BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1331 HEARING DATE: March, 25, 2014
AUTHOR: Rendon URGENCY: Yes
VERSION: March 18, 2014 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental QualityFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Clean, Safe and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2014
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
In November 2009, the legislature passed and the governor signed
SBX7 2 (Cogdill). Also known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, that law placed on the
November 2010 ballot an $11.14 B general obligation bond before
the voters to fund various water resources programs and
projects.
The legislature has amended the bond proposal three times,
including twice delaying the placement of the bond before the
voters. After initially being delayed to the November 2012
ballot, the bond was subsequently delayed to the November 2014
ballot, where it remains now.
Over the course of the last year or two, there has been much
discussion on whether the public would support the current
November 2014 bond proposal. Moreover, if the voters would not
support that bond proposal, what, if anything, should take its
place on the ballot?
To help answer those questions, this Committee held a joint
hearing in February with the Senate Governance and Finance
Committee titled "Overview of California's Debt Condition:
Priming the Pump for a Water Bond." That hearing explored
California's overall debt condition, the fund balances for
various bond funded programs, and the implications for the
November 2014 water bond.
This was followed two weeks later by a second hearing which
asked the question "What's Changed Since the Legislature Passed
the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of
1
2010?" That hearing highlighted some of the unanticipated
developments that occurred since the drafting of the bond, and
posed the policy question "What changes, if any, should be made
to the bond in light of recent developments?"
Later, on September 24, 2013, the Senate Environmental Quality
and the Natural Resources and Water held a joint hearing titled
"Setting the Stage for a 2014 Water Bond: Where Are We and Where
Do We Need To Go?" That hearing focused on where the various
legislative bond discussions stood, identified issues that may
need additional attention, and, where appropriate, suggested
alternative approaches for consideration of the members.
2
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would replace the $11.14 B water bond that is
currently on the November 2014 ballot with a new $8.0 B general
obligation bond titled "The Clean, Safe, and Reliable Drinking
Water Act of 2014."
The proposed bond measure is organized as follows:
Chapter 1.Short Title
Chapter 2 Findings
Chapter 3.Definitions
Chapter 4.General Provisions
$1,000 M Chapter 5.Clean and Safe Drinking Water
1,500 Chapter 6.Protecting Rivers, Lakes,
Streams, Coastal Waters, and Watersheds
2,000 Chapter 7. Climate Change &
Drought Preparedness for Regional Water Security
1,000 Chapter 8.Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Sustainability
2,500 Chapter 9.Water Storage for Climate
Change
_________ Chapter 10.Fiscal Provisions
$8,000 M
Chapter 5. Clean and Safe Drinking Water. This chapter would
authorize $1,000 M in funding for projects that improve water
quality for beneficial use. This chapter would require:
Projects be selected by a competitive grant or loan process.
Applicants for projects to clean up groundwater aquifers to
demonstrate that a public agency has authority to manage the
water resources in that aquifer in order to be eligible for
funding pursuant to this chapter.
A local cost share of not less than 50 percent of the total
costs of the project. The cost-sharing requirement could be
waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit a
disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area.
At least 10 percent of the funds available pursuant to this
chapter would be required to be allocated for projects serving
severely disadvantaged communities.
Funding authorized pursuant to this chapter would be required
to include funding for technical assistance to disadvantaged
communities.
Funds provided by this chapter would be available as follows:
$400 Mfor deposit in the State Water Pollution Control
Revolving Fund Small Community Grant Fund for grants
for wastewater treatment projects. Priority would be
3
given to projects that serve disadvantaged communities
and severely disadvantaged communities, and to projects
that address public health hazards.
100 Mdeposit in the Emergency Clean Water Grant Fund for grants
and direct expenditures to finance public health
emergencies and urgent actions to ensure that safe
drinking water supplies are available to all
Californians. Eligible projects include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Providing interim water supplies, including
bottled water.
Projects that improve or replace existing
water systems, provide other sources of safe drinking
water, including replacement wells, and prevent
contamination.
Establishing connections to an adjacent
water system.
The design, purchase, installation, and
initial operating costs for interim water treatment
equipment and systems.
The administering entity may expend up to $10 M for
grants and loans to address the water quality needs of
private well owners that have no other source of
funding and serve members of a disadvantaged community.
400 Mfor grants and loans for public water system
infrastructure improvements and related actions to meet
safe drinking water standards, ensure affordable
drinking water, or both.
Priority would be given to projects for
small community water systems or state small water
systems in disadvantaged communities whose drinking
water source is impaired by chemical and nitrate
contaminants and other health hazards identified by
the implementing agency.
The implementing agency could make grants to
finance feasibility studies and to meet the
eligibility requirements for a construction grant.
Eligible expenses could include initial
operation and maintenance costs for systems serving
disadvantaged communities.
Special consideration would be given to
projects that provide shared solutions for multiple
communities served by a small community water system,
state small water system, or a private well.
4
Construction grants would be limited to $5 M
per project, except that the implementing agency may
set a limit of not more than $20 M for projects that
provide regional benefits or are shared among
multiple entities.
Not more than 25 percent of a grant could be
awarded in advance of actual expenditures.
The administering entity could expend up to
$25 M of the funds for technical assistance to
eligible communities.
100 Mfor improving groundwater quality, including the costs of
planning, design, and construction of improvements
necessary to resume delivery of safe drinking water.
Chapter 6. Protecting Rivers, Lakes, Streams, Coastal Waters,
and Watersheds. This chapter would authorize $1,500 M in
funding for expenditures and grants for multibenefit ecosystem
and watershed protection and restoration projects in accordance
with statewide priorities.
To guide the expenditure of funds described in this chapter:
The Natural Resources Agency (NRA) would be required to
develop a statewide natural resource protection plan to
identify priorities consistent with the purposes of this
section. All expenditures by state conservancies and state
agencies of funds described in this section would be required
advance the priorities set forth in the statewide natural
resource protection plan. The plan would aggregate and
coordinate existing state planning efforts, and would be
completed within one year of voter approval of the bond.
State conservancies expending funds provided from this
subdivision would be required to provide biannual written
reports to NRA on expenditures made and how those expenditures
advance the statewide priorities set forth in the NRA
statewide natural resource protection plan.
The NRA would produce and make available to the public
biannual written reports on total expenditures made and
progress toward meeting statewide priorities.
5
Funds provided by this chapter would be available as follows:
$750 Mwould be distributed to regions pursuant to a
specific schedule. The schedule is based on each
region receiving $10 M, the balance of the funds were
distributed to each region based on population, with
priorities for those funds as follows:
$76 M North Coast - priority for
protection and restoration of anadromous fish and
coastal watersheds.
109 M San Francisco Bay - priority for
protection and restoration of regional watersheds
or watersheds that provide water supply to the
region.
109 M Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range -
priority for protection and restoration of
watersheds that provide water to the statewide
water system.
76 M Central Coast - priority for
protection of coastal resources.
76 M Central Valley, excluding the Delta
- no priorities specified.
142 M Los Angles/Ventura - priority for
protection, restoration, and connectivity of the
Los Angeles or San Gabriel Rivers and their
tributaries.
76 M Santa Ana Watershed - priority for
protection and restoration of the Santa Ana
Watershed or groundwater resources.
76 M San Diego - priority for protection and
restoration of the region's watersheds.
10 M Lahontan/Colorado River - priority for
protection and restoration of the region's
watersheds and wetland resources.
A state agency that receives any of these funds would
be authorized to disburse funding to a nonprofit
organization before the organization has incurred
expenses for the project.
500 M to fulfill the obligations of the State of
California in complying with the terms of any of the
following:
The February 18, 2010, Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement or Klamath Hydroelectric
Settlement Agreement.
The Quantification Settlement Agreement.
The San Joaquin River Restoration
6
Settlement.
Refuge water supply acquisition pursuant to
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
250 M to the Natural Resources Agency to support
projects of a state conservancy, excluding the Delta
Conservancy, as provided in the conservancy's strategic
plan.
Chapter 7. Climate Change and Drought Preparedness for
Regional Water Security. This chapter would authorize $2,000 M
in funding for expenditures and grants for expenditures and
competitive grants and loans to projects that respond to climate
change and contribute to regional water security.
The purposes of this chapter would be to:
Help water infrastructure systems adapt to climate change.
Provide incentives for water agencies throughout each
watershed to collaborate in managing the region's water
resources and setting regional priorities for water
infrastructure.
7
Improve regional water self-reliance, including projects that
reduce future reliance on the Delta watershed in meeting
California's future water supply needs, consistent with
Section 85021.
Fund the increment of project costs, up to 50% of the
project's total costs, related to the project's public
benefits.
A project's public benefits would be defined as the following:
Any regional self-reliance improvement to meet water supply
needs.
Any net improvement to public trust resources, including the
conservation of species listed as endangered or threatened
under the California or federal Endangered Species Acts.
Eligible projects include:
Water reuse and recycling for non-potable reuse and direct and
indirect potable reuse.
Water-use efficiency and water conservation.
Local and regional surface and underground water storage,
including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects.
Regional water conveyance facilities that improve integration
of separate water systems.
Watershed protection, restoration, and management projects,
including projects that reduce the risk of wildfire or improve
water supply reliability.
Stormwater resource management.
Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage facilities.
Water desalination projects.
Decision support tools to model regional water management
strategies to account for climate change and other changes in
regional demand and supply projections.
The following are ineligible for grants from this chapter:
An urban water supplier that does not prepare, adopt, and
submit its urban water management plan in accordance with the
Urban Water Management Planning Act, unless and until the
urban water supplier complies with that act.
An agricultural water supplier that does not prepare, adopt,
and submit its agricultural water management plan in
accordance with the Agricultural Water Management Planning
Act, unless and until the agricultural water supplier complies
with that act.
A local agency that does not prepare, adopt, and submit its
groundwater management plan in accordance with what is
commonly known as AB 3030, unless and until the plan is
prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements of
8
that part. The groundwater management plan requirement would
not apply to a water replenishment district or to a local
agency that serves or has authority to manage an adjudicated
groundwater basin.
Other provisions include:
In selecting among proposed projects in a watershed, the scope
of the adopted integrated regional water management plan could
be considered, with priority going to projects in plans that
cover a greater portion of the watershed. If a plan covers
substantially all of the watershed, then the plan's project
priorities would be given deference.
An applicant would be required to demonstrate that the
integrated regional water management plan the applicant's
project implements addresses the risks in the region to water
supply and water infrastructure arising from climate change.
A cost share from nonstate sources of not less than 50 percent
of the total costs of the project would be required. The cost
sharing requirement may be waived or reduced for projects that
directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an economically
distressed area.
Not less than 10 percent of the funds authorized by this
chapter would be allocated to projects that directly benefit
disadvantaged communities.
Projects that achieve multiple benefits would receive special
consideration.
Funds would be allocated as follows:
$1,000 Mwould be distributed to regions pursuant to a
specific schedule. The schedule is based on $35 M to
each area, the balance distributed by population per
the 2000 Census.
250 Mfor direct expenditures, grants, and loans for urban and
agricultural water conservation and water use
efficiency plans, projects, and programs. Of these
funds, $100 M would be dedicated for improving on-farm
water use efficiency. Projects would not be required
to comply with the requirements of the Integrated
Regional Water Management Planning Act.
500 Mfor grants and low interest loans for water recycling and
advanced treatment technology projects. Eligible
projects would be required to implement a plan or
strategy by one or more regional water agencies or
integrated regional water management groups to
incorporate water recycling into the region's water
9
supplies.
Half of the funds would be allocated to a low interest
loan program.
Eligible projects would include:
Water recycling projects, including, but not
limited to, treatment, storage, conveyance, and
distribution facilities for potable and nonpotable
recycling projects.
Contaminant and salt removal projects,
including, but not limited to, groundwater and
seawater desalination, and associated treatment,
storage, conveyance, and distribution facilities.
Dedicated distribution infrastructure to
serve residential, agricultural, commercial, and
industrial end-users to allow the use of recycled
water.
Pilot projects for new salt and contaminant
removal technology.
Groundwater recharge infrastructure related
to recycled water.
Water supply reliability improvement for
critical urban water supplies in designated superfund
areas with groundwater contamination listed on the
National Priorities List under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
Technical assistance and grant writing
assistance for disadvantaged communities.
Projects would be selected on a competitive basis,
considering all the following:
Regional water supply reliability
improvement.
Water quality and ecosystem benefits related
to decreased reliance on diversions from the Delta or
instream flows.
Public health benefits from improved
drinking water quality.
Cost effectiveness.
Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas
emission impacts.
Reasonable geographic allocation to eligible
projects throughout the state.
Projects would not need to comply with the Integrated
10
Regional Water Management Planning Act.
250 Mfor grants and loans for multibenefit stormwater
management projects.
Would establish as policy of the State of California
that stormwater be managed for water supply benefits to
the maximum extent possible, in conjunction with other
benefits that effective stormwater management may
provide. Funding for stormwater management would be
required to be drawn from federal, state, regional, and
local agency resources, to the extent available.
Eligible projects could include green infrastructure,
rainwater and stormwater capture projects, and
stormwater treatment facilities. Development of plans
for stormwater projects would be required to address
the entire watershed and incorporate the perspectives
of communities adjacent to the affected waterways,
especially disadvantaged communities.
Chapter 8. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Sustainability. This
chapter would provide $1,000 M for grants and direct
expenditures to fund public benefits associated with projects
needed to assist in the Delta's sustainability as a vital
resource for fish, wildlife, water quality, water supply,
agriculture, and recreation. Funds would be allocated as
follows:
$400 Mto maintain and improve existing Delta levees.
These funds could be used for any of the following:
Local assistance under the Delta levee
maintenance subventions program.
Special flood protection projects.
Levee improvement projects that increase the
resiliency of levees within the Delta to withstand
earthquake, flooding, or sea level rise.
Emergency response and repair projects.
600 Mto protect, restore, and enhance the Delta ecosystem and
to promote the sustainability of the Delta. These
funds could be used for any of the following:
Projects to protect and restore native fish
and wildlife dependent on the Delta ecosystem,
including improvement of aquatic or terrestrial
habitat or the removal or reduction of undesirable
invasive species.
11
Projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from exposed Delta soils.
Scientific studies and assessments that
support the projects authorized under this section.
Chapter 9. Water Storage for Climate Change. This chapter
would provide $2,500 M to the California Water Commission for
expenditures, competitive grants, and loans for public benefits
associated with projects that expand the state's water storage
capacity, as follows:
$500 M would be appropriated by this act in each fiscal year
from 2015-16 to 2019-20, unless the moneys in the fund are
exhausted (see next bullet).
The Legislature may augment the appropriations in any year
until the funds are exhausted.
Appropriated funds would be available for encumbrance for
three years. Funds not encumbered within three years would
revert to the fund.
The Legislature would retain authority and responsibility for
oversight of the commission and expenditure of the funding
authorized by this chapter.
The purposes of this chapter would be to:
Construct new surface water storage projects.
Restore and expand groundwater aquifer storage capacity.
Restore water storage capacity of existing surface water
storage reservoirs.
Remediate or prevent contamination of groundwater aquifers.
Construct and expand stormwater retention facilities.
Funds may be expended solely for the following public benefits:
Ecosystem improvements, including changing the timing of water
diversions, improvement in flow conditions, temperature, or
other benefits that contribute to restoration of aquatic
ecosystems and native fish and wildlife.
Water quality improvements that provide significant public
trust fish and wildlife resources, or that clean up and
restore groundwater resources.
Flood control benefits, including, but not limited to,
increases in flood reservation space in existing reservoirs by
exchange for existing or increased water storage capacity in
response to the effects of changing hydrology and decreasing
snow pack on California's water and flood management system.
Regional water storage benefits for more than one drinking
water supplier or more than three million people.
Emergency response, including but not limited to, securing
emergency water supplies and flows for dilution and salinity
12
repulsion following a natural disaster or act of terrorism.
The commission, in consultation with the DFW, SWRCB, and DWR,
would be required to develop and adopt, by regulation, methods
for quantification and management of public benefits by December
15, 2015. The regulations would be required to include the
priorities and relative environmental value of ecosystem
benefits as provided by DFW and the priorities and relative
environmental value of water quality benefits as provided by the
SWRCB.
The public benefit cost share of a project would be limited to
50 percent of the total costs of the project.
A project in the Delta watershed or an area that receives water
from the Delta watershed could not be funded pursuant to this
chapter unless it provided measurable improvements to the Delta
ecosystem or to the Delta watershed.
Projects eligible for funding of the public benefits would
consist of only the following:
Surface storage projects identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta
Programmatic Record of Decision, excluding projects at Lake
Shasta.
Groundwater storage projects and groundwater contamination
prevention or remediation projects that provide water storage
benefits.
Conjunctive use and reservoir reoperation projects.
Local and regional surface storage projects that improve the
operation of water systems in the state and provide public
benefits, including reservoirs to store recycled water.
Projects that remove sediment, improve dam stability in
seismic events, or otherwise restore water storage capacity in
existing water storage reservoirs.
Except completion of environmental documentation and permitting
of a project, no funds could be allocated for a project until
the commission has approved the project based on the
commission's determination that all of the following have
occurred:
The commission has adopted the regulations quantification and
management of public benefits and the commission has
specifically quantified and made public the cost of the public
benefits associated with the project.
DWR has entered into a contract with each party that will
derive benefits from the project that ensures the party will
pay its share of the total costs of the project. The benefits
13
available to a party would be required to be consistent with
that party's share of total project costs.
DWR has entered into a contract with each public agency that
administers the public benefits, after that agency makes a
finding that the public benefits of the project for which that
agency is responsible meet all the requirements of this
chapter, to ensure that the public contribution of funds
pursuant to this chapter achieves the public benefits
identified for the project.
The commission has held a public hearing for the purposes of
providing an opportunity for the public to review and comment
on the information required to be prepared pursuant to this
subdivision.
The project feasibility studies have been completed.
The commission has found and determined that the project is
feasible, is consistent with all applicable laws and
regulations, and, if the project is in the Delta watershed or
an area that receives water from the Delta watershed, will
advance one or more of the policy objectives specified in the
Delta Reform Act.
All environmental documentation associated with the project
has been completed, and all other federal, state, and local
approvals, certifications, and agreements required to be
completed have been obtained.
In order to receive funding authorized by this chapter to
improve groundwater storage in an aquifer, the applicant would
be required to demonstrate that a public agency has authority to
manage the water resources in that aquifer.
Funds could not be expended for the costs of environmental
mitigation measures or compliance obligations.
A project would not be eligible for funding under this chapter
unless, by January 1, 2018, all of the following conditions are
met:
All feasibility studies are complete and draft environmental
documentation is available for public review.
The commission makes a finding that the project is feasible,
and will advance the long-term objectives of restoring
ecological health and improving water management for
beneficial uses.
The director receives commitments for not less than 75 percent
of the nonpublic benefit cost share of the project.
Funding authorized by this chapter could not be used to pay any
share of the costs of remediation attributed to parties
14
responsible for the contamination of a groundwater storage
aquifer, but may be used to pay costs that cannot be recovered
from responsible parties. Parties that receive funding for
remediating groundwater storage aquifers would be required to
exercise their best efforts to recover the costs of groundwater
cleanup from the parties responsible for the contamination.
Projects that leverage funding from local agencies and
responsible parties to the maximum extent possible would receive
priority consideration in groundwater storage project selection.
Other Provisions of the Bond:
No more than 5 percent of the funds allocated for a program
could be used to pay the administrative costs of that program.
Up to 10 percent of funds allocated for each program could be
used to finance planning and monitoring necessary for the
successful design, selection, and implementation of the
projects authorized under that program.
Water quality monitoring data would be required to be
collected and reported to the State Water Resources Control
Board (Board) consistent with the Boards surface water
monitoring data systems or groundwater monitoring data
systems.
Watershed monitoring data would be required to be collected
and reported to the Department of Conservation consistent with
the Department's statewide watershed program data system.
Each state agency administering a bond funded competitive
grant program would be required to develop project
solicitation and evaluation guidelines. The guidelines could
include a limitation on the dollar amount of grants to be
awarded. If the state agency previously has developed and
adopted project solicitation and evaluation guidelines that
comply with the requirements of this bond, it could use those
guidelines.
Exempts all bond funded programs, except those funded by
Chapter 9. Water Storage for Climate Change, from
Administrative Law review of guidelines, funding criteria,
etc.
Establishes the intent of the people that:
The investment of public funds pursuant to this division
will result in public benefits that address the most
critical statewide needs and priorities for public funding.
Beneficiaries pay for the benefits they receive from
projects funded from this bond.
Priority would be given to projects that leverage
private, federal, or local funding or produce the greatest
public benefit.
15
In making decisions regarding water resources, state and
local water agencies use the best available science to
inform those decisions.
Special consideration be given to projects that employ
new or innovative technology or practices, including
decision support tools that support integration of multiple
jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, water supply,
flood control, land use, and sanitation.
Evaluation of projects considered for funding pursuant
to this division would be required to include review by
professionals in the fields relevant to the proposed
project.
To the extent practicable, a project supported by funds
made available by this division would be required to
include signage informing the public that the project
received funds from the Clean and Safe Drinking Water Act
of 2014.
The State Auditor would be required to conduct an annual
programmatic review and an audit of expenditures from the
fund. The State Auditor would report its findings annually on
or before March 1 to the Governor and the Legislature, and
would make the findings available to the public.
The Legislature would be authorized to enact legislation
necessary to implement programs funded by this measure.
Bond funds may not be expended to support or pay for the costs
of environmental mitigation measures except as part of the
environmental mitigation costs of projects financed by this
bond. Funds provided by this division may be used for
environmental enhancements or other public benefits.
Bond funds may not be expended for the acquisition or transfer
of water rights except for a dedication of water for
environmental purposes.
Funds provided by this division could not be expended to pay
the costs of the design, construction, operation, mitigation,
or maintenance of Delta conveyance facilities. Those costs
would be the responsibility of the water agencies that benefit
from the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of
those facilities.
Eligible applicants would be public agencies, public
utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian
tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission's
California Tribal Consultation List, and nonprofit
organizations. A public agency could use funding authorized by
this division to benefit recipients of water from mutual water
companies that operate a public water system if the funding
provides public benefits. To be eligible for funding under
this division, a project proposed by a public utility would be
16
required to have a clear and definite public purpose, benefit
its customers, and comply with Public Utilities Commission
rules on government funding for public utilities.
Projects funded pursuant to this division may use the services
of the California Conservation Corps or certified community
conservation corps.
Each state agency that receives an appropriation of funding
made available by this division would be responsible for
establishing metrics of success and reporting the status of
projects and all uses of the funding on the state's bond
accountability Internet Web site, as provided by statute.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "The proposed 2009 Water Bond now on
the November 2014 ballot has been criticized by editorials and
pundits for its "pork." That bond's $1.785 billion section on
"Conservation and Watershed Protection" includes many earmarks,
to specific agencies for specific purposes. Those 23 earmarks
(and 8 subsidiary earmarks) include such projects as "watershed
education centers" for cities larger than one million people."
"AB 1331 was crafted - and continues to evolve - as a product of
the most ethical, inclusive and transparent process ever applied
to a state water bond by the Legislature. The process that has
spanned nearly a year included convening 14 public hearings (3
in the Assembly; 2 in the Senate; and 9 regional hearings across
the state)".
"Specifically, the $8 Billion Assembly Water Bond (AB 1331)
proposal includes:
" NO Earmarked Projects [Pork Free].
" $1 Billion for maintaining and improving Drinking Water
Quality.
" $1.5 Billion for protecting Rivers & Watersheds.
" $2 Billion to fund integrated regional water management that
will improve water delivery and help regions reduce the impact
of climate change on water supply.
" $1 Billion to protecting The California Delta that is critical
to the state water supply system and a key ecological
resource.
" $2.5 Billion for Water Storage projects that will also reduce
the impact of climate change on clean, reliable and affordable
water supply."
"State water infrastructure projects and conservation programs
will be without funding for more than 3 years if we don't pass a
water bond this year."
17
A coalition of 30 urban forestry related NGOs particularly
support the provision in the watershed portion of the bond that
"Promote[s] urban forestry pursuant to the Urban Forest Act of
1978."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Few organizations officially oppose AB 1331. That said, many
groups raise objections to one aspect of AB 1331 or another;
objections of one group often conflict with those of another.
ACWA, which does officially oppose AB 1331, argues that the bond
should have more funds for Delta sustainability, similar to that
in the current 2014 bond, and that storage funds should be
continuously appropriated to the California Water Commission.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, though not
officially opposed, finds AB 1331 "does not meet the needs of
the Monterey Peninsula and fails to adequately address the needs
of isolated coastal communities in general."
Other issues raised by critical though not officially opposed
organizations include:
" Insufficient/too much funding in specific categories.
" Lack of legislative appropriation of storage funds.
" Lack of identifying which conservancies will receive what
amount of funds.
" Concerns that recent amendments may revive the old
"environmental water account."
COMMENTS
Amendments Required To Resolve Fundamental Issues
A.Identifying Agencies. Previous resources bonds have, for most
of the programs authorized by those bonds, designated which
specific state agency would be responsible for managing and
disbursing the funds for each program. This practice has been
continued both in the current 2014 bond and in the other water
bonds introduced this year. In contrast, AB 1331 has
generally not designated which specific state agency would be
responsible for managing and disbursing funds for each
program. This would mean such decisions would need to be
resolved through the annual budget process.
From a practical perspective, this means each year the
Governor would propose which state agency would manage the
18
bond funds appropriated that year, placing the Legislature in
a purely reactive stance.
Additionally, not designating in the bond which agency is to
manage the bond program imposes administrative challenges on
the program managing agencies as well. If, for example, the
State Water Board knew that it would manage the entire $500 M
proposed for the water recycling program, it could at the
outset plan on having, say, one round of planning grants and
two rounds of projects grants. It could also work with the
stakeholder community to tentatively plan the timing of those
grant cycles.
Similarly, conservancies often work on very long timelines.
Knowing that a set amount of funds would be available over
time allows them to more effectively plan their acquisition
and restoration activities.
Amendment A amends the bill as follows:
Designates specific agencies to receive and manage funds
for each bond funded program authorized in this bill,
consistent with existing program authorities and practice.
For Chapter 6 regarding watershed activities, changes
the funding from a regional allocation to specific
allocations to the various state conservancies, Wildlife
Conservation Board, and Ocean Protection Council, in rough
proportion to that in SB 848 as it passed out of this
committee.
For Chapter 7 regarding regional water security,
designates DWR to manage the regional program, with project
awards to be made in collaboration with the State Water
Board.
B Continuous Appropriation. Previous versions of this bill
provided that funds for water storage projects would be
continuously appropriated to the California Water Commission.
As noted in the committee background for our September 25,
2013 informational hearing, continuous appropriations
eliminate one of the Legislature's key checks on the powers of
the executive branch, namely, the power to appropriate funds.
Recent amendments eliminated the continuous appropriation, but
not in a way that restores the Legislature's check on the
executive branch. Instead of having the funds continuously
appropriated to the Water Commission, the storage funds are
appropriated directly by this bond. That is, they are not
subject to appropriation by the legislature.
19
Amendment B amends the bill as follows:
Makes all bond funds, including those authorized for
water storage projects, subject to appropriation by the
Legislature.
C Regional Watershed - Who put the Natural Resources Agency
(NRA) in charge? This bill proposes that the NRA develop a
statewide natural resource protection plan, and further
requires all conservancies and agencies expending watershed
fund provide by this bond to advance the priorities set forth
in that plan.
Since at least the Wilson administration, Secretaries of NRA
have wanted to exert more influence on the operations of the
state's many conservancies and related agencies. To date,
they have received little if any Legislative support in their
efforts. This is in large part because the Legislature
created most conservancies because the local or regional
citizenry believed they were being ill-served by programs run
out of Sacramento. In response, the Legislature has created a
number of conservancies and other agencies to develop and run
regional watershed and resource conservation programs to
reflect the regions' priorities. Indeed, one of the reasons
Conservancies are supported by local citizenry is because
there are usually a large number of locally appointed
representatives on the conservancies' boards.
If it is in fact desirable to create a more centralized
structure for overseeing conservancies, a policy bill would be
a more appropriate vehicle.
Amendment C amends the bill as follows:
Deletes the requirement for the NRA to develop a
statewide natural resource protection plan.
D Regional Watershed - What's wrong with regional priorities
being developed regionally? This bill makes numerous
references to conservancies expending funds consistent with
undefined statewide priorities. As noted above, one of the
main reasons for having regional conservancies was so their
programs and projects would reflect regional priorities.
Amendment D amends the bill as follows:
Deletes references to statewide priorities in Chapter 6
and instead authorizes funds to be used for "projects that
protect and improve California watersheds, wetlands,
20
forests, and floodplains."
Deletes the requirement for conservancies to provide
biennial reports to the NRA regarding how expenditures
conform to statewide priorities.
Amendments Required To Solve Policy Concerns
E Compliance. The background observed that while each bond
proposal made grants contingent on complying with specific
statutes, proposals were not consistent regarding which
statutes are prerequisite. This measure does not require DWR
to certify that IRWMP applicants are compliant with the Urban
Water Management Planning Act, Agricultural Plans, or
Groundwater Management plan requirements. Instead, DWR would
likely continue its current practice of having agencies
self-certify that they are compliant.
While this may seem efficient, committee staff is aware of a
number of instances where agencies have in fact not been fully
compliant with statutory requirements and yet received bond
funds. Staff of the Delta Stewardship council have made
similar observations. If a requirement is important enough
for the Legislature to put it in statute, it is important
enough for the bond managing agencies to ensure full
compliance with that statute.
Amendment E amends the bill as follows:
Adds a requirement that DWR certify that IRWMP
applicants are compliant with the Urban Water Management
Planning Act, Agricultural Plans, or Groundwater Management
Plan requirements, as appropriate.
Makes other technical and conforming changes to the bill
regarding compliance with existing statutes.
F Regional Watershed - Multibenefit watershed projects for water
supply and other purposes? This bill proposes to provide
$250M to the NRA for projects to support projects consistent
with a conservancy's strategic plan. This is in addition to
the other funds provided to conservancies by this bond.
Instead of providing the NRA with money to fund more of the
same types of projects the conservancies were likely to fund
anyway, it might make more sense for a water bond to provide a
competitive pot of funds for multibenefit projects that
provide water supply and other benefits.
Amendment F amends the bill as follows:
Amends the provisions providing $250 M to the NRA for
21
projects to support projects consistent with a
conservancy's strategic plan to instead create a
competitive pot of funds for multibenefit projects that
provide water supply and other benefits.
G IRWMPs - Reduce reliance on the Delta? To some, the language
in §79741(c) significantly misstates existing "reduced
reliance on the Delta" language. Considering the sensitivity
of many different parties regarding that language, the bond
should either quote § 8501 directly and in full, or simply
require compliance with §85021.
Amendment G amends the bill as follows:
Deletes the paraphrase of §85021 and instead simply
cross-reference that section.
H Matching Rates. This bill requires a 50 percent cost share
for most grant programs, which can be reduced or waived for
disadvantaged communities. Some complain the 50% share is
difficult for smaller, though not disadvantaged, communities
to afford.
Amendment H amends the bill as follows:
Reduces matching rates to 25 percent that can be reduced
or waived for disadvantaged communities.
Amendments Necessary To Address Other Issues
I Funding Formulae. This measure would distribute IRWMP funds
across the regions as follows: Each region received a $35 M
allocation, and the balance was distributed based on 2000
population. An amendment is needed to distribute funding
based on 2010 population.
J Studies? The committee background for our September 25, 2013
informational hearing observed that none of the proposals
included funding for studying the feasibility of additional
surface storage projects. An amendment is needed to provide
$25 M to DWR for studying the feasibility of additional
surface storage projects.
K Regional Watershed - Fronting grant funds? Typically,
grantees are funded on a reimbursement basis. This insures
that state funds are only paid for authorized and otherwise
appropriate uses. This bill proposes to allow watershed funds
to be disbursed before the grantee has incurred any expenses.
Doing so removes a major tool in insuring state funds are not
22
misused. An amendment is need to delete the authorization for
watershed funds to be disbursed before the grantee has
incurred any expenses.
L Watersheds of statewide interest - Refuge water supply? This
bond would provide $500 M to fulfill the obligations of the
state in complying with specific settlements and other
obligations. Included in this list is "Section 3406(d) of
Title 34 of Public Law 102-575." This is a provision in the
federal law, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which
calls for California to fund 25 percent of the costs to
provide water for federal wildlife refuges. The state has
never acknowledged this as a valid obligation of the state and
has never provided funds for this purpose. An amendment is
needed to delete authorization of funding pursuant to Section
3406(d) of Title 34 of Public Law 102-575.
M Stormwater - Policy focus? This bond would authorize funding
for a broad range of stormwater projects. It might make more
sense for a water bond to provide a competitive pot of funds
for projects that provide water supply and potentially other
benefits. An amendment is needed to clarify that the funds
are for projects that provide water supply and potentially
other benefits.
N IRWMPs - The "increment of project costs related to the
project's public benefits?" This bond proposes to fund
increment of project costs, up to 50 percent of the total cost
of a project, related to the project's public benefits. The
public benefits are then defined as
Any regional self-reliance improvement to meet water
supply needs.
Any net improvement to public trust resources, including
the conservation of species listed as endangered or
threatened .
A couple of points: First, state funding for IRWMPs has never
been limited to "public benefits." Instead, when IRWMPs were
first funded though Proposition 50, the notion was to create
incentives for developing a multi-agency, multi-purpose
approach to water resources investments. This was a real
departure from the then traditional bond funding approach of
naming and funding specific single purpose projects. The fact
that some private benefits might accrue through the IRWMP
approach has not been an issue, at least not to date. Second,
water supply is not considered a "public benefit" in storage
chapter, so why would it be considered a public benefit for
23
this chapter? Third, if water supply is a public benefit,
what about flood management or other IRWMP eligible projects?
An amendment is needed to delete the limitation of IRWMP
funding to the increment of project costs related to the
project's public benefits.
O Storage - Emergency response? The bill provides that bond
funds can only be used to fund the public benefits of storage,
and further provides that "emergency response" is one of the
fundable public benefits. How would the emergency response
program work? Would we hold water in storage for emergencies?
If so, that water would likely provide little to no benefit in
most years, years where that water might be more beneficially
used elsewhere. Moreover, while it might be useful to have
funds to acquire water for emergency actions, those funds
should likely be available for acquiring water from any
available reservoir. However, that does not appear to be a
sufficient reason for additional public funds to construct a
new reservoir. An amendment is needed to delete emergency
response as a fundable public benefit for storage.
P Storage - regional water storage benefits? The bill provides
that bond funds can only be used to fund the public benefits
of storage, and further provides that regional storage
benefiting either more than one drinking water supplier or
more than 3 million people is one of the fundable public
benefits. It is not clear what the distinction is between
regional and either statewide or local benefits. It is also
not clear why this type of water supply is a public benefit
yet water supplies for other uses (such as agricultural uses)
are not. Typically, no type of water supply is considered a
public benefit, as the costs of providing that water can
easily be recovered through the water users' utility bills. An
amendment is needed to delete regional storage for drinking
water as a fundable public benefit.
Q Storage - Measurable improvements to the Delta? Previous
versions of this bill, along with the current 2014 bond and SB
848 include a provision that any storage facility constructed
in the Delta watershed must result in measurable improvements
to the Delta ecosystem. Recent amendments to this bill
deleted that language and instead put in place a reference to
language in the Delta Reform Act regarding "reducing reliance
on the Delta." While it is true that more projects across the
state are fundable under this chapter than the existing 2014
water bond, it is not clear why projects within the Delta
watershed should not continue to be required to improve the
24
Delta ecosystem. An amendment is needed to delete the new
language referring to reducing reliance on the Delta and add
language requiring projects within the Delta watershed to
provide measurable improvements to the Delta ecosystem.
R Other issues - There are a number of other amendments needed
to address minor, technical, or other policy consistency
issues. These include:
Linking funding eligibility to that authorized in
statute.
Linking program policies to those established in
statute.
Ensuring administrating agencies have necessary
authorities to oversee their programs.
Clarifying how superfund sites should be treated under
the recycled water program.
Resolving the definition of public benefits associated
with project funded to assist in the Delta's
sustainability.
Establishing parameters around the new Delta levee and
emergency response programs.
Revising the storage language to ensure Temperance Flat
and Los Vaqueros could be funded by this bond should they
prove feasible.
Resolving language regarding funding of environmental
compliance obligations.
Clarifying the use of CCC members whenever feasible.
Other minor, technical and clarifying amendments.
Related Measures:
SB 848 (Wolk) - would repeal the water bond currently on the
November 2014 and would replace it with the Safe Drinking
Water, Water Quality, and Water Supply Act of 2014, a $6.825 B
general obligation bond to finance a variety of water
resources related programs and projects.
SB 927 (Cannella and Vidak) - would amend the water bond
currently on the November 2014, reducing the authorized amount
from $11.14 B to $9.217 B, and rename the measure the Safe,
Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014.
SB 1370 (Galgiani) would repeal the water bond currently on
the November 2014 the Reliable Water Supply Bond Act of 2014,
a $5.1 B general obligation bond to finance surface water
storage projects.
AB 1445 (Logue) - would repeal the water bond currently on the
November 2014 and would replace it with the California Water
Infrastructure Act of 2014, a $5.8 B general obligation bond
25
to finance public benefits associated with water storage
projects.
AB 2043 (Bigelow and Conway) - would repeal the water bond
currently on the November 2014 and would replace it with the
Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014, a
$7.935 B general obligation bond to finance a variety of water
resources related programs and projects.
AB 2686 (Perea) - would repeal the water bond currently on the
November 2014 and would replace it with the Clean, Safe, and
Reliable Water Supply Act of 2014, a $9.25 B general
obligation bond to finance a variety of water resources
related programs and projects.
Referred to Environmental Quality Committee. This analysis does
not address issues within the purview of the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee. Issues likely to be raised by
that committee include:
Definitions of "disadvantaged community" and "severely
disadvantaged community."
Funds provided for safe drinking water needs including the use
of bond proceeds to fund operations and maintenance costs of
interim water treatment equipment and systems.
The structure of the grant and loan program for public water
system infrastructure improvements.
The provision of funds for private well owners.
Requirements for water quality monitoring.
Whether to provide funds to State Parks to comply with
drinking water and wastewater requirements.
Other water quality related issues raised in the committee
background for the September 25, 2013 joint hearing.
Referred to Rules for future referral to Governance and Finance
Committee. This analysis does not address issues within the
purview of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Issues
likely to be raised by that committee include:
The potential effect of this measure on the state's bonded
indebtedness.
The requirements for establishing low interest loan programs
authorized by this bond.
Other issues associated with the authorization of general
obligation debt.
SUPPORT
Amigos de los Rios
Benicia Tree Foundation
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Municipal Utilities Association (If amended)
26
California ReLeaf
California State Council of Laborers
California Urban Forests Council
California Water Association
Canopy
City of Beaumont
City Trees
Clean Water Action (If amended)
Community Services Employment Training
Community Water Center (With amendments)
Eastern Municipal Water District (If amended)
Friends of the Urban Forest
Goleta Valley Beautiful
Hollywood/Los Angeles Beautification Team
Huntington Beach Tree Society
Incredible Edible Community Garden
International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter
Keep Eureka Beautiful
Koreatown Youth and Community Center
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (In concept)
North East Trees
Oakland Landscape Committee
Our City Forest
Professional Engineers in California Government
Roseville Urban Forest Foundation
Sacramento Tree Foundation
Salton Sea Authority
Save Our Forest
Sonoma County Water Agency (If amended)
The Nature Conservancy
Three Valleys Municipal Water District (If amended)
Tree Davis
Tree Foundation of Kern
Tree Musketeers
Tree Partners Foundation
TreePeople
Trust for Public Land (If amended)
Upper District (If amended)
Urban Corps of San Diego County
Urban ReLeaf
Urban Tree Foundation
WateReuse
Woodland Tree Foundation
OPPOSITION
Association of California Water Agencies (Unless amended)
27
Northern California Water Association (Unless amended)
28