BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 1066 (Lieu) - Coastal resources: climate change
Amended: April 9, 2012 Policy Vote: NRW 6-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 24, 2012 Consultant: Marie Liu
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: SB 1066 would require the Coastal Conservancy
(conservancy) to fund and undertake projects to address climate
change and would require the conservancy to prioritize projects
that maximize public benefits.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown cost pressures, possibly in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars from bonds (General Fund) and special
funds for the funding of projects that address climate
change.
Unknown revenues, but possibly in the tens to hundreds of
thousands of dollars, from private and federal grants for
governmental agencies addressing climate change.
Background: The conservancy is responsible for purchasing,
protecting, restoring, and enhancing the state's coastal
resources and providing public access to the shore. The
conservancy generally works in partnership with other public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.
Sample projects include wetlands restoration and protection,
protection of coastal agriculture lands, and trail building. The
vast majority of the conservancy's funding comes from various
bonds including Proposition 40, 50, and 84 with smaller amounts
of funding from special funds, such as the California
Environmental License Plate Fund and the California Sea Otter
Fund.
Proposed Law: This bill would require the conservancy to fund
and undertake projects that address climate change impacts such
as sea level rise, beach and bluff erosion, and salt water
intrusion. This bill would also require the conservancy to
prioritize projects that maximize public benefits such as
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing hazards to harbors
SB 1066 (Lieu)
Page 1
and ports, and preserving and enhancing coastal wetlands and
natural lands.
Staff Comments: This bill would essentially oblige the
conservancy to fund at least one project that deals with climate
change impacts. Possible projects include wetlands restoration,
updating and refining coastal hazard zone maps, developing
regional monitoring to inform adaptive management, and reducing
impacts of a warmer climate on urban populations. These projects
are likely to cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
considering that in 2011, the conservancy supported 79 projects
with an average project cost of approximately $810,000.
According to the author, the intent of this bill is to give
clear authority to the conservancy to consider and address
climate change impacts. Expressly authorizing the conservancy to
address climate change not only improves the conservancy's
ability to meet is existing mission, but will also make the
conservancy more competitive in obtaining grants that are
currently offered by private foundations and the federal
government for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Staff notes that the language in the bill stating that that the
conservancy "shall fund and undertake projects to address
climate change" is somewhat awkwardly phrased and inconsistent
with the rest of the conservancy's enabling statute as it
requires instead of authorizes the conservancy to fund certain
projects. Staff recommends that the author can achieve his
legislative intent with language that would add consideration of
climate change impacts to the conservancy's responsibilities
without explicitly requiring the funding of projects, which
could lower the cost pressures imposed by this bill.
This bill also requires the conservancy to prioritize projects
that "maximize public benefits" for all of the conservancy's
programs. While maximizing public benefits is a laudable goal,
the conservancy has a wide range of programs, each of which
might have a slightly different interpretation of what is an
appropriate public benefit. For example, the conservancy
receives monies from the California Sea Otter Fund in order to
fund research and programs related to improving the near-shore
ocean ecosystem, including activities which reduce sea otter
mortality. It is unclear how overlaying a priority for
maximizing public benefits would appropriately influence sea
SB 1066 (Lieu)
Page 2
otter projects. Staff recommends that this prioritization
language be only applied to projects which are intended to
address impacts of climate change.
Proposed Author Amendments: Amendments authorize the Coastal
Conservancy to address the impacts of climate change on coastal
resources and allow the conservancy to award related grants.