BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 614
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 12, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
SB 614 (Wolk) - As Amended: June 4, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 25-12
SUBJECT : Irrigation districts: directors.
SUMMARY : Removes the landownership requirement from the list of
qualifications to serve as a director of an irrigation district
if the district provides water for agricultural purposes and
water for municipal or industrial purposes. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Removes the landownership requirement from the list of
qualifications to serve as a director of an irrigation
district if the district provides water for agricultural
purposes and water for municipal or industrial purposes.
2)Deletes a provision in current law that provides an exception
to the landowner requirement for board members if the
irrigation district submits an Urban Water Management Plan.
3)Makes technical changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires that each director of an irrigation district be a
voter, a landowner in the district, and a resident of the
division of the district that he or she represents at the time
of his or her nomination or appointment and through his or her
entire term, unless elected at a formation hearing.
2)Specifies that a director elected at a formation election
shall be a resident and landowner in the proposed district at
the time of his or her nomination and a resident of the
division that he or she represents during his or her entire
term.
3)Provides that, in any district having no more than 15
landowners who are voters in the district, a person need not
be a voter in order to be a qualified director if he or she
is a landowner of the district at the time they are nominated
SB 614
Page 2
or appointed and during their entire term.
4)Provides that a director of a district that submits an Urban
Water Management Plan does not have to be a landowner within
the district if appointed or elected on or after January 1,
2007.
5)Provides that the directors in the Pixle, Hills Valley, and
several other irrigation districts with special acts do not
have to be voters in the district nor reside within the
division they represent, if the district has passed a
resolution that authorizes a person who meets only the land
ownership requirement to be a director.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)California's 93 irrigation districts function under a range of
statutes that are a hybrid of registered voter and
landowner-voter type districts. In general, registered voters
are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors
(also referred to as board members) must be landowners of the
district. Originally drafted in 1897, the provisions
requiring directors to be landowners in the Irrigation
District Law were drafted to recognize that landowners at that
time were the only ones affected by the decisions that
irrigation district boards made. The Legislature has
continued to recognize landowners' special concerns for
irrigation districts' operations by creating unique separate
statutes that preserve the landowner requirement to vote in
districts that primarily deliver agricultural water. Some of
these districts have landownership, but not residency
requirements. Historically, irrigation districts only
provided irrigation water services to agricultural land.
However, as California's population has grown, more and more
residential and commercial development is encroaching on
agricultural land. In response to this growth many irrigation
districts began providing retail water service to residential
customers that live within their jurisdictions in absence of
traditional retail water suppliers in the area.
2)This bill deletes the landowner requirement for board members
in irrigation districts that provide water for agricultural
purposes and municipal or industrial purposes. This bill does
SB 614
Page 3
not impact irrigation districts with special statutes. This
bill also deletes the provisions established by AB 159
(Salinas) of 2006 that changed the requirement from a
landowner to resident for board members in irrigation
districts that submit an urban water management plan. This
bill is sponsored by the California Teamsters Public Affairs
Council.
3)This bill builds upon several legislative attempts that have
sought to limit landowner qualifications for board directors.
SB 1939 (Alarc�n), Chapter 1041, Statutes of 2000, deleted the
landowner qualification for board members of irrigation
districts that provide electricity. AB 2279 (Dymally) of 2004
would have deleted the landowner qualification for board
members of most irrigation districts, but failed passage in
the Senate Local Government Committee. AB 159 (Salinas),
Chapter 847, Statutes of 2006, removed the landowner
requirement for irrigation districts that are required to
submit an urban water management and thus provide 3,000 or
more acre-feet of water to residential customers or that have
more than 3,000 customers.
4)The debate in the Legislature on landowner requirements for
board members in irrigation districts has most recently
focused on establishing a distinction between urban and
agricultural districts and the rights of those residents in
urban districts. According to the
AB 159 (Salinas) Committee analysis, "AB 159 is designed to
protect traditional irrigation districts that provide water
for primarily agriculture use while providing residents who
receive retail water from irrigation districts with the
opportunity to serve on the district's board." In 2006, the
impacts on irrigation districts by the proposed changes in AB
159 (Salinas) were clear. At the time the bill was making its
way through the legislative process, 17 irrigation districts
were identified who submitted an urban water management plan
and would then need to eliminate the landowner requirement for
board members if the bill became law.
Unlike AB 159 (Salinas), the number of irrigation districts
that this bill will impact is unclear. This bill removes the
use of a tangible report, and instead, relies on a definition
to determine what purposes an irrigation district uses water
for.
SB 614
Page 4
Absent a comprehensive list of impacted districts, the
Committee may wish to consider that this bill will eliminate
the landowner requirement for an urban district whose revenue
mostly comes from residential water use, but does not submit
an urban water management plan in the same way it will
eliminate the landowner requirement in an irrigation district
in a rural area whose revenue mostly comes from agricultural
water use, but provides raw water to a cannery to use for
equipment.
5)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.
6)Supporters argue that this bill continues to recognize the
position that the Legislature has taken by preserving the
SB 614
Page 5
irrigation district landowner requirement in districts that
only provide water for agricultural purposes. Under current
law the irrigation districts that are providing water for
non-agricultural purposes may not be required to do an urban
water management plan. This bill will ensure that those
districts providing water for municipal or industrial purposes
will no longer have the landowner requirement for board
members. Supporters argue that existing law is inconsistent
with democratic principles of representative government and is
of questionable constitutionality.
7)Opponents of the bill argue that the original policy rationale
that linked irrigation district policy setting with land and
water is still applicable; namely, that persons who have an
investment in water delivery infrastructure and who assume the
obligations and risks of paying irrigation and drainage
assessments should govern irrigation districts. Opponents
also argue that the landownership in existing law has been
upheld by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional
form of governance.
8)The Committee may wish to ask the author to clarify the
language in subdivision (d) that refers to the use of water
for municipal or industrial purposes. The phrase 'municipal
and industrial' is commonly used to encompass residential,
municipal, industrial, and commercial uses of water.
9)The Committee previously heard another bill on irrigation
districts. AB 1156 (V. Manuel P�rez), pending in the Senate,
would change the weighted vote system in the Palo Verde
Irrigation District (PVID) from votes based on the assessed
value of land to the number of acres. PVID has a separate
enabling act that only grants voting power to landowners and
would maintain the landowner requirement for voting and board
membership regardless of the changes purposed in this bill.
The bill passed the committee on a 7-1 vote on May 8, 2013.
The Committee may wish to discuss if the bill should repeal
those irrigation districts with a unique voting system
established by special statute and require all irrigation
districts to be subject to the same requirements for board
members.
10)Support arguments : The sponsor argues "That there is no
rationale for continuing this outdated requirement other than
SB 614
Page 6
the idea that landowners are better, more responsible citizens
than non-landowners." The California Labor Federation argues
that "landowner requirement reinforces and perpetuates an
existing power structure and it fundamentally obstructs
democratic decision-making."
Opposition arguments : Opposition argues that there is no
compelling reason to change current law and that it remains
appropriate for an irrigation district that provides services
to land to retain landownership as a prerequisite for director
qualification. Also, those who have paid for irrigation
infrastructure and who pay land-based assessments should
continue to qualify to serve on governing boards of irrigation
districts.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council [SPONSOR]
California Labor Federation
Coalition of California Utility Employees
Community Water Center
United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council
Opposition
American Pistachio Growers
Association of California Water Agencies
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Wine Grape Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Citrus Mutual
Opposition (continued)
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California Tomato Growers Association
SB 614
Page 7
California State Floral Association
California Warehouse Association
California Women for Agriculture
Friant Water Authority
Kern County Water Agency
Kings River Conservation District
Kings River Water Association
Nisei Farmers League
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958