BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 386
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Brian Maienschein, Chair
AB 386
(Dahle) - As Amended March 24, 2015
SUBJECT: Tulelake Irrigation District.
SUMMARY: Makes changes to the qualifications for voters and
directors in the Tulelake Irrigation District (District), and
requires voters to be landowners instead of registered voters in
the District. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires voters in the District to be owners of real property
assessed by the District instead of registered voters in order
to vote in District elections.
2)Establishes a weighted vote system that provides landowners
with either one, two, or three votes based on the total number
of assessed acres owned in the division, as follows:
a) For 50 or fewer assessed acres, one vote;
b) For more than 50, but no more than 250 assessed acres,
two votes; and,
AB 386
Page 2
c) For more than 250 assessed acres, three votes.
3)Requires each director of the District, at the time of his or
her nomination or appointment through the entire term, to meet
the following requirements:
a) Be a registered voter in California;
b) Reside within the residency area, as defined by this
bill; and,
c) Be a landowner within the division he or she represents.
4)Defines the following terms:
a) "Corporation" to mean "any legal entity, public or
private, properly organized under the laws of the state in
which it was created, that is allowed to own real property
in California;"
b) "Legal representative" to mean "a person authorized to
act for or on behalf of a corporation, estate, or trust
holding title to land within the District;"
c) "Residency area" to mean both of the following:
i) Land within the exterior boundaries of the District;
and,
AB 386
Page 3
ii) Land within 10 miles of the exterior boundaries of
the District and within California.
5)Provides that the last District assessment roll is conclusive
evidence of ownership and the number of assessed acres owned
by the voter in the division.
6)Requires, if land is owned in joint tenancy, tenancy in
common, or any other multiple ownership, the owners of the
land to designate in writing, as specified, which owner is
deemed the owner of the land for purposes of qualifying as a
voter. Requires the designation to be made upon a form
provided by the District. Requires the form to be filed with
the District at least 40 days prior to the election and
remains in effect until amended or revoked. Prohibits any
amendment or revocation to occur within the period of 39 days
prior to the election.
7)Allows the legal representative of a corporation, estate, or
trust owning real property to vote on behalf of the
corporation or estate, including a designee. Requires a legal
representative, before voting, to present the District a copy
of his or her authority.
8)Authorizes every voter, or representative, to vote at any
District election either in person or by a person appointed as
a proxy. Requires the appointment of a proxy pursuant to the
existing process for California Water Districts.
9)Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant to current law governing state
AB 386
Page 4
mandated local costs.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires that each voter of an irrigation district be a
resident registered to vote in the district.
2)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.
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
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS:
1)Irrigation District Voter and Director Qualifications.
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
AB 386
Page 5
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. These provisions in current law for individual
irrigation districts either contain a process to allow the
irrigation district to internally change to a landowner voter
district, pursuant to a resolution of the governing board and
a protest process, or make the change outright legislatively,
as this bill would do for the District. However, the
Legislature has not passed a bill limiting voting to
landowners for an individual irrigation district in over a
decade.
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 the absence of traditional retail water
suppliers in the area. This trend has caused the Legislature
to reevaluate these landowner restrictions both uniformly and
on a case by case basis.
2)Are the Landowner Qualifications Constitutional? 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
AB 386
Page 6
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.
3)Bill Summary. This bill establishes a separate provision in
Irrigation District Law for the District and specifies voter
and director qualifications.
Under existing law, voters in the District are registered
voters. This bill allows all owners
AB 386
Page 7
of real property assessed by the District to vote, but no
others. Under this bill, any owner
of property assessed by the District, regardless of where they
reside, would be eligible to vote in elections and any
non-landowner registered to vote within the District would no
longer be eligible to vote. Additionally, this bill
establishes a weighted vote system based on the total number
of acres owned within a division of the District. Landowners
of 50 or fewer acres would get one vote, 50 to 250 acres would
get two votes, and more than 250 acres would get three votes.
This bill also makes a number of other changes to the
qualifications of voters to address different types of
ownership and the use of a legal representative or proxy.
Under existing law, directors of the District are registered
voters, landowners, and residents within the division they
represent. This bill makes changes to the qualifications for
directors to allow landowners who do not live within the
division or even within the District to serve as a director.
Under this bill, owners of assessed parcels would need to
fulfill three qualifications during the time of nomination or
appointment and through the entire term as director: a) be a
registered voter in California; b) reside within the exterior
boundaries of the District or on land within 10 miles of the
exterior boundaries of the District within California; and, c)
be a landowner within the division they represent.
This bill is sponsored by the District.
4)The District. The Tulelake Irrigation District is located
within the Upper Klamath Basin and includes land in both Modoc
and Siskiyou counties. The District has an exterior boundary
that includes 96,000 acres, and its northern boundary is
contiguous to the border between California and Oregon. The
District's governing body is a five-member board of directors.
According to Modoc County Local Agency Formation Commission's
municipal service review, the District was formed in 1952, and
entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in
AB 386
Page 8
1956 for repayment of construction charges and the transfer to
the District the maintenance of the facilities used to deliver
water to District lands. In 1957, the Board of Directors
approved the formation of an improvement district to operate
and maintain pumps, dikes, and drainage facilities already
constructed by landowners and to apportion all charges among
several landowners according to the number of acres of land
owned.
5)Author's Statement. According to the author, "Currently the
District has had difficulty finding landowners who are willing
and eligible to serve on its Board of Directors. Current law
requires Board Members to reside within the division he/she
will represent. This bill implements a tiered voting
structure that weighs each landowner's vote and allows smaller
landowners in the District to have a voice in the District's
affairs."
6)Prior Legislation. This Committee has heard a number of bills
addressing qualification requirements for both voters and
directors of irrigation districts. There have been several
legislative attempts that have sought to limit landowner
qualifications for board directors. SB 614 (Wolk) of 2013
would have removed the landownership requirement from the list
of qualifications to serve as a director of an irrigation
district, if the district provided water for agricultural
purposes and water for municipal or industrial purposes. SB
1939 (Alarcón), 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
AB 386
Page 9
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.
AB 1156 (V.M Perez), Chapter 245, Statutes of 2013, made
changes to the weighted vote
of a landowner in the Palo Verde Irrigation District to
determine votes based on number
of acres of land owned instead of the assessed value of
property. However, the Palo Verde Irrigation District already
limited voting to landowners.
7)Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the
following:
a) Favoring Landowners? The Committee may wish to ask the
author and sponsors how many non-landowners that currently
have the ability to vote in District elections will no
longer have that right should this bill be signed into law.
Supporters argue that the District only provides water
services for agricultural purposes and are financed solely
through assessments on landowners. Therefore, the
qualifications for voters should be consistent with who
receives and pays for services. However, absent specific
facts about how many non-landowners currently vote, the
Committee may wish to consider the necessity for this
change in law.
b) Favoring Certain Landowners? The Committee may wish to
ask the author and sponsor how many landowners fit within
each category of the tiered weighted vote structure that
this bill would establish. The Committee may wish to
consider, without knowing what the practical implications
of the weighted voting scheme are, if it is reasonable to
implement this policy.
AB 386
Page 10
Supporters argue that this bill establishes a weighted vote
system that protects the vote
of small landowners. However, the Committee may wish to
consider if one vote per landowner or one vote per
registered voter would better accomplish the goal of
protecting the vote of all individuals.
c) Allowing Directors to Live Outside the District. The
Committee may wish to ask the author and sponsor how many
landowners live outside the District within the residency
area that is defined by this bill. Supporters argue that
the Legislature has granted the authority to individual
irrigation districts in the past to allow non-resident
landowners to be voters and directors.
d) Too Many Questions and Not Enough Answers. The
Committee may wish to consider, given all the outstanding
questions about the practical implications of this bill, if
it is appropriate for the Legislature to create these
specialized qualifications for voters and directors in the
District.
8)Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill better
represents the interests of those most affected by the
District's purposes and function.
9)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
AB 386
Page 11
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 386
Page 12
Tulelake Irrigation District [SPONSOR]
Association of California Water Agencies
Ben DuVal Farms, Inc.
City of Tulelake
Frey Farms
Gold Dust Potato Processors, Inc.
Klamath Water Users Association
McKoen & Son
Modoc County Board of Supervisors
Seus Family Farms Inc.
Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors
Staunton Farms
Walker Brothers
AB 386
Page 13
Individuals (2)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958