BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 617 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 14, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE Marc Levine, Chair AB 617 (Perea) - As Proposed to Be Amended April 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SUMMARY: Substantially modifies portions of last year's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Specifically, this bill: 1)Modifies the current SGMA prohibition against counting any increase in groundwater pumping during the period that a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is under development as the basis for a later groundwater claim. Instead, this bill, allows the prohibition to terminate (and thus potentially a later claim to increased pumping) whenever a local agency takes "any action to control groundwater extractions," even if it occurs before a GSP is adopted. Makes other technical changes to the scope of the prohibition. 2)Defines "in lieu use" to mean the use of surface water by persons that could otherwise extract groundwater in order to leave groundwater in the basin. 3)Allows a private mutual water company to: AB 617 Page 2 a) Join GSAs formed by one or more public agencies pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA); and, b) Exercise all of the GSA powers provided by SGMA. 4)Allows Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to enter into public/private partnerships to facilitate the implementation of GSPs or elements of GSPs. 5)Waives state sovereignty and subjects state agencies to local agencies' GSPs unless a state agency is otherwise directed or authorized by statute. Requires all state agencies to indicate in writing to GSAs any grounds for noncompliance. 6)Deletes the requirement that when multiple GSAs in the same groundwater basin intend to adopt multiple GSPs then they must utilize the same data and methodologies and instead allows multiple GSAs adopting multiple GSPs to describe in their coordination agreements how they will use consistent data and methodologies. 7)Specifies that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the formation or election of a GSA. 8)Deletes the requirement that when multiple GSAs in the same groundwater basin develop multiple GSPs that they must submit them together to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for an evaluation of their consistency with each other and SGMA sufficiency and instead allows independent submissions to DWR in which each submitter explains how they deem their agency's plan consistent with the other plans. AB 617 Page 3 9)Deletes the requirement for GSPs to be coordinated such that the entire basin is covered and instead allows coordinated implementation among a subgroup or groups in a basin. 10)Prohibits the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) from designating a basin as probationary for failing to meet SGMA as long as a party can demonstrate they are in litigation. Requires the State Water Board to suspend SGMA deadlines for the duration of litigation plus any additional reasonable period of time that would allow for post-litigation compliance. 11)Prohibits the State Water Board from placing any portion of a basin in probationary status if there is an adopted GSP that is being implemented, without regard to the degree of implementation. EXISTING LAW: 1)Allows a private mutual water company to join with a public agency using a JPA, but limits the powers of the JPA to only those already held in common by all of the parties. 2)Mandates that local public agencies meet all "government in the sunshine" requirements including, but not limited to, making decisions during public meetings, making records publicly available, and disclosing conflicts of interest. 3)Mandates that private mutual water companies meet limited "government in the sunshine" requirements related to notices of meetings, public agendas, public testimony and public access to records. AB 617 Page 4 4)Requires 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 agricultural users; 5)Requires that local agencies in high- and medium-priority basins or subbasins subject to SGMA form one or more GSAs by June 30, 2017. 6)For basins or subbasins subject to SGMA, requires a GSP to fully cover the basin or subbasin but allows multiple GSPs as long as they do the following: a) Cover the entire basin or subbasin. b) Adopt a single agreement that explains how multiple planning efforts overlying the same groundwater resource will be coordinated. c) Agree upon and use the same data, methodologies, and assumptions when developing their plans. d) Submit the coordinated plans to DWR together by the appropriate deadline. 7)Requires that GSAs in basins with chronic overdraft develop and adopt GSPs for their basin or subbasin by January 31, 2020. AB 617 Page 5 8)Requires that GSAs in all other high- and medium-priority basins subject to SGMA develop and adopt GSPs by January 31, 2022. 9)Prohibits a pumper who increases pumping during the time the GSP is under development from using that pumping increase as the basis of an expanded claim to groundwater against other user's rights. 10)Requires that adopted GSPs utilize a 50 year planning horizon that will achieve sustainability in a basin or subbasin within 20 years and include identified milestones at five year intervals. 11)Defines sustainable groundwater management in a GSP as avoiding undesirable results in the basin or subbasin from groundwater pumping such as significant and unreasonable: lowering of groundwater levels: reduction of groundwater storage; seawater intrusion; degraded water quality; land subsidence; and, depletions of interconnected surface waters. 12)Provides GSAs with optional tools for reaching sustainability including, but not limited to, the ability to conduct investigations, collect fees, limit pumping, require measurement and reporting of groundwater extractions, monitor compliance, charge civil penalties for violations, and implement plans and programs to recharge a basin or subbasin. 13)Requires state agencies to pay the same groundwater extraction fees as local agencies but does not otherwise subject sovereign state agencies to local rule. 14)Authorizes the State Water Board to declare a basin in AB 617 Page 6 probationary status and adopt an interim plan for a basin, subbasin, or portion of a basin or subbasin, under three narrow circumstances: a) There is no GSA for all or a portion of a basin or subbasin by June 30, 2017; b) There is no GSP for all or a portion of a basin or subbasin by the relevant deadline; or, c) A submitted GSP is deemed inadequate by DWR and there is also either: i) Chronic overdraft in the basin or subbasin; or, ii) Groundwater pumping is causing a significant depletion of interconnected surface waters in the basin or subbasin. 15)Requires the State Water Board to exempt "good actors" from enforcement provisions and to model interim plans on "good actors'' plans. 16)Allows the State Water Board, in an area that has no GSA by June 30, 2017, to require direct reporting of groundwater extractions and to charge fees to administer that program. 17)Allows the State Water Board, when a basin is deemed probationary, to charge fees for interim management and fines for enforcement, including fines for material misstatements in reports of groundwater extraction or measurement. AB 617 Page 7 FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: SGMA took effect on January 1, 2015. This bill would substantially rewrite portions of the law. The nine major areas of change are covered in greater detail below with suggested Committee amendments, if any, following each section. 1) The rush to the pumphouse This bill changes the prohibition against trying to rely upon an increase in water during the time a GSP is under development as the basis for an increased right to groundwater. SGMA was designed to prohibit a "rush to the pumphouse" during the development of a GSP. Ordinarily, under the law, if a party in an overdrafted basin seeks an entitlement to a certain amount of the basin's groundwater, that party will, at that time of their claim, rely upon their most immediate past levels of pumping as the evidence for their claim. The problem is that the earliest deadline for a SGMA GSP is five years away with some GSPs not subject to enforcement for 7 or 10 years. That is a potentially large increment of time for parties to rush to increase their pumping in order to set up a basis for a later claim, either with the GSA or in the courts. SGMA specifically tries to disincentivize that behavior by prohibiting any pumping increase from the time the statute was enacted (January 1, 2015) to the time the GSP is adopted, from being used as the basis of a groundwater claim. This bill would change that but in a way that is unclear and ambiguous. This bill terminates the prohibition against increased pumping being used as the basis for a later claim to the date that a AB 617 Page 8 local agency takes "any action to control groundwater extractions." However, this bill does not set any threshold for the local agency action such as requiring that it will be adequately protective of the basin or even require that the local agency action was directed at all classes of pumpers. This bill also strikes the reference to a claim of prescription and simply states any "claim to the use of groundwater." Generally, if a basin is not in overdraft, than all overliers (persons with property overlying the basin) have a right to share the basin equally. However, once a basin is in overdraft - meaning the amount taken out is exceeding the amount recharging (i.e. refilling) the basin, over time - then any additional groundwater pumping is considered "adverse" to existing rights. This is a complex area of the law, but basically it means the person who is taking and relying upon the groundwater in a way that is open, hostile (meaning without permission), and "adverse" to the others in the basin, can then claim a "prescriptive" right to it. By striking the reference to prescription, a complex but understood concept, it is unclear how the author means to affect groundwater rights. Suggested Committee Amendments Committee staff suggests deleting Section 1 of the proposed amendments and maintaining the existing provision under SGMA. It is unclear how a local agency will know whether or not an action it is taking will be sufficiently protective of a basin or subbasin until it adopts its GSP. Meanwhile, this amendment to the existing law could allow local pumpers to bring pressure on local agencies to adopt de minimis or even non-binding suggestions to control groundwater extractions as a way of lifting the prohibition on increased pumping as a basis for enlarged rights. AB 617 Page 9 2) In-lieu use This bill proposes adding a definition of "in-lieu use." In-lieu use is a term that appears multiple times in SGMA so a definition could be helpful. Frequently, in-lieu use occurs with "conjunctive use" programs. These are programs where when a party has access to both surface water supplies and groundwater supplies, the surface water supplies are used in times of relative water abundance and groundwater supplies are used in times of relative water scarcity. To effectuate the conjunctive use program some parties who could use groundwater will take surface water "in lieu" of pumping the groundwater. The increment of water left in the ground is then credited to their action. Suggested Committee Amendments Clarify that in-lieu use, for the purposes of SGMA, only encompasses actions that are being taken as part of a GSP or other agreement with a GSA. SGMA acknowledges and encourages that GSAs may have "conjunctive use" programs. However, if the definition is not tied back to the GSP then it could create legal uncertainty where a party simply claims, as against the GSA, that their incidental surface water use was "in-lieu" of groundwater use and thus they are entitled to water from the basin. 3) Allowing private mutual water companies to join GSAs This bill proposes that private mutual water companies could join GSAs and then use all GSA authorities - fees, enforcement, and more either in furtherance of the GSP or outside of it. However, prior to AB 240 (Rendon), which took effect on January 1, 2014, there were no transparency requirements for mutual AB 617 Page 10 water companies. Now boards of mutual water companies are prohibited from conducting non-emergency business outside of meetings that interested persons have an opportunity to attend and speak at and that are noticed four days in advance. Mutual water companies must also make certain specified records available such as agendas and minutes of meetings, annual reports, etc. Committee staff recognizes that private mutual water companies that rely upon a groundwater basin may have a keen interest in partnering with public agencies in the management of the basin. However, Committee staff also recognizes that now that mutual water companies have put initial transparency measures in place they should be able to adapt to public agency requirements if they are going to stand in the shoes of public agencies and exercise GSA powers. Suggested Committee Amendments Clarify that if other members of the GSA are amenable a mutual water company or companies may join the GSA, however, all of the following will apply: a)Mutual water companies shall only exercise GSA powers when developing or implementing GSPs; b)Mutual water companies, when exercising the powers of the GSA, shall be subject to all Ralph M. Brown Act requirements (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.); and, c)Mutual water companies, when exercising the powers of the GSA, shall be subject to all Public Records Act requirements (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). AB 617 Page 11 4) Allowing GSAs to enter into public/private partnerships This bill would allow GSAs to enter into public/private partnerships by written agreement in order to implement the GSP or any element of the GSP. Sometimes public/private partnerships can, among other benefits, provide the capital that public agencies alone are unable to raise. For example, there is significant private ownership in the Kern Water Bank in Kern County. Suggested Committee Amendments Committee staff suggests that, at a minimum, such agreements must be in writing, subject to adequate transparency requirements, and discussed as a proposal during at least one public meeting before action could be taken on such an agreement at a subsequent public meeting. 5) Subjecting state agencies to local agency GSPs This bill would waive state sovereignty for any state agency that could be subject to a GSP, unless otherwise specified in law. However, SGMA already requires state agencies to pay the same fees as any nongovernmental entity and to work cooperatively with local agencies. This provision is problematic on several levels. Local agencies are subdivisions of the state over whom the state has authority to regulate in various ways. This provision flips that relationship on its head and now allows local agencies to regulate the state. Suggested Committee Amendments AB 617 Page 12 Committee staff suggests striking the proposed language subjecting the state to local authority. 6) Decoupling of multiple GSAs and GSPs in the same groundwater basin This bill has several provisions that work to decouple the coordination requirements for multiple GSAs in one groundwater basin. During the development of SGMA there was much discussion as to whether each groundwater basin or subbasin should be required to have one GSA and one GSP that covered the entire basin or if there could be multiple GSAs and GSPs that together covered an entire basin. The major question posed was: When there are multiple entities that are all depending on one shared resource, how can it be managed consistently so that sustainability is achieved and parties are not working at cross-purposes? Stakeholders successfully argued that they were differently situated from one another in a basin but that if all GSPs were coordinated and all GSAs used the same assumptions then it should be irrelevant as to whether it was one plan or multiple plans forming a unified whole. The compromise that was reached was that multiple plans would have to describe in writing how they would coordinate, would have to use the same data and methodologies for their plans, and would have to submit their plans together. This bill makes three changes to coordinated GSAs and GSPs: a)Deletes the requirement for multiple GSAs to use the same data and methodologies in their GSPs and instead requires that they describe in their coordination agreement how different data and methodologies used in their GSPs will be consistent; AB 617 Page 13 b)Deletes the requirement for GSAs to explain together how their multiple GSPs will be implemented together to achieve sustainable management for the basin or subbasin and instead allows each GSA to explain independently how its plan will be implemented with other plans to achieve sustainability; and, c)Deletes the requirement for GSAs to ensure that coordinated implementation of their plans covers the entire basin or subbasin. Suggested Committee Amendments Committee staff suggests striking the proposed language that decouples multiple GSAs and GSPs in a basin and allows different data and methodologies to potentially be used in plans which can then be submitted to DWR independently for evaluation. The provisions ensuring consistency between multiple plans in the same basin received substantial discussion during the development of SGMA, a statute that has only been in effect for four months. The onus should be on multiple actors in a basin to ensure their own coordination and not on the state to try to piece together multiple plans to see if in fact they are complying with SGMA. If each plan is interpreting for itself that it is consistent with other plans, inevitable finger-pointing will then ensue as to who's interpretation is the legitimate one. Some stakeholders voiced concerns that they would be found in AB 617 Page 14 violation of SGMA and the basin would be deemed probationary if they had to wait to submit their GSPs together because an outlier agency in the basin could hold things up. It is accurate that a basin could be deemed probationary if the entire basin isn't covered by multiple plans that were submitted by the deadline. However, GSAs are not prohibited from adopting and implementing their GSPs just because they cannot submit a complete package of GSPs for the basin. In other words, the basin itself would be deemed probationary, but "good actors" would be exempt from probationary status, and State Water Board action, if they have adopted a GSP that is demonstrating compliance with the sustainability goal. In addition, the State Water Board would consider their GSP as the basis for curing the noncompliant portion. (See number 8 below.) The amendments also change the language regarding multiple GSAs using the "same data and methodologies." The question that was raised by stakeholders is that "same data and methodologies" could be too restrictive and mean exactly the same even though some entities have invested heavily in their existing data and methodologies. However, DWR is currently developing guidelines for GSAs and GSPs. Since the earliest that a GSP is due is January 31, 2020, interested persons who are concerned with the interpretation of "same data and methodologies" should work with DWR to clarify the meaning as having each entity describe its own "consistency" is ambiguous. 7) GSA formation not subject to CEQA This bill specifies that GSA formation is not subject to CEQA. However, CEQA applies to the discretionary decision of a public agency to approve or fund a project that could cause potentially significant impacts on the environment. It is not clear that agency formation, in and of itself, is a "project" subject to CEQA. AB 617 Page 15 8) The potential litigation loophole This bill would waive SGMA deadlines for any local agency that can prove it is in litigation that is preventing it from "meeting a deadline or other requirement." The local agency would then be given additional post-litigation time to comply. This amendment could encourage litigation and may also create a loophole that swallows the entire act by enabling "friendly litigation" to toll SGMA deadlines indefinitely. Currently, the consequence of non-compliance with a deadline is that the State Water Board could declare a basin in probationary status and implement an interim plan. That plan could include fees, pumping restrictions, or other measures. Knowing the State Water Board could come into a basin is a powerful disincentive for locals to sue their GSA over the development or adoption of the GSP as it is a potentially worse consequence than working with the GSA. Conversely, if a GSA is attempting compliance in good faith, the State Water Board can take that into consideration when implementing interim measures. Suggested Committee Amendments Committee staff suggests striking the proposed language allowing litigation that could potentially toll SGMA compliance deadlines indefinitely. Tolling provisions were discussed during the development of the bill and rejected as counter to the goal of empowering and motivating locals to come together and develop their GSPs. 9) No longer requiring good actors to demonstrate compliance with the sustainability goal AB 617 Page 16 This bill would remove the requirement that to be excluded from probationary status a good actor must be demonstrating compliance with the sustainability goal. Some stakeholders have voiced concern that "demonstrating compliance with" could be interpreted to mean the basin must be sustainable. Other stakeholders are concerned that if there are multiple GSPs in a basin and they are all held up from submitting their coordinated plans by one outlier, then they will all be considered "bad actors." As explained in number 6 above, they would not all be considered bad actors. SGMA requires the State Water Board to exclude "good actors" from probationary status. Suggested Committee Amendments Committee staff suggests modifying the current language of Section 10735.2 (e) to read: e) The board shall exclude from probationary status any portion of a basin for which a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted and is implementing a groundwater sustainability plan that demonstrates compliance with the sustainability goal. This addition makes it clear that a GSA can adopt and be implementing a GSP even if all actors in the basin have not done the same. A GSP has twenty years to achieve sustainability with five year milestones. If more clarity is needed regarding what "demonstrating compliance with the sustainability goal" means that should be addressed in the SGMA guidelines currently being developed by DWR. Supporting arguments: The author states that the purpose of this bill is to "clarify and harmonize various provisions of [SGMA]" and that it also addresses fundamental policy questions AB 617 Page 17 related to the tolling of deadlines due to litigation, CEQA applicability, whether state agencies should comply with GSPs, and whether GSAs should be able to enter into public/private partnerships. Other supporters state the amendments will allow GSAs to "efficiently and effectively" implement SGMA. Note: Most stakeholders have not had time to review and comment upon the proposed amendments in their current form. Opposing arguments: Opponents arguments were regarding the bill in print which allows mutual water companies to join GSAs. Opponents state that will "enable privatized control of groundwater basins, defeating the purposes of [SGMA] to empower local management of groundwater resources." Instead, opponents state this bill would give private corporations "taxing and spending powers" and "disenfranchise the groundwater rights and needs of local landowners, water users, and the interconnected aquatic and riparian ecosystems." Note: Most stakeholders have not had time to review and comment upon the proposed amendments in their current form. Related Legislation This is one of 14 bills in the Legislature proposing changes to SGMA and its related statutes. The other bills are: AB 452 (Bigelow), which prohibits the State Water Board from using Water Rights Fund monies for SGMA enforcement, except funds collected from SGMA enforcement; AB 453 (Bigelow), which allows groundwater management plans adopted prior to SGMA to be amended and extended; AB 454 (Bigelow), which adds one year to the deadline to form a GSA or adopt a GSP; AB 455 (Bigelow), which requires 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 938 (Salas), which makes a minor technical change to SGMA; AB 939 (Salas), which changes 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 AB 617 Page 18 fee; AB 1242 (Gray), which requires the State Water Board, when setting in-stream flows, to take into account any groundwater management plan, including under SGMA, and mitigate for the effects upon a groundwater basin if surface water diverters decide to then turn to groundwater pumping; AB 1243 (Gray), which rebates 50% of all SGMA enforcement penalties back to local governments and water districts for groundwater recharge projects; AB 1390 (Alejo), which creates a streamlined process for groundwater adjudications and grandfathers them into SGMA; AB 1531 (Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee), which makes minor technical changes to SGMA; SB 13 (Pavley), which makes noncontroversial technical cleanup changes to SGMA; SB 226 (Pavley), which adds a groundwater adjudication section to SGMA; and SB 487 (Nielsen), which exempts SGMA projects from CEQA. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Valley Ag Water Coalition (sponsor) Kings River Conservation District Kings River Water Association Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District AB 617 Page 19 Opposition Center for Biological Diversity Analysis Prepared by:Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096