The Lake Arrowhead Community Services District prevailed in a lawsuit filed by the Lake Arrowhead Country Club that challenged the implementation of a Supplemental Water Supply Fee. On June 8, 2005, the Superior Court of San Bernardino County denied the Country Club’s petition. This is the second time the District has prevailed in litigation challenging the Fee.

The District adopted the Fee after several years of drought had reduced the water elevation of Lake Arrowhead to historically low levels. The District adopted the Fee in connection with a policy to reduce and ultimately eliminate reliance on the Lake as the District’s sole source of water for the provision of water service.

The lawsuit alleged that the District’s adoption of the Supplemental Water Supply Fee violated the California Environmental Quality Act. The Country Club argued that the District failed to conduct an adequate environmental review of the projects that could be funded by the Supplemental Water Supply Fee before it adopted the Fee. The Country Club also argued that the Fee was intended to expand District water service, rather than maintain existing service. The Court rejected those arguments.

The Court found that the Supplemental Water Supply Fee was intended to maintain existing water service. Therefore, the Court concluded that the District’s adoption of the Fee was exempt from CEQA. The Court also held that there was no evidence to show that the imposition of the Supplemental Water Supply Fee would cause an adverse environmental impact.

The District’s General Counsel, Jeffry Ferre of Best Best & Krieger said, “We are pleased that for a second time, the District has successfully defended a challenge to the Fee. This Fee will fund important water resource projects for the Lake Arrowhead community.

Although the challengers may still appeal the trial court decision, the District’s environmental attorneys, Jeffrey Dunn, Jennifer Buckman and Mark Servino, also from Best Best & Krieger, believe such an appeal should not be successful based on the trial court’s reasoned analysis of the record and the arguments raised by the parties. The Country Club is also challenging the Fee in a second lawsuit which is currently pending against the District.