The California Court of Appeal recently held that provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act [1] impose upon local agencies a mandatory duty to review and respond to water quality monitoring. This decision clarifies the mandatory obligations of cities and counties, and may impact claims alleging violation of such duties.
In Guzman v. County of Monterey [2], Defendant Rick Pinch owned Jensen Camp from November 1995 through August 2003. Water for the camp’s residents came from a community water system that Pinch operated. According to Health and Safety Code Section 116325, the County of Monterey (“County”) was the local agency responsible for ensuring the water system operated in compliance with the law.
California regulates the maximum level of fluoride which may exist in potable water. Water containing fluoride in excess of the maximum level poses a risk of injury to persons drinking it. Monitoring reports conducted by Pinch in 1999 and 2002 showed that the level of fluoride in Jensen Camp’s water was well beyond the maximum level. Although the County received copies of these monitoring reports, County employees did not review them until 2003, and did not direct Pinch to notify residents that their drinking water was unsafe. Camp residents brought suit against the County for negligence.
The County claimed that the Safe Drinking Water Act (“Act”) provided drinking water standards, but imposed upon it no duty to review and respond to water quality monitoring reports. However, the court found that “even though [the Safe Drinking Water Act does] not explicitly require County to instruct the water system to notify the water consumers when contamination occurs, that duty is implied in the statutory scheme.” (emphasis added). In its decision, the court noted Health and Safety Code Sections 64256(a) and 64256(e) [3]. According to the court, “these sections impose particularized mandatory duties — to conduct a monthly review of monitoring reports, and to notify the water system of its monitoring and reporting requirements.”
The County further argued its only role under the Act was as an advisory and record keeping body. The court held, however, that “even if County’s duties are purely advisory or administrative, the overall intent of the regulatory program is to ‘provide for the orderly and efficient delivery of safe drinking water within the state.'” [4] Thus, the court ruled that the “County had the mandatory duty to review water quality monitoring reports, to direct the water system to notify its customers that the water was contaminated, and to specify the form and manner in which that notification is to take place.”
The holding in Guzman is important for cities, counties, and parties with claims against public agencies, because it clarifies the law regarding mandatory governmental duties. Even when a statute does not clearly state a mandatory duty, Guzman indicates that there may nevertheless be an implied duty which can create liability for the agency. Parties involved in reviewing such claims should consider the impact this ruling may have on their cases.
[1] Cal. Health & Saf. Code, §§ 116270 et seq (2007).
[2] Case H030647 (Sept. 25, 2007).
[3] Health & Saf. Code, § 64256(e) provides: “The monitoring reports shall be reviewed each month for each small water system and the data entered into the data management system at least monthly.”; § 64256(a) provides “[the primacy agency] shall notify each small water system under its jurisdiction in writing of the monitoring requirements for that system.”
[4] Citing Health & Saf. Code, § 116270, subd. (g) (emphasis added).
