SB 1388 amends Government Code §50060.5 to add joint powers authorities (JPAs) as an explicit contracting option when a local agency establishes a district to improve or maintain natural habitat. The bill leaves existing mechanics in place: districts can levy assessments tied to an approved long‑term natural habitat maintenance plan and must secure Department of Fish and Wildlife approval under Fish and Game Code section 2901.
Professionals should note two practical consequences: (1) local governments gain a new governance vehicle (JPAs) to carry out maintenance functions, and (2) the statute continues to allow up to 30 years of assessments and requires plan provisions that recover the department’s review costs — rules that fix funding and administrative responsibilities for the life of a plan.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds joint powers authorities to the list of entities a local agency may contract with to perform improvement or maintenance of natural habitat when it forms a district. It retains the statute’s existing assessment authority (up to 30 years) tied to a long‑term plan approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife under Fish and Game Code §2901.
Who It Affects
Cities, counties, and special districts that form habitat maintenance districts; joint powers authorities that could be hired to perform maintenance; and property owners inside newly formed districts who may be assessed to fund long‑term plans. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is affected operationally because plans must include cost recovery for the department’s review.
Why It Matters
By naming JPAs, the bill expands implementation options and encourages multi‑agency arrangements for habitat maintenance — a practical step for regional conservation work. At the same time the retention of 30‑year assessments and mandatory plan approval ties long‑term funding and oversight to the state department, preserving centralized review while delegating execution.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law, a city, county, or other local agency may create a district to carry out improvement or maintenance of natural habitat, and can either perform the work itself or contract with certain public entities to do the work. SB 1388 inserts joint powers authorities into that contracting list.
That means when a local agency forms a habitat district it may hire a JPA — a commonly used regional vehicle where two or more public agencies pool authority and staff — to run the program instead of doing the work directly or hiring a single special district.
The statute continues to allow the new district to levy assessments for up to 30 years to pay for a long‑term natural habitat maintenance plan, but only if the plan is approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Fish and Game Code §2901. The bill reiterates that any assessment must follow the conservation plan approved by the department, and it requires the plan to include provisions that reimburse the department for all costs the department incurs while reviewing the plan.
In practice, that links local funding streams to a state approval gate and creates a discrete revenue line to cover the department’s administrative review.SB 1388 also preserves several governance and scope rules. The local agency’s legislative body automatically serves as the legislative body of the district, the statute bars reducing or terminating assessments when doing so would interfere with implementing an approved conservation plan, and the Cortese‑Knox‑Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 does not apply to districts formed under this article.
Those provisions keep control with the creating agency, protect multi‑decade funding commitments tied to approved plans, and exempt these districts from the state reorganization procedures that apply to other local government changes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill explicitly authorizes a local agency to contract with a joint powers authority to perform natural habitat improvement or maintenance functions.
A district may levy assessments for no more than 30 years to pay costs and incidental expenses of implementing an approved long‑term natural habitat maintenance plan.
Any assessment must conform to a conservation plan approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife under Fish and Game Code §2901.
A plan approved by the department must include provisions to recover all costs the department incurs in reviewing that plan.
The legislative body of the local agency establishing the district serves as the district’s legislative body, and districts formed under this article are exempt from the Cortese‑Knox‑Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
District formation, contracting options, and plan‑linked assessments
This subsection is the operative grant of authority: a local agency may create a habitat district by ordinance or resolution after notice and a hearing. The amendment adds “joint powers authority” to the list of entities a local agency may contract with to carry out improvement or maintenance responsibilities. The practical effect is to permit regional JPAs — which can aggregate staff, expertise, and funding from multiple agencies — to be the implementing entity. The subsection also restates that districts may levy assessments for up to 30 years, but only to implement a long‑term maintenance plan that the state department has approved, tying local funding to state plan authorization.
Department review requirement and reimbursement of review costs
This provision requires that any conservation plan be approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife under Fish and Game Code §2901, and that the plan itself must include provisions to recover the department’s review costs. That creates a predictable administrative fee stream for the department, but it also makes plan approval contingent on a submitted funding mechanism for the department’s time and expenses. For local agencies and JPAs this means budgeting for departmental review becomes part of plan design and can affect feasibility and timelines.
Governance — who runs the district
By statute the legislative body of the creating local agency automatically serves as the district’s legislative body. That preserves political control at the originating agency rather than creating a separate elected board. For multi‑agency JPAs doing the work, this arrangement can create a split between political oversight (the creating agency’s legislative body) and operational control (the contracted JPA), with implications for accountability and decision‑making.
Stability of assessment revenues
This subsection bars reducing or terminating assessments if doing so would interfere with implementing an approved conservation plan. In short, once assessments are tied to an approved long‑term plan, the statute protects that revenue stream from mid‑course reductions that would jeopardize plan implementation. That statutory protection is meant to assure contractors and funders that long‑term maintenance funding will remain intact.
Scope limitation and reorganization exemption
The text narrows the article’s application to the implementation of long‑term natural habitat maintenance plans by districts and clarifies it does not alter other district laws. It also expressly exempts these districts from the Cortese‑Knox‑Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act. The exemption removes the typical state reorganization review and procedures, which can speed district formation but reduces the procedural oversight that accompanies other types of local government changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local agencies that create habitat districts — they gain a flexible implementation option by hiring JPAs and keep political control through their own legislative bodies, simplifying governance and potentially lowering operating costs.
- Joint powers authorities — JPAs gain a new line of work and contracting opportunities to manage habitat maintenance regionally, allowing pooling of expertise and funding across jurisdictions.
- Long‑term habitat maintenance plans and conservation projects — having access to 30‑year assessments and explicit departmental approval requirements improves predictability of funding and regulatory alignment, which helps multi‑decade restoration and maintenance efforts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Property owners within districts — assessments up to 30 years may be levied on benefited parcels to fund plan implementation, creating a long‑term local fee obligation tied to the conservation plan.
- Local agencies that establish districts — they must conduct notice and hearings, serve as the district’s legislative body, and incorporate departmental cost‑recovery provisions into plans, adding administrative and political costs.
- Department of Fish and Wildlife — although the department can recover review costs from approved plans, it will incur upfront workload to review plans and monitor compliance, and may need to set cost‑recovery procedures and staffing to manage increased reviews.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between creating stable, long‑term funding and regional implementation capacity for habitat maintenance (through 30‑year assessments and JPA contracting) and preserving short‑term flexibility, accountability, and protection for affected property owners and neighboring jurisdictions — a trade‑off between durable conservation finance and the risk of locking in obligations and diffusing political accountability.
Two implementation frictions stand out. First, adding JPAs opens useful regional implementation pathways but complicates accountability.
The creating agency remains the district’s legislative body while a separate JPA could perform the work — that split can obscure who answers to the public when operational decisions or budget shortfalls arise. Contracts and service agreements will need to be carefully drafted to preserve transparency and lines of responsibility.
Second, the combination of up to 30‑year assessments, a prohibition on reducing assessments where that would interfere with plan implementation, and a requirement that plans reimburse the department for review costs creates durable funding but also locks in obligations. Property owners and local finance officers may face multi‑decade liabilities tied to plan assumptions; if costs escalate or ecological outcomes shift, the statute offers limited built‑in flexibility.
Additionally, requiring the plan to reimburse departmental review costs could pose a barrier for smaller or resource‑constrained projects unless the department calibrates fees and review timelines.
Finally, exempting these districts from the Cortese‑Knox‑Hertzberg Act removes a layer of state reorganizational oversight that otherwise accompanies local boundary and governance changes. That reduces administrative burden for proponents but raises questions about external checks that traditionally help resolve interjurisdictional disputes and protect affected parties during reorganization.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.