Judge Tells Agencies to Negotiate : Courts: Water district has accused watermaster of holding an election in secret and improperly using lobbyists. New hearing set for Jan. 9

Postponing a ruling on a dispute between the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, a judge on Thursday urged the two agencies to try to resolve their differences.

The Upper District had filed two petitions in Los Angeles Superior Court complaining that the November election of watermaster board members had been held in secret and that the watermaster’s use of legislative lobbyists was improper.

At a hearing Thursday, Judge Florence T. Pickard said she did not have time to examine the petitions. Instead, she instructed the two sides to return on Jan. 9, after trying to work out an agreement between themselves.

“The hope is that we can work something out,” said John E. Maulding, executive director of the watermaster.

A court-created agency, the watermaster oversees pumping rights in most of the San Gabriel Valley. The Upper District arranges for delivery of imported water into the region.

Upper District officials have criticized the watermaster for actions they believe are interfering with measures to remove chemical contaminants from the valley’s underground water.

Maulding said he hoped a solution could be worked out. “That’s what the judge hopes will happen too,” he said.

Royall K. Brown, an Upper District board member and one of its representatives on the nine-member watermaster board, said he believes the watermaster will only reluctantly make changes.

“They’ve never given an inch,” he said. Whereas, he said the Upper District “all along has said we would negotiate.”

In hopes that a spirit of compromise will prevail among representatives from both sides, Maulding said the negotiations likely will include only staff members and attorneys from the two agencies, not board members. Then, he said, “maybe cooler heads will prevail.”

In the petitions, filed last month, the Upper District asked the court to require the watermaster to revamp its board election procedures.

The Upper District also maintained that the watermaster exceeded its authority by spending $100,000 on lobbying, including $36,000 to defeat state legislation to form a local cleanup agency to remedy the region’s severe ground water contamination.