In a lawsuit challenging the practice of deferring, rather than paying in full, the cost of the state-imposed mandates, the trial court properly granted declaratory relief interpreting the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions to mean that the State's payment of a nominal amount for a mandate imposed on a local school district, with an intention to pay the remaining cost at an unspecified time, does not comply with article XIII B, section 6 and the implementing statutes. However, the court erred in ordering injunctive relief because: 1) the ordered relief was inconsistent with the statutory scheme; 2) the writ required the performance of a discretionary, rather than a ministerial, duty; and 3) equitable relief was unwarranted because the School Districts have an adequate legal remedy for future violations under section 17612, subdivision (c). Regarding the School Districts' cross-appeal, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the State to pay the almost $1 billion in previously deferred costs or to permit the School Districts to conduct further discovery on the reimbursement issue.