BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER Senator Fran Pavley, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 1164 Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Gatto | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Version: |July 1, 2015 Amended | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|Dennis O'Connor | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Water conservation: drought tolerant landscaping. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW On April 1, 2015, the Governor issues Executive Order B-29-15. That order, among other things, directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 25 percent. Among its many provisions, the Executive Order directed the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to "lead a statewide initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes. The Department shall provide funding to allow for lawn replacement programs in underserved communities, which will complement local programs already underway across the state." PROPOSED LAW This bill would: 1. Make a number of findings and declarations regarding the current drought and the role reducing turf could play in helping to reduce urban water use. 2. Prohibit any city, including a charter city, county, or AB 1164 (Gatto) Page 2 of ? city and county, from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation that prohibits the installation of synthetic grass or artificial turf on residential property. 3. Continuously appropriate $300 M from the General Fund to DWR to be expended in equal shares of $100 M for each of the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 fiscal years to provide matching funds to any city, county, city and county, public water agency, or private water agency to provide incentives to residents to replace water inefficient landscaping with drought tolerant landscaping. 4. Finding that allowing property owners in this state to install synthetic grass or artificial turf on their residential properties is a matter of statewide concern, not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. 5. Establish that the bill is an urgency measure, the facts constituting the necessity are: In order to address the historic, prolonged, and potentially devastating drought, it is necessary that residents of this state be able to replace water inefficient landscaping with drought tolerant landscaping as quickly as possible; therefore, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author, "One of the areas with the highest potential water use savings is landscape irrigation, which accounts for nearly 43% of urban water use in California-making it the largest user of urban water. Reducing this type of use, whether by decreasing watering of lawns, replacing lawns with drought tolerant landscapes, or replacing lawns with turf will be necessary to meet water reduction goals." "AB 1164 acknowledges this new reality by lifting outdated bans on the installation of artificial turf. In an effort to enable Californians who want to help with reducing urban water use, the bill also will provide money to local governments and water agencies to provide incentives for those who want to replace existing lawns with landscaping that uses less water." AB 1164 (Gatto) Page 3 of ? "AB 1164 will go a long way towards upgrading our state's infrastructure in the most efficient manner possible, which will save Californian lives, time, and money." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None Received COMMENTS Provisions Not Strictly Linked. While the bill does two basic things, authorize artificial turf and funding more efficient landscaping, the author's staff assert that the two actions are not linked. That is, the funding for turf removal is not necessarily funding for installing artificial turf. Indeed, the language of the bill states that the funding is "to provide incentives to residents to replace water inefficient landscaping with drought tolerant landscaping." Related Bills. AB 349 (Gonzalez, 2015) would void, or make unenforceable, any provision of a common interest development's governing document or architectural or landscaping guidelines or policies that prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass. AB 349 is currently awaiting a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 2011, Governor Brown vetoed SB 759 (Lieu), which contained language identical to AB 349. The Governor's veto message stated: Under this bill, homeowners associations that govern Common Interest Developments would be forced to approve the installation of Astro Turf. The decision about choosing synthetic turf instead of natural vegetation should be left to individual homeowners associations, not mandated by state law. For this reason, I am returning this bill. Hyperbole is the Best! One of the bill's findings states "The vast majority of Californians may today elect to install synthetic grass or artificial turf in their single-family residential landscapes." While some Californians may wish to install artificial turf, there is no evidence that the "vast majority" are so inclined. (See Suggested Amendment) Governance & Finance Amendments. This bill was recently heard AB 1164 (Gatto) Page 4 of ? in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. At that hearing, the author agreed to amend Section 2 by adding the following as an author's amendment in this committee: (b) A city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, may impose reasonable restrictions on what type of synthetic grass or artificial grass may be installed on residential property provided that those restrictions may not do either of the following: (1) Substantially increase the cost of installing synthetic grass or artificial turf within the city. (2) Effectively prohibit the installation of synthetic grass or artificial turf within the city. SUGGESTED AMENDMENT On page 2, delete lines 21 through 23 SUPPORT City of Los Angeles California Association of Realtors Three Valleys MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California American Planning Association, California Chapter OPPOSITION None Received -- END --