Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-25 CPRL&L Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT CONSERVATION, PUBLIC RELATIONS, LEGAL & LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING and SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA MONDAY September 15, 2025 12:00 P.M. This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations to the full board for its consideration and formal action. UAGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE COMMITTEE’S JURISDICTION INCLUDING AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. 2025 END-OF-YEAR LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (TENILLE OTERO) [10 MINUTES] 4. SOCIAL MEDIA, MOBILE APPLICATION, AND WEBSITE ANALYTICS UPDATE (EILEEN SALMERON/TENILLE OTERO) [10 MINUTES] 5. ADJOURNMENT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING: Francisco Rivera, Chair Delfina Gonzalez 2 All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available by contacting the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253. If you have any disability that would require accommodation in order to enable you to participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on September 12, 2025, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Gov- ernment Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on September 12, 2025. /s/ Tita Ramos-Krogman, District Secretary 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: October 1, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Tenille M. Otero, Communications Officer PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Presentation: 2025 End-of-Year Legislative Update GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: To provide the Board with an update on the 2025 legislative session. ANALYSIS: To support the Otay Water District’s commitment to a safe, reliable, diversified, and cost-effective supply for its ratepayers, the District manages a legislative program that establishes guidelines and policy direction that can be used by staff and legislative advocates to address issues important to the District. The guidelines provide a helpful framework for staff when evaluating the potential impact on the District of state or federal legislation or other policy decisions. The Board adopted the 2025 Legislative Policy Guidelines at the April 2, 2025 board meeting. These guidelines were beneficial throughout the year when a timely response was necessary to address last-minute amendments to legislation and when calls or letters of support or opposition were needed. AGENDA ITEM 3 2 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS) monitors significant bills that could potentially impact the District and/or its ratepayers. Baltzar Cornejo from BHFS will present a legislative update on the 2025 legislative session. Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025 to sign or veto bills. The memo from BHFS provides an update on bills as of September 10, 2025. BHFS will present any additional updates after that date, as needed, when presenting to the committee on September 15, 2025 and to the board on October 1, 2025. Staff will also send out any final updates to the board after the Oct. 12 deadline. Please see Attachment B for a legislative report of the legislative session and Attachment C for the BHFS presentation. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. STRATEGIC GOAL: Enhance and build public awareness of the District’s priorities, initiatives, programs, and services. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: A) Committee Action B) Memo from BHFS C) Presentation 3 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Presentation: 2025 End-of-Year Legislative Update COMMITTEE ACTION: The Conservation, Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative Committee will review these items at the monthly Board meeting on September 15, 2025. The attachment will be updated with notes from the committee’s discussion. 30809411.1 www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 916.594.9700 main 1415 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, California 95814 Memorandum Summary The California legislature reconvened for the 2025 calendar year of the 2025-2026 legislative session on January 6, 2025. Senator Monique Limon (D, Santa Barbara) was appointed Chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, replacing Senator Dave Min, who was elected to the House of Representatives. This however will likely change next year, as Senator Limon was elected as the next Senate President pro Tempore, and will take over leadership from Senator Mike McGuire after he completes his term. Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D, Los Angeles) retained her position as chair of the Senate Local Government Committee. Assemblymembers Diane Papan (D, San Mateo) and Juan Carrillo (D, Palmdale) retained their chair positions of the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee and Assembly Local Government Committee, respectively. With the term-limited former Senate President pro Tempore and now gubernatorial candidate Toni Atkins not being able to run for reelection last year, Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson was elected to succeed her in the Senate, being elevated from the State Assembly. For the 2025 session, legislators in both houses became subject to a new two-year limit of 35 bills each, with the Senate reducing its limit from 40 and the Assembly from 50. There were 2,350 bills introduced by the February 21st bill introduction deadline. The legislature is currently in the midst of the final week of regular session, with the last day of for bills to pass the legislature being on Friday, September 12. The Governor has until October 12 to sign or veto bills in his possession after September 12. State Budget On January 10, as required by California’s Constitution, Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled his proposed $322.2 billion state budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year (FY), projecting a small surplus of $363 million after two years of state budget deficits. This proposed budget was developed before the southern California wildfires, and it did not take into account the costs associated with recovery and delayed Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board collections due to tax filing deadline DATE: September 10, 2025 TO: Board of Directors, General Manager Jose Martinez, and Staff of the Otay Water District FROM: Baltazar Cornejo, Alicia Priego, Brandon Knapp, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLC RE: 2025 End of Session Report on Legislative and Regulatory Priorities Attachment B 2 extensions. Furthermore, the proposed budget did not consider Trump administration policies, such as the impact of tariffs on international trade and the stock market on state revenues federal cuts to domestic programs that the state is attempting to backfill. In regard to water, the Newsom administration proposed to allocate some funding from November’s voter-approved climate bond (Proposition 4) and shift some current general fund (GF) allocations to bond funding to assist in balancing the budget, such as shifting dam safety and recycled water to bond funding. The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) advocated to maintain funding for water and climate issues. Below is a list of those proposed actions. The governor proposed allocating $1.074 billion of the bond’s total $3.8 billion for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience funding during the 2025-26 FY, which includes: • $231.5 million for Dam Safety and Climate Resilience • $183.2 million for Water Quality, Safe Drinking Water, and Tribal Water Infrastructure • $173.1 million for Flood Management Projects • $153.4 million for Water Reuse and Recycling • $173.5 million to improve water storage, replenish groundwater, improve conditions in streams and rivers, and complete various water resilience projects and programs. The problematic proposals included shifting to the climate bond from the general fund, $47 million for dam safety, and $51 million for water recycling, which is not what voters had in mind when they voted for additional money for these purposes in November. ACWA, together with a coalition that includes the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA), San Diego County Water Authority, WateReuse Association CA, Southern California Water Coalition, California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), and others, is advocating for the rejection of these proposals. Below are details of the adopted State Budget, which was signed into law on June 27. The adopted State Budget bill did not contain any Proposition 4 spending. ACWA and member agencies are continuing to advocate for the Legislature to act this year to implement a spending plan for the climate bond, as the adopted budget reverted key funding that was previously committed from the General Fund with proposed “backfill” of these categories from Proposition 4 dollars, including key funding for dam safety ($47 million) and recycled water ($51 million). The adopted State Budget also restored more than $351 million in funding for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (HRL) Program that an earlier budget proposal from the legislature would have eliminated. New budget trailer bills have come into print late into the final week of session, which include one that provides a spending plan for Proposition 4. The bill is AB 105 (Gabriel), and the water-related details are below: • Appropriates a total of $1.2 billion from Chapter 2. Safe Drinking Water, Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience, and among other things, includes: 3 o $183 million to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for water quality and clean, safe, reliable drinking water. o $153 million to SWRCB for water recycling and reuse. o $231.5 million to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program. o $123.4 million to DWR for the Flood Control Subventions Program. o $148 million to DWR and the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) for the Salton Sea Management Program Water Affordability Otay identified affordability as its top priority for this year’s session, a key issue addressed through proposals to protect water rates and service-related fees and charges against costly Proposition 218 litigation, as well as proposals to implement low-income household rate assistance (LIRA) programs. With the results of the national and statewide elections last year largely focused on affordability and the cost of living, causing losses to the Democratic supermajorities in the legislature, California’s legislative leadership has made many announcements about the need to focus on this issue this session. Below is the status of two bills introduced regarding affordability: • SB 350 (Durazo): Water Rate Assistance Program. o Would have established the Water Rate Assistance Program and created a corresponding fund in the State Treasury to help low-income residents with drinking water and wastewater services. The state board would be tasked with managing this fund separately, creating guidelines for the program's implementation, and producing an annual performance report. The guidelines would include eligibility requirements, such as self-certification under penalty of perjury, making it subject to legal accountability. The bill would allow the Attorney General to enforce compliance with its provisions, with no state reimbursement required for local agencies under this act, following certain statutory procedures. o Senator Durazo is the same author who last year introduced a problematic opt-out bill impacting local agencies. The Community Water Center sponsors this bill, and the ACWA adopted an oppose unless amended position due to concerns about lack of funding and the program being housed in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as opposed to the Department of Community Services and Development. o The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file and is dead for the year. • AB 532 (Ransom): Water Rate Assistance Program. o Would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Department of Community Services and Development to establish and administer the California Low Income Household Water Assistance Program to provide water-rate assistance to residential ratepayers of community water systems with under 3,000 connections or water systems serving predominantly disadvantaged communities, as specified, and would clarify the statutory authority for urban retail water suppliers, defined as systems 4 serving 3,000 or more connections, to run low-income water rate assistance programs within their communities. ACWA adopted a favor position as the bill would clarify state law to allow public water systems to establish LIRA programs and create a state-run LIRA program for certain systems, which they argue is a positive step in the right direction. o The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file and is dead for the year. Wildfire Prevention & Emergency Management The devastating Southern California wildfires earlier this year resulted in a multitude of bills being introduced on this subject. In response, ACWA developed a dedicated webpage with resources to assist members impacted by the wildfires and a fact sheet for advocacy purposes, which can be viewed here. Some of the most notable bills introduced in response to these fires are listed below. • AB 367 (Bennett): County of Ventura Fire Suppression. o Would mandate that water districts in Ventura County, supplying water to more than 20 homes in high or very high fire hazard zones, ensure backup power for wells and pumps for at least 24 hours during power outages, unless systems are gravity-fed. The Ventura County Fire Department must conduct annual inspections of these water facilities. Water districts are required to notify the Ventura County Office of Emergency Services. o ACWA adopted an oppose unless amended position because the bill would “place costly requirements on water districts without a suitable funding source, which threatens water affordability, and would dictate how trained water professionals operate their systems.” There is also concern that a bill would be introduced or amended to impose these mandates to agencies statewide. o The author amended the bill in the Senate to delay implementation until 2030, allow for the use of an alternative water source in lieu of backup generation, among other provisions. o Passed the legislature and pending action by the Governor • SB 616 (Rubio): Community Hardening Commission: wildfire mitigation program. o Establishes the Community Hardening Commission, to be chaired by the Insurance Commissioner, to develop and recommend new wildfire community hardening standards to reduce fire risk and improve access to fire insurance. o ACWA previously had an oppose unless amended position, but moved to a neutral position with the recent amendments. The language regarding “infrastructure improvements for water and electrical supply to support fire suppression efforts and disaster recovery” was removed and replaced with “Risk mitigation specific to water service reliability consistent with Section 53750.5, and risk mitigation specific to the delivery of electrical service.” This language was one of ACWA and CSDA’s suggested amendments. The bill also directs the Commission to consult with stakeholders, including specifically water utilities. 5 o The bill is pending Assembly floor vote. • AB 372 (Bennett): Office of Emergency Services: state matching funds: water system infrastructure improvements. o This is an ACWA-favored bill that proposes the creation of the Rural Water Infrastructure for Wildfire Resilience Program within the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), contingent upon funding from a bond act. This program aims to distribute state matching funds to communities in high-fire hazard areas to enhance water system infrastructure. The OES would coordinate with other state entities and develop criteria to prioritize funding distribution to rural communities based on specified criteria. o The bill was ordered to the inactive file by Senator Allen on the Senate floor, meaning it is dead until next year. • AB 514 (Petrie Norris): Emergency Water Supplies. o This is an Irvine Ranch-sponsored bill that would declare that it is the established policy of the state to encourage, but not mandate, the development of emergency water supplies by local water suppliers and to support their use during times of drought or unplanned service or supply disruption. The bill would define “emergency water supplies” as water supplies identified in a water shortage contingency plan or drought plan by a local water supplier that have been developed to increase a water supplier’s water supply reliability during a drought or unplanned service or supply disruption and that are in addition to the baseline water supplies the water supplier draws on during non-shortage times to meet water demands within its service area. o ACWA adopted a favor position on the bill. o The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. • AB 990 (Hadwick): Public Water Systems: emergency notification plan o Current law mandates that public water systems have an approved emergency notification plan to promptly inform customers of any significant water safety issues. This bill would authorize public water systems to notify users in their preferred language when updating these emergency plans if resources permit. o ACWA did not take a position on the bill. o The bill was ordered to the inactive file on the Senate floor by Senator Choi. • AB 1075 (Bryan): Fire Protection: privately contracted firefighters: public water sources o Existing law assigns the Office of Emergency Services the responsibility for emergency and disaster responses and runs the FIRESCOPE program, enhancing multi-agency firefighting efficiency. The office collaborates with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) and FIRESCOPE's board to set standards for private fire prevention 6 resources during active fires. This new bill mandates the office to create regulations that prevent privately contracted firefighters from using public water sources. o ACWA adopted a watch position. o Passed the legislature and pending action by the Governor. Drinking Water Quality & related State Mandates Regarding lead, on Oct. 8 of last year, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced its final rule on lead and copper concerning drinking water. Drinking water systems will have 10 years to identify and remove all lead pipes in their respective systems. The rules require additional testing of drinking water supplies, lower action thresholds, more communication at the community level, and come with an announcement of $2.6 billion companion funding for lead pipe replacements through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and at least $15 billion through the Biden-Harris Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. On December 13, 2024 the rule became subject to a court challenge by the American Water Works Association due to timeline feasibility for replacing lead service lines, jurisdictional overreach, and affordability concerns. With the transition into the Trump administration, new USEPA Administrator Lee Zeldin asked the court to pause legal proceedings on the rule as the Trump administration evaluates the regulation, requesting a 60-day pause on legal proceedings to allow time for the new administration to “get up to speed on the rule.”. On Monday, August 4, the USEPA announced that the U.S. Department of Justice will move forward with defending the rule from the litigation, stating it is “committed to ensuring that all Americans can rely on clean and safe water, including by reducing exposure to lead in drinking water, and that it will develop new tools and information to support practical implementation flexibilities and regulatory clarity. The agency will announce next steps in the coming months." In regard to PFAS, on April 10 of last year, the USEPA announced a new national maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFOS) as individual contaminants and a standard of 10 ppt for three other chemicals — perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxs), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA). This enforceable rule requires public water systems to monitor these PFAS, notify the public of the levels of these PFAS, and reduce levels in drinking water if they exceed the MCL. Public agencies have five years to come into compliance. There were concerns earlier this year that the MCL was in jeopardy due to efforts by Republican lawmakers in Congress for expedited repeal under the Congressional Review Act. Ultimately, GOP leaders opted to not take repeal up. USEPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in May 2025 the intent to rescind limits of four PFAS, while keeping the limits for PFOS and PFOA, including conducting rulemaking to provide water agencies more time to comply by extending the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031. In a briefing to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Department of Justice, water agencies challenging the rule, and environmental organizations defending it, all proposed a September 10, 2025 deadline for the USEPA to clarify its position in this litigation and lay out its plan for rolling back part of the rule. 7 On April 5 of last year, the California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted public health goals of 0.007 ppt for PFOA and 1.0 ppt for PFOS. A public health goal is a drinking water objective that does not pose a significant health risk. It is not enforceable but is the basis for developing maximum contaminant levels. On February 19, 2025 the SWRCB adopted the Prioritization of Drinking Water Regulations Development for calendar year 2025. The resolution, among other things, directs the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to prioritize developing MCLs for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), disinfection byproducts, arsenic, and n-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA), styrene, and cadmium and mercury. Lead and copper rule revisions will also be considered. At the Aug. 6 board meeting, the DDW announced proposals to revise the notification levels for PFOA and PFOS to 4 parts per trillion (ppt) from 5.1 ppt and 6.5 ppt, respectively. Revise the response level for PFHxS to 10 ppt from 20 ppt, and establish an NL and RL for PFHxA of 1 part per billion (ppb) and 10 ppb, respectively. • AB 794 (Gabriel): California Safe Drinking Water Act: emergency regulations o This bill would expand the SWRCB's authority, allowing it to adopt federal requirements effective January 19, 2025, even if those requirements become less stringent or repealed later. Additionally, the bill would prohibit the adoption of emergency regulations with less stringent standards and permit more stringent regulations if needed. By January 1, 2026, the SWRCB would be required to adopt an emergency regulation and standards for PFAS substances. o The bill also details changes to the procedures for adopting public health goals and primary drinking water standards, which ACWA opposes as this bill would bypass that existing process and create a precedent to allow the SWRCB to create drinking water standards, not limited to PFAS, through an emergency regulation. o The bill was ordered to the inactive file on the Assembly floor by the author. • AB 995 (Caloza): California Safe Drinking Water Act: public water systems: random testing o The California Safe Drinking Water Act mandates the SWRCB to regulate drinking water to ensure public health and authorizes the board to inspect public water systems and access relevant records. This bill would further require the board to implement a program testing water quality by taking random samples from various points within the delivery system to ensure consistent water quality throughout the system. o This bill was gutted and amended into an unrelated topic in May 2025 before ACWA took a position. • SB 454 (McNerney): PFAS Mitigation Program o An ACWA and CalCities-sponsored bill that would establish the PFAS Mitigation Fund within the General Fund to be used by the SWRCB to support initiatives related to reducing PFAS contamination. The SWRCB would be authorized to accept federal and private funding, which would be deposited into a specific PFAS reduction account and used to continuously finance the initiatives. Funds from this account would be provided 8 as grants, loans, or contracts to aid water suppliers and wastewater operators to assist in covering costs associated with ensuring drinking water meets state and federal PFAS standards. To qualify for these funds, water suppliers or operators must demonstrate a clear plan for using them to enhance public safety related to drinking water or treated wastewater. o Passed the legislature and pending final action by the Governor. • SB 724 (Richardson): Public water systems: public housing: lead testing o Would mandate public water systems, including those servicing public housing, to inform residents about any available programs offering free lead testing of their water. o ACWA adopted a watch and amend position. o The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. 5. Local Control (Government Flexibility, Labor Mandates, and Fee Constraints) Each session, numerous bills are introduced to provide local agencies with more much-needed flexibility, or bills sponsored by labor organizations seeking to impose additional mandates. There has also been a pattern that the legislature has developed to propose legislation that would limit capacity and connection fees regarding housing development. While no bills have been identified yet on that issue, the following bills would benefit the agency or impose additional labor mandates. • AB 259 (Rubio): Open Meetings o Current law authorizes, until January 1, 2026, members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public, under specified conditions and with limits on the number of times individual governing body members utilize teleconferencing each year. This is a California Special District Association (CSDA)-sponsored bill that ACWA supports as it would remove the sunset clause and make these teleconferencing provisions permanent. o The bill passed the Assembly but did not receive a hearing in the Senate as its provisions were amended into SB 707 (Durazo). • SB 239 (Arreguin): Open Meetings: teleconferencing: subsidiary body o This is an ACWA-favored bill sponsored by California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to allow subsidiary bodies to use alternative teleconferencing provisions, requiring public notice, agenda posting, and camera visibility during meetings accessible online. It would also mandate listing remote participants in meeting minutes and require initial and annual authorization by majority vote. A 2/3 approval is needed for subsidiary bodies to use these provisions, which do not apply to bodies overseeing police, elections, or budgets. Elected officials on such bodies must meet specific agenda and quorum standards, and any recommendations must be presented to the parent legislative body. Subsidiary bodies would be defined as serving exclusively in an 9 advisory capacity and not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, grants, permits, or other entitlements. o The bill was ordered to the inactive file on the Senate floor by the author after its provisions were amended into SB 707 (Durazo) • SB 441 (Hurtado): California Air Resources Board (CARB): membership: removal: regulations: review o This bill would have allowed the Legislature to remove CARB board members for dereliction of duty, corruption, or incompetence through a majority vote. The bill would also mandate that any proposed regulation costing over $10 million undergo independent economic analysis by the Legislative Analyst. It would require them to respond publicly to this analysis 30 days before adopting the regulation. Additionally, final versions of regulations and related documents would need to be published online 72 hours prior to voting, with no changes allowed afterward. o The bill failed passage in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee before ACWA took a position. • SB 707 (Durazo): Open Meetings: meeting and teleconference requirements. o This bill would make numerous changes to the Brown Act, including new public access and participation requirements for specified legislative bodies, new exemptions from certain teleconferencing requirements for subsidiary bodies and multijurisdictional bodies, extensions of law providing exemptions from certain teleconferencing requirements for specified legislative bodies or under specified circumstances, and additional changes. o Otay originally joined a coalition in opposition alongside CSDA. The bill was amended to include the provisions of SB 239 and AB 259, causing various local agencies to remove their opposition, including amending the definition of “eligible legislative body” (and thus, the population of entities subject to the “enhanced” requirements of the Brown Act under SB 707) as that relates to special districts to be significantly narrowed. o Otay removed its opposition along with CSDA. o Pending on the Assembly floor. • AB 339 (Ortega): Local Public Employee organizations: notice requirements o This bill requires public agencies to give a recognized employee organization (REO) no less than 45 days' written notice regarding contracts to perform services that are within the scope of work of job classifications represented by the REO. o ACWA adopted a not favor position as it “would reduce the flexibility of water agencies to contract for services and work with community partners as needed to continue to provide public services.” o Otay joined a coalition letter in opposition to the bill. The bill was amended in the Senate to reduce the timeframe in which a public agency must give written notice to the REO before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or 10 extending an existing contract from 120 days to 45 days. Amendments also removed the requirement that the public agency meet and confer in good faith with a REO within a reasonable time regarding the public agency's proposed decision to enter the contract and negotiate its effects. They also expanded the applicability exemption to include contracts relating to the planning, design, administration, oversight, review, or delivery of public works, residential, commercial, or industrial buildings, or other infrastructure projects that are subject to adopted uniform codes or standards, as provided. ACWA and various coalition members, including Otay, continue to oppose the bill due to the considerable costs it imposes on local agencies, including new notification requirements, unclear language that will undoubtedly result in increased conflict and eventual litigation with our labor partners, and significant delays in executing programs and delivering services. The coalition has submitted a veto letter to the Governor. o Passed the legislature and pending action by the Governor. • AB 340 (Ahres): Employer-Employee Relations: confidential communications o Existing laws prohibit employers from actions like imposing reprisals, discriminating, or interfering with employees' rights related to employee organizations. These laws also ensure that employee organizations are granted their legal rights. This bill would further restrict public employers by prohibiting them from questioning employees or their representatives about confidential communications related to organizational representation. It also prevents employers from forcing the disclosure of these communications to a third party. This prohibition does not apply during criminal investigations or when a public safety officer is being investigated under certain conditions. o CSDA took an oppose position on the bill. o The bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. • AB 614 (Lee): Claims Against Public Entities o The Government Claims Act sets rules on when claims must be filed against a public entity for its actions or failures that cause harm. Currently, claims related to death, personal injury, property, or crops must be filed within six months of the incident, while other claims have a one-year deadline. This bill would require all types of claims to be filed within one year of the incident, removing the shorter six-month deadline for certain cases. o The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file before ACWA took a position. Furthermore, the SB 937 (Wiener, 2024) clean-up language was included in SB 499 (Stern). Under SB 937, certain public improvements—such as those supporting fire protection, public safety, or emergency services—were exempt from the requirements, delaying impact fee collection until after a residential project’s certificate of occupancy. However, parklands and recreational facilities were not part of those exemptions. SB 499 expands the list of eligible improvements to include parklands and 11 recreational facilities when they are identified in a local hazard mitigation plan or similar land use document related to fire, public safety, or emergency services, allowing these fees to be collected earlier in the development process. The bill passed the legislature and is pending action by the Governor. 6. Advanced Clean Fleets In response to its failure to receive a USEPA Clean Air Act waiver to implement the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation before the transition of the Biden Presidential administration to the new Trump administration, CARB withdrew its waiver request, not enforcing portions of the ACF regulation that would have required federal authorization. However, this is only true for portions that apply to high-priority and drayage fleets, and CARB will continue to enforce the state and local fleet requirements that became effective as of January 1, 2024. In response to ACWA’s inquiries into why CARB believes it still has authority to enforce the state and local fleet requirements, CARB stated that it is “not required to request a waiver for state and local fleets under the Federal Clean Air Act.” Furthermore, CARB delayed bringing AB 1594 (Garcia, Chapter 585 Statuses of 2023) Amendments to the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation for CARB Board approval following stakeholder input. The informal comment docket has been reopened to submit written comments to CARB staff. ACWA staff have continued to comment, highlighting changes to exemption pathways that need to be addressed in supplemental comment periods. These include: • Supporting addition of Traditional Utility Specialty Vehicle (TUSV) definition and incorporation into ACF in 45 Day Changes, • Supporting broadening the definition of Near-Zero Emission Vehicles (NZEVs) in 45 Day Change, • Encouraging supplemental comment periods to o reframe mutual aid exemption to enable upfront use, o reframe the ZEV purchase exemption to reflect criteria used by fleets to purchase vehicles that meet their needs, and o reframe the daily usage exemption to use available data to reflect needs. Otay also submitted a letter to CARB staff. CARB’s continuous push to enforce these requirements and its slow progress in implementing the 2023 legislation, intended to provide flexibility to local agencies, has resulted in the introduction of additional legislation in this space. Below is one bill supported by public agency organizations including Otay. • SB 496 (Hurtado): Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation: appeals advisory committee: exemptions. o This bill would establish the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Appeals Advisory Committee to review denied exemption requests. This committee will include representatives from various governmental and non-governmental organizations and 12 meet monthly. Meeting recordings and relevant information about appeals will be available on CARB’s website. The committee must recommend a decision on appeals within 60 days, and CARB will be required to address these recommendations publicly within 60 days. Additionally, the bill expands the emergency vehicle exemption and modifies requirements under the ACF Regulation. It also alters the conditions for daily- usage exemptions and restricts the CARB from requiring documentation of zero- emission vehicle purchase agreements for certain compliance extensions. This bill is cosponsored by CSDA, the League of California Cities, CSAC, and the Rural County Representatives of California. o The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. 7. Water Supply & Management Last year saw much needed progress in water supply and management efforts throughout the state. On December 10, 2024 the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD) board approved $142 million to fund its share of environmental planning and preconstruction costs for the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) in 2026 and 2027. MWD was later joined by Santa Clara County’s Valley Water District, whose Board in mid-January approved $9.69 million for the DCP planning and design costs for 2026-2027. On Sept. 2, the Imperial Irrigation District endorsed the project. On February 28, 2025, the SWRCB released a Third Amended Notice of Public Hearing and Procedural Ruling regarding Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) pending Petitions for Change of Water Rights Permits associated with the State Water Project. Hearings have been ongoing, with more scheduled for September and October. The August hearings were limited to presentations by witnesses representing the State Water Contractors and the cross-examinations of these witnesses. The remaining witnesses in this phase of the hearing will be witnesses for the parties protesting the petition. Additionally, in mid-February, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) issued to DWR a required Incidental Take Permit for the DCP, which includes “measures to minimize, avoid, and fully mitigate impacts on threatened or endangered species as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the DCP.” Furthermore, the Governor is proposing trailer bills to fast-track the project by eliminating environmental review of the Delta flow requirements. Specifically, the Governor’s proposal would streamline the project by: • Simplifying permitting for the project by eliminating certain deadlines from existing State Water Project water rights permits. The proposal would also strengthen enforcement of the SWRCB’s existing rules for permit protests. • Confirming that the Department of Water Resources has the authority to issue bonds for the cost of the DCP, to be repaid by participating public water agencies. • Narrowing and streamlining judicial review of future challenges to the DCP, building on a law passed in previous session to support Sites Reservoir. • Streamlining the authority to acquire land. 13 These trailer bills were not included in the adopted budget in June, as many Delta region legislators pushed to defeat them. However, the Governor and DCP proponents continue to call on the legislature to pass the bills. On Aug. 6, DWR released an Accountability Action Plan which memorializes actions that “holds DWR accountable to the local community in a transparent, trackable and measurable way.” The plan establishes a $200 million Community Benefits Program for areas near the construction sites to avoid, “minimize, or offset potential impacts of project construction to residents, businesses, tribes, visitors to the Delta, and many others. The plan was developed, in part, to address concerns expressed in various community and public input forums during the planning process.” Water supply and management-related legislation has been introduced. Below are some of the most notable. • AB 269 (Bennett): Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program. o This bill would include removing project facilities as additional projects eligible to receive funding under the Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program. ACWA is opposed as any money that has been allocated for dam safety needs to be used solely for projects that are already eligible for funding under the Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program, and dam removal projects have other sources of funding available to them. o The bill did not receive a hearing in the Assembly and is dead for the year. • SB 394 (Allen): Retail Water Theft. o This ACWA-sponsored bill expands the list of actionable offenses for utilities to include tampering with or diverting water from fire hydrants without authorization and using them for non-firefighting purposes. It broadens the presumption of violation to cover unauthorized use of fire hydrants without paying for water. Moreover, existing law allows local agencies providing water services to enact ordinances against water theft, imposing fines on violators. Currently, fines escalate for repeat offenses within a one- year period. However, the bill alters this to impose fines for any third or further violations regardless of the time frame. The bill also enables local agencies to create ordinances against unauthorized hydrant connections, outlining a fine schedule while preventing these agencies from imposing fines under both water theft and unauthorized hydrant connection ordinances for the same offense. o The bill passed the legislature and is pending action by the Governor. • SB 72 (Caballero) – California Water Plan Long-Term Supply Targets. o This is an ACWA-supported bill that is nearly identical to SB 366 (Caballero from last year, which Otay supported but was vetoed by the Governor. DWR is mandated by law to update "The California Water Plan" every five years. This plan addresses the 14 management and use of the state's water resources. Current requirements involve discussing various water strategies like new storage facilities, conservation, recycling, desalination, and transfers. DWR must also have an advisory committee for plan updates. This bill would revise the plan's provisions, requiring the expansion of the advisory committee to include representatives from tribes, labor, and environmental justice groups. For the 2033 update, DWR must revise the 2050-interim-planning target, considering sustainable water needs for urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors and ensuring safe drinking water for all. The plan will need to include detailed cost-benefit analyses of recommended projects to meet water supply targets. Additionally, DWR would be required to report updates to the Legislature and conduct public workshops for feedback from interested parties. o The bill passed the legislature and is pending action by the Governor. 8. Water Recycling & Reuse Last year, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the direct potable reuse regulations that were adopted by the SWRCB on December 19, 2023 in furtherance of Governor Newsom’s Water Supply Strategy 2030 goal of recycling and reusing 800,000 acre-feet of water and 2040 goal of recycling and reusing 1.8 million acre-feet of water. Notable bills introduced about recycled water are listed below. • AB 638 (Rodriguez): Stormwater: reuses: irrigation o The Stormwater Resource Planning Act allows public agencies to create plans for capturing stormwater and dry weather runoff, following specific standards. SWRCB was initially mandated to issue guidance by July 1, 2016. This bill extends this responsibility, requiring updated guidance by June 1, 2026, specifically for stormwater capture and reuse in irrigating urban public lands, with a focus on using captured stormwater to reduce potable water usage and will include criteria on pathogens, pathogen indicators, and total suspended solids. o ACWA did not take a position on this bill. o The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense file. • SB 31 (McNerney): Recycled Water. o This is a California WateReuse-sponsored bill that would update Title 22 to expand the use of recycled water for nonpotable purposes. Title 22 for nonpotable uses of recycled water has not been updated in 20 years. The outdated regulations discourage using recycled water in certain spaces like landscape irrigation by homeowners’ associations, decorative bodies of water, public parks, and food handling facilities. ACWA adopted a favor position as this bill updates Title 22 to expand opportunities for nonpotable uses of recycled water, such as in the aforementioned cases. o The bill passed the legislature and is pending action by the Governor. 9. Water Conservation and Water-Use Efficiency 15 The SWRCB received approval from the OAL for the Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulation on Oct. 22 of last year. The board released the Water Use Objective Reporting form and guidance documents on the Resources for Urban Water Suppliers webpage. Urban retail water suppliers were required to submit their reporting form to the SWRCB by January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter. A few bills listed below were introduced regarding water efficiency. • AB 1203 (Ahrens): Water Conservation: water-wise designation o This bill would mandate a statewide "water-wise" designation to be included in the Save Our Water Campaign, recognizing Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII)- sector businesses that adhere to or surpass recommended best water management practices. o The bill did not receive a hearing and died in committee before ACWA took a position. • SB 614 (Stern): Potable Water: nonfunctional turf o The existing law prohibits the use of potable water for nonfunctional turf in common areas of homeowners' associations and similar entities starting January 1, 2029. This bill proposes to move that prohibition up by one year. o The bill was gutted and amended into an unrelated bill. 10. Water Rights This year saw the reintroduction of water rights legislation problematic to ACWA member agencies, which include: • AB 263 (Rogers): Scott River: Shasta River: watersheds. o Would keep in place emergency regulations adopted by the SWRCB for the Scott River and Shasta River watersheds until permanent rules implementing long-term instream flow requirements are adopted. ACWA adopted an oppose position because it would set a precedent for extending emergency regulations instead of following established processes for emergency regulations in times of drought. o The bill passed the legislature and is pending final action by the Governor. • AB 362 (Ramos): Water Policy: California tribal communities. o Would define “tribal water uses,” designate them as a beneficial use of water, and allow tribal water uses to be a primary factor in determining the highest water quality that is reasonable in all regulatory decisions. ACWA has adopted an oppose unless- amended position. o The bill became a 2-year bill. Otay Water District Legislative and Regulatory Priorities for 2025 End of Session Overview Presented by: Baltazar Cornejo Policy Advisor September 15, 2025 Attachment C © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Legislative Update •Legislature reconvened on January 6, 2025. •Legislators of both houses became subject to a new 2-year limit of 35 bills each, with the Senate reducing its limit from 40 and the Assembly from 50. There were 2,350 bills introduced by the February 21 bill introduction deadline. •Key Legislative Deadlines: —January 10 –Governor’s Budget Proposal —February 21 –Bill Introduction deadline —May 14 –May Revision of the January Budget (“May Revise”) —June 6 –Last day for each house pass bills introduced in that house. (“House of Origin Deadline”). —June 15 –Budget must be passed by midnight —September 12 –Deadline to pass bills out of Legislature. (“Final Recess upon Adjournment of Session”) —October 12 –Last day for Governor to sign or veto bills passed on or before September 1 2 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | State Budget Funding •January 10 -Governor proposed $322.2 billion state budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year (FY), projecting a small surplus of $363 million after two years of state budget deficits. •Developed before southern California wildfires and did not consider the costs associated with recovery and delayed Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board collections due to tax filing deadline extensions. •Also did not consider future Trump administration policies, such as the impact of tariffs on international trade and the stock market on state revenues, as well as account future potential federal cuts to domestic programs that the state would likely attempt to backfill. •Proposed to allocate some funding from November’s voter-approved climate bond (Proposition 4) and shift some current general fund (GF) allocations to bond funding to assist in balancing the budget, including problematic proposals such as shifting to the climate bond from the general fund $47 million for dam safety, and $51 million for water recycling. 3 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | State Budget Funding Cont. •The governor proposes to allocate $1.074 billion of the bond’s total $3.8 billion for safe drinking water, drought, flood and water resilience funding during the 2025-’26 FY, which include: —$231.5 million for Dam Safety and Climate Resilience —$183.2 million for Water Quality, Safe Drinking Water and Tribal Water Infrastructure —$173.1 million for Flood Management Projects —$153.4 million for Water Reuse and Recycling —$173.5 million to improve water storage, replenish groundwater, improve conditions in streams and rivers, and complete various water resilience projects and programs. •Signed into law on June 27th. •Did not contain any Proposition 4 spending. ACWA and member agencies are continuing to advocate for the Legislature to act this year to implement a spending plan for the climate bond, as the adopted budget reverted key funding that was previously committed from the General Fund with proposed “backfill” of these categories from Proposition 4 dollars, including key funding for dam safety ($47 million) and recycled water ($51 million). •The adopted State Budget also restored more than $351 million in funding for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes (HRL) Program. An earlier budget proposal from the legislature would have eliminated. 4 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | •New budget trailer bills have come into print late into the final week of the session, which include one that provides a spending plan for Proposition 4. The bill is AB 105 (Gabriel), and the water-related details are below: •Appropriates a total of $1.2 billion from Chapter 2. Safe Drinking Water, Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience, and among other things, includes: —$183 million to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for water quality and clean, safe, reliable drinking water. —$153 million to SWRCB for water recycling and reuse. —$231.5 million to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for the Dam Safety and Climate Resilience Local Assistance Program. —$123.4 million to DWR for the Flood Control Subventions Program. —$148 million to DWR and the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) for the Salton Sea Management Program 5 State Budget Funding Cont. © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Affordability Water Rate Assistance Program Legislation With the results of the national and statewide elections in November largely focused on affordability and cost of living, resulting in losses to the Democratic supermajorities in the legislature, California’s legislative leadership has made many announcements about the need to focus on the issue this session. Two bills have been introduced in the water space. SB 350 (Durazo): Water Rate Assistance Program. An ACWA opposed bill that would have established the Water Rate Assistance Program and the Water Rate Assistance Fund to provide water affordability assistance, for both drinking water and wastewater services, to low-income residential ratepayers. Died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 532 (Ransom): Water rate assistance program. AN ACWA favored bill that would have required, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Department of Community Services and Development to establish and administer the California Low Income Household Water Assistance Program to provide water rate assistance to residential ratepayers of community water systems with under 3,000 connections, or water systems serving predominantly disadvantaged communities. Would have clarified the statutory authority for urban retail water suppliers, defined as systems serving 3,000 or more connections, to run low- income water rate assistance programs within their communities. Died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 6 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Wildfire Prevention & Emergency Management The Southern California wildfires from earlier this year resulted in a multitude of bills introduced. AB 367 (Bennett): County of Ventura Fire Suppression. Mandates that water districts in Ventura County providing water to over 20 homes in high or very high fire hazard zones ensure backup power for wells and pumps for at least 24 hours during power outages, with annual inspections by the Ventura County Fire Department, while requiring districts to notify the county. ACWA opposes it unless amended, citing concerns over costly requirements, potential threats to water affordability, and possible statewide implementation. Passed the legislature and pending action by the Governor. SB 616 (Rubio): Community Hardening Commission: wildfire mitigation program. Establishes the Community Hardening Commission, to be chaired by the Insurance Commissioner, to develop and recommend new wildfire community hardening standards to reduce fire risk and improve access to fire insurance. ACWA previously had an oppose unless amended position but moved to a neutral position with the recent amendments. AB 1075 (Bryan): Fire protection: privately contracted firefighters: public water sources Mandates the Office of Emergency Services to create regulations preventing privately contracted firefighters from using public water sources. ACWA adopted a “Watch” Position. Passed the legislature and pending action by the Governor. 7 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Drinking Water Quality Mandates Federal Lead and Copper Rule •Approved last year by USEPA. Became subject to litigation by American Water Works Association. In August, Trump Administration announced that it would defend the rule, but also work to provide some flexibilities. Federal PFAS Maximum Contaminant Level •Approved last year by the USEPA for 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS as individual contaminants and a standard of 10 ppt for three other chemicals. There were concerns earlier this year that the MCL was in jeopardy due to efforts by Republican lawmakers for expedited repeal under the Congressional Review Act. •GOP leaders opted not to take up repeal, and USEPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the intent to rescind limits of four PFAS, while keeping the limits for PFOS and PFOA, including conducting rulemaking to give water agencies more time to comply by extending the compliance deadline from 2029 to 2031. 8 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Drinking Water Quality Mandates Cont. California Regulatory Developments •Last year, the CA Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted public health goals of 0.007 ppt for PFOA and 1.0 ppt for PFOS. •On February 19, the State Water Board adopted its prioritization of drinking water regulations development for calendar Year 2025. The resolution, among other things, directs the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to prioritize developing MCLs for PFAS, disinfection byproducts, arsenic, n-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA), styrene, and cadmium and mercury. Lead and copper rule revisions will also be considered. •At the August 6th board meeting, the DDW announced proposals to revise the notification levels for PFOA and PFOS to 4 parts per trillion (ppt) from 5.1 ppt and 6.5 ppt, respectively. Revise the response level for PFHxS to 10 ppt from 20 ppt, and establish an NL and RL for PFHxA of 1 part per billion (ppb) and 10 ppb, respectively. 9 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Legislation Introduced: SB 454 (McNerney): PFAS mitigation program An ACWA and CalCities sponsored bill that would establish the PFAS Mitigation Fund within the General Fund, allowing the State Water Board to support PFAS reduction initiatives through grants, loans, and contracts for water suppliers and wastewater operators, with funding from federal and private sources. Passed the legislature and pending final action by the Governor. SB 724 (Richardson):Public water systems: public housing: lead testing Would mandate public water systems, including those servicing public housing, to inform residents about any available programs offering free lead testing for their water. ACWA adopted a Watch and Amend position, however the bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 10 Drinking Water Quality Mandates Cont. © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Local Control (Gov’t Flexibility, Labor Mandates, & Fee Constraints Numerous bills are introduced each session to either provide local agencies with more much needed flexibility, or on the other hand seek to place additional labor mandates, and limit capacity and connection fees for additional housing developments. AB 259 (Rubio): Open meetings Would have made teleconferencing provisions for local agencies permanent by removing the sunset clause, allowing members to use teleconferencing without identifying each location or making it publicly accessible. This is a CSDA-sponsored bill that ACWA supported, but did not receive a hearing in the Assembly. Its provisions were amended into SB 707 (Durazo). SB 707 (Durazo): Open meetings: meeting and teleconference requirements. Will make numerous changes to the Brown Act, including new public access and participation requirements for specified legislative bodies, new exemptions from certain teleconferencing requirements for subsidiary bodies and multijurisdictional bodies, extensions of law providing exemptions from certain teleconferencing requirements for specified legislative bodies or under specified circumstances, and additional changes. Otay originally joined a coalition in opposition alongside CSDA. The bill was amended to include the provisions of SB 239 and AB 259, causing various local agencies to remove their opposition, including amending the definition of “eligible legislative body” (and thus, the population of entities subject to the “enhanced” requirements of the Brown Act under SB 707) as that relates to special districts to be significantly narrowed. The bill is pending on the Assembly floor. •11 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Local Control Cont. AB 339 (Ortega): Local public employee organizations: notice requirements Requires public agencies to provide at least 45 days' notice to employee organizations before issuing service contracts, with ACWA opposing it due to concerns over reduced flexibility for water agencies. Otay joined a coalition letter in opposition to the bill. The bill was amended in the Senate to reduce the timeframe in which a public agency must give written notice to the REO before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending an existing contract from 120 days to 45 days, among other provisions. ACWA and various coalition members continue to oppose the bill due to the considerable costs it imposes on local agencies, including new notification requirements, unclear language that will result in increased conflict and eventual litigation with labor partners, and significant delays in executing programs and delivering services. The bill passed the legislature and pending action by the Governor. AB 340 (Ahres): Employer-employee relations: confidential communications A CSDA Opposed bill that would have further restricted public employers by prohibiting questioning employees or their representatives about confidential communications related to organizational representation. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. SB 937 (Wiener, 2024):Clean-up language was included in SB 499 (Stern), which expands the list of eligible improvements to include parklands and recreational facilities when they are identified in a local hazard mitigation plan or similar land use document related to fire, public safety, or emergency services, allowing these fees to be collected earlier in the development process. The bill passed the legislature and pending final action by the Governor. 12 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Advanced Clean Fleets Failure of CARB to receive Clean Air Act waiver by USEPA to fully implement ACF Regulation before transition from Biden administration to Trump administration. CARB argues that it retains authority to implement ACF for state and local fleets. Furthermore, CARB delayed bringing AB 1594 (Garcia, Chapter 585 Statuses of 2023) Amendments to the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation for CARB Board approval following stakeholder input. The informal comment docket has been reopened to submit written comments to CARB staff. ACWA staff have continued to comment, highlighting changes to exemption pathways that need to be addressed in supplemental comment periods. These include: •Supporting addition of Traditional Utility Specialty Vehicle (TUSV) definition and incorporation into ACF in 45-Day Changes, •Supporting broadening definition of Near-Zero Emission Vehicles (NZEVs) in 45-Day Change, encouraging supplemental comment periods to o reframe mutual Aid Exemption to enable upfront use, o reframe the ZEV Purchase Exemption to reflect criteria used by fleets to purchase vehicles that meet their needs, and o reframe the Daily Usage Exemption to use available data to reflect needs. 13 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Advanced Clean Fleets Cont. CARB’s continuous push to enforce these requirements and its slow progress in implementing 2023 legislation, which was intended to provide flexibility to local agencies, has resulted in the introduction of additional legislation in this space. SB 496 (Hurtado): Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation: appeals advisory committee: exemptions. Would have established the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Appeals Advisory Committee to review denied exemption requests, require CARB to address the committee’s recommendations within 60 days, and expand the emergency vehicle exemption while modifying daily usage exemption conditions, with support from several California organizations. This bill was cosponsored by the California Special Districts Association, the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California. It was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Otay supported this bill. 14 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Water Supply Management •On August 6th, DWR released an Accountability Action Plan, which memorializes actions that “holds DWR accountable to the local community in a transparent, trackable, and measurable way.” •The plan establishes a $200 million Community Benefits Program for areas near the construction sites to avoid, “minimize, or offset potential impacts of project construction to residents, businesses, tribes, visitors to the Delta, and many others. The plan was developed, in part, to address concerns expressed in various community and public input forums during the planning process.” Water supply and management-related legislation has been introduced: SB 394 (Allen): Retail Water Theft. An ACWA-sponsored bill that expands offenses for utilities to include tampering with or diverting water from fire hydrants for non-firefighting purposes, alters fine structures for repeated violations, and enables local agencies to create ordinances against unauthorized hydrant connections with a fine schedule. The bill passed the legislature and is pending action by the Governor. SB 72 (Caballero)–CA Water Plan Long-Term Supply Targets. An ACWA-supported bill requiring the DWR to expand its advisory committee for the CA Water Plan to include tribes, labor, and environmental justice groups, and revise the 2050 interim planning target for sustainable water needs in urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors, with detailed cost-benefit analyses and public input. The bill passed the legislature and is pending action by the Governor. 15 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Water Recycling & Reuse Last year the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the direct potable reuse regulations that the State Water Board adopted in December 2023 in furtherance of Governor Newsom’s Water Supply Strategy 2030 goal of recycling and reusing 800,000 acre-feet of water, and 2040 goal of recycling and reusing 1.8 million acre-feet of water. SB 31 (McNerney): Recycled Water. A CA WateReuse-sponsored bill that updates Title 22 regulations to expand the use of recycled water for non-potable purposes, such as irrigation for homeowners' associations and public parks, which ACWA supports. The bill passed the legislature and is pending action by the Governor. 16 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Water Conservation & Water Use Efficiency State Water Board received approval from the OAL for the Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulation on October 22 of last year. The board has released Water Use Objective Reporting form and guidance documents on the Resources for Urban Water Suppliers webpage. Urban retail water suppliers were required to submit their reporting form to the State Water Board by January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter. Below are bills introduced regarding water efficiency. SB 614 (Stern): Potable Water: nonfunctional turf Would have moved up by one year the prohibition of the use of potable water for nonfunctional turf in common areas of homeowners' associations and similar entities starting January 1, 2029 to January 1, 2028. The bill was gutted and amended into an unrelated bill. 17 © 2021 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP www.bhfs.com | Water Rights This year has already seen the reintroduction of water rights legislation problematic to ACWA member agencies, which include: AB 263 (Rogers): Scott River: Shasta River: watersheds. Would keep in place emergency regulations adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board for the Scott River and Shasta River watersheds until permanent rules implementing long-term instream flow requirements are adopted. ACWA adopted an oppose position because it would set precedent for extending emergency regulations in place of following established processes for emergency regulations in times of drought. The bill passed the legislature and is pending final action by the Governor. AB 362 (Ramos): Water Policy: California tribal communities. Would define “tribal water uses,” designate them as a beneficial use of water and allow tribal water uses to be a primary factor in determining the highest water quality that is reasonable in all regulatory decisions. ACWA has adopted an oppose unless amended position. 2-year bill. 18 Questions? Baltazar Cornejo bcornejo@bhfs.com (916) 594-9705 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Eileen Salmeron, Communications Assistant PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Tenille M. Otero, Communications Officer Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2025 Social Media, Mobile Application, and Website Analytics Update GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: To provide the Board with an update on the Otay Water District’s social media, mobile application, and website analytics. ANALYSIS: The District’s communications staff utilizes various digital platforms, including social media, the District website, and its “Make Every Drop Count” mobile application to share timely news and information with customers and the public. Staff actively manages the District’s social media presence, staying up-to-date with evolving trends and technology. Social media serves as a key tool for public engagement, allowing the District to reach audiences that may not rely on traditional media. It enables real-time updates on water-related programs, projects, events, and local and state news, while also promoting transparency and responsiveness. Social media is especially crucial during AGENDA ITEM 4 2 emergencies, enabling the District to quickly communicate important updates when needed. In addition to social media, staff oversees the content of the District’s website and mobile application. Attachment B provides analytics for the District’s social media, mobile app, and website for fiscal year 2025 (July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025). These insights help guide ongoing improvements and ensure the District continues to meet the evolving needs of its customers. Social Media As social platforms continue to change, the District’s social media presence, online audience, and stakeholder engagement also evolve. Staff works to maximize the District’s online reach by promoting water education, career opportunities, conservation programs, operational efficiencies, capital improvement projects, and other District programs. To increase its social media followers and boost engagement, staff creates compelling visual content tailored to each platform and collaborates with other water agencies and organizations to launch joint campaigns and promote shared water-related programs. The District uses the following social media platforms: • YouTube – Joined November 2010 • X (formerly Twitter) – Joined February 2011 • Facebook – Joined November 2011 • Nextdoor – Joined July 2016 • LinkedIn – Joined August 2017 • Instagram – Joined November 2018 The social media analytics report in Attachment B presents the total number of impressions, engagements, and follower growth during fiscal year 2025. It also highlights popular posts published during that period. Instagram: From June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025, the District's Instagram followers increased by 9.1%, from 1,267 to 1,382. The District is the top retail water agency in the San Diego region with the most Instagram followers. LinkedIn: From June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025, its LinkedIn followers increased by 16.23%, from 1,140 to 1,325. The District is the among the top two retail water agencies in the San Diego region with the most LinkedIn followers. 3 Facebook: From June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025, its Facebook followers increased by 35%, from 753 to 1,016. The District is among the top three retail water agencies in the San Diego region with the most Facebook followers. X: The platform X, formerly known as Twitter, is experiencing a decline in overall users. The District reflected this with a 2% decrease in followers, from 2,299 to 2,253 during June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025. Despite the decrease, the District remains the top retail water agency in the San Diego region with the most X followers. Nextdoor: Unlike other social media platforms, Nextdoor followers, referred to as members, are based on the number of residents within the District’s service area who have joined the platform. They are automatically subscribed to receive the District’s posts. Since all its members are customers, staff can geotarget specific neighborhoods within its service area to share tailored messaging regarding projects and updated information relevant to those neighborhoods. From June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025, the number of its Nextdoor members increased by 10.41% from 75,206 to 83,032. YouTube: From June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025, the number of channel subscribers increased by 6.22%, from 241 to 256. The District is the top retail water agency in the San Diego region with the most YouTube subscribers. Its YouTube video views increased by 4.23%, from 201,048 to 209,545. Communications staff will continue to assess its current use of social media platforms and their effectiveness. Mobile App The District launched its “Make Every Drop Count” mobile application in August 2015. In 2020, information technology (IT) and communications staff collaborated to enhance the application. Its features include access to bill payment, reporting water waste, programs and resources, water-saving tips, water-use restrictions, contact information, and social media. From June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2025, its iOS downloads increased by 11.4%, from 7,105 to 7,914. Because the mobile application is currently undergoing an upgrade for Android users, the number of downloads for those users is not available. The upgrade is expected to be available in the Google Play Store by December 2025. Website Staff manages and maintains the District’s external-facing website content for otaywater.gov, with the goal of better serving customers by enhancing its web presence and user-friendliness. The website's 4 objective is to communicate the most current information and visually reflect the District’s commitment to using state-of-the-art technologies and forward-thinking practices. Attachment B includes the District’s website analytics. The District’s webpage views decreased by 4.7% from 444,176 in fiscal year 2024 to 423,444 in fiscal year 2025. Its users also decreased by 24.4%, from 149,774 to 113,242. Despite these decreases, both metrics remain higher than in fiscal year 2023 (as shown in Attachment B). The elevated figures in fiscal year 2024 were likely due to emergency-related events, such as Cal-Am’s water boil notice, which significantly increased visits to the Otay Water District website during that period. During fiscal year 2025, its 20 most viewed website pages were the following: 1) Home Page 2) Purchasing Bids 3) Payment Options 4) Customer Service 5) Billing Information 6) Contact Us 7) Employment 8) Start or Terminate Service Page 9) Start or Terminate Service Form 10) Update Your Account 11) Owner Acknowledgement Form 12) About Otay 13) Water Agency Search Tool 14) Free Flume Program 15) Water Services 16) Board of Directors 17) Rebates and Conservation Programs 18) Bid Opportunities 19) Outages 20) Water Quality Attachment B also shows the website’s traffic acquisition based on views, the top cities where the website receives the most views, and the top computer browsers used to visit the website in fiscal year 2025. To better serve the District’s Spanish-speaking audience, the website offers functionality that allows most English content to be displayed in Spanish. Staff, along with a consultant, handle the translation of English content into Spanish. 5 Aligned with the District’s strategic plan, staff regularly evaluates and implements improvements to the website. This includes enhancing its functionality and navigation, developing content that supports key messages, providing information tailored to visitors’ needs, and updating content frequently to keep the site engaging and relevant. In addition, staff is also assessing the development and implementation of a new website design as part of the upcoming strategic plan. To maintain an integrated communication, outreach, and marketing strategy, staff continues to explore best practices for cross-promoting messaging across social media, the website, traditional media, and other outreach tools. This also includes monitoring Google and Yelp. It will continue to tailor and share relevant content using videos, photos, and graphics that resonate with the District’s audience. Staff also continues to monitor additional social media platforms to assess if they would be efficient and effective for the District and its customers. Additionally, communications staff will continue to work closely with IT staff to evaluate website best practices and monitor emerging online trends, ensuring effective customer outreach. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. STRATEGIC GOAL: Enhance and build public awareness of the District’s priorities, initiatives, programs, and services. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: A) Committee Action B) Presentation: Social Media, Mobile Application, and Website Analytics 6 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Fiscal Year 2025 Social Media, Mobile Application, and Website Analytics Update COMMITTEE ACTION: The Conservation, Public Relations, Legal, and Legislative Committee (Committee) will review this item at a September 15, 2025 meeting. Attachment A will be updated with notes from the committee’s discussion. Attachment B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12