PROJECT'S WATER CLAIM DENIED; STATE OFFICIALS CITE IMPACTS ON RIVER, NEIGHBORS.

Byline: Jason Takenouchi Staff Writer

State regulators have rejected a prominent developer's water claim and say the company's massive Santa Clara River well may hurt other water users in the area.

In a letter mailed Monday, officials with the State Water Resources Control Board said Robinson Ranch, a 403-acre golf course and housing development by Robinson Development Services Inc., does not have the right to draw water from the Santa Clara River.

Laguna Niguel-based Robinson Development claimed it had that right - known as a riparian right - when it began using a controversial well to provide water for Robinson Ranch earlier this year.

The well, on a separate parcel just north of the project, has drawn the ire of environmentalists, Canyon Country residents and Santa Clarita City Council members. Two area water providers have also discussed suing Robinson Development to close the well, which has already pumped millions of gallons of water to Robinson Ranch.

The letter from state regulators reflected those concerns.

``There is a significant potential for diversions from the Robinson Ranch's Santa Clara River well to adversely impact other well owners in the area,'' the letter said.

``There is justification to ask Robinson Ranch to forgo diversions from the Santa Clara River'' until it receives a permit or proves its rights, the letter said.

The water resources board gave Robinson Development until Jan. 7 to either shut down the well or agree to implement a board-approved water monitoring program.

Ted Robinson Jr., the managing general partner for the project, said he was disappointed in board's rejection of the project's riparian rights. But he called the board's monitoring request ``inherently fair'' and said his company will submit to the program rather than close the well.

``Our intent is to not upset the apple cart,'' he said.

Oak Canyon resident Allen Penrose, who filed a complaint with the water resources board earlier this year, said he was pleased with the monitoring requirement.

``I think it's a good first step,'' he said. ``But I think if there is significant impact on the groundwater that's discovered by monitoring, then action needs to be taken.''

The state water board is only the latest entity to square off with Robinson Development.

When the developer began using the well, city planners said it violated the spirit of the Robinson Ranch development agreement. That agreement, approved by the City Council in 1996, stated that Robinson Development could not use an on-site well to serve the project.

The well does not violate the exact language of the agreement, however, because it is actually located on a separate parcel of land just north of the golf course project. A pipe connects the well to Robinson Ranch.

The well has also come under fire by valley water providers who say it may harm their existing Santa Clara River wells. The Castaic Lake Water Agency - which owns the Santa Clarita Water Co. - and another water provider, the Newhall County Water District, may sue to close the well, according to sources in each agency.

The CLWA also has a dispute with Robinson Ranch over the nonpayment of roughly $6 million to $9 million in connection fees, which pay for the cost of providing water to valley developments. The agency's board discussed its legal options in closed session last week.

Robinson Development's failure to pay those fees sets a bad precedent for the agency, said CLWA board President Bill Cooper.

``It's important that as a developer they pay the fees that are associated with the impact that they are placing on the community,'' Cooper said.

Robinson said the project does not have to pay the connection fees because the CLWA does not provide imported water to the surrounding area.

The controversy has not slowed the Robinson Ranch project.

According to city planner Jason Smisko, the company has applied for a temporary certificate of occupancy that would allow it to open one of its two public golf courses ahead of schedule.

The project does not have to complete all of its original conditions for approval to receive the temporary certificate. Smisko said. Planners usually decide whether to grant such requests, but because of the debate over the well, the City Council will review the request at its Jan. 11 meeting.

``At this point the well is not an issue for staff in terms of the conditions for approval,'' Smisko said. ``But there's a council and a community to respond to that.''