Green v. Cal. Reg. Water Qual. Cont. Bd.
Filed 4/19/07 Green v. Cal. Reg. Water Qual. Cont. Bd. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
JON GREEN et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, A115184
v. (MendocinoCounty
Super. Ct. No. CV595697)
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, etc., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
_______________________________________/
Appellants Jon Green and Green Right OWay Constructors appeal from a order denying their petition for a writ of mandate. They contend the trial court applied the statute of limitations incorrectly. We disagree and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellants performed work on their property that impacted a local waterway. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) learned of the work and issued a cleanup and abatement order. After an administrative hearing, the Regional Board also imposed a $250,000 civil fine.
Appellants appealed the fine to the State Resources Control Board (State Board). The State Board denied the appeal in a written order dated August 2, 2005. Appellants were served with a copy of the order on August 5, 2005.
On October 31, 2005, appellants filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. As amended, they argued the Regional Board erred when it imposed the $250,000 fine.
The Regional Board and the State Board filed a demurrer. They argued they were entitled to prevail, as a matter of law, because appellants had failed to file their petition before the applicable statute of limitations expired. The trial court agreed and dismissed the petition.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellants contend the trial court erred when it ruled they failed to file their petition for a writ of mandate before the applicable statute of limitations expired.
A Regional Board may impose a civil fine against those who pollute the waters of this state. (Wat. Code, 13323.)[1] A fine imposed by a Regional Board may be appealed to the State Board. ( 13320, subd. (a).) If the State Board rejects the appeal, the fine may be challenged by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court. ( 13330, subd. (a).) A party filing such a petition must meet strict time requirements. Section 13330, subdivision (b) states, Any party aggrieved by a final decision or order of a regional board for which the state board denies review may obtain review of the decision or order of the regional board in the superior court by filing in the court a petition for writ of mandate not later than 30 days from the date on which the state board denies review. (Italics added.)
The record here shows the State Board denied appellants administrative appeal on August 2, 2005, and that appellants did not file their petition for writ of mandate until October 31, 2005. The trial court correctly dismissed the petition because petitioners failed to comply with the 30-day statute of limitations set forth in section 13330, subdivision (b).
Appellants contend the trial court erred because the State Board did not expressly tell them that if they wanted to challenge its decision, they would have to file a petition for writ of mandate within 30 days. We reject this argument because the controlling statute does not contain any such notice requirement. Our job is to interpret and apply statutes, not insert language that is otherwise not present. (Pieri v. City & County of San Francisco(2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 886, 892.)
The authority appellants cite does not convince us the trial court erred. Appellants rely on Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6; however, that section governs judicial review of decisions made by a local agency as that term is defined in section 54951 of the Government Code.[2] Appellants do not attempt to explain how either the Regional Board or the State Board could be characterized as a local agency.
Appellants also rely on El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. Rent Review Com. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 335 (El Dorado). However, the court there was simply applying Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 to a particular set of facts. Since that statute is not applicable, the El Doradodecision is not controlling.
III. DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition for writ of mandate is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Simons, J.
________________________
Needham, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further section references will be to the Water Code.
[2] Government Code section 54951, states, in part, local agency means a county, city . . . town, school district, municipal corporation, district, political subdivision, or any board, commission or agency thereof, or other local public agency.
