Judge Grants Water Ordinance Foes a 2nd Chance

Opponents of Ventura’s stringent water conservation ordinance got a second chance to challenge the law Wednesday when a Superior Court judge ruled that they could correct mistakes in a lawsuit they filed in April.

The suit, filed by local attorney Lindsay Nielson, alleges that the ordinance--setting penalties for households that use too much water--violates residents’ constitutional right to equal protection because a family of four is allowed the same amount as a person living alone.

The suit also argues that the city should have done an environmental impact report before adopting the ordinance.

It is the first legal challenge to a water conservation ordinance in California since a statewide drought began four years ago, City Atty. Peter Bulens said.

The suit, however, contained one serious flaw: it challenged the wrong ordinance.

Calling it a typing error, Nielson asked Bulens to allow him to amend the mistake, but Bulens refused and asked Judge Melinda Johnson to dismiss the suit.

After a hearing that lasted about 60 seconds, Johnson agreed that the suit was flawed but granted Nielson 30 days to fix it.

She also ruled that Nielson neglected to sign the ordinance and said the suit didn’t show that Nielsen had “failed to exhaust all administrative remedies” before going to court.

Nielson said he expected Johnson’s ruling and was confident that he could bring back a complaint that would stand up in court. “We’ve made some errors but we’ll straighten up things,” he said.

“That the city wouldn’t allow us to do the amendments just stretches things out and makes us waste a lot of time, but it’s their prerogative and I totally understand it.”

Assistant City Atty. Mike Dougherty, who appeared in court Wednesday, said the city challenged Nielson’s bid to amend his “poorly drafted” complaint because “had I agreed, I would have waived a defense the city has, which is that the statute of limitations on the ordinance expired.”

Had Johnson not allowed the amendments, Nielson would have not been able to file a new suit because the period for challenging a new ordinance expired in 30 days.