BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 1739 (Dickinson) - Groundwater management.
Amended: August 7, 2014 Policy Vote: NR&W 7-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes (see staff comment)
Hearing Date: August 11, 2014 Consultant:
Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 1739 would enact the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act, which would establish procedures and guidelines
for the management of groundwater in California.
Fiscal Impact:
No additional state costs for FY 2014-15 through FY 2018-19
to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for initial
activities.
Annual costs $3.5 to $4 million from the General Fund
beginning in FY 2017-18 to DWR to review plans and to
provide ongoing technical support.
Annual costs of $260,000 to $390,000 from the Water Rights
Funds (special) for FY 2014-15 through FY 2016-17 to the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for initial
activities.
Annual costs of $325,000 to $600,000 from the General Fund
beginning in FY 2017-18 to the SWRCB for review of GSPs.
Unknown annual costs, estimated to be approximately $1.5 M,
from the Water Rights Fund (special) to the SWRCB for
enforcement actions beginning in FY 2017-18. These costs
would be at least partially offset by fees.
Background: Existing law allows certain existing local agencies
to develop groundwater management plans (Water Code §10750 et
seq.), which are commonly referred to as AB 3030 plans. These
plans must be developed with public hearings and only if less
than half of the landowners in the proposed district do not
protest the development of the plan. However, there is no
mandatory statewide system of groundwater management.
In January, the Governor released the California Water Action
Plan which includes a call to improve sustainable groundwater
AB 1739 (Dickenson)
Page 1
management.
Proposed Law: This bill would create the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act, which would, in short, require that all high- or
medium-priority groundwater basins be managed under a
groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or coordinated GSP, except
if the basin is a specified adjudicated area. The GSPs would be
developed by Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), which
can be a local agency or combination of local agencies that
jointly elect to be a GSA through a joint powers agreement or a
memorandum of agreement.
DWR would be required to review the GSP after adoption and then
at least every five years thereafter for compliance and
achievement of sustainability goals. If no adequate plan is
developed or if the GSP is not being properly implemented, DWR
and the SWRCB would be authorized to designate a basin a
probationary basin. Such a designation would trigger a process
by which a GSA will first be given an opportunity remedy the
deficiency. If this does not occur, the SWRCB would be
authorized to develop an interim plan for the probationary
basin, which would remain in effect until any deficiencies are
resolved.
This bill would also require a planning agency to refer to
either adopted GSP or an interim plan adopted by the SWRCB
before a general plan is substantially amended. A GSA would also
be required to provide planning agencies with specific
information.
Specific responsibilities for the GSAs, DWR, and SWRCB are as
follows:
GSAs would be:
Required to notify DWR of its creation and intent to undertake
sustainable groundwater management by January 1, 2017.
Required to consider the interests of all beneficial uses and
users of groundwater.
Required to maintain a list of persons interested in receiving
notices regarding plan preparation, meeting announcements,
availability of draft plans, and other relevant documents.
Authorized to conduct various investigations for the purpose
of managing the groundwater basin. This bill would establish
civil penalties that may be imposed by the GSA for extractions
AB 1739 (Dickenson)
Page 2
in excess of authorized amounts.
Authorized to require metering of groundwater extractions and
to control groundwater extractions.
Required to develop a GSP, if the basin is a high or medium
priority basin that includes specified information and aims to
achieve a sustainability goal in the basin within 20 years of
the implementation of the plan. Extensions may be granted in
two five-year increments beyond the 20-year sustainability
timeframe upon showing of good cause, as determined by DWR.
The GSA must submit the GSP to DWR for review after adoption.
The GSP must be adopted by January 1, 2020.
Required to report annually to DWR specified information after
the GSP is adopted, including, among other things, the
groundwater basin elevation, aggregated extraction in the past
year, and surface water used for groundwater recharge.
Allowed to submit an alternative GSP if that alternative meets
specified requirements.
Required to periodically evaluate its GSP.
Required to hold a public hearing before adopting or amending
a GSP
Allowed to impose a fee on groundwater extraction or other
regulated activity to fund the costs associated with the GSP.
This bill establishes a procedure to allow for fee collection
by the GSA.
DWR would be:
Required to consider modifying groundwater basin boundaries
upon request of a local agency. DWR may require the local
agency to provide the information necessary to justify
changing the basin boundaries. The California Water Commission
would be required to hear and comment on any draft boundary
revisions.
Required to categorize each groundwater basin as a high,
medium, low, or very low priority by January 1, 2017. DWR
would be required to reassess the categorizations with every
update of the California Water Plan (Bulletin 118). This bill
would establish the criteria that would inform the
categorization.
Required to develop best management practices (BMPs) for the
sustainable management of groundwater by January 1, 2017. The
BMPs must be developed with at least three public meetings
throughout the state and one at a public meeting of the
California Water Commission.
Required to provide technical assistance to groundwater
AB 1739 (Dickenson)
Page 3
extractors to promote water conservation.
Allowed to provide technical assistance to a GSA upon request.
Required to periodically review GSPs, at least every five
years, for compliance with required elements and whether the
GSP is likely to achieve the sustainability goal for the
basin. The first review must occur within two years of its
submission by a GSA. DWR may recommend correction actions to
address any deficiencies it identifies.
DWR would be required to develop, in consultation with the
SWRCB, guidelines for evaluating GSPs and implementations of
GSPs. The development of the guidelines would be exempt from
the Administrative Procedures Act, but would need to be
accomplished in a public process.
Required to post on its website adopted GSPs and provide 60
days for the public to submit comments to DWR regarding the
plan.
Authorized to determine, in consultation with the SWRCB, that
a GSP is inadequate or is being insufficiently implemented.
The SWRCB would be:
Authorized to use the Water Rights Fund to fund its costs
associated with the SWRCB's oversight and enforcement
responsibilities in groundwater.
Required under §1329.5 to adopt of schedule of fees to recover
costs associated with its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities. The fees would be required to be set in an
amount sufficient to cover all costs incurred and expended
from the Water Rights Fund, though the costs would be able to
be recovered over a period of years rather than immediately in
the year in which the costs were incurred.
Allowed to designate a basin a probationary basin if certain
conditions are met, such as DWR has determined that no GSA is
formed by January 1, 2017 or no adequate GSP or alternative
has been developed by January 1, 2020, and the SWRCB finds
that the basin is in a state of long-term overdraft.
Allowed to develop an interim plan for a probationary basin if
a GSA has failed to remedy the deficiency with their GSP or
implementation of their GSP. The interim plan would be
required to be developed with public hearing and would be
required to contain specified information.
Allowed to rescind the interim plan if it, in consultation
with DWR, determines that the GSP or alternative has been made
adequate.
Be allowed to issue a cease and desist order for violations of
AB 1739 (Dickenson)
Page 4
any interim plan it develops.
Related Legislation: SB 1168 (Pavley) is identical to this bill.
Currently in Assembly Appropriations.
Staff Comments: AB 1739 and SB 1168 are the result of ongoing
negotiations between the Legislature, the Governor, and multiple
stakeholders. As these negotiations continue, various details in
the bills may continue to evolve.
Costs to DWR : To lay the groundwork for the GSAs that must be
formed by January 1, 2017 and the GSPs that must be developed
for select basins by January 1, 2020, DWR needs to evaluate
groundwater basin boundaries and to categorize the basins as
high, medium, low, and medium low priorities. The costs for
these initial activities will be covered by funds already
supplied in the approved 2014-15 Budget. DWR was given $2.5 M in
FY 2014-15 and $5 M in each year thereafter through FY 2018-19
to expand and provide more regular updates to Bulletin 118.
DWR will also incur costs in the early years to provide
technical assistance to GSAs. A key cost in providing this
technical assistance is groundwater elevation monitoring. As
part of the drought action package adopted in March (SB 103
(Budget) Chapter 2, 2014), DWR was allocated $2 M in the drought
action package for groundwater elevation monitoring.
Once these initial activities are completed, in later years, DWR
will incur costs to review GSPs. Review cost will be ongoing as
GSPs are required to be reviewed at least once every five years.
There will also be ongoing costs to support the SWRCB when a
basin has been designated a probationary basin. These ongoing
costs, beginning in FY 2017-18, will likely be between $3.5 and
$4.0 million.
Costs to SWRCB : In the early years under this bill, SWRCB's
activities will mostly be in support of DWR's early activities
including the development of guidelines to review GSPs and
laying the groundwork for potential enforcement actions. As
such, staff estimates that SWRCB's costs in FY 2014-15 through
FY 2016-17 will be between $260,000 and $390,000 annually. Once
the deadlines start approaching (2017 for the formation of GSAs
and 2020 for the adoption of GSPs), SWRCB will start incurring
costs to review GSPs along with DWR. To review 12-25 plans a
AB 1739 (Dickenson)
Page 5
year, the SWRCB estimates that it will have between $325,000 and
$600,000. These review costs would come from the General Fund.
SWRCB's enforcement activities will also ramp up once deadlines
start approaching. Because it is unknown how compliance with
this bill is likely to proceed and because this bill gives
SWRCB's discretion in when to intervene in a groundwater basin,
future costs are unknown. The SWRCB estimates that its costs may
grow to approximately $1.5 M annually if it designates up to two
basins as probationary, develops 1-2 interim plans, takes 2-4
enforcement actions, and administers fees. Enforcement costs
would be borne by the Water Rights Fund and would presumably be
recovered in its entirety from new fees, which are presumably
deposited into the Water Rights Fund (see comment on technical
issues). However, because the bill gives the SWRCB the ability
to recover its costs over several years from fees, there may be
temporary deficiencies in fee revenues to cover costs, which
would put short-term cost pressures on the Water Rights Fund.
No reimbursable mandate: This bill creates a state-mandated
local program as it requires GSAs, which are comprised of local
agencies, to perform a number of activities. As GSAs would have
fee authority, staff believes that their costs would not be
reimbursable by the state.
Technical issues: This bill gives the SWRCB fee authority,
however the bill does not specify where the fees should be
deposited. As the fees would be assessed during enforcement
activities, staff recommends that the fees be deposited into the
Water Rights Fund.
Staff also notes that the bill exempts DWR from the
Administrative Procedures Act for the development of guidelines
for GSP review in order for DWR to complete its responsibilities
in accordance with the timelines established in the bill. Staff
recommends that DWR instead be authorized to adopt emergency
regulations, similar to other sections of the bill that grant
the SWRCB the ability to adopt emergency regulations.