BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
2202 (V. M. Perez)
Hearing Date: 06/28/2010 Amended: 06/09/2010
Consultant: Brendan McCarthy Policy Vote: EQ 6-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 2202 requires that any funds from the proposed
new water bond allocated for the cleanup of the New River only
be spent consistent with a strategic plan that is in
development. The bill requires the Secretary for Environmental
Protection to oversee the expenditure of those bond funds.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Bond fund implementation About $1,000 over the life of
the program Bond *
* Proposed new water bond. These costs would be incurred by
whatever agency is designated by the Legislature to implement
the bond funds.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
Under current law (AB 1079, V. M. Perez, Chapter 382, Statutes
of 2009), the California-Mexico Border Relations Council is
required to develop a strategic plan for the cleanup of the New
River. The New River flows from Mexico into Imperial County,
eventually emptying into the Salton Sea. The New River is highly
polluted by agricultural and industrial runoff and untreated
sewage.
The proposed Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act
of 2010 (to be voted on at the November 2010 election) includes
$20 million for water quality and public health projects on the
New River.
AB 2202 states legislative intent not to appropriate funds from
the proposed water bond for the New River until the strategic
plan is developed or until January 2013. The bill requires any
funds from the proposed water bond for the New River to be spent
consistent with the strategic plan. AB 2202 specifies that the
Secretary for Environmental Protection shall oversee the
expenditure of these bond funds.
Because current law already requires the development of the
strategic plan, requiring bond funds to be spent consistent with
such a plan should not create additional cost pressures on the
$20 million for the New River allocated in the proposed bond.
By requiring the Secretary for Environmental Protection to
oversee the expenditure of the proposed bond funds for the New
River, the bill will impose program delivery costs of about $1
million on the Office of the Secretary. However, because any
state agency that would be given program oversight
responsibilities for these funds would incur these costs, this
does not represent a new cost to the state.