A water district in Fresno County has the authority to pursue incorporation as a city, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected arguments from Fresno County that the Malaga County Water District needed special legislation to proceed with creation of a new city.
The court ruled that prohibiting the water district from pursuing incorporation could be inconsistent with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code § 56000 et seq., since amended as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act). The Cortese-Knox Act provided the district with specific authority for incorporating a new city, the court held.
In 1998, the water district, which serves a mostly industrial area just outside the City of Fresno, filed an incorporation resolution and petition for change of organization with the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission (see CP&DR, May 1999). The district paid a $14,000 filing fee and agreed to fund a LAFCO study estimated to cost $80,000 to $150,000.
Fresno County filed a lawsuit arguing that the water district was acting beyond its statutory powers and that its expenditures were unconstitutional gifts of public funds. Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jane York ruled for the county, finding that the water district's authority was limited to that in its specific enabling statute. Therefore, she held that the expenditures with LAFCO were unconstitutional.
The water district appealed and a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth District reversed the lower court.
The water district provides water and sewer services typical of water districts. It also has specially legislated authority to own parks and to run parks and recreation programs. The district qualifies as both a "special district" and as a "district of limited powers" under Cortese-Knox. The issue, the appellate court explained, was whether a district of limited powers could reorganize itself and incorporate as a new city.
Fresno County pointed to statutory language that addressed how districts of limited powers may merge with, or become subsidiaries of, cities. The county argued, therefore, that a district of limited powers could only pursue a merger.
But the appellate court ruled that the merger option must be considered in context.
"The district of limited powers can, but is not required to, merge with or become a subsidiary district of the city," Justice Herbert Levy wrote for the court. "It does not follow that the existence of this option for districts of limited powers excepts those districts from the statute that grants any district the ability to make any change of organization (Government Code § 56119). Rather, construing the 1985 [Cortese-Knox] Act in this manner runs counter to the rules of statutory interpretation."
Cortese-Knox was intended to allow cities and districts to provide for the needs of a county and its communities. Fresno County's restrictive interpretation "would result in a district of limited powers being unable to adapt to social and economic developments occurring within its territory. Rather, a district of limited powers would not be able to change its organization in any manner unless its territory overlapped the boundaries of a city," Justice Levy wrote.
The court also dismissed the county's argument that because a different community services district in the past had received special legislative authority to incorporate as a city, Malaga needed similar legislation. "The fact that special legislation has been employed previously does not establish such legislation as a condition to incorporation," Levy wrote.
The Case:
County of Fresno v. Malaga County Water District, No. F038163, 02 C.D.O.S. 6934, 2002 DJDAR 8663. Filed July 31, 2002.
The Lawyers:
For the county: J. Wesley Merritt, chief deputy county counsel, (559) 488-3479.
For the water district: Neal Costanzo, Hargrove & Costanzo, (559) 261-0163.
Landowners who filed a lawsuit contending that Santa Cruz County's second unit ordinance conflicted with state law should have filed suit when the county most recently amended the ordinance, not when the county applied the ordinance to conditional use permits, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
An appellate court has overturned a jury's verdict on the fair market value of property that the City of Ripon took through eminent domain. The appellate panel ruled that the trial judge allowed the jury to hear inadmissible evidence about how the city allegedly blocked development of the property to diminish its value.
Challenges to a City of Indio redevelopment project area expansion from three other government agencies have been thrown out on a technicality by the Fourth District County of Appeal.
The tortured history of a development in downtown Oakland added another chapter when a state appellate court overturned a lower court decision against Citicorp Real Estate, which had foreclosed on the project. The appellate panel found that the jury had been instructed incorrectly and that Citicorp had done nothing legally wrong in respect to its handling of the "Old Oakland" project.
In a case that pitted open space protection against eminent domain law, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that a Sonoma County open space district did not need to get voter approval before granting an easement for a treated wastewater pipeline across district property.
A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
An exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act for construction of a sea wall below two houses has been upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the potential collapse of a bluff could threaten public safety and qualified for an emergency exemption under CEQA.
In a case that touched on redevelopment law, the California Environmental Quality Act and general plan compatibility, an appellate court has upheld San Francisco's handling of a project on the site of the historic Emporium department store.
The City of Los Angeles was correct to treat as one project a builder's various proposals for 21 new houses on existing parcels on two streets, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the builder's contention that the city could not demand an environmental impact report on the 21 houses, five of which have already been built.
Opponents of a proposed recycling center were too late in filing a lawsuit regarding a city's failure to prepare an environmental study on the city's sale of land to the recycling company, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The owner of appropriative water rights to a creek cannot exercise those rights in violation of state regulations intended to protect fish and wildlife, the Third District Court of Appeal has decided.
When a public agency acquires a property via eminent domain, only a trial court judge -- and not a jury -- can decide whether a business should receive compensation for loss of goodwill, a state appellate court has ruled.