BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2259
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 2259 (Ridley-Thomas) - As Amended: April 1, 2014
SUBJECT : Water replenishment: assessment.
SUMMARY : Requires actions to challenge to a replenishment
assessment for the Water Replenishment District of Southern
California to be commenced within 120 days of the adoption of
the resolution or motion to levy the replenishment assessment.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review,
set aside, void, or annul a resolution or motion levying a
replenishment assessment for the Water Replenishment District
of Southern California to be commenced within 120 days of the
adoption of the resolution or motion.
2)Requires that an action by a local agency or interested person
regarding the replenishment assessment be brought pursuant to
the chapter in the Code of Civil Procedure related to
"Validating Proceedings."
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, under the Water Replenishment District Act, for the
formation of a water replenishment district and grants
authority to a water replenishment district relating to the
replenishment, protection, and preservation of groundwater
supplies within that district.
2)Requires, if the Board of WRD determines that a replenishment
assessment shall be levied upon the production of groundwater
from groundwater supplies within the district during the
ensuing fiscal year immediately following the making of that
determination, the Board to levy a replenishment assessment on
the production of groundwater from the groundwater supplies
within the district during the fiscal year commencing on July
1st next.
3)Specifies that the replenishment assessment shall be fixed by
the Board at a uniform rate per acre-foot of groundwater so
produced.
AB 2259
Page 2
4)Requires the producers of the groundwater to pay the
replenishment assessment to the District at the times and in
the manner provided.
5)Provides for validating proceedings in the Code of Civil
Procedure.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill establishes a 120-day period
by which actions challenging the replenishment assessment must
be brought. The 120-day period would begin on the date upon
which the board made the determination to impose the
replenishment assessment. The bill is sponsored by the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California.
2)Background . The Water Replenishment District of Southern
California, which was established by voters in Los Angeles
County in 1959, is the state's only water replenishment
district. The District was established while the Los Angeles
County court proceeded through adjudication of groundwater
rights in the Central Basin and West Coast Basin aquifers.
The main function of the District is to recharge water into
groundwater basins for later withdrawal by water purveyors,
and the District has certain legal authorities to accomplish
this purpose. The District earns revenue by charging water
replenishment assessments to the agencies, utilities, and
companies that pump groundwater. The District also gets
property tax revenues from its share of the 1% property tax
rate. Funds are used to buy surface water that then
percolates into the groundwater basin.
3)Author's statement . According to the author, "The Water
Replenishment District Act does not specify a time period for
legal challenges to the replenishment assessment. This bill
would establish a 120-day period by which actions challenging
the replenishment assessment must be brought; the 120-day
period would begin on the date upon which the board made the
determination to impose the replenishment assessment."
"The bill provides that any such challenge must be in the form
of validation action of a writ of mandamus. The latter option
AB 2259
Page 3
is provided as Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 is not
always allowed as a mechanism by which a person can seek
judicial invalidation of a public agency's action. For
example, one line of case law holds that such a lawsuit is
available only in bonds and other similar financing
transactions. Accordingly, a person challenging an agency's
actions will file a petition for writ of mandamus."
The author also points to a number of statutes and case law
that recognize a short statute of limitations whereby a party
can challenge the adoption of a local agency public utility
tax, assessment, rate, fee or charge. This includes the
Mitigation Fee Act (contained in the Government Code),
Irrigation District Law, Municipal Water District Law, Water
Conservation District Law, and statutes regarding the
liability of public entities to pay for public utility capital
facilities fees. The author notes that "the purpose of such a
short statute of limitations is to enhance the budgetary
stability of public utilities by promptly informing them of
any challenges to their ability to charge and collect fees."
4)Related legislation . SB 620 (Wright), Chapter 638, Statutes
of 2013, repealed a limitation on the expenditure of the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California's annual reserve
fund for a five-year period and requires the District to
establish a budget advisory committee for purposes of
reviewing a replenishment assessment and the District's annual
operating budget. The District would then be required to
consult with that advisory committee and would be required to
maintain records regarding the recommendations of the budget
advisory committee and the final decisions made by the board
of the District. Provisions related the budget advisory
committee become inoperative on June 30, 2019, and are
repealed as of January 1, 2020.
Provisions in the SB 620 also increase the penalty that may be
imposed for the failure of the owner of a water-producing
facility to file certain reports. Additionally, the bill
provides that the court shall direct that the District or
operator of a water-producing facility be awarded the
reasonable attorney's fees and costs relating to a motion
seeking injunctive relief whenever the District or operator of
a water-producing facility prevails on a petition or
complaint. SB 620 was sponsored by the Water Replenishment
District of Southern California.
AB 2259
Page 4
AB 2189 (Garcia, 2014) is currently pending in this Committee.
AB 2189 would incorporate into the Water Replenishment
District of Southern California's Act the procedures and
substantive requirements of Proposition 218.
5)Arguments in support . The sponsor argues that over 70% of the
revenue collected by the Water Replenishment District is
expended in the fiscal year in which the assessment is imposed
to purchase or produce replenishment water and that the lack
of a statute of limitations for legal challenges for the
assessment jeopardizes the financial security of the District
as well as the duty to replenish groundwater basins that serve
over 10% of California's population.
6)Arguments in opposition . None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Water Replenishment District of Southern California [SPONSOR]
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958