In a legal shuffle that ripples through Sonoma County, the First District Court of Appeal has granted a temporary stay on a contentious well ordinance decision from last fall, giving county officials a breather as they gear up to appeal. The verdict, a slap to Sonoma's amendments to its well ordinance, had the potential to halt non-emergency water well permits. Today's stay extension, as noted in an announcement by the county, will keep the well permit process on track. This reprieve comes just in time; the previous stay was set to lapse at the end of the day.
The drama began when the Superior Court challenged the county's 2023 amendments to its well ordinance, which, paradoxically, were a step up from previous regulations in terms of environmental protection. The county, as reported by Sonoma County's website, claims the court's demands exceed legal requirements, overlook the amendments' green merits, and offer no definitive guidance for future ordinance updates. Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said, "Complying with the court's flawed order could take years and might still encounter future legal challenges," stressing the administrative dilemma of potentially being unable to issue water well permits during a protracted compliance process.
These amendments were initially crafted to respond to the 2018 "ELF decision" that broadened the state's public trust responsibility to encompass county-level well permits. The County of Sonoma took a pioneering stance in adopting revisions that met these elevated standards, spearheading rigorous public and expert engagement. Touted for championing beyond-the-call-of-duty environmental stewardship, the county's revised ordinance introduced a dual track for permit considerations aimed at guarding non-navigable streams and other non-public trust resources, a measure thought to exceed state or, in light of the ELF decision, county obligations under the public trust doctrine.
Despite these efforts, the legal challenge was not appeased. Sonoma County insists that the Superior Court's ruling is flawed and asserts it did not overstep its permissions in adopting the amendments. They defend their choice to deem the ordinances exempt from environmental review, citing that the new rules presented a greener alternative than the existing benchmark.
