Any Act Necessary? the Fifth Appellate District's Decision in Inzana v. Turlock Irrigation District
| Jurisdiction | California,United States |
| Author | by Callie Lee Lindemann |
| Publication year | 2019 |
| Citation | Vol. 28 No. 2 |
by Callie Lee Lindemann*
Callie Lee Lindemann
In June 2019, the Fifth Appellate District decided Inzana v. Turlock Irrigation District Board of Directors1 which provides important new appellate analysis and authority regarding the scope of special district power and the nature of fundamental vested property rights. This article provides an overview of Inzana, analyzes the court's reasoning, and assesses the potential application of the case to interpretation of other special district powers. This article concludes that Inzana is a measured decision that reasonably protects special district property without unduly expanding special district authority.
Turlock Irrigation District ("District") was formed on June 6, 1887, the first special district as well as the first irrigation district created in California.2 The District's jurisdiction encompasses land located between the Tuolumne, Merced, and San Joaquin Rivers, and the District provides water to over 4,500 irrigation customers.3 In 1988, the District received by grant a 12.5 foot-wide easement located on three separate parcels in District boundaries.4 The recorded easements granted a right to construct, maintain, operate, and replace a pipeline and related infrastructure and the right of ingress to and egress from the easement for the purpose of operation, maintenance, and repair of the pipeline.5 Subsequently, the District constructed a pipeline and related infrastructure within the boundaries of the easement.
Grower Anthony Inzana owned one of the three parcels at the time the District acquired the easement.6 In 2010, Inzana purchased the second of the three parcels, consisting of 59.13 acres.7 At the time, the parcel was planted with almond trees,8 Inzana later replaced the old trees with 2,400 new pistachio trees;9 of these, 169 trees were planted along a road and within the District's easement, three feet from the pipeline's center.10
District staff sent Inzana a letter in January 2014 requesting the removal of the trees located within the easement. The request was based on the District's authority under its own District Rule 2.3.1, which provides:
No trees, vines, shrubs, corrals, fences, or any other type of encroachment shall be planted, or placed in, on, over, or across any District or improvement district conduit or any District right-of-way unless the District has given specific written approval for such encroachment.
District Rules 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 further provide that the District has the right to remove, at the encroacher's expense, unauthorized encroachments on a District right-of-way that interfere with the operation or maintenance of the District facility. Additionally, District Rule 10.1 provides:
Failure or refusal of any landowner or irriga-tor to comply with any of these rules or application regulations shall be sufficient grounds for terminating delivery of District water to the lands of such landowner or irrigator, and water shall not again be furnished until the landowner or irrigator is in full compliance with all rules and regulations.
The foregoing District rules were adopted pursuant to section 22257 of the irrigation district law in the California Water Code, which authorizes irrigation districts to establish equitable rules for distribution and use of water.11
The District's letter to Inzana explained that the new trees "will eventually cause a maintenance issue and potential pipeline damage due to the trees being planted too close to the pipe."12 The District's water distribution manager cited concerns that the growing tree roots would eventually interfere with the pipeline and cause it to crack and flood.13 The District requested Inzana relocate the trees to avoid future operational and maintenance problems.14
On July 19, 2014 the District sent Inzana a Notice and Order to remove the trees. An administrative process ensued, at the end of which the District's General Manager determined that Inzana was required to comply and remove the trees.15 Inzana appealed this decision to the District Board of Directors, but the Board denied his appeal and directed Inzana to remove the trees.16 Inzana refused, and his attorney informed the Board that Inzana would be filing a petition for writ of mandate.17 The District agreed to not remove the trees during the legal proceedings but, at the same time, the District reserved its right to withhold irrigation water for Inzana's failure to comply with District rules and regulations. Ultimately the District terminated deliveries of all irrigation water to Inzana's parcels in the District.18
[Page 20]
Inzana filed a verified petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the local superior court, per section 1094.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.19 He sought to set aside the Board's decision to deny his appeal and to enjoin the District from its refusal of water deliveries to his property. Inzana argued the easement did not grant the District authority to order the removal of his trees within the easement, and further that the District had known of the planted trees for three years without providing him any notice of encroachment.20 Additionally, he argued that trees had been planted and growing in the easement since it was granted in 1988, and that he had a fundamental vested right to place trees in the easement.21
The trial court denied Inzana's petition. The trial court determined the pistachio trees were an encroachment that denied the District its right of ingress and egress, that the District had a rational basis for enacting its rules, and finally that the District properly withheld water deliveries. Inzana appealed to the Fifth Appellate District.
On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District held: (1) the District decision did not substantially affect a vested property right, and therefore the substantial evidence standard applied to the court's review of the Board's decision; (2) substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the trees planted within the easement created unreasonable interference with the District's easement rights; (3) the District had the authority to terminate water deliveries to Inzana's property for his failure to follow District rules and regulations; and (4) the District rules and regulations were a valid exercise of district power under the Water Code. The court's analysis on each of these points is described below.
A. Fundamental Vested Rights and Standard of ReviewCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 provides that the validity of decisions of administrative agencies may be challenged with a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus.22 The section provides for two standards of judicial review: the independent judgment standard and the substantial evidence standard.23 In 1971, the California Supreme Court determined in Bixby v. Pierno that section 1094.5 empowers the judiciary to establish principles to determine when each standard of review applies.24 The Supreme Court further held that when an administrative agency's decision affected a vested fundamental right, the court shall use the independent judgment standard.25 The independent judgment standard permits the court to exercise its independent judgment on review of the evidence in a trial de novo.
If an administrative agency's decision does not substantially affect a fundamental, vested right, courts are directed to rely on the substantial evidence standard rather than the independent judgment standard. Specifically, courts review the administrative record to determine whether agency findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the agency committed any errors of law.26 The administrative record consists of documents that reflect the evidence in front of an agency when the agency made its decision, and documentation of the proceedings in which the agency made its decision. Under the substantial evidence standard, courts are not permitted to consider evidence outside of the administrative record.
The Inzana trial court applied the substantial evidence standard.27 On appeal, Inzana argued that the trial court incorrectly applied the substantial evidence standard and that he was entitled to the trial court's independent judgment because the decision affected Inzana's fundamental vested rights, specifically his right to use his property for any use that was not precluded by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial