CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIASTATE WATER R...
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIASTATE WATER RESOURCES Part III
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIASTATE WATER RESOURCES Part III 02:22:2007
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v
CALIFORNIAFARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIASTATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
Filed 1/17/07
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COPY
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
CALIFORNIAFARM BUREAU FEDERATION et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIASTATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent.
C050289
(Super. Ct. Nos. 03CS01776, 04CS00473)
STORY CONTINUED FROM PART II……….
In CAPS, we upheld against a constitutional challenge to fees charged by the Department of Fish and Game to cover a portion of the cost of meeting environmental review obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (Fish & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 4511, 21000 et seq.) (79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 939-940.) The fee statute at issue required flat fees, that is, a $1,250 filing fee for projects with negative declarations and $850 for projects with environmental impact reports. (Id. at p. 940.) The statute exempted from the filing fee projects with de minimis effect on fish and wildlife. These latter projects amounted to 68 percent of the projects potentially subject to agency review. (Id. at p. 943.) In CAPS, the principal issue was whether the flat fees passed constitutional muster. (Id. at p. 939.)
Two mitigating effects cases, SDG& E, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1147-1148 [approving apportionment based in part on amount of emissions on premise that the more emissions, the greater the regulatory job of the district] and Brydon, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th 178 [approving new structure of water rates to increase price per cubic foot for increased usage to meet conservation objectives], informed our decision in CAPS to apply â€
Description
Water Code Sec. 1525, which authorizes State Water Resources Control Board to impose annual fees on holders of water right permits and licenses and which does not limit such fees to the costs of regulation, does not on its face violate Proposition 13, but certain fees imposed under emergency regulation were unconstitutional as applied where annual fee payers were forced to subsidize significant costs of certain regulatory activities affecting other parties that were not required to pay the fees. Water Code Secs. 1540 and 1560, authorizing SWRCB to impose annual fees on persons and entities that contract for water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, are not on their face preempted by federal law and do not violate equal protection or due process rights but violate the Supremacy Clause as applied by emergency regulations establishing formula that requires the federal contractors to pay for the entire amount of annual fees that would otherwise be imposed on the bureau.
