BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 474 HEARING DATE: April 23, 2013
AUTHOR: Nielsen URGENCY: No
VERSION: February 21, 2013 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Appropriation of Water: Sewerage Commission of
Oroville.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Under existing law:
Any person or entity may apply to the State Water Resources
Control Board (board) for a permit to appropriate water.
The board may issue a permit to appropriate water to any
applicant provided, among other things, that the water is put
to a reasonable and beneficial use, the exercising of the
rights under the permit would not harm any other legal water
rights holder, and the exercising of the right would not
unreasonably harm fish and wildlife. The SWRCB is further
authorized to impose conditions on the permits to ensure those
protections are realized.
The board must reject an application to appropriate water when
in its judgment the proposed appropriation would not best
conserve the public's interests.
The owner of a waste water treatment plant has the exclusive
right to the treated wastewater.
Also under existing law, there is a clearly delineated process
for:
Petitioning the board to change the point of water diversion
and/or place of use of appropriated water.
Petitioning the board to transfer or exchange water or water
rights on either a short term or long term basis.
Petitioning the board to change the point of discharge, place
of use, or purpose of use of treated wastewater.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
Authorize the Sewerage Commission Oroville (SCOR) to apply for
1
a permit to appropriate water up to the amount of treated
wastewater that is discharged into the Feather River.
Authorize the board to grant the permit subject to the terms
and conditions as in the board's judgment are necessary for
the protection of the rights of any legal user of the water.
Require the board to comply with the provisions of the water
code governing the appropriation of surface water and other
applicable law, and authorize the board to impose terms and
conditions authorized under those laws.
Allow water appropriated under the provisions of this bill to
be sold or utilized for any beneficial purpose.
Require the board to prepare a report assessing the potential
cumulative effects of granting the permit authorized by this
bill, and post the report on its Internet Web site by July 1,
2014.
Require SCOR to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the board
in creating the report.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "SB 474 will offer an additional
procedural option for Sewerage Commission Oroville to
potentially realize the benefit of its treated wastewater. It
will authorize SCOR to file an application with the State Water
Board for a permit to appropriate an amount of water equal to
the amount produced and discharged into the Feather River by
SCOR. The water may then be sold for any beneficial purpose."
"The appropriation option is important because revenue from
water sales will partially offset cost for treatment, thus
stabilizing costs for ratepayers in Oroville's chronically
depressed local economy, perhaps providing some stimulus for
economic development in the region."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None Received
COMMENTS
Does not, in fact, create "an additional procedural option." In
the analyses of previous versions of this and similar bills (see
below), this committee's staff expressed skepticism that the
bills would have materially changed state water law. This year,
staff asked the board four questions:
1.Is it the opinion of the State Board that SB 474 does not, in
fact, create an additional procedural option for the Sewerage
Commission?
2
2.Is it the opinion of the State Board that should SB 474 become
enacted and that the Sewerage Commission chose to file an
application with the State Board per this bill, that the State
Board would use existing processes and procedures for
evaluating and ruling on such an application?
3.Is it the opinion of the State Board that there is nothing in
state law or regulations to prevent the Sewerage Commission
from filing an application with the State Water Board for a
permit to appropriate an amount of water equal to the amount
produced and discharged into the Feather River by SCOR, with
the intent of then selling the water for any beneficial
purposes?
4.Is it the opinion of the State Board that there is nothing in
state law or regulations to prevent the State Board from
acting on an application with the State Water Board for a
permit to appropriate an amount of water equal to the amount
produced and discharged into the Feather River by SCOR, with
the intent of then selling the water for any beneficial
purposes?
Board staff responded "the short answer to all four questions is
yes."
(Board staff further noted that their answer was to a direct set
of questions posed by committee staff, and should not be
construed to imply an official position on the bill one way or
the other.)
SCOR wouldn't want to use that option anyway. Board staff
amplified on the short answer, explaining that even if the bill
did create a new option, which it doesn't, SCOR would be better
off using other provisions of existing law. Specifically,
current law allows persons wishing to change the point of
diversion, place of use or purpose of use of treated wastewater
to petition the board for approval of the change, with certain
exceptions.
There are numerous advantages to petitioning the board for a
change in an existing use of treated wastewater over initiating
a new application for appropriation. Two in particular are:
Fees are higher for applications than for petitions.
Applications are subject to the declaration of fully
appropriated streams, while petitions are not. The Feather
River is fully appropriated from July through September. So a
petition could be filed for year round use, while an
3
application could be filed for only nine months a year.
So, by petitioning the board for a change in an existing use of
treated wastewater, as allowed under current law, SCOR would pay
less and likely get more water.
Second verse, same as the first. The water rights provisions of
bill are virtually the same as last year's SB 1340 (LaMalfa).
That bill was vetoed by the governor. In his veto statement,
the governor noted:
"The troublesome provision of this bill is the requirement
that the State Water Board prepare a costly and unnecessary
report."
This bill includes a similar report, but provides that SCOR
cover those costs.
Perhaps more important, however, was the governor's statement:
"I share the goals of appropriating treated wastewater
which can be done without this legislation." (Emphasis
added)
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
SUPPORT
Sewerage Commission Oroville Region (Sponsor)
OPPOSITION
None Received
4