BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chairman
1256 (Ducheny)
Hearing Date: 5/12/08 Amended: 5/6/08
Consultant: Miriam Barcellona IngenitoPolicy Vote: NR&W 6-2
Page 2
SB 1256 (Ducheny)
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 1256 would create the Salton Sea Restoration
Council as a separate agency within the Resources Agency and
specify its responsibilities. The council would be required to
implement the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Preferred
Alternative (preferred alternative), as specified.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Fund
Reimbursable State mandate unknown, potentially in excess
of $150 General
annually
Executive council staff/ unknown, in excess of $200
annually General/
administration costs Special*
Period I activities $13,300 $10,300 $10,300 Bond**
Science committee staff/ unknown, in excess of $500
annually General/
administration costs Special*
Local government forum/unknown, potentially $100
annuallyGeneral/
administration costs Special
Stakeholder forum/ unknown, in excess of $300
annuallyGeneral/
administration costs
Capital costs $8,879,000** (between 2014 and
2035)General/
Special*
Operation/Maintenance $142,000** (between 2036 and
2078)General/ Special*
Economic development/ unknown, potentially in excess of
General/
tourism staff $250 annually Special*
______________
* Salton Sea Restoration Fund
**Proposition 84 provided $47 million for the Salton Sea
Restoration Fund
***In 2006 dollars
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to
the Suspense File.
Page 3
SB 1256 (Ducheny)
Existing law establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Act. Staff
recommends moving the provisions of SB 1256 to that act.
SB 1256 would establish Salton Sea Restoration Council and would
require it to include an executive committee, a science
committee, a local government forum, and a stakeholder forum.
The executive committee would consist of 14 members made up of
state, local, and tribal government representatives, and the
public, as specified. The executive committee would serve as the
governing body of the council and would provide guidance and
oversight for the restoration program; however, it would be
staffed by an executive officer, appointed and employed by the
Resources Agency Secretary, but who would serve at the pleasure
of the executive committee. Additionally, the Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) would be required to implement and "be
responsible for all components of planning," as specified. DFG
would be required to plan for and implement the Salton preferred
alternative, as specified. SB 1256 would require DFG to enter
into an interagency agreement with the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) and other state agencies to provide the
"appropriate level of staffing from the state's existing
resources to carry out the functions of the council." Staff
notes that given the fiscal condition of the state and the deep
cuts that have been and may be taken by all departments, it is
not possible for an estimated $8.9 billion capital program to be
developed and staffed within existing state resources.
Additionally, the on-going maintenance and operations are
currently being estimated to be $142 million annually once the
project is fully developed (2036 through 2078).
Costs associated directly with the council are unknown, but
could be significant depending on how often and where it meets.
An executive officer would cost about $130,000 and a support
staff would be another $55,000. Operating and travel expenses
are unknown.
The Governor's 2008-09 proposed budget includes a funding
proposal for $13.3 million to fund the preferred alternative,
Period I activities. That proposal includes $6 million for DFG
and $7.3 million for DWR, all from Proposition 84 bond monies.
DFG estimates it would need another $6.3 million and DWR another
$4 million in the second year of implementation. DFG did not
provide an estimate for funding beyond 2009-10, only that
additional funds would be needed. Proposition 84 provides $47
Page 4
SB 1256 (Ducheny)
million for the restoration of the Salton Sea, and the Salton
Sea Restoration Fund has a balance of about $20 million.
Staff notes that by requiring local governments to sit on the
executive committee, SB 1256 would result in a reimbursable
state-mandated local program. Staff recommends amending the bill
to make the participation of local governments optional.
Alternatively, if the local governments specified in the bill
were to request being included in the executive committee via a
formal action by their respective bodies, a mandate disclaimer
could be placed in the bill.
SB 1256 would require the creation of a science committee
comprised of a lead scientist, a dike design and dredging
expert, water treatment expert, and an expert in hydraulics.
Additionally, the lead scientist is required to nominate other
experts for membership on the science committee, subject to
confirmation by the executive committee. The lead scientist
would be appointed by the United States Geological Survey Salton
Sea Science Office, if that office agrees to do so; however, the
position, presumably, would be paid for by the state. The
science committee would be required to provide the best
available science and engineering oversight to the overall
planning and implementation processes; provide periodic review
of local technical investigations pertaining to the restoration
plan design and implementation; consult with and advise the
stakeholder forum, as specified; provide guidance on ongoing
short-term planning activities; and develop a science program
for the collection, synthesis and dissemination of best
available science to support long-term restoration activities
and adaptive management. Costs to provide scientific staff would
likely be in excess of $500,000. Additional funds would be
required for equipment.
SB 1256 would require the council to include a local government
forum to facilitate communication between local governments and
landowners, the executive committee, and the stakeholder forum
on the progress of plan development and implementation. SB 1256
would require the local government forum to include elected
representatives from within the Salton Sea watershed and
authorizes it to include local air pollution control officials.
Staff notes that by requiring local governments to participate
in the local government forum, SB 1256 would result in a
reimbursable state-mandated local program. Staff recommends
amending the bill to make the participation of local governments
Page 5
SB 1256 (Ducheny)
optional. Alternatively, if a local government would like to be
named and required to participate in the local government forum,
that local government could request to be included in the bill
in this capacity via a formal action by its body, and a mandate
disclaimer could be placed in the bill. SB 1256 does not specify
how often this forum would meet. Costs associated with staffing
the forum is unknown, but would likely require at least one
additional staff..
SB 1256 would require the council to include a stakeholder forum
to provide ongoing, publicly derived input to the executive
committee relating to habitat objectives and actions, types and
levels of public access, and integration of air quality
management and habitat restoration. Additionally, the
stakeholder forum would be required to provide focused review
and discussion and seek to achieve consensus on significant
matters, as specified. Costs associated with this forum would be
significant, especially in light of the goal to achieve
consensus on a number of issues. Staff estimates this forum
would require at least three staff and corresponding operating
expenses.
SB 1256 would require the council to implement project
components that promote the sea as a tourist destination and
recreational area and to promote economic development associated
with the restoration plan. With the exception of promoting the
sea as a recreational area, staff notes that neither the
Resources Agency nor its constituent departments, boards,
commissions or conservancies, have the expertise or mission to
evaluate or develop projects that promote economic development
or promote tourism generally. By including this requirement, the
council would need to hire specialized staff, resulting in
unknown but likely significant additional costs.
With respect to funding, SB 1256 specifies that only funds
deposited in the Salton Sea Restoration Fund or other non-state
funds may be expended to carry out this division. Staff notes
that monies in the Salton Sea Restoration Fund are not limited
to non-state funds. Staff recommends striking the word "other."
Additionally, SB 1256 would require all monies made available
for the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program, regardless of
fund source, to be deposited into the Salton Sea Restoration
Fund. Staff recommends striking the requirement to deposit state
monies (General Fund, other special funds, or bond funds) into
this account. Additionally, staff recommends requiring the
Page 6
SB 1256 (Ducheny)
display of the Salton Sea Restoration Fund in the Governor's
proposed budget document.
Staff notes that the Legislative Analyst's Office recently
examined the issue of restoring the Salton Sea; the following
summaries its recommendations:
1. Set explicit policy priorities in statute for addressing
environmental problems at the Sea, specifically establish
the protection of air quality and the preservation of
wildlife habitat as the highest priorities for
expenditures.
2. Adopt a comprehensive plan to reflect the Legislature's
funding priorities along with a long-term financing plan
that realistically considers who will pay for the
restoration. Adoption of interim funding measures should
be considered.
3. Designating DWR as the primary implementing agency for
governance of the restoration efforts.
4. Funding interim measures to address priority issues in
the near term.