Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. CA4/1
223 Cal. App. 4th 892
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Imperial Irrigation District increased water rates in 2008 after a protest process; Farm Bureau and Morgan et al. challenged Prop. 218 compliance and procedural aspects of the protest, and sought attorney fees under 1021.5.
- Court held the District could use a single omnibus protest for multiple rate increases, not per-rate-class protests; trial court found the Rate Increase compliant with §6.
- Individuals argued Cost of Service Study data were misused and protests improperly counted; the court found data reliable and protests properly counted under §6.
- Court applied independent judgment reviewing constitutional questions, not de novo fact weighing, and upheld proportionality and cost-of-service framework.
- The posttrial attorney-fee order under CCP §1021.5 was reversed because the EDP-related fees never litigated or proven unconstitutional; no public-benefit award was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omnibus protest complied with §6 | Farm Bureau—required per-rate-class protests | District—omnibus protest complies with §6 | Omnibus protest complies with §6 |
| Whether District met substantive §6 requirements | Data/proportionality inadequacies; protest flawed | District—data reliable; rates proportional | District satisfied substantive §6 requirements |
| Whether procedural §6 requirements were violated | Notice/protest data incomplete; public hearing not fully public | Procedures adequate; no requirement to disclose protest list | Procedural requirements satisfied |
| Whether final rates violated §6 because they differed from notices | Rates must match Cost of Service Study/notices | District could set lesser/gradual rates | Final rates do not violate §6; they may be below proportional cost |
| Attorney fees under CCP §1021.5 | Individuals prevailed on Prop 218 issues; fees warranted | No prevailing-party basis; EDP issues moot/not litigated | Attorney-fee order reversed; no public-benefit award established |
Key Cases Cited
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, 44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008) (liberally construed Prop. 218 to effectuate taxpayer consent)
- Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil, 39 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2006) (section 6 aims to minimize rates and promote dialogue)
- Palmdale v. Palmdale Water District, 198 Cal.App.4th 926 (Cal. App. 2011) (rate-protest omnibus vs. per-class significance)
- Beutz v. County of Riverside, 184 Cal.App.4th 1516 (Cal. App. 2010) (substantive/constitutional review under Prop. 218 §6)
- Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, 49 Cal.4th 277 (Cal. 2010) (ballot/secrecy and section 6 procedural framework distinctions)