Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PREMO, J.
After defendant Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency enacted ordinance No. 2010-02 that increased groundwater augmentation charges for the operation of wells within defendant’s jurisdiction, plaintiff Harold Griffith challenged the ordinance on the grounds that the increase (1) was procedurally flawed because it was not approved in an election as required by Proposition 218 (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6), (2) did not conform to certain substantive requirements of Proposition 218, and (3) was to be used for a purpose not authorized by the law under which defendant was formed.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Santa Clara County Open Space AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. VerjilCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of RosevilleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
- Green Valley Landowners Ass'n v. City of VallejoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Capistrano Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of San Juan CapistranoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & the Environment v. AbercrombieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Newhall County Water District v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.