Gomes v. Mendocino City Cmty. Servs. Dist.
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 58
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Mendocino City Community Services District (the district) serves a town dependent on private wells; the Legislature enacted a Water Code part (Wat. Code, § 10700 et seq.) in 1987 authorizing the district to "establish programs for the management of groundwater resources."
- The Act requires a multi-step adoption process before a groundwater management program may be implemented: a noticed public hearing, a resolution of intention, publication, a second hearing to consider protests, and abandonment of the program if a majority protest (>50% of eligible voters) is found. (§§ 10703–10706.)
- In 1990 the district adopted Ordinance No. 90-1 using the Act’s procedures; it required extraction permits for new development, certain well modifications, hydrological studies, meters, and allotments.
- In 2007 the district adopted a water shortage contingency plan (Resolution No. 200) and Ordinance No. 07-04 (implementing the plan) and Ordinance No. 07-01 (extending permit requirements after property sales) without following the Act’s required procedures. The 2007 plan created a four-stage shortage scheme and at Stage 4 required all developed parcels to obtain permits and allotments permanently.
- Gomes, a property owner, was required under a Stage 4 declaration to obtain a permit; he refused, was fined repeatedly, sued to invalidate the ordinances, and prevailed at trial on some issues; the trial court upheld the 2007 measures but the appellate court reviewed the procedural question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act authorizes the district to impose extraction limits | Gomes: Act doesn’t expressly authorize extraction limits; so district lacks that power | District: General grant to manage groundwater necessarily includes permit and extraction limits | Court: Authority to manage groundwater includes authority to impose extraction limitations |
| Whether the 2007 measures (Resolution No. 200, Ordinance No. 07-04) were validly adopted | Gomes: They were adopted without complying with §§ 10703–10706, so void | District/trial court: Only the initial program required the enhanced procedures; later amendments need not follow them | Court: Enhanced procedures apply to each groundwater management program; 2007 measures were new program(s) and adoption was invalid |
| Whether Ordinance No. 07-01 (permit on property sale) required Act procedures | Gomes: Extending permits to existing wells is a new regulatory burden requiring the Act’s procedures | District: Characterized as a minor amendment to the 1990 program | Court: 07-01 extended permit reach to existing wells and required the enhanced procedures; it is void absent proper adoption |
| Remedy / effect | Gomes: Ordinances void; fines/duties relieved | District: Ordinances valid; enforcement proper | Court: Reversed judgment; declared Ordinance No. 07-01, Resolution No. 200, and Ordinance No. 07-04 void for failure to follow §§ 10703–10706; remand for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mission Housing Dev. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 59 Cal. App. 4th 55 (1997) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be waived)
- G. L. Mezzetta, Inc. v. City of American Canyon, 78 Cal. App. 4th 1087 (2000) (powers of a general law entity are construed narrowly; doubts resolved against the entity)
- Cummings v. Stanley, 177 Cal. App. 4th 493 (2009) (defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be waived)