## Facts

- The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), Fish & Game Code § 2850 et seq., required the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), supervised by the California Resources Agency, to develop a statewide network of marine protected areas within specified time frames.
- The Legislature did not provide sufficient appropriations for DFG to complete the MLPA planning work on the statutory schedule.
- The California Resources Agency and DFG entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a private nonprofit organization.
- The MOU established a “public-private partnership” intended to supply funding and support services to facilitate MLPA implementation despite inadequate state funding.
- Coastside Fishing Club (a nonprofit representing recreational fishermen) and a member/taxpayer sued to invalidate the MOU.
- Plaintiffs alleged the MOU lacked statutory authorization, constituted an unconstitutional “appropriation” outside the legislative process, and violated separation of powers by delegating legislative authority to the executive branch and private actors.
- The trial court upheld the MOU, concluding the statutory scheme allowed the agencies to contract for private funds to help implement the MLPA; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the MLPA and related statutes authorized the Agency and DFG to contract with a private foundation to obtain private funding and assistance for MLPA implementation.
2. Whether the MOU violated California Constitution article XVI, section 7 by effecting an improper “appropriation” or unauthorized withdrawal of money from the state treasury.
3. Whether the MOU violated separation of powers by delegating legislative power or core governmental decision-making to executive agencies or private parties.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Agency, DFG, and the Foundation.
- The court held the statutory scheme authorized the agencies to enter into the MOU and to accept private resources to defray MLPA implementation costs.
- The court rejected the appropriations-clause challenge because the MOU involved private funds and did not draw money from the state treasury without a legislative appropriation.
- The court rejected the separation-of-powers and nondelegation challenge because the Legislature set the MLPA’s policy, and ultimate regulatory and policy decisions remained with government actors subject to statutory limits.

## Legal Principles

- An executive agency may accept private funding and support to implement a statutory program when statutory authority exists or is reasonably implied within the governing scheme.
- California Constitution article XVI, section 7 restricts withdrawals from the state treasury; arrangements involving private funds do not violate the clause merely because they support performance of governmental duties.
- Separation of powers is not violated where the Legislature establishes the basic policy and standards, and the executive branch retains final decision-making authority; private entities may provide funding and assistance without exercising legislative power.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a public-private MOU supporting MLPA implementation, finding statutory authorization for the agencies’ contracting and acceptance of private funds, no unconstitutional appropriation from the state treasury, and no unlawful delegation of legislative authority because policy-making and final decisions remained with governmental bodies.


Coastside Fishing Club v. Cal. Res. Agency, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1183, 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 87 (Ct. App. 2008)