BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1152 HEARING DATE: June 14, 2011
AUTHOR: Chesbro URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 28, 2011 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Groundwater
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Among the water bills adopted in 2009-2010 7th Extraordinary
Session was SB7X 6 (Steinberg). That bill, among other things,
established a process whereby on or before January 1, 2012,
groundwater elevations in all groundwater basins and subbasins
would be regularly and systematically monitored locally and that
the resulting groundwater information be made readily and widely
available. Specifically, the bill:
Authorized specified entities to assume responsibility for
monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations;
Required entities seeking to assume those functions to notify
the Department of Water Resources (DWR);
Required DWR to determine which entities will perform
monitoring functions; and
Required monitoring entities to commence monitoring and
reporting groundwater elevations on or before January 1, 2012.
The bill further specified that if:
1.DWR determined that no entity was willing to take on the
monitoring responsibility for all or part of a basin or
subbasin, and
2.DWR determined that existing state and federally owned
monitoring wells provided insufficient data to demonstrate
seasonal and long term trends in groundwater elevations, and
3.The State Mining and Geology Board concurred with DWR's
determinations;
then:
DWR would be required to perform those groundwater monitoring
functions, and
The entities that chose not to assume the groundwater
monitoring functions would not be eligible for a water grant
1
or loan awarded or administered by the state.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would do two things:
1.This bill would authorize a monitoring entity to use
"alternate monitoring techniques" for a basin or subbasin,
instead of monitoring groundwater elevations directly through
monitoring wells, if the basin or subbasin meets any of the
following conditions:
Groundwater elevations are unaffected by land use
activities or planned land use activities, or naturally
occurring total dissolved solids within the groundwater
preclude the use of that water.
It is underlying land that is wholly owned or
controlled, individually or collectively, by state, tribal,
or federal authorities, and groundwater monitoring
information is not available.
It is underlying an area where geographic or geologic
features make monitoring impracticable, including, but not
limited to, a basin or subbasin that is inaccessible to
well-drilling equipment.
The bill defines "alternate monitoring techniques" to include,
as DWR deems appropriate, any of the following:
Hydrologic records for the basin or subbasin.
Well permits or similar reports from within the area
overlying the basin or subbasin.
Aerial photographs.
Remote sensing data.
To qualify to use alternate monitoring techniques, the
monitoring agency must submit to DWR a report, signed by a
registered geologist, demonstrating that the basin or subbasin
meets the necessary conditions.
DWR, in its discretion, would determine whether the monitoring
entity may use an alternate monitoring technique, and the
alternate monitoring techniques that may be used, for the
basin or subbasin.
Within 60 days of finding that a basin or subbasin no longer
meets the qualifications for the use of alternate monitoring
techniques, the monitoring entity would be required report
that finding to DWR. Failure to do so would constitute
noncompliance with the monitoring and reporting requirements.
2
If DWR determines that a monitoring entity may use alternate
monitoring techniques, every three years following that
initial determination the monitoring entity would be required
submit sufficient information to establish its continued
eligibility to use alternate monitoring techniques.
Any determination by DWR under this bill would be deemed final
and conclusive.
1.The bill would also delete the requirement that the State
Mining and Geology Board concur with DWR's determinations
regarding the need for DWR to conduct groundwater monitoring
of a basin or subbasin when no entities choses to do so.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
Supporters point to a flaw in the existing groundwater
monitoring law - namely that it is not always possible to
monitor groundwater basins. Examples include small basins
entirely overlain by a lake, remote wilderness areas, and
sovereign lands such as tribal and federal lands. Also, there
are some basins with little or no groundwater use, where
monitoring currently unnecessary. They assert that allowing
alternative means of monitoring as provide by AB 1152 is the
most prudent way to address these flaws in current law.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None received
3
COMMENTS
Two additional issues have arisen that the author has agreed to
address through amendments to be taken in this committee.
Military Fix. Currently, the bill would allow the use of
alternative monitoring if the basin is underlying land that is
wholly owned or controlled, individually or collectively, by
state, tribal, or federal authorities, and groundwater
monitoring information is not available. Representatives of the
military have asked that the provision be expanded to also allow
alternative monitoring if the information was requested from but
not provided by state, tribal or federal authorities. (See
Amendment 1)
Monitoring Entities. DWR has noted that some local agencies
have been collecting groundwater elevation data and would like
to become the official groundwater monitoring entity, but
because they does not have an adopted groundwater management
plan, current law does not give them specific authority to do
so. Consequently, their only option is to monitor the
groundwater basin as a "voluntary cooperative groundwater
monitoring association."
The current list of such agencies include: Montara Water and
Sanitary District, Coastside County Water District, Rincon del
Diablo Municipal Water District, Vista Irrigation District,
Indian Wells Valley Cooperative Groundwater Management Group,
Antelope Valley State Water Contractors Association, and Kern
Water Bank Authority.
It has been suggested that one way to address that problem would
be to allow such local agencies to become the monitoring entity
provided they adopt a groundwater management plan within two
years. Further, within the hierarchy of potential monitoring
agencies established in law, it is suggested that this new
category should be placed below agencies managing groundwater
basins under an integrated regional water management plan and
above counties that are not managing groundwater pursuant to a
legally enforceable groundwater management plan. (See Amendment
2)
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1 On page 3, line 8, before the period, insert:
"or was requested from but not provided by state, tribal or
federal authorities"
4
AMENDMENT 2 Amend Water Code Section 10927 to a new
subdivision, to be placed between the current subdivisions
(d) and (e) to read as follows:
(e) A local agency that has been collecting and
reporting groundwater elevations but that does not have an
adopted groundwater management plan, provided that the
local agency adopts a groundwater management plan in
accordance with Part 2.75 (commencing with Section10753) by
January 1, 2014. The department may authorize a local
agency to conduct the monitoring and reporting of
groundwater elevations pursuant to this part on an interim
basis until such time as the local agency adopts a
groundwater management plan or January 1, 2014, whichever
occurs first.
SUPPORT
California Groundwater Coalition (Sponsor)
California Municipal Utilities Association
California State Association of Counties
Groundwater Resources Association
Lake County
Mono County
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Sonoma County Water Agency
Trinity County
OPPOSITION None Received
5