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