Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986: settlements: attorney's fees.

Header changed from 'Amended in Senate' format to enrolled bill format with Assembly passage date (August 25, 2026) and Senate passage date (August 24, 2026).

The digest removed the phrase 'as amended' before the author's name, which is standard when a bill reaches enrolled status.

The vote requirement, appropriation, fiscal committee, and state-mandated local program lines were removed from the digest, as these are typically stripped upon enrollment.

Page numbers shifted from 96 to 95 throughout the document due to reformatting for the enrolled version.

Removed the requirement that settlements for warning-based actions (Section 25249.6) must 'require interest.' Previously, such settlements had to both provide a public benefit AND require interest as a separate condition. Now they only need to satisfy the general public interest and public benefit finding, with the existing presumption for warning actions remaining unchanged.

Changed the procedure when the Attorney General objects to attorney's fees in a settlement. The old version gave plaintiffs a fixed 45-day deadline to file declarations supporting their fee request. The new version allows the court to set its own schedule for the plaintiff to submit additional briefing and evidence, with responses from the defendant and/or Attorney General. The cap that any court-ordered fee award cannot exceed the amount in the original settlement is retained.

Minor language cleanup in the Legislative Counsel's Digest removing a redundant use of the word 'provided' and correcting a typo ('attorneys'' to 'attorney's'). Page numbering shifted from 97 to 96 due to reduced text length.

The bill no longer amends Section 25249.5 (the drinking water contamination prohibition). The entire SECTION 1 that would have made nonsubstantive changes to that section was deleted, narrowing the bill to only Section 25249.7.

The court's finding on attorney's fees in settlement approval was changed from 'reasonable under California law' to 'reasonable and appropriate under California law,' adding an additional standard the court must affirmatively find before approving a settlement.

A new rebuttable presumption was created: a settlement for a warning violation action (Section 25249.6) is now presumed to be in the public interest and provide a public benefit if it requires the defendant to reduce exposure or provide a compliant warning. Previously, the court had to make an affirmative finding on these elements without any presumption.

The procedure for when the Attorney General objects to a settlement's attorney's fees award was modified to give the court authority to set a schedule for additional briefing and evidence, rather than simply allowing the plaintiff to file declarations. The court's fee award must now expressly be made 'pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4),' tying it to the reasonable-and-appropriate standard.

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the Senate amendment identified a state fiscal impact that was not present in the Assembly version.

The bill now amends Section 25249.7 (enforcement and penalties) in addition to the original nonsubstantive edits to Section 25249.5, shifting from a technical cleanup to substantive Prop 65 enforcement reform.

The vote requirement changed from majority to two-thirds of each house because the bill now amends Proposition 65, an initiative measure that requires a supermajority for amendments. The fiscal committee designation also changed from no to yes.

Courts must now make specific findings before approving settlements in public interest Prop 65 actions: the warning complies with the law, attorney's fees are reasonable, the penalty is reasonable, and the settlement provides a public benefit and is in the public interest. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving each finding.

For settlements involving warning violations (Section 25249.6), the court must find that the settlement requires the defendant to either reduce exposure below pre-settlement levels or provide a compliant warning that was not previously given.

Private plaintiffs must now file a certificate of merit stating they consulted persons with relevant expertise who reviewed facts, studies, or data about the alleged exposure. If a court later finds no credible factual basis for that belief, the action is deemed frivolous under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5.

If the Attorney General objects to the attorney's fees in a settlement and the court finds them unreasonable, the court approves the settlement without fees and gives the plaintiff 45 days to submit additional fee justification. The court may then award fees but cannot exceed the amount originally set in the settlement.

The Attorney General can still bring actions against alleged violators even if they used the safe harbor procedure, though any civil penalty in such an action must be reduced to reflect the $500 already paid.

A special compliance procedure (safe harbor) is created for four categories of common exposures: alcoholic beverages consumed on premises, chemicals formed by cooking in food and beverages, environmental tobacco smoke from non-employee entry, and engine exhaust in noncommercial parking facilities. An alleged violator can avoid a lawsuit by correcting the violation within 14 days and paying a $500 civil penalty (adjusted every five years by CPI), split 75/25 between the Prop 65 fund and the noticing party.