BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 630|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 630
Author: Pavley (D), Gaines (R), and Steinberg (D)
Amended: 9/3/13
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 7-2, 4/9/13
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Monning, Wolk
NOES: Cannella, Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-1, 5/23/13
AYES: De Le�n, Gaines, Hill, Padilla
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lara, Steinberg
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 5/29/13
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Calderon, Cannella,
Corbett, Correa, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Evans, Fuller,
Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff,
Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Nielsen,
Padilla, Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Walters,
Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 9/9/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill amends the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
2
(Compact), which requires ratification by Congress, to (1)
clarify that a party challenging the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency's (TRPA) regional plan or an action of TRPA has the
burden of proof and (2) direct TRPA to ensure that the regional
plan reflects economic considerations in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Assembly Amendments (1) require the TRPA, until January 1, 2018,
to annually prepare and submit a report to the Department of
Finance (DOF) and the appropriate legislative budget committees
a report, of the revenues provided to the TRPA by the States of
Nevada and California; (2) create the Lake Tahoe Science and
Lake Improvement Account (Account), which will be funded by
rental income from surface uses for public trust lands at Lake
Tahoe; (3) clarify that funds in the Account must be expended
for near-shore environmental improvement program activities and
projects, as specified; and (4) make other technical changes.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Ratifies the Compact, a bilateral agreement between the
States of Nevada and California to regulate development in
the Lake Tahoe basin. The Compact established the TRPA as a
separate legal entity, comprised of members from the states
of Nevada and California, responsible for implementing a
"regional plan," as defined, regulating development in the
Lake Tahoe region, as defined.
2. Creates TRPA as a separate legal entity and as a political
subdivision of the State of California, and prescribes the
membership, functions, and duties of the TRPA, as specified.
3. Requires the TRPA, within 18 months of its formation, to
prepare, adopt, and review and maintain a comprehensive
long-term general plan for the development of the Tahoe
region, referred to as the "regional plan," as prescribed.
4. Requires that within one year after adoption of environmental
threshold carrying capacities for the Tahoe region, the TRPA
to amend its regional plan so that, at a minimum, the plan
and all of its elements, as implemented through agency
ordinances, rules, and regulations, achieves and maintains
the adopted environmental threshold carrying capacities, and
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
3
requires that the advisory planning commission appointed by
the TRPA and the governing body of the TRPA continuously
review and maintain the regional plan. This provision is
contained in the bistate Compact in the Government Code.
5. Authorizes the State Lands Commission (Commission) to
administer, sell, lease, or dispose of public lands owned or
controlled by this state. Requires, with specified
exceptions, all rental income received for surface uses upon
lands under the jurisdiction of the Commission, to be
deposited in the General Fund.
This bill:
1. Makes several findings and declarations, including the
following:
A. The State of California, by and through the Governor,
agrees to cooperate with the State of Nevada in seeking to
have Congress ratify the amendments to the Compact made by
this bill.
B. The State of California supports the full
implementation of the regional plan update (RPU) adopted
by TRPA in December 2012.
1. Amends the Compact, which requires ratification by Congress,
to clarify that a party challenging the TRPA regional plan or
an action of TRPA has the burden of proof and to direct TRPA
to ensure that the regional plan reflects economic
considerations in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
2. Creates the Account, which will be funded by rental income
from surface uses for public trust lands at Lake Tahoe.
Authorizes the Account to fund, among other things, the
creation of a bistate science-based advisory council which is
required to focus on activities that will advance attainment
of environmental thresholds as provided in the Compact.
3. Allows the funds in the Account to be expended for
activities and projects that include, but are not limited to,
aquatic invasive species prevention projects, projects to
improve public access to sovereign land in Lake Tahoe, and
projects to improve near-shore water quality monitoring, as
specified.
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
4
4. Requires the TRPA, until January 1, 2018, to annually
prepare and submit to the DOF and the appropriate legislative
budget committees a report, in a format established by the
DOF, of the revenues provided to the TRPA by the States of
Nevada and California, including a complete summary and
explanation of the expenditure of the revenues received and
expended by the TRPA.
Background
TRPA was first created in 1969 through a bi-state compact
between California and Nevada that was also ratified by the
United States Congress. The Compact was revised in 1980 and
gave TRPA authority to adopt environmental quality standards
(called "thresholds"). Thresholds on various environmental
indicators were first adopted in 1982.
The TRPA board consists of seven voting members from each state
and one federal member. The members represent local governments
and the public. Development project approvals require five
affirmative votes from the state in which the project is located
and a total of at least nine affirmative votes. To amend the
regional plan or the ordinances of the TRPA, four votes are
required from each state.
The compact allows either California or Nevada to withdraw based
on passage of a statute to that effect.
Prior to TRPA, both California and Nevada had state-only Tahoe
regional planning agencies: NTRPA and CTRPA. The NTRPA still
exists, but has virtually no workload. The CTRPA statutes are
still in the California code, but are basically a relic. Those
statutes have not been effective since the Legislature approved
the TRPA Compact.
The states' share of funding TRPA was intended to be split so
that 2/3 would be provided by California and 1/3 by Nevada, with
additional federal funding not a part of that formula. Nevada,
although hard hit by the recession, is lagging, although there
are indications it may increase its contributions in the next
fiscal year. Currently, of the $14.7 million TRPA budget,
California contributes $4.1 million (28%) and Nevada contributes
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
5
$1.3 million (9%). Federal funds and other sources contribute
$6.6 million (63%).
A long-range regional plan was adopted by TRPA in 1984, and,
after litigation and protracted negotiations, a successor
regional plan was adopted in 1987. The regional plan is the
overall approach TRPA will use to achieve the thresholds. That
plan remained in effect until December, 2012, when a new RPU was
approved. Despite several prolonged attempts, TRPA itself was
never able successfully to complete negotiations for a new
regional plan after 1987. The 2012 update resulted in large
part from marathon negotiations on the part of several key
leaders and TRPA board members from both states who established
negotiations parallel to the TRPA process. Those efforts
resulted in amendments to the draft that TRPA had proposed and
the resulting RPU modified TRPA's original proposal.
The 2012 update makes several significant changes that will have
the effect of expanding or expediting development projects many
of which were sought by Nevada interests or local governments.
SB 271 in Nevada . The discontent with TRPA in Nevada has been
historic but most recently culminated with the passage of SB 271
in 2011. That law demanded that a new regional plan be
approved, and, as indicated earlier, that occurred. That law
stated that Nevada would withdraw from the compact as early as
2015 (but with a possible extension to 2017) unless California
changed its laws regarding the voting structure of TRPA for both
the approval of regional plan amendments as well as approval of
projects. In both cases, Nevada and some local governments from
both sides of the state line desire a pro-development voting
structure. These items would constitute amendments to the
compact and would require both states to adopt the same language
and Congress to ratify that language.
SB 271 also has two other requirements. One is that the new
regional plan reflects Lake Tahoe's economic conditions (both
the compact and the regional plan already do this). The second
is that a party challenging the regional plan has the burden of
proof to show that the plan violates the Compact. Some legal
authorities believe this requirement re-states existing law.
California may be open to a compromise that allows the retention
of those provisions provided the voting structure provisions of
SB 271 are repealed.
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
6
There is no indication that California has any interest in
changing the voting structure. Even if it did, that change
would have to be approved by Congress and there is no indication
that Congress has any interest in the topic or that any such
congressional action would occur prior to the deadlines in SB
271.
SB 229 in Nevada . Based on conversations and unofficial
statements from various Nevada officials, many in California
believed that the successful adoption of the RPU ended any real
need of or utility for, SB 271. Apparently that is also the
case with some in Nevada. To that end, SB 229 introduced in the
2013 Nevada Legislature, repeals SB 271. However, at a hearing
on April 2, various elected and appointed Nevada officials, some
representing its governor, and including two Nevada TRPA board
members, said that the administration opposed SB 229 in its
current form. Many of the speakers at the hearing openly
acknowledged that SB 271 was considered effective leverage over
California. Negotiations are still underway to determine if
some successful way can be achieved to amend SB 229 in a way
that could be acceptable in both states.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there are
minor costs, if any.
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/13)
California Attorney General
California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
City of South Lake Tahoe
El Dorado County
League to Save Lake Tahoe
North Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
Placer County
Sustainable Community Advocates
Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
Tahoe Fund
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/9/13)
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
7
Sierra Club
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 9/9/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Beth
Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,
Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Frazier, Lowenthal, Skinner,
Vacancy, Vacancy
RM:ke 9/9/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED