New plans-to-make-groundwater-management plans as drought continues
For us to become literate in the present California water dilemma, in addition to reading all the "California Drought" stories in the press, we should devote a certain amount of attention to the topic of "Water Bills," those statements of special interests and political ambition upon which members of the state Legislature and Congress vote.
As far as water politics is concerned, most of our attention has been drawn for several years to a local war occurring mainly in the San Joaquin Valley of California between those farmers of alkali flats on the west side of the valley and the farmers of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Peace talks between the two sides have been going on for half a century and it is fortunate that neither side has an air force. The bone of contention between the two sides has been that the west side wants all the Delta water and the Delta farmers and communities do not want to give it to them. The latest "issue" has been a plan to tunnel under the Delta and bring Sacramento River water around it, connecting with the giant north-south canals, leaving the Delta to stave off encroaching sea water without enough fresh water to keep it back, in other words, to become a salty slough. The artillery in this contest has been deafening and is expected to get worse as Election Day approaches when we the people will vote on they, the lobbyists' water bond.
But, in a drought, when irrigation districts cannot provide much surface water, our thoughts turn to what is beneath the ground and it is Christmas for well drillers. We want our wells yesterday and deeper. Reversing the usual proportions, we pump 60 instead of 40 percent of our water, and get 40 rather than 60 percent of our irrigation water from rivers and creeks.
In this drought, the terrifying shadow of the menace of groundwater regulation has fallen upon the orchards, vineyards, and vegetable crops of the land. It is about the only shade available.
Groundwater regulation is the end of civilization, built on the myth of private property, as we have known it. If I come into your area and buy a half section of pasture land, I have the absolute right to put the biggest pump I can afford into the deepest well I can afford and suck the aquifer as far down as I damn well please to water my new nut trees. If the neighbors want to find me, rots of ruck, buddy. You can talk to my farm manager, who's supervising the well-drilling and the planting and you may get as far as a secretary on Wiltshire Blvd. or Wall Street. Why should I want to talk to people who actually live in that godforsaken desert?
Then you've got other types like former Chairman of the Merced County Planning Commission Steve Sloan who has many pumps emptying the aquifer under his ranch to sell the water to a water district in a neighboring county for a price in the low eight figures.
What we have included below for your study are analyses by state Legislature committee staffers of three bills now on the governor's desk to regulate, sort of, California groundwater.
We're really not too terrified of the power of these bills, first of all because two of them are authored by state Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills. Pavley fills us with confidence because she was the author of the bill to regulate hydraulic fracturing drilling in the state. On that bill, Pavley honed to a fine art the practice of making a bill appear to regulate when in fact there is language in the new law that appears to be vintage product of the petroleum lawyers's art -- vague, therefore lawsuit-worthy language concerning if and when the California Environmental Quality Act applies or doesn't.
A weaker regulation claims jurisdiction over a class of industry and exempts that class from regulation under the stronger regulatory act. It's quite an elegant compromise between bad and worse.
· In the groundwater regulation, to be largely funded by the water bond to be voted on in November, the state generously gives great control of the problem of collapsing aquifers to local "agencies," a word that is given quite a broad workout in this legislation. However, there are too many eye-witness accounts of how completely useless local "agencies" are in regulating groundwater extraction to take this law seriously, just on this first point. Badlands editors have attended meetings of a variety of local agencies in eastern Merced County for 16 years and we can report with confidence that although various "agencies" are happy to receive public funds to measure groundwater loss, they haven't stopped an inch of it. However, they have at times experimented with replacing lost groundwater by injecting surface water into the ground. We could say with some confidence that local "agencies" will be happy to receive more and more public funds to do almost anything but actually enforce sustainable groundwater management. But when it gets down to defining what sustainable groundwater management is, it is defined negatively as management that would not cause “significant economic, social, or environmental” impacts. It couldn't be done without causing some of those impacts. The "local agencies," while quite sensitive to economic and social impacts, are stone deaf to environmental concerns, at least, we would venture to say, in those regions with the most severely overdrafted aquifers.
Words like "sustainability" and "development," in the hands of politicians and lobbyists, gradually lose all meaning in the snow storms of clever amendments that blur meaning flutter down from various domes of government.
· Oh yes, finally -- no really important bill would be complete without it -- a new layer of bureaucracy with a new name. "Groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) shall be established hither and thither upon the land wherever groundwater levels are falling (i.e. everywhere), charged with developing Groundwater sustainability plans (GSP's).
· Or, as we are fond of saying, "Another plan-to-make-a-plan." -- blj
Whether by intention or incompetence, the variously named plans – Merced Water Supply Plan (all phases), Merced Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan, Merced Irrigation District Groundwater Management Plan, and Regional Groundwater Management Plan – are incomprehensible to the public, alleged beneficiaries of them, even to a public as familiar with such documents as we are. -- Re: Opposition to Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan Update, July 1, 2008, http://badlandsjournal.com/2014-06-07/008145
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1168|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1168
Author: Pavley (D), et al.
Amended: 8/29/14
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 7-2, 4/22/14
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Monning, Wolk
NOES: Cannella, Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SENATE FLOOR : 24-12, 5/27/14
AYES: Beall, Block, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier,
Evans, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Lieu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Pavley, Roth,
Steinberg, Torres, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,
Knight, Morrell, Nielsen, Vidak, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Liu, Wright, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Groundwater management
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires adoption of a sustainable
groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) by January 31, 2020, for
all high or medium priority basins that are subject to critical
conditions of overdraft and by January 31, 2022, for all other
high and medium priority basins unless the basin is legally
adjudicated or the local agency establishes it is otherwise
being sustainably managed.
Assembly Amendments add chaptering language with AB 1739
(Dickinson) and SB 1319 (Pavley); revise and recast the Senate
provisions relating to all groundwater basins and subbasins in
the state, enacting the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(Act), and adopting a GSP.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) with broad powers to regulate the waste and
unreasonable use of water, including groundwater.
2.Categorizes groundwater as either a subterranean stream
flowing through a known and definite channel or percolating
groundwater. Groundwater that is a subterranean stream is
subject to the same State Water Board water right permitting
requirements as surface water. There is no statewide
permitting requirement for percolating groundwater, which is
the majority of groundwater.
3.Encourages local agencies to work cooperatively to manage
groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and, if not
otherwise required by law, to voluntarily adopt groundwater
management plans.
4.Requires that a groundwater management plan contain components
related to funding, management, and monitoring in order for a
local agency to be eligible for groundwater project funds
administered by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).
5.Allows a groundwater management plan to voluntarily contain
additional listed components.
6.Requires all of the groundwater basins identified in DWR's
Groundwater Report, Bulletin No. 118, to be regularly and
systematically monitored locally and the information to be
readily and widely available.
7.Requires DWR to perform the groundwater elevation monitoring
function if no local entity will do so but then bars the
county and other entities eligible to monitor that basin from
receiving state water grants or loans.
8.Requires DWR to prioritize groundwater basins based on
multiple factors including, but not limited to, the level of
population and irrigated acreage relying on the groundwater
basin as a primary source of water and the current impacts on
the groundwater basin from overdraft, subsidence, saline
intrusion and other water quality degradation.
This bill:
1.Makes findings including, but not limited to, California's
high reliance on groundwater to meet its water needs; the
necessity of integrated surface and groundwater management in
order to meet the state's water management goals; and the
failed wells, deteriorated water quality, environmental
damage, and irreversible land subsidence that occur when
groundwater is not properly managed.
2.Establishes that it is the policy of the state that all
groundwater basins are managed sustainably for multiple
economic, social and environmental benefits and that such
management is best achieved locally based on best available
science.
3.Enacts the Act with the stated intent of empowering local
groundwater agencies to sustainably manage groundwater basins
through the development of GSPs.
4.Defines sustainable groundwater management, among other terms.
5.Encourages the voluntary participation of California Native
tribes and federal agencies in sustainable groundwater
management while preserving and acknowledging the federally
reserved rights of federally recognized Indian tribes.
6.Specifies that groundwater basins are those identified by the
DWR in Bulletin No. 118, as it may be amended, and includes
subbasins.
7.Requires DWR, by January 31, 2015, to prioritize each basin as
either a high, medium, low, or very low priority using factors
under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM) program that include, but are not limited
to: population, extent of public wells; overlying irrigated
acreage; reliance on groundwater; any documented impacts upon
the basin from overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion and
other water quality degradation; or any other information
determined to be relevant by the department, including adverse
impacts on local habitat and local stream flows.
8.Requires that high and medium priority basins that are in a be
sustainably managed through a GSP but excepts:
A. Basins, or portions of basins, that were subject to a
groundwater adjudication; and
B. Basins that a local agency can demonstrate are already
being sustainably managed.
1.Encourages low and very low priority basins to manage through
a GSP but, should they voluntarily choose to do so, exempts
them from any State compliance actions.
2.Allows any local agency or combination of agencies to
establish a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) for the
purpose of developing and implementing a GSP. Allows water
corporations regulated by the Public Utilities Commission to
participate in a GSA if the local agencies forming the GSA
approve.
3.Recognizes and lists special districts that were created in
legislation for the purpose of managing groundwater and makes
those districts the exclusive entities within their boundaries
with authority to comply with the Act, unless they choose to
opt out.
4.Allows a city or county to be the GSA or, in the case of an
area where no local agency has assumed management, presumes
the county to be the GSA unless the county opts out. If the
county opts out and there is no other local agency, requires
reporting of groundwater extractions directly to the State
Water Board.
5.Requires a local agency or combination of local agencies that
is electing to be, or forming, a GSA to notify DWR of the
intent to be a GSA and provide a notice to DWR that includes
the proposed boundaries of the GSA, among other information.
Requires DWR to post the notice to its Internet Web site.
6.Following public notice, a public hearing, and final action to
become a GSA, requires the GSA to notify DWR within 30 days
and include copies of pertinent documents, as specified.
Requires DWR to post the final notice and documents to its
Internet Web site. Ninety days following posting by DWR, the
GSA is presumed to be the exclusive GSA for its boundaries if
no other GSA submits a notice.
7.Provides for public involvement in the development of GSPs and
sets forth a diverse set of interests that should be
considered by the GSA during that process including an entity
within the basin that is currently a CASGEM monitoring entity.
8.Empowers GSAs to collect information regarding the condition
of the basin and then develop and implement a GSP using, as
the GSA chooses, powers and authorities provided under the Act
including, but not limited to:
A. Acquiring land and water to carry out the plan,
including but not limited to spreading, storing, retaining,
percolating, transporting, or reclaiming water to recharge
the basin or provide water supplies in-lieu of groundwater;
B. Monitoring for compliance and limiting extractions; and
C. Proposing, collecting, updating and enforcing fees,
consistent with all statutory and Constitutional
requirements.
1.Specifies that nothing in the Act or in any GSA adopted
pursuant to the Act determines or alters surface water rights
or groundwater rights under common law or any provision of law
that determines or grants surface water rights.
2.Requires, by June 1, 2016, that DWR develop regulations
regarding:
A. GSP components;
B. Coordination of multiple GSPs for a basin; and
C. Alternative compliance, including submitting an existing
plan as a functional equivalent of a GSP or submitting an
analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates the basin is
being sustainably managed.
1.Specifies, in those areas that require a GSP to be completed,
adopted, and submitted to DWR that the deadlines are:
A. January 31, 2020, in high and medium priority basins
that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft; and
B. January 31, 2022 for all other high and medium priority
basins.
1.Exempts the preparation and adoption of a GSP from the
California Environmental Quality Act but does not exempt a
project or action to implement the GSP.
2.Requires GSPs to meet certain standards including:
A. Encompassing an entire basin or subbasin; and
B. Being designed to achieve sustainable groundwater
management within 20 years of adoption with progress
reports to DWR and the State Water Board every five years.
1.Requires a GSA to annually report to DWR its groundwater
elevation data, aggregated extraction data, use or
availability of surface water for recharge or in-lieu
supplies, total water use, and change in groundwater storage.
2.Allows DWR to adjust basin boundaries, as specified, and
re-prioritize low and very low basins according to criteria
that include adverse impacts to habitat and surface water
resources. Requires DWR to adopt emergency regulations
governing basin boundary adjustments.
3.Provides that if a basin is reprioritized to medium or high,
it shall have two years from the date of reprioritization to
form a governance entity for sustainable management or submit
an alternate means of establishing the basin is sustainably
managed. If no alternate means is approved, allows five years
to adopt a GSP in compliance with the Act.
4.Prohibits the adoption or renewal of existing groundwater
management plans that do not meet the requirements for a GSP
but allows such plans to remain in effect until a GSP is
adopted.
5.Allows a GSA to become a CASGEM monitoring agency.
6.Contains chaptering language that only allows this bill to
become operative if AB 1739 (Dickinson) and SB 1319 (Pavley)
are enacted and become operative this session.
As Benjamin Franklin warned over 200 years ago, we know the
worth of water when the well is dry. Unfortunately, for many
Californians that is a stark reality or a pending calamity that
has been coming in slow-motion for 50 years. In its August 15,
2014, editorial the Sacramento Bee notes that it was in 1962
that an Assembly Interim Committee on Water dodged the issue of
needed groundwater management by advising the Legislature it
should act if the situation got worse. It got worse. Sixteen
years later, in 1978, the Governor's Commission to Review
California Water Rights Law, a group commissioned by Governor
Jerry Brown, found the groundwater situation was critical and
that comprehensive local management had not been undertaken in
many over drafted areas of the state. Again, there was no
action.
An August 18, 2014, Los Angeles Times column asserts there is no better time to act than now. The Times notes that the
recently-passed $7.545 bond for water-related projects and
programs that is scheduled for the November 2014 ballot contains
$100 million for planning and implementing groundwater
management, $800 million for cleaning up groundwater, $700
million for recycling and $2.7 billion for dam building. As the
Los Angeles Times column states, these are projects that can
help replenish underground basins but it will take pumping rules
to assure taxpayers that they are getting their money's worth.
The Times Los Angeles column concludes, the State has been
ignoring experts' increasing warnings regarding groundwater
depletions for decades and holding off on groundwater regulation
since statehood but together this bill and a related measure AB
1739, seek to empower local governments to manage groundwater
sustainably while allowing the state to step in if they fail to
do so.
While California uses more groundwater than any other state, it
is the last in the Union to lack an enforceable set of statewide
groundwater management standards. Groundwater informational
hearings in the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee and
the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee in March 2014
revealed disturbing statistics on the current degradation of
some of California's groundwater basins: between 2003 and 2009
the groundwater aquifers for the Central Valley and its major
mountain water source, the Sierra Nevada, lost almost 26 million
acre-feet of water - nearly enough water combined to fill Lake
Mead, America's largest reservoir. The findings reflected the
effects of California's extended drought and the resulting
increased rates of groundwater being pumped for human uses, such
as irrigation.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
Increased annual General Fund costs to DWR of approximately $4
million beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2019-20 to collect and
manage data, complete evaluations, and assist the State Water
Board in developing interim plans. DWR received $22.5 million
in the 2014-15 Budget ($2.5 million for FY 2014-15 and $5
million each year from FY 2015-16 through FY 2018-19 which
will fund Bulletin 118 updates and technical assistance.
Minor, if any, reimbursable local government costs.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/14)
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Zone 7
American Planning Association
Association of California Water Agencies
Audubon California
Barona Band of Mission Indians
Bay Area Council
California Climate and Agricultural Network
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Council of Geoscience Organizations
California Environmental Justice Alliance
California Environmental Rights Foundation
California Groundwater Coalition
California League of Conservation Voters
California ReLeaf
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California Tribal Business Alliance
California Trout
California Urban Streams Partnership
California Water Foundation
California Waterfowl Association
City of Anaheim
City of Los Angeles, Mayor's Office
Clean Water Action
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
Community Water Center
Comte Civico Del Valle, Inc.
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Earthworks
East Bay Municipal Utility District
East Orange County Water District
EMAX Laboratories, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Environmental Navigation Services, Inc.
Groundwater Resources Association of California
Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake
Heal the Bay
Horizon Environmental Inc.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Inyo County
Irvine Ranch Water District
Karuk Tribe
Klamath Forest Alliance
Klamath Riverkeeper
Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability
Local Government Commission
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles City Council
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers
Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster
Montclair Environmental Management, Inc.
Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center
Natural Resources Defense Council
Orange County Water District
Pacific Forest Trust
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Parker Groundwater
Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians
Planning & Conservation League
PolicyLink
PRO Water Equity
Pueblo Unido CDC
Quinn Environmental Strategies, Inc.
Raymond Basin Management Board
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
Russian Riverkeeper
Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples
San Diego County Water Authority
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
San Gabriel Valley Water Association
San Jerardo Cooperative, Inc.
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Sierra Club California
Sonoma County Water Agency
Sullivan International Group, Inc.
Sustainable Watershed Management
The Nature Conservancy
The Source Group, Inc.
The Trust for Public Land
The Wildlands Conservancy
Todd Groundwater
Trout Unlimited
Union of Concerned Scientists
United States Department of Defense, Regional Environmental
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Valley-Warner Center Chamber of Commerce
Ventura County
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
West Basin Municipal Water District
Western Municipal Water District
WiLDCOAST
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/29/14)
African American Farmers of California
Agricultural Council of California
Allied Grape Growers
Almond Hullers & Processors Association
Association of California Egg Farmers
Blue Diamond Growers
CALAMCO
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Ammonia Co.
California Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Blueberry Association
California Canning Peach Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Dairies, Inc.
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain & Feed
California Groundwater Association
California League of Food Processors
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Warehouse Association
California Women for Agriculture
Campos Brothers Farms
Coachella Valley Water District
Dairy Farmers of America-Western Area
Del Monte Foods
Desert Water Agency (unless amended)
Family Business Association
Fruit Growers Supply Company
Grower-Shipper Association of Central California
Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara & San Luis Obispo
Counties
Kaweah Basin
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
Kern County
Kern County Water Agency
Kings River Conservation District
Kings River Water Association
Land O' Lakes
Nisei Farmers League
Northern California Water Association
Pacific Coast Producers
Raisin Bargaining Association
San Joaquin County
San Joaquin River Exchange Contactors
Stockton East Water District
Sun-Maid Growers of California
Sunsweet Growers Inc.
Tulare Irrigation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states that this bill is
needed because California faces a groundwater crisis. The
author points out that the cumulative overdraft of our
groundwater basins is equivalent to the entire amount of water
stored in Lake Tahoe and that in many areas of the state, local
groundwater managers lack the tools and authorities to manage
the groundwater basins. The author concludes that without
improved local management the overdraft in many parts of the
state will get even worse over the next several years. Other
supporters add that a new statewide policy for sustainable
groundwater management is urgently needed and that this bill
addresses one of California's most pressing water management
issues. Supporters point out that breadth of the stakeholder
involvement process that was used in order to help ensure the
right balance of provisions to empower local groundwater
management agencies with new tools and authorities and to create
an appropriate state backstop that will allow the state to
intervene only when needed.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state they share the
author's interest in improving groundwater management but are
concerned about the broad scope and specific impacts of this
measure. Opponents believe this bill is extraordinarily
ambitious and comprehensive and that in its current form it
would substantially alter the California landscape and economy
for generations to come. Opponents are concerned that this bill
could require hundreds of millions of dollars in implementation
costs and are worried about potential affects to existing
groundwater rights and generate litigation. Opponents maintain
the legislation goes beyond the goal of sustainable groundwater
management and will adversely affect the agricultural economy
and the landscape that is dependent upon it and cause a
potential devaluation in some land thus affecting property tax
collections in some areas and the services and programs that are
dependent upon them. Opponents advocate delaying action in
order to avoid what they believe would be unanticipated
consequences.
RM:e 8/29/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1319|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_1301-1350/sb_1319_cfa_201408...
Bill No: SB 1319
Author: Pavley (D) and Wolk (D)
Amended: 8/29/14
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Groundwater management
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill amends AB 1739 (Dickinson) of the current
legislative session which, together with SB 1168 (Pavley) of the
current legislative session, form the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act and related provisions.
Assembly Amendments delete the Senate version of the bill
relates to oil spills and instead insert the current language.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes local agencies to adopt and
implement a groundwater management plan. Existing law requires
a groundwater management plan to contain specified components
and requires a local agency seeking state funds administered by
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for groundwater projects
or groundwater quality projects to do certain things, including,
but not limited to, preparing and implementing a groundwater
management plan that includes basin management objectives for
the groundwater basin.
CONTINUED
SB 1319
Page
2
This bill revises provisions from the August 22, 2014 version of
AB 1739 (Dickinson) as follows:
1.Prohibits the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) from
establishing an interim plan to remedy a condition where the
groundwater extractions result in significant depletions of
interconnected surface waters until January 1, 2025. This
provision delays the similar provision in AB 1739 from 2022 to
2025.
2.Requires SWRCB to exclude any portion of a basin in compliance
with groundwater management requirements from probationary
status. This provision narrows the similar provision in AB
1739 to only apply to the portion of the basin that is out of
compliance.
3.Requires SWRCB to include any element of a groundwater
sustainability plan or the entire plan in its interim plan if
SWRCB finds it would help meet the sustainability goal. This
provision revises the similar provision in AB 1739 to allow
for the inclusion of local plans when developing interim plans
for basins with probationary status.
4.Provides the enactment of this bill is contingent upon the
enactment of AB 1739 (Dickinson) and SB 1168 (Pavley).
5.Makes technical and conforming changes.
Background
On March 7, 2014 the Governor's Office released a draft
framework soliciting input on actions that can be taken to
assure local groundwater managers have the tools and authority
to sustainably manage groundwater. The draft framework advises
that in developing ideas it may be helpful to consider whether
local agencies need enhanced local agency authority, and how the
state should structure state backstop authority when local
action has not occurred or has been insufficient.
In response, Senator Pavley and Assemblymember Dickinson
introduced SB 1168 and AB 1739. These bills which moved through
the legislation process in nearly identical form while the
authors and administration convened multiple stakeholder
meetings and further developed the provisions of the bills. On
August 22, 2014, both bills were amended to divide the
provisions between the two bills. Together, SB 1168 and AB 1739
provide a comprehensive groundwater sustainability management
program.
AB 1739 (Dickinson), among other provisions, authorizes SWRCB to
designate a basin as a probationary basin under specified
circumstances and to develop an interim management plan in
consultation with DWR under specified conditions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1.Increased annual out-year costs of $1 million to $2.5 million
(special fund) for state interim plans to be covered by fee
revenues. The revisions to AB 1739 provided by this bill will
likely result in lower costs due to delays in compliance
requirements and the ability to place only portions of basins
on probationary status.
2.Absorbable General Fund costs for DWR to assist SWRCB in
developing interim plans. DWR received $22.5 million in the
2014-15 Budget ($2.5 million for fiscal year (FY) 14-15 and $5
million each year from FY15-16 through FY18-19, which will
fund Bulletin 118 updates and technical assistance.
RM:k 8/29/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****