BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2175
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2175 (Laird)
As Amended May 23, 2008
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-2
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wolk, Caballero, Eng, |Ayes:|Leno, Caballero, Davis, |
| |Furutani, Huffman, Lieu, | |DeSaulnier, Eng, Huffman, |
| |Mullin, Salas | |Berg, Krekorian, Lieu, |
| | | |Ma, Nava, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Maze, Anderson |Nays:|Walters, Emmerson, La |
| | | |Malfa, Nakanishi, Sharon |
| | | |Runner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Sets numeric water conservation targets for urban and
agricultural water use and conditions water management grant
funding on local agency implementation of conservation.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines certain terms, including "high per capita water use"
and "low per capita water use" without identifying specific
numeric standards.
2)Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to establish
a statewide target to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per
capita water use on or before December 31, 2020:
a) Requires DWR to report on the progress in meeting the
target in the California Water Plan beginning in 2013;
b) Requires DWR, if the target is not achieved by 2020, to
develop an action plan to achieve the target conservation;
and,
c) Requires DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to develop criteria that describe:
i) Alternative conservation targets for urban water
AB 2175
Page 2
suppliers that currently achieve a "low per capita water
use rate;" and,
ii) Additional conservation targets or actions for urban
water suppliers that have a "high per capita water rate"
3)Requires urban water suppliers to reduce per capita water use
by 20% by December 31, 2020.
a) Requires each urban water supplier to report its per
capita water use and other information to DWR every two
years beginning in 2010; and,
b) Authorizes DWR to require urban water suppliers that do
not achieve the 2020 target to adopt specific water
conservation measures.
4)Requires DWR to adopt, by 2010, a statewide agricultural water
conservation target of not less than 500,000 acre-feet to be
achieved by 2020. Beginning in 2012, and every five years
thereafter, DWR shall review and may increase such
conservation target:
a) Requires each agricultural water supplier to adopt, by
December 31, 2012, its own numeric water conservation
targets for 2015 and 2020, using water conservation
practices that are technically feasible and locally
cost-effective for the agency;
b) Requires each agricultural water supplier to submit,
every five years beginning in 2015, a report that, based on
an independent evaluation, identifies the basis of its
water conservation targets and its progress in achieving
those targets;
c) Authorizes DWR to require an agricultural water supplier
to revise its targets if such targets are not consistent
with the statewide target, or to adopt additional measures
if the supplier does not achieve its targets;
d) Requires DWR to adopt a plan of action if the statewide
target is not achieved; and,
e) Allows agricultural water suppliers to comply through
AB 2175
Page 3
submission of a plan to either the Agricultural Water
Management Council or the United States (U.S.) Bureau of
Reclamation.
5)Allows water suppliers to meet the targets on an individual or
regional basis.
6)Requires DWR or the California Water Commission to hold public
hearings on water conservation targets, guidelines and
methodologies.
7)Conditions water management grant funding on compliance with
conservation requirements.
8)Makes legislative findings regarding water conservation and
expresses legislative intent, including consideration of the
needs of disadvantaged communities.
9)Repeals existing water conservation implementation conditions
on water management grants to local agencies on December 31,
2012.
EXISTING LAW conditions state water management grant funding for
urban water agencies on implementation of "best management
practices" (BMPs) for water conservation, arising out of a
voluntary agreement on those BMPs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates
annual costs in the range of $1 million.
COMMENTS : AB 2175 reflects another step in the State's
progress of promoting greater water conservation throughout
California. Water conservation efforts started making
substantial progress in the early 1990's during the last major
drought. Urban water agencies agreed to adopt certain BMPs and
agricultural water agencies served by the federal Central Valley
Project were required to submit water conservation plans for
approval by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In March, Governor
Schwarzenegger called on all Californians to conserve water and
reduce per capita consumption by 20% by 2020. This bill now
reflects the Governor's call and adds a statewide target for
agricultural water conservation of 500,000 acre-feet.
Last year, this same author obtained the Governor's approval for
AB 2175
Page 4
conditioning State water management grants on water agency
implementation of the voluntary BMPs under the "Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) Regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California."
(AB 1420, Chapter 628.) As introduced, the bill called for DWR
to set conservation targets for achievement by 2030. After the
Governor set the 20% conservation target by 2020, the bill was
amended to reflect the Governor's call. Once reporting on those
targets is in place in 2012, this bill repeals the AB 1420
conditions on water management grants.
This conservation bill has a policy connection to the current
crisis in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Governor called
the 2nd Extraordinary Session on water policy partly in response
to a federal judge's decision reducing water exports from the
Delta. These reductions, which started in December, also
impaired water supply reliability for Southern California, San
Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area. In response,
local agencies have called for additional water conservation in
those areas relying on Delta water. The Governor's call for
more conservation appeared in a letter responding to Senate
concerns about the Administration's intentions in the Delta.
Recent studies also have connected water conservation and the
Delta crisis, suggesting that areas relying on Delta exports
will enjoy greater stability if they can reduce their reliance
on imports from the Delta. Reducing reliance on the Delta can
arise from improving local water supplies, including expanded
conservation.
Southern California has shown that conservation works. In the
last 30 years, the region has grown by about one-third but its
water demands have remained essentially flat. Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD) estimates that
nearly half of its region's water supplies come from local
sources, including MWD's aggressive water conservation programs.
MWD was a leader in crafting the original Conservation MOU and
remains a leading force within the water community for greater
water conservation.
AB 2175 does not set the baseline for achieving the 20% target,
but allows for agencies with different histories of water
conservation to respond differently. Its provisions for
agencies with "high per capita water use" or "low per capita
water use" allow for differing standards and responses for such
AB 2175
Page 5
agencies. These terms, however, have not been defined, leaving
blank spaces for setting numeric standards that would define
what is high and low per capita use. These terms and the
associated provisions will provide agencies with a history of
aggressive water conservation (i.e., resulting in "low per
capita water use") the option to meet alternative conservation
targets. Conversely, agencies with little conservation (i.e.,
"high per capita water use") may be required to implement
additional measures. These terms and other provisions allow
flexibility for agencies that already have achieved high
conservation or, alternatively, have low conservation requiring
additional conservation measures. This flexibility may provide
greater equity for agencies that already have low per capita
water usage. In order to accomplish this flexibility, however,
these terms will need to be defined in the Senate.
Analysis Prepared by : Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0005161