BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 1130 (Roth)
As Amended March 26, 2014
Hearing Date: April 8, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: Yes
TH
SUBJECT
Drinking Water: County Water Company of Riverside Water System:
Liability
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide limited immunities from liability
relating to the reconstruction of a public water system in
Riverside County for the Eastern Municipal Water District, the
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, the Western Municipal
Water District, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. Those immunities would only apply if specific
conditions are met, including that water provided to the water
system must meet or exceed federal and state drinking water
quality standards.
BACKGROUND
Over the past 10 years, a rural underprivileged community of
approximately 140 homes near Wildomar, California, has
intermittently received substandard drinking water from a
private water company called the County Water Company of
Riverside (CWC). CWC's water is drawn from a well that contains
unhealthy nitrate levels, and its infrastructure is in such a
state of disrepair that water service from the system is
unreliable. Residents who use the CWC water system have stated
that "[m]ost of the time, the water looks like milk. We're not
supposed to drink it or give it to our pets . . . but we can't
afford to always drink bottled water." (McAllister, Unsafe
Drinking Water Continues to Flow for Some Wildomar Residents
(Sep. 7, 2012) Lake Elsinore-Wildomar Patch
(as of
January 7, 2014).) Previous efforts to improve the quality and
reliability of water delivered to these residents via the CWC
water system have been unsuccessful, and as recently as
September 2012 CWC "missed a California Department of Public
Health deadline to comply with a process to remedy the unsafe
drinking water situation." (Ibid.)
Eastern Municipal Water District (Eastern) and Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District (Elsinore Valley), two public water
agencies adjacent to the area serviced by the CWC water system,
possess the infrastructure needed to deliver clean water to CWC
customers, and state that they have been "working in concert for
more than a year to find a solution that will include the
dissolution of the County Water Company of Riverside and the
installation of new infrastructure in the service area."
(McAllister, Resolution Still Sought for Unsafe Drinking Water
in Wildomar, Menifee (Sep. 24, 2013) Lake Elsinore-Wildomar
Patch
(as of January 7, 2014).) Eastern and Elsinore Valley have
proposed to incorporate the households currently served by CWC
into the two districts' respective boundaries and to install new
water system infrastructure in the area to bring the system up
to California waterworks standards. The California Department
of Public Health, working in concert with Eastern and Elsinore
Valley, has awarded nearly $7 million in grants to finance the
reconstruction of the CWC water system. As part of the proposed
infrastructure improvements, the two districts will install
additional fire hydrants in the community to assist in fire
protection, since the single existing fire hydrant in the CWC
service area has "inadequate system pressure to sustain fire
flow." (Ibid.) The water that will be provided to CWC customers
via the reconstructed system will come from alternate proven
sources of clean drinking water under the jurisdiction of
Eastern and Elsinore Valley, as well as from the Western
Municipal Water District (Western) and the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (Metropolitan), two water
wholesalers that provide Eastern and Elsinore Valley with
supplemental imported water.
Both Eastern and Elsinore Valley have expressed concern that
interconnecting with, and providing water to, CWC's dilapidated
water system could expose the districts and their ratepayers to
lawsuits based upon the past mismanagement of the CWC water
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 3 of ?
system. Those two districts have asked for "legislation that,
if passed, would relieve the two municipal water districts from
potential liability during the dissolution and takeover of the
private water company," and have maintained "that passage of the
legislation is critical to the potential takeover of the current
County Water Company system." (Ibid.) Western and Metropolitan
have expressed similar concern about incurring potential
liability for delivering clean water to a substandard water
system while it is being repaired.
This bill would provide limited immunities from liability
relating to the reconstruction of the CWC water system for the
Eastern Municipal Water District, the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District, the Western Municipal Water District, and the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. First, the
bill would immunize all four districts from liability for claims
alleging damages based on acts or omissions that occurred prior
to their ownership or operation of, or supply of water to, the
CWC water system. Second, the bill would give all four
districts limited immunity from claims arising during the
reconstruction of the CWC water system, provided the districts
each meet specific standards for ensuring drinking water
quality, system reliability, and firefighting capabilities.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that a public entity is not liable for an
injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of
the public entity or a public employee or any other person,
except as otherwise provided by statute. (Gov. Code Sec. 815.)
Existing law provides that a public entity is liable for injury
proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the
public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or
omission would have given rise to a cause of action against that
employee or his personal representative. (Gov. Code Sec.
815.2.)
Existing law provides that where a public entity is under a
mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to
protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the
public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately
caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public
entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to
discharge the duty. (Gov. Code Sec. 815.6.)
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 4 of ?
Existing law provides, except as exempted by statute, that a
public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous
condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the
property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury,
that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous
condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably
foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and
that either:
(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of
the public entity within the scope of his employment created
the dangerous condition; or
(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to
have taken measures to protect against the dangerous
condition. (Gov. Code Sec. 835.)
Existing law states that a public entity had actual notice of a
dangerous condition of its property if it had actual knowledge
of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known
of its dangerous character. (Gov. Code Sec. 835.2(a).)
Existing law states that a public entity had constructive notice
of a dangerous condition of its property only if the plaintiff
establishes that the condition had existed for such a period of
time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity,
in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the
condition and its dangerous character. (Gov. Code Sec.
835.2(b).)
Existing law provides that whenever the California Department of
Public Health determines that any public water system is unable
or unwilling to adequately serve its users, has been actually or
effectively abandoned by its owners, or is unresponsive to the
rules or orders of the department, the department may petition
the superior court for the county within which the system has
its principal office or place of business for the appointment of
a receiver to assume possession of its property and to operate
its system upon such terms and conditions as the court shall
prescribe. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 116665.)
Existing law further provides that a court may require, as a
condition to the appointment of the receiver, that a sufficient
bond be given by the receiver and be conditioned upon compliance
with the orders of the court and the department, and the
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 5 of ?
protection of all property rights involved. The court may
provide, as a condition of its order, that the receiver
appointed pursuant to the order shall not be held personally
liable for any good faith, reasonable effort to assume
possession of, and to operate, the system in compliance with the
order. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 116665.)
This bill would provide that the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District and the Eastern Municipal Water District shall not be
held liable for claims by past or existing County Water Company
of Riverside customers or those who consumed water provided
through the County Water Company of Riverside water system
concerning the operation and supply of water from the County
Water Company of Riverside water system during the interim
operation period for any good faith, reasonable effort using
ordinary care to assume possession of, to operate, or to supply
water to, the County Water Company of Riverside water system.
This bill would also provide that the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District shall
not be held liable for claims by past or existing County Water
Company of Riverside customers or by those who consumed water
provided through the County Water Company of Riverside water
system for any injury that occurred prior to the commencement of
the interim operation period.
This bill would further provide that the Western Municipal Water
District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California shall not be held liable for claims by past or
existing County Water Company of Riverside customers or by those
who consumed water provided through the County Water Company of
Riverside water system concerning the provision of supplemental
imported water supplies to the County Water Company of Riverside
water system during the interim operation period for any good
faith, reasonable effort using ordinary care to supply water to
the County Water Company of Riverside water system.
This bill would also provide that the Western Municipal Water
District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California shall not be held liable for claims by past or
existing County Water Company of Riverside customers or by those
who consumed water provided through the County Water Company of
Riverside water system concerning the operation and supply of
water from the County Water Company of Riverside water system
for any injury that occurred prior to the commencement of the
interim operation period.
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 6 of ?
This bill would specify the duration of the interim operation
period, and would provide that the interim operation period
shall, upon the showing of good cause, be extended by the State
Department of Public Health for up to three successive one-year
periods beyond December 31, 2015, at the request of the Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water
District.
This bill would also specify that the immunities granted to the
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and the Eastern
Municipal Water District shall only apply if the Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water
District provide water to the County Water Company of Riverside
water system in accordance with all of the following conditions:
the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and the Eastern
Municipal Water District shall comply with the special terms
and conditions established by the State Department of Public
Health for safe drinking water emergency funding during the
interim operation period;
water provided by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
and the Eastern Municipal Water District through the temporary
potable service pipeline to the County Water Company of
Riverside water system shall meet or exceed federal and state
drinking water quality standards;
reasonable water system flow and pressure through the
temporary potable service pipeline shall be maintained during
the interim operation period based upon the condition and
integrity of the existing County Water Company of Riverside
water system and any disruptions to water delivery resulting
from construction related activities associated with the
installation of permanent replacement facilities shall be
minimal;
the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and the Eastern
Municipal Water District shall notify Riverside County fire
officials serving the County Water Company of Riverside
service area of the condition and firefighting support
capabilities of the existing County Water Company of Riverside
water system and planned improvements with the installation of
permanent replacement facilities thereto. The Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water
District shall maintain or improve the condition and
firefighting support capabilities of the existing County Water
Company of Riverside water system during the interim operation
period; and
customers of the County Water Company of Riverside shall
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 7 of ?
receive written notice upon any change in possession, control,
or operation of the water system.
This bill would also specify that the immunities granted to the
Western Municipal Water District and the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California shall only apply if the water
supplied by the Western Municipal Water District and the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through the
temporary potable service pipeline to the County Water Company
of Riverside water system meets or exceeds federal and state
drinking water quality standards.
This bill would further specify that the immunities granted in
this bill shall not be construed to do any of the following:
relieve any water district, water wholesaler, or any other
entity from complying with any provision of federal or state
law pertaining to drinking water quality;
impair any cause of action by the Attorney General, a district
attorney, a city attorney, or any other public prosecutor, or
impair any other action or proceeding brought by or on behalf
of a regulatory agency; or
extend to any claim alleging the taking of property without
compensation within the meaning of either the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution or Section 19 of Article I
of the California Constitution.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
The County Water Company of Riverside (CWC) is a small
privately owned, non-mutual water company located in western
Riverside County. For decades CWC has "flown under the radar"
of any state or local administrative oversight agency and has
continually fail[ed] to deliver safe and reliable water to its
customers due to nitrate contamination and a failing
infrastructure system. The residents of this community rely
on either contaminated water, bottled water or more recently,
water from the emergency water tank to service their daily
needs. County of Riverside health officials and the
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) have asked two
adjacent public water districts for assistance in providing
both a short-term and a long-term solution[] to the health and
safety risks the CWC customers face as a result of this
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 8 of ?
failing water system. Such assistance comes with the risk of
liability for past administrative actions or operational
deficiencies of the existing water system[,] as well as . . .
potential costs to the existing ratepayers of the water
districts providing assistance. In this situation, neither
the County of Riverside nor CDPH are willing [or] able to
indemnify the public water districts from the liability
associated with taking over the CWC system. Furthermore, the
existing owners of CWC have already proceeded to discontinue
service to the community and are seeking to "walk away."
This bill would allow the public water districts of Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD) and Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District (EVMWD) to provide the necessary assistance to
CWC customers without being held liable for past
administrative actions or operational deficiencies of the
existing water system. This legislation would provide
necessary protections to the existing public water district
customers, while working to secure the health and safety of
the CWC customers. EMWD and EVMWD are seeking legal
protections for the two public water districts to move forward
with assisting those families in crisis.
The bill will also provide the same protections to the Western
Municipal Water District and the Metropolitan Water District
in their provision of supplemental imported water supplies to
the County Water Company of Riverside water system during the
interim operation period, as well as the period of time prior
to the commencement of the interim operating period.
The intent of the bill is to provide immunity from liability
protections to the public water districts taking over the
substandard system of the CWC. Such protections would
include:
Liability release for delivery water to CWC during interim
operation [and] construction of a new water system; and
Release from claims for operations, water quality, or
other specific functions prior to EMWD/EVMWD ownership of
the facility.
This bill is not intended to provide on-going blanket
liability protections to EMWD and EVMWD in their activities
related to maintenance and operation of new facilities
designed to serve the existing CWC customers.
2. Safe Drinking Water Policy
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 9 of ?
For almost twenty years, it has been the declared policy of the
Legislature that "[e]very citizen of California has the right to
pure and safe drinking water." (Health & Saf. Code Sec.
116270(a).) This bill furthers that declared policy by creating
a framework that allows two outside public water agencies and
two public water wholesalers to provide safe, clean drinking
water to a community that has received substandard water service
for many years, without exposing the agencies and wholesalers to
liabilities that are properly attributable to other parties. By
creating a narrow set of immunities from suit, this bill fosters
an environment of relative certainty for Eastern and Elsinore
Valley that permits them to construct a long-term solution to
the health and safety risks that the affected residents in
Riverside County have faced as a result of CWC's failing water
system. Similarly, the narrow set of immunities created for
Western and Metropolitan ensures that these water wholesalers
can provide clean imported water to the CWC water system during
its reconstruction without exposing those districts and their
ratepayers to liability for the past acts of other parties.
This bill seeks to strike a delicate balance between ensuring
that consumers receive safe drinking water and that the four
named public water agencies are not unfairly subject to suit for
the acts or omission of others, while preserving the right of
consumers to seek redress for harms that may result from the
activities of public water systems.
3. Liability of Public Entities
California law generally provides public entities with tort
immunity that insulates them from civil liability, including
liability resulting from injuries caused by the delivery of
water through a public water system. The California Tort Claims
Act (Gov. Code Sec. 810 et seq.) states that "a public entity is
not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an
act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any
other person" unless otherwise provided by statute. (Gov. Code
Sec. 815(a).) Thus, in order to hold a public entity liable for
any tort, a plaintiff would first have to identify a specific
relevant statute that waived the public entity's sovereign
immunity and exposed it to liability. Absent a specific statute
that expressly waives sovereign immunity, California's public
entities cannot be held liable in tort. (See Brown v. Poway
Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 829 ["a public entity
is not liable for injuries except as provided by statute"].)
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 10 of ?
In the context of potential liability for the operation of a
public water system, there are a number of statutes that may
expose public entities to civil liability. For example,
Government Code Section 835 removes immunity when a public
entity maintains its property in a dangerous condition. This
section states that "a public entity is liable for injury caused
by a dangerous condition of its property" if the following
conditions are met: (1) the property was in a dangerous
condition at the time of the injury; (2) the injury was
proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous
condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of
injury which was incurred, and either (a) a negligent or
wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous
condition, or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive
notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the
injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous
condition. (Gov. Code Sec. 835.) Applied to the context of a
public water system, some civil liability would arguably rest
where an agency failed to maintain waterworks infrastructure
that it knew or should have known through the exercise of due
care was in a state of disrepair, and an injury of a foreseeable
nature (e.g. property damage from a burst pipe) occurred as a
result. (See Mercer v. State of California (1987) 197
Cal.App.3d 158 [holding that public entities are generally
liable for injuries resulting from substantial, known dangerous
conditions of their property under the California Tort Claims
Act].)
Liability against a public water system might also rest in
certain situations when an employee of a water system acts or
fails to act in a manner that ultimately leads to an injury.
Government Code Section 815.2 removes immunity under certain
conditions when an injury proximately results from the act or
omission of an employee of a public entity. This section
provides that "a public entity is liable for injury proximately
caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity
within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would
have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or
his personal representative." (Gov. Code Sec. 815.2.) Thus, if
a public employee knew of the existence of a particular danger
in a public water system, such as the routine failure of
infrastructure designed to regulate pressure in a water line,
and had a duty to warn water system users of this known hazard
yet failed to do so, the employing public entity might incur
some civil liability if an individual was injured or their
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 11 of ?
property was damaged because of the faulty component.
Similarly, if an employee knew that a particular segment of a
public water system conveyed dangerously contaminated water and
yet induced patrons to consume the water by telling them that it
was not dangerous, civil liability against the water system
through the actions of the employee might result.
The immunities provided to Eastern, Elsinore Valley, Western,
and Metropolitan through this bill would not appreciably depart
from the immunities they already enjoy as public entities under
the California Tort Claims Act. Just as with immunities
provided under existing law, every immunity granted in this bill
is conditioned upon the recipient conducting their operations in
a good faith, reasonable manner using ordinary care - in this
case to assume possession of, to operate, or to supply water to
the CWC water system. If Eastern, Elsinore Valley, Western, or
Metropolitan provide water to the CWC water system in a
negligent or reckless manner, or if they operate the system in a
way that unreasonably disregards a foreseeable risk of injury to
CWC customers, immunity will not be granted through this bill,
just as it would be waived under the California Tort Claims Act.
4. Immunity for Past Conduct of the County Water Company of
Riverside
Through this bill, the author seeks to immunize Eastern,
Elsinore Valley, Western, and Metropolitan from liability for
claims alleging damages based on acts or omissions that occurred
prior to their ownership or operation of, or supply of water to,
the CWC water system. Generally, California corporate law does
not assign the liabilities of a predecessor entity to a
successor "unless (1) there is an express or implied agreement
of assumption, (2) the transaction amounts to a consolidation or
merger of the two corporations, (3) the purchasing corporation
is a mere continuation of the seller, or (4) the transfer of
assets to the purchaser is for the fraudulent purpose of
escaping liability for the seller's debts." (Ray v. Alad Corp.
(1977) 19 Cal.3d 22, 28.) The Committee is not aware of any
facts that would support the application of California's
successor liability doctrine to the situation at issue in this
bill. Consequently, the immunities granted in this bill would
not appear to alter the allocation of liability among Eastern,
Elsinore Valley, Western, Metropolitan, and CWC for past harms.
5. Immunity during the Interim Operation Period
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 12 of ?
This bill also seeks to grant Eastern, Elsinore Valley, Western,
and Metropolitan limited immunity from claims arising during the
reconstruction of the CWC water system, provided these public
entities meet specific standards for ensuring drinking water
quality, system reliability, and firefighting capabilities. The
limited immunities granted during the interim operation period
strike a balance between ensuring that these named public
entities do not incur liability for injuries attributable to
CWC's past acts or omissions during the system's reconstruction,
and ensuring that customers served by the system during
reconstruction receive safe and reliable drinking water service.
Staff notes that the balance struck here between granting
immunities to an entity reconstructing a public water system
while protecting consumers who use the water system during the
reconstruction period mirrors existing law as it pertains to
court appointed receivers that oversee public water systems that
have entered into receivership. Specifically, courts are
empowered to grant receivers limited immunity in exchange for
assuming possession of, and operating, public water systems,
provided they carry out their duties in a good faith and
reasonable manner. (See Health & Saf. Code Sec. 116665.) As
with immunities granted receivers appointed under existing law,
all immunities pertaining to the interim operation period
granted in this bill are conditioned upon the recipient acting
in a good faith, reasonable manner using ordinary care in their
effort to assume possession of, to operate, or to supply water
to the CWC water system.
6. Immunity after Transfer of Ownership and Operation
As amended, this bill would not provide any new immunity (i.e.
beyond that already granted in existing law) to Eastern,
Elsinore Valley, Western, or Metropolitan after December 31,
2018, the latest date to which the interim operation period may
extend (See Comment 9). After the conclusion of the interim
operation period, liability for claims pertaining to the
reconstructed CWC water system, including any claims based on
any remaining portions of the prior CWC water system retained as
part of the reconstructed system, would be determined according
to existing law.
7. Protecting the Public - Conditions Attached to Grants of
Immunity
This bill explicitly conditions all grants of immunity upon the
recipient public entities meeting specific standards for
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 13 of ?
ensuring drinking water quality, system reliability, and
firefighting capabilities. Specifically, in order to receive
any immunity under this bill, Eastern and Elsinore Valley must
satisfy all of the following conditions:
comply with the special terms and conditions established by
the State Department of Public Health for safe drinking water
emergency funding during the interim operation period;
deliver only water that meets or exceeds federal and state
drinking water quality standards through the temporary potable
service pipeline to the County Water Company of Riverside
water system;
maintain reasonable water system flow and pressure through the
temporary potable service pipeline during the interim
operation period based upon the condition and integrity of the
existing County Water Company of Riverside water system, and
ensure that any disruptions to water delivery resulting from
construction related activities associated with the
installation of permanent replacement facilities are minimal;
notify Riverside County fire officials serving the County
Water Company of Riverside service area of the condition and
firefighting support capabilities of the existing County Water
Company of Riverside water system and planned improvements
thereto, and maintain or improve the condition and
firefighting support capabilities of the existing County Water
Company of Riverside water system during the interim operation
period; and
provide customers of the County Water Company of Riverside
with written notice upon any change in possession, control, or
operation of the water system.
Similarly, immunities granted to Western and Metropolitan under
this bill are conditioned upon the two water wholesalers
delivering only water that meets or exceeds federal and state
drinking water quality standards through the temporary potable
service pipeline to the County Water Company of Riverside water
system. These explicit conditions attached to the receipt of
immunity in this bill help ensure that the public will be
adequately protected while the CWC water system is undergoing
reconstruction.
8. Protecting the Public - Exclusions to Grants of Immunity
This bill also explicitly excludes certain claims from the scope
of immunities granted to the four named public water districts.
In particular, none of the immunities granted in this bill:
relieve any water district, water wholesaler, or any other
entity from complying with any provision of federal or state
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 14 of ?
law pertaining to drinking water quality;
impair any cause of action by the Attorney General, a district
attorney, a city attorney, or any other public prosecutor, or
impair any other action or proceeding brought by or on behalf
of a regulatory agency; or
extend to any claim alleging the taking of property without
compensation within the meaning of either the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution or Section 19 of Article I
of the California Constitution.
By explicitly excluding these claims from the scope of
immunities granted in this bill, members of the public can be
assured that Eastern, Elsinore Valley, Western, and Metropolitan
must continue to meet all state and federal drinking water
quality standards both during and after the interim operation
period, and that the four water districts must continue to
protect the property rights of all parties impacted by the CWC
water system's reconstruction. Additionally, these exclusions
make explicit the fact that this bill will in no way interfere
with the ability of a government agency to enforce existing law
against any party either through the courts or in administrative
proceedings.
9. Extending the Interim Operation Period
This bill would grant Eastern, Elsinore Valley, Western, and
Metropolitan limited immunity from claims arising during the
reconstruction of the CWC water system in what is referred to as
the interim operation period. This reconstruction period would
commence upon the connection of a temporary potable service
pipeline by either the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
or the Eastern Municipal Water District to the County Water
Company of Riverside water system, or upon the execution of an
agreement by the districts to provide service to the customers
of the County Water Company of Riverside, whichever occurs
first. Unless extended by the California Department of Public
Health (CDPH), the interim operation period would last until
permanent replacement facilities are accepted by the Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water
District with the concurrence of the State Department of Public
Health, or December 31, 2015, whichever occurs first. The bill
authorizes CDPH to extend the interim operation period for up to
three successive one-year periods at the request of the Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water
District upon the showing of good cause. This "good cause"
extension provision recognizes that unforeseen circumstances may
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 15 of ?
be encountered during reconstruction of the CWC water system
that may delay completion of the project beyond the target date
of December 31, 2015.
"Good cause," of course, is a relative term, and "[w]hether good
cause exists is dependent upon the particular circumstances of
each case." (Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Internat., Inc. (Cal.
1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 100 [quoting Walker v. Blue Cross of
California (Cal.App.1st Dist. 1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 985, 994].)
As the California Supreme Court announced over 100 years ago,
What is "good cause," may be difficult to define with
precision, since it must, in a great measure, be determined by
reference to the particular circumstances appearing in each
case. (Ex Parte Bull (Cal. 1871) 42 Cal. 196, 199).
However, this does not mean that CDPH is without guidance in
exercising its discretion to extend the interim operation
period. "When related to the context of the statute, "good
cause" takes on the hue of its surroundings, and it . . . must
be construed in the light reflected by its text and objectives."
(Cal. Portland Cement Co. v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board
(Cal.App.2d Dist. 1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 263, 273 [quoting
Sturdevant Unemployment Comp. Case (Pa. Super. Ct. 1946) 158 Pa.
Super. 548, 556].) "[I]n whatever context they appear," good
cause standards "connote, as minimum requirements, real
circumstances, substantial reasons, objective conditions,
palpable forces that operate to produce correlative results,
adequate excuses that will bear the test of reason, just grounds
for action, and always the element of good faith." (Ibid., 178
Cal.App.2d 263, 272-273.) Here, as elsewhere, ""[g]ood cause"
must be so interpreted that the fundamental purpose of the
legislation shall not be destroyed." (Ibid., 178 Cal.App.2d
263, 272 [quoting Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Compensation
Board of Review (Pa. 1947) 50 A.2d 336, 340].) In deciding
whether to extend the interim operation period upon the request
of the districts, CDPH will have to evaluate whether the
justification for doing so presents "just grounds for action,"
will "bear the test of reason," and would be in accord with "the
fundamental purpose of the legislation."
10. Author's Amendments
The Author offers the following amendments to clarify that this
bill is precisely tailored to address the unique facts
pertaining to the reconstruction of the County Water Company of
SB 1130 (Roth)
Page 16 of ?
Riverside water system:
On page 2, before line 1, insert: "Section 1. The
Legislature finds and declares that the provisions of this
bill are precisely tailored to address the unique
circumstances facing the customers of the County Water Company
of Riverside. The Legislature further finds and declares that
the provisions of this bill are not intended to apply to other
water districts because the limitations on liability herein
reflect the unique circumstances facing the customers in
Riverside."
On page 2, line 1, following "Section," strike "1." and
replace with "2."
On page 8, line 14, strike "Sec. 2." and replace with "Section
3."
Support : County of Riverside
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Eastern Municipal Water District and Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : SB 772 (Roth, 2013) would have created new
immunities for the Eastern Municipal Water District and the
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District from liability related
to the reconstruction of a public water system in Riverside
County. This bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, but it was never heard and was subsequently returned
to the Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
**************