BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 1412 HEARING DATE: April 13, 2010
AUTHOR: Calderon URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Water replenishment districts.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Water Replenishment District (WRD) was formed in 1959 to
acquire water to recharge the groundwater in the Central Coast
Basin and West Coast Basin. The district is bound by the
Baldwin, Whittier, and Merced Hills in the north, the Orange
County line to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and
west. It lies entirely within Los Angeles County and serves 43
cities, including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Downey, and Torrance.
Under current law, WRD recovers most of its costs by charging a
uniform rate per acre-foot pumped by the groundwater users (aka,
the pumpers) in the two subbasins. To determine the amount of
recharge water need each year and to set the pumping charge, WRD
is required each year to:
Order an engineering survey and report regarding the condition
of the two subbasins and the associated groundwater supplies.
Declare whether funds need to be raised to purchase
replenishment water during the next fiscal year.
Hold a hearing regarding the amount to be raised.
Adopt findings regarding the condition of the two subbasins,
the amount of replenishment water to be acquired, the costs of
acquiring that water and recharging the basin, and whether the
district needs to remove groundwater contaminants.
Adopt a resolution regarding the charges.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would require the WRD to establish separate per
acre-foot pumping charges to apply to each subbasin, reflecting
the distinct conditions and replenishment needs of each
1
subbasin.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the Author, "SB 1412 is necessary to stop the
subsidy of water replenishment in West Coast Basin by Central
Basin Customers. Contrary to the provisions and intent of
Proposition 208, applying a uniform replenishment assessment to
both basins results in the subsidy of West Coast Basin agencies
by Central Basin agencies, and ultimately the water utility
customers of Central Basin agencies pay rates based upon
services and improvements from which they do not benefit.
Further compounding the inequity in Central Basin's subsidy of
West Coast Basin is the fact that cities and residents in
Central Basin are economically disadvantaged, have consistently
higher unemployment rates, and have a far greater concentration
of ethnic minorities."
The author further notes that the South East Water Coalition
commissioned a cost allocation study which found that the
replenishment assessment of $181.85 per acre foot in 2009 would
be more equitably distributed as follows:
$123.13 per acre-foot for the Central Basin
$458.40 per acre-foot for the West Coast Basin
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
According to the Water Replenishment District, "The subject of
split replenishment assessment on groundwater production in the
Central and West Coast Basins has surfaced five times in the
District's 50-year history. Indeed, the possibility of two
separate replenishment districts with separate assessments
preceded the decision in 1958 by groundwater pumpers in both
basins to support the formation of one replenishment district
with a uniform assessment."
"There were many reasons Central Basin and West Basin
stakeholders decided to support formation of a single district
rather than two. A major reason was the desire by pumpers in
both basins to avoid expensive, protracted adjudication of West
Basin rights to underflow from Central Basin across the
Newport-Inglewood uplift. The underflow was in marked decline
in the 1950s by virtue of overproduction by Central Basin
pumpers."
"The formation of the Water Replenishment District encompassing
both basins with a uniform assessment was the institutional
2
alternative to the adjudication of the underflow. It remains
that alternative today. The statutory imposition of separate
replenishment assessments for groundwater production in each
basin will result in the very adjudication Central Basin pumpers
sought to avoid 50 years ago."
COMMENTS
Here We Go Again. The relationships between the Water
Replenishment District, Central Basin Municipal Water District,
West Basin Municipal Water District, and the groundwater users
in the two subbasins (aka, the pumpers) have long been
tumultuous. The contentious issue du jour changes frequently,
as do the political alliances of convenience.
The current dispute regards financing. Some pumpers in the
Central Basin, such as the City of Downey, believe that it costs
WRD less to maintain groundwater levels in their subbasin than
in the West Coast Basin, yet WRD by law charges the same rate to
pumpers in both subbasins. They believe that this bill would
save them and their rate payers money.
Other pumpers, including some in the Central Basin such as the
City of Lakewood, believe that setting different replenishment
rates would result in an immediate lawsuit filed by West Coast
Basin cities, in part to adjudicate West Basin rights to
underflow from Central Basin across the Newport-Inglewood.
These pumpers believe that the cost of litigation would more
than negate any savings.
This bill is virtually identical to the March 28, 2007 version
of AB 640 (De La Torre). That bill later evolved into a bill to
study the underflow from the Central Basin, through and over the
Newport-Inglewood fault zone, and into the West Coast Basin. It
is that version of the bill that passed this Committee, only to
die in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Current Court Action. Currently, the groundwater basins are
underutilized for groundwater storage. The problem with the
existing groundwater storage rules is that while it is
relatively easy to legally put water into the two basins, it is
at best uncertain how one might legally withdraw the stored
water.
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is the court appointed
Watermaster for both the Central and West Coast Basins. In
November 2005, DWR engaged a mediator to help develop a plan for
3
groundwater storage in the two basins. After three years, the
parties crafted proposed Judgment Amendments, amendments to the
groundwater adjudications to allow greater use of groundwater
storage in the two basins. These amendments are widely, but not
unanimously, supported by the pumpers and other interested
parties. The proposed Judgment Amendments are currently working
their way through the legal process.
The uniform assessment, which would be eliminated by this bill,
is a condition of the stipulation among the moving parties
supporting the storage amendments for the proposed Judgment
Amendments. Should separate assessments apply to each basin,
the stipulation would become void, and the court process to
ratify the proposed Judgment Amendments would be halted.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
SUPPORT
Central Basin Municipal Water District
Church of the Resurrection
City of Downey
City of Signal Hill
City of South Gate
Montebello Land & Water Company
Mothers of East Los Angeles
OPPOSITION
Association of California Water Agencies
California Water Service Company
City of Lakewood
City of Torrance
City of Vernon
Golden State Water Company
Long Beach Water Department
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
West Basin Municipal Water District
West Basin Water Association
4