On January 23, 2026, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) filed a motion in Sacramento County Superior Court seeking to disqualify the law firm of Somach Simmons & Dunn, longtime counsel for the County of Sacramento, the City of Stockton, in three of the ten consolidated cases challenging DWR’s approvals of the Delta Conveyance Project. Somach has represented these local governments on Delta matters since 2007.
On February 6, 2026, the court will hear Somach’s motion to stay all Delta Conveyance proceedings while it resolves DWR’s sweeping conflict-of-interest claims. Though the legal issues are technical, they present a fundamental question of fairness: Can the State destabilize the legal representation of directly affected local governments in the middle of ongoing, multi-front litigation?
A State-Created Problem
Last April, during the State Water Resources Control Board’s evidentiary hearing on the Delta Conveyance Project, DWR first raised a potential conflict involving Somach attorneys. The Administrative Hearing Officer gave DWR a clear choice: promptly file a disqualification motion in a court of competent jurisdiction, or waive the objection and allow the hearing to continue. DWR chose to waive.
The AHO’s reasoning was unambiguous: letting DWR reserve its objection would “threaten to nullify significant resources invested by the many parties and the State Water Board in this highly complex hearing” and “invite future gamesmanship.”
Nearly ten months later, DWR reversed course. In January 2026, it filed a detailed disqualification motion—not limited to one proceeding, but asserting that the alleged conflicts extend across all matters “related” to the Delta Conveyance Project. The result is widespread uncertainty about the validity of Sacramento County’s and Stockton’s legal representation in multiple active cases, including environmental review challenges, water rights proceedings, and pending appeals.
Why This Raises Serious Due Process Concerns
The merits of DWR’s conflict allegations have not been decided by any court. The problem lies in the timing and scope of the motion itself.
By injecting this cloud of uncertainty mid-stream, DWR threatens the ability of the communities most directly impacted by the project to participate effectively while litigation continues to move forward. Sacramento County and the City of Stockton are not peripheral players: the proposed tunnel would be built through their jurisdictions. Their residents would endure the construction impacts, land disruption, environmental risks, and long-term changes to Delta water management.
Somach has represented these communities for almost two decades in Delta Conveyance matters, accumulating deep institutional knowledge that cannot be replaced. Continuity of counsel is essential for meaningful participation. When the project proponent takes steps that jeopardize that continuity during active proceedings, the fairness of the entire process is placed in doubt. Due process cannot be reliably restored after the fact.
What a Stay Does—and Does Not Do
A temporary stay would not decide the ethical question. It would not presume the outcome of DWR’s motion. It would not disqualify anyone.
What it would do is preserve the integrity of the proceedings while the court resolves the serious issues DWR has raised. It ensures that decisions affecting Delta communities are made on a stable record, with all parties able to participate on equal footing.
Proceeding without a stay risks years of work being undermined later, at far greater cost to everyone involved.
The Larger Context
A stay would cause little practical prejudice to DWR’s timeline. On December 31, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that DWR lacks authority to issue revenue bonds to finance the Delta Conveyance Project; DWR’s petition for rehearing was denied. The federal environmental review remains at the programmatic stage, and the Army Corps of Engineers has stated it cannot complete permit reviews until more detailed engineering designs are submitted. DWR currently has no long term funding mechanism and faces years of additional permitting.
In light of these realities, DWR’s simultaneous push to advance litigation while seeking to disqualify opposing counsel appears more strategic than substantive.
Why This Matters Beyond One Hearing
If the State can raise conflict allegations in one forum, waive them to avoid delay, and then resurrect them months later to disrupt representation across multiple related proceedings, local governments are placed in an untenable position.
For the residents of Sacramento County and Stockton, tomorrow’s hearing is about whether their voices will be heard consistently and fairly, or whether procedural maneuvers will be permitted to weaken local participation in decisions that carry enormous consequences.
At its heart, this is a question of balance between state power and local due process. That balance is worth pausing to protect.
A Note on My Own Filing
Earlier this week, I submitted a supplementary brief on due process concerns in the ongoing Delta Conveyance water rights hearing. I did so as an independent party because the structural fairness issues extend beyond Somach’s clients to every participant in the proceeding.
When the State takes actions that threaten to destabilize the legal representation of the most directly affected communities, the integrity of the entire process is placed at risk. Due process demands a hearing that remains structurally sound and capable of producing a record that can withstand judicial scrutiny. While other protesting parties raised the procedural and coordination concerns in their filings (Contra Costa County et. al., Baykeeper et al.), no one had explicitly raised the larger Constitutional due process issues. So I researched and filed a six page briefing on this essential context.
