AB 2469 amends Section 13500 of the California Water Code to remove duplicated words in the provision that names the chapter the "Water Recycling Law." The bill's text consists of a single-line edit to the code's captioning language; it does not add policy, procedural requirements, or regulatory authority.
For professionals tasked with statutory compliance, legislative tracking, or code publication, this bill matters mainly as housekeeping: it clarifies a drafting error that can create confusion in official code publications, electronic databases, and legal citations, but it creates no new duties or enforceable rights.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces a duplicated phrase in Water Code §13500 so the chapter will read cleanly as the Water Recycling Law. It makes no changes to operative provisions that govern water reclamation policy or program authority.
Who It Affects
State code editors, legal publishers, and anyone who cites §13500 for style or citation purposes will see the corrected text. Agencies that implement water recycling policy—such as the State Water Resources Control Board—face no new obligations.
Why It Matters
Minor drafting errors propagate into searchable legal databases and can complicate automated citation or indexing systems. Fixing the textual duplication reduces ambiguity in the official code without altering the law's meaning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2469 is a focused editorial amendment. It targets Section 13500 of the Water Code—the short provision that names the chapter the "Water Recycling Law"—and removes repeated words that appear in the current text.
There is no change to the chapter's declared public interest in developing water recycling facilities, nor does the bill change any substantive definitions, programs, or authorities elsewhere in the Water Code.
Because the change is confined to the naming/citation line, the bill does not alter enforceable requirements, resource allocations, or regulatory standards. The legislative counsel's digest characterizes the edit as nonsubstantive, and the bill contains no appropriation or fiscal impact language.
Practically, the Capitol's official statute text and third-party legal databases will update the one-line wording to match standard drafting conventions.The primary practical effect is administrative: published versions of the Water Code (print and electronic) will be cleaner for citators, indexing, and automated parsing tools. Courts, agencies, and regulated entities should not treat the amendment as a source of new authority or obligation; any citation to §13500 after enactment will reflect only the corrected phrasing.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2469 amends Water Code Section 13500, which identifies the chapter as the "Water Recycling Law.", The bill's edit removes duplicated words in the statutory captioning line and contains no substantive policy language.
The legislative counsel's digest describes the change as nonsubstantive and the bill lists no fiscal or appropriation impacts.
The amendment does not modify program authority, funding, enforcement provisions, or definitions related to water reclamation.
The practical outcome is an editorial clean-up of the official code text and downstream legal databases, not a change in duties for agencies or regulated parties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Edit to Water Code §13500 (chapter name/citation)
This is the operative line of the bill. It replaces the current wording in Section 13500 so the chapter is simply cited as the "Water Recycling Law." The change removes the duplicated words that appear in the existing text; because the provision functions only as a name/citation clause, the edit does not change substantive statutory commands or grant new authority.
Characterization as a nonsubstantive drafting correction
The digest explicitly states the bill makes nonsubstantive changes. That label signals to codifiers, courts, and agencies that the legislature intends no policy shift. In practice, this reduces risk that the amendment will be read as altering intent or operative provisions elsewhere in the chapter.
No appropriation or fiscal committee referral
The bill metadata shows 'Appropriation: NO' and 'Fiscal Committee: NO.' These entries reflect that the amendment carries no direct fiscal effect and does not trigger legislative budget processes. For agencies and local governments, there is therefore no anticipated compliance cost tied to the statute change itself.
Updates needed for official and commercial code publications
Although the legal effect is nil, code publishers and electronic databases must update their texts to remove the duplication. That requires routine editorial work: republishing the affected section in the online California Law Codes, correcting annotations where necessary, and ensuring citation tools and automated scrapers index the corrected line.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State code editors and the Office of Legislative Counsel — the bill reduces a drafting oddity the offices would otherwise need to justify or annotate in official publications.
- Legal publishers and database providers — a cleaner statutory line reduces false positives in text-matching, citation parsing errors, and the need for explanatory notes in annotated codes.
- Attorneys, compliance officers, and researchers — improved clarity in citations and statute text marginally reduces time spent verifying code accuracy when referencing the Water Recycling Law.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative drafting and publication staff — minor editorial work and updating of official publications and online code repositories to reflect the corrected text.
- Commercial legal database operators — small update and QA costs to synchronize datasets with the amended official code text.
- Organizations tracking statutory changes — compliance teams will need to log and verify the change in their tracking systems, though there is no operational impact.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is administrative clarity versus the risk that even tiny textual edits invite inquiries about legislative intent: cleaning up a statute improves usability for publishers and databases, but any amendment—no matter how minor—can prompt stakeholders or courts to reexamine the provision and its context, potentially generating more work than the original typo.
On its face AB 2469 is a classic scrivener's or housekeeping bill: it corrects a drafting duplication without touching substantive law. That makes implementation straightforward, but it is not wholly without practical questions.
The bill relies on the standard legislative process for technical corrections; if the duplicate wording reflected an earlier, ambiguous drafting choice, removing it could prompt curiosity from courts or litigants about whether the legislature intended any narrower meaning. Given the provision at issue is a caption/naming clause, the likelihood courts treat the edit as substantive is low, but bibliographic consistency depends on prompt updates to official and third-party publications.
Another implementation consideration is the logistics of updating machine-readable legal texts. Automated systems that parse statutes sometimes treat unexpected duplication or formatting as structural markers.
Vendors and state publishers will need to ensure that index identifiers, paragraph numbering, and cross-reference links remain stable so that the change does not break APIs or citation anchors used by practitioners and agencies. Finally, because the bill contains no express effective date language, standard statutory practice will determine when the corrected text appears in official codifications; implementers should watch the final enrolled act to confirm timing.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.