Item 23 - Protests - Sewer & Water Rates

Home Browse Search

Legal Objection Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Changes January 31, 2026 VIA HAND DELIVERY 1 U.S. MAIL City of Santa Ana Attention: City Clerk P.O. Box 1988, M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Legal Objection to Proposed Water,Recycled Water, and Sewer Rate Changes Pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6 (Proposition 218) and Government Code Section 53759.1 (AB 2257) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am a property owner and ratepayer within the City of Santa Ana. This letter constitutes a formal legal objection to the proposed water, recycled water, and sewer rate changes as described in the City's Proposition 218 Notice of Public Hearing dated for March 17, 2026, and as detailed in the 2026 Water and Sewer Rate Study ("Rate Study") prepared by Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. ("RDN"), dated January 7, 2026. This objection is submitted in accordance with the requirements of California Constitution Article X111 D, Section 6, and the administrative exhaustion procedures established by AB 2257 (Government Code Section 53759.1), as referenced in the City's public hearing notice. I am submitting this objection prior to the March 10, 2026 deadline to preserve all rights to challenge the proposed rates. While this objection addresses multiple aspects of the proposed rate changes, the central concern is the consolidation of all customer classes into a single rate class and the resulting failure to demonstrate proportional cost-of-service compliance as required by Proposition 218. I. LEGAL STANDARD California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6(b) imposes substantive limitations on property- related fees and charges. Subdivision (b)(3)provides that"[t]he amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel." (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (b)(3), emphasis added.) As the California Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed in Coziahr v. Otay Water District(2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785, this proportionality requirement is strict and demands more than a showing of"reasonableness." The burden falls on the local agency to "demonstrate compliance" with Section 6(b)(3) by "substantial evidence that withstands independent review." (Id.) The Court held that it is "not enough for a water agency to show it uses a reasonable allocation method"; rather, "an agency must show that the method produces rates that are proportional to costs." (1d.) The Coziahr court further found that Otay Water District"discriminated against single-family residential customers by charging them more for water than other customer classes without a Page 1