BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2483
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2483 (Coto) - As Amended: May 19, 2010
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 9-3
Local Government 6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill broadens and codifies powers and purposes of the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, by establishing the Santa Clara
Valley Water District Act. Key provisions of the bill:
1)Expand the district's authority and responsibility to include
protection against land subsidence, responding to climate
change, encouraging the integration of energy and water
policies, entering into agreements with public or private
entities, managing flood facilities, investigating water
quality, and performing cleanup and containment required by
federal or state law.
2)Authorize the district to hold polluters liable for costs of
cleanup or abatement activities.
3)Expand the district's authority to use groundwater charges to
include management of water supplies to benefit current and
future users, including demand management activities and
related watershed stewardship activities.
4)Subjects proposed groundwater management charges to
Proposition 218 notice and protest requirements. Specifically,
requires the district to provide written notice by mail to all
property owners within the district, containing the amount of
the charge, the basis for the charge, the date, time and
location of the public hearing on the proposed charge, and a
disclaimer that, if a majority of property owners within the
zone file written protests against the new or increased
charge, it will not be imposed.
AB 2483
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)State costs are minor and absorbable. Any local enforcement
costs related to provisions of the bill making a violation of
newly authorized district ordinances a misdemeanor are not
reimbursable.
2)Costs to the district would be covered by fees charged to
members. Mandated costs not reimbursable because the district
is requesting the measure.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . In 1951 the Legislature passed the Santa Clara Valley
Water District Act. This act has been amended many times over
the years but has never been comprehensively updated. This
bill, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, is
intended to update the act to reflect current challenges and
responsibilities of the district. The sponsor asserts that
Santa Clara County is faced with water resource challenges
brought on by population growth, periodic drought, regulatory
restrictions, environmental considerations, aging
infrastructure, and changing laws, and that it needs an
updated district act to effectively address these challenges.
The sponsor also indicates that increasing pressures on the
Bay-Delta system - the source of half of Santa Clara County's
water supplies - make it imperative the district have the
clear authority to promote water conservation and protect the
quality and quantity of local groundwater supplies to ensure
reliability of the local water supply.
2)Opponents . The bill is opposed by the California Water
Association, which asserts the bill provides the district with
overly broad and unnecessary authority that would harm retail
water purveyors in Santa Clara County.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, contends it is
premature for the district to establish a methodology for
handling increases in groundwater management charges when the
courts are currently debating which provisions of Proposition
218 apply to groundwater management charges.
3)Proposition 218 , approved by voters in November 1996, requires
that "except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse
AB 2483
Page 3
collection services, no property related fee or charge shall
be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is
submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property
owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the
option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate
residing in the affected area." Proposition 218 requires that
property related fees and charges are subject to protest and
noticing requirements. Courts are currently considering the
question of whether groundwater pumping charges fall within
the Proposition 218 "water" exemption from the voter approval
requirement.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081