RECENT CALIFORNIA DECISIONS

July 2007

To read this entire item of approximately 1000 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication. Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25). To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here

Sixth District Holds that Groundwater Augmentation Charges Are Subject to Proposition 218
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. Amrhein

On May 21, 2007, the Sixth Appellate District, Court of Appeal issued an opinion on rehearing in holding that the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency’s groundwater augmentation fee is subject to the requirements of Proposition 218 because it is imposed “as an incident of property ownership.” (Cal. Const., Art. XIII D, §§ 2, 6.) At the same time, the Court of Appeal also suggested that groundwater fees might be exempt from Proposition 218 if they are imposed for policy purposes such as discouraging waste, rather than as an incident of property ownership.