The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s case against the agency controlling Coachella’s water supply should have been thrown out, the California Court of Appeal ruled.
The HJTA had argued that the fees charged by the Coachella Valley Water District to fund their groundwater replenishing program were an improper tax.
The Oct. 11 published opinion from the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, said that the lawsuit was largely a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). SLAPP lawsuits can be thrown out under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16: “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike.”
Randall Roberts originally filed the lawsuit in 2019, with the Water District, General Manager James Barrett, three of its five board members, and three consulting firms as defendants.
The defendants “perpetually forced property taxpayers, domestic ratepayers, and those paying (replenishment charges) in the West to subsidize the interests of large agricultural property owners in the East Coachella Valley, including Board members (John Powell Jr., Peter Nelson and Anthony Bianco),” Randall’s complaint said.
The complaint claimed that those three board members had to pay only $66 per acre-foot in their river basin, while the other two river basins administered by the water district charged $143 and $135 per acre-foot.
The Taxpayers Association took the case over from Roberts in 2021.
All the defendants, with the exception of the water district, filed an anti-SLAPP motion. The motion focused on three acts: the board members’ vote to set the fees, the discussion of a study between the general manager and board members, and the consultant’s work drafting a cost-of-service study used by the board. Each of these acts were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, they argued.
Roberts argued they were exempted from SLAPP protections because of the law’s public interest exemption. That exemption disqualifies a case from SLAPP dismissal if the plaintiff seeks relief for the general public, the action would enforce an important right affecting the public interest, and private enforcement and if private enforcement is necessary.
The defendant’s motion was denied by then-Riverside Superior Judge Sunshine Sykes, who agreed with Roberts.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
“We hold that the (public interest) exemption did not apply, as there was no justifiable reason for Howard Jarvis to sue the Water District’s board members or general manager individually for remedies only the Water District can provide…Claims asserted against individual defendants for actions only the government body undertook do not advance the public interest,” their ruling said.
The defendants’ inclusion in the suit can only chill discussions of public importance, the ruling said.
“The inclusion of the board members and the general manager as defendants in these causes of action is gratuitous. Its only effect is to expose those individuals to the potential costs of having to provide for their own defense as well as the threat of personal liability. That risk, even if small, is enough to have a chilling effect,” the ruling said.
The Court of Appeal did rule the general manager should not have been granted SLAPP dismissal against the conversion and writ of mandate causes of action—but those causes against him were properly dismissed later in the case.
“The opposition to the anti-SLAPP showed only that (General Manager) Barrett stated that farmers in the East Coachella Valley believed they were entitled to cheap water, that he doubted there would be much support to raise water rates there just to accommodate a sense of parity, and that the replenishment charge in the East Whitewater River Subbasin area would rise to over $500 an acre-foot in five or six years if true replenishment costs for that area were taken into account. None of these statements could reasonably be interpreted to show he ‘acted in concert (with other conspirators) and came to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful plan’,” the ruling said.
Case information
Jeffrey Costell and John Haytol of Costell & Adelson Law Corp., and Joshua Stambaugh and Sara McDuffie of Frost, represented the plaintiffs.
Robin Meadow and Rachel Beyda of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland; and Michael Colantuono, Pamela Graham and Liliane Wyckoff of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley represented the defendants.
Former Riverside Superior Judge Sunshine Sykes and Craig Riemer presided.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Appellate Justice Judge Michael Raphael wrote the opinion, which was joined by Justices Manuel Ramirez and Art McKinster.
Case no. RIC1905897
Appellate Case No. E079078
Read the ruling here.
