BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1386
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 1386 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: April 12, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 31-4
SUBJECT : Central Basin Water District: Limitation on
authority
SUMMARY : Would prohibit the Central Basin Municipal Water
District (Central Basin MWD) from storing or managing water in
the Central Groundwater Basin unless by a contract with another
entity or pursuant to a court issued order and, by default,
leaves the Water Replenishment District of Southern California
(WRD) as the principal entity authorized to do so.
Specifically, this bill amends the Municipal Water District Act
to bar the Central Basin MWD from:
1)Managing, controlling, or administering the importation of
water for storage, or the storing of groundwater.
2)Storing water underground except pursuant to either:
a) A contract with an independent holder of adjudicated
groundwater extraction rights within the boundaries of the
MWD and for the account of the water rights holder.
b) A court order issued by a court having jurisdiction over
the adjudication of groundwater extraction rights within
the groundwater basin where storage is sought.
EXISTING LAW
1)Creates water replenishment districts for the purposes of
replenishing groundwater supplies within their boundaries.
2)States that a water replenishment district may store,
transport, recapture, recycle, purify treat or otherwise
manage and control water for the beneficial use of persons or
property within its boundaries.
3)Creates municipal water districts (MWDs). Water Code Section
SB 1386
Page 2
71610 states that an MWD may acquire, control, distribute,
store, spread, sink, treat, purify, recycle, recapture, and
salvage any water including sewage and storm waters, for the
beneficial use or uses of the MWD, its inhabitants, or the
owners of rights to water in the MWD.
FISCAL EFFECT : Nonfiscal
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to prohibit Central Basin MWD from
asserting a right to store or manage groundwater in the Central
Groundwater Basin. The overarching issue of who has a right to
store water in the Central Groundwater Basin, other than for
replenishment purposes, and then extract that stored water, is
currently being grappled with in court.
In a decision issued on January 18, 2012, Water Replenishment
District of Southern California v. City of Cerritos, the Court
of Appeal states the Central Groundwater Basin "extends
underneath approximately 277 square miles and provides a source
of water for cities, municipalities, water companies, school
districts, landowners, and others" and advises that the "case
concerns unused storage space in the Central Basin, an 'area
containing a groundwater reservoir capable of furnishing a
substantial water supply.'" The court acknowledges that "WRD
was created by statute for the purpose of replenishing the
Central and West Coast Basins," and that over 45 years ago,
"WRD's predecessor sued over 500 parties, resulting in a 1965
consent judgment declaring and establishing water rights in the
Central Basin and enjoining extractions from the Central Basin
in excess of specified quantities." The 1965 judgment also
reserved jurisdiction to the court to "provide for such other
matters as are not contemplated by the judgment and which might
occur in the future" with respect to "a balanced Central Basin
subject to the requirements of Central Basin Area for water
required for its needs, growth, and development."
Although WRD has the right to replenish the Central Basin and
enjoin extractions, the 1965 judgment, as subsequently amended
(Amended Judgment), did not address who has the right to store
water in the basin. In 2001, several parties sought an
adjudication of the rights to use underground storage space in
the Central Groundwater Basin and argued that the "total useable
storage space" should be divided among those with the right to
extract water from the Central Basin." The court however
rejected the theory that the right to extract water conveys an
automatic right to store water. In 2009, a new proposal was
SB 1386
Page 3
submitted to the court by another group with extraction rights.
That proposal sought "to utilize 330,000 acre-feet of 'dewatered
space' in the Central Basin to store water for later use"
(Storage Proposal). The Storage Proposal included "multiple
provisions governing the storage and extraction of stored water"
and proposed significant revisions to the Amended Judgment. The
trial court, however, dodged the storage issue completely when
it claimed it lacked the jurisdiction to consider the Storage
Proposal since it was outside the boundaries of the 1965
judgment. The court of appeal did not agree finding that the
"continuing jurisdiction" conveyed on the Court by the 1965
judgment was broad and meant that a "trial court not only has
the power, but also has the duty to exercise its power to work
out a solution consistent with the policy to beneficially use
water." The matter now rests with the trial court for a
determination, on the merits, of the Storage Proposal.
Supporting arguments : The author states that this bill "simply
clarifies existing law so that it is clear that the Central
Basin ÝMWD] does not have the authority to manage or control the
storage of groundwater because there is already a water rights
judgment in place and a water replenishment district that has
authority to deal with groundwater supplies." The author states
that "since existing law gives two different entities authority
to do the same thing" the resulting uncertainty creates a
barrier to an increased use of groundwater storage that could
help relieve pressure on imported water supplies from Northern
California. Supporters state that this "bill is necessary
because in recent years, the Central Basin ÝMWD] has inserted
itself into the groundwater arena, first by purchasing
groundwater extraction rights it does not use and then by
relying on those rights to gain status to legally intervene as a
groundwater party."
Opposing arguments : Central Basin MWD states this bill is
"flawed policy" because there is pending litigation in Los
Angeles Superior Court that deals directly with the subject
matter contained in this bill. Central Basin MWD also states it
is "currently working on a collaborative groundwater storage
plan that would utilize the storage capacity within the basin,
secure an affordable supply of water, establish emergency
supplies and prepare against future reductions in imported
supplies. It states that "without this plan in place, WRD and
others would be afforded the opportunity to continue to
detrimentally and permanently damage the ÝCentral Groundwater]
SB 1386
Page 4
Basin, and southeast Los Angeles communities could be subject to
higher priced water." Other opponents state that this bill is
"premature in light of the audit approved by the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee in March of 2012" that would
"identify the roles of water suppliers in Southeast Los Angeles
County" and that this bill "creates further division, rather
than solutions."
This is not the first time the Legislature has attempted to
engage in the conflict over groundwater authorities and charges
in the Central Groundwater Basin. Because the West Basin and
Central Basin are interconnected and the WRD overlies both,
there have been continuing tensions. AB 640 (De La Torre/2007)
would have required the Department of Water Resources to conduct
a study to determine the basin specific charges, including
underflow, in each basin within the district. AB 640 was placed
on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file and failed
the deadline for passage. SB 701 (Ronald Calderon/2011) would
have established, among other provisions, that the Central Basin
MWD "has primary oversight responsibility with respect to
protecting the public's interest in the Central Groundwater
Basin." SB 701 was referred to Senate Natural Resources and
Water but was not heard and failed the deadline for passage. AB
954 (Charles Calderon/2011) would have required engineering
surveys and reports for the West Basin and the Central Basin,
separately, and then specified that the charges for replenishing
each groundwater basin, removing contaminants from each
groundwater basin, and administering each groundwater would be
calculated on actual costs. AB 954 was referred to the Assembly
Committee on Local Government but was not heard and failed the
deadline for passage.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Southeast Water Coalition Joint Powers Authority (sponsor)
AFSCME
AFSCME Local 1902 Employees Association of the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California
Bell Gardens Chamber of Commerce
California Groundwater Coalition
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Municipal Utilities Association
Central Basin Water Association
SB 1386
Page 5
City of Commerce
City of Lakewood
City of Norwalk
City of Paramount
City of South Gate
City of Torrance
City of Vernon
Golden State Water Company
Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member House Committee on Natural
Resources, United States Congress
Law Offices of Julia Sylva
Long Beach Water Department
Maywood Mutual Water Company #1
Orchard Dale Water District
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
Sativa Los Angeles County Water District
Signal Hill Chamber of Commerce
South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce
South Gate Chamber of Commerce
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
West Basin Municipal Water District
West Basin Water Association
Opposition
Central Basin Municipal Water District
City of Downey
City of Signal Hill
San Gabriel Valley Water Company
City of Montebello
City of Bell Gardens
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096