Dept. of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates
C070357
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- San Diego Regional Board issued a 2007 renewal NPDES permit with new regional, watershed, and jurisdictional requirements for copermittees (County of San Diego and cities).
- The permit imposed costs estimated at over $66 million over the permit life.
- The Commission on State Mandates ruled most requirements were state mandates reimbursable under Gov. Code § 17556, with two exceptions for hydromodification and low impact development not reimbursable due to fee authority issues.
- The State challenged, arguing the permit conditions were federal mandates under the CWA and its regulations, not reimbursable state mandates.
- The trial court reversed in part, holding the Commission erred by applying the wrong standard and failing to assess whether the requirements exceeded the CWA’s maximum extent practicable standard; it remanded for further proceedings.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court, applying the Department of Finance standard to conclude the challenged permit conditions were state mandates and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the permit conditions are federally mandated requirements under Gov. Code § 17556. | State contends conditions are federal mandates. | San Diego Regional Board imposed conditions to meet CWA standard; not strictly federal mandates. | Not federal mandates; state mandates exist; subvention required. |
| Whether the maximum extent practicable standard allowed the board discretion to impose these conditions. | Board had no true choice; required to meet federal standard. | CWA permits discretionary measures; board exercised true choice. | Discretion existed; conditions are state mandates under subvention. |
| Whether hydromodification plan and low impact development requirements are reimbursable state mandates. | Not reimbursable if federal mandate; must be reimbursed if state mandate. | These were not expressly required by federal law. | Hydromodification plan and LID requirements are state mandates; reimbursable. |
| Whether the permittee education, regional, and watershed programs were federally mandated or state mandates. | Regulations required educational components in permit applications. | Board imposed broader education and regional requirements beyond application regulations. | State mandates; reimbursable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, 1 Cal.5th 749 (Cal. 2016) (establishes test for whether a permit condition is a federal mandate under § 6)
- City of Sacramento v. State of California, 50 Cal.3d 51 (Cal. 1990) (cooperative federalism case addressing federal mandates and spending constraints)
- City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 35 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2005) (affects interpretation of state vs. federal controls in water quality)
- Building Industry Assoc. of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 124 Cal.App.4th 866 (Cal. App. 2004) (discusses state/federal interplay in permitting)
- Kinlaw v. State of California, 54 Cal.3d 326 (Cal. 1991) (test-claim procedures and mandamus review for mandates)
- City of San Jose v. State of California, 45 Cal.App.4th 1802 (Cal. App. 1996) (statutory interpretation in mandate analysis)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (evidentiary notice and judicial notice standards in disputes)