HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed 2017 Policy Principles Rural County Representatives of California
2017-18 Policy Principles
DRAFT
The Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) is a member county service
organization championing policies at the State and federal levels on behalf of
California's rural counties. Rural counties face unique challenges when dealing
with state and federal policies, such as greater distances, lower population
densities, and geographic diversities which lead to unique obstacles for California's
rural communities.
Founded in 1972, RCRC provides the rural county perspective on a myriad of issues
throughout the state and federal legislative and regulatory processes with the
mission to improve the ability of small rural California county governments to
provide services to their constituents.
RCRC members and staff work to inform and educate State and federal
representatives on the unique challenges California's rural counties face and to seek
viable solutions for member counties through its advocacy efforts.
Each year, the RCRC Board of Directors adopts a set of Policy Principles that guide
legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts for the organization. These Policy
Principles set the stage for the organization's priorities on both broad categories and
specific issues, and allow RCRC staff to take formal positions on individual pieces of
legislation and regulatory proposals each year.
AGRICULTURE
Agriculture continues to be a major economic sector for California. Comprised of
76,400 farms and ranches, California agriculture is a $47 billion industry with over
$100 billion in related economic activity (based on 2015 California agricultural
production statistics). California agriculture is a highly adaptable and diverse
industry, encompassing more than 400 plant and animal commodities that feed the
State, the nation, and the world.
Agriculture also fills many other vital and diverse roles in the California landscape.
California agriculture provides for much needed open space in an ever increasing
urban California; national security through the raising of our own fruits and
vegetables, meat, poultry and other agricultural products; residual products for
biomass to create clean alternative energy sources; science-based research and
development through major universities; agri-tourism; preservation of habitat; and
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Much of California's agriculture is rooted in rural counties. It is imperative that
policies affecting the agricultural industry such as water, land use, air quality,
taxation, and numerous others create an environment that allow California's
farmers and ranchers to continue to provide safe and nutritious products to
consumers around the world.
AGRICULTURAL LAND MITIGATION
Agricultural Land Conversion to Habitat. RCRC believes that mitigation
should be required for the conversion of agricultural lands to terrestrial or aquatic
habitat when the easement is permanent and/or agricultural land uses are
prohibited. This mitigation should be required for a period of time that is
commensurate with the amount of time that the agricultural land uses will be
precluded. An exception to this policy is agricultural development, where land is set
aside for habitat or open space to address the impacts of the agricultural
development.
Easements. RCRC believes that the "stacking" of habitat and agricultural
conservation easements may or may not be appropriate depending upon the specific
county and circumstances.
Feasible Mitigation. RCRC believes that permanent agricultural land
conservation through easements and fees should be recognized as feasible
mitigation for the loss of agricultural land as determined by the local government.
RCRC supports clarifying in statute that the permanent protection of agricultural
land is feasible mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act for the
loss of agricultural land.
Local Land Use Authority. RCRC opposes efforts to preempt local land use
authority in connection with the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural
uses. A one size fits all approach with respect to mandatory mitigation
requirements, arbitrary minimum or maximum mitigation ratios, the types of
agricultural land required to be mitigated, and the location of mitigation lands
ignores the unique characteristics of each county, has no scientific basis, and would
establish a bad precedent.
Mitigation Lands. RCRC believes that mitigation lands should be of comparable
quality and value as those that were permanently converted.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Agricultural biotechnology is a collection of scientific techniques that are used to
create, improve, or modify plants, animals, and microorganisms. Agricultural crops
developed utilizing biotechnologies are often referred to as genetically engineered,
genetically modified, or bioengineered. The United States is the largest producer of
genetically modified crops, one of the largest producers of organic crops, and one of
the largest exporters of conventionally-grown, identity preserved crops in the world.
Coexistence among these three categories of crops is a distinguishing characteristic
of United States agriculture, and makes it different from some other parts of the
world.
Adventitious Presence. Adventitious Presence is the unintentional, low level
presence of transgenic material in seed, grain, or food. Until such time as the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) adopts a comprehensive policy,
RCRC supports the practice of local, regional, and state-level stakeholders
developing rules, practices, and standards (e.g., planning of flowering and
harvesting of different crops, grower districts, crop improvements and seed
certification associations, seed sourcing standards, and noxious weed standards)
that enable the coexistence of specialized or sensitive agricultural products and the
need to meet diverse consumer and marketplace demands.
Education. RCRC supports efforts by the food industry to educate consumers
about biotechnology, as consumer perception and market acceptance will determine
the viability of the technology and the products produced.
Federal Regulation. RCRC supports the rigorous, science-based federal
regulation of biotech products. This includes the United States Food and Drug
Administration's broad authority to regulate all foods that are derived from new
biotechnology food crops, regulations that require a scientific basis for
approval/disapproval of agricultural products both domestic and foreign, the
USDA's regulation of the movement, importation and field testing of genetically-
modified crops, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
establishment of limits for the amount of pest-control proteins present in foods
derived from new genetically-modified crops.
Labeling. RCRC supports allowing, as a marketing tool, the voluntary labeling of
products as not produced utilizing biotechnology if the label statements and/or
advertising are not false or misleading, and the labeling and/or advertising meets
established federal guidelines or standards, if any.
Research. RCRC supports policies including state funding for colleges and
universities to support research and development of biotechnology techniques in
agriculture to improve the productivity and competitiveness of California's
agricultural and allied industries.
State Policy. RCRC supports a consistent statewide policy for the use of
biotechnology in agriculture.
DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS/COUNTY FAIRS
California fairs and fairgrounds have a complex governance structure and property
ownership arrangement. There are 22 county fairs on county-owned land that are
generally operated by the county with little or no State support. There are 41
District Agricultural Associations (DAA); in most instances, the State owns the
fairground properties and the DAA operates the annual "county fair." The Governor
appoints members to the governing board of each DAA and these entities are bound
by various State procurement, personnel, and asset management rules.
Fairs and fairgrounds are an integral asset to rural counties, and the health and
viability of each county's fair and fairgrounds is critical to both the local community
as well as the State. Fairground properties are utilized throughout the year for
numerous community events and are utilized by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection and other state and federal agencies as evacuation
centers, incident command centers, and equipment staging areas during
catastrophic wildfires and other emergencies.
In the 2015 State Budget, the Legislature provided a modest amount of annual, on-
going state assistance to small- and medium-sized fairs. And, in recent budgets, the
Legislature has provided financial assistance for capital needs on all fairground
properties. RCRC supports the current state funding assistance while pursuing
both an increase and a sustainable funding stream in order to preserve a number of
struggling fairs. RCRC also supports increased flexibility in the governance
structure of fairs so they may operate in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE
Today's farming operations, both large and small, face many challenges including
pressure from development, scarcity of resources such as water, increasingly
stringent regulations, and increased imports of fruits and vegetables with minimal
oversight. Agriculture is one of California's leading industries, and the primary
economic base for many rural California communities. RCRC is supportive of
programs and regulations that assist in preserving rural lands for agriculture;
adequate supplies of resources at reasonable cost; and regulatory enforcement at
the local, state, and federal levels to help assure a fair and equitable market for
California's agricultural products.
Inspection and Compliance. RCRC supports funding for the operation of all
state and national border inspection stations and monitoring of pesticides and pests
in order to assure a safe, fair and equitable marketplace for California's agricultural
industry.
Right-to-Farm. RCRC supports responsible local right-to-farm ordinances
designed to permit and protect the rights of agricultural producers to engage in
necessary activities without undue or unreasonable restrictions.
CLIMATE CHANGE
In 2006, California established official state policy on climate change via the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32.
In 2008, California began working on the California Climate Adaptation Strategy,
which addresses the possible effects of climate change and California's strategies to
diminish the effects on California's population. While there are scientific
uncertainties with respect to the causes and effects of climate change, RCRC
recognizes the need to respond to California's climate change policy, while also
encouraging reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation of
possible climate change effects where cost-effective and technically feasible.
State and Local Agency Coordination. In recognition of the fact that reducing
GHG emissions and climate adaptation will require the efforts of multiple state
agencies, RCRC supports a coordinated effort between the various state agencies to
avoid duplicative rulemaking processes.
RCRC also supports the formation of stakeholder advisory committees to lend
practical expertise to state agency working groups during the development of multi-
agency regulations and voluntary programs. Because every community has
different needs, involvement of a variety of stakeholders including local
governments, is vital to ensure that the State avoids a "one size fits all" approach
when adopting regulations and establishing programs to mitigate the effects of
climate change.
RCRC believes that it is the State's responsibility to reach out to rural communities
to promote and educate stakeholders during the development and implementation
of statewide GHG emissions reduction measures. When individual rural
communities are affected, the State should conduct workshops in those communities
to provide opportunities for public input and to take comments on the State's GHG
policies.
Land Use Authority. RCRC supports the development of technical guidelines by
the Office of Planning and Research that set specific, quantifiable GHG emissions
standards for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and general plan
documents.
RCRC believes that the development of state and federal assistance programs to
provide data, methods, and financial support to help determine and quantify GHG
emissions is vital for local governments to be able to address climate change in
CEQA and general plan documents.
RCRC opposes any legal, legislative, or regulatory action which uses climate change
policy as a vehicle to restrict or remove local land use authority.
RCRC supports a collaborative process between state and local agencies in the
development of all climate change adaptation strategies related to land use
decisions. The State should have the responsibility to identify possible strategies
for its own agencies' use and for voluntary use by local or regional agencies.
Green Industry. RCRC recognizes the potential for growth of green industry in
California, and supports the continuation of existing incentives, and the creation of
new incentives for those organizations to build new operations in areas with the
highest rates of unemployment.
Incentive-Based Programs. RCRC supports the development of state programs
that offer incentives to entities that voluntarily reduce GHG emissions and
implement climate adaptation programs including grants, loans, offsets, early
action credits and market-based credits trading programs. RCRC believes the State
should recognize and offer special incentives to industry sectors that have already
made significant GHG emissions reductions. RCRC supports free allocation of
credits in market-based systems to smaller entities that may not be able to compete
with large entities in an auction-based structure.
Public Health. RCRC supports a strong emphasis by the State on the important
role of local and state public health departments in possible climate adaptation
strategies. The State should provide fiscal and policy support to public health
departments to ensure their ability to expand and advance to meet the potential
needs of a changing climate.
Monitoring and Reporting. RCRC supports the development of GHG monitoring
and reporting protocols through an open, transparent public process. RCRC
opposes mandatory reporting for sectors that have been shown through the state
emissions inventory to represent net GHG sinks.
Regulatory Compliance. In anticipation that the costs for GHG regulatory
compliance will be disproportionately high in rural areas of the state, RCRC
encourages flexibility for economically disadvantaged and rural areas in state
regulatory programs including exemptions and tiered compliance schedules based
on appropriate, regulation-specific parameters. RCRC believes that a State
financial assistance program is imperative to enable local agencies to comply with
GHG regulations.
Greenhouse Gas Capture and Sequestration. RCRC supports scientific studies
that examine the benefits of carbon sequestration and methane gas capture
projects. RCRC supports the development of broad, scientifically-based methods of
accounting for carbon storage in sequestration projects including agriculture and
forestry projects, and methods of accounting methane gas capture at landfills.
RCRC supports programs that offer early action credits and offsets for GHG capture
and sequestration projects.
Forest Carbon. RCRC supports the development of comprehensive and
cooperative federal and state programs and strategies to reduce carbon emissions
from forested lands, and preserve forest carbon sequestration. RCRC supports the
development of a complete forest carbon inventory, as well as immediate fuels
management and fire prevention projects as a vital component of the State's climate
adaptation strategy. Coordination between federal, state and local agencies is
critical to the mitigation of wildfires.
Tribal Gaming Compacts. Recognizing the potential expansion of tribal gaming
facilities and anticipating the renewal of current gaming compacts, RCRC
encourages the inclusion of GHG mitigation strategies in all new and renegotiated
tribal gaming compacts.
Cap-and-Trade. Recognizing that the Cap-and-Trade program has collected
hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from utilities during the auction process
and through the sales of transportation fuels, RCRC supports an equitable
distribution of those funds back to ratepayers.
RCRC also supports using funds from Cap-and-Trade auctions for projects that will
both reduce GHG emissions and benefit disadvantaged communities. In particular,
RCRC supports using the proceeds to fund innovative transportation projects, fuels
reduction, forest restoration, agriculture, organics processing infrastructure biofuels
utilization, land use projects, and residential woodstove replacement programs, as
well as utilizing these funds for State subvention funding to counties for the
Williamson Act. RCRC supports the use of these proceeds on private, local, state,
and federally owned and managed lands.
RCRC opposes the use of the California Communities Environmental Health
Screening Tool (C alEnviro Screen) to identify "disadvantaged communities" for the
purposes of allocating Cap-and-Trade funds. The CalEnviroScreen tool is flawed
and excludes many rural communities that would be included as "disadvantaged"
under other methodologies (such as the one outlined in the Public Resources Code).
RCRC supports the development and expansion of Cap-and-Trade funding
programs specifically targeted at rural communities.
COUNTY OPERATIONS
Although RCRC member counties comprise more than 55 percent of California's
land mass, less than ten percent of California's population resides in these counties.
Low population, geography, and distance present rural counties with unique
challenges in providing services. Consequently, requirements imposed by the State
on county operations can have a significant and often disproportionate impact on
rural counties.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODES
The California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
consists of twelve parts. By statute, the California Building Standards Code is
based upon the newest national model codes published by various independent
code-developing bodies and organizations. The California Building Standards Code
is subject to an administrative rulemaking process administered by the California
Building Standards Commission (CBSC). Every three years, the CBSC reviews the
most recent national model codes during their triennial update cycle of the CBSC.
Once adopted by the State, these building standards become the minimum
standards throughout the state. Local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt
stricter or alternative standards with the same effect.
New Building Code Standards. With California's diverse geography,
topography, climate, weather, conditions of general development and other
environmental and economic factors, RCRC supports more flexible local variations
to code requirements and their implementation. RCRC supports tailoring
regulations and requirements to local conditions.
Increased Building Costs. Building costs can be disproportionately higher in
rural counties due to geography, low population density and lack of resources.
Bearing the cost of new regulations can be especially burdensome for rural counties.
RCRC supports the ability of a local jurisdiction to delay implementation of costly
new code requirements in rural areas in order for the requisite infrastructure to
become cost effective and readily available.
ELECTIONS
Election Costs. RCRC supports timely reimbursement of county costs associated
with complying with the provisions of the federal Help American Vote Act (NAVA).
RCRC also supports state reimbursement to counties for conducting special
elections called by the Governor.
Electronic Voting Machines. RCRC supports expeditious certification of
electronic voting machines by the Secretary of State so that counties will be in
compliance with federal and state law and the integrity of conducting an election is
maintained. The federal NAVA requires counties to use voting machines that allow
individuals with disabilities to vote unassisted.
Vote by Mail. Two of California's rural counties (Alpine and Sierra) currently
enjoy the ability to conduct all of their elections by mail. Many other RCRC
member counties have a large percentage of their electorate casting ballots via mail.
In 2016, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 450 (Allen) which allows counties, via
action by their respective Boards of Supervisors, to choose to conduct all of their
elections via mail, provided a number of criteria are met — voting centers are
established, ballot drop-off locations are made available, etc.
RCRC supports expanding the ability of counties to conduct all of their elections via
all-mail balloting. In the event a county does not choose to conduct all of their
elections under the SB 450 model, recently-enacted legislation —Assembly Bill 2686
(Mullin) — allows these counties, at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors to
conduct any special election for the House of Representatives and the Legislature
via all-mail balloting.
EMPLOYEES
County Workforce Responsibilities. RCRC opposes legislative proposals that
supersede and interfere with the constitutional duties of county Boards of
Supervisors to provide for various terms of employment for their county workforce.
Collective Bargaining Process. The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act specifies the
process for local governments to use in collective bargaining with represented
employees. RCRC believes the current collective bargaining process is more than
adequate to ensure that employees' rights are protected in both the bargaining
process and the employment terms secured under labor contracts. As such, RCRC
opposes:
• Binding arbitration for public employee wage and benefit disputes where no
appeals of an arbitrator's final decision is allowed;
• Mandatory mediation as requested by one or more party when an impasse is
reached;
• Mandatory fact-finding or an expanse of mandatory fact-finding to issues
outside the immediate scope of an impasse; and,
• State mandates for the establishment of"ground rules" for the local
bargaining process.
Medical Marijuana in the Workplace. The federal Drug Free Workplace Act of
1998 requires federal grantees and contractors to certify that they maintain a drug-
free workplace and inform employees that it is unlawful to use and/or possess a
controlled substance (including marijuana as cited in the federal Controlled
Substances Act) in the workplace. Failure to adhere to the federal Drug Free
Workplace Act could lead to a loss of a variety and extensive amount of federal
monies. Absent any change in either the Drug Free Workplace Act or the
Controlled Substances Act, RCRC opposes state efforts that would make it unlawful
to hire, fire and/or base a promotion or demotion on a person's status as a user,
qualified or otherwise, of medical marijuana. RCRC believes such state efforts
compromise a county's position as employers and would lead to extensive litigation
by employees that are using marijuana within the confines of state law.
Outsourcing. Counties, like other public agencies, are faced with enormous cost
pressures and often have limited revenue opportunities associated with delivering
certain services. In order to provide many of these services, counties must have a
variety of options to ensure the service is delivered and can fit within budget
structures. One option is to rely on a private vendor, commonly referred to as
"contracting-out" or "outsourcing." RCRC opposes limitations on county
governments' ability to outsource municipal services to the private sector.
Public Employees' Retirement. RCRC supports efforts to reform pension
benefits administered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CaIPERS) and other California public pension systems that would help protect the
long-term solvency of California's public pension systems and local entities while
maintaining competitive pension benefits for county employees.
RCRC supports preservation of the exemption for elected officials from reinstating
in their respective public pension systems including CaIPERS. RCRC opposes
efforts that would force locally-elected officials to choose between receiving
compensation for their service as a county elected official and maintaining their
current retirement benefit.
Workers' Compensation. RCRC supports the preservation of reforms enacted to
the workers' compensation system in 2004 and 2012 to further reduce premiums,
minimize costs, manage claims, and insure that injured workers are properly
compensated and able to return to work in a speedy manner.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
The issue of medical cannabis regulation is of great importance to California's
counties. In the last several years, there has been a dramatic proliferation of
marijuana cultivation, and the scale and volume of individual grow sites has
enlarged. In 2015, the Legislature enacted a comprehensive licensing and
regulatory framework for commercial medical cannabis. The package addressed
RCRC's four key policy concerns:
• Preserving local control;
• Providing explicit county taxing authority;
• Ending collective model— putting in place strict licensing requirements; and,
• Addressing environmental impacts.
In addition, the package addresses:
• The ability to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees;
• The power to collect fees associated with local medical marijuana licensing
and regulatory activities;
• Prohibitions on the cross-ownership of licenses;
• The allowance of appellation verification statements to be permitted
("branding"); and,
• The restriction on licensees for previous criminal convictions and a strong
revocation process for violations of corresponding state medical marijuana
laws.
RCRC opposes any effort — in the Legislature, the regulatory process, and/or the
statewide initiative process — that weakens, eliminates or compromises the
implementation of these policies.
The regulatory framework places a number of responsibilities with regulating
agencies, including the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation and the
Department of Food and Agriculture. These include the development of cultivation
standards including a unique identifiers/track and trace program; detailed
transportation standards; pesticide-use standards; and statewide limits on the
number of large cultivation sites.
RCRC recommends the following be included in the implementation of the
regulations:
• As a condition of issuing a State license, an applicant must demonstrate a
local jurisdiction's approval — via a certified copy of documents — to operate
within the local jurisdiction's borders;
• The establishment of uniform standards for the potency of medical
marijuana products;
• Ensure the state properly and fully enforces the statutory and regulatory
aspects of the scheme for those who are non-compliant, and in the case
where this falls upon locals, adequate state reimbursement must be made;
• Proper labeling of THC levels and other products used for cultivation;
• Proper State enforcement of worker and worker safety standards;
• Assurance that no new state law or regulation grants any new "rights"
relating to medical marijuana activities;
• Attention to the issue of tax compliance and enforcement, including assuring
effective enforcement mechanisms for local tax obligations;
• Efforts at both the state and federal level to allow for and make available
banking and other financial services to cannabis operators in order to
minimize the use of cash; and,
• Statewide enforceable standard of what constitutes driving while impaired.
State Oversight Board. Any state board with oversight or advisory
responsibilities relating to medical marijuana must include in its composition
several rural county supervisors and/or rural county representatives in order to
reflect the unique issues that occur in the cultivation of marijuana in rural areas.
Environmental Enforcement. Despite the best efforts of counties to utilize their
operational and/or land use authority, counties lack the tools, resources, and legal
authority to fully address the environmental degradation that is occurring with
unregulated grows — the negative impact on water quality and water supply, the
destruction of habitat, and the improper use of pesticides/fertilizers, among others,
is rampant. RCRC believes that environmental damage must be addressed by a
variety of State agencies including, but not limited to the, Board of Forestry, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Boards
as well as other traditional state law enforcement agencies (i.e. California Highway
Patrol, Department of Justice). RCRC supports a requirement that State
environmental agencies coordinate with local government to ensure uniform
application in enforcement efforts.
Federal Lands. Addressing all of the regulatory, public safety, and environmental
issues on lands managed by the United States Forest Service, the National Park
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management presents a set of challenges that
exceed those found on State and private lands. Failure to adequately address
cultivation on federal public lands will marginalize the work on State and private
lands. RCRC supports efforts by federal land management agencies to properly
manage and eradicate the illegal growing of marijuana on public lands and
encourages federal agencies to actively work with State and local enforcement
entities to achieve this objective.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Safe and Secure Local Detention Facilities. The role of county detention
facilities has drastically changed since the enactment of criminal justice
realignment (Assembly Bill 109) in 2011. County jails now house a variety of
criminals previously sentenced to State prison. This shift requires local detention
facilities to now be reinforced to house more high-level offenders, to include facilities
for rehabilitation and alternative treatment programs, and to ensure that facilities
meet all accessibility, safety, and security standards under the law. Prior to 2011,
many counties had mandatory population caps on the number of inmates being
housed or serving time in county detention facilities. Enactment of AB 109
exacerbated the problems associated with county facilities where the population
demands exceed capacity and programming space available. Further, many local
detention facilities have exhausted their lifespan and are in dire need of
rehabilitation and/or major reconstruction.
The State has created several jail construction programs to provide financial
assistance to counties to construct new or rehabilitate existing local
facilities. RCRC supports further State efforts to provide a funding mechanism
and/or funding sources that assist to these efforts. Many rural counties have
challenges meeting State-match requirements; therefore, RCRC supports flexible
and innovative financing options to address county financial hardships. RCRC also
supports establishing funding streams that provide rural counties the ability to
compete for State funds within low-population groupings.
Certified Unified Program Agencies. RCRC continues to support financial
incentives for rural counties to operate Certified Unified Program Agencies
(CUPAs). These incentives include reimbursement of local costs incurred in
operating a CUPA so that businesses in rural counties do not pay disproportionately
high fees compared to other areas of the state. RCRC also supports the reduction of
non-essential reporting by CUPAs and a reduction in State administrative fees. In
the event the State retains the administration of a local CUPA, the State should
adequately reimburse counties, in a timely manner, for any costs the county incurs
providing services during the absence of CUPAs.
Emergency Medical Services. The State Emergency Medical Services Authority
(SMSA) is responsible for establishing standards for the training and scope of
practice for emergency medical technicians (EMTs). These standards and
regulations are applicable to local governments, agencies, and other organizations
that provide this training. State law also provides for the certification of EMTs
through local EMSAs, which are designated by counties. With few exceptions,
RCRC counties meet these statutory requirements through participation in Local
Emergency Medical Services Agencies (LEMSAs) through participation in multi-
county Regional Emergency Medical Services Agencies (REMSAs). In most
counties, at least one supervisor serves on a REMSA Board of Directors and has an
important role in the governance of REMSA activities. To promote uniformity
throughout the state, the SMSA provides an allocation of State General Fund
dollars to REMSAs. RCRC supports adequate and continual State General Fund
support for the REMSAs to ensure uniform levels of emergency medical care are
available to residents and non-residents of rural areas. RCRC believes that rural
county supervisors must directly participate in any SMSA proposal affecting the
delivery of emergency medical services regardless if the county is serviced by a
single county LEMSA or a multi-county REMSA.
Illegal Drugs — Methamphetamine. The production and use of
methamphetamines continues to be a serious problem in rural counties.
Consequently, counties - especially rural counties - must deal with the costs of law
enforcement, environmental cleanup, and treatment and rehabilitation related to
methamphetamine use. Additionally, methamphetamine use has a direct effect on
safety and quality of life in a community. RCRC supports funding from federal and
State sources to help counties combat methamphetamine production and provide
services for recovery.
Butane - Honey Oil. RCRC supports State legislation and regulations that will
help counties address the proliferation of non-commercial Honey Oil manufacturing.
RCRC supports the adoption of regulations under the recently-enacted Medical
Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act to restrict the production of Honey Oil to only
those entities that are fully licensed. Additionally, RCRC supports innovative
policies to: restrict sales/or the quantity of sales of butane; provide resources for
environmental cleanup associated with illegal Honey Oil production; put forth rules
for both the residential and commercial storage of items used in the manufacturing
process; and enacting butane canister retail take-back programs to avoid disposal
into municipal landfills and recycling facilities.
Volunteer Firefighting. RCRC strongly supports the right of counties to utilize
volunteer firefighters and volunteer fire departments as the official structural fire
protection resource for any areas within their counties. RCRC recognizes the
importance of volunteer firefighters and volunteer fire departments and opposes
any legislation or changes to regulations that would disadvantage any county that
utilizes volunteer units. RCRC supports the current system that enables volunteer
fire departments to be created and operated independently, without direct control or
oversight from the county. Additionally, RCRC supports the usage of volunteers as
part of a mutual aid system, and encourages State and federal firefighters and land
management agencies responsible for firefighting to recognize local volunteer
firefighters as partners. Finally, RCRC supports existing policy that within the
context of the State Responsibility Area fee, those residents covered by volunteer
fire departments qualify for any discounts available to those who have local
structural fire protection.
Pretrial Programs and Services. Recent reforms through criminal justice
realignment in 2011 have placed an increased number of offenders in the local jail
system. According to the most recent data available by the Public Policy Institute of
California, as of September 2014, roughly 62 percent of beds were filled with
inmates awaiting trial or sentencing. To address long-term jail capacity issues,
RCRC supports providing counties and public safety stakeholders additional
resources and flexibility for managing their pretrial detainee population.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic development in rural counties encompasses a broad range of RCRC ideals
including ensuring adequate and affordable housing finance options, maintaining
county control of land use planning, protecting the agriculture, forestry,
manufacturing industries, and small to medium-sized businesses from damaging
budgetary, legislative, or regulatory changes, improving infrastructure such as
transportation corridors, telecommunications, and high-speed broadband
deployment, maintaining and growing tourism, constructing and upgrading water
and sewer networks, and supporting advances in alternative energy such as solar,
biomass, geothermal, and municipal energy-to-waste electrical generation.
Film Industry. California's diverse weather, variety of landscapes, scenic beauty,
skilled workforce/talent and world-class production facilities draw the interest of
filmmakers from across the country and around the world. The majority of RCRC's
member counties maintain film commissions or offices that provide localized
support and assistance to filmmakers with permit applications and detailed location
searches. RCRC supports State and local efforts to promote filmmaking in
California's rural areas.
Incentives. RCRC supports State and federal incentives as a stimulus to job
growth and economic improvement within our communities. However, RCRC
believes in balancing these incentives with the importance of ensuring county
revenue from sales and property taxes, and preserving a county's right to plan and
site new growth and development within its jurisdiction. Additionally, RCRC
supports a county's right to maintain maximum flexibility and autonomy over the
allotment and expenditure of any incentive dollars and exemptions, where
appropriate, to matching fund requirements for economically disadvantaged
communities.
Military Presence. RCRC recognizes the importance of the defense industry to
California's economy and particularly to the counties in and around where military
bases are located. Between direct spending and the positive multiplier effect on
local businesses through the spending by those military personnel and their
families who live in the counties surrounding a military facility, California's
military presence accounts for tens of billions in spending and hundreds of
thousands of military and civilian jobs.
RCRC encourages lawmakers to recognize the impact base reductions or closures
will have on the local economies of the small and rural counties that rely upon these
bases as a financial driver for their communities. Additionally, RCRC encourages
policy and lawmakers to provide avenues and incentives for local governments to
revitalize former military facilities to enhance local economic opportunities.
Technology. RCRC supports ensuring that new technologies are available in rural
counties to enhance economic growth. From new biomass, solar, wind and
geothermal power generation facilities, to high-speed broadband deployment,
distance learning, telemedicine and the creation of centers of innovation, new
technologies are critical to the economic health and growth of rural California.
RCRC supports proactive policies that are created to make these and other new
technologies available and accessible to rural residents.
Tourism. Millions of travelers from around the globe are attracted to rural
California's natural beauty, colorful history, and variety of year-round recreational
activities. In 2015, California's tourism generated $122.5 billion, which directly
supported 1,064,000 jobs. Additionally, travel spending in 2015 generated $4.6
billion in local tax revenue, and $5.3 billion in state taxes. RCRC supports and
encourages the promotion of rural California as a travel destination, and supports
appropriate funding for the infrastructure and service demands created by the
influx of visitors such as emergency medical services systems, highway construction
and maintenance, and telecommunications.
Small Business and Entrepreneurialism. Small communities are heavily
reliant on small businesses and manufacturers for local employment, revenue
generation, access to goods and services, and quality of life. Small businesses,
entrepreneurs, and small manufacturers are a primary source of economic growth
and job creation, and are of particular importance in rural communities with few
large employers. RCRC opposes policies, regulations and strategies that negatively
impact small to medium-sized businesses in rural areas, which are often the
cornerstone of these communities. The imposition of excessive fees, health
insurance requirements or other statutory or regulatory action that
disproportionally affect small to medium-sized businesses has the potential to
destroy local industry and commerce, and thus deprive rural areas of jobs, services
and opportunities for prosperity.
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. In 2014, Congress enacted the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to reauthorize and modernize
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. The WIOA assist states with job
training, education, and employment investments. In addition to State-level
oversight, local individuals (including elected officials) form local Workforce
Investment Boards (WIBs) to plan and oversee the workforce investment system at
the local level. The local efforts are often reflected through California's system of
American Job Centers, which employers and job seekers access for career
information, job counseling, job training, education, and other related employment
and job training services. Monies used by local WIBs are primarily derived from
federal dollars and must be expended under federal guidelines and State statutes.
Rural counties have unique employment situations and factors as compared to other
parts of the state. RCRC supports State and federal efforts that preserve as much
local flexibility as possible to ensure the appropriate employment and job training
programs match the needs of local employers and job seekers.
RCRC advocates for workforce development policies and programs that provide job
seekers the skills they need to compete in the global economy and businesses with
the skilled workforce to maintain and grow their competitive edge. RCRC supports
business-led local WIBs governed and supported by local elected officials and local
leaders, the use of demand-driven and data-driven strategies within regional
economies and labor markets, and access to employment opportunities, career
counseling, and job training programs and services through American Job Centers.
RCRC opposes proposals that negatively impact and burden rural small businesses.
RCRC encourages flexibility for disadvantaged communities and rural areas in
State regulatory programs and legislative approval of State regulatory agency fees.
EDUCATION
Rural areas face unique challenges in providing access to a high quality education
for all students. These challenges include low student density, long travel distances
and challenging geography to access educational facilities, limited opportunities for
vocational or elective courses, as well as weather and transportation issues.
Additionally, there are fewer teachers in rural areas, which results in a limited
scope of educational opportunities such as career training courses. RCRC advocates
for increased investment in new programs that foster innovation and help prevent
youth from these communities from being forced to move to urban areas to receive
job training. This is critical because few who move away for skilled training or
education ultimately return to rural areas.
Access. RCRC supports continued changes to State policy, allowing for increased
access to "concurrent enrollment" (being enrolled in high school and community
college classes at the same time) as one opportunity for rural students to access
courses such as higher-level math or science classes and vocational education
courses that may not otherwise be available through their local schools. RCRC also
supports increasing the utilization of distance learning to improve educational
opportunities in rural areas. Professors, licensed instructors, and credentialed
teachers that communicate with pupils via interactive television, online courses and
other appropriate means of technology have the ability to significantly broaden the
scope of education opportunities available to California's rural students.
Community Colleges. RCRC supports community colleges receiving their full-
share of State funding. Community colleges play a key role in educational
opportunities in rural counties, particularly in the area of vocational education and
training. RCRC supports stable and consistent funding for grant programs that
fund job training programs and changes to current law to allow community colleges
to grant bachelor's degrees in certain subject areas, which would significantly help
students who reside in rural areas where there are no California State University or
University of California campuses.
California State Universities and University of California. RCRC supports
keeping public higher education affordable and accessible to students from rural,
and often economically depressed, areas.
School Transportation. Home-to-School Transportation (HTST) plays a
necessary role in ensuring student safety and accessibility to education. RCRC
strongly supports the continued funding of HTST and will work to ensure that State
reimbursement rates for services in rural areas are sufficient to meet the need.
Students in rural areas travel longer distances in more difficult terrain and weather
than many of their urban and suburban counterparts, and the funding should
reflect these potentially increased costs. RCRC supports restructuring the current
system of HTST to better allocate this funding based upon need rather than
antiquated formulae that no longer reflect the requirements of many districts.
Additionally, RCRC supports creating a system of funding that would stabilize the
funding for HTST.
ENERGY
California continues to face challenges to ensuring adequate electricity supply and
meeting its renewable portfolio standard goals. Rural counties support the use of
alternative and renewable sources of energy including solar, wind, biomass,
hydroelectric, and geothermal. Rural counties also support increased incentives
and a streamlined permitting system to encourage the development of new
generation facilities.
Additionally, RCRC acknowledges that an increased focus on clean energy, energy
efficiency programs, and the development of new forms of energy generation at the
State and federal levels create an opportunity for new jobs and economic
development in rural areas.
Biomass. RCRC supports incentives that would encourage biomass-to-energy
usage including the creation of more opportunities for biomass co-generation in
rural counties through State and federal legislative and regulatory changes. RCRC
supports the continued operation of existing biomass facilities and supports the
extension of current biomass contracts to keep those facilities open. RCRC supports
the use of forest as well as agricultural biomass at conversion facilities, and
supports usage of woody biomass from areas disproportionately impacted by tree
mortality. RCRC supports having forest materials removed from timber and
scrublands and being put to their highest and best use, and where possible, any
revenues derived from this removal being used to offset the cost of biomass
utilization and transport. Further, RCRC supports the broadest possible definition
of biomass for use in any renewable energy standard at the State or federal levels.
This definition should include material taken from any source including public
lands. RCRC supports a full life cycle analysis when determining the air quality
standards for biomass power generation plants. RCRC supports the use of biomass
for wildfire, tree mortality, and bark beetle infested wood waste, and the expedited
process needed to meet the timelines associated with it.
Land Use Authority. RCRC supports the ongoing recognition by State and
federal agencies of a county or other local government's authority to exercise land
use authority over commercial-scale energy projects, whether renewable or
traditional, and the related infrastructure including the issuance of conditional use
permits and other discretionary actions. Additionally, RCRC supports clarification
of existing law to eliminate confusion relating to the jurisdiction of the California
Energy Commission (CEC) and the jurisdiction of local governments over non-
thermal power plants.
Mitigation Measures. RCRC recognizes the CEC's sole authority for permitting
certain renewable energy power plants. However, RCRC supports efforts to require
the CEC to give "due deference" to impacts and recommended mitigation measures
identified by the county in which a power plant is proposed for inclusion in the
CEC's proposed conditions of certification for the project.
Nuclear Power. Nuclear power should be considered part of the solution for
improving California's ability to generate reliable, affordable, and clean energy, so
as to benefit California's consumers, the economy, and the environment.
Rebates and Tax Exemptions. RCRC supports and recognizes the importance of
State incentives in the placement of new renewable power generation facilities.
However, these incentives should not be detrimental to county or other local
government revenue streams. A county's ability to tax commercial-scale renewable
energy projects must be preserved.
Renewable Portfolio Standard. RCRC supports recognition of hydroelectric
power as a component under the renewable portfolio standard. Large hydropower
generation — over 30 megawatt of generation capacity - should also be recognized as
a renewable energy source.
Additionally, RCRC supports a broad definition of renewable biomass that includes
a variety of plant-based material removed from various sources including
agricultural lands and timber lands regardless of whether the land is under private
or public ownership. RCRC also supports including the utilization of municipal
waste as a qualified source of renewable energy in any renewable portfolio
standard.
Transmission Corridors. California has adopted energy policies that require
substantial increases in the generation of electricity from renewable energy
resources. Implementation of these policies will require extensive improvements to
California's electric transmission infrastructure. While RCRC supports planning
for future transmission needs, RCRC opposes the preemption of local land use
authority in connection with State or federal designation of transmission corridors.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
State regulatory agencies often develop programs based on a "one size fits all"
approach that fails to recognize realities in different locations of the state.
Environmental quality compliance costs can be disproportionately high in rural
counties because of geography, low population density, and fewer available
resources. Bearing the cost of these regulations can be especially burdensome for
rural counties.
RCRC strives to reduce or prevent unnecessary regulatory requirements while
promoting practical and cost effective environmental quality practices that reflect
the actual threat to the environment. RCRC supports prioritizing environmental
inspections, compliance reporting, and regulatory enforcement activities that are
consistent with the need for environmental protection and the preservation of public
health.
AIR QUALITY
Air District Boards. RCRC supports the establishment of policy by local Air
District Boards. RCRC opposes the placement of State appointees on local Air
District Boards.
Emission Standards. RCRC supports extending the compliance date in rural
counties for retrofitting and replacing on-road and off-road vehicles and equipment.
RCRC supports exemptions and extensions for rural counties that do not have the
resources to meet regulatory requirements and encourages financial assistance from
the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to foster compliance. RCRC supports
tailoring regulations to address the quantity of emissions actually generated in
rural counties.
Currently, many rural counties only receive the minimum Carl Moyer funding,
which is inadequate to fund the number of vehicles and equipment subject to ARB
regulations. RCRC supports an increase in funding for the Carl Moyer Program for
rural counties without the requirement for match funding.
Land Use Authority. RCRC opposes any new statewide air quality standards
that restrict county land use authority.
State Ambient Air Quality Standards. State law requires the Air Resources
Board (ARB) establish and periodically review State ambient air quality standards
(SAAQS). These standards define the maximum level of a pollutant that can be
present in outdoor air considered safe for the public's health. Many of our rural
counties experience nonattainment for ozone due to downwind transport from the
upwind urban areas. While RCRC supports not applying upwind and more
restrictive regulations on the downwind transport-impacted counties, RCRC also
encourages ARB to exercise its authority to ensure that the State Implementation
Plan includes sufficient control strategies to attain the SAAQS in all parts of
California including areas impacted by intrastate transport of air pollution.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
California Environmental Quality Act. Counties, as "lead agencies," conduct
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review required for both public
and private projects. Counties, therefore, have a unique and critical perspective on
CEQA. The misuse and abuse of the CEQA process to delay or unduly stop
potential projects wastes scarce public resources that would otherwise fund
essential public programs and services.
RCRC supports efforts to streamline the CEQA process to strengthen the certainty
of required timelines. RCRC opposes limiting or reducing the authority provided to
lead agencies under CEQA. RCRC supports facilitation of early agency and public
participation in the CEQA process to allow the lead agency and project proponents
to more fully address environmental concerns resulting from a proposed project and
to facilitate preparation of a legally adequate environmental document.
RCRC supports legislation that limits the circumstances under which a challenge
for noncompliance with CEQA can be filed, eliminates awarding of attorney's fees to
the plaintiff in CEQA challenges, and specifies that a lead agency does not have a
duty to consider, evaluate, or respond to comments received after the expiration of
the CEQA public review period. RCRC opposes CEQA-related legislation that
would make it more difficult for rural counties and rural residents to access the
court system.
Disadvantaged Communities. There are numerous disadvantaged and severely
disadvantaged communities (DACs) throughout the state, in rural, suburban, and
urban areas alike. RCRC supports state and federal funding for DACs to meet their
needs for a variety of projects such as water infrastructure, transportation, waste
diversion and recycling, and forest and watershed health programs. RCRC supports
a definition of DACs that addresses the unique needs and make-up of DACs located
throughout the state, such as the Public Resources Code 75005 which describes a
"disadvantaged community" as a community with a median household income less
than 80% of the statewide average, and a "severely disadvantaged community" as a
community with a median household income less than 60% of the statewide
average.
RCRC is opposed to the sole use of the California Communities Environmental
Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) to define DACs for the allocation of Cap-
and-Trade auction proceeds, or any other statewide funding
programs. CalEnviroScreen is flawed, and excludes many rural communities that
would be included as "disadvantaged" under other methodologies (such as the one
outlined in the Public Resources Code). Specifically, CalEnviroScreen eliminates
around half of the state's 58 counties that do not have a census tract in the top 25
percent of the tool. RCRC supports the development and expansion of Cap-and-
Trade funding programs specifically targeted at rural communities.
California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool. The
California Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment released a tool in 2013 to screen the environmental
health of California's communities. The California Communities Environmental
Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) model uses existing exposure,
environmental, health, sensitive population, and socio-economic data on a
geographic basis to create and compare the cumulative impact scores of
environmental pollution for the state's communities. The stated intent of the tool is
to provide State and local decision-makers with information that will enable them
to focus their time, resources, and programs on those portions of the state or
jurisdiction that are most in need of assistance. RCRC opposes the use of the
CalEnviroScreen tool as a substitute for a focused risk assessment for a specific
area or site, or as the basis for any regulatory, permitting, or land use decisions or
studies. RCRC also opposes using CalEnviroScreen results as the sole
determination of "disadvantaged communities" for any funding or regulatory
program.
National Environmental Policy Act. RCRC supports a reassessment of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) effort to streamline the environmental
review and permitting process, and federal policies that establish reciprocity
between NEPA and State environmental laws and regulations, such as CEQA.
RCRC supports an expedited NEPA analyses process for categories of projects
where experience demonstrates that such projects do not result in a significant
impact to the environment, such as forest health and watershed restoration
projects, particularly after wildfires. RCRC also supports increasing opportunities
for local involvement and changes that provide greater weight to local economic
impacts and comments.
Regulatory Reform. RCRC supports State and federal agency review of all
existing and proposed regulations, as well as quasi-regulatory actions such as
permits, policies, and guidance documents. State and federal regulatory agencies
should consider the costs and benefits associated with public and private sector
compliance, as well as the cumulative impact of all existing and proposed
regulations and quasi-regulatory actions on regulated entities. RCRC supports
changes to the law that would require more in-depth analysis of the fiscal impact of
new regulations to rural areas and reduce the overall financial impact threshold
before such fiscal analysis is required for all new regulatory actions.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING
Disposal Bans. RCRC supports advanced statewide planning and infrastructure
for convenient identification and recovery of all materials and products prior to
banning from California landfill disposal or requiring separate handling or
processing. RCRC maintains that manufacturers and retailers must actively
contribute to establish programs to cover the costs for disposal, recycling, special
handling, and/or any public education required for their end-of-life products, before
any such disposal bans are implemented.
Extended Producer Responsibility. RCRC supports producer responsibility for
financing and arranging the collection and recycling of their products at end-of-life.
Producer responsibility removes the financial burden from local governments and
makes recycling a cost of doing business. Placing the responsibility with
manufacturers/retailers will additionally provide incentive for products to be
redesigned in a manner to eliminate or reduce their impact, and to increase their
recyclability. RCRC prefers producer responsibility through product take-back by
the manufacturers/retailers. RCRC will consider the reasonable use of Advanced
Recycling Fees and Advanced Disposal Fees.
Electronic and Universal Waste. RCRC supports the proper disposal of
electronic and universal waste through programs that place the cost of compliance
on manufacturers and consumers rather than on county-operated landfills or waste
management programs.
Jurisdictional Compliance. RCRC supports using program-based criteria to
determine jurisdictional compliance with statutory waste diversion requirements
that incorporate rural considerations. RCRC opposes numerical justifications on
program implementation that do not include rural considerations.
Incentives. RCRC favors the use of "incentive-based" policies to promote local
waste diversion activities and to encourage regulatory compliance at publicly
operated solid waste facilities, rather than the threat of State-imposed financial
penalties. Rural considerations should be incorporated into these policies to
properly reflect the costs commensurate with the impact of the regulatory effort at
rural sites, whenever appropriate.
Incentive Funding. Recognizing that the costs for solid waste regulatory
compliance are disproportionately high in rural areas of the state, RCRC supports
the continuation and expansion of grant programs and funds that provide needed
financial assistance to implement and maintain local waste diversion activities and
support community-based household hazardous waste management programs.
Local Control. RCRC opposes any loss of local land use control with respect to the
siting and environmental review of new solid waste collection, disposal, and
processing facilities.
Permitting. RCRC supports "tiered" solid waste facility permitting and operating
requirements with reduced administrative and operational requirements that are
commensurate with the limited environmental and public health risks associated
with small-volume facility operation in low-density population areas.
Increasing Diversion/Decreasing Disposal Mandates. State law requires
municipalities divert at least 50 percent of the solid waste generated in their
jurisdiction. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), which enforces this mandate, allows some rural counties flexibility in
meeting these mandates through either a `Rural Reduction in diversion
requirements' or compliance through a `Good Faith Effort.' Recent legislation now
establishes a statewide goal of 75 percent of solid waste to be reduced, recycled or
composted. As the State works towards the 75 percent statewide goal, RCRC
believes municipalities should be given additional tools that allow them to assist in
achieving the new statewide diversion goals. Such tools should include, but are not
limited to, extended producer responsibility, an easing of the permitting restrictions
for organic waste processes and other solid waste activities, model program
guidelines, and increased funding.
RCRC recognizes that organic materials in landfills are a major contributor to
methane gas production, and alternative treatment systems need to be pursued.
However, any regulatory requirement needs to consider existing infrastructure and
capacity, the economic feasibility of new facilities, and provide the flexibility for
phasing-in various regions and areas of the state, especially in rural counties.
Financing State Solid Waste Disposal Programs. State law requires that
$1.40 be collected for every ton of solid waste disposed in a California-permitted
landfill, commonly referred to as the "Tipping Fee." Proceeds from the current
tipping fee are deposited into the Integrated Waste Management Account (IWMA)
and used by CalRecycle to enforce solid waste laws, permit facilities, provide local
assistance, administer programs and rulemaking, and provide grants to municipal
jurisdictions to assist in the management of many solid waste products. As solid
waste disposal decreases due to a number of recent events (economic factors, new
recycling mandates, consumer awareness), proceeds from the tipping fee are not
sufficient to sustain CalRecycle programs into the future. CalRecycle and other
agencies with enforcement authority over solid waste facilities are turning to their
fee authority to augment decreasing IWMA funds. A similar dynamic is occurring
at the local level where local tipping fee revenues are not generating enough funds
to sustain local programs including the direct management of landfills.
RCRC believes a wide range of options should be considered to reform the financing
mechanisms for the management of solid waste programs. Options include:
increasing the current tipping fee as a temporary measure; applying new solid
waste management fees on aspects of the waste stream that currently have no
levies; reforming the programs that CalRecycle manages to limit costs; or a
combination of these options. Any new financing scheme should be comprehensive
and lead to a stable and equitable source of funding that also assists counties in
complying with solid waste management programs. Implementation of any new
financing mechanism needs to consider lead time for county processing and
budgeting purposes. RCRC does not support an increase in the Tipping Fee or other
funding mechanisms for projects and programs that are not part of a direct effort to
manage and reduce the overall amount of solid waste.
Alternative Daily Cover. State and federal law require that the working face of
landfills be covered at the end of each working day with dirt, tarps, or "alternative
daily cover (ADC)," such as shredded automobile fluff or green waste. For many
rural counties, green waste is the preferred ADC. Commencing January 1, 2020,
state law will provide the use of green material as alternative daily cover does not
constitute diversion. RCRC strongly supports preserving the use of green waste
materials for ADC as a viable option, and does not support having the Tipping Fee
apply to green waste materials that are used as ADC under the current fee
structure.
FEDERAL AFFAIRS
Many actions taken by the federal government - both in Congress and within
Administrative agencies - have a direct impact on rural areas, especially those
counties in California that contain large amounts of federal land. RCRC is
committed to working with members of Congress and our agency partners to
develop legislative and regulatory policies that complement local and state policy,
funds vital county and state programs, and do not preempt local and state
authority.
Federal Funding. Many county and State programs rely on federal funds to
survive including monies for health and social services, infrastructure,
environment, public safety, and education. Long extensions and delays in the
budget process cause unpredictability for these vital programs, leaving local and
State officials responsible for trying to fill the funding gaps. RCRC supports the
timely adoption of spending authorization efforts to ensure there is no disruption in
funding vital federal programs.
Infrastructure. RCRC supports continued federal commitments and funding for
the nation's infrastructure including housing, transportation, water,
telecommunications and natural resources. In particular, RCRC strongly supports
the continued commitment of the federal government to reimburse rural counties
for the loss of revenue — tax and resource generated — on federally held lands
located in our counties. The continued reauthorization of full funding of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act (SRS) and the Federal
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program is vital to rural economies.
In addition to SRS and Federal PILT, federal laws that govern and fund vital
county programs and services such as the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act, Federal Aviation Act, the Farm Bill, Water Resources Development Act, the
State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, the Workforce Investment Act, the Telecommunications Act, annual
appropriations bills, and other ongoing federal programs are critical to the
continuance of a vibrant rural way of life.
Monuments. The designation of new national monuments is a process that
currently can be done directly by the President with no Congressional oversight and
no requirement for local input. RCRC supports changes to the current system so
that the creation of national monuments requires the approval and/or the oversight
of Congress to allow for local government and public input prior to designation.
Natural Resources. RCRC supports the development of a long-term
comprehensive federal and state strategy to manage our federal lands to actively
prevent wildfire and promote multiple-use land designations. RCRC will continue
to work closely with the United States Forest Service (USFS) as they seek to
develop and implement the Cohesive Strategy for addressing these issues.
Additionally, RCRC supports efforts to streamline and modernize the Endangered
Species Act.
Relationship with Public Lands Management Agencies. RCRC represents
counties that have regulatory and public trust responsibilities over the natural
resources in their jurisdictions. In a number of our counties, the federal
government manages well over half of the land mass. RCRC supports a strong
relationship with the federal government to integrate county policy into federal land
management decisions to better balance conservation with economic strength and
quality of life.
RCRC supports local government involvement in public land use planning decisions
at the earliest possible time in order to facilitate the best possible working
relationship and outcome for any decision. RCRC supports strengthening
coordination efforts by public land management agencies to engage counties earlier
and in a more meaningful manner in planning decisions made on public lands
within their respective counties. Additionally, RCRC supports a true government-
to-government role for county officials in the development of land use planning
decisions for public lands within their jurisdictions. Plans for public land
management should be as consistent as possible with local land use plans. When it
is not possible to bring disparate plans together, the land management agencies
should provide an explanation as to why the final plan needs to follow a divergent
path from the local land use plans.
Lastly, RCRC encourages State agencies working with federal land use agencies to
work to enhance the relationship between federal land use agencies and local
governments within California, and encourages the use of tools such as the
Memorandum of Agreement between the California State Association of Counties,
RCRC, the Bureau of Land Management, and the USFS, or cooperating agency
status as appropriate to the needs of the county, to achieve better communication
between all involved agencies, and to improve outcomes for rural communities.
Telemedicine. RCRC strongly supports additional federal advancements, policy
changes, and funding mechanisms regarding the expansion of telemedicine as a
means to improve access to healthcare, especially specialty care, in rural areas.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
FISCAL PARTICIPATION
Rural counties have various levels of fiscal responsibility for health and human
services programs. For example, counties are required to provide health services to
the indigent population of the county not covered by any other healthcare provider.
In most RCRC counties, indigent healthcare services are provided through the
County Medical Services Program (CMSP) which is funded by the member counties'
realignment revenue. The counties share fiscal responsibility with the State and/or
federal government for a number of services and programs, such as California
Children's Services. Often the county role is an administrative function that should
be fully reimbursed by the State and/or federal government, and program costs
should be cost neutral or negligible.
County Medical Services Program. RCRC supports the continuation of the
County Medical Services Program (CMSP). Counties have a responsibility over a
residual population of those currently served by county indigent care programs
through CMSP even after the shift of those newly eligible for Medicaid and Medi-
Cal. It is critical to preserve the integrity of the structure of the CMSP program,
and to ensure adequate funding continues to be allocated to it to meet the needs of
that residual population.
Realignment. RCRC supports local flexibility in the administration and
implementation of programs funded by realignment. RCRC supports adequate
funding and appropriate distribution of realignment funds to ensure that counties
can continue to meet their legal obligations for providing Health and Human
Services. RCRC acknowledges that some realigned programs may be better
administer ed and funded at the State level, and supports an evaluation of such
potential transfers.
RCRC also supports full and prompt reimbursement of the State and/or federal
share of social services, mental health, public health and indigent medical care
program costs. RCRC believes that the State should assume cost increases
associated with State-imposed program changes and expansions, as well as federal
maintenance of effort mandates.
Funding Reductions. RCRC opposes state and/or federal funding reductions that
shift responsibility for services, administration or fiscal support to rural counties.
Health and Human Services Reimbursement. RCRC supports prompt and
complete reimbursement of county costs associated with county administration of
state, federal, or shared state/ federal social services and health programs.
Food Access. RCRC supports innovative programs and state and/or federal
financial incentives that increase food access in underserved and rural
communities. Additionally, RCRC supports policies that address food deserts and
create strong regional food and farm systems.
Poverty. RCRC acknowledges that poverty is a statewide issue and continues to be
on the forefront of policy development. Poverty rates vary widely by county and
region. According to a 2013 report, the California Poverty Measure (CPM), by the
Public Policy Institute and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, more
than half of RCRC's 35 counties had a poverty rate of 17 percent or higher. RCRC
supports strategies and resources aimed at reducing California's poverty rate.
Homelessness. RCRC recognizes homelessness as a statewide issue and supports
policy that provides State and/or federal funding and resources to local governments
to address the needs of the homeless population in their communities.
Human Trafficking. Human Trafficking is defined as the trade of humans, most
commonly for forced sex work or forced labor. A $31 billion industry, human
trafficking is the world's fastest growing criminal enterprise, and has grown
profoundly in recent years, particularly in California's rural counties. RCRC
supports coordination among law enforcement, victim service providers and non-
governmental organizations to develop innovative strategies and response tools to
help combat human trafficking. Additionally, RCRC supports resources that
facilitate training and education for law enforcement, teachers and students, and
other governmental entities on how to properly identify and manage occurrences of
human trafficking in their communities. Specialized training of this kind is
especially necessary in smaller or rural counties, which often have limited staff and
access to resources.
HEALTHCARE
It is important that the medical and public health services available in rural
counties meet the needs of the residents and make appropriate care accessible. Due
to geographic isolation and limited infrastructure availability, attracting and
retaining healthcare providers in rural counties can be challenging. Rural areas are
unable to utilize economies of scale to decrease costs and depressed economic
conditions lead to large publicly-funded populations with low provider
reimbursement rates, making recruitment and retention of healthcare providers a
constant challenge. Between implementation of federal healthcare reform,
realignment, and provider-rate cuts, the State and federal government must work
with rural counties to develop strategies to ensure better, and prevent the loss of
all, access to medical services for these critically underserved California residents.
RCRC urges the State to consider the unique challenges and needs of rural and low-
population counties when negotiating with the federal government regarding any
Health and Human Services program changes. RCRC encourages the State to
create innovative ways to ensure small county readiness and eligibility for new
opportunities similar to those enjoyed by their larger and more urban counterparts.
RCRC supports program changes that ensure rural, remote, and low-population
counties are not disadvantaged when attempting to meet any new requirements
created by the State or federal governments.
Access to Health Care. RCRC acknowledges that health insurance coverage,
whether public or private, does not guarantee access to care. RCRC supports
incentives and programs which train, recruit, and retain health, dental and mental
healthcare professionals to provide services in rural areas. To this end, RCRC
encourages cooperation and communication between State agencies, offices,
departments and boards, as well as the Legislature, federal agencies and county
health advocacy organizations to affect this ultimate goal.
RCRC also supports policies that require private and public health plans to offer
comprehensive, affordable care to rural county residents, and establish
reimbursement parity between rural medical providers and those in other areas of
the state. RCRC encourages cooperation between providers, insurers, appropriate
State departments, the California public pension systems and other stakeholders in
the rural health community to develop incentives and guidelines for health
insurance coverage in rural areas.
Health Professionals. RCRC supports innovative programs and financial
incentives to increase the number of medical professionals in rural areas.
Scholarships and loan assistance programs are proven incentives that encourage
health professionals to practice in rural areas and become active community
members.
Innovation. RCRC supports and encourages the inclusion of rural counties in pilot
projects and innovative approaches within new and existing health, mental health,
public health, education and social services programs.
Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Cuts. The 2011 State Budget Act reduced
reimbursement rates to several different types of Medi-Cal providers including
Distinct Part/Skilled Nursing Facilities (DP/SNFs), pharmacies, and other fee-for-
service Medi-Cal activities by 10 percent. Federal court rulings prevented the State
from implementing many of these reductions until June 2013. The Medi-Cal
Managed Care Organization (MCO) Tax reform package, signed by the Governor in
March 2016, prohibited the State from implementing or retroactively recouping
provider rate reductions for DP/SNFs.
RCRC continues to advocate that DP/SNFs are appropriately reimbursed for
services and supports efforts that improve provider reimbursement rates
throughout California.
Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. RCRC strongly supports the
current Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) law. RCRC recognizes
that any threat to MICRA would be costly for all Californians, but particularly
harmful to rural areas where access to healthcare is the most limited already. Any
significant threat to existing MICRA protections will establish an increase in
medical liability insurance rates, and thereby reduce access to healthcare for
patients in rural and underserved areas.
Public Health Services. RCRC supports adequate and appropriate State and/or
federal funding for public health services including those unique to rural areas.
These include, but are not limited to: environmental health, public health nursing,
bioterrorism/pandemic planning, county public health laboratories, and the
prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks. RCRC supports State
assistance and resources as county Public Health Departments work towards
accreditation. Rural counties have difficulties managing the day-to-day
requirements in the current fiscal landscape, let alone expansion of existing
workloads to accomplish this worthwhile endeavor.
Rural Hospitals. RCRC supports proposals that allow small and rural critical
access hospitals to directly hire physicians. Additionally, RCRC supports State and
federal efforts to fully staff and finance rural hospital operations including capital
and seismic-retrofitting needs.
Prison and Jail Health. RCRC opposes proposals that allow the State prison
system to establish release policies for inmates in need of medical, mental health,
substance abuse, or social services without commensurate local funding, consistent
and appropriate discharge planning, coordination/cooperation with county Health
and Human Services staff, and the assurance of local treatment capacity. RCRC
supports the concept of ensuring that the application processes of inmates eligible
for State Medi-Cal and/or other Health and Human Services programs funded by
the State or the federal government are completed before the time of release, such
that the inmate does not become a drain on county-run health and human services
programs upon release. We urge the State to allocate funding for this purpose
within the prison system, and to collaborate with counties to ensure that
applications are appropriately completed.
RCRC recognizes the increase of high-acuity physical health, mental health and
dental patients since the enactment of 2011 realignment, which shifted State prison
inmates to county jails. Longer local sentencing terms will require jails to enhance
their ability to address complex healthcare issues within those county facilities.
RCRC supports the expansion of the use of telehealth and other distance health
mechanisms to reduce costs, and protect sheriff and local correctional officers and
the public by minimizing or avoiding the transportation of inmates to healthcare
facilities.
Involuntary Commitment. RCRC supports a balanced approach when
addressing the issue of involuntary commitment assessments in a hospital setting.
These assessments are provided to individuals who are taken to a hospital or who
are already in the hospital and need evaluation to determine whether they are a
danger to themselves or others due to a mental health issue under the definition in
Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. RCRC recognizes that
the rights and needs of the patient, public safety and the needs of small rural
hospitals all need to be in balance for an effective public policy approach in this
arena.
RCRC acknowledges that each potential mental health patient is entitled to an
adequate assessment by a trained professional. Additionally, RCRC believes that
public safety and order need to be kept by ensuring those individuals likely to be a
threat to themselves or others need to be held safely away from the population at
large. RCRC also recognizes that a small rural hospital may be the only medical
facility for hundreds of miles in any direction. If such a medical facility is at
capacity due to individuals that may or may not be truly mentally ill, or are waiting
an unnecessarily long time for an assessment, then others with medical conditions
may be turned away with potentially tragic consequences. Moreover, mentally ill
patients should not be kept in a setting inappropriate to their condition for long
periods of time while waiting evaluation.
In rural and remote areas, appropriate resources, especially of trained personnel,
are scarce and public policy needs to reflect a certain level of flexibility to account
for these special circumstances. Additional training of existing personnel, best
practice doctrines, assessment checklists or other mechanisms are a few of the
possible ways to address the need for assessing Section 5150-potential individuals
in a timely fashion for the benefit of the patient, public safety and to protect access
to hospitals.
Technology. RCRC supports State and federal funding for programs that promote
quality medical education and treatment in rural areas through the use of
technology. Telemedicine, teledentistry, and technology-based medical education
can provide residents of rural areas with opportunities for medical care that would
not otherwise be available without extensive travel and additional cost.
2-1-1. RCRC supports the concept of the 2-1-1 system, which connects Californians
to health and human services resources including, emergency and disaster
response, food and housing assistance, mental health and crisis support, job
training and education programs, and other resources. RCRC supports the
expansion of 2-1-1 services into all rural counties.
HEALTH CARE REFORM
In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) and the Health Care and Education Affordability
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872) — setting in motion the largest restructuring
of our nation's healthcare system in several decades. Since that time, we have
moved from a discussion of federal health reform proposals to actual
implementation at the federal, state and local levels. While several provisions of
the law have scattered effective dates spanning the next several years, the main
thrust of the law began January 1, 2014.
RCRC recognizes that the cost of healthcare and health insurance has more than
doubled in the last ten years, while the ability of individuals and businesses to
afford medical coverage is shrinking. RCRC also recognizes that the delivery of
healthcare services in rural areas faces a particular set of challenges that must be
addressed in any healthcare reform implementation.
Access and Outreach. RCRC supports efforts that increase the pool of medical
professionals in rural and underserved areas. RCRC continues to encourage
funding be spent on ensuring rural residents have equal access to the benefits
provided under the Affordable Care Act.
County Funds. RCRC supports ongoing safeguards to realignment and other
county funding streams. Counties continue to retain the obligation to fund
healthcare services to the medically indigent; those individuals without access to
healthcare other than county-provided care. These services continue to be managed
in most RCRC counties by CMSP. RCRC supports adequate funding for CMSP, as
many responsibilities will remain under Welfare and Institutions Code Section
17000. RCRC opposes any healthcare coverage expansion that would lead to an
increase in the scope of Section 17000 obligations on counties.
Health Plan Coverage Areas. For any healthcare reform policy to be successful,
health insurance plans must be required to include rural California in their
coverage areas, and must be required to contract with local, accessible medical
providers for care delivery.
Small Business. RCRC opposes strategies that negatively impact small
businesses in rural areas. Often small businesses are the cornerstone of rural
economies. The imposition of excessive fees or health insurance requirements on
small businesses has the potential to destroy local industry and commerce, and thus
deprive rural areas of jobs, services and economic growth.
INFANTS, CHILDREN AND YOUTH
RCRC recognizes the need to dedicate time, talent, and resources for services to
infants, children and youth. This is a critical investment in the future of rural
counties. Therefore, children's welfare programs must have appropriate levels of
funding and staff. Moreover, to avoid a cost-shift to the rural counties, these
programs also must provide a sufficient funding base for both administration and
direct services at the local level.
Program Simplification. RCRC supports the simplification of program
enrollment processes, the integration of children/youth services and the closure of
the gaps between the stand-alone programs.
Local First 5 Commissions. RCRC supports efforts that sustain the local First 5
Commissions' focus on the prenatal-to-five age groups and protect the California
Children and Families Act (Proposition 10) revenue sources for this distinct
purpose. RCRC opposes any proposal that would restrict the authority of local First
5 Commissions to determine and approve all local Proposition 10 funding
distributions. RCRC opposes any budget borrowing or taking of funds from local
First 5 Commissions.
Foster Youth. RCRC supports programs that assist our foster youth with housing,
employment, medical care, and education assistance as they transition to
emancipation. The State has taken on the caretaker role and responsibility for
these youth, and has an obligation to provide services and opportunities reasonably
available to other youth in California. Additionally, RCRC supports funding to
counties to recruit and retain foster and relative caregiver parents.
Child Welfare Services. RCRC opposes funding cuts to the array of local child
welfare services available to at-risk infants, children, and youth. RCRC supports
local flexibility in the administration of these programs to allow for situations
unique to rural counties.
Medical Workforce. RCRC supports workforce training, recruitment, and
retention programs for pediatricians, pediatric dentists, pediatric anesthesiologists,
child psychologists and other specialty care for children in rural areas.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Counties are responsible for planning for future growth and property development,
the management of natural resources, and the provision of public services.
Consequently, counties have and must retain the primary responsibility for land
use and development decisions. With increased development, counties are
responsible for increased needs including public services and infrastructure.
Funding for infrastructure from State and federal sources must be retained and
increased. RCRC believes that State requirements for general plan adoption should
be limited to major planning issues and should be used to ensure procedural
uniformity.
Housing is an important element of economic development. However, the need for
new housing units at the lower income levels exceeds the number of new units for
which financing and subsidies are available. Therefore, additional funding is
necessary to increase production of lower income housing units. Further, a greater
emphasis at the State level should be placed on obtaining financing and enabling
production, rather than undertaking and satisfying extensive planning
requirements at the local level in housing element law.
In addition to housing, properly maintained roads are vital to the safety of the
traveling public, the movement of goods, economic development, and quality of life
in rural counties. The State must increase highway funding in rural areas because
sufficient funding has not been available to preserve and maintain the existing
secondary and local road network. California's infrastructure is deteriorating, in
some places to the point where public safety, mobility, and viability are threatened.
RCRC supports utilizing innovative and mutually beneficial financing options that
provide adequate return on investment for the public and private investors, and
that lead to economic growth and job creation in California's rural counties.
HOUSING FINANCE
Home Ownership. RCRC supports State and federal laws that broaden the
opportunities for local housing finance authorities, non-profit housing entities and
instrumentalities of government to increase homeownership. In addition, RCRC
supports increased financing, subsidy options, and tax incentives to support
development of new housing units at the lower income levels.
Partnership Opportunities. RCRC supports real estate lending laws that
broaden partnership opportunities between the Golden State Finance Authority and
mortgage lending entities in order to increase homeownership in California.
Rural Emphasis. RCRC supports State and federal housing finance programs
that recognize the unique aspects of the rural housing market and earmark funds
for distribution to rural areas.
LAND USE PLANNING
Land use authority is the jurisdiction of local government. While California as a
whole is approximately 50 percent publicly owned land and 50 percent privately
owned land, many rural counties have a substantially higher percentage of publicly
owned land, with one county having less than 2 percent privately owned land
within its boundaries. It is imperative that local government retain land use
authority in order to provide the appropriate mix of development within each
community. RCRC is opposed to any policy that would infringe on this authority.
Eminent Domain. RCRC supports the authority of local governments to plan for
and oversee development in their jurisdictions. RCRC supports the authority of
counties to utilize the tools available to manage growth, including eminent domain.
The decision to condemn property is a public policy decision for elected officials, not
a legal issue. Exercising eminent domain by taking private property and
transferring it for purposes of private gain or use is not supported by RCRC.
Regional Housing Needs Allocations. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation
process should take into consideration the lack of residential infrastructure and
other special considerations of rural communities. RCRC supports the transfer of
assigned housing needs allocations between a county and a consenting city or cities,
requiring notice to the allocating entity upon agreement between the jurisdictions.
Regional Planning. RCRC supports coordinated regional planning between local
agencies to address regional impacts of growth including transportation and other
infrastructure, air quality, housing, resource production and protection, and public
services. RCRC opposes land use authority being transferred to regional agencies
without the consent of the local jurisdictions.
Land Use Planning. RCRC believes any changes to State land use planning
policies and process should be done within the existing planning framework and not
by creating an additional layer of law or regulation, which threatens local land use
authority. RCRC opposes any State attempt to preempt local planning policies,
processes and decisions, and the imposition of new programs and responsibilities
without funding.
Housing Elements. RCRC supports the continued recognition that local
jurisdictions are not responsible for housing production, but each must plan for its
share of housing needs through appropriate land use designations, zoning and
programs. Therefore, if a jurisdiction has a certified housing element, it should not
be economically penalized for not meeting housing production goals.
Housing Element Self-Certification. RCRC supports simplifying the housing
element process by allowing counties to self-certify housing elements.
Incentives. RCRC will be proactive in ensuring that incentive funds are available
to rural counties and local jurisdictions. RCRC supports the priority for planning
funds to go to local jurisdictions, which can assign the funding and planning
functions to other regional agencies. RCRC recognizes that infrastructure funds for
local improvements are a key component to sustainable growth and will be
proactive to ensure rural county access to these monies.
RCRC supports reevaluating the existing requirement that small counties adopt a
housing element before receiving federal Community Development Block Grant and
Home Investment Partnerships Program grants. This requirement currently does
not apply to larger entitlement counties, and small counties should be able to
compete for these funds on an equitable playing field.
Land Acquisitions. RCRC supports working with agricultural interests,
environmentalists, and federal and State officials to develop long-term solutions to
mitigate the impacts of large land acquisitions in rural counties.
Prevailing Wage for Public Works. RCRC supports changes to the methodology
for determining prevailing wage requirements to allow consideration for the
differences between urban and rural areas. Prevailing wages appropriate for large
urban areas can result in a significant increase in labor costs for public works
projects in rural areas.
Sustainable Growth. The development of sustainable growth principles should
incorporate the realities of rural communities and preserve local autonomy over
land use. RCRC supports sustainable growth principles on a scale appropriate to
the local communities.
State Agency Coordination. State agencies should notify counties of actions that
may potentially affect their land use prior to initiation of any proposed action and
provide an opportunity for local engagement. Further, State agencies should
coordinate their actions with affected counties and with existing local, state, and
federal land use plans.
Surface Mining and Reclamation. RCRC opposes efforts to mandate a
limitation on or reduction of the authority of counties under the State Mining and
Reclamation Act for permitting, inspection activities or the approval of a
reclamation plan. RCRC supports a state training program for local government
inspectors and recognition that an inspector with one department is not a conflict to
inspect a mining operation of another department.
Wildlife Corridors. Consideration of identified wildlife corridors should be
provided in the development approval process to reduce the impacts of wildlife
displacement. The identification of wildlife corridors should not result in regulatory
impacts on private landowners.
TRANSPORTATION
Aviation Funding. RCRC supports the continuation of State subsidies for general
aviation airports in rural counties. These funds help defray operational and capital
costs at these small rural facilities. RCRC supports reauthorization and
reauthorization and implementation of federal aviation policy at the state level to
ensure that California continues to receive and dedicate investments to support
commercial and general aviation airports. Additionally, RCRC supports increased
funding for state and federal aviation programs that support the viability of
airports and commercial air service in rural communities, particularly the Federal
Airport Improvement Program, Small Community Air Service Development
Program, and the Essential Air Service Program. Absent these subsidies, many
areas of California would not be connected to the national air travel system.
Development Planning. RCRC opposes the use of State transportation funds as
an incentive or reward for adoption of prescribed land use principles and
development plans by local governments. RCRC also opposes the diversion of
dedicated transportation funds for housing and development purposes.
Federal Surface Transportation Act. RCRC supports the timely
reauthorization of the federal transportation authorizing legislation, Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), which authorizes $305 billion
over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to support various surface transportation
programs with a focus on state highways and safety programs. RCRC strongly
supports a surface transportation policy focused on preservation and maintenance
of the existing highway system including the secondary or rural highway network,
and connectivity between local, regional, and statewide transportation systems. In
California, the secondary highway network serves as a connector to urban centers, a
farm to market route, and a path to natural tourism and recreational areas. RCRC
supports increased funding levels for the reauthorization of the FAST Act to better
meet the growing infrastructure needs of the nation, as well as dedicated revenues
for locally-owned bridges and high-risk rural roads. RCRC supports funding for
public transportation and transit. RCRC advocates for sustainable revenues source
to ensure the Highway Trust Fund is adequately funded and remains solvent.
RCRC supports an equitable distribution of federal transportation funds to
California to better align with the amount of taxes California's citizens contribute to
the national program. RCRC encourages federal and state transportation
policymakers to recognize, prioritize, and fund the infrastructure and safety needs
of rural areas. RCRC supports increased flexibility for Regional Transportation
Planning Agencies and supports streamlining efforts to deliver projects more
efficiently and effectively.
RCRC supports the establishment of a National Freight Program to target funding
toward projects that help direct the movement of products throughout California
and the nation. However, any such program must recognize the rural areas of the
state and require funding be spent on the farm to market connectors and the roads
that serve as alternatives to the Interstate system for large volume freight traffic.
Transportation Funding. RCRC recognizes the current primary source of
funding for transportation — an excise tax on motor vehicle fuels - at both the State
and federal level is unsustainable. Consumption of motor vehicle fuels, at best, has
remained stagnant while transportation construction costs have
increased. Further, existing federal and State excise tax rates have not been
increased in decades. As such, transportation policy makers should begin to
examine other funding structures to either replace or supplement the existing
excise tax on motor vehicle fuels. The study of alternative funding structures
should include levies on the number of vehicle miles traveled, commonly referred to
as a Mileage-Based User Fee, progressive levies at the time of vehicle registration
on specific vehicles which do not use or are not primarily dependent on motor
vehicle fuels, and revising the cost and timing of delivering transportation
projects. Each option should be fully examined with sound data as it relates to the
concerns and behavior of rural motorists.
Regardless of the source of transportation revenues, RCRC supports the retention of
a dedicated funding source at the local, State, and federal level for transportation
programs. Annual revenues must be predictable to enable rational long-term
planning and decision making at the local, regional and State level. To that end,
and in the effort to implement both the federal reauthorization of transportation
programs and new revenue schemes, RCRC supports distribution formulas that
recognize a statewide transportation network which includes rural highways, roads
and bridges, and the disproportionate cost associated with rural roadway
maintenance.
RCRC supports local, State and federal policies that maximize the benefits of
transportation investments, and policies and procedures that reduce or eliminate
barriers to project delivery. These efforts include opportunities to review the
National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
to streamline and improve the application and approval process for transportation-
related infrastructure projects, and reduce or eliminate duplicative State and
federal requirements. Additionally, RCRC supports efforts to address prevailing
wage requirements and contracting rules that have an increased cost on rural
agencies.
State Highway Relinquishment. The California Streets & Highways Code
allows the State — via an act of the Legislature and final approval of the California
Transportation Commission — to relinquish segments of state highways to local
entities (cities and counties) provided those local agencies can absorb the ongoing
costs of the segment. The California Department of Transportation's policy is that
relinquishments of a segment should not occur when those segments contribute to
an inter-regional connection. RCRC supports relinquishment only when the
segment does not negatively impact a vital or primary inter-regional connection or
when relinquishment would not disrupt the ability to transport people and goods
efficiently from one region to another (i.e. from rural areas into urban areas).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCING
With voter approval of Proposition 1A in 2003, local government property tax
revenue is no longer to be taken by the State. Proposition 1A was a major step in
protecting local government revenues. However, counties need additional funding if
they are to fulfill their State-mandated and traditional roles.
Financial actions taken by the Legislature and the Governor have direct impacts on
California's rural counties. Many rural counties rely on special State assistance
including but not limited to, law enforcement, emergency medical services,
environmental health, and small airfields. RCRC is committed to working with all
members of the Legislature and the Governor to ensure that the budget process
maintains these vital services when these services are difficult to maintain solely on
local revenues.
Agricultural Commissioners. RCRC supports a level of funding sufficient to
implement the mandated pesticide use enforcement programs conducted by County
Agricultural Commissioners. RCRC opposes the continuation of the program
without sufficient funding.
Bond Funds. RCRC supports the efficient and effective use of State bond funds
and the maximization of federal funds. RCRC supports geographically equitable
distribution of bond funds, accountability for bond fund expenditures, and the
incorporation of input from local officials when spending priorities are determined.
RCRC supports funding formulas that establish a reasonable minimum amount
rather than an amount based on population.
Cooperative Wildlife Services. RCRC supports restoration of State matching
funds for county participation in federal Cooperative Wildlife Services programs,
which bring greater scientific knowledge and efficiency to local wildlife management
programs.
Disaster Funding. The State General Fund has been the traditional source to
fund the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the
Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and other disaster-related agencies. In
recent years, there have been proposals to provide additional revenues and/or lower
the obligations of the State General Fund including, most recently the State
Responsibility Area (SRA) fee to fund CAL FIRE's fire prevention and education
programs.
RCRC supports a new revenue stream that is broad-based geographically, reflecting
the fact that the activities of statewide disaster agencies benefit all Californians:
CAL FIRE and other state emergency response agencies respond to all types of
disasters including fire, floods, earthquakes, hazard materials spills, and terrorism,
as well as vehicular and medical responses in Local Responsibility Areas, SRAs, and
federal lands. However, any new disaster management fee/tax must be in lieu of
the existing SRA fee, not in addition to, and must include the unequivocal repeal of
the SRA fee when this new revenue stream is created.
Counties should not be in the role of administering and/or collecting new revenues;
however, in the event counties are required to perform an administrative/collection
function, counties must receive full cost-recovery. With the addition of any new
revenue sources, portions should be permanently dedicated for disaster prevention
activities at the local level.
RCRC supports full funding of disaster relief for all eligible counties.
Policymakers often consider limiting access to disaster funding to incentivize
certain actions by local governments. RCRC opposes any changes to, or limitations
upon, the eligibility for receipt of disaster costs. RCRC especially opposes tying
county land use processes and decision-making to disaster relief funding.
Disasters in rural areas of California are often caused or exacerbated by the
presence of State or federally managed lands and resources, thereby creating a risk
that counties have little, if any, authority to manage. It is unreasonable to tie
disaster funding to the actions of a county in that situation. Additionally, RCRC
supports a return to State assistance for the local portion of the costs of state or
federally declared disasters. State policy has shifted away from reimbursing these
costs, which are critically important to the overall recovery in small, rural areas
with limited revenue.
Any changes to the current system of enhanced reimbursement for disaster funding
that require changes to a county general plan should be tied to the timing of each
county's regular update of its general plan, rather than to a specific date. If
eligibility for enhanced reimbursement is to be an incentive for good planning and
prevention, a program of self-certification must determine proof of such, rather than
through costly on-site visits. As to fire disaster specifically, RCRC opposes any
requirement for enhanced reimbursement for fire disaster that mandates a central
countywide fire authority or classifies volunteer or tribal firefighters differently
than professional firefighters.
RCRC supports the continuation of federal disaster assistance to states and
counties, and encourages federal lawmakers to consider the impacts of any changes
to the existing funding mechanism on small, rural counties with low population,
minimal staff, fiscal resource limitations and aging or non-existent infrastructure.
There are several limiting factors in states and ultimately counties receiving
disaster relief assistance from federal resources. First, a disaster declaration is only
made if the amount of damage reaches a certain level of financial impact, based
upon certain findings of how much of the population of a county was affected, and
the amount of financial impact to a single county. Due to the small number of
California counties, and the way that population and financial resources are spread
throughout the state, the current system of disaster declarations is disadvantageous
to California counties, requiring far more widespread and extensive damage than
the amount of damage that is necessary to reach the threshold for declaration in
counties in other states. RCRC supports changes to the current system of disaster
declaration qualification, such that California counties are more likely to be eligible
for formal declaration of disaster.
RCRC supports State tax relief for those individuals and businesses who have
losses due to disaster. Special carry-forward provisions of losses are an effective
way to help ease the transition between disaster and recovery. However, RCRC
does not support any waiver or shifting of local tax revenues due to disasters. Often
local governments are coping with their own increased costs due to disaster
recovery, so it makes little sense to reduce revenue sources at such a time.
Homicide Trial/Costly State-Initiated Court Case Funding. RCRC supports
continued State funding of the extraordinary costs of major homicide trials in rural
counties. Also, State funding should be provided for costly court cases that have
been initiated by the State of California in rural counties. Without State funding,
California's rural counties may face the risk of bankruptcy due to the high costs
incurred by these types of trials.
2011 Realignment. In 2011, the Legislature and the Brown Administration
enacted a comprehensive realignment of criminal justice programs and services to
counties, and realigned the funding of a variety of Health and Human Services
programs. Funding for the realignment scheme is currently set in statute through a
dedication of 1.065 percent of the State portion of the sales tax rate and a limited
amount of vehicle license fee revenues. The realigning of the Health and Human
Services programs started in the beginning of the 2011-12 fiscal year, while the
criminal justice realignment — via Assembly Bill 109 — took effect on October 1,
2011. While RCRC did not endorse the 2011 realignment, RCRC supports the full
constitutional protections which were enacted to dedicate funding for the costs of
meeting these demands. Such protections dedicated protections outlined in
Proposition 30 of 2012 are:
• Continuous appropriation of funds to counties;
• Counties must receive funds for new or increased costs of realigned programs;
• Reimbursement for the State assumption of the new or increased costs of
realigned programs imposed by the federal government or the courts; and,
• If the revenues that currently fund realignment are reduced/cease to be
operative, the State is required to provide replacement revenues that are
equal to or greater than otherwise would have been provided.
RCRC also supports the continuation of dedicated State revenue streams for local
law enforcement programs which are now incorporated into the 2011 Realignment
scheme, such as the Rural and Small County Law Enforcement Program.
Municipal Bankruptcy. In 1949, California finalized the procedures for allowing
municipalities to access federal bankruptcy laws (Chapter 9). California is one of
eight states that have enacted authorizing statutes with unrestricted access to the
Chapter 9 process. Only one county in California (the County of Orange in 1994)
has filed under Chapter 9 since the creation of this option. RCRC believes that
there is no need to deviate from the current, long-established policy of unrestricted
access to the Chapter 9 process. RCRC opposes efforts that interfere, inhibit or
delay a county's ability to seek bankruptcy protection in order to best manage their
fiscal affairs. RCRC believes that any State interference jeopardizes a county's
ability to avoid bankruptcy and/or impedes the ability of a county to continue
providing the services required under State and federal law.
Property Tax Allocations. Some counties are experiencing "insufficient
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)" which results in less property
taxes flowing into the county treasury. This is a result of complex State funding
formulas which determine the allocation of local property taxes to jurisdictions
within a county. RCRC supports efforts — through a State budget augmentation
and/or a new statute — which guarantee that counties (and cities located within
those counties) are made whole when there is insufficient allocation of property
taxes due to State-determined formulas. In addition, RCRC supports legislative
efforts to allocate property taxes known as "excess ERAF" to cities, counties, and
special districts within the county where "excess" property taxes are generated.
State Crime Laboratories. Most rural counties rely on forensic crime
laboratories operated by the California Department of Justice to assist in
investigations and prosecutions. In order to provide uniform quality and consistent
forensic services, the Legislature established these laboratories for use by
municipalities. RCRC opposes efforts to impose and implement a fee schedule for
counties when using these laboratories.
Off-Highway Vehicles. RCRC supports the collaborative efforts of the Off-
Highway Vehicles (OHV) stakeholders' roundtable to resolve contentious issues.
RCRC opposes the requirement for a local match in the OHV grant program.
Payment in Lieu of Taxes. RCRC strongly supports the reauthorization and
continuance of full funding of the Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program
to help counties offset the loss of property taxes from public land ownership. RCRC
strongly supports full funding and payment to counties each budget year for the
State PILT program administered by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (DFW). RCRC also supports payment in full of the arrearages due to
counties by the DFW for the State PILT program.
Federal Payments to Schools and County Roads. In 2000, Congress enacted
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS). SRS was
created to provide a guaranteed payment option to counties and schools located in
forested areas in light of dramatic reductions in monies derived from timber
harvesting on national forest lands. Proceeds provide rural counties and school
districts with funding for a number of services including road maintenance and day-
to-day school operations. SRS has been reauthorized several times, and various
SRS reauthorizations have included a "ramp down" of payments to local
jurisdictions.
RCRC supports the timely reauthorization of SRS. RCRC recognizes that the 2000
law was not a permanent federal funding source for counties and school districts,
but rather a temporary funding scheme to assist in an economic transition due to
declining federal timber harvesting receipts. However, stakeholders, in coordination
with the Administration and Congress, have yet to agree on an alternative,
permanent funding source — consistent with historic payment levels — to support
counties and schools with national forest lands. Therefore, RCRC supports
reauthorization of SRS, and aims to preserve funding levels which are adequate and
reflect the federal government's commitment to rural communities. RCRC
continues to support the development of creative permanent funding solutions into
the future.
Proposition 36. RCRC supports adequate State funding for Proposition 36, the
Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act which was approved by the voters in
2000. Programs established under Proposition 36, at the county level should be
funded, in part, with state resources, and flexibility must be provided in using these
funds to provide drug treatment services for non-violent drug offenders.
Proposition 47. Proposition 47, approved by the voters in 2014, reduces criminal
penalties for a variety of specified offenses, and dedicates the `savings' from housing
these offenders into programs that support K-12 schools, victim services, mental
health and drug treatment. RCRC staff will work to ensure that counties' costs are
mitigated, and State monies that are realized from the "savings" associated with
incarceration are directed to county programs associated with for mental illness and
substance use disorders associated with this offender population.
Resource-Based Fees. RCRC opposes the use of resource-based fees to balance
the State budget. With such a large percentage of the state's natural resources
located in our member counties, the citizens of rural counties can be unduly
impacted by fees based upon those resources. As these resources benefit the state
and the public at-large, it is appropriate that the General Fund provide some level
of support for resource related programs. The current practice of eliminating or
reducing General Fund support for these programs, and the resulting increased
reliance on user fees, places an unfair and inequitable burden on rural
communities.
Transient Occupancy Taxes. For many rural counties, Transient Occupancy
Taxes (TOT) are an important local government revenue stream for many tourism-
dependent rural counties. TOTS provide a critical source of flexible local funds that
are often utilized to offset the costs of providing services to tourists. RCRC strongly
supports efforts — via changes in statues or agreements at the local level — to collect
the appropriate amount of TOT from technology platforms such as "Airbnb." RCRC
also opposes any efforts to exempt any taxable lodging sites or travel booking
services/agents from the collection and payment of local TOTS. Furthermore, RCRC
opposes efforts which would shift the responsibility for imposition and collection of
TOTS from local jurisdictions to the State.
User-Based Fees and Assessments. RCRC opposes the expenditure of user-
based fees and assessments to finance general or special benefit programs that are
not directly related to the service for which the fee or assessment was initially
established.
Unfunded Mandates. RCRC supports reforming the mandate reimbursement
process to make it more reliable and timely for counties. RCRC supports the full
and immediate repayment of all pre-2004 mandate claims.
Williamson Act. The Open Space Subvention Act of 1971 was established to
provide local governments an annual State subvention to fund the partial
replacement of foregone property tax revenues resulting from county participation
in the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (commonly referred to as the
Williamson Act). The State stopped funding the subvention program in 2009.
Williamson Act subventions were a significant contributor to the General Fund of
many rural counties. This revenue represented as much as 15 percent of some rural
county budgets and provided counties with one of their few sources of discretionary
dollars for essential public services many of which are delivered on behalf of the
State.
State funding of the Williamson Act was one of California's most effective on-the-
ground programs for encouraging the preservation of existing farmland, open space,
and habitat as well as protecting watersheds and reducing greenhouse gases. The
Williamson Act also aided in the preservation of contiguous areas of agricultural
land in California.
RCRC supports the reinstatement of State subvention funding to counties to
provide compensation for reduced property taxes on lands that have Williamson Act
contracts. However, given the ongoing reluctance of the Legislature and the
Administration to fund Williamson Act subventions since 2009, discussions relating
to changes to the Williamson Act in light of the lack of subventions are appropriate.
RCRC will continue to work with agricultural, environmental and local
governmental organizations to explore sustainable funding from the State for the
program. Additionally, RCRC may consider potential changes to the program itself
including modification of the State's oversight and administrative role in the
program in light of no foreseeable funding from the State for the program.
Further given the changes in California since the inception of the Williamson Act,
RCRC supports the ability of individual counties to make the determination of
appropriate compatible use on agricultural land within the Williamson Act
program.
MILITARY BASE CLOSURES
The defense industry remains a critical economic industry in California behind
tourism and agriculture. California is home to nearly 30 major military
installations. In 2014, the Department of Defense spending in California was
approximately $52.5 billion, representing 12.5 percent of the total U.S. Defense
spending budget and a workforce of 272,864 including active, reserve, and civilian
personnel.
During the four previous rounds of base closures, California lost 24 bases,
representing 25 percent of the bases closed nationwide. Additionally, California lost
nearly 100,000 jobs while the other 49 states combined lost approximately 80,000
jobs. These base closures resulted in an estimated loss of $9.6 billion in annual
revenues for California.
Five RCRC member counties house military facilities: Imperial County — El Centro
Naval Air Facility; Inyo County — China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station; Lassen
County — Sierra Army Depot; Mono County — Marine Corps Mountain Warfare
Training Center; and, Yuba County — Beale Air Force Base. Although the majority
of military facilities are not located in RCRC member counties, the effects of their
closure would potentially impact nearby RCRC counties. Some of the possible
impacts of base closures on surrounding local communities include the loss of
property taxes and sales taxes.
Base Reuse. RCRC supports incentives for economic reuses that are developed in
coordination with the impacted local government(s) should any facilities close.
Disproportionate Economic Impact. RCRC believes consideration should be
given to the disproportionate contribution local communities in California have
already made to the streamlining of the military's base infrastructure. California
shouldered a disproportionate burden of closures during previous Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) rounds, suffering a 60 percent cut in net personnel despite
housing only 15 percent of the nation's military personnel.
RCRC believes strong consideration should be given to the economic impact of
closures on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations and
supports legislative efforts to provide state and federal economic assistance to areas
that suffer because of such base closures or realignments.
Geographic Capacity. RCRC supports consideration of the importance of
geographic capacity to accept future missions and their operating, research, design,
testing, and evaluation requirements. Rural areas of the state provide access to
large areas of operational airspace and land that will be a key to future military
operational and training requirements.
Inactive Status. RCRC opposes the retention of facilities in an inactive status;
this has a significant negative impact on the local community due to its inability to
realize job creation through economic reuse of the site. Additionally, it delays the
necessary cleanup of potential contamination prior to transition to any future use.
Temporary deactivation does not generate any State or local revenues and is a
blight on the surrounding communities.
Placement. RCRC supports the placement of out-of-state realignments at existing
California military facilities.
Retention. RCRC supports retention of military bases in California to be operated
in the most cost-effective and beneficial manner to the State and the people of the
United States.
Toxic Cleanup. RCRC supports the swift cleanup of any toxic materials from
bases that have already been closed in previous BRAC rounds to enable their
economic reuse prior to any further base closures in California. Delayed base
cleanup can delay property transfers and reuse, hurt the economic revitalization of
nearby communities, harm the environment or public health, and increase
environmental risks.
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS
Relationships between tribes and counties are as varied as the makeup of those
entities. It is important that the State and federal laws and regulations that govern
those relationships be fair and equitable; both between tribes and local
governments, and consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Compacts that enrich
the State but do not mitigate the local impacts of tribal gaming are untenable.
Federal acknowledgement processes that do not allow for a local government voice
and do not adequately mitigate resolutions to known conflicts are unacceptable.
Regulations that insist a small business owned by a non-tribal entity meet a certain
environmental standard, or acquire a certain type of permit to operate, should be
applied to tribally-operated businesses as well. RCRC's policies in the realm of
Native American Affairs reflect this important balance: the need to respect the
sovereignty of tribal governments with the importance of protecting local
government and the constituencies it represents, both tribal and non-tribal.
Agreements. RCRC supports the requirement for judicially enforceable
agreements between tribes and local jurisdictions.
Construction and Expansion. RCRC supports requiring tribal governments that
seek to construct or expand a casino or other business that would impact off-
reservation land to involve the county government in the planning process and,
ideally, to obtain the approval of the local jurisdiction.
Federal Acknowledgement. RCRC urges the Bureau of Indian Affairs to include
language regarding involvement of local government input, specifically, and in
addition to, extensive public input from stakeholders when working towards the
restructuring of the way the federal government formally acknowledges an Indian
tribe. Additionally, RCRC believes that any new federal acknowledgement process
should be closely connected to any new Fee-to-Trust process such that the two both
share a high level of local government involvement. Ensuring that the
acknowledgement system and the Fee-to-Trust system work in tandem and that
both allow for the maximum amount of local government input is the best way to
ensure smooth relations between tribes and local governments.
Fee-to-Trust. Many tribes are attempting to acquire land outside of their current
trust lands and are seeking that additional land be placed into federal trust in order
to secure the ability to develop businesses for economic growth and to avoid federal,
State and local taxation of those businesses. Case law (Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S.
379 (2009)) invalidated many Fee-to-Trust transactions because the tribes seeking
trust land were not recognized before 1934. RCRC continues to oppose any
legislation that would re-validate the pre-Carcieri Fee-to-Trust system without
reforming the current process to better accommodate the concerns of local
governments in the regions affected by Fee-to-Trust applications. RCRC is actively
engaged on improving the legislation seeking to establish a post-Carcieri Fee-to-
Trust system. RCRC opposes the shift of land from Fee-to-Trust without
community input. Moreover, RCRC opposes a change-in-use from the use listed on
an approved Fee-to-Trust application to a different use without additional review.
RCRC supports maintaining the existing right of the county, state and any
interested or harmed party to gain standing to comment or sue over a trust
application.
Local Business Equality. Recognizing the current revenue generation and
potential expansion of tribal lands and businesses, RCRC encourages equal
enforcement of all appropriate tax laws and requirements on tribal businesses in
order to ensure a level playing field for local businesses and to ensure fairness in
revenue generation within counties.
Mandatory Mitigation. RCRC supports a requirement that future Indian
Gaming compacts and Fee-to-Trust applications provide for full mitigation of local
impacts including infrastructure load and local law enforcement issues from gaming
and other infrastructure impacts from tribal activities. Mitigation should be
provided through either the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (SDF) or
through judicially enforceable agreement between local jurisdictions and tribes.
RCRC supports full funding of the SDF or alternative funding source for full
funding of local mitigation to provide badly-needed revenues to the counties and
local governments affected by tribal activities on non-taxable land.
Tribal Firefighting. RCRC strongly supports the right of counties to utilize
contracts or other agreements with tribal firefighters and tribal fire departments as
the official structural fire protection for any areas within a county. RCRC
recognizes the importance of tribal firefighters and tribal fire departments and
opposes any legislation or changes to regulations that would disadvantage any
county that utilizes agreements with tribal firefighting entities, rather than other
types of firefighting units. Additionally, RCRC supports the usage of tribal fire
departments as part of a mutual aid system, where appropriate, and encourages all
other entities responsible for firefighting to recognize tribal firefighters as partners.
Environmental Regulations. Recognizing the potential expansion of tribal
gaming and other types of large facilities on new tribal lands, and anticipating the
renewal of current State-tribal compacts, RCRC encourages the inclusion of
greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, as well as compliance with all other
environmental regulations in all new and renegotiated tribal gaming compacts.
Medical Marijuana Grows on Tribal Lands. The United States Department of
Justice has outlined the circumstances in which marijuana cultivation will be
treated as a low priority offense (commonly referred to as the Ogden Memo and the
Cole Memo). One of those circumstances is cultivation activity that is governed by a
robust regulatory scheme. As such, RCRC believes that tribal grows should only
occur in accordance with the State's medical marijuana licensing system, which
requires compliance with local government rules and regulations.
NATURAL RESOURCES
RCRC member counties cover more than half of California's total land mass. RCRC
represents local governments that have regulatory and public trust responsibilities
over the lands, surface waters, groundwater resources, fish and wildlife, mining,
and overall environmental quality within their respective jurisdictions.
RCRC member counties stretch from the northern border with Oregon to the
southeast border with Mexico, from the Central Valley to the Sierra, and from the
coast to California's wine country. Although these rural areas are abundant in
natural resources and agriculture, most of the state's population lives in the urban
coastal areas and below the Tehachapi Mountains.
RCRC supports conservation of natural resources. Abundant natural resources are
a key component of the history, economic base, and culture of California's rural
counties. A strong working relationship between counties and public land
managers is crucial for rural counties that rely heavily on a resource-based
economy. RCRC will continue its ongoing efforts to create a better working
relationship between member counties and the federal agencies that manage lands
within member counties.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Endangered Species Protection. RCRC supports efforts to streamline and
modernize the State and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESAs), and the State's
Fully Protected Species Act, as well as efforts to clarify and simplify the process to
de-list species from a protected status. RCRC supports a more comprehensive and
integrated approach, as opposed to a single-species approach, in order to help
balance species protection with the economic and social consequences that may
result from such protection, including compliance costs. RCRC supports increased
public collaboration throughout the development of "reasonable and prudent"
measures during the ESA consultation, the National Environmental Policy Act and
the California Environmental Quality Act processes.
RCRC opposes efforts to broaden critical habitat designations through amendments
to the ESA. RCRC also opposes a baseline approach to the economic analysis for
critical habitat, and instead supports an approach that considers all fiscal impacts
related to the listing and subsequent critical habitat designations for a species.
Federal and State regulatory agencies should adhere to the highest professional
scientific standards to justify their biological conclusions and recommendations.
The resulting scientific conclusions and recommendations should be subject to
independent scientific peer review.
At the State level, RCRC does not support changes to the existing responsibilities of
the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the Fish and Game Commission.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Fire Prevention. RCRC supports community-focused fire prevention policies that
balance environmental protection with the preservation of life and property. RCRC
supports finding solutions that will better protect our communities and the
environment from the catastrophic effects of wildfire including detriments to air
and water quality, loss of habitat, forced evacuations, and other devastating
environmental and societal losses.
RCRC supports realistic policy and regulatory reforms that could lead to better
mitigation of wildfires on federal, State, and private lands. RCRC encourages an
increase in State and federal financial resources being put toward prevention either
in grants to aid local agencies in the management of forestlands including
preparation of fire management plans for Wildland Urban Interface areas and
implementation of fuel reduction programs; or in direct dollars spent towards "on-
the-ground" projects.
RCRC supports expansions including diameter limit increases, to existing
exemptions from timber harvest plans for wildfire prevention vegetation
management. Additionally, RCRC supports other tactics to improve forest
management and reduce wildfire risk within California's forests including:
incentives for increased forest biomass utilization; continuation of and expansions
to the federal stewardship contracting program; utilization of Cap-and-Trade funds
for fuels management work; and other traditional and non-traditional avenues to
increasing the amount of vegetation management that can be completed in and
around our rural communities. RCRC supports the use of grazing in appropriate
circumstances as another tool to reduce the risk of wildfire. These fuels reduction
efforts are necessary in order to prevent fires, improve the health of the forest and
the watersheds and maintain these resources for wildlife habitat, tourism and
recreation.
RCRC will continue to work with our non-traditional partners to collaborate on
solutions to the ever-increasing threat of wildfires to our forests, and to California
as a whole.
Fire Protection and Prevention Decision-Making. RCRC supports active
outreach on the part of State and federal land managers to engage counties and
local government officials in decisions regarding fire prevention and protection
activities on federal lands that may affect the health and/or safety of residents or
visitors of the surrounding communities.
Community Wildfire Protection Plans. RCRC supports local collaboration
between fire services, civic leaders, community citizens, and other stakeholders to
develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). CWPPs should include
broad-based approaches to fire prevention on federal, State, and private
neighboring lands. CWPPs, when fully implemented, should provide a step in the
right direction towards mitigating the destructive effects of wildfires. RCRC
believes that CWPPs should be realistic and reflect actual on-the-ground conditions
so that State and federal land management agencies will more heavily rely on them
when determining project placement and expenditures.
Oak Woodlands. RCRC supports the conservation of oak woodlands but strongly
believes that local planning authorities should control the protection of oak
woodlands in areas of oak woodland scarcity, not through a State legislative
mandate.
Federal Firefighting. RCRC urges the United States Forest Service (USFS) to
work with local governments, local fire agencies, and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to adopt a strategy that is similar to, and
as equally comprehensive as, CAL FIRE's stated mission of protecting resources,
lives, and property on any California lands subject to a balance of acres swap
between CAL FIRE and USFS. While RCRC recognizes that the USFS and CAL
FIRE have distinct missions, RCRC strongly believes that the USFS must be
responsible stewards of California's forested lands, which includes working to
preserve the safety of the lives, homes, businesses, and property of those who live in
and around federal lands.
Sierra Nevada Framework. RCRC supports the administrative review process of
the Sierra Nevada Framework. RCRC supports managing the Sierra Nevada
national forests to increase the presence of native tree species, reduce fire-prone
vegetation, and decrease forest density. RCRC supports prioritization of fuel
reduction projects in wildland-urban interface areas, municipal watersheds, and
areas prone to insect and disease infestation.
Timber Harvesting on Private Lands. RCRC opposes additional requirements
that would further increase the cost of Timber Harvesting Plans (THPs) or make
the approval process more onerous. Additional THP costs and/or a more onerous
process would result in a potential increase in fire risk, as well as the threats of
insect and disease infestation, thereby further jeopardizing rural communities that
are located near private forestlands. RCRC supports efforts to reduce or streamline
the regulations on private forest owners for vegetation management work for fire
prevention. RCRC supports an increase to the diameter limit of existing THP
exemptions for such purposes.
Wildfire Disaster Funding. The current federal system for funding the costs of
fighting wildfires results in "fire-borrowing," where operational revenue for
prevention, forest health and watershed restoration projects is "borrowed" and
spent for firefighting costs. This system exacerbates wildfire risk conditions for
subsequent fire seasons, thereby endangering the health of California's forested
lands and the valuable resources they provide. RCRC supports the adoption of a
new mechanism by Congress that prevents fire-borrowing to enable federal land
managers to complete vital forest health projects to prevent future severe wildfire
events.
Tree Mortality. RCRC supports State and federal funding, as necessary and
appropriate, for the continued removal and utilization of dead and dying trees due
to invasive pest infestation consistent with Governor Brown's October 2015
Emergency Proclamation. The removal of diseased trees is vital for the prevention
of severe fire risk conditions, which ultimately protects public health and safety
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from wildfire and preserving the carbon
sequestration capabilities of California's forest lands.
LAND CONSERVATION
Conservation Easements. RCRC supports a broader use of state-funded limited
term conservation easements as opposed to permanent easements. Although
federal government programs provide funding for term easements, the State's
current policy prevents full utilization of this funding option.
Invasive Species. RCRC supports State and federal funding to increase public
awareness of invasive species as well as to facilitate their removal and reduce
harmful economic and environmental impacts that result from the spread of these
species, such as the degradation of agriculture, water quality and water supply
issues, outdoor recreation and increased wildfire danger.
Land Acquisition. RCRC believes the following key factors must be considered in
any conservation acquisition: protection of property rights; willing buyer/willing
seller; local land use authority; and the maintenance of productive working
landscapes consistent with local land use plans. Any local government that may be
impacted should be notified when a conservation acquisition, in either fee title or an
easement, is being considered.
Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council. RCRC supports
the implementation of the Land Conservation Plan in accordance with the terms of
the settlement agreement and the associated stipulation. Protections for counties
should include a requirement that the totality of dispositions in each affected
county be tax neutral for that county.
Special Land Use Designation. RCRC supports multiple-use land designations
for national forests and other federal lands. Where special land-use consideration is
desirable, RCRC supports a five criteria evaluation: 1) Designations must be
supported by local governments; 2) The permissive tools of land management must
be capable of preserving and protecting the landscape's natural features in
perpetuity including protection from wildfire and disease and insect infestation; 3)
Designations must be generally consistent with historical and current use; 4)
Designations must contribute to the future anticipated demand for national forest
and federal land uses; and, 5) A balance of diverse uses must be maintained within
a reasonable geographic vicinity.
State Owned Land. The current State land acquisition system needs reform. A
key element of that reform must include a thorough analysis of existing holdings
based upon criteria that is developed in accordance with each agency's mission,
goals and available resources. Current State holdings should be analyzed and
measured against those criteria to determine whether it is appropriate that those
properties remain in state ownership.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Rural counties have regulatory and stewardship responsibilities for the natural
resources within their jurisdictions, as well as public health and safety
responsibilities including the protection of life and property. Rural counties require
effective predator management tools within wildlife management regulations and
policy decision making.
Loss of natural habitat through natural processes, such as drought and wildfires, as
well as human made alterations, has caused wildlife to migrate to populated areas
in search of food and water. Human-wildlife conflicts include the potential for
physical injury or loss of life, property damage, and the spread of contagious wildlife
diseases that pose threats to humans, other wildlife, domestic pets and livestock.
Cooperation. RCRC encourages federal and State decision-makers to work
cooperatively with counties to ensure that effective wildlife management tools are
available at the local level that strike a balance in wildlife management decisions,
legislation and protection of this public resource.
Funding. RCRC supports federal and State funding for wildlife management
programs.
Research. RCRC supports continued research on wildlife and predator
management.
Wildlife Management. RCRC supports local, State and federal wildlife
management programs including the United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services wildlife damage management
activities, and the California DFW trapping license program, as well as efforts by
the County Agricultural Commissioners to disseminate wildlife management
educational information to the public.
STATE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM
California continues to remain under a federal court order regarding its state prison
population. This order places a cap on the State's prison population at 137.5
percent of design capacity, which translates into an inmate population of
approximately 115,900 in the state's 34 institutions. The Legislature and Brown
Administration have enacted various population management measures to bring
the State into compliance with the prison population reduction mandates. In
addition, the voters have recently approved ballot measures which have resulted in
the ability to lower the prison population. The State has complied with the federal
court order since February 2016; however, if the recent trend of growth continues,
the inmate population could exceed the mandated cap in the very near future.
In 2013, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 105 (Steinberg) to provide counties
with state funds due to the increased numbers of state inmates being diverted to
the local county jails. This is modeled after Senate Bill 678 (Zeno) (2009), which
allows counties to share in the cost-savings when certain convicted felons do not re-
offend and avoid subsequent re-commitment to the State prison system. RCRC
supports continued funding for SB 105/SB 678 programs to ensure that counties
and the State minimize recidivism.
RCRC opposes efforts — either via the Legislature or the initiative process — which
place additional pressure on the county criminal justice system, particularly any
increases to utilization of local jail space. Given that the State and counties are
continuing to implement programs and policies associated with criminal justice
realignment (Assembly Bill 109 of 2011 and Proposition 47 of 2014), additional time
and review must occur before moving forward with any further changes to the local
criminal justice system.
Mitigation for the Expansion of Existing Prisons. RCRC supports requiring
that the State and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) mitigate the local impacts of a new prison facility, or the expansion of an
existing one. In addressing these mitigation needs, the State and the CDCR must
work with the affected counties and their Boards of Supervisors. The scope of
issues for mitigation should include impacts to water services, wastewater
treatment/storage/disposal, transportation, healthcare services, education, fire
protection, and law enforcement.
Early Release. RCRC remains concerned about any effort to reduce the current
prison population (which, due to realignment and the approval of recent ballot
measures, now contains the most violent and serious offenders) by granting `early
release' to offenders. RCRC believes that before any release from state custody can
occur, careful assessment of the risk of re-offending is thoroughly carried out. In
addition, each inmate shall be fully evaluated regarding rehabilitation and training
programs that have occurred while in state custody. Results from risk and needs
assessment should be shared with the counties prior to any release. Accompanying
proposals to reduce the prison population should include additional state resources
provided to local governments in anticipation of increased law enforcement costs
and a variety of new and complex social services demands.
Legal Costs. RCRC supports state funding for counties' district attorneys and
public defenders for the cost of prosecuting/defending serious/violent felonies that
have allegedly been committed at state prison facilities. RCRC also encourages the
Legislature to provide counties additional resources, where there is a significant
state prison population, to address the costs of detaining persons awaiting trial for
crimes allegedly committed while in state prison.
Social Services. RCRC believes social services, mental health, and other health
programs for state prison inmate parolees that remain under state supervision
should be provided and funded by the State. The State should also provide full
funding for social services provided to inmate families, rather than allowing those
services to fall to counties.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
RCRC supports the deployment of new technology in California and the equitable
regulatory treatment of all forms of telecommunications services. RCRC strongly
encourages both the federal and state governments to focus telecommunications
policies to prioritize 100 percent deployment to rural areas. In addition, the
expansion of service including the development of redundant systems, in unserved
areas and underserved locations should be a secondary priority. High-speed
internet access is the link for rural citizens to receive health care, educational
opportunities, and promote economic development and business connectivity to the
rest of the world. The state and federal government must ensure that legislative
and regulatory schemes to promote deployment and competition protect both
consumers and local government authority.
California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). The California Advanced Services
Fund was established to provide financial resources to ensure broadband
deployment in unserved areas as well as underserved locations. The Fund is
capitalized by an end-user surcharge on all intrastate phone subscriptions; however,
the total amount is capped and the authorization to impose the surcharge is set to
expire in the next several years. Funds from the CASF are awarded, by the
California Public Utilities Commission, on a grant basis to qualified
applicants. RCRC supports the continuation of the CASF; however, we recognize
that reforms need to be made to the CASF to ensure timely approval of grants as
well as providing flexibility to better address underserved populations.
High-Cost A/High-Cost B Funds. The High-Cost A Fund was established to
provide support to small, private independent telephone corporations to ensure
affordable, reliable, high-quality communications services in rural areas of the
state. The High-Cost B Fund was established to provide support to
telecommunications carriers of last resort (primarily large legacy phone carriers) for
providing basic local telephone service to residential customers in high-cost
areas. Both the High-Cost A and High-Cost B Funds are capitalized by an end-user
surchar,-e collected by carriers. RCRC supports the continuation of both Funds to
ensure that rural communities continue to have access to basic phone
services. RCRC also supports efforts to allow High-Cost A funds to be utilized for
the deployment of broadband in territories served by small carriers.
Landline Relinquishment. RCRC recognizes that traditional landline-based
telephone service subscriptions have decreased. Additionally, landline-based
telephone service can be an expensive service to offer in some areas of the state,
which may deter carriers from making investments in upgrading their non-landline
services. However, RCRC remains concerned with efforts to enact state policies
that would allow legacy phone carriers to relinquish their decades-old obligations to
provide landline telephone service without a carefully crafted regulatory scheme
that guarantees basic consumer protections over the replacement
technology. Landline-based service remains the best and most-reliable
communication mode in rural areas. RCRC believes that if relinquishment of
landline-based services are to occur, a variety of protections should be afforded to
rural areas. These include:
• Equivalent, affordable, and reliable service must be retained
• The burden-of-proof towards viable relinquishment must fall upon the carrier
with extensive regulatory review and local input
• Emergency-related services, including 9-1-1, must be secured in a 24 hours-
per-day manner
• Assurances that monies saved from providing landline-based services are
dedicated to upgrade services, including broadband deployment
RCRC encourages that urbanized areas, where alternative telecommunication
modes are prevalent, be the first portions of California to have landline
relinquishment in order for a thorough review of replacement services.
"Dig Once." RCRC supports a requirement that the State Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) notifies entities and organizations that a right-of-way
enhancement is to occur whereby broadband conduit could be installed in
conjunction with the improvement of the right-of-way. Many rights-of-way — either
state - or locally-owned — allow for conduit underneath or alongside. However, a
number of state right-of-ways, particularly in rural areas, contain no broadband
conduit. In order to minimize the overall cost of broadband deployment in areas
lacking coverage, Caltrans should either install the conduit or allow qualified
entities to install that conduit during the construction (commonly known as "Dig
Once"). RCRC encourages member counties to review their local policies for
ensuring that the placement of conduit can be made when major work occurs on a
county-owned right-of-way.
Emergency Systems. RCRC recognizes the importance of communication
between public safety personnel during emergency situations, and supports the
establishment of a dedicated, nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband
network. Additionally, all telecommunication providers should be required to
observe long standing emergency notification protocols for both the national
Emergency Alert System and local emergency announcements.
Public, Educational, and Governmental Programming and Institutional
Networks. All communications service providers should provide, carry, and
support (for both capital and operations expenses), Public, Educational, and
Governmental channels. Additionally, providers should continue the commitment
to provide Institutional Networks services to public facilities, such as government
buildings and libraries, to help connect local governmental services.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
RCRC believes that all veterans should be recognized for their service to our
country. RCRC supports ensuring that the full panoply of services for veterans is
available to those who are residents of rural counties.
Access to Services. RCRC supports ensuring veterans have access to the services
and benefits to which they are entitled including housing, healthcare, employment,
education and training, and community reintegration assistance.
County Veterans Service Officer Funding. RCRC supports full funding of the
County Veterans Service Officer offices that provide assistance and outreach to
California's veterans. Many small and rural counties have staff who are already
fulfilling multiple roles and whose time is stretched thin. These offices often fill the
need to provide certain niche services utilized by veterans that are unavailable
through the county.
Specialized Training. Several forms of specialized military training including
healthcare, firefighting, and law enforcement have high value in civilian life, but
current state law often does not fully recognize that training as equivalent to
civilian training in the same fields. These special skills are valuable to rural areas
where it is difficult to recruit and retain quality fire, public safety, and medical
professionals.
RCRC supports changes to the law that would allow specialized training completed
during military service to qualify as training for non-military employment, where
appropriate. Many service members are required to repeat education and training
in order to receive industry certifications or licenses, even though much of their
military training and experience overlaps with credentialed program requirements.
Recognizing this specialized training will speed up the re-integration of veterans
into the civilian life while strengthening the workforce and economy in rural
communities.
Funding. RCRC supports full funding for state veterans' programs, especially
those that draw down a federal match. Additionally, RCRC supports county efforts
to have full flexibility in creating opportunities and giving assistance to veterans in
their communities, such as low or no-cost permitting for construction or business
licensing.
WATER
Nearly 75 percent of California's available water originates in the northern one-
third of the State (north of Sacramento), while over 75 percent of the demand occurs
in the southern two-thirds of the State. Much of the available runoff eventually
flows into the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Both of these rivers flow
through the Central Valley and meet in the Delta. RCRC has been actively
involved in a wide variety of water-related issues since its inception and continues
to place an emphasis on this issue which is so important to member counties.
Drought. RCRC supports state and federal efforts to address the urgent needs of
communities and businesses impacted by the ongoing drought. Particularly, in
times of drought, RCRC supports modification of requirements that hinder
conservation of currently stored water and that add flexibility to the operation of
the State's and federal water system while maintaining California's water right
priority system.
State Water Plan. The State Water Plan (SWP) has become a strategic planning
document that describes the role of state government and the growing role of
California's regions in managing the State's water resources. RCRC has been an
active participant in the ongoing development of the SWP Update as a member of
the Public Advisory Committee, and continues to participate in updates. It is
important to ensure that the rural county/local government perspective is taken
into consideration during the development of the SWP policy recommendations.
Water Infrastructure. RCRC supports all cost effective means of increasing
California's water supply that are consistent with these Policy Principles. RCRC
supports significant new state and federal investment in our statewide
infrastructure to help increase regional self-sufficiency for all regions of the State.
Water storage gives water managers the flexibility needed to meet multiple needs
and provide vital reserves in drier years and will be a kay to addressing sustainable
groundwater management. Reliance solely on the reallocation of existing supplies
to address water supply shortages would potentially be short-sighted, in that
serious legal conflicts could ensue. Primary reliance on demand reduction would
also be short-sighted as doing so could cause serious economic impacts without
increasing the statewide water supply. RCRC supports the development of
additional proposed surface storage projects if they are determined to be both
feasible and economical.
Water Infrastructure Financing. RCRC supports the "beneficiary pays"
principle, meaning that beneficiaries who directly benefit from a specific project or
program should pay for their proportional share of the costs of the project or
program. Costs should not be shifted to those that do not benefit. "Public benefits"
should be funded by state and federal sources. "Affordability" should be factored
into the determination of the proportional share of the costs. State and federal
sources of funding should, for example, fund all or a significant share of the
proportional costs for disadvantaged communities and economically distressed
areas.
Federal Jurisdiction. RCRC strongly opposes any attempt via legislation,
rulemaking, or policy issuance to change the Clean Water Act (CWA) to expand
federal jurisdiction over wetlands and other water bodies with no physical nexus to
federal navigable waters.
BAY-DELTA
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta) is the heart of the
State's surface water delivery system, and supplies drinking water to 25 million
people. This water is vital to the State's multi-trillion dollar economy. The Bay-
Delta is also home to 750 plant and animal species, and supports 80 percent of the
State's commercial salmon fisheries.
Various activities are ongoing with respect to the Bay-Delta including the
development of California WaterFix/California EcoRestore, the implementation of
the Delta Stewardship Council's Delta Plan, and the State Water Resources Control
Board's (State Water Board) Bay-Delta Plan.
California WaterFix. The original proposed Bay-Delta Conservation Plan has
been recast as two separate efforts — water conveyance under the California
WaterFix Project and habitat restoration under California EcoRestore — and the
effort to secure federal Habitat Conservation Plan and State Natural Community
Conservation Plan designations has been abandoned.
Assurances/Water Rights/Area of Origin. Programs or facilities implemented
or constructed, and intended to improve Delta conditions, such as the Delta Plan or
California WaterFix, must not result in redirection of unmitigated, adverse impacts
to the counties and watershed of origin. Operations at upstream reservoirs impact
non-SWP and non- CVP water rights holders. Acceptable assurances must be
provided to upstream water right and water entitlement holders that the operation
of the SWP and CVP will ensure a stable supply of water to meet the needs of those
areas upstream while also serving export interests and meeting requirements in the
Delta. State and federal agencies must adhere to state water rights law including
state law relating to water rights priorities and area of origin and watershed of
origin protections.
Delta Flows. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) should continue to be
responsible for meeting its obligations for flow-related water quality objectives as
required by Decision 1641. California WaterFix proponents have the full
responsibility to satisfy any flow obligations required by the State Water Board to
mitigate for impacts caused by California WaterFix implementation.
Fees/Taxes. Exporters located south of the Delta have agreed to pay for California
WaterFix, which is appropriate, as they will directly benefit. The California
EcoRestore program should include the details of how it will be financed and any
benefits that the public is expected to receive and fund. Costs should be
apportioned on the basis of benefits received. Public trust and other public benefits
should be paid for by General Obligation (GO) bond proceeds and/or state and
federal general tax revenues. RCRC opposes general fee authority for any
administrative entity including the Delta Stewardship Council (Council).
Mitigation. Areas upstream from the Bay-Delta shall not be required to mitigate
impacts to the Bay-Delta that have been caused by the construction and operation
of the SWP and CVP.
Term 91. Term 91 limits diversions when the SWP and the CVP are contributing
water from their stored water to meet water quality standards and other
environmental objectives in the Delta. State and/or federal agencies should not
apply regulatory authority, such as Term 91, to senior water-right holders or water
users relying on area of origin water rights.
Water Rights. Water rights and water supplies of upstream communities should
not be adversely impacted by the construction, operation, or management of new
water conveyance facilities.
Water Supply Reliability. New projects will be needed to meet current and
future water supply needs in the areas of origin as well as throughout the rest of the
State. State policy should support the development of local and regional surface
and groundwater storage projects and other local programs to assure local and
regional water supply reliability statewide.
California Water Commission. The California Water Commission (CWC) will be
responsible for allocating the funding for statewide water system operational
improvements contained in the 2014 water bond - Proposition 1 — which authorized
$7.545 billion for a variety of water related projects.
Of the $7.545 billion, Proposition 1 includes $2.7 billion in funding for the public
benefits of water storage projects and authorized the CWC as the responsible
agency. The CWC through the Water Storage Investment Program will fund the
public benefit of eligible projects. Eligible projects include CALFED surface storage,
groundwater storage and groundwater clean-up, conjunctive use and reservoir
reoperation, and local and regional surface storage.
The CWC is also required by statute to quantify the public benefits of storage.
RCRC will continue to closely monitor the activities of the CWC, and engage as
needed on issues of importance to member counties.
Delta Stewardship Council. The Council is charged with overseeing the
implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Bay-Delta. RCRC
will continue to closely monitor the activities of the Council, and engage in the
implementation of the Delta Plan as needed on issues of importance to member
counties.
FLOOD CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT
The DWR is the lead agency for FloodSAFE California — a program to improve
integrated flood management statewide with a significant emphasis on the Central
Valley and the Bay-Delta. Integrated flood management addresses both aspects of
flood risk: taking actions to reduce the frequency and severity of floods, and taking
steps to reduce or mitigate the damages caused when floods happen.
Agencies at every level of government have some responsibility for flood control and
management, and construction costs are shared among federal, state, and local
agencies. Eliminating unacceptable risks of flood damage statewide will take
decades and require significant resources.
One of the key issues facing local government is the issue of new development
requirements in newly mapped flood prone areas.
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. Implementation of the Central Valley
Flood Protection Plan will be conducted through the DWR's regional flood
management planning efforts. RCRC supports the development of regional plans
that will present the local agencies' and public's perspectives of flood management,
and contain a prioritized list of feasible projects that need to be implemented to
reduce flood risks in each region.
Development in Flood Prone Areas/Floodplain Mapping. RCRC supports
federal funding for the continued updating of Federal Emergency Management
Agency maps, supplemented by state maps, to assist local governments in better
understanding the flood risks from reasonably foreseeable flooding.
National Flood Insurance Program. The current National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) establishes extremely burdensome flood insurance rates and places
an economic burden on agricultural communities by imposing highly-restrictive
flood protection building regulations. Many agricultural buildings and structures
cannot be effectively flood proofed to meet current NFIP standards, but could be
built to withstand a flood, making their repair less expensive than existing flood-
proofing options. RCRC supports the creation of a new agricultural flood hazard
area under the NFIP that allows for replacement and reinvestment in agricultural
production, storage, and processing buildings and commercial and community
structures in established agricultural areas and rural communities. Flood
insurance must be accessible at a meaningful and affordable rate for the property
owner.
Flood Control Subvention Program. RCRC opposes the reduction and/or
elimination of the State share of local flood control subventions. RCRC supports
full funding of subvention payments and the reimbursement of past unpaid
subventions to local government and local agencies.
Funding. RCRC supports significant new state and/or federal investments in
California's flood control infrastructure including funding from the State General
Fund and the issuance of GO or Revenue Bonds, before the State attempts to
impose cost sharing fees/taxes on those who live and work behind levees.
Land Use Authority. RCRC opposes state preemption of local land use authority.
Land use decisions must remain at the local level.
WATER QUALITY
Enforcement. Regulatory water quality enforcement actions should be focused on
achieving compliance as opposed to the imposition of punitive financial penalties
that serve only to make it more difficult for local agencies to achieve compliance.
RCRC supports mandatory minimum penalty relief for small and disadvantaged
communities.
Non-Point Source Discharges. RCRC supports flexible, cost-effective approaches
to monitoring water quality, and scientific evaluation of water quality impacts from
agricultural discharge and storm water runoff. Management measures to address
non-point sources of pollution should be based on technically and economically
feasible control measures.
Onsite Wastewater Systems. RCRC opposes new regulatory requirements that
restrict the use of onsite wastewater systems unless there is scientific evidence that
such restrictions are needed to provide meaningful benefits to water quality.
Safe Drinking Water Act/Clean Water Act. RCRC supports efforts to
streamline and modernize the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the federal
(CWA).
Total Maximum Daily Loads. RCRC supports the integration of the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process with a local watershed approach to water
quality improvement, combined with sustainable levels of state and federal funding
and/or technical assistance. RCRC opposes multiple layering of TMDLs within
watershed regions. RCRC opposes an exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for TMDLs. The CEQA process is very
important as part of the decision-making process to ensure potentially adverse
impacts resulting from TMDL implementation are disclosed and considered.
Wastewater Discharges. RCRC supports the review of existing water quality
objectives and beneficial use designations in an effort to reduce costly discharge
monitoring and permit compliance requirements that do not provide significant
improvement in water quality. Where feasible, RCRC encourages the use of
wastewater to preserve potable water for beneficial uses, but does not support state
or federal mandates on businesses or local governments to reuse wastewater.
Water Board Governance. RCRC supports the loosening of federal restrictions
that limit the ability of locally elected governmental officials to serve on Regional
Water Quality Control Boards because of income restrictions associated with the
fact that local jurisdictions are required to have Water Board-approved discharge
permits (the "10 Percent Rule"). The 10 Percent Rule has been a major stumbling
block for city and county representatives that wish to serve on the regional water
boards.
At the State level, RCRC supports elimination of procedural barriers that limit the
ability of local government (and other stakeholders) to meaningfully access decision-
makers and create challenges in obtaining full and fair hearings on all matters
before Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
Water Treatment Systems. RCRC supports continued funding assistance for
small and economically disadvantaged communities, especially in rural areas, to
upgrade water and wastewater treatment systems. Water quality and wastewater
discharge regulations are becoming more stringent and will continue to require
substantial new investment in water treatment facilities.
Watershed Management. RCRC supports local voluntary community-based
collaborative watershed management planning and implementation as a means to
enhance and protect water quality and other natural resources. RCRC strongly
supports policies that make a strong connection between good forest management
and watershed health. RCRC encourages the State and federal governments to
consider forest projects to improve watershed health.
Wetlands. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has previously
addressed the "gaps" in wetlands protection resulting from the 2001 United States
Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United
States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) with the adoption of general waste
discharge requirements for minor discharges to non-federal waters in 2004.
The State Water Board staff had expressed a focus toward the adoption of a phased
policy to protect wetlands and riparian areas which would expand the definition of
"wetlands" beyond that of the federal definition and established Corps standards.
Along those lines, the SWRCB is developing "policy procedures" for discharges of
dredged or fill material to "Waters of the State." The most recent iteration of this
policy by the State Water Board modifies the approach but still does not address
RCRC's core policy concerns; namely that the approach continues to be inconsistent
around permitting and the definition of wetlands. Absent the clarity, county lead
agencies are in no better position and may be in worse position if it leads to delay
and litigation.
For example, the Water Boards regulate discharges to `waters of the state' and
under the new proposed scheme the wetland definition is not jurisdictional and
waters of the state is not defined which raises a host of issues and each of the nine
Water Boards will continue to consider whether a wetland is a water of the state on
a case by case basis leading to continuing inconsistencies in its application.
RCRC is concerned with the proposed expansion of wetlands regulation and will
continue to participate in the policy development discussions.
WATER SUPPLY
RCRC believes that the State should take the lead role in planning and
implementing those features of the State's water infrastructure that can only be
met through statewide efforts. RCRC supports pursuing water supply and
reclamation funding at the federal level as part of a broader Western Water
measure that also contains a watershed component.
Groundwater. RCRC supports the management of groundwater at the local level.
The effective and efficient management of water quality and supply for beneficial
uses is best managed by local jurisdictions. RCRC supports adequate state and
federal technical and financial assistance for local agencies in order to either
remediate groundwater overdraft or maintain groundwater levels at a safe yield.
California's groundwater resources are diverse and one size fits all state mandates
should be avoided. RCRC supports the adoption of county ordinances to protect
groundwater against overdraft from out-of-county exports.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. In 2014, landmark water
legislation was chaptered establishing the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act (SGMA) thus providing a framework for local agencies to develop plans and
implement strategies to sustainably manage groundwater resources within a
defined period.
RCRC has and will continue to engage with state agencies and all stakeholders
throughout the development of the regulations and implementation of SGMA to
ensure the policy concerns are addressed.
Integrated Regional Water Management. RCRC supports state and federal
funding assistance to regions so they can leverage local dollars to develop and
implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs). Integrated
regional water management will play an important role in meeting the State's
water needs and aid regional self-sufficiency. RCRC supports the development of
IRWMPs through a public, grassroots planning process that includes all interested
stakeholders, especially when developing the IRWMPs goals, objectives and
evaluation criteria. IRWMPs should provide access to state funding for water and
wastewater projects that benefit disadvantaged communities and small rural
communities. IRWMPs governance structure should not override local jurisdiction
authority. Elected jurisdiction representatives voting capacity should not be
minimalized to a nonrelevant factor through increased IRWMP membership of non-
government entities. Acceptance of grant awards should not require applicant's
acceptance of policy, goals, objectives not established or in draft form.
Seawater and Brackish Water Desalination. RCRC supports seawater and
brackish groundwater desalination where it is a viable option. Additionally, RCRC
supports the streamlining of the approval process for these projects, and state and
federal funding for needed research. Seawater and brackish water desalination
projects have the potential to play an important role in the State's water supply
portfolio, and to help realize the overall goal of water self-sufficiency for all regions
of the State. This benefits the State as a whole and helps protect water areas of
origin.
Urban Water Conservation/Agricultural Water Use Efficiency. State and
local urban water conservation and agricultural water use efficiency programs
should be flexible and incentive-based. The term "water conservation" is used to
mean any reduction in applied water use and "water use efficiency" is used to mean
using water more efficiently to reduce demand for a given set of beneficial uses. To
be successful, urban water conservation and agricultural water use efficiency
programs should be designed and implemented by locally-elected or appointed
officials. Local officials are in the best position to determine what activities and/or
actions are locally cost-effective. Implementation of urban water conservation and
agricultural water use efficiency programs must be consistent with existing state
law that protects against loss of water rights for conserved water (Water Code
Section 1011.)
Water Recycling. RCRC supports increased utilization of recycled water and
continued state and federal support through appropriate technical and financial
assistance. Recycled water increases the available water supply, reduces the
demand for freshwater supplies, reduces wastewater discharges into rivers, creeks,
bays, and estuaries, and increases regional self-sufficiency. Water that is developed
through recycling should be credited toward local water use reduction goals.
WATER TRANSFERS
RCRC generally supports locally-approved short-term water transfers between
willing buyers and willing sellers as one way to meet short-term needs and
maximize existing resources. Long-term transfers that involve permanent
fallowing/retirement of non-drainage impacted agricultural lands or provide for the
substitution of groundwater for transferred surface water should be designed with
consideration of how the transfer might affect third parties and the social and
economic conditions in the county. Support by the local community should be a key
consideration in whether or not to pursue a transfer. Water transfer revenues
should be used to provide local benefits, such as: flood protection; water supply;
water conservation; water quality; maintenance of low water costs for local water
users; and environmental enhancement.
Transfers involving the permanent fallowing/retirement of agricultural lands
should include a monitoring program to track changes within the region and a
third-party action plan. Groundwater substitution transfers should include a
groundwater monitoring and reporting program and a third-party action plan.
Water Rights. RCRC supports the State's existing water right and water right
priority system. The vested water rights of water users must be inviolate. Water
rights established by state law and state laws relating to use of water should be
respected by federal agencies.