BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2259
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2259 (Ridley-Thomas)
As Amended April 1, 2014
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, | | |
| |Bradford, Gordon, | | |
| |Melendez, Mullin, Rendon, | | |
| |Waldron | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires actions to challenge a replenishment
assessment for the Water Replenishment District of Southern
California (WRD) 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 WRD 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 WRD 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 (the Board) 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
AB 2259
Page 2
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.
4)Requires the producers of the groundwater to pay the
replenishment assessment to WRD 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 WRD.
2)Background. WRD, which was established by voters in Los
Angeles County in 1959, is the state's only water
replenishment district. WRD 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 WRD is to recharge water into
groundwater basins for later withdrawal by water purveyors,
and WRD has certain legal authorities to accomplish this
purpose. WRD earns revenue by charging water replenishment
assessments to the agencies, utilities, and companies that
pump groundwater. WRD 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
AB 2259
Page 3
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
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, "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 WRD's
annual reserve fund for a five-year period and requires WRD to
establish a budget advisory committee for purposes of
reviewing a replenishment assessment and WRDs annual operating
budget. WRD 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 WRD. Provisions
related the budget advisory committee become inoperative on
June 30, 2019, and are repealed as of January 1, 2020.
Provisions in 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 WRD or operator of a
water-producing facility be awarded the reasonable attorney's
fees and costs relating to a motion seeking injunctive relief
whenever WRD or operator of a water-producing facility
AB 2259
Page 4
prevails on a petition or complaint.
SB 620 was sponsored by WRD.
AB 2189 (Garcia), currently pending in the Assembly, would
incorporate into the WRD Act the procedures and substantive
requirements of Proposition 218 of 1996.
5)Arguments in support. The sponsor argues that over 70% of the
revenue collected by WRD 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 WRD as well as the duty
to replenish groundwater basins that serve over 10% of
California's population.
6)Arguments in opposition. None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0003168