Direct the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a statewide policy to guide local enforcement and data management. 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 and consistently in order to achieve the state's air quality goals. However, state-level policies to guide local enforcement practices, including data reporting to the state, are lacking. In addition, 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.
Michelle Baass: 319-8321
Enact a user fee on Bay-Delta water diverters (water agencies and other water right-holders that "take" water from the Bay-Delta system) to pay an appropriate share of costs for CALFED activities that benefit them. Add financial planning requirements to the California Bay-Delta Authority's responsibilities.
Applying the beneficiary pays principle to CALFED funding, including enacting a user fee on water diverters, will result in a more reasonable allocation of the program's costs to those who benefit from the program. This policy is consistent with prior legislative intent and CALFED's legal framework.
The Legislature's evaluation of the administration's annual budget proposal for CALFED would be aided if it could consider that proposal in the context of a long-term financing plan for CALFED. This plan should be updated annually and lay out multiyear funding requirements as well as identify funding sources anticipated to meet those requirements.
Please see our 2004-05 Analysis, pages B-28, B-31, and B-33.
Mark C. Newton: 319-8323
Establish in state law provisions for the Environmental Water Account (EWA) program's governance, operation, and funding, and require a clear annual accounting of the program's activities and impacts.
The EWA involves the state buying water to hold in reserve to release when needed for fish protection. Although established administratively, EWA has not been enacted in state law. While the concept of EWA has merit, we believe the Legislature should state in statute the state role in EWA, particularly funding. The legislation should also address operational issues including governance, scientific review, and the acquisition and use of water by EWA.
The Legislature should have information to assess whether the program is working as intended. 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
Reduce the state's share of nonfederal costs of federally authorized flood control projects to a maximum of 50 percent.
Under current law, the state contributes between 50 percent and 70 percent of the nonfederal share of costs of federally authorized flood control projects, many of which are sponsored by a local agency. Because these projects provide direct benefits to local communities, it is reasonable for local jurisdictions to bear a larger portion of the costs than they currently do. This approach is consistent with a "beneficiary pays" principle. If the state were to reduce its contribution to between 30 percent and 50 percent of the nonfederal share of cost of future projects, substantial savings would accrue to the state. These freed-up funds could be directed to other state priorities, which might include currently underfunded floodplain mapping and other floodplain management activities.
Please see our 2004-05 Analysis, page B-93.
Brendan McCarthy: 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 to facilitate water 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. In addition, 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 The Role of Water Transfers in Meeting California's Water Needs, September 8, 1999.
Brendan McCarthy: 319-8309
Increase incentives for local governments to incorporate into their Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) recommendations of the Coastal Commission.
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.
Michelle Baass: 319-8321
Permit private water companies to be eligible to apply for Proposition 50 bond funds.
Unlike prior resources bond measures that generally restrict grant and loan funds to public agencies and nonprofit organizations, Proposition 50 is a recent bond measure that is generally silent on the issue of public versus private eligibility for these bond funds. There is a benefit from having a consistent state policy, guided by legislative direction, on the issue of allocating such bond funds to private water companies. We believe that the broad public purpose of Proposition 50 bond funds would be served by including private entities as eligible recipients of such funds.
Please see Proposition 50 Resources Bond: Funding Eligibility of Private Water Companies, May 2004.
Mark C. Newton: 319-8323
Establish a reasonable limit on, and definition of, administrative costs to be funded from both recently approved and future resources bonds.
Recent resources bond measures do not define administrative costs and, in most cases (Propositions 12, 40, and 50), 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.
Please see Enhancing Implementation and Oversight: Proposition 40 Resources Bond, May 7, 2002 and Parks and Water Bonds: Implementation Issues, May 25, 2000. Also see our 2004-05 Analysis, page B-41.
Mark C. Newton: 319-8323
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.
The Legislature previously enacted a fire protection fee of $35 per parcel of land located in SRA, pursuant to Chapter 741, Statutes of 2003 (SB 1049, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review). However, the Legislature repealed this fee prior to its initial collection, pursuant to Chapter 219, Statutes of 2004 (SB 1112, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review).
Please see our 2003-04 Analysis, page B-88.
Jenny Giambattista: 319-8325
Require fees be paid by timber operators in order 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 2003-04 Analysis, page B-60.
Jenny Giambattista: 319-8325
Provide clearer statutory direction to each state conservancy regarding the objectives of their land acquisition programs. Amend conservancies' authorizing statutes to require periodic assessments of conservancies' progress in attaining their goals and of the continued appropriateness of these objectives.
The statute establishing a conservancy often identifies goals that are broad and divergent, including goals that are difficult to reconcile—such as promoting recreation versus protecting wildlife. Accordingly, legislation clarifying and refining the conservancies' statutory missions is warranted to better ensure that the conservancies are addressing the Legislature's objectives and priorities.
Since the establishment of most conservancies, many changes have occurred in the state's development patterns and understanding of environmental and wildlife issues. Accordingly, a periodic review of conservancies to evaluate how well they are meeting their missions is warranted.
Please see California's Land Conservation Efforts: The Role of State Conservancies, January 5, 2001.
Michelle Baass: 319-8321
Improve compliance with the state's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) by authorizing the state to inspect mines on a reimbursable basis when local lead agencies are not fully meeting the act's requirements.
Responsibility to enforce SMARA is split between the state and local "lead agencies" (primarily county governments). In general, lead agencies approve mining permits and conduct annual reviews and inspections, under state oversight. However, 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) when the lead agencies fail to conduct them.
Please see our 2001-02 Analysis, page B-50.
Michelle Baass: 319-8321
| Acknowledgments
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. |
LAO Publications
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO's Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. |