BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2259|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2259
Author: Ridley-Thomas (D)
Amended: 7/1/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/24/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Water replenishment: assessments
SOURCE : Water Replenishment District of Southern California
DIGEST : This bill creates a 180-day statute of limitation for
challenging the adoption of a replenishment assessment by a
water replenishment district, and specifies that an action
challenging the adoption of a replenishment assessment shall be
brought as a validation action or as a writ of review, mandate,
or prohibition.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides, under the Water Replenishment District Act (Act),
provides that a water replenishment district may do any act
necessary to replenish the ground water of said district.
2.Provides that a water replenishment district may take any
CONTINUED
AB 2259
Page
2
action necessary to protect or prevent interference with
water, the quality thereof, or water rights of persons or
property within the district, as specified, and for the
purposes of replenishing the ground water supplies within the
district, a district may do any act in order to put to
beneficial use any water under its control or management.
3.Provides that if a water replenishment district board
determines that a replenishment assessment is to be levied
upon the production of ground water from ground water supplies
within the district during the ensuing fiscal year,
immediately following the making of that determination the
board shall levy a replenishment assessment on the production
of ground water from the ground water supplies within the
district during the fiscal year commencing on July 1st next,
and the replenishment assessment shall be fixed by the board
at a uniform rate per acre-foot of ground water so produced.
4.Provides that notice of the levying of a replenishment
assessment shall be given to the operators of all
water-producing facilities in the district, and all
assessments so levied are due and payable to the district by
each producer in quarterly installments, computed based upon
the production in acre-feet of ground water so produced from
such water-producing facility.
This bill:
1.Provides that a judicial action or proceeding to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul a resolution or motion
levying a replenishment assessment shall be commenced within
180 days following the adoption of the resolution or motion,
made on or after January 1, 2015, by the water replenishment
district board.
2.Specifies that an action under the above provision shall be
brought as a validation action pursuant to Section 680 et
seq., of the Code of Civil Procedure, or as a writ of review,
mandate, or prohibition pursuant to Section 1067 et seq., of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
Background
The Act (Wat. Code Sec. 60000 et seq.) provides for the
CONTINUED
AB 2259
Page
3
formation of water replenishment districts and grants certain
authority to a water replenishment district relating to the
replenishment, protection, and preservation of ground water
supplies within that district. In general, the Act requires the
board of directors of a water replenishment district to set
water replenishment assessments to purchase replenishment water
or to remove contaminants from the ground water supplies of the
district, and requires the water replenishment assessment to be
fixed at a uniform rate per acre-foot of ground water produced
within the district. Replenishment assessments are assessed
against the operators of all water-producing facilities in a
water replenishment district. To date, only one water
replenishment district has been formed in California - the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD).
In recent years, WRD has been involved in litigation with a
group of cities within its jurisdiction over whether the WRD,
when imposing replenishment assessments, complied with the
constitutional requirements established by Proposition 218
(1996). Among other things, Proposition 218 established new
procedural requirements for special districts and other local
governments to levy assessments and impose new, or increase
existing, property-related fees and charges. To date, these
suits have not been resolved.
Prior Legislation
SB 620 (Wright, Chapter 638, Statutes of 2013) repealed a
limitation on the expenditure of a water replenishment
district's annual reserve fund for a five-year period, and
requires districts to establish budget advisory committees for
the purpose of reviewing replenishment assessments and a
district's annual operating budget. The bill also required a
court to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs relating to
a motion seeking injunctive relief against a defendant operator
of a water-producing facility that has not registered with a
district or that is delinquent in the payment of a replenishment
assessment.
AB 954 (Calderon, 2011) would have required water replenishment
districts to impose water replenishment assessments on the
production of ground water from each ground water basin based on
the actual cost of replenishing the ground water basin, removing
contaminants from the ground water basin, and the administrative
CONTINUED
AB 2259
Page
4
costs of the district. The bill would have also required
replenishment assessments to be charged at a fixed uniform rate.
The bill died in the Assembly Committee on Local Government.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/2/14)
Water Replenishment District of Southern California (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes:
The Act authorizes a water replenishment district to impose an
assessment on the production of ground water for purposes of
purchasing or providing water to replenish the ground water
basin, remediation of ground water contamination and the cost of
capital improvement projects. The Act authorizes a district to
levy a replenishment assessment on the production of ground
water from the ground water supplies within the district and
requires producers of that ground water to pay the replenishment
assessment to the district.
The Act does not specify a time period for legal challenges to
the replenishment assessment. This bill establishes a 180-day
period by which actions challenging the replenishment assessment
must be brought; the 180-day period would begin on the date upon
which the board made the determination to impose the
replenishment assessment.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nestande, Olsen, Pan,
Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gray, Harkey, Mansoor, Nazarian, Vacancy
CONTINUED
AB 2259
Page
5
AL:e 7/2/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED