Court of Appeal Rejects Coastkeeper’s Claims that the Water Boards Ignore the Nonpoint Source Policy in Regulating Irrigated Agriculture

On Thursday, February 10, 2022, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected Monterey Coastkeeper’s claims that the State Water Board, Central Valley Water Board and Central Coast Water Board (Water Boards) have a pattern and practice of ignoring the state’s Nonpoint Source Policy in its regulation of irrigated agriculture. Back in 2017, Monterey Coastkeeper filed a complaint against the Water Boards looking to have the trial court direct the Water Boards on how to comply with state water quality laws and applicable policies.

The trial court denied Monterey Coastkeeper’s claims and determined that the challenges they brought were improper, because they were too broad and generalized and sought to impede agency discretion. Monterey Coastkeeper appealed the trial court’s findings, seeking to have the Court of Appeal overturn the trial court. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Monterey Coastkeeper and upheld the trial court’s original determinations that Monterey Coastkeeper’s claims were improper. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that the Water Boards have not ignored the law or the Nonpoint Source Policy. Rather, the real dispute pertains to the sufficiency of the Water Board’s actions, which could not be considered based on the claims brought by Monterey Coastkeeper in this case. Such considerations need to be considered in different actions. Notably, Monterey Coastkeeper and others have other legal actions challenging the sufficiency of the Central Valley Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, which are currently pending before the Court of Appeal.

In this case, Monterey Coastkeeper also argued that the State Board had a mandatory duty to apply the Public Trust Doctrine when reviewing irrigated lands actions taken by regional boards. The Public Trust Doctrine requires the state to maintain its duty to protect water resources for the benefit of the public whenever feasible. The Court of Appeal disagreed, reiterating that the State Board maintains discretion when applying its public trust duty thereby preventing the intervention of courts. View Update