The Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is trying to tie the hands of the Central Coast Water Authority by restricting what they can do with their own water, the plaintiffs say.

(CN) – The Central Coast Water Authority, along with a number of its clients – namely eight nearby California cities and river basin districts – filed a complaint Friday claiming the flood control and conservation district of the Santa Barbara County Water has overstepped its authority by passing a new resolution. which places an undue burden on their water rights.

The lawsuit, filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, accuses the district of interfering in its affairs by inappropriately placing restrictions on its right to transfer and exchange water with other entities. These restrictions include a ban on “imbalanced” trade, approval of sale prices, and the requirement to develop additional water supplies as a condition of transferring water out of the county.

“The terms and conditions of resolution 21-73 are absurd, infeasible and incompatible with the object and intention of the amendment on water management,” claim the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

The Central Coast Water Authority is responsible for providing water to over 85% of Santa Barbara County residents, or 380,000 customers in total, under its contract. Of the total amount of water delivered to the county each year, 47% comes from the State Water Project – a vast network of canals and other waterworks that move water around the state.

Once all of that water arrives in Santa Barbara County, it goes through local facilities that treat, transport, and deliver the water – facilities that have been paid for by the water authority and for which they claim the Santa Barbara Water Conservation District has no right to interfere with. The district does not provide water itself, according to the plaintiffs, they are simply responsible for raising taxes to foot the bill in case the water authority does not pay.

The water authority says this has never happened in the 30 years of operation of the current agreement, which was signed in 1991 when the water authority was established. They also say the liability is moot because an amendment passed in 2014 gave them the right to levy taxes directly if the need arises.

Since signing the agreement, the water authority claims to have spent more than $ 1 billion in construction and operating costs to receive all that water from the state. They say these investments were made on the basis of the deal they now believe the district is violating by its recent resolution.

“Now, after 30 years, the District, by and through the passage of Resolution No. 21-73 on April 20, 2021, has imposed illegal and binding conditions and limitations on the administration by the CCWA of the contract of state water “, allege the plaintiffs in the complaint.

According to the agreement, the water district is responsible for executing certain documents, intended to be stamped as a simple formality, to which they voluntarily submitted until recently. Everything was fine, says the water authority, until the district passed resolution number 21-73 in April, imposing a host of new conditions and limitations on what the water authority is allowed to do. to do.

As a result, they say their administrative costs have increased, the water supply has been frustrated, they have lost excess water supply sales, and their customers’ bills have increased needlessly.

“The district does not have the power, under its enabling legislation or any other law, to impose conditions and limitations on the exercise by the CCWA of its rights in the state water contract or to the use by CCWA participants of their SWP water supply, ”the complaint states. “As a special law district, the district has no inherent policing power, only the powers conferred on it by its enabling statute. In fact, the District is expressly prohibited from interfering with the right and authority of the CCWA to provide SWP water to CCWA members and from interfering with the right and authority of each member of the CCWA to manage its water supply resources.

Representatives from the Central Coast Water Authority and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District could not be reached for comment before press time.