| Recommended Legislation
|
Provide a reasonable limit on, and definition of, administrative costs funded from recently approved resources bonds (Propositions 12, 13, and 40). Require annual reports on bond expenditures. Designate lead agencies to oversee implementation.
Recent resources bond measures do not define administrative costs, and in some cases (Propositions 12 and 40), there are few limits on the amount of bond proceeds that can be used to administer loan and grant programs. As a result, the implementing agencies effectively have broad discretion when determining administrative costs.
Since these 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 agency.
Please see Enhancing Implementation and Oversight: Proposition 40 Resources Bond, May 7, 2002, and Parks and Water Bonds: Implementation Issues, May 25, 2000.
Mark C. Newton: 319-8323
Decide whether to approve of the concept of the Environmental Water Account (EWA) program, a component of the CALFED Bay-Delta program. If approve, provide parameters for EWA's governance, operation, and funding, and require a clear annual accounting of the program's activities and impacts.
The EWA is a new concept that involves the state buying water to hold in reserve to release when needed for fish protection. Before the program continues, the Legislature should determine the appropriate state role in EWA, particularly in terms of funding, and address operational issues including governance, scientific review, and the acquisition and use of water by EWA.
Since EWA is a largely untested concept, the Legislature should have good information to assess whether the program is working as intended and meeting its goals. Specifically, there should be a clear accounting of water purchases, the use of EWA water, and environmental and water supply reliability benefits.
Please see Environmental Water Account: Need for Legislative Definition and Oversight, January 29, 2001. Also see our 2002-03 Analysis, page B-24 and our 2001-02 Analysis, page B-27.
Mark C. Newton: 319-8323
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, page B-93.
Catherine Freeman: 319-8321
Improve compliance with the state's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) by authorizing additional ways for the state to intervene when local lead agencies are not fully meeting the act's requirements.
While statute clearly authorizes the Department of Conservation to review mine reclamation plans and financial assurances submitted by lead agencies (primarily counties) for compliance with SMARA, the department's recommendations that arise from those reviews are often not adopted by lead agencies. This could be addressed by authorizing the department to revoke plans and assurances approved by these agencies that do not substantially comply with SMARA. Moreover, lead agencies often do not conduct annual mine inspections as required by statute. The state could ensure that annual inspections are performed by authorizing state inspections (funded by the lead agencies) where the lead agencies fail to conduct them.
Please see our 2001-02 Analysis, page B-50.
Jenny Giambattista: 319-8325
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.
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 2002-03 Analysis, page B-60.
Jenny Giambattista: 319-8325
Require fees on timber operators to fully cover the costs incurred by various state agencies in their review and enforcement of timber harvest plans (THPs).
As a condition of timber harvesting in the state, timber operators must prepare a THP for approval by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP). The THP covers such matters as harvest volume, cutting method, erosion control, and wildlife habitat protection. The THPs are reviewed by multiple state agencies in addition to CDFFP, including the Department of Conservation, the Department of Fish and Game, and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Fees levied on timber operators should cover the total state agency costs to review and enforce THPs, since there is a direct link between these activities and those who directly benefit from them through their harvesting of timber.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page B-50.
Jenny Giambattista: 319-8325
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.
Jenny Giambattista: 319-8325
Require fees to more fully cover the costs of the Air Resources Board's program that regulates stationary sources of air pollution.
Private parties that benefit from using public resources—such as air—should be responsible for paying the costs imposed on society to regulate such activities. Activities currently funded from the General Fund, including data collection, planning, and monitoring, are critical steps to develop air quality standards that form the basis of air quality permitting and enforcement activities statewide. These activities provide a basis in science and technology for the permits and prevent the permit requirements from being arbitrary or unduly burdensome. As such, they provide a benefit to the permit holder and are appropriately funded by fees.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page B-80.
Catherine Freeman: 319-8321
Direct the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a statewide policy to guide local enforcement and data management and require ARB to develop a work plan for timely reviews of local district programs.
The state has an interest in ensuring that locally administered air quality programs are implemented effectively in order to achieve the state's air quality goals. However, ARB's review of local programs—a statutory mandate—has been minimal. As a result, problems such as inconsistent and not fully effective local enforcement have developed without ARB taking timely corrective action.
Please see Improving State Oversight and Direction of Local Air Districts, January 25, 2001.
Catherine Freeman: 319-8321
Hold counties accountable for enforcing and improving the compliance of pesticide users. Direct the Department of Pesticide Regulation to develop clear goals for its enforcement program and measurable performance criteria to monitor the progress of the counties toward those goals.
Significant noncompliance with pesticide regulations exists in several counties, raising questions of the effectiveness of local inspections and local work plans. Since state funding to the county enforcement agencies is not tied to the attainment of work plan goals, there is little or no fiscal incentive for improvement.
Currently, the work plans negotiated with the counties require reporting on the level of enforcement activity—such as the number of inspections conducted—rather than on well-defined performance measures that measure results. Accountability will be improved by requiring the department to track data on county compliance (with clear performance goals) on an ongoing basis and to report its findings annually.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page B-90.
Catherine Freeman: 319-8321
Revise State Water Resources Control Board's fee structure so that state funding for the board's core water quality regulatory program is supported fully by fees.
Private parties that benefit from using public resources should be responsible for paying the costs imposed on society to regulate such activities. We think that the relationship between private degradation of resources is particularly strong in the case of point source water pollution (the focus of the board's core regulatory program), thereby justifying a full fee-based recovery of the (state) costs of the core regulatory program.
Please see our 2002-03 Analysis, page B-94, and our 1999-00 Analysis, page B-109.
Keely Martin Bosler: 319-8309
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 that concerns transfers on a statewide basis.
Water transfers—from one party with extra water to another party with temporary or ongoing needs—have 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 statewide 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.
Keely Martin Bosler: 319-8309