Coordination Works | January 6, 2011 --

We begin the New Year fresh with two positive decisions from two California courts that reinforce the agency’s obligation to coordinate with local governments. 

Sonoma County Water Coalition v.  Sonoma County Water Agency

In the first case, Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, a California Court has again recognized the obligation of an agency to coordinate with agencies specified by statute.

The Court rejected the Coalition’s challenge to the Agency’s Plan based on alleged failure to coordinate.  But it did so because the statute charging the agency to coordinate also gave the agency the discretion to decide with which agencies it must coordinate.

The plaintiff challenged the Agency’s Plan on the grounds that it did not coordinate its planning effort with several state and federal agencies, including Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, State Water Resources Control Board, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

The Water Agency argued that the statute only requires it to coordinate with agencies “in the area” and only with those that are “appropriate,” and “relevant.”  The Court agreed with the Water Agency and found that it was not required to coordinate with these non-local agencies.

So, while the court rejected plaintiffs claim that the Water Agency should coordinate with the specific agencies plaintiffs noted, it reinforced that the agency was “required” to coordinate with those agencies that did meet the specific requirements of the statute.

This is a critically important case for coordination because the federal laws requiring coordination, and most state laws, simply require coordination with local governments. “Local government” is not a category left to the discretion of an agency under the obligation to coordinate.  The case builds upon earlier cases where the courts have determined “shall coordinate” means the agency is required to coordinate.

Read Fred Kelly Grant’s Analysis of Sonoma County Water Agency

California Resources Agency v. United States Department of Agriculture

In the second case, California Resources Agency v. USDA, the parties have agreed to a settlement which requires the U.S. Forest Service to coordinate its forest plans with the State of California. 

ASL has cited this case since it was decided September 2009, as authority for the mandatory nature of the "coordination" process directed by Congress in the National Forest Management Act and the Service's own 1982 Planning Rules.

In September 2009, the federal judge for the Northern District of California ruled that the Forest Service had issued its revision of plans for four southern California national forests without "coordinating" with the State.

On December 22, 2010, newly elected governor and former Attorney General Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., announced that the Forest Service had settled the decision by agreeing to "reconsider its plans regarding wilderness lands in the four national forests."  His announcement made it clear that the reconsideration would be collaborated with the State and other environmental groups who joined in the lawsuit.

Local governments impacted by the presence of the National Forest lands and by Forest Service plans did not take part in the lawsuit.  Cities, counties, and taxing districts all have the same coordination right as that relied on by the State in pursuing its lawsuit.  The National Forest Management Act and the 1982 Forest Service Planning Rules relied on by the Court requires the Service to coordinate not only with the State and Indian Tribes but with local government.

So, local governments impacted by the management of these four southern California national forests have the opportunity to get involved in this planning process, even at this late date.

Read Fred Kelly Grant’s Analysis of the Settlement Decision