BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 51 HEARING DATE: March 24, 2009
AUTHOR: Ducheny URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental QualityFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Salton Sea Restoration Council
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
In 2003, Senators Kuehl, Machado, and Ducheny authored
legislation that together implemented the Quantification
Settlement Agreement (QSA), a historic water agreement that
limited California's Colorado River water usage to 4.4 million
acre-feet annually. As part of the QSA and its related
contracts, water transfers from Imperial Irrigation District to
San Diego were negotiated, as were environmental mitigation
obligations and regulatory provisions that were integral to the
successful negotiation of the QSA. These provisions assigned
specific environmental and financial responsibilities to the
state and to the parties to the QSA. Provisions for habitat and
species protection, air quality, and the eventual restoration of
the Salton Sea were negotiated in the legislation.
Specifically, the Secretary of Resources was directed to develop
a Salton Sea restoration plan with a preferred alternative for
the restoration of the sea. That plan, which recommends an
investment of nearly $9 billion, was submitted to the
Legislature in May, 2007. The report, as well as a separate
analysis by the Legislative Analyst, underscored the need for a
governance structure to oversee the state's continuing role at
the Salton Sea. The LAO recommended the Department of Water
Resources assume the role as the agency charged with
implementing the preferred alternative. The LAO report also
recommended that the restoration and expenditure plan be
codified and that interim priorities be established, given the
magnitude of the proposed expenditure plan.
Some funds for activities at the Salton Sea were included both
1
in Prop 50 and Prop 84, although no adequate funding source for
the recommended "preferred alternative" has been identified. The
$50 million in Prop 50 funds has been spent, largely on
restoration planning and land acquisition. About $13 million in
Prop 84 funds was included for Salton Sea purposes in the 2007
budget.
Section 2931 of the Fish and Game Code includes the requirement
to restore the Salton Sea.
PROPOSED LAW
SB 51 would create the Salton Sea Restoration Council as a
separate agency within the Resources Agency and would charge the
council with the responsibility to implement the preferred
restoration plan. The council would have executive and science
committees with designated memberships, and a local government
forum and a stakeholder forum.
The executive committee would consist of 14 voting members and 7
ex-officio members from various federal agencies. The 14 voting
members come from 5 state agencies, 2 public members, 4 local
elected officials, and two tribal representatives. Members could
serve up to 2 four-year terms. The committee would have
extensive authority over the design of the restoration plan,
contracting, project management, budgeting and funding,
biological and physical monitoring (including air quality), and
integration of the planning process with air quality, public
health, and other regulatory entities.
The science committee would consist of experts familiar with
large scale wetlands and habitat restoration efforts, as well as
dike design and water treatment. The lead scientist may be
appointed by the USGS Salton Sea Science Office, and if that
office declines, the lead scientist would be appointed by the
executive committee. The science committee is charged with
providing best available scientific and engineering information
for the overall planning and implementation of the restoration
plan.
The local government forum would consist of elected officials
from within the geographic bounds of the Salton Sea watershed
and may also include local air pollution control officials. The
stakeholder forum would be comprised of interested parties
chosen by the executive committee who have demonstrated a
continuing interest in the restoration planning process.
Business, agriculture, recreational, energy, and public health
interests are among those specifically named as groups who will
2
be asked to provide representatives.
The Secretary for Resources, in consultation with the executive
committee, would hire an executive director. Other staffing to
the council would be provided by the Department of Fish and
Game. The executive committee members and science committee
members would be paid only their actual expenses.
The Salton Sea Restoration Council provisions allow it to sue
and be sued, enter into contracts, advise the Department of Fish
and Game regarding the expenditure of funds from the Salton Sea
Restoration Fund. The department would also be required to enter
into an agreement with the Department of Water Resources and
other agencies to provide appropriate staffing.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author believes that a structure such as the one proposed in
SB 51 is necessary to address the complex scientific,
engineering, economic, and environmental issues that are
involved with the restoration of the Salton Sea and to fulfill
the state's obligations to the Salton Sea that were identified
in earlier legislation. This bill, while perhaps not in final
form, represents a working consensus of the local governments,
tribal governments, environmental and public health
stakeholders, business and economic development groups, and
others, who have been involved in this effort.
The author and supporters are concerned that the ecosystem at
the Salton Sea continues to decline, meaning that the sea is
becoming more saline and that habitat values are deteriorating.
Inflows into the sea are also being reduced because there is
less agricultural runoff from irrigation because of the transfer
of water to San Diego. Supporters believe that the increase in
particulate air pollution will increase as more of the former
lakebed is exposed.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
The 2008 version of the bill was held on suspense in Senate
Appropriations. While it is beyond the scope of the policy
committee, some possible cost-reduction efforts the author could
consider include:
3
1. Establishing the council in the Resources Agency, in the
Office of the Secretary, instead of as a separate agency.
2. This bill, like other aspects of existing law on the
Salton Sea, contains an exhaustive list of environmental
and public health goals. If the author wants to adopt the
LAO suggestion that interim priorities should be
established, subsequent committee hearings would be
opportune times for that.
3. Similar to #2, the duties of the executive committee
could be reduced by focusing on the initial actions
recommended in the PTEIR. Such a course would not only be
less expensive, but it would avoid potential conflicts with
the mandates of several other state agencies.
The Committee may wish to ask the Author to commit to
continuing her practice of working with the Committee as the
bill is amended in the future.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Audubon California
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
County of Imperial
Defenders of Wildlife
Pacific Institute
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION
None Received
4