CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIASTATE WATER RESOURCES Part III

CALIFORNIAFARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. CALIFORNIASTATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Filed 1/17/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

STORY CONTINUED FROM PART II……….

In CAPS, we upheld against a constitutional challenge to fees charged by the Department of Fish and Game to cover a portion of the cost of meeting environmental review obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (Fish & Game Code, §  711.4; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 4511, 21000 et seq.)  (79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 939-940.)  The fee statute at issue required flat fees, that is, a $1,250 filing fee for projects with negative declarations and $850 for projects with environmental impact reports.  (Id. at p.  940.)  The statute exempted from the filing fee projects with de minimis effect on fish and wildlife.  These latter projects amounted to 68 percent of the projects potentially subject to agency review.  (Id. at p.  943.)  In CAPS, the principal issue was whether the flat fees passed constitutional muster.  (Id. at p.  939.) 

     Two mitigating effects cases, SDG& E, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1147-1148 [approving apportionment based in part on amount of emissions on premise that the more emissions, the greater the regulatory job of the district] and Brydon, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th 178 [approving new structure of water rates to increase price per cubic foot for increased usage to meet conservation objectives], informed our decision in CAPS to apply â€