BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1396 Hearing Date: April 12,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Wolk | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |February 19, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|William Craven |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Inner Coast Range Conservancy
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
California has 10 conservancies which provide various services
within their regions, including public recreation, habitat
protection, open space acquisition, and projects to restore and
enhance natural areas and public facilities. They range in size
from the largest conservancies (Coastal, Sierra Nevada) to the
smallest (Baldwin Hills, San Diego River, San Joaquin River),
and often are funded through specific allocations in state bond
acts.
Some are urban (four in the Los Angeles area), some very rural
(Tahoe and Sierra Nevada), and most work within a specified
geographic area, and one, the Coastal Conservancy, has a
jurisdiction that includes the entire coast and the inland
watersheds that drain into the ocean.
The ten conservancies include Baldwin Hills, Tahoe, Coachella
Valley Mountains, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Diego River,
San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains, San
Joaquin river, Santa Monica Mountains, Sierra Nevada, and
Coastal).
SB 1396 (Wolk) Page 2
of ?
At one point, successive administrations insisted that the
boards of the conservancies contain a majority of appointees who
were either directly appointed by the Governor or who served on
a conservancy board because of their appointment to another
position, such as the Director of Finance or the Secretary for
Natural Resources, both of whom serve on many conservancy
boards. That remains the status for most conservancies although
both the Sierra Nevada and Delta conservancies have a narrow
majority of local government representatives.
Although not a conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Board
(WCB) fulfills a statewide land acquisition function that has
proven useful in areas not served by a conservancy. In areas
served by a conservancy, the WCB has been a very useful partner
in funding various projects and leveraging other dollars as
well.
Also, both the San Francisco Bay region and the Santa Ana River
are distinct statutory programs within the State Coastal
Conservancy. Through that structure, those regions are covered
by the conservancy, are eligible for specific line-item
appropriations in the budget or bond measures, and have achieved
some cost-savings with smaller administrative or additional
personnel costs than would normally occur with an entirely new
organization.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would create the Inner Coast Range Conservancy that
would include all or portions of the Counties of Colusa, Del
Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Shasta, Siskiyou,
Solano, Tehama, Trinity, and Yolo. The bill contains numerous
findings regarding the ecological value of the area and the
importance of undertaking conservation projects that complement
the region's economic well-being.
The bill establishes a fund for the conservancy to receive
budget or bond funding that would be subject to appropriation by
the Legislature.
The region is divided into 4 subregions. The east subregion
includes the Counties of Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama. The west
subregion includes the Counties of Humboldt, Mendocino, and
SB 1396 (Wolk) Page 3
of ?
Trinity. The south subregion includes the Counties of Lake,
Napa, Solano, and Yolo. The north subregion includes the
Counties of Del Norte, Shasta, and Siskyou.
Tribal organizations are defined as federally recognized tribes.
The conservancy would be authorized to work in collaboration
with local governments and the public on numerous activities
including: tourism, recreation, conservation, preservation of
working landscapes, avoidance of risk from wildfires, enhance
public use and enjoyment of lands owned by the public, and
advance, in a complementary manner, environmental preservation
and the economic well-being of the region's residents.
An 11 member board would be created consisting of the Secretary
of Natural Resources (or designee), the Director of Finance (or
designee), three public members appointed by the Governor, one
public member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, and one
public member appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.
Additionally, one member for each of the four subregions who
shall be a member of the board of supervisors and whose
supervisorial district is at least partially contained within
the boundaries of the conservancy would be selected as well as
an optional alternate.
The supervisorial members would be selected within 60 days after
the conservancy legislation become effective There are
provisions to fill vacancies. If no appointment is made, the
Governor is directed to appoint a supervisors to serve as the
board member for the subregion.
Two nonvoting federal liaison advisers would be asked to serve;
one would be from the Forest Service and the other from the
Bureau of Land Management.
As proposed, legislative members would serve at the pleasure of
their appointing authority. Local government representatives
from the west and north subregions would serve 2 year terms.
Local government representatives from the east and south
subregions would also serve 2 year terms but their initial term
would be one year.
The bill provides for per diem payments of $100 per day.
SB 1396 (Wolk) Page 4
of ?
The voting members of the board would elect a chair and any
other officers annually.
A quorum would consist of 6 members.
The board is authorized to adopt rules, regulations, and
procedures for the conduct of its meetings. It may establish
advisory board or committees, hold community meetings, and
engage in public outreach.
The board is authorized to establish a headquarters, rent or own
real and personal property pursuant to applicable statutes and
regulations.
The board would appoint an executive officer who would be exempt
from civil service as well as other staff as necessary.
The board may enter into contracts with private entities and
public agencies for consulting and other services.
Its expenses for support and administration may be paid from the
conservancy's operating budget and any other funding sources
available to it.
Board meetings would be subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting
Act, and its regular meetings would be within, or near, the
region. Agendas would be required to be posted on the internet.
Projects of the conservancy would be limited to the region of
the conservancy and over time, the conservancy would attempt to
ensure that they are spread equitably across the subregions.
The conservancy is charged with cooperating and consulting with
local governments where a grant is proposed to be expended or an
interest in real property is proposed to be acquired. It is also
directed to consult with public water systems.
The conservancy would adopt guidelines that establish priorities
throughout the region which would be based upon its own
assessment as well as various planning documents prepared by
federal, state, and local governments including general plans,
urban water management plans, ground water management plans, and
groundwater sustainability plans. The guidelines would be
SB 1396 (Wolk) Page 5
of ?
dependent on meetings and workshops in each of the subregions
and would be updated at least every five years.
The conservancy would not be authorized to regulate any land use
except to the extent of its ownership interest in land or
pursuant to an agreement from the owner of an interest in the
land. It would also not have any power over water rights held by
others.
The conservancy would be authorized to make grants or loans to
public agencies, nonprofits, and tribal organizations including
grants and loans provided to acquire an interest in property,
including fee title. The conservancy would be required to ensure
that the third party is capable of meeting all the specified
conditions for these transactions, including that the purchase
price not exceed fair market value.
The conservancy would be able to award grants and loans to
facilitate collaborative planning efforts and to develop
projects and programs that facilitate its purposes, and may
provide technical and other nonfinancial assistance to public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and tribal organizations.
The conservancy itself may obtain an interest in property (such
as a conservation easement) from willing sellers, but shall not
acquire a fee interest in real property by purchase.
The conservancy is required to provide an annual report.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, the Inner Coast Range of Northern
California is a globally significant region, including
world-renowned geological, biological, and cultural resources, a
natural monument, many publicly owned lands, and an important
part of the state's economy providing substantial agricultural
products, timber, water, fisheries, and ranching, tourism, and
recreation.
As sponsor, Tuleyome, a regional nonprofit, and the Lake County
Land Trust and the East Lake Resource Conservation District, are
both in support because they believe that a new conservancy
would support collaborative efforts to protect, conserve, and
restore the region's physical, cultural, archeological,
historical, and biological resources while preserving working
SB 1396 (Wolk) Page 6
of ?
landscapes.
Lake County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution of support
of the new conservancy.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
This bill is a work in progress, and as such, staff is not
recommending any amendments at this juncture. Staff is open to
assisting the author with any future requests regarding this
bill. It is clear that the region has unmet needs for
conservation across the entire range of activities that
conservancies typically undertake. Those needs could be met by a
new conservancy as well as through other means.
In its current form, the bill models the new conservancy after
the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, which is unique in that it does
not directly hold fee title to land but instead awards grants to
others who may hold fee title under fairly restrictive
conditions that are acceptable to local governments in that
region. In addition, unlike other conservancies, the Sierra
Nevada Conservancy (and the Delta Conservancy) have a narrow,
one-vote edge in local government representation compared to the
other conservancies that have a majority of appointed officials
or public members appointed by the Governor.
For the benefit of the author and the committee members, it
seems likely that future topics of discussion may involve any of
the following:
1. If, in the Appropriations process or in conversations
with the administration or Assembly policy committees, a
new conservancy is considered prohibitively expensive or is
not viewed favorably for other reasons, the author may want
to explore creating a program within an existing
conservancy such as the Coastal Conservancy or possibly the
Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
2. There are pluses and minuses to an affiliation with each
conservancy. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy includes some of
the Cascades as would the Inner Coast Conservancy so there
is some geographic proximity as well as a perception of
SB 1396 (Wolk) Page 7
of ?
some political similarities among rural mountain counties.
On the other hand, the Coastal Conservancy touches on even
more of the territory of the proposed new conservancy, has
undertaken some projects within the proposed new
jurisdiction, and has an established record of
incorporating specialized programs within its ongoing work.
The two examples are the San Francisco Bay program and the
Santa Ana River program. Both conservancies have impressive
records of collaboration with local governments and the
public generally. There is significant local input in both
instances through an advisory committee which should also
be considered for the Inner Coast Range program if that
turns out to be the chosen option.
3. The author may also want to explore sharing
administrative costs with another conservancy which is now
done on a limited basis by a couple of conservancies with
admittedly mixed reviews. However, it is a way to reduce
direct costs of a new entity if that becomes a point of
concern.
4. A third option, a sort of hybrid, could create a new
program within an existing conservancy with a defined term
of years, after which the program would be evaluated by the
Legislature with an understanding that the program could
become a new conservancy after the initial trial period.
One advantage to this approach would be to create a window of
several years for the region's land trusts to become more expert
in their skills and to expand their capacity under the umbrella
of an established conservancy. Currently, with limited
exceptions, according to land trust experts in California, the
region's land trusts are relatively under-budgeted and
understaffed, and some have questioned the capacity and
experience to become full-fledged partners with a new
conservancy right out of the gate. The concern is less about
conservation easements as it is about fee title. This new
conservancy, modeled as it is after the Sierra Nevada
Conservancy, would not own fee title directly but could arrange
for public agencies, nonprofits, and tribes to hold title. The
proper management of lands, whether in fee or lesser interests,
is the ultimate key to the success of the conservancy and its
partners.
SB 1396 (Wolk) Page 8
of ?
5. Staff is aware that some are interested in creating even
more subregions to achieve more local government
representation on the new conservancy board. If that is
agreeable to the administration that is one thing. That
said, two new subregions, for example, would add a margin
of 3 local government members over those appointed by the
Governor and would be a first for a California conservancy.
6. Assuming the bill moves forward, staff would like to
work with the author on a series of amendments that would
include state as well as federally-recognized tribes, and
impose 4-year terms on the legislative members (to avoid
litigation regarding pleasure appointments of the
legislature to executive branch agencies). There are also
some references to planning documents in Chapter 3 that are
somewhat clunky, and the "Goal Areas" of the conservancy
should be in a separate chapter which was probably the
original intent. The requirement for the conservancy to
consult with public water agencies is of unknown pedigree.
There may well be some other technical amendments which is
no surprise for a bill of this scope at its first hearing.
SUPPORT
East Lake Resource Conservation District
Tuleyome
County of Lake
Lake County Land Trust
OPPOSITION
None Received
-- END --