BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 965
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
965 (Eduardo Garcia)
As Amended May 4, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Environmental |6-0 |Alejo, Dahle, | |
|Safety | |Gallagher, | |
| | |Gonzalez, Gray, | |
| | |McCarty | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Water |15-0 |Levine, Bigelow, | |
| | |Dababneh, Dahle, | |
| | |Dodd, Beth Gaines, | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Harper, | |
| | |Lopez, Mathis, | |
| | |Medina, Rendon, | |
| | |Salas, Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, | |
| | |Eggman, Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
AB 965
Page 2
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the California-Mexico Border Relations Council
(Border Relations Council) to establish the New River Water
Quality, Public Health, and River Parkway Development Program (New
River Program) to coordinate funding for, and the implementation
of, the recommendations from the New River Strategic Plan.
Provides the Border Relations Council with a consultative and
coordinating role on the development, implementation and funding
of specified border-related projects. Specifically, this bill:
1)Deletes the statutory reference to the California Border
Environmental Cooperation Committee (Cal BECC).
2)Changes the definition of the California-Baja California border
region from the region "described in Chapter IV of the US-Mexico
Border XXI Program, Framework Document, published October 1996"
to the region "to the north and south of the international
border between California and Baja California described in
Article 4 of the La Paz Agreement, signed August 14, 1983,
between the United States and Mexico."
3)Clarifies that funds from the Water Quality, Supply, and
Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) may be
deposited into the California Border Environmental and Public
Health Protection Fund (Fund).
4)Requires the Secretary for Environmental Protection to consult
with the Border Relations Council, instead of Cal BECC, when
awarding grants to remediate environmental, public health, or
AB 965
Page 3
natural resource concerns due to cross-border transmission of
environmental pollutants or toxics.
5)Provides that the Secretary for Environmental Protection, on
behalf of the Border Relations Council, instead of on behalf of
Cal BECC, shall accept donations for distribution to
governmental entities, community-based nonprofit organizations,
and educational institutions located in the border region if the
donations can be shown to contribute to the protection of the
environment, public health, or natural resources of the
California border region.
6)Requires the Border Relations Council to establish the New River
Program to coordinate funding for, and the implementation of,
the recommendations from the New River Strategic Plan and the
projects identified pursuant to the statutory guidelines of the
Fund.
7)Requires a state agency that funds the activities of the New
River Program to make all necessary efforts to integrate and
align its contractual and administrative requirements for
grants, loans, and other forms of financial support to meet the
goals of the Program.
8)Updates the definition of urban creek protection, restoration,
and enhancement to include the reduction of water quality
impairments and nonpoint source water pollution, and the
establishment of parkways for public use that benefit flood
control and water quality.
9)Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to consult with
the Border Relations Council to establish criteria to fund
projects that improve conditions for cross-border urban creeks.
AB 965
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Potential unknown additional cost pressures on the Urban Streams
Restoration Program and increased competition for funding.
The 2014 grant cycle approved projects totally $7.9 million from
previous water and resources bonds (Proposition 84 of 2006 and
Proposition 13 of 2000). DWR received a total of 57 proposals
for over $41 million in requested funds. Thirteen proposals
were recommended for funding and eight contingency proposals
were identified in the event additional funds become available.
2)Absorbable costs for CalEPA and DWR.
3)Unknown costs for state agencies to align contractual and
administrative requirements for New River Projects.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill: According to the author, "California has
developed a Strategic Plan to begin a comprehensive cleanup and
restoration effort for the New River. Further statutory
clarification is needed to define how the strategic plan will be
implemented and funded by state agencies. Improved coordination
and a strategic funding will help remediate the health and safety
issues posed by the New River."
California - Mexico Border Relations: The issues affecting the
United States - Mexico border region are complex and challenging.
Communities on both sides of the border face rapid population
growth, urbanization, industrial expansion, and increasing flows
AB 965
Page 5
of international trade, which in turn create challenges related to
the environment, public health, security, and land use. To
improve statewide oversight and coordination of the state's
involvement with Mexico, the Legislature enacted AB 3021 (Núñez),
Chapter 621, Statutes of 2006, which created the Border Relations
Council to serve as the central organizing body overseeing and
collaborating on California-Mexico border issues.
The New River: The New River flows north from near Cerro Prieto,
Mexico, through the city of Mexicali, into the United States
through the City of Calexico, California, and discharges into the
Salton Sea. The river does not flow from a natural source, but
instead consists of urban runoff, untreated and partially treated
municipal wastes, untreated and partially treated industrial
wastes, and agricultural runoff. While strides have been made
over the decades to improve the quality of the water in the New
River, it is still often referred to as one of the most severely
polluted rivers of its size in the United States.
AB 1079 (V. Manuel Perez), Chapter 382, Statutes of 2009, required
the Border Relations Council to create a strategic plan to study,
monitor, remediate, and enhance the New River's water quality to
protect human health and to develop a river parkway suitable for
public use and enjoyment. Pursuant to provisions in AB 1079, the
Border Relations Council released the Strategic Plan: New River
Improvement Project (New River Strategic Plan) in December of
2011, which includes more than a dozen specific recommended
solutions to continue to clean up the New River. While the
Colorado Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, the main
entity responsible for New River water quality on the U.S. side of
the border, has taken steps to comply with the recommendations
laid out in the New River Strategic Plan, California entities face
statutory authority, resource, and other limitations to achieving
all of the recommendations.
California Border Environmental and Public Health Protection Fund
(Fund): AB 2317 (Ducheny), Chapter 742, Statutes of 2000 created
AB 965
Page 6
the Fund to implement projects to identify and resolve
environmental and public health problems that threaten California
residents or the sensitive natural resources of the California
border region. While the Budget Act of 2000 appropriated $2.8
million to address environmental pollution at the Mexican border,
money was never allocated to the Fund and the Fund currently
remains unfunded. This bill specifies that Proposition 1 funds
may be deposited in the Fund and requires CalEPA to coordinate
with the Border Relations Council when awarding grants from the
Fund to mitigate cross-border transmission of environmental
pollutants.
Assembly hearings on cross-border river water quality: On March
19 and 20th, 2015, the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety
and Toxic Materials held a series of hearings in Southern
California focusing on California's role in managing binational
river water quality issues and on ensuring that border
communities, especially disadvantaged communities, are not left
behind in water quality restoration efforts. The first hearing
was held in Imperial Beach and focused on the progress on and
challenges to the Tijuana River recovery strategy. The second
hearing was held in Calexico and focused on New River restoration
efforts.
Dozens of community members, local elected officials, members of
international bodies, and officials from the states of Baja
California and California attended the hearings. Prioritization
of cross-border water quality issues, dedicated funds for water
quality enhancement that can be used on both sides of the border,
and delineating an entity to coordinate and collaborate on
cross-border water quality issues were common themes of the
testimony presented at the New River hearing.
This bill incorporates the testimony that called for a
coordinating body, designated by this bill as the Border Relations
Council, to implement the New River Strategic Plan. In addition,
AB 965
Page 7
the bill designates the Border Relations Council as a consultative
body on the disbursement of funds from the Fund, and requires DWR
to consult with the Border Relations Council on cross-border urban
creek projects. All of these provisions are designed to create a
more coordinated effort for implementing and funding the
improvement of the New River.
Analysis Prepared by:
Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965
FN:
0000577