Case Title: Cal. Farm Bureau etc. v. State Water Resources etc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed 4/20/11 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU  
) 
FEDERATION et al. 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiffs and Appellants, 
) 
 
 
) 
S150518 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 3 C050289 
STATE WATER RESOURCES             
) 
CONTROL BOARD, 
) 
 
) 
Sacramento County 
 
Defendant and Respondent. 
) 
Super. Ct. Nos.  
 
 
) 
03CS1776 & 04CS00473  
 
____________________________________) 
 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
THE COURT: 
The opinion herein, appearing at 51 Cal.4th 421, advance report, is 
modified as follows: 
1.  On page 443 of 51 Cal.4th [advance report], the heading lettered capital 
C. (in roman) and titled Federal Contractors (in italics), and the two immediately 
succeeding paragraphs of text, are deleted.  Substituted in place of the deleted 
material are (1) a heading lettered capital C. (in roman) and titled Ad Valorem 
Real Property Tax (in italics) and (2) immediately under that heading, the 
following text: 
Plaintiffs Northern California Water Association and Central Valley Water 
Project Association contend that section 1525 imposes an unconstitutional “new 
 
ad valorem tax[ ] on real property.”  As these parties observe, Proposition 13 
prohibits this particular category of new taxes, regardless of legislative approval.  
(Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 3.) 
The gravamen of the contention is that the water rights obtained through the 
Division’s permits and licenses are interests in real property, and that the license 
and permit charges imposed under section 1525 are thus taxes improperly based 
on the ownership of real property interests.  However, we have determined above 
that section 1525 does not, on its face, impose a tax, as opposed to a regulatory fee 
unaffected by Proposition 13.  A fortiori, the face of the statute assesses no new 
“ad valorem tax[ ] on real property.” 
Any further consideration of the ad valorem real property tax issue is 
premature.  We have deemed it necessary to remand for further evidence and 
findings whether the specific system of charges developed by the SWRCB under 
the authority of section 1525, subdivision (a) imposes taxes, rather than fees.  If 
the remand leads to the conclusion that the charges are valid fees, not taxes, it will 
follow that they do not constitute ad valorem taxes on real property. 
On the other hand, if the remand results in a conclusion that the current 
charges are taxes, not fees, those taxes will be unconstitutional under Proposition 
13, whether or not they are “ad valorem taxes on real property” (Cal. Const., 
art. XIII A, § 3), because they were authorized by less than a two-thirds legislative 
vote (ibid.).  Accordingly, we express no further views on this subject. 
2.  Immediately following the substituted text set forth in paragraph one of 
this order, a new heading lettered capital D. (in roman) and entitled Federal 
Contractors (in italics) is added. 
This modification does not affect the judgment.