BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Richard K. Rainey, Chairman
---------------------------------------------------------------
|BILL NO:SB 60 |HEARING: 4/7/99 |
|--------------------------------------+------------------------|
|AUTHOR: Hayden |FISCAL:Yes |
|--------------------------------------+------------------------|
|VERSION: 12/7/98 |CONSULTANT: Gordon |
---------------------------------------------------------------
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
Background and Existing Law
Created by the Legislature in 1928, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD) is the largest water
district in the state. MWD provides 60% of the water to 16
million people in Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. MWD, a water
wholesale agency, distributes water to 27 different member
agencies across Southern California: 14 cities, 12
municipal water districts, and the San Diego County Water
Authority.
Recently, allegations have arisen that the MWD financed a
campaign against the proposed San Diego Water Authority's
transfer of water from the Imperial Irrigation District.
The "Partnership for Water Reliability," a conglomeration
of nine of MWD's member agencies, has also been accused of
hiring a public relations firm to do opposition research on
public officials and others involved with the water
transfer. Some allege that these two campaigns were
coordinated. Members of the MWD Board come from the same
agencies which make up the Partnership. These charges
prompted several legislators to establish a Senate Select
Committee on Southern California Water Districts
Expenditures and Governance to study these allegations and
related issues.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 60 prohibits the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California from using public funds to conduct
political research.
SB 60 requires the establishment and operation of an Office
of Ethics with responsibilities for: regulating the
behavior of its board members, officers and employees;
protecting the confidentiality of sources, the job security
of "whistle blowers," and the due process rights of the
accused; making publicly available the results of any
investigations; adopting rules related to business
relationships between board members, contractors, vendors,
and public agency members; regulating the solicitation of
campaign contributions by board members, officers,
employees, bidders, and contractors; and preventing the use
of coalitions as a means to advance public opinion where
use of aliases is likely to mislead the public as to the
group's true identity or funding source.
The bill mandates public notice and procedures for
contracts of $50,000 or more.
SB 60 requires the District to place increased emphasis on
various sustainable, environmentally sound, cost-effective
water conservation programs, and produce an annual report
on water conservation beginning February 1, 2001.
Comments
1. Time for a change . The Metropolitan Water District has
incensed lawmakers and others with its alleged actions.
SB 60 enacts a reform package that makes MWD less likely to
engage in similar activities again. By helping to keep the
MWD in check, SB 60 makes the giant water district more
accountable to the 16 million people who use MWD water.
2. Piling on ? While holding MWD to a higher ethical
standard is a worthwhile goal, the MWD is already bound by
the Political Reform Act of 1974. Quarterly lobbying
expenditure reports are filed with the State and the Board
members must file statements of economic interest. What
extra regulations should be mandated on MWD that aren't
currently covered in the Political Reform Act?
3. Unnecessary roughness ? SB 60 bars MWD and its member
public agencies from funding front groups that research
elected officials and concerned parties. MWD's alleged
violations are already prosecutable under Penal Code
provisions prohibiting the misuse of public funds. The
Committee may wish to consider whether SB 60 will
substantially prevent future abuses or just adds more laws
on top of existing ones. The Committee may wish to
consider whether MWD needs more regulations or better
oversight from existing enforcement mechanisms.
4. Vetoed before . With the exception of the requirement
for the annual water conservation report, this bill is
identical to the enrolled version of SB 1875 (Hayden, 1998)
Governor Wilson vetoed. Wilson endorsed the "additional
ethical procedures," but objected to the bill's water
conservation policies.
5. Double referred . This bill has previously been heard
in the Senate Agriculture and Water Committee where it
passed 9-1.
Support and Opposition (4/1/)
Support : Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, California Municipal Utilities Association.
Opposition : Unknown.