On March 27, 2026, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stephen Acquisto denied the California Department of Water Resources’ motion to disqualify Somach Simmons & Dunn, the law firm that has represented the County of Sacramento, City of Stockton, and other local agencies in Delta Conveyance litigation since 2007.
DWR’s motion, supported by some 5,000 pages of filings, argued that attorney Casey Shorrock’s prior work on a 2020 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for geotechnical investigations created a disqualifying conflict of interest. The court disagreed.
The Court’s Reasoning
Applying the “substantial relationship” test from Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., the court found that the two representations were not sufficiently related to warrant disqualification. The key distinctions:
- The IS/MND covered geotechnical investigations that were “an undertaking independent from any potential, future conveyance project”
- An IS/MND and an EIR involve different procedural postures and standards of review
- Defending an IS/MND against public comments “would not require the same level of substantiation as defending the sufficiency of an EIR for the DCP in CEQA litigation”
The court cited DWR’s own prior arguments in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. v. Department of Water Resources (2025), where DWR had argued that the geotechnical studies and the DCP “have different purposes, timelines, approvals, and implementation, allowing them to properly undergo separate environmental review.” The court found this distinction equally applicable to the conflicts analysis.
A Pattern of Failed Tactics
Tom Keeling, co-counsel representing San Joaquin County and other Delta counties and agencies, placed the ruling in broader context:
“After nearly 20 years of failed attempts, DWR still has no viable path forward for the costly and destructive Delta tunnel. DWR’s effort to silence the voices of Delta residents by depriving them of their long-standing legal counsel smacks of desperation and further exposes the weaknesses in DWR’s failing Delta tunnel scheme. This latest ruling against DWR follows close upon DWR’s unsuccessful 2025 effort to disqualify the Somach firm in the ongoing evidentiary hearing before the State Water Board’s Administrative Hearing Office and recent rulings striking down DWR’s bond financing scheme for the Delta tunnel. The waste of rate-payer and taxpayer resources in continuing to prop up this ill-conceived project is unconscionable.”
DWR’s disqualification gambit has now failed twice: first in the water rights hearing, where Administrative Hearing Officer Kuenzi rejected DWR’s conditional waiver as inviting “future gamesmanship,” and now in Superior Court. Meanwhile, the Third District Court of Appeal has rejected DWR’s claimed authority to issue revenue bonds to finance the project, and the Delta Stewardship Council certification process remains contested.
What This Means
The ruling is effective immediately. Somach Simmons & Dunn will continue representing Sacramento, Stockton, and other local agencies in the consolidated CEQA cases and related proceedings. The communities most directly affected by the proposed Delta tunnel retain the experienced counsel they have worked with for nearly two decades.
The State spent considerable resources on this motion. The petitioners spent resources defending against it. The court spent time adjudicating it. And in the end, DWR’s own prior arguments undercut its position. As the court noted, the disqualification test is “anything but a ‘bright line’ standard” and “must be applied to individual cases by the exercise of the court’s considered judgment based in reason, logic and common sense.”
Common sense prevailed.
