Judge Orders Halt to Newhall Ranch Over Water Supply

In a decision emphasizing the importance of guaranteed water supplies for future housing projects in California, a Kern County judge has temporarily blocked construction of the 22,000-home Newhall Ranch development--the largest residential project in Los Angeles County history.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge Roger D. Randall, following a court battle between Los Angeles and Ventura counties, requires the developers to prove they can acquire enough water from the State Water Project and an underground storage aquifer to support the new community.

The decision buttresses a point raised repeatedly by water suppliers in recent years: that large new suburban developments should not be approved until they demonstrate an ability to provide water during drought without forcing existing users to ration supplies.

“This is right on point,” said Randy Kanouse, a lobbyist for an Oakland-based utility and author of a bill by Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) requiring guaranteed water supplies.

Randall’s ruling late Wednesday also requires the Newhall Ranch developer to further study the project’s effects on traffic, Santa Clara River aquatic life and a wildlife corridor.

The case was moved to Kern County to avoid any potential legal conflicts.

Although he found for Los Angeles County in some areas, Randall sided on key points with a host of Ventura County petitioners, who claimed last year that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors had approved the subdivision despite shortcomings in its environmental analysis.

The project is just across the line from eastern Ventura County, near Six Flags Magic Mountain. Its 12,000 acres straddle the Santa Clara, the region’s last free-flowing river.

“Some of these are real problems that we don’t think they’ll adequately be able to overcome,” said attorney Antonette Cordero, who argued the case for Ventura County. “Shrinking the project is a very real possibility.”

But a spokeswoman for Newhall Land & Farming Co. said the setback is temporary, that the 70,000-resident project will remain at its current size and that construction should begin in 2003, a year later than anticipated.

“At first blush we see these as fairly minor issues,” said Marlee Lauffer of Newhall Land & Farming. “And we believe we can resolve them all over the next year.”

Los Angeles County officials also downplayed the importance of the ruling.

“There’s nothing fatal in this decision for the project,” said Peter J. Gutierrez, senior deputy counsel for Los Angeles County. “It’s far from a slam dunk for Ventura County or any of the petitioners.”

Los Angeles County stands by its claim that the water supply is adequate for Newhall Ranch, but in response to the judge’s ruling, Gutierrez said more information will be provided to prove that point.

A decision on whether to appeal will not be made until the full Board of Supervisors meets with attorneys, said Supervisor Mike Antonovich, whose 5th District includes the Newhall Ranch site.

Antonovich said he welcomed further study. “If it means the project will be a better project, then that’s good,” he said.

Planning experts who have followed the case said Randall’s decision is important because trial judges--following direction from the state Supreme Court--have been hesitant to stop projects because of flaws in environmental reports.

“So the fact that he found defects suggests it will affect the project,” said William Fulton, editor of a statewide planning newsletter and author of numerous books on development. “Ultimately, this might shrink the project.”

Ventura County Supervisor Frank Schillo said the delay will force Newhall Land & Farming to change its project to protect the orchards of the Santa Clara Valley.

“It’s going to shape the project in a way so it has less of an impact on the pastoral scene out there,” he said.

The judge required the firm to pay more attention to Ventura County in its environmental study.

He ordered a more detailed report on how the project will affect the Salt Creek Wildlife Corridor, which runs through the hills in Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

He required more study of how the project would affect traffic in Ventura County. And he insisted that the firm study alternate sites for a water reclamation project it wants to build along the Santa Clara River.

In addition, the judge agreed with environmentalists who said more study is needed on what effects developers’ plans along the river will have on aquatic life.

“The judge determined that the project is inconsistent with the Los Angeles County general plan, which requires protection of significant ecological areas,” said attorney John Buse of the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center.

Santa Clarita Valley environmentalists also hailed the ruling as a significant victory.

“We won,” said Lynne Plambeck, first vice president of the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment. “We’re so excited to have someone vindicate us. We’ve been working so long to prove this water issue . . . [that] they are over-committing the water supply.”

With about 40,000 housing units approved or pending in the Santa Clarita Valley, the water supply can handle those needs, but not if Newhall Ranch moves forward, Plambeck said.

“We have a pro-development county,” she added. “I think they are dead wrong when they say there is enough water here.”

To several Ventura County officials, Randall’s ruling on water supply is the hallmark of his decision.

“The implication is that developers are going to have to look much more carefully at their water supply if they want to build,” said Steve Bochman, ground water manager for the United Water Conservation District in Santa Paula.

“Planners and government officials now have to take into account water supply in a stronger way,” he said.

Kanouse, the Oakland-based lobbyist, said he expects to see more rulings like Randall’s on water availability. Court precedents are building for stronger water-supply guarantees, he said.

In fact, Kanouse’s employer, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, sued Contra Costa County in 1990 when the county approved an 11,000-home development. That delayed the project for nine years until the builder acquired water from a San Joaquin Valley farmer.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Ranch Ruling and Reaction

A Kern County judge has temporarily blocked construction of the mammoth Newhall Ranch project, a mini-city planned to accommodate 70,000 residents in the Santa Clarita Valley.

*

JUDGE’S DECISION

* Halts any construction until developers can prove they have enough water to support the project.

* Orders further study of the project’s effects on traffic, Santa Clara River marine life and a wildlife corridor.

* Requires Newhall to pay more attention to Ventura County in its environmental study.

*

REACTION

“Some of these are real problems that we don’t think they’ll adequately be able to overcome.”

--Antonette Cordero Lawyer for Ventura County

*

“At first blush we see these as fairly minor issues.”

--Marlee Lauffer Newhall Land and Farming Co.

*

PROJECT FACTS

Projected population: 70,000

Size: 12,000 acres

Number of units: 22,000

Open space: 6,138 acres

Neighborhood parks: 246 acres

Schools: One high school, one middle school and five elementary schools

Projected completion date: 2028, 25 years after construction begins

*

Source: Newhall Land and Farming Co.

*

Times staff writer Margaret Talev contributed to this story.