BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 453 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 453 (Bigelow) As Introduced February 23, 2015 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes | |----------------+------+-----------------------+--------------------| |Water |14-0 |Levine, Bigelow, | | | | |Dahle, Dodd, Beth | | | | |Gaines, Cristina | | | | |Garcia, Gomez, Gray, | | | | |Harper, Lopez, Medina, | | | | |Rendon, | | | | |Ridley-Thomas, | | | | |Williams | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Allows an existing groundwater management plan to be amended until a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is adopted under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to evaluate groundwater basins and designate them as high, medium, low or very low, according to various factors including, but not limited to, level of dependence upon the basin by municipal and AB 453 Page 2 agricultural users; 2)Requires that local agencies in high- and medium-priority groundwater basins subject to SGMA form one or more local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) by June 30, 2017, in order to develop and implement GSPs to sustainably manage the groundwater basin or subbasin, as defined. 3)Requires that GSAs in basins with chronic overdraft develop and adopt GSPs for their groundwater basin or subbasin by January 31, 2020. 4)Requires that GSAs in all other high- and medium-priority groundwater basins subject to SGMA develop and adopt GSPs by January 31, 2022. 5)Allows a local agency to submit to DWR, by January 1, 2017, a groundwater management plan (GMP) developed before SGMA took effect on January 1, 2015, so that DWR can determine whether that existing GMP meets SGMA objectives and is therefore functionally equivalent to a SGMA GSP. If so, the local agency is not required to adopt a new SGMA GSP. 6)After January 1, 2015, prohibits a local agency in a high- or AB 453 Page 3 medium-priority basin subject to SGMA from adopting a new groundwater plan pursuant to any other groundwater planning statute except SGMA or amending an existing non-SGMA GMP. FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS: This bill allows local agencies to amend existing GMPs sometimes referred to as "AB 3030 plans" or "SB 1938 plans." Currently, SGMA and its related statutes expressly prohibit a local agency from amending its current GMP if it is subject to SGMA. Instead, the local agency can submit a pre-existing GMP to DWR by January 1, 2017, for a determination as to whether it is functionally equivalent to SGMA's objectives. Otherwise, it must formulate a SGMA GSP that meets sustainability goals. There is nothing in SGMA that precludes a local agency from relying upon or incorporating information from its current GMP in the new GSP. The author and supporters state this bill is necessary in order to provide locals with groundwater basin management flexibility in order to deal with current challenges, such as drought, in the interim before they adopt a SGMA GSP. Other supporters state that local agencies should be able to impose fees on groundwater extraction and exercise other SGMA provisions ahead of either developing a GSP or presenting the GMP to DWR as an alternative to a GSP. Opponents state that this bill will cause delays to, and compete for resources from, the implementation of SGMA. Opponents state that this bill is in direct conflict with the legislation adopted just a few months ago and seems unproductive and unnecessary given AB 453 Page 4 the timeline in which SGMA must be completed. Opponents state that effective groundwater management is sorely needed in California and this can best be done through the SGMA process. As stated in the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife (AWPW) Committee analysis, there are pros and cons to allowing a current non-SGMA plan to be amended. Allowing amendment could provide flexibility during the interim period while the GSP is under development or it could dilute local agency efforts and divert them from the GSP preparation. The author was encouraged during the AWPW Committee hearing, on a moving-forward basis, to work with stakeholders to develop provisions clarifying how amendment of existing plans will support GSP development and not undermine it. This is one of 14 bills in the current legislative session proposing changes to SGMA and its related statutes. The other bills are: AB 452 (Bigelow), prohibiting the State Water Board from using Water Rights Fund monies for SGMA enforcement, except funds collected from SGMA enforcement; AB 454 (Bigelow) adding one year to the deadline to form a GSA or adopt a GSP; AB 455 (Bigelow) requiring the Judicial Council to come up with a 270-day process for completing all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legal challenges to SGMA projects; AB 617 (Perea) adding mutual water companies to GSAs; AB 938 (Salas) making minor technical changes to SGMA; AB 939 (Salas) changing the time period for providing technical data upon which a fee is based from 10 days to 20 days before the meeting to adopt the fee; AB 1242 (Gray) prohibiting the State Water Board from setting in-stream flows standards unless the Board mitigates for the potential local response of increased groundwater use; AB 1243 (Gray) rebating 50% of all SGMA enforcement penalties back to local governments and water districts for groundwater recharge projects; AB 1390 (Alejo) creating a streamlined process for groundwater adjudications and exempting them from SGMA, except minimal reporting requirements; AB 1531 (Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee) making minor technical changes to SGMA; SB 13 (Pavley) making AB 453 Page 5 noncontroversial technical cleanup changes to SGMA; SB 226 (Pavley) adding a streamlined groundwater adjudication section to SGMA; and SB 487 (Nielsen) exempting SGMA projects from CEQA. Analysis Prepared by: Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0000155