On December 8, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Dreher v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, affirming Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's (LADWP) budget-based tiered water...more
On August 28, 2025, the California Court of Appeal in Thacker v. City of Fairfield held that adjusting an assessment in accordance with a range established prior to Proposition 218 qualifies as an “increase” under Proposition...more
The United States Supreme Court’s April 12, 2024 decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado unanimously rejected longstanding California precedent. The Court’s decision further solidified that fees imposed as a condition of...more
On July 30, 2025, a divided California Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited opinion in Patz v. City of San Diego, affirming the trial court’s judgment that the City’s tiered residential water rates violated Proposition 218...more
8/1/2025
/ Appeals ,
California ,
Class Action ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Damages ,
Judicial Review ,
Public Utility ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Remand ,
State and Local Government ,
State Constitutions ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Utilities Sector ,
Water
The landscape for water rate setting in California is quickly evolving, and public agencies face growing challenges adjusting to new and complex standards when establishing or increasing water fees and charges. For example,...more
In a Rare Pre-Election Review, California Supreme Court Strikes Ballot Measure that Would Revise Constitution to Limit Revenue-Raising Authority of State and Local Governments - On June 20, 2024, the California Supreme Court...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court delivered its highly-anticipated opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, unanimously holding that fees imposed through legislative action as a condition of property...more