Reproduced by California Resources Agency with the permission of LexisNexis. Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. No copyright is claimed as to any portion of the original work prepared by a government officer or employee as part of that person's official duties. SONOMA COUNTY WATER COALITION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY et al., De- fendants and Appellants. A124556 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE 189 Cal. App. 4th 33; 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 616; 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1745 October 8, 2010, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rehearing denied by Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2056 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Nov. 2, 2010) Review denied by Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 2010 Cal. LEXIS 13556 (Cal., Dec. 21, 2010) PRIOR-HISTORY: Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV-240367, Gary Nadler, Judge Page 2 COUNSEL: Steven M. Woodside, County Counsel, Steven S. Shupe and Cory Wurtzel O'Donnell, Deputy County Counsel; Bingham McCutchen, Stephen L. Kostka, Geoffrey L. Robinson and Ma- rie A. Cooper for Defendants and Appellants. Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard, Eric N. Robinson and Andrew P. Tauriainen for the As- sociation of California Water Agencies, League of California Cities, and California State Associa- tion of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Joshua A.H. Harris and Bridget A. Roberts for Plaintiffs and Respondents. JUDGES: Opinion by Bruiniers, J., with Jones, P. J., and Simons, J., concurring. OPINION BY: Bruiniers OPINION BRUINIERS, J.--The Urban Water Management Planning Act (Wat. Code, § 10610 et seq.; the Act or UWMPA) 1 requires water suppliers in urban areas to adopt water management plans every five years. The Sonoma County Water Agency (the Agency or SCWA) is a water supplier subject to UWMPA. At issue here is the legal adequacy of the Agency's 2005 Urban Water Man- agement Plan (the Plan). Respondents Sonoma County Water Coalition et al. (Coalition) 2 unsuc- cessfully challenged elements of the Plan before the Agency, and then sought a writ of mandate Page 3 from the Sonoma Superior Court seeking to enjoin the Agency from adopting or implementing the Plan, and directing the Agency to adopt a legally adequate plan. 1 All further statutory references are to the Water Code and its appendix unless otherwise indicated. 2 In addition to one named individual, respondents include 14 citizen organizations: Sono- ma County Water Coalition, the North Coast Rivers Alliance, Westside Association to Save Agriculture, Atascadero Creek Green Valley Creek Watershed Council, O.W.L. Foundation, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, Bellevue Township, Sebastopol Water In- formation Group, Friends of the Eel River, Petaluma River Council, Coast Action Group, Blucher Creek Watershed Council, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, and Forest Unlimited. The lower court granted the writ on the basis that the Plan (1) failed to provide the detailed wa- ter supply information required by UWMPA and (2) was not coordinated with other water supply regulators. The Agency appeals, contending that the trial court failed to accord deference to the ex- pertise and discretion of the Agency, improperly made de novo determinations, and imposed re- quirements not found in the Act. 3 We agree with the Agency and reverse. 3 On March 29, 2010, we granted the joint application of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), the League of California Cities (the League) and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to file an amici curiae brief in support of the position of the Agency. ACWA is a voluntary nonprofit statewide organization comprised of public agencies that provide water service to most of California's residents. The League is an associ- Page 4 ation of 474 California cities. CSAC is a nonprofit corporation whose membership consists of California's 58 counties. We refer to these parties collectively as Amici Curiae. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 4 We caution the reader that the multiplicity of federal, state and local agencies, and over- lapping regulatory environments, referenced in this opinion results in our necessary use of a bewildering array of abbreviations and acronyms. We therefore attach a "rosetta stone" ap- pendix to assist in deciphering these references. (See appen. A, post, at p. 64.) The Agency is a public entity created by special legislation enacted in 1949. (Stats. 1949, ch. 994, § 1, p. 1793, West's Ann. Wat.--Appen. (1999 ed.) § 53-1 et seq., p. 131) It is a water whole- saler to eight public agency water contractors and other retail water suppliers, which use water from the Agency, augmented in some cases by their own local supplies, to provide water service to customers within their service areas. The Agency's water service area covers a large part of Sonoma County and the northern portion of Marin County. It provides potable water to approximately 600,000 people. The Agency's customers include the Marin Municipal Water District, North Marin Water District, City of Petaluma, City of Rohnert Park, City of Santa Rosa, City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, Town of Windsor, City of Cotati, Forestville Water District, and the California American Water Company. Its source of supply is the Russian River watershed. The Agency serves water to its customers pursuant to a restructured agreement for water supply (Agreement), which was entered into in 2006 and extends to 2040. This Agreement sets the maxi- mum amounts of water the Agency is obligated to supply to its customers, and describes the me- thodology for allocating supplies in times of shortage. The Agency's powers and duties include Page 5 flood control, wastewater treatment, and power generation. (Stats. 1949, ch. 994, § 3, p. 1794, West's Ann. Wat.--Appen., supra, § 53-3, p. 132.) The Agency also maintains watershed and fi- shery enhancement programs that include riparian restoration projects. An urban water management plan (UWMP) is prepared and/or updated every five years and ad- dresses the supply of water over the following 20 years. (§§ 10620, 10621, subd. (a), 10631, subd. (a).) The Agency retained the engineering firm of Brown and Caldwell to assist in the preparation of the Plan. 5 5 The credentials, qualifications and experience of the registered professional engineers who prepared the Plan are set forth in the administrative record. The project manager, Paul Selsky, P.E., is identified as having prepared or directed more than 60 urban water manage- ment plans. Coalition makes no challenge to the experience or qualifications of the Agency's retained experts. A draft plan was made available for public review on October 30, 2006. The Agency held a no- ticed public hearing on the Plan on December 5, 2006. (§ 10642.) Comments were submitted by Coalition, among others, challenging several elements of the Plan and contending that it contained "major deficiencies." The Agency's board of directors 6 adopted the Plan on December 12, 2006. As required by law, the Agency submitted its adopted Plan to California's Department of Water Re- sources for review (§ 10644), which accepted the Plan as complete. 6 The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors serves as the Agency's ex officio board. (Stats. 1949, ch. 994, § 4, p. 1791, West's Ann. Wat.--Appen., supra, § 53-4, p. 137.) Page 6 Coalition filed a petition for writ of mandate on March 19, 2007. The case was heard based solely upon the administrative record and the pleadings. 7 The trial court issued its decision on Oc- tober 29, 2008, and granted the peremptory writ. In a comprehensive and detailed written opinion, the court determined that the Plan was not supported by substantial evidence, and failed to comply with statutory requirements. More specifically, the court found the Plan to be deficient in that (1) the Agency "failed to coordinate with relevant agencies" as required by UWMPA; (2) the Plan failed to include the degree of specificity required by UWMPA; (3) the Plan failed to adequately consider certain environmental factors (specifically environmental impacts on endangered salmonid species); (4) the Plan failed to adequately address the effect of recycled groundwater on the future water supply; and (5) the Plan failed to quantify with reasonable specificity the scope of demand management measures relied upon to address anticipated water shortfalls. Judgment was entered on November 26, 2008. The Agency filed a timely notice of appeal. 7 The court also received evidence on a standing issue not raised in this appeal. II. DISCUSSION A. UWMPA "In 1983, the Legislature adopted [UWMPA] to promote the active management of urban water demands and efficient water usage in order to protect the people of the state and their water re- sources. ((Stats. 1983, ch. 1009, § 1.)" (Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 625] (Friends of the Santa Clara River).) In UWMPA, the Legislature declared that "[t]he conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies Page 7 are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level." (§ 10610.2, subd. (a)(2).) "To achieve the goal of water conservation and efficient use, [local] urban water suppliers are required to develop water manage- ment plans that include long-range planning to ensure adequate water supplies to serve existing customers and future demands for water. (§ 10610.2, subds. (d) & (e).)" (Friends of the Santa Clara River, at p. 8.) A plan is intended to function as a planning tool to guide broad-perspective deci- sionmaking by the management of water suppliers.