Howe, Mark Terzaghi

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 40 9-1-2004 Sec. Nat'l Guar., Inc. v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist., No. H024969, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 12230 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2003) Mark Terzaghi Howe Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Mark Terzaghi Howe, Court Report, Sec. Nat'l Guar., Inc. v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist., No. H024969, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 12230 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2003), 8 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 274 (2004). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. WATER LAW RE VIEWThe California Court of Appeals first looked to the statute, butfound nothing in the language of section 66013 or its legislative historyexpressing the Legislature's intention to impose a new standard onwater rates. Next, the court rejected the Northern Districts' San Marcosargument, relying instead on its decision in Brydon v. East Bay MunicipalUtility District, holding that block water rates levied in accordance withpatterned usage and not designed for the purpose of replacing prop-erty tax monies lost as a result of the passing of California Constitution,article XIII A ("Proposition 13"), do not constitute special assessments.Finally, the court rejected the Northern Districts' claim that the capitalportion is unreasonable because, assuming the capital portion is a ca-pacity charge, under the language of section 66013 a capacity chargedoes not violate the statute unless it exceeds the cost of providing theservice. The Northern Districts, however, presented no evidence thatthe capital portion exceeded the capital costs of building, maintaining,or improving the aqueduct system.Because the court concluded that the transportation rate was acharge for the delivery of water, that there was no indication the Legis-lature intended to change the statutory scheme governing water rates,and that there was no evidence that the capital portion exceeds thecapital costs of the aqueduct, it affirmed the lower court's judgment.Charles P. Kersch, Jr.Sec. Nat'l Guar., Inc. v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist., No.H024969, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 12230 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2003)(holding the water management district did not deprive a water rightsholder of senior water rights in denying a water distribution permit tothe water rights holder where water management district followedproper procedures).In 1998 Security National Guaranty, Inc. ("SNG") obtained ap-proval to construct a resort project on its beachfront property in SandCity under condition that SNG obtain a water distribution permit fromthe Monterey Peninsula Water Management District ("District"). Pur-suant to this arrangement, SNG applied to the District for the permitand the District subsequently denied SNG's request. Following thisdenial, SNG petitioned the Monterey County Superior Court for a writof mandate directing the District to grant the petition. The superiorcourt granted the District's demurrer without leave to amend and SNGappealed to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District.SNG alleged the District did not act pursuant to law, because theDistrict allocated SNG's water rights to California American WaterCompany. SNG argued it owned overlying water rights in the SeasideBasin and, thus, its claims were paramount to those of other waterrights holders. The court rejected this argument, because SNG re-tained the same water rights that it had prior to the District's decision;Volume 8COURT REPORTSthe District's decision only restricted SNG's use of the water to usesthat did not require a distribution system.SNG contended that, because the District did not adopt all findingsbefore voting on SNG's application, the vote was invalid as a matter oflaw. However, SNG had raised this argument in a previous action andthat court found the District acted within the District's rules. Invokingthe doctrine of collateral estoppel, the court refused to allow SNG tore-litigate the issue.SNG claimed insufficient evidence supported the District's find-ings. The court first reviewed evidence on the question of whether theproposed distribution system would create or exacerbate an overdraftcondition. The court determined the evidence showed that pumpingwould exceed replenishment and create an overdraft condition. Fur-thermore, the court reasoned this condition would reverse the gradi-ent allowing seawater to mix with groundwater causing an unaccept-able degradation of groundwater quality. The court held that, whilethere was evidence showing there might not be an overdraft, the Dis-trict reasonably concluded otherwise. There was also evidence SNGdid not satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act because SNGchanged its proposal after filing the required Environmental ImpactReport ("EIR"). Due to the overdraft risk and the inaccuracy of theEIR, the court held the District proceeded properly.Finally, SNG asserted an inverse condemnation claim for the depri-vation of the right to use its property and a claim alleging a violation ofSNG's right to substantive due process. The court concluded theseclaims were not ripe for adjudication because the District, in denyingSNG's proposal, had not reached a "final definitive position" regardingall uses of SNG's property. The court thus affirmed the trial court'sdecision on all counts.Mark Terzaghi HoweCOLORADOCity of Black Hawk v. City of Central, No. 03SA295, 2004 Colo. LEXIS691 (Colo. Sept. 13, 2004) (holding the water court did not err in find-ing Black Hawk satisfied the can and will statute where a nonbinding,general resolution by Central City did not serve as a final denial of ac-cess to the reservoir site, and where Central City's expert testimonythat the requisite enlargement of the reservoir would be technicallychallenging and financially burdensome was insufficient to defeatBlack Hawk's evidence that the project was technically feasible).Black Hawk and Central City, two adjacent municipalities in Colo-rado located within the mountains of Gilpin County and the SouthPlatte River Basin, receive and depend upon water from Chase GulchReservoir ("the Reservoir"). The Reservoir had a storage capacity of602 acre-feet of water. Central City owned the property underlying theIssue I

Sec. Nat\u27l Guar., Inc. v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist., No. H024969, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 12230 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2003)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2122&context=wlr

Sec. Nat\u27l Guar., Inc. v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist., No. H024969, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 12230 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2003)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver