BULL FIELD, LLC, et al. v. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT
B322603
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 11/18/22
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Merced County Super. Ct. No. 1CV-02453)
Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach, Timothy L. Thompson, Nikole E. Cunningham; McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth and Scott M. Reddie for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Duane Morris, Thomas M. Berliner, Jolie-Anne S. Ansley; Miller Starr Regalia and Matthew C. Henderson for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellants Bull Field, LLC, Barley, LLC and Colburn Hills Ranch, LLC (Appellants) appeal from a judgment denying their petition for a writ of mandate (Petition). Appellants sought an order compelling respondent Merced Irrigation District (District) to sell them surplus surface water for the 2019 water year. Appellants’ farmland is outside the District, but within the same groundwater basin as the District‘s service area. The District authorized the sale of surplus water to out-of-district users for 2019 but denied Appellants’ application to purchase such water.
The District claimed, and the trial court found, that the District‘s general manager denied Appellants’ applications to purchase surplus surface water because the District had a history of difficult dealings with Appellants’
BACKGROUND
1. The Parties
The District provides irrigation water to farmers within its approximately 164,000 acres of service territory pursuant to its statutory obligations. (See
Appellants Bull Field, LLC and Barley, LLC own or lease land outside the District but adjacent to the District in what the parties refer to as the District‘s “sphere of influence.” That sphere encompasses land that is within the same groundwater basin as the District‘s service territory.2 The District‘s main canal runs through an almond orchard belonging to Appellants that is located outside the District‘s boundaries.
2. The District‘s Decision to Sell Surplus Surface Water in 2019
When sufficient surface water is available in a particular year, the District‘s board may authorize the sale of surplus water to out-of-district users. (
The District‘s decision was described in a document entitled the “2019 Irrigation Season Water Supply Implementation Plan” (the 2019 Plan), which the District‘s board approved in a meeting on March 5, 2019. The approved plan called for out-of-district sales at a transfer price of $100 per acre foot of water.
In implementing the 2019 Plan, the District‘s objectives were to “[m]aintain equitable service to [District] growers,” “[m]eet [the District‘s] reservoir carryover storage goal at the end of the season,” and “[c]ontrol and properly account for all water delivered and conveyed through [the District‘s] facilities.” The 2019 Plan also identified various guidelines to achieve these
The District announced its decision to sell surplus water in a press release issued on March 6, 2019, the day after the board‘s meeting. The press release stated that “[t]here will be no restrictions on surface-water allocations this year, and water transfers to lands within [the District‘s] Sphere of Influence (SOI) were approved.” The press release also stated that “[g]rowers within [the District‘s] SOI may execute water transfer agreements and receive [District] surface water for $100 per acre foot.”
3. Communications Between the District and Appellants Concerning the Sale of Surplus Water
On March 7, 2019, the day after the District‘s press release, the District‘s general manager, John Sweigard, left a telephone message for Appellants’ manager, Michael Thomason. The message stated that Sweigard did not have authorization from the District‘s board to sell “transfer water” to Thomason or his entities.
Thomason testified that he was surprised by the message because Appellants had not yet submitted any application and Appellants had purchased surplus water from the District for many years without objection or conditions. Despite Sweigard‘s message, Thomason submitted applications on behalf of Appellants to purchase surplus water. After Thomason had submitted those applications, Sweigard left a second voicemail message for Thomason stating that the board had not approved transfers to any of Thomason‘s entities and that Appellants’ applications would not be approved.
Sweigard testified that his reference to the lack of board approval in his two voice messages did not imply that the board was required to approve the decision to deny Appellants’ applications. Rather, Sweigard meant that the board was the District‘s “ultimate authority,” but that he, as general manager, was exercising the authority given to him to deny Appellants’ applications. Sweigard testified that he made that decision himself because of the “multiplicity, scope, and repetitive nature of the disputes between the District and [Appellants],” which he stated “take up an undue proportion of expense, staff time, and attention.”
Following a subsequent exchange of letters by counsel for Appellants and the District, Appellants filed their Petition on June 14, 2019.
The trial court initially set a trial date of September 25, 2019, which it later continued to October 28, 2019. On October 10, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on a discovery dispute related to the District‘s unclean hands defense. That defense focused on the District‘s claim that, after the District had denied Appellants’ applications to purchase surplus water, Appellants had made unauthorized diversions of water from the District‘s main canal. After the hearing, the trial court granted the District‘s discovery motion and continued the hearing on Appellants’ Petition to February 28, 2020.
On February 14, 2020, just 14 days before the hearing on Appellants’ Petition, Appellants filed an ex parte application seeking a continuance of the hearing. The trial court denied the request. Along with the denial the trial court issued an order directing briefing for the hearing. The order instructed Appellants to file a brief by February 19, 2020, addressing: “[a]ll facts and legal authority supporting their contention that [the District] ‘has a present and ministerial duty to supply water to [Appellants],‘” and “[a]ll facts and legal authority supporting [Appellants‘] contention on whether or not the denial of [Appellants‘] water application, as alleged in [the Petition], was made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken and secretion [sic] in the determination of facts is vested in the [District] Board.”
Appellants filed their brief on February 19, 2020, and the District subsequently filed a response. The trial court then heard oral argument on February 28, 2020.
On May 28, 2020, the trial court issued a 153-page ruling denying Appellants’ Petition. Following an exhaustive review of the written evidence, the trial court found that Appellants had failed to prove that the District had a ministerial duty to sell them surplus water. The trial court also found that the District‘s decision to deny Appellants’ applications to purchase surplus water was not arbitrary or capricious.
DISCUSSION
1. Appellants’ Petition and this Appeal Are Moot
Appellants’ Petition sought an order compelling the District to sell them water pursuant to the District‘s 2019 Plan. There is no dispute that the 2019 Plan applied only to the distribution of water for the 2019 water year, which ended in October 2019.
This court has discretion to consider an appeal in a case that is moot if the case “‘presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur‘” or “‘when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties.‘” (Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77, 88-89.) The legal issue presented here—whether the District had an obligation to sell surplus water to a particular out-of-district user once its board had approved sales of surplus water—is of public interest and apparently has not been addressed in any reported decision. Moreover, it is conceivable that the same dispute may arise between these same parties in a future water year. We therefore exercise our discretion to consider the merits of the appeal.3
2. Governing Law and Standard of Review
Appellants’ Petition sought a writ of mandate under the authority of
To obtain writ relief under this section, a petitioner must show “(1) a clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent . . . ; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty.” (Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, 539-540, quoting Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 803, 813-814.) A writ may issue to correct an agency‘s abuse of discretion “whether the action being compelled or corrected can itself be characterized as ‘ministerial’ or ‘legislative.‘” (Santa Clara County, at p. 540.) However, in either case, mandamus may issue only to compel the performance of an act “which the law specially enjoins.” (
In reviewing an agency‘s “quasi-legislative” decision, “the trial court does not inquire whether, if it had power to act in the first instance, it would have taken the action taken by the administrative agency. The authority of the court is limited to determining whether the decision of the agency was arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair.” (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 786 (Fullerton).) On appeal, we review the trial court‘s decision de novo under the same standard, except where the trial court made “‘foundational factual findings.‘” (Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 236, 250 (Abatti), quoting City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1409.) In that case, the trial court‘s findings of fact “‘are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.‘” (Abatti, at p. 250, quoting City of Arcadia, at p. 1409.)
3. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Its Procedural Orders
Appellants argue that they were deprived of an opportunity to argue all the relevant issues before the trial court issued its ruling on their Petition. Appellants claim that the trial court set a short briefing schedule on limited issues without giving Appellants the opportunity to file a reply brief. They argue that because these limited issues did not include the question of whether Sweigard acted arbitrarily and capriciously in declining to sell them surface water, Appellants believed that this issue would be addressed in a future hearing, and therefore decided not to present all their evidence. Appellants claim that this abbreviated schedule and briefing order therefore deprived them of an opportunity to argue their “arbitrary and capricious” theory. For the same reasons, Appellants claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial on the ground of surprise.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s procedural rulings. Appellants’ own conduct caused the abbreviated time for briefing and the
The trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance.5 Appellants’ stated ground for the
continuance was the need to try facts relating to the District‘s unclean hands defense, which was based upon Appellants’ alleged diversion of water from the District‘s main canal. However, that issue was not new. The District asserted its unclean hands defense in the answer that it filed on July 19, 2019. As mentioned, the defense was also the subject of a motion to compel that the trial court decided on October 10, 2019. Appellants represented in their ex parte request for a continuance that the trial court‘s ruling on that discovery motion had the effect of “deeming” the District‘s equitable defenses “relevant to the Petition.” Yet at that same October hearing Appellants agreed with the trial court‘s proposal to continue the hearing on their Petition to February 28, 2020, without raising any concern about the timing or the need for a trial of factual issues. Appellants did not raise any such concern until they filed their ex parte motion, well after the deadline for filing their prehearing briefs. Thus, the trial court could reasonably have found that Appellants’ continuance request was untimely.6
The trial court also could have reasonably concluded that it would be more efficient to resolve the legal issues raised by Appellants’ Petition before deciding whether any trial on affirmative defenses was necessary. The record suggests that the trial court made such a practical determination. The court ordered briefing on specific legal issues while assuring Appellants that, if
Having denied Appellants’ request for a continuance, the trial court could have simply proceeded to the hearing on Appellants’ Petition without any timely briefing, and then find that Appellants had failed to meet their burden of proof. Instead, the court gave Appellants an opportunity to present their evidence and make their arguments in support of their Petition under an expedited briefing schedule.
Appellants complain that the trial court‘s order directing the issues for the expedited briefing did not include the issue of whether the District acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in denying Appellants’ applications to purchase surplus water. But Appellants did not object to the scope of the briefing or seek any clarification of the briefing order, and in fact specifically stated at the ex parte hearing that they had no objection to the trial court‘s order upon receiving the court‘s assurance that any equitable issues could be tried later. Appellants also did not request any opportunity to later brief additional legal issues, and the trial court gave no indication that it contemplated such additional briefing.
Nor did the trial court‘s order expressly limit the issues that Appellants could address. At best for Appellants, the order was ambiguous as to whether the trial court intended to limit the scope of the briefing. But Appellants did not seek clarification at the time, and apparently did not feel constrained in the issues that they could address. The brief that Appellants filed in fact included a discussion of the arbitrary and capricious issue under the heading, “[The District‘s] Decision To Deny Petitioners’ Water Applications Was Arbitrary, Capricious, Entirely Lacking In Evidentiary Support, Unlawful, And Procedurally Unfair.” Having made no request for further briefing and having addressed the arbitrary and capricious issue themselves in the brief that they filed, Appellants can hardly complain that the trial court then ruled on the issue.7
4. Appellants Failed to Show that a Writ of Mandate Should Issue
A. The District Did Not Have a Ministerial Duty to Sell Surplus Surface Water to Appellants
Appellants argued below that the District had a ministerial obligation to sell excess water to them and that a writ should issue to compel compliance with this clear obligation. They do not attempt to support that legal argument on appeal. They have therefore forfeited the contention. (Schmidt v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1509.)
In any event, the contention is inconsistent with the controlling statute. Section 22259 states that an irrigation district “may” enter into a contract for the sale or lease of surplus water if its board “deems it to be for the best interest of the district.” This language cannot reasonably be interpreted to impose a mandatory duty on the District to sell surplus water to Appellants. The term “may” plainly means that the District may exercise discretion in determining whether to enter into a contract to sell surplus water. (See Glendale City Employees’ Assn., Inc. v. Glendale (1975) 15 Cal.3d 328, 344 (Glendale) [“‘The critical question in determining if an act required by law is ministerial in character is whether it involves the exercise of judgment and discretion‘“].)
In Abatti, the court interpreted several provisions of the Water Code that contain similar language. The appellant in that case argued that sections 22252.1 and 22252.3 require an irrigation district to provide notice and take into account the appellant farmers’ “‘beneficial needs‘” when there is an expected water shortage. (Abatti, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 278.) The court rejected the argument, noting that the statutes at issue use the term “may” in describing a district‘s obligations. The court explained that both sections “use the term ‘may,’ not ‘shall’ or ‘must,’ and both confirm that they place no limitation on a district‘s power to control water distribution. Thus, these statutory provisions permit, but do not require, compliance with their irrigation application procedures.” (Id. at pp. 278-279.)
Section 22259 similarly uses the term “may” rather than “shall” or “must.” The only limitation that section 22259 imposes is that a district‘s
B. The District Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Sell Surplus Water to Appellants
The conclusion that the District had the discretion to decide whether and when to sell surplus water does not end our analysis. As Appellants correctly point out, mandamus may also issue to correct an agency‘s discretionary decision if that decision was made in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (Glendale, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 344, fn. 24 [“‘While mandamus will not lie to control the discretion exercised by a public officer or board . . . it will lie to correct an abuse of discretion by such officer or board‘“], quoting Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 208 Cal.App.2d at p. 823; Fullerton, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 786; Fair Education Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara Unified School Dist. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 884, 896 (Santa Barbara) [review of an agency‘s legislative determination is “limited to an inquiry of whether the act was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support“].)
However, judicial review of such discretionary decisions is highly deferential. “‘Quasi-legislative administrative decisions are properly placed at that point of the continuum at which judicial review is more deferential; ministerial and informal actions do not merit such deference, and therefore lie toward the opposite end of the continuum.‘” (Santa Barbara, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 893-894, quoting Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 575-576.) A reviewing court may issue a writ of mandate that requires legislative or executive action “‘to conform to the law,‘” but it may not “‘substitute its discretion for that of legislative or executive bodies in matters committed to the discretion of those branches.‘” (Michael Leslie Productions, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1026 (Michael Leslie), quoting Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 445.)
i. The District had a duty not to act arbitrarily or capriciously
The District argues that its decision to deny Appellants’ application to purchase surplus water is not reviewable even under this highly deferential
We reject the argument that the District had no public responsibility as a government agency in making its decision not to sell water to Appellants. The District cites Jenison v. Redfield (1906) 149 Cal. 500 (Jenison), in support of its claim that it owes no duty to sell water to out-of-district users. That case stands for the proposition that the ultimate purpose of an irrigation district is “‘the improvement, by irrigation, of the lands within the district.‘” (Abatti, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 257, italics added, quoting Jenison, at p. 503.) However, it does not support the conclusion that an irrigation district is permitted to act arbitrarily in selling water to out-of-district users.
In Jenison, the court held that a landowner possessing lands both within and without an irrigation district had no right to receive from the district “any portion of his share of water for use upon said land without the boundaries of the district.” (Jenison, supra, 149 Cal. at p. 501.) However, that case was decided well before the Legislature enacted section 22259, which gives irrigation districts the discretion to provide surplus water outside the district. In contrast to that discretionary authority, the court‘s decision in Jenison was based on the premise that the water an irrigation district distributes “can be used only for the irrigation of lands within the district, and the irrigation district has no authority to distribute it for any other purpose.” (Id. at p. 504.) Thus, the court in Jenison did not consider any duty that an irrigation district might assume in selling water for use outside the district because it held that the district had no power to do so.
Under the plain language of section 22259, an irrigation district has the discretion to sell surplus water outside the district if it decides that it is in its best interest to do so. There is no need to consider here whether a reviewing court could ever interfere with a district‘s decision that it had no such surplus water, or, if so, whether the sale of any such water outside the district was in its best interest. Here, the District decided that it had surplus water to sell to out-of-district users. The question therefore is whether the District‘s decision about which out-of-district users could purchase such water is unreviewable. In other words, could the District arbitrarily discriminate among the prospective out-of-district purchasers of surplus water on the ground that it was acting in a private capacity?
In addition, water is of course an important and valuable public resource. (Cf. Abatti, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 256-257 [all property acquired by an irrigation district is held in trust, including water and water rights], citing
ii. This court may not interfere with a decision of the District based upon the District‘s own best interest
The conclusion that the District‘s alleged arbitrary acts are subject to judicial review does not fully explain the scope of that review. An agency often exercises its discretion within the context of particular rules governing its purpose and authority. Thus, a public entity‘s discretion may be limited by law or by its own rules. (See Michael Leslie, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1022 [an ordinance passed by a municipal corporation within the scope of its authority has the same force over it as a statute]; Pozar v. Department of Transportation (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 269, 271 [a writ may issue to direct an agency to follow its own rules when the agency has abused its discretion].)
The only requirement that
However, the record shows that the District itself assumed such an obligation. In his declaration submitted in opposition to Appellant‘s Petition, Sweigard testified that he had the “authority and discretion” as the District‘s general manager to “decide whether or not . . . individual sales are in the District‘s best interests, on a case by case basis.” And a board member testified that Sweigard had the authority to deny particular water purchase applications “based on his opinion if it‘s in the best interest of the district to do so.” Moreover, absent some other legitimate and compelling circumstance, a decision to refuse an out-of-district offer to purchase surplus water even though the district believed the purchase would be in its own interest may fairly be characterized as arbitrary. Thus, we conclude that the District‘s discretion to decline Appellants’ offer to purchase surplus water was at least limited by the requirement that it act in its own best interest.
“water” rather than specifically to “surplus water,” and its requirement of equitable distribution to all who offer to pay contradicts the discretion that
Appellants have not identified any other specific limitation on the District‘s discretion. Appellants refer to the
Nor do Appellants identify any internal District rules that required it to sell them surplus water. Appellants point to various District policies and resolutions that establish a general goal of using surface water—including sales to sphere of influence users—to preserve groundwater. But a general goal or policy is far different from a requirement that the District sell water to every out-of-district user applicant, regardless of other circumstances, or to Appellants particularly. That the District had historically done so does not establish the kind of clear legal duty that this court may enforce through a writ of mandate.
The District‘s 2019 Plan also did not establish such a duty. The plan stated that there would be “no limiting surface water allocation for the 2019 irrigation season.” As the trial court correctly reasoned, this reference to the “allocation” of water concerned in-district users who are entitled to an apportionment of District surface water, absent shortages. (See
The minutes of the meeting at which the District‘s board approved the 2019 Plan also do not support any duty to sell to Appellants. The minutes simply summarized the 2019 Plan and discussed a general objective to “maintain equitable service to all [District] growers, meet the Boards reservoir carryover storage goal(s), and to control and properly account for all water conveyed through [District] facilities.” That general objective did not create any specific duty toward out-of-district purchasers such as Appellants.
Appellants also cite the press release that the District issued announcing the 2019 Plan. Like the plan itself, the press release contained language referring to the lack of restrictions on “surface water allocations.” And, like
The press release also stated that “[g]rowers within [District‘s] SOI may execute water transfer agreements and receive [District] surface water for $100 per acre foot.” Even if one assumes that a press release could establish a duty binding on the District, that language did not do so. The press release did not state that the District was obligated to enter into water transfer agreements with each applicant. Any doubt on that score was dispelled by the form agreement itself, which stated that the agreement “is not valid until approved and initialed by [the District].”
Thus, in deciding whether to sell surplus water to Appellants, the District‘s discretion was limited only by its own internal requirement that it act in its own best interest. Further, as explained below, so long as the District actually made a decision based upon an assessment of that interest, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the District.
In Michael Leslie, the court considered the effect of a Los Angeles city charter provision that permitted the city to “‘reject any and all bids or proposals . . . when to do so would be to the advantage of the City.‘” (Michael Leslie, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1022.) After soliciting bids for the operation of golf carts on the city‘s golf courses, and after the city‘s reviewing department had decided that the plaintiff in that case had submitted the best proposal, the city rejected all the bids it had received and decided to operate the carts itself. (Id. at pp. 1016–1020.)
The court held that the city‘s decision to reject all bids could not be remedied through mandamus, even though the plaintiff alleged that an unsuccessful bidder sought to improperly influence city decision makers. (Michael Leslie, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025.) The court reasoned that the decision by the city‘s reviewing agency and the city council concerning what choice would be to the city‘s advantage “was a classic discretionary function” that the court could not second-guess. (Id. at p. 1026.) The court held that a judicial judgment that “self-operation is not to the advantage of the City, and only an award of the concession to [the plaintiff] would be to the advantage of the City” would “exceed the scope of mandamus review.” (Ibid.)
In reaching that conclusion, the court in Michael Leslie cited Stanley-Taylor Co. v. Supervisors (1902) 135 Cal. 486 (Stanley-Taylor). (See Michael Leslie, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1026.) In Stanley-Taylor, our Supreme Court considered the decision of San Francisco‘s board of supervisors to reject all bids for a contract to provide the city with certain office
In Stanley-Taylor, our Supreme Court approved the opinion of the lower court in that case, which included the general statement that the “‘writ of mandate will lie to correct illegal but not capricious acts.‘” (Stanley-Taylor, supra, 135 Cal. at p. 488.) As a statement of general principle, this language has been superseded by our Supreme Court‘s subsequent explanation that a court may review an agency‘s “quasi-legislative” decisions more broadly to determine whether they were “arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair.” (Fullerton, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 786; see also Glendale, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 344, fn. 24 [mandamus will lie to “‘correct an abuse of discretion‘” by a public officer or board]; Manjares v. Newton (1966) 64 Cal.2d 365, 370 [“That mandate will lie whenever an administrative board has abused its discretion is a rule so well established as to be beyond question“].) The court also subsequently distinguished Stanley-Taylor in a case that concerned objective limitations on a government entity‘s discretion, noting that in Stanley-Taylor “the board had a right to reject bids according to its own belief as to the public interest.” (Landsborough v. Kelly (1934) 1 Cal.2d 739, 744.) Thus, Stanley-Taylor stands for the more limited but still highly relevant principle that a court considering a petition for writ of mandate may not review an agency‘s subjective assessment of interests that are within its discretion to determine.9
That principle controls here. This court may not interfere with the District‘s discretionary decision that denying Appellants’ applications to purchase surplus water was in its best interest. We may not substitute our judgment for the District about how its interests would best be served. So long as the District actually exercised such discretion, this court may not issue a writ contravening the District‘s decision.
As the trial court noted, the District submitted evidence that Sweigard denied Appellant‘s application to purchase surplus water because Appellants’ principal, Thomason, was “difficult to do business with and . . . it was in the district‘s best interest not to enter into additional contracts with the businesses Mr. Thomason managed.” The trial court found that “[t]he weight of the substantial evidence provided establishes that Mr. Sweigard actually and reasonably believed that Mr. Thomason was difficult to do business with and actually and reasonably believed that it was in the district‘s best interest not to enter into additional contracts with the businesses Mr. Thomason managed.”
The record supports the trial court‘s conclusion. In his declaration, Sweigard testified that he decided that the “District should not sell water to [Appellants] for the out-of-district property in 2019” because it was in the District‘s best interest to “limit its involvement and engagement with [Appellants] in an effort to avoid distractions and unnecessary disputes, and to better manage and allocate the District‘s limited resources and apply them towards its core mission and duties to its members.” Sweigard identified a number of such disputes with Appellants, including: “disagreements over the nature of the District‘s rights to its Main Canal, which runs through [Appellants‘] land; disputes as to the District‘s right to remove dirt from the area around its Main Canal; [Appellants‘] complaints about dust from the District‘s operation of and access to its Main Canal; a pipeline [Appellants] installed in the bank of the Main Canal without authorization” and “the use, maintenance, collapse by [Appellants], and replacement of a bridge over the [District‘s] Main Canal.”
Appellants did not dispute below, and do not deny on appeal, that there were a number of prior controversies between them and the District. As the trial court noted, Appellants themselves submitted evidence concerning past disputes, including Appellants’ claim that the District illegally removed soil from Appellants’ land and their demand that the District build a bridge over its canal on Appellants’ property. In fact, Appellants’ counsel detailed a number of ongoing disputes in one of the letters exchanged with the District in 2019 concerning the District‘s decision not to sell them surplus water.
On appeal, Appellants attack the District‘s proffered reasons as “nonsensical” because none of the prior disputes between the parties concerned the purchase of surplus water and because the District sold Appellants such water in 2017 and 2018 despite the existence of these disputes. These arguments challenge the reasonableness of the District‘s decision but not the reasonableness of the trial court‘s factual findings that the District in fact decided its
Appellants also challenge the legitimacy of the District‘s decision by arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the District implicitly ratified Sweigard‘s actions. That argument fails because Appellants have not provided any support for the claim that the board‘s express ratification of Sweigard‘s decision to deny Appellants’ application for surplus water was legally required. As discussed above,
Under
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding that they had forfeited their estoppel theory by failing to offer legal authority supporting it. Echoing their procedural complaints, Appellants argue that the trial court‘s briefing order did not provide them with an opportunity to brief the issue. For the reasons discussed above, we reject this procedural argument.
In any event, on appeal Appellants do not provide any ground to conclude that they were prejudiced by the trial court‘s forfeiture finding. The trial court‘s ruling included a comprehensive substantive analysis rejecting Appellants’ estoppel theory on the merits. Based upon the evidence, the trial court found that the “only act by [Appellants] in reliance on the March 6, 2019 Press Release was to submit 2019 Temporary Water Transfer Application and Agreements after receiving a voice message that any such applications would not be approved.” On appeal, Appellants do not explain how any additional briefing could have changed the trial court‘s reasonable conclusion that this minimal alleged reliance did not create any enforceable obligation by the District to grant the application that Appellants submitted. Appellants’ estoppel argument therefore does not provide any basis for reversal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The Merced Irrigation District is entitled to its costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
LUI, P. J.
We concur:
CHAVEZ, J.
HOFFSTADT, J.