76 Cal.App.5th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Monterey Coastkeeper and others challenged how the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and regional boards regulate agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, alleging systemic failure to follow the State Board’s NPS Policy and protect public trust resources.
- Plaintiffs sought (among other relief) declaratory relief and traditional mandamus directing the State Board and regional boards to comply with the NPS Policy and apply the public trust doctrine in permitting and oversight.
- The trial court struck one claim, sustained demurrers to the third (NPS Policy) and fourth (public trust) causes of action without leave to amend, and plaintiffs appealed that ruling.
- The demurrers and judicially noticed State Board order showed the State Board and regional boards exercised discretion in implementing the NPS Policy and had not adopted a blanket policy of ignoring the Policy.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: declaratory relief was unavailable because plaintiffs failed to allege a justiciable controversy amenable to definitive declaration; traditional mandamus was improper because the claims attacked discretionary policy choices rather than a ministerial duty; denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of declaratory relief re: systemic NPS Policy noncompliance | Plaintiffs alleged a continuing pattern/policy of ignoring mandatory NPS Policy duties and sought a declaration forcing compliance | Respondents argued no justiciable controversy; disputes concerned discretionary implementation and are not suitable for declaratory judgment | Court: Declaratory relief denied — plaintiffs failed to plead a controversy that admits of definitive, prospective relief; claims were essentially challenges to discretionary implementation |
| Traditional mandamus to compel NPS Policy compliance | Plaintiffs argued State and regional boards had mandatory duties under the NPS Policy and mandamus could compel performance | Respondents argued application of NPS Policy involves discretion and policy judgment, not ministerial acts enforceable by traditional mandamus | Court: Mandamus denied — application of NPS Policy is discretionary; plaintiffs attacked policy choices, not a ministerial duty |
| Traditional mandamus to enforce public trust obligations statewide | Plaintiffs contended the State Board had an affirmative, mandatory duty to protect public trust resources and to minimize harm from agricultural discharges | Respondents argued public trust protection requires balancing and discretion; courts should not supplant agency decisionmaking or become ongoing overseers | Court: Mandamus denied — public trust doctrine entails discretionary, feasibility-based judgments unsuited to traditional mandamus or broad judicial supervision |
| Denial of leave to amend after demurrer sustained | Plaintiffs argued defects could be cured by amendment | Respondents argued plaintiffs presented only abstract, sweeping claims and offered no viable amendment | Court: Denial affirmed — plaintiffs failed to identify proposed amendments that would cure defects; no reasonable possibility of cure |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 123 Cal.App.4th 1107 (2004) (State Board’s discretionary decision whether to review regional board action is not judicially reviewable)
- WaterKeepers Northern California v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 102 Cal.App.4th 1448 (2002) (adoption of NPS Policy is a quasi‑legislative rulemaking)
- Monterey Coastkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 28 Cal.App.5th 342 (2018) (describing NPS Policy key elements)
- Californians for Native Salmon v. Department of Forestry, 221 Cal.App.3d 1419 (1990) (declaratory relief available where agency adopts quasi‑legislative policy of ignoring legal requirements)
- Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 1547 (1996) (declaratory relief appropriate to resolve recurring statutory interpretation and alleged nonenforcement policy)
- National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983) (public trust doctrine requires protection of trust uses where feasible; agencies must account for trust)
- Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Com., 202 Cal.App.4th 549 (2011) (public trust doctrine involves agency discretion; courts should avoid becoming ongoing regulators)
- Conlan v. Bonta, 102 Cal.App.4th 745 (2002) (traditional mandamus may lie where agency has an unlawful practice that fails to perform a legal duty)
- Timmons v. McMahon, 235 Cal.App.3d 512 (1991) (traditional mandamus appropriate to correct an agency’s unlawful interpretation that denies statutory benefits)