In City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation, the Supreme Court today holds a water conservation district’s groundwater pumping charge, which, as required by statute, is three times higher for non-agricultural use as it is for agricultural use, might trigger a state constitutional provision that would require voter approval of the charge. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in this case.]
The court’s opinion — by Justice Leondra Kruger, for herself and five other justices — concludes that the charge doesn’t fall under a constitutional provision prohibiting a charge for a “property related service” from exceeding “the proportional cost” of the service that is “attributable to the parcel” on which the charge is imposed. The court does, however, find applicable another provision, which, like the first, was adopted by initiative. That one requires voter approval for local government charges, except those charges that are limited to reasonable costs of providing a special benefit or service and that bear a “fair or reasonable” relationship to the benefit to the payor of, or the payor’s burden on, the government activity. The court remands the case to the Court of Appeal to determine the fair-or-reasonable-relationship issue regarding this particular charge.
Justice Goodwin Liu writes a brief concurring opinion. He says that the court should directly address whether the statutorily required triple rate for non-agricultural use survives the adoption of the constitutional provisions at issue. Justice Liu concludes it does not.
The court affirms in part and reverses in part the Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal. It disapproves 2007 and 2013 decisions by the Sixth District.