BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 1006 HEARING DATE: April 13, 2010
AUTHOR: Pavley URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 5, 2010 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental Quality
FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Natural resources: climate change: Strategic Growth
Council.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Strategic Growth Council (Council) was created by SB 732
(Steinberg, 2008) and consists of the Director of State Planning
and Research, the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the
Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Secretary of
Business, Transportation and Housing, the Secretary of
California Health and Human Services, and one public member. The
purpose of the council is to coordinate the activities of the
member agencies in order to more effectively and efficiently
achieve the following goals: improve air and water quality,
protect natural resource and agriculture lands, increase the
availability of affordable housing, improve infrastructure
systems, promote public health, and assist state and local
entities in the planning of sustainable communities and meeting
AB 32 goals. The council is charged with the following
responsibilities:
Identify and review activities and funding programs of member
state agencies to meet the council's goals;
Recommend policies and investment strategies and priorities to
encourage the development of sustainable communities;
Provide, fund, and distribute date and information to local
governments and regional agencies that will assist in the
development and planning of sustainable communities; and
Manage and award grants and loans from Proposition 84 to
support the planning and development of sustainable
communities.
On November 7, 2006, the voters approved the voter initiative
1
titled The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood
Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (aka
Proposition 84). One provision of Proposition 84 provided $90M
for urban greening projects that "reduce energy consumption,
conserve water, improve air and water quality, and provide other
community benefits." The council was directed to administer two
grant programs to with the urban greening monies- one for
projects and one for urban greening planning in 75129 of the
Public Resources Code. Eligible applicants for these funds are
specified as cities, counties, or nonprofit organizations for
the urban greening projects and councils of governments,
countywide authorities, metropolitan planning organizations,
local governments, or nonprofit organizations for the urban
greening planning projects.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would require the Strategic Growth Council to provide
guidelines and information to local agencies with the intent on
assisting the agencies in developing and implementing climate
change adaptation strategies and projects that use nonstructural
approaches to protect communities and protect or enhance natural
ecosystem functions.
This bill would also expand the eligible applicants for the
urban greening project and planning grants to also include a
council of governments, countywide authority, metropolitan
planning organization, special district, and joint powers
authority.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author, regarding the proposed expansion of the council's
responsibilities, states, "California is at the forefront of
climate change solutions that achieve significant, near-term
reductions in the carbon pollution that is causing global
warming. Notwithstanding these essential mitigation measures,
California is already experiencing dramatic, unavoidable climate
change impacts due to carbon pollution already committed to the
atmosphere and oceans. These climate change impacts include
documented sea-level rise, increased erosion, increased weather
severity, altered water cycles, reduced snowpack and earlier
snow melt, increased wildfire occurrence and severity, altered
rainfall patterns, disrupted food supply, and migration of plant
and animal species. These impacts could expose the state and
local governments to trillions of dollars in costs. Thus, in
addition to mitigation, state and local governments must
strategically plan to adapt to these and other unavoidable
climate change impacts."
2
The Watershed Conservation Authority in support of the bill,
regarding the eligibility expansion, "Currently JPAs and special
districts, such as Water or Parks and Recreation Districts, are
not included under the list of eligible applicants. Based on the
demonstrated performance of JPA's and special districts in green
projects, the incorporation of these additional groups to the
eligible applicant list is critical."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Central Valley Flood Control Association, in
opposition to an earlier version of the bill states, "SB 1006
should be amended to preclude application of its provisions to
development of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan and the
State Plan of Flood Control, as well as the Delta Levee
Maintenance and Special Projects programs. There are many areas
of the Central Valley and Delta where it is not feasible to use
nonstructural approaches to protect communities, particularly
practices that utilize, enhance, or mimic the natural hydrologic
cycle process."
COMMENTS
2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: In December 2009,
the Resources Agency released the California Climate Adaptation
Strategy in response to Executive Order S-13-2008, which
directed the Resources Agency to identify how state agencies can
respond to rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns,
sea level rise, and extreme natural events. The report noted
that climate change is already affecting California with
increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer
cold nights, shifts in the water cycle, and the lengthening of
the growing season. Not addressing these changes can cause
significant economic damages to the state in the trillions of
dollars. The report made a number of preliminary recommendations
including:
State agencies and other levels of government should consider
project alternatives that avoid significant new development in
areas that cannot be adequately protected, and
Communities with General Plans and Local Coastal Plans should
begin to amend their plans to assess climate change impacts,
identify areas most vulnerable to those impacts, and develop
reasonable and rational risk reduction strategies.
The committee may find that this bill is consistent with these
recommendations and timely if the Legislature's desire is to not
only encourage local governments to plan for adaptation but to
influence how these plans approach adaptation.
3
Why the Strategic Growth Council? The council is currently
designed to serve as a clearinghouse for information to local
governments to develop more sustainable communities. The
committee may find that that climate change adaptation
strategies, especially those that attempt to enhance and protect
natural ecosystem functions, is consistent with the concept of
"sustainable communities." The author recognizes that climate
change adaptation strategies is a developing field and that
establishing a clearinghouse of information helps foster
discussions on the best ways to approach adaptation.
Why expand eligibility for Urban Greening Projects and Planning
Grants: SB 732 inadvertently excluded joint power authorities
and special districts, including park districts, as eligible
entities even though these entities are likely agencies to
perform urban greening projects. Expanding the eligibility for
these grants is consistent with Proposition 84, the funding
source for these grants.
Status of the Urban Greening Project and Planning Grants: The
council has finished developing guidelines for the first year of
urban greening project and planning grants and is currently
accepting applications for funds. This bill would presumably
only be intended to effect future grant cycles (The council
intends to have at three grant cycles with Proposition 84
dollars). Should the 2010 grant cycle be delayed into 2011 and
this bill is signed into law, the changes to eligible applicants
might cause confusion and increased administrative costs. If the
committee decides to pass this measure and it becomes apparent
that the 2010 grant cycle may be delayed, the author should
consider making it explicit that the expanded eligibility only
applies for grant cycles that begin after January 1, 2011.
Double-referral to Environmental Quality: Should the committee
pass this bill, it will next be considered by the Senate
Environmental Quality committee.
SUPPORT
Audubon California (co-sponsor)
Defenders of Wildlife (co-sponsor)
The Nature Conservancy (co-sponsor)
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California ReLeaf
Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority
Tree People
Watershed Conservation Authority
4
OPPOSITION
California Central Valley Flood Control Association - unless
amended (previous version)
5