There is no apparent end in sight to a lingering North County water dispute. Despite a tentative judicial ruling on the legality of Paso Robles' efforts to pay for a pair of expensive water projects, the fight continues. (See the full 15-minute video, "Paso's Withering Water War.")

     San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman issued a mid-October opinion that Paso Robles' method of extracting payment from current residents constitutes a "charge" and not a "special tax." The tentative ruling -- so called because for a period of time it can be altered by the judge before it becomes final -- also suggested that Paso Robles officials erred in the notification process utilized to properly inform residents about the project, and must take corrective actions.

     Concerned Citizens of Paso Robles is a group formed in the wake of dissent surrounding Paso Robles' city council's unilateral decision to stake the city to the Nacimiento Water Project, to build a costly new water treatment plant, and to pay the bill by increasing water costs to residents.

     The group sued the city, contending that state constitutional requirements had been bypassed or violated by officials who were, in reality, assessing a new "special tax" on current residential water users. Provisions of Propositions 13 and 218 were violated by the city, asserts the citizens' group.

     The citizens' attorney, Paul Heidenreich, has requested a "statement of decision explaining the factual basis" for Judge Tangeman's decision. Heidenreich seeks answers from the court on a dozen factual issues, including these:

• Do present water customers pay for more than the water they consume?
• Is the charge a 'property-related fee?'
• Is 50 percent a fair proportion of the projects' costs to be paid for by future growth?
• Will new development pay its fair share of the projects' costs?
• Are project waters immediately available for rate payers?
• Is the charge being imposed for a service not actually used by rate payers?
• And do present water customers actually need the projects' water yield?

     Judge Tangeman may reply by the end of November -- if he so desires -- to Heidenreich's request for clarification.