Public Interest Briefs

Center Victory Will Reform Election Procedures 

One-Person, One-Vote Principle Applied to Water Districts

Orange County Superior Court Judge Edward Wallin has decided that the “one-person, one-vote” principle applies to California Water District elections and that elections which ignore that principle are a violation of state law. The judge’s ruling in City of Irvine, et al., v. Irvine Ranch Water District represented a major victory for the Center and the beginning of much-needed reform of “water politics” in California. The case was brought by the Center on behalf of Irvine Tomorrow, a local citizens group, and individual Irvine residents.

Land development in Southern California has always been closely connected with the development of water resources. Without an adequate supply of water, development is impossible; with an adequate supply, not only can development proceed, but it can lead to enormous profits for the developer. Because of the close connection between the two, if a landowner controls a water district which has a legal monopoly on the development and sales of water resources, the potential for abuse to the landowners’ benefit is enormous. 

The Center’s lawsuit was triggered by the recent decision of the Irvine Company-controlled Water District to authorize almost $1 billion worth of bonds to finance development of water and sewer capital facilities and improvements over the next 30 years. The Irvine Company, owner of over 60,000 acres, was seeking vast additional industrial and residential area development on its property.

The voters eligible to vote on this important issue, however, were not the 55,000 residents of Irvine. Under state law, California Water Districts were not subject to the “one-person, one-vote” constitutional principle. Instead, those elections–whether for the governing board or for bond authorizations– were based on the outmoded concept that property-owners should have exclusive control of an area’s density. Consequently, a person or company was given one vote for every dollar’s worth of property he or she owned within the District. 

Since the Irvine Company owns the vast majority of property within the District, it could effectively dictate the outcome of all elections under the current voting system. For example, in the 1973 election for the District's governing board, the Irvine Company and its subsidiaries cast 61,470,766 votes for each of the winning candidates (some of whom were company officials). The candidate with the next highest number of votes received 3,112,826 votes. Nor surprisingly, when the June, 1979, billion dollar bond election came before the Irvine voters, it too was overwhelmingly approved.

The Judge’s ruling establishing the one-person, one-vote principle has now been implemented by a restructuring of the seven-member board to reflect the views of the larger community that the board serves. Shortly after the court decision, the Center reached a settlement providing for the resignation of two Irvine Company officials and one of the three remaining landowner-elected directors who sat on that board. In November, Irvine residents voted to add two more publicly elected directors creating a majority of popularly elected members. Under the settlements, the two remaining landowner-elected members of the board will serve only until mid-1980 when another popular vote is now scheduled. That vote will mark the beginning of a 100% popular election for the board.

(continued in full brief)