Brydon v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist.
Decision Date | 18 April 1994 |
Docket Number | No. A060031,A060031 |
Citation | 24 Cal.App.4th 178,29 Cal.Rptr.2d 128 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | Charles W. BRYDON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Berding & Weil, James O. Devereaux, Alamo, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Dianne K. Barry, Nancie Ryan, Verna P. Bromley, Office of Gen. Counsel, East Bay Mun. Utility Dist., Oakland, for defendants and respondents.
Arthur G. Kidman, Janet R. Morningstar, McCormick, Kidman & Behrens, Costa Mesa, for amicus curiae Ass'n of California Water Agencies.
Appellants are customers of respondent East Bay Municipal Utility District (the District) who seek to invalidate the water rate structure design enacted by the District in April 1991 as part of a comprehensive Drought Management Program. Appellants petitioned for writ of mandate and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The petition alleged: (1) the inclining block rate structure at issue constitutes an invalid "special tax" in violation of article XIII A, section 4, of the California Constitution; (2) the adoption of the rate structure was arbitrary, capricious and not rationally related to any legitimate legislative or administrative objective; and, (3) the rate structure unreasonably discriminates against customers "residing in the hot climate areas east of the Berkeley-Oakland hills."
Appellants claim on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the petition and issued an inadequate statement of decision.
The District is a public agency created pursuant to the Municipal Utility District Act (Pub.Util.Code, § 11501 et seq.) and governed by an elected board of directors. The board determines all questions of policy including the establishment of water rates. (Pub.Util.Code, § 12809.) The District supplies water to over 1.1 million residents in portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Ninety-five percent of the District's water supply is obtained from the Mokelumne River's 575-square mile watershed on the western slope of the Sierra Nevadas. The District's diversion of this water to the Bay Area occurs at Pardee Reservoir on the Mokelumne River. Further downstream is the Camanche Dam and Reservoir. The combined storage of the Pardee and Camanche reservoirs is approximately 641,000 AF (acre-feet). 1
Since the District water supply from the Mokelumne River is subject to the entitlements of other users, the District relies on the storage capacity of the two reservoirs to make the river's yield more dependable. Storage in Camanche Reservoir is used to meet the District's downstream obligations, including releases for irrigation, stream flow regulation, flood control, fishery needs, and the senior rights of other riparian and appropriative entitlements.
Storage capacity is essential to the District's operation. In dry years the runoff from the Sierra foothills is less than needed to meet demand and the District must use storage from prior years. In extended critical dry periods such as the historical 1976-1977 drought and the 1986-1992 drought, the existing storage capacity on the Mokelumne River is not sufficient to supply all normal consumptive and in-stream needs.
The District conveys water stored in Pardee Reservoir to the Bay Area through three 82-mile long pipelines. Five terminal reservoirs are maintained within the East Bay. These reservoirs are used: (1) to re-regulate the District's Mokelumne River supply in the winter and spring, when Sierra runoff occurs and for uses during the high demand period of the summer months; (2) as emergency standby in case of extended drought or damage to the tunnels, pumping plants, or the aqueducts which cross delta areas that are vulnerable to flooding and earthquakes; (3) to store local runoff and, (4) for environmental and recreational benefits.
Rapid population growth and uncertain climatic conditions have required the District to seek additional sources of water supply. Currently the District has a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for 150,000 AF per year of American River water to be diverted at the Folsom Dam and transported through the Folsom South Canal, the major portion of which has yet to be constructed. The District is required to pay substantial annual fees for maintaining the contract rights to the American River water. Other water supply options include the construction of Bay Area dams and reservoirs and the transfer of American and Mokelumne River water for storage in underground aquifers in San Joaquin County. The various options under consideration are in response to the increasing demands for water. The anticipated costs of these additional sources substantially exceed the costs of present supplies.
From 1986 to 1992, Northern California experienced extreme drought conditions which challenged the capacity of the District to guarantee sufficient water for "human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection." (WATER CODE, § 350. )2
On April 9, 1991, the District adopted Resolution No. 32473 which created the "Drought Management Program for 1991." Reciting that "five consecutive dry years have resulted in limited availability of water to meet the needs of consumers ...," the resolution prohibited enumerated "wasteful uses of water" 3 and further imposed an inclining block rate structure deemed "necessary to conserve the water supply for the greatest public benefit."
An inclining block rate structure imposes higher charges per unit of water as the level of consumption increases. Effective May 1, 1991, the District's inclining block rate structure for single family residential customers was as follows:
Gallons Per Day Price Per CCf"748 Gallons 0 to 250 $ .91 251 to 750 .99 751 to 1200 1.50 Over 1200 3.00
Effective June 11, 1991, the rate structure was modified as follows:
Gallons Per Day Price Per CCf"748 Gallons 0 to 250 $1.05 251 to 750 1.30 751 to 1200 1.97 Over 1200 3.94
Resolution No. 32473 provided for hardship, health and safety exceptions for those consumers adversely affected by the rate structure.
In support of the Drought Management Program, Resolution No. 32473 set forth 27 findings, including the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
County of Amador v. Water Agency
...equalling the quantity of water required to cover an acre of land to a depth of one foot." (Brydon v. East Bay Mun. Utility, Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 178, 182, fn. 1, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 128.) 2. Although the Water Agency complains the trial court failed to resolve all of the issues presented......
-
Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast Region
...Water Dist. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 132, 140, fn. 9 [60 Cal.Rptr. 377, 429 P.2d 889], and by this court in Brydon v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 178, 203 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 128]. 20. In addition to the fact that all 50 States made their views known to the Supreme Court (see fn. ......
-
Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources
...equalling the quantity of water required to cover an acre of land to a depth of one foot." (Brydon v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 178, 182, fn. 1, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 128.) 4. Area of origin statutes at Water Code sections 10505.5 and 11460 reserve water in the counties whe......
-
Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates
...a tax simply because the fee may be disproportionate to the service rendered to individual payors. ( Brydon v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 178, 194 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 128].) The question of proportionality is not measured on an individual basis. Rather, it is measured col......