BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair |
| 2007-2008 Regular Session |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 224 HEARING DATE: 6/26/07
AUTHOR: Wolk URGENCY: No
VERSION: 4/25/07 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Water supply planning
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Department of Water Resources (DWR), among other things, is
responsible for planning to meet the water needs of the state's
environment and water users. Individual water agencies, among
other things, are responsible for planning to meet the needs of
their current and future water users. The State Water Resources
Control Board (Board), among other things, is responsible for
protecting the state's waters from waste and unreasonable use
and for protecting the state's water quality. Policies
regarding the use of recycled water projects are generally the
Board's responsibility.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would enact the Climate Change and Water Resource
Protection Act of 2007. The Act would incorporate analysis of
potential impacts of climate change into current water planning
efforts and requires report on greenhouse gas effects of various
water supply options. Specifically, this bill would:
1)Make legislative findings regarding climate change and water
resources.
2)Require DWR to incorporate analysis of the potential effects of
climate change, to the extent applicable, into all reports or
plans that DWR is required to complete, including:
The State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report
California Water Plan Updates
Reports related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The State Plan of Flood Control
The California Groundwater Bulletin
1)Require DWR to identify available peer reviewed scientific
information or develop its own information regarding climate
change and water resources, and make such information
available on its web site.
2)Prohibit DWR from approving an integrated regional water
management grant, for applications submitted after January 1,
2009, unless the underlying plan considers the climate change
information identified by DWR or other climate change
information.
3)Require the Board, in cooperation with DWR, Air Resources Board,
the Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission, to
complete a study that quantifies energy savings and greenhouse
gas emission reductions from water recycling and water
conservation.
4)Require the Board and the regional water quality boards, in
developing water quality control plans, to consider a
reasonable range of hydrological, temperature and sea-level
rise scenarios resulting from climate change.
5)Require water suppliers that prepare urban or agricultural water
management plans to obtain climate change information from
DWR, identify the possible effects of climate change on water
supply projections and consider such information when
developing the conclusions of such plans.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "In recent years, scientist, water
mangers and the public at large have recognized the growing
threat to California's water supply by global climate change.
California already has witnessed some level of climate change,
from increasing frequency of serious floods to higher average
elevation of snowfall in the Sierras. Change will likely
continue. The hydrological patterns on which we have relied to
build our water infrastructure and economy will change. The
when, where and how of our water supplies will change."
The Planning and Conservation League notes, "Under current
requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, and SB
221 and SB 610, water agencies must use the best available
information to estimate the amount of water that will be
available to meet water demands in their regions. Recently, two
water agencies have been challenged in court by groups alleging
that those agencies had violated the law by failing to
incorporate climate change information into the 2005 urban water
management plans. AB 224 will help water agencies meet these
legal requirements and limit liability from lawsuits by ensuring
that the state identifies reliable information on climate change
for each region. AB 224 specifies that an agency would be
exempt from incorporating climate change impact into water plans
if such information is not available."
The Sierra Club observes, "The California Energy Commission has
identified water as the single largest energy use in the state,
responsible for 19% of electricity and over 30% of natural gas
use. Water use therefore contributes to the state's greenhouse
gas emissions. Accordingly, we must look to water management as
the state seeks to reduce these emissions."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Valley Ag Water Coalition "is concerned about two provisions
of AB 224. First, the prohibition against Proposition 84
funding applies to a wide range of projects not directly related
to water use efficiency or water supply. The prohibition should
be eliminated or significantly narrowed. Second, AB 224 would
require an agricultural water supplier to identify climate
change effects on water supply projections. Existing law
relating to agricultural water suppliers does not require water
supply projections, only the identification of current supply
and water conservation practices. AB 224 would create a
conflict in statutory requirements for agricultural water
suppliers."
COMMENTS
Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs) . It takes
time to develop and adopt an IRWMP. Many of the IRWMPs adopted
to date have taken 2-3 years to come to fruition. Assuming DWR
does identify the peer-reviewed information and posts it on the
internet by 7/08, that would provide those with an existing
IRWMP only six months to synthesize the information, incorporate
the information into the IRWMP, and adopt the revised plan.
This is a very short timeline.
Also, many groups are actively developing IRWMPs in order to
compete for Proposition 84 funding. It is not clear why would
anyone without an adopted IRWMP would either start or continue
developing an IRWMP now, knowing it will have to be updated to
include climate change within the next two years.
The committee may want to adjust the dates for IRWMP grants to
allow current IRWMPs an additional year to update IRWMPs to
include the climate information, and to exempt recently adopted
IRWMPs or those currently being developed from having to include
the climate information for 4 years from the date of adoption.
Peer Review is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly
work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the
field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen
submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies to decide the
awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make
authors meet the standards of their discipline and of science in
general. This bill limits DWR's collection of climate change
information to that which is peer reviewed, presumably to ensure
the information presented is of high quality. The problems with
limiting the information to that which is peer reviewed is that
(1) much high quality research is not peer reviewed (2) not all
peer-reviewed research is of high quality. Information
presented at conferences, for example, is often not peer
reviewed in the traditional sense, at least not for a number of
years. The most striking example of non-peer reviewed climate
change research is the seminal presentation made in 1987 by
Maurice Roos (former DWR Chief Hydrologist) on "Possible Changes
in California Snowmelt Runoff Patterns," which demonstrated for
the first time that climate change was already having an effect
on California. It was another 5 years before that research was
presented in a peer-reviewed journal. Conversely, simply
because a study is presented in an otherwise highly respected
peer reviewed journal does not mean the study isn't critically
flawed. This was most recently demonstrated by a 2004 paper
presented in Nature, titled "Grape ripening as a past climate
indicator." A review of that article earlier this year found
that "a paper on what is arguably the world's most important
scientific topic (global warming) was published in the world's
most prestigious scientific journal with essentially no checking
of the work prior to publication."
The committee may wish to change the reference from
"peer-reviewed" information to "credible" information.
Why Put Board In Charge? The bill calls for the Board, in
consultation with DWR, the Air Resources Board, the Energy
Commission and the Public Utilities Commission, to prepare a
report that quantifies the energy savings and greenhouse gas
emission reductions associated with water supply development.
However, for nearly 50 years DWR's California Water Plan has
been "accepted as the master plan which guides the orderly and
coordinated control protection, conservation, development,
management and efficient utilization of the water resources of
the state." While it might be desirable to give the Board a
prominent role in evaluating issues associated with water
recycling, DWR already has or ought to have expertise and
experience with all of the other water supply development
strategies.
The committee may wish to change the responsibility for
developing the energy savings and greenhouse gas report to DWR,
in collaboration with the Board and the other agencies. The
committee may further wish to give the Board lead responsibility
for the recycled water assessments.
Exemption Language. The proponents assert that under this bill
an agency would be exempt from incorporating climate change
impact into water plans if such information is not available.
If so, that language is subtle at best.
The Committee may wish to make clear that an agency would be
exempt upon adoption of a written statement by the governing
body of the water agency stating that the climate change
information is not available.
Technical Amendments. There are a number of incorrect
references that need correcting and other necessary technical
corrections.
Dual Referred to EQ. This analysis does not address issues
associated with the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: See Attached Mock-up
SUPPORT
Natural Resources Defense Council (Co-Sponsor)
Planning and Conservation League (Co-Sponsor)
Sonoma County Water Agency (Co-Sponsor)
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Public Utilities Commission
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
San Diego County Water Authority
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Sierra Club California
Solono County Water Agency
The Nature Conservancy
WaterReuse Association
OPPOSITION
Desert Water Agency
El Dorado Irrigation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition