Faith Is Not Enough

It has always been the California Way: Build new neighborhoods or entire new cities and have faith that water will be found for them. Until now.

In a ruling that will delay and perhaps downsize Newhall Ranch, the largest housing development in Los Angeles County history, a Kern County judge has ordered that concerns over water supply and potential impact on highways, a river and a wildlife corridor be satisfied before construction starts.

This action may signal a welcome change in judicial attitudes toward poorly planned development. Until now, judges--following the lead of the state Supreme Court--have been generally unwilling to stop projects because of flaws in environmental reports.

Ventura County and environmental groups have fought the 22,000-home project, which would straddle the Santa Clara River on the western edge of Los Angeles County, saying its eventual 70,000 residents would clog roads and suck up enough ground water to imperil the citrus industry throughout the Santa Clara Valley.

Superior Court Judge Roger D. Randall rejected Ventura County’s claim that it should be allowed to share authority over the plan because holdings of the Newhall Land and Farming Co. extend across the county line, and he ruled in favor of the company on several other points. But he barred the company from breaking ground until it complies with the California Environmental Quality Act by “demonstrating that adequate water sources are available for build-out of the project.”

He found Newhall’s explanation of where it planned to obtain water to include “mere guesses on the capacity of aquifers which, if wrong, could substantially impact water availability” to people in Newhall Ranch and downstream in Ventura County. The case was heard in Kern County because it pitted L.A. County against Ventura County.

Making sure water will be there, in wet years or dry, before approving new construction is a sensible goal--even if it is not the California Way. Assembly Bill 1219, by Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), would forbid local governments from approving new tracts of 200 or more houses unless local water agencies could meet resulting water needs. The measure is stalled because of vigorous opposition from local governments and the building industry.

Cities and counties gamble the futures of their current residents as well as new ones when they approve new subdivisions without proof of adequate water supply. Whatever the fate of Kuehl’s needed bill, it is heartening to see judicial enforcement of current water laws on behalf of careful development.