SAN BUENAVENTURA, CITY OF v. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTAmicus Curiae Brief of Farm Bureau of Ventura CountyCal.November 23, 2015SUPREME COURT FILED NOV 23 2015 S$226036 IN THE SUPREME COURT Frank A. McGuire Clerk OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Deputy CITY OF SANBUENAVENTURA, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Respondent/Cross-Appellant, VS. UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTAND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATIONDISTRICT, Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Appellants/Cross Respondents. APPLICATION FOR LEAVETO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AMICUS CURIAEBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATIONDISTRICT After a Decision by the Second Appellate District, Division Six Case No. B251810 Reversing a Judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County Case Nos. VENCI-00401714 AND 1414739 Honorable ThomasP. Anderle, Judge Presiding NANCY N. MCDONOUGH,SBN 84234 CHRISTIAN C. SCHEURING, SBN 208807 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 2300 River Plaza Drive Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone: (916) 561-5660 Email: nmedonough@ctbf.com Email: cscheuring@cfbf.com COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE FARM BUREAU OF VENTURA COUNTY S226036 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF SANBUENAVENTURA, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Respondent/Cross-Appellant, VS. UNITED WATER CONSERVATIONDISTRICTAND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATIONDISTRICT, Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Appellants/Cross Respondents. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AMICUS CURIAEBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATIONDISTRICT After a Decision by the Second Appellate District, Division Six Case No. B251810 Reversing a Judgmentofthe Superior Court of Santa Barbara County Case Nos. VENCI-00401714 AND 1414739 Honorable Thomas P. Anderle, Judge Presiding NANCY N. MCDONOUGH,SBN 84234 CHRISTIAN C. SCHEURING, SBN 208807 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 2300 River Plaza Drive Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone: (916) 561-5660 Email: nmcdonough@cfbf.com Email: cscheuring@cfof.com COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE FARM BUREAU OF VENTURA COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAEBRIEF.................c00 1 I, INTRODUCTION.......cccecseesessssessssecceecsessceseeesseeseeesseessesenseseeeens 1 Il. INTEREST OF APPLICANT FARM BUREAU OF VENTURA COUNTY|... ccccccccssesseesereesessesssseseessesenseeseeeees 1 Ill. _HOW THE PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WILL ASSIST THE COURT IN DECIDING THE MATTER..............3 TV. RULE 8.520(f) STATEMENT...ccccccssccssssscesceeesssesseseeseeeees4 AMICUS CURTAE BRIEF. 0000... cecccsessesscesseesceceeseeseeeeecsneseeneesecenseens 5 I. INTRODUCTION|... ccececsessececeecenesssesssesesesceseesecessnessesanseneeesas 5 Il. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.....cciccccccceseeseesseteesseeeeees6 WT. STATEMENT OF CASE .W.eccccccsssssecssecsssetscseesssssseesessseneeens7 TV. ARGUMENTou...ccccesscsecessesneeseseessseceeseecssessaeessesseessesseeees 7 A. A Court Should Avoid Constitutional Issues.............cccecee7 B. Section 75594 Is Facially Constitutional...............ccccsseeeees 8 C. The Voters Did Not “Impliedly Repeal” Section 75594.....10 D. The Agricultural Water Use Underpinned by Section 75594 Supports Benefits to All Califormians.............ccccceseesseeeeees 13 Vi. CONCLUSIONocccceeecsecsseeseeesesesesnaeeeseseceesssessessseeesaseaeees 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases United States v. Salerno (1987) 481 U.S. 739eeccccccsscssccssssecsssneessneecsssecssssesscesseecseceeeseneesseessessarees9 State Cases California Housing Finance Agency vy. Elliott (1976) 17 Cal.3d S75 oo eecccscesessecesecsccsceeeceseeesesseseseseeeeseeesseeeaaesaeaseaeeareess7 Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 456 occccsseccsseseeeccneeeseeeesesserscesesarsacacesuseseeeserseeeeeeess 8 California State Electronics Assn. v. Zeos Int. Ltd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1270 oo.eeeceeeeceeeceeeesececseeeeceseneeceessessseeeesnseeeeneeees 8 Citizens Assn. ofSunset Beach v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Com. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1182.0... eececceeeseeseseeeeseeeseaeeeseeeeeeesaees 10 California Constitution Articles XTID C wo... ceessccssscsscceessscecesceeseseceeeaceceseeeeeesaeeesaceeseseeorsnetees passim Articles XUD wo... eeeccsscessesnsescecesseceessaeeessneeesseesssesseeesseeeesneeseseeens passim Statutes Food & Agriculture Code § 802eeccccccecssssssccceesseessecssseeeesesesceseeasecseeeseeeesesessaseeeseeenseseseeeesaeeeesaees 14 § BQececccccsccsssseccesssseesecsseeceessececessssseceessnseesaseesessceesenausesseseeesseeeeaees 14 § 82Deeccccssscccccssssccccssssscnseeessseeeseeeeeessauecssesueecseusesaueceseeausecesseecseseeeeanecs 14 Government Code § S220Leeccceccccssseseccessecsseceseeceesseeecesssseeesesesecsenseeeeeeseeenestpeteeeeneneseeeens 14 Public Resources Code § 10200eeeeccseeneeeessecessecsseeeessseceeesseueeeecesssecsseecsesaeesesecueesseasecesterenees 14 § 21095... eeecccccessscesesnsecsccssceeessncecsnsecsanecessuecsessseeesesaeessaeeesaesseeseeesaaenes 14 ii Water Code § 75594 oo ccccscsesscccssessscesscccssecccescessaeeceseesseeeeacenseseeeesceeeeesseenseneseseenenes passim Regulations California Code of Regulations tit. 14, § 15000 ooeeecestecsecsseecseeseceseesnesseeesaeeseesenessaeeseeseneeesesenseeeees 14 Other Sources California Senate Local Governance Committee, ““What’s So Special About Special Districts: A Citizen’s Guide To Special Districts in California.” 0...eeeeseeeeenees7 ili CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP In accordance with Rule 8.200(c)(3), the undersigned herebystates that the proposed amicus brief herein was authored solely by the counsel for the Farm Bureau of Ventura County, and no personorentity outside of the Farm Bureau of Ventura County made any monetary contribution to assist its preparation. Dated: November 11, 2015 Respectfully submitte Christian C. Seung ) Attorney for Fa of Ventura County iv APPLICATION FOR LEAVETO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FARM BUREAU OF VENTURA COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT I, INTRODUCTION The Farm Bureau of Ventura County (“Farm Bureaw”) files this application for leave to file an amicus curiaebrief in this case, solely in order to address the second of two questions posed by the Court for briefing and argument: namely, doesthe rate ratio mandated by Water Code section 75594 violate Proposition 218 or Proposition 26? In its proposed amicus curiae brief, Farm Bureau will discuss a narrow point, arguing that in the event a court applies Proposition 218 or Proposition 26, neither constitutional provision causesa facial infirmity in Water Code section 75594. In doing so, Farm Bureau hopesto provide the Court with perspective on Water Code section 75594, a statute of statewide application which is underpinned by important policy considerationsthat telate to agriculture and the environment in California. This application is filed pursuant to Rule 8.520(f) of the California Rules of Court. Il. INTEREST OF APPLICANT FARM BUREAU OF VENURA COUNTY Foundedin 1914, Farm Bureau is an independent, non-partisan organization thatis notaffiliated with any government body. It acts as an advocate for Ventura County’s agricultural industry, promoting policies and fostering community action intended to preserve that industry’s sustainability and vitality. The organization also provides information, research, insurance services, and other benefits to its nearly 1,300 members, of which approximately 900 are engaged in production agriculture within Ventura County. Many of these members are within the service area ofthe United Water Conservation (“District”), and use groundwater ontheir farms. Amongother things, Farm Bureau publishes a monthly newsletter, as well as the quarterly Central Coast Farm & Ranch magazine, and disseminates information about agriculture through its website and various social media outlets. The Farm Bureau hasa direct and important interest in this case because its membership of family farmers and ranchers are dependent upon reliable and affordable water supplies in Ventura County, including groundwater. Water Code section 75594 is a key statutory element in groundwaterrate-setting for California’s Water Conservation Districts, and its commanddirectly affects Farm Bureau members within Ventura County who use groundwater. An adverse decision on the issue briefedin this proposed amicus curiae submission could effectively strip Ventura County farmers of their access to groundwater — and for that matter, many of California’s farmers and ranchersin a similar situation - because groundwateris a primary input into farm productivity at the same time the farm sector is quite price-sensitive to changes in waterrates. Il. HOW THE PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WILL ASSIST THE COURT IN DECIDING THE MATTER The Court has limited the issues to be briefed and argued in this case to two, the second ofwhich appears to potentially involve a question not only as to the as-applied constitutionality of Water Code section 75594 in this case, but also the facial constitutionality of Section 75594. The City of San Buenaventura (“City”) has spent considerable time addressingthe latter aspect of Section 75594. Farm Bureau intendsto provide an agricultural perspective in its amicus curiae brief as to precisely this issue — whether and under what circumstances the Court ought to approach Section 75594’s facial constitutionality in this case, and what factors ought to inform its decision. Additionally, through the proposed amicus curiae brief, Farm Bureau seeks to inform the Court of the public values inherent in agricultural water use, values which support Water Code section 75594. As well, Farm Bureau wishesto point out the potential precedential implications of any decision about Section 75594’s facial constitutionality, which maybear uponthe continued viability of existing California farms and ranches,and the ability of California farmers and ranchers to continue to produce a safe, locally grown, and adequate food supply. Having done so now, Farm Bureau respectfully requests this Court’s leaveto file the attached proposed amicus curiae submission. IV. RULE 8.520(f) STATEMENT No party or counsel for any party authored the proposedbrief in whole or in part, or made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the proposed amicus brief. No persons other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel has made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the amicus brief. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FARM BUREAU OF VENTURA COUNTYIN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION The Court has asked the parties in this case to brief the question of whetherthe rate ratio mandated by Water Code section 75594 violates Proposition 218 or Proposition 26, important provisions of the California Constitution. In its papers, the City of San Buenaventura (“‘City’’) brings a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Water Code section 75594.! However, the City offers no logic that would completely foreclose the statute’s application — under any andall circumstances — alongside a proper application of Proposition 218 or Proposition 26.* This muchis required, for courts are loathe to decide constitutional issues — especially facial challenges — in the absenceoftrue need. Asbriefed in greater detail below, the Farm Bureau of Ventura County (“Farm Bureau”) respectfully submits that this Court should reject the City’s facial challenge, and join in a review | For the sake of brevity, Farm Bureauwill not repeat the text of Water Code section 75594, other than to observeasall other parties have that in this case it applies to require M&I groundwater chargesto reflect no less than a 3:1 ratio over agricultural groundwater charges, and no more than a 5:1 ratio. All references to code sections in this brief are to the Water Code, unless otherwise specified. 2 Cal. Const., art. XIII D (Proposition 218) and Cal. Const., art. XIII C (Proposition 26). of the trial court’s decisions on issues meaningfully developed below. II. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE Founded in 1914, Farm Bureau of Ventura County (“Farm Bureau’’) is an independent, non-partisan organization thatis not affiliated with any government body. It acts as an advocate for Ventura County’s agricultural industry, promoting policies and fostering community action intended to preserve that industry’s sustainability and vitality. The organization also provides information, research, insurance services and other benefits to its nearly 1,300 members, of which approximately 900 are engaged in production agriculture within Ventura County. Many of these members are within the service area of the United Water Conservation District (“District”), and use groundwateron their farms. Among otherthings, Farm Bureau publishes a monthly newsletter, as well as the quarterly Central Coast Farm & Ranch magazine, and disseminates information about agriculture through its website and various social media outlets. The Farm Bureau hasa direct and importantinterest in this case because its membership of family farmers and ranchers are dependent upon reliable and affordable water supplies, including groundwater pumped within the service area of the District. An adverse decision on the issue briefed in this proposed amicus curiae submission could effectively strip Ventura County farmers and ranchers of groundwater supplies within the District’s service area, because groundwateris a primary input into farm productivity within Ventura County at the same time those farmsare quite price-sensitive to changes in water rates. More broadly, such an adverse decision could prevent the statewide application of the Legislature’s considered policy choice in Section 75594,restricting access to groundwater by a large segment of California’s agricultural economy.’ 1. STATEMENTOF THE CASE The facts and circumstancesofthis case are well briefed by the parties in this case, and Farm Bureau will not provide a separate statement of facts herein. IV. ARGUMENT A. The Court Should Avoid Questions of Facial Constitutionality This Court should construe Section 75594 as constitutional.’ It is hornbook law that a statute should be construedas constitutional, if possible. (See California Housing Finance Agency v. Elliott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 575, 594.) This Court has stated it thus: 3 There are presently 13 duly-constituted Water Conservation Districts within California. (“What’s So Special About Special Districts: A Citizen’s Guide To Special Districts in California”, 4th ed. October 2010, California Senate Local Governance Committee, accessed on November 10, 2015, at http://www.csda.net/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/WhatsSoSpecial_2010.pdf.) 4 This brief is limited to the second question posed by the Court for briefing and argument. In considering the constitutionality of a legislative act we presumeits validity, resolving all doubts in favor of the [a]ct. Unless conflict with a provision of the state or federal Constitution is clear and unquestionable, we must uphold the [a]ct. (Ibid.; see also Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 456, 466 (familiar rule of construction that statutes should be interpreted in a manner which avoids constitutional difficulties).) In this case, therefore, the Court should be guided by the question of whether the City has demonstratedthatit is impossible for the District to comply with Section 75594 at the sametimeit is faithful to Proposition 218 and Proposition 26. Moreover, a court should not decide the question of whether a statute is constitutional if alternative groundsare available to dispose of the issues in the case. (See California State Electronics Assn. v. Zeos Int. Ltd. (1996) 41 Cal.App. 4th 1270, 1274.) B. Section 75594 Is Facially Constitutional Because It Presents No Universal Conflict With Either Proposition 218 or Proposition 26 Even were this Court to decide on Section 75594’s universal application against the California Constitution, the Court would find the statute facially constitutional. This is because the City has offered no logic that discounts the application of Section 75594 against either Proposition 218 or Proposition 26 under any andall circumstances.’ As the United States Supreme Court has noted,a facial challengeto a legislative act is “the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.” (United States v. Salerno (1987) 481 U.S. 739, 745.) The fact that an act “might operate unconstitutionally under one set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid[.]” Ud.) The City’s argument falls far short ofthis standard. Indeed,as will be argued below, with respect to Section 75594, there may be some circumstances in which the evidence doesjustify a 3:1 ratio ofM&Ito agricultural rates,° a situation in which Section 75594 would be wholly consistent with Proposition 218’s (or Proposition 26’s)’ requirements. The point here is that both Proposition 218 and Proposition 5 The City states categorically that a 3:1 rate ratio “cannot satisfy our Constitution’s demandsregardless of whether Proposition 218 or Proposition 26 controls. (City’s Reply Brief, p. 10.) This would appearto require rigorous support, as opposed to the City’s mere ipse dixit. 6 The City appears to admit as much,at least in its Opening Brief, whereit leaves the door open for costs that “by chanceorartifice” are within the range whichis established by Section 75594. (City’s Opening Brief, pp. 63-64.) It also makes the logical error discussed in fn. 8, infra, that a district is empowered only to finance a certain rate structure — for Section 75594, a 3:1 to 5:1 rate structure — through Proposition 218- restricted funds. (/bid.) 7 It bears not here that the analysis under Proposition 26 does not so much require any particular relationship between costs and fees or charges perse, as it does potentially require a voter-approval requirement. 26 require evidentiary analysis; any reconciliation of the statute with Proposition 218 or Proposition 26 necessarily depends upon an analysis of thefacts at bar. To the extent that Proposition 218 or 26 may apply to ratemaking whichis consistent with Section 75594, without the application of facts, it is impossible to hold that a 3:1 ratio (or a 5:1 ratio, or anything else) is per se unconstitutional under either of these constitutional commands. C. The Voters Did Not “Impliedly Repeal” Section 75594 In support of its argumentthat the voters, in enacting Proposition 218, impliedly repealed Section 75594, the City states that the latter presents a “flatly inconsistent” duty with the undoubtedly superior constitutional commandofthe former. (City’s Reply Brief, p. 31.) Farm Bureau agrees that the commands of the California Constitution are superior to statute, but believes the City fatally overstates the scope ofthe potential conflict between Propositions 218 and 26 on the one hand, and Section 75594 on the other. Correctly, the Court of Appeal below cited to a well-knownrule of construction that courts “are required to try to harmonize constitutional language with that of existing statutes if possible.” (Opinion,p. 24,citing Citizens Assn. ofSunset Beach v. Orange County Local Agency Formation Com.(2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1192.) Under that rule, the Court observed, if “it is possible to reconcile the language of Proposition 218 with 10 [section 75594’s mandatory rate ratio] existing at the time ofits passage, we must do so.” (/bid.) That rule does not just disfavor the implied repeal of a pre-existing statute, as the City has briefed, but it operates to prevent repeal unlessit is simply notpossible to reconcile that pre-existing statute with new constitutional language. Here, contrary to the City’s assertion that Section 75594is “flatly inconsistent” with Proposition 218, there is some room for potential ratemaking in which a cost-accounting analysis will justify a 3:1 ratio, ora 4:1 ratio, or even a 5:1 ratio. Or at least the City has not foreclosed the possibility, by demonstrating an inescapable and final logic which proves that 3:1 (or 4:1, or 5:1) never “pencils out” in a cost-accounting for ratemaking.® In simpler terms, it is simply not true that Proposition 218’s 8 Nor, for that matter, has the City even establishedthatstrict cost- accounting is the only basis upon whicha rate structure may be founded. Specifically, there is no reason to believe that the District — or any hypothetical district similarly situated — could not support a 3:1 rate structure with non-Proposition 218-restricted funds, as a district may raise revenue from many other meansthat do not involve a property-related fee or charge. Simply put, Proposition 218 is no bar to a local agency making considered policy choicesin its rate-setting, so long as no class of customers is charged more thanits costs of service and unrestricted funds are used to support rate differentials among classes to the extent those differentials depart from strict cost-accounting. For this reason alone — because property-related fees and charges are not the only wayfor a local agency to support a given service — it cannot be that Section 75594 is impossible to reconcile with Proposition 218 as a facial matter. With respect to Proposition 26, the question is slightly different: an analysis of costs held up against what is charged to the ratepayer bears on the question of whetherdirect voter approval is required. Proposition 26 11 constraints on local-agency ratemaking obliterated the field of other legislative policy choices about water rates, although the City may wishit wereso.” Noris this simply so many angels dancing on the head of a pin. As Farm Bureau argues below, there are many quantitative reasons that may support lowerrates for agricultural water use than for municipal water use, and in a future California in which water resources and their use are ever moretightly scrutinized against the framework ofstatewidepolicy, it is doesn’t say muchatall about any particular rate structure — including the rate-setting parameters laid down by Section 75594 — other than to describe those fees or charges in excessoftotal cost of regulation, or those fees or charges whichare not allocated on the basis of a particular payor’s benefits or burdens from a particular governmentservice, as a “tax” subject to voter approval. Atheart, it is a voter approval requirement for fees and charges that exceed certain parameters, not an outright bar to a rate structure established by Section 75594 or any other similarstatute. ° The Court below rightly distinguished between local-agency and legislative prerogatives in this regard. (Opinion, p. 24.) In point offact, Section 75594is no isolated legislative anachronism,as the City seems to imply. The Water Code contains other expressionsofpolicy that clearly underscore the importance of agricultural water use. Water Code section 106, for example, states baldly that the domestic use ofwater — a much narrowercategory ofhuman water use than the suite of municipal uses which the City provides, which includes water deliveries for landscaping — is the highest use of water, followed by irrigation as the second highest use ofwater. The pointhere is that voters, in enacting constraints upon local- agency ratemaking via Proposition 218 (or Proposition 26) at the ballot box, cannot possibly have been navigating a course through the Water Code, impliedly repealing statutes which are the considered policy expressions of the Legislature and which do nofacial violenceto the commands of Propositions 218 or 26. 12 likely that the value of agricultural water use will be discussed with increasing detail and vigor, as follows below. D. The Agricultural Water Use Underpinned by Section 75594 Supports Benefits To All Californians The Court should view with some skepticism the City’s claims of “subsidy”in this case, as there are many farmers and ranchers who would make claims to the contrary, and in point of fact the farm-to-city connection provides a spectrum of mutual benefits that are identified not only in Section 75594, but in a numberofother statutes, ordinances, and physical relationships. For example, as Farm Bureaubriefed at trial, the Williamson Act, which is California’s premiere statutory protection for farmland, provides the following: (a) That the preservation of a maximum amountofthe limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic resources, andis necessary not only to the maintenance ofthe agricultural economyofthe state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation. [...] (b) That the discouragement ofpremature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is a matter ofpublic interest and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it will discourage discontiguous urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents. 13 (c) That in a rapidly urbanizing society agricultural lands have a definite public value as open space, and the preservation in agricultural production of such lands, the use ofwhich maybelimited underthe provisions of this chapter, constitutes an important physical, social, esthetic and economic asset to existing or pending urban or metropolitan developments[...] (Gov. Code, § 51220.)!° With respect to the City in particular, as Farm Bureau also pointed outattrial, its “Save our Agricultural Resources” ordinance, enacted byits residents and known otherwise as the “SOAR” initiative, is a striking expression of the value of agriculture to the City. It contains the following language: A. Theprotection of existing agricultural and watershed lands is of critical importance to present and future residents of the City of San Buenaventura (City of Ventura). Agriculture has been and remains the major contributor to the economy ofthe City and County of Ventura, creating employment for many people, directly and indirectly, and generating substantial tax revenues for the City. B. In particular, the City of Ventura and surrounding area, with its unique combination of soils, micro-climate and hydrology, has becomeoneofthe finest growing regions in the world. Vegetable and fruit production from the County of Ventura and in particular production from 10 See also, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, §§ 10200 et seq. (“California Farmland Conservancy Program Act”); Food & Agr. Code, §§ 802, 821, 822 (“Thurman Agricultural Policy Act’); Pub. Resources Code, § 21095 (“California Environmental Quality Act” or “CEQA”) (provision on agricultural land conversions) and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000, et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”), Appendix G. 14 the soils and silt from the Santa Clara and Ventura rivers have achieved international acclaim, enhancing the City’s economy andreputation. C. Uncontrolled urban encroachmentinto agricultural and watershed areas will impair agriculture and threaten the public health, safety and welfare by causing increased traffic congestion, associated air pollution, and potentially serious water problems, such as pollution, depletion, and sedimentation of available water resources. Such urban encroachment would eventually result in both the unnecessary, expensive extension ofpublic services and facilities and inevitable conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. D. The unique character of the City of Ventura and quality of life of City residents depend on the protection of a substantial amount of open space lands. The protection of such lands not only ensures the continued viability of agriculture, but also protects the available water supply and contributes to flood control and the protection of wildlife, environmentally sensitive areas, and irreplaceable natural resources. (9 Joint Appendix, Tab 79, page 1883.) While those policy expressionsrelate to agricultural land use, the land-water nexus for the production of food and fiber could not be more obvious. Agricultural land, it goes without saying, is not capable of agriculture without water. And so does water law and policy recognize the importance of water to agriculture, from the commonlaw respecting waterrights to affirmative federal, state, and local infrastructure projects, which historically brought water to farms andranchesin the first instance. Indeed, there is no possible 15 conception of the public interest which doesnot identify the benefits of agriculture to the City, and that public interest is served by agricultural water and the policies inherentin statutes like Section 75594. Finally, as wasidentifiedin thetrial court, aside from the protection of food andfiber, there are a numberof other system wide benefits that are supported by agricultural water use in a mannerthat water dedicated to M&I use typically does not. (9 Joint Appendix, Tab 78, at p. 1864, lines 13-17.) For example, the agricultural application of water to soils involves a measure ofre-charge to aquifers. Surface runoff often results in re-use. Habitat and wildlife conservation are frequent ancillary beneficiaries. Scenic values are underpinned by water on agricultural landscapes. Truly, apart from the production of food and fiber in a $44 billion farm economy,there is abundant reason to suspect that Section 75594 is a matter ofbroad public interest to all Californians. / // H / // 16 V. CONCLUSION Asbriefed above, Farm Bureau respectfully submits that Water Code section 75594 is facially constitutional. Dated: November 11, 2015 Christian C. Scheuring 7 Attorney for Farm Bureau of Ventura County | 17 Certificate of Word Count The foregoing Farm Bureau of Ventura County’s Amicus Brief contains 3755 words (excluding this Certificate). In preparing this certificate, I relied on the word count generated by MS Word 2013. Executed on November 11, 2015, at Sacramento, California. 2 > Christian C. Scheuring D Attorney for Farm Bureau of Ventura County PROOF OF SERVICE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA City ofSan Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, etal. Case No. 8226036 I, Dianne K. Chasteen, am employedin the County of Sacramento; my business address is 2300 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, California; I am overthe age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action. On November 12, 2015, I served the following document: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS ICUS CURIAE and AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF on the parties in this action, at their addresseslisted as follows: SEE ATTACHEDLIST (Method of Service is indicated on attachment) XX (By Mail) In accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1013a(3), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), with postage thereon fully prepaidforfirst-class mail, for collection and mailing at California Farm Bureau Federation, Sacramento, California, following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of California Farm Bureau Federation for collection and processing of correspondence — said practice being that in the ordinary course ofbusiness, correspondence is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as it is placed for collection. XX (By E-Mail or Electronic Transmission) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, by causing documents to be sent to the personsat the email addresses listed on the service list on November 11, 2015 from e-mail address: dchasteen@cfbf.com. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. / // // // H I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed November 12, 2015, at Sacramento, CA. a nne K. asteen SERVICE LIST IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA City ofSan Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, etal. Case No. S226036 via U.S. Mail and electronic service Gregory G. Diaz Assistant City Attorney City of San Buenaventura P.O. Box 99 Ventura, CA 93002-0099 gdiaz@ci.ventura.ca.us gdiaz@cityofventura.net via U.S. Mail and electronic service Michael G. Colantuono David J. Ruderman Michael R. Cobden Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3137 mceolantuono@cllaw.us druderman@cllaw.us mcobden@chwlaw.us alloyd@cllaw.us via U.S. Mail and electronic service Anthony H. Trembley Jane E. Usher Cheryl A. Orr Musick, Peeler & Garrett, LLP 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 a.trembley@mpglaw.com j.usher@mpglaw.com c.orr@mpglaw.com Attorney for Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buenaventura Attorneys for Respondent and Cross-Appellant City of San Buenaventura Attorneys for Appellants and Cross-Respondents United Water Conservation District and Board of Directors of United Water Conservation District via U.S. Mail and electronic service Dennis LaRochelle Susan L. McCarthy John M. Mathews Arnold LaRochelle Mathews Vanconas & Zirbel, LLP 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 2100 Oxnard, CA 33036 dlarochelle@atozlaw.com jmathews@atozlaw.com smcecarthy@atozlaw.com jmahan@atozlaw.com via U.S. Mail Patricia J. Quilizapa Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 18881 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 pquilizapa@awattorneys.com via U.S. Mail Paul N. Singarella Kathryn M. Wagner Latham & Watkins 650 Town Center Drive, 20" Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 paul.singarella@lw.com kate.wagner@Iw.com via Federal Expressandelectronic service Clerk of the California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 Attorneys for Intervenor Pleasant Valley County WaterDistrict Attorneys for Amici Curiae City of Cerritos, City ofDowney and City of Signal Hill Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Water Replenishment District of Southern California 5S a t i c via U.S. Mail Clerk of the Santa Barbara Superior Court 1100 AnacapaStreet Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107 via U.S. Mail Office of the Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2919 via U.S. Mail Clerk of the Court of Appeal Division 6 200 E. Santa Clara Street Ventura, CA 93001 via U.S. Mail Office of the Attorney General _ Consumer Law Section 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102