We wanted to take a moment to update you on the latest developments in the ongoing Sonoma County Public Trust, Well Ordinance litigation and address some common questions following recent statements to the media from Sonoma County. Misinformation is circulating, and we want to ensure you have the facts about what this case truly means for our region’s water security and wildlife protections. Below, we’ve answered some frequently asked questions to help clear up any confusion.

What is this case all about?

The Russian River once supported abundant runs of coho and Chinook salmon, along with steelhead trout, all of which rely on cool, free-flowing waters to thrive. However, decades of excessive water diversions, habitat destruction, and rising temperatures have severely disrupted these conditions, driving salmon populations toward extirpation. This decline is not only a stark warning of the region’s ecological deterioration but also a sign of broader fishery collapse along the West Coast. As keystone species, salmon play a crucial role in the ecosystem, and their loss threatens the many other species that depend on them for food, further destabilizing the region’s natural balance.

The depletion of groundwater in the Russian River Watershed further exacerbates the crisis, particularly for the smaller creeks that serve as critical nursery habitat for young salmon and steelhead. Many of these tributaries depend on groundwater inflows to maintain year-round surface water, but excessive pumping for agriculture, vineyards, and urban development has led to declining water tables, causing creeks to dry up during crucial periods and stranding salmonids. This dewatering not only reduces available habitat for salmon, but also increases water temperatures and decreases dissolved oxygen levels, further stressing already vulnerable populations. Historically, Sonoma County’s groundwater well permitting ordinance has not taken these negative impacts into account and has instead allowed known harms to compound with time.

Without immediate action, the loss of salmon and the degradation of creek ecosystems will become irreversible, with cascading consequences for the entire watershed.

What is the Public Trust Doctrine?

 The Public Trust Doctrine has origins in English and Roman Common Law and goes back almost 1,500 years. At its most fundamental core, the Public Trust Doctrine holds that certain natural resources are common property and that the state manage them in trust for the public’s continued benefit, use, and enjoyment. As this vital doctrine has continued to evolve through American History, it has protected the public’s right to access coastal beaches and navigable waterways across the Country for things like recreation, fishing, oyster hunting, and navigation. In California, this public right has been further defined to include the preservation of the natural state, so that it may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds, salmon, and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.

Traditionally applicable to navigable waters of the state, a 2018 case clarified that protections provided by the Public Trust Doctrine also extends to activities, like groundwater pumping, that negatively impacts public trust resources like salmon populations in our waterways. As such, counties across California must now consider impacts to the public trust as part of their well permitting processes and mitigate the impacts of those wells to the extent feasible.

Sonoma County’s Well Ordinance has been in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine since at least 2018, but the County has been on notice of the environmental harms caused by its Well Ordinance since at least 2014. NMFS, CDFW, and other stakeholders have all shared their repeated concerns with the County over groundwater wells drawing from and negatively impacting surface waters throughout Sonoma County. In turn, this has resulted in loss of vital flows to salmonid and other species reliant on our waterways for life. It has also resulted in increased risk to residential well users from reduced well production or even complete loss of their wells due to decades of well policies that have failed to prioritize long-term sustainability for all well users.

Following the County’s continued failure, Russian Riverkeeper and California Coastkeeper Alliance took legal action to compel the County to revise its Well Ordinance to be based on a robust analysis and to identify measures that mitigate impacts to extent feasible. In August 2024, an Order was issued requiring the County to suspend its Amended Well Ordinance and to conduct the analysis necessary to comply with its Public Trust obligations and CEQA.

Despite our continued effort to find a reasonable path forward with Sonoma County, the County has repeatedly chosen to litigate instead. This has resulted in increased delay and attorneys’ fees rather than solutions.

Russian Riverkeeper and California Coastkeeper Alliance remain committed to working toward a balanced outcome that protects both the region’s water security and the protection of our public trust resources. Completion of the necessary analysis will result in a well ordinance more protective of our public trust resources, while simultaneously improving the long-term sustainability of our limited groundwater supplies for residential and other uses.

Where are we procedurally with this case?

In 2022, California Coastkeeper Alliance sued Sonoma County for failing to comply with 2018 caselaw requiring consideration of Public Trust resources in groundwater well permitting programs. The parties ultimately settled upon the initiation of a Working Group process by Sonoma County, with the understanding that this process was to comply with the Public Trust Doctrine. However, this effort by Sonoma County ended up being more about procedure than actual analysis of impacts caused by groundwater pumping and failed to determine whether the amended well ordinance would mitigate impacts to Public Trust resources where feasible.

Timeline:

 

  • May 2023
    • RRK and CCKA jointly filed a complaint against the County for violations of the Public Trust Doctrine and CEQA.
  • October 2023 to January 2024
    • The County filed a Demurrer challenging the action in our complaint alleging the County’s Failure to Comply with Mandatory Duties under the Public Trust Doctrine.
    • Following briefs and a hearing on the issue, the Court Overruled the County’s Demurrer on this issue.
  • August 2024
    • Following briefs and a hearing on the case as a whole, the Court held that the County’s amended well ordinance failed to fulfill its Public Trust Duties and did not comply with CEQA requirements.
    • In other words, we won!
  • August 2024 to October 2024
    • In an effort to find a reasonable course forward, we met with the County to discuss what a possible settlement might look like.
    • Following failed attempts to come to a reasonable settlement with the County, a Judgment was entered by the Court on October 30, 2024.
  • December 2024 to January 2025
    • On December 3, 2024, the County filed notice of intent to file Motion for New Trial.
    • On December 17, 2024 the County was served with the Judgment requiring Sonoma County to cease issuance of non-emergency water well permits. At this point, the County first became able to seek a formal stay of Judgment from the Court.
    • Again, RRK and CCKA entered discussions with the County at this point to try and agree on temporary stipulation terms to stay the Judgment.
    • On January 22, 2025 we finally came to an agreement with the County for a stipulation temporarily staying judgment and allowing issuance of water well permits to continue. This was filed on January 23, 2025 and entered by the Court on January 31, 2025.
  • February 2025
    • On February 7, 2025, the Court ruled on the County’s Motion for New Trial following briefs and hearings. The Court Denied the County’s motion.
    • On February 11, 2025, the Court entered the ruling.
    • On February 17, 2025, the County filed its request for Ex Parte to stay enforcement of the Court’s Order pending appeal. This was tentatively denied by the Court on February 18, 2025.
    • On February 20, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the County’s Ex Parte request to stay enforcement of the Court’s Order pending appeal and Denied the County’s request in its ruling. The Court instead granted a limited extension of stay until March 27, 2025. This decision by the Court was meant to allow the County sufficient time to file a formal request with the Court of Appeal and was formally entered on February 24, 2025.
  • March 2025
    • March 13th is the deadline for the County to file their Notice of Appeal.
    • March 13th is the deadline for the County to file their Writ of Supersedeas requesting further stay of the lower court’s decision. The County will likely request stay of enforcement pending ruling on appeal and would allow well permitting to continue until that decision is made.

 

What does the Court’s Order say?

 

This ruling does not determine or direct the County how to amend the Well Ordinance, rather it states that the County must consider all relevant factors and base its decisions in evidentiary analysis and review, not unfounded assumptions and expectations. The County must also comply with the necessary CEQA requirements by completing an environmental review.

 

The Court further requires the County to set aside and void the Amended Well Ordinance adopted on April 18, 2023 because the Amendment depends on a legally inadequate consideration of impacts to public trust resources, as well as mitigation measures adopted without facts, evidence or analysis, and because the County exempted the Amendment from review under CEQA, in violation of law. The County must also rescind the categorical exemption approved in connection with the adoption of the Amended Well Ordinance. Further, while the County must suspend non-emergency water well permit issuance within Sonoma County until the necessary analysis is completed and the County can demonstrate compliance with the Public Trust Doctrine and CEQA.

 

What information did the Court rely on to make its decision?

 

The Court made its ruling upon review of the Administrative Record which includes all Working Group documents, all public comments, all Board hearing discussions, and all internal staff discussions—in other words, everything available to the County when drafting and adopting its Amended Well Ordinance. Based on this robust record, the Court identified numerous deficiencies in the County’s analysis and review of available evidence. As such, the Court determined that the County acted arbitrarily and capriciously because there was no concrete basis for the actions taken.

 

What is a stipulation and order to temporarily stay judgment?

A stipulation to temporarily stay enforcement of judgment is an agreement between the parties involved in a legal case to temporarily pause (stay) the enforcement of a court judgment, and are typically used to avoid things like expedited timelines over the holidays or providing parties with the time to request more formal stays from the Court while legal actions continue. In effect, this means that the prevailing party (RRK & CCKA) agrees not to take immediate action to enforce the judgment—suspension of non-emergency water well permits and other court-ordered remedies—while legal proceedings are pending.

In this case, we initially agreed to a limited and temporary stay of enforcement with the County, thus allowing them to begin issuing well water permits again while the Court was reviewing the County’s motion for new trial. This stipulation was filed with the court on January 23, 2025 following more than a month of discussion with the County. This agreement was in effect until February 25, 2025—two weeks after the Court entered their decision denying the County’s motion for new trial.

To further stay the Court’s August 2024 decision beyond February 25, 2025, the County made an emergency request to the Court on February 17, 2025. In this request the County asked that they be allowed to issue permits pending ruling on appeal. The Court denied this request and instead granted a limited extension to the stipulated stay allowing permitting to continue until March 27, 2025. This limited extension is meant to allow the County sufficient time to request a formal stay from the Court of Appeal and for that Court to issue a decision.

Does the Court Order and Judgment threaten the local water supply?

No. Long-term, we reasonably expect the Court’s Order to result in a Well Ordinance that is more protective of groundwater supplies via improved management practices that are determined based on evidence and necessary analysis. As such, we reasonably expect the long-term sustainability of Sonoma County’s groundwater supplies to be improved. However, it is important to recognize that the key issue is that whatever an amended Well Ordinance looks like, it is based on factual evidence and scientific analysis instead of vague and unsubstantiated assumptions.

This is not a ban or limitation on necessary housing development within the County.

Does the ruling impact Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and others seeking monitoring or infiltration well permits?

No, by the County’s own definitions, monitoring wells and infiltration wells are not subject to the Court Judgment restricting the issuance of groundwater well permits to emergencies only. Nor was there any intent by Russian Riverkeeper and CCKA for such a limitation to ever be imposed. If the County is not issuing permits for these well types, that is of their own decision-making and not the Court Judgment.

Does the ruling impact the fire department’s ability to respond to wildfire?

No, these wild assertions play off of the current political climate to spread fear and misinformation. The ruling does not impact the fire department’s ability to respond to wildfires. Fire agencies have multiple water sources available for firefighting and falls within the County’s own definitions for a permitted “Emergency Well” if needed. Notwithstanding the separate issue of there being a significant back-log preventing immediate well drilling within the County, even if the County were to grant such a well. The County’s claim that the court-order jeopardizes fire suppression is misleading and ill-informed. Consider that during the County’s own 7-month moratorium, the concern over fire-fighting abilities was never mentioned. Again, existing water supplies are not impacted and Emergency Wells are permissible, that means wells that are for human health, safety, and protection should be allowed.

The County defines “Emergency Well” as: “An applicant for a water well may request expedited processing where the proposed well drilling is immediately necessary to protect human life, health, and safety or property due to a sudden, unforeseen impairment in the quantity or quality of water available. Requests must be accompanied by verifiable evidence demonstrating necessity of the proposed well.”

What solutions is the county ignoring while pointing fingers?

We have proposed settlement terms on at least two different occasions now. We believe that there is a path forward for the County to continue to issue well permits while it completes the necessary analysis required by the Court’s August 2024 decision. However, the County has chosen to not engage with us substantively.

 

What’s next?

Russian Riverkeeper and California Coastkeeper Alliance remain committed to working with the County to develop a long-term solution that balances public trust needs, long-term water security, agricultural needs, and the survival of threatened steelhead. Unfortunately, the County has yet to step forward with any constructive proposals or meaningful efforts to resolve the issue. Instead, its decision to appeal threatens to derail progress entirely—at great expense to taxpayers. We continue to hope that stronger leadership will emerge to change the current course, abandon political posturing, and focus on real solutions—ones that secure a sustainable water future for both people and wildlife.