BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 20, 2016


                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT


                           Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair


          AB 1816  
          (Dahle) - As Amended March 31, 2016


          SUBJECT:  Tulelake Irrigation District.


          SUMMARY:  Makes changes to the qualifications for voters and  
          directors in the Tulelake Irrigation District (District),  
          including a requirement that voters be landowners, instead of  
          registered voters in the District.  Specifically, this bill:   


          1)Requires voters in the District to be owners of real property  
            assessed by the District, instead of registered voters, in  
            order to vote in District elections.  


          2)Establishes a weighted vote system that provides landowners  
            with either one, two, or three votes based on the total number  
            of assessed acres owned in the division, as follows:


             a)   For 50 or fewer assessed acres, one vote;


             b)   For more than 50, but no more than 250 assessed acres,  
               two votes; and,










                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  2





             c)   For more than 250 assessed acres, three votes. 


          3)Requires each director of the District, at the time of his or  
            her nomination or appointment through the entire term, to meet  
            the following requirements:  


             a)   Be a registered voter in California;


             b)   Reside within the residency area, as defined by this  
               bill; and,


             c)   Be a landowner within the division he or she represents  
               or a legal representative of a landowner within the  
               division he or she represents.  


          4)Defines the following terms:


             a)   "Corporation" to mean "any legal entity, public or  
               private, properly organized under the laws of the state in  
               which it was created, that is allowed to own real property  
               in California;"


             b)   "Legal representative" to mean "a person authorized to  
               act for or on behalf of a corporation, estate, or trust  
               holding title to land within the District;" and,


             c)   "Residency area" to mean "land within the District or  
               land within one mile of any District boundary".  


          5)Provides that the last District assessment roll is conclusive  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  3





            evidence of ownership and the number of assessed acres owned  
            by the voter in the division.  


          6)Requires, if land is owned in joint tenancy, tenancy in  
            common, or any other multiple ownership, the owners of the  
            land to designate in writing, as specified, which owner is  
            deemed the owner of the land for purposes of qualifying as a  
            voter.  Requires the designation to be made upon a form  
            provided by the District.  Requires the form to be filed with  
            the District at least 40 days prior to the election and  
            remains in effect until amended or revoked.  Prohibits any  
            amendment or revocation to occur within the period of 39 days  
            prior to the election.  


          7)Allows the legal representative of a corporation, estate, or  
            trust owning real property to vote on behalf of the  
            corporation or estate, including a designee.  Requires a legal  
            representative, before voting, to present the District a copy  
            of his or her authority.  


          8)Authorizes every voter, or representative, to vote at any  
            District election either in person or by a person appointed as  
            a proxy.  Requires the appointment of a proxy, pursuant to the  
            existing process for California Water Districts.  


          9)Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines  
            that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,  
            reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those  
            costs shall be made, pursuant to current law, governing state  
            mandated local costs.  


          EXISTING LAW:   










                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  4





          1)Requires that each voter of an irrigation district be a  
            resident registered to vote in the district.  

          2)Requires that each director of an irrigation district be a  
            voter, a landowner in the district, and a resident of the  
            division of the district that he or she represents at the time  
            of nomination or appointment and through the entire term,  
            unless elected at a formation hearing.  

          FISCAL EFFECT:  This bill is keyed fiscal.  


          COMMENTS:  


          1)Irrigation District Voter and Director Qualifications.   
            California's 93 irrigation districts function under a range of  
            statutes that are a hybrid of registered voter and  
            landowner-voter type districts.  In general, registered voters  
            are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors  
            (also referred to as board members) must be landowners of the  
            district.  Originally drafted in 1897, the provisions  
            requiring directors to be landowners in the Irrigation  
            District Law were drafted to recognize that landowners (at  
            that time) were the only ones affected by the decisions that  
            irrigation district boards made.  The Legislature has  
            recognized landowners' special concerns for irrigation  
            districts' operations by creating unique separate statutes  
            that preserve the landowner requirement to vote in districts  
            that primarily deliver agricultural water.  Some of these  
            districts have landownership, but not residency requirements.   
            These provisions in current law for individual irrigation  
            districts either contain a process to allow the irrigation  
            district to internally change to a landowner voter district,  
            pursuant to a resolution of the governing board and a protest  
            process, or make the change statutorily, as this bill would do  
            for the District.  However, the Legislature has not passed a  
            bill limiting voting to landowners for an individual  
            irrigation district in over 15 years.  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  5







            Historically, irrigation districts only provided irrigation  
            water services to agricultural land.  However, as California's  
            population has grown, more and more residential and commercial  
            development is encroaching on agricultural land.  In response  
            to this growth, many irrigation districts began providing  
            retail water service to residential customers that live within  
            their jurisdictions in the absence of traditional retail water  
            suppliers in the area.  This trend has caused the Legislature  
            to reevaluate these landowner restrictions, both uniformly and  
            on a case-by-case basis.  


          2)Are the Landowner Qualifications Constitutional?  The  
            California Constitution provides that the right to vote or  
            serve in elected office may not be conditioned on a  
            landownership qualification.  However, in 1973, the U.S.  
            Supreme Court ruled in Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water  
            District that the California statute requiring a landownership  
            qualification did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of  
            the U.S. Constitution.  The court ruled there was no violation  
            because those districts do not exercise normal governmental  
            authority and their activities disproportionally affect  
            landowners.  


            The California Supreme Court, in Choudhry v. Free (1976) 17  
            Cal. 3d 660, declared unconstitutional a section of the  
            Irrigation District Law requiring potential board candidates  
            to be landowners.  The court ruled that this section was  
            unconstitutional as applied to the Imperial Irrigation  
            District and its board of directors, the real parties in  
            interest, because it deprived the irrigation candidates and  
            voters, including petitioner voters, of equal protection.  The  
            court's opinion gave two reasons it did not extend its ruling  
            to other irrigation districts.  First, the Imperial Irrigation  
            District was singular at that time among irrigation districts  
            in that it had more residents, land, and employees than any  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  6





            other irrigation district and it was providing retail water  
            service.  Second, neither respondents nor real parties in  
            interest had opposed petitioners' claim that Water Code  
            Section 21100 was unconstitutional, and numerous irrigation  
            districts in the state that would have been affected by a  
            finding of unconstitutionality did not have the opportunity to  
            present their views or offer evidence regarding the  
            characteristics and operation of irrigation districts in  
            general.  


          3)Bill Summary.  This bill establishes a separate provision in  
            Irrigation District Law for the District and specifies voter  
            and director qualifications.  


            Voters.  Under existing law, voters in the District are  
            registered voters.  Under this bill, voters in the District  
            would be landowners.  In other words, this bill allows all  
            owners of real property assessed by the District to vote, but  
            non-landowner registered voters within the District would no  
            longer be eligible to vote.  Under this bill, any owner of  
            property assessed by the District, regardless of whether they  
            live on their property in the District, would be eligible to  
            vote in elections.  Additionally, this bill establishes a  
            weighted vote system based on the total number of acres owned  
            within a division of the District.  Landowners of 50 or fewer  
            acres would get one vote, 50 to 250 acres would get two votes,  
            and more than 250 acres would get three votes.  This bill also  
            makes a number of other changes to the qualifications of  
            voters to address different types of ownership and the use of  
            a legal representative or proxy.  


            Directors.  Under existing law, directors of the District are  
            registered voters, landowners, and residents within the  
            division they represent.  This bill makes changes to the  
            qualifications for directors to allow landowners who do not  
            live within the division or even within the District to serve  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  7





            as a director.  Under this bill, owners of assessed parcels  
            would need to fulfill three qualifications during the time of  
            nomination or appointment and through the entire term as  
            director: a) be a registered voter in California; b) reside  
            within the boundaries of the District or on land within one  
            mile of the District's boundary; and, c) be a landowner within  
            the division they represent.  This bill is sponsored by the  
            District.  


          4)The District.  The Tulelake Irrigation District is located  
            within the Upper Klamath Basin and includes land in both Modoc  
            and Siskiyou counties.  The District has an exterior boundary  
            that includes 96,000 acres, and its northern boundary is  
            contiguous to the border between California and Oregon.  The  
            District's governing body is a five-member board of directors.  
             According to Modoc County Local Agency Formation Commission's  
            municipal service review, the District was formed in 1952, and  
            entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau 


          of Reclamation in 1956 for repayment of construction charges and  
            the transfer to the District the maintenance of the facilities  
            used to deliver water to District lands.  In 1957, the Board 
          of Directors approved the formation of an improvement district  
            to operate and maintain pumps, dikes, and drainage facilities  
            already constructed by landowners and to apportion all charges  
            among several landowners according to the number of acres of  
            land owned.  The District only provides water services for  
            agricultural purposes and is financed by assessments on  
            landowners.  
          5)Author's Statement.  According to the author, "The current  
            system of qualifying and electing directors of TID [Tulelake  
            Irrigation District] is failing.  The current residency  
            requirements preclude those with an interest in the proper  
            functioning of the irrigation district from running.   
            Directors who may wish to step down are concerned that a  
            dearth of potential candidates exists and are therefore  
            continuing to serve long past their preferred tenure.  TID  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  8





            exists in the very rural northern part of the state and  
            provides no municipal services.  The TID leadership has come  
            to the realization that candidates for board seats will more  
            likely be found once potential candidates realize that the  
            operations and governance of the irrigation district are  
            directly tied to the farmland that they own and operate.  TID  
            held a community workshop on 3/15/16 to which residents and  
            landowners were properly noticed and invited to discuss the  
            pending amendments.  No opposition was expressed by those in  
            attendance."    


          6)Prior Legislation.  This Committee has heard a number of bills  
            addressing qualification requirements for both voters and  
            directors of irrigation districts.  There have been several  
            legislative attempts that have sought to limit landowner  
            qualifications for board directors.  SB 614 (Wolk) of 2013  
            would have removed the landownership requirement from the list  



          of qualifications to serve as a director of an irrigation  
            district, if the district provided water for agricultural  
            purposes and water for municipal or industrial purposes.  SB  
            1939 (Alarcón), Chapter 1041, Statutes of 2000, deleted the  
            landowner qualification for board members of irrigation  
            districts that provide electricity.  AB 2279 (Dymally) of 2004  
            would have deleted the landowner qualification for board  
            members of most irrigation districts, but failed passage in  
            the Senate Local Government Committee.  AB 159 (Salinas),  
            Chapter 847, Statutes of 2006, removed the landowner  
            requirement for irrigation districts that are required to  
            submit an urban water management, and thus, provide 3,000 or  
            more acre-feet of water to residential customers or that have  
            more than 3,000 customers.  
            Several bills seeking to make changes to voter and director  
            qualifications for individual irrigation districts were never  
            heard by a policy committee or failed passage.  SB 1189  
            (Florez) of 2006, which was never heard by the Senate Local  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  9





            Government Committee, would have required voters to be  
            landowners instead of registered voters in the Alpaugh  
            Irrigation District.  When AB 1189 was before the Legislature,  
            the Alpaugh Irrigation District only had 131 registered  
            voters, and only six of those registered voters were  
            landowners eligible to serve on the board.  AB 286  (Matthews)  
            of 2005, which failed passage in the Senate Local Government  
            Committee, would have allowed the Board of Directors of the  
            Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to adopt a resolution to  
            allow non-resident landowners to serve on the board.  This  
            bill is nearly identical to AB 386 (Dahle) of 2015, which was  
            never heard by the Committee.  


          7)Committee Amendments.  The Committee may wish to consider the  
            following alternatives to restricting the right to vote based  
            on land ownership:  


             a)   Voters.  The author argues that there are not enough  
               potential candidates to serve on the Board.  The Committee  
               may wish to consider, if these arguments justify imposing  
               the qualification of landownership on the right to vote.   
               Further, the Committee may wish to consider that 200  
               registered voters within the District would no longer be  
               eligible to vote because they do not own land.  


               In light of these considerations, the Committee may wish to  
               ask the author to remove all portions of the bill that  
               would require landownership as a qualification to vote and  
               maintain the qualifications in current law for irrigation  
               districts, which designates registered voters as the voters  
               of the District.  The Committee may wish to ask the author  
               to remove subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) from the  
               bill.  


             b)   Directors.  The Legislature has authorized several  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  10





               irrigation districts:  Pixley Irrigation District, Hills  
               Valley Irrigation District, Stratford Irrigation District,  
               and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, to allow nonresident  
               and nonvoter landowners to serve on the board 


             of directors, if the board passes a resolution.  There are  
               protections in existing law that establish protest  
               proceedings for resident voters in each of the Districts,  
               if they do not want nonresident and nonvoter landowners to  
               serve as directors.  
               In light of these considerations, the Committee may wish to  
               ask the author to amend subdivision (g) in the bill to  
               mirror existing law, which would authorize the District to  
               modify the residency requirements for the qualifications  
               for directors.  The Committee may wish to ask the author to  
               authorize the District to adopt a resolution, in a public  
               hearing subject to protest proceedings, to allow landowners  
               of the District, who are residents within the residency  
               area defined by this bill, to serve on the board.   
               According to the District, there are 200 landowners within  
               the residency area defined by this bill, who would then  
               qualify to be a director.  


          8)Policy Considerations.  The Committee may wish to consider  
            there are other approaches to widening the pool of eligible  
            directors besides allowing nonvoter and nonresident landowners  
            to serve as directors.  


             a)   Resident Non-landowner Directors.  The principal acts  
               for almost all other types of special districts do not  
               require landownership as a qualification for office.  The  
               Committee may wish to consider allowing resident voters,  
               who are not landowners, to be eligible to serve on the  
               board as a director.  The Legislature has established an  
               exemption to the landowner requirements in existing law for  
               the South Bay Irrigation District.  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  11







             b)   Size and Divisions.  Existing law provides a process for  
               irrigation districts to change the number of divisions or  
               the method of electing directors.  Due to the expressed  
               challenges by the District in getting five directors to  
               serve, who are registered voters, landowners, and residents  
               within the division, the Committee may wish to consider, if  
               a three-member board or removing the divisions in the  
               District would help remedy these challenges.  


          9)Arguments in Support.  The District argues "AB 1816 will  
            change the qualifications for voters and those seeking to  
            serve on the District's Board of Directors, expanding the pool  
            of eligible Directors and implementing a tired voting  
            structure based on land ownership.  The District has had  
            difficulty finding landowners who are willing and eligible to  
            serve on its Board of Directors given the current requirement  
            that Directors live in the Division they represent."  


          10)Arguments in Opposition.  None on file.  


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          Tulelake Irrigation District [SPONSOR]


          City of Tulelake 










                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  12





          Modoc County Board of Supervisors


          Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors




          Opposition


          None on file




          Analysis Prepared by:Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958