Millview County Water District v. State Water Resources Control Board
4 Cal. App. 5th 7259
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Millview County Water District licensed (2001) and then purchased (2009) a 1914 appropriative water-right claim (the Waldteufel claim) permitting diversions from the Russian River; purchase price $2.1315 million with $500,000 down payment and contingent note terms tied to litigation outcomes.
- Board staff concluded most of the claimed quantity had been forfeited; in 2009 the State Water Resources Control Board proposed a cease-and-desist order (CDO) limiting diversion to 15 acre-feet/year (afa).
- Millview, and the sellers Hill and Gomes, challenged the CDO; the Board issued a 2011 CDO limiting diversion to 15 afa; plaintiffs obtained a writ vacating the CDO in the trial court and the Court of Appeal affirmed in Millview I but remanded on legal standard for forfeiture and perfection issues.
- Plaintiffs sought attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 (private attorney general) for the trial and appellate work; the trial court awarded fees only for the appeal, finding plaintiffs conferred a public benefit and lacked sufficient personal financial incentive.
- The Board appealed the fee award; the Court of Appeal reversed the appellate-fee award and affirmed denial of pre-appeal fees, holding plaintiffs failed to prove litigation costs outweighed their private financial stake in the litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are eligible for § 1021.5 fees | Plaintiffs prevailed and produced a published opinion clarifying forfeiture law; they incurred substantial costs and received no monetary judgment, so fees appropriate | Board: plaintiffs had clear financial incentives (purchase price, down payment, value of water access) so private benefit outweighed public-attorney-general rationale | Reversed award: plaintiffs had substantial private financial interests; insufficient evidence that litigation costs transcended their personal stake, so § 1021.5 award was improper |
| Proper method to assess "financial burden" under § 1021.5 | LA Police’s expected-value test supports award because no monetary recovery was obtained | Whitley and later cases focus on financial incentives/burdens (including potential pecuniary benefits), not nonpecuniary motives | Court rejects literal LA Police approach as mandatory; follows Whitley and subsequent cases requiring assessment of financial incentives and potential monetary benefits when litigation decisions were made |
Key Cases Cited
- Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 229 Cal.App.4th 879 (published opinion vacating CDO on forfeiture standard) (clarifies limits and remand options for the Board)
- In re Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (2010) (Supreme Court) (section 1021.5 "financial burden" focuses on financial incentives and offsets between costs and reasonably expected financial benefits)
- Summit Media, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 240 Cal.App.4th 171 (2015) (fee denial affirmed where plaintiff had significant personal financial stake; courts should assess incentives at time litigation decisions were made)
- Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 188 Cal.App.3d 1 (1986) (articulated an expected-value cost-benefit test; discussed but not adopted as controlling in Whitley)
- Children & Families Com. of Fresno County v. Brown, 228 Cal.App.4th 45 (2014) (denial of § 1021.5 where plaintiff stood to lose substantial public funding; pecuniary preservation can negate fee award)