By Peter Weinberger | pweinberger@claremont-courier.com

Ten years after Claremont lost its eminent domain battle against Golden State Water Company, the decision continues to affect residents, city finances, local politics, and the broader debate over who should control the community’s most essential resource. This two-part analysis revisits how Claremont’s water fight reached the courtroom, why expectations were so high, what happened after the city lost, and what lessons remain. This is a review of a civic battle with the benefit of time, perspective, Courier reporting, and public records from the case. Source links are available with this story at claremont-courier.com. “Part 2: After the ruling, a reckoning,” will publish next week in print and at claremont-courier.com.

Who should manage Claremont’s water?
By the time Claremont filed its eminent domain lawsuit against Golden State Water Company in December 2014, the fight had become much more than a dispute over utility rates. It was about control. It was about trust. It was about whether water should be controlled by a private for profit company or by the city for the benefit of residents.

For many Claremonters, the answer seemed obvious. Water bills had climbed. Golden State Water had become a familiar target at City Council meetings and California Public Utilities Commission hearings. Residents objected not only to the cost of water, but to the feeling that decisions affecting their pocketbooks were being made far from Claremont by a regulated investor-owned utility.

The emotional argument was powerful: water comes from nature, is essential to life, and should not be treated simply as a commodity. The Courier had made that argument for decades, including in its endorsement of Measure W. As then-editor Kathryn Dunn later wrote in an editor’s note after the judge’s decision, the Courier’s support was “not solely based on economics.” The larger belief was that water should be provided as a municipal service, not sold “at the highest price possible by a private company for the benefit of its shareholders,” she wrote.

January 27, 2012: Protesters including Claremont resident Dave Comerzan, in focus, line Foothill Boulevard in front of Golden State Water Company’s Claremont office. The demonstrators from Claremonters Against Outrageous Water Rates were fighting against the company’s proposed water rate increases. Courier file photo

That sentiment was not fringe. In 2014, Claremont voters overwhelmingly approved Measure W, authorizing the city to issue up to $135 million in revenue bonds to acquire the local water system if the city prevailed. Just over 71% of voters supported the measure, giving city leaders a strong public mandate.

Three weeks later, the City Council unanimously adopted resolutions of necessity, the formal step required before a public agency can pursue eminent domain. On December 9, 2014, the city filed its lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

At the time, confidence ran high. Freeman Allen, a longtime water acquisition advocate, captured the mood in a Courier story published December 11, 2014. “There’s December 7, and then there’s December 9,” Allen wrote. “It’s a very memorable day in Claremont!”

The city’s case was rooted in a straightforward public argument: Claremont believed it could run the water system with more accountability, better transparency, stronger local control, and possibly lower long-term costs. City officials also argued GSW had not made enough use of local water resources and that municipal ownership would allow Claremont to better align water policy with local priorities.

But the legal determination did not turn on whether residents were frustrated, whether water bills were high, or whether local control sounded more democratic; the legal question was narrower and harder: Could Claremont prove that city ownership was a “more necessary public use” than continued operation by Golden State Water?

That phrase became the heart of the case.

The bar remained high
Golden State had operated Claremont’s water system since 1929. It was not an abandoned service or an unregulated company. It was a private, investor-owned water utility overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission. That made Claremont’s case more difficult than many residents likely understood. The city was not simply asking to buy a utility, it was asking a judge to approve taking a functioning, regulated water system from one operator and transferring it to another.

Golden State argued Claremont had not proved residents would be better off. It also argued the city planned largely to operate the system “as is,” rather than making significant improvements that would justify taking the system by eminent domain.

The case went to a 21-day bench trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Fruin in 2016. There was no jury at this stage. The judge first had to decide whether Claremont had the legal right to take the system. Only if the city cleared that hurdle would a jury determine the value of the system.

That distinction matters. Many residents may have focused on the possible purchase price. But Claremont never got that far.

Judge Fruin’s tentative ruling, issued in November 2016, was a shock. The judge found that GSW had overcome the city’s claims and that Claremont had not established that municipal ownership was a more necessary public use. The ruling criticized the city’s resolutions of necessity and questioned whether the city had clearly identified the factual basis for taking the system before launching the lawsuit.

One passage cited by critics became especially damaging. The judge wrote that he would expect a city pursuing eminent domain to have a complete list of reasons, available to the City Council before it voted, explaining why the acquisition was necessary. But, he wrote, “so far as the court can discern, the city did not prepare any report that provides a complete list of reasons for its exercise of eminent domain.”

That was a serious blow. It suggested the city had a political mandate, but not the legal record the court required to consider an eminent domain measure.

The final decision, issued December 9, 2016, exactly two years after the lawsuit was filed, changed little from the tentative ruling. The court again sided with Golden State. Judge Fruin also rejected the city’s effort to rely on a large administrative record, including a digital archive of thousands of documents. The court said it was not required to comb through more than 13,000 pages looking for reasons that could support the city’s resolutions.

Then Mayor Sam Pedroza pushed back forcefully. In a 16-page response, he argued Golden State’s system had serious deficiencies, including operational inefficiencies, pressure-zone problems and main breaks. He said GSW’s own counsel had described the system as “quirky.” He also said the city was surprised by the ruling, believing the court had made statements during trial that appeared favorable to Claremont’s position.

But surprise did not change the result.

The first part of Claremont’s water fight ended with a painful mismatch. Residents had legitimate complaints. The city had a strong vote. Supporters had a moral argument that resonated deeply in a community that values local control. But in court, the city needed more than public frustration and civic conviction. It needed to prove, under a demanding legal standard, that taking Golden State Water’s system was necessary.

Judge Fruin concluded it had not.