Dead fish, shrinking lakes and a dispute over who controls a shared water system have divided the Greenhills Estates community in Chowchilla and sparked a legal battle that is now moving through Madera County Superior Court.
The Greenhills Master Association (HOA) is suing the Water Resource Council (WRC), Pheasant Run Golf Club and its managing member, Martin Boone, Sierra Golf Management, The Lakes RV Park, The Villas Owners Association and several individuals tied to the council. The homeowners association alleges civil theft, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and mismanagement of a shared water system that residents say has contributed to declining lakes and mass fish die-offs in the upscale, gated community.
The WRC rejects the HOA’s allegations and argues the case is not a dispute over water rights, but rather it’s a disagreement over contractual obligations and governance of the shared system. On its website, the WRC says Greenhills failed to pay more than $110,000 in invoices for lake maintenance and rehabilitation of a well and did not respond to an offer to mediate the dispute.
The council also disputes allegations of fraud and conspiracy and maintains that statements made by HOA leaders contain inaccuracies and misinformation.
Greenhills Estates is a community of about 905 homeowners built around man-made lakes and the Pheasant Run Golf Course. Residents, whose average household income is about $94,000, are drawn to its waterfront views and amenities such as a clubhouse, community pool, walking trails and a 24-hour guarded gate
For residents, the conflict has raised questions about transparency, governance and the future of the community’s lakes and water infrastructure.
Among them is Edgar Lacey, who said he moved into the gated community 13 years ago expecting clean lakes, operating fountains and well-maintained grounds.
Now, he said, residents are watching conditions deteriorate before their eyes.
“I bought on the premise that I would have a clean and functional lake, functioning water fountains, and green,” Lacey said. “That has been compromised in a way.”
The growing dispute over Greenhills lakes has also drawn attention from local government officials.
During a recent HOA meeting, Chowchilla District 4 Councilmember Ray Barragan, who also lives in the community, offered to help facilitate a resolution and questioned how homeowners’ funds are being allocated, according to a Nextdoor post from Matt Thiel. Barragan warned that, from his experience, litigation will drag on for a long time.
How a water-sharing agreement unraveled
At the center of the dispute is a 2021 agreement that created the Water Resource Council, or WRC, a private council and jointly-formed governing body made up of Greenhills, Pheasant Run Golf Course, The Villas and Lakes RV Park to manage a shared water system serving the properties.
What began as disagreements over costs and governance has evolved into a broader legal battle involving allegations of civil theft, public nuisance, transparency concerns and disputes over deteriorating lake conditions.
The Greenhills association’s lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and invokes California’s civil theft statute, which allows for triple damages, attorney’s fees and court costs. It also asks the court to order the WRC and Pheasant Run Golf Club to maintain adequate water levels in the lakes, citing concerns that further declines could cause lasting ecological harm and drive down property values throughout the community.
Under the agreement, costs are divided according to the surface area of lakes controlled by each participating property. Greenhills is responsible for the largest share of expenses at 66.77%, followed by Pheasant Run Golf Course at 25.56%, The Villas, a gated apartment community, at 5.6% and Lakes RV Park at 2.07%.
The WRC is made up of four entities, and each one has a representative on the council. It is not a homeowners association, and it is not governed by HOA law.
The council meets every other month, and includes five members, though some seats for Greenhills Estates are currently listed as vacant.
The agreement gave the WRC authority over maintenance, budgeting and water distribution for shared wells, pumps, pipelines and lakes. It also identified the lakes as holding basins and neighborhood amenities while prioritizing irrigation needs within the larger water system.
Greenhills HOA leaders say many of the current disputes stem from how that agreement was structured.
According to Greenhills HOA President John Campbell, a new HOA board elected in 2024 inherited concerns involving well ownership, water rights, representation on the WRC and the overall governance structure created by the agreement.
Campbell said tensions escalated on June 2, 2025, after water service to Greenhills was cut off twice, eventually resulting in a shutoff that lasted about a year. He links that prolonged dispute to the deteriorating lake conditions and mass fish die‑off, which he alleges was caused by aerators being turned off, not by PG&E cutting power.
“Those accounts were current,” Campbell said. “There was full electricity to those aerators at the time the fish were killed.”
Since then, disagreements over costs, transparency and decision-making authority have grown into a legal battle that has divided residents and drawn widespread attention throughout the community.
“As I told Mr. Boone, the owner of the golf course, I said: This boils down to taxation without representation, and that’s what started the American Revolution,” Campbell said. “And we don’t want to go through that again.”
HOA and WRC offer different narratives
The two sides disagree about the fundamental nature of the dispute.
Greenhills argues homeowners are being required to pay nearly 70% of the system’s costs while receiving limited information about how money is spent. The HOA alleges invoices tied to the WRC may include expenses related to golf course operations rather than water infrastructure and lake maintenance.
“We will pay our fair share for the water that we need and use,” Greenhills attorney Jacob Sarabian told The Merced Focus before the latest court hearing earlier this month. “We are not going to pay for golf course irrigation, and we are not going to pay for phantom, non-existent rights.”
Representatives for the WRC and Pheasant Run reject that characterization.
“This isn’t about a water war,” WRC attorney Matt Bukowski told The Merced Focus. “It’s about them failing to perform their responsibilities.”
The WRC contends Greenhills stopped paying its required share under the 2021 agreement and argues transparency concerns are being used to justify nonpayment.
Legal battle heads toward trial
The dispute returned to court on June 1, when more than a dozen residents gathered outside a Madera County Superior Court room to watch a hearing for the case.
By the end of the proceedings, Judge Eric James LiCalsi delivered a mixed ruling, allowing several of Greenhills’ claims to move forward while denying an effort to remove Bukowski from the case.
Greenhills’ attorney sought to disqualify Bukowski, arguing that his representation of the WRC, Pheasant Run Golf Club and owner Martin Boone created a conflict of interest because Greenhills residents fund a significant portion of the WRC’s operations through the cost-sharing agreement.
According to Sarabian, residents are being asked to cover nearly two-thirds of the WRC’s expenses while receiving limited information about how legal costs are allocated among the various parties Bukowski represents.
Sarabian argued that redacted invoices and limited financial records have made it difficult for residents to determine whether they are paying for legal work unrelated to the water agreement.
“This is not a simple contract fee spat,” Sarabian argued in court, describing the dispute as one involving governance, transparency and control of the water system.
Bukowski countered that Greenhills was never his client, never sought legal advice from him and never shared confidential information with him.
Because no attorney-client relationship existed, Bukowski argued the HOA lacked standing to seek his disqualification. LiCalsi ultimately agreed and denied the motion.
The HOA found success on another issue before the court.
LiCalsi also considered a demurrer challenging several of Greenhills’ claims. Bukowski argued the lawsuit is fundamentally a contract dispute over money, rather than a criminal matter.
“This is, at its heart, a breach of contract claim,” Bukowski told the court, arguing Greenhills was attempting to transform “a contract cost allocation dispute” into something more.
The judge partially disagreed.
LiCalsi determined Greenhills provided sufficient evidence for its claim that the association made payments for purposes different from what was represented, allowing the HOA’s civil theft claim to proceed.
The judge also allowed Greenhills’ public nuisance claim to move forward.
The claim centers on allegations in the complaint that aerators in Greenhills lakes were shut off for about nine days in September 2025, from roughly Sept. 12 through Sept. 21. The filing says the fish die-off began on Sept. 19, with community concern becoming widespread by Sept. 22 when residents noticed dead fish and a strong odor.
Residents’ concerns about lake conditions have surfaced repeatedly throughout the conflict.
In a Sept. 21, 2025 email to Sierra Golf Management, Campbell documented complaints involving dead fish, foul odors and shrinking shorelines throughout several community lakes.
The email described what Campbell called a possible “systemic failure” affecting the water system and requested information about the cause of the problems, corrective measures and potential public health concerns.
Those issues resurfaced during the latest court hearing.
“I don’t think all those poor dead fish would consider this a contract dispute,” Sarabian told the court.
Bukowski pushed back.
“Those dead fish were not caused by the Water Resource Council,” he argued, contending that inadequate funding prevented proper operation of the water delivery system and that without Greenhills paying its share, “there’s no water for the fish.”
For residents, the stakes extend beyond the courtroom
For residents like Lacey, however, the conflict is about more than contracts and court filings.
“My home value is probably going to plummet,” he said.
The dispute, Lacey said, has created tension throughout the community while raising concerns about its future.
“We have a vested interest in our community for safety, for beautification, and functionality,” he said.
Lacey supports the HOA’s efforts to restore what residents describe as their water rights in order to improve conditions throughout Greenhills.
“If we’re paying (66.77%) of the water bill and not getting any water, then that should be restored to us, made whole again,” he said.
While acknowledging that the HOA has spent a significant amount of money pursuing the dispute, he described the expense as necessary.
“It’s the cost of doing business,” he said. “This is still a beautiful community.”
Several of Greenhills’ claims, including civil theft and public nuisance, will move forward. The HOA was given 30 days to amend and provide more detail for its other claims, including fraud, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment against certain defendants.
Before the hearing ended, Sarabian urged the court to begin discussing a path toward trial.
LiCalsi declined to set trial dates and instead scheduled a case management conference for Aug. 10, when the parties will return to court and the timeline for future proceedings may become clearer.
The court noted that it is scheduling trials into July and August 2027, meaning the HOA’s lawsuit is not expected to be heard before the summer of 2027.