As the year end approaches, CSDA remains engaged monitoring legal cases of interest for special districts. In its effort to represent the interests of independent special districts wherever policy is made – including the courts – CSDA has tracked dozens of cases and has acted in key cases described below that may influence the operations or governance of public agencies.
CSDA receives counsel on its amicus efforts from the Legal Advisory Working Group, comprised of attorneys throughout the state with extensive experience representing special districts. For more information on other important cases that prompted CSDA action earlier this year, review our 1st quarter update in the CSDA eNews from April. All amicus briefs filed by CSDA can be found in the Legal Tracking Library on the CSDA website: https://csda.net/viewdocument/2025.
Details regarding actions CSDA has taken on cases in the appeals process are provided below:
The case involves alleged violations of the Brown Act by the City of Berkeley. In response to significant disruptions during Berkeley City Council meetings in late 2023 and early 2024, the Council relied on Government Code section 54957.9 of the Brown Act, which permits clearing a meeting room and reconvening the meeting upon determining that order cannot be restored by removing the disruptive individuals. In each instance, the mayor determined that the level of disruption and number of protesters meant the Council could not restore order by removing the disruptive individuals. Instead, the Council recessed and reconvened in an adjacent room, allowing press access and public participation via videoconference.
Plaintiff/Appellants assert that the City failed to properly follow Government Code Section 54957.9, arguing that the City was first required to attempt to individually remove disruptive persons – including by doing so forcibly if necessary. Appellants contend that only after such an attempt is unsuccessful can the City order the room cleared. Second, Appellants argue that the Council must reconvene in the original meeting room. The Superior Court granted the City’s demurrer and Plaintiffs appealed.
In late May, CSDA joined Cal Cities and CSAC to file a brief in support of Berkeley, arguing that the Brown Act must be interpreted broadly and in a manner that recognizes the diversity of local governments subject to its provisions. In particular the brief argued that a strict reading of section 54957.9 would prove overly burdensome and impractical.
On September 30, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment from the Superior Court and held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a claim for relief and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. The court held that the Brown Act requires that if a local agency meeting is disrupted by audience members, the meeting must continue in the same room following the disruption rather than recessing and continuing in a new location.
United Water Conservation District (UWCD) sued the federal government after being denied the right to divert tens of thousands of acre-feet of water from the Santa Clara River since 2017 due to bypass restrictions imposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to benefit the endangered Southern California steelhead trout.
UWCD holds a valid California water license, conferring a vested property right to divert water for beneficial uses such as municipal supply, agricultural irrigation and groundwater recharge. Under long-standing California and federal law, the federal government is required to compensate property owners when it commandeers property—including water—for public use, including endangered species protection.
Despite NMFS’s clear violation of UWCD’s 5th Amendment right to compensation for water taken and used by NMFS, the appellate court ruled that so long as UWCD was not entirely cut off from all water diversion, no “physical taking” occurred, and so no compensation is due—effectively giving the federal government the ability to take thousands of acre-feet of water without paying the water rights holder a dime.
In July, CSDA joined various water rights stakeholders to file a brief in support of UWCD’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The brief sought to demonstrate the essential nature of appropriative water rights in California, and that the panel’s opinion misunderstands California law related to rights to divert water. The petition for rehearing was denied in September, and UWCD is now considering filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In this case related to the Surplus Land Act (SLA), the plaintiff sought to challenge the City’s decision to declare a parking structure as “surplus land” pursuant to the SLA for residential development while preserving some public parking. Deferring to the local control and the legislative decision of the City Council, the trial court found that the city’s surplus determination was reasonable, supported by evidence, procedurally fair, and compliant with applicable law. Plaintiff appealed.
The local government amicus brief filed by CSDA and Cal Cities emphasized the need to defer to city council and special district board of directors’ decisions and the importance of local flexibility in land management. In particular, the amicus brief highlighted the nuances in the SLA and in defined terms such as “surplus land,” which plainly were crafted to permit local agency discretion in declaring surplus land, including the extent of the land to be declared surplus. The brief also highlighted aspects of the SLA which provide special districts with more expansive authority than other local agencies (i.e., cities and counties).
#AdvocacyNews#FeatureNews