BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1788
Page 1
CORRECTED - 06/02/2010 Technical change (Member name)
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1788 (Yamada)
As Introduced February 10, 2010
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 12-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Fuller, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Anderson, Arambula, Tom | | |
| |Berryhill, Blumenfield, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Caballero, De La Torre, | |Calderon, Coto, |
| |Bill Berryhill, Bonnie | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, |
| |Lowenthal, Salas, Yamada | |Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Torrico |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Changes the eligibility criteria under which a flood
control project may receive increased state funding and makes
minor technical corrections. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes a flood control project in an economically disadvantaged
area eligible for an increase in state matching funds if the
number of families in poverty in that area is at least 150% of
the California average.
2)Corrects the name of the former Reclamation Board to the
Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires specific percentages of nonfederal (i.e., state and
local) cost sharing for federal flood control projects.
2)Allows the state to increase the state share of the nonfederal
capital costs of a flood control project from 50% to up to 70%
if the project would increase the level of flood protection in
an area with a median household income that is less than 120 %
AB 1788
Page 2
of the federal poverty level, as defined by the Department of
Finance.
3)Changes the name of the Reclamation Board to the Central
Valley Flood Protection Board.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, cost pressures of an unknown amount, but potentially
in the millions of dollars. This is because more flood control
projects will qualify for state subvention funding, which is
finite. To the extent the state wishes to fund all these flood
control projects, there will be cost pressure to find new fund
sources to do so. (Bond funds or special funds.)
COMMENTS : Under the State Water Resources Law of 1945, the
state may participate in funding local flood control projects
that are authorized by the Legislature and that meet specified
criteria. State authorization for funding of a flood control
project is contingent upon preceding federal statutory
authorization of the project.
Consistent with state law (AB 1147 (Honda), Chapter 1071,
Statutes of 2000), the state must contribute a portion of the
capital costs of the non-federal share (meaning the costs paid
by state or local governments of federal flood control projects
that have been authorized by the state). In most cases, the
state portion is 50% of the non-federal share. If the area to
be benefited by that project is economically disadvantaged, the
state can increase its share of the non-federal flood control
project costs to up to 70%.
The determination of whether an area is economically
disadvantaged, and therefore qualifies for an increased state
payment of the non-federal share, is currently based on a
whether a project increases flood protection in an area with a
median household income less than 120% of the federal poverty
level. Such a comparison to federal median income levels
doesn't take into consideration that, while California average
income levels are higher, California costs of living are also
higher.
This bill would determine eligibility for the state to pay up to
70% of the non-federal share by comparing the number of families
living in poverty in the area to be benefited against the median
AB 1788
Page 3
percentage of families living in poverty in California. If the
area to be benefited is at least 150% of the California average,
it would be eligible.
As of 2009, there were about $82 million in claims for
subventions for approved flood control projects. There is about
$350 million remaining in unappropriated Proposition 1E funds
for flood control subventions.
Supporters, including numerous local governments, contend this
bill would result in increased funding for important flood
control projects, especially in areas of the state with
relatively high rates of poverty.
There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0004617