BILL ANALYSIS
SB 51
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 51 (Ducheny)
As Amended July 1, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :37-0
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 10-3
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Arambula, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford, |
| |Blumenfield, Caballero, | |Huffman, Coto, Davis, De |
| |De La Torre, Fletcher, | |Leon, Gatto, Hall, |
| |Gatto, Bonnie Lowenthal, | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| |Salas, Yamada | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Fuller, Anderson, Tom |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| |Berryhill | |Nielsen, Norby |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Council
(Council) as a state agency in the Natural Resources Agency to
oversee restoration of the Salton Sea. Specifically, this bill :
1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
values of the Salton Sea, and states the Legislature's intent
in restoring the Salton Sea to permanently protect fish and
wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea ecosystem, restore
aquatic and shoreline habitat, eliminate air quality impacts,
protect water quality, maintain the sea as a vital link in the
Pacific flyway, preserve local tribal values, and minimize
noxious odors.
2)Establishes the Council as a state agency within the Natural
Resources Agency to oversee restoration of the Salton Sea,
including: early start habitat demonstration projects;
biological, water quality, air quality, geotechnical,
sedimentation and inflow investigations; investigation of
access and utility agreements; and evaluation of restoration
plans, including but not limited to alternatives described in
the Resource Agency's October 2006 Salton Sea Draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
SB 51
Page 2
3)Requires the Council to report to the Governor and the
Legislature by an unspecified date with a recommended
restoration plan. Requires the Council in recommending a
restoration plan, to consider the impacts of the plan on air
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, and the
technical and financial feasibility of the restoration plan.
4)Provides that the Council shall consist of a 16 member
executive committee, a science committee, a local government
forum, and a stakeholder forum.
5)Provides that the executive committee shall serve as the
governing body of the Council and provide overall guidance and
oversight of the restoration program. Provides that the
executive committee shall make decisions by a two-thirds
majority vote, and that 12 voting members shall constitute a
quorum. Provides for election of officers.
6)Requires that the executive committee include the director of
the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the director
of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the
director of the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR), the
chair of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the
chair of the State Air Resources Board, the State Treasurer,
the director of the Department of Finance, three public
members appointed one each by the Governor, Assembly and
Senate, one member from the Imperial County Board of
Supervisors, one member from the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors, one member from the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD), one member from the Imperial Irrigation
District (IID), and one member each from the Torres Martinez
Band of Desert Cahuilla Indians and the Cabazon Band of
Mission Indians. Nonvoting members of the executive committee
shall include the lead scientist and representatives of
specified federal agencies. Provides that members of the
executive committee shall serve without compensation but may
be reimbursed for expenses.
7)Requires the science committee to include a lead scientist, to
be appointed by the United States Geological Survey Salton Sea
Science Office or the executive committee, and other experts
with specified experience. The scientists shall serve without
compensation but may be reimbursed for expenses.
SB 51
Page 3
Responsibilities of the science committee include to provide
best available science and engineering oversight, to provide
periodic review of local technical investigations, to consult
with and advise the stakeholder forum, and provide guidance on
ongoing short-term planning.
8)Requires the local government forum to include elected
representatives from within the Salton Sea Watershed and
authorizes the forum to include local air pollution control
officials. Requires the Council to request the Salton Sea
Authority to assist with the forum. Responsibilities of the
local government forum include to facilitate communication
between local governments and landowners, the executive
committee and the stakeholder forum.
9)Requires the stakeholder forum to consist of interested
persons, as determined by the executive committee,
representing ten specified categories of persons.
Responsibilities of the stakeholder forum include to provide
ongoing, public input to the executive committee, and to
assist the executive committee in understanding public and
interest group perspectives. Requires the stakeholder forum
to provide focused review and discussion, and to seek to
achieve consensus on specified elements.
10)Requires DFG to be responsible for implementation of early
start habitat demonstration projects, biological
investigations relating to restoration, and evaluation of
restoration plan alternatives.
11)Requires DWR to be responsible for implementation of
investigations of water quality, sedimentation, inflows, air
quality, geotechnical, and access and utility agreements
relating to restoration, and for evaluation of restoration
plan alternatives.
12)Authorizes the Council to sue and be sued and to enter into
contracts and agreements.
13)Provides that only funds deposited in the Salton Sea
Restoration Fund or nonstate funds may be expended to carry
out this article. Requires that the status of the Salton Sea
Restoration Fund shall be included in the Governor's proposed
annual budget. Requires the Council to advise DFG with regard
SB 51
Page 4
to expenditure of funds from the Salton Sea Restoration Fund.
14)Provides that the secretary of the State Natural Resources
Agency shall select, in consultation with the executive
committee, the executive director of the Council, who shall be
exempt from civil service and serve at the pleasure of the
executive committee.
15)Requires DFG and DWR to provide staff services for the
Council, using staff currently dedicated to Salton Sea
activities or other staff provided by legislative action.
Provides that either the director of DFG or the director of
DWR shall enter into interagency agreements with other state
agencies to provide staff services.
16)Clarifies that the Council's jurisdiction is limited to the
Salton Sea watershed within California, and that this bill
does not grant to the Council any regulatory authority or any
authority over land use, water rights or air quality.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Act which states
legislative intent that: a) the state undertake the
restoration of the Salton Sea ecosystem and the permanent
protection of the wildlife dependent on that ecosystem; b)
the restoration be based on the preferred alternative
developed as a result of the restoration study and alternative
selection process; and, c) the preferred alternative provide
the maximum feasible attainment of specified environmental
objectives, including restoration of long-term stable aquatic
and shoreline habitat to historic levels and diversity of fish
and wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea, elimination of air
quality impacts from restoration projects, and protection of
water quality. Provides that for purposes of the restoration
plan the Salton Sea ecosystem includes the Salton Sea,
agricultural lands surrounding the Sea, and the tributaries
and drains within Imperial and Coachella Valleys that deliver
water to the Sea.
2)Required the Secretary of the Resources Agency, in
consultation with DFG, DWR, the Salton Sea Authority, air
quality districts, and the Salton Sea Advisory Committee to
undertake a restoration study to determine a preferred
SB 51
Page 5
alternative for restoration of the Salton Sea, to prepare a
PEIR analyzing the alternatives, and to submit a preferred
alternative to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2006.
The Resources Agency released the draft PEIR in October of
2006, and published the Final PEIR and submitted its preferred
alternative to the Legislature in May 2007.
3)Requires the Resources Agency to act as lead agency for Salton
Sea restoration and to work cooperatively with staff from DWR,
the State Air Resources Board, the SWRCB, and DFG. Requires
the Resources Agency to continue to serve as lead agency for
implementation, in partnership with one or more of its
departments, unless and until legislation is enacted
establishing a new governing structure.
4)Limits authorized funding of activities and expenditures for
Salton Sea restoration to Period 1 activities identified in
the draft PEIR for completion in the first five years of
implementation.
FISCAL EFFECT :
1)Annual costs to DFG and DWR, ranging from approximately
$300,000 to approximately $1,000,000, to staff the council and
to reimburse council members for necessary expenses (Salton
Sea Restoration Fund, nonstate funds).
2)Potential costs to DFG and DWR of an unknown amount, but
possibly in the millions of dollars, to conduct demonstration
projects and investigations related to restoration, habitat,
water quality, and other topics (Salton Sea Restoration Fund,
nonstate funds). It is conceivable that the council's
investigative and analytical work pursuant to this bill might
cost as much as $15 million, which was the cost of producing
the environmental impact report of the administration's
preferred alternative.
COMMENTS : This bill establishes the Salton Sea Restoration
Council to serve as the governing entity to oversee activities
related to restoration of the Salton Sea. Among other things,
this bill directs the Council to evaluate various restoration
plans and report to the Legislature by an as yet unspecified
date with a recommended restoration plan. The Council would
consist of an executive committee, composed of existing state
SB 51
Page 6
agencies and public members. A science committee, local
government forum, and stakeholder forum would also be created.
DFG and DWR would provide the primary administrative staff
support services for the council, and would have responsibility
for implementing various aspects of restoration and planning.
This bill also provides that only funds deposited in the Salton
Sea Restoration Fund or nonstate funds may be used to carry out
this bill.
The Salton Sea, California's largest lake, is located in a
low-lying trough or desert sink in Southern California, much of
which is below sea level. The current sea was formed in 1905
when the Colorado River flooded its banks. The sea bed has
periodically filled and receded numerous times, from prehistoric
times through the 1800s. The present sea is fed primarily by
agricultural runoff. Since it has no natural outlet, it is
becoming increasingly saline and today is considerably saltier
than the ocean. In 2003, the Legislature approved a package of
implementing legislation related to the Quantification
Settlement Agreement (QSA) and calling for restoration of the
Salton Sea. The QSA is a collection of agreements between the
IID, Metropolitan Water District, San Diego County Water
Authority, the CVWD, and the state, that included approval of
water transfers from IID, settled a number of claims to the
Colorado River, and provided a transition period for the state
to reduce its consumption of Colorado River water to its 4.4
million acre feet entitlement. Under the QSA, the amount of
water flowing into the Salton Sea is being reduced over time.
In February of this year, the future of the QSA water transfers
was thrown into question when a California Superior court
invalidated the QSA on the grounds the agreement committed the
state of California to open ended liability for all
environmental mitigation costs in excess of $133 million. That
decision is being appealed and a temporary stay has been
granted.
The Salton Sea is one of the most important wetland areas in
California for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, since over
95% of California's historical wetlands have been converted to
other land uses. The Salton Sea supports over 400 species of
birds, including up to 90% of the total population of some
species, and is an internationally significant stopover site for
hundreds of thousands of birds migrating along the Pacific
flyway. Recently, fishery resources in the sea have declined
SB 51
Page 7
significantly due to increasing salinity, evaporation and
declining water quality. It is generally recognized that
without restoration efforts the ecosystem of the Salton Sea will
collapse over the next decade or two.
The California Resources Agency in October 2006 distributed a
draft PEIR and ecosystem restoration study for public review and
comment. The study analyzed eight different
alternatives with cost estimates ranging from close to $1
billion for the "no alternative" to $10 billion. In May 2007
the Resources Agency released the Final PEIR and its selected
preferred alternative. The Agency's preferred alternative
includes a 62,000 acre saline habitat complex, a 45,000 acre
marine sea formed by construction of a large marine rock
barrier, a 17,000 acre brine sink for discharge of salts, an
exposed sea bed of 106,000 acres, early start habitat of 2,000
acres, miles of berms and canals, and other facilities for
managing air quality. Total capital costs were estimated at
$8.879 billion, with operations and maintenance costs of $142
million per year. The restoration project would be constructed
and implemented in a series of phases over 70 years. Selection
of the preferred alternative was controversial due to its
significant cost and has not yet been selected or endorsed by
the Legislature.
The Resources Agency's report on the preferred alternative noted
that one of the next steps, after approval by the Legislature,
was to identify an implementing entity. SB 187 (Ducheny),
Chapter 372, Statutes of 2008, required the Resources Agency to
serve as the lead agency for implementation of restoration until
legislation establishing a new governance structure is
established. SB 187 also stated that it should not be construed
as legislative approval or denial of the preferred alternative
recommended by the Resources Agency Secretary.
This bill directs the Council created by this bill to review
restoration alternatives and propose a new recommended
restoration alternative to the Legislature by an unspecified
date. This bill also directs the Council to oversee eight
tasks, including early start habitat, various biological, water
quality, air quality and geotechnical investigations, and
evaluation of restoration plans. DFG would be responsible for
implementation of the early start habitat and biological
investigations, and DWR would be responsible for implementation
SB 51
Page 8
of the water quality, air quality and geotechnical
investigations. Both departments would be responsible for
staffing evaluation of the restoration alternatives.
The state of California has incurred legal obligations to
restore the Salton Sea, whether or not the preferred alternative
proposed by the Resources Agency, or another alternative, is
adopted. Those legal obligations arise in part out of
legislation enacted as part of the QSA in 2003, currently in
litigation, historic agreements regarding allocation of water
from the Colorado River, and environmental laws requiring
protection of air and water quality, wetlands preservation and
endangered species. In the draft PEIR prepared by the Resources
Agency on restoration of the Salton Sea, it was recognized that
even the "no alternative" would cost the state over $1 billion.
According to a report by the Pacific Institute, failure to
restore the Salton Sea could result in exorbitant costs to human
and ecological health, and possibly agricultural production.
Some bond funding for restoration activities at the Salton Sea
was included in both Proposition 50 and Proposition 84. Please
see the policy committee analysis for further detail on the
amount of bond funds expended or encumbered to date and amounts
remaining available for expenditure.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0005978