Three bills related to water rates being considered by California’s Legislature could be unconstitutional, according to a coalition of taxpayer advocates, including the California-based Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
As sponsors of Proposition 218—passed by voters in 1996 requiring local officials to notify parcel owners of fee increases, hold a public hearing, and to abandon fees if a majority object—the taxpayers group argues the measures are in direct violation and should be rejected by lawmakers.
Assembly Bill 1827, authored by Assemblymember Diane Papan, would allow water districts to charge higher rates for those deemed to use a disproportionate amount of water and who potentially use more during peak periods of use.
Supporters say the measure is needed to cover costs associated with water delivery, including building, operating, and maintaining systems.
“AB 1827 affirms that existing law allows water suppliers to use reasonable and well-accepted methods of assessing the incremental costs associated with higher water usage demands to high water users,” Ms. Papan said in the Assembly’s Local Government Committee’s analysis.
Consultants for the committee noted the potential conflict with the state’s Constitution because the bill, if it were to become law, would test limitations set by Prop. 218 regarding increased fees and said that courts would likely determine if the measure complies with state law.
“Ultimately, if the courts find a conflict between [the Constitution] and the provisions of this bill, they will be bound to follow the Constitution, meaning this bill may not have the desired effect on the litigation at hand,” consultants wrote in the analysis. “The committee may wish to consider the need for the bill in light of existing constitutional constraints.”
Critics argued that some water agencies would be unable to accurately calculate usage rates during peak times for some customers and that the bill, if ultimately passed into law, would lead to unconstitutional applications by some agencies.
“Basing a charge on ‘maximum potential water use’ is not permitted under [Prop] 218,” Mr. Kaufman said in a letter to Ms. Papan and shared with The Epoch Times. “Very few—if any—public water agencies have time-of-use technology that could even theoretically identify the ‘maximum hour’ for water consumption, let alone measure that consumption in a manner that could be used to reasonably determine peaking factors.”
Senate Bill 1072, authored by Sen. Steve Padilla, would allow agencies to issue credits for overcharges instead of giving refunds.
He said it would prove beneficial for ratepayers and water districts.
“This kind of reform is a necessary step to both ensure customers recoup excess fees but also allow agencies to not get overburdened with repayments while operating within tight budgets,” Mr. Padilla said in legislative analyses. “It is vital that people get the money they are due while we provide our agencies with the flexibility they need to operate.”
Critics dispute that argument, saying the bill is, again, unconstitutional, and argue that ratepayers who move would be left without recompensation.
“There is a huge difference between a ‘credit’ for future charges and an actual refund,” Mr. Kaufman wrote Mr. Padilla in a letter also shared with The Epoch Times. “While the bill claims that it is declaratory of existing law, it is not.”
Assembly Bill 2257, introduced by Assemblymember Lori Wilson, would require ratepayers to exhaust all administrative complaint procedures before filing a lawsuit contesting fee increases and would set a 45-day time limit for any objections.
The author said the bill would further Prop 218 rather than violate it because respective governing bodies would have access to comments, complaints, evidence and agency responses to review before issuing decisions.
Such “would serve to foster better-informed administrative decisions, which benefit the objector, the public agency, and ratepayers,” Ms. Wilson said in legislative analyses. ... “It would also help agencies develop more defensible rates and build rapport and trust with their ratepayers.”
Critics say the bill would be detrimental to ratepayers by creating additional burdens and setting time constraints that are too restrictive.
“The protest procedure set forth in this bill ... merely layers on additional—and superfluous—requirements for the sole purpose of eliminating any meaningful ability of customers to evaluate and challenge property-related fees and assessments,” Scott Kaufman, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, wrote to Ms. Wilson in a letter shared with The Epoch Times.
All three bills recently cleared their respective policy committees and are now awaiting hearings by the house where they were introduced, with votes expected in the coming weeks.
