Inzana v. Turlock Irrigation Dist. Bd. of Dirs.
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 427
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Turlock Irrigation District (TID) holds recorded pipeline easements across parcels in Improvement District No. 103-C that grant rights to construct, maintain, operate, replace the pipeline and ingress/egress for those purposes.
- Anthony Inzana planted ~169 pistachio trees within the recorded easement roughly 3 feet from the pipeline centerline; TID's Irrigation Rules (Rule 2.3.1) prohibit trees and similar encroachments in rights-of-way without written approval.
- TID issued a notice and order requiring removal; Inzana appealed administratively and proposed indemnity or compensation instead; the Board denied the appeal and ordered removal, delaying enforcement briefly to allow relocation.
- Because Inzana did not remove the trees, TID withheld irrigation water under its rules (Rule 10.1). Inzana sued by petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5) challenging the removal order and water cutoff.
- The trial court reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard, upheld the Board (finding the trees unreasonably interfered with TID’s easement rights and that Rules 2.3.1 and 10.1 were within TID’s authority), and denied the writ; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for §1094.5 petition | Inzana: Decision affected a vested property right so trial court should apply independent judgment (de novo review). | TID: This affects economic/property-use interests, not a fundamental vested right; substantial-evidence review applies. | Substantial-evidence standard applied — no fundamental vested right was impaired. |
| Whether trees unreasonably interfered with easement rights | Inzana: Trees did not cause actual damage and did not unreasonably interfere; Board failed to balance interests or consider indemnity. | TID: Trees block ingress/egress for maintenance and their roots pose a foreseeable risk to the pipeline; removal is necessary preventative maintenance. | Substantial evidence supports finding of unreasonable interference; removal order upheld. |
| Whether Rule 2.3.1 (ban on encroachments in rights-of-way) exceeded TID’s statutory rulemaking power | Inzana: Rule exceeds statutory authority and conflicts with statutes that allow landowner surface use unless interference is unreasonable. | TID: Statutory delegation (e.g., §22257 and related powers) permits rules protecting facilities necessary to distribute water; rule is within express/implied powers. | Rule 2.3.1 falls within TID's delegated authority and is not contrary to the Irrigation District Law. |
| Whether Rule 10.1 (terminate water deliveries for rule violations) was lawful | Inzana: Landowners hold a vested right to apportioned water; statute enumerates limited withholding situations — rule unlawfully expands TID's power to cut water. | TID: §22257 authorizes equitable rules for distribution; withholding is a reasonable, necessary enforcement tool to protect district facilities and distribution. | Rule 10.1 is reasonably necessary and consistent with TID's statutory authority; withholding water was permissible enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clary v. City of Crescent City, 11 Cal.App.5th 274 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for administrative mandamus and abuse of discretion review)
- Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971) (scope of appellate review when trial court applies substantial-evidence standard)
- Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal.App.4th 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (standards for unreasonable interference with easement use and balancing servient vs. dominant owner rights)
- Association of California Ins. Cos. v. Jones, 2 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2017) (deference framework for agency rule interpretation and determining quasi-legislative rule validity)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (distinction between quasi-legislative and interpretative rules and review standards)
- Malibu Mountains Recreation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 67 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (when revocation of an issued permit can create a vested right triggering independent review)