BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 147
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 147 (V. Manuel Pérez)
As Amended May 24, 2013
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 15-0NATURAL RESOURCES 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Rendon, Bigelow, Allen, |Ayes:|Chesbro, Grove, Bigelow, |
| |Blumenfield, Bocanegra, | |Garcia, Muratsuchi, |
| |Dahle, Fong, Frazier, | |Patterson, Skinner, |
| |Beth Gaines, Gatto, | |Stone, Williams |
| |Gomez, Gray, Patterson, | | |
| |Yamada, Williams | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | |
| |Hall, Ammiano, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to evaluate and
make recommendations regarding Salton Sea dust mitigation
planning completed by the Quantification Settlement Agreement
Joint Powers Authority (QSA-JPA). Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes extensive findings regarding the Salton Sea, the
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and the air
pollution caused by the exposed dry lake bed, and defines
relevant terms for purposes of the bill.
2)Requires ARB, upon execution of an agreement with the QSA-JPA,
to evaluate and determine if the air quality planning
completed by the QSA-JPA is sufficient to mitigate the air
quality impacts of the QSA.
AB 147
Page 2
3)Requires ARB, if it concludes additional mitigation planning
is necessary, to submit recommendations to the QSA-JPA.
4)States that the bill does not modify existing roles,
responsibilities or liabilities of the QSA's state and local
government parties.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Regulates, under the federal Clean Air Act fine particulates
in dust (PM10) and requires attainment of health based air
quality standards for particulates. Requires use of best
available mitigation measures and development of a plan for
attainment of air quality standards.
2)States, in the Salton Sea Restoration Act legislative intent
that the state undertake restoration of the Salton Sea and
that the maximum feasible attainment of specified
environmental objectives be achieved, including, but not
limited to, elimination of air quality impacts from
restoration projects.
3)Establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Fund for the
restoration of the Salton Sea.
4)Implements the QSA, which was entered into by various parties
in 2003 to budget their portions of California's apportionment
of Colorado River water and to provide a framework for
conservation measures and water transfers for a period of up
to 75 years, and provides for a framework to mitigate the
environmental impacts on the Salton Sea caused by the QSA
water transfer.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, increased one-time costs to the ARB in the $200,000
range and ongoing costs in the $200,000 to $400,000 range.
These costs would likely either be reimbursed or paid out of the
Salton Sea Restoration Fund.
COMMENTS : The Salton Sea, located in the Imperial Valley and
Coachella Valley of southern California, is California's largest
lake, covering approximately 365 square miles, and it serves as
an important stop on the annual Pacific Flyway migratory route,
supporting over 400 species of birds and representing over
AB 147
Page 3
two-thirds of all birds in the continental United States. In
2003, the Legislature enacted statutes (Chapters 611, 612 and
613 of the Statutes of 2003) to facilitate the execution and
implementation of the QSA and related agreements, including a
transfer of conserved water from the Imperial Irrigation
District (IID) to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA).
As part of those statutes, the Legislature declared its intent
that the state undertake the restoration of the Salton Sea
ecosystem and the permanent protection of wildlife dependent on
the ecosystem. Implementation of the water transfer will reduce
agricultural drainage inflow to the Salton Sea, reducing the
sea's depth and result in the exposure of currently submerged
sea lakebed. The exposure of previously submerged sea lakebed
has the potential to significantly increase fugitive dust
emissions as winds blow across fine-grained sediments and salts
exposed by the dry lakebed. At Owens Lake, a lake drained by
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the cost of
mitigation fugitive dust emissions arising from the exposed
lakebed has reached $1.2 billion. As part of the QSA, the state
entered into the QSA-JPA for purposes of financing the
mitigation of the environmental impacts resulting from the QSA.
The parties of the QSA-JPA include the state, acting by and
through the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the Coachella
Valley Water District (CVWD), IID and SDCWA.
The QSA-JPA agreement purports to impose a huge liability for
dust and other environmental mitigation costs on the state.
Under the terms of the QSA-JPA Agreement, CVWD, IID and SDCWA
are required to contribute a total of $133 million for
environmental mitigation resulting from the QSA water transfers,
including air quality impacts. The state, acting through DFW,
agreed to cover the additional costs. The agreement states:
The State is solely responsible for the payment of
the costs of and liability for Environmental
Mitigation Requirements in excess of the
Environmental Mitigation Cost Limitation. The
amount of such costs and liabilities shall be
determined by the affirmative vote of three
Commissioners, including the Commissioner
representing the State, which determination shall be
reasonably made. The State obligation is an
unconditional contractual obligation of the State of
California, and such obligation is not conditioned
AB 147
Page 4
upon an appropriation by the Legislature, nor shall
the event of non-appropriation be a defense.
It should be noted a recent ruling by the Third District Court
of Appeal held that although the State is contractually
obligated to pay excess mitigation costs associated with the
QSA, the agreement does not give the other QSA parties "or
anyone else" the right to enforce the obligation by taking money
out of the State Treasury. Rather, it is solely up to the
Legislature to appropriate such funds.
The California Supreme Court has denied all appeals for review,
but at the time of this writing, QSA litigation continues at the
Superior Court level on remanded or un-adjudicated issues,
including claims based upon the Brown Act and the California
Environmental Quality Act. At the federal level, a decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
dismissing legal challenges to the QSA based upon the Clean Air
Act and National Environmental Policy Act, is currently on
appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0000946