BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 453 Hearing Date: June 23,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bigelow | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |June 11, 2015 Introduced |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Dennis O'Connor |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Groundwater management.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR)
to evaluate groundwater basins and designate them as high-,
medium-, low-, or very low-priority, based on various factors,
such as the level of dependence upon the basin by municipal
and agricultural users;
2.Existing law provides for the development of groundwater
management plans, also known as AB 3030 plans. As of January
1, 2015, no new AB 3030 plans may be developed nor may
existing plans be amended. AB 3030 plans adopted before
January 1, 2015 will remain in effect until a groundwater
sustainably plan is adopted under the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA).
There are two exemptions from the ban on adopting new or
renewing existing AB 3030 plans.
a) AB 3030 plans can still be adopted or revised in low-or
very low-priority basins (but not for high- or
medium-priority basins.)
b) AB 3030 plans submitted as an alternative to a
groundwater sustainability plan can be adopted or revised
unless:
DWR has not, by January 1 2020, determined that the
plan meets SGMA requirements, or
AB 453 (Bigelow) Page 2
of ?
DWR later determines that the plan does not meet the
requirements of SGMA.
1.Under SGMA, a groundwater sustainability agency that adopts a
groundwater sustainability plan may impose fees on the
extraction of groundwater from the basin to fund costs of
groundwater management, including the costs of the following:
Administration, operation, and maintenance, including a
prudent reserve.
Acquisition of lands or other property, facilities, and
services.
Supply, production, treatment, or distribution of water.
Other activities necessary or convenient to implement
the plan.
Until a groundwater sustainability plan is adopted, a local
agency may impose such fees for an AB 3030 plan provided the
AB 3030 plan was adopted before January 1, 2015 is still in
effect for the basin.
1.Under existing law the following are deposited in the Water
Rights Fund:
a. Annual fees, such as those collected from holders of
permits or licenses to appropriate water.
b. Fees for service, such as for the application,
registration, petition, etc. of various water rights
related activities by the State Water Resources Control
Board.
c. Penalties, such as those assessed for violations of
cease and desist orders, violations of terms of water
rights, unauthorized diversion or use, or willful
misstatements of diversion and use.
d. Fees collected to cover the costs of State Board
intervention under the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act (SGMA). Such fees may include:
Fees for participation as a petitioner or party to
an adjudicative proceeding.
Fees for the filing of reports in probationary
basins and basins without a groundwater sustainably
agency.
These funds, upon appropriation, may be used for the
following:
a) Expenditure by the State Board of Equalization to
AB 453 (Bigelow) Page 3
of ?
administer the collection of annual fees from water rights
holders.
b) Payment of refunds of fees.
c) Expenditure by the State Board, including for the
following
Administering water rights.
Appropriation of water by DWR.
Activities associated with developing and enforcing
recycled water regulations.
Activities associated with establishing water
quality control plans in connection with plans and
policies that address the diversion or use of water.
Intervention by the State Board under the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
1.Allow existing AB 3030 plans to be renewed and amended for
high and medium priority basins, until a groundwater
sustainability plan is adopted.
2.Change one of the prohibitions on adopting or revising AB 3030
plans that are submitted as an alternative to a groundwater
sustainability plan:
From: If DWR has not, by January 1, 2020, determined
that the plan meets SGMA requirement;
To: If DWR has, by January 1, 2020, determined that the
plan does not meet SGMA requirements.
1.Allow a local agency, in addition to imposing fees, to require
registration of wells and collect groundwater extraction
information for the purpose of revising an AB 3030 plan.
2.Prohibit the use of Water Rights Fund monies to fund
intervention by the State Board under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the Author, "AB 453 clarifies and harmonizes
certain provisions of SGMA to ensure that an AB 3030 plan can be
amended to utilize new SGMA financing authority as well as have
AB 453 (Bigelow) Page 4
of ?
access to the tools required precedent to the ability to
exercise such financial authority. Since an AB 3030 plan may
serve as an alternative to a GSP, subject to approval by the
Department of Water Resources, it is both necessary and
desirable that local agencies have clear authorization to amend
existing AB 3030 plans. Further, given the period of time that
it will take to develop and adopt a GSP (between five and seven
years, depending on the groundwater basin, it makes sense to
provide local agencies that currently rely on an AB 3030 plan
for groundwater management to improve on those plans and to
begin the process of recovering groundwater basin levels as soon
as possible."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
A coalition of environmental groups assert, "AB 453 allows
current groundwater management plans to be amended until such
time as a groundwater sustainability plan is adopted. This is
in direct conflict with the legislation adopted just a few
months ago and seems unproductive and unnecessary, given the
timeline in which SGMA plans must be completed."
COMMENTS
What Are AB 3030 Plans? In 1992, the legislature enacted AB
3030 (Costa, Stat. 1992, Ch. 947). That bill authorized, but
did not require, any local agency that is not part of an
adjudicated basin and that provides water service to develop a
groundwater management plan. The bill provided that a local
agency may develop an AB 3030 plan after it has noticed its
intent to develop a plan, held hearings on adopting the plan,
and then adopt the plan. AB 3030 plans must include a wide
variety of components including regulation of groundwater
levels, mitigation of water quality degradation, review of land
use plans, monitoring programs, and facilitation of conjunctive
use projects. Agencies that met the requirements of AB 3030
were granted the authorities of water replenishment districts,
which included the ability to fix and assess fees to fund its
groundwater management activities. (It appears that no agency
has ever exercised the authority to assess fees granted by this
last provision).
In response to growing questions about the efficacy of AB 3030,
1997, the legislature enacted SB 1245 (Costa, Stat. 1997, Ch.
AB 453 (Bigelow) Page 5
of ?
548). That bill required the Department of Water Resources
(DWR) to prepare a report on the status of groundwater
management plans throughout the state. DWR produced the report
in 1999.
Among the findings of DWRs "Groundwater Management in
California" report were:
149 agencies had an AB 3030 plan.
Not all agencies that have adopted an AB 3030 groundwater
management plan have adopted rules and regulations as required
by AB 3030.
Not all agencies that have adopted an AB 3030 groundwater
management plan have implemented programs as defined in the
Water Code.
The report also made a number of recommendations. These include:
Require local agencies to submit groundwater management plans
to DWR
Develop a map that shows agency boundaries in each basin and
whether that agency has adopted a groundwater management plan.
Consider incentives to encourage more agencies to engage
actively in groundwater management.
Many of those recommendations and more were addressed in SB 1938
(Machado, Stat. 2002, Ch. 603). SB 1938 amended AB 3030 to:
Require that groundwater plans adopted in compliance with SB
1938's provisions were to be submitted to DWR.
Require local agencies prepare a map that details the area of
the groundwater basin and the area of the local agency, as
well as the boundaries of other local agencies that overlie
the basin.
Require the groundwater management plan to includes basin
management objectives for the basin.
Include much more detail in the plan regarding the condition
of the basin and the plans to improve or otherwise manage the
basin.
Require local agencies to comply with the provisions of SB
1938, in order to receive state funding
Plans that met the requirements of SB 1938 were still AB 3030
plans, but were also known as being 1938 compliant.
AB 453 (Bigelow) Page 6
of ?
In 2012, DWR and the Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA) jointly conducted a survey of groundwater management
agencies. Among the findings were:
There were about 118 groundwater plans in all.
82 of the plans were enacted after SB 1938.
32 of the plans were actually SB 1938 compliant (39 percent of
the post 1938 plans, or 27 percent of all AB 3030 plans).
The findings of that survey were part of the reason ACWA engaged
in the development of SGMA.
Changes the Default Assumptions. Currently, alternative plans
submitted to DWR are presumed not to satisfy the requirement for
such plans unless, before January 31, 2020 DWR finds that it
does meet the requirements. This bill would switch the default
so that alternative plans submitted to DWR are presumed to meet
the requirements for such plans unless, before January 31, 2020
DWR finds that it does not meet the requirements. Given that
less than half of the post SB 1938 plans were truly SB 1938
compliant, it may not be prudent to presume that most agencies
submitting alternative plans will actually have complaint
alternative plans. (See suggested amendment).
Jumping The Gun? Currently, once a local agency becomes the
groundwater sustainability agency, SGMA grants it the powers and
authorities necessary to develop and implement a groundwater
sustainability plan. This bill proposes to give agencies with an
AB 3030 plan the powers and authorities of a groundwater
sustainability agency to impose fees, to require registration of
wells and collect groundwater extraction information for the
purpose of revising an AB 3030 plan. These powers would be
available whether or not the agency ultimately becomes a
groundwater sustainability agency.
To avoid conflicts between a current AB 3030 agency and a future
groundwater sustainability agency regarding fee structure and
requirements for well registration and pumping data, it seem
reasonable to require to hold off on granting new groundwater
management powers until the ultimate governance structure is
established. (See suggested amendment).
Related Bills. A number of bills were introduced this year to
address one or more aspects of groundwater management in general
AB 453 (Bigelow) Page 7
of ?
and SGMA in particular. Bills still under active consideration
this year are:
AB 617 (Perea)Makes numerous changes throughout SGMA: Some
changes are minor and technical; others are
substantive policy changes, such as eliminating the
requirement that a groundwater sustainability
agency submit its groundwater sustainability plan
to DWR as a condition of a groundwater
sustainability agency becoming authorized exercise
its powers to implement SGMA.
AB 938 (Salas)Makes a minor technical change regarding
reprioritization of groundwater basins under SGMA.
AB 939 (Salas)Makes a minor technical change regarding making
data in support of a proposed available to the
public.
AB 1242 (Gray)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board,
when setting flow requirements for a Water Quality
Control Plan (WQCP), to take into consideration any
applicable groundwater sustainability plans if a
groundwater basin could be affected and to identify
projects for fish recovery that may be undertaken
in lieu of instream flows.
AB 1390 (Alejo)Streamlines legal processes used to assign water
rights in a groundwater basin.
SB 13 (Pavley)Makes numerous non-substantive technical changes
to SGMA.
SB 226 (Pavley)Streamlines legal processes used to assign water
rights in a groundwater basin.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT
On page 3, delete lines 16 through 39. Delete page 4.
SUPPORT
Valley Ag Water Coalition (Sponsor)
African American Farmers of California
Association of California Water Agencies
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Fresh Fruit Association
AB 453 (Bigelow) Page 8
of ?
California Latino Water Coalition
California Rice Commission
California Tomato Growers Association
National Hmong American Farmers
Nisei Farmers League
Regional Water Authority
Rural County Representatives of California
Western Agricultural Processors Association
OPPOSITION
Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountably
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
-- END --