AB 1165 — Flood protection.

Summary

(1) Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, after the adoption of specified amendments to the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance, from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone, unless the legislative body makes one of several possible determinations, one of which is a determination that the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system. Existing law, after the adoption of those amendments, also conditions the approval of a discretionary entitlement or ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone, and the approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map as specified, for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone, upon the legislative body making one of several possible determinations, one of which is a determination that the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system. Existing law defines "adequate progress" to mean, among other things, that the revenues sufficient to fund each year of the project schedule for the flood protection system have been identified, and that at least 90% of the revenues scheduled to have been received in any given year have been appropriated and are being expended. This bill, for the purpose of those provisions, would authorize the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (board) to find that the local flood management agency is making adequate progress in working toward the completion of the flood protection system for any year in which state funding is not appropriated consistent with an agreement between a state agency and the local flood management agency. (2) Under existing law, the Department of Water Resources performs various flood management activities throughout the state, and the board engages in flood management activities along the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River, their tributaries, and related areas. Existing law establishes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District under the administration of the board for the purposes of carrying out specified flood management activities within the boundaries of the district. Existing law requires the board, in any evidentiary hearing, to consider various matters, including the effects of a proposed action on the State Plan of Flood Control, as defined. This bill would revise the definition of the State Plan of Flood Control for these and other purposes. (3) Existing law provides that a majority of the board constitutes a quorum and declares that no board action is effective unless the action is concurred in by a majority of the board members. This bill, instead, would provide that a majority of the voting members of the board constitutes a quorum and would declare that no board action is effective unless a quorum is present and the action is concurred in by a majority of all of the voting members of the board. (4) Under existing law, any meeting of the board, at its office, when all of the members are present, is a legal meeting at which any business may be transacted. This bill would repeal that provision. (5) Existing law prohibits a board member or any person or organization with an interest in board decisions, or any person representing a person or organization with an interest in board decisions who intends to influence the decision of a board member on a matter before the board, from conducting an ex parte communication, as defined. This bill would revise the definition of the term "ex parte communication" to mean any oral or written communication outside of a noticed board meeting concerning specified matters. The bill would prohibit a board member appointed by the Governor from participating in an ex parte communication with any person or organization with an interest in board decisions, or any person representing a person or organization with an interest in board decisions who intends to influence the decision of a board member on a matter before the board. (6) Existing law requires the board to hold an evidentiary hearing for any matter that requires the issuance of a permit. This bill would require the board to hold an evidentiary hearing for any matter that requires the issuance of a permit if the proposed work may significantly affect any element of the State Plan of Flood Control or if a formal protest against that permit has been lodged. The bill would authorize the board to, by regulation, define types of encroachments that will not significantly affect any element of the State Plan of Flood Control. The bill would authorize the board to delegate the approval of permits for those encroachments to the executive officer. (7) Existing law requires the board to make a specified finding regarding the impact of an encroachment on public safety before taking action to modify an encroachment on levees, channels, or other flood control works. This bill would authorize the board to delegate to the executive officer the authority to take action to remove or modify the encroachment. The bill would authorize the board, and the executive officer if delegated that authority, to issue an order directing a person or public agency to cease and desist from undertaking, or threatening to undertake, an activity that may encroach on levees, channels, or other flood control works under the jurisdiction of the board. The board, and the executive officer if delegated that authority, would be granted authority to issue an order directing a person or public agency to cease and desist from undertaking, or threatening to undertake, an activity that requires a permit from the board without securing a permit or an activity that is inconsistent with a permit issued by the board. The bill would authorize the imposition of civil liability on a person or public agency that undertakes an encroachment or commits other action in violation of specified requirements relating to encroachments to provisions relating to the board. (8) Existing law provides for state cooperation with the federal government in the construction of specified flood control projects. This bill, with a certain exception, would provide that specified provisions of law that authorize financial assistance to flood control projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Watersheds shall not be construed to expand the liability of the state for the operation and maintenance of any flood management facility that is outside the scope of a designated state plan of flood control. (9) The bill would make various technical corrections.

Bill Text

• Chaptered 10/11/09 - Chaptered Current pdf October 11, 2009
• Enrolled 09/02/09 - Enrolled pdf September 02, 2009
• Amended 08/17/09 - Amended Senate pdf August 17, 2009
• Amended 07/06/09 - Amended Senate pdf July 06, 2009
• Amended 05/14/09 - Amended Assembly pdf May 14, 2009
• Amended 04/15/09 - Amended Assembly pdf April 15, 2009
• Introduced 02/27/09 - Introduced pdf February 27, 2009
• AB1165 View text html

Action History

1. October 11, 2009

   Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 275, Statutes of 2009.

2. October 11, 2009

   Approved by the Governor.

3. September 04, 2009

   Enrolled and to the Governor at 2 p.m.

4. August 31, 2009

   Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2794.)

5. August 27, 2009

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 30 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

6. August 27, 2009

   Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1979.)

7. August 24, 2009

   Ordered to Special Consent Calendar.

8. August 19, 2009

   Read second time. To third reading.

9. August 18, 2009

   From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

10. August 17, 2009

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

11. July 20, 2009

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

12. July 06, 2009

    Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

13. July 02, 2009

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 23).

14. June 11, 2009

    Referred to Com. on N.R. & W.

15. May 28, 2009

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

16. May 28, 2009

    Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 1768.)

17. May 26, 2009

    Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

18. May 21, 2009

    From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 20).

19. May 18, 2009

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

20. May 14, 2009

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.

21. May 13, 2009

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

22. April 29, 2009

    From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 28).

23. April 16, 2009

    Re-referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.

24. April 15, 2009

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on W.,P. & W. Read second time and amended.

25. March 26, 2009

    Referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.

26. March 02, 2009

    Read first time.

27. March 01, 2009

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.

28. February 27, 2009

    Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

• Yamada · Primary

Votes

Subjects