This story was originally published by SJV Water.
The long-running lawsuit against the City of Bakersfield over how it operates the Kern River is set to go to trial on Dec. 8, 2025.
Kern County Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp set the trial date before a packed courtroom, though most in attendance were attorneys on one side of the case or another.
This was the first hearing since the well-known environmental law firm Morrison Foerster joined the case to work with Attorney Adam Keats, who represents plaintiffs Bring Back the Kern, Kern River Parkway Foundation, Sierra Club, Audubon Society and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Morrison Foerster brought five attorneys (11 others were on hand either in person or online) to the case management hearing Thursday.
“We see this as a significant case not just for the Kern River, but potentially statewide as well,” Bryan Wilson, a partner in the firm, told Pulskamp in explanation for Morrison Foerster’s large showing.
The Bring Back the Kern group along with co-plaintiff Water Audit California, sued Bakersfield in 2022 alleging it was derelict in its operation of the Kern River by diverting most of its flows to agriculture, leaving a dry riverbed through town.
That lawsuit demands the city study its river operations under the Public Trust Doctrine, which holds that all natural resources are owned in trust by the state for the greatest public benefit, which includes the environment and public access.
That is the issue Pulskamp set for trial next December.
But, he acknowledged, there is a lot more going on in this case that could alter or upend those trial plans.
That includes the ongoing appeal of Pulskamp’s Oct. 2023 order that had mandated the city keep enough water flowing through the river to keep fish alive under California Department of Fish and Game Code 5937.
Agricultural water districts with Kern River rights appealed that order. It was stayed by the 5th District Court of Appeals in May 2024 and the river subsequently dried up at the end of August, leading to a massive fish die-off.
A hearing has not been set by the 5th District, but the appeal has been “fully briefed,” meaning everything that can be filed has been filed and the next step should be a hearing date.
The appeal attracted its own high-caliber attention as well. The California Attorney General filed an amicus brief in October urging the 5th District to reinstate Pulskamp’s order to leave some water in the Kern River for fish under Fish and Game Code 5937
It’s unclear what, if any, weight the 5th District will give such amicus briefs.
Pulskamp noted the outcome of that appeal could provide new legal guidance on the issues in the underlying lawsuit against Bakersfield, but said his court would deal with those changes – and several other possible curve balls – as they come up.
Such as, Bakersfield could choose to file cross complaints against the agricultural water districts, which are now just “real parties in interest” in the Bring Back the Kern lawsuit.
The city has long maintained it is stuck in the middle of the competing interests over the Kern River.
While it owns a chunk of river water, as well as the river bed, banks and most of the weirs from about Hart Park to Enos Lane, the city is bound by more than 100 years of contracts, agreements and decrees in how it operates the river, Attorney Colin Pearce has said.
Bring Back the Kern and Water Audit California both contend the city has a larger obligation under the Public Trust Doctrine to examine how those operations impact the environment and until it examines that issue, it is not compliant with state law.
That brings in a third potential curve ball, as Pulksamp noted Thursday.
Water Audit California Attorney Bill McKinnon has suggested the possibility of separating out a data component from the main lawsuit. That component would establish basic information on the river such as: How much water, exactly, is available during different hydrological conditions? What animal species are in the river? What are their water needs? Etc.
“The application of the law requires that data,” McKinnon said. “Otherwise, it’s impossible to have a fact-based trial.”
Nothing has been filed, yet, on either of those fronts. Pulskamp said he expects the phalanx of attorneys involved will file new motions on those, or any other issues, as they see fit.
SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site dedicated to covering water in the San Joaquin Valley.