Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board deadlocks on Daly Ranch well permit appeal; staff recommends denial, matter to return to full board
Loading...
Summary
The Fox Canyon GMA held a contested hearing on a Daly Ranch appeal of a denied well permit (application O309) and did not reach a majority to overturn the interim executive officer’s denial; staff said required allocation transfer paperwork and owner consent were missing under the OPV allocation ordinance.
The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency held a public hearing on June 13 on an appeal of the interim executive officer’s denial of application O309 (Daly Ranch LLC) to install a replacement well for a failed well in the Oxnard/Pleasant Valley area.
Staff position: agency staff recommended that the board affirm the interim executive officer’s denial. Staff said the core issue is procedural: the extraction allocation that staff’s records show resides with the destroyed well (state well 03H02) had not been validly transferred to the replacement well (03H03) because the transfer paperwork and the joint owner/owner consent required by the OPV allocation ordinance and agency ordinance code were not completed. Staff also referenced Emergency Ordinance E, which limits construction to replacement or standby wells that do not result in initiation of new, increased groundwater use; staff said the proposed permit did not meet transfer requirements in the absence of owner consent.
Applicant argument: counsel for Daly Ranch (Gary Arnold) said the allocation had been effectively transferred when the replacement well (03H03) was permitted in 2018, that extractions had been consistently reported under a merged comm code, and that the current submission sought only to replace the failed 03H03 with a new well (proposed 03H04). Arnold requested that the board allow the replacement drilling subject to conditions, including a well‑sharing or equitable‑sharing condition.
Opposition: Brian Hamilton, representing Nottingham Trust (identified in the record as the owner of the original 03H02 parcel), said the trust did not join the O309 application, that a probate dispute exists between family members over property/control and that the trust’s consent is required before an allocation transfer. He urged the board to uphold the denial to protect his client’s allocation rights.
Board action and outcome: a motion to affirm the interim executive officer’s denial was moved and seconded and proceeded to roll‑call. The roll‑call did not produce a clear majority either to affirm or to overturn the denial. As a result the board did not reach a final written decision on the appeal at the June 13 meeting. Staff recommended continuing the hearing and returning on June 25, 2025 so the board can adopt a final written decision consistent with its direction.
Why it matters: the dispute centers on whether extraction allocations move automatically with replacement wells or require explicit joint owner consent and completed transfer paperwork. That procedural distinction affects the rights of landowners, how much groundwater may be extracted from a particular parcel, and how the agency enforces Emergency Ordinance E and its allocation rules.
Next steps: staff recommended that counsel prepare a written decision consistent with the board’s direction and that the hearing be continued to the June 25, 2025 board meeting for a final written decision.
