The California Attorney General's Office issued a significant opinion on May 20, 2026, regarding the application of local building and zoning ordinances to public water systems. The ruling, identified as Opinion No. 24-1101, clarifies that exemptions under Government Code section 53091 do not extend to privately owned public water systems, such as those operated by mutual water companies. This decision impacts how local governments regulate water systems across California.
The opinion stems from a request by State Senator Kelly Seyarto, who sought clarity on whether local regulations apply to all public water systems, including those owned by private entities. The ruling is crucial as it delineates the regulatory landscape for water systems in California, affecting both public and private operators.
California's legal framework allows both public agencies and private companies to manage public water systems. A public water system is defined as one that provides drinking water to 15 or more connections or serves at least 25 individuals daily. Despite the term 'public,' many of these systems are privately owned. The California Safe Drinking Water Act imposes various requirements on all public water systems, regardless of ownership, ensuring they meet health and safety standards.
The Attorney General's office emphasized that while public water systems are exempt from local building and zoning ordinances under Government Code section 53091, this exemption does not apply to privately owned systems. The court filing states, "the exemptions from local building and zoning ordinances set forth in Government Code section 53091 do not apply to privately owned public water systems, such as those owned by mutual water companies, but apply only to publicly owned water systems." This ruling clarifies the distinction between public and private ownership in the context of local regulations.
The ruling is grounded in the legislative intent behind Government Code section 53091, which was enacted to balance local control with state interests in water and power projects. The Attorney General's opinion noted that the term 'local agency' as defined in the statute refers specifically to state agencies and does not encompass privately owned entities. As such, privately owned public water systems remain subject to local building and zoning ordinances.
In reaching this conclusion, the Attorney General's office referenced previous court decisions that have consistently held that Government Code section 53091 applies only to government agencies. For instance, in the case of Delta Wetlands Properties v. County of San Joaquin, the court stated, "Government Code section 53091 does not apply to private projects." This precedent reinforces the notion that privately owned systems do not enjoy the same immunity from local ordinances as publicly owned systems.
The impact of this ruling is significant for mutual water companies and other privately owned public water systems, as they will now face local regulations that could affect their operations and expansion plans. Local agencies will have the authority to impose building and zoning requirements on these systems, which may lead to increased compliance costs and regulatory hurdles.
This decision may also set a precedent for future cases involving the regulation of privately owned public utilities. It highlights the ongoing tension between local governance and state oversight in the management of essential services like water supply. By clarifying the regulatory landscape, the Attorney General's opinion aims to provide guidance to both local governments and private water system operators.
Looking ahead, the ruling could be subject to appeal or further legislative review. While there are no immediate related cases pending, the decision may prompt discussions among lawmakers regarding the treatment of privately owned water systems in California. Stakeholders from both public and private sectors may seek to address the regulatory challenges posed by this opinion, potentially leading to new legislation or amendments to existing laws.
In conclusion, the California Attorney General's opinion on local regulations for public water systems marks a significant development in the state's approach to water management. By clarifying the distinction between public and private ownership, the ruling shapes the future of water regulation in California and underscores the importance of balancing local control with state interests.