Scheiber Ranch Properties v. City of Lincoln CA3
Filed 9/15/22 Scheiber Ranch Properties v. City of Lincoln CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----
SCHEIBER RANCH PROPERTIES, LLP, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, C091038
v. (Super. Ct. No. S-CV-0041269) CITY OF LINCOLN,
Defendant and Respondent.
GREG RISSE, Individually and as Trustee, etc., C091148
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. S-CV-0043127) v.
CITY OF LINCOLN,
Defendant and Respondent.
Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP and Albert Scheiber (collectively Scheiber) and the Greg and Michelle Risse Trust and Greg Risse (collectively Risse) sought declaratory relief against the City of Lincoln (Lincoln) regarding rights to pump groundwater.
1
The trial court sustained Lincoln’s demurrer without leave to amend, ruling the declaratory action was not ripe. Scheiber and Risse now challenge the trial court’s ruling. Finding no error, we will affirm the judgments. BACKGROUND Scheiber’s first amended complaint alleged the following: Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP owned and operated about 325 acres of agricultural land in Placer County, west of Lincoln. Albert Scheiber was a partner of Scheiber Ranch Properties, LP. There were three wells on the property, above the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Sub-basin (Basin). Groundwater levels in the Basin in the areas near the Scheiber property were in decline. Lincoln relied more heavily on groundwater resources from the Basin via existing wells during times of drought. Lincoln approved large development projects that contemplated the construction of several thousand new homes in an area west of Lincoln over the next decade. It also approved plans to construct at least six new wells to pump groundwater from the Basin to supply water to the development projects. Scheiber believed Lincoln would construct new wells within the next one to two years or sooner and Lincoln planned to approve additional wells within the next two to five years. Scheiber was informed and believed that at least three of the new Lincoln wells would be located within a mile of the Scheiber property and wells. Scheiber was informed and believed the new Lincoln wells would negatively impact the area of the Basin underlying the Scheiber property and would potentially negatively impact Scheiber’s ability to pump groundwater for use on their property. Scheiber alleged there was limited surplus water available in the area of the Basin underlying the Scheiber property for appropriation by Lincoln and the availability was not in amounts anticipated to be pumped by Lincoln. Scheiber sought judicial
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)