THE COUPLE who filed suit over the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s water conservation rules but lost in trial court have decided to appeal their case.

The lawyer for Pebble Beach residents Richard and Sharlene Thum said her clients have a better chance of winning their case in the 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose.

“We have received an outpouring of verbal support from local residents, who have strongly requested that we appeal the case,” attorney Margaret Thum, Richard’s sister, told The Pine Cone Tuesday. “It is clear from these unsolicited responses that our case is vitally important not only us, but also to the community at large.

Following a November 2012 trial, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Lydia Villarreal ruled against the Thums, who had argued the district illegally restricted water use, unlawfully charged them connection fees and violated their rights to privacy.

The decision to appeal, Margaret Thum said, was made after Villarreal rejected the couple’s numerous objections to her ruling, including the contention Villarreal didn’t adequately address the points outlined in their lawsuit.
“On appeal, we will be able to present our case to a three-judge panel in San Jose,” Thum said. “Like all other litigants who appeal, we believe this scenario will afford us a better opportunity to present our arguments that, with all due respect, we believe were overlooked by the local court.”

The Thums began their fight with the water district four years ago after they converted an 85-square-foot closet to a bathroom. The water district gave them permission to install the bathroom before a district worker inspected their house to finalize the permit process.

During the inspection, though, the water district employee not only checked the bathroom but looked through the whole house, finding two handheld showerheads the district said had been installed without its permission.
Although the Thums said that the home’s previous owner denied making any changes to the fixtures after the water district’s last inspection in 2007, the district said it was unaware of them.

The Thums contended in their lawsuit that the water district’s regulations are not in compliance with state law and even violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

The water district, however, contends the state granted the district the authority to restrict water use in homes, and wide discretion how to do it, when it was created in 1977. During the trial, the water district’s attorney cited the Peninsula’s longstanding water shortage, which he called an “unprecedented water emergency,” as reasons for the district’s practices.

The Thums had hoped a judge would compel the water district to not restrict the household use of water, remove the deed restriction on their house, refund their connection fees and set aside its method of counting residential fixtures.

Though Villarreal in her ruling contended the Thums “agreed to an inspection of their residence,” a point argued by the water district, the Thums called the judge’s characterization an “erroneous conclusion” and said there was no evidence they consented to have their entire home inspected.