APPLE VALLEY, San Bernardino County — October 26, 2026. A major ruling in Apple Valley’s long-running effort to acquire its privately operated water system has clarified how courts must review the proposed takeover. But the August 24 California Supreme Court opinion did not authorize the acquisition or end the litigation. That distinction matters for residents trying to understand the future of local water service.
How the dispute reached the state’s highest court
The Town of Apple Valley adopted resolutions of necessity in 2015 as part of an effort to acquire the water system through eminent domain. The utility, Apple Valley Ranchos Water, contested whether the statutory requirements for taking privately owned utility property were met. Following a trial, the San Bernardino County Superior Court ruled against the town; later appellate proceedings raised a dispute over the standard courts should apply.
What the Supreme Court decided on August 24
In Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water (case S289391), California’s Supreme Court rejected the view that courts must review the town’s public-necessity determination only for a “gross abuse of discretion.” Instead, the court explained that in a contested utility-acquisition action, the relevant statutory presumptions are rebuttable, and the trial court uses independent judgment to decide whether the utility has rebutted them by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s prior judgment and returned the case for further proceedings. It did not itself decide whether every legal requirement for Apple Valley’s proposed acquisition had been met. The Court of Appeal must consider the remaining issues in the case.
What the ruling does not mean
Residents should not interpret the ruling as evidence that the town has already acquired the water utility, that public ownership has been approved, or that water rates have changed as a result of the decision. Nor does the opinion permanently bar a future acquisition. These questions remain distinct from the legal standard resolved by the Supreme Court.
In its public statement, the Town of Apple Valley said it would continue to assess the litigation. That statement represents the town’s position. The court’s written opinion, rather than any party’s press release, is the authoritative source for what was decided.
Where residents can verify the record
Readers can review the California Courts docket for case S289391, the August 24 Supreme Court opinion, and the Town of Apple Valley’s public statement. A later appellate order or final judgment could change the case’s procedural posture, so readers should check the latest court record.
For additional local government reporting, follow Apple Valley News and the California58 local newspaper network.
Editorial note: This is an October 2026 explanation of a ruling issued August 24, not a report of a new court ruling today. Court findings and litigant statements are identified separately. This article is not legal advice.
Help this community newspaper grow
Your support helps build coverage for the people and places this local newspaper serves.
Donate once by card ↗Support Apple Valley News
Choose how to support Apple Valley News:
Credit / Debit Card via StripeChoose an amount from $1. One-time support through the publisher's LINKERNO Stripe account.
Continue with PayPal Continue with ZelleZelle payments go to Vitaly Ataev Troshin. Please verify the recipient in your bank before sending. Availability depends on your bank.
Optional reader support. When possible, add “Apple Valley News” to the payment note. Contributions are not advertised as tax-deductible. Support does not influence editorial decisions.More from Apple Valley News
- Apple Valley’s 2026 Town Manager Transition: Guy Eisenbrey Takes the Helm After Council Vote →
- Apple Valley Offers Up to $75,000 in Zero-Interest Home Repair Loans: Who May Qualify →
- Apple Valley’s $9.9 Million Road Safety Grant: Where the Planned Improvements Would Go →
- Apple Valley Homebuilding in 2026: What the Town Permit Center Actually Requires →
COMMUNITY
Comments
Join the California58 conversation. You must be signed in to comment.
Create a free California58 account or sign in with an available social provider.