BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2595
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
AB 2595 (Hall) - As Amended: April 9, 2012
SUBJECT : Desalination
SUMMARY : Creates a task force to make recommendations on
streamlining the current permitting processes required for the
planning, design, construction, monitoring, and operation of
seawater desalination facilities. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the need
for efficient water resource management and the benefits of
desalination projects.
2)Asserts that California desalination projects require up to 30
local, state and federal permits for approval and that the
permitting process may be unclear and redundant.
3)Requires the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) convene a
21-member Seawater Desalination Permit Streamlining Task Force
(Task Force) whose recommendations will be included in a
report submitted to the Legislature by December 31, 2013.
4)Specifies the Task Force shall include:
a) One representative each from the following: Department
of Water Resources (DWR), State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), California Coastal Commission (CCC), State
Lands Commission, State Department of Public Health, State
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,
California Environmental Protection Agency, Natural
Resources Agency, and the Department of Parks and
Recreation.
b) One representative, as determined by the OPC, from each
of the following: the Commission for Economic Development,
a coastal regional water quality control board, a
recognized environmental advocacy group, two separate and
broadly recognized environmental advocacy groups that focus
on coastal protection, a public water purveyor that is
developing or proposing to develop a seawater desalination
facility, a wholesale water supplier, a nonprofit
AB 2595
Page 2
association created to further the use of seawater
desalination, an environmental justice advocacy group, a
business advocacy group, an organization representing
public unions, an organization representing private unions.
1)Requires the report to the Legislature include recommendations
for:
a) Establishing clear pathways for obtaining state permits;
b) Defining the regulatory scope for each permitting
agency;
c) Eliminating redundant requirements between California
permitting agencies;
d) Describing the data needed to complete each permit;
e) Developing best practices for communication among
regulatory agencies and the regulated community; and
f) Ensuring that any recommended changes maintain the
current regulatory protections.
1)Appropriates $250,000 from grant funds in the Safe Drinking
Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) that are
made available to DWR to assist local agencies in meeting the
long term water needs of the State and requires DWR use those
funds to pay the costs of convening the Task Force and
preparing the report.
EXISTING LAW
1)Charges DWR with finding economic and efficient methods of
desalination to meet the growing water requirement of the
state of California.
2)Requires that any project subject to a discretionary approval
by a public agency which could have potentially significant
impacts on the environment must undergo environmental review.
3)Empowers various local, state and federal agencies with
jurisdictions including, but not limited to, land use
decisions, threatened and endangered species, state lands,
public health and welfare, transportation, and utilities to
require permits or agreements from projects that could
adversely affect those resources.
AB 2595
Page 3
4)Requires the SWRCB to formulate and adopt a water quality
control plan for ocean waters through the development of the
California Ocean Plan. The plan is currently being updated
with environmentally protective, science-based regulations,
specifically for desalination projects.
5)Required a Water Desalination Task Force convened by DWR and
comprised of 27 public and private stakeholder groups to
deliver a report to the legislature in 2003. The task force
looked into potential opportunities and impediments for using
brackish water and seawater desalination in California, and
examined what role, if any, the State should play in
furthering the use of desalination technology.
FISCAL EFFECT : unknown
COMMENTS :
Because much of California is arid, water supply and reliability
are major concerns and have long driven an ongoing need to
assess and utilize all available sources of water. Over 45
years ago, in 1965, the Legislature passed the Cobey-Porter
Saline Water Conversion Law calling for development of
economical saline water conversion processes which could
eliminate the necessity for additional facilities to transport
water over long distances. More recently, in September of 2002,
the Legislature passed AB 2717 (Hertzberg). AB 2717 directed
DWR to convene the California Water Desalination Task Force
(2003 Task Force), to report to the Legislature on potential
opportunities and impediments for using seawater and brackish
water desalination, and to examine what role, if any, the state
should play in furthering the use of desalination technologies.
That same year, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water,
Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 50)
passed. DWR used $50 million of Prop. 50 funds to establish a
desalination grant program aimed at assisting agencies with the
development of new local potable water supplies through the
construction of feasible brackish water and seawater
desalination projects. In 2003, the 2003 Task Force released
its findings ahead of schedule. In their report, the 2003 Task
Force stated that the "overarching recommendation considered
critical to the advancement of desalination is that desalination
projects should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Because
each facility is essentially unique, given local water supply
and reliability needs, site-specific environmental conditions,
AB 2595
Page 4
project objectives, and proposed technology, case-by-case
analyses are essential."
Supporting Arguments : The author states that ocean desalination
is an important option "for local and regional water manager(s)
to consider in meeting their ratepayer's future water supply
needs" and that "it is important to design a more workable
permit approval process." Supporters advise it is important to
give all water supply options an equal footing and that one of
the bigger impediments to siting, constructing, and operating a
seawater desalination facility is the lengthy permitting
process. Supporters assert that it takes years to go through
the process of designing and building a plant and that "the
sheer number of agencies that have to review and approve the
plans is overwhelming" concluding that this bill "will provide a
much-needed review of the permitting process through and open
and inclusive dialogue."
Opposing Arguments : Opponents to this bill state that
California is already in the process of developing a statewide
desalination policy. They maintain that "until California has
fully developed its sustainable water supply options and created
a statewide regulatory framework to shape desalination policy,
the Legislature should not be appropriating money and
fast-tracking desalination." Additionally, opponents state that
"the construction of ocean desalination facilities in California
has proceeded slowly, not because of permitting obstacles, but
because desalinated ocean water represents an expensive and
energy intensive water supply option?Where project applicants
consult early with the agencies that have permit authority and
when they provide the necessary information the agencies have
requested, the regulatory process works. The permit process
stalls when the project applicants refuse to produce the
information requested."
Although the California Coastal Commission has not taken a
formal position on the bill, Coastal Commission staff recommend
the Commission oppose this bill as duplicative of past and
current efforts regarding desalination. Staff find that most of
the 29 recommendations from the 2003 Task Force have not yet
been implemented and that many of the issues raised in this bill
could be addressed by implementing existing recommendations
without further legislative authorization or mandate. In
addition, staff point out that many of the agencies in the new
proposed Task Force, including DWR, are already involved in
AB 2595
Page 5
developing policies, regulations, and resolutions related to
desalination with a projected policy completion date of early
2013. Commission staff maintain that many of these policies are
likely to address several concerns about the desalination
permitting process without the need for legislation and that
most of the bill's direction to the proposed Task Force is to
make recommendations to the Legislature on components of the
permitting process for which procedures already exist.
Some of the recommendations from the 2003 Task Force included
working in conjunction with local governments to assess the
availability of land and facilities for environmentally and
economically acceptable seawater desalination; sharing
monitoring at desalination projects and reporting it widely for
the broadest public benefits; creating a database and repository
for
storing and disseminating information; ensuring seawater
desalination projects are designed and operated to avoid, reduce
or minimize impingement, entrainment, brine discharge and other
environmental impacts; and tasking regulators, in consultation
with the public, to seek coordinated mechanisms to mitigate
unavoidable environmental impacts. Eleven of the specific
recommendations from the 2003 Task Force relate to permitting
and ranged from suggesting that all new water supply strategies,
including desalination, should be based upon adopted community
General Plans, Urban Water Management Plans, Local Coastal
Plans, and other approved plans that integrate regional
planning, growth and water supply/demand projections to
requiring private desalination projects, and private developers
and plant operators, to fully disclose the same information as
publicly owned and operated facilities.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CalDesal (Sponsor)
Association of California Water Agencies
Avista Technologies, Inc.
BIOCOM
California Chamber of Commerce
California Special Districts Association
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Orange County Water District
AB 2595
Page 6
San Diego County Water Authority
San Gabriel County Water District
Southern California Water Committee
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
WateReuse
West Basin Municipal Water District
Opposition
California Coastal Protection Network
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Clean Water Action California
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Democracy for America - Marin
Desal Response Group
Food and Water Watch
Heal the Bay
Marin Water Coalition
Natural Resources Defense Council
Orange County Coastkeeper
Our City SF
Planning and Conservation League
Residents for Responsible Desalination
Sierra Club California
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy and Mandy Arens / W.,
P. & W. / (916) 319-2096