BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 620
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 11, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
SB 620 (Wright) - As Amended: August 30, 2013
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
SENATE VOTE : 31-4
SUBJECT : Water replenishment districts.
SUMMARY : Amends state laws governing water replenishment
districts' annual budget reserves and the penalties a district
can impose on water-producing facility operators. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Eliminates, until the 2019-20 fiscal year, the requirement in
existing law that a minimum of 80% of a water replenishment
district's annual reserve fund shall be expended for water
purchases.
2)States the intent of the Legislature to provide the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California (District) with
the ability to determine the appropriate use of moneys held in
its annual reserve fund, and that public records that are kept
by the district of expenditures from the annual reserve fund
shall help the Legislature determine whether the flexibility
provided should be permanently extended beyond the 2019-20
fiscal year.
3)Requires a water replenishment district to establish a budget
advisory committee for purposes of reviewing a replenishment
assessment, if any is proposed, and a district's annual
operating budget, including reserve funds maintained by the
district.
4)Specifies, for the budget advisory committee, the following:
a) The committee shall consist of seven members who shall
serve a two-year term and who shall be elected from among
representatives of producers who are owners or operators of
groundwater producing facilities who are subject to the
replenishment assessment, as specified;
SB 620
Page 2
b) Two members shall be elected by vote of entities with an
annual pumping allocation of less than 5,000 acre-feet;
c) Two members shall be elected by vote of entities with an
annual pumping allocation of at least 5,000 acre-feet but
less than 10,000 acre-feet; and,
d) Three members shall be elected by vote of entities with
an annual pumping allocation of 10,000 acre-feet or
greater;
5)Requires, on or before the first Tuesday in January on a
biennial basis, the district to provide by first-class mail to
each producer notice that includes information regarding the
purpose of the committee, the categories that determine
membership on the committee, as specified, the schedule for
the election of members, and any additional information the
district determines necessary. Requires the deadline for each
producer to inform the district that it would like to serve on
the committee and the category for which it is eligible to
serve, and requires an eligible producer that would like to
serve on the committee and informs the district to be included
on the election ballot.
6)Requires the election of committee members to be conducted by
mail ballot not later than 90 days before the second Tuesday
in May, and specifies vote counting procedures.
7)Requires the committee to hold its first meeting within 30
days of the date the results of the election are announced by
the district, and requires the committee to develop rules for
its operation. Requires the committee to take action by
majority vote of its members, and prohibits members from
receiving compensation for serving on the committee.
8)Requires, no later than the second Tuesday of April of each
year, the district to consult with the budget advisory
committee, and requires the committee to make recommendations
to the board, as specified.
9)Requires the district to maintain records regarding the
recommendations of the budget advisory committee and the final
decisions made by the board with regard to those
recommendations.
SB 620
Page 3
10)Sunsets all provisions related to the budget advisory
committee as of June 30, 2019, and as of January 1, 2020,
repeals those provisions, as specified.
11)Increases the penalty from $150 to $1,000 for any operator of
a water-producing facility who knowingly fails to register his
or her water-producing facility or knowingly fails to file the
groundwater production statement, or knowingly fails to file
and furnish any other reports or statements required by
resolution of the board, as specified, and in addition to
interest.
12)Provides that the increase in penalty shall not apply to any
operator of a water-producing facility that is a party to
litigation involving a water replenishment district filed
before July 1, 2013, until after the litigation is settled or
all legal remedies have been exhausted.
13)Requires, for existing law that allows the water
replenishment district to proceed for injunctive relief, that
the court direct that the District or operator of a
water-producing facility be awarded the reasonable attorney's
fees and costs relating to a motion seeking injunctive relief
whenever the District or operator of a water-producing
facility prevails on a petition or complaint.
14)Provides that the provisions specifying the awarding of
attorney's fees in the bill shall not apply to any operator of
a water-producing facility that is a party to litigation
involving a water replenishment district filed before July 1,
2013, until after the litigation is settled or all legal
remedies have been exhausted.
15)Specifies that reimbursement to local agencies shall be made,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, under the Water Replenishment District Act, for the
formation of a water replenishment district and grants
authority to a water replenishment district relating to the
replenishment, protection, and preservation of groundwater
supplies within that district.
SB 620
Page 4
2)Allows a water replenishment district to establish an annual
reserve fund in an amount not to exceed $10 million commencing
with the 2000-01 fiscal year, and allows the maximum allowable
reserve fund to be adjusted annually commencing with the
2001-02 fiscal year to reflect percentage increases or
decreases in the blended cost of water from district supply
sources.
3)Requires a minimum of 80% of the annual reserve fund to be
used for water purchases.
4)Requires, should any operator of a water-producing facility
knowingly fail to register his water-producing facility or
knowingly fail to file the groundwater production statement,
or knowingly file to file and furnish any other reports or
statements required by resolution of the board, as specified,
the operator to, in addition to interest due, be liable to the
district for a penalty of $150.
5)Authorizes the superior court of the county in which the major
portion of the water replenishment district lies to issue a
temporary restraining order upon the filing by the district
with the court of a verified petition or complaint setting
forth that the defendant is the operator of a water-producing
facility that has not been registered with the district or
that the defendant is delinquent in the payment of a
replenishment assessment, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill is a state mandated program. However, no
reimbursement is required because the sponsor of the legislation
is the entity subject to the mandate.
COMMENTS :
1)This bill repeals a limitation on the expenditure of the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California's (District)
annual reserve fund for a five-year period and requires the
District to establish a budget advisory committee for purposes
of reviewing a replenishment assessment and the District's
annual operating budget. The District would then be required
to consult with that advisory committee and would be required
to maintain records regarding the recommendations of the
budget advisory committee and the final decisions made by the
SB 620
Page 5
board of the District. Provisions related the budget advisory
committee become inoperative on June 30, 2019, and are
repealed as of January 1, 2020.
Provisions in the bill also increase the penalty that may be
imposed for the failure of the owner of a water-producing
facility to file certain reports. Additionally, the bill
provides that the court shall direct that the District or
operator of a water-producing facility be awarded the
reasonable attorney's fees and costs relating to a motion
seeking injunctive relief whenever the District or operator of
a water-producing facility prevails on a petition or
complaint.
The bill exempts specified pending litigation from the
provisions of the bill that increase the penalty and award
attorney's fees. This bill is sponsored by the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California.
2)The Water Replenishment District of Southern California, which
was established by voters in Los Angeles County in 1959, is
the state's only water replenishment district. The District
was established while the Los Angeles County court proceeded
through adjudication of groundwater rights in the Central
Basin and West Coast Basin aquifers. The main function of the
District is to recharge water into groundwater basins for
later withdrawal by water purveyors, and the District has
certain legal authorities to accomplish this purpose. The
District earns revenue by charging water replenishment
assessments to the agencies, utilities, and companies that
pump groundwater. The District also gets property tax
revenues from its share of the 1% property tax rate. Funds
are used to buy surface water that then percolates into the
groundwater basin.
In December of 1999, the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) issued a
report that discussed the weak policies and poor planning by
the District which BSA noted had led to excessive water rates
and questionable expenses.
According to the BSA Summary document contained in the report,
"Every year the district overestimates the amount it needs to
collect to pay for the water it buys to replenish the
groundwater in these two basins. Over the past 10 years, the
district has purchased considerably less water than it has
estimated it would need. Also, the district has not
SB 620
Page 6
sufficiently taken into consideration its unused cash balance
when estimating how much money it will need to collect through
the assessment in a given year. As a result, by June 30,
1998, the district had accumulated $67 million in its
unreserved fund balances. Thus, not only have the annual
assessments been too high, but the district also is
maintaining more than it needs in its cash reserves."
The 1999 BSA report also concluded that the District had
failed to maintain sufficient controls over its administrative
functions and spending, and made a number of recommendations.
On the heels of that report came two bills, SB 1979 (Escutia),
Chapter 894, Statutes of 2000, and AB 1834 (Havice), Chapter
888, Statutes of 2000. SB 1979 contained a number of changes
including the following - the bill required the District to
enter into contracts for construction work materials,
supplies, and equipment for professional services; required
the District to prepare and review a cost-benefit analysis
prior to constructing, leasing, purchasing, or contracting for
a capital improvement project; prohibited the District from
establishing a reserve of more than $10 million, starting with
the 2000-01 fiscal year, 80% of which is to be used to
purchase water; required the District to order, review, and
have in possession an independent audited financial statement;
required the audit to contain certain things including the
balances in all accounts for the District's funds; required
the District to submit the audit to the Governor and the
Legislature; and, required the District to apply the estimated
fiscal year-end balance of the reserve in excess of the $10
million limit to a reduction in the water assessment or to the
purchase of water in the following fiscal year. The other
bill, AB 1834, found and declared that reforms to the District
needed to be enacted to implement the recommendations set
forth in the 1998 BSA report, and stated the Legislature's
intent to review and reform the District's governance
structure.
BSA followed up in June of 2004 and found that the District
had not yet fully addressed all of BSA's concerns. According
to the BSA Summary highlights from June 2004, the review
revealed that the District "adopted a reserve-funds policy
that calls for increasing its reserve funds, but since
adopting the policy, the District allowed its reserve funds to
further deplete, and likely overstated its reserve-funds
SB 620
Page 7
targets by using some faulting assumptions in calculating
them," among other issues.
In the years that followed, several cities and the Central
Basin Municipal Water District challenged the District on its
legal authority and finances. One key dispute was control of
the storage space in the aquifers, which led to the Court of
Appeals, in January 2012, confirming the Superior Court's
authority to determine which agency controlled the storage
while noting that the Legislature has not specifically
assigned that authority. Last year, SB 1386 (Lowenthal),
Chapter 215, Statutes of 2012, eliminated the authority of the
Central Basin Municipal Water District to manage groundwater,
in favor of the District. While this dispute proceeded,
litigation over the District's authority to increase
replenishment assessments also continued.
3)According to the sponsor, "no other local agency has a
statutory limitation on its annual reserve fund, let alone a
restriction as to the manner in which such funds can be
expended. [The District] seeks the repeal of the 80%
requirement for several reasons. First, the restriction
unnecessarily limits the ability of the District to rely on
the annual reserve fund?to meet unexpected costs not included
in the annual budget. Second, [the District] today is vastly
different from fifteen years ago. Less is spent today on
purchasing replenishment water and more is spent on operations
unrelated to water purchases. Finally, while one cannot
predict the future, should the present refusal by at least six
groundwater producers to pay their replenishment assessments
continue, [the District] would be forced to dip into its
annual reserve fund to pay for operations."
The District notes that "the 80% restriction would impede the
District's ability to maintain the groundwater monitoring
program, water quality testing, debt service payments, capital
projects and litigation costs, among others." This bill would
remove the 80% requirement for five fiscal years. The bill
also states the intent of the Legislature that the removal of
the 80% requirement will provide the District with the ability
to determine the appropriate use of moneys held in its annual
reserve fund, and that public records that are kept by the
District of expenditures from the annual reserve fund shall
help the Legislature determine whether the flexibility should
be permanently extended beyond the 2019-20 fiscal year.
SB 620
Page 8
According to the sponsor, "the 1955 Water Replenishment
District Act authorized the imposition of a penalty for the
failure of a groundwater producer to submit certain reports.
Under the original Act, [the District] could impose a penalty
of up to 10% of the assessment for failure to file reports in
a timely manner. The penalty was last increased in 1961 - to
$150 for failure to file reports."
This bill would increase the penalty for failure to file
reports to $1,000, which the sponsor argues is "less than the
rate of inflation as applied to the 1961 statutory amount?.it
is clear, more than 50 years later, that the penalty is not
sufficient to provide the proper incentive for a groundwater
producer to timely file specified reports and statements."
This bill also would delay the application of the increase in
the amount of that penalty to an operator of a water-producing
facility that is a party to certain litigation cases filed
before July 1, 2013, until after the litigation is settled or
all legal remedies are exhausted.
4)AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. Current law allows the District to
file a petition or complaint in Superior Court seeking a
temporary restraining order and injunctive relief against an
operator of a water-producing facility which has not been
registered with the district or who is delinquent in paying a
replenishment assessment. Unlike some other public agencies,
the District can only collect unpaid replenishment assessments
through a court action. In recent years, several groundwater
pumpers have withheld payments of their replenishment
assessments, requiring the District to pay attorney's fees to
file a court action to collect those unpaid assessments.
The author proposes to amend the bill as follows:
Page 6, lines 26 - 29:
The court shall direct that the district or operator of a
water-producing facility be awarded the reasonable attorney's
fees and costs of relating to a motion seeking injunctive
relief under this section whenever the district or operator of
a water-producing facility prevails on a petition or
complaint.
5)Support arguments : Supporters argue that this bill will help
SB 620
Page 9
protect the stability of the District's groundwater supply in
order to ensure that the residents of south Los Angeles County
have reliable, affordable water.
Opposition arguments : None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Water Replenishment District of Southern California [SPONSOR]
Bell Gardens Chamber of Commerce
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO
AFSCME Local 1902
Association of California Water Agencies
California Municipal Utilities Association
Cities of Gardena, Lawndale
Groundwater Resources Association of California
Hub Cities Consortium
SB 620
Page 10
Inglewood/Airport Area Chamber of Commerce
Lawndale Chamber of Commerce
Latin Business Association
Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades
Council
Plumbers & Pipefitters Long Beach Local 494
Rancho South East Association of REALTORS
UA Local 250 Steamfitters & Refrigeration
West Basin Municipal Water District
Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Workers' Local Union 105
South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce
Opposition
Unknown
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958