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 --