Which Service Would Most Likely Be Handled By A Special District

March 2002

Water Special Districts: A Expect at Governance and Public Participation

Introduction

At that place are hundreds of h2o special districts in California, with a slap-up diversity of purposes, governance structures, and financing mechanisms. Some districts are responsible for ane blazon of specific duty, while others provide a broad range of public services. Some are governed by a county board of supervisors or urban center council while others have their governing boards directly elected past the public.

Affiliate 107, Statutes of 2001 (AB 38, Strom-Martin), requires the Legislative Annotator�s Part to undertake a study of these special districts. Focusing on districts which provide water, sanitation, and flood control services, Affiliate 107 requires attention to the following issues:

A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of different governance structures.
The potential for conflicts among competing policy goals resulting from the same governing lath making both state use planning and water decisions.
A review of the ways in which water special districts communicate information with interested parties and suggestions for improving public input.

Groundwork: Water Special Districts in California

As specified in Chapter 107, this report defines water special districts as those districts which perform at least i of three specific duties: h2o delivery, waste material disposal (sanitation), and flood control and water conservation. This study relies upon the State Controller�s definitions of these activities, every bit used in the almanac financial report which all special districts must file. The following information reflects data reported to the Controller for 1997 98 (the most recent year of data available).

Governing Statutes

In California, a h2o special commune can be created (1) by forming under a general h2o district deed or (2) through a special act of the Legislature. Full general acts prescribe the duties, responsibilities, and powers of districts that grade using its statutory potency. These acts� parameters are sufficiently broad to apply to districts across the state. Creation of a special commune through a general water district deed requires an application through the Local Agency Germination Commission (LAFCO) in a district�s county. On the other hand, a number of water districts accept been formed by a special human activity of the Legislature. A special act�s provisions utilise only to the district proposed to exist formed. Once they are formed, LAFCOs have jurisdiction over many special district bug�including boundary changes, consolidation, and dissolution.

Because a wide range of general and special acts exist in land law, water special districts are governed by a big number of distinct statutory authorizations. Figure ane summarizes the diverse types of statutory authorizations for the ane,286 districts that provide water services in the state. It shows, for instance, that 196 water-related districts have been established every bit community services districts. Most h2o districts have formed nether a general human action, with less than one-in-ten districts authorized past a special act. Most of the country�south special act districts were formed through flood control and water conservation, h2o agency, and reclamation authorizations.

Effigy 1 Water Special Districts Statutory Authorizations
Type of Commune	Number of Special Districts
Community Services	196
County Water	167
County Service Areas	139
California Water	122
Canton Sanitation	92
Irrigation	92
Sanitary	77
Joint Exercise of Powers	56
Maintenance	54
Public Utility	50
Flood Command and Water Conservation	38
Municipal Water	38
Canton Waterworks	34
Water Agency	28
Sewer and Sewer Maintenance	17
Reclamation	16
Water Conservation	13
All Others	57
Total	1,286

Many of these statutory authorizations let districts to provide more than one of the three designated water services (water commitment, sanitation, or flood control). Lighting, recreation and park, and street services are the most common nonwater activities performed past the state�due south water districts.

Types of Governance Structure

The governing bodies of special districts in California are either dependent or contained. A dependent governing body is one in which the governing trunk is direct controlled past either a city or county. For dependent districts, a metropolis council or canton board of supervisors acts as the district�s ruling body or they appoint individuals for that responsibility who serve at the pleasure of the city or county. Independent special districts accept their governing body either directly elected by the voters or appointed for a fixed term of service (frequently by a lath of supervisors).

Figure 2 Water Special Districts by County and Governing Type
	Dependent
County	Board of Supervisors	Metropolis Council	Independent	Total
Alameda	3	2	ix	fourteen
Alpine	�	�	three	3
Amador	4	�	12	16
Butte	6	�	nineteen	25
Calaveras	�	�	ix	9
Colusa	3	�	19	22
Contra Costa	11	i	16	28
Del Norte	3	�	ten	13
El Dorado	ii	i	4	seven
Fresno	19	�	45	64
Glenn	�	�	13	13
Humboldt	one	�	21	22
Imperial	1	�	9	x
Inyo	1	�	11	12
Kern	ten	�	51	61
Kings	i	�	18	19
Lake	12	1	11	24
Lassen	1	�	11	12
Los Angeles	21	4	53	78
Madera	30	�	4	34
Marin	3	�	20	23
Mariposa	five	�	3	8
Mendocino	3	1	twenty	24
Merced	1	�	29	30
Modoc	�	�	eight	8
Mono	�	�	viii	viii
Monterey	x	�	12	22
Napa	3	�	5	eight
Nevada	5	�	7	12
Orangish	4	1	44	49
Placer	5	�	19	24
Plumas	4	�	12	16
Riverside	v	2	33	twoscore
Sacramento	ii	�	22	24
San Benito	�	�	6	6
San Bernardino	8	1	34	43
San Diego	thirteen	iv	38	55
San Joaquin	39	ane	xix	59
San Luis Obispo	10	�	13	23
San Mateo	16	four	13	33
Santa Barbara	4	�	18	22
Santa Clara	�	�	11	11
Santa Cruz	12	�	8	20
Shasta	12	�	10	22
Sierra	1	�	4	v
Siskiyou	1	�	15	16
Solano	�	�	8	8
Sonoma	8	�	ten	18
Stanislaus	1	�	20	21
Sutter	3	�	9	12
Tehama	ii	�	11	thirteen
Trinity	�	�	iv	four
Tulare	4	�	46	l
Tuolumne	1	�	6	vii
Ventura	9	2	twenty	31
Yolo	2	�	10	12
Yuba	i	�	12	13
Totals	326	25	935	ane,286

Equally shown in Figure 2, nearly three-fourths of the state�due south h2o special districts are independent�with most of the remaining districts under the command of a canton lath of supervisors. Contained water districts business relationship for an even greater share of water activity in the state�nearly ninety percent of total water action revenues. Almost 100 water special districts are multicounty districts which provide services to residents of more ane canton. These districts are shown in Figure 2 under their primary county designation.

Financing Mechanisms

Every bit with other local governments, water special districts pay for their activities through a diversity of financing mechanisms. In full, every bit shown in Figure three, revenues for water, waste disposal, and inundation control activities totaled more $7 billion in 1997 98. User fees�customer charges for the toll of the services that they utilise�represent the largest source of revenues for h2o activities (more 60 percent).

Some water special districts receive an allotment of holding taxes from the base ane percent charge per unit in club to fund a portion of their activities�totaling $479 million in 1997 98. Equally a result of country allotment formulas, those water special districts that received property taxes prior to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, generally continue to receive property taxes today. Districts that did not receive property taxes prior to 1978 mostly practice not receive them today. For funding large capital expenditures, many water special districts obtained a two-thirds majority vote of the public in order to override the base 1 percent tax charge per unit. This method provided roughly $260 million in additional property tax dollars to water special districts in 1997-98.

Effigy 3 Revenues for Water Activities
1997-98 (In Millions)
	H2o	Water Disposal	Inundation Control	Total
User Fees/Sales	$ii,900	$1,165	$217	$4,282
Property Taxes: Regular	158	137	184	479
Debt-related	213	31	16	260
Other Revenues	1,146	755	189	two,300
Totals	$iv,417	$2,088	$606	$7,061

Since their benefits are more than hard to assess on a property-by-property ground, inundation control activities historically have not been funded with user charges to the aforementioned extent as water delivery or sanitation. Consequently, a greater pct of flood control activities today are funded by holding taxes than either water or sanitation services. For those districts receiving belongings taxes, the districts take the choice of either using the dollars to (1) lower user charge amounts to levels beneath what they otherwise would be or (2) fund supplemental programs such as habitat restoration projects.

Other acquirement sources�such every bit interest earnings, various taxes and assessments, and grants from other government agencies�business relationship for the remaining portion of water district revenues.

Tradeoffs in Governance Structures

Below, we discuss many of the tradeoffs and tensions that water special districts face every bit a result of their various governance structures. These trade-offs involve a number of different components of special district governance structures, including the benefits of:

Independent versus dependent districts.
Elected versus appointed officials.
Focusing exclusively on water versus working on many responsibilities.

Expertise in Water Issues

Effectively governing a water district depends, to some extent, on developing expertise in water policy. The telescopic of a board�s responsibilities will ofttimes make up one's mind the amount of fourth dimension available to spend on h2o issues�in turn influencing the board�s level of expertise.

For those dependent water districts administered by a board of supervisors or a city council, dedicating plenty time to sufficiently understand h2o bug may be a difficult challenge. For these districts, h2o would just exist one of a series of responsibilities for board members. For instance, the h2o district�s regular meeting agendas may simply be a office of a broader agenda focusing on other county or city business.

On the other manus, for independent boards or dependent boards with appointed members, board members� public responsibilities would focus more than exclusively on water policy. In these cases, board members may be able to spend greater amounts of time developing their water expertise.

At the same time, a district administered by a board of supervisors or city council may offer a broader community perspective than one which focuses exclusively on h2o issues. For example, county supervisors would likely have a better understanding of the broad customs�s needs�due to their public service on a wide multifariousness of issues. This broad perspective could allow a supervisor to have a unique insight into how the water district�s policy and direction fit into the community every bit a whole.

Public Sensation of Officials� Water Policy Positions

Some other important component of a governing board�s success is the public�due south knowledge and conviction in the lath�south positions on water policy. The public�s awareness of a board member�due south water policies can exist influenced by whether the member is (one) elected or appointed and (2) works exclusively on water policy or on many policy problems.

For elected officials (of both dependent and independent boards), voters are given the opportunity to voice their confidence at regular election intervals. Voters likely would be more than familiar with a lath member�southward positions on water policy if they campaigned on these issues lonely. For those candidates (such as a supervisor or city council member) campaigning on a broad slate of responsibilities, including water, voters may not be equally familiar with their water policy positions. On the other mitt, an overall understanding of a candidate�s governing arroyo may be helpful for voters to understand how an elected official would handle issues in the water policy area.

Some independent and dependent districts are administered by appointed officials. In these cases, voters must rely on their other elected officials to brand informed appointment decisions for the water district.

Economies of Scale

A dependent water district is likely able to take advantage of its metropolis or county�s authoritative structure to perform many of the district�south day-to-day duties. The ability to use the larger government�southward personnel, procurement, and other administrative systems could provide a pregnant "economies of scale." By using the city or county infrastructure, the toll of items such as issuing paychecks, training employees, and purchasing office supplies may decline on a per-item footing�yielding cost savings.

Larger independent water districts may be able to mirror these economies of scale by developing their own efficient administrative systems. Smaller districts, yet, may not accept a sufficient size to obtain these savings.

Other Factors

As described to a higher place, the governance construction of a water district can substantially affect its direction and policies. Even so, the board�s decisions and their implementation usually depend on many factors across the structure of the board.

Board Personalities. Board conclusion making will often depend on the personalities and political philosophies of its members. The leadership of individual lath members can decide the direction of a water lath to a much greater degree than its governance structure.

Professional Staff. Boards rely on their professional staff to make recommendations on the direction of the district and then acquit out the district�due south policies. Thus, a team of staff members can play a crucial role in determining the effectiveness and success of a water district�s work.

Potential for Conflicts in Land Apply and Water Decisions

Providing an adequate supply of water to constituents has the potential to conflict with ecology protection and other land use goals. For example, the evolution of new h2o infrastructure might endanger a natural habitat. These competing demands may require communities to make difficult choices regarding growth and development that necessitate tradeoffs and sacrifices.

Because Conflicting Goals

Some observers of dependent water districts take charged that these districts are more likely than contained districts to cede environmental and land preservation goals in order to encourage growth and development. For example, a canton regime in control of a dependent water district will financially benefit�through increased tax revenues�from increased development. Critics assert that this financial incentive leads the county to make water decisions that will unnecessarily encourage growth.

For a dependent h2o commune, the growth controlling process could allow the commune to integrate water policies with its other responsibilities. Dependent district decisions might reverberate a wide perspective�taking into business relationship many factors such equally acquirement impacts, service demands (water supply plus other municipal services), desires of the residents, and ecology concerns. The tradeoffs involved with the land employ decision probably would be relatively more credible to a governing body which is responsible for many community needs. For the sake of economical development, housing construction, or other needs, a dependent district could come up to a decision which has some agin environmental furnishings.

For an contained h2o commune, the decisions surrounding a development decision might focus more exclusively on water demands. This could allow the commune to concentrate more than attention to the specific h2o issues that the proposed action might heighten. At the same fourth dimension, an independent district might not be enlightened of the many other factors affecting a land use decision under the jurisdiction of other government agencies.

Contempo legislation will involve independent water districts in the land development process on a more regular ground. Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001 (SB 211, Kuehl), requires specific water agency input for planned housing subdivisions of more than than 500 units. This legislation will more explicitly bring h2o districts into at to the lowest degree some development decisions�regardless of whether they are dependent or contained.

Regional Considerations

An additional criticism of water districts is that they can make decisions which negatively affect the country use of regions outside of their service expanse. For case, in gild to provide h2o to their residents, a district might control water infrastructure in an next region. The district could make a determination to alter the infrastructure in a mode which affects the surrounding region�without the affected region having representation in the decision-making process.

A particular governance construction of a h2o district would non necessarily prevent a lack of representation for afflicted areas outside of a district�s boundaries. For both contained and dependent boards, taking into account the widespread impacts of water decisions across the district�south boundaries represents a difficult challenge. Fifty-fifty when efforts are fabricated to contact affected parties and hear their input, boards must weigh these concerns against the best interests of their jurisdictional boundaries. To some extent, these types of conflicts can be reduced through h2o districts which are geographically broad enough to encompass all affected land areas. Given the large areas affected by water policy, however, matching a district�s size with its affected expanse may not always be applied.

Public Participation and Water Districts

Affiliate 107 besides requested information regarding the current practices of water districts to attract and encourage public participation. Below, we review the many participation requirements that exist for agencies and how water districts seek public input.

Notice and Comment Requirements

Similar all local governments in California, h2o special districts are governed by the Ralph Thou. Brown Human activity�s requirements for public notices and opportunities for public input. In general, notices of agendas must exist made at least 72 hours before a coming together, and there must exist opportunities for public comment during those meetings.

Beyond their general meetings, water districts often appoint in specialized activities related to specific projects or activities. When engaging in these activities, the districts become subject to the specific notice and public comment requirements of those statutes which govern the activities. For instance, when a water commune proposes an activity discipline to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it must follow the public participation requirements laid out in the CEQA statutes. Other common country laws governing h2o districts include the Urban Water Management Program Act and the Ground Water Management Deed.

Consequently, water districts oftentimes must navigate a complicated set of public participation requirements from diverse sections of country law�as well as federal requirements. While bringing these requirements into a single compatible system would be desirable from an authoritative perspective for water districts, the requirements apply to more governmental entities than water special districts. For instance, CEQA participation requirements could probably exist better integrated with other water commune requirements and procedures. The CEQA, withal, applies to state agencies and local governments�as well as h2o districts. As a upshot, changes to these discover and participation requirements could only exist undertaken from a comprehensive procedure examining the many entities which are subject to the police force.

Public Detect Practices

Water districts employ a number of approaches to inform the public and interested parties nearly their activities. Many formal notices are statutorily required to be made through newspaper and other media outlets. In add-on, districts ofttimes communicate through bill inserts, newsletters, mailing lists, and the Internet. Many districts make additional information bachelor through appearances at fairs and other public events. Many districts with large non-English-speaking constituents take made efforts to interpret their materials into a number of additional languages.

Public Participation Opportunities

Making information bachelor to the public is only one phase of the public participation process. Those residents interested in voicing their opinion must also be given the opportunity to comment on a district�s policies and actions. While some districts report active participation by the public, others report that most of their meetings attract few, if whatsoever, members of the public. It is difficult to gauge whether low public participation reflects a lack of controversial decisions being fabricated, general satisfaction with a commune�s performance, or public difficulties in understanding the process.

Many water districts go beyond the bones Dark-brown Deed requirements and seek public participation through a number of other ways�such as attending other government and nongovernment organizations� meetings and holding public workshops. These activities offer the opportunity to engage in a more detailed exchange of ideas than is typically possible during a regular meeting. Those water districts seeking to improve public participation could expect to like districts across the state for alternative procedures and practices.

Conclusion

Water districts in California provide a various range of services�using a variety of financing means and governance structures. While some private districts have pursued controversial policies, our analysis indicates no show of a statewide structural governance problem. Districts must make hard tradeoffs in making their decisions. In those districts which take produced unpopular results, local remedies may be sought. For instance, residents have the opportunity to access the public participation process and propose changes. Local elections also provide the opportunity to change the graphic symbol and policies of a governing board. If these approaches are non effective in dictating public opinion, residents likewise accept the power to approach their LAFCO about changing the structure of their special district.

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by Michael Cohen, and reviewed by Mac Taylor. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy data 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.

Render to LAO Home Page

Source: https://lao.ca.gov/2002/water_districts/special_water_districts.html

Posted by: kennedygurgend1980.blogspot.com