| LAO
|
Authorize the Department of Conservation (DOC) to increase the redemption payment for beverage containers with low recycling rates.
The DOC manages the state's beverage container recycling program. The program is funded by consumers who pay an amount (generally 2.5 cents) for each beverage they purchase in certain types of containers. This amount is paid back to consumers when a container is returned at a registered recycling center. The program historically has maintained a reserve in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
By permitting DOC to raise the amount returned to consumers for containers with low recycling rates, there will be a greater incentive to return those
containers. This can help to raise recycling rates above their current level, which is below
70 percent. It also would be an appropriate use for funds that originate with the consumers.
Please see our 1999-00 Analysis, pages B-53 and B-54.
Steve Boilard: 445-5921
Increase incentives for local governments to incorporate the Coastal Commission's recommendations for amendments to their Local Coastal Programs (LCPs).
All local governments within the state's coastal zone are required to adopt LCPs to ensure that development within the zone complies with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission is required to review these LCPs periodically, and to make recommendations on how they can better promote the goals of the Coastal Act. However, there is no requirement that local governments adopt these recommendations.
The commission's recommendations could be given more strength through statute, such as by giving the commission the authority to decertify LCPs that do not meet certain standards. In this way, local governments would be more inclined to respond to the commission's recommendations, and therefore to maintain LCPs that more effectively promote the goals of the Coastal Act.
Please see our 2000-01 Analysis, pages B-93 and B-94.
Steve Boilard: 445-5921
Establish an organizational structure to hold the administration accountable for expenditures and decisions of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
The current organizational structure of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a loosely configured consortium of 18 state and federal agencies with regulatory and resource management responsibilities in the Bay-Delta. The lines of accountability are unclear, and staffing and funding arrangements have been complicated.
Recently, the program's focus has shifted from planning to program implementation. Implementation is expected to take 30 years and cost $8.5 billion. Because of the substantial state funding potentially at stake as well as the important decisions yet to be made, it is essential for an organizational structure to be in place that has clear lines of accountability.
Please see our 2000-01 Analysis, page B-48.
Mark Newton: 445-5921
Consolidate water transfer law into a single act, with clearly stated goals and more consistent and comprehensive third-party protection. Establish a water transfer information office in the State Water Resources Control Board.
Water transfersfrom one party with extra water to another party with temporary or ongoing needshave significant potential as a management tool to address the state's water needs. However, current water transfer law is unclear and inconsistent.
Making water transfer law clear and consistent should reduce uncertainty that impedes such transfers. The creation of a water transfer information office could (1) reduce transaction costs associated with transfers by streamlining regulatory review and (2) improve the evaluation of the third-party impacts of transfers.
Please see Role of Water Transfers in Meeting California's Water Needs, September 8, 1999.
Mark Newton: 445-5921
Provide a reasonable limit on, and definition of, administrative costs funded from Proposition 12 (parks bond) and Proposition 13 (water bond) to implement loan and grant programs. Require the administration to report annually on the expenditures from these bonds, including administrative costs. Designate lead agencies responsible for overseeing bond implementation.
There are essentially no limits on the amount of bond proceeds that can be used to administer loan and grant programs created by the parks bond. Although administrative costs are generally capped in the water bond, these costs are not defined. As a result, the implementing agencies for both bonds effectively have broad discretion when determining administrative costs.
Since both bond measures involve multiple implementing agencies, coordination among these agencies is necessary to ensure that the bond-funded expenditures are cost-effective in addressing the state's priorities. Such coordination could be achieved by the designation of a lead implementing agency.
Please see Parks and Water Bonds: Implementation Issues, May 25, 2000.
Mark Newton or Steve Boilard: 445-5921
Make various changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) so that the CEQA review process works better to achieve the statute's goals.
The CEQA's ability to inform public decision-makers and the public about the environmental impacts of development can be increased, and compliance costs to the business community can be reduced, if the CEQA process is made more efficient. This can be done by (1) clarifying a number of statutory requirements, (2) expanding various streamlining measures to avoid duplication of environmental review, (3) making local CEQA policies more certain by enhancing public access to these policies, and (4) requiring mitigation measures to be based on statewide goals.
Please see CEQA: Making It Work Better, March 20, 1997.
Mark Newton: 445-5921
Require fees to fully cover costs of (1) environmental regulatory programs designed to prevent or reduce pollution and (2) programs for the cleanup and restoration of polluted properties and natural resources.
Private parties that benefit from using public resources should be responsible for paying the costs imposed on society to regulate such activities. Environmental regulatory programs that are not fully funded from fees include the Air Resources Board's stationary and mobile source programs, the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB's) core water quality regulatory and water rights programs, and timber harvest plan review by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and SWRCB.
Please see our 1992-93 Analysis, page IV-19 (financing of resources and environmental programs).
Also see our 1999-00 Analysis, page B-109; and 1993-94 Analysis, pages B-44, B-59, B-65, and B-69.
Mark Newton: 445-5921
Require that property owners who directly benefit from fire protection services of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) partially offset the costs of that service by paying a fee or obtaining fire insurance coverage.
The CDFFP provides fire protection services in state responsibility areas (SRAs). The SRA lands generally consist of all forestlands, watersheds, and rangelands that are not owned by the federal government or located within the jurisdiction of a city. Property owners in the SRAs directly benefit from the program, as does the state's population through the preservation of natural lands. Thus, the state and property owners who benefit from the program should share in the costs of providing fire protection services.
Please see our 1993-94 Analysis, page B-43.
Jennifer Giambattista: 445-5921
Designate the State Fire Marshal (SFM) in the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as the lead state agency to (1) coordinate pipeline testing and maintenance requirements, (2) streamline the pipeline-permitting process, and (3) develop an inventory of high-risk sites that have had past petroleum leaks.
The petroleum production and transportation infrastructure is currently regulated by a multitude of federal, local, and state agencies, including the SFM, the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources in the Department of Conservation, and the State Lands Commission. The designation of a lead state agency among pipeline regulators could serve to reduce potential duplication and uncertainty for the regulated community, streamline the permitting process, and coordinate data sources to develop an inventory of high-risk sites.
Please see our 1999-00 Analysis, page B-27.
Also see Oil Pipeline Spills: The Avila Beach and Guadalupe Experience, Cal Update, December 1998.
Steve Boilard, Jennifer Giambattista, or Mark Newton: 445-5921