Is a California regional water management group made up of cities, counties, and water districts a public agency that has to follow the Brown Act open meeting rules?
Plain-English summary
Madera County Counsel Regina Garza asked whether the Madera County Regional Water Management Group (Madera RWMG), a coalition built under California's Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act, is bound by the Brown Act. The AG said yes.
Regional water management groups are creatures of Water Code section 10530 et seq. The Legislature created the framework in 2002 (and overhauled it in 2008 to align with Proposition 84) so that water agencies sharing a watershed could coordinate plans, reduce conflicting projects, and pursue state grant funding through a single integrated regional water management plan. Membership in a typical group includes counties, cities, irrigation districts, resource conservation districts, and increasingly nonprofit and disadvantaged-community stakeholders. Madera RWMG includes Madera County, the cities of Madera and Chowchilla, several water districts, and groups like the Madera Ag Water Association and Self Help Enterprises. Its bylaws already require Brown Act compliance, but Garza wanted a definitive answer on whether the Brown Act applies as a matter of state law (so that compliance does not turn on whether members later agree to amend the bylaws).
The AG concluded that the Madera RWMG is a "legislative body" within the Brown Act's coverage. The decisive features: it is created by a written agreement among local public agencies, it exercises decision-making authority on behalf of those agencies (project prioritization, funding, plan amendments), and it operates in the public sphere addressing public concerns (drinking water reliability, groundwater contamination, climate resilience). Whether you view the Madera RWMG as a joint-powers-style entity or as a multi-agency advisory body created by a written agreement, both routes lead to Brown Act coverage under Government Code section 54952.
What this means for you
If you are on a regional water management group's governing committee
You must conduct your meetings under the Brown Act regardless of what your bylaws say. That means: post agendas at least 72 hours before regular meetings, allow public comment on every agenda item and on non-agenda items at the start of the meeting, take action only on agenda items (with narrow exceptions), keep minutes, and limit closed-session discussions to the specific categories the Brown Act allows (real estate negotiations, litigation, employee performance, labor negotiations). Government Code section 54957 et seq. lists the closed-session exceptions.
A practical exposure point: serial communications among more than a quorum of members about RWMG business outside of public meetings violate section 54952.2. Email chains, text threads, and back-channel calls among committee members all create that risk.
If you are county counsel or a city attorney representing a member agency
The opinion answers the predicate question for any compliance program: yes, it applies. If your client's RWMG has not been treating itself as a Brown Act body, transition now. Stand up a formal agenda system, public-comment procedures, and a posting process. Do not rely solely on bylaws to set the rules; bylaws can be amended, but the statutory floor cannot be lowered below Brown Act minimums.
If you are a journalist or open-government advocate
This opinion is a useful citation when a regional water management group anywhere in California claims it is a private cooperative or stakeholder forum exempt from open-meeting rules. The Madera RWMG was structured by an MOU rather than a formal joint powers agreement, and the AG still found it covered. The relevant question is whether the body acts on behalf of local public agencies, not whether it has a JPA.
If you are part of a stakeholder organization sitting on a regional water group
Your participation does not turn the body into a private one. The Madera RWMG includes nonprofit and stakeholder members, and the Brown Act still attaches because the core authority traces back to local public agencies. Plan to attend meetings on the public-facing agenda and submit written comments through the public process, not side channels.
Background and statutory framework
The Ralph M. Brown Act, codified at Government Code section 54950 et seq., declares California's commitment to open meetings of local public bodies: "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." Section 54952 defines "legislative body" broadly to cover (a) the governing body of a local agency, (b) certain commissions, committees, boards, and other bodies created by formal action of a local agency, and (c) bodies created by joint powers agreements or comparable written instruments among multiple local agencies.
The Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act, codified at Water Code section 10530 et seq., authorizes regional water management groups composed of "three or more local agencies, at least two of which have statutory authority over water supply or water management" plus optional stakeholder participants. The group operates under a memorandum of understanding, joint powers agreement, or other written instrument and develops and implements an integrated regional water management plan addressing water supply reliability, groundwater contamination, and related issues.
In Madera County, a coalition developed the regional plan from 2006 to 2008. The Madera RWMG was formed by a 2009 memorandum of understanding signed by Madera County and the City of Chowchilla, along with the Root Creek Water District, the Madera Irrigation District, the Coarsegold and Chowchilla Red Top Resource Conservation Districts, the Gravelly Ford Water District, the Yosemite Spring Park Utility Company, the Central Sierra Watershed Committee, the Chowchilla Water District, and Sugar Pine Water.
The Madera RWMG bylaws explicitly require Brown Act compliance, but the County Counsel asked the AG to confirm Brown Act coverage as a matter of state law, so that compliance is not a contingent function of bylaws that the members could later amend.
Common questions
Does this apply to all 48 regional water management groups in California?
The opinion's analysis is structural, not Madera-specific. Any regional water management group built on a written agreement among local public agencies operating under the Water Planning Act will fit the same legislative-body definition. The 48-group statewide network identified by the Department of Water Resources covers about 87% of California's land area and 99% of its population, so the practical reach is large.
What if a regional water group is composed entirely of nonprofit stakeholders, with no local public agencies?
The opinion does not reach that scenario. The Water Planning Act itself requires at least three local agencies as members of a regional water management group, so a fully-private regional water management group is not the standard configuration.
Does the Brown Act apply to subcommittees and technical advisory groups within the RWMG?
The opinion focuses on the parent group. Standing committees that include fewer than a quorum of the parent body and that are advisory only are generally not "legislative bodies" themselves under section 54952(b), but standing committees that exercise decision-making authority or that include a majority of the parent body are covered. Each subcommittee needs its own Brown Act analysis.
What about virtual meetings?
The Brown Act allows teleconferenced meetings under specific procedural requirements (Gov. Code § 54953). Post-AB 2449 (2023) and AB 557 (2023), bodies have additional flexibility for hybrid and remote participation, but the requirements include posting all meeting locations on the agenda, allowing public access at each location, and meeting quorum requirements.
What are the consequences of a Brown Act violation?
Government Code section 54960.1 lets any interested person file an action to invalidate an action taken in violation of the Act. Section 54960.2 allows actions to compel future compliance. Knowing violations can also be misdemeanors under section 54959.
Citations
- Government Code section 54950 et seq. (Ralph M. Brown Act)
- Government Code section 54952 (definition of "legislative body" covering local agencies, commissions, joint bodies)
- Water Code section 10530 et seq. (Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act)
- Water Code section 10539 (definition of regional water management group)
- Water Code section 10540 (regional plan content requirements)
Source
- Landing page: https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/yearly-index
- Original PDF: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/24-102.pdf
Original opinion text
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
ROB BONTA
Attorney General
OPINION
of
ROB BONTA
Attorney General
HEATHER THOMAS
Deputy Attorney General
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 24-102
May 8, 2025
The HONORABLE REGINA A. GARZA, COUNTY COUNSEL OF MADERA
COUNTY, has requested an opinion on a question relating to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(Brown Act). 1
QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION
Act?
Is the Madera County Regional Water Management Group subject to the Brown
Yes. The Madera County Regional Water Management Group is subject to the
Brown Act.
BACKGROUND
A regional water management group is an entity defined and created by the
Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act (the Water Planning Act). 2 The
California Legislature originally passed the Water Planning Act in 2002 to create a
mechanism by which different water agencies in a particular region can work together to
1
Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.
2
Wat. Code, § 10530 et seq.
1
24-102
address common water issues. 3 The Legislature said this was necessary because, while
water agencies are “typically separate entities with clearly defined service areas within
which they have exclusive authority to deliver water,” “most water agencies receive their
water supplies from a source that is shared with other water agencies.” 4 Thus, different
agencies may develop conflicting projects and plans for the same source of water. 5 The
Water Planning Act was an effort to reduce those conflicts. 6
As a general matter, a “regional water management group” is composed of “three
or more local agencies, at least two of which have statutory authority over water supply
or water management,” who agree to participate by a joint powers agreement,
memorandum of understanding, or other written agreement to develop and implement an
integrated regional water management plan (“regional plan”). 7 A regional plan must
address several specified water supply and quality issues, such as protection and
improvement of water supply reliability, and groundwater contamination. 8 A regional
water management group can also include stakeholder members that are not local
agencies, such as agricultural or developer organizations and members of disadvantaged
communities, who “may be necessary for the development and implementation of” the
Office of Senate Floor Analyses, Unfinished Business Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1672
(2002 Reg. Sess.), as amended Aug. 28, 2002, p. 2 (hereafter SB 1672 analysis). The
Legislature repealed and replaced the entire Act in 2008 to conform with the changes
Proposition 84 made to the integrated water management scheme. Proposition 84 was a
2006 ballot initiative that authorized $5.388 billion in bonds to fund “safe drinking water,
water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water
pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to
natural resources, and water conservation efforts.” (Cal. Natural Resources Agency,
Bond Accountability, https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p84.aspx (as of May 7,
2025).) Senate Bill No. 1XX set “new directions” for the integrated water management
scheme, but it did not change the Water Planning Act’s underlying purpose of setting
forth a regional approach for specified water management and planning issues.
(Assembly Special Committee on Water, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1XX (2007-2008 2nd
Ex. Sess.), as amended Aug. 4, 2008, pp. 7-8.) In fact, arguably this effort broadened that
purpose by explicitly including public involvement—involvement beyond water
agencies—in regional water planning. (Ibid.)
3
4
SB 1672 analysis at p. 2.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Wat. Code, § 10539.
8
Wat. Code, § 10540, subd. (c).
2
24-102
regional plan. 9 Once formed, a regional water management group identifies, prioritizes,
funds, and implements projects and programs designed to address the water issues
identified in the regional plan. 10
In Madera County, a “comprehensive group of stakeholders” developed and
finalized the county’s regional plan between 2006 and 2008. 11 Subsequently, several
regional entities, including Madera County and the City of Chowchilla, as well as several
resource conservation and water districts, all executed a memorandum of understanding
that created the Madera County Regional Water Management Group (Madera RWMG). 12
To become a member, a local agency must adopt the regional plan by formal resolution
Wat. Code, §§ 10539, 10540, subd. (b), 10541, subd. (g). Involvement of a broad
coalition of stakeholders is a goal of integrated water management. As the California
Department of Water Resources states, “Integrated Regional Water Management . . . is a
collaborative effort to identify and implement water management solutions on a regional
scale that increase regional self-reliance, reduce conflict, and build water and climate
resilience, while concurrently achieving social, environmental, and economic objectives.
This approach delivers higher value for investments by considering all interests,
providing multiple benefits, and working across jurisdictional boundaries, often on a
watershed scale.” (California Dept. of Water Resources, Integrated Regional Water
Management, https://water.ca.gov/programs/integrated-regional-water-management (as
of May 7, 2025).) Further, “[c]ities, counties, water agencies, special districts, nongovernmental organizations, community/environmental groups,
underrepresented/disadvantage[d] communities, Tribes and others across the State have
worked collaboratively to organize and establish 48 regional water management groups,
covering over 87 percent of the State’s area and 99 percent of its population.” (Ibid.)
9
10
Wat. Code, §§ 10537, 10539.
Madera RWMG, New Member Packet, p. 4 (revised June 2020) (hereafter New
Member Packet); Madera County Water & Natural Resources, Regional Water
Management Group, https://www.maderacountywater.com/regional-water-managementgroup/ (as of May 7, 2025) (hereafter Madera RWMG website).
11
Mem. of Understanding for Integrated Regional Water Management in the Madera
Region (2009-2010), pp. 8-10 (hereafter Original MOU). The requestor provided a copy
of the MOU that the Madera County Board of Supervisors adopted by formal vote in
October 2009 and executed on November 24, 2009, as well as other materials drafted in
preparation to joining the Madera RWMG. Other signatories to the Original MOU
included the Root Creek Water District, the Madera Irrigation District, the Coarsegold
Resource Conservation District, the Gravelly Ford Water District, the Yosemite Spring
Park Utility Company, the Central Sierra Watershed Committee, the City of Chowchilla,
the Chowchilla Red Top Resource Conservation District, the Chowchilla Water District,
and Sugar Pine Water.
12
3
24-102
and execute the memorandum of understanding. 13 In addition to local agencies such as
Madera County and the cities of Chowchilla and Madera, the Madera RWMG also has
included nonprofit and other entities such as the Madera Ag Water Association and Self
Help Enterprises. 14
The question presented is whether the Madera RWMG is subject to the Brown
Act, as our opinion requestor has concluded. 15 For the reasons that follow, we agree. 16
ANALYSIS
“[T]he purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local
government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation
by public bodies.” 17 “Public agencies ‘exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s
business,’ and the intent underlying the Act is that public agencies’ ‘actions be taken
Original MOU, §§ 2.3, 5.1. The paperwork submitted by the requestor includes the
resolution by which Madera County adopted the regional plan. (Madera County
Resolution No. 2009-351, In the Matter of Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
(Nov. 24, 2009).) While dues-paying, local agency members of the Madera RWMG
must adopt the regional plan by formal resolution, other entities must adopt it “by way of
acknowledgement of acceptance of the [regional plan] by the individual(s) authorized to
bind the entity.” (Original MOU, § 5.1.) Every entity that eventually became a party to
the Original MOU had adopted the regional plan by April 2008.
13
Madera RWMG website, https://www.maderacountywater.com/regional-watermanagement-group/ (as of May 7, 2025).
14
Madera County Counsel Regina A. Garza, Letter to Marc J. Nolan, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Opinion Unit, Department of Justice, Jan. 5, 2024. We received one
additional comment that agreed the Madera RWMG is subject to the Brown Act.
15
We note the Madera RWMG’s bylaws require all its regular and special meetings to
comply with the Brown Act. (Bylaws and Rules of Order of the Madera Regional Water
Management Group (Sept. 10, 2012), § 4.3 (hereafter Bylaws).) However, the fact the
parties mutually agreed to comply with the Brown Act does not answer the question of
whether the Brown Act, by its terms, would apply to a regional water management group
regardless of the bylaws. (Cf. Service Employees International Union, Local 99 v.
Options – A Child Care and Human Services Agency (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 869, 883
[“An agreement to comply with a statute may be enforceable as a contractual obligation,
but such an agreement cannot alter legislative intent or expand the scope of the statute”].)
16
Office of the California Attorney General, The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local
Legislative Bodies (2003) p. 1, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdf
(as of May 7, 2025).
17
4
24-102
openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.’” 18 The Brown Act itself states,
“[i]n enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public
commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid
in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be
taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly . . . . The people insist on
remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have
created.” 19 Thus, “as a remedial statute, the Brown Act should be construed liberally in
favor of openness so as to accomplish its purpose and suppress the mischief at which it is
directed.” 20
Entities subject to the Brown Act must follow specified requirements designed to
make meetings open to the public. Government Code section 54953(a) provides: “All
meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all
persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” 21 Therefore, the Brown Act applies to a
“legislative body.”
Section 54952 provides several definitions of a “legislative body” subject to the
Act’s requirements. Relevant here, section 54952(a) defines a “legislative body” as the
“governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal
statute.”
As a threshold matter, it is unclear how the “or” functions in section 54952(a). On
one hand, this subdivision could define the term “legislative body” as either (1) “a
governing body of a local agency” or (2) “any other local body created by state or federal
statute.” In that reading, “any other local body” refers to a “legislative body.”
Alternately, the subdivision could define “legislative body” as either (1) “a governing
body of a local agency” or (2) “a governing body of . . . any other local body created by
state or federal statute.” In this reading, “any other local body” would refer to an entity
that is an equivalent or alternative to a local agency, with the term “governing body”
attaching to both types of entities.
18
104 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34, 36 (2021).
19
Gov. Code, § 54950.
20
International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Los Angeles Export
Terminal, Inc. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 287, 294 (International Longshoremen’s); see also
Julian Volunteer Fire Co. Assn. v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection Dist. (2021) 62
Cal.App.5th 583, 601; Preven v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 925, 930;
Gov. Code, § 54950.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated.
21
5
24-102
In our view, the first reading is correct: Section 54952(a) defines “legislative
body” as either “a governing body of a local agency” or “any other local body created by
state or federal statute.” That is how the Attorney General’s Brown Act guide has long
interpreted the statute. 22 And construing the term “other local body” to refer to the
“legislative body” itself is consistent with the rest of section 54952, which repeatedly
uses the term “body” to refer to a “legislative body,” not some other type of entity. 23
Applying that understanding, we conclude the Madera RWMG is a “legislative
body” under both parts of the section 54952(a) definition.
The Madera RWMG is subject to the Brown Act because it is a local body created
by state statute
As noted, the second part of section 54952(a) defines a “legislative body” as “any
. . . local body created by state or federal statute.” 24 Although we are not aware of any
judicial authority construing this provision, we conclude the Madera RWMG falls within
its plain terms because the RWMG is a (1) “local” (2) “body” (3) “created by state . . .
statute.”
First, the Madera RWMG is “local” in nature. A “local” agency must comply with
the open-meetings requirements of the Brown Act, whereas a “state” agency must
comply with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. 25 Applying this distinction, the Court
of Appeal has held that a housing authority is a “local” agency subject to the Brown Act,
even though it is created by a state statute, because “a housing authority is local in scope
and character, restricted geographically in its area of operation, and does not have
statewide power or jurisdiction.” 26 For similar reasons, the Madera RWMG is a “local”
See Office of the California Attorney General, The Brown Act: Open Meetings for
Local Legislative Bodies (2003) p. 5 (“The governing bodies of local government
agencies are the most basic type of body subject to the Act’s requirements. . . . In
addition, the Act expressly applies to local bodies created by state or federal statute”).
22
See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 54952, subd. (b) (defining “legislative body” as a “commission,
committee, board, or other body of a local agency” created in specified ways); id.,
§ 54952, subd. (c)(1) (defining “legislative body” as a “board, commission, committee, or
other multimember body” that meets certain criteria). The term the section defines—a
“legislative body”—is a type of “body” as well.
23
24
Gov. Code, § 54952, subd. (a).
25
See Gov. Code, § 11120 et seq.
Torres v. Board of Commissioners (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 545, 549-550; see also
McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force
(2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 354, 359-363 (McKee) (regional law enforcement taskforce
(continued…)
26
6
24-102
entity because it concerns local matters, its operations are restricted geographically to
water issues in the Madera County region, and it does not have statewide jurisdiction. 27
Second, the Madera RWMG is a “body.” Although section 54952 does not
contain a definition of that term, context clues clarify its meaning. The statute uses
“body” in subdivisions (b) and (c) when it lists a “commission, committee, board, or
other body.” 28 By listing “body” along with “commission, committee, [or] board,” the
statute indicates the term “body” also refers to a type of multi-member decision-making
entity. 29 That understanding is consistent with dictionary definitions, which define a
“body” to include a “deliberative assembly” or an “aggregate of individuals or groups.” 30
And it reflects the Brown Act’s purpose: The Act applies to “multi-member bodies such
as councils, boards, commissions and committees” because “such bodies are created for
the purpose of reaching collaborative decisions through public discussion and debate.” 31
Here, the Madera RWMG is a multi-member assembly of regional entities that “reach[es]
collaborative decisions” through “discussion and debate,” similar to a multi-member
commission, committee, or board. It is therefore a “body” within the meaning of section
54952(a).
Third, the Madera RWMG was “created by state . . . statute.” As explained above,
the Madera RWMG was defined and created pursuant to the state Water Planning Act. 32
To be sure, the Water Planning Act did not by itself create the Madera RWMG; rather,
that specific RWMG was created when Madera County and other regional entities
executed the memorandum of understanding, in compliance with the Water Planning
created pursuant to state statute was a “local” agency subject to the Brown Act); 73
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (1990) (same for regional open space district).
See Madera RWMG website, https://www.maderacountywater.com/regional-watermanagement-group/ (as of May 7, 2025).
27
28
See Gov. Code, § 54952, subds. (b), (c)(1), italics added.
See California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd.
(2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 189 (“Noscitur a sociis (literally, ‘it is known from its
associates’) means that a word may be defined by its accompanying words and phrases,
since ordinarily the coupling of words denotes an intention that they should be
understood in the same general sense,” internal quotation marks omitted);
Balasubramanian v. San Diego Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 977, 988 (“We
must construe identical words in different parts of the same act or in different statutes
relating to the same subject matter as having the same meaning”).
29
30
Black’s Law. Dict. (12th ed. 2024) [“body”].
Office of the California Attorney General, The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local
Legislative Bodies (2003) p. 1, italics added.
31
32
See ante notes 11-14; Wat. Code, § 10530 et seq.
7
24-102
Act’s requirements. But we are not aware of any authority construing section 54952(a) to
require that state law must, by its own force, create the particular local body at issue. To
the contrary, the Attorney General’s Brown Act guide states that section 54952(a) applies
where a local body is “created according to a procedure established by state law”—here,
the Water Code’s procedure for creating a regional water management group. 33
That understanding is consistent with how courts have construed other parts of the
statute. Section 54952(c)(1)(A) defines a “legislative body” to include certain entities
that are “created by the elected legislative body.” 34 In that context, courts have construed
the phrase “created by” broadly to require only that legislative action “played a role in
bringing [the entity] into existence.” 35 Applying the same construction to subdivision (a),
the Madera RWMG was “created by” state statute because the Water Planning Act
“played a role in bringing [the RWMG] into existence.” 36 And that conclusion is
consistent with Brown Act decisions in other contexts, where courts have described local
entities as “created by state law” where a state statute set forth the parameters by which
local actors created the specific entity at issue. 37
Office of the California Attorney General, The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local
Legislative Bodies (2003) p. 5 (observing that a joint powers authority would be covered
by section 54952(a) both because it is the governing body of a local agency and also
because it is “created according to a procedure established by state law”).
33
See Gov. Code, § 54952, subd. (c)(1)(A) (defining a “legislative body” as a “board,
commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation,
limited liability company, or other entity that . . . [i]s created by the elected legislative
body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected
governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity”).
34
International Longshoremen’s, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 295; see 107
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1, 10-15 (2024) (collecting similar authorities).
35
International Longshoremen’s, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 295. We note that courts
have broadly construed “created by” in subdivision (c)(1)(A) in part due to circumvention
concerns: that a narrower interpretation could allow legislative bodies to evade the
Brown Act by creating entities through indirect means. (See ibid.) The same concerns
may not be present when evaluating whether a local body was “created by” state law
under section 54952(a). Still, given our duty to construe the Brown Act liberally, we
adhere to the principle that the Legislature ordinarily intends a single term to have a
uniform meaning throughout a statute (see Balasubramanian v. San Diego Cmty. Coll.
Dist., supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 988).
36
See, e.g., Torres v. Board of Commissioners, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at p. 549
(describing a housing authority as “created by state law” where it was created pursuant to
procedures described in state statutes); McKee, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at pp. 359-363
(similar for regional law enforcement agency).
37
8
24-102
For these reasons, we conclude the Madera RWMG is a “local body created by
state . . . statute” within the meaning of section 54952(a). It is therefore a “legislative
body” subject to the Brown Act’s requirements. 38
The Madera RWMG is also subject to the Brown Act because it is the governing
body of a local agency
Section 54952(a) also defines a “legislative body” as “[t]he governing body of a
local agency.” Here, we conclude the Madera RWMG is also subject to the Brown Act
because (1) the Madera RWMG itself is a “local agency” for purposes of the Brown Act,
and (2) its “governing body” is made up of the voting representatives of its member
agencies and organizations who discuss, deliberate, and vote upon matters of public
concern.
First, for purposes of the Brown Act, the Madera RWMG is a “local agency.” 39
Section 54951 defines a “local agency” as follows:
As used in this chapter, “local agency” means a county, city, whether
general law or chartered, city and county, town, school district, municipal
corporation, district, political subdivision, or any board, commission or
agency thereof, or other local public agency. 40
As the court of appeal recognized in SF Urban Forest Coalition, the “phrase ‘local
agency’ includes other entities apart from cities and counties”—indeed, the Brown Act
explicitly includes “other local public agency” in its definition of “local agency.” 41 As a
Until 1994, the “different types of bodies covered by the [Brown] Act were set forth in
several Government Code sections,” leading to “confusion with respect to the
interrelationship between” them. (Office of the California Attorney General, The Brown
Act: Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies (2003) p. 4.) To clarify the Act’s
coverage, the Legislature amended the statute in 1994 “to consolidate, into a single
section”—section 54952—“all of the provisions defining those bodies that are subject to
the Act’s requirements.” (Ibid.) Since then, courts have consistently looked to section
54952 to determine whether an entity is subject to the Brown Act. (See, e.g.,
International Longshoremen’s, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 293; Epstein v. Hollywood
Ent. Dist. II Bus. Improvement Dist. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 862, 868.)
38
As explained above, the Madera RWMG is a “local” agency subject to the Brown Act,
not a “state” agency subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. (See ante note 26.)
39
40
Gov. Code, § 54951, italics added.
SF Urban Forest Coalition v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th
796, 802-803; Gov. Code, § 54951.
41
9
24-102
general matter, local public agencies must “be created by statute or Constitution.” 42 A
housing authority created pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law, a regional open space
district, and a regional interagency law enforcement task force formed as a joint powers
agency are all examples of local public agencies created by statute within the meaning of
the Brown Act. 43
For example, in McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police
Apprehension Crime Task Force, the Court of Appeal held that a regional law
enforcement task force called “L.A. Impact,” which was created by multiple
municipalities joining a memorandum of understanding, was a “local public agency.” 44
L.A. Impact “coordinate[d] the efforts of the police departments and other law
enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County to fight drug trafficking and money
laundering.” 45 The court held that L.A. Impact was a “local public agency” under section
54951 because it was created pursuant to a state statute—the Joint Exercise of Powers
Act—and was authorized by its founding cities to exercise municipal police powers by
making arrests and seizing assets. 46 The court also noted that L.A. Impact was a fiscally
separate entity with its own public funding sources and methods for distribution. 47
For similar reasons, we conclude the Madera RWMG is a “local public agency”
under section 54951. As discussed, the Madera RWMG was formed pursuant to a state
statute—the Water Planning Act—and it includes representatives from regional
governments who agree via a memorandum of understanding to use their separate powers
in service of a common public goal. 48 As noted, the Water Planning Act creates the
42
McKee, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 359.
Torres v. Board of Commissioners, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at p. 549; 73
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, 1; McKee, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at pp. 359-363.
43
44
McKee, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 358.
45
Id. at pp. 356-357.
46
Id. at pp. 359-360.
47
Ibid.
48
The Madera RWMG’s mission statement provides:
The mission of the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) will
facilitate future coordination, collaboration, and communication for
comprehensive management of water resources in the Madera Region.
Through the mutual understanding among entities in the Madera Region
regarding their joint efforts toward Integrated Regional Water Management
we will ensure governance, development, planning, funding, and
implementation to make certain that optimal and affordable water supplies
(continued…)
10
24-102
concept of a regional water management group and defines its functions, powers, and
duties. 49 Moreover, the Madera RWMG exercises important government functions: It
creates the regional plan, and it identifies, prioritizes, funds, and implements projects
designed to address the plan’s designated water issues. 50 Finally, the Madera RWMG is
a separate entity from its member entities. It is fiscally separate, both because state
statutes and the memorandum of understanding set forth the method for securing funding
for its projects, and because the Water Planning Act does not require member agencies to
fund regional water management group projects. 51 The Madera RWMG also has its own
governance structure, as discussed in more detail later in this opinion.
We recognize the Madera RWMG includes private entities as members, unlike
L.A. Impact or a regional open space district, which included only public member
entities. But we are not aware of any authority suggesting the Legislature’s decision to
include private representatives in agency decision-making removes the agency from the
Brown Act’s reach. If anything, the fact the Water Planning Act provides for private
parties to be involved in important regional decisions is only further reason to ensure the
public’s access to the process. That conclusion is consistent with other portions of the
Brown Act, which subject entirely private entities to the statute’s open-meetings
requirements when they are authorized to exercise government authority. 52 And it is
consistent with judicial decisions construing the term “local agency” in other state
sunshine laws to include purely private entities that perform government functions. 53
& facilities are available now and in the future to sustain this region and its
responsible growth.
(Madera RWMG website, https://www.maderacountywater.com/regional-watermanagement-group/ (as of May 7, 2025).)
49
Wat. Code, §§ 10539-10543; 10530 et seq.
50
Wat. Code, §§ 10534, 10539, 10540, 10541; New Member Packet, p. 4.
51
New Member Packet, p. 8; Water Code, §§ 10544-10547, 10540, subd. (d).
52
See Gov. Code, § 54592, subd. (c)(1)(A).
The Court of Appeal has held that a purely private entity—a nonprofit—is a “local
agency” under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) if it passes a four-part test:
“(1) whether the entity performs a government function, (2) the extent to which the
government funds the entity’s activities, (3) the extent of government involvement in the
entity’s activities, and (4) whether the entity was created by the government.”
(Community Action Agency of Butte County v. Superior Court of Butte County (2022) 79
Cal.App.5th 221, 234-239, internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The CPRA’s
definition of a “local agency” is very similar to the Brown Act’s. (Compare Gov. Code,
§ 7920.510 (CPRA), with id., § 54951 (Brown Act).)
53
11
24-102
Our conclusion that the Madera RWMG is a local agency is consistent with
courts’ instruction that the Brown Act must be construed in favor of openness. Public
agencies “exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.” 54 Public utilities,
particularly projects and programs intended to maintain and improve the region’s water
supply and management, are undoubtedly the people’s business. Further, a regional
water management group is empowered to spend public money, and the Madera RWMG
approves projects that use public funding. 55 The “people’s business” certainly includes
spending public money.
Finally, finding the Madera RWMG a local agency is consistent with the
legislative intent behind the Water Planning Act because the Act requires regional water
management groups to operate openly in contexts beyond the Brown Act. First, the
Water Planning Act explicitly requires a regional water management group to publish a
notice of intention to prepare its regional plan: It must publicize how interested parties
may participate in developing the regional plan, and the regional plan must be adopted at
a “public” meeting of its governing board. 56 A local agency’s “public” meeting is
governed by the Brown Act. Second, before any regional plan is adopted, the process for
developing one must include “[a]n integrated, collaborative, multibenefit approach to
selection and design of projects and programs,” “[a] process to coordinate water
management projects and activities of participating local agencies and local stakeholders
to avoid conflicts and take advantage of efficiencies,” and “a process to disseminate data
and information related to the development and implementation of the plan.” 57 By
requiring regional coordination and data dissemination, the Legislature demonstrated its
intent that a regional water management group operate with transparency. These
legislative expressions favoring openness, as well as the fact the Madera RWMG is
empowered to spend public funds and make decisions regarding a public utility, support
our conclusion that the Madera RWMG is a local agency within the meaning of the
Brown Act.
As noted above, section 54952(a) defines a “legislative body” as the “governing
body of a local agency.” Having established that the Madera RWMG is a “local agency,”
we also find that the voting representatives of its member agencies and organizations
54
Gov. Code, § 54950.
For instance, in 2019 and 2020 the Madera RWMG was awarded Proposition 1 funding
for disadvantaged community outreach and four water projects. (Madera RWMG
website, https://www.maderacountywater.com/regional-water-management-group/ (as of
May 7, 2025); see also, e.g., Wat. Code, §§ 10541, subd. (a), 10546.)
55
56
Wat. Code, § 10543.
57
Wat. Code, § 10541, subd. (e), subparagraphs (5), (12) and (13).
12
24-102
(“voting representatives”) form a governing body within the meaning of section
54952(a). 58
The dictionary defines “govern” as “to control, direct, or strongly influence the
actions and conduct of” and “to control and direct the administration of policy in.” 59
Note that a “governing body” is the first definition of a legislative body under the Brown
Act, and legislative bodies subject to the Brown Act hold meetings where they discuss,
deliberate, or take action on items of business within the body’s subject matter
jurisdiction. 60
Here, while the Madera RWMG does not appear to be governed by a formal board
of directors, the functions of a board—to control the RWMG, direct its administration of
policy, and hold meetings to discuss, deliberate, and take action on issues regarding
regional water management—are performed by the members’ voting representatives.
The voting representatives elect a chairperson who presides over meetings by, among
other tasks, setting meeting agendas, convening and conducting meetings, and putting all
regular motions to vote. 61 Further, at Madera RWMG meetings, decisions are made by
majority vote, as specified in the body’s bylaws. 62 Thus the voting representatives
control the RWMG and direct its administration of policy just like a board of directors,
The Bylaws set forth a governing scheme where (1) for formal votes, a single
representative of a member entity votes on an issue, except for certain members where a
single representative among them votes on an issue, or (2) to gauge preliminary support
for an idea before sending it to a formal vote, all meeting participants participate in a
non-binding poll. (Bylaws, §§ 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.2, 6.3, 6.3.1.) In this opinion, we intend
“voting representative” to refer broadly to any person who may vote on an issue or idea at
a Madera RWMG meeting pursuant to the Bylaws.
58
Merriam-Webster.com Dict., Merriam-Webster, [“govern”], https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/govern (as of May 7, 2025).
59
Gov. Code, § 54952.2, subd. (a); see also Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento
County Board of Supervisors (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 47-51.
60
Bylaws, §§ 3.2, 3.4, 3.5.1. The chairperson must have served as a representative of a
Madera RWMG member for at least a year. The Madera RWMG also elects a Chair Pro
Tem who serves in absence of the chair, and it has a staff consisting of an administrative
assistant who provides meeting notice and who prepares and maintains documents such
as files, minutes, and findings related to items of business. (Bylaws, §§ 3.3, 3.5.1.)
61
The Bylaws describe three categories of members. A member of the Madera RWMG
has different voting rights depending on the category of its membership and the type of
decision being made. (Bylaws, §§ 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 [setting forth the differences
between dues-paying, affiliate, and Disadvantaged Community Group members, and
votes for administrative and substantive decisions].)
62
13
24-102
and as such they form a “governing body” within the meaning of the Brown Act. 63
Because this governing body governs a local agency—the Madera RWMG—the Madera
RWMG is also subject to the Brown Act under the first phrase of section 54952(a).
See 104 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, 34 (a board made up of the representatives of voting
members of a joint powers authority is a “legislative body”).
63
14
24-102