The Barbed Wire - August 19, 2016

August 19, 2016
Senate Bill 1188 Clears the Assembly Floor
RCRC Board Endorses Statewide School Bond Measure
RCRC Board Opposes the “No Blank Checks Initiative” Bond Measure
RCRC Board Endorses the California Legislature Transparency Act
Senate Unveils New Cap-and-Trade Spending Plan
No Place Like Home Financing Mechanism Unveiled
California Water Commission Receives WSIP Regulation Update
Bipartisan Lawmakers Urge Quick WRDA Action
Appeals Court Deals States a WOTUS Defeat
BULLETIN BOARD
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
REGULATORY UPDATE

Senate Bill 1188 Clears the Assembly Floor

This week, Senate Bill 1188, authored by Senator Mike McGuire (Healdsburg-D), cleared the Assembly Floor on a unanimous vote.  Authored in conjunction with 15 other authors and co-authors, SB 1188 is a bipartisan effort to amend Fish and Game Code to restore language that makes State Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments to counties required as opposed to permissive.  

SB 1188 has gained passage in both houses of the legislature and will now go to the Governor to await his action.  The text of SB 1188 can be accessed here.

RCRC Board Endorses Statewide School Bond Measure

This week, the RCRC Board of Directors voted to “Support” Proposition 51, the “Kindergarten Through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016.”  Commonly known as the School Bond, Proposition 51 provides $9 billion in bond funding for K-12 and community college facility modernization and new construction projects, including monies for charter schools and career technical education facilities.  

There is a growing backlog of K-12 and community college construction projects across the state, and many rural school districts do not have the financial resources to fund these projects solely within their communities.  As such, state assistance in the form of bond proceeds will ensure that rural school facilities are not second-rate.  Proposition 51 provides needed funding for K-14 facilities to repair and fix old schools and build new classrooms, and will be a significant step forward to address the state’s school construction needs, whether the need is in urban, suburban or rural areas.  If it is approved by voters, Proposition 51 would be the first statewide school facility bond to be enacted since 2006. 

RCRC Board Opposes the “No Blank Checks Initiative” Bond Measure

This week, the RCRC Board of Directors voted to “Oppose” Proposition 53, the “No Blank Checks Initiative.”  This measure would require statewide voter approval for revenue bonds for projects that meet certain conditions, including: 1) when projects are being funded via revenue bonds that exceed $2 billon; 2) when the state is a partner to a project in conjunction with another entity; and 3) when projects would be owned, operated, or managed by the state.  

Currently, general obligation bonds are required to receive voter approval; but, unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bonds are not serviced by the State’s General Fund.  Rather, revenue bonds are serviced via a dedicated revenue stream generally associated with the activities surrounding the construction of the project (i.e. parking fees associated with the construction of a municipal parking lot).

In the deliberations over Proposition 53, members of the RCRC Board of Directors expressed a number of concerns, including the potential impact of the measure on the proposed Sites Reservoir in Glenn/Colusa Counties – a water development project that would be funded by the state to a significant degree.  Furthermore, there is concern to what degree, if any, local governments would be subject to the conditions proposed in the ballot measure.  

RCRC Board Endorses the California Legislature Transparency Act

This week, the RCRC Board of Directors voted to “Support” Proposition 54, known as the “California Legislature Transparency Act.”  Proposition 54 would make a number of reforms to the state legislative process, including applying a 72-hour posting component to the Legislature’s process for enacting legislation.  

Proposition 54 prohibits members of the Legislature from voting on a legislative measure until it has been printed, distributed, and published on the Internet in its final form for at least 72-hours before the vote.  RCRC’s Board of Directors believes this aspect of Proposition 54 – modeled after the Brown Act – will help restore confidence and trust in the state’s legislative process. 

Locally-elected Supervisors, in addition to municipal governing boards, are responsible for complying with the state’s open meeting laws, commonly referred to as the Brown Act.  Among the components of the Brown Act is the requirement that they do not act upon items unless there has been a 72-hour posting of items so that the public can inspect the agenda and any accompanying documents. 

Senate Unveils New Cap-and-Trade Spending Plan

On Wednesday, Senate leaders released a new proposal for spending a portion of the revenues from the State’s Cap-and-Trade auction program.  The proposal, which comes as the 2016 Legislative session enters into its final two weeks, presents a spending plan for around $1.1 billion of the estimated available monies in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), leaving approximately $800 million in reserve.  The Assembly is also expected to propose its own Cap-and-Trade spending plan in the coming days, and the Governor will also be part of the discussions going forward.  

The Senate proposal is decidedly urban-focused, with much of the funds dedicated to programs that benefit disadvantaged communities in urban areas.  While the plan does allocate funds to a few programs that would benefit rural communities such as forest health projects, landfill organics diversion infrastructure, and wood stove replacement programs, the amounts are relatively small and will not make much of an impact on those programs in the near or long term.  The Senate has lauded the proposal as beneficial to the poor and disadvantaged citizens of California; however, the plan will provide almost no benefit to poor, disadvantaged Californians living in rural, forested communities.

In recent weeks, legislators have expressed concern about allocating Cap-and-Trade dollars due to a pending industry lawsuit challenging the legality of the program.  If the legal challenge succeeds, the State could be made to reimburse participants in the auction for the carbon credits they were forced to purchase.  Legislators were also alarmed by the underperforming April Cap-and-Trade auction, which brought in a mere 2 percent of the revenue expected by the State.  Results from the most recent auction held on Tuesday are expected to be released next week, and could influence the Legislature’s final decision on how much of the GGRF is ultimately spent.  

No Place Like Home Financing Mechanism Unveiled

On July 1, 2016, Governor Brown signed into law the “No Place Like Home” (NPLH) program to authorize roughly $2 billion in bond funding to counties for construction or reconstruction of permanent supportive housing for individuals who are living with mental illness and chronically homeless.  The programmatic elements and structural components of NPLH overwhelmingly gained passage in both houses of the Legislature; however, the bond financing provisions of the measure were deferred until after the summer recess to provide bond counsel additional time to finalize the language. 

To implement the bond financing mechanism, the Legislature recently amended two budget vehicles - Assembly Bill 1628 and Senate Bill 858. 

NPLH will be funded through a portion of Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funding, also referred to as Proposition 63 funding, which is funded through a 1 percent tax on personal incomes above $1 million.  Importantly, Assembly Bill 1628 and Senate Bill 858 both contain a key provision that places a $140 million cap on the total annual amount of funding that can be diverted from this funding source.  While we do not have the exact county-by-county impact information available at this time, a report will be issued to provide a 6-month advanced notice of how much funding will be diverted off-the-top of Proposition 63 (up to a maximum of $140 million). 

RCRC and our county partners expressed concern to Legislative leadership and the Department of Finance regarding the uncertainty of annual county MHSA funding allocations and requested that information be provided to counties in advance to mitigate the potential impacts.  It is important to note that current MHSA county allocations are projected to increase year-by-year, which could minimize any potential funding reductions.  However, Proposition 63 funding is relatively volatile and can shift significantly based on economic conditions, so it’s difficult to predict how future county MHSA allocations will be impacted.  

California Water Commission Receives WSIP Regulation Update

This week, the California Water Commission (CWC) met to receive an update on the development of regulations for the quantification and management of the public benefits of water storage projects in order to implement Chapter 8 of Proposition 1.  

The initial draft was released in January for public comment.  RCRC and others provided substantial public comment, much of which focused on the overly prescriptive approach of the proposed regulations.  Given the level of concern raised, staff has been updating the regulations based on that public input and that of the CWC itself.  As a part of this response, several senior Department of Water Resource’s staff, who had been instrumental in the development of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), were added to the CWC drafting team.  With the addition of these key staff, there is a higher level of confidence that the Board will be able to meet the timeline for approval of the WSIP regulations.

The public comment at this week’s hearing from a wide variety of stakeholders was generally positive and the CWC staff expect to release the revised regulations by the end of August.  The CWC has slated a meeting the first week of September to vote on the regulations which would then send them to the Office of Administrative Law for the formal comment period.

Bipartisan Lawmakers Urge Quick WRDA Action

Two House Members are courting support for the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) during the summer recess.  Reps. Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Lois Frankel (D-FL) sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to lawmakers on August 12, 2016 urging support for the $5 billion Army Corps of Engineers authorization bill for locks, dams, flood control projects, environmental restoration and other initiatives.  

The letter asks House Members to sign a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) in support of passing WRDA before the current the fiscal year comes to a close on September 30, 2016.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed WRDA by voice vote in May.  The legislation, which would authorize 28 Army Corps projects, is a slimmed-down version of what the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee passed in April.

Appeals Court Deals States a WOTUS Defeat

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied states' latest bid to have their challenges to the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule heard by district courts, where they think they would find more receptive audiences.  On Tuesday, a three-judge panel ordered that an appeal of an earlier injunction request from Georgia and 10 other states be held in abeyance while the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals proceeds with its multiple cases challenging the WOTUS.  

The substance of the appeal was rendered moot when the 6th Circuit put the rule on hold nationwide in October 2015.  But states, with the backing of industry groups, had urged the 11th Circuit to take the appeal, arguing that the issue does not qualify under a provision of the Clean Water Act that allows certain challenges to leapfrog district courts and head straight to appellate court.  The 6th Circuit, where appellate court challenges have been consolidated, has ruled that the issue belongs with it.  A split between the courts on the matter would have set up a venue fight that could have reached the Supreme Court.

WOTUS has been controversial since it was first proposed, as it represents a gross expansion of federal jurisdiction over waterways that previously were not covered under the definition of “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act.  Many states and local governments opposed the rule and are hoping the legal challenge will ultimately result in a repeal of the rule.

BULLETIN BOARD

California Water Commission Releases Draft Water Storage Investment Program Technical Reference

Click here

Stewardship Council Releases 2015 Annual Report

Click here

State Water Resources Control Board Hosts Information Fair on Water Right Measurement and Reporting

Click here

Additional Funding Provided to Continue Facilitation Support Services to Water Management Groups

Click here

Workshops and Webinar on a Draft CalEnviroScreen 3.0

Click here

LAO Supplemental Report of the 2016-17 Budget Package

This week, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), released their Supplemental Report of the 2016-17 Budget Package which contains statements of legislative intent, and/or requests for studies that were adopted during Budget deliberations.

Click here

NGO’s Request New EIR for California WaterFix

This week, a group of Non-Governmental Organizations have submitted a letter to state and federal agencies with an urgent request for a new Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for California WaterFix project.

Click here

NFPA Releases Updated Firewise Toolkit  

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Firewise Communities Program released their updated 2016 Firewise Toolkit which contains tips and resources for homeowners and other community residents interested in learning how to reduce the risk of wildfire damage in their communities.

Click here

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

RCRC members are encouraged to share letters addressed to state and federal representatives and regulatory bodies with RCRC’s Government Affairs staff.  Click “Read More” to access information related to the current status of legislation impacting California’s rural counties.  

SB 867 (Roth): Emergency Medical Services.  Senate Bill 867 would extend the sunset date on the Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund and continue to allow counties to collect funds to support local emergency medical services.  Status: Awaits consideration by the Governor.  RCRC Position: Support

SB 957 (Hueso): Health Care Districts: Design-Build.  Senate Bill 957 would authorize all 78 of California’s healthcare districts to utilize the design-build process for the construction of hospitals or health facility buildings.  Status: Awaits consideration by the Governor.  RCRC Position: Support

SB 1188 (McGuire): Wildlife Management Areas: Payment of Taxes and Assessments.  Senate Bill 1188 will return the ‘may’ back to ‘shall’ in Fish and Game Code Section 1504 making future Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments required rather than permissive.  Status: Gained passage on the Assembly Floor.  RCRC Position: Support

SB 1463 (Moorlach): Electrical Lines: Mitigation of Wildfire Risks.  Senate Bill 1463 would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to prioritize communities that are at high risk from the consequences of wildfires when determining areas in which it will require enhanced mitigation measures for wildfire hazards posed by overhead electrical lines and equipment. Status: Gained passage on the Assembly Floor, awaits action in the Senate.  RCRC Position: Support

REGULATORY UPDATE

Inyo, Sierra and Sequoia Forest Plan Revisions.  Provides opportunity for public comment on proposed forest plan revisions and Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the USDA Forest Service’s three “early adopter” forests in California.  Agency: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Status: Draft available for public comment, comments due by August 25, 2016.  Draft proposal and related documents can be accessed here.  RCRC Comments: Click here RCRC Advocates: Staci Heaton sheaton@rcrcnet.org