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 --