Tehachapi News

Water district served with city lawsuit

- BY CLAUDIA ELLIOTT Claudia Elliott is a freelance journalist. She can be reached by email: claudia@ claudiaell­iott.net.

A lawsuit filed by the city of Tehachapi against the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District on Dec. 11 was served on Thursday, Jan. 11.

The city’s petition for a writ of mandate in Kern County Superior Court asks the court to command the water district to produce public records previously requested by the city.

Court records still showed the lawsuit as unserved as of Friday. However, water district General Manager Tom Neisler confirmed Friday morning that the district was served with the petition.

On Thursday afternoon, city spokespers­on Key Budge said service was delayed because the general manager was on vacation.

“Mr. Neisler was not served in December due to … being on vacation. He was served this morning via substitute­d service. TCCWD received the service,” Budge said.

The city’s filing references a public records act request it made of the district on Oct. 9.

According to the complaint, the district has not provided the requested documents, and the city believes its response was insufficie­nt and not in compliance with state law.

The city asked the court to require the water district to produce the requested records. No hearing date had been set as of Friday.

“The city’s (public records act request) was extremely broad and vague,” Neisler said Friday morning. “It includes requests for documents dating to the 1960s. TCCWD requested clarificat­ion on several items contained in their request. Rather than providing clarificat­ion, the city chose to prematurel­y file a lawsuit while our production was in process.”

In an earlier statement, City Manager Greg Garrett said the district and its legal counsel “refused to provide a date when any documents would be produced while only providing vague answers to the request, written delay tactics outside of Public Records Act regulation­s and a refusal to assist in producing or locating the documents.”

Neisler said Friday that the water district “has provided voluminous records pertaining to their request. We continue to search for relevant informatio­n. Given the overbroad scope of the request, this search requires review of very old records stored in multiple locations.”

The city requested an extensive list of documents from 2013 forward, including invoices, contracts and communicat­ion relating to the purchase of State Water Project water from the Kern County Water Agency.

It also asked for documents detailing the volume of water KCWA made available to the district and its dispositio­n for each year from 2013 forward, including who was provided with that water.

Also requested were documents relating to the volume of M&I (municipal and industrial) water delivered to TCCWD customers over the same time frame and the volume of agricultur­al water delivered to customers, along with all requests for water and communicat­ions regarding those requests and deliveries.

The city also asked for copies of communicat­ion between KCWA and communicat­ion regarding requests by the city and Golden Hills Community Services District for SWP water. Other document requests were related to the drafting and subsequent enactment of the district’s water priority ordinance.

In addition to matters related to the city’s approval of the proposed Sage Ranch residentia­l subdivisio­n in September 2021, the city and the water district have been at odds for some time.

Following that approval, the water district sued the city, challengin­g the adequacy of the environmen­tal review and water supply analysis for the project.

Along with Golden Hills Community Services District, the city has called upon the water district to make changes in how it prioritize­s imported water in years that the State Water Project provides an allocation less than needed to meet all requests.

The Kern County grand jury highlighte­d the conflicts between the two local agencies in a June 2023 report.

Ongoing dissension between the district and the city has also stalled progress on an update of the Regional Urban Water Management Plan. The 2015 Greater Tehachapi Area RUWMP was published in June 2016 as a cooperativ­e project of the water district, city of Tehachapi and three area CSDs — Bear Valley, Golden Hills and Stallion Springs.

The state requires that the plan be updated every five years and it is overdue.

 ?? COURTESY OF TCCWD ?? The office of Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District is located at 22901 Banducci Road in Tehachapi.
COURTESY OF TCCWD The office of Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District is located at 22901 Banducci Road in Tehachapi.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States