193 Cal. App. 4th 1480
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Newton-Enloe and the A.G.U.A. Coalition filed a verified petition for a writ of mandate on Nov. 17, 2009 seeking to compel the Department to submit a Safe Drinking Water Plan to the Legislature every five years as required by Health and Safety Code section 116355.
- The petition alleged no plan had been completed since 1995 and that plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries, residing or working in small water systems with contaminants under 116355.
- The Department answered with affirmative defenses including a claim that the plan mandate was suspended by the Legislature’s funding decisions and AB 3085’s deletion of a one-time fee.
- The Department relied on declarations from division chiefs stating that funding for the plan had been discontinued and that the mandate was suspended under Government Code section 11098.
- The trial court denied the petition, suggesting it credited the defense that the mandate was suspended based on the declarations.
- On appeal, the court reviewed de novo the Department’s statutory interpretation and held the mandate was not suspended and remanded to consider CCP 1085 requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the section 116355 mandate suspended by funding decisions or 11098? | Newton-Enloe/PLaintiffs contended no current evidence showed funding was discontinued for the current mandate. | Department argued 11098 and AB 3085 effectively suspended the mandate because funding was discontinued. | Not suspended; the mandate stood and 11098 did not properly suspend the current duty. |
| Did separation of powers bar judicial relief to compel plan preparation? | Plaintiffs did not rely on compelling funding; sought ministerial duty relief. | State argued judicial command would improperly intrude on legislative budgeting. | Not dispositive; separation of powers does not justify affirmance here. |
| Should the case be remanded to consider CCP 1085 compliance? | Petition should be granted if statutory duty is ministerial and no adequate remedy exists. | Relied on evidentiary declarations; contested the petition’s sufficiency. | Remand for trial court to determine CCP 1085 requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Picklesimer, 48 Cal.4th 330 (Cal. Supreme Court 2010) (defining ministerial duty in mandamus)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (agency interpretations of regulations merit careful consideration)
- Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. Supreme Court 1992) (separation-of-powers limits on appropriations cannot be used to thwart mandates)
- County of San Diego v. State of California, 164 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (separation-of-powers concerns about future appropriations)
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. Supreme Court 2003) (interpretation of statutory provisions; de novo review standard)