Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
220 Cal. App. 4th 586
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Groundwater in Pajaro Valley is overdrafted, risking seawater intrusion; PVWMA enacted Ordinance 2010-02 to fund supplemental water projects (Watsonville recycled water, Harkins Slough, CDS) via a groundwater augmentation charge.
- Griffith (and Pendry later) challenged 2010-02 arguing Prop. 218 procedural flaws (notice/hearing/voting) and substantive limits, plus PRA conflict concerns from a board member.
- PVWMA previously adopted augmentation charges in 2002, 2003, 2004 with litigation tracking Prop. 218 compliance; Amrhein held such charges are subject to Prop. 218 constraints.
- Action progressed through multiple consolidated lawsuits and a 2008 stipulated judgment; Amrhein/Scurich/Eiskamp line of cases influenced the Prop. 218 analysis and res judicata effects.
- In June 2010 an all-mail weighted-vote election approved 72%-28% in favor by weight, but parcel-count results showed opposition; trial court conducted independent review and affirmed.
- The court ultimately affirmed the judgments upholding Ordinance 2010-02, along with related issues and the Pendry/Eiskamp res judicata posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the augmentation charge is exempt from Prop. 218 voting requirements | Griffith/Pendry: charge not a water/sewer service and not exempt | PVWMA: charge is water service and falls within exemption | Charge qualifies as water service and is exempt |
| Whether notice to record owners only satisfied Prop. 218 | Tenants/public utility customers must be notified | Notice to record owners suffices under §6(a)(1) | Notice to record owners sufficient; tenant notice not required |
| Whether the charge complies with Prop. 218 substantive limits | Revenues exceed service costs; funds misused | Costs include debt/service and admin; proportional cost rule met | Charge meets the substantive limits; revenues used for service and related costs |
| Whether funding future projects falls within current water service | Use for future projects beyond present service | Future planning is part of current water service | Identifying future projects is within present water service |
| Whether a PRA conflict of interest invalidates the ordinance | Dobler had a disqualifying financial interest | Public generally exception applies; vote upheld | PRA applicable but public generally exception saves the vote; ordinance valid |
| Res judicata effect of pending litigation on 2002-02 and related fees | Eiskamp not bound by earlier rulings | Pending litigation judgment binding on all; cannot relitigate | Pendry barred by res judicata based on the pending litigation judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein, 150 Cal.App.4th 1364 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (Prop. 218 constraints apply to groundwater augmentation charges)
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, 44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008) (independent review standard for fees and charges)
- Palmdale Water Dist. v. Palmdale, 198 Cal.App.4th 926 (Cal.App.4th 2011) (Prop. 218 proportionality not parcel-by-parcel required)
- Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil, 39 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2006) (water service concept under Prop. 218)
- California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 51 Cal.4th 421 (Cal. 2011) (proportionality measured collectively for rate payers)
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville, 97 Cal.App.4th 637 (Cal.App. 2002) (limits on revenues and service-specific charges)
- Eiskamp v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, 203 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal.App. 2012) (res judicata effect in validation context)
- White v. County of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 897 (Cal. 1980) (apportionment principles in rate setting)