The First Appellate District affirmed a trial court order denying petitions for a writ of mandate. The court held that challenged interfund loans from California’s Beverage Container Recycling Fund to the state’s General Fund were lawful loans contained in annual budget bills that did not violate the single-subject rule or interfere with the special fund’s regulatory purpose.
The Division of Recycling in the Department of Resources and Recycling Recovery (CalRecycle) reduced processing payments to beverage container recyclers and processors and reduced handling fees to “convenience zone” recycling centers. Tomra Pacific, Inc. and two other recycling centers (Recycling Centers) filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief. The Recycling Centers contended that “improper and ill-advised” loans from the special Beverage Container Recycling Fund (Recycling Fund) to the General Fund rendered the Recycling Fund insolvent and unable to make full payments, with disastrous consequences to the recyclers and California’s overall recycling program.
