Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
California State Categories







Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases

Case No. C064293 (CA Dist. 3 Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2011)

For the better part of 100 years, citizens of the American Southwest have been fighting over the right to water from the Colorado River. While the United States Supreme Court largely settled the interstate conflict over that water nearly 50 years ago, in Arizona v. California (1963) 373 U.S. 546 [10 L.Ed.2d 542], the court‟s resolution of the dispute between the states -- which limited California‟s share of the river to far less than the state can use -- ensured the fight would continue within the state for years to come.

And so it has. In 2003, three of the major stakeholders in California‟s share of the Colorado River -- the Imperial Irrigation District (the Irrigation District), the Coachella Valley Water District (Coachella), and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) -- purported to end a long-running series of disputes over Colorado River water by signing the Quantification Settlement Agreement and (along with numerous other parties) various related agreements, the purpose of which was to “budget their portion of California‟s apportionment of Colorado River water among themselves” and to “provide a framework for conservation measures and water transfers for a period of up to 75 years.” If they thought they were buying peace, however, they were sorely mistaken, for a drop of water cannot do two things at once, and every drop the residents of coastal Southern California want to drink is one that cannot be used to sustain the endangered Salton Sea -- which is what brings us to where we are today.

As will be shown, for years after the United States Supreme Court determined that California‟s share of the water from the Colorado River was to be only 4.4 million acre-feet during normal water years, California was nonetheless able to use much more than that because Arizona and Nevada were not yet able to use their full entitlements. (See, e.g., In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1153.) During this period, vast quantities of irrigation return flow from the Irrigation District sustained the Salton Sea -- that accidental body of water that owes its very existence to the quest for Colorado River water for the Imperial Valley. Eventually, however, pressure built on California to live within its annual 4.4 million acre-feet entitlement and on the Irrigation District to curb its wasteful water use. At the same time, the water needs of coastal Southern California continued to grow.
 

 

Judge(s): Ronald B. Robie
Jurisdiction: California Court of Appeals, Third District
Related Categories: Administrative Law , Agriculture , Environmental , Government / Politics
 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Roland Candee

 
Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Kathleen Butz
William Murray, Jr.
Ronald Robie

 
Amicus Lawyer(s) Amicus Law Firm(s)
Caryn Mandelbaum Environment Now
Robert Pelcyger Fredericks Pelcyger Hester & White LLC
Barbara Karshmer Karshmer & Associates PC
Bill Yeates Kenyon Yeates
Stephen Curtice Law & Resource Planning Associates PC
Charles DuMars Law & Resource Planning Associates PC
Keith Wagner Lippe Gaffney Wagner LLP
Aaron Avila U.S. Department of Justice
Stephen MacFarlane U.S. Department of Justice
Ignacia Moreno U.S. Department of Justice
John Smeltzer U.S. Department of Justice
Rodney Smith, Jr. U.S. Department of Justice
Robert Snow U.S. Department of Justice
Shane Youtz Youtz & Valdez PC

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Mark Hattam Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory Natsis
David Osias Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory Natsis
Melissa Cushman Best Best & Krieger LLP
Michelle Ouellette Best Best & Krieger LLP
Todd Leishman Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Lisabeth Rothman Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Amy Steinfeld Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Donald Lincoln Endeman Lincoln Turek & Heater LLP
John Carter Horton Knox Carter & Foote LLP
Kathryn Casey Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh
Alene Taber Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh
Michael Tidus Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh
Adam Kear Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Linus Masouredis Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
John Schlotterbeck Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Karen Tachiki Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Edmund Brown, Jr. Office of the California Attorney General
Daniel Fuchs Office of the California Attorney General
Kamala Harris Office of the California Attorney General
Kathleen Kenealy Office of the California Attorney General
Clifford Lee Office of the California Attorney General
Marilyn Levin Office of the California Attorney General
Sara Russell Office of the California Attorney General
Gary Tavetian Office of the California Attorney General
Jeffrey Epp Office of the Escondido City Attorney
Michael Rood Office of the Imperial County Counsel
Katherine Turner Office of the Imperial County Counsel
Michael Jackson Protect our Water and Environmental Rights
Rose Zoia Protect our Water and Environmental Rights
Steven Abbott Redwine & Sherrill
Julianna Strong Redwine & Sherrill
Barton Lounsbury Rossman and Moore LLP
Laurie Mikkelsen Rossman and Moore LLP
Roger Moore Rossman and Moore LLP
Antonio Rossman Rossman and Moore LLP
Joel Kuperberg Rutan & Tucker
Michelle Molko Rutan & Tucker
Daniel Hentschke San Diego County Water Authority

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Cressey Nakagawa Law Office of Cressey H Nakagawa
Patrick Maloney Law Offices of Patrick J Maloney
Thomas Virsik Law Offices of Patrick J Maloney
Lisa Cooney Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Kara Granowitz Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Kimberly Huangfu Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Malissa McKeith Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Laura Leimgruber Pro Se
Ronald Leimgruber Pro Se
Larry Porter Pro Se
Lowell Sutherland Sutherland & Gerber

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
submit a written notice to the state stating the reasons for agreement, yet the u.s. would still insist, as watermaster on are conflicted public officials within the meaning of the law to irrigation district, san diego, and coachella for environmental only."34 in his closing comments, osias later reiterated that rincon, and san pasqual bands of mission indians and the san that evil. it is a discretion specially confined by the 139 104 4) finally, with respect to the request filed by the county defense in its statement of issues, the final list of issues to 95 the boulder canyon project act of 1928 and to implement the affirmative relief which, if granted, would injure or affect the court actually found there was no meeting of the minds between contain "[t]he general or specific denial of the material section 9.2 of the joint powers agreement can be read so as not that some day there would be a canal wholly within the united settlement agreement "settle[d] a variety of long-standing 71 accorded them (see pub. resources code, 21167.1), and they ask financially responsible under the joint powers agreement. 108 actions to the trial court for that court to adjudicate. rights holders who desired to sell surplus water to other general allegation that it had complied with "all principles announced therein cannot be distinguished from this was submitted for the board of directors review prior to was dependent on its execution by all four of the respondents in arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet plus half of any surplus waters march 9, 2010, came much too late for any challenge to the trial outward manifestations of consent." (leo f. piazza paving co. scope of water code section 22762. in the latter statute, the pertaining to" metropolitan. again, however, the morgan/holtz entered a judgment in the validation action determining that all 45.) "contingent upon ongoing contemporaneous consideration." we activities and projects, which, when taken together, support the validation action, we conclude the judgment in that action must ,,subject to all contracts, if any, made by the secretary of the recognized that the sale of excess water could be a source of eighth affirmative defense that the irrigation district must be reviewed on appeal (italics added); and (2) the county assert that the trial court made a "factual finding . . . that a and halt the water transfers between the water agencies under claims and defenses" in the validation action and the two ceqa illustrating how deep the roots of the disputes before us have thought the states obligation to pay the excess mitigation nineteenth century a group of people interested in californias ourselves -- something the trial court itself never reached -- finally, we reject the morgan/holtz parties argument that authority, dated april 29, 1998 (iid/sdcwa transfer agreement), basins, major differences between the states in the lower basin would themselves agree on each states share of the water. the settlement agreement peir, raised primarily in the countys ceqa would have a breach of contract claim against the state based on 23 for this reason, there is no merit in the morgan/holtz valley. the remaining 2 percent serves residential customers in secretary of the interior reduced metropolitans and coachellas parched and barren soil of that valley. as the most feasible cal.app.3d 847, 867-868, fn. 5, italics added.) fund for a definite object constitutes a valid appropriation of california legislature had accepted the limitation of 4,400,000 california acting by and through the department of fish and game for appeal," and "[a]lthough it is possible a new appeal may what was before the irrigation districts board of directors water was indeed occurring. when the irrigation district failed p. 1069.) similarly, in watershed enforcers v. department of writ of supersedeas. (ibid.) this court treated the the agency approved in reliance on the quantification settlement 100,000 acres. (id. at p. 71.) in the summer of 1904, however, as with the federal clean air act, however, "because nepa owes nothing. thus, the states obligation to pay the excess "[t]he ordinary and widely accepted meaning of the term obligation" language of section 9.2 of the joint powers but instead is part of its response to the appeal by coachella, complain of the possibility they will face conflicting this assertion, they cite two cases, but neither of those cases actions with respect to the agreements the irrigation district shall be authorized by law for some single object or work . . . 83 160 that obligation explains the "unconditional obligation" language things necessary to generate valid agreements, which presumably remanded for retrial, it is expected that a motion to augment the state appealed. united states and indian settlement parties from an adverse court-awarded attorney fees." (id. at pp. 542-545.) thus, to county of imperial v. metropolitan water district of southern co. (2007) 155 cal.app.4th 736, the morgan/holtz parties contend superior court assigned judge donal b. donnelly as the peir." the court further noted that "the only way in which the courts. accordingly, it follows that the air district was [excess mitigation costs] might possibly accrue and remain funds to satisfy its obligation, although the water agencies nature of the states obligation to pay the excess mitigation by the imperial county air pollution control district (the air in january 2010, the coordination trial judge found that stated the appeal was ",,from so much of the judgment . . . as "debt" within the meaning of section 1 of article xvi of the effects within the county of imperial as determined by the disputed. they are also doing so based on what we believe to be of thousands of pages of paper that make up the administrative state." (white v. davis, supra, 30 cal.4th at p. 566.) the trial court "disregarded settled law that: (a) an alternative authority has encumbered the total amount owed pursuant to supreme court determined that money that had been appropriated more than 1.2 million acre-feet per year] over half empty." 3.1 million acre-feet annually, and 98 percent of that water is the agreements, smith undertook to provide "expert advice and money from the treasury without an appropriation by the burden. largely for these reasons, arizona alone, of all the an agreement apportioning to nevada 300,000 acre-feet, and to validate were void because the states funding commitment in the "the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason, all of the further delay, while the ceqa opponents contend those matters community college dist. (2006) 141 cal.app.4th 86, 98, first "(a) any person or public agency that has a long-term water noting the lack of a draft of the joint powers agreement in the the state controller or other similar official to make appropriation," "but [the water agencies] must wait for payment to give colorado river water to the people of california to 19 section 7 of article xvi of the california constitution. as we "violated its fiduciary and other trust obligation[s] . . . by, coachella, and san diego were to be liable, was contrary to the 289, 315.) and while "[t]he types of financial interests appeals. accordingly, we deny this request. (see hughes the quantities specified in (a) and (b), and if this surplus is in short, even assuming the misconduct the morgan/holtz peir is intended to function as ceqa compliance (at least in scope originally conceived by the [judicial] council," which had argument that the agreements the irrigation district sought to inconsequential. "[i]n many such cases, trial courts provide us encompasses only the validity of the irrigation district's the ceqa actions would give unjustified preference to the indian [settlement parties] regarding the impact of a judgment its ultra vires argument falls within the scope of that credibility of extrinsic evidence. . . . we are guided by the 2 on occasion, we will refer to the countys ceqa action and agreement further provided that "[t]he state obligation is an the city of los angeles, and the city and county of san diego. 132 approval that is the subject of [the] action" must be named as a civ. proc., 431.30, subd. (b)(1) & (2).) "the phrase ,,new the payment of the costs and liability for environmental parties] will be adequate." (county of imperial v. superior the supreme courts decision in white supports the to the secretary of the interior, notwithstanding any provisions adjudicated only in federal court, it follows that the trial cal.app.4th at p. 13.) it was not until august 14, 2007, sense, although the matter was deemed before this court on a policy of the state that public agencies should not approve ,,approval from the three parties that signed the but in certain cases defined by the chapter on interpretation, parties contend the absence of the draft joint powers agreement the legislature refuse to appropriate money from the treasury to federal government approved the delivery agreement, but no such unconstitutional, the trial court found that the 11 other the interstate application of the prior appropriation doctrine, the allocation agreement.60 claims under the federal clean air act and/or nepa to the remedy for that error is obviously reversal. to the extent laws in the validation action.46 court concluded that one of the elements of the irrigation given to the [irrigation district] [b]oard on october 2, 2003, valley. the fall-davis report, submitted to congress in validation action and the two ceqa actions from imperial county discussion, [and] compromises . . . that le[a]d up to the formal be found illusory just because the legislature can refuse to decided at a time when code of civil procedure section 389 was a ten different parties filed three notices of appeal and two 1159, 1166.) thus, in interpreting the joint powers agreement, augmentation deadline set by the superior court." sections 861 and 861.1" and gave them permission to belatedly coastal southern california. as will be seen, it is the pp. 797-798.) after the trial court denied a preliminary in this court in the first instance. because such a petition phase 1a, 4 trial days in december 2009 for the trial of phase diego]." is simply not the law, however. under subdivision (b) of code judgment rendered in their absence," and "[t]he trial court foster, and rodney foster. in march 2004, the presiding judge of the imperial county october 2, 2003. we conclude this argument is not properly executing the contracts at issue." (aa 1553-1554) to the the court then dismissed powers ceqa action and the countys records and the trial court file. more importantly though, california v. superior court (1940) 16 cal.2d 516, which was 3.545(c) [referring to "[t]he judgment entered in each they were not subject to validation. cuatro is wrong. "exception to the constitutional debt limits [that] has been ultimately signed, that might make the signed contract ultra court is not restricted to a review of just those matters countys statement of issues "that the challenge in [the proceedings. the water agencies contend an indispensable party exception to the general rule that new issues cannot be raised fide transferor of water the use of a water conveyance facility nor the indian settlement parties have in any way participated assertions relating to the brown act -- even going so far as to michael b. jackson; rose m. zoia for defendant and section 7 of the california constitution is not entirely clear; the provisions of which are substantially described in the draft appropriation necessarily controlling. the project act itself standards set forth in the [boulder canyon] project act rather from a portion of a judgment brings up for review only that been approved or promulgated under section 7410." (42 u.s.c. 39 5 wheeling statutes (wat. code, 1810-1814).51 in april 2009, coordinated cases pending, including the three cases that are at the joint powers agreement was supposed to provide the principal confidential, and for a period of approximately 10 years the create any debt or liability which shall, singly or in the but instead issued a writ of mandate "directing city to prepare, actions, the air district contends the trial court erred in not system owners. otherwise, there was no practical way to move water transfers under the allocation agreement? the resolution 138 issue in doland set an outside limit on the amount payable under mallory llp, the law firm the irrigation district retained pursuant to this rule, we will not construe a contract in a reasonable conservation measures. the board noted that action (but also raised in answers to the validation action). the parties to the joint powers agreement, and they contend this floods due to melting snows and seasonal storms were a recurring remand the validation action to the trial court for further 136 the existence of any matter which under any law is authorized to year without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified electors "unconditional" -- the state cannot be compelled to appropriate courts of appeal, and the superior courts "have original that a public agency has improperly determined that a project is the terms of those statutes, we find no error in the trial "in approving the [quantification settlement agreement], to dismiss at "the earliest opportunity in the litigation be pled as "terse legal conclusions," but "rather . . . as facts 2003. after the irrigation district obtained a preliminary version of the statute. thus, statements like those in the cases on which the water agencies rely applicable here, nor do comprehensive judgment in favor of the [sic] all respondents the morgan/holtz parties argue that the judgment in the service of former justice stanley mosk on the california supreme to the defendant, including documents marked privileged and (1) the water agencies are defendants in the validation action, water to the coastal plain of southern california. at its the joint powers agreement to pay the excess mitigation costs. the irrigation districts approval of the agreements complied city leases for two telegraph systems. (doland v. clark, supra, whole or in part to take the actions addressed" and as its the lions share of the waters allotted to the lower basin. contract is void from its inception [citation] and the official meeting of the minds section of their respondents brief district on january 7, 2011, opposed by cuatro, the county, and interest of a third person not joined, that third person is an sara j. russell, supervising deputy attorney general, daniel shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them section 22762] cannot stand." the gist of cuatros argument relying largely on city of ontario v. superior court (1970) colorado river water at parker dam on lake havasu and conveys money and no more for such specified purpose." (california for water for domestic use by the ever-growing population of states of a large reservoir on the mainstream of the colorado whether the court had jurisdiction over the issue of compliance invalidation of some of the other agreements the irrigation come from various sources, including colorado river water of water equivalent to the amount of water conserved by lining entered into that implements, or is referenced in, th[e] a . . . to determine the validity of such matter. the action "(d) this use of a water conveyance facility is to be made successful set it aside"; and (2) "[t]he ,,project covered by first instance an issue that is not moot and is within the disputes between states over entitlement to water from concluded that 12 of the 13 contracts the irrigation district comply with the california limitation act of 1929, section 4 of unconditionally" agreed. this problem was particularly manner that the executive officers are authorized to use that is not, because of that, insufficient consideration for as adjudicate compliance with the federal clean air act applies not there was no evidence that either "david osias or dr. rodney review for substantial evidence. (ibid.) cannot go forward in that partys absence unless the trial court shared equally by arizona and california. each lower basin 15 on appeal, larry porter has joined with the leimgrubers and section 1, article xvi of the california constitution applies entertain [apa] suits, we believe congress implicitly confined were not using their full allotments. with growing demand for indian settlement parties were all parties. according to the the joint powers agreement meant cannot constrain our court decided that question against them. instead, to the party agreement] is only about 550,000 [acre-feet], leaving the approximately 800,000 acre-feet more than its basic annual employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity subsequent judgment also encompassed that action. because no government code provisions that, read together, stand for the 2000, and submitted for public review by the quantification protection v. e.p.a. (d.c. cir. 2007) 475 f.3d 1291, 1295.) interim rulings that are now at issue on appeal. we begin with swimming pool," "which, it is alleged, will call for large appropriation having been provided to meet the claim, such and that, therefore, no further appropriation is required by act agreement deprived them of a fair trial,36 we have rejected that soon as it appears that the expenditures of the authority are in front of the coordination judge in sacramento until the violations of the california environmental quality act (ceqa) however, there was nothing there but salt pools. (cooper, 53 a bona fide transferor is "a person or public agency . . . validation action by filing a validation complaint in imperial procedure section 389, "the court considers whether the asked the secretary of the interior to revisit whether the article xvi of the california constitution, as well as several enforcement of that obligation -- or, as the state expresses the "challenging the [a]llocation [a]greement" in its ceqa action. allotment then metropolitan would feel the brunt of the metropolitan.2 issue in these appeals.19 regardless of our view on how fast these matters have or have pollutants in violation of . . . 42 united states code section 157 such fund, and it is not even necessary that the amount thereof nature of mandamus."55 (cal. const., art. vi, 10.) in sacramento county and six of which were pending in imperial 82 that the coordinated proceeding be assigned to a trial judge in regarding compliance with nepa would be the same as its they explain what specific financial interest osias or his firm a complete statutory apportionment intended to put an end to the [federal clean air act] and nepa when executing the [colorado when no definitive quantification settlement agreement was defense."11 obviously, the circumstances before us are nothing like sovereign immunity contained in section 702 of the act to claims first instance. the jurisdiction of an appellate tribunal is irrigation district, san diego, and coachella would "enter into effectuate "the [quantification settlement agreement]s allocation agreement, and the effectiveness of that agreement that the actual payment of an employees salary is dependent further issues in the validation action 106 legal or factual, that may have occurred at a preceding hearing obligations in the event of a judgment obtained in the countys the county and cuatro offer various arguments to counter pressure built on california to live within its annual 4.4 court stated that it was exercising its "original jurisdiction coordinated actions the county had filed on the ground that the the department of water resources determined that misuse of whether the final version of the agreement passes constitutional follows: meeting of the minds, then there was no contract, constitutional settlement agreement] was not sufficient to eliminate the 3) with respect to the request filed by coachella, they were named parties to that agreement. water code section 1813 provides that "[i]n making the two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house of the second, numerous requests for judicial notice were made original jurisdiction of the superior court (see id., 10), where, even after the mexican canal provided a more dependable does it become a debt until the contingency happens." (ibid.) legislature to enact a specific appropriation." (mandel v. ourselves in the first instance and instead will remand those and as it may be amended, and any qsa-related program that shares of california and arizona. [] th[e] litigation [that point on the river in northern arizona known as lee ferry. . . . concluded that in enacting section 21167.6.5(a), the legislature to the extent the morgan/holtz parties rely on alleged cognizable interest falls within any one of [government code] "exercise[d] jurisdiction notwithstanding this objection, . . . 161 such tributaries within its boundaries before the same empty while the states promise to perform its duties under [the joint costs, then the irrigation district, coachella, and san diego environment now on behalf of respondents. the irrigation district entered into an agreement with suits seeking judicial review under the [apa] congress would agreement that was the subject of the validation action. b powers ceqa action jointly as the two ceqa actions. remaining to be negotiated as of october 6, 2003,"; and approve the quantification settlement agreement and related act." (blue v. city of los angeles (2006) 137 cal.app.4th 1131, california constitution on the assertion that mitigation costs is properly considered under the first factor in the statute, slesinger, inc. v. walt disney co., supra, 155 cal.app.4th at 148 the nepa. although discussion of this issue is not necessary to (arizona v. california, supra, 373 u.s. at pp. 552-562 [10 as to the validation action, then, the judgment determining ceqa action challenges the adequacy of an eir, the approval that contend there was no meeting of the minds -- as evidenced by the we concur: 1, 2011), no opposition was filed, so those requests are c procedure (5th ed. (2008)) appeal, 343, p. 394 ["the appellate including "the allocation agreement . . . . in other words, the of a contract over which in his official capacity he could established[, however,] that once funds have already been for money to fund the conservation efforts. but environmental metropolitan was organized in 1928 to provide supplemental present value of $133 million (the environmental mitigation cost issues" and assert that "[t]o the extent that this court finds unconstitutional impairment of contract." (ibid.) nevada intervened, praying for determination of her water determinations required by this article, the respective public explanation of how that rule can be applied here, by us, on stood to gain or lose financially in connection with their that it had "timely complied with all laws necessary for [the government code section 1090 argument is easily resolved. even signed.31 if, for some reason, the board of directors did not 2003 (by adopting resolution no. 10-2003), the joint powers cause for the trial court to permit belated compliance with jeffrey r. epp, city attorney, for defendant and appellant city trial court specifically asserted in its statement of decision were invalid.3 based on its determination that the various drawn from the treasury only through an appropriation made by system waters at any time after october 1, 1963. while these coachella valleys in matters unrelated to water." what they needed to know was that: (1) the countys ceqa action powers ceqa action was assigned case no. 04cs00877, and the effect on both the level and the salinity of the salton sea. 149 "[f]ailure to join the u.s. and the indian [settlement parties] metropolitan and san diego, which had already been validated by ceqa action because the trial courts determination of that board, supra, 22 cal.4th at p. 666.) in granting relief in sali properties, the sinclair ranches, llc, tac land, llc, and appropriation rests in the legislative branch alone. an early obligation exception applies only when a "limit" is placed on agencys approval complied with open meeting requirements, moreover, because we do not reach the irrigation districts in december 2003, san diego moved to transfer the the trial court determining "compliance with the [nepa] in the actions that was resolved. (see cal. rules of court, rule (smith v. rae-venter law group (2002) 29 cal.4th 345, 358.) metropolitan, and san diego ask us to remand "for completion of argument already; no such showing has been made. and to the considered by the trial court, but was brought forward for the adopting resolution no. 10-2003, and these "material changes to agencies that the trial court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of timing came up because the county argued in agreement was "in . . . outline form with the material terms trial court . . . ." (sanborn v. pacific mut. life ins. co. district court, alleging that the secretary violated the gulf of california, and the salton sea was formed. (id. at the first factor for our consideration is "to what extent a proposition that "the actual payment of a state employees the specific challenges and affirmative defenses [cuatro] provided for in the seven-party agreement should be continued. project is likely to have on the environment and the ways claims and defenses in" all three cases, including the the [agreement] after the [irrigation districts] board [of & conservation league v. department of water resources (2000) 83 seq.) structurally precluded any lawful agreement" -- we no ability to enforce the states obligation to pay those costs. mexico on the south, riverside county and the salton sea on the filing to limit forthwith its underground-water extraction in validity of its action." (friedland v. city of long beach the joint powers agreement, to pay all of the mitigation costs joint powers agreement, were not in final form. to address this that one or more of the appellants deliberately concealed the congress had intended the state courts to be proper fora for show that smith had a financial interest in those agreements. 31 the joint powers agreement contains an integration clause, contracts in operation" and thus "[t]he amounts to become due on projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or that the environmental mitigation cost limitation will be more importantly, though, the countys argument on the supreme court during his service as california attorney general; read in this manner, the joint powers agreement is validation of contracts executed between government agencies treasury to satisfy the states obligation to pay the excess being excess mitigation costs to pay. d from 1990 through 1999, california consistently used 26 "obligated to pay no more than $133 million . . . and . . . and lawful construction can be given to the contract, then that region. consisting of 23 member agencies itself, san diego as we have noted already, in its statement of decision the action discussed further below. 25 all other matters be sent back for trial." mutuality where the promise of one of the parties is moreover, arizona, because of her particularly strong interest indebtedness so authorized became in effect one created by the succeeded in this action without the u.s.s and the indian elmore; john n. and cathleen b. fifeld; gary foster; rodney herbert hoover, specially designated as united states forth. in opposing a demurrer filed by coachella and san diego, ceqa action (for violation of the wheeling statutes). based on the appropriation requirement in section 7 of limiting the countys ceqa action to a challenge to the contract made by a public agency without authority is ultra aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant the transfer agreement and the acquisition agreement is not the joint powers agreement and the 11 other agreements were invalid instance and instead we remand those actions to the trial court whole, it appears the trial court concluded there was a meeting that the action was governed by [the validation statutes], but subd. (a) (section 21167.6.5(a)).) thus, section 21167.6.5(a) trial court focused on the fact that the countys action of the legislature," and while "[it] is within the legitimate anyone else the right to enforce that obligation by taking money review; and, if the former be correct, we are not concerned with and began to inundate broad areas of farmland. (ibid.) an superior court, supra, 2 cal.3d at p. 338.) city taxpayers under the fourth factor in subdivision (b) of code of civil in march 2010, in support of their petition for a writ of trial court, appellants somehow invited the trial courts error filed suit against the city and other defendants, alleging the part of the twentieth centuries, people in the southwest irrigation district -- the morgan/holtz parties offer no as we have noted, affirmative defenses cannot be pled as mere code of civil procedure section 389 "to substitute practically the trial court understandably concluded that such a result requests (the request filed by cuatro on december 2, 2010; the irrigation district, coachella, and metropolitan. use of the from outside the appellate record. provided in pertinent part that ",,[t]he court may determine any to the imperial valley but also a dam and reservoir at or near the irrigation district and therefore "all parts of the . . . petition purported to allege a claim under the wheeling which it passes into mexico and empties into the mexican waters absence of the draft joint powers agreement from the record, "an those services, and the state has a corresponding obligation to 7506(c)(1).) the air district argued that under this quantification settlement agreement" and "any . . . contract diligence (or lack thereof) in raising the issue as a factor in the countys ceqa action but also two of the countys draft from the administrative record renders this appeal "moot," in this broad sense, one of the components of "the qsa" is citing gulf offshore co. v. mobil oil corp. (1981) 453 u.s. 473, performed during that period." (white, at p. 564.) a state an insufficient amount of evidence supporting the [government paying the excess mitigation costs in this manner might appear any event, the water agencies argument on this point on appeal the wheeling statutes do not expressly provide that anyone court -- presumably with substantial input from the parties -- this distinction between an obligation of the state and the laws." that allegation did not put compliance with the federal that reaches the coachella valley is delivered for agricultural 41 even though it might have some bearing on remand, we need argument, however, do not do so because each of those cases joint powers agreement was unconstitutional under section 7 of trial court noted here, "[w]hen california receives [only its in its determination that the joint powers agreement was party who chooses to specify grounds for appeal in its notice is 20 judge of the sacramento county superior court to assign a 7 stats. 1929, ch. 16, pp. 38-39 (the california limitation this court, and on march 30, 2005, this court issued an 109 validate -- including the quantification settlement agreement -- among other things, they contend that these meeting of the minds cal.app.3d 773, 789 [if the legislature fails to appropriate supreme law," "the courts have no means, and no power, to avoid the contracts." -- as the irrigation district points out -- included in the the power to adjudicate the ceqa actions in the first instance et al. (super. ct. imperial county, no. ecu01656/super. ct. sac. 88 states nor the indian [settlement parties] received an salaries, it should be emphasized that this conclusion does not minds on the joint powers agreement. it is true that under the least three years a private investigator hired by the plaintiff notices of cross-appeal, challenging the trial courts judgment c. state court jurisdiction over claims under nepa claims generally the joint powers agreement. we find no merit in this argument. the irrigation district, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego water delivery agreement." unfortunately, that is the extent of protected by the contract clause, to the ultimate payment of for violation of the wheeling statutes prior to approval of this resolution." related mitigation obligations." the summary further explained legislature fails to make an appropriation, we cannot remedy lest there be any fear that a judgment in favor of the federal courts." (haddon tp. bd. of ed. v. new jersey dept. of 104,500 acres of land within the district and between the parties, and the water agencies are quite different in basis, desirable as this kind of solution might have been. the districts motions to intervene was made on may 7, 2008. could be made by both coachella and metropolitan, but the board cannot be questioned that a statute making available a specific long-standing dispute over colorado river waters. to protect any such case the court shall sustain the determination of the water agencies and the state to "portray [the states by the united states in connection with those agreements. the it is also important to understand that the power of trial court published a "list of remaining issues" and costs as a defense to a breach of contract claim under the joint that the summons did not conform to the special requirements of curb its wasteful water use. at the same time, the water needs constitutional principle when it orders the state controller or jurisdiction to consider as an original matter a petition for a also entered into the joint powers agreement, which was to serve to section 21167"; and (2) subdivision (d) of public resources subheading of "the iid contract approval process" in its ontario, at p. 345.) "[a]ssuming arguendo that [the validation we deny that motion. the irrigation district sought to validate were void as carter, who at that time was special water rights counsel for justice mosks argument to the united states supreme court in by the secretary of the interior, a determination of which ability to obtain a favorable judgment on this issue." we states obligation to pay the excess mitigation costs. this statutes. the second cause of action contained the countys addresses the action to be taken "[i]f the authority anticipates coachella, metropolitan, and san diego argue that frankly, the draft agreement is immaterial to the question of indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose following the enactment of the boulder canyon project act, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego) had to obtain a finding 159 irrigation district (the irrigation district), the coachella "complied with all laws necessary for contracts a through m to kessler (1935) 10 cal.app.2d 89, 91.) which explained that the department of fish and game, the and escondido with respect to the judgment in the validation in the gila, intensely resented the compacts inclusion of the in june 2009, the air district filed a motion for summary district, and power, and one remaining argument raised in the murray , j. under the foregoing principles, the morgan/holtz parties of an approval for purposes of section 21167.6.5(a). of course, officers.28 in the view of the morgan/holtz parties, these concern that the enactment of government code sections 53510 and opposition to the motion to dismiss that is was barred by void because it was substantively different than what was brought very late." the court also observed, however, that discharging their fiduciary duties with undivided loyalty and use, subject to the following: constitutional provision. thus, we cannot uphold the trial determined already, the validation action must be remanded to (county of imperial v. superior court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at county of imperial." this: if an absent party in a ceqa action is a recipient of an stadium in the city, and the nonprofit corporation entered into validity. here, that agency is the irrigation district. agreement ensures that the state cannot avoid its obligation to district to san diego by means of metropolitans colorado river act, to allocate and distribute the waters of the mainstream of court addressed in white was whether "under the provision of the the irrigation district at trial. what counsel may have argued 49 the amount of water apportioned in the seven-party agreement quantification settlement agreement peir, which the county reviewing court, and (except in special cases where original power and the county argue, however, that instead of (ibid.) the trial of phase 1a went forward as scheduled. on language, the legislature intended to permit validation only of on march 9, 2010, the county and the air district filed a agreement allocated responsibility for the environmental the issues raised in the two ceqa actions are not moot. neither qsa coordinated proceeding"; however, under the court rules w. morgan, john j. elmore, richard elmore, gary foster, rodney trial court concluded the joint powers agreement was water agencies approval of the various actions that were united states and the indian settlement parties were recipients supersedeas petition as a petition for a writ of mandate, an appropriate separate heading or subheading and are asserted district) that the trial court erred in denying its motion to appeals from a judgment of the superior court of sacramento of equal importance is the rule that ",,[a] contract must than by the principles of equitable apportionment which in the the eir for the project that was approved, and no further 55 indeed, in a ceqa action brought "against the public on november 7, 2003, power commenced its ceqa action by discretion "in applying the code of civil procedure, section a notice of appeal from an appealable order must be filed (2008) 43 cal.4th 1143, 1153.) during this period, vast including doland v. clark -- involved lease agreements that counsel [in addition to carter] since it had been emailed to or chief justice george described mosks argument, and the decision united states intervened, seeking water rights on behalf of state energy resources conservation & development com. (2003) transaction -- [including] the environmental documentation . . . validation statutes applied at all. the court certainly did not or if taken and the judgment is affirmed, shall, notwithstanding procedure "[s]ection 860 provides that a ,,public agency may upon water to other states. governing the coordination of complex actions, we construe that to the extent of three hundred thousand dollars only. the pleaded this issue as an affirmative defense. in interpreting the joint powers agreement, the following imperial irrigation dist. (2000) 80 cal.app.4th 1403 explained, well in excess of the constitutional debt limit." [legislation authorizing the expenditure] by two-thirds vote in determination made under this article the court shall consider the validation action provides "a very limited remedy" for the expenditure for each year, was . . . the purchase price for the indispensable, such that the action should not proceed in that and an all-american canal to the imperial valley. some months 7,500,000 acre-feet -- nevada be given 300,000 acre-feet, never directly ruled on whether it had jurisdiction to determine the [administrative record to include the draft of the joint the trial court erred in this conclusion. in their view, "state irrigation districts service area alone, comprising about 71 ceqa action to challenges to the quantification settlement ceqa action]." (fn. omitted.) judgment in favor of the irrigation district? second, even if joint powers agreement is consistent with section 1 as well as agreement, the state potentially could avoid satisfying its vista irrigation district (vista), and the city of escondido but the two cases the county cites are distinguishable because, courts invalidation of the joint powers agreement and the 11 2 court did not reverse and remand the matter to the trial court, district sustained the salton sea -- that accidental body of among the parties joined." the fact is that, even in the 1. article xvi, section 7 of the california irrigation districts complaint, the air district objected to ontario v. superior court, supra, 2 cal.3d at pp. 340-341.) in appeals and affirm the judgment in the validation action. contracts . . . would not become due until the [lessor] had subjective intent of the parties, but only in their objective under the federal apa, "applies only to actions brought in economic hurdles too great for small farmers, larger groups, or california constitution barring the impairment of contracts "[a] statement of any new matter constituting a defense." (code in reply, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego contend water code section 1811 defines the terms ",,[b]ona fide the countys cause of action for violation of the wheeling was finally lifted. (phillips v. tlc plumbing, inc. (2009) 172 cal.app.4th 1133, the misconduct in slesinger was that over a period of at the conflicts and resulting negotiations among the various users cuatro argues that the "contingent obligation" exception25 to the final list of issues for phase 1a of the trial included allen matkins leck gamble mallory natsis, david l. osias 28 47 it is true many of the cases in which the contingent leaving each state its tributaries. congress had decided that a italics added.) thus, in the absence of an agreement, concurred agreements the irrigation district approved. approved and executed. among the related agreements was an language of the writing alone. [citations.] ,,contract everything needed to assert that the action should not go supreme court concluded that "the employment rights of state rejected the irrigation districts jurisdictional argument. appropriation to satisfy a judgment against the state -- "once makes lesser sanctions inadequate to ensure a fair trial." three phases. phases 2 and 3 -- which are not at issue here -- agreement peir as a program eir. "a program eir is an eir which the particular requirements for service of summons in the and "the entire case should have been heard as a declaratory adjudicate those actions ourselves in the first instance. they do want what they haven't got -- allocating not enough the deficiency shall be borne equally by the two to the countys ceqa action based on the absence of the united 59 definitive conclusion on some of the subissues involved in states and the indian settlement parties were recipients of an californias division of water resources a recommendation of the specifically identifies as components of "the qsa" the transfer still subject to the appropriation requirement of article xvi, pages of opening, responding, reply, and amicus curiae briefs. offer upon condition, and only upon the performance of the that water to its service area via the colorado river aqueduct. federal laws at issue" in that action. not so. board ordered the irrigation district to enter into an agreement this conclusion, but we are not persuaded by any of them. 60 as coachella, metropolitan, and san diego succinctly point general law or special act, for the local performance of alone, if possible . . . ." (civ. code, 1639.) thus, in a powers agreement were correct and the parties intent was that even if we were to assume that the ultra vires argument doing so." (myers v. english, supra, 9 cal. at p. 349.) the trial court could not determine, however, whether this was approval of which is the subject of the countys action? then determined that all of "the ceqa, nepa and clean air act circumstances before it being considered" (in re marriage of factor is determinative or necessarily more important than second, under the california constitution the supreme court, the controversy between parties before it, when it can be done judgment against the county on its first cause of action in its of imperial v. superior court (2007) 152 cal.app.4th 13, 20.) the first three priorities, the agreement did not specify public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with ceqa is end a long-running series of disputes over colorado river water presents its argument regarding the wheeling statutes in support other unadjudicated issues remain in the validation action. to an absent party means that party is indispensable, and as we did there, "we find the trial courts application of the neither the three states certainly do not point to any evidence that osias and his firm forth under an appropriate separate heading or subheading and is 18 the trial court also sustained a demurrer without leave to event, we note that the air districts further arguments are among the united states of america, the metropolitan water act issues do not raise a ,,substantial question of federal law, using colorado river water before the upper states, would, under applicable . . . federal environmental laws" could not put of colorado river water, establishe[d] the terms for the further compact, failed to fulfill the hope of congress that the states . . . the[] peir," which is part of the relief the county is under a proper understanding of the joint powers agreement, seeks to validate; it cannot validate the actions of an entity apparently on two bases. first, the court concluded that the with respect to the validation action. first, should we remand water code section 22762 specifically provides that "[a]n on appeal from the judgment with respect to the two ceqa asserts (among other things) that trial was limited to document prevented them from having a fair trial. to the extent seven specific "grounds" for its cross-appeal does not make the statutory compliance cannot be determined by solely examining based on the certification of the peir. those related actions prejudice," "[t]he trial courts findings of prejudice . . . appeal by coachella, metropolitan, and san diego. states obligation [to pay the excess mitigation costs] is not district sought to validate were unconstitutional, the trial agreements.21 aqueduct empire, supra, p. 70.) ,,district means any agency of the state formed pursuant to for any 10 consecutive years. article 3(f) and (g) provide a administrative decision for failure to comply with ceqa by adjudication of the ceqa actions, when both validation actions rather than for any public benefit . . . in such a manner as to act on august 19, 1921, giving the states consent to negotiate abuse its discretion in denying a pretrial motion to dismiss the act and nepa arose in the validation action as follows: remaining environmental mitigation requirements." then, "as they did not bring the motion until very late in the upon a controllers duly drawn warrant." a contract entered into that implements, or is referenced in, to the extent any such issue has been raised in those actions. quantification settlement agreement (qsa), dated december 12, approval that is the subject of that action, and will be agreement or one includes other "objective manifestations of the dismiss the countys ceqa action with prejudice because the that issue is purely a question of law on undisputed facts." november 2009, david osias, counsel for the irrigation district, constitution. in essence, the "unconditional contractual [quantification settlement agreement] at issue in [the countys water annually to metropolitan in exchange for annual payments 61 in this court, the county once again claims it "was not" in the absence of [the united states and the indian settlement admitted was prepared "for the qsa." in essence, the county code of civil procedure section 860 et seq. and the limitations settlement agreement." providing ongoing contemporaneous consideration -- use of the determine rights and obligations arising under a federal as the supreme court explained further, "congress intended the short answer to the morgan/holtz parties argument is the morgan/holtz parties believe the draft of the joint powers . . . the appropriation must be specific both as to purpose and practically one-twelfth the area of the continental united respects the act was strikingly different. the earlier bills "appears to be" "independent" of "the qsa" (in its broad sense), the existence of that draft, we can conclude -- as we have -- unused capacity." adjudicate their ceqa claims, despite the statutory preference appeal from that judgment is presently pending in this court.) adjudicate such claims except when (1) congress has specified muster. accordingly, the invited error doctrine does not apply boulder [now hoover] dam the secretary of the interior, irrigation district, san diego, and coachella) capped at a then- of california ex rel. department of water resources and delivers water at the intake of the metropolitan water district pursuant to section 21167, 21168, or 21168.5," to determine the court specifically found that its earlier decision in doland argument, that the carter declaration "illustrates that this margaret m. lillywhite and daniel h. lillywhite as trustees; injunctive relief "to halt the extraction of subsurface waters decision following phase 1a trial" on january 13, 2010. after indispensable parties beyond the public agency whose action is coachella, and san diego (which, along with the state, were the because it is an in rem action whose effect is binding on the entire appeal is moot" and should be dismissed on that basis, we powers agreement signed on october 10, 2003, was "substantially deed to the property. in this case, however, as we have noted trustees. nearly two and one-half years because of the stay this court district also prepared an eir for the water transfers from the regarded as indispensable. (italics added.) the subdivision from the treasury only through an appropriation made by law and became increasingly pressing over the years concerned the regional, or local public agency owning the water conveyance used for purposes of determining whether a state court has federal law claim has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued in legislature to appropriate funds to pay the excess mitigation excuse their failure to comply with [code of civil procedure] assert any further unreasonable delay." heard and determined"].) transfer of colorado river water." in october 1999, the sea, it was the bane of john elmore, a farmer with land adjacent its determination of the elements of the irrigation districts we remand for further proceedings, are there any other issues [federal clean air act] claims at issue" here. county "because this courts decision in county of imperial the irrigation districts officers signed to argue there was no of what the morgan/holtz parties characterize as misconduct by 16 one of the imperial county cases the irrigation district disagree. for two reasons, however, the county is correct on 702 of the federal administrative procedure act (apa) (5 u.s.c. the effect of immunizing from review the actions of the united the supreme court disagreed, concluding that "the settlement agreement in their official capacities, no violation costs, the imposition of that obligation on the state does not that the irrigation district, coachella, and san diego have as the trial court observed, "primary parties actively involved subsequently, two add-on cases (super. ct. imperial county, courts view of matters was eminently reasonable on this point d. the air district's arguments judgment in the validation action has been shown, and we can created by the legislature, exceed the sum of three hundred without leave to amend with respect to another of the not been adjudicated, the question posed by the requests of challenging the transfer project eir (case no. ecu01653). power to the mutual, expressed intention of the parties. where the supplies all of the countys water -- asserted various palo verde irrigation district was to receive the first priority respondents thereby breached their duty under water code 1940, as stated in the bank of california opinion, the statute what approvals the county contended its ceqa action encompassed. parties fail to explain how smith stood to gain or lose 477-478 [69 l.ed.2d 784, 791].) "congress . . . may confine committed to pay. according to cuatro, because "the states cases clearly establish that although the conditions of public trial court erred in concluding otherwise. county had failed to name as real parties in interest the united absence of the united states and the indian settlement parties. assistance for, license or permit, or approve, any activity petition in this court that provides the primary basis for the purporting to act under the authority of the project act, made that the irrigation district, san diego, and coachella would be included "the right to receive payment of earned salary in the to him or those already parties." (code civ. proc., 389, 57 that even the approval of a project determined to be exempt first amended petition for writ of mandate could be read to first time in this court in connection with the supersedeas that might be created by the state, for under its express as herein stated. section 8(b) provided that the secretarys transfers for a period of up to 75 years." if they thought they remedy need not be perfect; and (b) an adequate remedy is just of the mexican burden. be valid, legal, and binding, including . . . all applicable county, roland l. candee, judge. reversed with directions. is consistent with article xvi, section 7 of the california matters that may arise on a retrial"].) inconsistent, with the constitutional appropriation requirement morgan/holtz parties fail to explain how the absence of that from the public." the morgan/holtz parties argued this issue in irrigation district and san diego, we also deny this request on quantification settlement agreement itself, which defines the agreement is invalidated along with the related qsa agreements," in 1929, the year after the boulder canyon project act took unconditionally obligates the state to pay the excess mitigation only to explain why the court could not reach a clear or that it was not "reach[ing] the open meeting issue." pei[r] is in issue [in the validation proceeding] is in the in opposing the air districts motion, the irrigation the war between the states, or "the court preferred asparagus" limitation in section 1 of article xvi of the california direct the court otherwise.42 (see code civ. proc., 43 ["in mainstream waters would give 4.4 million acre-feet to in any manner." (id. at pp. 255-256.) the supreme court requirements of law to facilitate the voluntary sale, lease, or the joint powers agreement and the other agreements cannot be relationship--rights that are protected by the contract clause dollenmayer v. pryor (1906) 150 cal. 1, 3.) the proceeding, just as they demurred to the actions that were to violate the constitutional appropriation requirement lies in intend[ed] to pursue at trial," cuatro did not identify any of the agreement and of the environmental review . . . are summary adjudication motion on the federal clean air act, the dollars. the act could not, therefore, be held upon its face to quantities of irrigation return flow from the irrigation 124 19 the three of the six remaining coordinated cases that are writs, 144, p. 1040.) thus, while in theory we have actions were formally received by the sacramento county superior equities." disposition and (3) (if raised as an affirmative defense) whether the rights; utah and new mexico were joined as defendants; and the the county went on to identify in its notice of cross-appeal the motion to transfer the validation action as well. a couple beneficial uses and without unreasonably affecting the overall environmental impacts from the implementation of the agreement request filed by the county and the air district on february 10, 179.) thus, just because the state might be able to avoid these cases from the united states supreme courts decision 119 46 unmistakable implication from legislative history, or by a clear signed the agreement. here, on the other hand, the states here, the plain meaning of the wheeling statutes then can the court determine whether that person or entity can morgan/holtz parties, smith "chose to work for" san diego -- "a denies relief to the plaintiffs against [a particular] here, there is no "sum of money which is certainly and in 8 the other parties were the palo verde irrigation district, compensation to judges, "taken in connection with the statute settlement parties. they never needed to know (as they contend) proposed project will not have a significant effect on the of escondido. 84 appropriate the funds necessary to perform its obligation under violation, on the administrative record of the federal agencys the absence of the united states, the complaint seeks 1. what is the appropriate disposition? the trial, the trial court specifically included cuatros unconstitutional. "under the doctrine of invited error, when a from ceqa falls under section 21167.6.5(a) is apparent from the agreements that "involve bonds and indebtedness." accordingly, 1996, the secretary of the interior declared that california qsa" appears to be the subject of the countys ceqa action for trial courts have inherent power to issue a terminating sanction member agencies of metropolitan. the majority of the imported state has an obligation to pay the employee, the employee does on san diegos motion, the court noted that "[t]he countys [agreement]." (id. at p. 697.) because the agreement created to the sea who had to protect his land with dikes against the california et al. -- the county of imperial (the county) -- against the county on its claim under sections 1810 through 1814 based on this statement, the morgan/holtz parties argue court and assigned sacramento county case numbers.17 supplied first out of surplus over and above the aggregate of joint powers agreement was to entitle the irrigation district, ,,public agency refers to the agency seeking a determination of validation of unconstitutional agreements" and that the ensure a fair trial, the trial court has inherent power to could ensure the defendant a fair trial because, among other documents during the trial. here, even if we were to assume for affirming the judgment in the validation action. we irrigation district, and metropolitan] for a period of time the validation action for further proceedings or for entry of we turn to those arguments now. in the countys ceqa action to the united states and the indian specificity left the potential for future conflict between the minds arguments are properly before us, because whether they had validation action with eight other actions relating to the us to adjudicate the ceqa issues without remand to avoid further agreement, rather than a partys unexpressed intention, which -- imperial irrigation district v. all persons interested -- the construct "a park and playground, including a wading and the third case -- protect our water and environmental rights approved "the qsa" (in its broad sense, including the allocation (b)(3)) [requiring presentation of a claim for "money or damages v. munoz (2007) 156 cal.app.4th 413, 419.) the morgan/holtz generally confined to the correction of errors committed in the understanding that would have transferred 100,000 acre-feet of the federal clean air act presidential proclamation, after six states, including (metropolitan water dist. v. marquardt (1963) 59 cal.2d 159, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego in their opening brief, while the county is correct that we exercised our original and certainly does not compel the conclusion that the validation provisions an indebtedness may be created for any amount, and representative. this compromise divides the entire basin into such funds," "[a]lthough such an order will normally issue only determining such intent, we begin with the language of the between 100,000 and 800,000 acre-feet more colorado river water metropolitan dismissed their protests to the transfer petition appellant protect our water and environmental rights. assn. for safety education v. brown (1994) 30 cal.app.4th 1264, irrigation district, metropolitan, coachella, and the state settlement agreement defined in subdivision (a) of section 1 of therefore did not and could not violate article xvi, section 1 concession, "the absent parties would still be prejudiced by a 103 court of the united states seeking relief other than money if the prejudice to the absent parties can be "lessened," even right of the party to whom the obligation is owed to enforce "interdependent with the [joint powers agreement]." the court 2011; and the request filed by the irrigation district on april in the persons absence might be prejudicial to him or those does not qualify as a "debt" or "liability" within the meaning satisfying its payment obligation under the joint powers noting that this construction of the statute would result in a the appeals went on to give reasons why this was so, concluding with the interior reduced the irrigation districts water allocation for a private contractor -- organized a nonprofit corporation to imperial irrigation district and the san diego county water 18 (imperial county air pollution control district v. state water be determined pursuant to this chapter . . . bring an action courts have general jurisdiction over federal law claims and can power to create indebtedness to the extent of three hundred if possible, as intending something for which they had the power of prohibition from the supreme court "to review that ruling and courts decision is based on section 1 of article xvi of the employees who participated in the making of the quantification a joint powers authority (jpa) agreement for the payment of qsa- were "indispensable parties under code of civil procedure and the department of water resources. the documents that no court order could dissipate." (stephen conditioned upon an appropriation, and that the lack of an adoption of resolution no. 10-2003 was a matter that had to be are irrelevant to our resolution of these appeals and cross- provision. so far as is material here, the section, in effect, metropolitan, and san diego that the trial court erred in drawing money from the treasury to satisfy the obligation in the however, the court appeared to be concerned that because section in the case, as follows: "he argued in that case, ,,are we going claims supported the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its the approval of the allocation agreement and the water transfers california coastal com. (1979) 95 cal.app.3d 495, the court qsa." the county also asked to "[e]njoin the transfer of water indispensable parties, requiring dismissal of the action." phase 1c was to address ceqa and nepa issues relating to the a. standard of review and rules of interpretation merits. as will be seen, before reaching this ultimate commitment of an uncertain amount of state funds contravened those before us now. in yorty, the county of inyo filed a address several other arguments offered by appellants relating mexican water rights recognized by the united states shall be and not judicial reasoning or argument, which is the subject of jurisdiction over actions under the federal apa to the federal californias "unconditional contractual obligation," as part of jackson, mary a. jackson and chrisman b. jackson as trustees, it at such election; . . ." "an order denying a motion for leave to intervene is pay" and "actual payment." according to the state, "there is a the belated disclosure of the draft joint powers agreement, and necessary parties to the countys ceqa action under irrigation dist. (2000) 80 cal.app.4th 1403, 1407.) irrigation districts chief counsel; david osias, "special metropolitan, and san diego. the county had no reason to exceeded within two years." in that circumstance, section 14.2 party directly adverse to" the irrigation district -- "during state. this request led to the seven-party agreement of august reach cuatros responsive argument that validation by operation and so it has. in 2003, three of the major stakeholders in in essence, the trial court appeared to recognize: statute," but this general rule is true only "where state on claims of "prejudice to the environment" that are vehemently payable upon a contingency is not a debt, nor does it become a express covenant to a limit on its annual consumption of encompassed the allocation agreement, then the determination of river water for the imperial valley. eventually, however, redwine and sherrill, steven b. abbott and julianna k. 22 also have not yet ruled on a seventh request filed after the settlement being reached. counsel" for the irrigation district; and dr. rodney smith, an court correctly concluded they were [not] indispensable parties of $390 per month in rent for a period of five years, while the "obligation" to the irrigation district, coachella, and san heavy flood waters rushed through the cut, washed out the canal, thereafter, negotiations ensued "to consensually settle and that, in any event, there are other bases to uphold the imperial irrigation district et al. (super. ct. imperial county also recognized that such conservation would have a significant the purpose of the validation statutes is to serve ",,the dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus supposedly result from a judgment in the absence of the united court erred in finding that the joint powers agreement violated later that month, the chief justice of california and of article xvi, section 7 of the california constitution. in february 2008, the trial court sustained a demurrer appropriation." (id. at p. 571.) the court further observed, enterprise for the financial benefit of certain private parties, 45 the trial court identified this motion as "contested matter for the ",,[o]perating expenses and equipment" of the department consideration to the purposes and policies of this article. in what [the irrigation district] did or did not do because [the relief from the countys perspective. would result in an inadequate judgment because of the risk of for in the prior defeated measures, but in other significant transferors own expense, provide for treatment to prevent the that in denying the motion to dismiss, the trial court can grant "effectual relief" to the appellants notwithstanding the agreement does unconditionally obligate the state to pay the environmental cost sharing, funding and habitat conservation examination of the petition reveals that the countys seeks to validate. of $10 million. reasonable person to believe."" (allen v. smith (2002) 94 states, an all-american canal. accordingly, the meeting of the minds arguments are without and liabilities as had been authorized by the people of the judgment dismissing that case was entered in april 2008. (an the leases -- the monthly rent times the number of months in the such a finding would have obviated the need for the trial court in its cross-appeal, the county essentially asserts that abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow the countys county intended to argue in this court," and "[t]he notice did we do or say herein affects the judgment of dismissal with article xvi of the california constitution. bearing on this validation action brought by the irrigation v. parmar (2001) 86 cal.app.4th 781, 802.) into the main stream, except that arizona tributary waters in 63 superior court (1989) 209 cal.app.3d 1494, 1497.) code of civil commitment to pay the excess mitigation costs would pass of southern californias colorado river aqueduct." (stats. 30 coachella, metropolitan, and san diego make a similar point (2 witkin, cal. procedure, supra, jurisdiction, 82, p. 649, acquires a vested right to continue to divert and use that appears to be that, notwithstanding the broad language of the for their part, the morgan/holtz parties contend the trial 90 property were the result of the irrigation districts wasteful section for the duration of the emergency. well as matters unrelated to water) impaired them from water that owes its very existence to the quest for colorado ,,a makes a bilateral agreement with the united states excess mitigation costs beyond those for which the irrigation 146 appropriates water and puts it to beneficial use thereby thousand dollars." (id. at pp. 695-696, italics omitted.) pp. 568-569). thus, the court concluded that "the state meeting of the minds, their premise is flawed. if there was a 64 points on the river and on said canal as may be agreed upon, for charles h. westmoreland and alexa westmoreland as trustees. inasmuch as: (1) the county asserts that its "wheeling claim" 162 lewis brisbois bisgaard & smith, malissa hathaway mckeith, interior and various california water users for delivery of for adjudication. finally, we conclude the trial court did not would oppose the writ petition "on the grounds that the were valid (code civ. proc., 860 et seq.). (we will refer to cuatro argues that none of the agreements the irrigation merits of the two ceqa actions, however, further litigation of district diverts water equating to a consumptive use of about agreement with osiass firm, in which osias (in whose name the the morgan/holtz parties argue that we should dismiss the cal.app.3d 367, 384.) "a party who fails to plead affirmative of the gulf of california. on its way to the sea it receives negotiations" of the agreements. in support of their assertion, agreements sought to address these problems in part by making finish adjudicating this issue at least, along with whatever returning to 1931 and the seven-party agreement, the with nepa was not directly presented by the air districts of action for violation of the wheeling statutes, the trial and invalid" must be reversed, and the action must be remanded validation action should be affirmed because all the agreements transferor," ",,[e]mergency," ",,[f]air compensation," article ix by [coachella], the [irrigation district] and [san being transferred. but to the extent this provision implies the l. howard and kimberlee a. howard as trustees, chrisman b. perpetuity 7,500,000 acre-feet of water a year from the colorado makers never met."29 unused capacity and the terms and conditions of the use, ruling that the u.s. and indian [settlement parties] were constitution, which allows money to be drawn from the treasury trial court noted that because the other ceqa actions then reviewing court with appellate jurisdiction, and recommended agreement and a number of related agreements were finally unenforceable or voidable because of ,,a special privilege not ct. sac. county, no. 03cs00082).18 the county sought writ relief adjudication of certain affirmative defenses the county and the alleged in two affirmative defenses that the transfer agreement obligation was contingent; it was contingent on there actually judgment for the unpaid excess mitigation costs, despite the with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor however, that water right was transferred to metropolitan when medical board (2000) 22 cal.4th 660, 666.) "an appeal is not a apparently in order to expedite review of whether "[t]he trial difficulties which arose because the canal was subject to the irrigation district seeks to validate, this does not mean the had offered no method whatever of apportioning the waters among more than that because arizona and nevada were not yet able to contrary to law." relevant part as follows: "members of the . . . district . . . read consistently with article xvi of section 7 of the action, and pursuant to a standard of review that inquires only imposed at the countys behest. that delay can hardly be blamed another answering party who aligned himself against the later, may 18, 1920, congress passed a bill offered by no. ecu01656). the county also filed an answer in the court determined that the united states and the indian courts summary adjudication of the cause of action for in connection with the quantification settlement agreement, the significance of the draft joint powers agreement.37 thus, we powers agreement violates article xvi, section 1 of the violate the constitutional provision. the legislature had the multiple levels." ultimately, however, the countys only the countys ceqa action. the proposed united states project. it seemed for a time that 40 canal.59 indeed, the quantification settlement agreement peir violation of the ralph m. brown act (gov. code, 54950.5 et of prior appropriation could be given interstate effect. this (county of imperial v. superior court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at agreement because that agreement is not unconstitutional. we 120 asserted that "[a] draft of the [joint powers] agreement was that matter) the right to enforce that obligation by drawing here, in its answer to the irrigation districts second arguments offered by respondents to uphold the trial courts case like this involving a written contract, whether there was civil code [section] 1580."27 (boldface and italics omitted.) absence of an appropriation. notwithstanding the unconditional county of fresno (1987) 192 cal.app.3d 1436, 1442.) to the extent the air district argues that "legality and proceedings -- which may (or may not) include litigation over in addressing the propriety of the trial courts conclusion alternative writ and stayed all proceedings in the coordinated the environmental mitigation requirements . . . so long as the interior to make a study and report of diversions which might be because the record of the administrative proceedings underlying of the california constitution because nothing in the joint san diego, which is one of metropolitans member agencies, just as it was in doland. pp. 338-339.) ceqa action to go forward. agreement] and its components, including the transfer agreement, real party in interest. (pub. resources code, 21167.6.5, invalidating the joint powers agreement -- and the other that argument is of no moment. the countys argument in this contract not binding on one party is illusory is subject to many angeles. (cooper, aqueduct empire (1968) p. 82.) today, group v. state energy resources conservation & development com., statement of its holding, the court concluded "that california available appropriation, because the failure to pay an for the first time on appeal. (see giraldo v. department of see also bowles v. superior court (1955) 44 cal.2d 574, 582; conclude that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction obviously, the notice of appeal filed nearly two years later, on "indisputably challenges the peir, and would if successful set those cases do not apply here because we have determined (b) factors ,,are not arranged in a hierarchical order, and no as well as other clients "located within the metropolitan water supra, 152 cal.app.4th at p. 40.) but that observation simply defense to a contract claim against the state under the stated that "[a] sum of money which is certainly and in all section 1810, which is the primary provision in the wheeling legal conclusions but must instead be alleged with as much as the appellate court in metropolitan water dist. v. unexpressed intentions or understandings." (alexander v. 50 because the air district is not a party to the ceqa not properly join in the motions. accordingly, the trial court proper apportionments of californias share of colorado river the restatement [of contracts], a contract does not lack the allocation agreement, to which the irrigation district, for the most part agreed with the special master, 373 us 546 returned to arguing that the action was directed only at the by filing a mandamus petition in imperial county superior court term or use, priorities, and fair compensation." (italics not reach this argument because, as noted below, the irrigation asserts that the irrigation district -- as opposed to the cuatro argued that issue at length in its trial brief. in its reach the open meeting issue." since no one has argued the open ceqa action, and powers ceqa action. on march 16, 2010, power their ceqa actions, we properly exercise our appellate because of arguments made by counsel on behalf of the state and why the joint powers agreement is not illusory, but also 100 making of [a] contract." (people v. honig (1996) 48 cal.app.4th mitigation] commitment as a ,,contingent debt" "fails on also appears to follow that the proper disposition of those constitutional. respondents and each of them refused to recognize that they were that decision, the board found considerable evidence that water recipient of an approval for purposes of section 21167.6.5(a), area covers the imperial valley, which is situated in imperial of the judicial council authorized the presiding judge of the merit. the motion to transfer the two ceqa actions to sacramento county increase its beneficial consumptive use of such waters by one interested in the contracts they formed in their official 94 comply with either the federal clean air act or nepa, its defendant and respondent cuatro del mar. relief action."38 we reject that argument out of hand. assent is determined under an objective standard applied to the the extent the legislature had already appropriated money for impossible. the morgan/holtz parties offer no rational times at which that salary shall be paid, is, in fact, an section 7 of the california constitution, and to the separation in its operative complaint, the irrigation district alleged supersedeas, the irrigation district, coachella, metropolitan, unlike the case before us, those cases both clearly involved 143 cal. at pp. 177-178.) the first lease provided for payment defendant and appellant san diego county water authority. throughout the districts service area. declined to deny the motion based on laches, but found "it even if slesinger could be read to give us authority to 117 [is not] a defense," the intended effect of section 9.2 of the the wheeling statutes were enacted to "address[] a potential granted. as to the remaining four requests, we rule as follows: citing county of inyo v. yorty (1973) 32 cal.app.3d 795, prejudice in its entirety does not, as the water agencies would case that illustrates this point is myers v. english (1858) 9 actions -- issues to which the trial court was prepared to diminution, and the transferred water is of substantially the for failure to join indispensable parties brownstein hyatt farber schreck, lisabeth d. rothman, amy submitted for the boards review prior to adoption of resolution 35 the morgan/holtz parties assert that the draft of the joint dealt with the distinguishable situation in which the notice of things, the plaintiffs "principals had gleaned information from one -- and only one -- of the factors that goes into deciding consent, waiver or estoppel." (summers v. superior court (1959) action] as limited to challenges to the [quantification both actions was admitted in the trial court and is now before the environment of imperial county. to determine the legitimacy power and the county both argue that because the parties those . . . submitted to the [b]oard [of directors] for review possible the water agencies could be left with an unenforceable -- the united states -- that is not before the court and the a requirement to avoid unreasonable economic or environmental discharging their fiduciary duties with undivided loyalty and county between the colorado river and arizona on the east, allocation agreement but were not before the court. with its . . . ceqa challenge" because even though the obligation of finding anywhere else in the statement of decision. indeed, certified the quantification settlement agreement peir and on appeal, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego complain argued the arizona v. california case before the united states and courts of appeal to refuse to exercise their original "provide a framework for conservation measures and water out, "[r]ather than analyzing each qsa agreement, the peir defendant and appellant vista irrigation district. contested matters) entered on february 11, 2010." the fact that recipients of an approval that was the subject of the countys opinion. the writ of supersedeas, having served its purpose, is primitive diversions made from the mainstream of the colorado & r land and cattle co.; steve scaroni inc.; clifford strahm; costs was not only unconditional but also unconditionally compel the legislature to make an appropriation or to order general, kathleen a. kenealy, senior assistant attorney general, terms of the agreement can be reconciled, not only with each opinion -- of whatever nature -- [in this case] would be based following a settlement conference in september 2009, the water that is the subject of the contract." (wat. code, 1811, exception is that "[t]he present case more closely resembles 2 cal.3d 335, cuatro argues that the "legitimacy [of water code public agency with authority to approve the contracts in foster; foster feed yard, inc.; toni f. holtz; jr norton previously suggested, "in determining whether there has been a shall include as a necessary component the implementation of the swing-johnson bills enacted, authorizing construction of a dam here. . . . [i]f the rule were otherwise, [many] contracts funds for the purpose for which an expenditure is sought." rodney strahm; ernest strahm; michael strahm; victor thomson; agreements the four water agencies (the irrigation district, validation action was "not properly subject to validation," the first time on appeal ",,is largely a question of the appellate the alternative that compliance with nepa has not been subdivision (b), factor (2) the court considers whether states unconditional contractual obligation to pay those costs. district did seek to validate in this action.41 and "setting aside the decisions of respondents to carry out the obviously to be made by the owner of the water conveyance 153 31 involved in the water transfer conduct, which is part of the the law of prior appropriation would be not a protection but a (escondido). parties other than power and the county that filed pay those costs. at first glance, the states power to avoid california tort claims act (see gov. code, 905.2, subd. imperial v. superior court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at p. 33.) prohibited by [government code] section 1090 are many and knowledge of these facts, the water agencies could have demurred agreement that was not part of the administrative record whether one looks solely at the face of the joint powers immunity, allowing the united states to be sued in an action "ceqa requirements and procedures are triggered by any proposed action].) in such cases, "[i]t is elementary that an appeal respective shares of the lower-basin states, particularly the distinction the state draws in this case in support of a acquisition agreement, those parties entered into the in ceqa, we find "a ,,substantive mandate requiring public the irrigation district, coachella, metropolitan, san exceptional." (8 witkin, cal. procedure, supra, extraordinary situation, instead of authorizing the irrigation districts finding." the county argues, however, that "neither the united jurisdiction in this validation action to determine compliance disregard those assertions because they are not set forth under dismiss. this is an argument the county is absolutely entitled drink or to arizona for asparagus? the court preferred having concluded that the trial court erred in finding the whether the united states and the indian settlement parties were amount would be a debt created by the legislature within the issue is not properly before us because the air district failed sets out, in subdivision (a), a definition of persons who ought 72 pay the excess mitigation costs unconditional, notwithstanding e denial of intervention would not avoid entirely, the potential prejudice to the absent still being negotiated days after the october 2, 2003, approval section 21167.6.5(a). what the county claims is the subject of consistent with this focus, the irrigation district alleged in state would have ,,the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of term in its narrowest sense can be found, for example, in the necessary parties in" the countys ceqa action because "[t]he (pub. resources code, 21000 et seq.) and the water code in represented to the court that when the irrigation districts third appellate district coachella, metropolitan, and san diego argue that and thus the subject of the countys ceqa action. in concluding they are members. . . . . [] as used in this article, their just share of basin water available after construction of the expensive works necessary for a dependable yearround water erred in its interpretation of section 9.2 of the joint powers related argument. action necessarily provides the county with a "sufficient delivery agreement," also known as the "federal quantification the violation was willful) criminal penalties, including ready to proceed below, [power and the county] have no basis to directly appealable because it finally and adversely determines that it is, as it always has been, largely dependent upon determining that one of the 13 agreements before it in the is consistent with section 14.2 of the agreement, which 102 the colorado river." (id. at p. 590 [10 l.ed.2d at p. 572], appropriation requirement of article xvi, section 7 of the its complaint that it had "timely complied with all laws the appropriation requirement of article xvi, section 7 of the from the imperial, mexicali, and coachella valleys continued to terms of his contracts is not bound . . . to follow state law." of imperial, the water agencies here have not persuaded us that joint powers agreement violated not only section 7 of article obligation."24 (italics omitted.) because the state did this argument. (see resolution trust corp. v. winslow (1992) 9 quantification settlement agreement "were overturned, [they] "the prospect that the united states would undertake to with a contract for sale of water that may be conditioned upon conclusion regarding the federal clean air act, i.e., that the draft of the joint powers agreement from the trial court, the statutes, provides as follows: defines the action to determine what project approval is to be dismissed for nonjoinder." (county of imperial v. superior allegiance to the irrigation district. the morgan/holtz parties formation is governed by objective manifestations, not the the 12 agreements subject to validation were "void and invalid." on review, we find no error in the trial courts intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing this court. accordingly, we do not address this issue further.50 fact, the dismissed case was ultimately included in the constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the discharged upon the finality of this decision. daniel h. and robin j. lillywhite, trustees; john smith; pauline l.ed.2d at pp. 551-556], fns. omitted.) million." 44 the delivery agreement refers to the "colorado river water connection with the proposed transfer of conserved colorado claims and defenses based on these two federal laws unless we illustration 8 of section 84(e) of the restatement, which reads: the agreements, but in an abundance of caution -- and because disagree. it was taking a "cross-appeal from the final judgment (including consequently, the [w]heeling [s]tatutes prohibit state, refused to appropriate money from the treasury to pay those exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such of health services "was generally available for payment of parties. three years passed, however, without any definitive err in its constitutional analysis of the final version of the interfere with that. a contract in their official capacities, (2) whether the court here has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the air districts previously summarily adjudicated against the county. california constitution, and the trial court erred in concluding two ingredients in this multi-ingredient validation action. for cal.3d 202, 212.) here, even assuming appellants deliberately existence.35 relying on stephen slesinger, inc. v. walt disney 48 agency and on all other persons." (millbrae school dist. v. air district on november 23, 2010, opposed by coachella, erred in dismissing them as moot, and they importune us to one of the alternate rationales offered for the trial company made a new 60-foot cut in the river bank, and by the appeal"].) with a separate entity willing to finance water conservation trial courts ruling with respect to the countys affirmative 6 in april 2009, san diego and metropolitan filed a joint other funds that have been appropriated already for purposes judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the trial court did conflicting obligations for the water agencies" that would the effects of non-action. . . . therefore, when the to resolve and allocate responsibility between the the joint powers agreement were in his files, but it was not 2002, ch. 617, 1(a), pp. 3461-3462.) being transferred." issues, it is also important to remember that, as we have owner of a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to challenged." (id. at p. 925.) the quantification settlement agreement, which would be adequate actions. contract clause to the immediate payment of salary in the because the states commitment in the joint powers 44 cost limitation," "[t]he state will seek, with the support of appellant, just like a trial court can do to a case based on normal water years, california was nonetheless able to use much 81 subphases, was to address everything else. phase 1b was to additionally, it must be noted that just because the canal. these bills would have carried out the original fall- provisions for the sale of the stored waters. the secretary of dismissed without prejudice." rapid declaration of appropriative claims would deprive them of vires" because "material and significant changes were made to provide background on them, along with the fourth water agency been filed on behalf of the "barioni/krutzsch parties." of section 9.2 of the joint powers agreement in a way that subdivision (b) the court considers whether a judgment entered to prevent further proceedings in the action." (ibid.) the party to whom the obligation is owed to enforce that "the [joint powers] agreement . . . still had substantive terms validation action. legislature, agreed ,,irrevocably and unconditionally . . . as an aspect of the fight over colorado river water. in an opinion that the delivery agreement,44 the quantification settlement the constitutional limit, would not affect the question as to we conclude that it is. case at bar presents a ,,complex and debatable issue." (city of were to address the western farms cases and the meyers farms these tributaries from the mexican burden. and the joint powers agreement and seven public agencies of the state. arizona sought to were buying peace, however, they were sorely mistaken, for a (county of imperial v. superior court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at taken into consideration in determining the question as to the defendants of an [eir] and a determination of the environmental "violated government code section 1090 by allowing persons who legislature. in the trial courts view, the unconditional as we have noted, when the court entered judgment in the includes ceqa compliance in part via the peir. this would be a allegations of misconduct obligation -- whether by means of a judgment or otherwise -- is by signing the quantification settlement agreement and (along validation action brought by the irrigation district necessarily incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal 16 cal.2d at p. 520.) in 1971, however, the legislature revised or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor action to determine the validity of the quantification drastic sanction. in slesinger, no sanction short of dismissal luis rey indian water authority (collectively, the indian water management and marketing practices. upon investigation, appropriation" (white v. davis, supra, 30 cal.4th at p. 69), the 105 cal.app.4th 1441, 1451.) we do note, however, that the the arguments raised in the appeals filed by the county, the air section 389, subdivision (b) [the unnamed parties] qualify as actions with respect to the agreements the irrigation district appeal (or cross-appeal) clearly states an intent to appeal from because the morgan/holtz parties point to no evidence same quality as the water in the facility. further step of adjudicating the merits of those actions recall that, based on its (erroneous) determination in the settlement agreements] to be valid, legal, and binding, statement of decision -- which in turn fell under the heading of authority, the city of escondido and vista irrigation district. the city contended that "the word ,,contracts in 51 "wheeling" refers to "[t]he use of a water conveyance walter j. holtz; michael w. morgan; john j. elmore; richard that motion without reaching the merits of the question because: drop of water cannot do two things at once, and every drop the irrelevant to our resolution of these appeals and cross-appeals rejecting cuatros ultra vires argument), we must presume the public agencys bonds, warrants or other evidences of acquisition agreement. (see, e.g., fish & game code, 2930 et action brought by the irrigation district necessarily the question that remains then, for purposes of seeking in its ceqa action. condition by any person could a debt or liability arise on the trustees; john d. jackson, jr., individually and as trustee; law and this validation through nonaction precluded the it is carters declaration in support of the supersedeas remanding the ceqa actions to the trial court, we should taken of matters irrelevant to the dispositive points on [contracts] that are in the nature of, or directly relate to a parties, except as set forth herein, whether written or oral." kelly (1933) 218 cal. 7, 14.) trial court while retaining the ceqa actions for further review. subd. (a).) unreasonable water use practices and its failure to correct second, the court concluded that the wheeling statutes apply 53511 in 1963 had caused the statutes to grow "far beyond the 2 cal.3d at p. 339.) "the [trial] court impliedly determined water agencies contention regarding "the risk of conflicting any surplus." (arizona v. california (1983) 460 u.s. 605, 608- m. steinfeld; todd r. leishman; daniel s. hentschke, for they are to be deemed so to agree without regard to the fact." for us to decide relative to the validation action? lillywhite and daniel h. lillywhite as trustees, daniel h. more of respondents answers to the irrigation districts aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed the sum because a claimed violation of the conformity provision in "the colorado river . . . rises in the mountains of particularly the gila, forced to contribute to the mexican required during a budget impasse to pay state employees, on coachella, metropolitan, and san diego next argue that the 30 5 u.s.c. 551 et seq." (karst environmental educ. and legislature. construed in this manner, the joint powers validation statutes, assuming for the sake of argument that the payment of excess mitigation costs were to arise but the state department, agency, or instrumentality of the federal government create any debt or liability." (bickerdike v. state, supra, 144 jurisdiction to the federal courts either explicitly or the quantification settlement agreement. the irrigation district, the state, coachella, the legislature, within the meaning of this constitutional "[w]here the secretary's contracts, as here, carry out a favor of allowing the action to go forward in their absence. in parties have reduced their agreement to writing, their mutual trial courts determination under the statute that in equity and violation of the wheeling statutes in favor of san diego and transfer in question will unreasonably affect the overall were due under the leases. in the end, however, the legally arguments involve "asserted defects in contract formation [that] an agreement with san diego for the transfer of up to 300,000 commitment to seek an appropriation would have been unnecessary later filed an answer in the validation action, asserting (among deliveries instead to keep california within its annual 4.4 turning to nepa, we first note that in the affirmative "under code of civil procedure section 389, that this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction court apparently concluded that the language of section 9.2 of noted that it was "not reaching the . . . nepa and clean air act metropolitan because, in the countys view, the wheeling does not make the contract void as lacking mutuality. 2003) on october 2, 2003, some of the agreements, including the necessity of a finding of unreasonable effect, the finding is that renders section 1 of article xvi of the california determining whether the countys ceqa case should proceed in the related agreements. in evaluating whether the potential petitions. we first address the arguments relating to the validation water district of southern california. argument by the morgan/holtz parties that we should dismiss the agreement. based on the supposed unconstitutionality of the joint powers entirely outside of those provisions." (id. at p. 762.) citys activities because of its view that such action was a court did not have such jurisdiction, but the trial court denied long ago, the california supreme court stated that "[a] sum certify and file in accordance with law an eir, and further 1891) providing for the payment of a $5 bounty from the states this point. first, a proceeding to attack a decision by a ceqa action, we must look more closely at ceqa and at the authorize it by their votes at a general election, but an an early explanation of section 1 of article xvi of the colorado river disputes regarding the priority, use and transfer p. 422.) the water agencies fail to explain how "a risk of 147." or a local public agency -- from denying a bona fide transferor53 agencies have the right to enforce the states obligation by damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or court had committed various errors in the countys ceqa action other parties have filed responsive or amicus curiae briefs. 34 the administrative record contains a seven-page "outline districts officers had no authority under resolution no. 10- action, we now turn our attention to the arguments that address proceeding, so that the action or proceeding shall be quickly to be joined [in an action] if possible (sometimes referred to measures in the district or take other measures. thereafter, legislature and until, at a general election or at a direct that obligation by drawing money from the treasury without an consider whether we should exercise our discretion to address for the irrigation district qualified as government officials or 130 objection can be raised at any time, and they filed their motion 21167.6.5(a)] may be a building permit, land use approval, of water apportioned to the first four priorities was 4.4 federal clean air act (and, for that matter, nepa), are merely read consistently with the state constitution, given that the parties to the joint powers agreement) to money from the as far as we can tell, the coordination judge here did the meaning only the quantification settlement agreement between the because: (1) it is an issue of law; (2) the three water 2) with respect to the request filed by the irrigation that there was "one clear conclusion" in the case, namely, that analyzed in the peir, including the water transfers provided for differences mean that "the collective minds of the decision 133 after the fall-davis report, this court in wyoming v. colorado the irrigation district, coachella, and san diego have committed jurisdiction over any such issues. constitution -- the appropriation requirement purposes of section 21167.6.5(a). (here, majority), and (5) the public agency acted in a manner identified issues, and "[n]o one identified a trial issue absence of the united states and the indian settlement parties, of that error." (mary m. v. city of los angeles (1991) 54 validation action, the judgment in the action will not be compelled the finding that those parties were not simply ,,no person shall have or be entitled to have the use for any 57 surplusage should be avoided." (ticor title ins. co. v. rancho would be illusory. was the environmental document that was used to support the water] transfers w[ould] be fully paid for." the joint powers foxen v. city of santa barbara (1913) 166 cal. 77, 82 [a vires and void but it would not provide the basis for a those in yorty. here, power and the county are not asking us to quantity of water against all claimants junior to him in point the irrigation district was organized in 1911. its service created by heavy precipitation or the flow of the colorado complaint against the city of los angeles and others seeking only part of a judgment. (see glassco v. el sereno country code] section 53511 extended [the validation statutes] to ,,an injunction and dissolved a previously issued temporary representation of other clients in the area on water issues (as rivers flow, store and distribute waters for reclamation and of how the joint powers agreement violates article xvi, when the board of directors adopted resolution no. 10-2003 observed, "a sum payable upon a contingency is not a debt, nor the statute of limitations. the county sought writ relief from persuaded that this argument has any tendency to show the trial states obligation against other funds already appropriated. quantification settlement agreement in the context of a validation action like the one before us. plaintiff tried to avoid the impact of a legislative enactment considered -- adversely to the water agencies -- the fact that the city had been improved into a park, which obligation was western states petroleum assn. v. superior court (1995) 9 channel in 1907, the salton sea eventually would have evaporated 36 district, coachella, and san diego are responsible, the proposals because they failed to provide for exclusive use of the federal clean air act can be adjudicated only under the the minds regarding that agreement is all that remains. conclude the answer is "yes" in both instances. the interior on july 22, 1919, which detailed the widespread statute, statutes like water code section 22762 "permitting (id. at p. 341.) just like the enactment of the bounty act in bickerdike, forward. address the ceqa issues relating to the quantification granted summary adjudication on the cause of action in the authority, the la jolla, pala, pauma, rincon and san pasqual the legislature, nor shall the event of non-appropriation be a claims based on an alleged violation of the federal clean air in the validation action and the two ceqa actions. numerous 50 the absence of the united states and the indian settlement sutherland & gerber and lowell f. sutherland for defendants the applicable incorporated statement of decision and rulings on a public agency action taken without ceqa compliance"].) nine cities. the water is diverted at imperial dam and conveyed both argue that there was no "meeting of the minds" between the 129 agreement peir ("as modified and supplemented by the amended and 147 colorado and flows generally in a southwesterly direction for district (and perhaps the other water agencies as well) had to been violated, a court must identify (1) whether the defendant this fast-developing region. but none of the more or less -- are void ab initio." subject to diminution by reason of a united states treaty with one very important element, however, is missing from the story reprinted at 14 wests ann. code civ. proc. (2004 ed.) foll. colorado river water was largely driven by the increasing demand the county (super. ct. imperial county, no. ecu01650 & super. colorado river water conserved within the irrigation districts congressman kinkaid of nebraska directing the secretary of the phase 1a was to address all matters in the validation action not agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant are not persuaded. settlement agreement joint powers authority creation and funding of inadvertent omission is incredible and the draft of the joint that it makes perfect sense (which the law does not always do) unused capacity -- whether the state, a regional public agency, diego because of his role in negotiating the agreements for the we have serious doubt as to whether these meeting of the before us. substantial number of issues arising under ceqa in two different the trial court in the countys ceqa action could void the 80 viewed as prohibiting a court from directly ordering the "finally, the fourth swing-johnson bill passed both houses water each party was entitled to receive. thus, for example, share of the water left nevada and arizona with their fears that provision a conformity analysis had to be performed before the agreements. absent any such evidence, the morgan/holtz parties expected obligations would exceed $300,000," the states under public resources code section 21167.6.5(a)," but further distribution of colorado river water among [coachella, the contract must be taken together so as to give effect to every of respondents. 61 code of civil procedure sections 861 to 863," i.e., the judgment "as to all cases adjudicated in trial phase 1 of the from ceqa review.57 in essence, then, we can read the statute as california constitution only if the legislature "passed appropriation requirement of article xvi, section 7 of the committed various errors in the validation action, the countys 112 coachella, metropolitan, and san diego "do not challenge this of ceqa, the legislature has mandated the preparation and unused capacity prior to any bona fide transferor. foundation, since the law of prior appropriation prevailed in the state-created obligation and/or the obligation is required. the most typical ,,recipient of approval would be the in large part, the foregoing chronology sets the stage for river. (cooper, aqueduct empire, supra, pp. 69-70; construed to permit him, within the boundaries set down in the mitigation cost requirements in excess of the environmental agreed. in turn, this pressure led to increased potential for and therefore deny this request also. with the barioni parties, as a single respondents brief has unapportioned waters, subject to reapportionment after 1963, be the determination of whether a party is indispensable is only a contingent obligation, it did not create any debt and validation action. defense." (advantec group, inc. v. edwin's plumbing co., inc. river system, defined in article 2(a) as ,,the colorado river and costs, the ability of the water agencies to enforce that the [agreement] meant that it was no longer ,,in the same form chief legal counsel in 2003. in his declaration, carter are expected to exceed by far more than $300,000 the $133 no. 10-2003. words the legislature used, giving them their usual and ordinary events payable is a debt, without regard to the fact whether it because section 21167.6.5(a) speaks in terms of "an needs without jeopardizing the use or delivery of colorado river curiae for citizens for a reliable water supply on behalf of is actually required only when the appropriation is from the 2. meeting of the minds legislature to make an appropriation. thus, to paraphrase in 1952 when arizona, to settle this dispute, invoked [the the quantification settlement agreement and not at any of the powers agreement] does not call for or describe payment by the as before. another troublesome problem was the erosion of land residents of coastal southern california want to drink is one the [joint powers] agreement." carter asserted that this cases. ultimately, this court affirmed the trial courts settlement parties are indispensable to the countys ceqa ferreting out any financial conflicts of interest, other than the arizona-nevada and arizona-california boundaries, after vires and void].) apportionment among california, nevada, and arizona of the lower achieved." courts discretion"].) accordingly, the judgment invalidating the county could "mount a ceqa challenge [to a different eir] in months, the act should not take effect unless six states the negotiators had a financial interest in any of the in a diminution of the beneficial uses or quality of the water in invalidating "the three federal agreements." we also need made, and the state cannot assert the lack of appropriation as a 8 intent of the parties" in the analysis as well, "[a] reasonable validation action encompasses the validity of the actions taken 27 provision very clearly, which was simply to put a limit upon the appropriation of so much money in the treasury for that purpose; section 389(b)" that the county had not timely named in the fears in the northern basin states that additional waters made metropolitan entered into an agreement whereby coachella and water in said reservoir and for the delivery thereof at such challenge based on the lack of mutual consent. since the california constitution because nothing in the joint powers funds have already been appropriated by legislative action, a ed. (d.n.j. 1979) 476 f.supp. 681, 687.) "although congress did sovereignty of both countries generated hopes in this country rather, it "is fundamentally a recognition that the transaction the legislature "appropriate[d] monies to cover the states section 21167.6.5(a), is whether the united states and the as far more than a purely local problem which could be solved on of state law issues to be litigated . . . . compliance with the the ceqa actions sustained based on this issue. identify any potential significant environmental impact of a adjudication of the merits of the ceqa actions shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial than just the quantification settlement agreement; it was that (and provided for in the contracts with the secretary of the beginning in early 1997 to represent the irrigation district in "notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the its ruling on the lack of input from either the u.s. or the do so in the first instance. because an appellate court exercises its appellate jurisdiction "calls attention to the extent of the relief that can be (the transfer project eir). (county of imperial v. superior to adjudicate claims under the federal clean air act5 and the compel the state treasurer to pay certain warrants drawn for the "[the court] agreed with the special master that the covered by the peir includes not only the state [quantification moot, but we decline to adjudicate those actions in the first that water comes from the colorado river. the irrigation consent. (civ. code, 1565.) "consent is not mutual, unless tributary waters from wyoming, colorado, utah, nevada, new support for this conclusion can be found in bickerdike. irrigation district to san diego, coachella, and metropolitan ,,appellate jurisdiction is simply the power of a reviewing feet to nevada. arizona and california would share equally in continued. failure of the compact to determine each states within each state would get water" "without regard to the law of states and the indian settlement parties much, much earlier in to the validation action. specifically, we need not consider parties by priority but without quantifying exactly how much "during the latter part of the nineteenth and the first on march 1, 2010, all of the appellants, with the exception (federal nat. mortg. ass'n v. le crone (6th cir. 1989) 868 f.2d extent they really do mean to claim that the absence of the this appropriation requirement. accordingly, the trial court 1b, and 11 trial days in january 2010 for the trial of phase 1c. based upon the water budgets set forth therein and include[d] as agreement does not violate article xvi of section 7 of the petition. metropolitan and coachella also filed court actions project approvals that are "the subject of" a ceqa action, we nor do we find any other basis for affirming the trial without prejudice to the rights of others, or by saving their walt disney co., supra, 155 cal.app.4th at p. 740.) in another [agreements] as . . . required to establish a [government code] exercised its inherent discretion to consider a moot issue of court dismissed the two ceqa actions as moot, with the exception quantification settlement agreement and the various related challenges as moot. based on this tentative ruling, the trial issue the writ as an original matter." (cal. rules of court, minds argument the morgan/holtz parties advance focuses -- like neither, the argument goes, the joint powers agreement violates original jurisdiction. coachella, metropolitan, and san diego only by means of an appropriation. resolution approving the various agreements (resolution no. 10- would contravene section 7 of article xvi of the california powers agreement must have been intentionally withheld from the lillywhite and robin j. lillywhite as trustees, rosal randes, part of the state. upon such performance, however, by any (id. at pp. 287-289.) the supreme court recognized that the 20 the meyers farms matter refers to a cross-complaint in the representation of those other clients based on the various powers agreement imposes an unconditional contractual obligation 156 thousand dollars. the mere fact that the total amount that that was the subject of the eir. here, that project was more adjudicated or which at that time could have been united states and various other parties as real parties in filed a notice of cross-appeal likewise asserting the trial one of the other coordinated cases (super. ct. imperial county, legislature has authorized the use of the appropriated funds for on the trial court. they prohibit the owner of a water conveyance facility that has any such issue raised in the ceqa actions as well. 22762." -- let alone the county from which the water is being definition. metropolitan, and san diego all argue the trial court erred in parties, and the u.s. are parties." the trial court further while that possible result might appear to make the states reasonable meaning of their words and acts, and not their (ibid.) lawful." (city of el cajon v. el cajon police officers' assn. developer whose project has been approved by the local land use what it believed to be the basic elements of the irrigation motion without reaching the merits of the question. of its cross-appeal, rather than as part of its respondents jurisdiction over nepa compliance when they sought partial relate to the constitutionality of the joint powers agreement. 9 filed 12/7/11 summer of 2004. thereafter, in january 2005, the trial court appropriate" and "cases are not moot when they present questions under general rules of civil procedure, an answer must 3 the court concluded the remaining agreement was "not of course, under our construction of the joint powers their costs on appeal. (cal. rules of court, rule 8.278(a)(1).) quantification settlement agreement peir that were approved 609 [75 l.ed.2d 318, 326-327], fn. omitted.) for the better part of 100 years, citizens of the american trial court granted summary adjudication in their favor, department of water resources, they referred the matter to the as we have observed, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego parties contend, no legitimate basis for dismissing these section 1 of the california constitution in arguing that the water authority (san diego), as well as coachella and such a circumstance, the inability to avoid or eliminate the c extent they are asking us to exercise our original jurisdiction appropriate expenditures from such funds . . . when the san francisco under what purported to be a lease agreement to conclusion 42 mitigation relating to the transfer agreement and the theory." (airlines reporting corp. v. renda (2009) 177 power and the county is whether we should adjudicate the ceqa 56 first, the irrigation district alleged in its complaint the joint powers agreement that is consistent, rather than find is true -- simply do not justify the imposition of such a previously determined that the . . . validation action provided petition, which was "unequivocally directed at, and only at, the significant fact was that "[t]he monthly rental under both finally, water code section 1814 provides that "[t]his [stating the general rule].) given this failure, we decline to the upper basin against california should arizona still refuse devote at least 15 days of trial. and they are doing so based of ceqa to help us understand what "approval" is to be deemed is readily apparent. as just one example, although the trial issue in its analysis of the first factor, when it noted the contract with or the right to receive water from the owner of until the contingency has happened." (people v. arguello (1869) in january 2005, the trial court sustained demurrers breach of contract. that does not mean, however, that the water under california law, the parties must be deemed to have agreement itself and other "objective manifestations of the rejected that argument already. whether there was mutual to determine compliance with nepa. settlement agreement peir, the validation action was "the only claims it did not reach." and for its part, the irrigation input" from the absent parties. from this court, and on march 30, 2005, this court issued an loss within the irrigation district could be reduced through that is the subject of an action or proceeding brought pursuant defenses based on those laws could not put compliance with those here, the county stated in its notice of cross-appeal that escondido filed a joint notice of appeal. on february 23, 2010, advocate the conclusion that the united states and the indian parties. transfer agreement and the . . . acquisition agreement. these plan development agreement. those parties, along with the state project that is not statutorily exempt unless the lead agency including a "writ of mandate setting aside the certification of 54 not at issue here are the western farms cases and another ceqa they are actively involved in the conduct which is the subject districts prima facie case in the validation action; those the countys ceqa action. thus, when the irrigation district article 3(a) of the compact apportions to each basin in interior) was nearly a million acre-feet more than the basic the accidental sea including what constitutes fair compensation. (wat. code, its statement of decision, however, while the court continued to cal.app.4th 612, 623 [the notice of cross-appeal stated the validation action is a judgment that the agreements that are the held out for complete exemption of its tributaries from any part holtz, michael w. morgan, john j. elmore, richard elmore, gary defenses waives them." (california academy of sciences v. which the united states and the indian settlement parties were with a thorough written opinion which helps to clarify issues agreement, the county argued that "the operative reference in in californians for alternatives to toxics v. california "[t]he legislature shall not, in any manner create any debt or imperial v. metropolitan water district of southern california as we will explain, however, we conclude the trial court 9 the fifth priority in the agreement also entitled the city invalidating the agreement known as the allocation agreement.40 necessarily an indispensable party, such that the ceqa action not necessarily exceed two hundred and ninety-five thousand 7506."45 that statute provides in relevant part that "[n]o river among the lower basin states and to decide which users the irrigation district and had been the irrigation districts from compelling the legislature to enact an appropriation the united states to provide water to the indian settlement outdated. power and the county argue that, in addition to reversing the obtained a judgment against the state, they could not force the their status in the underlying transaction." (county of supreme courts] original jurisdiction [citation] by filing a validate in the validation action were validated by operation of action as real parties in interest. in a footnote, as confirmation of their assertion that no one ["it is well established that challenges to agency defense to that claim. nevertheless, even if the water agencies to the extent that courts after city of ontario have constitutional muster under article xvi, section 1 of the finally, we note that "[t]he whole of a contract is to be financial interest in the agreements. instead, they limit their of this finding, the court relied in part on "the lack of any randes; sali properties; the sinclair ranches, llc; tac land, of the state, filed a petition for writ of supersedeas. the of coastal southern california continued to grow. finalizing the transfer agreement and approving the (cuatro),12 ronald and laura leimgruber, the morgan/holtz administrative record, that omission was inadvertent. carter citrus, llc; bixby land company; robert s. chell; coast imperial compliance with the statute must be brought pursuant to the apa, can be rebutted by an explicit statutory directive, by the county and cuatro premise their argument that the joint the all-american canal board of the united states department of 43 dismissal of the county's ceqa action "to determine whether [government code] section 1090 has impediment to wheeling transfers. public and private water their regular payday, their regular and full salaries for work trial court had found moot, based on the principles that "if a "(b) the commingling of transferred water does not result section was not designed to limit the amount of indebtedness 135 daniel h. lillywhite and robin j. lillywhite as trustees; rosal public agency if it finds that the determination is supported by would ultimately be paid under the act was not named, and that validation statutes. (city of ontario v. superior court, supra, and respondents. settlement agreement parties, and as it may be amended, and that as an alternate basis for affirming the judgment invalidating specifically, the morgan/holtz parties allege the following available by the storage and canal projects might be gobbled up this case as the validation action.) in the second case -- 33 attorneys general, for defendant and appellant state of statute itself. [citation.] that is, we look first to the 32 osias is an attorney with allen, matkins, leck, gamble & extent cuatro contends these allegations were sufficient to put party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may whether the agencys action was ,,arbitrary and capricious or writ petition, the matter was still one within the courts 49 in an amicus curiae brief, the united states points out 16 is applicable. imperial valley conceived plans to divert water from the because the countys cause of action for violation of the capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that while also promoting efficient use of this scare resource. quantification settlement agreement would lessen, even if it not named, and that under its terms, in the course of years, district offers on appeal with respect to those actions. in any appeals and affirming the trial courts judgment in the costs. parties do not try to explain how the belated revelation of the in its broadest sense, however, "the qsa" refers to the cal. at p. 696.) "the mere fact that the total amount that government violated the federal clean air act in signing one or was organized in 1944 to bring imported water to the san diego santa fe assn. (1986) 177 cal.app.3d 726, 730.) sustained demurrers without leave to amend in two of the other 37 cal. 524, 525.) trash receptacles and trespassed on other property to this court addressed arguments made in a mandamus petition the indian settlement parties are to be considered "recipients" of water agencies do not attempt to muster any support for the varied" (ibid.), "[t]he interest proscribed by government code of this question is crucial because if the project approval that districts board of directors rejected a proposed memorandum of around that time, the california development company just as those persons described in subdivision (a) of code of action must be remanded for the trial court to finish in ruling on the motion to dismiss, the trial court noted in no way did the trial court "base its ruling on the lack of action applies with equal force and logic to the affirmative 52 contractual provisions of specific qsa agreements." different understanding of the agreement is of no moment. act and/or nepa. district of southern california (metropolitan) -- purported to pp. 696-697, italics omitted.) unconstitutional (but we do not). 48 as with the federal clean air act issues, this lack of board of directors authorized "the president or vice president the arguments by coachella, metropolitan, and san diego that: determined from the written contract itself, and if a reasonable the joint powers agreement on october 10, 2003, was "ultra court to assert original jurisdiction." 546 [10 l.ed.2d 542], which involved the earlier, interstate to sacramento county. while those motions were pending, the california constitution. we conclude that it can. agreement is part of "the qsa" in its broad sense is also involving "limits" on the ultimate amount of the obligation and control bd. (1997) 54 cal.app.4th 1144, 1149.) interest. based on the foregoing, the question before us is whether decide, as cuatro suggests, that "statutes permitting validation the wheeling statutes. those effects." (county of san diego v. grossmont-cuyamaca commitment to pay the excess mitigation costs is contingent on we are not concerned as much with what the parties might tell us agreement and all of the related actions addressed in the invalidating the various agreements for reasons that do not agreements were invalid, the trial court then dismissed the two vires issue cuatro now attempts to advance on appeal, and cuatro consent among the contracting parties to the terms of the joint -- that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to asserted only perfunctorily. (see santa teresa citizen action question, (2) the contracts are validatable, (3) the public discretion in this aspect of the trial courts ruling. the fact thereafter, in october 2003, the quantification settlement federal government -- had any obligation under either of those approach on the part of the water agencies to addressing the colorado river water under the boulder canyon project act. carter, for plaintiff and appellant imperial irrigation validation action is focused on the validity of the actions projects authorized by the act were the same as those provided the morgan/holtz parties are limited to walter j. holtz, michael metropolitan, and san diego, we conclude the subject documents coordinated cases (super. ct. sac. county, no. 03cs00083), and a ",,[r]eplacement costs," and ",,[u]nused capacity." can further conclude that no alternate basis for affirming the agreements. use of the term in a broad sense like this can be argument of the barioni/krutzsch parties, the meeting of the other but with constitutional requirements and limitations. districts position included the air district, cuatro del mar mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid providing that "[t]his agreement contains the entire it is within the context of this fight that we are called superior court (1970) 2 cal.3d 557, 566), which is shown only if 107 whether the trial court properly concluded that the united coordinated proceedings. in its narrowest sense, "the qsa" in the wake of water rights decision 1600, the irrigation encompasses only the validity of the irrigation district's 68 manner that will render it unlawful if it reasonably can be the county's cause of action infants and insane persons. of particular significance is joint powers agreement unconstitutional, and having rejected all adjudicating the issues in that action, it follows that the courts judgment in february 2010, we find several points of ceqa (which was denominated the second cause of action and was appeal. slesinger does not authorize us to do what the settlement agreement -- specifically, the quantification electronics corp. v. citibank delaware (2004) 120 cal.app.4th california, 2.8 million acre-feet to arizona, and 300,000 acre- [the state] will pay any unanticipated costs beyond $133 lease period -- and those contracts could be understood as effect, the secretary of the interior requested from countys cause of action for violation of the wheeling statutes that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims the united states and the indian settlement parties were quantification settlement agreement and 12 related agreements prohibition is to prevent a situation where a public official evidence that carter "had a ,,financial interest in the issued a document memorializing the ",,key terms" for a proposed in the trial court, the countys position about what in other words, the citys obligation to turn the property into quantification settlement agreement and not at any of the water." (county of inyo v. yorty, supra, 32 cal.app.3d at person, the amount specified in the act--viz., five dollars for determinations. government code section 1090 provides in action: was it the approval of "the qsa" in its narrow sense -- having rejected the sole reason the trial court gave for allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant" and actions, the proponents of those actions contend the trial court to contract." (barham v. barham (1949) 33 cal.2d 416, 429.) thus, the two ceqa actions at issue now did not move forward for uncertain." (ryan, at pp. 187-188.) on the other hand, "it 7 owners had refused to wheel water or had allowed the movement of parties under the san luis rey water rights settlement act to that end, in 1998 the irrigation district entered into -- not even the irrigation district -- has asked us to remand of water resources that the rising waters threatening his order to determine ,,whether in equity and good conscience the the county before a water transfer can be authorized, as the order for that money to enforce the states payment obligation extensively briefed and the case was twice argued. the court jurisdiction under the circumstances presented here. complaint." (fpi development, inc. v. nakashima (1991) 231 acceptable." as we will explain, we find no merit whatsoever in not include the trial courts [necessary parties] ruling." the subdivision (b) of code of civil procedure section 389, however, agreement as a whole supports a construction of section 9.2 of p. 571], italics added.) "[t]he secretary's power must be being the only determinative factor as it was under the previous in the two ceqa actions. the trial court denied both motions. million acre-feet entitlement and on the irrigation district to be forever binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein on november 10, 2003, the county commenced its ceqa action in this proceeding." these observations were offered, however, petitioning for either administrative mandamus (code civ. proc., agreements and actions that were addressed in the peir. "it is not surprising that the pressing necessity to [their] terms." (id. at p. 346.) accordingly, the court denied petition in its ceqa action. the first cause of action in that case was calendared for oral argument. as to three of those economic and environmental effects of the transfer of water from article xvi of the california constitution should be upheld is "the subject of" that action is the approval of the project subjective intent of any individual involved. [citations.] the avoids the constitutional infirmity the trial court found in 58 ones in which commitments to fund open-ended and potentially "[l]imiting the countys challenge to the [quantification trust; vessey land co., llc; and vessey & co., inc. on appeal, decision. we do this because "we review the judgment, not the incurred in excess of the constitutional limit." (id. at there was no draft of the joint powers agreement in the accorded among the parties joined." (advisory com. note, adjudication of matters outside the jurisdiction of the court." and the quantification settlement agreement were both invalid irrigation district, coachella, metropolitan, san diego, vista, deny a bona fide transferor the use of the facility if the indebtedness" (kaatz v. city of seaside (2006) 143 cal.app.4th provide such a method, and, as we view it, the method chosen was district argued (among other things) that the trial court lacked which the trial court entered judgment against the county on the was, as [the irrigation districts] chief counsel, a public (wat. code, 1810.) the requirement that the owner make its the court limited its finding of a constitutional violation to what project approval was "the subject of" the countys ceqa settlement parties would be less if invalidation of the order to control floods, improve navigation, regulate the essentially the same as the arguments of power and the county test is "what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a officers to sign a particular version of the agreements, the and remand that action to the trial court for further metropolitan, leaving 200,000 acre-feet annually for san diego. certification of the quantification settlement agreement peir determined that it would "henceforth view [the countys ceqa rationale, and may affirm if the judgment is correct on any river water from the irrigation district to the san diego county absence of statutory directive th[e] court ha[d] applied to a reasonable manner and must make written findings. (id., 389, subdivision (b) factors" in that case. (county of demand within california, the board ordered the irrigation encompassed the water transfers to be accomplished pursuant to (1996) 49 cal.app.4th 64, 70-71.) facility must timely determine the amount and availability of meaning. [citation.] "if there is no ambiguity in the language quantification settlement agreement. power and the county have not proven to our satisfaction that we issue in the validation action only by virtue of the answering brought ,,in a court of the united states. [citations.] if lined canal or to line the previously unlined portions of the nor any two of them ever entered into any apportionment compact defendants had a cognizable financial interest in that contract, annually than the 4.4 million acre-feet to which it had when a bona fide transferor seeks to make use of the unused cal.app.4th 14, 21.) "in other words, it is judicial action, action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be million acre-feet -- the total amount of californias basic that the trial court erred in entering a judgment invalidating diligently as they could under the circumstances, the trial the act--would become due such person from the state, and, no 134 with open meeting requirements, the court specifically stated in not affect the question as to the constitutionality of the accepted employment and performed work for a public employer, as we have noted, in opposing the motion to dismiss, the county xvi of the california constitution], when . . . the legislature, reasonably be construed as lawful and consistent with the operation of law and thus was not subject to such a challenge. 92 purposes of section 21167.6.5(a). what remains to be action to determine the validity of [the agencys] bonds, under the agreement even in the absence of an appropriation made should proceed among the parties before it, or should be sacramento v. slater (e.d.cal. 2000) 184 f.supp.2d 1016, 1023 acre-feet of conserved water to san diego annually (the transfer cuatro does not dispute that the quantification settlement san diego and metropolitan moved for summary adjudication of the purpose of the water stored as aforesaid except by contract made recognized and treated as national, not local. arizonas united states to provide water to the indian [settlement with . . . all applicable california and federal environmental agreement peir was "the qsa" in its broad sense, which administrative record (a fact that has not been shown), we do districts prima facie case in the validation action was whether the irrigation district sought to validate, and the validation purpose of which was to "budget their portion of californias from any mexican obligation, a position arizona had taken from the trial court to complete its adjudication of the matter, we the allocation agreement, to which . . . the indian settlement this is consistent with the quantification settlement court found no evidence that he "had a ,,financial interest in of ontario v. superior court, supra, 2 cal.3d at p. 341.) while mainstream of the colorado to give life and growth to the decline to consider this claim of error because it is not set appellant imperial county air pollution control district. intention is to be determined, whenever possible, from the misleading." to the extent that contention is just another well. by refusing to waive sovereign immunity for [apa] actions to determine compliance with the federal clean air act, the states in both basins, refused to ratify the compact. premise that under the wheeling statutes, before they acted to agreement (the joint powers agreement) -- was unconstitutional. the same, to the end that such actions shall be speedily heard in june 2007, this court affirmed the trial courts ruling. on appeal, we dispose of a few preliminary matters. first, the river into a controlled and dependable water supply desperately connection with the quantification settlement agreement. and in but even if we assume the arguments are properly before us, we and deny this request on that basis. 3 involving water issues in the imperial and coachella valleys," 105 foster, and toni f. holtz. thus, in addressing the argument by coachella, of the legislature, nor can that body defeat the payment of the "after lengthy proceedings, special master simon rifkind jurisdiction by determining that the trial court erred in and substance as the agreement approved by the [b]oard [of the legislature," and because "the event of non-appropriation find no merit in them. from the county that the transfer of water from the irrigation here, we have explained already in rejecting the measure. thus, in the face of legislative intransigence, it is shall not adjudicate any claims or defenses based on the federal jurisdiction over any issue of compliance with nepa extends to "recipients" of that approval seems a foregone conclusion, as the validity of its action. it does not refer to other parties hearing or trial, and in hearing or trying the action or 39 ",,quantification settlement agreement means the agreement, 151 returned to arguing that its ceqa action was directed only at 9.2 of the joint powers agreement makes the states obligation "the court may not assume, in the absence of evidence, that the water resources (2010) 185 cal.app.4th 969, the appellate court 145 51 in april 2008, the air district filed motions to intervene than the state can use -- ensured the fight would continue here, on the cross-appeals filed by power and the county in draft [joint powers] agreement in the administrative record at the filing of the ceqa actions in the fall of 2003 and the trial for the foregoing reasons, and as explained more fully parties] will remain in place" "[e]ven if the allocation their argument on this point. without more, we are not california constitution can be found in bickerdike v. state meet such obligation." (riley v. johnson (1933) 219 cal. 513, have answered that argument already above. the validation "employees who work during a budget impasse obtain a right, davis (2003) 30 cal.4th 528. one of the issues the supreme agreement." limitation) and with responsibility for any additional costs to render the joint powers agreement void as an illusory for its part, the county argues that the "attempt" of the amend, and granted another dispositive motion, with respect to principal [water] transfer" "unless the imperial county board of (a) the amount and availability of unused capacity. [] needed in so many states began to be talked about and recognized directing city, pending such preparation, certification and that was not ,,arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in would have to "explain why the reviewing court should 14 the barioni parties are donald v. barioni; beach line necessary to support a reversal, but may (and should) consider the natural flow of the colorado was too erratic, the river at government code section 1090 violation. approved "the qsa, on the terms and conditions set forth in the allocations of californias share of colorado river water powers agreement] will be made." nepa in the federal courts alone, nothing any of the parties an apa action against the secretary [of the interior] in federal on appeal, andrew krutzsch has apparently thrown in his lot disposition of the ceqa actions, the trial court made some in january 2004, the imperial county superior court granted on november 5, 2003, the irrigation district commenced the issue here did not involve such arrangements, the argument goes, that same day, san diego, coachella, metropolitan, vista, and seepage recovery facilities in the vicinity of pilot knob to menace, especially disastrous in californias imperial valley made from the colorado river for irrigation in the imperial of california law. action, and its affirmative defenses, "put compliance with of the california constitution. "the subject of" the countys ceqa action for purposes of employment generally are established by statute rather than by the effective date of ceqa." (yorty, at pp. 797-798.) in that fall of 1903 the water from the new canal was irrigating up to economy or the environment of the county from which the water is argument, so we will not consider it any further. the foregoing reasons, the court has jurisdiction to rule on -- the interstate fight over colorado river water interstate streams. nor was the local law of prior and/or county of san diego to 112,000 acre-feet. ultimately, but continued the hearing on the motion to transfer the lippe gaffney wagner and keith g. wagner; caryn mandelbaum 163 imprisonment and disqualification from holding public office in 55 intent of the parties" -- we are not persuaded. as we have court apparently concluded the potential prejudice of a judgment of the joint powers agreement provides that "the authority shall determined that the united states and the indian settlement kenyon yeates and bill yeates in amici curiae for defenders case, nor do the minor differences of detail minimize its force their brief, but the trial court rejected the argument in its before the 20th century, various temporary lakes had partners; donald l. howard and kimberlee a. howard as trustees; agreement) in resolution no. 10-2003, the united states and the (state farm mut. auto. ins. co. v. superior court (1991) 228 countys varying characterizations of its action. instead, the because: (1) the countys ceqa action "indisputably challenges increasing diversions from the river, as agricultural drainage on the trial court in this validation action. p. 13.) in august 2007, the stay on the coordinated proceeding constitutional reading of section 9.2 of the joint powers 4 the sole exception was that the court entered judgment 66 the employee obtains certain rights arising from the legislative intended only for financing arrangements involving bonds and the judgments in imperial irrigation district v. all jurisdiction over these actions in the federal courts." included the water transfers under the allocation agreement, to unapportioned by the compact. the permitted agreement also was the federal clean air act and nepa cannot be adjudicated in this because they violated the federal clean air act.43 water conveyance systems by others provided, inter alia, unused the gist of their argument appears to be that the irrigation 99 assuming for the sake of argument that all three "negotiators" to the extent the barioni/krutzsch and morgan/holtz parties appropriated by legislative action, a court transgresses no powers agreement signed on october 10, 2003, was ultra vires and mechanism for ensuring the mitigation required for contingency, however, is not a debt, or does not become a debt environment. [citations.] the purpose of an eir is to inform constitutional contract provision does not afford state 21 this conclusion also applied to a third ceqa action that public or private project that is not exempted by statute. its representation of various other clients in "matters thus, as explained more fully hereafter, while the joint person cannot say that the parties [to the agreement] have all the citys writ petition. (id. at p. 348.) (1904) 144 cal. 681. as the court explained there, "such debts agreements," which included the allocation agreement. thus, air act "by causing and contributing to the discharge of air michael l. rood, county counsel, katherine turner, deputy outstanding issues in the action. in doing so, the trial court comply. (city of ontario, at p. 339.) the city sought a writ acre-feet of the waters apportioned to the lower basin states by all events payable" by the state because of its commitment in of water among the lower basin states, that out of the average powers agreement was constitutional -- because if there was no choosing between users within each state and in settling the obligation at issue was the obligation of the city of sacramento myers, supra, 29 cal.3d at p. 540.) for example, in mandel the 144 may 7, 2010, we granted both petitions, staying enforcement of that entity is a necessary party in a ceqa action challenging parties could do so only by agreement with water conveyance north to south and 300 to 500 miles wide from east to west-- did not argue the ultra vires issue in its trial brief. (id., 1580.) which the court proposed to invalidate 11 of the 12 agreements they were, the trial court observed that "[t]he u.s. and the drop 4 . . . ." annual delivery of water at lee ferry required by the compact -- legislature might, hypothetically, refuse to appropriate funds as to osias, they assert "[h]e had professional, i.e., though it cannot be entirely "avoided," that factor weighs in ronald and laura leimgruber, in propria persona, defendants factual detail as the allegations of a complaint. cuatros mean that state employees who work during a budget impasse do so confirm its title to water in the colorado river system and to we agree with the trial courts reasoning on this point and controller is authorized to pay a state employees salary on his in section 21167.6.5(a) refers to the approval of a project that preference over all other civil actions before the court in the exercise some influence." (people v. vallerga (1977) 67 judgment,49 section 870, subdivision (a) of the code of civil lessened or avoided." (italics added.) under this provision, and the air district on october 31, 2011, opposed by the compliance is provided by the challenged eir, at least where 128 trial court also erred in finding the ceqa actions moot. it the colorado river flowed into the salton sink instead of the section 1, article xvi of the california constitution. million acre-feet allocation. shown. states excluding alaska. much of this large basin is so arid on proceedings that no party claims were fairly conducted." primary, it shall have been submitted to the people and shall environmnental [sic] regulations and laws prior to execution of upon the existence of an available appropriation" (id. at of all water used in san diegos service area. complaint, they must be raised in the answer as ,,new matter." creates no private right of action, challenges to agency county argues here. water code section 1810 does allow the g canal dug partly in mexico and partly in the united states. obligations that, while perhaps uncertain in amount, could in no showing need be made under subdivision (a) of code of civil settlement parties" and then later noted that "neither the u.s. statutes alleged substantially as follows: compliance" and "no other agreement." final list of issues to be litigated in phase 1a of the trial. specifically to satisfy that obligation. appellate jurisdiction, rather than its original jurisdiction, from the treasury in the absence of an appropriation by the on february 19, 2010, the irrigation district appealed. vastly different statute than it is now (and was in 1979). in and related agreements contend the trial court erred in finding the aggregate liability of the three water agencies (the national environmental policy act (nepa).6 that such a determination was unreasonable. directors] approved the draft outline" of the agreement on validation action." (county of imperial v. superior court, absence of an available appropriation." (ibid., italics countys ceqa action based on the countys failure to join the language used indicates the intention and object of this persons interested (super. ct. imperial county, no. district engaged in negotiations with metropolitan to transfer had actually been dismissed five days earlier. despite this courts ruling on the motions to intervene to be properly before based on the foregoing, we decline the invitation of power of ontario was that the trial court there had good cause for and became the boulder canyon project act of december 21, 1928, paragraph (a) of article 3 of the colorado river compact, plus with the quantification settlement agreement.1 in the first case corrections & rehabilitation (2008) 168 cal.app.4th 231, 251 ultimately, all the supreme court actually decided in city following the observation of this fact that the supreme court action, do not challenge this finding by the trial court. nor quantification settlement agreement and its related agreements impacts to the salton sea that stem from causes beyond simply effect, however, it expresses the policy of the supreme court the countys first amended petition for writ of mandate in the countys pleadings is to the qsa and its components" and "it six of them pending calendaring and assignment of the panel. we the county had sought to validate and to dismiss the ceqa courts judgment in the validation action. to the extent the in its final list of issues to be litigated in phase 1a of prior appropriation made by the constitution . . . ." (id. at omitted.) californias phenomenal growth, the upper basin states had "precluded discovery on the [government code section] 1090 34 annual allotment of 4.4 million acre-feet of colorado river mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen district of southern california, coachella valley water consideration of an eir before any public agency approves a bitterly hostile to having arizona tributaries, again water code section 1812 provides that "[t]he state, the basis for the argument is as follows: at trial in llc; and charles h. westmoreland and alexa westmoreland as unreasonably affect the overall economy or the environment of chairperson of the judicial council authorized the presiding "[t]he scope of the . . . peir has been known since it came into was held to have created a comprehensive scheme for the colorado river water available to satisfy the existing level of irrigation district, metropolitan, and coachella -- or was it cal.app.4th 892, 921.) in such an action, "there are no 13 in the trial court, the morgan/holtz parties consisted of motions to dismiss based upon indispensable parties to be code section] 1090 violations, the morgan/holtz parties assert basin states, the governors of those states met at denver in november 24, 1922. the agreement, known as the colorado river the issue regarding compliance with the federal clean air so, because we cannot send the validation action back to the because in its revised statement of issues, which "identifie[d] agreements. indian settlement parties were integral parties to the expressly found that [the] plaintiffs had shown ,,good cause to may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized of the irrigation district in the validation action. coachella, involved in the case, presented upon such appeal, and necessary delay. confirmed by the fact that when the irrigation district, in "a question becomes moot when, pending an appeal from a there being excess mitigation costs, and a contingent obligation might, in appropriate circumstances, be able to enforce the signed by the end of 2002, however, the secretary of the complaint. as we have noted, with the exception of the countys cause restated addendum thereto dated september 2003"), it also and respondents donald v. barioni, beach line citrus, llc, bixby related agreements. for guidance on remand in the validation action, we also agreements contemplating a violation of the law. on the on review, the supreme court discussed the "humble and the county to adjudicate the merits of the ceqa actions states bears on "the extent of the relief that can be accorded on appeal, it is not entirely clear whether the countys 21 acre-feet, with nevada for 300,000 acre-feet, and with arizona that "the subject contracts, identified as contracts a through l one of the 12 agreements related to the quantification 1135, fn. 4, italics added.) "a validating proceeding differs already parties." (code civ. proc., 389, subd. (b), factor [on the contract] until there is an appropriation." pp. 70-71.) when that ditch became clogged with silt, the that the indispensable party issue can be raised at any time california to reduce its annual use of colorado river water in the faults of the latter." (davey v. southern pacific co. as ,,necessary parties). then, subdivision (b) sets forth the of reaping the benefits it represents to them, respectively." that barred public officials from being personally financially resources control board (c059264).) that left six of the believed to be their fair share. these fears were not without river water delivery agreement]." district service area, san diego county, [and] imperial and settlement agreement], [the delivery agreement], and other 38 it is not entirely clear that cuatro intended this argument laws . . . ." even though the united states (or one of its service contract with or the right to receive water from the during the briefing in these cases, and we deferred ruling on contrary, it will be deemed that they intended a lawful, rather california constitutional mandate of article x, section 2."10 be able to obtain in the validation action is any relief here, the federal apa provides that "[a] person suffering legal however, that the stay on the coordinated proceeding was lifted. constitution inapplicable. such uncertainty is present here but for the growth in agriculture that was supported by constitution, which precludes any city from incurring ,,any settlement agreement the irrigation district did not seek to furthermore, "[w]hen a contract is reduced to writing, the therefore these appeals are not moot on that basis. but when san diego and metropolitan moved to dismiss the fact that: (1) section 21167.6.5(a) applies to "an approval directors]." according to cuatro, this means the irrigation quantification settlement agreement between and among those xvi of section 1 of the california constitution], cannot be vires and void because it was substantively different than what agreements] to be valid, legal, and binding, including without in its statement of decision, the trial court set forth action and the two ceqa actions for further proceedings. boundaries." the law of prior appropriation, that control the apportionment compliance with nepa has not been achieved." district sought to validate were properly subject to validation, matter is of general public interest and is likely to recur in county did not name metropolitan and coachella as parties within 154 of california (by and through the department of fish and game), cause of action. agreement for transfer of conserved water by and between the "[t]he judgment [in a validation action], if no appeal is taken, well-settled rules of interpretation of a contract, endeavoring (cal. const., art. i, 9), the state is constitutionally the trial court erred in adjudicating the cause of action for 155 coordinated action"].) district to validate its actions in entering into those certain "incorrect statements" in cuatros respondents brief. agreements are substantially in the same form and substance as not of itself create any debt or liability. it was simply an the barioni/krutzsch parties and the morgan/holtz parties asparagus." (recognition of service of justice stanley mosk "the apparently inconsistent assertions by the county regarding following the receipt of written comments and oral argument 1094.5) or traditional mandamus (id., 1085)"]; friends of taking a position at odds with the irrigation district, which 143 24 it has long been understood that "no indebtedness or countys ceqa action was assigned case no. 04cs00878. question of whether, interpreting the joint powers agreement as state without an appropriation. thus, reading the joint powers letter was written) stated that the firm was going to continue same as "restoration" of the salton sea, as the concept of plaintiffs counsel that [they] did not apply constitute[d] good adjudicating those cases in the first instance is not other similar official to make appropriate expenditures from agreements cannot be upheld based on this issue.33 rights . . . ." (bank of california v. superior court, supra, document as consisting of separate judgments for each of the cal.app.3d 721, 725.) colorado river water of ,,four million four hundred thousand "team" involved in negotiating the agreements had financial the subject of the action for purposes of section 21167.6.5(a). receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, section 1091s or section 1091.5s exceptions for remote or defendant"]; unilogic, inc. v. burroughs corp. (1992) 10 federal clean air act, objecting that "[t]o the extent that the court dismissed powers and the countys ceqa actions on the because, as the countys petition alleges, "the qsa" is the payment of portions of the salaries of district judges. (id. at as we have suggested already, the key to understanding how irrigation districts position was larry porter.15 the water agencies cite any authority for the proposition that a of that constitutional provision. we likewise reject other unconstitutional, where that action exceeds the limits of the written findings. in any judicial action challenging any to cover. unless and until that contingency occurs, the state quantification settlement agreement and associated ceqa the parties supporting the quantification settlement agreement this point in the proceeding and unfounded suggestions that of them, approved by congress on or before january 1, 1929, but unreasonably affecting fish, wildlife, or other instream chapter 617 of the statutes of 2002,[39] board of directors and the version of the joint powers agreement would not be able to assert the lack of an appropriation as a applicable appropriation. (see also valdes v. cory (1983) 139 written document unless the interpretation turns upon the and the court erred in concluding otherwise.47 in the canyon section of the colorado river and an all-american economy or the environment of the county from which the water is in determining whether we should adjudicate the ceqa at all,56 they are asking us to review in the first instance a . . . are intended only for financing arrangements involving obligation to pay the excess mitigation costs illusory, it does regulations as he may prescribe, to contract for the storage of meeting issue on appeal, we must remand for the trial court to parties were "recipients of approval" for purposes of there was no meeting of the minds on the joint powers agreement. family living trust; mark n. osterkamp; osterkamp farms, inc.; r percent of all inflow into the sea. laws at issue in this case. more importantly, however, county and the air district, we also find the subject documents transferred -- must make a finding that the transfer will not the . . . agreements." he explained that copies of the draft of its statement of decision that it did "not in this decision is clear that the way that the qsa is being looked at in the priority in the same amount.9 however, because the total amount it did not "have input from either the u.s. or the indian "between 1922 and 1927 congressman philip swing and senator issues a negative declaration, i.e., a declaration that the the supreme court first observed that "past california sought to coordinate (super. ct. imperial county, no. ecu01643) federal courts. addressing each federal statute in turn, we excess mitigation costs were "expressly projected . . . to cost cal.4th at p. 184, italics added.) "to achieve the objectives income for farmers and others experiencing economic hardship 53 cal.2d 295, 298.) because federal law vests jurisdiction accidental body of water -- along with the ever-growing thirst p. 31.) person would interpret those words.23 parties are central to these appeals, we pause a moment to ,,recipients of approval." we agree. in determining who is a legislature and the money is to be paid out of the general fund having fully resolved the appeals filed by the state, the 1996) 79 f.3d 1250, 1257-1263; see also environmental council of february 2005. but no such law shall take effect unless it has been passed by a supporting the irrigation districts position included the state government, whenever it is willing to take the responsibility of surreptitiously obtain thousands of pages of documents belonging 251, 266, fn. 13 ["as a general matter, judicial notice is not imperial county superior court to assign a coordination motion on appeal, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego contend here, the united states and the indian settlement parties were, until such time as the mitigation costs exceed the $133 million imperial valley as part of the companys effort to promote the approval of "the qsa" in its broad sense, which includes the subsequently, on february 11, 2010, the trial court issued of the statute, ,,then the legislature is presumed to have meant the validity of a particular local governmental decision or constitutional, and that all other matters be sent back for build as a national project the necessary works to control apportionment of colorado river water among themselves" and to make a finding that there will be no such effect before the avila; robert f. snow; m. rodney smith, jr., in amicus curiae on proceedings, it is nonetheless properly before us for decision "the project act became effective on june 25, 1929, by secretary of the interior violated the federal clean air act, maintenance requirements and scheduling, quality requirements, of article xvi, section 1, of the california constitution and advocated by the city. instead, the court ultimately decided 2. jurisdiction over federal clean air act and nepa regarding the transaction," the supreme court concluded that "it clean air act or nepa at issue because not even the air district the countys cause of action in its ceqa action; however, other." (civ. code, 1641.) "[e]ven if one provision of a jurisdiction but instead will leave it to the superior courts to under subdivision (b) of code of civil procedure section 389 in "[a]s in any case of statutory interpretation, our task is to we find one: the argument by coachella, metropolitan, and san procedure puts that fear to rest. that statute provides that not subject to [ceqa]." would have to prove, as a minimum, that (1) the plaintiff is a 1141.) here, however, cuatro has made no effort to show that found in the quantification settlement agreement peir the county outset, metropolitan was made up of 11 cities, including los here, the trial court could have reasonably determined that congressional plan for the complete distribution of waters to as "the principal mechanism for ensuring that required "an interpretation which renders part of the instrument to be agreed upon the same thing in the same sense as contemplated by procedure] section 389 analysis." but there is absolutely no continued to seek new ways to satisfy their water needs, which warrants, contracts, obligations or evidences of indebtedness." entitled to water under those priorities. for instance, the it productive and inhabitable. . . . in the second half of the -- which limited californias share of the river to far less between the state and its subdivisions would be void." factor, the trial court reached no clear conclusion. the court argument appears to be that members of the irrigation districts manifestation of their assertion that the absence of the draft the terms of the statute do not, by any stretch of the at p. 1074.) for purposes of government code section 1090, the [boulder canyon project] act and the secretarys contracts, not used for agriculture on nearly 500,000 acres in the imperial just as in chester, in mahoney the citys obligation to promise. [citation.] a similar exception must be recognized in ruling on the motion to dismiss, the trial court water only after protracted negotiations. the legislature colorado river tributaries in its allocation scheme and was that may be interested in the outcome of the action." (planning extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by principles of contract law and reject arguments based on xvi, section 7 of the california constitution, it is also intervene in those actions is not properly before us because the the time of contracting insofar as it is ascertainable and they are mistaken. not have such jurisdiction, but the trial court denied that does not give the irrigation district, coachella, san diego, or governmental entity within the meaning of the debt limit governed by code of civil procedure section 389, which "first agreement is not properly before us (as we have explained in and powers ceqa action. and mark j. hattam; horton, knox, carter & foote and john penn chose to seek relief from this court in the first instance performed his contracts and put the systems contemplated by the that the transfer of water pursuant to the allocation agreement, or other action for which ceqa compliance is only "[i]n vastly different circumstances" than those presented character," their "interests . . . are aligned in terms of (1) the trial court misapplied california contract law when it irrigation district sought to validate were not ultra vires and 137 tremendous benefits expected from extensive federal development general fund for every coyote killed. (bickerdike v. state, cal. 341. in myers, the plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus to morgan/holtz parties advocate -- which is to make a finding of the validation action (excess mitigation costs) to be borne by the state. on this obligation exception to the debt limitation of section 1, those actions.4 sought to validate were "properly considered for validation by environmental organization (power) asserted ceqa violations in liability is created, within the meaning of [section 1, article as we have noted already, while a court cannot order the 98 rutan & tucker, joel d. kuperberg and michelle molko, for priority of 550,000 acre-feet annually, as well as a fifth violating government code section 1090. the gist of their argument that directly addresses the contingent obligation the county asked for a writ of mandate "setting aside the nos. ecu01834 & ecu01886) -- sometimes referred to as the 8.204(a)(1)(b).) enforceable -- i.e., enforceable without the need for an district] into a secondary position." at no point, however, do such "new matter" is also known as "an affirmative fuchs, clifford t. lee, marilyn levin, and gary tavetian deputy even states to build storage dams, construct canals, and install significant to metropolitan and its member agencies. under the under code of civil procedure section 389, subdivision (b)." irrelevant to our resolution of these appeals and cross-appeals conceding that the trial court was correct in finding no with the foregoing in mind, we turn back to the question of 115 seven-party agreement, metropolitan was entitled to a fourth conflict between this growing thirst for water from san diego to and even if we assume for the sake of argument that we have purchases more water from metropolitan than any of the 25 other of days later, the chief justice of california and chairperson the joint powers agreement, which made the states obligation to schedule" after they learned "[f]or the first time" from the because the separation of powers doctrine precludes the courts trial court strongly implied that it likewise had jurisdiction "pursuant to this congressional authority, the seven states associated agreements." (italics added.) thereafter, in ruling jurisdiction in this validation action to adjudicate whether the project not only an all-american canal from the colorado river is the subject of the countys action was the approval that court shall pass upon and determine all the questions of law the trial courts explanation in its statement of decision fiscal, relationships with others interested in the water another." (county of san joaquin v. state water resources commenced in the fall of 2003, they did not get coordinated and in this validation action the question of whether the 121 states and the indian settlement parties (defined below). we those who signed the agreement about what they thought it meant. have it, require a finding that the action should not go other case that involves the . . . peir, by way of proposed court erred in its determination that ceqa did not apply to slesinger stands for the proposition that a trial court has would be used to fund the conservation program. unfortunately, jurisdiction over a matter arising under ceqa in county of inyo, [administrative record], but this was long after the record writ of mandate alleging a public agencys noncompliance with the coachella canal from siphon 7 to siphon 32, or to construct that "this court is compelled to dismiss the appeal and enter a mutual consent -- i.e., a meeting of the minds -- must be one of several factors to be considered in a [code of civil basis. respondents. reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the consulting services" to san diego "concerning financial issues that agreement "to provide for the allocation of an amount of michael l. rood, county counsel, katherine turner, deputy annually from the irrigation district to metropolitan. answers in the validation action opposing the irrigation like the issues raised in the ceqa actions at issue here. the treasury prior to the enactment of an applicable states general fund. "where the appropriation is made by the 114 the unused capacity that was made available pursuant to this "sufficient alignment" to conclude that the existing parties failed to establish the financial interest element of a agencies argument. they are of the view that because a park was not contingent on anything once the city accepted the consensual agreement among the four co-lead agencies regarding ceqa actions as moot, without adjudicating any of the claims in river waters among california, arizona, and nevada. the regional, or local public agencies from withholding use of their morgan/holtz parties cite the irrigation districts retainer appellant county of imperial. agreement for acquisition of conserved water between the with section 7 of article xvi of the california constitution. specifically, the court concluded that "[t]he federal clean air users, state law has no place." (id. at p. 588 [10 l.ed.2d at coordinated cases, with all of the various parties and the tens that the various agreements relating to the quantification 141 not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters in the water transfer conduct" that was the subject of the p. 791].) they meant by the words they used as with how a reasonable subdivision (a) of public resources code section 21167.6.5 question cuatro now argues on appeal, which is that the joint to the extent the county argues that "the obligation of the facility shall in a timely manner determine the following: [] transfer can occur. had in any of the various agreements or how their continued summary of the revised qsa and state legislation" dated 76 of the water code (the wheeling statutes), which the court had facility by someone other than the owner or operator to welcome one for the basin states. but it brought to life strong court finds that "unnamed parties received approvals, [the court issue was only part of a ruling in which the trial court the constitutional provision providing for the payments of would ultimately be paid under the [joint powers agreement] was settlement in the valley. (cooper, aqueduct empire, supra, that any such compact approved after that date should be water supply, the threat of flood remained at least as serious 1812.) in making those determinations, the owner must act in h. nakagawa, for defendants and respondents walter holtz, toni about 1,300 miles through colorado, utah, and arizona and along 164 on to review the judgments in three coordinated cases connected subject of that action are not valid. what the county will not from which these appeals arise. the minds on the terms of that agreement, we have essentially v. bebek & brkich (1956) 141 cal.app.2d 226, 230.) "mutual 27 one of the essential elements of a contract is mutual government. the promise of the government though unenforceable agreement and related agreements and enter into a compact for the ,,equitable division and for former section 389." (cal. law revision com. com., whenever it reviews a trial court decision, whether by means of as ,,volunteers." (id. at pp. 570-571.) on the contrary, defenses in the validation action as well as at the ruling on contracts would be subject to any compact dividing the benefits by the [irrigation district] [b]oard." these findings, however, that the denial of discovery was error that prejudiced their debts, liability or liabilities, which shall, singly or in the the water agencies have utterly failed to show any abuse of to pay the excess mitigation costs "an unconditional contractual thus, in chester v. carmichael (1921) 187 cal. 287, the violation of the conformity provision in the federal clean air appropriate. court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at p. 23.) what we have referred to as its ceqa action actually contained californias share of the colorado river -- the imperial guaranty of water from the mainstream, bitterly fought these tidus, alene m. taber, and kathryn m. casey, for defendant and general, john l. smeltzer; stephen m. macfarlane; aaron p. executed in violation of the [federal clean air act]." unlimited amounts have violated constitutional debt limits." 111 led to the first arizona v. california decision in 1963] began ultra vires argument as an issue cuatro intended to pursue at or her regular payday even in the absence of a duly enacted and ultimately denied san diego and metropolitans motion to dismiss legislature possesses the power to stop the whole machinery of resolution. that exhibit consisted of a "list of qsa connection with the issues that ultimately led to the defending the [quantification settlement agreement] for purposes here. more specifically, cuatro suggests the contingent since 2002, the date of the final peir." the court ultimately district] as plaintiff in these contract validation proceedings us, "[t]his court can proceed to the merits." in support of statement that the job was so big that only the federal 1891, which provided for a bounty of five dollars for each required to comply with water code sections 1810-1814, and on 1) with respect to the request filed by the county and the f be ,,first in time and therefore ,,first in right. nor were trial courts judgment in the validation action. as to the ceqa coordination motion judge. in may 2004, judge donnelly ordered completion of the improvements, "with a prescribed minimum unequivocally refutes the countys argument that the four water 17 salary that has been earned." (id. at p. 571, italics omitted.) ignacia s. moreno, united states assistant attorney act of 1929). the california constitution, which provides that "[m]oney may be law offices of patrick j. maloney, patrick j. maloney and the same is true with respect to smith. according to the agencies raised the issue in their appeal; and (3) on remand in pay for those services. but the employee does not have a right 36 for example, the morgan/holtz parties assert that given the colorado river (a lesser amount comes from the state water indebtedness." (1897) 116 cal. 325, 330.) 4 contracts cannot be validated because they were approved and 40 the allocation agreement refers to the allocation agreement obligations," but concluded "[t]his may or may not be true." in judgment against the county on its cause of action for violation the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason "in applying the opposing the agreements assert that the trial court did not err county superior court seeking to validate the quantification [courts must give ceqa actions "preference over all other civil 78 38 irrigation district filed a petition to coordinate the outstanding issues in that action. if we were to adjudicate the employees union argued for the requirement, asserting "that the issues.32 23 the lee ferry flow below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet outset of the countys ceqa action, the water agencies had denied the air districts motion. most the commissioners were able to accomplish in the compact 113 irrelevant to our resolution of these appeals and cross-appeals, "[w]e apply de novo review, exercising our independent this reading of section 9.2 of the joint powers agreement our decision to reverse the judgment in the validation action found that: (1) "[t]he wording of the [joint powers] agreement act of 1891 the indebtedness created by the legislature did not, specifically provided: "[t]he state is solely responsible for of water among the states. moreover, . . . the secretary in absence of the united states," but alleged that if the court "the full liability [of the city] to the grantors was created those negotiations proved fruitless when the irrigation works, and damaged good farmland and crops. at pp. 580, 581 [10 l.ed.2d at pp. 566, 567].) thus, "it is the approving the various agreements and the final version of the the circumstances in that case were markedly different from county counsel; jackson demarco tidus peckenpaugh, michael l. state filed its own supersedeas petition on march 30, 2010. on sierra club case, on which the water agencies rely, are action, then address those that relate to the two ceqa actions.22 inadequacy of a local solution was recognized in the report of appellate court from granting any effectual relief." (gonzalez irrigation district in the validation action would somehow have appeal was taken with respect to that aspect of the judgment, the subject of our decision in county of imperial v. superior be fixed or specified." (california toll bridge authority v. 15168, subd. (a).) here, that "series of actions" was the directly involving the quantification settlement agreement peir, powers authority], including the commissioner representing the diego, and the state offer several responses to this argument, the irrigation district, coachella, metropolitan, and san added.) c. appropriation as a legislative act district]s prima facie case in validation" and respondents did settlement agreement]." based on this determination, the trial already, the states obligation to pay the excess mitigation does not necessarily mean the water agencies would be left with and the secretary to sign the [agreements], upon determination ,,averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which to the final determination of the case"]; 9 witkin, cal. parties were "not indispensable." accordingly, the trial court related agreements," and "[t]he scope of [the action] thus does indebtedness created by the legislature itself must at no time exceed three hundred thousand dollars. it was deemed proper various federal establishments, including the reservations of ventures limited partnership; john r. norton, trustee, norton good conscience the countys ceqa action should proceed even in "the qsa" "is providing a mechanism" for the united states to challenging the agreement. around this same time, metropolitan allocations quieted rivalries between the upper and lower discovered that the october 2, 2003 draft . . . was not in the to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this coachella, metropolitan, and san diego cite one of those cases 52 at the same time, san diego and metropolitan sought summary that it had "timely complied with all laws necessary for [the peir. (b) the terms and conditions, including operation and civil procedure section 389 are necessary parties. but a imperial v. superior court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at p. 40.) inherent authority to dismiss a case when there is evidence actions in the first instance. upon consideration of their act mesh perfectly here. consequently, the trial court has no 142 substantial evidence." (italics added.) five indian tribes . . . . petitioned the board for approval of the transfer. (see county 551 et seq.). (conservation law foundation v. busey (1st cir. recognized where the governmental entity enters into a ["mandate is a remedy authorized by ceqa to review and set aside or substantially lessen the potential environmental impact." contracts had to be invalidated as well because they were thereafter, in december 2002, the board approved the transfer must implement a strategy to enable the state to limit its united states and the indian settlement parties, the county (jccp no. 4353) trial court correctly found the joint powers agreement 1 actually, the trial court purported to render only a single the court will enforce." (winet v. price (1992) 4 cal.app.4th agreement that was signed, not from some prior draft. of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), except in case of by the general manager and the chief counsel that said thought otherwise. meaning of the constitutional provision. but the amounts which to raise, and the water agencies argument to the contrary has federal apa, and because actions under the federal apa can be not have a right to enforce that obligation if there has been no the quantification settlement agreement and related refers to the quantification settlement agreement between the california constitution. 58 the trial court reached essentially the same conclusion to take steps to correct the problem to the satisfaction of the entity not joined in a ceqa action the court must first 96 state, which determination shall be reasonably made." the agreement at issue in these appeals falls within the foregoing remedy the county will have a possibility of obtaining in the point in its opening brief, the difference between a "promise to (1) that the quantification settlement agreement peir is at for water from san diego to los angeles, and the pressure on for all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial of water the use of that facility if fair compensation is paid. [(1922)] 259 us 419, 66 l.ed. 999 . . . held that the doctrine trial of ceqa issues in phases 1b and 1c were fully briefed and response to the appeal by coachella, metropolitan, and san diego 24 coyote destroyed, to be paid to the person destroying it, did people had conflicting financial interests: john carter, the the water agencies could enforce the obligation against the the time of the [irrigation district] [b]oard meeting." excess of 1,000,000 acre-feet could under some circumstances be wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or italics added, fns. omitted.) final version of the agreement is what the board of directors 12 court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at page 13. elements did not include proof that the agreements the united states or that the united states is an indispensable remote or minimal ones, that might impair public officials from countys ceqa action based on the wheeling statutes. we also complain that the trial court "persistently refused" to for the state during a budget impasse has a right to be paid for existence," and "[t]he most significant facts upon which the 53 pp. 71-72.) propriety of validation of civil procedure section 389, the test for whether a party is 41 an affirmative defense asserted by another defendant; and that are capable of repetition, yet evade review." (id. at expression of this legal principle. in 1922, only four months conducted further hearings on the irrigation districts came thundering down from its gila river tributary" and cut a should have conducted a conformity analysis under the federal (3) "material portions of the [joint powers] agreement were in the end, then, just as the county failed to do in county minds on the joint powers agreement; nor do we see such a when a plaintiffs misconduct is deliberate, is egregious, and unpaid that . . . would exceed the constitutional limit, would people, and one excluded from the category of debts created by other things) that the irrigation district was asking "for 59 according to the allocation agreement, under "title ii" the "far-reaching expansion of the [validation] statute[s]" (ibid.), in the second amended complaint in validation . . . , are void appropriation requirement of article xvi, section 7 of the mexico. this proposal foundered because california held out for determining the joint powers agreement is unconstitutional under in the joint powers agreement to pay the excess mitigation costs the [agreements] as . . . required to establish a [government four years after water rights decision 1600, the board two parts, the upper basin and the lower basin, separated at a "(c) any person or public agency that has a water service 1905, "the second largest flood in the rivers known history action (i.e., the second cause of action containing the ceqa cases. and federal environmental laws . . . ." 158 sacramento with ceqa experience. allotment of colorado river water because arizona and nevada not appear to be limited to the qsa." this extent, because of possible needs of the state government. claims) as moot. on the contrary, the state is not obligated to pay anything conserved water to metropolitan in exchange for payments that for a long time, california was able to regularly use code of civil procedure, section 389, subdivision (b) factors." countys ceqa action] included all approvals that relied on the her own tributaries, particularly the gila, and for exemption of use." (id. at p. 1409.) the states of the lower basin. the act as finally passed did contract at all, it was the one all the contracting parties interests." (gulf offshore co., at p. 478 [69 l.ed.2d at turn now to the various arguments offered in the hundreds of quantification settlement agreement and the various related (see cal. const., art. vi, 11), can or should decide in the considered a necessary person under subdivision (a) of code of into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention apportionment . . . of the water supply of the colorado river. cal. 11, 28-29.) the designation of a specific amount, however, jurisdiction to the federal courts when it limited the waiver of san luis rey indian water authority on behalf of appellants. district. a whole, section 9.2 of the joint powers agreement can tentatively set trial dates. the court divided the trial into basic allotment], [metropolitan]s priority [under the seven- karen l. tachiki, linus masouredis, adam c. kear, and john regarding intent, mutual assent, mutual mistake, or ,,meeting of normal years to the 4.4 million acre-feet to which it had powers agreement "must have been . . . available to all other colorado river. while the united states supreme court largely quantification settlement agreement and all of the related settlement agreement and 12 related agreements, including the quantification settlement agreement peir such that it was an cuatros ultra vires argument -- on alleged differences between statutes] d[id] apply to th[e] case," the supreme court 10 principles of contract interpretation are of particular the irrigation district to san diego before they could approve state at all, much less in unconditional terms. thus, . . . court to adjudicate them. frankly, the situation before us is nothing like slesinger. "jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by act. while this conclusion is mandated by law, we also note district sought to validate in this action were not properly parties that filed answers in the validation action that the [joint powers] agreement was constitutional, and that countys ceqa action because the county failed to name the the sense that it is "not conditioned upon an appropriation by compliance with the kinkaid act, began by declaring, ,,the assertion that the united states and la jolla, pala, pauma, 60 district] [b]oards formal approval on october 2, 2003,"; (2) litigation misconduct in the first instance, based on evidence thus, "the separation of powers doctrine has generally been 29 to the extent the morgan/holtz parties have included in the the state [quantification settlement agreement] but also . . . 126 validation of certain of the agreements addressed in the . . . 14 for efforts to be made to obtain an appropriation to satisfy the completely funded. according to the trial court, the state of the state finds support for this distinction in white v. certification of" the quantification settlement agreement peir federal court, against the federal agency alleged to be in (koster v. county of san joaquin (1996) 47 cal.app.4th 29, 44- way be characterized as "contingent." agencies had to obtain a finding from the county about the limit water losses from the all american canal and the coachella 123 nevertheless, the basis for our rejection of the countys prima facie case. thus, it follows that the question of whether in the state courts congress has implicitly vested exclusive differences between what was before the irrigation district parties contend the joint powers agreement violates the debt (ibid.) 131 power nor the county offers any authority for the proposition largely on an october 2, 2003, draft of the joint powers ii the affected area." (county of inyo v. yorty, supra, 32 as for the water agencies suggestion that they acted as beyond a particular amount for which the irrigation district, cross-appeal was from the judgment on two specific causes of sierra madre v. city of sierra madre (2001) 25 cal.4th 165, 171 for "such waters as may be required" for beneficial use on county counsel; rossmann and moore, antonio rossmann, roger b. analysis occurred. according to the air district, "in the supra, 105 cal.app.4th at p. 1451; cal. rules of court, rule concluded that "[t]he outstanding facts of [chester] and legal diego offer numerous arguments in response to the assertion that southern california, from san diego to los angeles, in exchange interior under section 5 hereof prior to the date of such statutory interpretation on its merits because of the importance "validation by operation of law" argument, we likewise do not italics added; see pub. resources code, 21002 ["it is the interpretation of the agreement any more than statements by thus, a writ petition initiating a ceqa action can be filed in a ceqa action like the one before us, public resources metropolitans fifth priority amounted to 662,000 acre-feet. 143 cal. 176, 181.) and even earlier than that, the court petition in the action. we begin with the relevant provisions supra, 144 cal. at p. 683.) in a suit brought by a plaintiff approval and consent by congress. it is axiomatic that the county could not challenge, on its the morgan/holtz parties in filing a single respondents brief. such fears limited to the northernmost states. nevada, utah, of the other grounds offered for affirming the judgment in the transfer project eir, raised primarily in powers ceqa action. supervisors finds the transfer environmentally and economically acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the b. what is an appropriation? trial." not consider the argument of vista and escondido that, even if ---- all relevant evidence, and the court shall give due . . . on express contract"]) or to a subsequent court action for an appropriation within the meaning of the constitution, nothing http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/history_chronology.html.) by 1900, jurisdiction in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the material difference between a contract term that promises owes that obligation to the water agencies as a matter of what should happen "in equity and good conscience" is "the available to minimize that impact." (id. at pp. 184-185, ignored evidence of this fact." indeed, this element of the trial court found that "material portions of the [joint powers] ,,expensive litigation which would hold up or prevent the 5.362 million acre-feet of water annually between the parties, must] then consider whether under code of civil procedure irrigation district has moved to strike what it contends are authorized, and the question of whether there was a meeting of not. this is so because a contract with the government cannot nevertheless, in ruling (erroneously) that it had jurisdiction beneficial use of water conserved by the irrigation district irrigation district sought a court determination that the behalf of appellants. court, rules 8.104(a)(3), (e).) here, the order denying the air 13 have waived sovereign immunity for suits in state courts as shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem. [] the term for 2,800,000 acre-feet of water from that stored at lake mead." drain 242,000 square miles, an area about 900 miles long from from the treasury. but what exactly is an appropriation? under states in connection with the agreements validated in that the legislature. to the extent this was the courts reasoning, courts indispensable party ruling amounted to an abuse of intent--that is[,] what would a reasonable man believe from the p. 774.) in essence, there was no way to ensure that the must be dismissed in the absence of that party. instead, if a deliberate and egregious misconduct that makes a fair trial code section 21167 refers to "[a]n action or proceeding alleging 69 economist who advised the irrigation district on pricing quantification settlement agreement peir did not also result in reject that assertion as well. essentially the morgan/holtz other agreements on this basis. parties respective exceptions to the masters report were misconduct by a plaintiff, the circumstances presented here -- club, inc. (1932) 217 cal. 90, 91-92 [the notice of appeal 152 amount; neither of these requisites can be left indefinite nor the difference between an obligation of the state and the dismissing those actions on the ground of mootness. the proper parties denial of the irrigation districts allegation that it irrigation district and coachella (the acquisition agreement). federal laws. since the irrigation district was not bound to laches. in assessing this argument, the trial court agreed with the joint powers agreement unconstitutional, while the parties compliance with those laws at issue in this case. we reject cuatros argument that the agreements the irrigation tentative ruling, the trial court appeared to find that the agreement apportioned colorado river water among the various the irrigation district with relation to the issues that led to those procedures are intended to ensure that public agencies irrigation district filed its first amended complaint. not put in issue by the plaintiff. [citation.] thus, where matters are not responsive to essential allegations of the coordinated actions is in reference to the qsa and the listed in the statute" and review for abuse of discretion the when the legislature has authorized the use of the appropriated 6 title 42 united states code section 4321 et seq. prejudiced by an adverse ruling in that action, the action not see how the absence of the draft induced the trial court to metropolitan, coachella, san diego, the united states, and the and such obligation is not conditioned upon an appropriation by [a ceqa] action."58 but because the statute applies only to there being excess costs to pay, and a contingent obligation violation of the wheeling statutes in the countys ceqa action. as well. essentially, the court recognized that from the very best he could under the circumstances managing multiple recognizing that we must remand the validation action to this enforcement option available to them not only illustrates the secretary of the interior, through his 5 contracts, both exercise de novo review in ceqa cases, the trial courts role of support for this argument in the trial courts ruling, and the while 3,850,000 acre-feet of water per year was apportioned to in the facility, except that the transferor may, at the acquisition agreement (case no. ecu01649). a week later, the cal.4th 559, 566 ["a party may seek to set aside an essentially, the morgan/holtz parties posit that carters claim the conditions set forth in water code section 1810. the ambiguity in the term "the qsa" runs throughout these sought a decision from the trial court on whether the court had in perpetuity by faster growing lower basin areas, particularly turn to the history of the sea. difference between an obligation of the state and the right of factors both fair and well within its discretion." (county of (1999) 21 cal.4th 1314, 1321.) are faced with the question of whether any issues relating to fair division of the first 7,500,000 million acre-feet of such . . . was not settled on at the time of the [irrigation that ground failed to implement those sections. [] . . . would adequately protect the interests of the absent parties. not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because associates, charles t. dumars and stephen curtice in amicus quantification settlement agreement, two of which were pending the validation action would have to be suspended while we did context the language of the statute." [citation.] in to construct, operate, and maintain a dam and other works in nor are those issues ,,central to the case, as those terms are 47 our conclusion that the trial court has no jurisdiction to of the state constitution from elimination or repudiation by the 85 brief, we deem the countys argument as limited to the trial out of which it shall be paid." (mccauley v. brooks (1860) 16 challenge in its cross-appeal the trial courts determination approve the contract the irrigation districts officers approval for purposes of section 21167.6.5(a) with respect to section 21167.6.5(a). denied the motion to dismiss. the county offers no persuasive argument to the contrary. robie , acting p. j. within $5,000,000 of the environmental mitigation requirement second provided for a payment of $300 per month for the same even assuming everything the morgan/holtz parties want us to interests fear that shipping more colorado river water to the of two hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars. the act of coachella was organized in 1918 to conserve and protect the provided for therein, which were part of the "qsa" project that act on summary adjudication. accordingly, the trial court violate the appropriation requirement of section 7, article xvi determinations falling under the general provisions of the clean cause of action for violation of the wheeling statutes.52 the there is no other provision in the constitution prescribing a of time. ,,first in time, first in right is the shorthand coast will doom the salton sea. eradicate prejudice to the unnamed parties." (county of legislature specifically authorized validation of "the propriety of validation in the first place. finally, with respect to carter -- chief counsel for the the all american canal. almost all of the colorado river water kirkpatrick development, inc. (2005) 130 cal.app.4th 540, 547; which is what brings us to where we are today. menace because california could use that law to get for herself code section 21167.6.5 provides that "any recipient of an unapportioned by said compact. congress in the same section state to draw money from the treasury to satisfy that judgment issue bonds to finance the construction of an automobile racing funds to satisfy an obligation of the state, the courts cannot actions is to reverse the judgment and remand them to the trial pp. 346-347, italics omitted.) in its entirety rule 19 of the federal rules of civil procedure conserved water transfers and the [quantification settlement addressing how payments are to be made." in the states view, john d. jackson, jr., individually and as trustee, margaret m. thoroughly briefed the ceqa actions in the trial court, and prejudice to an absent party is only one factor to be considered allegiance to the public entities they are obligated to serve. issues regarding compliance with the federal clean air act and we have given their agreement to save it from constitutional in an abundance of caution, the air district nonetheless implicitly. thus, the presumption of concurrent jurisdiction of part 2 of the code of civil procedure." the trial court from the owens valley in inyo county until the filing by discussion 17 the validation action was assigned case no. 04cs00875, aqueduct would not unreasonably affect the overall economy or thus, section 14.2 of the joint powers agreement provides can also be filed in the superior court, however, a party who governors of the upper states suggested, as a fair apportionment governmental or proprietary functions within limited constitution, we conclude they are wrong because the states affirmative defense. for its part, the irrigation district but this court determined no such thing. we did observe that by failing to present the draft joint powers agreement to the 25 as this court explained in taxpayers for improving public argument, the morgan/holtz parties complain that the trial court -- to which the california legislature had "irrevocably and a sufficient alternative forum for the countys ceqa issues." los angeles and the desire that that same water be used to save court to correct error in a trial court proceeding." (leone v. capacity of a water conveyance facility, the owner of the in 2002, the irrigation district, san diego, coachella, and connolly (1979) 23 cal.3d 590, 598). any other provision of law . . . thereupon become and thereafter constitutionality of the joint powers agreement defendant and the court. (stephen slesinger, inc. v. walt motion for judgment on the pleadings by a defendant directed at the city "moved to dismiss the entire action on the ground wheeling statutes themselves. in doing so, we apply the more of the agreements -- because no conformity analysis was construed together, the wheeling statutes are unambiguous. mitigation costs is not a debt within the meaning of section 1, agreement by failing to appropriate funds to make the payment two cases on which the water agencies rely to support their imposed by federal law on judicial review of an alleged any of the agreements, the judgment invalidating those were material factual disputes that precluded the court from construed the word "contracts" in government code 53511 as provisions, but is instead a payment arrangement that falls if any further indebtedness became necessary, the people must accordingly, we find no error in the trial courts denial of the 11 trial days in november and december 2009 for the trial of many places in canyons too deep, and the engineering and use. on these appeals, we decline to do so. although we often in the allocation agreement; and (3) the united states and the claimed the peir did not comply with ceqa in numerous regards, trial but simply a method given litigants of rectifying errors, construed in a manner which will uphold its validity." (people the first cause of action) for an alleged violation of the san diego became a member of metropolitan, so that unfair accusations against the trial court of undue delay up to for a similar reason, the air districts affirmative statement, however, the sierra club court cited bank of challenges to the joint powers agreement based on various 75 various agreements to achieve that purpose. (city of ontario v. rendered in their absence." again, this argument is not agreement was invalid, for various reasons the trial court erred of powers principles that preclude the courts from ordering the the terms of an ordinary contract, once a public employee has as will be shown, for years after the united states supreme of the minds -- albeit a meeting on terms the trial court found 101 division of the river waters. hoping to prevent ,,conflicts and recommended that the united states construct as a government disputes continued between the states over their respective generic claim of the [irrigation district] that it has done all strong; law offices of best best & krieger, michelle ouellette nevertheless, acknowledging there would soon be insufficient d. the constitutional appropriation requirement county, no. 04cs00878) are reversed, and the cases are remanded city had entered into a scheme to establish "a commercial b of government code section 1090 was shown here because the factors to follow if such a person cannot be made a party in rational argument that by this broad and straightforward as one large project . . . ." (cal. code regs., tit. 14, mexico, and arizona. the river and its tributaries flow in a of approval" issue only in support of its argument -- in that cannot be used to sustain the endangered salton sea -- 150 certified for publication of our decision on the various appeals and cross-appeals. the scope of its pleading." ultimately, however, the trial and especially arizona were all apprehensive that californias having "a restricted meaning," encompassing "only those quantification settlement agreement and the 11 related does the county. accordingly, we turn to the second factor. evade legal restrictions placed on general law cities." (id. at agreement, and the transfer agreement violated the federal clean smith were public officials." furthermore, as to carter, the set forth in eight different counts) and another (denominated indispensable party determination is the focus of the water "what are the relevant facts on the issue of whether [the the supreme court ultimately did not decide whether government transform the erratic and often destructive flow of the colorado was, in effect, a challenge to the exchange agreement between defenses the county asserted in the validation action based on employees salary at such time would amount to an extent that money was still available for expenditure under such state at a general election, in the manner provided by [article actions, we also will not consider any further arguments the air 520.) the interior was authorized by 5 ,,under such general managed use of the waters of the colorado river system to make among the seven parties to the agreement were the 2. article xvi, section 1 of the california constitution 1. ultra vires not explicitly grant federal courts exclusive jurisdiction to court vacated the phase 1b and phase 1c trial dates. as trial approached" that irrigation district "counsel of wildlife, audubon california, and pacific institute on behalf with federal law can be adjudicated only in federal court. the 74 over claims of noncompliance with the federal clean air act and ecu01649/super. ct. sac. county, no. 04cs00875), power v. larry porter, in propria persona, defendant and respondent. who claimed to be the assignee of $72,330 worth of bounty alleged in their pleadings here could convey that jurisdiction federal clean air act like the one the air district asserts validation action to february. in february, the court granted use their full entitlements. (see, e.g., in re bay-delta etc. limit californias annual consumptive use of the rivers waters. the "contract with the state is not voided by a lack of accusation was "absolutely untrue," and in support of that congress explicitly or implicitly confined jurisdiction over provides further support for the conclusion that the agreement project for which the peir was prepared, the approval of "the does not qualify as a "debt" or "liability" within the meaning the acquisition of conveyance facility capacity to convey the resolution no. 10-2003, certified the quantification settlement cal.app.3d at p. 816.) it was in granting this relief that the was still pending at that point (case no. ecu01658). the the appellants, to establish an abuse of discretion (denham v. indian settlement parties appear to be primary parties actively because the statements at issue -- correct or not -- are the decree found at 376 us 340 . . . (1964). necessary for [the settlement agreements] to be valid, legal, responsible federal agencies complied with the federal clean air however, that while "state employees have no right under the acre-feet as required by the act.[7] to ratify the compact, 4(a) of the act as finally passed respect to that action. imposed as a condition of the conveyance of title to the city. 140 that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that irrigation district, coachella, and metropolitan.8 as these develop a detailed and comprehensive water conservation plan. subd. (b), factor (1).) the trial court found that "the indian and san diego filed with this court a declaration from john from a traditional action challenging a public agencys decision there are some cases that suggest any amount of prejudice actions were moot because of the invalidation of the allowing the plaintiffs in that action to belatedly comply with transfer in united states history. in connection with the p. 341.) on appeal from the denial of his petition, the sole source of fresh water for the imperial valley, and all of that case involved an act of the legislature (the bounty act of particular reason to fear that california, by appropriating and himself in a position of temptation of putting [the irrigation procedure section 389 to make that entity a necessary party. 33 in a footnote in their government code section 1090 unconstitutional because it violated article xvi, section 7 of are authorized to do so in the exercise of our appellate 70 the irrigation district had a prohibited financial interest in section 1 of article xvi of the california constitution. the court under the authority of . . . water code section to the extent the morgan/holtz parties assert, in a related inapplicable to the situation before us. the appellate court in government could do it. quite naturally, therefore, the report do not amount to a finding that there was no meeting of the "the question whether [the validation statutes] appl[y] to the 1072.) government code "section 1090 is concerned with judgment as to the meaning of the" joint powers agreement limited to only those grounds thereafter in its briefing and under federal law, judicial review of a claim under the of section 1, article xvi of the california constitution. we part." (alperson v. mirisch co. (1967) 250 cal.app.2d 84, 90.) invalidation of the allocation agreement. partys absence, comes down to "equity and good conscience." conserved enough water to meet the growing needs of the basin. when it noted that "the ,,approval [for purposes of section the wheeling statutes consist of five statutes. water code the barioni/krutzsch parties essentially argue that, is either subject to ceqa review or is determined to be exempt judge to determine whether coordination of the nine actions was or legislation in question does not create a ,,debt owed by the california . . . environmental laws"; and (2) that the only sufficient to satisfy the state obligation, if any, for costs of the river, that deliveries be made under the [colorado river] making of a contract "encompasse[s] the planning, preliminary allocation of colorado river water was to be governed by the perpetuity [citations]." (id. at p. 1073.) be payable now or at a future time. a sum payable upon a the validation action remain for our resolution before we do so. ground they were moot because they were "predicated upon of jurisdiction over compliance with nepa when they sought [citation.] where a prohibited interest is found, the affected not get their fair share of colorado river water. in view of facility available for such "wheeling," however, is subject to deemed the subject of that action. only then can we determine to reasonable and beneficial use." (city of barstow v. mojave the minds."30 that federal jurisdiction is intended to be exclusive." irrigation district] is not the only contract signatory," we the use of colorado river water." was the subject of the quantification settlement agreement peir "seeking means which would permit ratification by all seven ceqa claims challenging the quantification settlement agreement employees reasonably must be viewed as including a condition for the specific purpose of paying the excess mitigation costs the signing of the joint powers agreement "did not of itself the [quantification settlement agreement] peir includes not only words, the water agencies view of the matter appears to be powers agreement -- because the states obligation is actions (or inactions) of which in compliance (or noncompliance) 116 california's share of colorado river water district to undertake additional conservation measures and to morgan/holtz parties. 97 . . . (1963), and [the courts] views were carried forward in california constitution requires an appropriation to draw money a direct appeal or a writ petition. (see leone v. medical misconduct makes any sanction other than dismissal inadequate to authority." protective provisions in the judgment can ameliorate or matter of setting the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing water san diego receives from metropolitan comes from the correct in the first instance -- the trial court has no san diego (or anyone else for that matter) the right to enforce section 1090 is an interest in the contract. the purpose of the providing that no such warrants should be paid by arguing that here, alleging a violation of the conformity provision in title safety v. schwarzenegger (2009) 172 cal.app.4th 749, the quantification settlement agreement." there simply can be no writing as follows: "at the date of the passage of the bounty countys ceqa action in february 2010, the court entered until the case "suddenly focused on the [joint powers] agreement which does not conform to an implementation plan after it has motion to dismiss the countys ceqa action. settlement parties) were not only "recipients of an approval butz , j. disagree. jurisdiction to rule on federal law questions. there are a host all-american canal from the vicinity of pilot knob to drop 4 and the morgan/holtz parties point to evidence that while advising inconsistent obligations that would exist if the county discuss section 1 of article xvi of the california constitution, agreement peir; (2) the quantification settlement agreement peir of the countys premise, we must examine and interpret the 542], the courts resolution of the dispute between the states might at will create indebtedness to any amount, and it was in exchange for the irrigation district making 100,000 acre-feet (1998) 62 cal.app.4th 835, 842.) thus, by its very nature a party. the united states may be named as a defendant in any the [quantification settlement agreement] peir, and would if ruled, however, that the united states and the indian settlement 73 26 the trial court was "satisfied that [the irrigation simply provides that the legislature shall not, in any manner, and ceqa actions have the same statutory preference. (compare nevada settle their own differences by authorizing them to make necessary, but indispensable." (italics added.) in other very limited alternate remedy." the agency and the public, in detail, about the effect the go, we draw a substantial amount of the general background of here and provides no basis for affirming the judgment in the to the trial court for that court to finish adjudicating the no later than 180 days after entry of the order. (cal. rules of california constitution, if the conditions for the states as an authority here." (mahoney, at p. 264.) in other words, challenged the adequacy of the quantification settlement 77 that "[i]n 2009, the air district and imperial county initiated irrevocably and unconditionally agreed to limit itself. in obligation to pay the excess mitigation costs simply by having because "[c]ontract elements [we]re not part of [the irrigation expressed his suspicion that "certain real parties in interest" court transgresses no constitutional principle when it orders imperial v. superior court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at p. 37.) slesinger held "that when a plaintiffs deliberate and egregious conflict between the parties to the seven-party agreement. d hereafter, we will refer to all of these parties as the performed before the agreements were signed -- that fact has no no. ecu01646), and judgment was entered in that action in diego to pay the excess mitigation costs is "unconditional" in "recipient of approval" issue is not part of its cross-appeal, actions, in the matter of setting the action or proceeding for that language. under the terms at issue here, the states with nepa.48 165 agreement to pay the excess mitigation costs was contingent on trial. consistent with cuatros abandonment of its ultra vires the morgan/holtz parties assertion that the irrigation district instant motion to dismiss is predicated have been in existence existed in the depression early settlers named the salton sink, 1282, quoting ryan v. riley (1924) 65 cal.app. 181, 187.) "to powers agreement gives the irrigation district, coachella, or the moving partys right to proceed in the action." (hodge v. (2) the plaintiff in the action, the irrigation district, did that slesinger -- the sole authority they cite -- is entirely partial judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the trial indian settlement tribes were recipients of that approval for coordinated proceeding. be litigated in phase 1a of the trial did not include the ultra challenged in its ceqa action. in various places, the peir trial court. as the irrigation district observes, "[i]nsofar as and determined"] with pub. resources code, 21167.1, subd. (a) 35 department of pesticide regulation (2006) 136 cal.app.4th 1049, salary is dependent upon the availability of a duly enacted aside ,,a certain sum of money for a specified object in such that section 9.2 of the joint powers agreement violates article permitting it to intervene in those actions. we conclude this the lack of an appropriation by the legislature, could not be within the scope of phases 1b and 1c. the court tentatively set in the court of appeal of the state of california identifies each lining project as "a component of the proposed "state courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction to section 1810 to include in the [quantification settlement without leave to amend in two of the coordinated cases filed by mutual consent to contract the courts are not interested in the and code of civil procedure section 438 does not authorize a parties intended to make an unlawful contract." (davidson v. latter point, section 9.2 of the joint powers agreement payment of the obligation].) obligation. while section 9.2 of the joint powers agreement first, we disagree with the morgan/holtz parties assertion parties. route was through mexico, a mexican corporation was formed and a impose a terminating sanction." (stephen slesinger, inc. v. court then turned to the question of whether those rights injunction from a federal court to halt the reduction, the to allow arizona exclusive use of the gila river, wholly free matter respectively.20 phase 1, which was divided into three its action is not the touchstone.61 rather, where (as here) a that the trial court did not finish adjudicating all of the (power) v. imperial irrigation district et al. -- an understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter statutes forbid any use of the colorado river aqueduct to entirely lacking in evidentiary support?" -- the trial court specifically pled and proved as an affirmative defense in one or as for the two ceqa actions, we conclude that the argument factual and procedural background two causes of action: one for various alleged violations of in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which allegations focused on the alleged insufficiency of the 1925 and again in 1927. as a result of these meetings the the legislature" to pay those costs; in other words, the state the litigation that has brought us here today. accordingly, we 15 in assessing the more than six years that passed between parties argument that the trial courts determination that the denying the motion to dismiss, we begin with the question of valley water district (coachella), and the metropolitan water had broken into the defendants office buildings and secure bands of mission indians, the san luis rey river indian water challenging the quantification settlement agreement peir (case facility who is denying the use of its facility on that basis. the nine actions coordinated, selected this court as the those rulings. the joint powers agreement signed on october 10, 2003, was ultra 166 plaintiff had concealed the investigators activities from the powers agreement] is not dependent on the existence of an the litigation the trial court so that court can finish adjudicating the of the wheeling statutes and dismissed the remainder of the the county asserted there was no "lack of clarity" in its must be addressed by the trial court on remand. agreements. thus, the proper scope of a validation action under was "in no way in point" because in chester (unlike in doland) from the administrative record made that record "materially to determine what approval was the subject of the countys provides that "[t]he qsa is composed of related agreements, diego that the trial court erred in asserting jurisdiction over rising sea level and who, in 1980, complained to the department the judgment in the coordinated proceedings pending the finality be deemed a recipient of that approval. void, as beyond the power of the legislature, any indebtedness a be reversed. this conclusion obviates the need for us to secretary of the interior was "authorized to construct a new failed to include the draft of the joint powers agreement in the the appellants during the trial court proceedings relating to 110 subject of the environmental review." the court further 67 contract law regardless of whether an appropriation has been that the united states and the indian settlement parties were that is central to these consolidated cases -- san diego. allotment -- if california was limited to receiving its basic basins share of the mainstream waters of the colorado river, action based on the wheeling statutes. the trial courts grant pursuant to chapter 9 (commencing with section 860) of title 10 judgment rendered in the persons absence might be prejudicial such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the ruling. (county of imperial v. superior court, supra, 152 legislature. while the state cannot assert the failure of the restraining order, the county appealed and filed a petition for section "9.2 [of the joint powers agreement] provides that the we have noted already, section 7 of article xvi of the in their reply brief. specifically, in sierra club, inc. v. (1940) 42 cal.app.2d 99, 105.) irrigation district did not properly comply with the ceqa before county (including the two ceqa actions).16 of law violates due process, or the morgan/holtz parties invalidated 11 other agreements based on the invalidity of the but we need address only one. they argue the states commitment validation action. outward manifestations or expressions of the parties, i.e., the the salton sea which is the driving force behind the litigation benefits that could be expected from construction by the united metropolitan, san diego, vista, and escondido shall recover does not mean the court cannot consider the complaining partys transported to the valley via the coachella canal, a branch of constitution to the body possessing the power of taxation." recitals in the allocation agreement, the parties entered into joint notice of cross-appeal, asserting the trial court had metropolitan, coachella, and the county protested the transfer -- acting as "co-lead agencies" -- prepared a program can figure out a way to eliminate that prejudice entirely. that completion of the contracts by [the lessor] might never become a administrative record. nearly 50 years ago in arizona v. california, supra, 373 u.s. 42 united states code section 7506, must be sought under section each house and place[d] a bond initiative on the ballot" or if validation action that 11 of the 12 agreements the irrigation answer, cuatro abandoned its ultra vires defense before trial, procedure to a specific class of acts by an agency, [government robert s. pelcyger; barbara karshmer in amicus curiae for amount of indebtedness that might at any time be created by the addition, article 3(b) gives the lower basin ,,the right to 37 in his declaration, carter asserted that "[i]f the case is after the flow of the colorado river was restored to its (2007) 153 cal.app.4th 621, 627.) affirmative defenses must not notwithstanding this objection, the [air district] asserts in power of the legislature to itself create an indebtedness. the rights to colorado river water. "the principal dispute that however, we do not address that action any further, and nothing irrigation return flow was entering the salton sea from the agree. a necessary component thereof the implementation of the . . . p. 978.) as the trial courts ruling shows, while the question of that the trial court actually found there was no meeting of the without injuring any legal user of water and without (id. at p. 586 [10 l.ed.2d at pp. 569-570], italics added.) deciding whether "in equity and good conscience the action 389, p. 418.) under the revised version of the statute, the validation action." the state asks that we "remit the 87 (friends of sierra madre v. city of sierra madre, supra, 25 finally, we need not consider the irrigation districts argument district and the colorado river. obviously, this lack of mitigation cost limitation," which amount was to "be determined by the affirmative vote of three commissioners [of the joint court at the very least strongly implied that its conclusion adjudicated . . . ." (italics added.) because compliance with control of the floods and development of the resources of the capacities." (lexin v. superior court (2010) 47 cal.4th 1050, significance: ",,a contract must be interpreted to give effect parties,13 andrew s. krutzsch, and the barioni parties.14 codemasters group limited (2002) 104 cal.app.4th 129, 141.) exchange of water and shall support its determinations by court has jurisdiction to address compliance with these federal to payment in the absence of an appropriation. thus, while the which involves consideration of the "extent a judgment rendered irrigation district had failed "to comply with all that quantification settlement agreement, may be brought authored by justice hugo black, the supreme court explained as december 10, 2009, the court issued its tentative ruling, in of contracts executed between government agencies . . . are the 12 agreements the irrigation district sought to validate implementation of the quantification settlement agreement was analyzed qsa components that correlated with specific pay the excess mitigation costs by claiming that the capacity is available and fair compensation is paid for the agreements with it -- we next turn to the various other p. 35.) in addressing that issue, "we consider the four factors 46 coachella, metropolitan, and san diego did raise the issue kamala d. harris and edmund g. brown, jr., attorneys an appropriation, the three water agencies could seek a court 1 "ongoing contemporaneous consideration" that was to be received purpose negates that obligation. this leaves the water agencies the purpose for which an expenditure is sought." (mandel v. prior appropriation." (arizona v. california, supra, 373 u.s. the war within the state, or they really liability upon the city." (id. at p. 181.) it was immediately arguments regarding the wheeling statutes are directed at the kara e. granowitz, kimberly a. huangfu, and lisa w. cooney, for legislature still had the power to create a further indebtedness discretion. of californias share of colorado river water that led to the payment if certain conditions arise, and a contract term different" than what the board of directors reviewed prior to even without these arguments, however, two questions remain joint powers agreement violated the debt limitation provisions find it determinative of what project approval is to be deemed civ. proc., 902.) instead, the county raises the "recipient contract, but that is not true. "the rule that a bilateral joint powers agreement, the transfer agreement, and the these fears would keep the states from agreeing on any kind of settlement parties were recipients of an approval that was the water among the various applicants and water users within the water allocated to california in the boulder canyon project act imagination, impose a requirement that the county of origin must california, had ratified the colorado river compact and the 62 provided that, if fewer than seven states ratified within six for the reasons that follow, we agree with the water it is true "[a] party may raise a new issue on appeal if approve [it]." official within the meaning of government code section 1090," to effectuate the mutual intent of the parties as it existed at coordination trial judge. in june 2004, the presiding judge exercise our original jurisdiction to resolve the relatively resolution of these appeals and cross-appeals. filed a report recommending a certain division of the colorado settled the interstate conflict over that water nearly 50 years contract is clear and explicit, it does not follow that that affirmative defenses in the validation action. most of the western states. under that law the one who first applying to the "approval [of a project] that is the subject of "indicat[ed] that the parties to an agreement for which ceqa code civ. proc., 867 [validation actions "shall be given not plead or prove the lack of a meeting of the minds as an absence of these legally mandated analyses, the [quantification with numerous other parties) various related agreements, the giving its decision, if a new trial be granted, the [appellate] concluded the trial court erred in invalidating the agreements through the all american canal to a 1,667-mile network of canals supply. nor were droughts the basins only problem; spring effect of the continued and expanded extraction of subsurface myers (1981) 29 cal.3d 531, 540.) "[i]t is equally well colorado river was to be only 4.4 million acre-feet during colorado river water equal to the amount conserved from the relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the absence of a duly enacted appropriation for payment of such arguments, we conclude the answer to that question is "no." the beginning. sections 5 and 8(b) of the project act made metropolitan has 26 member agencies. metropolitan diverts the result was water rights decision 1600 in june 1984. in clean air act because such a challenge "may only be brought in existence of a draft of the joint powers agreement prevents us youtz & valdez and shane youtz; law & resource planning showed its continuing desire to have california, arizona, and utilities commission the writ of mandate shall lie only from the no merit. have noted, that section provides that "[m]oney may be drawn 56 surprisingly, the county says it is not "urg[ing] this according to the court, "the power to collect and appropriate power of the judiciary, to declare the action of the legislature recognized that californias interest in maximizing its share of aggregate, with any previous existing debts or liabilities . . . , or (2) when a necessary and indispensable party to a ceqa, in practice we will ordinarily not exercise that arguments in the context of the cause of action in the ceqa agency shall act in a reasonable manner consistent with the 1813.) the owners determinations are subject to judicial plaintiff did not use information derived from the stolen argument. the trial courts resolution of the ceqa actions, specifically, adjudicate their ceqa claims in the first instance, to avoid north, and san diego county on the west. the district is the irrigation district. thus, the morgan/holtz parties failed to from granting effectual relief in these appeals. regardless of wheeling statutes is based on a premise that is unsupported by disney co., supra, 155 cal.app.4th at p. 740.) [the] longstanding disputes regarding the priority, use and subject to validation. the other parties, to obtain legislative appropriation of funds mere legal conclusions, were not sufficient to put at issue the [colorado river aqueduct, which has an approximate capacity of appeals and affirm the judgment in the validation action because a. state court jurisdiction over federal law erred in determining that the joint powers agreement violates supported by the record. it is true the trial court once noted pursuant to the qsa until and unless respondents lawfully "mitigation fund agreement and mitigation funding limitation," portion designated in the notice of appeal." (glassco, at only in the validation action, but also in the two ceqa actions to issue its writ of mandate." (id. at p. 815.) agreement were still being negotiated days after the october 2, department of fish and game, san diego, coachella, metropolitan, pending did not involve the sufficiency of the quantification jurisdiction is conferred upon it) not a trial court or court of as we explain more fully below, we conclude the trial court 29 follow the hearing on remand, . . . it is also likely such agreement gives those three water agencies (or anyone else for [settlement parties] participation." the third factor in clean air act or nepa because the court lacks subject matter metropolitan for the transfer of approximately 100,000 acre-feet legislature to enact a specific appropriation -- including an 22 before we proceed with our discussion of the arguments from the foregoing, it is apparent that the word "approval" million the irrigation district, coachella, and san diego water in both of those states, however, pressure increased on plaintiff . . . will have an adequate remedy if the action is the water agencies complain that "[t]he trial court based at issue the ultra vires argument it now advances, we disagree. 118 to the extent coachella, metropolitan, and san diego irrigation and domestic uses . . . . section 5 required these the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be taken by the agency that is seeking the determination of at the time of authorizing the obligation, appropriates money to contracts the court has found invalid." inasmuch as we have normal years and to develop alternate means of meeting its water district does not ask us to, but instead asks only that we "find important to understand a few things about appropriations. as only perfunctorily. (see santa teresa citizen action group v. obligation" that is "not conditioned upon an appropriation by determining the issue of compliance with the federal clean air break in the river bank a mile wide. (ibid.) for two years, on appeal, the county and cuatro both rely on article xvi, project was the subject of its ceqa action shifted back and define the ,,qsa as not limited to the qsa itself, but also the 91 of the river, the basin states requested and congress passed an the water from seller to buyer. some water conveyance system from the colorado river -- that is the real driving force behind evidentiary support." filing a mandamus petition in imperial county superior court set forth in eight different counts. in its prayer for relief, davis reports recommendations that the river problem be state court. both of these situations apply to the nepa and reprinted at 14 wests ann. code civ. proc., supra, foll. 389, beginnings" of the validation statutes in 1961 and expressed the constitutional provision in such a case would be to render coachella, metropolitan, and san diego contend the trial that anticipation, as well as estimates of the projected cost of later, however, when san diego moved to limit the countys land company, robert s. chell, coast imperial partners, donald the joint powers agreement was invalid, the trial court erred in makes any such recipient a necessary party in a ceqa action, is where we must conclude the minds of the parties met. 190, 193.) finding was supported by substantial evidence. unlike the concluded that "a mistaken but reasonable decision by if the trial courts interpretation of section 9.2 of the joint trial court despite knowledge by all of the appellants of its fixing . . . the amount of the salary of a judge, and the stated 54 on this latter point, it is worth noting that the trial jurisdiction is not denied by statute and there is no indication while this inflow may have been a boon for the accidental determine afresh the intent of the legislature by construing in that the burden is on coachella, metropolitan, and san diego, as entity in california received colorado river water would be up xvi of the california constitution, but section 1 as well. in argument on this element to osias and smith, thus effectively from them." as described in one of the agreements, the quantification court now "accept[ed] this concession by the county" and defense that the irrigation district was "without authority in unconditional contractual obligation of the state of california, civil procedure section 389. but section 21167.6.5(a) supplants indispensable party issue into account in weighing the 125 ceqa action as moot, with the exception that the court entered contingent obligation" is not really an "exception" at all; there will be further such delay if we remand the case to the in its answer, the air district denied that allegation and obviously coachella, metropolitan, and san diego, which period. (id. at p. 178.) thus, the terms of the contracts at the countys ceqa action -- a decision favorable to the county. the opportunity to enforce the states obligation by reaching these coordinated cases. san diego and metropolitan "that case law generally allows court abused its discretion when it denied a pretrial motion to of the parties. (civ. code, 1643; see also id., 3541.) cuatro now seeks to raise was adequately pled in cuatros supreme court to such commission." (pub. resources code, 1931. the terms of this agreement, which apportioned a total of 5 title 42 united states code section 7401 et seq. 127 from the treasury only through an appropriation enacted by the legislatures failure to appropriate money for that specific appropriation. to be pleaded and proved as affirmative defenses, they were not 32 them. as a result of those hearings, in order wr 88-20 the senators and congressmen, still insisting upon a definite ceqa action in the absence of the united states, that complaint implementation of feasible mitigation measures that will avoid "restoration" encompasses addressing detrimental environmental -- the debt ceiling exactly how much of that water was to go to each of the parties what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs."" recipient of an approval, while a necessary party, is not that osias was "disloyal [to the irrigation district], placing mitigation costs under the joint powers agreement, and to the each coyote killed by him in accordance with the provisions of including . . . all applicable . . . federal environmental first proposed enactment of the validation statutes. (city of 89 financially with respect to the services he was providing san matter refers to something relied on by a defendant which is statement of decision. the court found that while "john carter particular significance. first, while the actions were court determined that californias share of the water from the shortfall, receiving none of its fifth priority water. as the under its terms, in the course of years, claims might possibly article xvi, section 7 of the california constitution. while hiram johnson, both of california, made three attempts to have [government code] section 53511 [should be understood] to mean are not properly before th[is] court in this validation action" appropriation by the legislature -- while the state had to have annual use of colorado river water to the promised amount in 4,600,000 acre-feet instead of 4,200,000 and because arizona 65 (the quantification settlement agreement peir). the irrigation in july 2004, the validation action and the two ceqa continuation of a pre-existing activity or project born before argument and point to no evidence to show he had a prohibited of the first cause of action in the countys ceqa action, as to of article xvi, section 7 of the california constitution. void.26 cuatro has not asserted that the trial court erred in board of directors approved the various agreements in october limit of aggregate indebtedness. the section goes entirely to other challenges to the joint powers agreement owner of the conveyance facility shall have the right to use any and binding, including without limitation, full compliance appeal will be narrowed, relieving the burden on this court."54 dredged a 60-mile ditch from the colorado river westward to the in determining whether that party is indispensable, rather than in amici curiae for planning and conservation league and "a validation proceeding . . . is a lawsuit filed and upon the acceptance of the deed." (chester, at pp. 293-294.) exceptions. [citations.] as pointed out in section 84(e) of california constitution, which provides, in pertinent part, that subject of the countys ceqa action without reference to the air district did not appeal from the order denying leave to transport water." (metropolitan water dist. v. imperial irrigation district]s action was not arbitrary, capricious, or at the open session before it voted in open session to approve thus, as we read doland, it is the contingency -- that is, the the manner of the creation of indebtedness. it was recognized appointed commissioners who, after negotiating for the better recipient of an approval under section 21167.6.5(a), "we look to generally referred to as a trial. an appellate court is a question of whether the irrigation districts officers had the notwithstanding the trial courts acceptance of the countys some respondents argue that we should affirm the judgment california constitution and accordingly did not violate that part of a year, reached an agreement at santa fe, new mexico, on state water resources control board (the board) for hearing. meet that obligation, and invalidation of the peir could moore, laurie mikkelsen and barton lounsbury, for defendant and to appeal from the order denying its motions to intervene. district asks us to "find that the [joint powers] agreement was dismiss an appeal based on litigation misconduct by an or any action regarding section 1090 violation." the future, a resolution of the issue by the court is article xvi of the california constitution has been applied -- jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the secretary of the interior the argument is so easily refuted -- we address it on that california law, "an appropriation is a legislative act setting amended complaint, cuatro alleged as its second affirmative portion alone must govern its interpretation; the whole of the judgment of a trial court, events transpire that prevent the could be characterized (as cuatro characterizes them) as costs was contingent on there actually being excess mitigation more is requisite than a designation of the amount, and the fund 45 stat. 1057. the act authorized the secretary of the interior 79 when the irrigation districts board of directors adopted the minimal interests." (lexin v. superior court, supra, 47 cal.4th would stand to gain or lose something with respect to the making appropriation, the [actual payment] of such costs is." known examples of such exceptions are voidable contracts of conclude that the trial court erred in finding the ceqa actions is too incomplete to be persuasive. they assert that if the i cuatros position is that the final version of the joint boulder canyon. legislature itself. that body was to have power to create debts than an unlawful, act, and their agreements will be construed, war to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, unless the same in 1999, in comments recognizing and celebrating the million acre-feet per annum. article 3(c) provides that future binding as to those issues. (1), italics added.) in fact, the trial court addressed this this delay in the validation action to allow for our review of mitigation under [state and federal environmental laws] for the[ contracts to be ,,for permanent service and further provided, of conserved water available annually to coachella or because "[i]t is a judicial function to interpret a contract or b. state court jurisdiction over claims under but one of the agreements the irrigation district sought to scheduled 15 court days for the trial of the ceqa issues in metropolitan, and san diego on january 10, 2011, opposed by the the revenue of the state is one peculiarly within the discretion settlement agreement] but also the variety of related actions," customarily brought as a petition for a writ of mandate. (see government officials or employees participated in the making of title ii works," which referred to certain works designed to contracts with various water users in california for 5,362,000 california to "live within its means" when it comes to water parties to the joint powers agreement, and this lack of mutual article shall apply to only 70 percent of the unused capacity." basins. article 3(d) requires the upper basin not to deplete [irrigation districts] board of directors . . . never approved to spend at least $5,000 a year until certain property deeded to simple question of whether an eir was required after the trial coachella valleys water supplies. today, those water supplies 43 in another affirmative defense in its answer to the its judgment. in the validation action, the court decreed that seq. [the salton sea restoration act].) particular, the court noted that "rather than limiting this part) for the allocation agreement." [another] coordinated case and in its opposition to [the] code] section 1090 violation." below, we will reverse the judgments and remand the validation limitation, full compliance with . . . all applicable california cross-appeal, a ruling by which it was not aggrieved. (see code that the legislature should have the power at all times to go to project). imported water accounts for between 75 and 95 percent uncertainty that the government will end up paying any money -- debt until the contingency happens." (doland v. clark (1904) air act are properly analyzed under the apa"].) as relevant countys notice of cross-appeal specified the issues which the the constitutionality of the act. the only possible effect of this argument. within the state for years to come. position largely consistent with our conclusion regarding the expressly reserved in the promise but given by the law. well- in exchange for the obligation. for example, doland involved "[i]t will not be supposed that the parties entered into and the deposit of silt which fouled waters, choked irrigation the significant environmental effects of such projects"].) employees the right to obtain the actual payment of salary from 37 might become due to persons under the terms of said act would of summary adjudication encompassed not only the cause of action agreement could have been used to show there was no meeting of portions of the all american canal and the coachella canal and california constitution, which provides that money may be drawn cal.app.4th 1270, 1277.) "it is the outward expression of the and melissa r. cushman, for defendant and appellant coachella its tributaries within the united states of america. in p. 92.) 86 any contract into which the agency may lawfully enter." (city district, imperial irrigation district, san diego county water or otherwise. thus, reading the statement of decision as a annual outlays of the citys income, which are not provided for indispensable party." (id. at p. 501.) in support of that land, payable in yearly installments." (id. at p. 291.) "so morgan/holtz parties fail to point to any evidence that any of stated that "[w]here the plaintiff seeks some type of term "qsa" as "[t]his agreement, the quantification settlement motion to dismiss the countys ceqa action based on their statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. an action in a that without some such provision the legislative department assertion he explained that while the trial court was correct in does not violate section 1, article xvi of the california on the state to pay the excess mitigation costs, the agreement mutually consented to the reasonable and lawful interpretation regard is directed at the elements that determine who is to be jurisdiction in the first instance, unless the circumstances are second and eighth affirmative defenses, which were alleged as 93 in city of ontario, the city -- acting in conjunction with the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense. and, as we have discussed already, congress has limited agreement because under california law there is a fundamental project," i.e., a component of "the qsa." it aside." the trial court reasoned that "[t]he ,,project constitution because the states commitment is contingent on 2003 to sign the joint powers agreement that was signed, and the there being excess costs to pay, the agreement did not create a assigned the coordinated proceeding to judge roland l. candee. ago, in arizona v. california (1963) 373 u.s. 546 [10 l.ed.2d indeed, by the late 1970s approximately 1 million acre-feet of the validation action it appears the trial court will adjudicate 11 proposed project and condition approval of that project on (sacramento) invalidity. that someone, subjectively, might have had a in ruling on the air districts motion, the trial court the ground that the subject documents are irrelevant to our hereof, and supersedes any prior understanding between the the states breach of the joint powers agreement, and the state mitigation costs even without an appropriation of that money by arizona 3,000,000, and california 4,200,000, and that imperial, at p. 40.) our conclusion there has no bearing here in mahoney v. san francisco (1927) 201 cal. 248, the appropriate to take the iterative and less than thorough properly subject to validation" in the first place. purposes that could be deemed to encompass the payment of excess validation action, asserting (among other things) that the court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at p. 37.) in assessing this alternative forum" to address its challenges to the with the background set forth above in mind, we turn to the september 30, 2003. that summary contains a section entitled the conveyance facility who has an emergency need may utilize here, as we have noted, the trial court determined the cuatros ultra vires argument is based on the fact that consent to the agreements terms provides an independent basis and, in turn, to the litigation that gave rise to these appeals. falls within the inhibition of section 18 of article xi of the on appeal, the state, the irrigation district, coachella, since the pervasive falsity cannot be purged." section 21167.6.5(a), "we must next determine whether the trial 45 42 in its statement of decision, the trial court specifically who engaged in its making is subject to a host of civil and (if peir," not just the quantification settlement agreement. defense in which it raised nepa, the air district took a valley water district. consistent with environmental mitigation for which the state is court, supra, 152 cal.app.4th at p. 39.) on this point, the claims, the state asserted the bounty act was invalid under western farms cases -- were coordinated with the original nine 21168.6.) matter to the trial court for consideration of ceqa and other endeman, lincoln, turek & heater and donald r. lincoln; by that time were increasing rapidly as new settlers moved into chrisman b. jackson; mary a. jackson and chrisman b. jackson as intervene. we further conclude that the trial court properly influence the [agreements] and transfers and hid that evidence approval that is the subject of an action or proceeding brought so far as appears, exceed five thousand dollars. the natural basin almost surrounded by large mountain ranges and cuatro argues that the irrigation districts execution of other beneficial uses, and generate electrical power. the the contract; otherwise, many contracts with the government agencies) is a party to more than one of the agreements the thomas s. virsik; law office of cressey h. nakagawa and cressey mitigation costs among the four parties to that agreement, with validation action based on that supposed misconduct has been joint powers agreement signed by the irrigation districts c064293 with respect to the irrigation district at least, the "project" (bickerdike, at pp. 685, 694.) the supreme court disagreed, imposition of that obligation on the state does not violate the the former statute in a ceqa action. if an entity is a this statute "codifies the long-standing common law rule yorty, however -- after concluding an eir was required -- this the air district contends the complaint in the validation powers agreement must be determined from the face of the court, former chief justice ronald george noted that mosk had even more conducive to future conflict was the fact that fundamental rules of statutory interpretation: ",,initially, in august 2004, the county filed an amended mandamus in effect, the countys cause of action is based on the accrue and remain unpaid that, with other debts, would exceed having concluded that the trial court properly determined transfer matters." in support of that assertion, the provisions that establish the terms of the employment on the first question, we note that none of the appellants (4) the approval of the contracts was by the required vote telegraph systems -- in exchange for the monthly payments that taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if which has unused capacity, for the period of time for which that that we discuss below. way for further apportionment by a compact of ,,colorado river decision intensified fears of upper basin states that they would of the water between arizona, california, and nevada, or any two interests in connection with the agreements that were adverse to water agency (2000) 23 cal.4th 1224, 1236.) compliance with nepa. a farmer-by-farmer, group-by-group, or even state-by-state prejudice to the absent parties could be lessened, the trial "under factor (3) of code of civil procedure section 389, environmental effects if ,,there are feasible alternatives or 10 that constitutional provision "mandates that water be put e. hawk; john hawk; susan m. hawk; jon j. vessey irrevocable parties. (ibid.) in conducting this review, we keep in mind even assuming for the sake of argument that the federal 2003, approval by the [irrigation district] board." in support the county contends the ceqa actions qualify for this courts determined, however, is this -- just what is "the qsa," the thought that some limit should be placed upon this power. the agreement. under white, a state employee who performs services otherwise. and palm tree ranch on the south shore of the salton sea." floods and store river waters for irrigation was apparently a operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried colorado river are peculiarly national problems . . . and then agreements and documents set forth" in an exhibit to the appropriation is no defense," "[b]ut [section] 9.2 [of the joint prosecuted for the purpose of securing a judgment determining it has long been recognized that this waiver of sovereign the actions taken under the transfer agreement and the united states . . . ." (5 u.s.c. 702, italics added.) joint powers agreement; and (2) even if the joint powers before the trial court that the plaintiff has engaged in whether section 21167.6.5(a) applies to a particular person or obligation at issue was the obligation of the city and county of construct the park was not contingent on anything once the city having determined that the joint powers agreement was complaint seeks a determination of compliance with the [nepa] in the quantification settlement only to "refusals (in one form or another) to allow use of air district had alleged in their answers in the validation settlement parties could be prejudiced if the county succeeds in authority to sign the final version of the joint powers this motion." turning to the merits, the court concluded there motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against california of the issue and the likelihood it would recur. (id. at ecu01653/super. ct. sac. county, no. 04cs00877), and county of cal.app.4th 1799, 1810 [whether to consider an issue raised for bonds and indebtedness." because the various agreements at effort to stem the flood was almost complete when, in november with this factual and procedural background in mind, we finally, coachella, metropolitan, and san diego complain were incorporated into contracts between the secretary of the feed the sea. (cooper, aqueduct empire, supra, pp. 72, 74-75.) would not take water deliveries pursuant to the terms of that unconstitutional. accordingly, we must address whether the 12 cuatro is a business entity that "farms a 1,200 acre citrus as authorized by 4(a) and 8(b). after the construction of schlotterbeck, for defendant and appellant the metropolitan conflict of interest, allegations of misconduct, and the issues raised in the validation action before concluding the judgments of dismissal in those actions, we should also take the agreement). this was the largest agricultural-to-urban water to carry out the allocation of the waters of the main colorado 13, 42), that conclusion has no bearing here on the intended 122 law and upon a controllers duly drawn warrant." the trial conflict of interest acknowledged that while "the u.s., the indian settlement from the parties, the trial court issued its "statement of alternative writ and stayed all proceedings in the coordinated california, before the upper states could appropriate what they rule 8.486(a)(1).) "in form, this is a rule of pleading; in asserted that "[s]hould the court exercise jurisdiction to consider what it found dispositive -- whether the joint adjudication in the validation action, premised on the assertion environmental impact report (eir) evaluating the potential forward in the absence of the united states and the indian 11 we note that "mitigation" of the environmental effects of code section 53511 should be given the broad construction service area available for use by the denizens of coastal was to adopt a compromise suggestion of secretary of commerce southwest have been fighting over the right to water from the state, nor any regional or local public agency may deny a bona judgment. coachella, metropolitan, and san diego have not shown "the county is precluded from challenging" "the trial courts have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against told so far, and that is the salton sea. it is the fate of that 28 unlike cuatro, however, the morgan/holtz parties focus agreement] are critical components of the states efforts to determine what approval is "the subject of" that action. only constitutional challenges to the joint powers agreement how the agreement, the irrigation district and san diego jointly agreement is therefore "ultra vires and void." (see generally must turn our attention to the allegations of the petition that including california ratified and unless california, by its courts grant of summary adjudication against the county of that cases, the air district, we likewise conclude the subject documents are who the recipients of that approval were for purposes of thereof." (chester, at p. 291.) in reaching this conclusion, sufficient to establish that any of the three negotiators for


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise