The Irrigation District Law provides for the formation of irrigation districts with prescribed powers. The district law generally requires a director on the board of an irrigation district to be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents.

This bill would authorize the board of directors of the Tulelake Irrigation District to adopt a resolution that authorizes a person to be a director if the person is a landowner or a legal representative of a landowner within the division of the district, resides within the district or within one mile of any district boundary, and is a registered voter in California. The bill would authorize the registered voters in the district to request and require that a director of the district be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents, as prescribed.

The Irrigation District Law provides for the formation of irrigation districts with prescribed powers. The district law generally requires a director on the board of an irrigation district to be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents.

This bill would authorize the board of directors of the Tulelake Irrigation District to adopt a resolution that authorizes a person to be a director if the person is a landowner or a legal representative of a landowner within the division of the district, resides within the district or within one mile of any district boundary, and is a registered voter in California. The bill would authorize the registered voters in the district to request and require that a director of the district be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents, as prescribed.

The Irrigation District Law provides for the formation of irrigation districts with prescribed powers. The district law generally requires a director on the board of an irrigation district to be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents.

This bill would authorize the board of directors of the Tulelake Irrigation District to adopt a resolution that authorizes a person who to be a director if the person is a landowner or a legal representative of a landowner within the division of the district and who district, resides within the district or within one mile of any district boundary to be a director of any division of the district. boundary, and is a registered voter in California. The bill would authorize the registered voters in the district to request and require that a director of the district be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents, as prescribed.

The Irrigation District Law provides for the formation of irrigation districts with prescribed powers. The district law generally requires a director on the board of an irrigation district to be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents.

This bill would authorize, for authorize the board of directors of the Tulelake Irrigation District, every owner of real property assessed by the district, but no others, to vote at district elections for director, as prescribed. The bill would require that a director of the Tulelake Irrigation District, at the time of his or her nomination or appointment and through his or her entire term, be a registered voter in California, reside within the district or within one mile of any district boundary, and be a landowner, or a specified legal representative of a landowner, within the division he or she represents. By imposing requirements on the district in connection with district elections, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. District to adopt a resolution that authorizes a person who is a landowner within the district and who resides within the district or within one mile of any district boundary to be a director of any division of the district. The bill would authorize the registered voters in the district to request and require that a director of the district be a voter, landowner, and resident in the division of the district that the director represents, as prescribed.

The Irrigation District Law provides for the formation of irrigation districts with prescribed powers, including, among other powers, the authorization to lease part or all of the irrigation districts works whenever the leasing will benefit the irrigation district. Existing law requires the board of an irrigation district to give notice at least 3 weeks prior to making a lease by publication at least once in a newspaper published in the principal county. Existing law requires a lease to be made to the highest bidder, except as specified, and prohibits a lease from interfering with any prior right established by law.

This bill would authorize the board of an irrigation district to alternatively post notice on its Internet Web site. The bill would specify that a lease be made to the highest bidder that is responsive and would additionally prohibit the lease from interfering with any prior right established by contract. By imposing requirements on irrigation districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1816

Author:(Dahle)

As Amended Ver:May 24, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Tulelake Irrigation District (District), to adopt a resolution to make changes to the qualifications for directors.

The Senate amendments:

1. Authorize a person, who owns land in the District and resides within the residency area, to be a director only in the division in which they own land or act as the owner's legal representative.
2. Require, before a legal representative may declare his or her candidacy or be appointed to serve as director, a legal representative to present to the District a copy of his or her authority to be kept and filed with the returns of the election or the certificate of appointment.
3. Define the following terms:
   1. "Corporation" to mean "any legal entity, public or private, properly organized under the laws of the state in which it was created, that is allowed to own real property in California;" and,
   2. "Legal representative" to mean "the person authorized to act for purposes of this bill for or on behalf of a corporation, estate, or trust holding title to land within the District."

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Irrigation District Voter and Director Qualifications. California's 93 irrigation districts function under a range of statutes that are a hybrid of registered voter and landowner-voter type districts. In general, registered voters are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors (also referred to as board members) must be landowners of the district.
2. Are the Landowner Qualifications Constitutional? The California Constitution provides that the right to vote or serve in elected office may not be conditioned on a landownership qualification. However, in 1973, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court ruled in Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District that the California statute requiring a landownership qualification did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled there was no violation because those districts do not exercise normal governmental authority and their activities disproportionally affect landowners.

The California Supreme Court, in Choudhry v. Free (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 660, declared unconstitutional a section of the Irrigation District Law requiring potential board candidates to be landowners. The court ruled that this section was unconstitutional as applied to the Imperial Irrigation District and its board of directors, the real parties in interest, because it deprived the irrigation candidates and voters, including petitioner voters, of equal protection. The court's opinion gave two reasons it did not extend its ruling to other irrigation districts. First, the Imperial Irrigation District was singular at that time among irrigation districts in that it had more residents, land, and employees than any other irrigation district and it was providing retail water service. Second, neither respondents nor real parties in interest had opposed petitioners' claim that Water Code Section 21100 was unconstitutional, and numerous irrigation districts in the state that would have been affected by a finding of unconstitutionality did not have the opportunity to present their views or offer evidence regarding the characteristics and operation of irrigation districts in general.

1. Bill Summary and Senate Amendments. Under existing law, directors of the District are registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division they represent. The Legislature has authorized several irrigation districts: Pixley Irrigation District, Hills Valley Irrigation District, Stratford Irrigation District, and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, to allow nonresident and nonvoter landowners to serve on the board of directors, if the board passes a resolution. There are protections in existing law that establish protest proceedings for resident voters in each of the Districts, if they do not want nonresident and nonvoter landowners to serve as directors.

This bill mirrors provisions in existing law for several other irrigation districts and authorizes the District to adopt a resolution in a public hearing to allow nonvoter nonresident landowners who live within one mile of the District's boundaries to serve as a director. This bill also includes the ability for registered voters to protest the change to allow landowners of the District, who are residents within the residency area defined by this bill, to serve on the board. According to the District, there are 200 landowners within the residency area defined by this bill, who would then qualify to be a director.

Senate amendments authorize the legal representative of a person that owns land within the District to serve as a director, if the District adopts a resolution to authorize nonvoter nonresident landowners to serve as directors. Additionally, Senate amendments limit where a landowner may serve as a director to only the division in which they own land. This bill is sponsored by the District.

1. The District. The Tulelake Irrigation District is located within the Upper Klamath Basin and includes land in both Modoc and Siskiyou counties. The District has an exterior boundary that includes 96,000 acres, and its northern boundary is contiguous to the border between California and Oregon. The District's governing body is a five-member board of directors. According to Modoc County Local Agency Formation Commission's municipal service review, the District was formed in 1952, and entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1956 for repayment of construction charges and the transfer to the District the maintenance of the facilities used to deliver water to District lands. In 1957, the Board of Directors approved the formation of an improvement district to operate and maintain pumps, dikes, and drainage facilities already constructed by landowners and to apportion all charges among several landowners according to the number of acres of land owned. The District only provides water services for agricultural purposes and is financed by assessments on landowners.
2. Prior Legislation. The Assembly Local Government Committee has heard several bills addressing qualification requirements for both voters and directors of irrigation districts. There have been several legislative attempts that have sought to limit landowner qualifications for board directors: SB 614 (Wolk), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2013; SB 1939 (Alarcón), Chapter 1041, Statutes of 2000; AB 2279 (Dymally) of 2004; and, AB 159 (Salinas), Chapter 847, Statutes of 2006.

Several bills seeking to make changes to voter and director qualifications for individual irrigation districts were never heard by a policy committee or failed passage. SB 1189 (Florez) of 2006, which was never heard by the Senate Local Government Committee, would have required voters to be landowners instead of registered voters in the Alpaugh Irrigation District. AB 286 (Matthews) of 2005, which failed passage in the Senate Local Government Committee, would have allowed the Board of Directors of the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to adopt a resolution to allow non-resident landowners to serve on the board. The introduced version of this bill was nearly identical to AB 386 (Dahle) of 2015, which was never heard by the Assembly Local Government Committee.

1. Policy Considerations. The Legislature may wish to consider that there are other approaches to widening the pool of eligible directors besides allowing nonvoter and nonresident landowners to serve as directors.
   1. Resident Non-landowner Directors. The principal acts for almost all other types of special districts do not require landownership as a qualification for office. The Legislature may wish to consider allowing resident voters, who are not landowners, to be eligible to serve on the board as a director. The Legislature has established an exemption to the landowner requirements in existing law for the South Bay Irrigation District.
   2. Size and Divisions. Existing law provides a process for irrigation districts to change the number of divisions or the method of electing directors. Due to the expressed challenges by the District in getting five directors to serve, who are registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division, the Legislature may wish to consider, if a three-member board or removing the divisions in the District would help remedy these challenges.

Arguments in Support. The District argues "The District has had difficulty finding landowners who are willing and eligible to serve on its Board of Directors given the current requirement that Directors live in the Division they represent."

Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003473

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1816

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/15/16

AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/5/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Tulelake Irrigation District

DIGEST: This bill allows certain non-residents to serve on the Tulelake Irrigation District Board of Directors.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the powers, governance structure, and election requirements for irrigation districts.
2. Requires that each voter of an irrigation district be a resident registered to vote in the district.
3. Requires that each director of an irrigation district be a voter, a landowner in the district, and a resident of the division of the district that he or she represents at the time of nomination or appointment and through the entire term, unless elected at a formation hearing.
4. Creates, under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, a local agency formation commission (LAFCO) in each county to control the boundaries of cities, county service areas, and most special districts.

This bill:

1. Authorizes the Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) board of directors to adopt a resolution that authorizes a person to be a director if the person:
   1. Is a registered voter in California,
   2. Lives within the “residency area,” defined as the land within the district’s boundaries or within one mile of any boundary, and
   3. Owns property within the division or is a property owner’s legal representative.
2. Defines legal representative to mean the person authorized to act on behalf of a corporation that is allowed to own property in California.
3. Requires a legal representative to present to the district a copy of his or her authority to represent the corporation prior to declaring candidacy or being appointed to the board.
4. Requires that, upon written request by at least 25% of the registered voters in the district, all directors must meet the requirements in current law for directors of irrigation districts.

Background

California’s 93 irrigation districts function under a collection of statutes known as the Irrigation District Law that describe their governance structure and authority. In general, these districts are governed by a five-member board of directors, with each member representing a division within the district. In most cases, registered voters are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors (also referred to as board members) must be voters, landowners, and residents in the division of the district they represent.

The Legislature has provided specific exemptions from the residency requirement for directors by enacting special legislation for four districts: Pixley Irrigation District, Hills Valley Irrigation District, Stratford Irrigation District, and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. The Legislature authorized all of these districts to have non-resident directors in 1994.

The TID spans 96,000 acres of land in both Modoc and Siskiyou counties, near the Oregon border. The District was formed in 1952 to deliver water to TID lands from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation projects. In 1957, TID took over operation and maintenance of existing water infrastructure that landowners had already constructed. TID only provides water services for agricultural purposes and is financed by assessments on landowners, based on the number of acres owned. TID’s governing body is a five-member board of directors, each representing a division of the district. Currently, TID directors must meet all the criteria required by irrigation district statutes, such as being a resident and landowner in the division that he or she represents.

TID currently encompasses about 400 landowners. However, 158 of them reside outside of the district’s boundaries, including 16 landowners that reside within one mile of the district’s boundaries, along a surrounding ridge. Because they live outside of the district, these landowners are ineligible to serve on the board. The TID board of directors wants to expand the pool of candidates that are eligible to sit on the board of directors.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Currently, directors of the TID must be residents, landowners, and registered voters in the division that they represent. These stringent requirements, coupled with the unique topography of TID and the surrounding area, have drastically reduced the number of candidates that are eligible to serve on the board. Specifically, more than one third of the landowners in the district reside outside of the boundaries of the district, making them ineligible. In one division, there are currently only two potential candidates for a division seat. AB 1816 allows landowners who reside within one mile of TID’s boundaries to sit on the board of directors, expanding the pool of candidates while maintaining a close connection between the directors and the agricultural activities in the district. These simple changes are consistent with previous efforts to allow more candidates to run for irrigation board seats and promote democratic ideals by ensuring robust electoral competition.
2. Close, but no cigar. With rare exceptions, elected officials must reside within the boundaries of the agency that they represent. Of the 93 irrigation districts in California, only four allow for directors to reside outside the district that they represent. LAFCOs were formed in each county to act as an arm of the Legislature to determine boundaries while considering local conditions. While the current TID boundaries may limit the pool of candidates, Modoc LAFCO has the ability to expand its boundaries to encompass the residency area described in AB 1816, or to include any other relevant territory based on local conditions. For example, the LAFCO might determine that there are more logical changes to TID’s boundaries than simply expanding the district one mile in all directions. Yet TID has not applied to Modoc LAFCO to increase its jurisdiction. Moreover, all of the other districts that allow directors to reside outside of the district were given that authority prior to the comprehensive changes to local government boundary-setting that the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act enacted. AB 1816 chips away at the role of LAFCOs, potentially setting an undesired precedent. Is this bill necessary given the option to pursue a boundary change through LAFCO?

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/17/16)

Tulelake Irrigation District (source)

Association of California Water Agencies

Ben DuVal Farms, Inc.

City of Tulelake

Frey Farms

Gold Dust Potato Processors, Inc.

Jeff and Leslie Boyd Farms

JW Farming, LLC

Klamath Water Users Association

McKoen & Son

Modoc County Board of Supervisors

Modoc County Farm Bureau

Potato Karma

Seus Family Farms, Inc.

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors

Staunton Farms

Tally Ho Farms

WJB, LLC

One individual farmer

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/17/16)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/5/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Eggman, Beth Gaines, Santiago

Prepared by:

6/17/16 15:03:50

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Tulelake Irrigation District

Allows certain non-residents to serve on the Tulelake Irrigation District Board of Directors.

Background

Irrigation Districts. California’s 93 irrigation districts function under a collection of statutes known as the Irrigation District Law that describe their governance structure and authority. In general, these districts are governed by a five member board of directors, with each member representing a division within the district. In most cases, registered voters are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors (also referred to as board members) must be voters, landowners, and residents in the division of the district they represent. This landowner requirement reflects the historical role of irrigation districts to exclusively provide irrigation water to agricultural land. However, as California's population has grown, more and more residential and commercial development is encroaching on agricultural land. In response to this growth, many irrigation districts began providing retail water service to residential customers that live within their jurisdictions in the absence of traditional retail water suppliers in the area, or providing electricity services.

Recognizing this trend, the Legislature has taken steps in the past few decades to allow registered voters who do not own land to be directors in some districts. Specifically, the Legislature deleted the landowner qualification for board members of irrigation districts that provide electricity (SB 1939, Alarcón, 2000) and removed the landowner requirement for irrigation districts that provide 3,000 or more acre-feet of water to residential customers or that have more than 3,000 customers (AB 159, Salinas, 2006).

However, the Legislature has also provided specific exemptions from the residency requirement for directors by enacting special legislation for four districts: Pixley Irrigation District, Hills Valley Irrigation District, Stratford Irrigation District, and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. The Legislature authorized all of these districts to have non-resident directors in 1994.

Tulelake Irrigation District. The Tulelake Irrigation District (TID) spans 96,000 acres of land in both Modoc and Siskiyou counties, near the Oregon border. The District was formed in 1952 to deliver water to TID lands from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation projects. In 1957, TID took over operation and maintenance of existing water infrastructure that landowners had already constructed. TID only provides water services for agricultural purposes and is financed by assessments on landowners, based on the number of acres owned. TID’s governing body is a five member board of directors, each representing a division of the district. Currently, TID directors must meet all the criteria required by irrigation district statutes, such as being a resident and landowner in the division that he or she represents.

LAFCOs. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act creates a local agency formation commission (LAFCO) in each county to control the boundaries of cities, county service areas, and most special districts. The courts repeatedly refer to LAFCOs as the Legislature’s watchdog over boundary changes. LAFCOs are responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structures, and preparing a sphere of influence for each city and special district within each county. The Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Act establishes procedures for local government changes of organization, including city incorporations, disincorporations, annexations to a city or special district, and city and special district consolidations. LAFCOs regulate boundary changes by approving or denying applications by other public agencies or individuals for these procedures.

In the case of special districts that span more than one county, the LAFCO for the county in which the majority of the assessed value lies has exclusive jurisdiction over the boundaries of the special district; accordingly, Modoc LAFCO has jurisdiction over TID.

TID currently encompasses about 400 landowners. However, 158 of them reside outside of the district’s boundaries, including 16 landowners that reside within one mile of the district’s boundaries, along a surrounding ridge. Because they live outside of the district, these landowners are ineligible to serve on the board. The TID board of directors wants to expand the pool of candidates that are eligible to sit on the board of directors.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 1816 authorizes the TID board of directors to adopt a resolution that authorizes a person to be a director if the person:

• Is a registered voter in California,
• Lives within the “residency area,” defined as the land within the district’s boundaries or within one mile of any boundary, and
• Owns property within the division or is a property owner’s legal representative.

AB 1816 defines legal representative to mean the person authorized to act on behalf of a corporation that is allowed to own property in California. It also requires a legal representative to present to the district a copy of his or her authority to represent the corporation prior to declaring candidacy or being appointed to the board.

AB 1816 requires that, upon written request by at least 25% of the registered voters in the district, all directors must meet the requirements in current law for directors of irrigation districts.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Currently, directors of the Tulelake Irrigation District must be residents, landowners, and registered voters in the division that they represent. These stringent requirements, coupled with the unique topography of TID and the surrounding area, have drastically reduced the number of candidates that are eligible to serve on the board. Specifically, more than one third of the landowners in the district reside outside of the boundaries of the district, making them ineligible. In one division, there are currently only two potential candidates for a division seat. AB 1816 allows landowners who reside within one mile of TID’s boundaries to sit on the board of directors, expanding the pool of candidates while maintaining a close connection between the directors and the agricultural activities in the district. These simple changes are consistent with previous efforts to allow more candidates to run for irrigation board seats and promote democratic ideals by ensuring robust electoral competition.

2. Close, but no cigar. With rare exceptions, elected officials must reside within the boundaries of the agency that they represent. Of the 93 irrigation districts in California, only four allow for directors to reside outside the district that they represent. LAFCOs were formed in each county to act as an arm of the Legislature to determine boundaries while considering local conditions. While the current TID boundaries may limit the pool of candidates, Modoc LAFCO has the ability to expand its boundaries to encompass the residency area described in AB 1816, or to include any other relevant territory based on local conditions. For example, the LAFCO might determine that there are more logical changes to TID’s boundaries than simply expanding the district one mile in all directions. Yet TID has not applied to Modoc LAFCO to increase its jurisdiction. Moreover, all of the other districts that allow directors to reside outside of the district were given that authority prior to the comprehensive changes to local government boundary-setting that the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act enacted. AB 1816 chips away at the role of LAFCOs, potentially setting an undesired precedent. The Committee may wish to consider whether this bill is necessary given the option to pursue a boundary change through LAFCO.

3. Equal representation. The California Supreme Court, in Choudhry v. Free (1976), declared unconstitutional a section of the Irrigation District Law requiring potential board candidates to be landowners. The court ruled that this section was unconstitutional as applied to the Imperial Irrigation District and its board of directors because it deprived the irrigation candidates and voters of fairness and equality in the electoral process. It did not, however, seek to determine whether this was the case for all irrigation districts that have landowner requirements for technical reasons. AB 1816 maintains the landowner requirement for holding office, raising questions about the fairness of the electoral process. Furthermore, AB 1816 authorizes directors to reside outside of the district but does not authorize residents in that area to vote, with the potential side effect that some director candidates may not be able to vote in their own election. The Committee may wish to consider whether eliminating the landowner requirement within the current boundaries could achieve the same goal of increasing the pool of candidates while potentially improving the representativeness of the board and avoiding an absurd result.

4. Prior Legislation. AB 1816 is similar to AB 386 (Dahle, 2015), which would have authorized landowners in the district that live within 10 miles of the boundaries of the district to serve as candidates on the board. However, AB 386 also included significant changes to the voting structure in the district that would have required a resident to own property in order to vote, and would have weighted votes based on the number of acres owned. AB 386 was never heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Local Government Committee: 9-0

Assembly Floor: 77-0

Support and Opposition

(6/9/16)

Support: Tulelake Irrigation District (sponsor); Association of California Water Agencies; Ben DuVal Farms, Inc; City of Tulelake; Frey Farms; Gold Dust Potato Processors, Inc; Jeff and Leslie Boyd Farms; JW Farming, LLC; Klamath Water Users Association; McKoen & Son; Modoc County Board of Supervisors; Modoc County Farm Bureau; Nicholas Scott; Potato Karma; Seus Family Farms, Inc; Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors; Staunton Farms; Tally Ho Farms; WJB, LLC.

Opposition: Unknown.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1816

Author:(Dahle)

As Amended Ver:April 25, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Tulelake Irrigation District (District), to adopt a resolution to make changes to the qualifications for directors. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes the District's Board of Directors to adopt a resolution that authorizes a person, who owns land in the District and resides within the residency area, to be a director of any division in the District.
2. Authorizes registered voters in the District to request, in writing, that all of the directors, who are appointed or elected subsequent to the receipt of the request, be required to meet all of the requirements in existing law for directors to be registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division they represent. Requires the request to be submitted to the District's Board of Directors.
3. Requires, if the Board of Directors determines that at least 25% of the registered voters in the District have signed the request submitted under 2), above, all of the directors following the receipt of the request to meet all of the requirements under existing law for directors to be registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division they represent.
4. Defines the following terms:
   1. "District" to mean "Tulelake Irrigation District, originally formed as Tule Lake Irrigation District."
   2. "Residency area" to mean "land within the District or land within one mile of any district boundary."

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that each voter of an irrigation district be a resident registered to vote in the district.
2. Requires that each director of an irrigation district be a voter, a landowner in the district, and a resident of the division of the district that he or she represents at the time of nomination or appointment and through the entire term, unless elected at a formation hearing.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Irrigation District Voter and Director Qualifications. California's 93 irrigation districts function under a range of statutes that are a hybrid of registered voter and landowner-voter type districts. In general, registered voters are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors (also referred to as board members) must be landowners of the district. Originally drafted in 1897, the provisions requiring directors to be landowners in the Irrigation District Law were drafted to recognize that landowners (at that time) were the only ones affected by the decisions that irrigation district boards made. The Legislature has recognized landowners' special concerns for irrigation districts' operations by creating unique separate statutes that preserve the landowner requirement to vote in districts that primarily deliver agricultural water. Some of these districts have landownership, but not residency requirements. These provisions in current law for individual irrigation districts either contain a process to allow the irrigation district to internally change to a landowner voter district, pursuant to a resolution of the governing board and a protest process, or make the change statutorily, as this bill would do for the District. However, the Legislature has not passed a bill limiting voting to landowners for an individual irrigation district in over 15 years.

Historically, irrigation districts only provided irrigation water services to agricultural land. However, as California's population has grown, more and more residential and commercial development is encroaching on agricultural land. In response to this growth, many irrigation districts began providing retail water service to residential customers that live within their jurisdictions in the absence of traditional retail water suppliers in the area. This trend has caused the Legislature to reevaluate these landowner restrictions, both uniformly and on a case-by-case basis.

1. Are the Landowner Qualifications Constitutional? The California Constitution provides that the right to vote or serve in elected office may not be conditioned on a landownership qualification. However, in 1973, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court ruled in Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District that the California statute requiring a landownership qualification did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled there was no violation because those districts do not exercise normal governmental authority and their activities disproportionally affect landowners.

The California Supreme Court, in Choudhry v. Free (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 660, declared unconstitutional a section of the Irrigation District Law requiring potential board candidates to be landowners. The court ruled that this section was unconstitutional as applied to the Imperial Irrigation District and its board of directors, the real parties in interest, because it deprived the irrigation candidates and voters, including petitioner voters, of equal protection. The court's opinion gave two reasons it did not extend its ruling to other irrigation districts. First, the Imperial Irrigation District was singular at that time among irrigation districts in that it had more residents, land, and employees than any other irrigation district and it was providing retail water service. Second, neither respondents nor real parties in interest had opposed petitioners' claim that Water Code Section 21100 was unconstitutional, and numerous irrigation districts in the state that would have been affected by a finding of unconstitutionality did not have the opportunity to present their views or offer evidence regarding the characteristics and operation of irrigation districts in general.

1. Bill Summary. Under existing law, directors of the District are registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division they represent. The Legislature has authorized several irrigation districts: Pixley Irrigation District, Hills Valley Irrigation District, Stratford Irrigation District, and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, to allow nonresident and nonvoter landowners to serve on the board of directors, if the board passes a resolution. There are protections in existing law that establish protest proceedings for resident voters in each of the Districts, if they do not want nonresident and nonvoter landowners to serve as directors.

This bill mirrors provisions in existing law for several other irrigation districts and authorizes the District to adopt a resolution in a public hearing to allow nonvoter nonresident landowners who live within one mile of the District's boundaries to serve as a director. This bill also includes the ability for registered voters to protest the change to allow landowners of the District, who are residents within the residency area defined by this bill, to serve on the board. According to the District, there are 200 landowners within the residency area defined by this bill, who would then qualify to be a director. This bill is sponsored by the District.

1. The District. The Tulelake Irrigation District is located within the Upper Klamath Basin and includes land in both Modoc and Siskiyou counties. The District has an exterior boundary that includes 96,000 acres, and its northern boundary is contiguous to the border between California and Oregon. The District's governing body is a five-member board of directors. According to Modoc County Local Agency Formation Commission's municipal service review, the District was formed in 1952, and entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1956 for repayment of construction charges and the transfer to the District the maintenance of the facilities used to deliver water to District lands. In 1957, the Board of Directors approved the formation of an improvement district to operate and maintain pumps, dikes, and drainage facilities already constructed by landowners and to apportion all charges among several landowners according to the number of acres of land owned. The District only provides water services for agricultural purposes and is financed by assessments on landowners.
2. Author's Statement. According to the author, "The current system of qualifying and electing directors of TID [Tulelake Irrigation District] is failing. The current residency requirements preclude those with an interest in the proper functioning of the irrigation district from running. Directors who may wish to step down are concerned that a dearth of potential candidates exists and are therefore continuing to serve long past their preferred tenure. TID exists in the very rural northern part of the state and provides no municipal services. The TID leadership has come to the realization that candidates for board seats will more likely be found once potential candidates realize that the operations and governance of the irrigation district are directly tied to the farmland that they own and operate."
3. Prior Legislation. The Assembly Local Government Committee has heard a number of bills addressing qualification requirements for both voters and directors of irrigation districts. There have been several legislative attempts that have sought to limit landowner qualifications for board directors. SB 614 (Wolk), Chapter 784, Statutes of 2013, would have removed the landownership requirement from the list of qualifications to serve as a director of an irrigation district, if the district provided water for agricultural purposes and water for municipal or industrial purposes. SB 1939 (Alarcón), Chapter 1041, Statutes of 2000, deleted the landowner qualification for board members of irrigation districts that provide electricity. AB 2279 (Dymally) of 2004 would have deleted the landowner qualification for board members of most irrigation districts, but failed passage in the Senate Local Government Committee. AB 159 (Salinas), Chapter 847, Statutes of 2006, removed the landowner requirement for irrigation districts that are required to submit an urban water management, and thus, provide 3,000 or more acre-feet of water to residential customers or that have more than 3,000 customers.

Several bills seeking to make changes to voter and director qualifications for individual irrigation districts were never heard by a policy committee or failed passage. SB 1189 (Florez) of 2006, which was never heard by the Senate Local Government Committee, would have required voters to be landowners instead of registered voters in the Alpaugh Irrigation District. When AB 1189 was before the Legislature, the Alpaugh Irrigation District only had 131 registered voters, and only six of those registered voters were landowners eligible to serve on the board. AB 286 (Matthews) of 2005, which failed passage in the Senate Local Government Committee, would have allowed the Board of Directors of the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to adopt a resolution to allow non-resident landowners to serve on the board. This introduced version of this bill was nearly identical to AB 386 (Dahle) of 2015, which was never heard by the Committee.

1. Policy Considerations. The Legislature may wish to consider that there are other approaches to widening the pool of eligible directors besides allowing nonvoter and nonresident landowners to serve as directors.
   1. Resident Non-landowner Directors. The principal acts for almost all other types of special districts do not require landownership as a qualification for office. The Legislature may wish to consider allowing resident voters, who are not landowners, to be eligible to serve on the board as a director. The Legislature has established an exemption to the landowner requirements in existing law for the South Bay Irrigation District.
   2. Size and Divisions. Existing law provides a process for irrigation districts to change the number of divisions or the method of electing directors. Due to the expressed challenges by the District in getting five directors to serve, who are registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division, the Legislature may wish to consider, if a three-member board or removing the divisions in the District would help remedy these challenges.
2. Arguments in Support. The District argues "The District has had difficulty finding landowners who are willing and eligible to serve on its Board of Directors given the current requirement that Directors live in the Division they represent."

Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0002858

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1816 (

Author:Dahle) – As Amended Ver:March 31, 2016

SUBJECT: Tulelake Irrigation District.

SUMMARY: Makes changes to the qualifications for voters and directors in the Tulelake Irrigation District (District), including a requirement that voters be landowners, instead of registered voters in the District. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires voters in the District to be owners of real property assessed by the District, instead of registered voters, in order to vote in District elections.
2. Establishes a weighted vote system that provides landowners with either one, two, or three votes based on the total number of assessed acres owned in the division, as follows:
   1. For 50 or fewer assessed acres, one vote;
   2. For more than 50, but no more than 250 assessed acres, two votes; and,
   3. For more than 250 assessed acres, three votes.
3. Requires each director of the District, at the time of his or her nomination or appointment through the entire term, to meet the following requirements:
   1. Be a registered voter in California;
   2. Reside within the residency area, as defined by this bill; and,
   3. Be a landowner within the division he or she represents or a legal representative of a landowner within the division he or she represents.
4. Defines the following terms:
   1. "Corporation" to mean "any legal entity, public or private, properly organized under the laws of the state in which it was created, that is allowed to own real property in California;"
   2. "Legal representative" to mean "a person authorized to act for or on behalf of a corporation, estate, or trust holding title to land within the District;" and,
   3. "Residency area" to mean "land within the District or land within one mile of any District boundary".
5. Provides that the last District assessment roll is conclusive evidence of ownership and the number of assessed acres owned by the voter in the division.
6. Requires, if land is owned in joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or any other multiple ownership, the owners of the land to designate in writing, as specified, which owner is deemed the owner of the land for purposes of qualifying as a voter. Requires the designation to be made upon a form provided by the District. Requires the form to be filed with the District at least 40 days prior to the election and remains in effect until amended or revoked. Prohibits any amendment or revocation to occur within the period of 39 days prior to the election.
7. Allows the legal representative of a corporation, estate, or trust owning real property to vote on behalf of the corporation or estate, including a designee. Requires a legal representative, before voting, to present the District a copy of his or her authority.
8. Authorizes every voter, or representative, to vote at any District election either in person or by a person appointed as a proxy. Requires the appointment of a proxy, pursuant to the existing process for California Water Districts.
9. Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made, pursuant to current law, governing state mandated local costs.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that each voter of an irrigation district be a resident registered to vote in the district.
2. Requires that each director of an irrigation district be a voter, a landowner in the district, and a resident of the division of the district that he or she represents at the time of nomination or appointment and through the entire term, unless elected at a formation hearing.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Irrigation District Voter and Director Qualifications. California’s 93 irrigation districts function under a range of statutes that are a hybrid of registered voter and landowner-voter type districts. In general, registered voters are eligible to vote in district elections, but directors (also referred to as board members) must be landowners of the district. Originally drafted in 1897, the provisions requiring directors to be landowners in the Irrigation District Law were drafted to recognize that landowners (at that time) were the only ones affected by the decisions that irrigation district boards made. The Legislature has recognized landowners' special concerns for irrigation districts' operations by creating unique separate statutes that preserve the landowner requirement to vote in districts that primarily deliver agricultural water. Some of these districts have landownership, but not residency requirements. These provisions in current law for individual irrigation districts either contain a process to allow the irrigation district to internally change to a landowner voter district, pursuant to a resolution of the governing board and a protest process, or make the change statutorily, as this bill would do for the District. However, the Legislature has not passed a bill limiting voting to landowners for an individual irrigation district in over 15 years.

Historically, irrigation districts only provided irrigation water services to agricultural land. However, as California's population has grown, more and more residential and commercial development is encroaching on agricultural land. In response to this growth, many irrigation districts began providing retail water service to residential customers that live within their jurisdictions in the absence of traditional retail water suppliers in the area. This trend has caused the Legislature to reevaluate these landowner restrictions, both uniformly and on a case-by-case basis.

1. Are the Landowner Qualifications Constitutional? The California Constitution provides that the right to vote or serve in elected office may not be conditioned on a landownership qualification. However, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District that the California statute requiring a landownership qualification did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled there was no violation because those districts do not exercise normal governmental authority and their activities disproportionally affect landowners.

The California Supreme Court, in Choudhry v. Free (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 660, declared unconstitutional a section of the Irrigation District Law requiring potential board candidates to be landowners. The court ruled that this section was unconstitutional as applied to the Imperial Irrigation District and its board of directors, the real parties in interest, because it deprived the irrigation candidates and voters, including petitioner voters, of equal protection. The court's opinion gave two reasons it did not extend its ruling to other irrigation districts. First, the Imperial Irrigation District was singular at that time among irrigation districts in that it had more residents, land, and employees than any other irrigation district and it was providing retail water service. Second, neither respondents nor real parties in interest had opposed petitioners' claim that Water Code Section 21100 was unconstitutional, and numerous irrigation districts in the state that would have been affected by a finding of unconstitutionality did not have the opportunity to present their views or offer evidence regarding the characteristics and operation of irrigation districts in general.

1. Bill Summary. This bill establishes a separate provision in Irrigation District Law for the District and specifies voter and director qualifications.

Voters. Under existing law, voters in the District are registered voters. Under this bill, voters in the District would be landowners. In other words, this bill allows all owners of real property assessed by the District to vote, but non-landowner registered voters within the District would no longer be eligible to vote. Under this bill, any owner of property assessed by the District, regardless of whether they live on their property in the District, would be eligible to vote in elections. Additionally, this bill establishes a weighted vote system based on the total number of acres owned within a division of the District. Landowners of 50 or fewer acres would get one vote, 50 to 250 acres would get two votes, and more than 250 acres would get three votes. This bill also makes a number of other changes to the qualifications of voters to address different types of ownership and the use of a legal representative or proxy.

Directors. Under existing law, directors of the District are registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division they represent. This bill makes changes to the qualifications for directors to allow landowners who do not live within the division or even within the District to serve as a director. Under this bill, owners of assessed parcels would need to fulfill three qualifications during the time of nomination or appointment and through the entire term as director: a) be a registered voter in California; b) reside within the boundaries of the District or on land within one mile of the District's boundary; and, c) be a landowner within the division they represent. This bill is sponsored by the District.

1. The District. The Tulelake Irrigation District is located within the Upper Klamath Basin and includes land in both Modoc and Siskiyou counties. The District has an exterior boundary that includes 96,000 acres, and its northern boundary is contiguous to the border between California and Oregon. The District's governing body is a five-member board of directors. According to Modoc County Local Agency Formation Commission's municipal service review, the District was formed in 1952, and entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau
   of Reclamation in 1956 for repayment of construction charges and the transfer to the District the maintenance of the facilities used to deliver water to District lands. In 1957, the Board
   of Directors approved the formation of an improvement district to operate and maintain pumps, dikes, and drainage facilities already constructed by landowners and to apportion all charges among several landowners according to the number of acres of land owned. The District only provides water services for agricultural purposes and is financed by assessments on landowners.
2. Author's Statement. According to the author, "The current system of qualifying and electing directors of TID [Tulelake Irrigation District] is failing. The current residency requirements preclude those with an interest in the proper functioning of the irrigation district from running. Directors who may wish to step down are concerned that a dearth of potential candidates exists and are therefore continuing to serve long past their preferred tenure. TID exists in the very rural northern part of the state and provides no municipal services. The TID leadership has come to the realization that candidates for board seats will more likely be found once potential candidates realize that the operations and governance of the irrigation district are directly tied to the farmland that they own and operate. TID held a community workshop on 3/15/16 to which residents and landowners were properly noticed and invited to discuss the pending amendments. No opposition was expressed by those in attendance."
3. Prior Legislation. This Committee has heard a number of bills addressing qualification requirements for both voters and directors of irrigation districts. There have been several legislative attempts that have sought to limit landowner qualifications for board directors. SB 614 (Wolk) of 2013 would have removed the landownership requirement from the list
   of qualifications to serve as a director of an irrigation district, if the district provided water for agricultural purposes and water for municipal or industrial purposes. SB 1939 (Alarcón), Chapter 1041, Statutes of 2000, deleted the landowner qualification for board members of irrigation districts that provide electricity. AB 2279 (Dymally) of 2004 would have deleted the landowner qualification for board members of most irrigation districts, but failed passage in the Senate Local Government Committee. AB 159 (Salinas), Chapter 847, Statutes of 2006, removed the landowner requirement for irrigation districts that are required to submit an urban water management, and thus, provide 3,000 or more acre-feet of water to residential customers or that have more than 3,000 customers.

Several bills seeking to make changes to voter and director qualifications for individual irrigation districts were never heard by a policy committee or failed passage. SB 1189 (Florez) of 2006, which was never heard by the Senate Local Government Committee, would have required voters to be landowners instead of registered voters in the Alpaugh Irrigation District. When AB 1189 was before the Legislature, the Alpaugh Irrigation District only had 131 registered voters, and only six of those registered voters were landowners eligible to serve on the board. AB 286 (Matthews) of 2005, which failed passage in the Senate Local Government Committee, would have allowed the Board of Directors of the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to adopt a resolution to allow non-resident landowners to serve on the board. This bill is nearly identical to AB 386 (Dahle) of 2015, which was never heard by the Committee.

1. Committee Amendments. The Committee may wish to consider the following alternatives to restricting the right to vote based on land ownership:
   1. Voters. The author argues that there are not enough potential candidates to serve on the Board. The Committee may wish to consider, if these arguments justify imposing the qualification of landownership on the right to vote. Further, the Committee may wish to consider that 200 registered voters within the District would no longer be eligible to vote because they do not own land.

In light of these considerations, the Committee may wish to ask the author to remove all portions of the bill that would require landownership as a qualification to vote and maintain the qualifications in current law for irrigation districts, which designates registered voters as the voters of the District. The Committee may wish to ask the author to remove subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) from the bill.

• 1. Directors. The Legislature has authorized several irrigation districts: Pixley Irrigation District, Hills Valley Irrigation District, Stratford Irrigation District, and Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, to allow nonresident and nonvoter landowners to serve on the board
     of directors, if the board passes a resolution. There are protections in existing law that establish protest proceedings for resident voters in each of the Districts, if they do not want nonresident and nonvoter landowners to serve as directors.

In light of these considerations, the Committee may wish to ask the author to amend subdivision (g) in the bill to mirror existing law, which would authorize the District to modify the residency requirements for the qualifications for directors. The Committee may wish to ask the author to authorize the District to adopt a resolution, in a public hearing subject to protest proceedings, to allow landowners of the District, who are residents within the residency area defined by this bill, to serve on the board. According to the District, there are 200 landowners within the residency area defined by this bill, who would then qualify to be a director.

1. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider there are other approaches to widening the pool of eligible directors besides allowing nonvoter and nonresident landowners to serve as directors.
   1. Resident Non-landowner Directors. The principal acts for almost all other types of special districts do not require landownership as a qualification for office. The Committee may wish to consider allowing resident voters, who are not landowners, to be eligible to serve on the board as a director. The Legislature has established an exemption to the landowner requirements in existing law for the South Bay Irrigation District.
   2. Size and Divisions. Existing law provides a process for irrigation districts to change the number of divisions or the method of electing directors. Due to the expressed challenges by the District in getting five directors to serve, who are registered voters, landowners, and residents within the division, the Committee may wish to consider, if a three-member board or removing the divisions in the District would help remedy these challenges.
2. Arguments in Support. The District argues "AB 1816 will change the qualifications for voters and those seeking to serve on the District's Board of Directors, expanding the pool of eligible Directors and implementing a tired voting structure based on land ownership. The District has had difficulty finding landowners who are willing and eligible to serve on its Board of Directors given the current requirement that Directors live in the Division they represent."
3. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Tulelake Irrigation District [SPONSOR]

City of Tulelake

Modoc County Board of Supervisors

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Misa Lennox / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958