BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  1


          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS


          AB  
          1816 (Dahle)


          As Amended  May 24, 2016


          Majority vote


           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |77-0  |(May 5, 2016)  |SENATE: |37-0  |(August 15,      |
          |           |      |               |        |      |2016)            |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Original Committee Reference:  L. GOV.




          SUMMARY:  Authorizes the Tulelake Irrigation District  
          (District), to adopt a resolution to make changes to the  
          qualifications for directors.  




          The Senate amendments:   




          1)Authorize a person, who owns land in the District and resides  
            within the residency area, to be a director only in the  
            division in which they own land or act as the owner's legal  
            representative.  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  2






          2)Require, before a legal representative may declare his or her  
            candidacy or be appointed to serve as director, a legal  
            representative to present to the District a copy of his or her  
            authority to be kept and filed with the returns of the  
            election or the certificate of appointment.  




          3)Define 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;" and,




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


          FISCAL EFFECT:  None


          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  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  3


            are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors  
            (also referred to as board members) must be landowners of the  
            district.  


          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 United  
            States (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  
            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 and Senate Amendments.  Under existing law,  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  4


            directors of the District are registered voters, landowners,  
            and residents within the division they represent.  The  
            Legislature has authorized several 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.  


            This bill mirrors provisions in existing law for several other  
            irrigation districts and authorizes the District to adopt a  
            resolution in a public hearing to allow nonvoter nonresident  
            landowners who live within one mile of the District's  
            boundaries to serve as a director.  This bill also includes  
            the ability for registered voters to protest the change 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.  


            Senate amendments authorize the legal representative of a  
            person that owns land within the District to serve as a  
            director, if the District adopts a resolution to authorize  
            nonvoter nonresident landowners to serve as directors.   
            Additionally, Senate amendments limit where a landowner may  
            serve as a director to only the division in which they own  
            land.  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  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  5


            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)Prior Legislation.  The Assembly Local Government Committee  
            has heard several 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), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2013; SB 1939 (Alarcón),  
            Chapter 1041, Statutes of 2000; AB 2279 (Dymally) of 2004;  
            and, AB 159 (Salinas), Chapter 847, Statutes of 2006.   


            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  
            Government Committee, would have required voters to be  
            landowners instead of registered voters in the Alpaugh  
            Irrigation District.  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.  The introduced version of  
            this bill was nearly identical to AB 386 (Dahle) of 2015,  
            which was never heard by the Assembly Local Government  
            Committee.  


          6)Policy Considerations.  The Legislature may wish to consider  
            that there are other approaches to widening the pool of  








                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  6


            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  
               Legislature 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.  


             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 Legislature may wish to consider,  
               if a three-member board or removing the divisions in the  
               District would help remedy these challenges.  


          Arguments in Support.  The District argues "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."  




          Arguments in Opposition.  None on file.


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958  FN:  
          0003473












                                                                    AB 1816


                                                                    Page  7