BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 235
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 15, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
SB 235 (Negrete McLeod) - As Amended: June 9, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 35-0
SUBJECT : Water conservation districts: reduction in number of
directors.
SUMMARY : Authorizes a water conservation district with a board
consisting of seven directors to reduce the number of directors
to five. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a reduction in the number of directors from being
made within 180 days preceding the election of a director.
2)Requires the board, in order to reduce the number of
directors, to adopt, by a recorded vote
of two-thirds of the total membership of the board, a resolution
proposing to reduce the number of directors from seven to
five.
3)Requires the resolution to contain a map and description of
the boundaries for the five divisions proposed to be
established.
4)Requires the secretary of the district to set a date for a
public hearing on the proposal to reduce the number of
directors, which shall be not less than 30 days and not more
than 60 days after the date on which the board adopted the
resolution.
5)Requires the secretary to give notice of the hearing,
including a description of the proposal and a map and general
description of the proposed boundaries of the five divisions.
6)Requires the board at the hearing to receive and consider any
written or oral comments regarding the proposed reduction in
the number of directors.
7)Requires, after receiving and considering those comments, the
board, by a recorded vote
of two-thirds of the total membership of the board, to do either
SB 235
Page 2
of the following:
a) Disapprove the proposal; or,
b) Adopt a resolution that orders the reduction in the
number of members of the board.
8)Specifies that the resolution to reduce the number of
directors is a legislative act subject to referendum.
9)Specifies that any reduction in the number of directors and a
change in division boundaries shall not affect the term of
office of any director.
10)Specifies that a director of a division for which boundaries
have been changed shall continue to be the director of the
division bearing the number of his or her division until the
office becomes vacant by means of term expiration or
otherwise, whether or not the director is a resident within
the boundaries of the division as changed.
11)Requires the successor to the office of a division for which
boundaries have been changed to be a resident and voter of
that division.
12)Specifies that these provisions do not apply to water
conservation districts in Ventura County.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a water conservation district board of directors to
consist of three, five, or seven members, depending on the
number of divisions in the district.
2)Requires each director be an elector of the division for which
he is elected, a qualified elector of the district, and a
resident of the county, or of one of the counties, in which
the district is situated.
3)Establishes the following redivision procedures specifically
for water conservation districts in Ventura County:
SB 235
Page 3
a) Specifies that the change number of members of the board
or basis for dividing the district into divisions may be
initiated by the board by resolution or may be initiated by
a petition signed by not less than 5% of the electors of
the district.
b) Requires the resolution or petition to state the new
number of members of the board or the new basis for
dividing the district into divisions based either on area
or population or changes to the boundaries of the divisions
of a district based on population.
c) Requires an election on the proposed redivision of the
district to be held in the same manner as elections for the
formation of a district so far as applicable.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (SBVWCD)
was formed in 1932 by election of the registered voters within
its boundaries. It assumed the operation and assets
of the Water Conservation Association within the Santa Ana River
under the provisions of the Water Conservation District Law of
1931. In 1935 it acquired the water rights of the East
Lugonia Mutual Water Company to provide for spreading and
percolation of water within Mill Creek, a tributary to the
Santa Ana River. SBVWCD was created to recharge the
groundwater basin with native water to conserve that water for
future use. At that time, the water was primarily for
agriculture; today this water is used for agricultural,
municipal, and industrial purposes. Their mission is to
ensure recharge of the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin in an
environmentally and economically responsible way, using local
native surface water to the maximum extent practicable.
SBVWCD is governed by a seven-member board of directors
elected from within specific divisions.
2)According to the author's office, SBVWCD has changed from an
agricultural area to a more suburban area and SBVWCD believes
that a five-member board would be more appropriate for the
SB 235
Page 4
district's needs and would save the district money. However,
there is no statutory procedure to reduce board size. Only
the two water conservation districts in Ventura County can
shrink their boards, but they need voter approval. If all
water conservation districts were to have to use the existing
procedures established for Ventura County, the elections might
cost more than the resulting savings. SB 235 seeks to avoid
the costly election by allowing a water conservation district
board to reduce its size through a two-thirds vote of the
board.
3)At the conclusion of its two year municipal service review for
SBVWCD, the San Bernardino Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) adopted a resolution articulating the LAFCO's position
that the Bunker Hill basin was a single community of interest
for the provision of water conservation services and
mechanisms and a single water conservation entity should
address those service needs. Based upon that position, the
LAFCO determined that SBVWCD would be assigned a zero sphere
of influence indicating that a consolidation should take
place. The LAFCO's recommendation was that SBVWCD should
consolidate with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District (MWD). In 2006, the MWD applied to LAFCO for
approval to consolidate the two districts. After lawsuits and
opposition by SBVWCD, the LAFCO denied the consolidation in
2010. Now SBVWCD wants to cut costs by cutting the size of
its governing board. The Committee may wish to consider
whether a better alternative is to cut the number of special
districts in San Bernardino County.
4)Support arguments: Supporters argue that this bill provides
local agencies with the ability to find a governance structure
that works best for them
Opposition arguments: Opposition could argue that a reduction
in the size of a board should be determined by the voters.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District �SPONSOR]
Association of California Water Agencies
Opposition
SB 235
Page 5
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958