REPRIEVE IN RULING ABOUT PURE WATER WORKER HIRING

Contractors allowed to amend suit about non-union labor

Legal wrangling over San Diego’s proposed Pure Water sewage recycling system continued Friday when a judge gave a temporary reprieve to a group of local contractors fighting for the ability of non-union workers to help build the system.

Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss gave the contractors two weeks to strengthen their case, that construction of the system should be blocked because of a dispute over the use of non-union workers to build some of it.

The decision came after Strauss had issued a tentative ruling Thursday evening that denied the contractors’ request for an injunction and refuted their claims that a recent state law related to the project violates the California Constitution.

After hearing oral arguments Friday morning, Strauss decided he would like to hear more from the contractors about their contentions. He gave them permission to “amend” their lawsuit against the state.

“I think this is an important issue,” he said. “I’m not changing the ruling. I’m just giving them leave to amend.”

When Strauss eventually makes a ruling, the losing side is expected to appeal it to the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal.

Barring a settlement, city officials say, the case could take years to litigate. Meanwhile the cost of the roughly $5 billion Pure Water system is increasing $4 million every month that construction is delayed. The dispute began in 2018, when city officials tried to craft a compromise requiring union workers on some parts of the project and allowing union and nonunion workers on other parts.

The local chapter of the Associated General Contractors sued to block the compromise, contending it violates a successful 2012 city ballot measure that regulates the use of union workers on projects.

Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled in favor of the contractors and issued an injunction, which forced city officials to halt soliciting bids for Pure Water projects.

State Assemblyman Todd Gloria and state Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, both of San Diego, then proposed a legislative solution at the state level.

AB 1290, which was approved by both houses of the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last fall, says that all parts of Pure Water that get state funding must use a project labor agreement, which typically allows only union workers.

The law was initially heralded as a solution to the legal mess, but a lawsuit filed by the Associate General Contractors says it’s illegal for state legislation to single out a specific geographic area.

The lawsuit also says it’s illegal for the state to pass legislation that diminishes the power of a particular charter city, such as San Diego.

The contractors association also claims AB 1290 amounts to coercion, because the project relies on many millions of dollars in state contributions. The law amounts to saying San Diego must either use a project labor agreement or not get the state money it has been promised for the project, their lawsuit says.

In his tentative ruling on Thursday, Strauss refuted those claims one by one.

On Friday, the contractors’ attorney, James Azadian, argued that the state constitution is clear that special laws like AB 1290 can’t apply to charter cities, and that only general state legislation can apply to those cities.

“The court should apply the plain text of the constitution,” Azadian said.

The attorney for the state, Lara Hadad, said there are examples of special state laws that apply to charter cities, citing a law based on the population of cities that applied only to Los Angeles because it was the only city large enough.

She also said the state law was justified because the case involved an “issue of statewide concern.”

In his tentative ruling, Strauss wrote that the state had been justified in passing such a law.

“The Legislature found a relationship between the importance of requiring project labor agreements on this project with the need for expediency in the project’s completion, which is critical to the water supply of San Diego,” he said. “These are legitimate and reasonable determinations.”

The judge has scheduled an April 10 conference with the attorneys in the case.

Pure Water, which has been in the planning stages for more than a decade, aims to boost San Diego’s water independence. By recycling treated sewage into drinking water, the system is projected to account for onethird of the city’s water supply by 2035.

“I’m not changing the ruling. I’m just giving them leave to amend.” Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss