Our View: Kern judge's water case ruling does not show bias
The only people paying close attention are lawyers, water rights owners, environmentalists and that lonely news reporter who finds writing about water interesting.
People fighting over whether Kern River water should flow through Bakersfield are fortunate to have Kern County Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp presiding over a 2022 lawsuit that pits community activists and environmentalists against agricultural water agencies and the city of Bakersfield.
Since becoming a superior court judge in 2018, Pulskamp hasn't shied away from complicated and controversial cases. The Kern River case is no exception.
During a hearing, Pulskamp noted that 'it's a very significant case to the community. There is a lot of tension in this case and a lot of strong feelings, but I appreciate the professionalism and civility that's been exhibited, so far.'
Maybe Pulskamp needs to rethink that civility thing, since the powerful Kern County Water Agency, one of several ag districts that have interests in the case, tried to get the Kern court's presiding judge to boot him off the case.
But in a ruling Tuesday, the assistant presiding judge refused to remove Pulskamp.
Pulskamp's sin, according to those who wanted him removed? He ordered Bakersfield, which controls the river's diversion structures through the city, to temporarily continue the water's flow to keep fish from dying, while the lawsuit proceeds.
The water agency and ag districts appealed Pulskamp's order to the 5th District Court of Appeal, which overruled Pulskamp earlier this year, questioning whether the flow demand is reasonable and how much water is needed to sustain fish.
Bring Back the Kern, Kern River Parkway Foundation, Water Audit California, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and Audubon Society now want the state Supreme Court to review the appeal court's ruling. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and state agencies are siding with the groups.
Practically from the time Kern County was settled, the river has been diverted to create our booming agriculture industry. Canals still used today were dug and flowing as early as the 1870s. When the city bought a share of the river in 1977, it also got the riverbed and most of headgates and weirs serving those canals, as well as the responsibility to operate the canals under existing decrees, contracts and agreements.
The diversions in those layers of mandates — collectively known as the "Law of the River" — have left the riverbed through Bakersfield dry in all but the wettest years.
In the 1990s, community activists — notably Rich O'Neill and Bill Cooper — pressed for the river's return and construction of improvements, such as the Kern River Parkway. However, continuous flow of water into the riverbed remained iffy. In 2022, community activists sued the city and ag water districts to stabilize flow.
Then along came the rains of 2023. The river came back. So did the fish.
Once the river filled with the epic runoff and fish reappeared, plaintiffs in the 2022 lawsuit obtained Pulskamp's emergency temporary injunction to keep the flow running. The injunction was based on state law that requires dam owners/operators to keep downstream fish populations healthy.
Pulskamp's temporary order required Bakersfield to keep sufficient water in the city's stretch of the river to sustain the fish until the 2022 lawsuit is settled. A trial is scheduled in December.
This editorial is not meant to take sides on the lawsuit. Rather, it is to point out that Pulskamp's order to temporarily keep water flowing to sustain fish was reasonable under his reading of state law.
The appeal court overturning Pulskamp's order is no indication that he is biased against ag water users, as the water agency claims.
But any time you have limited water and many people wanting it, you'll get a fight over what is 'reasonable' and who has the 'right' to use it.
For about three years now, Pulskamp has submerged himself in the details of this case — issuing orders on numerous motions — some favoring river flow proponents; others favoring ag users.
His single temporary injunction order does not demonstrate bias, or support the changing of a judicial horse in the middle this complex legal race.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
Our View: Kern judge's water case ruling does not show bias
It's easy to get lost in the technical weeds of a lawsuit, especially over water rights. These cases are complicated and confusing. The only people paying close attention are lawyers, water rights owners, environmentalists and that lonely news reporter who finds writing about water interesting. People fighting over whether Kern River water should flow through Bakersfield are fortunate to have Kern County Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp presiding over a 2022 lawsuit that pits community activists and environmentalists against agricultural water agencies and the city of Bakersfield. Since becoming a superior court judge in 2018, Pulskamp hasn't shied away from complicated and controversial cases. The Kern River case is no exception. During a hearing, Pulskamp noted that 'it's a very significant case to the community. There is a lot of tension in this case and a lot of strong feelings, but I appreciate the professionalism and civility that's been exhibited, so far.' Maybe Pulskamp needs to rethink that civility thing, since the powerful Kern County Water Agency, one of several ag districts that have interests in the case, tried to get the Kern court's presiding judge to boot him off the case. But in a ruling Tuesday, the assistant presiding judge refused to remove Pulskamp. Pulskamp's sin, according to those who wanted him removed? He ordered Bakersfield, which controls the river's diversion structures through the city, to temporarily continue the water's flow to keep fish from dying, while the lawsuit proceeds. The water agency and ag districts appealed Pulskamp's order to the 5th District Court of Appeal, which overruled Pulskamp earlier this year, questioning whether the flow demand is reasonable and how much water is needed to sustain fish. Bring Back the Kern, Kern River Parkway Foundation, Water Audit California, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and Audubon Society now want the state Supreme Court to review the appeal court's ruling. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and state agencies are siding with the groups. Practically from the time Kern County was settled, the river has been diverted to create our booming agriculture industry. Canals still used today were dug and flowing as early as the 1870s. When the city bought a share of the river in 1977, it also got the riverbed and most of headgates and weirs serving those canals, as well as the responsibility to operate the canals under existing decrees, contracts and agreements. The diversions in those layers of mandates — collectively known as the "Law of the River" — have left the riverbed through Bakersfield dry in all but the wettest years. In the 1990s, community activists — notably Rich O'Neill and Bill Cooper — pressed for the river's return and construction of improvements, such as the Kern River Parkway. However, continuous flow of water into the riverbed remained iffy. In 2022, community activists sued the city and ag water districts to stabilize flow. Then along came the rains of 2023. The river came back. So did the fish. Once the river filled with the epic runoff and fish reappeared, plaintiffs in the 2022 lawsuit obtained Pulskamp's emergency temporary injunction to keep the flow running. The injunction was based on state law that requires dam owners/operators to keep downstream fish populations healthy. Pulskamp's temporary order required Bakersfield to keep sufficient water in the city's stretch of the river to sustain the fish until the 2022 lawsuit is settled. A trial is scheduled in December. This editorial is not meant to take sides on the lawsuit. Rather, it is to point out that Pulskamp's order to temporarily keep water flowing to sustain fish was reasonable under his reading of state law. The appeal court overturning Pulskamp's order is no indication that he is biased against ag water users, as the water agency claims. But any time you have limited water and many people wanting it, you'll get a fight over what is 'reasonable' and who has the 'right' to use it. For about three years now, Pulskamp has submerged himself in the details of this case — issuing orders on numerous motions — some favoring river flow proponents; others favoring ag users. His single temporary injunction order does not demonstrate bias, or support the changing of a judicial horse in the middle this complex legal race.
CBS News
13-06-2025
- CBS News
Diablo Grande residents demand answers over threat of water shut off
PATTERSON – Residents of Diablo Grande packed a heated meeting on June 4, demanding answers from the Western Hills Water District as the community faces the threat of having its water shut off at the end of the month. The Kern County Water Agency has notified Western Hills that it will halt water deliveries on June 30 unless the district catches up on unpaid bills dating back to 2019. Western Hills currently owes Kern more than $13 million. Now the water district is proposing a significant rate hike, raising monthly water bills from roughly $200 to nearly $600, giving residents a difficult choice: accept the increase or risk losing water service entirely. If approved, the higher rates would keep water flowing through the end of the year while the district searches for alternative water sources. The situation stems from a contract created in 2000, originally designed to serve more than 5,000 homes. Only about 600 homes were ever built in the community, leaving a small group of homeowners responsible for the major debt. Tensions flared during the meeting as county officials emphasized the limits of their authority. Stanislaus County Counsel Thomas Boze told residents the dispute remains largely between the water district and Kern County Water Agency, saying the county can only offer limited assistance. "This is an issue for the water district to deal with," Boze said. "There are other avenues that need to be exhausted before I can proclaim an emergency." Yet when residents asked what those avenues are, Boze did not answer. A letter from the Governor's Office echoed that message of calling the issue a financial matter, not an emergency that warrants state intervention. The state said it would supply bottled water if a shutoff occurs. Residents have until June 28 to formally protest the rate increase. But district officials warned that if a majority opposes the hike, the water will be shut off just two days later. Western Hills officials said they've reached out to the state's Department of Water Resources for help, but so far have not received a response. They're also exploring other long-term options, including potential agreements with neighboring irrigation districts.
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Yahoo
A deal in sight? Colorado River talks are moving again, officials say
BOULDER, CO — Metaphors about divorce and grief defined an emotional presentation about the Colorado River in Boulder, Colorado, on June 6. Those metaphors, however, did not represent strife or disaster in stalled water negotiations, but apparent progress and the willingness to let go of past ideas and move toward compromise. "We've heard about the stages of grief ... about denial and anger and the need to be at bargaining," said Chuck Cullom, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission. "Well, I believe the basin states are there." Officials involved in tense negotiations over how to manage shortages on the Colorado River suggested that months of harsh talk and stalemates have ended and negotiators are exploring new options. Federal officials indicated that even parts of the "Law of the River," a 100-year-old legal framework that governs Colorado River allocations, could change as a result of the negotiations. 'We're trying to pivot to something else and be creative, and we have good engagement on that right now," said Colby Pellegrino, deputy general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. While most of the negotiators from the seven Colorado River basin states did not attend the conference at the University of Colorado in Boulder, the speakers who did attend were cautiously optimistic about their chances at making a deal. The states have been wrangling for two years over how to distribute water cuts as reservoir levels and stream flows have plummeted in the river. Existing operation guidelines for the river expire in 2026, and the federal government will impose its own regime of water cuts unless states can reach a deal. Now, officials are signaling that progress has resumed toward a deal. Alternative urged: How will Arizona deal with Colorado River shortages? Cities need a 'Plan B,' expert says The Colorado River is a critical source of water for Arizona, providing 36% of the state's water, according to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Populous counties in central and southern Arizona — Maricopa, Pinal and Pima — are the most vulnerable when it comes to water cuts as their water rights have lower priority. Negotiators from the upper and lower basins of the Colorado River have blown through several informal deadlines to reach a deal, sniping at one another in public remarks and propping up their own proposals for shortage management. The debate often centered on whether upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) should take any administered water cuts, as lower basin states like Arizona have already taken cuts. Now, the basin states have begun the process of 'letting go,' Pellegrino said, backing away from some of the ideas they clung to at the beginning of the process and imagining new compromises. The states, along with federal officials, have met every other week since the end of March, according to Scott Cameron, acting assistant secretary for water and science at the Department of the Interior. Cameron said the Trump administration is looking to rework and expand the alternatives for river management that the Biden administration put forward in January. Cameron said Trump officials like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum are seeking to engage intensely and support Colorado River basin states in reaching a deal. Although the administration has fired large numbers of federal employees working in water modeling, Cameron said he was working to shield this process from those cuts, and state representatives have said they are receiving strong services from federal agencies. California's representative on the river, J.B. Hamby, said in an interview on June 5 that renewed support from federal officials has helped jump-start negotiations. 'For the longest time, states weren't meeting all that often, or were certainly not inviting the feds into the room," Hamby said. "Now that the Trump administration officials are actively engaged in our discussions, I think everyone who supports the basin-state process has seen that as a material benefit.' Cameron said he has also met with several of the 30 tribes in the Colorado River basin to learn about their unique and differing positions and incorporate their views into official negotiations. Less water: Worsening climate outlooks raise the stakes for an agreement on the Colorado River The Colorado River is expected to carry about half of the water it should, according to the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center, pushing states dangerously close to trip wires for legal action under contracts that govern the river. Scientists expect climate change to bring more erratic flows to the river in the long term, with an overall decline in water levels. Brian Richter, scientist and president of the nonprofit Sustainable Waters, presented preliminary estimates on June 5 that potentially a quarter of human water use in the Colorado River basin over the last decade has been unsustainable, meaning it is drawing on limited water reserves that natural water cycles have not replenished. 'There is a massive cultural change that has to happen in this space, and about how we use water, and that is going to affect the culture of every single water user,' Pellegrino said. "And we need to be doing that cultural change very rapidly." Cameron indicated that the negotiations could mean big changes in the bedrock laws that govern the river, saying some of the legal framework defining river management can be changed by Congress or state legislatures. The Colorado River is governed by a long list of compacts, court decrees, and international agreements with Mexico. "We don't take all aspects of what people lump together as the 'Law of the River' right now to be fixed," Cameron said. "If the needs of society change, we ought to be open to having a conversation about changing existing law." Cameron said his team has notified federal lawmakers that they might seek congressional action in the spring of 2026. The federal team aims to have a final decision in place by the summer of that year. Interested in stories about water? Sign up for AZ Climate, The Republic's free weekly environment newsletter. But to even reach a state-approved deal, Pellegrino said, state negotiators need to be better shielded from stakeholders and interest groups in their states that keep squashing ideas for deals before they can be fleshed out. 'If every whisper of what we are working on results in every person who's worried about how it might affect them running and saying, 'This isn't the deal for us,' we're never going to get there,' Pellegrino said. Cullom and Pellegrino said the basin is dealing with a hydrological reality in the river that no one can change. 'People are trying to turn this thing upside down and sideways, trying to find a unicorn," Cullom said. "But there is probably not an operational scheme that prevents us from the challenges that this drier future brings.' Austin Corona covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Colorado River negotiations are getting unstuck, officials say
