Supp Brief in COA

Exhibit U549
Supplemental Briefing in Court of Appeal in Ventura v. UWCD

[Service on Attorney General
required by Rule 8.29(c)(1)]
2ND Civil No.
[Exempt From Filing Fee
B251810 Government Code § 6103]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA,
Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Respondent/Cross-Appellant,
vs.
UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Appellants/Cross-Respondents,
On appeal of a Judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County

Case Nos. VENCI-00401714 and 1414739
Honorable Thomas P. Anderle
after remand from the Supreme Court
UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S REPLY TO

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA’S OPPOSITION TO
UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S SECOND
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION FOR
NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL
Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP
Jane Ellison Usher (SBN 93783) William H. Hair (SBN 30134)
Cheryl A. Orr (SBN 132379) 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
624 S. Grand Avenue, #2000 Westlake Village, CA 91361
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (805) 418-3100
Telephone: (213) 629-7600 Facsimile: (805) 418-3101
Facsimile: (213) 624-1376
Attorneys for Defendants, Cross-Complainants,

and Appellants/Cross-Respondents
UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT and BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The United Water Conservation District and the Board of
Directors of United Water Conservation District (collectively the
“District”) file this Reply in Support of the District’s Second Request for
Judicial Notice and Motion to Take Additional Evidence on Appeal in
response to the Opposition (“Opposition”) filed by the City of San
Buenaventura (the “City”) on May 22, 2018.1
At the risk of vexing this Court with repetitive argument, but

given the City’s contradictory Opposition, the District files this
abbreviated Reply to ensure that its position regarding the proper
disposition of this matter, including the taking of judicial notice and new
evidence, is not lost in the sheer volume of words on both sides.
First, the District submits that the administrative records for the
2011-2012 and 2012-2013 water years contain substantial evidence,
consistent with the Sinclair Paint analysis confirmed to apply by the
Supreme Court, demonstrating the groundwater pumping rates charged
by the District bore a reasonable relationship to the City’s burdens on or
benefits from the District’s conservation activities. Neither judicial
notice nor new evidence is necessary, in the District’s view, for the Court
1
On the grounds that reply briefs to motions filed on appeal are not permitted
by the California Rules of Court, the City has moved to strike the District’s
reply brief filed on May 14, 2018 in support of the District’s first request for
judicial notice and taking of new evidence on remand. In anticipation of a
second City motion to strike this reply, the District again relies on the
authority provided by the Court’s online statement of its Practices and
Procedures, specifically the instruction that: “Replies to oppositions to
motions” are “due 5 days after filing of opposition to the motion*
(*Generally, the Court of Appeal does not wait for a reply to be filed unless at
its request.).” (See http://www.courts.ca.gov/2970.htm.)
1105045.1 2
to reach this conclusion on the one dispositive question that the Supreme
Court has obligated the Court to address on remand.
Second, and only if deemed necessary by the Court to make a

conclusive ruling, the District has briefed the legal bases that authorize
the Court to take judicial notice and new evidence in this matter.
(District’s Supplemental Letter Brief, filed April 24, 2018.) This
secondary position of the District responds to the portion of the Supreme
Court’s remand instruction expressly empowering this Court to “consider
whether the parties should be afforded the opportunity to supplement the
administrative record with evidence bearing on this question” (City of
San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th
1191, 1214.) As a companion to its letter brief, the District filed a
request for judicial notice/motion to take 12 documents into evidence
that are already in the Court’s record because they were also offered in
April 2014, prior to the Court’s ruling in this case. (District’s Request
for Judicial Notice/New Evidence, filed April 24, 2018.) The documents
are from the District’s 2013-2014 ratemaking proceeding that enacted
identical pumping charges to those contested here and therefore bear on
whether the District’s challenged rates are fair or reasonable.
Third, the City opposed the District’s offer of the 12 documents,

which the City contended were selectively provided to “conceal” from
this Court competing expert reports – even though the District advised
that those competing reports had already been offered to the Court on
appeal by the City and the Court had already taken judicial notice of
other documents proffered by the City from the 2013-2014 ratemaking
proceeding. (City Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice/New
1105045.1 3
Evidence, filed May 8, 2018, at p. 20.) The City stated that, if this Court
were to consider the District’s evidence, then “it should allow the parties
equal opportunity to present evidence.” (Id., at p. 21.) The City actually
requested in the alternative to denying the motion that the Court take
judicial notice of the entire 2013-2014 administrative record. (Ibid.) In
response, the District filed the second request to take judicial notice of
the entire record of the District’s 2013-2014 ratemaking. (District’s
Second Request for Judicial Notice/New Evidence, filed May 14, 2018.)
The District’s second request answers the City’s criticism by offering all
evidence to the Court that might possibly be useful to the City, closing
the door on any suggestion that the District seeks to conceal or limit the
Court to a one-sided presentation on the “fair or reasonable” question.
Other than its non-meritorious objection to the Court’s

consideration of extra-record evidence, which issue has been extensively
briefed elsewhere and warrants no further repetition, the City’s
Opposition appears grounded exclusively on the volume of the 2013-
2014 record, which adds 100 documents to the administrative record
here, and the Court’s inability to consider this material before its
decision is due. (Opposition, at p. 6.) On May 24, 2018, the Court
issued an order vacating the submission of the cause, allowing the Court
to consider all of the parties’ voluminous post-remand submissions and
hear oral argument. The City’s timing concern is obviated.
The District submits that this Court is the most appropriate forum
for deciding the remaining constitutional issue. Its ruling will preclude
remand to the trial court for further proceedings that will ultimately be
subject to independent review by this Court – an avoidable waste of
1105045.1 4
resources that will delay the administration of justice. The District’s
goal is to conclude this case with efficiency. As must be apparent, the
City’s goal is to shower the Court with dust and smoke, but not answers
or light, in the hopes that this matter will be returned to the trial court,
where it can be swept up into the City’s lawsuits challenging the
District’s later water years, for which no briefing or other activity has
commenced. That strategy has its own purposes, but that purpose is not
timely justice.
DATED: May 25, 2018 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP

By:
Jane Ellison Usher

William H. Hair
Cheryl A. Orr
Attorneys for Appellants and Cross-
Respondents UNITED WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT and
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
UNITED WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1105045.1 5
2ND Civil No.

DIVISION SIX
vs.

UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S REPLY TO

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA’S OPPOSITION TO
UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S SECOND
NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL
Facsimile: (213) 624-1376

The United Water Conservation District and the Board of
Directors of United Water Conservation District (collectively the
“District”) file this Reply in Support of the District’s Second Request for
Judicial Notice and Motion to Take Additional Evidence on Appeal in
response to the Opposition (“Opposition”) filed by the City of San
Buenaventura (the “City”) on May 22, 2018.1
At the risk of vexing this Court with repetitive argument, but

given the City’s contradictory Opposition, the District files this
abbreviated Reply to ensure that its position regarding the proper
disposition of this matter, including the taking of judicial notice and new
evidence, is not lost in the sheer volume of words on both sides.
First, the District submits that the administrative records for the
2011-2012 and 2012-2013 water years contain substantial evidence,
consistent with the Sinclair Paint analysis confirmed to apply by the
Supreme Court, demonstrating the groundwater pumping rates charged
by the District bore a reasonable relationship to the City’s burdens on or
benefits from the District’s conservation activities. Neither judicial
notice nor new evidence is necessary, in the District’s view, for the Court
1
On the grounds that reply briefs to motions filed on appeal are not permitted
by the California Rules of Court, the City has moved to strike the District’s
reply brief filed on May 14, 2018 in support of the District’s first request for
judicial notice and taking of new evidence on remand. In anticipation of a
second City motion to strike this reply, the District again relies on the
authority provided by the Court’s online statement of its Practices and
Procedures, specifically the instruction that: “Replies to oppositions to
motions” are “due 5 days after filing of opposition to the motion*
(*Generally, the Court of Appeal does not wait for a reply to be filed unless at
its request.).” (See http://www.courts.ca.gov/2970.htm.)
1105045.1 2
to reach this conclusion on the one dispositive question that the Supreme
Court has obligated the Court to address on remand.
Second, and only if deemed necessary by the Court to make a

conclusive ruling, the District has briefed the legal bases that authorize
the Court to take judicial notice and new evidence in this matter.
(District’s Supplemental Letter Brief, filed April 24, 2018.) This
secondary position of the District responds to the portion of the Supreme
Court’s remand instruction expressly empowering this Court to “consider
whether the parties should be afforded the opportunity to supplement the
administrative record with evidence bearing on this question” (City of
San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th
1191, 1214.) As a companion to its letter brief, the District filed a
request for judicial notice/motion to take 12 documents into evidence
that are already in the Court’s record because they were also offered in
April 2014, prior to the Court’s ruling in this case. (District’s Request
for Judicial Notice/New Evidence, filed April 24, 2018.) The documents
are from the District’s 2013-2014 ratemaking proceeding that enacted
identical pumping charges to those contested here and therefore bear on
whether the District’s challenged rates are fair or reasonable.
Third, the City opposed the District’s offer of the 12 documents,

which the City contended were selectively provided to “conceal” from
this Court competing expert reports – even though the District advised
that those competing reports had already been offered to the Court on
appeal by the City and the Court had already taken judicial notice of
other documents proffered by the City from the 2013-2014 ratemaking
proceeding. (City Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice/New
1105045.1 3
Evidence, filed May 8, 2018, at p. 20.) The City stated that, if this Court
were to consider the District’s evidence, then “it should allow the parties
equal opportunity to present evidence.” (Id., at p. 21.) The City actually
requested in the alternative to denying the motion that the Court take
judicial notice of the entire 2013-2014 administrative record. (Ibid.) In
response, the District filed the second request to take judicial notice of
the entire record of the District’s 2013-2014 ratemaking. (District’s
Second Request for Judicial Notice/New Evidence, filed May 14, 2018.)
The District’s second request answers the City’s criticism by offering all
evidence to the Court that might possibly be useful to the City, closing
the door on any suggestion that the District seeks to conceal or limit the
Court to a one-sided presentation on the “fair or reasonable” question.
Other than its non-meritorious objection to the Court’s

consideration of extra-record evidence, which issue has been extensively
briefed elsewhere and warrants no further repetition, the City’s
Opposition appears grounded exclusively on the volume of the 2013-
2014 record, which adds 100 documents to the administrative record
here, and the Court’s inability to consider this material before its
decision is due. (Opposition, at p. 6.) On May 24, 2018, the Court
issued an order vacating the submission of the cause, allowing the Court
to consider all of the parties’ voluminous post-remand submissions and
hear oral argument. The City’s timing concern is obviated.
The District submits that this Court is the most appropriate forum
for deciding the remaining constitutional issue. Its ruling will preclude
remand to the trial court for further proceedings that will ultimately be
subject to independent review by this Court – an avoidable waste of
1105045.1 4
resources that will delay the administration of justice. The District’s
goal is to conclude this case with efficiency. As must be apparent, the
City’s goal is to shower the Court with dust and smoke, but not answers
or light, in the hopes that this matter will be returned to the trial court,
where it can be swept up into the City’s lawsuits challenging the
District’s later water years, for which no briefing or other activity has
commenced. That strategy has its own purposes, but that purpose is not
timely justice.

By:
Jane Ellison Usher

William H. Hair
Cheryl A. Orr
UNITED WATER
1105045.1 5
Exempt from Filing Fees
Government Code § 61 03
No. 8251810
Service on Attorney General
required by Rule 8.29(c)(l)
In the Court of Appeal, State of California
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 6
City of San Buenaventura,

· Plaintiff, Crass-Defendant, Respondent, and Crass-Appellant
vs.
United Water Conservation District et al.,

Defendants, Crass-Complainants, Appellants, and Crass-Respondents
On Remand after a Decision of the Supreme Court, Case No. S226036
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of California

County of Santa Barbara. Case Nos. VENCI 00401714 and 1414739
Honorable Thomas P. Anderle, Judge Presiding
CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S MOTION TO STRIKE

UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S
UNAUTHORIZED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION TO TAKE
Received by Second District Court of Appeal

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON APPEAL
*MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO ( 143551) GREGORY G. DIAZ (156318)

MColantuono@chwlaw.us GDiaz@cityofventura.net
DAVID J. RUDERMAN (245989) City Attorney
DRuderman@chwlaw.us MILES P. HOGAN (287345)
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF (293S 19) MHogan@cityofventura.net
LWyckoff@chwlaw.us CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA
COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & P.O. Box 99
WHATLEY, PC Ventura, California 93002-0099
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850 Telephone: (805) 654-7818
Pasadena, California 91101-21 09 Facsimile: (805) 641-0253
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
Attorneys for Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buenaventura
195249.3
To the Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the
Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Second Appellate
District, Division 6:
The City of San Buenaventura ("City") moves to strike the
entirety of the Reply in Support of Second Request for Judicial
Notice and Motion to Take Additional Evidence on Appeal, filed by
United Water Conservation District and the Board of Directors of
United Water Conservation District (collectively, "UWCD" or
"District") on May 25, 2018. The California Rules of Court do not

authorize this Reply.
This Motion is based on the attached memorandum and any
further argument the Court may request.
DATED: May 30, 2018 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC
~ I..AoO ~v::>~
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Attorneys for Respondent and
Cross-Appellant
CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA
2
195249.3
MEMORANDUM
On May 25, 2018, UWCD filed a Reply in Support of the
District's Second Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take
Additional Evidence on Appeal. The California Rules of Court do
not authorize a reply in support of a motion on appeal. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a).)
This is the second time in two weeks the District filed an

unauthorized reply in support an appellate motion. (Reply ISO Req.
for Jud. Not. & Mot. to Take New Evid., filed May 14, 2018.) The City
moved to strike that first reply in its Motion to Strike United Water
Conservation District's Supplemental Letter Brief and Unauthorized
Reply in Support of Motion for Judicial Notice or Application to File
Reply, filed May 23, 2018. The City incorporates the arguments
made in that motion at pages 39 to 40 as if fully set forth herein.
In addition, reply briefs are appropriate only in rare
I'
circumstances when the moving party can show good cause. I·l
(Eisenberg, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. App. & Writs (The Rutter
Group 2017) 'li 5.254.) UWCD did not request leave from the Court
to file a reply brief here. Nor has UWCD made any showing this is
the rare circumstance when good cause demands this Court allow a
reply. Instead, the District relies on the Second District's practices
3
195249.3
!
1:
1':
r:~
and procedures identifying when and how to file and serve a reply
when otherwise justified, as though such a rule were justification
itself. (Reply Br. at p. 2, fn, 1.) The Court of Appeal's practices and
procedures, however, do not amend the Rules of Court. (Gov. Code,

§ 68070, subd. (a) ["Every court may make rules for its own
government and the government of its officers not inconsistent with
law or with the rules adopted and prescribed by the Judicial
Council."].) Their reference to a deadline to file a reply does not
mean this Court authorizes replies absent good cause.
Because the District's Reply is improper and unauthorized,
the City prays this Court to strike it in its entirety or, in the
alternative, disregard it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(e)(2)(B).)

WHATLEY, PC
~'-""> ~~
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Cross-Appellant
4
195249.3
I
[PROPOSED]
ORDER
The Court, having reviewed and considered Respondent City

of San Buenaventura's ("City") Motion to Strike United Water
Conservation District's Unauthorized Reply in Support of the
District's Second Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take
Additional Evidence on Appeal ("Motion to Strike") and any
opposition timely filed by Appellants United Water Conservation
District and Board of Directors of United Water Conservation
District (collectively, "UWCD"), hereby rules as follows:
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Strike. Pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(e)(2), the Court hereby strikes
and disregards the Reply in Support of the District's Second Request

for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take Additional Evidence on
Appeal, filed May 25, 2018, in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __
Hon. Arthur L. Gilbert
Presiding Justice
5
195249.3
PROOF OF SERVICE
City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, et al.

Supreme Court Case No. S226036
Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Div. 6, Case No. B251810
Santa Barbara Superior Court Case Nos. VENCI 00401714 & 1414739
I, Ashley A. Lloyd, declare:
I am employed in the County of Nevada, State of California. I

am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My
business address is 420 Sierra College Drive, Suite 140, Grass Valley,
California 95945. On May 30, 2018, I served the document described
as CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S MOTION TO STRIKE
UNAUTHORIZED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION TO TAKE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON APPEAL on the interested
parties in this action as by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR METHOD OF SERVICE
\L.--BY MAIL: The envelope was mailed with postage

thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice
of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that
same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Grass Valley,
California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal
6
195249.3
I
:
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after
service of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
LBY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION:

Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by e-mail or electronic transmission, by causing the
documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed on
the service list on May 30, 2018 from the court authorized e-filing
service at TrueFiling.com. No electronic message or other indication
that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a
reasonable time after the transmission.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

of California that the above is true and correct.
Executed on May 30, 2018, at Grass Valley, California.
7
195249.3
SERVICE LIST
Santa 8arbara Superior Court Case Nos. VENCI 00401714 & 1414739
Via Email Through TrueFiling Via Email Through TrueFiling

Jane Ellison Usher Dennis LaRochelle
William W. Carter Susan L. McCarthy
Cheryl A. Orr John M. Mathews
Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP Arnold LaRochelle Mathews
624 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Vanconas & Zirbel, LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90017 300 Esplanade Dr., Suite 2100
Phone: (213) 629-7600 Oxnard, CA 93036
Fax: (213) 624-1376 Phone: (805) 988-9886
Email: J.Usher@mpglaw.com Fax: (805) 988-1937
Email: C.Orr@mpglaw.com Email: dlarochelle@atozlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant and Attorneys for Intervener Pleasant
Appellant United Water Valley County Water District
Conservation District and Board of
Directors of United Water
Conservation District
Via U.S. Mail Courtesy Copy

Alan Diamond Via Email Through TrueFiling
Greines Martin Stein & Richland Miles P. Hogan
5900 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Assistant City Attorney
Los Angeles, CA 90036 City of Ventura
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley P.O. Box 99
Water District, Amicus Curiae Ventura, CA 93001
Phone: (805) 654-7818
Email:
mhogan@cityofventura.ca.gov
Attorneys for Appellant City of San
Buenaventura
8
195249.3
Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail
Adam Hoffmann Stanly Tokio Yamamoto
Hanson Bridgett LLP Office of District Counsel
425 Market Street, 26th Floor 5750 Almaden Expressway
San Francisco, CA 94105 San Jose, CA 95118
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley II,
Water District, Amicus Curiae Water District, Amicus Curiae
I

Antonio Rossmann Theresa Ann Goldner
Rossmann and Moore LLP Office of Kern County Counsel
2014 Shattuck Avenue 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 4th Flr.
Berkeley, CA 94704 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attorneys for County of Kern, Attorneys for County of Kern,
Amicus Curiae Amicus Curiae
Via U.S. Mail Via Email Through TrueFiling ,.

James R. Cogdill Nancy McDonough I
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Fnd. Chris Scheuring
921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 California Farm Bureau
Sacramento, CA 95814 2300 River Plaza Drive
Attorneys for Howard Jarvis Sacramento, CA 95833
Taxpayers Foundation, Amicus Email: cscheuring@cfbf.com
Curiae Attorneys for California Farm
Bureau Federation and Farm
Bureau of Ventura County, Amicus
Curiae
9
195249.3
Jeffrey S. Lawson Jeffrey J. Patrick
Silicon Valley Law Group Ernest A. Conant
1 North Market Street, Suite 200 Law Offices of Young
San Jose, CA 95113 Wolldridge, LLP
Attorneys for Great Oaks Water 1800 30th Street, 4th Floor
Company, Amicus Curiae Bakersfield, CA 93301
Santa Ynez River Water
Conservation District, Amicus
Curiae

Timothy S. Guster Robert K. Johnson
Great Oaks Water Company Johnson & James, LLP
P.O. Box 23490 331 Bonita Drive
San Jose, CA 95153 P.O. Box245
Attorneys for Great Oaks Water Aptos, CA 95003
Company, Amicus Curiae Attorneys for Great Oaks Water
Company, Amicus Curiae

Robert M. Dato Jack David Cohen
Buchalter & Nemer, PC Attorney at law
18400 Von Karman Ave., #800 P.O. Box 6273
Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-1273
Attorneys for Tesoro Refining and Attorney for Jack David Cohen,
Marketing Company LLC, Amicus Amicus Curiae
Curiae
10
195249.3
June S. Ailin Heather C. Beatty
Alshire & Wynder, LLP Marcia Scully
18881 Von Karman Ave., #1700 The Metropolitan Water District
Irvine, CA 92612 of Southern California
Attorneys for City of Signal Hill, 700 North Alameda Street
Amicus Curiae Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
Attorneys for The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern
California, Amicus Curiae

David M. Axelrad Daniel Jackson
Mitchell C. Tilner John W. Keker
Horvitz & Levy, LLP Warren A. Braunig
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Fir. Keker & Van Nest, LLP
Burbank, CA 91505-4681 633 Battery Street
Attorneys for Water Replenishment San Francisco, CA 94111
District of Southern California, Attorneys for San Diego County
Amicus Curiae Water Authority, Amicus Curiae

Clerk of the Court Office of the Attorney General
Santa Barbara Superior Court 1300 I Street
1100 Anacapa Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2919
Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107
11
195249.3
No. 8251810
I

Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant
vs.

Defendants, Cross-Complainants, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S OPPOSITION TO

SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND
MOTION FOR NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL

*MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO ( 143551) GREGORY G. DIAZ (156318)
LILIANE M.WYCKOFF (293519) MHogan@cityofventura.net
Pasadena, California 91 I 01-2109 Facsimile: (805) 641-0253
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
194748.4
To the Honorable Presiding Justice Gilbert and Associate
Justices of the Court of Appeal:
Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buena ventura ·
("City") submits this Opposition under California Rules of Court,
rule 8.54(a)(3), to Appellants and Cross-Respondents United Water
Conservation District and Board of Directors of United Water
ConservationDistrict's (collectively, "UWCD" or the "District")

I
Second Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New
Evidence on Appeal.
After requesting this Court notice or take new evidence of
cherry-picked materials from the District's record of its adoption of
the FY 2013-2014 groundwater extraction charges, UWCD now
seeks notice of that entire record - all 285 exhibits. However,
UWCD only considered all285 exhibits in this record after the two
rate-makings on appeal here. They therefore are not and cannot be
part of the records on which this Court reviews the rates in issue -
those adopted for FYs 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Even if it could
consider this evidence, the City has not had opportunity to brief the
evidence of which the District seeks notice, either here or in the trial
court, where the proceedings have been stayed pending this appeal.
Instead, UWCD seeks to have this Court undertake the significant
2
194748.4
effort to decide not only the validity of the charges in FYs 2011-2012
and 2012-2013, but also the FY 2013-2014 charges - all within the
90-days permitted post-submission - when the trial court would be
better suited to this task. Indeed, that the District goes to such
extraordinary lengths to have the Court review this subsequent
record demonstrates that it agrees that the two rate-making records
in issue are insufficient to justify these rates under Proposition 26.
The City opposes this Second Request for Judicial Notice and
Motion to Take New Evidence on Appeal. The Court should deny
UWCD's attempt to impermissibly obtain notice of extra-record
evidence in violation of settled case law, the separation of powers,
our common law, and UWCD's principal act.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A complete statement of facts describing UWCD' s repeated

attempts to obtain judicial notice of documents from the FY 2013-
2014 rate-making is included in the City's Opposition to Appellants'
and Cross-Respondents' Motion for Judicial Notice, filed with this
Court April17, 2014. The City incorporates that statement of facts

here, as it did with the City's Opposition to UWCD's first Request
for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence on Appeal in
support of its Supplemental Letter Brief filed May 8, 2018.
3
194748.4
II. ARGUMENT
A. UWCD May Not Introduce Extra-Record

Evidence
Judicial review of legislative acts like the District's charges is

limited to the agency's administrative record under Western States
Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 576 (Western
States), the District's principal act (Wat. Code,§§ 75571-75574,
75601), and the common law fair hearing doctrine (California Assn. of
Health Facilities v. Department of Health Services (1997) 16 Cal.4th 284,
297). As this Court is aware, the City has previously briefed these
issues and thus incorporates here its arguments from the City's:
• Opposition to UWCD' s first Request for Judicial Notice

and Motion to Take New Evidence on Appeal, filed with
this Court on May 8, 2018.
• Supplemental Letter Brief, filed with this Court March 26,
2018;
• Petition for Rehearing, filed with the Supreme Court
December 20, 2017; and
• Opposition to Appellants' and Cross-Respondents'
Motion for Judicial Notice in support of its Reply and
4
194748.4
Cross-Respondent Brief, filed with this Court April17,
2014.
UWCD, however, does not address any of the City's

arguments in its second request and motion. Instead, it misleadingly
quotes from a heading in the City's February 5, 2014 Motion for

Judicial Notice. (UWCD's 2d RJN and Mot. to Take New Evid., p. 6.)
That Motion sought judicial notice of only two documents from the
FY 2013-2014 rate-making to demonstrate the futility of remand -
not the legality vel non of the District's FY 2011-2012 and FY 2012-
2013 rates. (City Mot. for Judicial Notice, Feb. 5, 2014, at p. 3.) The
Court should accordingly deny the District's second request and
motion.
B. UWCD Improperly Seeks to Litigate the

FY 2013-2014 Rates for the First Time on Appeal
Even if the Court could consider extra-record evidence here, it

should still deny UWCD's request because the City has not had the
opportunity to brief its challenge to UWCD's FY 2013-2014 rates on
that record. The trial court stayed that action before the parties
briefed its merits pending this appeal. In addition, this Court has not
provided the parties an opportunity to brief this evidence either,
particularly because it denied UWCD's request to notice a portion of
5
194748.4
the FY 2013-2014 record before Supreme Court review. Thus, were
the Court to grant the District's motion, this Court would be the first
to review this voluminous record without the benefit of briefing by
the parties, or findings by the trial court.
While the City agrees with UWCD that any review of the
FY 2013-2014 rates must be made on the entire record, the trial court
is better suited to that task This Court is obligated to resolve this
appeal by July 23, 2018 - within 90 days of its April 24, 2018
submitted. (Cal. Const., art. VI,§ 19.) Such a short time is not
conducive to fact finding from the lengthy and complex records
here.
Ill. CONCLUSION
The extra-record evidence UWCD asks this Court - yet again

-to consider is inadmissible under Western States, UWCD's
principal act, and the common-law fair hearing doctrine. The City
therefore respectfully urges this Court to deny UWCD's Second
Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence on
Appeal.
6
194748.4
I

WHATLEY, PC
..)'y,:}w:::> ~.rn..-...
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Cross-Appellant
7
194748.4
I.I.~·
I"
,,~
PROOF OF SERVICE


as CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S OPPOSITION TO
UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S SECOND
NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL on the interested parties in this
action as by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
~BY MAIL: The envelope was mailed with postage

8
194748.4
)L BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION:

ExecutedonMay22,2018,ot~j_.
Ashle)TAUOY
9
194748.4
SERVICE LIST

Phone: (213) 629-7600 Oxnard, CA 93036
Fax: (213) 624-1376 Phone: (805) 988-9886
Attorneys for Defendant and Attorneys for Intervener Pleasant
Conservation District and Board of
Courtesy Copy
Via Email Through TrueFiling
Miles P. Hogan
Assistant City Attorney I.
~
City of Ventura
P.O. Box 99
Ventura, CA 93001 I
Phone: (805) 654-7818
Email:
Buenaventura
10
194748.4
Alan Diamond Stanly Tokio Yamamoto
Greines Martin Stein & Richland Office of District Counsel
5900 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 5750 Almaden Expressway
Los Angeles, CA 90036 San Jose, CA 95118
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley

Adam Hoffmann Theresa Ann Goldner
Hanson Bridgett LLP Office of Kern County Counsel
425 Market Street, 26th Floor 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 4'h Fir.
San Francisco, CA 94105 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for County of Kern,
Water District, Amicus Curiae Amicus Curiae
Via U.S. Mail Via Email Through TrueFiling

Antonio Rossmann Nancy McDonough
Rossmann and Moore LLP Chris Scheuring
2014 Shattuck Avenue California Farm Bureau I
Berkeley, CA 94704 2300 River Plaza Drive I
Attorneys for County of Kern, Sacramento, CA 95833 I
Amicus Curiae Email: cscheuring@cfbf.com
Attorneys for California Farm
Bureau of Ventura County, Amicus I
Curiae
11
194748.4
James R. Cogdill Jeffrey J. Patrick
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Fnd. Ernest A. Conant
921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 Law Offices of Young
Sacramento, CA 95814 Wolldridge, LLP
Attorneys for Howard Jarvis 1800 30th Street, 4th Floor
Taxpayers Foundation, Amicus Bakersfield, CA 93301
Curiae Santa Ynez River Water
Curiae

JeffreyS. Lawson Robert K. Johnson
Silicon Valley Law Group Johnson & James, LLP
50 West San Fernando St., #750 331 Bonita Drive
San Jose, CA 95113 P.O. Box245

Timothy S. Guster Jack David Cohen
Great Oaks Water Company Attorney at law
P.O. Box 23490 P.O. Box 6273
San Jose, CA 95153 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-1273
Attorneys for Great Oaks Water Attorney for Jack David Cohen,
Company, Amicus Curiae Amicus Curiae
12
194748.4
Robert M. Dato Heather C. Beatty
Buchalter & Nemer, PC Marcia Scully
Irvine, CA 92612-0514 of Southern California ! .
Attorneys for Tesoro Refining and 700 North Alameda Street

Marketing Company LLC, Amicus Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
Curiae Attorneys for The Metropolitan

June S. Ailin Daniel Jackson
Alshire & Wynder, LLP John W. Keker
18881 Von Karman Ave., #1700 Warren A. Braunig
Irvine, CA 92612 Keker & Van Nest, LLP
Attorneys for City of Signal Hill, 633 Battery Street
Amicus Curiae San Francisco, CA 94111
Attorneys for San Diego County
Water Authority, Amicus Curiae

David M. Axelrad Office of the Attorney General
Mitchell C. Tilner 1300 I Street
Horvitz & Levy, LLP Sacramento, CA 95814-2919
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Fir. i
I
Burbank, CA 91505-4681
Attorneys for Water Replenishment
District of Southern California,
Amicus Curiae
13
194748.4
Via U.S. Mail
Clerk of the Court
Santa Barbara Superior Court
1100 Anacapa Street
14
194748.4
No. 8251810

vs.

Defendants. Cross-Complainants. Appellants. and Cross-Respondents

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S MOTION TO STRIKE

SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER BRIEF AND UNAUTHORIZED REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OR
APPLICATION TO FILE REPLY

*MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO ( 14355 I) GREGORY G. DIAZ (156318)
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF (2935 19) MHogan@cityofventura.net
Pasadena, California 91 I 01-2109 Facsimile: (805) 641-0253
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
!94248.5
To the Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the
Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Second Appellate
District, Division 6:
The City of San Buenaventura ("City") hereby moves to strike

the following portions of the Supplemental Letter Brief filed by
United Water Conservation District and the Board of Directors of
United Water Conservation District (collectively, "UWCD" or
"District"):
• Section II "The Legal Standards Applicable on Remand," at

pages 2-3.
• Page 5, first full paragraph, sentence beginning: "As the
record confirms .... "
• Page 6, first full paragraph, last sentence: "The Saticoy and

El Rio spreading grounds were designed with a canal
system, allowing selective delivery to each basin in the
district."
• Page 6, second full paragraph, last sentence beginning: "By

volume, the City is the second largest non-agricultural
pumper .... "
2
194248.5
• Page 6, last full sentence: "The City's pumping, which has
increased with its population growth, compounds this
overdraft problem."
• Pages 6-7, last sentence of paragraph: "Annual municipal

and industrial ('M&I') pumping has exceeded agricultural
pumping in the Santa Paula Basin since 1962."
• Page 7, first sentence of second full paragraph beginning:
"Even if the City's wells were not located in the
southeastern Oxnard Plain .... "
• Page 7, the paragraph beginning: "To the extent that the
District provides deliveries .... "
• Section III(A)(2) "The Application of a Uniform Rate Based

on Volume Applicable to the Entire Class of M&I Users,
Like the City, Comports with the Requirements of
Art. XIII C, as Amended By Proposition 26," at pages 7-12.
• Page 10, first bullet point, first sentence, second clause: "the
[Freeman Diversion] dam provides recharge for all District
basins by supplying water to the Saticoy and El Rio
spreading grounds."
• Page 10, second bullet point, second sentence: "The
District's recharge activities directed at the Santa Paula
3
194248.5
Basin include the Saticoy Spreading Grounds, which
increase the surface flow of the Santa Clara River."
• Page 10, the bullet point beginning with "The Mound

basin ... "
• Page 15, last sentence of the first full paragraph: "It should
also be recognized that the City operates its municipal
water delivery service to those parcels at a profit."
• Page 17, first sentence: "The City's population has

increased to over 600,000 (AR 1 72-0003), escalating the
benefits received from and burdens imposed upon the
District's groundwater supplies."
• Section III(B)(3) "The Additional Evidence From the 2013-
2014 Rate-Making Proceeding Further Demonstrates the
District's Pumping Rates Were Valid Regulatory Fees That
Did Not Violate Proposition 26," at pages 26-31.
• Page 33, "On review to the Supreme Court, the City did
not challenge this Court's determination that the District's

charges did not in the aggregate exceed its regulatory
costs."
These allegations misrepresent the law and the record in this
case, exceed both the scope of the Court's letter request for
4
194248.5
~;
i
I
supplemental briefing and the records on this appeal and are
therefore improper. Accordingly, the City moves the Court to:
1. Strike the offending portions of UWCD' s Supplemental
Letter Brief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(e)(2)(B)); or
2. Disregard these misleading or incorrect allegations.
(Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 268
[appellate court would "give effect to defendants' motion
[to strike] by disregarding issues or contentions raised for
the first time in [appellant's] reply brief"]); or
3. Accept this Motion as a reply to UWCD's Supplemental

Letter Brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.50, 8.200(a)(4).)
The City further moves to strike the entirety of the District's
Reply in Support of Request to Take Judicial Notice and Motion to
Take Additional Evidence on Appeal, which UWCD filed on May 14,

2018. This Reply is not permitted by the California Rules of Court.
This Motion and Application are based on the attached
memorandum and any further argument the Court may request.
I.
5
194248.5
WHATLEY, PC
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Cross-Appellant
,.
I
6
194248.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM .................................................................................................. 12
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... I2
II. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE OR DISREGARD UWCD's
MISREPRESENTATIONS ........................................................................ 14
A. UWCD Misrepresents the Law .................................................. 14
I. UWCD bears the burdens of production and
persuasion that its charges are limited to its
service or regulatory costs.............................................. 14
2. UWCD would ignore Proposition 26's
proportionality test, the application of which
was the very purpose of the Supreme Court's
remand ................................................................................. l7
B. UWCD Misrepresents the Record ............................................ 18
I. City does not threaten Santa Paula basin's
safe yield .............................................................................. 19
2. City's pumping has not increased with
population growth ............................................................. 19
3. M&l pumping has not recently exceeded
agricultural pumping .......................................................... 20
4. City wells are not in the over-drafted area of the
Oxnard Plain basin ............................................................ 21 f
5. The Saticoy and El Rio spreading grounds cannot I
deliver water to all basins ................................................ 22 I
6. UWCD misstates the effect of recharge on the
Santa Paula basin ................................................................ 23
7. The Mound basin receives indirect benefit from
UWCD's replenishment activities at best .................... 24
8. UWCD ignores apparent subsidy of piped
water charges ..................................................................... 26
7
194248.5
9.
The City does not and cannot profit from its
water utility ......................................................................... 26
I0. The City does not have the same population as
Ventura County.................................................................. 27
I I. The City did not waive its total cost of service
argument ............................................................................. 28
12. UWCD may not argue extra-record evidence ........... 29
Ill. REPLY BRIEF: UWCD'SARGUMENTS LACK MERIT .................. 29
A. Existence of the District's Zone B Charge Proves It
Does Not Limit Zone A Charges to Cost................................ 29
B. The District Cannot Show a Fair or Reasonable
Relationship Because It Comingles Its Zone A
Charge Proceeds With Discretionary Funds ............................ 32
C. UWCD Cannot Justify the 3: I Ratio with Factors
Unrelated to the City's Burdens on or Benefits from
the District's Services .................................................................... 33
IV. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE OR DISREGARD UWCD'S
UNAUTHORIZED REPLY BRIEF ........................................................ 39
V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 40
PROPOSED ORDER ............................................................................................ 42
8
194248.5
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
California Building Industry Association v. State Water

Resources Control Board
(May 7, 2018, 5226753) _ Cal.5th _
[2018 WL 2090997] ............................................................ 14, 26, 28, 39
Capistrano Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of San Juan

Capistrano
(2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493 ........................................................ 26, 35
City of Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District

(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 926 .......................................................... 26, 35
City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation

District
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191... ............................................................ 17, 28, 34
Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz

(2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 982 ................................................................. 14
Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura

(1986) 42 Cal.3d 1172 .......................................................................... .27
Hawran v. Hixson
(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256 ................................................................... 5
Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara

(2017) 3 Cal.5th 248 .............................................................................. 15
Jensen v. Franchise Tax Bd.

(2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 426 .......................................................... 31, 34
9
194248.5
Moore v. City of Lemon Grove
(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 ................................................................. 14
People v. Rhodes
(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1374 ...............................................................17
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. Santa Clara County

Open Space Authority
(2008) 44 Cal. 4th 431 ............................................................................ 35
California Constitution
Article X ...................................................................................................... 35
Article X, § 2 ...............................................................................................35
Article XIII C ............................................................................. 3, 30, 35, 43
Article XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)(1) ................................................................. 14
Article XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)(2) .................................................... 14, 28, 31
Article XIII C, § 1, subd. (3) ...................................................................... 14
Statutes
Evidence Code, § 664 ................................................................................ 27
Water Code,§ 75523 .................................................................................30
Water Code,§ 75596 ................................................................................. 30
10
194248.5
Rules
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.50 .................................................. 5, 12
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(a) ................................................. .40
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.200(a)(4) ................................. 5, 12,45
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.204(e)(2) ..................................... 42, 45
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.204(e)(2)(B) .................................. 5, 12
11
194248.5
MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
Much of UWCD' s supplemental letter brief addresses an issue

this Court did not pose in its letter inviting supplemental briefing:
whether extra-record evidence UWCD cherry-picks from a rate-
making record that occurred after both of the rate-makings in issue
here can justify those earlier rates. The City therefore moves this
Court to strike the offending portions of UWCD's supplemental
letter brief, including its misstatements of law and fact, or simply
disregard them. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(e)(2)(B).)
Alternatively, the City asks the Court to accept this filing as a reply
brief to UWCD' s supplemental letter brief. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rules 8.50, 8.200(a)(4); see also section III infra.)
While any of these three options would be fair, the City
prefers the first or second. This Court has enough intellectual labor
before it and just 90 days to make important law to guide all of
California's governments - State and local. It need not abandon its
apparent intent to decide whether extra-record evidence is needed
and permitted, craft an appropriate and even-handed process to
adduce and argue that evidence, and then allow that process to play
12
194248.5
out subsequently, allowing the parties and Court alike more time
and resources to address these important questions.
UWCD's supplemental letter brief answers in the affirmative
the first question this Court's letter inviting briefs posed: Is the
record adequate to sustain the rates? It does not, however, answer
the Court's second question, which seeks comment on an
appropriate process to adduce additional evidence and to allow both
parties fair opportunity to argue that evidence. Instead, UWCD

assumed its preferred answer to the second question and presents,
partly by its letter brief and partly by an accompanying motion for
judicial notice and to take new evidence on appeal, a one-sided
segment of the record of its FY 2013-2014 rate-making and a one-
sided brief presenting it. It did so aware this Court's order invited
no reply from the City. Ironically, UWCD accuses the City of

briefing issues beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's remand
here while doing so itself. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 34.)
Cognizant the Court has limited time to decide a matter it
resubmitted on April 24th, the City provides this motion to aid the
Court by identifying UWCD' s more egregious misrepresentations.
13
I 94248.5
II. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE OR DISREGARD
UWCD'S MISREPRESENTATIONS
A. UWCD Misrepresents the Law
I. UWCD bears the burdens of production

and persuasion that its charges are limited
to its service or regulatory costs
· UWCD cites pre-Proposition 26 cases to argue Proposition 26

requires no formal cost of service analysis. (Supp. Ltr. Br., pp. 2-3.) It
is true that relatively informal cost justifications can, on some
records, be sufficient. (E.g., Griffith v. City of Santa Cruz, (2012) 207
Cal.App.4th 982, 997; cf. Moore v. City of Lemon Grove, (2015) 237
Cal.App.4th 363, 375-376.) However, UWCD reads those older cases
to eviscerate Proposition 26's requirement a rate-maker prove a
service fee is not a tax by demonstrating it "does not exceed the
reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or
product." (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)(2).) Were the
disputed charge viewed as a fee for a benefit or privilege or a
regulatory fee, a cost-of-service limit would still apply. (Cal. Const.,
art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)(1), (3) & final par.) Indeed, in California
Building Industry Association v. State Water Resources Control Board
(May 7, 2018, 5226753) _ Ca1.5th _ [2018 WL 2090997, at *10]
14
194248.5
(CBIA) our Supreme Court freshly holds regulatory fees cannot
exceed the estimated cost of administering a regulatory program,

applying both Propositions 13 and 26. At the very least, this requires
the agency to identify the cost of the service in toto and the total
revenues to be derived from the fee, and then demonstrate the
former equals or exceeds the latter. Uacks v. City of Santa Barbara
(2017) 3 Cal.Sth 248,269 [cost of providing government program
may be calculated based on expense of personnel and materials used

to perform regulation].)
UWCD cannot do so because it comingles its Zone A revenue
with its unrestricted revenues like property taxes and interest on
investments. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 13 [citing AR1:22:58].)1 It then
compares that total to all its general-fund expenditures without
meaningful proof the Zone A revenue does not fund activity I
unrelated to groundwater conservation and management. By I
UWCD's generous test, any agency not engaged in deficit-spending

j~
in toto will comply with Proposition 26 without respect to the i
subsidy of one program by another, entirely unrelated program.
1References to the administrative record for the FY 2011-2012 rate-

making are in the form "ARl:[exhibit]:[pages]." References to the
FY 2012-2013 record follow the same form, indicating "AR2."
15
194248.5
Moreover, the record does not support UWCD's claim that the
General Fund pays only for water conservation activity. UWCD cites
to its own resolutions and descriptions of the General Fund. (Supp.
Ltr. Br., p. 5 [citing AR1:22:56-60 [Proposed FY 2011-2012 Budget];

AR1:71:6 [Resolution No. 2011-011, approving groundwater
extraction charges]; AR1:72:3-4 [Resolution No. 2011-012,
establishing Zone A and Zone B]; AR2:106:42-46 [UWCD's Proposed
FY 2012-2013 Budget]; & AR2:148:6 [Resolution No. 2012-10,
approving groundwater extraction charges]].) However, these same
citations show that UWCD' s General Fund funds activity unrelated
to water conservation, such as recreation activities in the Lake Piru
area (AR1:22:56-60; AR2:106:44-45) and general operating expenses

(AR1:22:56; AR2:106:43-44).
Despite UWCD's effort to avoid the issue, this analysis is
before this Court because the Court cannot evaluate whether the
District's allocation of costs bears a fair or reasonable relationship to
the City's benefits from or burdens on UWCD's services if the Court
does not find the fees are spent only for services from which the City
benefits or which it burdens.
16
194248.5
2. UWCD would ignore Proposition 26's
proportionality test, the application of
which was the very purpose of the Supreme
Court's remand
UWCD argues not all members of a class of rate-payers need
pay no more than service cost; only the class as a whole does so.
(Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 8.) This may be true if the class is rationally drawn
and comprises only those who put roughly comparable burdens on,
or receive roughly comparable benefits from, a government service.
Otherwise, an agency could simply set one rate for the favored few
who are undercharged for the services they received and for the
disfavored many who are overcharged and make the Proposition 26
proportionality test meaningless. Of course, that is not the law. (City
of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District (2017) 3

Cal.5th 1191, 1211-1215, as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 21,
2018) (Ventura).) Moreover, the minimum rationality rule of Equal
Protection will also require that customer classes be rationally

drawn so as to treat like things alike and different things differently.
(People v. Rhodes (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1382-1383.)

The City does not argue that UWCD cannot justify its rates on
the basis of well-drawn classes of customers who receive like
services at like costs. Rather it argues there must be some basis in
17
194248.5
logic and evidence to conclude a customer class is well-drawn. Why
is irrigation use by a City customer meaningfully different than such
use by a farmer? UWCD concedes that the record shows meaningful
recharge of the underlying aquifers from use of water by City
customers. (Supp. Ltr. Br., pp. 27-28.) Thus, its categories reflect the
political priorities of the 1966 Legislature and not the realities of how
City water customers and farmers use groundwater. The Court
should therefore strike or disregard these misstatements of law or
accept this Motion as a Reply Brief.
B. UWCD Misrepresents the Record
The Court should also strike or disregard the many liberties
UWCD takes with the administrative records and the record on
appeal, in addition to its unauthorized reliance on extra-record
evidence. For the sake of brevity, the City focuses on only UWCD's
most egregious misrepresentations. This is not the time to try the
facts on the records of rate-makings which post-date the two fiscal
years in dispute here.
..
18
194248.5
I. City does not threaten Santa Paula basin's
safe yield
UWCD claims the City's use of groundwater from the Santa
Paula basin threatens that basin's safe yield. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 6.) In
fact, the City pumps far less than its adjudicated allocation of 3,000
acre-feet. (AR2:66:143 [showing City used 1,747 acre-fee less than
allocated over 7 years].) Indeed, from 2009 to 2010, the City reduced
its extractions by nearly a half, to just 630 acre-fee, while agriculture
accounted for 17,951 acre-feet of extractions from that basin.
(AR2:55:22 [Table 3].) UWCD claims the City threatens the safe yield
with a bare citation to a summary of mere allegations of a complaint
UWCD filed against the City in 1991. (AR1:96:2; AR2:155:2.) Those
allegations do not support UWCD' s characterization of them here

and the judgment in that case makes no findings to support
UWCD's allegation the City's pumping threatens that basin.
(AR1:96:6; AR2:155:6.)
2. City's pumping has not increased with

population growth
UWCD claims the City's pumping has increased with
population growth. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 6.) Untrue. While it is
undeniable that the City's population has grown, the records
19
194248.5
demonstrate its pumping decreased - not increased - over recent
years as it, like other Southern California water utilities, has greatly
increased the efficiency of water use, with such requirements as low
flow toilets, efficient drip irrigation practices, etc. Thus, the City's
2010 Urban Water Management Plan shows pumping decreased

from a high of 10,724 acre-feet in 2007 to 8,213 acre-feet in 2010.
(AR2:95:35 [Table 3-2: Historic Groundwater Production].) UWCD
cites only a 1993 Water Resource Evaluation for the Santa Paula
basin to claim growing City demand for water. (AR1:16:1-177.) This
stale report cannot describe the circumstances under which UWCD
adopted the challenged rates two decades later.
3. M&l pumping has not recently exceeded

agricultural pumping
UCWD relies on the same 1993 study to claim municipal and
industrial ("M&I") pumping has exceeded agricultural pumping in
the Santa Paula basin. (Supp. Ltr. Br., pp. 6-7.) Again, it cites a
decades-old study which actually disproves its claim. (AR1:15:29
[Table 2: Water Demand on Aquifer, showing agricultural demand
remained relatively constant from 1956 to 1990 around 20,000 AFY,2
2 AFY means "acre-feet per year."
20
194248.5
while municipal use never exceeded 5700 AFY].) UWCD's 2009-2010
Santa Paula Basin Annual Report shows agricultural pumping from
this basin remains at 17,000 to 19,000 AFY, compared to M&I use of
5,000 to 6,000 AFY. (AR2:66:22 [Table 3: Summary of 2009 and 2010
Groundwater Extractions].)
4. City wells are not in the over-drafted area

of the Oxnard Plain basin
UWCD implies the City has wells in the southeastern Oxnard
Plain, where UWCD has yet to remedy seawater intrusion. (Supp.
Ltr. Br., p. 7, 10.) It does not. Its Oxnard Plain wells are located in the
northwest, far from the southeast pumping hole. (AR1:78:8 & 13;
AR2:165:13 & 21.) The southeastern Oxnard Plain basin- and
Pleasant Valley basin, in which the City has no wells - suffer from
long-term overdraft, which the District itself found largely "has been
caused by agricultural pumping in the eastern I southern part of the
plain." (AR1:62:34; AR2:53:34.) The northwestern Oxnard Plain, by
contrast, can sustain additional pumping that does not affect the
southeastern portion due to "[t]he presence of [a] subsurface feature
that reduces groundwater flow" from the District's spreading
operations to the southeast. (AR1:8:87; AR2:9:20-21; AR1:62:34.)
Indeed, the Oxnard Plain includes some five different aquifers. (See
21
194248.5
10 JAE 2024-2025 [distinguishing northwest and southeast Oxnard
Plain].)3 UWCD's statement is- at best- mistaken.
5. The Saticoy and El Rio spreading grounds

cannot deliver water to all basins
UWCD claims the District can deliver surface water to "each
basin in the district" through canals at the Saticoy and El Rio
spreading grounds, thus benefiting the City which draws from
several basins. (Supp. Ltr. Br., at p. 6.) Not so. The Saticoy and El Rio
spreading grounds are designed to "recharge the aquifers
underlying the Oxnard Forebay and Oxnard Plain." (AR2:50:16.)
"The remainder of the diverted water was delivered directly to
agricultural users for irrigation purposes." (Ibid.) UWCD serves
agricultural users in the southeastern Oxnard Plain and Pleasant
Valley basin through the Pumping Trough Pipeline and the Pleasant
Valley Pipeline. (AR2:50:17.) The Surface and Groundwater

t
Conditions Report UWCD cites is not to the contrary; it explains I
I
these "canals" do not allow for "selective" recharge of all eight
i
t
3Citations to the Joint Appendix of Exhibits are in the form:

"[Vol.] JAE [pages]."
22
194248.5
basins in the District, but instead connect the spreading grounds to
the agricultural pipelines. (ARl :28:20.)
UWCD falsely claims these spreading grounds "provide
recharge for all District basins." (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 10.) However, it
cites a study of only the spreading grounds' impact on the Oxnard
Plain basin and, in particular, two of five aquifers that compose it -
the upper and lower aquifers. (AR1:18:6 [finding spreading
recharges upper, but not lower, Oxnard Plain aquifer].) The Saticoy
and El Rio spreading grounds thus recharge the Oxnard Plain and
the Oxnard Forebay (aka Montalvo) basins- but not the Mound or
Santa Paula basins where the City also maintains wells - and pipe
water to the agricultural users in the southeast whose long-term
extractions have created a pumping hole there.
6. UWCD misstates the effect of recharge on

the Santa Paula basin
UWCD claims to recharge to the Santa Paula basin (in which

the City maintains some wells) via its Saticoy spreading grounds -
and that those spreading grounds which rely on water diverted from
the Santa Clara River actually increases river flows! (Supp. Ltr. Br.,
p. 10.) However, as the study it cites demonstrates, directing

recharge there does not equate with actual recharge: "Santa Paula
23
194248.5
Basin doesn't respond to recharge at United Water's Saticoy
spreading grounds." (AR1:81:17; AR2:48:17; see also ARJ :22:144
[FY 2011-2012 budget chart showing negligible recharge of Santa
Paula basin from Lake Piru releases].)
7. The Mound basin receives indirect benefit

from UWCD's replenishment activities at
best
UWCD also claims it benefits the Mound basin through
recharge via the Oxnard Plain, Oxnard Forebay (Montalvo) and

Santa Paula basins. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 10.)
UWCD overstates benefit to the City's Mound basin wells.
Spreading operations only indirectly recharge the Mound basin.
(AR1:28:17 [rainfall likely provides majority of recharge to Mound
basin]; AR1:10:19 [District Engineer states UWCD activities provide

only "indirect recharge to the Mound Basin"]; AR1:53:29 [2011 Water
Rate Study concedes Mound basin "receives little benefit from

United's recharge operations"].)
Nor do the records support UWCD's claim the Mound basin
is recharged by the Oxnard Plain and the Santa Paula basins. (Supp.
Ltr. Br., p. 10.) The sources and amount of recharge to the Mound
basin are difficult to identify. (AR1:4:4; AR2:5:69.) The degree of
24
194248.5
connection between the Santa Paula and Mound basins is uncertain.
(AR1:34:9; AR2:66:13.) And, any recharge from the Oxnard Plain to
the Mound basin must cross the Montalvo fault, which indicates
there is "essentially no possibility of water moving from the Oxnard
Aquifer into the Mound Basin." (AR1:4:5; AR2:5:70.) Thus, while the
Mound basin is recharged by subsurface underflow from the Santa
Paula basin and from the Ventura foothills to some extent, it is not
recharged via the Oxnard Plain basin. (AR1:92:9; AR2:22:10.)
Finally, UWCD claims the City's extractions are 60 percent of
total demand in the Mound basin. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 10.) Again, it
cites stale evidence - a 1996 study prepared for the City. (AR1:92:1.)
A 2012 hydrological assessment the District's groundwater
department prepared for the second rate-making challenged here

noted instead that "[h]istorically, agricultural pumping has been the
majority water user in the Mound Basin, and agricultural pumping
totaled nearly 70 percent of reported pumping in calendar year
2010." (AR2:52:21.) It continued: "Municipal pumping peaked in
2003 at over 5,500 acre-feet, and has declined fairly steadily in recent
years." (Ibid.; see also AR2:52:61 [Figure 5-2: Annual Mound basin
pumping by water use].) While the City's Mound basin use is
significant, it is variable based on natural supplies.
25
194248.5
8. UWCD ignores apparent subsidy of piped
water charges
UWCD claims piped water users pay the costs to serve them.
(Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 7.) It does not, however, rebut the City's
observation (City Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 31) the funds in which those fees
are accounted have been in persistent deficit for years. (AR1:22:85,
87 [shortfalls in Pleasant Valley Pipeline and PTP Funds from FYs
2008-2009 through 2011-2012]; AR2:106:76 [same through FY 2012-
2013].) These deficits demonstrate that at least some General Fund
services subsidize piped water service and are therefore not used for
water conservation. (Cf. CBIA, supra,_ Ca1.5th _ [2018 WL 2090997
at p. *11] [water regulatory fee not tax because, inter alia, "the gap
between storm water permit fee revenues and storm water program
area expenses had narrowed in the years leading up to this action"].)
9. The City does not and cannot profit from

its water utility
I
I
UWCD claims the City profits from its water utility (Supp. Ltr. '
Br., p. 15), which would violate Proposition 218 under such cases as
City of Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 926,

936-937 (Palmdale) and Capistrano Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of
San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1510-1511
26
194248.5
(Capistrano). UWCD does not base this incredible claim on record
evidence, but on a 1986 decision of our Supreme Court holding that
Proposition 13 was not offended if the City received a rate of return
on its investment to serve non-City residents. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 15

[citing Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1172,
1182].)
The Court should disregard this overreach. The record can
show no profit by the City and the Court should instead assume, as
it must, that the City has complied with law. (Evid. Code, § 664
[official duty regularly performed.].)
I0. The City does not have the same

population as Ventura County
UWCD consistently argues the City's size and growth justifies

UWCD's failure to produce a record that shows its charges bore a
reasonable relationship to the City's burdens on or the benefits of its
conservation activities. In doing so, it claims the City's population
exceeds 600,000. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 17.) UWCD cites the County's
population. (AR1:72:3; AR2:101:3.) The City's population is just over
100,000. (AR1:9:1 [County population of 836,000 in 2009; City
population, 108,787]; AR2:11:1 [County population of 832,970 in
2012; City population, 107,166].) Under these data, the City's
I
27
194248.5
population fell from 13.0 to 12.8 percent of the County's population
in the three years before the rates here were made.
I I. The City did not waive its total cost of

service argument
UWCD claims the City did not argue to .the Supreme Court
that UWCD' s fees exceed the total cost of service, citing only
language in the Supreme Court opinion noting the City accepted one
authority UWCD cites on that point, but argued another. (Supp. Ltr.
Br., p. 33 [citing Ventura, supra, 3 Cal.Sth at p. 1212].) The City did, of
course, present the total cost argument to the Supreme Court.
(Opening Brief on the Merits, at p. 42 et seq. ["The Charges Exceed
the Total Cost to Provide the Service"].) Again, even if this Court
treats the requirements of article XIII C, section 1, subdivision (e)(2)
as resolved for UWCD here, one cannot meaningfully address the
final paragraph of that section 1 without some consideration to what
it costs UWCD to provide the service for which it charges the City.
(Cf. CBIA, supra,_ Cal.Sth _ [2018 WL 2090997 at p. *11] [noting
just 3 percent discrepancy between respondent agencies historic

service cost and budget estimate on which it based challenged fee].)
28
I 94248.5
12. UWCD may not argue extra-record
evidence
Finally, UWCD argues extra-record evidence justifies the 3:1

ratio the Legislature mandated in 1966. (Supp. Ltr. Br., pp. 26-31.)
As discussed in the City's Opposition to UWCD's Request for
Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence on Appeal, the

Court may not consider this evidence, and should therefore strike or
disregard UWCD' s arguments from that evidence.
In sum, factual inaccuracies permeate UWCD's Supplemental
Letter Brief. UWCD's inattention to the record can only mislead. The
City respectfully requests the Court strike or disregard these factual
. .
maccurac1es.
Ill. REPLY BRIEF: UWCD'S ARGUMENTS LACK

MERIT
A. Existence of the District's Zone B Charge Proves

II
It Does Not Limit Zone A Charges to Cost
i
I
UWCD's contradictory arguments do not persuade. First,
UWCD argues that only "the majority of Freeman Diversion Dam
expenses are allocated to pumpers in Zone B." (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 10.)
Then UWCD claims the City's Zone A fees are used only to provide
29
194248.5
the services from which the City benefits. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 12.)
These two arguments cannot both be true.
The City pays both Zone A and Zone B charges for pumping
from some of its wells. If Zone B does not cover all the costs of the
Freeman Diversion Dam, then the General Fund must subsidize the
difference as these records identify no other funding source which
might do so. Such a cross-subsidy necessarily violates the cost-of-
service principle of article XIII C. The record suggests Zone A fees

make up the difference. (See AR2:106:41-45 [FY 2012-2013 budget's
summary of general fund revenues and expenses].) Yet Zone B
charges may only fund services for that zone - not services
elsewhere. (Wat. Code,§§ 75523 ["The proceeds of ground water
charges levied and collected upon the production of water from
ground water supplies within the district or a zone or zones thereof

shall be used exclusively by the board for the district purposes
authorized by this division"]75596 ["the sums raised by any ground
water charge levied by the district in any zone or zones, shall not
produce funds for district purposes that would exceed such amount
as is deemed necessary by the district board to be used in
furtherance of district purposes ... within the district or a zone or
zones thereof."]; AR1:72:5 ["the groundwater extraction charges are
imposed for a service that is actually used by or immediately
30
194248.5
available to the owners of the property in question .... The
groundwater extraction charges are not imposed for services that are
available to the public at large .... "].)
If UWCD can justify its creation of Zone B because it found
the Freeman Diversion Dam serves but part of the District, then
UWCD must charge all its costs to construct and operate that Dam
to Zone B. Yet, UWCD admits otherwise. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 10
["[T]he majority of the Freeman Diversion Dam expenses are
allocated to pumpers in Zone B." (emphasis added)].)
All legislative actions must be minimally rational to avoid an
equal protection violation. (E.g., jensen v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2009) 178
Cal.App.4th 426, 436 (Jensen).) Yet UWCD - after years of litigation
in all three levels of our judiciary - still cannot hew to a common

rationale to justify the rates here.
I
So eager is UWCD to avoid this point that it claims the City I.
somehow waived these issues (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 14) while also I
I
complaining the City's supplemental letter brief borrowed from its
Supreme Court merits briefing on the same points (id. at p. 34).
While this Court may choose not to revisit earlier conclusions as to
compliance with the requirements of article XIII C, section 1,
subdivision (e)(2), the Supreme Court remanded this case so this
Court might determine (with or without more trial court fact-finding
31
194248.5
on the administrative records) if the City pays a rate which bears a
fair or reasonable relationship to its benefits or burdens on the
District's services. The Court cannot do so without examining the
issues the City discusses in its supplemental letter brief.
·B. The District Cannot Show a Fair or Reasonable

Relationship Because It Comingles Its Zone A
Charge Proceeds With Discretionary Funds
UWCD further admits it commingles Zone A fee proceeds

with other revenues the District has discretion to spend for General
Fund purposes. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 13.) It claims with but a bare
citation to one page of a complex record that it spends General Fund
proceeds only on water conservation activities and, therefore, that
Zone A funds are less than the cost of water conservation services.
There are two unexplained leaps of logic here. First, there is
little proof that the proceeds in the General Fund are expended only
on water conservation. Indeed, the persistent deficits in the piped
water funds demonstrate otherwise. (AR1:22:85, 87 [shortfalls in
Pleasant Valley Pipeline and PTP Funds from FY 2008-2009 through
FY 2011-2012]; AR2:106:76 [same through FY 2012-2013].) Second,
what the District chooses to spend from its General Fund is not a
proper estimate of what it costs to provide water conservation
32
194248.5
~l!
I
I·
service. That estimate, however, is not included in the District's

I
II·
"Rate Study." (AR1:62:12-14; AR2:53:12-14 [2011 Rate Study I
discussing General Fund, but not revenue requirement].) UWCD

I
I
thus cannot show its rates bore a fair or reasonable relationship
under Proposition 26.
C. UWCD Cannot justify the 3: I Ratio with Factors

Unrelated to the City's Burdens on or Benefits
from the District's Services
UWCD seeks to justify the 3:1 ratio, citing no fewer than eight
disparate factors, without explaining how any relate to UWCD's cost

of service, the City's benefits from its services, or its burdens on
those services - the essential terms of the test the Supreme Court
remanded for this Court to apply. Much less does it demonstrate
that these factors are reflected in its record and bear some
proportion to the 3:1 ratio from a 1966 statute it chooses to defend.
First, UWCD notes urban areas have smaller parcels and
therefore higher parcel counts than agricultural parcels. (Supp. Ltr.

I
Br., p. 15.) The combination of agriculture's much greater water use I.
and its smaller parcel count produces a higher volume of water used
per parcel than for urban water use. (Ibid.) True, but irrelevant.
I
Impacts on groundwater basins are not affected by the imaginary
I
I
33
194248.5
lines drawn in a watershed to determine land ownership. Indeed, it
was partially the District's inability to tie service to a particular

parcel that led our Supreme Court to conclude Proposition 26 rather
than Proposition 218 provides the rule of decision here. (Ventura,
supra, 3 Cal.Sth at p. 1208 ["the District's services, by their nature,
are not directed at any particular parcel or set of parcels ... "].)
Second, UWCD argues urban areas have higher assessed
valuations for purposes of property taxation. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 17.)

Although UWCD does not say so outright, this appears to be an
argument that urban residents have greater ability to pay for
UWCD's services than do farmers, and may therefore be charged
more. However, this is a justification for taxes, not fees. Uensen,
supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 438 [ability to pay is rational basis for
tax distinctions].) Fees must be allocated to reflect a fair or
reasonable relationship - some proportionality - between a
payor's benefits from or burdens on a service and the amount she
must pay. That the City references this as a "proportionality" test in
the interest of economy of prose does not reflect intent to conflate
Propositions 218 and 26, though the two are in pari materia and
should therefore be interpreted harmoniously.
In the same vein, UWCD asserts some farmers would go

bankrupt if forced to pay more for water. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 16.) This
34
194248.5
argument is neither proven on these records nor a reason to shirk
this Court's responsibility to enforce our Constitution as it is written,
and not as UWCD and the farmers for whom it advocates would
prefer. (Silicon Valley Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open
Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 448 [Courts must "enforce the
provisions of our Constitution and 'may not lightly disregard or
blink at ... a clear constitutional mandate."'].)
Third, UWCD continues to claim that the 3:1 ratio serves the
conservation goal of article X, section 2. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 15.) This
argument fails to persuade for two reasons. First, the law does not
permit it. This Court must harmonize articles XIII C and X.
(Palmdale, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 936-937; Capistrano, supra,

235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1510-1511). Second, it is simply untrue.
Subsidizing water supplies to those who tear out relatively water-

•,.-:
efficient orchards to plant water-hungry berries does not promote
water conservation. (See AR1 :62:80 [agricultural customers are
increasingly planting strawberries, increasing water demand].) It is
true that overcharging City customers for water will encourage them
to conserve, but the same can be said for any overcharge. More
importantly, overcharges based on considerations other than the
cost of service are the very evil Proposition 26 sought to end.
35
194248.5
Fourth, UWCD points out that the City is growing and
therefore increasing its water demand. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 17.) If true,
this might be more closely related to burdens on UWCD' s services.
However, as detailed above, it is false. (AR1:34:39 [City has a nearly
12,000 Af4, cumulative, seven-year surplus entitlement in Santa
Paula basin]; AR1:30:11 [City pumped 1,621 AF from Santa Paula
basin in 2000 while others pumped 25,169 AF]; AR1:31:12 [2003
figures: 316 AF and 21,972 AF]; AR1:32:12 [2005 figures: 2,046 AF
and 22,626 AF]; AR1:33:38 [City retained 11,000 AF surplus in 2007].)

Agriculture consistently uses more than 80 percent of groundwater
produced from the basins the District seeks to conserve, while M&I
groundwater users pump less than 20 percent. (AR1:22:59 [FY 2011-
2012 budgeted "Groundwater revenue"] [calculated by adding
values for agriculture or M&I listed in Acre Feet column and

dividing by 155,200 AF total,]; AR2:106:48 [same for FY 2012-2013].)
These percentages have remained relatively constant for decades.
(AR1:35:14 [1985 data]; 9 JAE 1808 [table summarizing historic

data].)
The most significant overdraft occurs in agricultural areas of
the southeastern Oxnard Plain and Pleasant Valley basins; the City's
4 AF means "acre-foot."
36
194248.5
I·.
wells are located elsewhere. (AR1:62:34 ["the majority of the I
1.
overdraft in the Oxnard [P]lain aquifers has been caused by
agricultural pumping in the eastern/southern part of the plain. Most

of the M&I wells on the Oxnard Plain are located in the less-
impacted north-western portion of the aquifer"]; AR2:53:34 [same];
see also AR2:165:21 [groundwater flow map identifying wells].)
Fifth, UWCD next claims unidentified areas of high-density
septic use pose water quality challenges. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 17.) But
UWCD does not show these uses are in the City- which is sewered
- or that agricultural use does not pose water quality problems of
its own, such as overuse of fertilizers or concentration of naturally
occurring substances like selenium and arsenic.
Sixth, UWCD argues the 3:1 ratio is justified because the City
benefits from a reliable supply of potable water. (Supp. Ltr. Br.,

p. 17.) However, it is the City that tests, treats and protects its water
deliveries. UWCD does not persuade that it bears meaningful costs
to do so, citing little for the claim. (Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 18.) Indeed, its
primary water quality testing obligations is directed to the potable
water it pumps to the southeastern Oxnard-Hueneme area.
(AR2:50:35 ["United regularly collects samples from the wells
supply the 0-H potable water system"].) Nor does UWCD discuss
37
194248.5
the equally important benefit to farmers from a reliable source of
water that will not kill their crops, as will salty water.
Seventh, UWCD claims, based on extra-record evidence, that
the City's use of water returns less water to the groundwater table.
(Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 18.) True, but UWCD's selective recitation of extra-
record evidence shows this difference cannot justify the 3:1 ratio or
demonstrate that all City water use is appropriately treated as
flowing to the ocean, as UWCD's latest argument does. (Supp. Ltr.
Br., p. 27-28 [showing ratio of, at best for UWCD, 22.2% to 13.8%
recharge as between agriculture and M&I- a ratio of 1.6 to 1].)5
That UWCD must cite extra-record evidence to make this claim (and
the City therefore examines that data in response) proves this record
cannot justify the 3:1 ratio on this basis.
Eighth and finally, UWCD argues both that its rates do not
exceed the cost of its water conservation services in toto (Supp. Ltr.
Br., p. 13) and that the City exceeds the scope of the issues on
remand to argue the contrary (Id. at p. 34). The two arguments are
contradictory and therefore unpersuasive. Moreover, as detailed
supra, UWCD cannot show its rates do not exceed the cost of
providing water conservation services, as our Supreme Court
5 22.2 divided by 13.8 equals 1.61.
38
194248.5
determined Proposition 26 requires. (CBIA, supra,_ Cal.5th _ [2018
WL 2090997, at *10] [regulatory fees may not exceed estimated cost
of regulatory program].) The only record evidence UWCD can cite is
that Zone A fees do not exceed UWCD's General Fund expenditures

- i.e., it is not engaged in deficit spending in its general fund
(although it does in others, back-stopped by that fund). The amount
that UWCD spends from the General Fund is not what it spends on
water conservation.
The Court need not sort out these disparate and inconsistent
claims in the short period it has to resolve this appeal. It need only
observe that the records UWCD made for the two rate-makings at
issue did not state the justifications UWCD offers for the statutory
3:1 ratio. If UWCD desires to rely on these justifications to benefit
farmers at the expense of its non-agricultural constituents, it may do I
so in its legislative discretion on a future record -assuming I!
I
substantial evidence can be mustered for these points. For now, they
are but the unsupported, post hoc rationalizations of counsel. I
I
IV. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE OR DISREGARD
UWCD'S UNAUTHORIZED REPLY BRIEF I
,1.
1...
On May 14, 2018, UWCD filed a Reply in Support of Request

to Take Judicial Notice and Motion to Take Additional Evidence on
39
194248.5
Appeal. The California Rules of Court do not authorize a reply in
support of a motion on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a).)

UWCD did not request leave from the Court to file a reply brief on
this issue. Nor does UWCD cite any case law that would allow it a
reply.
As UWCD' s purported Reply is improper and unauthorized,
the Court should strike it in its entirety or, in the alternative,
disregard it.
V. CONCLUSION
This Court's order inviting supplemental letter briefs

provided a reasonable path forward: determine whether UWCD's
rates can be justified on this record or whether extra-record evidence
is both necessary and permissible; if the latter, establish a fair
process by which the parties may each adduce such evidence and
argue it; leaving that process to play out later. By seeking to skip the
middle step and argue its case based on selected data from a
subsequent fiscal year, UWCD seeks to persuade by cherry-picked
evidence and one-sided argument in a brief to which the City had no

right of reply.
Accordingly, the City prays this Court to strike the offending
portions of UWCD's brief (identified with specificity in the attached
40
194248.5
form of order), simply ignore them, or accept this motion as a reply
brief. The issues here are of too great an import to be decided in the
one-sided manner UWCD proposes, perhaps fearing fuller
argument would defeat its case.
DATED: May 22, 2018 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH

& WHATLEY, PC
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Cross-Appellant
I'
!
41
194248.5
[PROPOSED] ORDER
!
!
The Court, having reviewed and considered Respondent City I

of San Buenaventura's ("City") Motion to Strike United Water
Conservation District's Supplemental Letter Brief and Unauthorized I

Reply in Support of Motion for Judicial Notice or Application to File
Reply ("Motion to Strike") and any opposition timely filed by
Appellants United Water Conservation District and Board of
Directors of United Water Conservation District (collectively,
"UWCD"), hereby rules as follows:
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Strike. Pursuant to

California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(e)(2), the Court hereby strikes
and disregards the following portions UWCD's Supplemental Letter
Brief filed with this Court on April24, 2018:
• Section II "The Legal Standards Applicable on Remand/' at !.
pages 2-3.
• Page 5, first full paragraph, sentence beginning: "As the
record confirms .... "
• Page 6, first full paragraph, last sentence: "The Saticoy and
El Rio spreading grounds were designed with a canal
42
194248.5
system, allowing selective delivery to each basin in the
district."
• Page 6, second full paragraph, last sentence beginning: "By

volume, the City is the second largest non-agricultural
pumper .... "

• Page 6, last full sentence: "The City's pumping, which has
increased with its population growth, compounds this
overdraft problem."
• Pages 6-7, last sentence of paragraph: "Annual municipal
and industrial ('M&I') pumping has exceeded agricultural
pumping in the Santa Paula Basin since 1962."
• Page 7, first sentence of second full paragraph beginning:
"Even if the City's wells were not located in the
southeastern Oxnard Plain .... "
• Page 7, the paragraph beginning: "To the extent that the
District provides deliveries .... "
• Section III(A)(2) "The Application of a Uniform Rate Based
on Volume Applicable to the Entire Class of M&I Users,
Like the City, Comports with the Requirements of
Art. XIII C, as Amended By Proposition 26," at pages 7-12.
• Page 10, first bullet point, first sentence, second clause: "the
[Freeman Diversion] dam provides recharge for all District
43
194248.5
basins by supplying water to the Saticoy and El Rio
spreading grounds."
• Page 10, second bullet point, second sentence: "The
District's recharge activities directed at the Santa Paula

Basin include the Saticoy Spreading Grounds, which
increase the surface flow of the Santa Clara River."
• Page 10, the bullet point beginning with "The Mound
basin ... "
• Page 15, last sentence of the first full paragraph: "It should
also be recognized that the City operates its municipal
water delivery service to those parcels at a profit."
• Page 17, first sentence: "The City's population has
increased to over 600,000 (AR 1 72-0003), escalating the
benefits received from and burdens imposed upon the
District's groundwater supplies."
• Section III(B)(3) "The Additional Evidence From the 2013-
2014 Rate-Making Proceeding Further Demonstrates the
District's Pumping Rates Were Valid Regulatory Fees That
Did Not Violate Proposition 26," at pages 26-31.
• Page 33, "On review to the Supreme Court, the City did
not challenge this Court's determination that the District's
44
194248.5
charges did not in the aggregate exceed its regulatory
costs."
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(e)(2), the
Court additionally hereby strikes and disregards the Reply in

Support of Request to take Judicial Notice and Motion to take
Additional Evidence on Appeal, filed May 14, 2018.
[Alternatively, the Court hereby GRANTS the City leave to
file its Motion to Strike as a reply brief under California Rules of
Court, rule 8.200(a)(4).) The Clerk shall file it as such.]
SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __
Hon. Arthur L. Gilbert
Presiding Justice
45
194248.5
PROOF OF SERVICE


as CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S MOTION TO STRIKE
SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER BRIEF AND UNAUTHORIZED
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
OR APPLICATION TO FILE REPLY on the interested parties in
this action as by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
Y-~ BY MAIL: The envelope was mailed with postage

46
194248.5
'{ BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION:


47
194248.5
I'
I
SERVICE LIST

Phone: (213) 629-7600 Oxnard, CA 93036
Fax: (213) 624-1376 Phone: (805) 988-9886
Email: C.Orr@mpglaw.com Email: dlarochelle@atozlaw.com I
Attorneys for Defendant and Attorneys for Intervener Pleasant I
Conservation District and Board of I
Conservation District I
I
!
Courtesy Copy
Miles P. Hogan I
Assistant City Attorney I
City of Ventura
P.O. Box 99 I'
Ventura, CA 93001 I
Phone: (805) 654-7818
Email:
Buenaventura
48
1942485
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 4th Fir.
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for County of Kern,
Water District, Amicus Curiae Amicus Curiae

2014 Shattuck Avenue California Farm Bureau
Berkeley, CA 94704 2300 River Plaza Drive
Attorneys for County of Kern, Sacramento, CA 95833
Attorneys for California Farm
Bureau of Ventura County, Amicus
Curiae
49
194248.5
921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 Law Offices of Young
Sacramento, CA 95814 Wolldridge, LLP
Attorneys for Howard Jarvis 1800 30'h Street, 4'h Floor
Taxpayers Foundation, Amicus Bakersfield, CA 93301
Curiae Santa Ynez River Water
Curiae

San Jose, CA 95113 P.O. Box 245

P.O. Box 23490 P.O. Box 6273
Attorneys for Great Oaks Water Attorney for Jack David Cohen,
Company, Amicus Curiae Amicus Curiae
50
194248.5
Irvine, CA 92612-0514 of Southern California
Curiae Attorneys for The Metropolitan

Attorneys for San Diego County
Water Authority, Amicus Curiae

3601 West Olive Avenue, 81h Fir.
Amicus Curiae
51
194248.5
Via U.S. Mail
Clerk of the Court
1100 Anacapa Street
52
194248.5
2ND Civil No.

DIVISION SIX
vs.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL

NOTICE AND MOTION TO TAKE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
ON APPEAL
Facsimile: (213) 624-1376

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. The Supreme Court Has Invited This Court to Consider

Whether Supplemental Evidence May be Provided on
Remand, and Denied the City’s Request to Strike This
Instruction ................................................................................... 6
II. The Court Has the Power under Section 187 to Consider
Extra-Record Evidence, and Western States is Not the
Absolute Bar That the City Makes it Out to Be ......................... 7
III. The Court Has the Power Under Section 909 to Take
Additional Evidence ................................................................. 13
IV. The District Has No Objection to The Court Considering
the Entire Administrative Record for the 2013-2014
Water Year ............................................................................... 15
V. Conclusion ................................................................................ 18
1103212.2 2
Page(s)
Cases
California Association of Professional Scientists v.
Department of Fish & Game
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935 ............................................................ 12
City of San Buena Ventura v. United Water Conservation

District
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191, 1214 .................................................. 6, 7, 11
In re Conservatorship of the Estate of Hart

(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1244 ......................................................... 14
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Department of Health
Services
(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574 .......................................................... 12
Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim
(1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 11 .............................................................. 14
Investors Equity Life Holding Company v. Schmidt

(2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363 ........................................................ 14
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein
(2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364 ........................................................ 14
People v. Barragan
(204) 32 Cal.4th 236 ...................................................................... 14
Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta

(1982) 30 Cal.3d 800 ..................................................................... 15
In re Saldana
(1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 620 ............................................................ 13
Town of Tiburon v. Bonander

(2009) 1980 Cal.App.4th 1057 ...................................................... 11
1103212.2 3
Tupman v. Haberkern
(1929) 208 Cal. 256 ....................................................................... 15
Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control

Bd.
(2011) 52 Cal.4th 499 .................................................. 10, 11, 12, 13
Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior Court
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 559 ............................................................... passim
Statutes
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code section 21000, et seq. ........................................................... 11
Code of Civil Procedure section 187 ........................................ 7, 10, 13

Code of Civil Procedure section 909 ...................................... 13, 14, 15
Fish & Game Code section 711.4 ....................................................... 12
1103212.2 4
The United Water Conservation District and the Board of Directors of
United Water Conservation District (collectively the “District”) file this Reply
in Support of the District’s Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take
Additional Evidence on Appeal in response to the Opposition (“Opposition”)
filed by the City of San Buenaventura (the “City”).
To begin with, the District submits that the combined administrative

records for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 water years contain substantial
evidence demonstrating the groundwater pumping rates charged by the District
bore a reasonable relationship to the City’s burdens on or benefits from the
District’s conservation activities. In light of the Supreme Court’s remand
instructions, however, the District has also urged this Court to consider, if
necessary, specific additional evidence from the subsequent year’s ratemaking
proceeding that further demonstrates the District’s challenged rates are
constitutional, in order to resolve this litigation without renewed trial court or
administrative proceedings. This “belt and suspenders” approach conserves
valuable judicial resources and will promote finality of decision-making with
respect to rates first imposed almost seven years ago.
The District agrees that this Court could alternatively consider extra-
record evidence, including, as the City suggests in its Opposition, the entire
administrative record (“AR”) for the 2013-2014 water year, for the purposes
of similarly facilitating a final resolution of the article XIII C constitutional
issue before this Court and forestalling any further review by the Supreme
Court or need for further proceedings below. 1
1
Concurrently herewith, the District is lodging a flash drive containing the
entire certified AR for the 2013-2014 water year and a Second Request for
Judicial Notice of that full AR.
1103212.2 5
I. The Supreme Court Has Invited This Court to Consider Whether
Supplemental Evidence May be Provided on Remand, and Denied
the City’s Request to Strike This Instruction
It its original opinion, the Supreme Court’s remand instruction stated in

pertinent part:
In making this determination [of whether the rates meet the reasonable
relationship requirement of Proposition 26], the Court of Appeal may
consider whether, as the District argues, it should be afforded the
opportunity to supplement the administrative record with evidence
bearing on this question. (Opinion, p. 27.)
In its Petition for Rehearing, the City specifically challenged this

“penultimate sentence” of the Supreme Court’s opinion and urged that the
Supreme Court: (1) confirm that Western States Petroleum Association v.
Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559 (“Western States”) absolutely prohibits
the Court from considering extra-record evidence in a ratemaking mandate
action, (2) clarify that both parties may have an equal opportunity to introduce
extra-record evidence or, (3) alternatively, strike the “penultimate sentence.”
(Petition for Rehearing, pp. 7-17.)
The Supreme Court denied the City’s Petition for Rehearing. The
Court did, however, modify the “penultimate sentence” to clarify that both
parties could request consideration of extra-record evidence, stating:
In making this determination, the Court of Appeal may consider

whether the parties should be afforded the opportunity to supplement
the administrative record with evidence bearing on this question. (City
of San Buena Ventura v. United Water Conservation District (2017) 3
Cal.5th 1191, 1214, as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 21, 2018).)
1103212.2 6
The matter was specifically “remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.” (Ibid.)
Under these circumstances, it seems clear that the Supreme Court

rejected the City’s argument in its Petition for Rehearing that Western States
prohibits this Court from considering extra-record evidence in these
proceedings on remand. The City’s persistence in its argument to the contrary
does not make sense. (Opposition, pp. 7-12.) If the Supreme Court agreed
with the City’s contention that Western States prohibits consideration of extra-
record evidence in this case, it would never have included the “penultimate
sentence” giving this Court the discretion to consider extra-record evidence,
but would have stricken the sentence as the City requested. The Supreme
Court did not do so.
The Supreme Court merely clarified, as the City asked, that this Court
could consider a request by either of the parties.
II. The Court Has the Power under Section 187 to Consider Extra-
Record Evidence, and Western States is Not the Absolute Bar That
the City Makes it Out to Be
The City’s continued insistence that Western States bars this Court
from considering extra-record evidence ignores the express admonition by the
Supreme Court in that very decision that it was not foreclosing “the possibility
that extra-record evidence may be admissible in traditional mandamus actions
challenging quasi-legislative administrative decisions under unusual
circumstances . . . .” (Western States, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at p. 579.)
The District submits that this is an exceptional case that warrants

admission of extra-record evidence. The general rule against admission of
extra-record should not prevail when substantial constitutional issues are at
stake, the District’s ratemaking was undertaken during a period of time when
1103212.2 7
the law relating to interpretation and obligations of Proposition 218 and later
Proposition 26 was in a state of flux and uncertainty, the parties both
participated years ago in extensive public hearing of the proferred extra-record
evidence – the most pertinent of which has previously been offered by one
party or the other to the Court, and where millions of dollars of funds
earmarked for vital regulatory and conservation activities hang in the balance.
Further, this is not the one forbidden situation, as in Western States,

where the party challenging agency action is seeking to introduce evidence to
contradict the evidence previously relied upon by the agency in making its
quasi-legislative decision. The general rule and the exception in Western
States were designed to encourage the finality of agency decision-making by
limiting the new attacks that could be raised by a challenger in a mandamus
proceeding. Here, the taking of additional evidence in the form of analyses of
historical data already in the record would serve, not undermine, the finality of
agency decision-making.
The City’s arguments that the District has not demonstrated that the
extra-record evidence falls within the limited exception in Western States are
internally inconsistent and should be rejected. In Section II.A of its
Opposition, the City argues that the information that the District seeks to
introduce existed at the time of the original rate hearings, while in Section II.C
the City contends that the District’s evidence is dated after the second rate-
making proceeding at issue here. (Compare Opposition, p. 11 with pp. 18 and
20.) The City’s irreconcilable arguments highlight an important fact.
The underlying data utilized in the additional technical and consultant

reports from the 2013-2014 administrative record did exist before the 2011-
2012 and 2012-2013 rate-making proceedings. Indeed, much of it is culled
from the hydrology and other technical reports and studies contained in the
1103212.2 8
consolidated administrative records in this proceeding to which the District
has cited in its Supplemental Letter Brief for substantial evidence of the
reasonableness of the District’s rates under article XIII C. Yet, the specific
technical and expert analyses of that data reflecting the precise quantification
of the differences between agricultural and non-agricultural recharge of the
groundwater in the district did not exist during the prior rate proceedings. The
District admittedly did not undertake to prepare a quantitative analysis of the
differential between the rates for agricultural and non-agricultural pumpers of
ground water during the original 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 rate hearings
because the District did not know the law required as much. As the
requirements of the law were still evolving, it cannot be said that the District
failed to act with reasonable diligence in not adducing that type of quantitative
information earlier, when no case had required such specific evidence.
Indeed, the specific quantification data that the District prepared for the
2013-2014 rate-making proceeding was designed to comport with the
Proposition 218 requirements, which the Supreme Court has now confirmed
do not apply to the groundwater pumping charges in dispute. Instead, the
Supreme Court has ruled that a less rigid, more flexible, allocation approach
fairly or reasonably allocating the rates based on the burdens imposed by non-
agricultural groundwater pumpers, like the City, and the benefits they receive
from the District’s regulatory activities, is all that is constitutionally required
in an article XIII C case, such as this one. Had the District previously known
the legal standard under which its rates would be evaluated by the courts, the
District could have more easily expressed the benefits received and burdens
imposed by non-agricultural versus agricultural pumpers during the 2011-2012
(“AR1”) and 2012-2013 (“AR2”) ratemaking proceedings by referencing the
historical data in AR1 and AR2 that the technical and consultants’ reports
discussed more extensively in the 2013-2014 rate-making proceeding to justify
1103212.2 9
its groundwater pumping charges. The City asks the Court to turn a blind eye
to the underlying evidence that was available and did exist at the time of the
District’s ratemaking that was subsequently quantified in the later technical
and consultant reports, which evidence demonstrates the constitutionality of
the disputed rates, but the District did not know at the time would suffice or
was necessary under article XIII C jurisprudence.
Compounding its unyielding interpretation of Western States, the City

also utterly fails to address the District’s application of the Supreme Court’s
subsequent decision in Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources
Control Bd. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499, 526. In Voices of the Wetlands, the
Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument advanced by the City here
under Western States, stating: “. . . considerations of fairness and proper
agency decisionmaking do not justify the absolute prohibition for which
plaintiff argues.” (52 Cal. 4th at p. 528.) Instead, the Supreme Court
confirmed that courts have the power under Code of Civil Procedure section
187 to consider additional evidence in a mandate action to affirm an agency’s
decision-making. (Voices of the Wetlands, supra, 52 Cal. 4th at p. 532 [“in
deciding whether the agency’s decision is valid as it stands, in fairness, the
court may consider . . . extra-record evidence . . . if persuaded that such
evidence was not available . . . at the original agency proceeding.”].) The
Supreme Court expressly recognized in Voices of the Wetlands that, when the
Court is independently weighing the evidence in reviewing administrative
action, including quasi-legislative ratemaking, the Court itself may admit
extra-record evidence in the judicial proceeding. (Id. at p. 532; see also,
1103212.2 10
Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (2009) 1980 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1076 [taking
extra-record evidence in an article XIII D case] 2.)
Voices of the Wetlands thus authorizes this Court to consider extra-

record evidence when engaging, as it is here, in independent review of agency
ratemaking. Whether the District’s water rates are taxes or fees under article
XIII C “ ‘is a question of law for the appellate courts to decide on independent
review of the facts.’ ” (Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara (2017) 3 Cal.5th 248,
267, citing Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th
866, 874.) This de novo review is the most stringent review of agency
decision-making. By contrast, Western States dealt with review of a decision
under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
section 21000, et seq., under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard
of review and was borrowing the law applicable to traditional mandate actions
which typically involved review of agency decision-making under the
similarly highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard. (Western States,
supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 568-569, 575.)
However, it is important to note that, like in Voices of the Wetlands,

there remains a single issue—the burdens or benefits issue – as to which the
Court is required to determine whether there is evidentiary support for the
District’s water rates. (52 Cal.4th at pp. 529-530.) As the City acknowledges,
the City has already had a full and fair opportunity to consider, contest and
offer its own opposing arguments and evidence in the 2013-2014 rate-making
proceedings. (Opposition, pp. 19-21.) Like in Voices of the Wetlands,
consideration of extra-record evidence that the City admittedly has already had
a full and fair opportunity to rebut on the merits and which has existed for over
2
The City concedes, as it must, that the Court did consider extra-record
evidence in the Town of Tiburon case.
1103212.2 11
5 years is not unfair and would not simply be a “post hoc rationalization by the
agency” of its rates in dispute in this case.
Rather conspicuously, instead of addressing Voices of the Wetlands, the

principle authority relied upon by the District, the City remains silent on the
change in the law effectuated by that case after Western States, and instead
quibbles with other cases cited by the District. The City’s opposing arguments
do not persuade.
The City’s contention that the Court in California Association of

Professional Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th
935 did not consider extra-record evidence, but merely the legislative history
of the statute “which might or might not have been in the agency’s record” is
not a fair reading of the case. The case did not involve agency ratemaking, but
a constitutional challenge to a fee imposed by the Legislature under Fish &
Game Code section 711.4. As the decision makes clear, the trial court
considered testimony from the plaintiff’s expert (id. at p. 951), the testimony
of several Fish & Game officials (id. at p. 953), and other evidence of Fish &
Game’s various accounting systems (id. at pp. 953-954). On appeal, the Court
considered that evidence as sufficient to establish the constitutionality of the
fees, even though the evidence was not necessarily in existence at the time the
statute was enacted. (Ibid.) The City’s characterization of the Court’s
statement that it could consider evidence that was not in existence when the
statute was enacted as merely dicta is inaccurate. (Opposition, p. 9.)
With respect to Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Department of Health

Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, the City misapprehends the point that
the District was making and contorts the District’s reasoning. The District’s
point is that, for purposes of admitting extra-record evidence, traditional and
administrative mandate proceedings are functionally equivalent. To the extent
1103212.2 12
that the Supreme Court subsequently concluded six years later in Voices of the
Wetlands that a Court has the inherent power under Code of Civil Procedure
section 187 to allow extra-record evidence even in situations not specified in
section 1094.5, subd. (f), the District submits that the same power necessarily
exists where the Court is deciding a traditional mandate case, like this one,
which is not subject to such statutory restrictions.
The interests of fairness and judicial economy militate in favor of the

Court considering extra-record evidence if necessary to resolve the
constitutionality of the District’s water rates for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
rate years once and for all. The long and winding procedurally history of the
case and the changes in the controlling law that have taken place since the
time of the District’s original rate-making demonstrate good cause for the
Court’s consideration of extra-record evidence on a single issue – the burdens
and benefits issue—as to which the District was not previously aware it would
be required to provide evidentiary support.
Taking into account the exceptional circumstances of this case, the

Court has the inherent authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 187 to
control the processes of the Court and allow the introduction of extra-record
evidence as necessary to assist the Court in deciding the burdens-benefits issue
or reasonable allocation issue specifically remanded to this Court.
III. The Court Has the Power Under Section 909 to Take Additional
Evidence
As described in the District’s moving papers and above, this situation

presents exceptional circumstances, much like under the law of the case
doctrine, for the Court to allow additional and new evidence to be introduced
after an intervening change in the law applicable to the agency’s decision-
making. (See, e.g. In re Saldana (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 620, 625-626
1103212.2 13
[principle exception to law of the case doctrine is an intervening or
contemporaneous change in the law].) 3
The City cannot deny that this litigation has resulted in a sea change in
the law as the Supreme Court has expressly disapproved of the decision in
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th
1364 and held that Proposition 218 does not apply to groundwater pumping
charges. Furthermore, the City acknowledges that this Court’s determination
of the fair or reasonable allocation test now required under article XIII C as
amended by Proposition 26 is being closely watched by public agencies whose
rates will be governed by the same standard. (Opposition, p. 17.) This case
certainly presents exceptional circumstances permitting the Court to exercise
its power under Code of Civil Procedure section 909. For the City to claim
otherwise is without merit.
The fact that the cases relied upon by the District to illustrate the use of
the Court’s power under section 909, In re Conservatorship of the Estate of
Hart (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1259 and Golden West Baseball Co. v. City
of Anaheim (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 11, do not specifically address agency
ratemaking is of no moment. In Estate of Hart, the Court of Appeal took new
evidence in the interests of justice and reversed the trial court judgment. (228
Cal.App.3d at p. 1259.) In Golden West, the Court exercised its power to
make additional findings under section 909 in a case not involving a jury trial
as a matter of right, and identified the case as presenting “an ideal occasion to
apply it.” (25 Cal.App.4th at p. 42.) The Court utilized its powers under
3
Furthermore, nothing under the law of the case doctrine limits the additional
evidence that a party may introduce after remand to evidence that “`could not
have been presented at the at the first trial through the exercise of due
diligence.’” (People v. Barragan (204) 32 Cal.4th 236, 247; Investors Equity
Life Holding Company v. Schmidt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1377.)
1103212.2 14
section 909 “to avoid protracted post-appeal litigation” in a case where
millions of dollars in litigation expenses had been incurred to finally resolve
the case, after concluding that “remand for further findings by the trial court
would undoubtedly foster another appeal.” (Ibid.)
The Court’s use of its limited power under section 909 in this case will
serve the interests of justice by validating as constitutional the District’s
groundwater pumping charges where the evidence warrants such a finding by
this Court and when doing so will obviate further proceedings on remand and
appeal and finally resolve this expensive litigation.
As explained by the Supreme Court in Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta

(1982) 30 Cal.3d 800, 813, the rule that the Court will not normally consider
new evidence “is somewhat flexible” and the Court have not hesitated to
consider new evidence when legislative changes have occurred after the
original record was created. The drastic change in case law that subsequently
occurred in this case should be considered, like legislative change, an
exceptional grounds for invocation of the power under section 909.
The Supreme Court has long ago authorized use of section 909 where
the new evidence compels a reversal with directions to enter judgment for the
appellant. (Tupman v. Haberkern (1929) 208 Cal. 256, 269.) That is exactly
the result which should obtain here if the Court takes the additional evidence.
IV. The District Has No Objection to The Court Considering the

Entire Administrative Record for the 2013-2014 Water Year
In its Opposition, the City takes exception to this Court reviewing for
sufficiency of the District’s evidence only the twelve (12) documents from the
District’s 2013-2014 ratemaking proceedings that are the subject of the
District’s Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence. The
City urges, in the alternative to its argument that no extra-record evidence can
1103212.2 15
be considered, that the Court should consider the entirety of the District’s
2013-2014 administrative record as a matter of fairness. (Opposition, pp. 19-
21.)
Because the groundwater pumping rates adopted by the District for the
2013-2014 water year are identical to the 2012-2013 rates at issue here, the
District is fully amenable to the City’s proposal that the Court consider the
entire 2013-2014 administrative record, in order to facilitate a fair and final
resolution of the remaining article XIII C constitutional issue before the Court
on remand. To that end, the District is submitting, concurrently with this
Reply, a second request for judicial notice and a flash drive of the Certified
2013-2014 AR (“AR3”), consisting of 285 exhibits.
Despite the City’s protests to the contrary, the District again confirms
that much of the newly submitted AR3 is duplicative of the combined AR1
and AR2 here for the two prior water years. Specifically, the District agrees
with the City that 175 of the documents from AR3 are also part of the
ratemaking administrative records for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
(Opposition, p. 15.) Moreover, from the non-duplicative 100 documents of
AR3, the District continues to submit that both parties’ most salient evidence
on the remanded issue of the fair or reasonable relationship of the District’s
pumping charges to the City’s burdens on or benefits from the District’s
activities, has been part of the judicial record in this matter since 2013 and
2014, as set forth more fully in the District’s instant Motion and Request at
pages 8-11, and summarized as follows:
• District Request for Judicial Notice, filed in the trial court on

June 24, 2013, for the five (5) AR3 documents that then existed
of the twelve (12) that are the subject of this Request and
1103212.2 16
Motion. (JAE 002282-2393) Denied by the trial court on July
23, 2013. (JAE 002505.)
• City Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, filed in the trial
court on July 9, 2013, of five (5) additional AR3 documents,
including three letters dated June 11, 13, and 21, 2013, stating
the City and its counsel’s opposition to the District’s proposed
rates. (JAE 002434- 002470.) Denied by the trial court on July
23, 2013. (JAE 002505.)
• City Request for Judicial Notice, filed in the Court of Appeal on
February 6, 2014, including, inter alia, counsel for the City’s
September 30, 2013 letter detailing the City’s objections to the
District continuing in the 2013-2014 water year “the rates
invalidated by the judgment that is the subject of this appeal”
and the District’s October 2, 2013 resolution adopting those
same pumping rates for 2013-2014. Granted by the Court of
Appeal on February 27, 2014. Although the City described
these two (2) AR3 records as relevant because they demonstrate
that the issues in this case remained alive after entry of the trial
court’s judgment, this Court did not limit its admission of these
documents on that or any other basis.
• District Request for Judicial Notice, filed in the Court of Appeal
on April 1, 2014, for the same AR3 evidence, Exhibits A-L, that
is the subject of this Request and Motion. Denied by the Court
of Appeal on March 17, 2015, concurrent with the issuance of
the Court’s opinion.
• City Opposition to District’s Request for Judicial Notice,
Declarations of Holly O. Whatley and David J. Ruderman, and
approximately 140 pages of AR3 records, identified as Exhibits
1-7, filed in the Court of Appeal on April 17, 2014, but
1103212.2 17
including, inter alia, City letters attaching the City’s consultant
reports challenging the District’s 2013-2014 rate-making.
Based on the substantial overlap of the AR1, AR2 and AR3 administrative
records, and on the volume of the non-duplicative AR3 records that were
previously submitted in this case in 2013 or 2014 to the trial or appellate court
by the District or the City, this judicial record has long contained the very
extra-record evidence, on both sides, at issue here. The District wishes for the
Court to recognize officially the additional evidence to the extent that it may
be necessary for the Court’s decision-making on remand. Should it deem it
necessary, the Court now also has the total universe of potential extra-record
evidence on the District’s concurrently submitted flash drive.
V. Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, the District respectfully submits that good
cause has been demonstrated and its Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to
Take New Evidence on Appeal and its concurrently filed Second Request for
Judicial Notice should also be granted.
By:
Jane Ellison Usher
Cheryl A. Orr
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNITED
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1103212.2 18
2ND Civil No.

DIVISION SIX
vs.

SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND

MOTION TO TAKE NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL;
DECLARATION OF MAURICIO E. GUARDADO, JR.;
AND PROPOSED ORDER
Facsimile: (213) 624-1376

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE DISTRICT’S 2013-2014 RATEMAKING

RECORD IS THE PROPER SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 452 ............ 5
II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR GRANTING THIS
REQUEST AND MOTION ....................................................... 6
III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 7
[PROPOSED] ORDER......................................................................... 8
DECLARATION OF MAURICIO E. GUARDADO, JR. ................... 9
1103011.1 2
Page(s)
Cases
Evans v. City of Berkeley
(2006) 38 Cal.4th 1 .......................................................................... 6
Rodas v. Spiegel
(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513 .............................................................. 6
Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure § 187 ............................................................. 5
Code of Civil Procedure § 909 ......................................................... 4, 5
Evidence Code § 452 ............................................................................ 5

Evidence Code § 452, subds. (b), (c) and (h) ....................................... 4
Evidence Code § 459 ........................................................................ 4, 5
Water Code § 75594 ............................................................................. 7
Other Authorities
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.252 .................................................. 4
1103011.1 3
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.252, Evidence Code
section 452, subds. (b) and (c). Evidence Code section 459, and Code of
Civil Procedure sections 187 and 909, Appellants and Cross-
Respondents United Water Conservation District and Board of Directors
of United Water Conservation District (collectively, the “District”)
request that this Court take judicial notice of the documents submitted on
flash drive concurrently herewith and identified as Exhibit M to the
Declaration of Mauricio E. Guardado, Jr., and take this new evidence on
appeal:
1. The Certified Administrative Record in the District’s 2013-

2014 water rate proceeding (the “Certified 2013-2014 AR”), which has
been admitted in City of San Buenaventura v. United Water
Conservation District, Case No. 1467531, currently pending in the Santa
Barbara County Superior Court.
This motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and

Authorities, Declaration of Mauricio E. Guardado, Jr., Exhibit M to the
declaration, and the records and files of this Court.
DATED: May 14,2018 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
By:
William H. Hair
UNITED WATER
1103011,1 4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The District submits that this Court may and should take judicial
notice of the additional evidence offered by the District and accept the
additional evidence on appeal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
sections 187 and 909 in the interests of justice and fairness.
As fully set forth in the District’s Supplemental Brief on Remand,

the interests in the efficient administration of justice and conservation of
judicial resources are served by taking this additional evidence. By
accepting this evidence, if it deems necessary or appropriate to do so in
ruling on this matter, the Court can decide conclusively the remaining
constitutional issue remanded to this Court, without the need for any
further judicial or administrative proceedings.
I. THE DISTRICT’S 2013-2014 RATEMAKING RECORD IS

THE PROPER SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER
EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 452
Under Evidence Code section 459, a reviewing court may take
judicial notice of any matter designated in Evidence Code section 452.
Under section 452, judicial notice may be taken of “acts of the United
States or any public entity in the United States” (Evid. Code § 452,
subd. (b)) and any “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and
judicial departments . . . of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code §
452, subd. (c).)
The Certified 2013-2014 AR, which is provided on a flash drive

submitted herewith, identified as Exhibit M hereto, consists of all
documents submitted as evidence in the District’s 2013-2014
1103011.1 5
groundwater rate hearings and, as such, are proper subjects of judicial
notice. Each document represents part of the record of the official
proceedings before the administrative agency and part of the legislative
history of the resolutions adopting and re-affirming the groundwater
rates for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, which are proper subjects of judicial
notice. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 2; Rodas v.
Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518 [City manager’s memorandum
to city council recommending adoption of council resolution is part of
legislative history]; Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518.)
II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR GRANTING THIS REQUEST

AND MOTION
The public record documents that comprise Exhibit M provide
additional evidence to support a finding by this Court on remand that the
District’s groundwater pumping charges for water years 2011-2012 and
2012-2013, as challenged by the City in these consolidated actions, are
constitutionally valid.
The groundwater pumping rates established by the District for

fiscal year 2013-2014 were identical to the 2012-2013 rates at issue in
this case. For this reason, the City itself previously urged this Court to
take judicial notice of the 2013-2014 documents. (See City Motion for
Judicial Notice, February 5, 2014, at p. 3 [“This Court Should Notice
UWCD’s Records Regarding its Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Rates, Which
are Identical to Those at Bar”].)
The evidence from the 2013-2014 rate proceedings reinforces the

District’s position that the rate differential in the groundwater pumping
1103011.1 6
charges for water years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 is fair or reasonable,
reflecting the different burdens imposed by municipal pumpers of
groundwater, like the City, on the District’s regulatory activities, as
compared to agricultural pumpers of groundwater, and that municipal
users, like the City, receive substantial additional benefits from the
District’s activities that agricultural users do not require.
The documents also rebut the City’s argument in its Supplemental

Brief on Remand that Water Code section 75594, mandating the fee
differential, is invalid and unconstitutional because it at all times
conflicts with the art. XIII C, as amended by Proposition 26.
III. CONCLUSION
The District respectfully requests that this Court grant the
District’s Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence
on Appeal of the Certified 2013-2014 AR identified as Exhibit M and
authenticated by the Declaration of Mauricio E. Guardado, Jr., and
consider these additional documents in support of the District’s
arguments on remand.
By:
William H. Hair
UNITED WATER
1103011.1 7
[PROPOSED]
ORDER TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS
AND TAKING NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Appellants and Cross-Respondents United Water Conservation District
and Board of Directors of United Water Conservation District’s Request
for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence on Appeal is
granted.
IT IS ORDERED that this Court shall take judicial notice of and

shall take as new evidence on appeal the following:
A. The Certified Administrative Record in the 2013-2014

water rate proceeding which has been admitted in City of San
Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, Case No. 1467531,
currently pending in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court.
DATED:_________, 2018 By___________________________

Justice of the Court of Appeal
1103011.1 8
DECLARATION OF MAURICIO E. GUARDADO, JR.
I, Mauricio E. Guardado, Jr., declare as follows:
1. I am the General Manager of the United Water

Conservation District (“District”) and have served in this capacity since
August 2015. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein
and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. As its General Manager, I am personally familiar with the

manner in which the District conducts business, holds public hearings,
adopts resolutions and maintains its records relating to public hearings
and resolutions adopted by the Board.
3. In connection with the District’s annual ratemaking, the

District maintains a record of the public notice of the hearing with
respect to proposed groundwater pumping rates, all of the submissions
by the District’s staff, including consultants’ reports, that may be offered
in support of the proposed rates, any objections or comments received by
the District relating to the proposed rates, any responses offered by the
District’s staff and consultants to any such objections and comments, and
the formal act or resolution that is adopted by the Board after due
consideration of the foregoing materials and any public comment or
discussion that may take place at the time of the hearing on the proposed
rates. These writings are maintained by the District in the ordinary
course of its business at the District’s offices.
4. Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the Administrative

Record for the District’s 2013-2014 water rate proceedings during the
1103011.1 9
required by Rule 8.29( c)( I)
No.B251810 Exempt from Filing Fees
Government Code § 6103

Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant,
vs.

Defendants, Cross-Complainants, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents.

County of Santa Barbara. Case Nos.VENCI 00401714 and 1414739
OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS'

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTIONTOTAKE NEW
EVIDENCE ON APPEAL

*MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO (143551) GREGORY G. DIAZ (156318)
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF (293519) MHogan@cityofventura.net
Pasadena, California 91 I01-2109 Facsimile: (805) 641-0253
Telephone: (213) 542-57p0
Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
!93905.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTUALAND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................... ?
II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 7
A. UWCD May Not Introduce Extra-Record Evidence ............... 7
B. UWCD Misrepresents the Procedural History and

Posture of this Dispute ................................................................. 12
C. The Narrow Exception for New Evidence on Appeal

Does Not Apply ............................................................................. 15
D. lfThis Court Is to Re-Open the Evidence, It Must
Allow the Parties Equal Opportunity to Do So ...................... 19
Ill. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 21
I'
I
2
193905.5
Page(s)
Cases
20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 216 ................................................................................ 8
California Association of Professional Scientists v.

Department of Fish & Game
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935 .............................................................. 9, 10
Carlton Santee Corp. v. Padre Dam Mun. Water Dist.

(1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 14 ...................................................................... 8
City of Dublin v. County of Alameda

(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 264 .............................................................. 9, 10
City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation

District
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191 .............................................................................. 8
In re Conservatorship of the Estate of Hart

(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1244 ................................................... 16, 18,19
Dillingham-Ray Wilson v. City of Los Angeles

(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1396 ............................................................... 11
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Department of Health Services

(1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574. ......................................................... 10, 11
Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim

(1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 11 ..................................................................... 19
LaGrone v. City of Oakland

(2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 932 ................................................................. 16
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. AmRhein

(2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364 ...............................................................12
3
193905.5
San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com'n v. Superior
Court
(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159 ................................................................... 8
Town of Tiburon v. Bonander

(2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1057 ...............................................................10
Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town

Homes, Ltd.
(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74 ..................................................................... 16
Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego

Unified Port Dist.
(2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1219 ............................................................... 21
Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

(2011) 52 Ca1.4th 499 ............................................................................ 19
Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court

(1995) 9 Cal. 4th 559 ...................................................................... passim
California Constitution
Article XIII C, § 1, subd. (e) ...................................................................... 14
Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, § 909 .................................................................. 9
Code of Civil Procedure,§ 1085 ....................................................... 10, 11
Code of Civil Procedure,§ 1094.5 .................................................... 10, 11
Code of Civil Procedure,§ 1094.5, subd. (e) ......................................... 10
Evidence Code, § 350 .................................................................................. 9
Water Code,§ 75594 ................................................................................. 17
4
193905.5
Rules
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(a)(3) ................................................ 6
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c) .................................................... 6
5
. 193905.5
To the Honorable Presiding Justice Gilbert and Associate
Justices of the Court of Appeal:
Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buena ventura
("City") submits this Opposition under California Rules of Court,

rule 8.54(a)(3) to Appellants and Cross-Respondents United Water
Conservation District and Board of Directors of United Water
Conservation District's (collectively, "UWCD" or the "District")
Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence on
Appeal.
UWCD seeks notice of just 12 out of approximately 100
documents from the record of the making of its FY 2013-2014 rates
that are not included in the records before this Court. All were
created after the two rate-makings on appeal here, and therefore
cannot be part of the records on which those rates must be reviewed.
These 12 records concerning these later rates are solely those
submitted by UWCD, rather than the City or other ratepayers.
Indeed, UWCD previously sought notice of these documents, which
this Court properly rejected. UWCD now also requests this Court
accept these selected documents as new evidence on appeal.
The City submits this opposition to avoid being deemed to
have consented to the request for judicial notice under California
Rules of Court, rule 8.54( c). As this Court is aware, the City opposes
UWCD's attempts to impermissibly obtain notice of extra-record
6
193905.5
evidence in violation of settled case law, the separation of powers,
our common law, and UWCD' s principal act.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A complete statement of facts describing UWCD's repeated
attempts to obtain judicial notice of the documents of which it seeks
notice here is included in the City's Opposition to Appellants' and
Cross-Respondents' Motion for Judicial Notice, filed with this Court
April17, 2014. The City incorporates that statement of facts here.
II. ARGUMENT
A. UWCD May Not Introduce Extra-Record

Evidence
The City has briefed these issues - why the Court may not
consider UWCD's extra-record evidence- regarding these same
documents, repeatedly before this Court, the Supreme Court and the
trial court. The City submits this Opposition to avoid any inference
of consent that might arise by non-opposition. This Court is familiar
with the City's arguments. They are detailed in the City's
supplemental letter brief (filed with this Court March 26, 2018), and
its Opposition to Appellants' and Cross-Respondents' Motion for
Judicial Notice in support of its Reply and Cross-Respondent Brief
(filed with this Court April17, 2014), and the City's Petition for
Rehearing (filed with the Supreme Court December 20, 2017). For
the reasons discussed there, the City urges this Court to deny
7
193905.5
I
UWCD's motion because extra-record evidence may not be II'
considered here.
Our Supreme Court has made clear that judicial review of
quasi-legislative acts is limited to the agency's administrative record.
(Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 559,
576 (Western States); see also San Joaquin Local Agency Formation
Com'n v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.) Nothing in

the Supreme Court's denial of the City's Petition for Rehearing
rejects the Western States rule, as the District erroneously argues.
(UWCD Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 20.) Had that Court intended to decide this
issue, it would have added language to its opinion to expressly
remand it. (City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation
District (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191, 1214.) The burden is thus on UWCD, as

the proponent of extra-record evidence, to demonstrate an exception
to the general rule of inadmissibility. (Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th

I~
at pp. 576-577 & fn. 5.) '
This case tests the constitutionality of UWCD's quasi-
legislative rate-making decisions on June 8, 2011 and June 13, 2012.

i.
"When performed by an administrative agency, ratemaking has
uniformly been considered a quasi-legislative action." (20th Century
Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 277; see also Carlton Santee
Corp. v. Padre Dam Mun. Water Dist. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 14, 18-19
[water rate-making is legislation].)
8
193905.5
As certified by UWCD's General Manager, the administrative
records UWCD prepared for each rate-making contain all the
information presented to the Board during its consideration of the
challenged rates, including all of documents merely mentioned in

testimony or cited in other documents. (4 JA 42:809; 9 JA 73:1769
[certifications of administrative records].)! It therefore constitutes the
universe of relevant evidence. (Western States, supra, 9 Cal. 4th. at
p. 570 [citing Evid. Code,§ 350].)

The District's Supplemental Letter Brief also argues this Court
may notice these 12 documents or admit them as new evidence on
appeal under Code of Civil Procedure section 909. However, the
authority it cites there is misplaced. Indeed, its citations may be

misleading. For instance, UWCD cites California Association of
Professional Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game (2000) 79
Cal.App.4th 935 (CAPS) to claim this Court may look to extra-record
evidence to determine whether the local agency has met its burden
to show its fees are not taxes. (UWCD Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 4.) CAPS
simply quoted an unanalyzed sentence from City of Dublin v. County
of Alameda (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 264 (Dublin). CAPS did not rely on
any extra-record evidence, other than the legislative history which
· might or might not have been in the agency's record. (CAPS, supra,
79 Cal.App.4th at p. 951, fn. 3.) UWCD's citation is therefore dicta.
1Citations to the Joint Appendix are in the form: [Volume] JA

[Tab#]:[page#].
9
193905.5
Moreover, Dublin and all the cases on which it relies pre-date
Western States. Thus, CAPS, which post-dated Western States, relied

on cases that pre-date it on a point of dicta without analyzing
whether those cases survive Western States on that point. As the
City's Supplemental Letter Brief explains, they do not.

UWCD also claims Town of Tiburon v. Bonander (2009) 180
Cal.App.4th 1057 took extra-record evidence by judicial notice.
(UWCD Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 22.) In fact, that court concluded Tiburon
had improperly excluded materials from its record and thus relied I
on that improperly excluded evidence. (Town of Tiburon v. Bonander,
supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1076.) A court, of course, complies with
Western States when it considers evidence that should have been part
of the record.
Finally, UWCD cites Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Department of
Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574 (Fort Mojave) to claim the
distinction between Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and
1094.5 is "immaterial" as to the admission of extra-record evidence.
(UWCD Supp. Ltr. Br., pp. 22-23.) Fort Mojave does not support that
reading. It was a CEQA case applying Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.5, subdivision (e), which specifically allows after-
acquired evidence under specified circumstances. Moreover, Fort
Mojave reversed because the trial court had admitted after-acquired
evidence that, like some of the expert reports here, simply rehashed
earlier work. Fort Mojave noted that allowing such evidence would
10
193905.5
disserve the important public policies Western States advances. It
thus harmonized Western States' policy concerns with the more
liberal rules of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, rather than
finding that section to displace those policies. Harmonizing statutes
with the common law is the general rule. (Dillingham-Ray Wilson v.
City of Los Angeles (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1407 ["As a general
rule, [u]nless expressly provided, statutes should not be interpreted
to alter the common law, and should be construed to avoid conflict
with common law rules." (citation and internal quotes omitted)].)
Fort Mojave cannot be read to say that Code of Civil Procedure

section 1085 cases may be governed by the more liberal, statutory
standard of section 1094.5 of that Code.
This is the third time that UWCD has sought judicial notice of
these documents of its FY 2013-2014 rate-making. As the City has
repeatedly argued, and as both the trial court and this Court have
held, that evidence is not relevant here. And, while the Districts cites
an exception to Western States for evidence "that could not have been
produced at the administrative level with the exercise of due
diligence," it makes no effort to show this applies to the documents
it wishes to adduce. (UWCD Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 21 [citing Western
State, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at p. 578].) Because expert reports of which

UWCD seeks notice all rely on historical data, UWCD plainly could
have produced them in its FY 2011-2012 or FY 2012-2013 rate-
making hearings. (E.g., RJN & Mot. to Take New Evid. on Appeal,
,·
11
193905.5
Exh. Cat p. 19 ["Staff has evaluated hydrological data from 2010,
2011 and 2012"], Exh. Eat p. 69 [analyzing groundwater use from
1980-2012].)
In sum, UWCD cannot demonstrate any exception allows this

Court to consider the extra-record evidence it offers. UWCD's Board
did not consider this evidence before it adopted the challenged rates
because its staff and consultants did not prepare that evidence for
those hearings - even though they might easily have done so.
B. UWCD Misrepresents the Procedural History

and Posture of this Dispute
UWCD mischaracterizes the City's February 6, 2014 Motion

for Judicial Notice to shoehorn its FY 2013-2014 rate-making
documents into this appeal. (RJN & Mot. to Take New Evid. on
Appeal, pp. 10-11.) In that Motion, the City requested notice of
documents only to: (i) provide factual background by the
Department of Water Resources groundwater bulletin; (ii) show that
other courts had followed Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v.
AmRhein (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1364 in challenges to groundwater
charges; and (iii) demonstrate the parties' dispute remained alive in
post-trial years to rebut UWCD's argument that the Court should

remand the challenged rates for renewed rate-making. (See City's
Mot. for Jud. Not. (filed Feb. 6, 2014) p. 2.) UWCD highlights the
third category: a letter from City's counsel objecting to UWCD's
FY 2013-2014 proposed groundwater charges and a UWCD Board
12
193905.5
resolution adopting FY 2013-2014 rates. (City's Mot. for Jud. Not.
(filed Feb. 6, 2014) Exhs. D & E.) Because the Court took judicial
notice of these records, UWCD argues, it must also take notice of
UWCD's 12 records related to the FY 2013-2014 rate-making.
UWCD cannot use this camel's nose approach to evade long-

standing precedent limiting judicial review of legislation to the
agency's record.
First, unlike UWCD, which seeks notice for the documents'
truth, the City sought notice of Exhibits D arid E to its Motion for
their existence. They demonstrated only that the parties continued to
dispute UWCD's legal basis to set rates with a three-to-one ratio,
such that remand to UWCD's Board would be an impermissible and
futile remedy. (City's Respondent's and Cross-Appellant's Op. Br.
(filed Feb. 6, 2014) pp. 92-93; City's Mot for Jud. Not. (filed Feb. 6,
2014) pp. 3-4.) By contrast, UWCD admits the technical reports it
offers are "evidence" and that it seeks more than just notice of their
existence. (RJN & Mot to Take New Evid. on Appeal, p. 17.)
Second, extra-record evidence may be relevant and admissible
when considered on issues other than the validity of legislation.
(Western States, supra, 9 Ca1.4th at p. 575, fn. 5.) The City's Motion for
Judicial Notice complied with this rule, as it addressed whether
remand was a futile remedy, not the validity of the challenged rates.
(City's Respondent's and Cross-Appellant's Op. Br. (filed Feb. 6,
2014) pp. 92-93; City's Mot. for Jud. Not (filed Feb. 6, 2014) pp. 3-4.)
13
193905.5
Conversely, UWCD's Request for Judicial Notice seeks to prove the
validity of its rates - a burden it bears under the final unnumbered
paragraph of Proposition 26. (Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 1, subd. (e)

[final par.]; RJN & Mot. to Take New Evid. on Appeal, pp. 12-13.)
Indeed, it hopes the Court will consider this new evidence to decide
the "the fair or reasonable allocation inquiry." (Id. at p. 14.)

Third, UWCD disingenuously claims the admission of a
selected few of its FY 2013-2014 rate-making documents is necessary
to "balance" the Court's admission of a single letter from the City's
counsel - not its hydrogeological or rate-making experts -
regarding that rate-making. (RJN & Mot. to Take New Evid. on
Appeal, p. 19 [referring to Exh. Din City's Mot. for Jud. Not. (filed
Feb. 6, 2014).) As UWCD knows, the City also submitted numerous
technical reports of its own hydrologist and rate making economist
in the FY 2013-2014 rate-making. (See, e.g., City's Mot. for Jud. Not.
(filed Feb. 6, 2014), Exhs. 2, 3 & 6.) Although the City presented these
documents in opposition to UWCD' s prior motion for judicial
notice, the Court has never noticed or admitted them. Far from
balancing the scales, UWCD's proffered documents would tip them
dramatically in its favor.

Finally, this Court has not been offered "virtually the entire
administrative record relating to the District's 2013-2014
. groundwater pumping charges," as UWCD claims. (RJN & Mot. to
Take New Evid. on Appeal, p. 11.) The administrative record for the
14
193905.5
FY 2013-2014 rate-making contains 285 exhibits. (Mot. for Jud. Not.,
Exh. 1 [index to FY 2013-2014 record].) By comparison, the FY 2012-
2013 rate-making in issue here contains only 175 exhibits.
UWCD has consistently misrepresented the size and scope of
the FY 2013-2014 record. In the City's separate suit challenging the
FY 2013-2014 and FY 2014-2015 rates, the City was forced to move
to augment those records with material the City submitted at the
hearing or in its requests for reconsideration, which UWCD had !

I
omitted. The trial court provisionally granted this motion because I.
the material submitted by the City was relevant information before
UWCD's Board when it adopted the rates or was relevant to the
City's claims of procedural error in those rate-settings. (Mot. for Jud.

Not., Exh. 2.)
UWCD thus asks this Court to do in less than 90 days what
the trial court has not yet done at all and on the basis of selected
documents representing but one side of a hotly contested technical
dispute. It thus seeks to impermissibly expand this appeal to litigate
post-judgment disputes not yet tried with less than all relevant
documents. This Court should reject this request.
C. The Narrow Exception for New Evidence on

Appeal Does Not Apply
This Court may admit new evidence on appeal "only under
exceptional circumstances that justify deviating from the general
rule that appellate review is limited to the record before the lower
15
193905.5
court." (LaGrone v. City of Oakland (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 932, 946,
fn. 6.) A party seeking to adduce evidence on appeal has the burden
to show good cause for not presenting the evidence to the trial court.
(Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd.
(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 87.) Indeed, UWCD acknowledges this
Court may take new evidence only in "special circumstances."
(RJN & Mot. to Take New Evid. on Appeal, p. 13 [quoting In re
Conservatorship of the Estate of Hart (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1256-
1257].) It cannot, however, demonstrate this narrow exception and
argues it in terms that would allow new evidence to any appellant
who wishes to avoid remand.
UWCD' s sole rationale for new evidence is that it will
facilitate resolution without further remand. (RJN & Mot. to Take
New Evid. on Appeal, p. 14.) This general statement could be true of
any extra-record evidence, and therefore cannot constitute
"exceptional" circumstances. Moreover, even if this Court accepted
UWCD' s new evidence on appeal, this would not necessarily avoid
additional trial-court litigation. The parties' dispute over UWCD's
FY 2014-2015 rates remains to be tried below on the record of that
rate-making. As would the City's challenges to the District's

FY 2013-2014 and FY 2014-2015 rates alleging UWCD violated
procedural requirements of its principal act and the common-law
fair-hearing requirement. (See Mot. for Jud. Not., Exh. 2 at p. 7

[noting these claims].)
16
193905.5
UWCD also misrepresents the scope of the inquiry for which
it would offer new evidence. It claims the "only remaining issue ...
is the fair or reasonable allocation inquiry."(RJN & Mot. to Take
New Evid. on Appeal, p. 14.) This is like saying: "only nine months
of the pregnancy remain." The fair or reasonable allocation inquiry
is the heart of this important case interpreting our Constitution that
the entire local government community is watching closely for its
I.
impact not only on groundwater charges (made significant by the
I
adoption of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
requiring rate-making by some 400 new groundwater sustainability
agencies), but because it will provide much needed guidance on
other rates subject to Proposition 26.
Moreover, UWCD hides in a footnote that Water Code
section 75594' s constitutionality is also on remand here - an issue
Justice Liu would have decided for the City and predicts the
Supreme Court will, too. Ignoring the constitutionality of
section 75594 risks a further remand if, as may be likely, this case
returns to the Supreme Court.
Nor is the fact-finding this new evidence would require as
simple as UWCD claims. UWCD offers four expert reports, each
attempting to rebut the City's competing experts (whose reports

UWCD does not offer here). These issues are hotly contested and not
yet resolved except by UWCD' sown Board - which acted under
the compulsion of Water Code section 75594' s mandate that
17
193905.5
municipal and industrial rates be at least three times agricultural
rates. No trier of fact unencumbered by that statute has yet reviewed
these competing technical reports. Indeed, because the evidence of
which UWCD seeks notice is subject to dispute, judicial notice is also

improper, a fact UWCD likely recognizes as it also moves this Court
to take these documents as new evidence.

UWCD' s motion to take new evidence also fails because it
cannot show good cause for the unavailability of the evidence in the
trial court, as these documents post-date UWCD's rate-making in
FY 2011-2012 and FY 2012-2013. Indeed, under Western States, extra-
record evidence may only be considered if it existed before the
agency acted, but could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
have been presented before it did so. (Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th
at p. 578.) UWCD does not address this narrow exception, likely
because it does not apply. The evidence UWCD seeks to present is
from a subsequent rate-making, and is dated after even the second
rate-making at issue here concluded. Indeed, the trial court denied
UWCD's attempt to introduce this same evidence as irrelevant.
(12 JA 105:2505.)
Finally, the authority on which UWCD relies is also
inapposite. Neither case involved a quasi-legislative ratemaking.

In re Conservatorship of the Estate of Hart (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1244
did not require the court to engage in any fact-finding, but instead
took evidence to remedy "a serious breakdown in the administration
18
193905.5
of justice" concerning an incompetent conservatee. (Id. at p. 1259.) In
Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 11
the court did not take new evidence on appeal; it only modified a
judgment to allow a planned development to proceed. (I d. at p. 42.)

In sum, UWCD cannot show that the narrow exception
allowing this Court to take new evidence on appeal applies here.
The Court should deny UWCD's motion.
D. lfThis Court Is to Re-Open the Evidence, It Must

Allow the Parties Equal Opportunity to Do So
UWCD claims that, if the Court notices or takes its 12

documents as new evidence, it can resolve the entire case without
further remand. (RJN & Mot. to Take New Evid. on Appeal, pp. 8,
11.) Notably, UWCD now claims further remand to the trial court or
UWCD itself would violate the terms of the Supreme Court's
remand to this Court. (UWCD's Supp. Ltr. Br., p. 26;) This
contradicts its previous argument for remand to its own Board
I
under Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) I
I
52 Cal.4th 499. (See Reply Br. & Cross-Resp. Br. (filed Apr. 2, 2014) f
pp. 72-75.) Moreover, though this Court is bound by the terms of the
remand and may not reopen those questions the Supreme Court did
decide here, this Court is otherwise free to manage its docket as it
sees fit. Indeed, the Court's letter requesting these supplemental
briefs assumes as much, inviting the parties to brief whether and
19
193905.5
how additional evidence might be admitted and argued, including
the potential for remand to the trial court.
If the Court decides it can resolve the entire case without
further proceedings, it should do so on the record UWCD made to

support these rates as Western States, the District's principal act, and
the common law fair hearing doctrine all require. However, if the
Court were to re-open the evidence to do - post-hoc- what
UWCD failed to do in 2011 and 2012, it should re-open the evidence
in an even-handed way. It should not simply admit UWCD's
selected 12 documents, omitting evidence the City and other
ratepayers provided the District Board. Indeed, UWCD misleads to
suggest that, because this Court noticed the existence of a single
protest letter in 2014, all the City's evidence is before this Court. It is
not, as the four expert reports UWCD submits make clear by their
efforts to rebut competing expert reports UWCD would conceal
from this Court. UWCD's proposal is one-sided and fundamentally
unfair.
UWCD admits that the City's position has been that Western
States forbids extra-record evidence and if the Court is to act
contrary to Western States, it should do so in an even-handed way

and review the entire record of the FY 2013-2014 rate-making, not
just the evidence UWCD has culled to make its strongest evidentiary
case. (RJN & Mot. to Take New Evid. on Appeal, pp. 9-10.) In the
•
rehearing briefing before the Supreme Court, the City maintained
20
193905.5
this position and offered review of the whole (not selected parts) of
the FY 2013-2014 ratemaking record as an alternative if that Court

determined not to follow Western States. (City's Pet. for Rehearing
(5226036, filed Dec. 20, 2017), pp. 18-20.) This cannot be an estoppel,
not least because the City gained nothing by it - the Supreme Court
neither granted rehearing nor took notice of these materials.
(Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist.
(2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1246 [rejecting judicial estoppel where
court did not adopt position].) Thus, UWCD mischaracterizes the
City's position and the law of judicial estoppel to seek an unfair
advantage. This case involves constitutional issues of statewide
importance and should not turn on such gamesmanship.
This Court accordingly ought not to re-open the records here.
If it nevertheless does so, it should allow the parties equal
opportunity to present evidence.

I
Ill. CONCLUSION
The extra-record evidence UWCD asks this Court to consider

i
is inadmissible under Western States, the common-law fair-hearing I
doctrine, and UWCD's principal act. Were the Court to re-open these
records, it is bound by due process at least to consider the whole

record of UWCD's FY 2013-2014 rate-making, not merely
documents of UWCD' s choosing. Finally, UWCD cannot satisfy the

strict standards for new evidence on appeal, particularly because it
misrepresents the procedural history and posture of this dispute.
21
193905.5
The City therefore respectfully urges this Court to deny UWCD's
request for notice and new evidence on appeal.

WHATLEY, PC
.l)q~ r?v~
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Attorneys for Respondent and Cross-
Appellant
,.
22
193905.5
PROOF OF SERVICE


as OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS AND CROSS-
RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND
MOTION TO TAKE NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL on the
interested parties in this action as by placing a true copy thereof
enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

I
I
~ BY MAIL: The envelope was mailed with postage

_ _,_b_Y E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION:

23
193905.5

24
193905.5
SERVICE LIST
City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, eta!.

Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP Arnold LaRochelle Mathews Vanconas
624 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 & Zirbel, LLP
Phone: (213) 629-7600 Oxnard, CA 93036
Fax: (213) 624-1376 Phone: (805) 988-9886
Err;tail: C.Orr@mpglaw.com Email: dlarochelle@atozlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant and Attorneys for Intervener Pleasant Valley
Appellant United Water Conservation County Water District
District and Board of Directors of
United Water Conservation District
Courtesy Copy
Miles P. Hogan
Assistant City Attorney
City of Ventura
501 Poli Street, Room 213
P.O. Box 99
Ventura, CA 93001
Phone: (805) 654-7818
Fax: (805) 641-0253
Email: mhogan@cityofventura.ca.gov
Buenaventura
25
193905.5
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Water
Water District, Amicus Curiae District, Amicus Curiae

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 4th Flr.
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for County of Kern, Amicus
Water District, Amicus Curiae Curiae

Attorneys for California Farm Bureau
Federation and Farm Bureau of Ventura
County, Amicus Curiae

921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 Law Offices of Young Wolldridge, LLP
Sacramento, CA 95814 1800 30th Street, 4th Floor
Attorneys for Howard Jarvis Bakersfield, CA 93301
Taxpayers Foundation, Amicus Santa Ynez River Water Conservation
Curiae District, Amicus Curiae
26
193905.5
I
II
i
Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail I


P.O. Box 23490 P.O. Box 6273
Attorneys for Great Oaks Water Attorney for Jack David Cohen, Amicus
Company, Amicus Curiae Curiae

18400 Von Karman Ave., #800 The Metropolitan Water District of
Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Southern California
Curiae Attorneys for The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, Amicus
Curiae

Attorneys for San Diego County Water
Authority, Amicus Curiae
27
193905.5
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Flr.
Amicus Curiae
Via U.S. Mail

Clerk of the Court
1100 Anacapa Street
28
193905.5
No.B251810 required by Rule 8.29(c)(l)

vs.

Defendants, Cross-Complainants, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents
Appeal From the Superior Court of the State of California

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF

SAN BUENAVENTURA'S OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS AND
CROSS-RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND MOTION TO TAKE NEW EVIDENCE ON APPEAL

*MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO (143551) GREGORY G. DIAZ (156318)
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF (293519) MHogan@cityofventura.net
Pasadena, California 91 I 01-21 09 Facsimile: (805) 641-0253
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
194100.2
To the Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of
the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Second
Appellate District, Division 6:
Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buenaventura
("City") hereby moves this Court to take judicial notice of the

following documents attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration
of David J. Ruderman under Evidence Code section 452,
subdivisions (d) and (h), Evidence Code section 459, and rule 8.252
of the California Rules of Court:
1. Certification of the 2013-2014 Administrative Record by

Michael Solomon, General Manager of United Water
Conservation District, in City of San Buenaventura v.
United Water Conservation District et al., Santa Barbara
Superior Court, Case No. 1467531, filed Feb. 19, 2015;
and
2. The Court's Tentative Ruling on·the Motion of
Petitioner City of San Buena ventura to Augment
Administrative Record, in City of San Buenaventura v.
Superior Court, Case No. 1467531, Hearing Date Jan. 27,
2015.
These materials are relevant to the City's Opposition to Appellants

and Cross-Respondents United Water Conservation District and
Board of Directors of United Water Conservation District's
2
194100.2
(collectively, "UWCD" or the "District") Motion to Take New
Evidence on Appeal because they demonstrate that the 2013-2014

Administrative Record is much larger than represented by UWCD in
its Motion to Take New Evidence on Appeal.

This motion is based on the attached Memorandum and
Declaration of David J. Ruderman along with Exhibits 1 and 2, the

records and files of this Court, and the accompanying proposed
order granting this motion.

WHATLEY, PC
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Appellant
3
194100.2
MEMORANDUM
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF jUDICIAL NOTICE
A reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter

specified in Evidence Code section 452. (Evid. Code,§ 459.) Under
subdivision (d) of Evidence Code section 452, the Court may notice
"[r]ecords of ... any court of this state." The Court may also notice
"facts ... that are not reasonably subject to dispute." (Evid. Code,
§ 452, subd. (h).)
A reviewing court may notice facts as a trial court does. (Evid.
Code,§ 459, subd. (a).) In the trial court, judicial notice is mandatory
upon request, where the opposing party is permitted to object and

the court has enough information about the facts to determine that
they come within a category subject to notice. (Evid. Code, § 453,
subd. (b).)
"Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court,
for use ... by the court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that
is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of
the matter." (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, et al. (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 875, 882 [citations and quotations omitted].) "The

underlying theory of judicial notice is that the matter judicially
noticed is a law or fact that is not reasonably subject to dispute."
(Ibid.; see Evid. Code,§ 452, subd. (h).)
4
194100.2
II. EXHIBITS I AND 2 ARE NOTICEABLE AND RELEVANT
The City respectfully requests this Court judicially notice
Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of David J. Ruderman

("Ruderman Declaration"), below. Exhibits 1 and 2 are documents
filed in a related lawsuit between the City and the District pending
in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Barbara,
City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District et al.,
Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case No. 1467531. (Evid. Code,§ 452,
subd. (d) [court records].) Further, as public records, the existence

and contents of these documents are not reasonably subject to
dispute. (Evid. Code,§ 452, subd. (h).)
The City seeks notice of the existence of these documents to
demonstrate that this Court has not been offered "virtually the
entire administrative record relating to the District's 2013-2014
groundwater pumping charges," as UWCD claims in its Request for
Judicial Notice and Motion to Take New Evidence. (RJN & Mot. to
Take New Evid. on Appeal, p. 11.) UWCD has consistently
misrepresented the size and scope of the record for the 2013-2014
rate-making in the City's separate suit challenging the FY 2013-2014
and FY 2014-2015 rates. Indeed, the City was forced to move to
I
augment those records with material UWCD improperly omitted,
including the City's requests for reconsideration. These documents
provide important context to UWCD's Motion to Take New
Evidence on Appeal.
5
194100.2
Both documents are therefore relevant to the issues raised in
the City's Opposition to the Motion to Take New Evidence on
Appeal, and they should be noticed in consideration of that brief.
Ill. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the City respectfully requests

this Court grant the City's motion to notice Exhibits 1 and 2 and
consider them in support of the City's Opposition to the Motion to
Take New Evidence on Appeal.

WHATLEY, PC
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
LILIANE M. WYCKOFF
Appellant
6
194100.2
DECLARATION OF DAVID J. RUDERMAN
[Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(a)(2)]
1. I am an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice

before the courts of this state. I am senior counsel with the firm
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, counsel of record for

Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buena ventura in this
matter.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy
of the Certification of the 2013-2014 Administrative Record by
Michael Solomon, General Manager of United Water Conservation
District, which UWCD filed on February 19, 2015 in City of San
Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District et al., Santa Barbara
Superior Court, Case No. 1467531. This document states that the
Administrative Record in that action contains 285 exhibits. I
obtained this documents from my firm's files, where they are kept in
the ordinary course of business.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy
of the Court's Tentative Ruling on the Motion of Petitioner City of
San Buena ventura to Augment Administrative Record in City of San
Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District et al., Santa Barbara
Superior Court, Case No. 1467531, which was issued in advance of
the January 27, 2015 hearing. In this Tentative Ruling, Judge Anderle
provisionally granted the City's motion to augment in part because
the material submitted by the City was relevant information before
7
194100.2
UWCD's Board when it adopted the rates or was relevant to the
City's claims of procedural error in those rate-settings. In its index to
the FY 2013-2014 record in Exhibit 1, UWCD included those
documents the Court found ought to be included under its tentative
ruling. I obtained this document from my firm's files, where it is
kept in the ordinary course of business.
of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed May 8, 2018 in Grass Valley, California.
DAVID J. RUDERMAN
I
I
8
194100.2
[Proposed]
ORDER TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buenaventura's
Motion for Judicial Notice is granted. IT IS ORDERED that this
Court shall take judicial notice of:
1. Certification of the 2013-2014 Administrative Record by
Michael Solomon, General Manager of United Water
Conservation District, in City of San Buenaventura v.
Superior Court, Case No. 1467531, filed Feb. 19, 2015;
and
2. The Court's Tentative Ruling on the Motion of
Petitioner City of San Buena ventura to Augment
Administrative Record, in City of San Buenaventura v.

I
Superior Court, Case No. 1467531, Hearing Date Jan. 27,
I
2015.
DATED: __________ By: _____________________

Justice of the Court of Appeal
9
194100.2
EXHIBIT NO. I
IExempt From Filing Fee
Government Code§ 6103!
1 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP

ATIORNEYSATLAW
:!:lUll TOWNSGSrl~ ROt\0, 5UITF. ZOO
2 WJCSfl.t\KE VIU,:\GE, c,\UI'OltNt,\ ?llCil
'OCI.f.I'I"):-,:E (RUS) ~~~·WlO
J'....<:SJMIU( {WJS) ~IR-311!1
3
Anthony Trembley (State Bar No. II 0029}
4 a. f remhlel'ft.hnm!lw r. com

ATTORNEYSATV.W
ON I: WIJSIIIRn IIOUI.HV,\IlD. SUITE .20/lfl
6 U>S \N(iEI.FS, C\J.II'ORNIA 'WIIl7-.HH1
Tr .U·I'II0:-.1, (.!l.lJ (,!'.J.JbHil
t·'l!:.~t.\UI.E tll.\) t,2N)76
7
Jane Ellison Usher (State Bar No. 93 783}
8 i u.\-Ju.:r a·uundau.nnn
9 Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

United Water Conservation District and
10 Board of Directors of the United Water
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
14 CITY OF SAN BUENA VENTURA, CASE No. 1467531

Unlimited Jurisdiction
15 Plaintiff and Petitioner, [formerly VCSC Case No. 56-20!1-0045081 0-
CU-WM-VTA]
16 v.
[Assigned to Hon. Thomas J. Anderle, Dept. 3]
17 UNITEDWATERCONSERVATION
DISTRJCT; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF Action Filed: March 24, 2014
18 UNITED WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT; and DOES 1-l 0, inclusive, CERTIFICATION OF THE 2013-2014
I
19 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY E.
Defendants and Respondents. MICHAEL SOLOMON, GENERAL
20 MANAGER OF UNITED WATER
21
22
Trial Date: None Set
23
24 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the undersigned, E. Michael Solomon, General Manager
26 of United Water Conservation District, hereby certifies that the documents identified in the i.
27 attached Administrative Record lndeK, consisting of twenty-one (21} printed Volumes containing
28 Exhibits l-285 and included on four(4) compact discs, constitute Defendants and Respondents
931472.1
CERTIFICATION OF THE 2013-2014 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY E. MICHAEL SOLOMO"!,
GENERAL MANAGER OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRIC 1
I United Water Conservation District's full, true and correct Administrative Record for the 2013·
2 2014 Water Year relating to Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 1467531. The
3 exhibits contained in the CO's are as follows:
4 CDI ~ AR3-Ex. OJ -Ex. 44
5 C02 - AR3-E.'(. 45 -Ex. 106
6 CD3 - ARJ- Ex. I07 - Ex. I58
7 CD4-AR3·Ex.159-Ex.285
8 The Administrative Record was prepared by the District in consultation with Plaintiff and
9 Petitioner, and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §I 094.5.
10 At the request of Plaintiff and Petitioner, the District is submitting an electronic copy of
11 the Administrative Record to Plaintiff and Petitioner, in lieu of printed volumes.
12 I declare that I am employed in the County ofVentura, California; that I am over 18 years
13 of age, and that I am employed as the Geneml Manager of United Water Conservation District. I
14 am duly authorized to certify the completeness of the Administrative Record In this action.
15 I declare under penalty of peJjury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct and that this certification was executed at Santa Paula, California on
17 this J!l. day of February, 2015.
18
I !I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'1U51CJt. PEJILBR 931lnl
&CARRinTLLP
ATRIIHI.UATU.
CERTIFICATION OF THE 1013-2014 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY E. MICHAELSOLOMO!!.
GENERAL MANAGER OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRI!.'J
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Exhibit A
27
28
MUSICK, PEELER 9314741
& GARRETT LLP
CERTIFICATION OF THE 2014-2015 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY E. MICHAEL SOI..OMON,
ATTORNtllATU.W
GENERAL MANAGER OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
[Exempt From Filing Fcc
Government Code§ 61031
MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP

ATTORNEYS AT lAW
21!:01 TO\t'NSG,\Tit ROAD, SUITH 2UU
2 \VI·:S'J L·,KI·. VJ!,).,\Cll!, C •\I.II'OitNI,\ 'Jilt• I
[;JJO!'IItl.-.;t;, lll1Hfii-11UI
t'.\f"'>l1111.1< Hl!~-~111 JIUI
3
Anthony Trembley (State Bar No. II 0029)
4 a. trembley@mpglaw.com
AlTORNEYSATU.W
ONH WII.SIIrl\1' llOUI.I~V,\RD. SUIIB 21l0fl
6 I.OS ,\NGHI-f~.C•\I.r!IORNJ,\ '.IOtlJ7,l3113
'llOI.EfllOSH(211; c.l').:rR'I}
I:AC!ilMILll(lU) 62t.ll76
7
Jane Ellison Usher (State Bar No. 93783)
8 j.usher@mpglaw.com
9 Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents
United Water Conservation District and
10 Board of Directors of United Water Conservation District
II SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA
13
14 CITY OF SAN BUENA VENTURA, CASE No. 1467531
Unlimited Jurisdiction
15 Plaintiff and Petitioner,
[Assigned to Hon. Thomas P. Anderle,
16 v. Dept. 03]
17 UNITED WATER CONSERVATION Action Filed: March 24, 2014
DISTRICT; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
18 UNITED WATER CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
DISTRICT; ALL PERSONS fNTERESTED FOR JUNE 12,2013 AND OCTOBER 2,
19 fN THE VALIDITY OF THE RATES 2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON DISTRICT
ADOPTED BY THE UNITED WATER GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 2013-
20 CONSERVATION DISTRICT ON JUNE 13, 2014 WATER YEAR I
2012 TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY I, 20 12; and I
21 DOES 1-10, i
22 Defendants and Respondents.

23 PLEASANT VALLEY COUNTY WATER
DISTRlCT; CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
24 FEDERATION; and FARM BUREAU OF
VENTURA COUNTY,
25
Intervenors and Interested Parties.
26
27
28
9230)8,1
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR JUNE 12,2013 AND OCTOBER 2, 2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON DISTRICT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 2013-2014 WATER YEAR
EXHIBITS
2 xhibit No: Document: (All documents stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
3 1. Water Conservation District Law of 1931 (Division 21 of California Water
Code, Section 74000 !e! ~.)
4
5 2. Resume of Steven B. Bachman, Ph.D- Groundwater Policy Manager
6 3. Resume of Tony Morgan- Groundwater Department Manager
7 4. 'Resume of Dr. John F. Mann, Jr.

8
5. A Plan for Groundwater Management, United Water Conservation District (John
9 F. Mann, Jr. & Associates, September 1959)
10 6. Supplement to A Plan for Groundwater Management, (John F. Mann, Jr., 1968)

11
7. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Planning Study, Task, 84-5
12 Ventura County Public Works Agency, January 1984)
8. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Planning Study, Task, 84-6
13 Ventura County Public Works Agency, January 1984)
14 2007 Update to the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
9.
15 Groundwater Management Plan, May 2007
16 10. Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Water and Environmental

Resources Division, Ground Water Section, 2011 Annual Report
. 17
18 II. c..alifomia Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit Report on
Ventura County Population And Housing Estimates, January I, 2013, showing a
19 otal population for Ventura County of 835,436 people
20 12. A copy of the press release from The Pleasant Valley County Water District dated
uly 25, 1989 re UWCD Groundwater charge
21
22 13. Settlement Agreement and Release between United Water Conservation District
and Pleasant Valley County Water District, executed on January 24, 1995
23
14. Policy of United Water Conservation District Adopted at the December 12, 1950
24
Meeting of the Board of Directors of the District
25
15. Hydrogeologic Investigation ofthe Mound Ground Water Basin (Draft)
26 Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. dated September 26, 1972
27 Mukae, Mike & Turner, John, Ventura County Water Resources Management
16.
28 ~tudy-Geologic Formations, Structures and History in the Santa Clara Cal/eguas
MUSICK. PEELER 9230lS.I I
& GARRETT LLP
AlTORNMATI.AW
I II !Exhibit No: Document: (All documents stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
2 Area (January 1975)
3 Compilation ofTechnicallnfonnation Records for the Ventura County Cooperative
17.
4 nvestigation, Volume I, July 1975
5 18. Surface-Water Releases for Ground-Water Recharge, Santa Clara River, Ventura
County, California (J.N. Densmore, O.K. Middleton and J.A. lzbicki, June 1991)
6
7 19. Chloride Sources in a California Coastal Aquifer (John A. lzbicki, July 1991)
8 20. Hydrogen 3 and Carbon 14 as Tracers ofGround-Water Recharge (John A.

zbicki, Robert L. Michel and Peter Martin, August 1992)
9
21. Water Resource Evaluation (Final Draft), Santa Paula Basin, Santa Paula,
10
California (Law/Crandall, Inc., January 1993)
II
22. Calendar Year 1995 Annual Report, Mound Groundwater Basin, Ventura County,
12 ~a!ifornia (Fugro West, Inc., May 14, 1996)
13 Calendar Year 1996 Annual Report, Mound Groundwater Basin, Ventura County,
23.
14 California (Fugro West, Inc., June 1997)
15 24. Ground Water Basins in California: California Department ofWater Resources

~ulletin, California Department of Water Resources (118-80, 1980)
16
17 25. California's Groundwater: Bulletin 118 Update 2003 (Department of Water
~esources, State of California)
18
26. nvestigation ofSanta Paula Basin Yield (Santa Paula Basin Experts Group, July
19 ~003)
20
27. ~anson, R.T., Martin, Peter and Koczot, K.N., Simulation ofGroundwater/Surface
21 Water Flow in the Santa Clara Cal/eguas Groundwater Basin, Ventura County,
California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 02-4136
22 (2003)
23
28. ~opkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc., Saticoy County Yard Well Test Program,
24 Ventura, California. Preliminary Hydrogeological Study Prepared for the City of
Ventura (September 201 0)
25
29~ 'Monitoring ofSeawater Intrusion, Oxnard Plain Winter 199./-95 (United Water
26 Conservation District staff, Steven B. Bachman, Ph.D. and Greg Middleton, May
27 1995)
28
MUSICK, PEELER 923038.1 2
& GARRETT l.L.P
/lrTOJIN£\'li'ATl.\W'
Exhibit No: Document: (All documents stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
2 30. Conjunctive Use Alternati1•es for Overdraft Reduction in the Oxnard Plain and
Pleasant Valley/ Results ofNovember 1998 Groundwater Modeling (Steven
3 Baclunan Ph.D. and Ken Turner, United Water Conservation District}
4
31. Nitrate Observations in the Oxnard Forebayand Vicinity, 1995-2006 (Daniel
5 petmer, United Water Conservation District2008)
6 32. California Groundwater Managemenl Groundwater Resources Association of

California (S. Baclnnan, C. Hauge, R. McGlothlin, K. Neese, T. Parker, A.
7
Saracino, and S. Slater, 2"d Ed., 2005)
8
33. Update of Basin Plan/or Piru, Sespe, and Santa Paula Hydrologic Areas: Final
9 P~oject Report (California Department of Water Resources June 1989)
10 norganic, Isotopic, and Organic Composition ofHigh-Chloride Water From Wells
34.
11 in a Coastal Southern California, Applied Geochemistry (J.A. lzbicki, Allen H.
Christensen, Mark W. Newhouse, Smith, and George R. Aiken, V. 20, no. 8, 1496-
12 1517, p. 2005a)
13 Temporal Changes in the Vertical Distribution ofFlow and Chloride in Deep Wells I
35.
14 Ground Water: Journal of the Scientists and Engineers Division ofNational
Ground Water Association (J.A. lzbicki, Allen H. Christensen, Mark W.
15 Newhouse, Gregory A. Smith, and Randall T. Hanson, V. 43, no. 4, 531-544 p.
2005b}
16
36. !S'eawater intrusion in a Coastal California Aquifer, U.S. Geological Survey, (J .A.
17
zbicki, Fact Sheet 125-96,4, p. 1996a)
18
37. ~ource Movement and Age ofGroundwater in a Coastal California Aqu!for, U.S.
19 Geological Survey (J.A. Izbicki, Fact Sheet 126-96,4 p. 1996b)
20 Water-Quality Data for the Santa Clara-Calleguas Hydrologic Unit, Ventura
38.
21 County, California, October 1989 through December 1993: U.S. Geological Survey
ppen-File Report 95-315, p. 125 (J .A. Izbicki, Peter Martin, J.N. Densmore, D.A.
22 Clark, 1995)
23 39. ~ources ofChloride in Ground Water ofthe Oxnard Plain, California in Prince
24 !K.R. and Johnson, A. I., eds., Regional Aquifer Systems ofthe United States-
~quifers ofthe West: American Water Resources Association Monograph Series,
25 po. 16, pp. 5-14, J.A. Izbicki, 1992)
26 40. !Frequently Asked Questions About Ventura County Farming, Fann Bureau of I
~entura County Website, June 2012
27
28
MUSICK. PEELER 923038 I 3
&GARRETTI...LP
ATtORNEYSATV.W
!Exhibit No: Document: (All documents stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
2 41. Mugu Seawater/Saline Monitoring Program, Report to California Department of
Water Resources, United Water Conservation District (April2007)
3
4 42. Chloride in the Pi111 Basin, United Water Conservation District (Steven Bachman
and Daniel Detmer, Apri12006)
5
43. Coastal Saline Intrusion Report, United Water Conservation District, (Oxnard
6 Plain Ventura County, California, August 2004)
7
44. nland Saline Intrusion Assessment Project Report submitted to the California
8 Department of Water Resources, United Water Conservation District and City of
Oxnard (June 2003)
9
45. Oxnard Plain Time Domain Electromagnetic Study for Saline Intrusion, United
10
Water Conservation District Open-File Report 2010-003, United Water
II Conservation District (2010)
12 46. High Resolution Seismic Reflection Survey ofthe Oxnard Plain Basin, United
Water Conservation District Open-File Report 2011-004, United Water
13 Conservation District (2011)
14
47. Draft 2011 Piru/Fillmore Basins AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan,
15 Piru/Fillmore Groundwater Management Council (20 II)
16 48. Saticoy Recharge Mound Study (United Water Conservation District, Open File
Report 2010-001, dated March 2010)
17
18 49. Santa Paula Creek Recharge Study (AECOM, September 2010)
19 50. Groundwater and Surfoce Water Conditions Report- 2011 (United Water
Conservation District, OFR 2012-02, May 20 12)
20
21 51. History ofthe Zone C Seltlement Agreement and Discussion ofGroundwater
'Fievation Records In and Around this Zone (United Water Conservation District,
22 becember 201 0) and transmittal email delivering document from Tony Morgan to
City of Ventura
23
24 52. Hydrogeological Assessment ofthe Mound Basin (United Water Conservation
pistrict, OFR 2012-01, May 2012)
25
53. Final Report, 2011 Water Rate Study, United Water Conservation District (adopted
26 by the Board of Directors May 18, 2011)
27
54. fllay 31, 2012 Update Memorandum to 2011 Rate Study, United Water
28 f'onservation District, (approved by Board of Directors June II, 20 12)
MUSICK, rEELER 923038.1 4
& GARRETT UJl'
ADMINISTRA TIYE RECORD INDEX FOR JUNE 12,2013 AND OCTOBER 2, 2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS
ATrOHNE)'SATLAW
ON DISTRICf GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 2013-2014 WATER YEAR
Exhibit No: !Document: (All documents stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
2 55. IPiru and Fillmore Basins Groundwater Conditions Report, Water Year 2000
United Water Conservation District Groundwater Resources Department, Steven
3 !B. Bachman, Ph.D. and Peter Dal Pozzo, August 2001)
4
56. !Pint and Fillmore Basins Groundwater Conditions Report, Water Year 2003
5 klJnited Water Conservation District Groundwater Resources Department, Steven
Bachman, Ph.D. and Peter Da1 Pozzo, December 2004)
6
57. 12007 Piru and Fillmore Basins Annual Groundwater Conditions Report (United
7
Water Conservation District Groundwater Resources Department, Steven
8 ~achman, Ph.D. and Peter Dal Pozzo, March 2009)
9 58. Draft) 2008 Piru and Fillmore Basins Annual Groundwater Conditions Report
(United Water Conservation District Groundwater Resources Department, Steven
10 l3achman, Ph.D. and Peter Dal Pozzo, August 2009)
11
59. ~009 Piru and Fillmore Basins Annual Groundwater Conditions Report (United
12 ~ater Conservation District GroWldwater Resources Department,Steven
l3achman, Ph.D. and Peter Dal Pozzo, September 2010)
13
14 60. Santa Paula Basin 1996 Annual Report (United Water Conservation District,
. Groundwater Resources Department, October 1997)
15
61. Santa Paula Basin 2000 Annual Report (United Water Conservation District
16 Groundwater Resources Department, August 2001)
17
62. ~an/a Paula Basin 2003 Annual Report (United Water Conservation District
18 Groundwater Resources Department, November 2004)
19 63. Santa Paula Basin 2005 Annual Report (United Water Conservation District
GroWldwater Resources Department, November 2006)
20
21 64. Santa Paula Basin 2007 Annual Report (United Water Conservation District
GroWldwater Resources Department, September 2008)
22
65. Santa Paula Basin 2008 Annual Report (United Water Conservation District
23 Groundwater Resources Department, August 2009)
24
66. Combined 2009 and 2010 Santa Paula Basin Annual Report (United Water
25 Conservation District Professional Paper 2011-001, Santa Paula Basin Technical
Advisory Committee, October 20 II)
26
27 67. Santa Paula Basin Pumping Trends Effects and Assessment (United Water
Conservation District OFR 201 0-003)
28
MUSICK. PEELER 923038.1 5
& GARRETt' LLP
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX fOR JUNE 12,2013 AND OCTOBER 2, 2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS
ATtORNE'I'SATIAW
ON DISTRICT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 20t3-2014 WATER YEAR
2 68. Annual Investigation and Report on Groundwater Conditions Within The United
Water Conservation District, 1985-1986 Water Year (United Water Conservation
3 ~istrict, revised March 28, 1986)
4
69. ~nnual Investigation and Report on Groundwater Conditions Within The United
5 Water Conservation District, 1986-1987 Wafer Year (United Water Conservation
District, revised June 3, 1987)
6
70. ~nnual Investigation and Reporf On Groundwater Conditions Within The United
7
Water Conservation District, 1987-1988 Wafer Year (United Water Conservation
8 pistrict, March 8, 1988)
9 71. ~nnuallnvestigation and Report on Groundwater Conditions Within The United

Water Conservation District, 1988-1989 Wafer Year (United Water Conservation
10 District, revised June 8, 1989)
II
72. ~nnual Investigation and Report on Groundwater Conditions Within The United
12 Water Conservation District, 1989-1990 Water Year (United Water .Conservation
~istrict, March II, 1990)
13
73. ~nnual Investigationand Report on Groundwater Conditions within The United
14
Water Conservation District, a Summmy ofFindings for the Previous Water Year
15 (1989-I990), Current Water Year (I990-J991), and Ensuing Water Year (1991-
1992) (United Water Conservation District, March 13, 1991)
16
74. ~nnua/ investigation and Report on Groundwater Conditions within The United
17
Water Conservation District. a Summary ofFindingsfor the Previous Water Year
18 (I990-1991), Current Water Year (1991-1992), and Ensuing Water Year (1992-
1993) (United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 10,
19 1992)
20 ~nnua/ Investigation and Report on Groundwater Conditions within The United
75.
Water Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Wafer Year
I
21 h
(1991-1992), Current Water Year (1992-1993), and Ensuing Water Year (1993-
22 1994) (United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 9,
1993)
I
23
24 76. Annual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
Conservation Dis/riel, A SummaryofFindingsfor /he Previous Water Year (1992-
25 1993), Current Water Year (1993-I994), and Ensuing Water Year (1994-1995)
(United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, February 24, 1994)
26
77. ~nnual Investigation and Report of Groundwater Conditions withinUnited Wafer
27
Conservation District, a Summmy ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (1993-
28 I994), Current Water Year (1994-1995), and Ensuing Water Year (1995-1996)
& GARRETI' LLJI
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR JUNE 12, 2013 AND OCTOBER 2, 2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS
ATTORNE\'SATL\\V
2 (United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, June 1, 1995)
3 Annual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
78.
4 Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for The Previous Water Year (I 994-
95). Current Water Year (1995-96), and Ensuing Water Year (1996-97}, (United
5 Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March I I, 1996)
6 79. Annual Investigation and Report ofGrazmdwater Conditions within United Water
Conservation District, a SummaryofFindingsfor the Previous Water Year (1995-
7
96), Current Water Year (1996-97), and Ensuing Water Year (1997-98), (United
8 Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, February 28, 1997)
9 80. Annual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (I 996-
10 97), Current Water Year (1997-98), and Ensuing Water Year (1998-99), (United
II Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, February 5, 1998)
12 81. ~nnual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (1997-
13 ~8), Current Water Year (1998-99), and Ensuing Water Year (1999-2000), (United
14 ~ater Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 1999)
Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (I 998-
16 1999), Current Water Year (1999-2000), and Ensuing Water Year (2000-2001),
(United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 2, 2000)
17
18 83. ~nnuallnvestigation and Report a/Groundwater Conditions within United Water
!conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (I 999-
19 ~000), Current Water Year (2000-2001), and Ensuing Water Year (2001-2002), I
United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 7, 2001)
20
I
21 84. ~nnual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Condillons within United Water
22 ~001), Current Water Year (2001-2002), and Ensuing Water Year (2002-2003),
~nited Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 4, 2002)
23
'f::onservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (2001-
25 ~002), Current Water Year (2002-2003), and Ensuing Water Year (2003-2004),
~nited Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March I, 2003)
26
86. ~nnual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
27
'r;onservationDistrict, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (2002-
28 ?003), Current Water Year (2003-2004), and Ensuin!{ Water Year (2004-2005),
MUSICK, PEELER 923038.1
&. GARRETT LLP 7
ATfOIINI'.\'3ATJ..\W
2 United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 5, 2004)
3 i;lnnuallnvestigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions wilhin United Water
87.
4 Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (2003-
~004), Current Water Year (2004-2005), and Ensuing Water Year (2005-2006).
5 (united Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 6, 2005)
6 88. i;lnnual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
Conservation District, a summary of Findings for the Previous Water Year (2004-
7
12005), Current Water Year (2005-2006) and Ensuing Water Year (2006-2007),
8 United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 1, 2006)
9 89. 'Annual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
10 '006). Current Water Year (2006-2007) and Ensuing Water Year (2007-2008),
II (United Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 6, 2007)
12 90. 'Annual Investigation and Report ofGrozmdwater Conditions within United Water
Conservation Dislrict, a Summary of Findings for the Previous Water Year (2006-
13 7007), Current Wafer Year (2007-2008) and Ensuing Water Year (2008-2009),
14 (united Water Conservation District GroWJdwater Department, March 5, 2008)
15 91. 'Annual Investigation and Report ofGroundwaler Conditions within Uniled Wafer
Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Wafer Year (2007-
16 17008), Current Water Year (2008-2009) and Ensuing Wafer Year (2009-20IO),
United Water Conservation District GroWJdwater Department, March 2, 2009)
17
18 92. 'Annual Invesligation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
19 ~009). Current Water Year (2009-2010) and Ensuing Wafer Year (2010-2011).
United Water Conservation District GroWJdwater Department, March 20 I 0)
20
~nnuallnvestigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions within United Water
I
21 93. I
Conservation Districl, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (2009- I
22 bolO), Current Water Year (2010-2011) and Ensuing Water Year (20/1-2012).
(United Water Conservation District GroWJdwater Department, March 20 II)
23
94. ~nnual Investigation and Report ofGrozmdwaler Conditions within United Water
24
Conservation District. a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water Year (20 10-
25 ~011), Current Water Year (2011-20I 2) and Ensuing Water Year (2012-2013),
!{united Water Conservation District Groundwater Department, March 13, 20 12)
26
95. City of Ventura 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, and June 2, 2011 letter from
27
!united Water Conservation District with comments to Plan
28
MUSICK, PEELER 923038.1 R
& GARRBTI' lJ.P
ATIOI\Nm'SATLA\f
I Exhibit No: !Document: (All docuincnls stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
2 96. ~emi-Annual Groundwater Production Statements from the City of Ventura (July
I, 2010 through December 31, 2012}
3
4 97. United Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2011-08, Authorizing a Rate
ncrease to the District's General Fund Groundwater Extraction/Replenishment
5 Charges, adopted June 8, 20 II
6 98. ).Jnited Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2011-09, Approving Overhead
f41!ocation Rates for Fiscal Year 2011-12, adopted June 8, 20 II
7
8 99. United Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2011-10, Adopting the
Proposed Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget and Authorizing Expenditures Pursuant
9 thereto and Authorizing Fiscal Year 20 I 0-2011 Appropriation Carryovers
(Encumbrances) and Approval of Financial Policies and Authorizing the
10 Preparation of the Final Budget, adopted June 8, 2011
11
100. United Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2011-11, Making Findings and
12 Determinations from the Evidence Submitted at the Annual Hearing on the
Groundwater Conditions of United Water Conservation District, adopted June 8,
13 2011
14
101. United Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2011-12, Making Additional
15 Findings and Determinations from the Evidence Submitted at the Annual Hearings
on the Groundwater Conditions of United Water Conservation District,
16 Determining and Establishing Groundwater Extraction Charge Zones and Levying,
f4ssessing and Fixing Groundwater Extraction Charges Against All Persons
17
Operating Groundwater Producing Facilities within Such Zones, adopted June 8,
18 ~011
19 102. n the Matter of United Water Conservation District Public Hearing For
Groundwater Conditions, Transcript of Proceedings, June 8, 2011 plus Exhibit A
20 ~ereto
21
103. ~pril26, 2012 Notice of Public Hearing [Subject: Proposed Increase to the
22 pistrict's Zone A Water Conservation Fund Groundwater Extraction Charge]
23 Notices of Public Hearing- Board of Directors of United Water Conservation
104.
24 Pistrict beginning April II, 2012, continued until May 16, 2012, and again to June
13,2012 (Chapter 3 of Part 9 of Division 21 of the Water Code, Section 75560 ~
25 ~-)[Certificates of Publication- March 27, 2012; May 4, 2012; May 25, 2012]
26 105. May 31, 2012 United Water Conservation District Special Board Meeting
Newspaper Notice
27
28
MUSICK_ PEELER 923038.1
& CARRE'lT LLP 9
I
I
Exhibit No: Document: (All documents stamped "AR3'' before exhibit number) I
I
2 106. [May I, 2012) United Water Conservation District Proposed Annual Budget Fiscal
Year 201212013, for adoption on June 13,2012
3
4 107. ~alifomia Legislature-Legislative History Materials Relating To Water Code
Section 75594, including Chapter 1414, Statutes of I 963 (SB 864); Chapter 75,
5 Statutes of 1965 (AB 667); and Chapter 718, Statutes of 1984 (AB 3239)
6 108. California Legislature-Legislative History Materials Relating To Water Code

Section 75596, including Chapter 133, Statutes of 1979 (AB I 08)
7
8 109. California Water Code Section 106
9 110. A Map of the boundaries of United Water Conservation District and groundwater
basins within the District [Figure 1-I of Groundwater and Swface Water
10 Conditions Report " 20 II) I
I
I1
III. Map - UWCD Groundwater Finance Zones (UWCD Proposed Annual Budget
12 Fiscal Year 20 I212013, p. I07)
13 Map - UWCD Boundaries and Facilities (UWCD Proposed Annual Budget Fiscal \'
112.
14 Year201212013, p. 101)
I
15 113. Map- UWCD Basins- Generalized Conceptual Groundwater Flow Paths [Figure
16
J-3, Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Mound Basin) OFR 2012-01, May 2012, p. I
42)
17
114. Ad Valorem I Property Tax Parcels Map- District-wide (June 5, 2013)
18
115. Ad Valorem I Property Tax Parcels Map-City of Ventura (June 4, 2013)
19
116. Staff Report, Item 7.2, Public Hearing- Opening of Annual Groundwater Hearing
20
o Accept Public Comment on Groundwater Conditions within the District, United
21 Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, April! I, 2012
22 117. Slide Presentation, Item 7.2, Public Hearing- Opening of Annual Groundwater
Hearing to Accept Public Comment on Groundwater Conditions within the District,
23 United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, April 11, 2012
24
118. AECOM, City ofSan Buenaventura, GroundwaTer TreaTmenT Study (March 7,
25 201 I)
26 119. Staff Report, Item 2.4, Consideration ofFY 2012-13 Proposed Water Conservation
27 Fund Groundwater Extraction Charge and Related Items, United Water
Conservation District Special Board Meeting, April IS, 2012
28
MUSICK, PEELER 9230381 10
& GARRET!' LLP
ATtORNJ::VSATJ.AW
ON mSTRICT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 2013-2014 WATER YEAR
2 120. Slide Presentation, Item 2.4, Consideration ofFY 2012-13 Proposed Water
Conservation Fund Groundwater Extraction Charge and Related Items, United
3 Water Conservation District Special Board Meeting, April 18, 2012
4
12 I. ~ydroMetrics Water Resources, Inc., Technical Memorandum, Lower San/a Clara
5 ~iver Sail & Nu!rienl Plan, Drqft Assimilalive Capacily for TAG Review (April 10,
~014).
6
122. Staff Report, Item 2.7, Resolution No. 2012-04, Setting Forth Procedures for
7
f'\scertaining Whether a "Majority Protest" Exists Concerning the Proposed
8 mposition of a New Groundwater Charge or Increase in a Current Groundwater
~barge, United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, May 16, 2012
9
123. United Water Conservation District, Uniled Wafer Conservalion Dis/riel Oxnard-
10 lftueneme Wafer Delivery System, 2013 Consumer Confidence Report (Apr. 2014).
11 tJ'his report is available on-line at UWCD's website at:
[http://unitedwater.org/images/storieslreport/Water-
12 Quality/20 13%20Consumer%20Confidence%20Report.pdf.
13 124. ~esolution No. 2012-04, adopted by United Water Conservation District Board of
14 pirectors, May 16, 2012
15 125. Staff Report, Item 5.3, Proposed FY 2012-13 Budget, United Water Conservation
pistrict Regular Board Meeting, May 16, 2012
16
126. Slide Presentation, Item 5.3, Review of Proposed FY 2012-13 Budget and Budget
17
!Preparation Process, United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting,
18 1vtay 16,2012
19 127. rrranscript of Remarks, Item 5.3, Review of Proposed FY 20 !2-13 Budget and
!Budget Preparation Process, United Water Conservation District Regular Board
20 Meeting, May 16,2012
21
128. !Board Letter (dated May 14, 20!2), Item 5.3, Proposed FY 2012-13 Budget
22 ["UWCD Budget Process"], United Water Conservation District Regular Board
Meeting, May 16, 2012
23
24 129. Summary Details Notebook, Item 5.3, Review of Proposed FY 20!2-13 Budget
""d Budget Preparation Process, United Water Conservation District, Regular
25 !Board Meeting, May 16, 2012
26 130. ~taffReport,Item 7.3- Mound Basin Hydrogeological Assessment Report-

~nited Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, May 16, 2012
27
28
MUSICK. PEELER 923038.1 II
& GARRETI LLP
ATIOIINEYi.\TU.\1"
2 131. Staff Report, Item 7.4- Surface Water and Groundwater Conditions 2011 Annual
Report- United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, May 16,
3 2012
4
132. Staff Report, Item 7.5, Public Hearing- Continuation of Annual Groundwater
5 Hearing to Accept Public Comment on Groundwater Conditions within the District,
I United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, May 16, 2012
6
133. Ventura Warer, 2013 Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report, Featuring
7
Ca/endllr Year 2012 Water Quality Results (20 13). This report is available on-line
8 from Ventura Water's website at: http:/!cityofventura.net/files/file/public-
works/water/13040 l FinalWaterQualityReport2013.pdf.
9
134. Slide Presentation, Item 1.2, Mound Basin Hydrogeological Assessment Report,
10 United Water Conservation District Special Board Meeting, May 31, 2012
II
135. [RESERVED]
12
136. Slide Presentation, Item 1.3, Surface & Groundwater Annual Conditions Report,
13 United Water Conservation District Special Board Meeting, May 31, 2012
14
137. [RESERVED]
15
138. Slide Presentation, Item 1.4, Endangered Species Act Requirements and Water
16 ~esources Savings for Groundwater Recharge Purposes, United Water
Conservation District Special Board Meeting, May 31, 2012
17
18 139. [RESERVED]
19 140. Slide Presentation, Item 1.6, Budget Workshop, United Water Conservation
District Special Board Meeting, May 31, 2012
20
21 141. Staff Report, Item 5.3, Resolution No. 2012-07, Authorizing A Rate Increase In
f.one A Water Conservation Fund Groundwater Extraction Charge Rate, United
22 Water Conservation District, Regular Board Meeting, June 13,2012
23 United Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2012-07, Authorizing a Rate
142.
24 ncrease to the District's Zone A Conservation Fund Groundwater Extraction
pharge, June 13,2012
25
143. Staff Report, Item 5.4, Resolution No. 2012-08, Adoption ofFY 2012-13 Overhead
26 Allocation Rates, United Water Conservation District, Regular Board Meeting,
27 une 13, 2012
28
MUSICK, PEELER 9230381
&. GARRETT LLP
12
lllTORNEYSATLAW
2 144. United Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2012-08, Approving Overhead
Allocation Rates for Fiscal Year 2012-1 3
3
4 145. Staff Report, Item 5.5, Resolution No. 2012-09, Adoption of FY 2012-13 District
Budget, AuthorizationofFY 2011-12 Appropriation Carryovers/Approval of
5 District Financial Policies, United Water Conservation District Regular Board
!Meeting, June 13, 2012
6
146. ltJnited Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2012-09, Adopting the
7
!Proposed Fiscal Year2012-13 Budget and Authorizing Expenditures Pursuant
8 ~ereto and Authorizing Fiscal Year 2011-12 Appropriation Carryovers
~Encumbrances) and Approval of Financial Policies and Authorizing the
9 !Preparation of the Final Budget, June 13,2012
10 Staff Report, Item 7.3, Conclusion of Annual Groundwater Hearing and Setting of
147.
II IFY 2012-!3 Zones and Extraction Charges, United Water Conservation District,
~egular Board Meeting, June 13,2012
12
148. ltJnited Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2012-10, Making Findings and
13 !Determinations from the Evidence Submitted at the Annual Hearing on the
14 Groundwater Conditions of United Water Conservation District, June 13, 2012
15 149. ltJnited Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2012-11, Making Additional
!Findings and Determinations from the Evidence Submitted at the Annual Hearings
16 pn the Groundwater Conditions of United Water Conservation District,
petermining and Establishing Groundwater Extraction Charge Zones and Levying,
17 [Assessing and Fixing Groundwater Extraction Charges Against All Persons
18 Operating Groundwater Producing Facilities within Such Zones, June 13, 2012
19 150. ltJnited Water Conservation District, Environmental Planning and Conservation

!Department Board meeting "Monthly Environmental Issues" Staff Reports, July
20 ~011-May2012
21
151. ltJnited Water Conservation District Board Meeting Agendas and Minutes, April-
22 ilvfay 2012 [April II, 2012; April 18, 2012; May 16, 2012; May 31, 2012]
23 152. ~xhibit A tothe June 13, 2012 Testimony of Tony Morgan at United Water
24 Conservation District's Public Hearing for Groundwater Conditions 2012- I 3 Water
Year
25
153. Letter from Farm Bureau of Ventura County dated May 27, 20 II
26
!54. Letter from California Farm Bureau Federation dated June 3, 2011
27
28
MUSlCK, PEELER 923038.1 13
& GARRETT U.P
A1't011tm\'5ATUr.W
ON DISTRICT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 2013-20t4 WATER YEAR
2 155. udgment, United Water Conservation District v. City ofSan Buenaventura,
Ventura County Superior Court Case No. CV 115611, March 1996
3
4 156. Order Amending and Restating Judgment, United Water Conservation District v.
CityofSan Buenaventura, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. CV 115611,
5 August 24, 2010
6 157. Stipulation for Judgment, City ofSan Buenavenlllra v. United Water Conservation
District, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. CV 80771, December 16, 1988
7
8 158. City of San Buenaventura's Petition for Writ of Mandate; City ofSan
Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, etc., eta/., Santa Barbara
9 County Superior Court Case No. 56-2011-0040 1714-CU-WM-VTA
10 United Water Conservation District's Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate; City
159.
11 ifSan Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, etc., et al., Santa
Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 56-2011-00401714-CU-WM-VTA
12
160. [United Water Conservation District Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief; City
13 rfSan Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, etc., et at., Santa
14 !Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 56-2011-0040171 4-CU-WM-VTA
15 161. tyext of Ventura County SOAR Initiative

16 162. Copy of newspaper article dated August 13, 2011 from the Ventura County Star
~ntitled
"Krist: Water-rate suit is an anack on agriculture."
17
18 163. [Resume of John M. Dickenson, P.E., P.G.
19 164. [United Water Conservation District's response to the City of San Buenaventura's
etter submissions dated June 12, 2012
20
21 165. pty of San Buenaventura letter submissions (protest) dated June 12,2012
22 166. !Fax from City of Ventura dated June 13, 2012

23 une 6, 2012 email correspondence from Richard Sweet
167.
24
168. ~nited Water Conservation District, Adopted Annual Budget Fiscal Year
25 ~011/2012
26 ~opkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc. (April, 2009), City ofSan Buenaventura

169.
27 'ftound Well No. 2 Siting Study, Ventura, California, Prepared for the City of San
~uenaventura
28
& GARRETI' LLP
.\TrUIImV5ATLAW
2 170. Las Posas Users Group (September, 2011 ), Preliminary Draft Las Posas Basin-
Specific Groundwaler Managemenl Plan
3
4 171. Staff Report, Agenda Item: 3.C- Groundwater Basin Status Reports, Informational
tern-United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, May 16,2012
5
172. California Department of Water Resources {September, 1975), California's
6 Ground Water, Bulletin 118-75
7
173. Densmore, J.N. (1996), Lithologic and Groundwater Data for Monitoring Wells in
8 he Santa Clara-Ca/leguas Groundwater Basin, Ventura County, California, 1989-
95: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-120
9
174. Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc. (November, 2008), Preliminary
10 Hydrological Study, Northeast Pleasant Valley Basin Surface Water and
11 Groundwater Study, Somis, California, prepared for the Calleguas Municipal Wate
~istrict
12
175. ~une 13, 2012 Transcript of Proceedings of the United Water Conservation District
13 !Hearing for Groundwater Conditions
14
176. ~011 Water Rate Study, Final Draft, dated Febmary 2, 2011
15
177. Surface and Groundwater Conditions Report, Water Year 1998, prepared by Steven
16 Bachman, Ph.D. and Daniel Detmer, M.S., United Water Conservation District,
uly 1999
17
18 178. Surface and Groundwater Conditions Report, Water Year 2000, prepared by Steven
!Bachman, Ph.D., and Daniel Detmer, M.S., United Water Conservation District,
19 September2001
20
179. !Various Pleadings filed in City ofSan Buenaventura v. United Water
21 Conservation District etc., et a/, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No.
~6-2011-00401714, and Related Case No. 1414739 (Ventura County Superior
22 Court Case No. 56-2012-00422218-CU-WM-VTA)
23 A. United Water Conservation District Opening Phase I Trial Brief
24 B. United Water Conservation District Phase I Trial Reply Brief
C. United Water Conservation District Phase 2 Trial Brief
25 D. Pleasant Valley County Water District Phase I Trial Brief
E. Pleasant Valley County Water District Phase 2 Opposition Trial Brief
26 F. Farm Bureau's Phase I Trial Brief
G. Farm Bureau's Phase 2 Opposition Brief
27
H. City of San Buenaventura Opening Brief on Phase I Trial
28 I. City of San Buenaventura Reply_ Brief on Phase I Trial
MU51CK, PRELER 9230381 15
& GARRE'IT LLP
ATt'O!lNEY.SI\lU.W
2 J. City of San Buenaventura Phase 2 Opening Trial Brief
K. City of San Buenaventura Phase 2 Reply Brief
3 L. City of San Buenaventura's 2012 Complaint and Petition for I)
4 Determination oflnvalidity; 2) Declaratory Relief; 3) Writ of
Mandate; and 4) Administrative Mandate; and
5 M. UWCD's Answer to City's Petition for Writ of Mandate, etc. (2012).
6 180. April30, 2013 Santa Barbara Superior Court Notice of Ruling/Ruling on Phase 2
Trlal in City ofSan Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District etc., et
7
a/, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 56·2011-00401714, and Related Case
8 No; 1414739 (Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56-2012-00422218-CU-
WM-VTA)
9
181. City of San Buenaventura Ordinance No. 95-53, Save Our Agricultural
10 Resources (SOAR) Ordinance
II
182. Percolation ofSanta Clara River Flow Within The Santa Paula Basin (United
12 Water Conservation District, Open-File Report 2013-0 I, February 20 13)
13 183. Santa Paula Creek Percolation: An Update (United Water Conservation District,
14 Open-File Report No. 2013-02, February 2013)
15 184. Santa Paula Basin Groundwater Elevation Trend Assessment (United Water
Conservation District, Open-File Report No. 2013-03, February 2013)
16
185. Farm Bureau of Ventura County, May 2013 Newsletter, Notes From The CEO
17
18 186. Draft 2013 Comprehensive Water Resources Report, prepared for the City of
Ventura by RBF Consulting, together with March 4, 2013 Administrative Report
19 o City Council, Council Agenda and Council Minutes
20
187. [RESERVED]
21
188. United Water Conservation District, Adopted Annual Budget Fiscal Year
22 ~012/2013
23 ~nited Water Conservation District, Proposed Annual Budget Fiscal Year
189.
24 ~013/2014
25 190. f'Jnnual Investigation and Report ofGroundwater Conditions Within United

Water Conservation District, a Summary ofFindings for the Previous Water
26 Year (2011-2012). Current Water Year (2012-2013), and Ensuing Water Year
27 2013-2014)
28
MUSICK, PEELER 923038 I ln
&. GARRETT LLP
Al'JORN'E\'SATUW
2 191. Staff Report, Item 7.5, Public Hearing-Opening of Annual Groundwater
Hearing to Accept Public Comments on Groundwater Conditions Within the
3 District, United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, April I 0,
4
2013
5 192. Slide Presentation, Item 7.5, Summary of Groundwater Conditions, United

Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, April10, 2013
6 I
Staff Report, Item 7.4, Public Hearing-Continuation of Annual Groundwater
I
7 193.
·Hearing to Accept Comment on Groundwater Conditions Within the District,
8 United Water Conservation District Regular Board Meeting, May 15, 2013 I
9 194. United Water Conservation District, Groundwater Basin Monthly Status Reports
presented at Regular Meetings of the UWCD Board of Directors, June 20 12-June
10 2013
II
195. United Water Conservation District, Environmental Planning and Conservation
12 Department "Monthly Environmental Issues" Staff Reports presented at Regular
Meetings of the UWCD Board of Directors, June 2012-June 2013
13
14 196. United Water Conservation District Board Meeting Agendas for April I0, 2013,
May 15, 2013, June 4, 2013, adopted Minutes for April I 0, 2013 and un-adapted
15 Minutes for May 15,2013 and June 4, 2013
16 197. Staff Report, Item 2.8, Receive The Proposed FY 2013-14 Budget and Set
Budget Workshop Date, United Water Conservation District Regular Board
17
Meeting, May 15,2013 plus slide presentation
18
198. Slide Presentation, Item 1.2, FY 2013-14 Proposed Budget Workshop, United
19 Water Conservation District, Special Board Meeting, June 4, 2013
20 Audio Tape Transcript of Staff Presentation on Item 1.2, FY 2013-14 Proposed
199. i
21 Budget Workshop, United Water Conservation District, Special Board Meeting,
une 4, 2013
22
200. Summary Details Notebook ("Black Binder"), Item 1.2, FY 2013-14 Proposed
23 Budget Workshop, United Water Conservation District, Special Board Meeting,
24 une 4, 2013
25 201. Revisions to Proposed Budget, distributed to Board of Directors during Item 1.2,
FY 2013-14 Proposed Budget Workshop, United Water Conservation District,
26 Special Board Meeting, June 4, 2013
27
202. Notice(s) of Public Hearing-Board of Directors of United Water Conservation
28 District beginningApri110, 2013, continued until May 15,2013, and again to
MUSICK, PEBLER 923038.1
& GARRE'IT LLP 17
ATtORNJ>VSATf..''IF
ON DISTRICT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 2013·2014 WATER YEAR
E:xhibit No: Document: (All documents stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
2 ~uneI 2, 2013 (Chapter 3 of Part 9 of Division 21 of the Water Code, Section
75560 ~~[Certificates of Publication-March 25, 2013: April 26, 2013:
3 ~ay 23, 2013]
4
203. Staff Report, Item 5.3, Resolution No. 2013-04, Adoption ofFY 20!3-14
5 Overhead Allocation Rates, United Water Conservation District, Regular Board
~eeting, June 12, 2013
6
204. llfnited Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2013-04, A Resolution of the
7
~oard of Directors of United Water Conservation District Approving Overhead
8 Allocation Rates for Fiscal Year 2013, June 12,2013
9 205. Staff Report, Item 5.4, Resolution No. 2013-05, Adoption ofFY 2013-14
pistrict Budget, Authorization ofFY 2012-13 Appropriation
10 ~arryovers/Approval of District Financial Policies, United Water Conservation
II pistrict, Regular Board Meeting, June I 2, 20 I 3
12 206. llfnited Water Conservation District Resolution No. 2013-05, A Resolution of the
"'oard of Directors of United Water Conservation District Adopting the Proposed
13 fiscal Year 2013-2014 Budget and Authorizing Expenditures Pursuant thereto
14 and Authorizing Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Appropriation Carryovers
(Encumbrances) and Approval of Financial Policies and Authorizing the
15 Preparation of the Final Budget, June 12,2013
16 207. Staff Report, Item 7.3, Conclusion of Annual Groundwater Hearing, Acceptance
of Public Comment and Setting of2013-14 Zones and Extraction Charges,
17
~nited Water Conservation District, Regular Board Meeting, June 12, 2013
18
208. l)nited Water Conservation District, Resolution No. 2013-06, Making Findings
19 And Determinations From the Evidence Submitted at the Annual Hearings on the
Groundwater Conditions of United Water Conservation District, June 12,2013
20
21 209. United Water Conservation District, Resolution No. 2013-07, Making Additional
Findings And Determinations from the Evidence Submitted at the Annual
22 Hearings on the Groundwater Conditions of United Water Conservation District,
Determining And Establishing Groundwater Extraction Charge Zones and
23 Levying, Assessing and Fixing Groundwater Extraction Charges Against All
24 Persons Operating Groundwater Producing Facilities Within Such Zones, June
12,2013
25
210. Exhibit A to the June 12,2013 Testimony of Tony Morgan at United Water
26 Conservation District's Public Hearing for Groundwater Conditions 2013-14
Water Year
27
28
MUSICK. PEELER 92303801
& GARRElT LLP
18
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR JUNE 12,2013 AND OCTOBER 2,2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS
AlTUI\NE'OSATIAW
~xhibit No: Document: (All documents stamped "AR3" before exhibit number)
2 211. Resume of John W. Famkopf, P.E.
3 ~esume of Rodney T. Smith, Ph.D.
212.
4
213. ~ost of Service Analysis-John W. Farnkopf, P.E., Senior Vice President,
5 !HF&H Consultants LLC--June II, 2013
6 214. Slide Presentation by John Famkopf, during Item 7.3, United Water
Conservation District Board Meeting, June 12, 2013
7
8 215. ~tratecon Analysis of the Structure of United Water Conservation District's
!Water Conservation Extraction Charges--Rodney T. Smith, Ph.D., President,
9 Stratecon, Inc.--June II, 2013
10
216. Slide Presentation (Reasonable Ratio ofM&I To Ag Water Conservation
II l£xtraction Charges), by Rodney T. Smith, Ph.D., during Item 7.3, United Water
Conservation District Board Meeting, June 12, 20 13
12
217. !Technical Memorandum: Infiltration Potential of Precipitation Falling On
13 peveloped Lands And The Fate Of Applied Groundwater Within UWCD ,
14 !United Water Conservation District staff, June 2013
15 218. City of Ventura Groundwater Extractions, Extraction Charges (FY 2009-1 0,

~010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13)
16
17 219. !Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Water and Environmental
Resources Division, Ground Water Section, 2012 Annual Report
18
220. ~outhern California Associationsof Governments, land use mapping for Ventura
19 County (2008): GIS shape file dated November 9, 20 I0, and associated source
data files
20
221. Ventura County Agricultural Commissioner, land use mapping for agriculture in
21 Ventura County: CropsNow, GIS shape file dated May 8, 2013, and associated
!'Duree data files
22
222. Ventura County Watershed Protection District, mapping of drainage
23 a~easfsubwatersheds within Ventura County: Watersheds Ventura County, GIS
·hape file dated February 23, 2004, and associated source data files
24
223. Ventura County Watershed Protection District, rainfall records from the
25 District's website:
http:f/www. vcwatershed.net/hydrodatafphpfgetstations.php?dataset~rain day
26 (First referenced file) -
27 224. United States Department of Agriculture, 1970, SSURGO mapping of

hydrologic soil classifications, GIS shape file dated February 3, 2004, and
28 lssociated source data files
MUSICK,. PEELER 923038,1
& GARRE'JT LLP
19
AlTORNE\'Sir.Tl.\0'
I'
2 225. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture, Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook
3
226. Ventura County Watershed Protection District, 2010, Design Hydrology Manual
4
227. y~ntura County Watershed Protection District, rainfall records from the
5 District's website:
http://www. vcwatershed.net/hydrodata/php/getstations.php?dataset=rain_day
6 (Second referenced file)
7 228. A9ua Terra, 2009, Hydrologic Modeling of the Santa Clara River Watershed
with the U.S. EPA Hydrologic Simulation Program- Fortran (HSPF), Submitted
8 o Ventura County Watershed Protection District, July 24, 2009 Revised Final
Draft
9
229. <...alifomia Department of Water Resources, 1971, Seawater Intrusion: Aquitards
10 'n the Coastal Ground Water Basin of Oxnard Plain, Ventura County; CA DWR
!Bulletin 63-4, 567p.
11
230. ~MIS, 2013, www.cmis.water.ca.gov; Piru CMIS ETo data 1991-2005
12
231. rrigation Training and Research Center, 20 I 0, Evaluation of Strengths and
13 Weaknesses of the Existing FCGMA IE Program and Specific Suggestions for
mprovement, Final Task 2.2/
14
232. [Report oflnvestigation and Recommendations for Acquisition and Construction
15 pfa Water Conservation System, United Water Conservation District of Ventura
~ounty, California, September 1953
16
233. nvestigations, Plans and Estimates for a Supplemental Water Supply in the
17 Santa Clara Valley and Vicinity, United Water Conservation District of Ventura
rounty, California, Julian Hinds, General Manager and Chief Engineer, 1953
18
234. [Revisions to Proposed Budget, distributed to Board of Directors during Item 5.4,
19 ~nited Water Conservation District, Regular Board Meeting, June 12,2013
20 une 10,2013, letter from City of Ventura, re: June 12,2013 UWCD Board
235.
~eeting, Agenda Item No. 7.3 Annual Investigation and Report of Groundwater
21 1:onditions within UWCD dated March 2013
22
236. une II, 2013 letter from City of Ventura, re; Opposition to Proposed FY 2013-
23 · 14 Groundwater Extraction Charges on the City of San Buenaventura
24 237. une 12, 2013 Transcript of Proceedings of the United Water Conservation
District Public Hearing for Groundwater Conditions
25
238. United Water Conservation District, Adopted Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2013-
26 14
27 239. :\~opted Resolution Nos. 2013-04,2013-05,2013-06 and 2013-07-- June 12,

2013 By United Water Conservation District Board of Directors
28
& GARRETT LLP 20
ATI'OfiNEV!ATL\W
2 240. une 2 I, 2013 Letter (Request for Reconsideration) from Special Counsel for
k;ity of San Buenaventura, including accompanying attachments (Reports) from
3 Raftelis Financial Consultants and Hopkins Groundwater Consultants
4 241. uly I0, 2013 Letter (Request for Reconsideration) from Special Counsel for
City of San Buenaventura, including accompanying attachments (Reports) from
5 ~aftelis Financial Consultants and Hopkins Groundwater Consultants
6 242. uly 10,2013 District Board Meeting Staff Report Concerning City's Request
for Reconsideration
7
243. uly 10, 2013 United Water Conservation District Board Meeting Minutes
8
244. Phase 1, 2 and 3 Rulings of Santa Barbara Superior Court in City of San
9 Buenaventura v. United Water Conserva/ion District etc., eta/, Santa Barbara
Superior Court Case No. 56-2011-00401714, and Related Case No. 1414739
10 Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 56-2012-00422218-CU-WM-VTA)
II 245. All pleadings from litigation referenced in Exhibit U244, not otherwise included
in Exhibit U179
12
246. u1y 29, 2013 United Water Conservation District Board Meeting Agenda and
13 Minutes
14 247. u1y 29,2013 District Board Meeting Staff Report, Item No. 1.2
15 248. !Notice of Public Hearing on Groundwater Extraction Charges October 2, 2013,
!mailed August 16, 2013
16
249. ~~ptember II, 2013 District Board Meeting Staff Report (Item 2.7) Concerning
17 esolution No. 2013-10 and District's 2013-2014 Groundwater Extraction
Charges October 2, 2013 Hearing
18
250. ~dopted Resolution No. 2013-10-- September 11,2013 by United Water
19 Conservation District Board of Directors
20 !Notice of October 2, 2013 Public Hearing-Certificate of Publication-September
251.
21 19,2013
252. ~nited Water Conservation District Website Pages (postings concerning October
22
, 2013 public hearing placed on District website on September 5, 2013)
23
253. ~ctober 2, 2013 United Water Conservation District Board Meeting Agenda
24
254. October 2, 2013 District Board Meeting Staff Report (Item 3. I)
25
255. !Technical Memorandum: Infiltration Potential of Precipitation Falling on
26 Developed Lands and the Fate of Applied Groundwater Within UWCD, United
Water Conservation District staff, September, 2013, and October 2, 2013 Board
27 j:>resentation (PowerPoint) by Tony Morgan
28
&. GARRET!' LLf'
ATJ'OllNEYSATU.IP
2 256. 1.'-evised Cost Of Service Analysis, October I, 2013, and October 2, 2013 Board
Presentation (PowerPoint)-John W. Farnkopf, P.E., Senior Vice President,
3 HF&H Consultants LLC
4 257. Cost-of -Service Analysis: Response to City of Ventura---John W. Farnkopf,
Senior Vice President, HF&H Consultants LLC-September 23, 2013
5
258. Supplemental Stratecon Analysis of the Structure of United Water Conservation
6 ])istrict's Water Conservation Extraction Charges-Rodney T. Smith, Ph.D.,
President, Stratecon, Inc.-October I, 2013
7
259. Responses to Comments on Stratecon's Analysis Of The Structure Of United
8 Water Conservation District's Water Conservation Extraction Charges-Rodney
T. Smith, Ph.D., President, Stratecon, Inc.---september 16, 2013
9
260. l)nited Water Conservation District Proposed Resolution No. 2013- I I, Finding
10 fhat No Majority Protest Exists as to the District's 2013-2014 Groundwater
Extraction Charges
II
261. United Water Conservation District, Proposed Resolution No. 2013-12, Making
12 r:'indings and Determinations From The Evidence Submitted Concerning
Groundwater Conditions Of United Water Conservation District
13
262. United Water Conservation District, Proposed Resolution No. 2013-13, Making
14 ~dditionalFindings And Determinations From The Evidence Submitted
Concerning Groundwater Conditions Of United Water Conservation District,
15 Reaffirming Its Determination And Establishment Of Groundwater Extraction
tharge Zones, And Reaffirming Its Levy, Assessment And Fixing Of
16 Groundwater Extraction Charges Against All Persons Operating Groundwater
Producing Facilities Within Such Zones For The 2013-2014 Water Year
17
263. Excerpt from Second Edition Applied Hydrogeology by C. W. Fetter.
18
264. Excerpt from Ground Water Manual, A Water Resources Technical Publication I
19 by U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Revised Reprint 1981
I
20 265. Landscape and Irrigation Introduction, The Water Needs of Plants, I
I
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org. (20 13)
21
266. Publication of State Water Resources Board, Bulletin No. 12, Ventura County
22 nvestigation, Volume I Text. October 1953, Revised Aprill956.
23 State of California DWR, Bulletin 63-1, Sea-Water Intrusion Oxnard Plain of
267.
Ventura County. October 1965.
24
25 268. State of California DWR, Bulletin No. 74-9, Water Well Standards Ventura
County. August 1968.
26
269. Open File Report 93-147 (Use of A Geographic Information System to Identify
27 f..handoned Wells by Steven K. Predmore, 1993)
28
MUSICK, PEELER 9230)8.1 22
& GARRETT LLP
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR JUNE 12, 20I3 AND OCTOBER 2, 20I3 PUBLIC HEARINGS
An'OIINCYSATLAW
ON DISTRICT GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS: 20l3-20I4 WATER YEAR
2 270. ~opy of newspaper column dated August 3, 2013 from the Ventura County Star
~ntitled: "John Krist: Ventura 'win' sets county on a calamitous path."
3
271. ~icle X, Section 2, California Constitution
4
272. Revised Administrative Draft, Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Appendix 9.A.
5 !Economic Benefits OfThe Bay Delta Conservation Plan And Take Alternatives,
The Brattle Group, May 2013)
6
273. 'Price Elasticity Reconsidered: Panel Estimation OfA Water Demand
7 ~:mction," K. Schoengold, G. Moreno and D. Sunding, Water Resources
esearch Vol. 42, W09411 (2006), DOl: 10.1029/2005WR004096
8
274. ~~timating Business And Residential Water Supply Losses From Catastrophic
9 ~~ents," N. Brozovic, D. Sunding and D. Zilberrnan, Water Resources Research
ol. 43, W08423 (2007) DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004782
10
275. ~tter dated October I, 2013, from Shana Epstein, Ventura Water General
II anager, to Mary Kanatzar, UWCD Administrative Services Manager re:
:Protest of Proposed FY 2013-2014 Groundwater Extraction Charges on the City
12 ~:u' Buenavcntura, including attached Hopkins Groundwater Consultants and
elis Financial Consultants letters.
13 .
276. ~~tier dated

September 30, 2013 from Michael G. Colantuono, Ventura Special
14 ~ounsel;to Mary Kanatzar, UWCD Administrative Services Manager re: Protest
pfProposed FY 2013-2014 Groundwater Extraction Charges on the City of San
15 ~uenaventura.
16 ~xcerpts from Freeman, V.M., People-Land-Water: Santa Clara Valley and
277.
Oxnard Plain (1968, including pages 18, I 9, 30-41 and 83-94).
17
278. ~WCD Staff Report, Agenda Item 1.3, Pumping Trough Pipeline Temporary
18 Water Supply and Demand Management Measures, from Mary Kanatzar,
~~ministrative Services Manager, through E. Michael Solomon, General
19 anager, dated July 26, 2013.
20
279. ~'WCD Staff Report, Agenda Item 5.1 Monthly Administrative Services Dept.
~~port, from Mary Kanatzar, Administrative Services Manager, through E.
21 ichael Solomon, General Manager, dated August 28, 2013.
22 ~WCD Staff Report, Agenda Item 8.3., Update on Pumping Trough Pipeline
280.
23
~sers Working Group, from Michael Ellis, O&M Manager, through E. Michael
olamon, General Manager, dated September 3, 2013.
24
281. "'he written transcript of the October 2, 2013 UWCD public hearing.
25
26
27
28
& GARRETI' LLP
21
AnoRNt\'SATUII'
2 282. October 14,2013 Letter from Michael G. Colantuono to Anthony Trembley,
3 I
I
UWCD General Counsel regarding Request for Reconsideration of 2013-2014
District Groundwater Extraction Charges, including the following two
attachments:
4
5 I
I A. October 14, 2013 letter report from Curtis J. Hopkins of Hopkins
Groundwater Consultants, Inc.; and
I
6 B. October 14, 2013 letter report from Sudhir Pardiwala and Hannah
Phan of Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
7
283. Minutes ofthe regular meeting ofUWCD's Board held November 13, 2013
8
9 I 284. Staff Report from Ken Breitag, UWCD Executive Coordinator, to UWCD's
~
oard dated February 28, 2013 (for the March 13, 2013 Board Meeting)
I
I egarding "Agenda Item 2.8 District Outreach Proposal and Authorization of a
10 Supplemental Appropriation for FY 2012-13 for $15,000"
II 285. Minutes of regular meeting ofUWCD's Board held March 13,2013
12
13
DATED: February H_, 2015 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
14
15 ,,~;-~
v
Anthony HJ:remble)l
16 Jane Ellison Usher
Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents United
17 Water Conservation District and Board of
18 Directors of United Water Conservation District
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
& GARREIT LLP
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX FOR JUNE 12,2013 AND OCfOBER 2, 2013 PUBLIC HEARINGS
A1TORNJ;Y5ATL\W
I PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA
3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Ventura, State of California My business address is 2801 Townsgate
4 Road, Suite 200, Westlake Village, California 91361.
5 On FebruaryZQ 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as

CERTIFICATION OF THE 2014-2015 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY E. MICHAEL
6 SOLOMON, GENERAL MANAGER OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
on the interested parties in this action as follows: ·
7
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
8
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
9 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection
and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Musick,
10 Peeler & Garrett LLP's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing.
On the same day that the correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
11 deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
l2
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the
13 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address y.dubeau@mpglaw.com to the persons at the
e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after
14 the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
15
I declare under penalty of pe!jury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.
17 Executed on February2Q20l5, at Westlake Village, California.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MUSICK, PEELER
& GARRETT LLP
CERTIFICATION OF THE 2014-2015 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY E. MICHAEL SOLOMON,
ATTORNnl'SATU.\11
l SERVICE LIST
3 Gregory G. Diaz, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner and Plaintiff City of

City Attorney San Buenaventura
4 City of San Buenaventura
P.O. Box 99
5 Ventura, CA 93002-0099
Telephone: (805) 654-78 I 8
6 Facsimile: (805) 641-0253
Email: udiaz(d'c i. venturn.ca .us I
7
Michael G. Colantuono, Esq. Special Counsel for Petitioner and Plaintiff
8 David J. Ruderman, Esq. City of San Buenaventura I·
Michael R. Cobden, Esq.
9 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
300 South Grand Ave., Suite 2700
10 Los Angeles, CA 9007!-3137
Telephone: (2!3) 542-5700
ll Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
Email: mcolantuono'll chwlaw.us
12 drudcnnani<Dc h\\la \\·.us
mcobdcn'd'.ch\\law.us
13 allovdrti'C!Jwlaw.us
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MUSICK. PEELBR 931474.1
& GARRETT LLP
CERTIFICATION OF THE 2014-2015 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY E. MICHAEL SOLOMON,
A-nQIINt:;l"SAl'LAW
EXHIBIT NO. 2
1/26/2015 Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara- Online Services- Tenative Rulings
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COtJNTY ()f SANTA BARBARA
TENTATIVE RULING
Judge Thomas Anderle

Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107
CIVIL LAW & MOTION

City of San Buenaventura vs United Water Conservation et al
1467531
Nature of Proceedings: Motion

Motion of Petitioner City of San Buenaventura to Augment Administrative
Record
Ruling
For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of Petitioner City of San
Buenaventura to augment the administrative record is granted to include in
the 2013-2014 administrative record items 1, 2, 4 and 5 and to include in the
2014-2015 administrative record items 4 through 11, as those items are
described in the notice of this motion. As explained herein, the court may limit
the purposes for which these documents are considered upon hearing of the
merits of Petitioner's claims. The motion is denied as to item 3.
f
I
IBackground
In this action, Petitioner City of San Buenaventura (City) challenges the

,groundwater extraction charges (sometimes referred to as the rates) imposed
'by respondent United Water Conservation District (UWCD) by the action of
respondent Board of Directors of the United Water Conservation District
(Board) for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.
(A) Administrative Hearings
http://www.sbcourts.org/osltr/tentative-detail.php?Rule1D=44246 1/10
i UWCD prepared an engineering investigation and report, dated March 12,

j2013, entitled "Annual Investigation and Report of Groundwater Conditions
!Within United Water Conservation District" (March 2013 Report). (Trembley
ldecl., ~ 2 & exhibit A.) The March 2013 Report was utilized by the Board in its
iratemaking for the 2013-2014 groundwater extraction charges. (Trembley
idee!.,~ 2.) The March 2013 Report was included by UWCD in the
j administrative record of its ratemaking for the 2013-2014 groundwater
jextraction charges (AR2013). (Ibid.)
IUWCD noticed and held a public hearing on June 12, 2013, to determine,
Iamong other things, the 2013-2014 groundwater extraction charges.
!(Trembley dec!.,~ 4.) At that hearing, the Board received oral presentations
land written reports from two experts, John Farnkopf and Rodney Smith,
jproviding analysis relating to the quantitative distinction between agricultural
land non-agricultural groundwater extraction charges. (Trembley dec!.,~ 5.)
IThe written reports were dated June 11, 2013. (Whatley dec!., ~ 4.) The
J Board also received on that date a copy of a technical memorandum
i prepared by UWCD staff in support of the experts' work. (Trembley dec!., ~
15.)
i
I
iA total of 236 exhibits were placed into AR2013. (Trembley dec!.,~ 4.)
!Beginning with its 2012-2013 ratemaking, UWCD has employed a sequential
!exhibit list that adds exhibits with corresponding numbers to the prior year's
iraternaking record. (Trembley dec!.,~ 7.) A few exhibits are modified,
!updated or omitted, but the bulk of the exhibits remain unchanged. (Ibid.)
IApproximately 173 exhibits in the 2013AR are from the prior 2012-2013
lratemaking record. (Trembley dec!.,~ 8.)
;
'
;
IAccording to UWCD, all exhibits were available for public view in the Board
hearing room on June 12, 2013. (Trembley dec!., 1f5.) The City requested a
CD of the exhibits from UWCD, which UWCD subsequently provided. (Ibid.)
According to City, UWCD staff purported to introduce into the record two
!bankers boxes of evidence that were not opened or offered to the public or
!Board for inspection. (Whatley dec!.,~ 4.) City objected to the charges and
ithe means by which the Board adopted them. (Whatley dec!.,~ 5.)
,At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 12, 2013, UWCD adopted
!Resolution Nos. 2013-06 and 2013-07 to set the 2013-2014 groundwater
textraction charges. (Trembley dec!.,~ 8 & exhibits B, C.) ·
I
IOn June 21, 2013, counsel for City, Michael Colantuono, requested
!reconsideration of the 2013-2014 groundwater extraction charges to allow
Ithe City to consider and respond to the late-disclosed evidence. (Whatley
!dec!., ~ 7; Trembley dec!.,~ 9.) At the July 10, 2013, meeting of the Board,
1the Board denied the request for reconsideration, declining to reopen its
1 ratemaking. (Trembley dec!.,~ 10.)
http://www.sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative-detail.php?RuleiD=44246 2/10
112612015 Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara- Online Services- Tenative Rulings
:on July 23, 2013, this court issued its ruling in the related cases between the
·same parties regarding groundwater extraction charges for 2011-2012 and
2012-2013. Following this ruling, the Board initiated a new hearing process
for the 2013-2014 rates. (Trembley decl., ,-r 11.) A public hearing was set for
October 2, 2013. (Ibid.)
i
1On the evening before the October 2, 2013, hearing, City provided two
!opposition letters and reports from the City's counsel and experts. (Trembley
ldecl., ,-r 15.) I
I I
!At the beginning of the October 2, 2013, hearing, UWCD made available two
Ireports from its consultant, Stratecon, Inc., and two from another consultant,
lHF&H Consultants LLC that responded to the City's experts' reports it had
!submitted with the City's request for reconsideration of June 21, 2013.
I (Ruderman decl., ,-r 3.) The reports were dated either September 2013 or
!October 1, 2013. (Ibid.) UWCD also provided a "revised 2013 UWCD
!Technical Memorandum." (Ibid.) None of these reports had previously been
Imade available to the public, but were made available prior to the start of the
j hearing. (Ibid.; Trembley decl., ,-r 14) City objected to these reports on the
jgrounds that they had not been provided for advance review. (Trembley decl., !
!,-r15.)
i
i
!The October 2, 2013, hearing consisted of two phases. (Trembley decl.,

j,-r 12.) During the first phase, the Board ascertained that no majority protest
!existed as to the 2013-2024 rates and the Board adopted a resolution so
!finding. (Ibid.) During the second phase, the Board received testimony and
!comments concerning the 2013-2014 rates. (Trembley decl., ,-r 13.) A total of
1274 exhibits were placed into the hearing record. (Ibid.)
!At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board adopted Resolution Nos.
12013-12 and 2013-13 which made findings and reaffirmed the rates
!previously adopted. (Trembley decl., ,-r 16.)
I
i
!On October 14, 2013, City made a request for reconsideration of the Board's
I actions
on October 2, 2013. (Trembley decl., ,-r 17.) At the November 13,
12013, meeting, the Board denied the request for reconsideration, declining to
Ireopen its ratemaking. (Trembley decl., ,-r 18.)
I
IUWCD prepared its Annual Investigation and Report, dated March 10, 2014.
(March 2014 Report). (Trembley decl., ,-r 19 & exhibit G.) The March 2014
!Report was utilized by the Board in its ratemaking for the 2014-2015
groundwater extraction charges. (Trembley decl., ,-r 19.) The March 2014
Report was included by UWCD in the administrative record of its ratemaking
for the 2014-2015 groundwater extraction charges (AR2014 ). (Ibid.)
http://www.sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative-detail.php?RulelD=44246 3110
I.
1/26/2015 Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara* Online Services* Tenatlve Rulings
On May 29, 2014, the Board held a public workshop attended by City
representatives during which the Board was presented with oral
:presentations and written reports relating to the quantitative distinction
ibetween agricultural and non-agricultural groundwater extraction charges.
!(Trembley decl., 1!20.) A total of 337 exhibits, including these written reports,
!were provided to the Board and to the public on May 29, 2014. (Trembley
!dec!., 1!21.) City representatives were given a flash drive with these exhibits
ion May 29,2014. (Ibid.) The exhibits included the City's October 14, 2013
f request for reconsideration and minutes of the Board's November 13, 2013,
!denial of reconsideration. (Ibid.)

I
!A public hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2014, to address, among other
[things, the 2014-2015 rates. (Trembley decl., 1!22.) On June 10, 2014, City
1 provided UWCD with two letters, collectively comprising 1,024 pages,
!opposing the 2014-2015 rates. (Ibid.) Because of the large volume of

Imaterials submitted by the City on June 10, 2014, the Board, at the June 11
jhearing, continued the hearing to June 20, 2014. (Trembley decl., 1f23.)
!
!
!At approximately 4:45p.m. on June 19, 2014, UWCD emailed to counsel for
ICity four new memoranda, all dated June 19, 2014, responding to the
[evidence presented by City on June 10. (Ruderman decl., 1f6 & exhibit L.) At
Ithe June 20 hearing, UWCD staff and experts presented oral and written
!responses to the City's June 10 submissions. (Trembley decl., 1!24.) City
!objected that City did not have the opportunity to review the responses to the
jCity's submissions. (Trembley decl., 1!24; Ruderman decl., 1f6.)
[At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 20, 2014, UWCD adopted
!Resolution Nos. 2014-07 and 2014-08 to set the 2014-2015 groundwater
jextraction charges. (Trembley decl., 1!24 & exhibits H, 1.)
I
[on June 30, 2014, the City made a written request for reconsideration of the
IJune 20 rate decision. (Trembley decl., 1!25.) The City's request included
!additional reports from its experts. (Ibid.) At its July 9, 2014, regular meeting,
!the Board denied the request for reconsideration. (Trembley decl., 1f25.)
I!containing
on July 14, 2014, City's counsel submitted another letter to UWCD counsel
additional information which the City wished to place in the
!AR2014. (Trembley decl., 1f26.)
I
IThe parties were not able to agree as to the complete contents of AR2013
1
and AR2014. On December 31, 2014, City filed this motion to augment both
records with particular documents. The motion is opposed by UWCD.
1
I (ll) A•gm@ffitioo Req•~<foc AR2013
http://www.sbcourts.org/osltr/tentative-detail.php?Rule10=44246 4110
City seeks to augment AR2013 with the following documents: (Note: The item
numbers are those used by City in its notice of motion.)
(1) The October 14, 2013 letter requesting reconsideration and its two
attachments.
(2) Minutes of the UWCD Board Meeting of November 13, 2013.
(3) Final Comprehensive Water Resources Report, prepared for City by

RBF Consulting, June 2013.
(4) Staff report from Ken Breitag, UWCD Executive Coordinator, to the
Board, dated February 28, 2013, for the March 13, 2013, Board meeting,
regarding "Agenda Item 2.8 District Outreach Plan Proposal and
Authorization of a Supplemental Appropriation for FY 2012-13 for $15,000."
(5) Minutes of the UWCD Board Meeting of March 13, 2013.
(C) Augmen~ation Request for AR20 14
(3) Final Comprehensive Water Resources Report, prepared for City by

RBF Consulting, June 2013. {This is the same document as item 3, above.)
(4) Staff report from Ken Breitag, UWCD Executive Coordinator, to the
Board, dated February 28, 2013, for the March 13, 2013, Board meeting,
(This is the same document as item 4, above.)
(5) Minutes of the UWCD Board Meeting of March 13, 2013. (This is the
same document as item 5, above.)
1(6) The June 30, 2014, letter requesting reconsideration.
(7) Minutes of the UWCD Board Meeting of July 9, 2014.
(8) The July 14, 2014, letter requesting reconsideration and its two
attachments.
http://www.sbcourts.org/os/trltentative-detail.php?RuleiD=44246 5110
112612015 Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara- Online Services- Tenative Rulings
!(9) The July 16,2014, letter from UWCD counsel regarding City's request
I for reconsideration and its two attachments.
I
1(10) The July 17, 2014, letter from City responding to UWCD.
!
I(11) UWCD, Pumping Trough Pipeline Users Group Meeting, PowerPoint
/Slide Presentation, prepared by UWCD, cited in a report attached to the July
[14, 2014, letter.
i
I A""''"'"
[The setting of groundwater extraction rates is a quasi-legislative action by
iUWCD. (Cf. Carlton Santee Corp. v. Padre Dam Municipal Water District
[(1981) 120 Cai.App.3d 14, 18.) A challenge to a quasi-legislative action is
!ordinarily limited to traditional writ of mandate. (Western States Petroleum
!Association v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 567 (Western States).)
i
ht is well settled that extra-record evidence is generally not admissible in non-
lCEQA traditional mandamus actions challenging quasi-legislative
!!administrative decisions." (Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 574.) Extra-
record evidence is nonetheless admissible under certain, very limited
!circumstances. Extra-record evidence is admissible "in those rare instances
1in which (1) the evidence in question existed before the agency made its
·decision, and (2) it was not possible in the exercise of reasonable diligence to
present this evidence to the agency before the decision was made so that it
could be considered and included in the administrative record." (/d. at p. 578.)
·Extra-record evidence may potentially also be admissible where the evidence
is relevant to "(1) issues other than the validity of the agency's quasi-
legislative decision, such as the petitioner's standing and capacity to sue, (2)
affirmative defenses such as laches, estoppel and res judicata, (3) the
accuracy of the administrative record, (4) procedural unfairness, and (5)
1agency misconduct." (/d. at pp. 575, fn. 5, 578-579.) "However, extra-record
Jevidence can never be admitted merely to contradict the evidence the
!administrative agency relied on in making a quasi-legislative decision or to
Iraise a question regarding the wisdom of that decision." (/d. at p. 579.)
I
(I) Reconsideration Items
With respect to AR2013, item 1 is the request for reconsideration of the I

October 2, 2013, rate determination with attached additional expert reports
and item 2 is the minutes of the Board denying the reconsideration. With I
respect to AR2014, item 6 is the request for reconsideration of the June 20, I
2014, rate determination and item 7 is the minutes of the Board denying
http://www.sbcourts.org/osftr/tentative:-detail.php?RuleiD=44246 6110
Ireconsideration. Items 8, 9, and 10 are correspondence to and from UWCD,

iwith City's additional evidence, further requesting reconsideration. Item 11 is
!a UWCD document which is cited in the City's evidence on reconsideration.
Proposition 218 requires "a ratesetting process that includes notice and
hearing requirements sufficient to allow meaningful public participation."
(Morgan v. Imperia/ Irrigation District (2014) 223 Cai.App.4th 892, 911.)
Procedures by which those challenging compliance with article XIII D of the
California Constitution are effectively precluded from submitting contrary
evidence would implicate the validity of the result of such procedures. At the
!same time, all hearings must be "tolerably administrable and flexible to avoid
1needless expense and delay" (ibid.) and not held hostage to a challenger
!always with something more to say.
IComplicating matters further, the issue of whether the City's additional

!evidence was improperly excluded may ultimately be inconsequential. The
ICity's additional evidence is material only if the resolution of the City's
!Proposition 218 challenge depends upon that additional evidence. If, without
!considering the City's additional evidence, the rates are found to violate
!Proposition 218, or if, even considering City's additional evidence, the rates
!are not found to violate Proposition 218, the City's additional evidence would
Ibe immaterial to the resolution of the merits. If immaterial, even if the City's
!evidence were improperly excluded, the error would be harmless as to City's
! Proposition 218 challenge. Under such circumstances, the delay occasioned
i by a remand to correct the record would be time consuming and expensive,
Iyet ultimately without substantive effect.
' resolve this conundrum in the manner most judicially expedient, the court
ITo
!will provisionally grant the augmentation motion as to these reconsideFation
Iitems. The court will consider these items as part of their respective
!administrative records to resolve City's procedural challenge regarding the
irequests for reconsideration. The court reserves determination as to whether
1it will consider these items to resolve City's Proposition 218 challenge when
jthe court considers the merits of City's petition.
(2) Pre-Decision Documents
( i) Final 201 3 Report
iItem 3 is the Final 2013 Comprehensive Water Resources Report, which is

jsought to be included in both administrative records. According to City, this is
!the final version of a draft report that is included in both administrative
Irecords. City asserts that UWCD follows the City's water utility closely and
[that it "plainly knew" of the complete report when it made the rates challenged
here.
1
I
IAlthough the final report existed before the rate hearings and could have
i been considered by UWCD, the report is a City report, not a UWCD report.
City cites no evidence in this motion that that UWCD even had possession of
the final (as opposed to draft) report prior to the rate hearings. City simply
, reasons that because UWCD had a copy of the draft report it must have
i
http://www .sbcourts.org/osltrltentati ve-detail.php?R ut el0=44246 8/10
1/2612015 Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara- Online Services- T enative Rulings
considered the final report. This reasoning is insufficient to establish that the
final report was considered by UWCD or that the final report should be
deemed to have been considered by UWCD. City's motion will be denied as
to item 3.
(ii) March 2013 Minutes and Staff Report
Item 5 is the minutes of the UWCD Board Meeting of March 13, 2013, which
is sought to be included in both administrative records. This document is a
UWCD document and existed prior to both rate hearings.
Item 4 is the staff report from Ken Breitag, UWCD Executive Coordinator, to
the Board, dated February 28, 2013, for the March 13, 2013, Board meeting,
City seeks to include this document in both administrative records.
City argues that these documents should be included because they are
UWCD documents which are relevant to its claims. "[A] quasi-legislative
administrative agency[] must in reason be presumed to have considered its
earlier studies, reviews and reports, made at the expense of time and money
... , as well as such evidence as was initially produced at the hearings. The
validity of such studies, reviews and reports did not depend upon their being
'presented' anew to the commissioners at the hearings. As we have pointed
out, a quasi-legislative hearing 'allowed by legislative grace is not I.
circumscribed by the restrictions applicable to judicial or quasi judicial I
adversary proceedings.' [Citation.]" (City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency I.
Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cai.App.3d 381, 392.)
I
UWCD objects on the grounds of relevancy because it relates to a different

fiscal year. City asserts that these documents are relevant to its claims as to
the constitutionality of particular expenditures by UWCD. Reports related to
particular expenditures in prior years have potential relevance to the years at
issue. Thus, the document is properly included within the administrative
record. The court reserves for its determination on the merits what weight, if
any, to give to these documents. City's motion will be granted as to items 4
and 5.
(3) Request for Judicial Notice
City's request for judicial notice of certain portions of the legislative history of
Senate Bill No. 864, enacted as chapter 1414 of the Statutes of 1963, is
denied. These documents are not necessary or relevant to the court's
disposition of the motion as discussed above.
http://www.sbcourts.org/os/trltentative-detail.php?Rulel0=44246 9/10
Please note: As a result of staffing limitations, the court has experienced

delays in routing time-sensitive documents, including oppositions and replies,
for prompt review. To assist the court in avoiding delays, the court has
established a generic email address for courtesy copies of law and motion
documents to be electronically sent as PDF attachments. The court strongly
encourages the parties to email courtesy copies to the court. Instructions for
sending courtesy copies are found on the court's website at:
http://www.sbcourts .org/os/tr/Cou rtesyLM .pdf
http://www.sbcourts.org/os/tr/tentative-detail.php?RuleiD=44246 10/10
I
I
I
PROOF OF SERVICE


as MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF CITY
OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S OPPOSITION TO
APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION TO TAKE NEW
EVIDENCE ON APPEAL on the interested parties in this action as
by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
addressed as follows:
L BY MAIL: The envelope was mailed with postage

LyE-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION:

10
194100.2

11
194100.2
I
SERVICE LIST
City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, et al. I
Supreme Court Case No. S226036 I

Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP Arnold LaRochelle Mathews Vanconas
624 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 & Zirbel, LLP .
Phone: (213) 629-7600 Oxnard, CA 93036
Fax: (213) 624-1376 Phone: (805) 988-9886
Attorneys for Defendant and Attorneys for Intervener Pleasant Valley
Appellant United Water Conservation County Water District
District and Board of Directors of
United Water Conservation District
Courtesy Copy
Miles P. Hogan
Assistant City Attorney
City of Ventura ,_.,,·
1.....
501 Poli Street, Room 213 1
P.O. Box 99
I.
Ventura, CA 93001
Phone: (805) 654-7818
Fax: (805) 641-0253
Email: mhogan@cityofventura.ca.gov I
Buenaventura
12
194100.2
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Water
Water District, Amicus Curiae District, Amicus Curiae

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 4th Flr.
Attorneys for Santa Clara Valley Attorneys for County of Kern, Amicus
Water District, Amicus Curiae Curiae

Attorneys for California Farm Bureau
Federation and Farm Bureau of Ventura
County, Amicus Curiae

921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 Law Offices of Young Wolldridge, LLP
Sacramento, CA 95814 1800 30th Street, 4th Floor
Attorneys for Howard Jarvis Bakersfield, CA 93301
Taxpayers Foundation, Amicus Santa Ynez River Water Conservation
Curiae District, Amicus Curiae
13
194100.2

P.O. Box 23490 P.O. Box 6273
Attorneys for Great Oaks Water Attorney for Jack David Cohen, Amicus I
Company, Amicus Curiae Curiae I
Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail I

18400 Von Karman Ave., #800 The Metropolitan Water District of
Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Southern California
Curiae Attorneys for The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, Amicus
Curiae

JuneS. Ailin Daniel Jackson
18881 Von Karman Ave., #1700 Warren A. Braunig I
I
Attorneys for San Diego County Water
Authority, Amicus Curiae
14
194100.2
3601 West Olive Avenue, 8'h Fir.
Amicus Curiae
Via U.S. Mail

Clerk of the Court
1100 Anacapa Street
15
194100.2

Supp Brief in COA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supp Brief in COA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exhibit U549

Supplemental Briefing in Court of Appeal in Ventura v. UWCD

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

On appeal of a Judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County

UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S REPLY TO

Attorneys for Defendants, Cross-Complainants,

At the risk of vexing this Court with repetitive argument, but

Second, and only if deemed necessary by the Court to make a

Third, the City opposed the District’s offer of the 12 documents,

Other than its non-meritorious objection to the Court’s

DATED: May 25, 2018 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP

Jane Ellison Usher

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

On appeal of a Judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County

UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT’S REPLY TO

Attorneys for Defendants, Cross-Complainants,

At the risk of vexing this Court with repetitive argument, but

Second, and only if deemed necessary by the Court to make a

Third, the City opposed the District’s offer of the 12 documents,

Other than its non-meritorious objection to the Court’s

DATED: May 25, 2018 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP

Jane Ellison Usher

In the Court of Appeal, State of California

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION 6

City of San Buenaventura,

United Water Conservation District et al.,

On Remand after a Decision of the Supreme Court, Case No. S226036

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of California

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA'S MOTION TO STRIKE

Received by Second District Court of Appeal

*MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO ( 143551) GREGORY G. DIAZ (156318)

Attorneys for Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buenaventura

Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Second Appellate

The City of San Buenaventura ("City") moves to strike the

entirety of the Reply in Support of Second Request for Judicial

Notice and Motion to Take Additional Evidence on Appeal, filed by

United Water Conservation District and the Board of Directors of

United Water Conservation District (collectively, "UWCD" or

"District") on May 25, 2018. The California Rules of Court do not

This Motion is based on the attached memorandum and any

further argument the Court may request.

DATED: May 30, 2018 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

not authorize a reply in support of a motion on appeal. (See Cal.

This is the second time in two weeks the District filed an

procedures, however, do not amend the Rules of Court. (Gov. Code,

DATED: May 30, 2018 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

The Court, having reviewed and considered Respondent City

and disregards the Reply in Support of the District's Second Request

City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, et al.

I, Ashley A. Lloyd, declare:

I am employed in the County of Nevada, State of California. I

SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR METHOD OF SERVICE

\L.--BY MAIL: The envelope was mailed with postage

LBY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

Executed on May 30, 2018, at Grass Valley, California.

Via Email Through TrueFiling Via Email Through TrueFiling

Via U.S. Mail Courtesy Copy

Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail

Via U.S. Mail Via Email Through TrueFiling ,.

Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail

Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail

Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail

Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail