BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 356
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
356 (Williams) - As Amended May 5, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Natural Resources |Vote:|6 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires groundwater management plans for all
underground injection projects and requires public hearings
before the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal (DOGGR) can
exempt an aquifer. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes the Supervisor of DOGGR to require a well operator
AB 356
Page 2
to implement a monitoring program for underground oil
production tanks and facilities, and disposal and injection
wells. Requires DOGGR to annually review all projects for
compliance with applicable law.
2)Requires, DOGGR to hold a public hearing and gain concurrence
from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to
submitting a proposal to exempt an aquifer to U.S. EPA.
3)Authorizes SWRCB to concur with the proposal only if the
following conditions are met:
a) The proposed aquifer does not, nor will not in the
future, serve as a source of drinking water or other
beneficial uses.
b) Injection into the proposed aquifer will not impact the
beneficial use of nearby nonexempt aquifers.
4)Requires the operator of a project to submit a groundwater
monitoring plan to SWRCB, or the appropriate regional water
quality control board (RWQCB), for review and concurrence.
Exempts some wells as a specified. Authorizes SRWCB or, the
appropriate RWQCB, to revise monitoring plans to avoid
duplication and assist with regional monitoring plans
associated with oil and gas activities.
5)Authorizes SRWCB, or the appropriate RWQCB, to authorize a
well operator to rely on a regional monitoring plan instead of
their own monitoring sites.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 356
Page 3
1) Increased administrative costs for the Department of
Conservation (DOC)/DOGGR in the $10 to $15 million range
(special fund/fee authority) for DOGGR.
2) Increased costs for SWRCB in the $2 million to $2.5
million range (special fund/fee authority) for SWRCB.
This bill authorizes, subject to appropriation by the
Legislature, DOGGR's fee authority to be used to fund a
public entity's costs associated with implementing this
article.
3) Potential revenue delay or loss associated from the
state's share of oil extraction on lands regulated by the
State Lands Commission. The state's share is several
million dollars per year, depending on the price of oil.
COMMENTS:
1)Rationale. In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act gave the U.S.
EPA the authority and responsibility to control underground
injection to protect underground drinking water sources. In
1982, a primacy agreement was signed that allowed DOGGR to
implement the U.S. EPA's UIC program for oil and gas wells in
California. According to the author, it has recently been
discovered that there were two versions of this agreement, one
allowing exemptions for 11 aquifers another denying those
exemptions and requiring all existing injection wells into
those aquifers be phased out over 18 months.
A 2011 U.S. EPA audit of DOGGR's UIC program implementation
AB 356
Page 4
concluded that DOGGR was misclassifying underground sources of
drinking water and doing an insufficient job monitoring the
UIC program. In June 2014, it was discovered that DOGGR was
approving injection wells in nonexempt aquifers. This included
injections into the 11 aquifers that were not properly
exempted.
This bill codifies this new procedure to ensure that aquifer
exemptions will be thoroughly vetted by DOGGR and SWRCB with
public input.
2)Continuing Discussions. The author continues to meet with
stakeholders, the administration, and proponents and opponents
of this bill. The following issues are under discussion and
remain unresolved:
a) Definitions of covered wells
b) DOGGR's progress on addressing the issues raised by EPA
and the potential codification of deadlines.
c) The application and frequency of well monitoring.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 356
Page 5