ACWA-Led Coalition Urges Court to Consider Wildfire Implications on Public Water Systems
ACWA led a coalition of organizations representing state and national water providers in filing a joint legal brief to shield a water utility from being responsible for wildfire damage.
The lawsuit, Grigsby et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., was filed in January 2025 following the Palisades wildfires. The joint brief emphasizes the unique operational and regulatory responsibilities of water agencies and the importance of preserving workable legal standards for agencies responsible for providing water service under extraordinary circumstances.
A California Court of Appeal is on the verge of making a decision that will pose significant implications for water providers and customers.
Why it Matters
While water systems may be available to aid firefighting activities, they are intentionally designed to meet state and federal safe drinking water standards and provide water to aid in extinguishing structural fires to the properties they serve — not to serve as wildfire suppression systems. Designing water infrastructure to function as wildfire defense systems would be physically impracticable, financially infeasible, and could compromise drinking water quality and affordability.
If a water utility can be held liable whenever a wildfire outpaces the capacity of its system, then every public water agency in the state becomes a potential defendant after every major fire regardless of fault.
Wildfire Legislation and Resources
In addition to the legal challenge related to wildfire liability, ACWA is advocating on behalf of member agencies on this topic in the California Legislature.
ACWA is sponsoring SB 1153 (Caballero), which would clarify the limited role of public water systems during wildfires while strengthening emergency preparedness in high-risk areas.
More than 80 member agencies and partners have joined a coalition in support of the bill, which is expected to be heard on the Assembly floor this week.
A fact sheet on SB 1153 is available at acwa.com/resources.
ACWA has also developed a webpage devoted to wildfire communication resources, available at acwa.com/wildfire-resources.
Questions
For questions regarding the legal brief, please contact ACWA Federal Relations Representative Caleb Raspler at (202) 434-4762.
For questions about SB 1153, please contact ACWA State Relations Advocate Kylie Wright at (916) 669-2382.
California Supreme Court Rules Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Will Not be Placed on November Ballot
The California Supreme Court today filed its written opinion in the case Legislature of the State of California et al. v. Weber (Shirley N.) Thomas W. Hiltachk, Real Party in Interest, ruling that the ACWA-opposed Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) will not be placed on the November ballot.
At a high level, the case presented two questions:
- Does the TPA constitute an impermissible attempted revision of California Constitution by voter initiative; and
- Is the TPA subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?
In its opinion, the California Supreme Court concluded:
(…) we conclude that the TPA would clearly “accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision” of the Constitution. (Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 223.) The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative. (Art. II, § 8, subd. (a).) It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in article XVIII of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION: A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue, directing the Secretary of State to refrain from taking any steps to place Attorney General Initiative No. 21-0042A1, also known as Secretary of State Initiative No. 1935, on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide. [Emphasis added.]
Background
The ACWA Board of Directors took an oppose position on this proposed initiative on March 31, 2023. Among other concerns, the proposed initiative would have made the justification of needed public water agency fees or charges even more difficult and would have increased the likelihood of related litigation. It would have had major impacts on local and state services.
ACWA hosted an expert attorney panel at a conference regarding the proposed initiative. This panel included Richard R. Rios of Olson Remcho who represented the petitioners in this litigation.
ACWA actively advocated for state legislation (ACA 13, Ward, 2023) which, with its enactment, had the effect of changing the voting threshold for the TPA. ACWA also participated in the opposition coalition.
A copy of the TPA is available as an appendix to the Court’s opinion.
Questions
For questions regarding the TPA, please contact ACWA Deputy Executive Director Cindy Tuck at (916) 669-2388.