BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
AB 786
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
786 (Levine)
As Amended September 2, 2015
2/3 vote. Urgency
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 2, 2015) |SENATE: |39-0 |(September 8, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY: Clarifies that a homeowners association (HOA) may only
impose a fine or assessment against a homeowner for reducing or
eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during a drought
where, prior to the imposition of a fine or assessment, the
homeowner receives recycled water from a retail water supplier
and fails to use that recycled water for landscaping irrigation.
This bill is an urgency measure.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Clarify that an HOA may only impose a fine or assessment
against a homeowner for reducing or eliminating the watering
AB 786
Page 2
of vegetation or lawns during a drought where, prior to the
imposition of a fine or assessment, the homeowner receives
recycled water from a retail water supplier and fails to use
that recycled water for landscaping irrigation.
2)Define "recycled water" as water which, as a result of
treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or
a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is
therefor considered a valuable resource.
3)Define "retail water supplier" as any local entity, including
a public agency, city, county, or private water company, that
provides retail water service.
4)Provide that it is an urgency measure.
5)Include chaptering out amendments with AB 349 (Gonzalez),
Chapter 266, Statutes of 2015.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "the Department
of Water Resources states that irrigation for outdoor
landscaping can account for anywhere from an average of 25% to
an average of 80% of overall urban water use, depending on the
area. On January 17, 2014, Governor Brown proclaimed a drought
state of emergency in California citing three consecutive years
of severe drought conditions and the impossibility of predicting
how long the drought could last. The emergency drought
proclamation was followed on April 24, 2014, by an Executive
Order (2014 EO) seeking to limit outdoor watering.
AB 786
Page 3
"The 2014 EO also identified an ongoing problem with HOAs that
were fining or threatening to fine homeowners for complying with
water conservation measures. The 2014 EO declared HOA measures
void and unenforceable if they had the effect of prohibiting
compliance with the water-saving measures adopted by a public
agency or private water company. But the 2014 EO did not
protect homeowners who voluntarily let their lawn go brown."
The author notes that the chronic drought has continued and
California is now in its fourth year. On April 1, 2015, the
Governor followed up on the proclamation of a drought state of
emergency with Executive Order B-29-15. Among the provisions of
the Executive Order was directive No. 2, stating that the State
Water Resources Control Board shall impose restrictions upon
water suppliers to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable
urban water usage through February 28, 2016. Restrictions in
the amount of potable water used for outdoor landscaping are the
primary tool.
To further implement these restrictions, Governor Brown signed
AB 1 (Brown), Chapter 62, on July 13, 2015. The author states
that "AB 1 prohibits cities and counties from imposing fines on
homeowners for failing to water a lawn or having a brown lawn
during any period for which the Governor has declared a drought
state of emergency. But AB 1 does not address HOAs. Civil Code
Section 4735 prohibits HOAs from fining homeowners for letting
their lawns go brown. But Section 4735 allows HOAs that are
using recycled water to fine homeowners. Some HOAs have
interpreted this to mean that if the HOA itself is using some
recycled water on common areas then it can continue to fine
homeowners that let their lawns go brown."
The author believes that homeowners who voluntarily seek to aid
the emergency drought situation should not be penalized by HOAs
using the recycled water loophole in an attempt to maintain lush
lawns during a drought. This bill will close a loophole by
restricting the ability for HOAs to impose a fine on a homeowner
only in circumstances in which, prior to the imposition of a
fine or assessment, the owner of a separate interest receives
AB 786
Page 4
recycled water from a retail water supplier and fails to use
that recycled water for landscaping irrigation.
Arguments in support: Supporters, including water districts and
agencies, argue that California is experiencing unprecedented
drought conditions and that homeowners need clarity regarding
what measures they may take to reduce outdoor water use without
risk of fines from their HOAs. Supporters contend that this
bill is a sensible effort that closes a gap in law that some
HOAs have been taking advantage of in order to fine residents
that have allowed their lawns to go brown if recycled water is
used on common areas.
Arguments in opposition: This bill also contains the same
provisions contained within AB 349, which was signed by the
Governor on September 4, 2015. This language was included to
avoid chaptering issues if both this bill and AB 349 are signed
by the Governor. AB 349 prohibits an HOA from preventing a
homeowner from installing artificial turf or synthetic grass.
An HOA may establish reasonable restrictions about the type of
artificial grass that a homeowner may use so long as those
restrictions do not, in effect, prevent a homeowner from
installing artificial grass. The Educational Community for
Homeowners (ECHO) does not oppose the provisions in the bill
relating to recycled water. ECHO opposes the AB 349 chaptering
out provisions that are incorporated into this bill, however,
because they are concerned about a number of health and
environmental issues related to the installation and use of
synthetic turf.
This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the
Assembly-approved version of this bill was deleted.
Related legislation:
AB 349: Voids, or makes unenforceable, any provision of a CID
governing document or architectural or landscaping guidelines or
AB 786
Page 5
policies that prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other
synthetic surface that resembles grass. Prohibits a requirement
that an owner of a separate interest remove or reverse
water-efficient landscaping measures, installed in response to a
declaration of a state of emergency, upon the conclusion of the
state of emergency. This bill was signed by the Governor on
September 4, 2015.
SB 759 (Lieu) of 2011: Would have voided, or made
unenforceable, any provision of a CID governing document or
architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies that
prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic
surface that resembles grass. This bill was vetoed by the
Governor.
AB 1793 (Saldaņa) of 2010: Would have voided, or made
unenforceable, any provision of a CID governing document or
architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies that
prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic
surface that resembles grass. This bill was vetoed by the
Governor.
Analysis Prepared by: Rebecca Rabovsky / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085 FN: 0002362