## Facts

- California and Nevada, with congressional approval, entered an interstate compact creating the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to plan and regulate development in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
- The compact and implementing legislation provided for TRPA funding through contributions apportioned among participating states and counties.
- For fiscal year 1971–1972, TRPA adopted a $222,400 budget and allocated $54,450 to El Dorado County and $40,350 to Placer County.
- El Dorado County and Placer County refused to pay their allocated shares, allegedly threatening TRPA’s ability to operate.
- The California Attorney General, on behalf of the People, sought to compel the counties to pay the allocated sums.

## Issues

1. Whether the compact and implementing legislation imposed a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty on El Dorado County and Placer County to pay TRPA’s apportioned funding allocations.
2. Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy to compel the counties to make the payments.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the counties had a mandatory duty to pay the amounts allocated by TRPA for the 1971–1972 fiscal year.
- The court concluded the counties’ payment obligation was ministerial once TRPA lawfully adopted its budget and apportionments.
- The court ordered issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing El Dorado County and Placer County to pay their respective allotted sums to TRPA.

## Legal Principles

- When an interstate compact and implementing legislation allocate an agency’s costs among participating local entities in mandatory terms, the obligated entities must pay their apportioned shares.
- A county’s obligation to pay a legally fixed and apportioned amount can constitute a ministerial duty, not a discretionary budgetary choice, when the Legislature has already made the relevant policy decision.
- Mandamus may compel performance of a clear, present, and ministerial duty imposed by law, including payment of funds owed to support a public agency’s operations.
- Mandamus is appropriate where refusal to perform would frustrate a statutory scheme and there is no adequate alternative remedy that effectively compels compliance.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the funding provisions of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and California’s implementing legislation by holding that participating counties must pay TRPA’s lawfully apportioned budget shares and that mandamus is an appropriate means to compel such ministerial payments.


People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal. 3d 480 (Cal. 1971)