Gary Arnold, an attorney representing R. N. Bailey Ranch, told the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency on Dec. 12 that he had no objection to the minutes from the Sept. 24 appeal hearing but objected to a condition attached to the appeal’s approval that requires written authorization from his client’s mother, the owner of an adjacent 50 acres.

Arnold said his client cannot obtain that written consent because "the family is in dispute, ongoing litigation," and that the agency’s current wellhead‑based allocation method ties allocations to an older water well on the 50 acres rather than the ranch’s land. He urged the agency to consider a land‑based allocation system, saying that under a land‑based approach "the allocation would have been spread over 275 acres, not just the 50 acres," and that as a result about "175 acres" are fallow and unused.

Brian Hamilton, counsel for the other half of the Daly family, told the board he was not aware the issue would be discussed and said his clients "have not received any communication from our end daily since the September meeting." Hamilton requested staff reach out to him to discuss next steps and implored the board "not to take any action today."

Chair remarks and staff comments during the meeting indicated the agency intends to bring the Bailey Ranch matter back on a future agenda for additional work before any final action. The board did not take a formal vote on the appeal condition during the Dec. 12 session.

The matter raised two procedural and substantive issues for the agency: (1) whether a condition that requires third‑party consent from a neighboring owner is practicable where intra‑family litigation prevents that consent, and (2) whether the agency’s allocation methodology should remain wellhead‑based or be changed to a land‑based system that would change how allocations are distributed across contiguous acreage.

Next steps: Staff and counsel indicated the item will be returned to a future meeting for further consideration; Brian Hamilton asked to be contacted to discuss the procedural path forward.