BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2009-2010 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: SB 1006 HEARING DATE: April 13, 2010 AUTHOR: Pavley URGENCY: No VERSION: April 5, 2010 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental Quality FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Natural resources: climate change: Strategic Growth Council. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW The Strategic Growth Council (Council) was created by SB 732 (Steinberg, 2008) and consists of the Director of State Planning and Research, the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, the Secretary of California Health and Human Services, and one public member. The purpose of the council is to coordinate the activities of the member agencies in order to more effectively and efficiently achieve the following goals: improve air and water quality, protect natural resource and agriculture lands, increase the availability of affordable housing, improve infrastructure systems, promote public health, and assist state and local entities in the planning of sustainable communities and meeting AB 32 goals. The council is charged with the following responsibilities: Identify and review activities and funding programs of member state agencies to meet the council's goals; Recommend policies and investment strategies and priorities to encourage the development of sustainable communities; Provide, fund, and distribute date and information to local governments and regional agencies that will assist in the development and planning of sustainable communities; and Manage and award grants and loans from Proposition 84 to support the planning and development of sustainable communities. On November 7, 2006, the voters approved the voter initiative 1 titled The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (aka Proposition 84). One provision of Proposition 84 provided $90M for urban greening projects that "reduce energy consumption, conserve water, improve air and water quality, and provide other community benefits." The council was directed to administer two grant programs to with the urban greening monies- one for projects and one for urban greening planning in 75129 of the Public Resources Code. Eligible applicants for these funds are specified as cities, counties, or nonprofit organizations for the urban greening projects and councils of governments, countywide authorities, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, or nonprofit organizations for the urban greening planning projects. PROPOSED LAW This bill would require the Strategic Growth Council to provide guidelines and information to local agencies with the intent on assisting the agencies in developing and implementing climate change adaptation strategies and projects that use nonstructural approaches to protect communities and protect or enhance natural ecosystem functions. This bill would also expand the eligible applicants for the urban greening project and planning grants to also include a council of governments, countywide authority, metropolitan planning organization, special district, and joint powers authority. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT The author, regarding the proposed expansion of the council's responsibilities, states, "California is at the forefront of climate change solutions that achieve significant, near-term reductions in the carbon pollution that is causing global warming. Notwithstanding these essential mitigation measures, California is already experiencing dramatic, unavoidable climate change impacts due to carbon pollution already committed to the atmosphere and oceans. These climate change impacts include documented sea-level rise, increased erosion, increased weather severity, altered water cycles, reduced snowpack and earlier snow melt, increased wildfire occurrence and severity, altered rainfall patterns, disrupted food supply, and migration of plant and animal species. These impacts could expose the state and local governments to trillions of dollars in costs. Thus, in addition to mitigation, state and local governments must strategically plan to adapt to these and other unavoidable climate change impacts." 2 The Watershed Conservation Authority in support of the bill, regarding the eligibility expansion, "Currently JPAs and special districts, such as Water or Parks and Recreation Districts, are not included under the list of eligible applicants. Based on the demonstrated performance of JPA's and special districts in green projects, the incorporation of these additional groups to the eligible applicant list is critical." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The California Central Valley Flood Control Association, in opposition to an earlier version of the bill states, "SB 1006 should be amended to preclude application of its provisions to development of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan and the State Plan of Flood Control, as well as the Delta Levee Maintenance and Special Projects programs. There are many areas of the Central Valley and Delta where it is not feasible to use nonstructural approaches to protect communities, particularly practices that utilize, enhance, or mimic the natural hydrologic cycle process." COMMENTS 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: In December 2009, the Resources Agency released the California Climate Adaptation Strategy in response to Executive Order S-13-2008, which directed the Resources Agency to identify how state agencies can respond to rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and extreme natural events. The report noted that climate change is already affecting California with increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, shifts in the water cycle, and the lengthening of the growing season. Not addressing these changes can cause significant economic damages to the state in the trillions of dollars. The report made a number of preliminary recommendations including: State agencies and other levels of government should consider project alternatives that avoid significant new development in areas that cannot be adequately protected, and Communities with General Plans and Local Coastal Plans should begin to amend their plans to assess climate change impacts, identify areas most vulnerable to those impacts, and develop reasonable and rational risk reduction strategies. The committee may find that this bill is consistent with these recommendations and timely if the Legislature's desire is to not only encourage local governments to plan for adaptation but to influence how these plans approach adaptation. 3 Why the Strategic Growth Council? The council is currently designed to serve as a clearinghouse for information to local governments to develop more sustainable communities. The committee may find that that climate change adaptation strategies, especially those that attempt to enhance and protect natural ecosystem functions, is consistent with the concept of "sustainable communities." The author recognizes that climate change adaptation strategies is a developing field and that establishing a clearinghouse of information helps foster discussions on the best ways to approach adaptation. Why expand eligibility for Urban Greening Projects and Planning Grants: SB 732 inadvertently excluded joint power authorities and special districts, including park districts, as eligible entities even though these entities are likely agencies to perform urban greening projects. Expanding the eligibility for these grants is consistent with Proposition 84, the funding source for these grants. Status of the Urban Greening Project and Planning Grants: The council has finished developing guidelines for the first year of urban greening project and planning grants and is currently accepting applications for funds. This bill would presumably only be intended to effect future grant cycles (The council intends to have at three grant cycles with Proposition 84 dollars). Should the 2010 grant cycle be delayed into 2011 and this bill is signed into law, the changes to eligible applicants might cause confusion and increased administrative costs. If the committee decides to pass this measure and it becomes apparent that the 2010 grant cycle may be delayed, the author should consider making it explicit that the expanded eligibility only applies for grant cycles that begin after January 1, 2011. Double-referral to Environmental Quality: Should the committee pass this bill, it will next be considered by the Senate Environmental Quality committee. SUPPORT Audubon California (co-sponsor) Defenders of Wildlife (co-sponsor) The Nature Conservancy (co-sponsor) California Coastkeeper Alliance California Outdoor Heritage Alliance California ReLeaf Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority Tree People Watershed Conservation Authority 4 OPPOSITION California Central Valley Flood Control Association - unless amended (previous version) 5