Byline: KAREN MAESHIRO Staff Writer

Ruling against the federal government, a judge has decided that the groundwater basin will serve as the geographic boundary in a case that could place limits on how much well water can be pumped annually from Antelope Valley's dwindling aquifer.

The federal government favored broadening the litigation to take in the watershed area, which would include mountain streams that feed into the basin, in order to have a comprehensive adjudication and avoid the government from being subject to piecemeal litigation.

``We always felt that extending the case beyond what is the groundwater basin was not necessary and also contrary to existing law for the way this is traditionally done,'' Principal Deputy County Counsel Fred Pfaeffle said.

Officials with the U.S. Department of Justice said they were reviewing the ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jack Komar, which came after three days of hearings in October.

Komar was appointed to hear the case by the Judicial Council of California.

The boundaries of the groundwater basin generally lie at the foothills of two mountain ranges in the western part of the Antelope Valley and meander through Edwards Air Force Base eastward toward the county line.

Komar is overseeing the 7-year-old court case involving about a half-dozen lawsuits filed on behalf of two Kern County farming companies and a Los Angeles County waterworks district.

The litigation stems from lawsuits filed by Diamond Farming Co. and Wm. Bolthouse Farms Inc., in 1999 and 2001, against Antelope Valley water districts and government agencies. The companies were seeking priority rights to the water beneath their Antelope Valley farmland.

In 2004, Los Angeles County jumped into the fray, saying, with population growing and farm irrigation up 40 percent over five years, that Antelope Valley's underground water supply is declining.

County officials filed complaints calling for adjudication, or a judicial determination of the groundwater rights of public and private parties in the Antelope Valley.

Pfaeffle said the intent is to not serve the smaller landowners and water users but to give them the opportunity to participate in the lawsuit by a mechanism similar to a class action where they don't have to hire an attorney.

``There's always the hope that all major users of water will agree to an out-of-court physical solution and institute measures to save our water basin from degradation,'' Pfaeffle said.

Management of water is needed because users of water in the Antelope Valley are taking out basin water at a faster rate than it can be recharged, Pfaeffle said.

``The rights claimed in the watershed must be such that without adjudicating those rights in the instant action, the United States (and other parties) would be subject to further, separate litigation regarding other claims of right affecting their rights to water within the aquifer. It should not be a potential claim based on some theoretical future conduct, but rather an actual claim based upon an existing right,'' Komar wrote.

``The focus of this comprehensive litigation is the determination of rights to water that is within the ground water basin. And the watershed is not part of the aquifer within the ground water basin,'' Komar wrote.

But to the extent that any other identified parties outside the boundaries of the groundwater basin make a claim to groundbasin water, or who claim a right to control basin recharge water from the watershed, they may be joined as parties either through a motion to amend a complaint or by cross-complaint.

``These boundaries are established for purposes of ensuring that the most reasonably inclusive boundaries will be used to ensure a complete and final adjudication of rights to the ground water,'' Komar wrote.

``As the litigation in this case progresses certain geographical areas, upon further evidence, may appear to lack any real connection to the Antelope Valley aquifer and such areas may ultimately be excluded. Other areas may be added as evidence establishes a claim adverse to the rights of the other parties involved in this groundwater adjudication,'' the ruling said.