High Stakes, Dirty Water, Red Flags Part Four: The Law is Automatic. And the Central Basin Water Board Isn’t Acting.

By Brian Hews

Publisher | Follow X

January 12, 2026

• X
• Nextdoor
• Pinterest
• Facebook
• Threads
• Bluesky
• LinkedIn
• Mail

January 12, 2025

Five weeks ago, Los Cerritos Community News launched High Stakes, Dirty Water, Red Flags, a multi-part investigative series revealing that for years Central Basin District Four Director Juan Garza quietly operated the California Cities for Self-Reliance Joint Powers Authority (JPA), a taxpayer-funded agency, through Bellflower-based Six Heron, his privately owned public-relations and government-relations firm. 

Garza’s decision to personally run a publicly funded joint powers authority through his private firm, which for years was not properly licensed with the city of Bellflower, raised immediate red flags under California law governing procurement, transparency, and conflicts of interest. 

By controlling the JPA’s operations, receiving bids, and managing public business through his own private infrastructure, Garza blurred — and in some cases erased — the legal separation required between a public agency and a private enterprise.

That private control, combined with Garza’s renewal of his contract as the JPA’s executive director while simultaneously serving as an elected water official for Central Basin, has now placed his Central Basin Municipal Water District seat in legal peril.

Part One documented how Garza used his personal Six Heron email, company cellphone, and Bellflower P.O. Box as the JPA’s operational and procurement pipeline, effectively turning a public agency into a one-man operation. 

Part Two exposed how that private control of the JPA collided directly with Garza’s elected authority at the Central Basin Municipal Water District, where he votes on water rates, infrastructure, and policies affecting the very cities that fund his JPA executive-director salary, including Hawaiian Gardens, a JPA member city within his own Central Basin division.

Part Three moved from conflicts to consequences. It examined the legal trigger created by Garza’s JPA arrangement and repeated contract renewals. Garza has served as Executive Director of the California Cities for Self-Reliance Joint Powers Authority since March 2020 and joined the Central Basin Municipal Water District board in December 2020. 

Since taking office, he has renewed his paid JPA employment contract while simultaneously serving as a Central Basin director and as Central Basin’s delegate to the Metropolitan Water District.

Government Code 1099 is automatic. When a public official assumes or renews a second public office that is incompatible with the first, the first office is deemed vacated by operation of law, without any vote or finding of misconduct. 

The statute turns solely on whether the duties of the positions create divided loyalty or overlapping authority.

Here, that overlap is direct. The JPA Garza runs represents Bell Gardens, Commerce, Compton, and Hawaiian Gardens — all Central Basin customer cities, including one within his own division — while Garza votes on water rates, infrastructure, and wholesale water decisions affecting those same cities through Central Basin and MWD. 

Attorney General opinions make clear that incompatibility is evaluated based on real-world duties, not job titles, and that executive roles involving public funds, contracts, and advocacy do not qualify as exempt employment.

Garza has identified no statute or Attorney General opinion expressly authorizing this dual service. Under established law, if the JPA role is deemed a public office, forfeiture of his Central Basin seat would have occurred automatically upon renewal of the contract, with consequences extending to his MWD seat and to subsequent board actions taken during that period.

Central Basin Majority, GM, and General Counsel Block Investigation

Now comes Part Four, which puts the spotlight on Central Basin’s inaction after the law triggered automatic consequences — and what happens when the law operates automatically and the agency does nothing.

Government Code 1099 does not require a board vote, a review, a finding of wrongdoing, or a declaration of misconduct. When incompatibility exists, forfeiture occurs by operation of law. Whether the official agrees is irrelevant. Whether the board acknowledges it is irrelevant.

That distinction matters because Central Basin has taken no public action to determine whether Garza’s repeated renewal of his paid executive role with a lobbying JPA triggered an automatic vacancy — despite LCCN’s reporting and repeated questions highlighting the conflict. With Victor Ponto serving as General Counsel, the district has not requested an independent legal review, has not referred the matter to an enforcement authority, and has not addressed whether votes cast during that period remain legally valid.

Instead, Central Basin President Nem Ochoa, Vice President Gary Mendez, and Directors Joanna Moreno and Garza — over the vociferous objections of Directors Art Chacon, Jim Crawford, and Leticia Vasquez — have continued to operate as if the issue does not exist.

Under California law, disputes over whether an individual lawfully holds a public office are resolved through quo warranto proceedings — civil actions brought in the name of the People of the State of California. Such actions are initiated by the Attorney General or by a private party granted permission by the Attorney General to proceed.

Quo warranto answers a single question: does the individual lawfully hold the office, or has it already been forfeited by operation of law.

Attorney General opinions addressing incompatible offices repeatedly identify quo warranto as the proper mechanism for resolving automatic-forfeiture disputes under Government Code 1099. When incompatibility exists, courts are asked to confirm whether forfeiture has already occurred — not whether it should occur.

That process carries significant implications for Central Basin.

During the period in question, the board terminated General Manager Alex Rojas, hired General Manager Elaine Jeng, and approved contracts, legal expenditures, and policy decisions with Garza participating as a seated director.

If Garza’s Central Basin seat was forfeited upon renewal of his JPA contract, any board actions taken with his participation are subject to challenge, and his votes carry no legal force after forfeiture occurred.

Despite those high stakes, Central Basin leaders have offered no public explanation, taken no action to correct the issue, and made no move to involve any enforcement authority.

Central Basin is acting as though state law can be put on hold by doing nothing. Every vote taken without resolving a director’s legal status deepens the consequences.

The law is clear: Government Code 1099 applies. What remains uncertain is whether Central Basin’s majority will enforce it — and whether Director Garza will continue serving without resolving the incompatibility now clearly documented. High Stakes, Dirty Water, Red Flags continues toward its conclusion.