It’s easy to get lost in the technical weeds of a lawsuit, especially over water rights. These cases are complicated and confusing.
The only people paying close attention are lawyers, water rights owners, environmentalists and that lonely news reporter who finds writing about water interesting.
People fighting over whether Kern River water should flow through Bakersfield are fortunate to have Kern County Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp presiding over a 2022 lawsuit that pits community activists and environmentalists against agricultural water agencies and the city of Bakersfield.
Since becoming a superior court judge in 2018, Pulskamp hasn’t shied away from complicated and controversial cases. The Kern River case is no exception.
During a hearing, Pulskamp noted that “it’s a very significant case to the community. There is a lot of tension in this case and a lot of strong feelings, but I appreciate the professionalism and civility that’s been exhibited, so far.”
Maybe Pulskamp needs to rethink that civility thing, since the powerful Kern County Water Agency, one of several ag districts that have interests in the case, tried to get the Kern court’s presiding judge to boot him off the case.
But in a ruling Tuesday, the assistant presiding judge refused to remove Pulskamp.
Pulskamp’s sin, according to those who wanted him removed? He ordered Bakersfield, which controls the river’s diversion structures through the city, to temporarily continue the water’s flow to keep fish from dying, while the lawsuit proceeds.
The water agency and ag districts appealed Pulskamp’s order to the 5th District Court of Appeal, which overruled Pulskamp earlier this year, questioning whether the flow demand is reasonable and how much water is needed to sustain fish.
Bring Back the Kern, Kern River Parkway Foundation, Water Audit California, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and Audubon Society now want the state Supreme Court to review the appeal court’s ruling. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and state agencies are siding with the groups.
Practically from the time Kern County was settled, the river has been diverted to create our booming agriculture industry. Canals still used today were dug and flowing as early as the 1870s. When the city bought a share of the river in 1977, it also got the riverbed and most of headgates and weirs serving those canals, as well as the responsibility to operate the canals under existing decrees, contracts and agreements.
The diversions in those layers of mandates — collectively known as the “Law of the River” — have left the riverbed through Bakersfield dry in all but the wettest years.
In the 1990s, community activists — notably Rich O’Neill and Bill Cooper — pressed for the river’s return and construction of improvements, such as the Kern River Parkway. However, continuous flow of water into the riverbed remained iffy. In 2022, community activists sued the city and ag water districts to stabilize flow.
Then along came the rains of 2023. The river came back. So did the fish.
Once the river filled with the epic runoff and fish reappeared, plaintiffs in the 2022 lawsuit obtained Pulskamp’s emergency temporary injunction to keep the flow running. The injunction was based on state law that requires dam owners/operators to keep downstream fish populations healthy.
Pulskamp’s temporary order required Bakersfield to keep sufficient water in the city’s stretch of the river to sustain the fish until the 2022 lawsuit is settled. A trial is scheduled in December.
This editorial is not meant to take sides on the lawsuit. Rather, it is to point out that Pulskamp’s order to temporarily keep water flowing to sustain fish was reasonable under his reading of state law.
The appeal court overturning Pulskamp’s order is no indication that he is biased against ag water users, as the water agency claims.
But any time you have limited water and many people wanting it, you’ll get a fight over what is “reasonable” and who has the “right” to use it.
For about three years now, Pulskamp has submerged himself in the details of this case — issuing orders on numerous motions — some favoring river flow proponents; others favoring ag users.
His single temporary injunction order does not demonstrate bias, or support the changing of a judicial horse in the middle this complex legal race.