BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 614 HEARING: 4/3/13
AUTHOR: Wolk FISCAL: No
VERSION: 2/22/13 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Ewing
IRRIGATION DISTRICTS' BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
Eliminates landownership requirement to serve on irrigation
districts' elected boards.
Background and Existing Law
Article 1, Section 22 of the California Constitution
provides that the right to vote or serve in elected office
may not be conditioned on a landownership qualification.
California has more than 3,000 special districts. Most are
governed by registered-voter boards, in which the electors
and the elected representatives must be registered to vote
in the district's boundaries. But a small portion of those
special districts are landowner-voter districts. State law
assigns voting power in those districts to those who own
real property within the district. Members of the
governing boards of these districts must be landowners or,
at times, landowner representatives.
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
don't exercise normal governmental authority and their
activities disproportionally affect landowners.
California's 93 irrigation districts function under a range
of statutes that govern who can serve on their elected
boards, who can vote, and how those votes are counted.
Some districts have landowner, voter, and residency
provisions for serving on the board and voting. Other
districts have landownership but not residency
requirements. Some districts use weighted ballots in their
elections, based on the relative value of land under
SB 614 -- 2/22/13 -- Page 2
ownership.
The Legislature added the landowner requirement for
irrigation districts' boards in the 1890s, recognizing that
irrigation districts primarily delivered agricultural water
and the operations of the districts mostly impacted and
were paid for by landowners. Since then, the Legislature
has allowed irrigation districts to provide other public
services, including drainage, electricity, flood control,
sewage disposal, and water storage and distribution.
The 1976 Choudhry v. Free decision by the California
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the section of the
Irrigation District Law that required district board
candidates to be landowners as it applied to Imperial
Irrigation District. The court ruled the landownership
qualification unconstitutional, despite the Salyer
decision, because of the size and range of public services
provided by the district. The court also found, because of
Salyer, that it could not rule on the constitutionality of
the landowner requirement for all irrigation districts and
that such determinations should be made on a case-by-case
basis.
In 2000, the Legislature deleted the landowner
qualification for board members of irrigation districts
that provide electricity. Elected members of those boards
must be registered voters (SB 1939, Alarc�n, 2000). In
2006, the Legislature removed the landowner requirement for
irrigation districts that provide 3,000 or more acre-feet
of water to residential customers or that have more than
3,000 customers (AB 159, Salinas, 2006).
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 614 deletes the landowner qualification in the
Irrigation District law for Irrigation District board
members.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
SB 614 -- 2/22/13 -- Page 3
Comments
1. Equal protection . The California Constitution
prohibits landowner qualifications for voting or elected
office, yet some irrigation districts still operate under
century-old rules that restrict political participation to
landowners. More than 30 years after the Supreme Court's
Choudhry decision, the constitutional question remains over
whether state law can restrict irrigation districts'
directors to landowners if the district provides more than
agricultural water to landowners. As California's
demographic and economic needs have shifted, so too have
the functions of irrigation districts, taking on more
governmental roles. Building on the Choudhry decision, the
2000 Alarc�n bill and the 2006 Salinas bill, SB 614 extends
the democratic principle of voter control of government to
nearly all irrigation districts.
2. Special means special . In 1897, the Legislature
recognized the need to establish a unique form of
government to provide a special set of services to a
segment of the population -- the special district was born.
In the Salyer decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
that some forms of government can and should retain the
landowner qualification for elected office because the
decisions they make overwhelmingly impact landowners, not
the general population. SB 614 could allow special
district boards to be held by persons with no ties to the
operations of the district, who receive no direct benefit,
and who have no obligation to pay for services or debts
held by the district.
3. Left unaddressed . SB 614 would apply to most
irrigation districts, but does not address those districts
that have unique statutes. In the 1990s, the Legislature
allowed some irrigation districts to determine whether
their boards should be made up only of landowners,
including the districts of Byron-Bethany, Pixley, Hills
Valley, and Stratford, although those decisions are subject
to voter review. Similarly, earlier statutes eliminated
the residency requirement, but not landownership
requirements, for voters for some districts, including
Montague Water Conservation District, Cordua Irrigation
District, and Provident Irrigation District and permitted
voters to serve on their elected boards. Still, other
provisions allow for proxy voting for the boards of
SB 614 -- 2/22/13 -- Page 4
irrigation districts.
Support and Opposition (3/28/13)
Support : California Teamsters Public Affairs Council,
Community Water Center; United Food & Commercial Workers
Western States Council.
Opposition : Association of California Water Agencies; San
Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority; Valley
Ag Water Coalition; Western Growers.