Blogs

By: @Madison Datus

With half of 2026 gone by, CSDA continues its efforts to act as the voice of special districts in the legal system. CSDA endeavors to represent the interests of independent special districts wherever law or policy is made – including the courts – and has acted in key cases and attorney general opinions, which are described below, that may influence how public agencies operate.  CSDA receives insights on its amicus efforts from the Legal Advisory Working Group, comprised of attorneys throughout the state with experience serving the unique needs of special districts and the communities they serve.

For more information on important cases and opinions from earlier this year, review our previous updates in the CSDA eNews from May. All amicus briefs or comment letters filed by CSDA can be found in the Legal Tracking Library on the CSDA website: https://www.csda.net/viewdocument/2026.

Details regarding recent actions CSDA has taken on pending Attorney General questions or cases in the appeals process are provided below:

1. AG Opinion Request 26-202 (Pending Opinion)

An Assemblymember submitted a letter to the Attorney General asking the following:

Does the requirement that all qualified line clearance tree trimmers shall be paid no less than prevailing wage for a first period apprentice electrical utility lineman as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, as prescribed by Public Utilities Code § 8386.6(b), apply to qualified line clearance tree trimmers employed by local publicly owned electric utilities and electrical cooperatives?

The opinion request insinuates that the rate of pay for qualified line clearance tree trimmers at a Southern California irrigation district is improperly below the prevailing wage and therefore, in violation of Section 8386.6(b). However, this assertion would extend the prevailing wage mandate in Section 8386.6(b) to include local publicly owned electric utilities, even though this section has been interpreted as only applicable to investor-owned utilities.

On behalf of local publicly owned electrical utilities, CSDA, along with Cal Cities, filed a letter urging the attorney general to interpret Section 8386.6(b) in context with the preceding utilities code section that addresses wildfire mitigation requirements for applicable electrical corporations and does not include local publicly owned utilities. The letter pointed out that if the petitioner’s assertion was accurate, it would mean that the Legislature created broad, sweeping public-sector wage mandate in a single subdivision of a statute directed at investor-owned utilities, which would be novel and irregular. As asserted in CSDA’s letter, there is nothing in the legislative history for Section 8386.6(b) to indicate the Legislature intended such conclusions and therefore, this section should not be interpreted to include local publicly owned electric utilities. CSDA will continue to monitor this request for a published opinion.

2. Hiller v. Marin Municipal Water District (First District Court of Appeal)

In this case, a water service customer brought a class action against Marin Municipal Water District (“MMWD”) challenging the agency’s rate ordinance and seeking a refund of water charges. In 2022, MMWD complied with Proposition 218 requirements for rate setting by conducting the proper substantive and procedural steps. MMWD then initiated a court action to validate the rate ordinance and alert potentially interested parties so that any challenges could be brought forth within the 120-day statute of limitations. No opposition was raised within this period and therefore, the court issued a default judgement verifying the ordinance. In 2025, Hiller sued MMWD alleging violations of Proposition 218.

Following the appeal of a superior court decision in favor of MMWD, the First District Court of Appeal held that legal challenges to new or increased water or wastewater rates must be brought through specified validation proceedings and must be brought within the 120-day statute of limitations enacted by SB 323 (2022) provided that the agency follows specific notice procedures. The decision provides clarity around the application of the newly enacted Gov. Code § 53759 and enhances protection for an agency’s ability to set rates with certainty under Proposition 218.

CSDA has closely tracked this case in support of water and wastewater agencies, including filing an amicus brief (prepared by Eric Robinson and Andreya Woo Nazal from Kronick, Moscovitz, Tiedemann & Girard) in support of Marin Municipal Water District in 2025. In addition, on June 1st CSDA submitted a request with coalition partners to the court of appeal asking the court to publish the opinion, after the court initially opted to issue an unpublished decision. The court subsequently published the opinion on June 2nd, thereby allowing this favorable decision to serve as persuasive authority in future litigation.  For more information on this case, please see Court of Appeal Issues Favorable Decision for Water and Wastewater Agency Ratemaking.

3. The People of the State of California v. City of Los Angeles & Los Angeles World Airports (Second District Court of Appeals)

This case primarily concerns efforts by the Los Angeles County District Attorney (“LADA”) to bring criminal charges against a government entity (City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports) and undermine immunity laws meant to insulate government entities from such claims. In 2022, a subcontractor working on HVAC repairs at LAX triggered a CO2 fire suppression system while using an open flame. The gas released in a confined space led to a loss of consciousness and ultimately, death. LADA charged the City of Los Angeles and its airport with six felony counts under Labor Code § 6425(a), alleging willful workplace safety violations causing death. However, the trial court dismissed the case, holding that a city cannot form “willful” criminal intent under the required statute and California law does not allow for the criminal prosecution of government entities under Gov. Code §§ 815 and 818. LADA has filed an appeal, and the case is now pending in the Second District.  

CSDA, joined by League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and International Municipal Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief on August 28th in support of the City of Los Angeles. The amicus brief highlights the unprecedented nature of these claims and provides a succinct counterargument to the claim that the LADA simply wants to prosecute those that run LAX by separating the department that runs the airport from the city. However, there is no provision in law that would allow for such separation and the courts have rejected the idea for decades. The brief reiterates that removing governmental immunity in this manner would create an arbitrary and confusing system, where government entities would face differing levels of prosecution based primarily on the level of government and which entity handles prosecution, thereby leading to absurd and unequal results. Additionally, the increased cost of litigation and settlement from these novel claims would create an undue burden on government entities. The case has been fully briefed, however oral arguments have not been scheduled yet. CSDA will continue to monitor this case for developments.