The biggest threat to your Camarillo water bill isn't drought. It's a lawsuit most residents don't know about.

Eight miles inland from the ocean, tucked off Lewis Road between a shopping plaza and the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains, there is a building most people in Camarillo have driven past without ever noticing.

It doesn't look like a water plant. It has a Spanish Colonial Revival front, terracotta tile roof, stucco arches. From the road, you might mistake it for a city building or a community center. Behind that facade sit the actual industrial guts: pressure vessels, reverse osmosis membrane arrays, pumps that hum twenty-four hours a day. Beyond the fence, the mountains rise clean and green in winter, brown and gold in summer.

The city built it to blend in. The city wanted you to be proud of it.

This is where most of Camarillo's drinking water comes from.

The North Pleasant Valley Groundwater Desalter started operating in January 2023. It pulls brackish groundwater from beneath the Pleasant Valley Basin, pushes it through high-pressure membranes, and produces about produces up to 3,800 acre-feet of clean drinking water per year, serving roughly two-thirds of city residents.

It also removes substantial amounts of salt from the aquifer every year. That salt gets flushed through a dedicated pipeline out to the Pacific. The reason it has to come out is because the aquifer beneath Camarillo has a salt problem, and that problem is not a future concern. It is the active threat the Desalter was built to address.

Here is what most Camarillo residents have never been told.

The aquifer that supplies the city's drinking water is connected, underground, to the coast. Salt water from the Pacific has been seeping into Ventura County's coastal aquifers since the 1930s. By 1949, groundwater levels in parts of the Oxnard Plain had dropped 30 feet below sea level, which means ocean water was being pulled directly into the aquifer the way water gets sucked into a straw. By 1963, 44 production wells on the Oxnard Plain had been taken permanently out of service because the water they pumped was too salty for people or crops. Some of those were major municipal wells. They will never produce drinkable water again.

This is the part to understand: once seawater intrudes into a freshwater aquifer, you do not get it back. You can prevent it from spreading by maintaining adequate groundwater pressure and removing salt buildup, but the contaminated areas stay contaminated. The water beneath your feet is a finite, fragile resource, and once you lose it, it is lost.

The California Legislature created Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency in 1982 by special act, specifically because Ventura County's coastal aquifers were being overdrafted and the state needed someone with the authority to stop it. In 2007, regional water regulators adopted salt-reduction rules for the Calleguas Creek watershed. The Desalter is how Camarillo chose to comply. It is the city's main tool, currently the only tool at this scale, for keeping its aquifer alive.

So: state-mandated salt reduction, federally co-funded construction, locally sourced water, operating for three years, removing millions of pounds of salt a year from an aquifer that has been fighting seawater intrusion since before the freeway was built. Every level of government that touches water policy wanted this plant to exist.

In October 2025, every level of government that had spent fifteen years building toward this plant collided with a single court ruling that threatened to unwind all of it.

The case is called OPV Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. OPV stands for Oxnard-Pleasant Valley. It was filed in June 2021 by a group of landowners, most of them large agricultural operations, in a Santa Barbara County courtroom. Every judge in Ventura County had a conflict of interest, so the case moved north.

The plaintiffs sued to tear up the rules governing how much water can be pulled from the Oxnard and Pleasant Valley basins. The defendants include Fox Canyon and the City of Camarillo. The cities of Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and Ventura are also parties.

The case has three phases. Phase 1 was supposed to settle, among other things, the "safe yield" of the basins. Safe yield is the amount of water that can be pulled sustainably. The higher it is, the more pumping the basin can support. The lower it is, the less.

On October 23, 2025, the court ruled that the Pleasant Valley Basin's safe yield is 13,750 acre-feet per year. That is significantly lower than what Camarillo argued for. If the ruling stands, there is less legal water available in the basin overall, which means the Desalter and everyone else pumping there has to cut back proportionally.

Camarillo says the court got the math wrong. Specifically, the city argues the court failed to separate "native" water (rain, natural recharge) from "non-native" water (treated wastewater discharged upstream from Simi Valley, imported State Water Project deliveries, flows from Conejo Creek). Under California water law, non-native water belongs to whoever captures and treats it, not to the landowners overlying the basin. Camarillo's petition argues the court effectively gave away water that does not legally belong to the plaintiffs.

On December 22, 2025, Camarillo filed a petition with the California Supreme Court asking for immediate review. On April 21 of this year, the city filed its reply brief, pressing the Court to take up the case rather than let it grind through the normal appeals process, which could take years. While the appeal is pending, the city is operating in legal limbo, technically subject to a ruling it is asking the highest court in the state to overturn.

The Court has not yet said whether it will review.

If it does not, Camarillo has a problem. If it does, the decision the Court eventually makes will reshape how California manages groundwater for decades.

If you live in Camarillo and drink tap water, this is the case that's coming for your wallet. And if you've ever wondered why fights over water in this state never seem to end, keep reading. This one is about to show you why.

The easy version of this story is: farmers versus city. Big ag versus ratepayers. Pick a side.

The easy version is wrong.

The plaintiffs are not a grassroots farmer organization. OPV Coalition is an unincorporated association of roughly 65 landowners, according to court filings. The named plaintiffs include Duda Farm Fresh Foods, a major national agribusiness based in Florida with California operations. They include PVR Oxnard LLC, HHR Oxnard LLC, Montgomery Properties LLC, and dozens of family trusts and holding companies with names like the Laubacher Generational Trust and the Sakaguchi Family Trust. They are represented by O'Melveny and Myers, a Los Angeles white-shoe law firm whose senior partners bill well over $1,000 an hour.

These are not hobby farmers. These are capital-intensive operations with the resources to fund multi-year, multi-million-dollar litigation against a regional regulatory agency.

The Ventura County Farm Bureau, the actual countywide trade association that represents farmers of all sizes across the county, is not a plaintiff. The Farm Bureau's official water policy, published on their website, takes several positions that are closer to Camarillo's than to OPV Coalition's. The Farm Bureau's policy states that "safe yield calculations should be based on the totality of all aquifer recharge sources, including water imported from outside the basin." That is close to verbatim Camarillo's legal argument. The Farm Bureau's policy also explicitly supports "construction of projects that recycle municipal wastewater, or that treat brackish or poor-quality groundwater to acceptable standards." The Desalter is exactly that.

So when you read that "farmers" are suing Camarillo, understand what that phrase actually contains. It contains roughly 65 large landowners who could afford attorneys. It does not contain the Farm Bureau. The OPV Coalition case is also not the only Ventura County water rights dispute heading to the California Supreme Court. Two other cases involving the neighboring Las Posas Valley Basin are also pending or in process. Three separate water rights cases across one county. This is a systemic test of how California will manage groundwater for the rest of the century.

The farmers' underlying grievance is real. Fox Canyon's 2019 Allocation Ordinance, which is what OPV Coalition sued to overturn, set each landowner's permanent water allocation based on how much they had pumped between 2005 and 2014.

That period was a drought. Farmers who conserved water during those years, either because they were being good stewards of the aquifer or because the drought forced them to cut back, locked in small allocations. Farmers who pumped aggressively during the drought locked in large allocations. The system rewarded the wasteful and punished the careful.

This is not a rhetorical point. This is exactly what the 2019 Allocation Ordinance did. A farmer who cut his pumping by 40 percent during the drought to protect the basin received a permanent allocation 40 percent smaller than the farmer next door who kept pumping hard.

But the lawsuit they filed doesn't fix that problem. It asks the court to cut the basin's legal safe yield, which means less water gets allocated to everyone, not a fairer redistribution of the same amount. The farmers have a real complaint. The lawsuit is a different question.

Here is where the story gets more complicated.

The reasonable assumption at this point is that the basin must be in trouble. Why else would farmers sue? Why else would a court cut the safe yield? There must be a crisis.

Not exactly.

Fox Canyon's own most recent Pleasant Valley Basin Annual Report, published in March of this year, says the basin is recovering.

The numbers are blunt. Between 2015 and 2022, the Pleasant Valley Basin lost about 8,765 acre-feet of groundwater in storage. That's the decline the court was implicitly responding to when it cut the safe yield.

Then the trend reversed. In Water Year 2023, the basin gained back ground. In 2024, it gained significantly more. In 2025, a critical drought year, it gained another 2,960 acre-feet. Cumulatively since 2015, the basin has now gained approximately 8,206 acre-feet of stored water. Spring 2025 groundwater elevations were above the minimum thresholds in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan at seven of eight key wells. The report states that during Water Year 2025, reported groundwater production was "below the estimated sustainable yield."

That report was written by Dr. Jill Weinberger, the same hydrogeologist who wrote the original GSP. It was published by Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, the same agency the farmers are suing. It is not a Camarillo document. It is the regulator's document.

The basin the court ruled was being over-drafted in October 2025 was, by March 2026, gaining water during a drought.

This is the part that should change how you read the case. The basin is recovering, and a major reason is the Desalter. The recovery the data shows is not happening despite the Desalter. It's happening because of it.

If the court ruling stands, the Desalter has to cut back. The recovery slows or reverses. The court ruling threatens the very thing making the basin healthier.

So if the Desalter cuts back, what does Camarillo do?

The reasonable next thought is: just buy water. The city serves about 70,000 people. It has to keep delivering water to every tap whether the basin is recovering or not. If the local supply gets restricted, you import more.

It costs more. But the water gets to the city.

That answer ignores where the imported water comes from.

Camarillo's wholesale water supplier is Calleguas Municipal Water District, which gets its supply from the State Water Project. The State Water Project pulls water out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California and ships it south through 700 miles of canals and pipelines.

The Delta supplies drinking water for about 27 million Californians. That's roughly two out of every three people in the state. It also supports about three million acres of agricultural land in the Central Valley. The entire Southern California water economy is built on the assumption that the Delta keeps delivering.

The Delta is in worse shape than the Oxnard basin.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, the federal agency that regulates ocean fishing on the West Coast, closed California's commercial salmon fishery in 2023. They closed it again in 2024. Two consecutive years.

In a normal year, the fishery generates about $1.4 billion in economic activity and supports roughly 23,000 jobs, according to the Golden State Salmon Association. The 2023 closure alone is estimated to have cost the industry $45 million in direct losses.. The reason is not abstract. Sacramento River fall-run Chinook, the species that historically supported most of California's salmon fishery, has collapsed. The cause is drought combined with decades of water diversions south. The water that historically sustained the salmon runs has been pumped through the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project to supply cities and farms. The same water Camarillo would need to import if its Desalter cuts back.

The fish are part of a bigger picture.

The Delta is held together by 1,100 miles of levees. Most of the agricultural islands behind those levees have subsided 15 to 25 feet below sea level over the past century, because the peat soils that make up those islands oxidize and decompose once they're drained for farming. The land literally disappears into the atmosphere. Each foot of subsidence increases the hydraulic pressure on the levees holding back San Francisco Bay.

A major levee failure during an earthquake would let saltwater rush in from the Bay and contaminate the freshwater hub that supplies a third of the state. State water planners have studied this scenario extensively. There is no quick fix. A multi-levee failure event could shut off Delta exports for months while crews try to restore the system.

Even without a catastrophic failure, the system is degrading. Salinity from the Bay creeps inland every year as freshwater outflows decrease. The same ocean water that destroyed wells on the Oxnard Plain is doing the same thing in the Delta, at scale, in slow motion.

The California Legislature passed the Delta Reform Act in 2009 specifically to address this. The Act made it official state policy to reduce reliance on Delta water exports. The state and federal government paid for half of Camarillo's Desalter for exactly this reason. The Desalter is the kind of locally-resilient infrastructure California needs every city to be building. Less Delta dependence statewide means more water in the Delta, more pressure off the levees, more freshwater outflow to push the salt back, more water for the salmon to come home to.

The farmers in OPV Coalition are not solving an environmental problem by restricting Camarillo's pumping. They are shifting it. From the coastal aquifer, which is a real concern, to the Delta, which is in worse shape and has 27 million people downstream of it.

Back to Camarillo.

Here is what happens to residents if the court ruling stands.

The city will have to reduce Desalter production. How much depends on the final allocation mechanics, but Camarillo's writ petition suggests significant cuts are possible. Replacement water comes from Calleguas, at imported water prices.

Calleguas just raised its rates. Effective January 1, 2026, the combined Calleguas and Metropolitan Water District rate is $2,289 per acre-foot. Fox Canyon's groundwater surcharge rates went up the same day to match. Those costs flow through to ratepayers eventually. Either through higher water rates or through surcharges that get absorbed into rates over time.

Camarillo already approved a four-year rate increase plan in May 2025, before the court ruling. Under that plan, the average household combined water and sewer bill will rise by about $26.79 per month in the first year. That plan was built without accounting for the court ruling. If Desalter capacity gets cut and replacement Delta water has to be purchased, those rate increases will need to be larger or faster. The city has not yet published updated numbers, but they are almost certainly coming.

Beyond household bills, there is the question of housing. Camarillo's Urban Water Management Plan, required by state law, has to be updated by July 1, 2026. That plan has to demonstrate the city has enough water to support projected growth. A reduced Desalter makes that harder. If the city cannot demonstrate adequate water supply, new housing development becomes more difficult to approve.

And then there is the longer question. The one that affects every California city, not just this one.

Camarillo spent $66.3 million, much of it state and federal grant money, doing exactly what state water policy encouraged it to do. Reducing Delta dependence. Treating brackish groundwater locally. Removing salt that would otherwise destroy the aquifer. The state asked. The state paid. The city built.

If a court can later rule that the city had no right to use the water it has been treating for three years, what city in California is going to take on this kind of project again? Why would Oxnard, or Ventura, or San Diego, or any other municipality invest in the kind of locally-resilient infrastructure the state's water strategy depends on, knowing that a single ruling can unwind decades of planning?

Other cities are watching this case. The answer they get from the California Supreme Court will shape water infrastructure decisions across the state for the next generation.

None of this is simple. None of it has villains. The court applied the law as it understood it. The farmers have a real grievance about a genuinely flawed allocation system. Camarillo has a real case about how the law should be read. The state has a real interest in reducing Delta dependence. Fox Canyon has a real responsibility to manage the basin sustainably.

What makes this hard is that almost everyone involved is partially right.

Camarillo is right that the court misapplied the law on non-native water, and that the most recent data shows the basin is recovering.

OPV Coalition is right that the 2005-2014 allocation baseline was unfair to farmers who conserved.

The Farm Bureau is right that cooperative stakeholder processes work better than court-imposed solutions.

The state is right that reducing Delta exports is environmentally and economically necessary.

Everyone is right about their own piece. Nobody is looking at the whole thing.

That is the problem, and that is also why this case matters.

If you have read this far, here is what you should know.

The California Supreme Court will decide in the coming months whether to take up Camarillo's appeal. The Camarillo City Council will update the Urban Water Management Plan by July 1. They will set water rates that account for what's coming.

This is your city. This is your water. This is happening right now.

If you made it this far, you'll probably like the newsletter. I send one email a week with local events, stories, and things most people miss. Join Free →

Sources:

Gabrielle Ridgeway covers local government and community news for the Camarillo Caller.