SONOMA COUNTY, CA — Sonoma County recently celebrated a legal victory in its ongoing battle over the county’s well permit ordinance, as the Court of Appeal for the First District granted a temporary stay on Friday. This ruling provides the county with additional time to appeal a decision made by a Superior Court judge last fall that struck down amendments to the ordinance governing the permitting process for groundwater wells.
The temporary stay, which was set to expire at the end of business on Friday, prevents the county from being prohibited from issuing non-emergency water well permits while it pursues its appeal. Had the stay not been extended, the county would have been unable to issue permits, which could have disrupted local water management and development.
At the heart of the dispute is a 2023 amendment to the county’s well ordinance, which Sonoma County officials argue was designed to protect public trust resources, including groundwater quality, and to comply with a 2018 California Appeals Court ruling. That decision, in the case of Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board, established that counties have a public trust duty when issuing well permits.
According to county officials, the amendments were more protective of the environment than the previous ordinance, which primarily focused on regulating well construction. The amended ordinance includes provisions for a dual-track permitting system, where certain high-impact permits would undergo discretionary review, including a public trust impact analysis and potential mitigating conditions. In contrast, other permits could be issued more simply, provided they met specific criteria, such as water conservation measures.
Despite these enhancements, Superior Court Judge Bradford DeMeo ruled last fall that the amendments were invalid, citing concerns over their compliance with environmental laws and the public trust doctrine. The county, however, maintains that the judge’s decision was legally flawed, contending that the ruling overlooked the environmental benefits of the amendments and failed to provide clear guidance on how to legally amend the ordinance in the future.
Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, chair of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, expressed concerns about the long-term implications of the court’s decision. “Complying with the court’s flawed order could take years and might still encounter future legal challenges,” Hopkins said. “This also means that the county would have no ability to issue non-emergency water well permits while trying to comply.”
Sonoma County’s legal team argues that the amendments were crafted through a thorough public process, informed by expert input and scientific research, and are in line with state law. The county contends that the 2018 Environmental Law Foundation decision, which established the public trust doctrine’s applicability to groundwater resources, necessitated stronger protections for local water resources—protections that were built into the amended ordinance.
County officials also emphasized that their framework goes beyond the public trust doctrine’s requirements, protecting not only navigable streams and waterways but also non-navigable resources. This broader approach, they argue, reflects a commitment to sustainable water management while recognizing the importance of groundwater access for a variety of uses, including residential, agricultural, and fire protection needs.
With the Court of Appeal’s temporary stay in place, the county now has an opportunity to pursue a formal appeal, with hopes of reversing the Superior Court’s decision. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for groundwater management practices in California, particularly in relation to how counties balance environmental protections with the demand for water resources.