Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates
Decision Date | 19 December 2017 |
Docket Number | C070357 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Defendant; County of San Diego et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. |
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Timothy M. Barry, Chief Deputy, James R. O'Day, Senior Deputy, Office of the County Counsel, County of San Diego; Best Best & Krieger, Shawn Hagerty ; and Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak, Helen Holmes Peak, San Diego for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Shanda M. Beltran, Irvine and Andrew W. Henderson for Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Somach Simmons & Dunn, Theresa A. Dunham, and Nicholas A. Jacobs, Sacramento for the California Stormwater Quality Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Morrison & Foerster and Robert L. Falk, San Francisco for Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, Karin Watts-Bazan, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel, County of Riverside, for Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and County of Riverside as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Watson and Gregory J. Newmark, Los Angeles for Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Douglas J. Woods, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peter K. Southworth, Nelson R. Richards, and Kathleen A. Lynch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
No appearance for Defendant.
The California Constitution requires the state to provide a subvention of funds to compensate local governments for the costs of a new program or higher level of service the state mandates. ( Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 6 (section 6 ).) Subvention is not available if the state imposes a requirement that is mandated by the federal government, unless the state order mandates costs that exceed those incurred under the federal mandate. ( Gov. Code, § 17556, subd. (c).) The Commission on State Mandates (the Commission) adjudicates claims for subvention.
In Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 44, 378 P.3d 356 ( Department of Finance ), the California Supreme Court upheld a Commission ruling that certain conditions a regional water quality control board imposed on a storm water discharge permit issued under federal and state law required subvention and were not federal mandates. The high court found no federal law, regulation, or administrative case authority expressly required the conditions. It ruled the federal requirement that the permit reduce pollution impacts to the "maximum extent practicable" was not a federal mandate, but rather vested the regional board with discretion to choose which conditions to impose to meet the standard. The permit conditions resulting from the exercise of that choice were state mandates.
In this appeal, we face the same issue. The parties and the permit conditions are different, but the legal issue is the same—whether the Commission correctly determined that conditions imposed on a federal and state storm water permit by a regional water quality control board are state mandates. The Commission reached its decision by applying the standard the Supreme Court later adopted in Department of Finance . The trial court, reviewing the case before Department of Finance was issued, concluded the Commission had applied the wrong standard, and it remanded the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.
Following the analytical regime established by Department of Finance , we reverse the trial court's judgment. We conclude the Commission applied the correct standard and the permit requirements are state mandates. We reach this conclusion on the same grounds the high court in Department of Finance reached its conclusion. No federal law, regulation, or administrative case authority expressly required the conditions. The requirement to reduce pollution impacts to the "maximum extent practicable" was not a federal mandate, but instead vested the regional board with discretion to choose which conditions to impose to meet the standard. The permit conditions resulting from the exercise of that choice in this instance were state mandates.
We remand the matter so the trial court may consider other issues the parties raised in their pleadings but the court did not address.
In Department of Finance , the Supreme Court explained the storm water discharge permitting system and the constitutional reimbursement system in detail. We quote from the opinion at length:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates
...the constitutional mandate subvention system, please see the discussion in Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 661, 668-675, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 846 ( San Diego Mandates I ). For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the federal Clean Water Act ( 3......
-
City of San Diego v. Monsanto Co.
...exhaustion grounds. Monsanto asserts that the California Court of Appeal decision in Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates , 18 Cal.App.5th 661, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 846 (2017)3 "constitutes new or different circumstances under which the failure to dismiss or stay this case would......
-
City of Chula Vista, Corp. v. Monsanto Co.
...in Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, 378 P.3d 356 (Cal. 2016), and Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 846 (Ct. App. 2017). Defendants contend that the Court has discretion to dismiss or stay this matter pending resolution of the tes......