CC SR 20190917 05 - 2019 Annual Conference Resolutions PacketRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/17/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to advise the City’s voting delegate on the City
Council’s positions regarding the League of California Cities’ 2019 Annual Conference
Resolutions
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the City Council’s voting delegate to support the adoption of League of
California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 1 (Amendment to Rule 20A)
(2) Authorize the City Council’s voting delegate to take no position on League of
California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 2 (International
Transboundary Pollution Flows)
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Megan Barnes, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. 2019 League Annual Conference Resolution packet (page A -1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The League’s 2019 Annual Conference will be held October 16-18, 2019, at the Long
Beach Convention Center. At the annual conference, the League General Assembly will
consider two resolutions at the annual business meeting on October 18. The City
Council is encouraged to review the resolutions and determine a City position on them
so that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ voting delegate (i.e., Councilman Alegria)
and/or alternate(s) may most effectively represent and convey the City’s position on the
resolutions.
Policy development is a vital and on-going process within the League. The principal
means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities and the League is
1
through the League’s seven standing policy committees1 and the Board of Directors.
The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and
assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy.
This year’s resolutions have been reviewed by Staff to identify any potential impact to
the City. A brief description of each resolution and Staff’s recommendation is provided
below. The full text of each resolution is attached to this report, along with related
background information provided by each resolution’s sponsors and League Staff
(Attachment A).
1. Amendment to Rule 20A
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes a resolution calling on the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) to amend Rule 20A to add projects in Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) to the list of criteria for eligibility. The resolution also
calls on the CPUC to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects to make more
of them possible.
Our resolution is based on direction from the City Council during a discussion of
undergrounding projects at the April 2, 2019, meeting. Staff submitted the resolution for
consideration in May at the California Contract Cities Association’s Annual Municipal
Seminar, where it was supported by the General Assembly.
The City obtained concurrence letters from 11 fire-prone cities supporting the proposed
League resolution: Hidden Hills, La Cañada Flintridge, Laguna Beach, Lakeport, Malibu,
Moorpark, Nevada City, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills and
Ventura.
Rancho Palos Verdes is the most populated California city with 90% or more of
residents living in a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. It is well-
known that electric utility equipment is a common fire source, and has sparked some of
the most destructive blazes in state history. Moving power lines underground is
therefore a critical tool in preventing them. Currently, California’s program regulating the
undergrounding of utilities, Rule 20A, primarily addresses visual blight. With fire
seasons worsening, the City believes it is key that fire safety also be considered when
local governments pursue Rule 20A projects, and that annual funding allocations for the
program be expanded.
It is worth noting that the state does have a program that factors in fire safety for funding
undergrounding projects, Rule 20D, however, this is limited to San Diego Gas & Electric
Company projects in certain areas with fire risk. Our resolution proposes amending Rule
20A rather than having fire-prone cities carve out their own programs.
1 Resolution No. 1 will be reviewed by the Transportation, Communication amd Public Works and
Environmental Quality policy committees. Resolution No. 2 will be reviewed by the Environmental Quality
Policy Committee.
2
In summarizing the proposed resolution, League Staff pointed out that the committee
may want to consider alternately proposing expanding Rule 20D to cover utility
territories across the state to support funding for overhead conversions within VHFHSZ.
It is also worth noting that the CPUC is in the process of revising Rule 20A. The League
is a registered party in this rulemaking process, meaning it is a formal participant with
rights, responsibilities and obligations, including providing testimony and cross-
examining witnesses. The City may also apply to become a party.
League Staff noted that the fiscal impact of the proposed resolution to the state would
be related to staff and programmatic costs to the CPUC to consider and adopt the Rule
20A changes, and that the cost of increasing Rule 20A funding allocations for newly
eligible projects in VHFHSZs would presumably be supported by utility ratepayers, and
may be supplemented with surplus credits.
According to the CPUC, annual allocations toward Rule 20A total $95.7 million a year,
and the cumulative balance of credits throughout the state totals over $1 billion. Utilities
have historically made substantially greater allocations to Rule 20A projects. However,
as noted by League Staff, these utilities are also increasingly mindful of facing potential
bankruptcy due to their exposure to litigation from destructive, utility-caused wildfires.
Several cities that sent concurrence letters made suggestions that can be considered in
committee. The City of Laguna Beach proposed amending the resolution to call on the
CPUC to redirect unused allocations from cities that have no planned undergrounding
projects to cities in VHFHSZ. Nevada City proposed giving local agencies the power to
use to private firms to design, inspect and construct Rule 20A projects instead of being
required to use the local designated utility, and allowing local jurisdictions to transfer
excess funds between agencies to better serve projects in high fire hazard severity
zones. The City of La Cañada Flintridge requested the resolution specify that the
increased Rule 20A allocations go toward new projects, since that city mortgaged its
Rule 20A funds into the future. The City of Malibu proposed expanding the Rule 20D
program to include all projects within VHFHSZ.
The City Council has clearly recognized utility undergrounding as an important tool in
fire prevention and identified restrictions in the Rule 20A program hampering the ability
of communities to put power lines underground in areas vulnerable to brush fires. Other
cities living under the threat of wildfires would also like to see this process modified to
make more of these projects possible. Therefore, Staff believes it is in the City’s interest
to support 2019 League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 1.
Recommendation: Staff recommends supporting the adoption of 2019 League of
California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 1.
3
2. International Transboundary Pollution Flows
The League of California Cities’ San Diego Division proposes calling upon the state and
federal governments to restore and ensure proper funding for the U.S. – Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) and work bi-nationally to address water quality
issues resulting from transboundary flows from Mexico’s Tijuana River into the United
States containing untreated sewage, polluted sediment and trash.
The Tijuana River flows north through highly urbanized areas in Mexico before it enters
the Tijuana River Estuary and eventually the Pacific Ocean via waterways in San Diego
County in California. Urban growth in Tijuana has contributed to a rise in rates of
upstream flows from water treatment facilities in Mexico. These treatment facilities have
raised the amount of untreated sewage and waste in the Tijuana River due to faulty
infrastructure and improper maintenance. The federal government refers to the river as
an “impaired water body” because of the presence of pollutants in excess, which pose
significant health risks to residents and visitors in communities on both sides of the
border.
The degradation of existing water treatment infrastructure along the border coincides
with the federal government’s defunding of the BWIP, which has steadily decreased
from $100 million in 1996 to $10 million today. The federal Fiscal Year 2020 budget
proposes eliminating BWIP funding altogether. Environmental Protection Agency
regions 6 and 9 (which include U.S. states that border Mexico) have identified a number
of eligible projects that address public health and environmental conditions along the
border totaling $340 million.
Without federal partnerships through the BWIP and state support to address cross
border pollution, cities that are impacted by transboundary sewage and toxic waste
flows are left with limited resources to address a critical pollution and public health
issue.
The proposed resolution has concurrence from the cities of Calexico, Coronado,
Imperial Beach and San Diego, as well as individual officials from the cities of Brawley,
Escondido, La Mesa, Santee and Vista.
This resolution concerns international transboundary pollution flows affecting South San
Diego County and Imperial County, and does not impact Rancho Palos Verdes directly,
though water quality is a statewide concern. League Staff noted in its analysis that a
decline in the state’s beach quality and reputation could carry macroeconomic effects
that could ripple outside of the San Diego County region and affect coastal communities
throughout California.
Therefore, Staff believes that it is in the City’s interest to take no position on 2019
League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 2.
4
Recommendation: Staff recommends taking no position on the adoption of 2019
League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No. 2.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative action s are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Direct the voting delegate and/or alternate(s) to oppose or take no position
on the adoption of 2019 League Resolution No. 1.
2. Direct the voting delegate and/or alternate(s) to support or oppose the
adoption of 2019 League Resolution No. 2.
3. Direct Staff to further research issues related to these resolutions before
providing direction to the voting delegate and/or alternate(s), and continue
this matter to a future meeting on or before October 15, 2019.
5
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2019 Annual Conference Resolutions
Long Beach, California
October 16 – 18, 2019
A-1
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that
resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and
recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the
General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and
referred to League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Two policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider
and take action on the resolutions referred to them. The committees are: Environmental Quality and
Transportation, Communication & Public Works. The committees will meet from 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
on Wednesday, October 16, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach. The sponsors of the resolutions have
been notified of the time and location of the meeting.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
October 17, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach, to consider the reports of the policy committees
regarding the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s
regional divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other
individuals appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room
location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting
will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, October 18, at the Long Beach Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and
presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the
Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m.,
Thursday, October 17. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Carly Shelby
cshelby@cacities.org 916-658-8279 or Nick Romo nromo@cacities.org 916-658-8232 at the
League office.
1 A-2
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for
deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy
committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a
changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1.Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted
at the Annual Conference.
2.The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3.The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4.The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a)Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b)Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principles around
which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of
directors.
(c)Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and
board of directors.
(d)Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
2 A-3
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, October 16, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
The following committees will be meeting:
1.Environmental Quality 10:00 - 11:00 a.m.
2.Transportation, Communication & Public Works 9:00 - 10:00 a.m.
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, October 17, 1:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon
Friday, October 18, 12:30 p.m.
Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach
3 A-4
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 – General
Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Amendment to Rule 20A
2 International Transboundary Pollution Flows
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Amendment to Rule 20A
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each
committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet is
posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
4 A-5
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
ACTION FOOTNOTES
a Amend+
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
Aa Approve as amended+
** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+
*** Local authority presently exists
Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy
committee for study+
Raa Additional amendments and refer+
Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove+
Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No
Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note:
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by League Bylaws.
A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this link:
Guidelines for the Annual Conference Resolutions Process.
5 A-6
League of California Cities Resolution Process
REGULAR RESOLUTIONS
Policy Committee Action General Resolutions
Committee Action Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar 1
Approve Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar 2
Disapprove or Refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Disapprove or Refer Does not proceed to General
Assembly
PETITION RESOLUTIONS
Policy Committee Action General Resolutions
Committee Action Calendar
Not Heard in Policy Committee Approve Consent Calendar
Not Heard in Policy Committee Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Not Heard in Policy Committee Disqualified per Bylaws Art.
VI
Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Resolutions
•Submitted 60 days prior to conference Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 4(a)
•Signatures of at least 5 supporting cities or city officials submitted with the proposed resolution
Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 2
•Assigned to policy committee(s) by League president Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 4(b)(i)
•Heard in policy committee(s) and report recommendation, if any, to GRC Bylaws Article VI, Sec.
4(b)(ii)
•Heard in GRC
Approved by policy committee(s) and GRC, goes on to General Assembly on consent calendar
2006 General Assembly Resolution Sec. 2(C)
If amended/approved by all policy committee(s) to which it has been referred and disapproved
by GRC, then goes on to General Assembly on the regular calendar. If not all policy
committees to which it has been referred recommend amendment or approval, and the GRC
disapproves or refers the resolution, the resolution does not move to the General Assembly
2006 General Assembly Resolution Sec. 2(A),(C); 1998 General Assembly Resolution, 1st
Resolved Clause
If disapproved by all policy committees to which it has been referred and disapproved by the
GRC, resolution does not move to the General Assembly 2006 General Assembly Resolution
Sec. 2(C)
•Heard in General Assembly
1 The consent calendar should only be used for resolutions where there is unanimity between the policy committees and the
GRC that a resolution should be approved by the General Assembly, and therefore, it can be concluded that there will be less
desire to debate the resolution on the floor.
2 The regular calendar is for resolutions for which there is a difference in recommendations between the policy committees
and the GRC.
6 A-7
Petitioned Resolutions
•Submitted by voting delegate Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5 (a)
•Must be signed by voting delegates representing 10% of the member cities Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5
(c)
•Signatures confirmed by League staff
•Submitted to the League president for confirmation 24 hours before the beginning of the General
Assembly. Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5 (d)
•Petition to be reviewed by Parliamentarian for required signatures of voting delegates and for form
and substance Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5(e)
•Parliamentarian’s report is presented to chair of GRC
•Will be heard at GRC for action (GRC cannot amend but may recommend by a majority vote to the
GA technical or clarifying amendments) 2006 General Assembly Resolution sec. 6(A), (B)
•GRC may disqualify if:
Non-germane to city issues
Identical or substantially similar in substance to a resolution already under consideration
Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5(e), (f)
•Heard in General Assembly
General Assembly will consider the resolution following the other resolutions 3 Bylaws Article
VI, Sec. 5(g)
Substantive amendments that change the intent of the petitioned resolution may only be
adopted by the GA 2006 General Assembly Resolution sec. 6(C)
Voting Procedure in the General Assembly
Consent Calendar: Resolution approved by Policy Committee(s) and GRC. Petitioned resolution
approved by GRC)
GRC Chair will be asked to give the report from the GRC and will ask for adoption of the
GRC’s recommendations
Ask delegates if there is a desire to call out a resolution for discussion
A voting delegate may make a motion to remove a resolution from the consent calendar for
discussion
If a motion is made to pull a resolution, the General Assembly votes on whether to pull the
resolution from the consent calendar.
If a majority of the General Assembly votes to pull the resolution, set “called out” reso(s)
aside. If the motion fails, the resolution remains on the consent calendar.
If reso(s) not called out, or after ‘called out” reso is set aside, then ask for vote on remaining
resos left on consent
Move on to debate on reso(s) called out
After debate, a vote is taken
Voting delegates vote on resolutions by raising their voting cards.4
3 Petitioned Resolutions on the Consent Calendar will be placed after all General Resolutions on the Consent Calendar.
Petitioned Resolutions on the Regular Calendar will be placed after all General Resolutions on the Regular Calendar.
4 Amendments to League bylaws require 2/3 vote
7 A-8
Regular Calendar: Regular resolutions approved by Policy Committee(s)5, and GRC recommends
disapproval or referral; Regular resolutions disapproved or referred by Policy Committee(s)6 and GRC
approves; Petitioned resolutions disapproved or referred by the GRC.
Open the floor to determine if a voting delegate wishes to debate a resolution on the regular
calendar.
If no voting delegate requests a debate on the resolution, a vote to ratify the recommendation
of the GRC on the resolution is taken.
Upon a motion by a voting delegate to debate a resolution, a debate shall be held if approved
by a majority vote of the General Assembly. If a majority of the General Assembly to debate
the resolution is not achieved, then a vote shall be taken on whether to ratify the GRC’s
recommendation. If a majority of the General Assembly approves of the motion to debate the
resolution, debate will occur. After debate on the resolution, a vote is taken based upon the
substitute motion that was made, if any, or on the question of ratifying the GRC’s
recommendation.
Voting delegates vote by raising their voting cards.
5 Applies in the instance where the GRC recommendation of disapproval or refer is counter to the recommendations of the
policy committees.
6 Applies in the instance where the GRC recommendation to approve is counter to the recommendations of the policy
committees.
8 A-9
1.RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING ON
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO AMEND RULE 20A
TO ADD PROJECTS IN VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES TO
THE LIST OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND TO INCREASE FUNDING
ALLOCATIONS FOR RULE 20A PROJECTS
Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities: City of Hidden Hills, City of La Cañada Flintridge, City of Laguna Beach, City of
Lakeport, City of Malibu, City of Moorpark, City of Nevada City, City of Palos Verdes Estates,
City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rolling Hills, City of Ventura
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee; Transportation, Communications, and
Public Works Policy Committee
WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission regulates the undergrounding
conversion of overhead utilities under Electric Tariff Rule 20 and;
WHEREAS, conversion projects deemed to have a public benefit are eligible to be
funded by ratepayers under Rule 20A; and
WHEREAS, the criteria under Rule 20A largely restricts eligible projects to those along
streets with high volumes of public traffic; and
WHEREAS, the cost of undergrounding projects that do not meet Rule 20A criteria is
left mostly or entirely to property owners under other parts of Rule 20; and
WHEREAS, California is experiencing fire seasons of worsening severity; and
WHEREAS, undergrounding overhead utilities that can spark brush fires is an important
tool in preventing them and offers a public benefit; and
WHEREAS, brush fires are not restricted to starting near streets with high volumes of
public traffic; and
WHEREAS, expanding Rule 20A criteria to include Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones would facilitate undergrounding projects that would help prevent fires; and
WHEREAS, expanding Rule 20A criteria as described above and increasing funding
allocations for Rule 20A projects would lead to more undergrounding in Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones; and now therefore let it be,
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities calls on the California Public Utilities
Commission to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to
the list of criteria for eligibility and to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.
9 A-10
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Background:
Rancho Palos Verdes is the most populated California city to have 90 percent or more of
residents living in a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Over the years,
the Palos Verdes Peninsula has seen numerous brush fires that were determined to be caused by
electrical utility equipment.
Across the state, some of the most destructive and deadly wildfires were sparked by power
equipment. But when it comes to undergrounding overhead utilities, fire safety is not taken into
account when considering using ratepayer funds to pay for these projects under California’s
Electric Tariff Rule 20 program. The program was largely intended to address visual blight when
it was implemented in 1967. Under Rule 20A, utilities must allocate ratepayer funds to
undergrounding conversion projects chosen by local governments that have a public benefit and
meet one or more of the following criteria:
•Eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead lines;
•Involve a street or road with a high volume of public traffic;
•Benefit a civic or public recreation area or area of unusual scenic interest; and,
•Be listed as an arterial street or major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines.
As we know, brush fires are not restricted to erupting in these limited areas. California’s fire
season has worsened in severity in recent years, claiming dozens of lives and destroying tens of
thousands of structures in 2018 alone.
Excluding fire safety from Rule 20A eligibility criteria puts the task of undergrounding power
lines in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones squarely on property owners who are proactive,
willing and able to foot the bill.
The proposed resolution calls on the California Public Utilities Commission to amend Rule 20A
to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility.
To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these high-risk zones, the proposed resolution also
calls on the CPUC to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.
If adopted, utilities will be incentivized to prioritize undergrounding projects that could
potentially save millions of dollars and many lives.
10 A-11
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Rony Berdugo, Legislative Representative, Derek Dolfie, Legislative
Representative, Caroline Cirrincione, Legislative Policy Analyst
Committees: Environmental Quality; Transportation, Communications, and Public Works
Summary:
This Resolution, in response to intensifying fire seasons and hazards associated with exposed
energized utility lines, proposes that the League of California Cities (League) call upon the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to amend the Rule 20A program by expanding
the criteria for undergrounding overhead utilities to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). This Resolution also proposes that the League call upon the CPUC
to increase utilities’ funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.
Background
California Wildfires and Utilities
Over the last several years, the increasing severity and frequency of California’s wildfires have
prompted state and local governments to seek urgent prevention and mitigation actions. Record
breaking wildfires in Northern and Southern California in both 2017 and 2018 have caused
destruction and loss of life. This severe fire trend has local officials seeking solutions to combat
what is now a year-round fire season exacerbated by years of drought, intense weather patterns,
untamed vegetation and global warming.
These conditions create a dangerous catalyst for wildfires caused by utilities as extreme wind and
weather events make downed power lines more of a risk. In response to recent catastrophic
wildfires, Governor Newsom established a Strike Force tasked with developing a
“comprehensive roadmap” to address issues related to wildfires, climate change, and utilities.
The Strike Force report acknowledges that measures to harden the electrical grid are critical to
wildfire risk management. A key utility hardening strategy: undergrounding lines in extreme
high-fire areas.
Governor Newsom’s Wildfire Strike Force program report concludes, “It’s not a question of “if”
wildfire will strike, but “when.”
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
This Resolution seeks to expand the undergrounding of overhead utility lines in VHFHSZ.
California Government Code Section 51178 requires the Director of the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE) to identify areas in the state as VHFHSZ based on the
potential fire hazard in those areas. VHFHSZ are determined based on fuel loading, slope, fire
weather, and other relevant factors. These zones are in both local responsibility areas and state
responsibility areas. Maps of the statewide and county by county VHFHSZ can be found here.1
1 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-
severity-zones-maps/
11 A-12
More than 25 million acres of California wildlands are classified under very high or extreme fire
threat. Approximately 25 percent of the state’s population, 11 million people, live in those high-
risk areas. Additionally, over 350,000 Californians live in cities that are nearly encompassed
within Cal Fire’s maps of VHFHSZ. Similar to the proponents of this Resolution, City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, over 75 communities have 90 percent or more of residents living in a VHFHSZ.
CPUC Rule 20 Program
The CPUC’s Rule 20 program lays out the guidelines and procedures for converting overhead
electric and telecommunication facilities to underground electric facilities. Rule 20 funding and
criteria is provided at four levels. Levels A, B, and C, reflect progressively diminishing ratepayer
funding for undergrounding projects. Recently added Rule 20D is a relatively new program that
is specific to San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), which was created in response to the
destructive 2007 wildfires. Each of these levels will be discussed below:
Rule 20A
The first California overhead conversion program, Rule 20A, was created in 1967 under then
Governor Ronald Reagan. The program was created to provide a consistent and structured means
of undergrounding utility lines throughout the state with costs covered broadly by utility
ratepayers.
Each year, Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) propose their Rule 20A allocation amounts to the
CPUC during annual general rate case proceedings. In this process, IOUs propose revised utility
customer rates based on expected service costs, new energy procurement and projects for the
following year, including Rule 20 allocations. The CPUC then reviews, amends, and approves
IOU rates. Currently, the cumulative budgeted amount for Rule 20A for Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) totals
around $95.7 million.
The funding set aside by IOUs for Rule 20A is allocated to local governments through a credit
system, with each credit holding a value to be used solely for the costs of an undergrounding
project. The credit system was created so that local governments and IOUs can complete
undergrounding projects without municipal financing. Through Rule 20A, municipalities that
have developed and received city council approval for an undergrounding plan receive annual
credits from the IOU in their service area. At the last count by the CPUC, over 500 local
governments (cities and counties) participate in the credit system.
While these credits have no inherent monetary value, they can be traded in or banked for the
conversion of overhead lines. Municipalities can choose to accumulate their credits until their
credit balance is sufficient to cover these conversion projects, or choose to borrow future
undergrounding allocations for a period of up to five years. Once the cumulative balance of
credits is sufficient to cover the cost of a conversion project, the municipality and the utility can
move forward with the undergrounding. All of the planning, design, and construction is
performed by the participating utility. Upon the completion of an undergrounding project, the
utility is compensated through the local government’s Rule 20A credits.
12 A-13
At the outset of the program, the amount of allocated credits were determined by a formula
which factored in the number of utility meters within a municipality in comparison to the
utilities’ service territory. However, in recent years the formula has changed. Credit allocations
for IOUs, except for PG&E, are now determined based on the allocation a city or county
received in 1990 and is then adjusted for the following factors:
•50% of the change from the 1990 total budgeted amount is allocated for the ratio of the
number of overhead meters in any city or unincorporated area to the total system
overhead meters; and
•50% of the change from the 1990 total budgeted amount is allocated for the ratio of the
number of meters (which includes older homes that have overhead services, and newer
homes with completely underground services) in any city or the unincorporated area to
the total system meters.
As noted, PG&E has a different funding formula for their Rule 20A credit allocations as they are
not tied to the 1990 base allocation. Prior to 2011, PG&E was allocating approximately five to
six percent of its revenue to the Rule 20A program. The CPUC decided in 2011 that PG&E’s
Rule 20A allocations should be reduced by almost half in an effort to decrease the growing
accumulation of credits amongst local governments. Since 2011, PG&E’s annual allocations for
Rule 20A have been around $41.3 million annually, which is between two and three percent of
their total revenue.
Criteria for Rule 20A Projects
For an undergrounding project to qualify for the Rule 20A program, there are several criteria that
need to be met. The project must have a public benefit and:
1. Eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead lines
2. Involve a street or road with a high volume of public traffic
3. Benefit a civic or public recreation area or area of unusual scenic interest,
4.Be listed as an arterial street or major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines
Notably, fire safety is excluded from the list of criteria that favors aesthetic and other public
safety projects.
Rule 20A Credit System Imbalance Threatens Program Effectiveness
Allocations are made by utilities each year for Rule 20A credits. These current budget
allocations total $95.7 million a year. Currently, the cumulative balance of credits throughout the
state totals over $1 billion dollars. The Rule 20A cumulative balances aggregated by region can
be found here.2
2 Program Review, California Overhead Conversion Program, Rule 20A for Years 2011-2015, “The Billion Dollar Risk,” California Public Utilities
Commission.
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/Policy_and_Planning/PPD_Work_Pr
oducts_(2014_forward)(1)/PPD_Rule_20-A.pdf
13 A-14
Note: The existing credit allocation formulas do not consider a municipality’s need or plans for
overhead conversion projects, resulting in large credit balances in some jurisdictions.
Cities and counties are, however, able to trade or sell unallocated Rule 20A credits if they will
not be used to fund local undergrounding projects. There have been several cases where one
agency has sold their unused credits, often for less than the full dollar value of the credits
themselves to another agency.
Rule 20B
Rule 20B projects are those that do not fit the Rule 20A criteria, but do, however, involve both
sides of the street for at least 600 feet. These projects are typically done in conjunction with
larger developments and are mostly paid for by the developer or applicant. Additionally, the
applicant is responsible for the installation.
Rule 20C
Rule 20C projects are usually small projects that involve property owners. The majority of the
cost is usually borne by the applicants. Rule 20C applies when the project does not qualify for
either Rule 20A or Rule 20B.
Rule 20D--Wildfire Mitigation Undergrounding Program
Rule 20D was approved by the CPUC in January of 2014 and only applies to SDG&E. The Rule
20D program was established largely in response to the destructive wildfires that occurred in San
Diego in 2007 as a wildfire mitigation undergrounding program. According to SDG&E, the
objective of the Rule 20D undergrounding is exclusively for fire hardening as opposed to
aesthetics. The program is limited in scope and is restricted to communities in SDG&E’s Fire
Threat Zone (now referred to as the High Fire Threat District or HFTD). As of this time, the
program has yet to yield any projects and no projects are currently planned.
For an undergrounding project to qualify for the Rule 20D program, a minimum of three of the
following criteria must be met. The project must be near, within, or impactful to:
•Critical electric infrastructure
•Remaining useful life of electric infrastructure
•Exposure to vegetation or tree contact
•Density and proximity of fuel
•Critical surrounding non-electric assets (including structures and sensitive environmental
areas)
•Service to public agencies
•Accessibility for firefighters
Similar to Rule 20A, SDG&E must allocate funding each year through their general rate case
proceedings to Rule 20D to be approved by the CPUC. This funding is separate from the
allocations SDG&E makes for Rule 20A. However, the process of distributing this funding to
localities is different. The amount of funding allocated to each city and county for Rule 20D is
based on the ratio of the number of miles of overhead lines in SDG&E Fire Threat Zones in a
city or county to the total miles of SDG&E overhead lines in the entire SDG&E fire zone. The
14 A-15
Rule 20D program is administered by the utility consistent with the existing reporting,
engineering, accounting, and management practices for Rule 20A.
The Committee may want to consider whether Rule 20D should instead be expanded, adapted, or
further utilized to support funding for overhead conversions within VHFHSZ throughout the
state.
Fiscal Impact:
The costs to the State associated with this Resolution will be related to the staff and
programmatic costs to the CPUC to take the necessary measures to consider and adopt changes
to Rule 20A to include projects in VHFHSZ to the list of criteria for eligibility.
This Resolution calls for an unspecified increase in funding for Rule 20A projects, inferring that
portions of increased funds will go towards newly eligible high fire hazard zones. While the
Resolution does not request a specific amount be allocated, it can be assumed that these
increased costs will be supported by utility ratepayers. According to the CPUC, the annual
allocations towards Rule 20A are $95.7 million.
The CPUC currently reports a cumulative credit surplus valued at roughly $1 billion that in
various regions, given the approval of expanded eligibility called for by this Resolution, could be
used to supplement and reduce the level of new dollars needed to make a significant impact in
VHFHSZ. The CPUC follows that overhead conversion projects range from $93,000 per mile for
rural construction to $5 million per mile for urban construction.
The Resolution states that “California is experiencing fire seasons of worsening severity” which
is supported by not only the tremendous loss of property and life from recent wildfires, but also
in the rising costs associated with clean up, recovery, and other economic losses with high
estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Committee may wish to consider the costs associated with undergrounding utility lines in
relation to the costs associated with past wildfires and wildfires to come.
Comments:
CPUC Currently Exploring Revisions to Rule 20
In May 2017, the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Revisions to
Electric Rule 20 and Related Matters. The CPUC will primarily focus on revisions to Rule 20A
but may make conforming changes to other parts of Rule 20. The League is a party in these
proceedings will provide comments.
Beyond Rule 20A: Additional Options for Funding Undergrounding Projects
There are various ways in which cities can generate funding for undergrounding projects that fall
outside of the scope of Rule 20A. At the local level, cities can choose to forgo the Rule 20A
process and opt to use their own General Fund money for undergrounding. Other options are also
discussed below:
15 A-16
Rule 20D Expansion
The City of Berkley in a 2018 study titled “Conceptual Study for Undergrounding Utility Wires
in Berkley,” found that the city could possibly qualify for Rule 20D funding if they actively
pursued this opportunity in partnership with PG&E and the CPUC.
One of the study’s recommendations is to advocate for release of 20D funds (now earmarked
exclusively for SDG&E) to be used for more aggressive fire hardening techniques for above-
ground utility poles and equipment, for undergrounding power lines, and for more aggressive
utility pole and vegetation management practices in the Very High Hazard Fire Zone within
Berkeley’s city limits.
As an alternative to changing the criteria for Rule 20A, the Committee may wish to consider
whether there is the opportunity to advocate for the expansion of Rule 20D funding more
broadly, expanding its reach to all IOU territories.
Franchise Surcharge Fees
Aside from Rule 20 allocations, cities can generate funding for undergrounding through
franchise fee surcharges. For example, SDG&E currently operates under a 50-year City franchise
that was granted in 1970. Under the franchises approved by the San Diego City Council in
December 1970, SDG&E agreed to pay a franchise fee to the City equivalent to 3% of its gross
receipts from the sales of both natural gas and electricity for 30 years.
These fees were renegotiated in 2000 and in 2001 an agreement was between the City of San
Diego, SDG&E, and the CPUC to extend the existing franchise fee to include revenues collected
from surcharges. SDG&E requested an increase of 3.88% to its existing electric franchise fee
surcharge. The bulk, 3.53% of this increase is to be used for underground conversion of overhead
electric wires.
Based on SDG&E's revenue projections, the increase would result in an additional surcharge
revenue amount of approximately $36.5 million per year. SDG&E estimates that this would
create a monthly increase of approximately $3.00 to a typical residential customer's electric bill.
These surcharge revenues would pay for additional undergrounding projects including those that
do not meet the Rule 20A criteria. The City of Santa Barbara has also adopted a similar franchise
surcharge fee.
Having this funding source allows the City of San Diego to underground significantly more
miles of above ground utility lines than other municipalities. However, the surcharge is currently
being challenged in court, as it is argued that the City had SDG&E impose a tax without a ballot
measure.
16 A-17
Utility Bankruptcy and Undergrounding Funding
In considering this Resolution, it is important to understand that Rule 20A allocations have been
more substantial in the past. As mentioned earlier, prior to 2011, PG&E was allocating
approximately 5% to 6% of its revenue to the Rule 20A program. Therefore, it is not
unreasonable to encourage an increase in Rule 20A allocations as history shows that utilities had
the capacity to do so in the past.
However, in a time where IOUs such as PG&E are facing bankruptcy as the result of utility
caused wildfires, there is the possibility that expanding rule 20A funding will generate more
costs for the ratepayers.
Questions to Consider:
1) Is Rule 20A or Rule 20D the more appropriate program to advocate for such an
expansion?
2)Are there any wildfire risks outside of VHFHSZ that could be mitigated by
undergrounding projects?
Existing League Policy:
Public Safety:
The League supports additional funding for local agencies to recoup the costs associated with
fire safety in the community and timely mutual aid reimbursement for disaster response services
in other jurisdictions. (pg. 43)
The League supports the fire service mission of saving lives and protecting property through fire
prevention, disaster preparedness, hazardous-materials mitigation, specialized rescue, etc., as
well as cities’ authority and discretion to provide all emergency services to their communities.
(pg. 43)
Transportation, Communication, and Public Works:
Existing telecommunications providers and new entrants shall adhere to local city policies on
public utility undergrounding. (pg. 54)
The League supports protecting the additional funding for local transportation and other critical
unmet infrastructure needs. (pg. 51)
The League supports innovative strategies including public private partnerships at the state and
local levels to enhance public works funding. (pg. 52)
Environmental Quality
The League opposes any legislation that interferes with local utility rate setting authority and
opposes any legislation that restricts the ability of a city to transfer revenue from a utility (or
other enterprise activity) to the city’s general fund. (pg. 9)
17 A-18
Cities should continue to have the authority to issue franchises and any program should be at
least revenue neutral relative to revenue currently received from franchises. (pg. 9)
The League is concerned about the impacts of escalating energy prices on low income residents
and small businesses. The League supports energy pricing structures and other mechanisms to
soften the impacts on this segment of our community. (pg. 10)
2019 Strategic Goals
Improve Disaster Preparedness, Recovery and Climate Resiliency.
•Provide resources to cities and expand partnerships to better prepare for and recover from
wildfires, seismic events, erosion, mudslides and other disasters.
•Improve community preparedness and resiliency to respond to climate-related, natural and
man-made disasters.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
The City of Hidden Hills
The City of La Cañada Flintridge
The City of Laguna Beach
The City of Lakeport
The City of Malibu
The City of Moorpark
The City of Nevada City
The City of Palos Verdes Estates
The City of Rolling Hills Estates
The City of Rolling Hills
The City of Ventura
18 A-19
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
Amendment to Rule 20A
19 A-20
20A-21
21A-22
22 A-23
23 A-24
24 A-25
City of Malibu
Jefferson Wagner, Mayor
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861
Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org
M:\City Council\Mayor Chron Files\2019\Rancho PV League Reso to Amend Rule 20A-Support_190815.docx Recycled Paper
August 15, 2019
Jan Arbuckle, President
League of California Cities
1400 K St., Ste. 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Proposed Resolution to Amend California Public Utilities
Commission Rule 20A – SUPPORT
Dear Ms. Arbuckle:
At its Regular meeting on August 12, 2019, the Malibu City Council unanimously voted to support the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at
the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.
Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated
communities across our state, but California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to
pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless
projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who
are proactive, as well as willing and able to foot the bill. The City of Malibu agrees with Rancho Palos
Verdes that Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.
The resolution calls on the CPUC to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these
high-risk zones, the resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A
projects. As a recent series of news stories on wildfire preparedness in California pointed out, there are
more than 75 communities across the state with populations over 1,000, including Rancho Palos Verdes
and Malibu, where at least 90 percent of residents live in a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone.
It is well-known that electric utility equipment is a common fire source, and has sparked some of the
most destructive blazes in our state’s history. Moving power lines underground is, therefore, a critical
tool in preventing them. Currently, Rule 20A primarily addresses visual blight, but with fire seasons
worsening, it is key that fire safety also be considered when local governments pursue Rule 20A projects,
and that annual funding allocations for the program be expanded.
It is worth noting that the State does have a program, Rule 20D, that factors in fire safety for funding
undergrounding projects. However, this is limited to San Diego Gas & Electric Company projects in
certain areas only. This needs to be expanded to include projects in all projects within designated Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
25
A-26
Rancho PV League Resolution
Amend Rule 20A
August 15, 2019
Page 2 of 2
M:\City Council\Mayor Chron Files\2019\Rancho PV League Reso to Amend Rule 20A-Support_190815.docx
Recycled Paper
The proposed resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving
disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.
For these reasons, the City of Malibu strongly concurs that the resolution should go before the General
Assembly.
Sincerely,
Jefferson Wagner
Mayor
Cc: Honorable Members of the Malibu City Council
Reva Feldman, City Manager
Megan Barnes, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, mbarnes@rpvca.gov
26
A-27
CITY OF MOORPARK
JANICE S. PARVIN
Mayor
CHRIS ENEGREN
Councilmember
ROSEANN MIKOS, Ph.D.
Councilmember
DAVID POLLOCK
Councilmember
KEN SIMONS
Councilmember
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | moorpark@moorparkca.gov
July 24, 2019 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
Jan Arbuckle, President
League of California Cities
1400 K St., Ste. 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SUPPORT FOR RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESOLUTION RE: POWER LINE
UNDERGROUNDING
Dear President Arbuckle:
The City of Moorpark supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes effort to bring a resolution for
consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long
Beach.
Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have
devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows
local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire
safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left
to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We
believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California
Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.
The resolution calls on the CPUC to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding
projects in these high-risk zones, the resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase funding
allocations for Rule 20A projects.
All cities in Ventura County, including Moorpark, have wildfire prevention fresh in our
memories following the highly destructive 2017-2018 Thomas Fire, which was caused by
above-ground power lines. The 2018 Woolsey Fire similarly affected Ventura County, and
lawsuits have been filed alleging it was also caused by above-ground power lines. Each of
these fires caused billions of dollars in damages and highlight the importance of
undergrounding power lines.
27 A-28
League of California Cities
Page 2
The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving
disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.
For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.
Sincerely,
Janice Parvin
Mayor
cc: City Council
City Manager
28 A-29
29A-30
30 A-31
31 A-32
32 A-33
33 A-34
2.A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS
TO ADDRESS THE DEVASTATING IMPACTS OF INTERNATIONAL
TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION FLOWS INTO THE SOUTHERNMOST
REGIONS OF CALIFORNIA AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN
Source: San Diego County Division
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities: Calexico; Coronado; Imperial Beach; San Diego
Individual City Officials: City of Brawley: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Kastner-Jauregui; Council
Members Sam Couchman, Luke Hamby, and George Nava. City of Escondido: Deputy Mayor
Consuelo Martinez. City of La Mesa: Council Member Bill Baber. City of Santee: Mayor John
Minto, City of Vista: Mayor Judy Ritter and Council Member Amanda Young Rigby
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
WHEREAS, international transboundary rivers that carry water across the border from
Mexico into Southern California are a major source of sewage, trash, chemicals, heavy metals
and toxins; and
WHEREAS, transboundary flows threaten the health of residents in the United States
and Mexico, harm important estuarine land and water of international significance, force closure
of beaches, damage farmland, adversely impact the South San Diego County and Imperial
County economy; compromise border security, and directly affect U.S. military readiness; and
WHEREAS, a significant amount of untreated sewage, sediment, hazardous chemicals
and trash have been entering southern California through both the Tijuana River Watershed (75
percent of which is within Mexico) and New River flowing into southern California’s coastal
waterways and residential and agricultural communities in Imperial County eventually draining
into the Salton Sea since the 1930s; and
WHEREAS, in February 2017, an estimated 143 million gallons of raw sewage flowed
into the Tijuana River and ran downstream into the Pacific Ocean and similar cross border flows
have caused beach closures at Border Field State Park that include 211 days in 2015; 162 days in
2016; 168 days in 2017; 101 days in 2018; and 187 days to date for 2019 as well as closure of a
number of other beaches along the Pacific coastline each of those years; and
WHEREAS, approximately 132 million gallons of raw sewage has discharged into the
New River flowing into California through communities in Imperial County, with 122 million
gallons of it discharged in a 6-day period in early 2017; and
WHEREAS, the presence of pollution on state and federal public lands is creating unsafe
conditions for visitors; these lands are taxpayer supported and intended to be managed for
recreation, resource conservation and the enjoyment by the public, and
WHEREAS, the current insufficient and degrading infrastructure in the border zone
poses a significant risk to the public health and safety of residents and the environment on both
34 A-35
sides of the border, and places the economic stress on cities that are struggling to mitigate the
negative impacts of pollution; and
WHEREAS, the 1944 treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding Utilization
of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande allocates flows on trans-
border rivers between Mexico and the United States, and provides that the nations, through their
respective sections of the International Boundary Water Commission shall give control of
sanitation in cross border flows the highest priority; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, the United States and Mexico entered into the Agreement Between
the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican
States Concerning the Establishment of a North American Development Bank which created the
North American Development Bank (NADB) to certify and fund environmental infrastructure
projects in border-area communities; and
WHEREAS, public concerns in response to widespread threats to public health and
safety, damage to fish and wildlife resources and degradation to California’s environment
resulting from transboundary river flow pollution in the southernmost regions of the state
requires urgent action by the Federal and State governments, and
WHEREAS, Congress authorized funding under the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act and established the State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) program for the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) in 1996 to
provide grants for high-priority water, wastewater, and storm-water infrastructure projects within
100 kilometers of the southern border; and
WHEREAS, the EPA administers the STAG and BWIP programs, and coordinates with
the North American Development Bank (NADB) to allocate BWIP grant funds to projects in the
border zone; and
WHEREAS, since its inception, the BWIP program has provided funding for projects in
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that would not have been constructed without the
grant program; and
WHEREAS, the BWIP program was initially funded at $100 million per year, but, over
the last 20 years, has been continuously reduced to its current level of $10 million; and
WHEREAS, in its FY 2020 Budget Request, the Administration proposed to eliminate
the BWIP program; and
WHEREAS, officials from EPA Region 9, covering California, have identified a
multitude of BWIP-eligible projects along the southern border totaling over $300 million; and
WHEREAS, without federal partnership through the BWIP program and state support to
address pollution, cities that are impacted by transboundary sewage and toxic waste flows are
35 A-36
left with limited resources to address a critical pollution and public health issue and limited legal
remedies to address the problem; and
WHEREAS, the National Association of Counties, (NACo) at their Annual Conference
on July 15, 2019 and the U.S. Conference of Mayors at their Annual Conference on in July 1,
2019 both enacted resolutions calling on the federal and state governments to work together to
fund and address this environmental crisis; and
WHEREAS, local governments and the public support the State’s primary objectives in
complying with environmental laws including the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, and Endangered Species Act and are supported by substantial public
investments at all levels of government to maintain a healthy and sustainable environment for
future residents of California, and
WHEREAS, League of California Cities policy has long supported efforts to ensure
water quality and oppose contamination of water resources; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly,
assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2019 in Long Beach, that the
League calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and ensure proper funding to the
U.S- Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) and recommit to working bi-
nationally to develop and implement long-term solutions to address serious water quality and
contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-
laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant health,
environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting
the state.
36 A-37
Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: San Diego County Division
Background:
Along California’s southern border with Mexico, the New River in Imperial County and the
Tijuana River in San Diego County are a major sources of raw sewage, trash, chemicals, heavy
metals, and toxins that pollute local communities. Sewage contaminated flows in the Tijuana
River have resulted in significant impacts to beach recreation that includes the closure of Border
Field State Beach for more than 800 days over the last 5-years. Similarly, contaminated flows in
the New River presents comparable hazards, impacts farm land, and contributes to the ongoing
crisis in the Salton Sea. These transboundary flows threaten the health of residents in California
and Mexico, harms the ecosystem, force closures at beaches, damage farm land, makes people
sick, and adversely affects the economy of border communities. The root cause of this cross
border pollution is from insufficient or failing water and wastewater infrastructure in the border
zone and inadequate federal action to address the problem through existing border programs.
The severity of cross border pollution has continued to increase, due in part to the rapid growth
of urban centers since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
While economic growth has contributed to greater employment, the environmental infrastructure
of the region has not kept pace, which is why Congress authorized the Border Water
Infrastructure Program (BWIP) in 1996. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
administers the BWIP and coordinates with the North American Development Bank (NADB) to
provide financing and technical support for projects on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border.
Unfortunately, the current BWIP funding at $10 million per year is only a fraction of the initial
program budget that shares funding with the entire 2,000 mile Mexican border with California,
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. EPA officials from Region 9 have identified an immediate
need for BWIP projects totaling over $300 million just for California. Without federal
partnerships through the BWIP and state support to address cross border pollution, cities that are
impacted by transboundary sewage and toxic waste flows are left with limited resources to
address a critical pollution and public health issue.
The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is another important federal
stakeholder that, under the Treaty of 1944 with Mexico, must address border sanitation
problems. While IBWC currently captures and treats some of the pollution generated in Mexico,
it also redirects cross border flows without treatment directly into California.
Improving environmental and public health conditions for communities along the border is
essential for maintaining strong border economy with Mexico. The IBWC, EPA, and NADB are
the important federal partners with existing bi-national programs that are able to immediately
implement solutions on cross border pollution. California is in a unique position to take the lead
and work with local and federal partners to implement real solutions that will addresses the long
standing and escalating water quality crisis along the border.
For those reasons, the cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado requested the San Diego County
Division to propose a resolution at the 2019 League Annual Conference calling upon the federal
37 A-38
and state governments to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary
pollution flows into the waterways of the southernmost regions of California, San Diego and
Imperial Counties and the Pacific Ocean.
On August 12, 2019 at the regularly scheduled meeting of the San Diego County Division, the
membership unanimously endorsed submittal of the resolution, with close to 75% membership
present and voting.
The Imperial County Division does not have a schedule meeting until after the deadline to
submit proposed resolutions. However, the City of Calexico, which is most directly impacted by
initial pollution flow of the New River from Mexicali, sent a letter in concurrence of this
resolution as well as numerous city official from cities within Imperial County and the Imperial
County Board of Supervisors. The League Imperial County Division will place a vote to support
this resolution on the agenda of their September 26, 2019 meeting.
38 A-39
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Derek Dolfie, Legislative Representative
Carly Shelby, Legislative and Policy Development Assistant
Committees: Environmental Quality
Summary:
This Resolution states that the League of California Cities should call upon the State and Federal
governments to restore and ensure proper funding for the U.S. – Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure Program (BWIP) and work bi-nationally to address water quality issues resulting
from transboundary flows from Mexico’s Tijuana River into the United States containing
untreated sewage, polluted sediment, and trash.
Background:
The League of California Cities’ San Diego County Division is sponsoring this resolution to
address their concerns over the contaminated flows from the Tijuana River into California that
have resulted in the degradation of water quality and water recreational areas in Southern
California.
The Tijuana River flows north through highly urbanized areas in Mexico before it enters the
Tijuana River Estuary and eventually the Pacific Ocean via waterways in San Diego County in
California. Urban growth in Tijuana has contributed to a rise in rates of upstream flows from
water treatment facilities in Mexico. These treatment facilities have raised the amount of
untreated sewage and waste in the Tijuana River due to faulty infrastructure and improper
maintenance. The federal government refers to the river as an “impaired water body” because of
the presence of pollutants in excess, which pose significant health risks to residents and visitors
in communities on both sides of the border.
Federal Efforts to Address Pollution Crisis
To remedy the Tijuana River’s low water quality, the United States and Mexico entered into a
Treaty in 1944 entitled: Utilization of Waters of the Colorado River and Tijuana Rivers and of
the Rio Grande – the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). The IBWC was
designed to consist of a United States section and a Mexico section. Both sections were tasked
with negotiating and implementing resolutions to address water pollution in the area, which
includes overseeing the development of water treatment and diversion infrastructure.
After the formation of the IBWC, the U.S. and Mexico entered into a treaty in 1993 entitled:
Agreement Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission
and a North American Development Bank. This agreement established the North American
Development Bank (NADB), which certifies and funds infrastructure projects located within 100
kilometers (62 miles) of the border line. The NADB supports federal programs like the Border
Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP), which was initially funded at $100 million, annually.
The degradation of existing water treatment infrastructure along the border coincides with the
federal government’s defunding of the BWIP, which has steadily decreased from $100 million in
1996 to $10 million today. The Federal FY 2020 Budget proposes eliminating BWIP funding
39 A-40
altogether. EPA’s regions 6 and 9 (includes U.S. states that border Mexico) have identified a
number of eligible projects that address public health and environmental conditions along the
border totaling $340 million.
The NADB has funded the development of water infrastructure in both the U.S. and Mexico.
Water diversion and treatment infrastructure along the U.S – Mexico border includes, but is not
limited to, the following facilities:
•The South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP). This facility was
constructed by the U.S. in 1990 and is located on the California side of the border and is
operated under the jurisdiction of the IBWC. The SBIWTP serves as a diversion and
treatment sewage plant to address the flow of untreated sewage from Mexico into the
United States.
•Pump Station CILA. CILA was constructed by Mexico in 1991 and is located along the
border in Mexico. This facility serves as the SBIWTP’s Mexican counterpart.
Both the SBIWTP and CILA facilities have had a multitude of overflows containing untreated
sewage and toxic waste that spills into the Tijuana River. The cause of overflows can be
attributed to flows exceeding the maximum capacity that the infrastructure can accommodate
(this is exacerbated during wet and rainy seasons) and failure to properly operate and maintain
the facilities. Much of the existing infrastructure has not had updates or repairs for decades,
causing overflows to become more frequent and severe. The most notable overflow occurred in
February 2017, wherein 143 million gallons of polluting waste discharged into the Tijuana River;
affecting the Tijuana Estuary, the Pacific Ocean, and Southern California’s waterways.
State Actions
In response to the February 2017 overflow, the San Diego Water Board’s Executive Officer sent
a letter to the U.S. and Mexican IBWC Commissioners which included recommendations on
how to improve existing infrastructure and communications methods between both nations.
In September of 2018, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra submitted a lawsuit against
IBWC for Violating the Clean Water Act by allowing flows containing sewage and toxic waste
to flow into California’s waterways, posing a public health and ecological crisis. The cities of
Imperial Beach, San Diego, Chula Vista, the Port of San Diego, and the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Board have also filed suit against the IBWC. The suit is awaiting its first
settlement conference on October 19, 2019. If parties are unable to reach a settlement, the case
will go to trial.
Fiscal Impact:
California’s economy is currently the sixth largest in the world, with tourism spending topping
$140.6 billion in 2018. In the past five years, San Diego’s Border Field State Park has been
closed for over 800 days because of pollution from the Tijuana River. A decline in the State’s
beach quality and reputation could carry macroeconomic effects that could ripple outside of the
San Diego County region and affect coastal communities throughout California.
40 A-41
Existing League Policy
The League of California Cities has extensive language on water in its Summary of Existing
Policy and Guiding Principles. Fundamentally, the League recognizes that beneficial water
quality is essential to the health and welfare of California and all of its citizens. Additionally, the
League advocates for local, state and federal governments to work cooperatively to ensure that
water quality is maintained.
The following policy relates to the issue of water quality:
•Surface and groundwater should be protected from contamination.
•Requirements for wastewater discharge into surface water and groundwater to safeguard
public health and protect beneficial uses should be supported.
•When addressing contamination in a water body, water boards should place priority
emphasis on clean-up strategies targeting sources of pollution, rather than in stream or
end-of-pipe treatment.
•Water development projects must be economically, environmentally and scientifically
sound.
•The viability of rivers and streams for instream uses such as fishery habitat, recreation
and aesthetics must be protected.
•Protection, maintenance, and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat and resources.
Click here to view the Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles 2018.
Comments:
1. Water quality issues are prevalent across California and have been a constant priority of
the State’s legislature and residents. In 2014, California’s voters approved Proposition 1,
which authorized $7.5 billion in general obligation bonds to fund water quality
improvement projects. In 2019, the Legislature reached an agreement to allocate $130
million from the State’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to address failing
water infrastructure and bad water qualities for over one million of California’s residents
in rural communities. Water quality is not an issue unique to the County of San Diego
and communities along the border.
2.Tijuana River cross-border pollution has caught national attention. Members of Congress
have proposed recent funding solutions to address the pollution crisis, including:
•In February of 2019, California Congressional Representatives Vargas, Peters, and
Davis helped secure $15 million for the EPA to use as part of its BWIP.
•H.R. 3895 (Vargas, Peters, 2019), The North American Development Bank Pollution
Solution Act. This bill seeks to support pollution mitigation efforts along the border
by increasing the NADB’s capital by $1.5 billion.
•H.R. 4039 (Levin, 2019), The Border Water Infrastructure Improvement Act.
This bill proposes increasing funding to the BWIP from the existing $10 million to
$150 million as a continuous appropriation until 2025.
Additionally, the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the U.S. Conference of
Mayors enacted resolutions in support of increased funding for U.S. – Mexico border
water infrastructure to address the environmental crisis in 2019.
41 A-42
3.The border pollution problem has sparked action from local, state, and federal actors.
Should this resolution be adopted, League membership should be aware that future action
will be adapted by what is explicitly stated in the resolution’s language. In current form,
the resolution’s resolve clause cites the BWIP as the only program that should receive
reinstated and proper funding. League staff recommends the language be modified to
state:
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly,
assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2019 in Long Beach,
that the League calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and
ensure proper funding for environmental infrastructure on the U.S. – Mexico
Border, including to the U.S- Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program
(BWIP), and recommit to working bi-nationally to develop and implement long-
term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as
discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden
transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant health,
environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern
border impacting the state.”
Modifying the language would ensure enough flexibility for the League to support
funding mechanisms outside of the prescribed federally-operated BWIP.
4.It remains unclear if there is an appetite in Washington to fund border-related
infrastructure projects that address environmental quality. Given the high probability of
another overflow containing waste and sewage from the existing infrastructure operated
by the IBWC, League membership should consider the outcome if no resolution is
reached to address the issue.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
Cities:
The City of Calexico
The City of Coronado
The City of Imperial Beach
The City of San Diego
In their individual capacity:
Amanda Young Rigby, City of Vista Council Member
Bill Baber, City of La Mesa Council Member
Consuelo Martinez, City of Escondido Deputy Mayor
George A. Nava, City of Brawley Council Member
John Minto, City of Santee Mayor
Judy Ritter, City of Vista Mayor
Luke Hamby, City of Brawley Council Member
Norma Kastner-Jauregui, City of Brawley Mayor Pro-Tempore
Sam Couchman, City of Brawley Council Member
42 A-43
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 2
International Transboundary
Pollution Flows
43 A-44
CITY OF CALEXICO
Viva Calexico!
608 Heber Ave.
Calexico, CA 92231-2840
Tel: 760.768.2110
Fax: 760.768.2103
www.calexico.ca.gov
August 15, 2019
Jan Arbuckle, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE:Environmental and Water Quality Impacts Of International Transboundary River
Pollution Flow Resolution
President Arbuckle:
The city of Calexico strongly supports the San Diego County Division’s effort to submit a resolution
for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.
The Division’s resolution calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and ensure proper
funding of the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) to address the devastating impacts of
international transboundary pollution flows into the waterways of the southernmost regions of
California (San Diego and Imperial Counties) and the Pacific Ocean.
Local government and the public support the State’s water and environmental quality objectives and
League policy has long supported efforts to ensure water quality and oppose contamination of water
resources. This resolution addresses the critical need for the federal and state governments to
recommit to work bi-nationally to develop and implement long-term solutions to address serious water
quality and contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and
trash-laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant heath,
environmental and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the
state.
As members of the League, our city values the policy development process provided to the General
Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue.
44 A-45
Viva Calexico!
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
760/768-2110.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CALEXICO
David Dale
City Manager
Cc: Honorable Mayor Bill Hodge
45 A-46
46 A-47
August 15, 2019
Jan Arbuckle, President
League of California Cities
1400 K St. Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts Of International Transboundary River
Pollution Flow Resolution
President Arbuckle:
The city of Imperial Beach appreciates and supports the San Diego County Division’s effort to
submit a resolution for consideration by the full membership of the League of California Cities.
The Division’s resolution calls on Federal and State government to address the impacts of
transboundary pollution flows into the Southwestern regions of California. The pollution in these
areas is an environmental disaster that threatens the health and general welfare of residents near
the Mexican border in Imperial and San Diego Counties.
I encourage all voting delegates and elected officials in attendance at the 2019 Annual League of
California Cities Conference in Long Beach to support this important resolution as it addresses
the critical need for the federal and state government to recommit to work bi-nationally to
address the serious contamination issues and to develop and implement long-term solutions.
I am available for any questions or additional information related to this letter of support.
Sincerely,
And y Hall
City Manger
Cc: Honorable Mayor Serge Dedina
Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Robert Patton
Honorable Councilmember Paloma Aguirre
Honorable Councilmember Ed Spriggs
Honorable Councilmember Mark West
47 A-48
August 16, 2019
Jan Arbuckle, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts Of International Transboundary River Pollution Flow
Resolution
President Arbuckle:
The city of Imperial Beach strongly supports the San Diego County Division’s effort to submit a resolution
for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.
The Division’s resolution calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and ensure proper funding
of the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) to address the devastating impacts of international
transboundary pollution flows into the waterways of the southernmost regions of California (San Diego and
Imperial Counties) and the Pacific Ocean.
Local government and the public support the State’s water and environmental quality objectives and League
policy has long supported efforts to ensure water quality and oppose contamination of water resources. This
resolution addresses the critical need for the federal and state governments to recommit to work bi-
nationally to develop and implement long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination
issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows
originating from Mexico, that result in significant heath, environmental and safety concerns in communities
along California’s southern border impacting the state.
As members of the League, our city values the policy development process provided to the General
Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 619-423-8303.
Sincerely,
Serge Dedina
Mayor
48 A-49
49
A-50
50 A-51
51 A-52
52A-53
53A-54
54 A-55
55 A-56
56A-57
57A-58
58A-59