#Santa margarita water district code
#Santa margarita water district trial

On July 28, 1983, the Board determined the amended regulations imposed state mandated costs. 9 ) The test claim also cited section 6 (fn.

#Santa margarita water district code

The test claim was made pursuant to former Revenue and Taxation Code section 2231, 6 which required reimbursement to local agencies for costs mandated by the state (see now Gov.Code, § 17561 7 ), and former Revenue and Taxation Code section 2207, subdivisions (a) and (b) 8 defining “costs mandated by the state.” (See now Gov.Code, § 17514. On October 1, 1982, SMWD filed a “test claim” 5 with the Board, alleging the regulatory amendment relating to the use of reclaimed wastewater constituted a new program or higher level of service. SMWD modified its facility to comply with the amended regulations, completing the modifications in 1983. It is this amendment which allegedly constituted a state-mandated cost. The amendment to California Code of Regulations section 60313 4 increased the level of purity required before reclaimed wastewater could be used for the irrigation of parks, playgrounds and school yards. In September 1978, DHS amended the regulations. In August 1978, SMWD completed construction of the Oso Creek facility, at a cost of $17 million. In late 1977, SMWD learned DHS might be considering modifications to the Title 22 regulations. The permit required SMWD to comply with all applicable wastewater reclamation regulations then in effect. In February 1977, the Water Control Board issued SMWD a permit for operation of a reclamation system-the Oso Creek facility. SMWD also planned to provide reclaimed water for irrigation, potentially to 2,173 acres of land. In August 1976, SMWD filed an application with the responsible regional water quality control board (Water Control Board) for a permit to discharge wastewater from the proposed reclamation system. In May 1976, SMWD adopted a plan to develop a wastewater reclamation system. 22, §§ 60301-60357) implementing Water Code section 13521, which provides: “The State Department of Health Services shall establish uniform statewide recycling criteria for each varying type of use of recycled water where the use involves the protection of public health.” Section 60313 3 of the California Code of Regulations prescribed the level of purity required for reclaimed water to be used for landscape irrigation. In 1975, the State Department of Health Services (DHS) adopted regulations (Cal.Code Regs., tit.

#Santa margarita water district trial

Treating this appeal from a nonappealable judgment as an extraordinary writ petition, we shall direct the trial court to vacate its judgment and enter a new judgment denying the Districts' petitions. We therefore need not address the other contentions. We shall conclude the Districts' authority to levy fees defeats their claim of a reimbursable mandate, and appellants are not collaterally estopped from raising this matter. Appellants also challenge the trial court's determination that they were collaterally estopped from challenging the Board of Control's decision (finding a reimbursable state mandate) by their failure timely to seek judicial review of the administrative decision. 2 Appellants contend the trial court erred because (1) the amendment did not constitute a new program or higher level of service in an existing program (2) the Districts' claim was abolished when the statutory basis for their claim-former Revenue and Taxation Code section 2207-was repealed before their rights were reduced to final judgment, and (3) the Districts' authority to levy fees to pay for the increased costs defeats their claim of a reimbursable mandate.

& Tax.Code, § 2201 et seq.) The State Controller and State Treasurer appeal from a trial court judgment granting petitions for writ of mandate brought by Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD), Marin Municipal Water District, Irvine Ranch Water District and Santa Clara Valley Water District (the Districts), seeking to enforce a state Board of Control (the Board) decision which found the regulatory amendment constituted a reimbursable state mandate. This case involves a dispute as to whether a statewide regulatory amendment, increasing the level of purity required when reclaimed wastewater is used for certain types of irrigation, constitutes a state-mandated program for which water districts are entitled to reimbursement from the state. Curtis, Nevada City, for Real Parties in Interest. Oie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioners. Shimomura, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda A. SUPERIOR COURT of Sacramento County, Respondent SANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT et al., Real Parties in Interest. Kathleen CONNELL, as Controller, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Court of Appeal, Third District, California.