BOARD AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Government Code § 84308 Applies: Yes ☐ No ☒
(If “YES” Complete Attachment A - Gov. Code § 84308)
SUBJECT: Title
Adopt Recommended Positions on State Legislation: AB 11 (Lee) The Social Housing Act, AB 1319 (Schultz) Protected species: California Endangered Species Act, SB 466 (Caballero) Drinking water: hexavalent chromium: civil liability: exemption, and Other Legislation Which May Require Urgent Consideration for a Position by the Board.
End
RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation
A. Adopt a position of “Support” on: AB 11 (Lee) The Social Housing Act.
B. Adopt a position of “Oppose Unless Amended” on: AB 1319 (Schultz) Protected species: California Endangered Species Act.
C. Adopt a position of “Support” on: SB 466 (Caballero) Drinking water: hexavalent chromium: civil liability: exemption.
Body
SUMMARY:
AB 11 (Lee) The Social Housing Act. (Introduced - 12/02/2024)
Position Recommendation: Support
Priority Recommendation: 3
AB 11 would enact the Social Housing Act and create the California Housing Authority as an independent state body for the purpose of developing mixed-income social housing. The bill would define “social housing” to mean housing with specific characteristics, including but not limited to the fact that all units must be owned by a public entity and protected from being sold to a private for-profit entity. The bill is intended to facilitate the production of affordable housing for low-income households in a more cost-effective manner than the existing process.
Importance to Valley Water
There is an urgent and immediate need for transitional housing as well as supportive services to alleviate the housing shortage in California that has caused the unhoused crisis. However, homelessness is a symptom of the housing affordability crisis that is more acute in Santa Clara County than anywhere else in the nation. It is estimated that about 250 to 300 people live in Valley Water's managed waterways. AB 11 seeks to improve housing affordability, including employing social housing as a new strategy in California. Social housing has the potential to reduce the number of people becoming unsheltered by sustainably increasing the number of very low- and low-income units available.
Social housing is a model of housing that seeks to avoid issues associated with public housing by being built and maintained without relying on government subsidies. Home buyers who purchase market-rate units subsidize low-income and very low-income units. Social housing also avoids the problem of concentrated poverty by creating mixed-income neighborhoods. This strategy fosters economic opportunities while preserving affordability for low-income households in the community.
Encampments of unsheltered people create multiple issues along creeks and streams. In addition to serious life safety concerns from dangerous fast-moving flows during and after storms, the potential for disease outbreaks, wildfire risk from campfires, and the interference with flood risk reduction infrastructure, human waste results in nutrient loading of streams, causing algal blooms that impair natural and constructed habitat for aquatic species.
Addressing housing affordability through multiple strategies, including social housing, could be part of a larger solution that helps deliver low-income units with significantly reduced or no public subsidy after an initial public investment. This strategy could create more affordable housing, which may reduce the incidence of unhoused people living in the creeks managed by Valley Water.
Staff recommends the Board adopt a position of support on AB 11.
Pros
• Sustainably increasing the number of very low- and low-income units available through social housing would help to alleviate California’s housing shortage.
• Efforts to increase available housing units and address housing affordability are necessary to implement long-term solutions to address unsheltered homelessness within Santa Clara County.
Cons
• None.
AB 1319 (Schultz) Protected species: California Endangered Species Act. (Amended - 5/23/2025)
Position Recommendation: Oppose Unless Amended
Priority Recommendation: 2
Existing law makes it unlawful to take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian, except as authorized by law.
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) establishes federal protections for fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered. The lead federal agencies that implement the federal ESA are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) requires the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species pursuant to a prescribed listing process, and generally prohibits the taking of those species. CESA also authorizes the commission to adopt a regulation to list a species as an emergency regulation if it finds that there is any emergency posing a significant threat to the continued existence of the species.
Under CESA, CDFW may authorize the take of endangered, threatened, or candidate species if certain conditions are met, most commonly through an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). In a state ITP, take must be minimized and fully mitigated.
Under the federal ESA, the FWS may grant federal ITPs for the take of endangered or threatened species. In a federal ITP, the applicant must minimize and mitigate the impacts of take to the maximum extent practicable. A federal ITP must also be accompanied by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The FWS also has the option of conducting a formal consultation and issuing a Biological Opinion instead of an ITP.
AB 1319 would make it unlawful for a person in California to transport, sell, offer for sale, possess with the intent to sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, wildlife, or plant that was taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any statute of the United States with regard to national or international trade of fish, wildlife, or plants in effect on January 19, 2025. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on December 31, 2031, and would repeal them on January 1, 2032.
This bill would also require the commission to consider whether to adopt a regulation to list a federally listed species that is native to California as an emergency regulation if it determines, in consultation with CDFW, that a federal action subsequent to January 19, 2025, under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, results in a decrease in protection for that species and listing that species under CESA could provide protection. If the commission lists a federally listed species by emergency regulation, the bill would require the department to promptly commence a status review, and the commission to determine whether to list the federally listed species beyond the duration of the emergency. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on December 31, 2031, and would repeal them on January 1, 2032.
Importance to Valley Water
Valley Water relies on Incidental Take Permits and Biological Opinions to guide activities on our projects and maintenance activities. The process to secure an ITP, state or federal, is long and cumbersome. There are concerns about how AB 1319 would affect any existing or ongoing ITPs.
The Commission is already authorized to list a species as endangered or threatened under CESA as an emergency regulation if there is an emergency posing a significant threat to the continued existence of the species. AB 1319 would expand that emergency regulatory authority by including a “decrease in protection” for a species under the federal ESA as a justification. Given that the Commission can already take this action if there is an immediate need to protect a species, it is unclear why this specific authorization is necessary.
Additionally, the phrase “decrease in protection” is vague, subjective, and not defined in the bill. This creates a broad, open-ended mandate for CDFW to recommend actions for consideration by the Commission, which could create a situation where the Commission will likely consider almost every federally
listed species on an ongoing basis. The existing consistency determination process takes significant time, will lead to delays, and does little to mitigate the significant uncertainty this bill would create.
CDFW, like other state agencies, is facing significant staff cuts. Many of these positions are from special fund roles, positions that are intended to respond to permit requests, including consistency determinations and incidental take permits. This workload added by AB 1319 would place an additional burden on an already overworked agency.
Staff recommends the Board adopt a position of “oppose unless amended” on AB 1319. The amendments would seek to 1) clarify the trigger for emergency listing to eliminate the uncertainty of “decrease in protection”; 2) provide for a public comment period on the proposed emergency listing; and 3) add provisions to the bill to include a permit shield for good-faith actors.
Pros
• Reinforces the State’s commitment to biodiversity conservation by providing a response to federal action to weaken protections for endangered and threatened species.
Cons
• Creates uncertainty for permittees like Valley Water with the potential to lead to extensive delays in the implementation of projects and maintenance activities.
• The bill is unnecessary. The Commission and CDFW can already use the emergency regulatory process if needed, and CDFW staff can bring a petition, expediting review and adoption by the Commission.
• CDFW staffing shortages and funding cuts would be exacerbated by the requirements of the bill.
SB 466 (Caballero) Drinking water: hexavalent chromium: civil liability: exemption. (Amended - 05/21/2025)
Position Recommendation: Support
Priority Recommendation: 2
SB 466 would prohibit public water systems from being held liable in civil actions related to hexavalent chromium in drinking water, provided they are actively working toward compliance with established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
Importance to Valley Water
While Valley Water drinking water sources do not currently have hexavalent chromium contamination that exceeds the MCLs, SB 466 (Caballero) would provide liability protections for public water agencies in the event of such contamination.
Compliance with hexavalent chromium standards may involve retrofitting or building new treatment systems, improving monitoring capabilities, and adjusting system operations, all of which can take time and involve considerable investment. During this transition, water systems are vulnerable to lawsuits from customers or third parties, even if they are actively and in good faith working toward compliance. SB 466 ensures that Valley Water and other agencies are not subject to premature or duplicative legal actions while still being held accountable by the State Water Board through existing regulatory enforcement mechanisms.
This liability shield allows Valley Water to focus resources on planning, design, and construction of needed treatment infrastructure, without the added burden of legal defense costs. It also helps maintain public confidence and system reliability by allowing utilities to move forward with compliance in a coordinated, science-driven, and transparent manner.
The bill was introduced to allow water agencies to continue providing service and implementing necessary infrastructure upgrades without the risk of litigation during the compliance process. Importantly, SB 466 does not prevent the State Water Board from enforcing hexavalent chromium MCL standards.
This bill could help prevent Valley Water from being held liable for any potential hexavalent chromium contamination while working to implement necessary infrastructure improvements.
Staff recommends the Board adopt a position of support on SB 466.
Pros
• Protects public water systems from litigation while they implement compliance plans.
• Helps ensure uninterrupted service and avoids diversion of resources away from critical infrastructure upgrades.
Cons
• None.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY IMPACT:
There are no Environmental Justice impacts associated with this item. The Board’s position does not enact the legislation discussed above. If the enactment of state legislation necessitates an action by the Board, any associated Environmental Justice impacts will be assessed when the Board considers the action.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with this item.
CEQA:
The recommended action does not constitute a project under CEQA because it does not have a potential for resulting in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
UNCLASSIFIED MANAGER: Manager
Joshua Golka, 408-630-4508