The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04 - Supporting Propositions 12 & 130 El NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL January 25, 2000 Regular Meeting TO. Members of the Newport Beach City Council FROM: Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT. Resolution in Support of Propositions 12 and 13 on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot ACTION: Adopt Resolution 2000 -_ relating to the City of Newport Beach's support for Propositions 12 and 13 on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot. ITEM a EXECUTIVE This agenda item asks the City Council to formally state the City's support for SUMMARY: the following measures on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot: • Proposition 12 -the "Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000." The "Parks Bond" would appropriate $2.1 billion for a variety of park and open space purposes, including up to $13 million for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Maintenance and Protection Fund. • Proposition 13 -the "Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act." The "Water Bond" would appropriate $1.97 billion for a variety of water and water quality purposes, including grants to local governments for non -point source pollution control programs. BACKGROUND: The City faces at least two major challenges in the years ahead relating to its quality of life: • Habitat Protection in Upper Newport Bay -- how will the City adequately preserve and maintain Upper Newport Bay, including funding the City's share of substantial dredging projects in the Bay that would restore the Bay to its optimal habitat? • Bay Water Quality -- how will the City improve and protect the water quality in the Upper and Lower Bay to meet State standards that will assure that the Bay is always safe for water contact sports and fish and shellfish consumption? Given these challenges, the City's Legislative Platform for 2000 (adopted by the City Council on January 11, 2000) calls upon the City to... Newport Beach City Council Page 2 BACKGROUND: City's Legislative Platform for 2000 (excerpt) (cont'd) " . Support legislation and funding measures that would increase water supply and improve water quality in this region' and to "pursue legislative and executive action that provides long -term sources of funds and /or services to enhance and protect Newport Bay." What's at Stake The term "funding" is all the more important to protecting Upper Newport Bay and to improving water quality because of the anticipated costs to the City of several future activities, including: • Fecal Coliform TMDL. The total maximum daily load for fecal coliform (a bacteria used as an indicator of pathogens that may cause disease in humans) requires Newport Bay to meet specific State water quality standards within fourteen and twenty years. By 2014, the Bay must meet "REC1" standards (safe for water contact sports). By 2020, the Bay must meet "SHEL" standards (whereby a shellfish harvested from the Bay must be safe for human consumption). Hundreds of storm drains that enter the Bay drain from Newport Beach's streets - if the City is obligated to ensure that each storm drain discharges only clean water, the education and treatment programs to attain clean storm and dry weather flows may involve several hundred thousand dollars. • Toxics TMDL. The TMDL that will control toxics - including heavy metals, pesticides, and other chemicals - is under development today and may receive State approval by 2002. It remains difficult to project the likely cost of the Toxics TMDL, but a recent draft study on Toxic Hot Spots by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region) noted that the cost to excavate and dispose of toxic deposits already in the Bay near the Rhine Channel may exceed $10 million. • Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study Dredging Project. As the Council is aware, the City is one of several "local partners" in two cost - shared studies lead by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The "Upper Newport Bay" Study - nearing public release in its final form -may recommend a dredging project triple the size of the 1998 -99 project that removed about 900,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Bay. The Study's dredging project may cost $24 million. With expenses shared 65 % -35% with the Federal government and the local partners, the local partners' obligation may equal $8 million. • Newport Bav Watershed Feasibilitv Studv Restoration Proiects. This second cost - shared Corps study, only recently underway, will propose capital improvements in the watershed that drains into the Bay - including land within the cities of Irvine, Lake Forest, Tustin, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Orange, and Laguna Woods. Initial estimates for these projects range from $20 -24 million, again split 65 % -35% with the Federal government. The local partners' obligation will again range from $6 -8 million. March 2000 Ballot Every even - numbered year, the Legislature and /or petitioners can place a State "general obligation" bond measure on the ballot and ask for majority voter approval. These bonds, if passed, require the State to repay them with interest 0 Page 3 . BACKGROUND: over a specified period of time. They become the "general obligation" of the (cont'd) State of California, backed by the full faith and credit of the State. Six bond measures - including bonds for parks, water quality, libraries, crime labs and veterans homes -will appear on the March 7, 2000 primary ballot. Propositions 22 and 23 Proposition 12 -a bond measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature (via AB 18, Villaraigosa- Keeley, 1999) -would appropriate $2.1 million from the State General Fund to "protect land around lakes, rivers, and streams and the coast to improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; to protect forests and plant trees to improve air quality; to preserve open space and farmland threatened by development; to protect wildlife habitats; and to repair and improve the safety of state and neighborhood parks." Given interest costs associated with a bond of $2.1 billion, the State General Fund would repay the Parks Bond over 25 years at $144 million each year ($3.6 billion in constant dollars). Proposition 12 designates up to $13 million for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Maintenance and Protection Fund. Proposition 13 -- a bond measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature (via AB 584, Machado - Costa, 1999) -would appropriate $1.97 billion from the State General Fund to "provide funds for a safe drinking water, water quality, flood protection, and water reliability program." Given the interest costs associated with a bond of $1.97 billion, the State General Fund would repay the bond over 25 years at $135 million each year ($3.4 billion in constant dollars). AS Where the City benefits City staff firmly believes that the passage of both propositions will significantly assist the City as it attempts to meet our Bay- related obligations. The "earmarking" within Proposition 12 assures that the local partners will meet the local match for the Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study's recommended dredging project. The City can compete for other discretionary funds within both Proposition 12 and 13 for restoration projects in the Newport Bay Watershed and programs to address both the fecal coliform and toxics TMDLs. Further, passage of Propositions 12 and 13 appropriately distributes the financial burden of coastal resource protection across the State's population as a whole. Given that the entire State both enjoys coastal resources and contributes to its degradation (via urban runoff and overuse), the measures ensure that those who enjoy coastal waters also invest in their protection. If the measures do not pass, the financial burden to the City and its taxpayers of the four activities identified in this staff report will be substantial. Readers can find additional information about both Propositions 12 and 13 - including arguments in favor and in opposition to the measures and the various groups and individuals on each side -by accessing the California Secretary of State's website at www.ss.ca.gov and by reading the Secretary of State's Ballot Pamphlet when it arrives by mail. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution 2000 -_ in Support of Propositions 12 and 13 0 Attachment B: Information and Excerpts from Propositions 12 and 13 Page 4 Attachment A Resolution 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS 12 AND 13 ON THE MARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ]ELECTION BALLOT WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach places a high value on the coastal resources associated with the city, including Upper Newport Bay and the water quality in the Lower Bay; and WHEREAS, these coastal and water resources demand and deserve extensive enhancement and protection programs that ensure their long -term survival; and WHEREAS, these protection programs involve significant expenses on the part of coastal municipalities like Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has attempted to address the State's interest in protecting and enhancing coastal resources and water quality by placing Propositions 12 (the "Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Act of 2000 ") and 13 (the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act ") on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot; and 0 WHEREAS, both Propositions 12 and 13 include provisions that will significantly assist Newport . Beach in protecting Newport Bay and local water quality; and WHEREAS, Proposition 12 includes an appropriation of up to $13 million for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Maintenance and Protection Fund, a fund that may be used for dredging the Upper Bay to preserve and maintain its optimal ecosystem despite aggressive sedimentation from upstream development; now, therefore be it RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the passage of Propositions 12 and 13 on the March 7, 2000 Primary Election Ballot to protect Upper Newport Bay, Bay water quality, and coastal and water resources across the State of California for future generations. ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 2000. John E. Noyes MAYOR of NEWPORT BEACH ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless CITY CLERK C� • PROPOSITION 12 SUMMARY 'Ills act pro' ides bill Idl Inn) mw llumin t millinn dothre 611 WJXX 10 KI) In proiccl Land ammid Ilk". n%cn. and suc:ulls and the cww Ill ImpnnewIter gaalify ani cowry dwn drinhinp 'vatcr. In pngrcl fiw.u:,nJ plant Inman inlpllo e. air qutddy: It, pnscnc opcu'psc and f8rmfnwl lhroawricd hV unlllanndd dccclopinov: it. Vote 2o00,H0me I Ballot Pamphlet Home I Secretary of §tale Home PARIS. C LEA S WA WX CLEAN AIR. ANTI COASrAi ACr X21100. (Till; VILLVRAIIfU5A AI ELEY ACT) Ismd Act 1'at co d,c Ilaikn Cv 0:c Lcgi,lu ;ill c pnaect wildlife h:lhimx� and 1.1 rcpair:uhl impinyc the uldy of aide :utd ncigliborlhr,J pinks. F'Larill Inlpael: Stale cusl of 51.6 hilliun u'cr 25 §cars emery' cost 111 :IMuI S Ili million per ycan to repay I.'ndc. SOUc :old h \:d park: uparatiug cods of putndwliy lens of millinn' nI "dollars annually. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A ITS yolc un this measure stets': The Gate owid sell 52.1 billion in honJc Iln''arious "Altc slid local ncrcationai. cultural. ;Ind mooed nsourcc projcet. (wd, as parks. hcaches. ollhcuntc..3nd wildlife cunw,yaionl. ARGUMENTS PRO *t on 11—sale Ncightiodmid 110ukc. Clean. Waxer. Clean Airand Cuasl:ll Pmwfioo Act Ali* protecis lilt Ilcalll l arid M1 0% ly. 5nia (I, l ow rtdiilinv rrrptimnrrrus luamlld rnrdit'. public lleirringsj invtn funds an slhvn pnrfh +rly. Suppurea:v Californ4t Chamber of Connmcre.. Auduhm Sic oy. AARn is:rguc of P`unnrn Golan. Ctdilontia Organie:llioll of 14dicc and Shctifh. i.1• A NO yob• od dlis nk-swc me:us: 911. 'talc etwld rml s it 5'_.1 billion in hods for tprious simw and haul m waltm:d. cultural. awl mmral rcnsunc Ilfsycels. CON Doo 1 is 6xAtxi by nlias :,din, duguna. A n ..t ail of yawl muncy hill h spent on land lilt instam ecruus and wcFttc- not 'S:tfc NciAhhnhtw l P :Irks:' - mvc'`r fields. orcccn "Clean Air. The only Ihing your fatuity will rmeire f6w, this l\mniog'k. is IliRtwr laxec lit NFXIV- 9 ; }S.CH%I.IHI0.00 user No decade'. California alnphlet Home PROPOSITION 13 SUMMARY lltl' act (tniridcs tin :1 I\.od Iswc All our lollron nilw. IallIdwd'cxcnly million dollars i S I A7f idi(p -010) 61 proyidc funds lilt :I safc drinkind wmu.. nincl guillly. flood plow" it'll. aril wnhr rdiahilily plogrinl. ✓ Election Summary SAFE I111UNKM; ivAj I'll. CLF.A S t1cAl99t. WVTER4HFP I'R1YFt.C1'11,N.ANn FI AX I 111'RO'FF.CTIOS nnNPACT. It our Am i+n �nvfc IAAI l I,-- 110.'I.els lara Fiscal Inlpns:l: Slur a:osl of up In S14 hdhu t over 25 ycats i atccr:c Cnsl ill ahwl 6115 tuilliev) pa' s'wI h, rcllai' ht :nJs. I'mmillial unknown L¢yl pluit\9 ope .tion:uhl imuni,namv ruse.. WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A ITS ww,m this nlasunv ul,alls: Ills slalc could till S 197 hilliun in bond. fora tdi do iiln�'rider. wxtrr guahty: IlnlAll pmlcction. and w:ncr 10111hility- pn"Pant. ARGUMENTS affe, \i'i tai 1 lake our Jtinkin w.v cr 11r granted. Pokier oflici:d' plcdicl Marion ' h wlp \s and up exlsung nplrons waxen lis Ill, prnhltm. lkoptuition ti pmicch dli,liillg §idol spuRY'. liglns waur cnmanlilunion anti lutlJuccs onuu;:1111iw'yalel fill K nnllum Cahloenlaus. ll,ai s s'il:d n' our ccuuomy. nut pahtic hc;ddl.ulds.un future. Ice A NO sntc mi this mu lane: onsmc nr` st:uc awlJ Inn vil S 0 97 billuw in hinds for thcx lutlr`vs CON Ilonds Art ost dtwhlc ilk cost rl _asenilncnl proxch. Its pu:plh:d114111ld cnsl 51 ) HIL111 It paid Iruu the 'note IYUI;:cI. Cldn" hinds mill rnsl c :xp :Ivm St C hdlhon. lisp. I1 is it' :n a bultch ill' yucsliunahlc "pnk hum d.. pnupmis. When`s the crldvucc 1h.n our drinkim` water is wisatO FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR llryao lllum (nhrivni:ms f.lr.SUi Ncigidwrhtxul 1':uks and C1c:41 Water 9.'61 S6ccl v'I2 %Reranw ito. CA 95K 14 t9161 111 -4514 h I u nt ur xaicp; Ir k V.t rt� www.palkc2t%Nl.org AGAINST %amour Ray Haa1Ks Slaw Capilul Nxi lnuouw. CA 95K14 ,'A6) 445.97K1 htnnh4 *rayLlayncs.urg "ww.rnyhayth:c.orl!/hrnah.htnU FOR L un Shvillm4d CAhioni F.11I' liar Chats S.&. Rcliablc Wttla. l'cs on Ihlpnsllion 11 112711th surq. Silk 1011 S.wrmhcldu. CA 45.914 (916)4K4-1725 htglai'yw'r.pnry113 tug http: / /www. ss.ca..gov /vote2 000 /VoterGu i de /Propositions / 12.11tn1 AGAINST !ad 13nea1 I ahcriarian ('any of C:difunlia It121'16i 401110 wbrow w c IIldulk.ocl 6up. +i' =w w.ca.lp`a'rlawJsdunnl 1/14/2000 -25— Ch. 461 report annually to the Legislature on the progress of the development and implementation of the Environmental Improvement Program, and the provision of these funds may be restricted in the event that the parties are found to be making inadequate progress or are not making good faith efforts towards fulfilling their respective obligations. Article 7. Coastal Protection Program 5096.352. Funds allocated pursuant to subdivision (o) of Section 5096.310 shall be available for expenditure by the Slate Coastal Conservancy pursuant to Division 21 (commencing with Section 31000) for the acquisition from a willing seller, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of real property or an interest in real property in coastal areas and watersheds within its jurisdiction and the development of public use facilities in those areas in accordance with the following schedule: (a) Twenty -five million dollars ($25,000,000) for projects funded pursuant to the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program established pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 31160) of Division 21. (b) (1) Twenty -five million dollars ($25,000,000) shall be made available to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project to fund grants to public entities and nonprofit organizations to implement storm water and urban runoff pollution prevention programs, habitat restoration, and other priority actions specified in the Santa Monica Restoration Plan. The Santa Monica Bay Watershed Council shall determine project eligibility and establish grant priority. (2) The Santa Monica Bay Watershed Council or the State Coastal Conservancy may require the grant recipient to provide a portion of matching funds for any finding received. The council or the state conservancy may use the funds as matching funds for federal or other grant funding. (c) Sixty-four million two hundred thousand dollars ($64,200,000) of the funds available may be expended by the State Coastal Conservancy directly or as grants to government entities and nonprofit organizations for the purposes of Division 21 (commencing with Section 31000), and for the following and related purposes, including, but not limited to, the acquisition, enhancement, restoration, protection, and development of coastal resources, beaches, waterfronts, and public accessways in accordance with the following schedule: (1) An amount not to exceed three million dollars ($3,000,000) may be expended on regional approaches to reduce beach erosion. Up to thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) shall be made available to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Maintenance and 91 0 0 0 Ch. 461 —26— . r Protection Fund for the restoration and protection of the Upper LNewport Bay Ecological Reserve. (2) At least fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) shall be expended in coastal areas north of the Gualala River. (3) At least twenty -five million dollars ($25,000,000) shall be expended within Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, or Santa Barbara Counties. One million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be allocated to the City of Monterey to fund public access and open space along the waterfront. (4) At least five million dollars ($5,000,000) shall be expended on completion of the Coastal Trail. (5) Two million dollars ($2,000,000) shall be dedicated to projects for the Guadalupe River Trail and the San Francisco Bay Ridge Trail. (d) Twenty -two million dollars ($22,000,000) may be expended by the State Coastal Conservancy directly or as grants to government entities and nonprofit organizations consistent with Division 21 (commencing with Section 31000), and for administrative costs in connection therewith, for the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, restoration, enhancement, and protection of real property, or other actions that benefit fish and wildlife. At least ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of those funds shall be expended in coastal areas north of the Gualala River. Eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) shall be spent to restore the arroyo, stickeleback, and steelhead in Orange County. (e) Twenty -five million dollars ($25,000,000) shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the State Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game for direct expenditure and for grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations to protect, restore, acquire, and enhance habitat for salmon. These funds may be used to match federal funding available for those purposes. (f) Twenty -five million dollars ($25,000,000) of the funds shall be allocated to acquire, protect, and restore wetlands projects that are a minimum of 400 acres in size in any county with a population greater than 5,000,000. (g) Twelve million five hundred thousand dollars ($12,500,000) shall be allocated to acquire land needed to connect important coastal watershed and scenic areas in Orange County. Article 8. Mountain Resource Program 5096.353. Funds allocated pursuant to subdivision (p) of Section 5096.310 shall be available to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for capital outlay and grants for the acquisition from a willing seller, enhancement, and restoration of natural lands, improvement of public recreation facilities, and for grants to local agencies and nonprofit organizations to increase access to parks and 91 I Ch. 725 —26— CHAPTER 7. CLEAN WATER AND WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM Article 1. Clean Water and Water Recycling Account 79105. For the purposes of this chapter, "account" means the Clean Water and Water Recycling Account created by Section 79106. 79106. The Clean Water and Water Recycling Account is hereby created in the fund. The sum of three hundred fifty -five million dollars ($355,000,000) hereby transferred from the fund to the account. Article 2. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program 79110. The purpose of this article is to provide grant funding for projects that protect the beneficial uses of water throughout the state through the control of nonpoint source pollution. 79111. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions govern the construction of this article: (a) "Best management practices" means those practices or set of practices determined by the board, a regional board, or the water quality planning agency for a designated area to be the most effective feasible means of preventing or reducing the generation of a specific type of nonpoint source pollution, given technological, institutional, environmental, and economic constraints. (b) "Capital costs" has the same meaning as "cost," as defined in Section 32025 of the Public Resources Code. (c) "Management measures" means economically achievable measures to prevent or control the addition of pollutants to slate waters, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant prevention achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint source pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives. (d) "Regional board" means a regional water quality control board. (e) "Subaccount" means the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Subaccount created by Section 79112. 79112. There is hereby created in the account the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Subaccount. C79113. The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is hereby transferred from the account to the Subaccount for the purposes of implementing this article. 79114. (a) The money in the Subaccount, upon appropriation by the Legislature to the board, may be used by the board to award grants, not to exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000) per project, to local public agencies or nonprofit organizations formed by landowners to prepare and implement local nonpoint source plans. Grants shall only be awarded for any of the following projects: 92 ?POP 13 0 • 0 -27— Ch. 725 . (1) A project that is consistent with local watershed management plans that are developed under subdivision (d) of Section 79080 and with regional water quality control plans. (2) A broad -based nonpoint sauce project, including a project identified in the board's "Initiatives in NPS Management," dated September 1995, and nonpoint source technical advisory committee reports. (3) A project that is consistent with the "Integrated Plan for Implementation of the Watershed Management Initiative" prepared by the board and the regional boards. (4) A project that implements management measures and practices or other needed projects identified by the board pursuant to its nonpoint source pollution control program's 15 -year implementation strategy and five -year implementation plan that meets the requirements of Section 6217(8) of the federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. (b) The projects funded from the subaccount shall demonstrate a capability of sustaining water quality benefits for a period of 20 years. Categories of nonpoint source pollution addressed by projects may include, but are not limited to: silviculture, agriculture, urban runoff, mining, hydromodification, grazing, onsile disposal systems, boatyards and marinas, and animal feeding operations. Projects to address nonpoint source pollution may include, but are not limited to, wildfire management, installation of vegetative systems to filter or retard pollutant loading, incentive programs or large scale demonstration programs to reduce commercial reliance on polluting substances or to increase acceptance of alternative methods and materials, and engineered features to minimize impacts of nonpoint A& source pollution. Projects shall have defined water quality or beneficial use goals. (c) Projects funded from the subaccount shall utilize best management practices, management measures, or both. (d) If projects include capital costs, those costs shall be identified by the project applicant. The grant recipient shall provide a matching contribution for the portion of the project consisting of capital expenditures for construction, according to the following formula: Project Capital Cost/Capital Cost Match by Recipient $1,000,000 to $5,000,000, inclusive ....................... 20% $125,000 to $999,999, inclusive .......................... 15% $ Ito$ 124, 999, inclusive . ............................... 10% (e) Not more than 25 percent of a grant may be awarded in advance of actual expenditure. 92 • F Ch. 725 —28— (f) A proponent of a project funded from the subaccount shall be required to submit to the board a monitoring and reporting plan that does all of the following: (1) Identifies one or more nonpoint sources of pollution. (2) Describes the baseline water quality of the waterbody impacted. (3) Describes the manner in which the proposed practices or measures are implemented. (4) Determines the effectiveness of the proposed practices or measures in preventing or reducing pollution. (g) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the board may award up to 5 percent of the total amount deposited in the subaccount for demonstration projects that are intended to prevent, reduce, or treat nonpoint source pollution. (h) A grant recipient shall submit a report to the board, upon completion of the project, that summarizes completed activities and indicates whether the purposes of the project have been met. The report shall include information collected by the grant recipient in accordance with the project monitoring and reporting plan, including a determination of the effectiveness of the best management practices or management measures implemented as part of the project in preventing or reducing nonpoint source pollution. The board shall make the report available to watershed groups, and federal, state, and local agencies. 79114.2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the subaccount, to the board to be used by the board, after consultation with the Department of Food and Agriculture, for loans, not to exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) per loan, to provide low interest loans to finance the construction of projects designed to manage animal nutrients from animal feeding operations. Grants may be made available to local public agencies to pay for the cost of developing ordinances, regulations, and elements for their General Plan or other planning devices to assist in providing uniform standards for the permitting and operation of animal feeding operations within their jurisdictions. These funds may also be used for the preparation of the related environmental reviews that may be necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) for approval of the devices. 79114.3. No project shall receive funds under this article if it receives funds pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 79148). 79114.5. (a) Sixty percent of the money in the subaccount shall be allocated to projects in the Counties of Riverside, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, or San Bernardino. 92 Ll 0 0 -29— Ch. 725 (b) Forty percent of the money in the subaccounl shall be allocated to projects in counties not described in subdivision (a). (c) This section does not apply to Section 79114.2 or Section 79117. 79115. The board may adopt regulations to implement this article. 79116. Not more than 5 percent of the total amount deposited in the subaccounl may be used to pay the costs incurred in connection with the administration of this article. 79117. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, of the funds transferred pursuant to Section 79113, the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000), upon appropriation by the Legislature to the board, may be used by the board, after consultation with the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, for grants as follows: (1) Two million dollars ($2,000,000) for research and source identification. (2) Eight million dollars ($8,000,000) for mitigation measures to protect water quality from potential adverse effects of pesticides, which measures have the ability to provide benefits for a period of 20 years, as determined by the board alter consultation with the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (b) The board shall adopt regulations to carry out this section. Article 3. Clean Water Program 79120. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions govern the construction of this article: (a) "Eligible project" means a project or activity described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 13480 that is all of the following: (I) Necessary to prevent water pollution, reclaim water, or improve water quality. (2) Eligible for funds from the Slate Revolving Fund Loan Subaccount or federal assistance. (3) Certified by the board as entitled to priority over other eligible projects. (4) Complies with applicable water quality standards, policies, and plans. (b) "Federal assistance" means money provided to a municipality, either directly or through allocation by the state, from the federal government to construct eligible projects pursuant to the Clean Water Act. (c) "Municipality" has the same meaning as defined in the Clean Water Act and also includes the state or any agency, department, or political subdivision thereof, and applicants eligible for technical 92 0