BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1446|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1446
Author: Correa (D)
Amended: 4/20/10
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE : 8-0, 04/13/10
AYES: Pavley, Cogdill, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe,
Lowenthal, Padilla, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Simitian
SUBJECT : Endangered and threatened species: habitat
mitigation
SOURCE : Orange County
DIGEST : This bill makes several statements of
legislative intent, relating to the establishment of
alternatives for financial assurances under the California
Endangered Species Act for public agencies that would
ensure that those agencies fully fund their obligations on
an ongoing basis for habitat mitigation and the maintenance
and monitoring of that mitigation.
ANALYSIS : The California Endangered Species Act
generally prohibits activities that will "take" species
that are listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered as
determined by the California Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) and California Fish and Game Commission. One of the
most significant exceptions to this prohibition are lawful
activities that obtain an "incidental take" permit which
CONTINUED
SB 1446
Page
2
establishes conditions and mitigation when the take of
listed species is necessary.
Existing law provides that as a condition of an incidental
take permit that the project proponent must minimize and
fully mitigate their impacts on listed species. It also
requires project applicants to ensure adequate funding to
implement necessary mitigation and monitoring. The precise
mechanisms to provide adequate funding are not specified.
DFG policy now emphasizes the importance of long-term
funding of the maintenance and management of the mitigation
lands. This long-term funding has often been secured
through endowments, a method of obtaining financial
assurances that has generated some opposition at the local
level. Local governments have been required to deposit cash
into California's "special deposit fund" to fund a
perpetual endowment that generates sufficient interest to
ensure the long-term maintenance of the mitigation lands.
State law provides for mechanisms other than endowments to
provide financial assurances that a regulatory mitigation
plan is adequately funded. Examples include landfills and
surface mines, among others.
Comments
According to Orange County, this bill is not intended to
reduce the mitigation required for an applicant's projects.
The sponsor stated that legislation is only intended to
address a new fiscal arrangement for funding mitigation.
The problem is that it is not reasonable for a public
agency to create an endowment which is the estimated amount
needed to generate annual interest equivalent to the
anticipated maintenance costs in perpetuity. Orange County
does not believe that it is fiscally prudent to reserve
such large sums for purpose of generating interest when
those funds could be put to other public purposes. In
other words, they believe that public agencies should be
allowed to budget on an annual basis for their costs to
satisfy their mitigation obligations under the state
endangered species act. Orange County estimates that it
could potentially be required to establish endowments for
as much as $54 million for future road and flood control
SB 1446
Page
3
projects, and $6.9 million for future waste and recycling
projects. They believe that negotiations with DFG have
delayed two public works projects in the county valued at
$31 million.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/28/10)
Orange County (source)
DLW:nl 4/28/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****