Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist., A167862

This case involves Steven L. Gomes challenging the validity of 2020 ordinances regulating groundwater use and associated fees in Mendocino, enacted by the Mendocino City Community Services District (the District).
The District is statutorily authorized to manage Mendocino’s groundwater resources under Water Code §§ 10700–10717 (“the Act”) and Community Services District Law.
Gomes had previously prevailed in an appellate case (Gomes I), where prior groundwater ordinances were invalidated for procedural reasons, but this case involves newer, replacement ordinances and revised fee structures.
The 2020 ordinances imposed fees for groundwater management, permits, and penalties for violations, but did not tie any fee directly to the amount of groundwater extracted by a user.
In the current case, Gomes contended that the Act (specifically, § 10710) requires direct voter approval for any fee related to groundwater use, which was not obtained.
The trial court upheld the ordinances except for invalidating attorney’s fee-shifting provisions, and Gomes appealed, raising primarily the voter-approval issue under § 10710.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does res judicata bar Gomes’s new challenge?	No, the 2020 ordinances are new.	Yes, issues already litigated.	No, they are distinct episodes; res judicata does not apply.
Must § 10710 voter approval apply to management fees?	All fees for groundwater use require voter approval under § 10710.	Only per-unit extraction charges need voter approval; management charge does not qualify.	No, management fees for services are not fees for the extraction of groundwater under § 10710.
Do permit and review fees constitute extraction rates?	Permit and review fees are rates “for the extraction of groundwater.”	They are prerequisites, not charges for extraction itself.	Permit fees are not extraction rates; they allow participation but are not charged for the act of extracting groundwater.
Are penalty fees for excess use “rates” under § 10710?	Penalties for overuse are really extraction rates and need voter approval.	Penalties are for enforcement, not for extraction use.	Penalties are not subject to § 10710; they are fines for ordinance violations.

Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist., 35 Cal.App.5th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (district must follow statutory procedures for groundwater regulation; prior measures invalidated for procedural defects)
Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002) (discusses the test for res judicata and the definition of primary right)
Zolly v. City of Oakland, 13 Cal.5th 780 (Cal. 2022) (distinguishes regulatory penalties from service charges)
Dean v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.4th 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (statutory interpretation—expressio unius est exclusio alterius)