89 Cal.App.5th 756
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) is required by the California Safe Drinking Water Act to set public health goals (PHGs) for contaminants; for acutely toxic substances PHGs must be set “at the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on health occur, with an adequate margin of safety.”
- Perchlorate (rocket fuel component) inhibits iodide uptake by the thyroid (IUI), which can precede reduced thyroid hormone and adverse outcomes in sensitive populations (infants, pregnant women, thyroid-impaired persons).
- OEHHA revised its perchlorate PHG in 2015 to 1 ppb, using inhibition of iodide uptake (IUI) — a biomarker the National Academy of Sciences characterized as a nonadverse precursor event — as the point of departure and applying uncertainty factors/margins.
- California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA) petitioned for a writ to vacate the 2015 PHG, arguing (1) OEHHA violated §116365(c)(1)(A) by basing the PHG on a nonadverse effect (IUI) rather than an adverse health effect, and (2) the PHG is void under the common-law conflict-of-interest doctrine because Dr. Craig Steinmaus (author of the PHG and prior perchlorate studies) had a disqualifying interest.
- The trial court denied the writ; the Court of Appeal (majority) affirmed, holding OEHHA permissibly treated IUI as an event that anticipates adverse effects (within the statutory phrase “known or anticipated adverse effects”) and that the common-law conflict doctrine does not apply to OEHHA’s quasi-legislative PHG rulemaking; a dissent argued the PHG improperly regulated a nonadverse precursor and that margins must be applied after identifying the level that causes or contributes to adverse effects.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OEHHA lawfully used iodide‑uptake inhibition (IUI) — a nonadverse precursor — to set the PHG under §116365(c)(1)(A) | CMTA: Statute requires PHG set at level where no known or anticipated adverse effects occur; IUI is nonadverse, so PHG set to prevent it exceeds statutory authority | OEHHA: “Anticipated” includes foreseeable progression from IUI to adverse outcomes; using IUI is a conservative, health‑protective application within the statute and entitled to deference | Court: Affirmed — OEHHA permissibly treated IUI as giving rise to anticipated adverse effects and set PHG with an adequate margin of safety; deference warranted |
| Whether PHG is void under the common‑law conflict‑of‑interest doctrine because Dr. Steinmaus authored prior perchlorate studies and the PHG | CMTA: Steinmaus had a personal/professional stake in validating his prior work and therefore should have recused; his participation taints the PHG | OEHHA: PHG setting is quasi‑legislative rulemaking (not quasi‑judicial); common‑law conflict rules and procedural‑due‑process safeguards invoked by CMTA do not apply | Court: Affirmed — common‑law conflict doctrine not applied to quasi‑legislative PHG rulemaking; no invalidation on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 64 Cal.App.5th 266 (Cal. Ct. App.) (deference to agency on technical PHG process and distinction between PHG and MCL)
- Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 (Cal. Ct. App.) (common‑law doctrine against conflicts of interest for public officials)
- Friends of La Vina v. County of Los Angeles, 232 Cal.App.3d 1446 (Cal. Ct. App.) (courts should not police conflicts outside statutory/procedural frameworks in quasi‑legislative contexts)
- Save Civita Because Sudberry Won’t v. City of San Diego, 72 Cal.App.5th 957 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinction between quasi‑legislative and quasi‑judicial actions and applicable review standards)
- Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com., 21 Cal.4th 352 (Cal.) (standard that agencies must act consistent with law; judicial review of legal issues)
- Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate, 35 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal.) (courts may consult dictionary definitions to ascertain ordinary statutory meaning)