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 provide that, for the Tulelake Irrigation District, every owner of real property assessed by the district and located within its boundaries, district, but no others, is authorized to vote at district elections for directors. director, as prescribed. The bill would provide 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, is required to be a registered voter in the state California, reside within the territory of the district or within 10 miles of the exterior boundaries of the district and within California, and be a landowner, or a specified legal representative of a landowner, within the division he or she represents at the time of his or her nomination or appointment and through his or her entire term. represents. By imposing requirements on the district and the county in connection with district elections, this 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

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 provide that for the Tulelake Irrigation District every owner of real property assessed by the district and located within its boundaries, but no others, is authorized to vote at district elections for directors. The bill would provide that a director of the Tulelake Irrigation District is required to be a registered voter in the state, reside within the territory of the district, and be a landowner within the division he or she represents at the time of his or her nomination or appointment and through his or her entire term. By imposing requirements on the district and the county in connection with district elections, this 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Brian Maienschein, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 386

Author:(Dahle) – As Amended Ver:March 24, 2015

SUBJECT: Tulelake Irrigation District.

SUMMARY: Makes changes to the qualifications for voters and directors in the Tulelake Irrigation District (District), and requires voters to 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.

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;"

3. "Residency area" to mean both of the following:

1. Land within the exterior boundaries of the District; and,

2. Land within 10 miles of the exterior boundaries of the District and within California.

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 his or her nomination or appointment and through his or her entire term, unless elected at a formation hearing.

3. Provides that, in any district having no more than 15 landowners who are voters in the district, a person need not be a voter in order to be a qualified director, if he or she is a landowner of the district at the time they are nominated or appointed and during their entire term.

4. Provides that a director of a district that submits an Urban Water Management Plan does not have to be a landowner within the district, if appointed or elected on or after January 1, 2007.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

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 continued to recognize 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 outright legislatively, 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 a decade.

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.

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 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.

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

Under existing law, voters in the District are registered voters. This bill allows all owners
of real property assessed by the District to vote, but no others. Under this bill, any owner
of property assessed by the District, regardless of where they reside, would be eligible to vote in elections and any non-landowner registered to vote within the District would no longer be eligible to vote. 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.

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 exterior boundaries of the District or on land within 10 miles of the exterior boundaries of the District within California; and, c) be a landowner within the division they represent.

This bill is sponsored by the District.

4. 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.

5. Author's Statement. According to the author, "Currently the District has had difficulty finding landowners who are willing and eligible to serve on its Board of Directors. Current law requires Board Members to reside within the division he/she will represent. This bill implements a tiered voting structure that weighs each landowner’s vote and allows smaller landowners in the District to have a voice in the District’s affairs."

6. 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.

AB 1156 (V.M Perez), Chapter 245, Statutes of 2013, made changes to the weighted vote
of a landowner in the Palo Verde Irrigation District to determine votes based on number
of acres of land owned instead of the assessed value of property. However, the Palo Verde Irrigation District already limited voting to landowners.

7. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:

1. Favoring Landowners? The Committee may wish to ask the author and sponsors how many non-landowners that currently have the ability to vote in District elections will no longer have that right should this bill be signed into law. Supporters argue that the District only provides water services for agricultural purposes and are financed solely through assessments on landowners. Therefore, the qualifications for voters should be consistent with who receives and pays for services. However, absent specific facts about how many non-landowners currently vote, the Committee may wish to consider the necessity for this change in law.

2. Favoring Certain Landowners? The Committee may wish to ask the author and sponsor how many landowners fit within each category of the tiered weighted vote structure that this bill would establish. The Committee may wish to consider, without knowing what the practical implications of the weighted voting scheme are, if it is reasonable to implement this policy.

Supporters argue that this bill establishes a weighted vote system that protects the vote
of small landowners. However, the Committee may wish to consider if one vote per landowner or one vote per registered voter would better accomplish the goal of protecting the vote of all individuals.

3. Allowing Directors to Live Outside the District. The Committee may wish to ask the author and sponsor how many landowners live outside the District within the residency area that is defined by this bill. Supporters argue that the Legislature has granted the authority to individual irrigation districts in the past to allow non-resident landowners to be voters and directors.

4. Too Many Questions and Not Enough Answers. The Committee may wish to consider, given all the outstanding questions about the practical implications of this bill, if it is appropriate for the Legislature to create these specialized qualifications for voters and directors in the District.

8. Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill better represents the interests of those most affected by the District's purposes and function.

9. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Tulelake Irrigation District [SPONSOR]

Association of California Water Agencies

Ben DuVal Farms, Inc.

City of Tulelake

Frey Farms

Gold Dust Potato Processors, Inc.

Klamath Water Users Association

McKoen & Son

Modoc County Board of Supervisors

Seus Family Farms Inc.

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors

Staunton Farms

Walker Brothers

Individuals (2)

Opposition

None on file

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