BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 1249 (Salas) - Integrated regional water management plans:
nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium
contamination.
Amended: June 30, 2014 Policy Vote: EQ 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 4, 2014 Consultant:
Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 1249 would require that integrated regional
water management plans (IRWMPs) include information regarding
nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium, should
those contaminants existing within the boundaries of the plan.
Fiscal Impact: Cost pressures at least in the millions of
dollars to existing and future bond monies available for IRWMP
development and implementation.
Background: Under the Integrated Water Management Planning Act
of 2002, a regional water management group is authorized, but
not required, to prepare and adopt an IRWMP. The act lists
regional projects or programs that can be included in an IRWMP,
such as a project or program that would accomplish reduced water
demand through efficiency, increased water supplies for any
beneficial use, operational efficiency and water supply
reliability, and improved water quality.
Proposed Law: This bill would require that if the area within
the boundaries of the plan has nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or
hexavalent chromium contamination, than that area's IWRMP must
include the location and the extent of that contamination in the
region, the impacts caused to communities in the region by the
contamination, and existing efforts being undertaken to address
the impacts.
Furthermore, for IRWMP implementation grant applications, this
bill would require that the regional water management group
include information on how the project will help address the
contamination or explain why the application does not include
AB 1249 (Salas)
Page 1
that kind of project.
Related Legislation:
SB 1049 (Pavley) would expand the possible issues that may be
addressed in an integrated regional water management plan
(IRWMP) and specifies who should be part of a regional water
management group that prepares such a plan. (Held under
submission by the Senate Appropriations Committee)
AB 1731 (Perea) - would require at least 10% of the funding in
each IRWM region be used to facilitate and support the
participation of disadvantaged communities IRWM planning and
for projects that address the critical water supply or water
quality needs of those communities. (Currently in Senate
Natural Resources and Water)
AB 1874 (Gonzalez) - would require DWR to develop, by October
1, 2015, a streamlined application process for the funding of
regional projects and programs for regional water management
groups that met specified criteria. (Held under submission by
the Assembly Appropriations Committee)
AB 2725 (Brown) - would add urban waterway restoration
projects, as defined, to the list of programs and projects
eligible to be included in an IRWMP. (Currently in Assembly
Water, Parks, and Wildlife)
Staff Comments: The state has funded both IWRMP plan development
and implementation with past bonds including Proposition 84 and
1E. Future bonds are likely to likely include IRWMP funding as
well. By adding an additional required element to an IRWMP, this
bill potentially increases the amount requested for IRWMP
planning grants because of the increased scope of an IRWMP.
There may also be an increase in the size and number of
implementation grant applications. Both these cost pressures are
unknown, but given that past bonds have offered hundreds of
millions of dollars of assistance for IRWMP planning and
implementation and that clean-up projects are generally very
costly, it is conceivable that the cost pressures may be in the
millions of dollars.