## Facts

- Albert G. Swanson owned undeveloped property in Marin County and sought a pipeline extension and new water service to build a single-family residence.
- Marin Municipal Water District provided public water service and, after new technical study, reassessed its net safe yield from about 30,000 to about 26,000 acre-feet per year.
- District data showed actual consumption exceeded the revised net safe yield in 73 of 81 months, with increasing excess over time.
- After a public hearing, the District adopted a resolution declaring a water shortage emergency under Water Code sections 350–359, finding projected demand would substantially exceed safe yield and that continued consumption risked depletion below levels needed for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection.
- The District adopted a moratorium (including by ordinance) prohibiting new service connections that required pipeline extensions, while continuing service to existing customers and allowing limited new connections not requiring extensions.
- The District denied Swanson’s application under the moratorium.
- Swanson sought and obtained a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the District to grant the extension and provide service; the District appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Water Code sections 350–359 permit a water district to declare a water shortage emergency and restrict new connections based on a threatened, reasonably anticipated shortage rather than an already-manifest shortage.
2. Whether the emergency declaration and moratorium were fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious, permitting judicial intervention and mandamus relief.
3. Whether distinguishing between applicants requiring pipeline extensions and other customers or applicants violated equal protection principles.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment granting the writ and directed that the writ be denied.
- The court held Water Code sections 350–359 authorize anticipatory emergency action when a shortage is reasonably foreseeable and conservation measures are needed to protect essential uses.
- The court held the District’s findings and supporting technical evidence provided a reasonable basis for the emergency declaration and moratorium, and the action was not fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious.
- The court held the classification limiting new connections requiring pipeline extensions was rationally related to conserving limited water supplies and did not violate equal protection.
- The court concluded mandamus was improper because the challenged actions were legislative in character and within the District’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A water district may declare a water shortage emergency and impose conservation measures under Water Code sections 350–359 when ordinary demands cannot be met without risking depletion of supplies necessary for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection; the statute permits preventive action based on reasonably anticipated conditions.
- A local agency’s emergency and conservation determinations under these statutes are legislative-type judgments; courts review only for fraud, arbitrariness, or capriciousness and may not substitute their policy judgment where substantial evidence supports the agency’s action.
- In allocating scarce public water resources, classifications among groups of customers or applicants are evaluated under rational-basis review and are valid if reasonably related to legitimate conservation and system-management objectives.
- Mandamus generally cannot compel a discretionary legislative decision; it may not be used to force a water district to grant a specific new service connection absent unlawfulness or arbitrary action.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the District’s authority to impose an emergency moratorium on new water connections requiring pipeline extensions based on a reasonably foreseeable shortage, deferred to the District’s evidence-supported legislative judgment, found the classification rational, and reversed the writ compelling service to Swanson.


Swanson v. Marin Mun. Water Dist., 56 Cal. App. 3d 512, 128 Cal. Rptr. 485 (Ct. App. 1976)