BILL ANALYSIS Ó Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair SB 1066 (Lieu) - Coastal resources: climate change Amended: April 9, 2012 Policy Vote: NRW 6-2 Urgency: No Mandate: No Hearing Date: April 30, 2012 Consultant: Marie Liu This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: SB 1066 would require the Coastal Conservancy (conservancy) to fund and undertake projects to address climate change and would require the conservancy to prioritize projects that maximize public benefits. Fiscal Impact: Unknown annual costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from bonds (General Fund) and special funds for the funding of projects that address climate change. Background: The conservancy is responsible for purchasing, protecting, restoring, and enhancing the state's coastal resources and providing public access to the shore. The conservancy generally works in partnership with other public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners. Sample projects include wetlands restoration and protection, protection of coastal agriculture lands, and trail building. The vast majority of the conservancy's funding comes from various bonds including Proposition 40, 50, and 84 with smaller amounts of funding from special funds, such as the California Environmental License Plate Fund and the California Sea Otter Fund. Proposed Law: This bill would require the conservancy to fund and undertake projects that address climate change impacts such as sea level rise, beach and bluff erosion, and salt water intrusion. This bill would also require the conservancy to prioritize projects that maximize public benefits such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing hazards to harbors and ports, and preserving and enhancing coastal wetlands and natural lands. Staff Comments: This bill would essentially oblige the SB 1066 (Lieu) Page 1 conservancy to fund at least one project that deals with climate change impacts. Possible projects include wetlands restoration, updating and refining coastal hazard zone maps, developing regional monitoring to inform adaptive management, and reducing impacts of a warmer climate on urban populations. These projects are likely to cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars considering that in 2011, the conservancy supported 79 projects with an average project cost of approximately $810,000. According to the author, the intent of this bill is to give clear authority to the conservancy to consider and address climate change impacts. Expressly authorizing the conservancy to address climate change not only improves the conservancy's ability to meet is existing mission, but will also make the conservancy more competitive in obtaining grants that are currently offered by private foundations and the federal government for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Staff notes that the language in the bill stating that that the conservancy "shall fund and undertake projects to address climate change" is somewhat awkwardly phrased and inconsistent with the rest of the conservancy's enabling statute as it requires instead of authorizes the conservancy to fund certain projects. Staff recommends that the author can achieve his legislative intent with language that would add consideration of climate change impacts to the conservancy's responsibilities without explicitly requiring the funding of projects, which could lower the cost pressures imposed by this bill. This bill also requires the conservancy to prioritize projects that "maximize public benefits" for all of the conservancy's programs. While maximizing public benefits is a laudable goal, the conservancy has a wide range of programs, each of which might have a slightly different interpretation of what is an appropriate public benefit. For example, the conservancy receives monies from the California Sea Otter Fund in order to fund research and programs related to improving the near-shore ocean ecosystem, including activities which reduce sea otter mortality. It is unclear how overlaying a priority for maximizing public benefits would appropriately influence sea otter projects. Staff recommends that this prioritization language be only applied to projects which are intended to address impacts of climate change. SB 1066 (Lieu) Page 2 Recommended Amendments: As discussed in Staff Comments, staff recommends amending the bill so that (1) the conservancy has the responsibility to address climate change impacts without explicitly requiring the funding of projects and (2) the prioritization requirements only apply to projects that intend to address impacts of climate change.