BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2453 (Achadjian)
          As Amended  March 28, 2014
          Majority vote

           LOCAL GOVERNMENT    6-1                                         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Achadjian, Alejo,         |     |                          |
          |     |Bradford, Gordon,         |     |                          |
          |     |Melendez, Waldron         |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Levine                    |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           SUMMARY  :  Establishes, in California Water District Law, a  
          governance and elections structure for the Board of Directors  
          for the Paso Robles Basin Water District.  Specifically,  this  
          bill  :

          1)Establishes, in California Water District Law, the governance  
            and elections structure for the Paso Robles Basin Water  
            District (District), and defines the District to mean "the  
            Paso Robles Basin Water District, the boundaries of which  
            shall be established and may be modified by the San Luis  
            Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission" (SLO LAFCO).

          2)Requires, notwithstanding any other law or the bylaws of the  
            District, that all elections for the Board of Directors of the  
            District (Board) be conducted in accordance with the  
            following:

             a)   Requires the composition of the Board to be as follows:

               i)     Provides that there shall be a total of nine  
                 directors, each of whom shall be qualified for office by  
                 being a person who holds title to land within the  
                 District or a person authorized to vote in elections by  
                 landowners pursuant to 4) below.

               ii)    Provides for the election of those nine members, as  
                 follows:








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  2



                  (1)       Six of the directors are required to be  
                    elected by landowners within the District, except that  
                    each voter shall be entitled to cast one vote for each  
                    acre owned by the voter within the District.  If the  
                    voter owns less than one acre, the voter shall be  
                    entitled to one vote and any fraction shall be rounded  
                    to the nearest full acre.  

                  (2)       Specifies, for the purposes of the election of  
                    the six directors, that the landowners within the  
                    District be divided into three classes, as specified  
                    below, and provides that large landowners shall elect  
                    two directors, medium landowners shall elect two  
                    directors, and small landowners shall elect two  
                    directors:

                    (a)         "Large landowners" means holders of title  
                      owning a total of 400 acres or more;

                    (b)         "Medium landowners" means holders of title  
                      owning a total of 40 acres or more, but less than  
                      400 acres; and,

                    (c)         "Small landowners" means holders of title  
                      owning a total of less than 40 acres of land.

                  (3)       Specifies that candidates for the six  
                    directors may be within any landowner class.

                  (4)       Provides that three of the directors shall be  
                    elected by registered voters within the District at  
                    large.

               iii)   Requires all nine directors to reside within the  
                 District, within two miles of the District boundary, or  
                 within the boundaries of the City of Pas Robles, the  
                 Atascadero Mutual Water Company, the Templeton Community  
                 Services District, the San Miguel Community Services  
                 District, or the San Luis Obispo County Service Area 16.

          3)Requires the elections of the District to be conducted in  
            conformance with the Uniform District Election Law and the  
            laws generally applicable to Districts created and operated  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  3


            pursuant to the California Water District Law, provided the  
            following shall apply:

             a)   Requires separate ballots to be prepared and separate  
               elections to be conducted for those director positions  
               which will be elected by resident voters and for those  
               which will be elected by landowner voters.  Specifies that  
               landowner voter elections and resident voter elections  
               shall be conducted simultaneously.

             b)   Allows District elections to be conducted by all-mailed  
               ballots pursuant to existing law contained in the Elections  
               Code.  Requires separate voter lists of resident voters and  
               landowner voters eligible to vote with the District to be  
               prepared and maintained according to applicable provisions  
               of law.  Requires separate all-mailed ballot elections to  
               be held for the directors to be elected by resident voters  
               and for those to be elected by landowner voters.

             c)   Requires the directors elected upon formation of the  
               District to hold office pursuant to existing law contained  
               in the Elections Code.  

             d)   Requires the director positions elected by large  
               landowners, medium landowners, and small landowners to be  
               divided into two director term classes for each (large,  
               medium and small), and requires the directors elected by  
               registered voters to be divided into two director term  
               classes.

             e)   Requires the election of directors to be held on the  
               first Tuesday after the first Monday in October of each  
               odd-numbered year.

             f)   Requires the voters list used for purpose of an election  
               of directors to be based upon the last assessment roll  
               prepared by the county assessor, which shall be conclusive  
               evidence of ownership and acreage for the purpose of  
               carrying out the election.  Allows the voters list to be  
               amended if satisfactory evidence of a change in ownership  
               is presented at least 45 days prior to the election to the  
               elections official in the case of the formation election,  
               and thereafter to the District secretary.  Provides that  
               the county assessor shall be compensated for all costs  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  4


               incurred in determining ownership and acreage information  
               and providing information to the county clerk.

          4)Requires, notwithstanding any other provision contained in the  
            California Water District Law of the Uniform District Election  
            Law, election participation by landowners to be carried out as  
            follows:

             a)   If the holder of title is a trust, any trustee of the  
               trust may vote on behalf of the trust;

             b)   If the holder of title is a corporation, the president,  
               vice president, secretary, or other duly designated officer  
               may vote on behalf of the corporation;

             c)   If the holder of title is a limited liability company  
               (LLC), any managing member may vote on behalf of the LLC;  
               and,

             d)   Any officer or partner with managerial responsibilities  
               of a legal entity not listed in a) to c) above, inclusive,  
               may vote on behalf of the entity.

          5)Provides the District with the authority afforded to local  
            agencies as provided in the section of law contained in the  
            Water Code related to Groundwater Management Plans, as that  
            part may be amended, consistent with the requirements and  
            limitations of applicable law.

          6)Finds and declares that the bill's provisions are enacted in  
            order to provide a governmental framework for the District to  
            balance the supply to and consumption of groundwater within  
            the basin underlying the District, and thereby pursue  
            stabilizing that basin and sustaining its resources for the  
            beneficial use of all who use water within the District.

          7)Declares that the creation of the District is not intended to  
            and shall not modify the powers of the County of San Luis  
            Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water  
            Conservation District, carried out consistent with applicable  
            law, to manage and protect groundwater resources within the  
            County of San Luis Obispo, including the Paso Robles  
            Groundwater Basin.









                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  5


           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None

           COMMENTS  :

          1)Purpose of this bill.  This bill establishes, in the  
            California Water District Act (Division 13 of the Water Code),  
            a governance and elections structure for the District, and  
            specifies that boundaries of the District shall be established  
            and may be modified by the SLO LAFCO.  The bill provides an  
            alternate structure for the elections of the Board of  
            Directors for the not-yet-established District other than what  
            is contained in the California Water District Act, specifies  
            the qualifications of the directors to hold office, and  
            provides the procedures for the District's elections for the  
            Board of Directors.
             
             The bill specifies that the Board of Directors is a  
            nine-member board.  To be qualified to be a director, a person  
            must hold title to land within the District or be a person  
            authorized to vote in elections by landowners as provided in  
            the bill, and must reside within the District, two miles of  
            the District boundary, or within the boundaries of several  
            other specified local agencies.

            Of the nine directors, six will be electors by landowners  
            within the District, in three categories - large landowners  
            (400+ acres), medium landowners (40 - 399 acres), and small  
            landowners (less than 40 acres).  The bill specifies that each  
            landowner category would elect two directors, and candidates  
            for the six director slots may be within any landowner class.   
            Provisions in the bill specify that each voter in these  
            landowner classes will be entitled to cast one vote for each  
            acre owned by the voter within the District. The bill also  
            provides that three of the directors would be elected by  
            registered voters within the District at large.

            The bill also provides that the District shall have the  
            authority afforded to local agencies as provided in the  
            section of the Water Code related to groundwater management  
            plans.  Because the bill amends the California Water District  
            Act, it is implied that the District to be formed by SLO LAFCO  
            would be a California Water District, with the powers and  
            duties contained in the District's Act (Division 13 of the  
            Water Code), absent any further specification in the bill  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  6


            about the District's powers.
            The boundaries of the District are also not specified in the  
            bill, although the bill makes a finding and declaration that  
            the District is formed to "balance the supply to and  
            consumption of groundwater within the basin underlying the  
            District."

            This bill is sponsored by Paso Robles Agriculture Alliance for  
            Groundwater Solutions (PRAAGS) and PRO Water Equity.

          2)Background on the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin and actions at  
            the local level.  According to a Paso Robles Groundwater Basin  
            newsletter published by the County of San Luis Obispo's  
            Department of Planning and Building, Public Works and Public  
            Health in June of 2011 and sent to all rural property owners  
            throughout the North County, "The basin covers approximately  
            800 square miles and is the primary, and in many places the  
            only, source of water available to property owners throughout  
            the North County?the county Board of Supervisors, after a  
            four-year study, has concluded that groundwater levels are  
            dropping throughout the basin.  The Board has also concluded  
            that pumping of groundwater from the basin has reached or is  
            quickly approaching the basin's 'perennial yield.'  Once the  
            perennial yield of a groundwater basin is reached, additional  
            pumping beyond that amount will result in lowering groundwater  
            levels.
             
             "The entire population of the rural North County gets its  
            water from groundwater wells.  What that means is that there  
            are a lot of 'straws' in the same glass; in fact, there are  
            over 8,000 wells in the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin."

            The San Luis Obispo County and other jurisdictions in the  
            County of San Luis Obispo have undertaken a number of efforts  
            to address the basin decline, including the following:

             a)   In 2010/2011, the City of Paso Robles and the County of  
               San Luis Obispo led a voluntary effort along with other  
               basin stakeholders to prepare a groundwater management plan  
               (GMP) for the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin.  The GMP  
               address groundwater conditions, identifies local and  
               basin-wide groundwater issues, and outlines measures to  
               protect groundwater within the basin.  On March 18, 2014,  
               the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to consider  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  7


               adopting a resolution that would direct staff on drafting  
               amendments to the existing [GWP] that was originally  
               adopted on March 27, 2012.

             b)   On September 25, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted  
               the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin water conservation  
               ordinance, which requires large land uses to offset new  
               water use, prohibits the creation of new parcels in the  
               basin and requires changes to the county's general plan to  
               be water neutral.  The ordinance did not affect the cities  
               of Paso Robles and Atascadero, or the towns of Templeton,  
               San Miguel or Shandon, and did not affect the drilling of  
               wells or the building of single family homes.

             c)   The County Board of Supervisors on August, 27, 2013,  
               adopted an Urgency Ordinance that established a moratorium  
               on new or expanded irrigated crop production, conversion of  
               dry farm or grazing land to new or expanded irrigated crop  
               production and new development dependent upon a well in the  
               Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, unless such uses offset  
               their total protect water use, including certain  
               exemptions.

             d)   On October 8, 2013, the Board of Supervisors continued  
               the Urgency Ordinance adopted on August 27, 2013, for two  
               years.

             e)   On February 25, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved  
               a resolution adopting the New Development Water  
               Conservation Program.  The program implements the Paso  
               Robles Groundwater Basin Urgency Ordinance, which requires  
               all new development in the Paso Robles Basin Area to offset  
               new water use through verifiable evidence or participation  
               in an approved County Water Conservation Program.

            The County of San Luis Obispo, jurisdictions within the  
            county, and residents and community groups continue to look  
            for solutions to manage the groundwater basin.

          3)Author's statement.  According to the author, this bill is  
            "the culmination of a year-long negotiation between two groups  
            in my district and has the support of the San Luis Obispo  
            County Board of Supervisors as well as the City Council for  
            the City of Paso Robles.  This bill would allow the Paso  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  8


            Robles Groundwater Basin (Basin) to elect a hybrid board of  
            directors to manage groundwater in the Basin. 
             
             "This hybrid board structure attempts to represent the unique  
            composition of landowners/residents in the Basin.  The water  
            district itself will be a California Water District and will  
            be established via the Local Agency Formation Commission once  
            the sponsors file a petition for formation.  [I recognize]  
            that groundwater in the basin is in decline, with wells going  
            dry; therefore a need for groundwater management is essential.  
             Given the unique composition of landowners in the Basin -  
            large agriculture, small wine grape growers, and  
            landowners/residents - the need for a unique board structure  
            is necessary."

          4)Options for groundwater management.  According to the  
            Department of Water Resources, in 1914 California created a  
            system of appropriating surface water rights through a  
            permitting process, but groundwater use has never been  
            regulated by the state.  Though the regulation of groundwater  
            has been considered on several occasions, the Legislature has  
            repeatedly held that groundwater management should remain a  
            local responsibility.

            There are three ways to manage groundwater resources in  
            California:  1) management by local agencies (special  
            districts) under authority granted in the California Water  
            Code or other applicable state statutes; 2) local government  
            groundwater ordinances or joint powers agreements; and, 3)  
            court adjudications.

             a)   Special districts with groundwater management authority.  
                Greater authority to manage groundwater has been granted  
               to a small number of local agencies or districts created  
               through a Special Act of the Legislature.  Currently, 13  
               local agencies have specific groundwater management  
               authority as a result of being special act districts. The  
               specific authority of each agency varies, but they can  
               generally be grouped into two categories:  1) the agency  
               has authority to limit export and extraction (upon evidence  
               of overdraft or threat of overdraft); or, 2) the agency  
               does not have authority to limit extraction but the users  
               in the basin are required to report extractions to the  
               agency (who can levy fees from groundwater management or  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  9


               water supply replenishment).  
                
                The Special Act special districts with groundwater  
               management authority include the following:  Desert Water  
               Agency, Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, Honey  
               Lake Groundwater Management District, Long Valley  
               Groundwater Management District, Mendocino City Community  
               Services District, Mono County Tri-Valley Groundwater  
               Management District, Monterey Peninsula Water Management  
               District, Ojai Groundwater Management Agency, Orange County  
               Water District, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency,  
               Santa Clara Valley Water District, Sierra Valley Water  
               District, and Willow Creek Groundwater Management Agency.   
               Special Act special districts are located in the Water  
               Appendix.

             b)   Groundwater ordinances and groundwater management plans.  
                Groundwater management can also be achieved through local  
               groundwater ordinances.  According to the Department of  
               Water Resources (DWR), more than 27 counties have adopted  
               groundwater ordinances.  These counties include:  Alpine,  
               Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo,  
               Kern, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono,  
               Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San  
               Diego, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus,  
               Tehama, Tuolumne, Ventura and Yolo.
                
                Another option for local agencies to manage groundwater is  
               through a groundwater management plan.  AB 3030 (Costa),  
               Chapter 708, Statues of 1992, the California Groundwater  
               Management Act, was passed by the Legislature in 1992.  It  
               was a significant addition to the groundwater management  
               authorities granted under the Water Code in that it greatly  
               increased the number of local agencies authorized to  
               develop GMPs and set forth a common framework for  
               management by local agencies throughout California.   
               Adoption of a GMP was encouraged under AB 3030 but not  
               required.  SB 1938 (Machado), Chapter 603, Statutes of  
               2002, took a further step when it set out certain specified  
               components for GMPs and required any local agency seeking  
               state funds administered by DWR to meet those requirements.  
               Subsequent bond initiatives have also made an adopted GMP  
               an eligibility criterion for receiving groundwater project  
               and program funds.  Since its passage, 149 agencies have  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  10


               adopted GMPs in accordance with AB 3030. Other agencies  
               have begun the process.  As mentioned above, in some  
               basins, groundwater is managed under other statutory or  
               judicial authority.

               The California Groundwater Management Act (Act), as  
               amended, provides a systematic procedure to develop a GMP  
               and requires the inclusion of certain minimum components.   
               These include basin management objectives as well as  
               monitoring and management of groundwater levels, inelastic  
               surface subsidence, and changes in surface flow and surface  
               quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality  
               or are caused by groundwater pumping.  The Act also  
               requires a description of how recharge areas identified in  
               the plan substantially contribute to the replenishment of  
               the groundwater basin.  In addition, suggested optional  
               components that might be relevant for a particular  
               groundwater basin are listed.
             
              c)   Court adjudication.  According to DWR, another form of  
               groundwater management in California is through court  
               adjudication.  In basins where a lawsuit is brought to  
               adjudicate the basin, the groundwater disputes of all the  
               overliers and appropriators are determined by the court.   
               The court also decides:  1) who the extractors are; 2) how  
               much groundwater those well owners can extract; and, 3) who  
                                                                     the Watermaster will be to ensure that the basin is managed  
               in accordance with the court's decree.

          5)What is a California Water District and how is it formed?

             a)   Powers.  A California Water District may exercise powers  
               that are enumerated in Division 13 of the Water Code,  
               including the acquisition and operation of works for the  
               production, storage, transmission, and distribution of  
               water for irrigation, domestic, industrial and municipal  
               purposes, and any drainage or reclamation works connected  
               with such undertakings.  A California Water District may  
               also acquire and operate facilities and services for the  
               collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage, waste, and  
               storm waters.

             b)   Governing body and election to the Board.  The governing  
               body of a California Water District is generally composed  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                 Page  11


               of a five-member elected Board of Directors, each of whom  
               must be a landowner within the district.  At any time after  
               four years from the date of the district's formation, the  
               board may, by resolution, increase the number of directors  
               from 5 to 7, 9, or 11.  In general, the election for  
               directors is based on one vote for each dollar's worth of  
               land to which he or she holds title.  However, if an  
               equalized assessment book of the district does not exist,  
               then each voter shall be entitled to cast one vote for each  
               acre owned by the voter within the district.

             c)   Formation of a California Water District.  The formation  
               of a California Water District is initiated by petition to  
               LAFCO by holders of title to a majority of land (based on  
               acreage) that is capable of using water beneficially for  
               irrigation, domestic, industrial or municipal purposes, and  
               that can be serviced from common sources of supply and by  
               the same system of works.  LAFCO then considers the  
               application for formation.  If approved, a protest process  
               would be conducted, and, if successful, an election would  
               then be conducted.

          6)California Water District vs. this bill.

             a)   Powers.  This bill does not specify which powers the  
               District will have under Division 13 of the Water Code.   
               Instead, those powers will be determined through the LAFCO  
               process.  The bill does, however, grant specific authority  
               to the District related to AB 3030 and groundwater  
               management plans.

             b)   Governing body and election to the Board.  The bill  
               specifies that the governing board will consist of nine  
               directors, all landowners.  The election for the directors  
               is based on one vote for each acre owned by the voter  
               within the District, with respect to the six directors that  
               will be elected by landowners.  The other three directors  
               will be elected by registered voters at large (meaning one  
               vote per person).
                
              c)   Formation.  The bill does not modify any provisions  
               related to formation in the California Water District Act.   
               The SLO LAFCO would be involved in the formation process  
               and once a petition is filed, they would consider the  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  12


               petition and then undertake a protest process, and, if  
               successful, an election would be conducted pursuant to the  
               provisions regarding formation elections in the California  
               Water District Act.

          7)SLO LAFCO.  According to the SLO LAFCO, a Notice of Intent to  
            circulate a petition has not been submitted, meaning that  
            there has been no petition filed to form this District.   
            According to the SLO LAFCO, the petition is on hold until  
            there is certainty that the governance and elections structure  
            in this bill will be chaptered into law.

          8)Groundwater management legislation and Governor's budget  
            trailer bill.  There are currently two legislative efforts to  
            address better local groundwater management in the  
            Legislature, and a proposal contained in the Governor's  
            proposed budget released in January of 2014.  Both bills  
            represent initial groundwater management concepts developed  
            after extensive stakeholder processes. 

             a)   AB 1739 (Dickinson) of 2014 requires sustainable  
               groundwater management in all groundwater subbasins  
               determined by DWR to be at medium to high risk of  
               significant economic, social and environmental impacts due  
               to an unsustainable and chronic pattern of groundwater  
               extractions exceeding the ability of the surface water  
               supplies to replenish the subbasin.  The bill passed the  
               Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on April 29,  
               2014, on a 9-5 vote and is pending in the Assembly  
               Appropriations Committee.

             b)   SB 1168 (Pavley) of 2014 establishes the statutory  
               framework for a new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.  
                The bill states the intent of the Legislature that all  
               groundwater basins and subbasins be managed sustainably by  
               local entities pursuant to an adopted sustainable  
               groundwater management plan; attention to develop, adopt,  
               and implement a sustainable groundwater management plan be  
               directed first to high and medium priority groundwater  
               basins and subbasins; and, upon a finding of compelling  
               state interest, the state would have recourse to cause a  
               sustainable groundwater management plan to be developed,  
               adopted, and implemented where local interests either  
               cannot or will not do so themselves.  The bill passed the  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  13


               Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on April 22,  
               2014, on a 7-2 vote and is currently pending in the Senate  
               Appropriations Committee.

             c)   Governor's proposed budget.  The January proposed budget  
               included $1.9 million General Fund and 10 positions for the  
               State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) to act as  
               a backstop when local or regional agencies are unable or  
               unwilling to sustainably manage groundwater basins.  The  
               Water Board will protect groundwater basins at risk of  
               permanent damage until local or regional agencies are able  
               to do so. 
          9)Landowner qualification.  The California Constitution provides  
            that the right to vote or serve in elected office may not be  
            conditioned on a landownership qualification.  However, in  
            1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Salyer Land Co. v.  
            Tulare Water District that the California statute requiring a  
            landownership qualification did not violate the Equal  
            Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The court ruled  
            there was no violation because those districts do not exercise  
            normal governmental authority and their activities  
            disproportionally affect landowners.

            The California Supreme Court, in Choudhry v. Free (1976) 17  
            Cal. 3d 660, declared unconstitutional a section of the  
            Irrigation District Law requiring potential board candidates  
            to be landowners.  The court ruled that this section was  
            unconstitutional as applied to the Imperial Irrigation  
            District and its board of directors, the real parties in  
            interest, because it deprived the irrigation candidates and  
            voters, including petitioner voters, of equal protection.  The  
            court's opinion gave two reasons it did not extend its ruling  
            to other irrigation districts.  First, the Imperial Irrigation  
            District was singular at that time among irrigation districts  
            in that it had more residents, land, and employees than any  
            other irrigation district and it was providing retail water  
            service.  Second, neither respondents nor real parties in  
            interest had opposed petitioners' claim that Water Code  
            Section 21100 was unconstitutional, and numerous irrigation  
            districts in the state that would have been affected by a  
            finding of unconstitutionality did not have the opportunity to  
            present their views or offer evidence regarding the  
            characteristics and operation of irrigation districts in  
            general.








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  14



            The Teamsters Public Affairs Council raises the issue that  
            this bill's proposed governance structure for the District is  
            unconstitutional and undemocratic and argues that "all  
            eligible voters within the District should be able to run for  
            office, regardless of whether they are property owners."   
            Additionally, they argue that "the control of a public  
            resource like groundwater that can be used for drinking water,  
            irrigation, industrial or other purposes is clearly a matter  
            of vital concern to all citizens in the region, regardless of  
            whether they own property."

          10)Policy considerations.

             a)   Alternatives.  There are many other ways for local  
               agencies and communities to manage groundwater, including  
               the formation of a special act special district, adoption  
               of groundwater ordinances or GWPs, and other types of  
               special districts that have groundwater management  
               authority.  Each of these options has been tried and tested  
               throughout California.
                
                The Legislature may wish to ask the author why a California  
               Water District, with this governance structure, presents  
               the best option for the management of Paso Robles  
               groundwater basin, and what other options were considered  
               throughout the stakeholder conversations.

             b)   Powers of the District.  How will the District manage  
               groundwater and what powers, of those enumerated in the  
               California Water District Act, would the proponents of the  
               District like the District to exercise?

             c)   Boundaries.  What will the boundaries of the District  
               be?  Will the entire region overlaying the groundwater  
               basin be included?  What is the composition of the area  
               within the boundaries of the District - largely  
               agricultural, residential, etc.?

          11)Arguments in support.  Supporters argue that this bill  
            contains a unique, equitable representation that continues and  
            promotes cooperation among residents, and prevents a dominant  
            faction.  Supporters believe that this approach reflects the  
            agreement that was reached locally and that the voting  








                                                                  AB 2453
                                                                  Page  15


            structure elegantly allows for representation of the different  
            interests of the Basin, grouping like with like, and  
            preventing any single landowner or group of landowners from  
            controlling the seats in their category or the board as a  
            whole.  Additionally, supporters argue that this bill allows  
            further scrutiny by SLO LAFCO and the opportunity for the  
            public to weigh in at that forum as well.

          12)Arguments in opposition.  Opponents of the bill argue that  
            the governance and elections structure in the bill favors  
            large landowner control by allowing the formation vote and  
            election of directors to be based on acreage, rather than one  
            owner, one vote.  Opponents argue that the better approach is  
            a voting system where residents are treated equally regardless  
            of the amount of lands owned and could be achieved by a  
            one-voter, one-vote system.  Opponents also question the need  
            for this type of District and think that this bill harms water  
            rights.

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Debbie Michel and Misa Yokoi-Shelton /  
          L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 


                                                                FN: 0003384