BILL ANALYSIS
AB 348
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
AB 348 (Salas) - As Introduced: February 19, 2009
SUBJECT : South Bay Irrigation District: directors.
SUMMARY : Eliminates the landownership requirement for the
purpose of being elected to, or serving on, the Board of
Directors of the South Bay Irrigation District.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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 his or her nomination or appointment and through his or her
entire term, unless elected at a formation hearing.
2)Removes the landownership requirement from the list of
qualifications to serve as a director of an irrigation
district if the district is required to submit an urban water
management plan.
3)Removes the landownership requirement for the director of an
irrigation district with divisions, if the district is
required to submit an urban water management plan to the State
Department of Water Resources, and supplies drinking water to
the division for which the director represents or seeks to
represent.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Originally drafted in 1897, the provisions regarding directors
in the Irrigation District Law were drafted to ensure that
landowners, who at the time were the only ones affected by the
decisions that irrigation district (ID) boards made, were
members of the ID board. Up until approximately 30 years ago,
IDs generally 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. This has required IDs to
AB 348
Page 2
begin providing retail water service to residential customers
that live within their jurisdictions in the absence of
traditional retail water suppliers in the area.
2)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 ID 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)AB 159 (Salinas), Chapter 847, Statutes of 2006, eliminated
the property ownership requirement for directors in urban
irrigation districts that have submitted and Urban Water
Management Plan. However, it did not eliminate the
requirement for South Bay Irrigation District, because
although the district is urban, it is not a water purveyor and
thus does not submit an Urban Water Management Plan. This is
an anomaly and it appears the intent of AB 159 was to cover
the very urban South Bay Irrigation District. AB 348
clarifies that the provisions of AB 159 (Salinas) also apply
to the South Bay Irrigation District.
4)This bill is double-referred to the Committee on Elections and
Redistricting.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
South Bay Irrigation District [CO-SPONSOR]
AB 348
Page 3
Sweetwater Authority [CO-SPONSOR]
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958