Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates
| Decision Date | 29 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | S214855 |
| Citation | 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 44,1 Cal.5th 749,378 P.3d 356 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES, Defendant and Respondent; County of Los Angeles et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. |
Burhenn & Gest, Howard Gest and David W. Burhenn, Los Angeles, for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants County of Los Angeles, City of Bellflower, City of Carson, City of Commerce, City of Covina, City of Downey and City of Signal Hill.
John F. Krattli and Mark Saladino, County Counsel, and Judith A. Fries, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest and Appellant County of Los Angeles
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Gregory J. Newmark, Los Angeles, John D. Bakker, Oakland; Morrison & Foerster, Robert L. Falk and Megan B. Jennings, San Francisco, for Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as Amici Curiae
on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Somach Simmons & Dunn, Theresa A. Dunham, Nicholas A. Jacobs, Sacramento; Pamela J. Walls and Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel (Riverside), Karin Watts–Bazan, Principal Deputy County Counsel, and Aaron C. Gettis, Deputy County Counsel, for California Stormwater Quality Association, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and County of Riverside as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel (Orange), Ryan M.F. Baron and Ronald T. Magsaysay, Deputy County Counsel, for County of Orange as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Best Best & Krieger, Shawn Hagerty and Rebecca Andrews, San Diego, for County of San Diego and 18 Cities in San Diego County as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel (San Diego) and Timothy M. Barry, Chief Deputy County Counsel, for California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Andrew R. Henderson for Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Best Best & Krieger and J.G. Andre Monette for City of Aliso Viejo, City of Lake Forest and City of Santa Ana as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Michael R.W. Houston, City Attorney (Anaheim) for City of Anaheim as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Richards, Watson & Gershon and Candice K. Lee, Los Angeles, for City of Brea, City of Buena Park and City of Seal Beach as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Baron J. Bettenhausen, Irvine, for City of Costa Mesa and City of Westminster as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Aleshire & Wynder, Anthony R. Taylor, Irvine, and Wesley A. Miliband, Sacramento, for City of Cypress as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Rutan & Tucker and Richard Montevideo, Costa Mesa, for City of Dana Point as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (Huntington Beach) and Michael Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney, for City of Huntington Beach as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Rutan & Tucker and Jeremy N. Jungreis, Costa Mesa, for City of Irvine, City of San Clemente and City of Yorba Linda as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart and M. Lois Bobak, Costa Mesa, for City of Laguna Hills and City of Tustin as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Terry E. Dixon, Fountain Valley, for City of Laguna Niguel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Mark K. Kitabayashi, Los Angeles, for City of Mission Viejo as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Aaron C. Harp, Canyon Lake, for City of Newport Beach as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Wayne W. Winthers for City of Orange as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Peter K. Southworth, Kathleen A. Lynch, Tamar Pachter and Nelson R. Richards, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Under our state Constitution, if the Legislature or a state agency requires a local government to provide a new program or higher level of service, the local government is entitled to reimbursement from the state for the associated costs. (Cal. Const., art. XIII B, § 6, subd. (a).) There are exceptions, however. Under one of them, if the new program or increased service is mandated by a federal law or regulation, reimbursement is not required. (Gov. Code, § 17556, subd. (c).)
The services in question here are provided by local agencies that operate storm drain systems pursuant to a state-issued permit. Conditions in that permit are designed to maintain the quality of California's water, and to comply with the federal Clean Water Act. The Court of Appeal held that certain permit conditions were federally mandated, and thus not reimbursable. We reverse, concluding that no federal law or regulation imposed the conditions nor did the federal regulatory system require the state to impose them. Instead, the permit conditions were imposed as a result of the state's discretionary action.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (the Regional Board) is a state agency. It issued a permit authorizing Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and 84 cities (collectively, the Operators) to operate storm drainage systems.1
Permit conditions required that the Operators take various steps to reduce the discharge of waste and pollutants into state waters. The conditions included installing and maintaining trash receptacles at transit stops, as wells as inspecting certain commercial and industrial facilities and construction sites.
Some Operators sought reimbursement for the cost of satisfying the conditions. The Commission on State Mandates (the Commission) concluded each required condition was a new program or higher level of service, mandated by the state rather than by federal law. However, it found the Operators were only entitled to state reimbursement for the costs of the trash receptacle condition, because they could levy fees to cover the costs of the required inspections. (See discussion, post , at p. 12.) The trial court and the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that all of the requirements were federally mandated.
We granted review. To resolve this issue, it is necessary to consider both the permitting system and the reimbursement obligation in some detail.
The Operators' municipal storm sewer systems discharge both waste and pollutants.2 State law controls “waste” discharges. (Wat. Code, § 13265.) Federal law regulates discharges of “pollutant[s].” (33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).) Both state and later-enacted federal law require a permit to operate such systems.
California's Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act () was enacted in 1969. It established the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), along with nine regional water quality control boards, and gave those agencies “primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality.” (Wat. Code, § 13001 ; see City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 613, 619, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 304, 108 P.3d 862 (City of Burbank ).) The State Board establishes statewide policy. The regional boards formulate and adopt water quality control plans and issue permits governing the discharge of waste. (Building Industry Assn. of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 866, 875, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 (Building Industry ).)
The Porter–Cologne Act requires any person discharging, or proposing to discharge, waste that could affect the quality of state waters to file a report with the appropriate regional board. ( Wat. Code, § 13260, subd. (a)(1).) The regional board then “shall prescribe requirements as to the nature” of the discharge, implementing any applicable water quality control plans. (Wat. Code, § 13263, subd. (a).) The Operators must follow all requirements set by the Regional Board. (Wat. Code, §§ 13264, 13265.)
The federal Clean Water Act (the CWA; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. ) was enacted in 1972, and also established a permitting system. The CWA is a comprehensive water quality statute designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. (City of Burbank, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 620, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 304, 108 P.3d 862.) The CWA prohibits pollutant discharges unless they comply with: (1) a permit (see 33 U.S.C. §§ 1328, 1342, 1344 ); (2) established effluent limitations or standards (see 33 U.S.C. §§ 1312, 1317 ); or (3) established national standards of performance (see 33 U.S.C. § 1316 ). (33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).) The CWA allows any state to adopt and enforce its own water quality standards and limitations, so long as those standards and limitations are not “less stringent” than those in effect under the CWA. (33 U.S.C. § 1370.)
The CWA created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a permit for any pollutant discharge that will satisfy all requirements established by the CWA or the EPA Administrator. (33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1), (a)(2).) The federal system notwithstanding, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whose Mandate Is It? and Who Pays for It? Recent Developments in State-local Government Funding Disputes
...the basis on which many public finance decisions will need to be made.[Page 5]--------Notes:1. See Cal. Gov. Code section 17500 et seq.2. 1 Cal 5th 749, 207 Cal. Rptr. 5d 44, 578 P.5d 556 (2016). 3 7 Cal. App. 5th 12 (2016).4. See Cal. Wat. Code section 15000 et seq.5. 55 U.S.C. section 125......