BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 617 (Perea) - Groundwater.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: July 16, 2015 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 9 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 617 would make changes regarding the development
and use of Sustainable Groundwater Plans.
Fiscal
Impact:
Unknown costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of
dollars, to the General Fund for the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) to develop regulations on what constitutes
"consistent" data.
Unknown costs, but likely in the mid-tens of thousands of
dollars per disputed data set, to the General Fund for DWR to
assist local agencies on determining whether specific data
sets are consistent or not.
Unknown costs, likely in the mid-tens of thousands of dollars
per notice, to the Water Rights Fund (special) to the State
Water Resources Control Board (board) to investigate notices
that a state entity is not cooperating in the implementation
of a groundwater sustainability plan.
AB 617 (Perea) Page 1 of
?
Background: Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) which required
groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) to develop a
groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) for high and medium
priority groundwater basins in California. The GSA is required
to consider the interest of all beneficial users and users of
groundwater when developing and implementing GSPs, including
disadvantaged communities (WAT §10732.2). DWR and the GSA may
provide technical assistance to entities that extract or use
groundwater to promote water conservation and to protect
groundwater resources. Furthermore, DWR may provide technical
assistance to any GSA, upon request, for the development and
implementation of a GSP. (WAT §10729)
The Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act authorized
a regional water management group to prepare and adopt an
integrated regional water management plan (IRWMP) with specified
components. The IRWMP may include actions regarding groundwater
management planning.
Proposed Law:
This bill would make several changes in regards to SGMA.
Specifically, this bill would:
Specify that a regional water management group may incorporate
a groundwater sustainable plan into its integrated regional
water management plan.
Make changes to the establishment of a prescriptive right to
water prior to the adoption of a GSP.
Define "in-lieu use" as the use of surface water by persons
that could otherwise extract groundwater in order to leave
groundwater in the basin. And explicitly allow a GSP to
include in-lieu use projects.
Explicitly allow a GSA to enter into written agreements and
funding with a private party to assist in, or facilitate the
AB 617 (Perea) Page 2 of
?
implementation of, a GSP or any elements of a GSP.
Allow GSAs who are intending to develop and implement multiple
GSPs for a single basin to use "consistent" data instead of
the current requirement that they use "the same" data.
Allow the State Water Resources Control Board (board) to
direct a state entity to cooperate in the implementation of a
GSP if a GSA files a notice with the board that a state entity
is not working cooperatively regarding implementation, and the
board agrees with the notice.
Staff
Comments: By allowing GSAs to use data that is "consistent"
rather than "the same" in developing multiple GSPs for a single
groundwater basin is likely to have unknown costs to DWR. First,
DWR will likely need to revise its regulations to give guidance
on what data could be considered consistent. These costs could
be minor if DWR is able to incorporate this change into their
regulatory process currently underway. However, if DWR
regulations on data are finished before the passage of this bill
thereby requiring a modification of the regulations, or if the
regulations are challenged because of opposition on how the
regulations determine consistency, DWR may have regulatory costs
in the low- or mid- hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Secondly, DWR may have costs associated with this provision to
the extent that it is asked to help determine whether two
particular datasets are consistent or not, which could involve
DWR using the two datasets in a model to compare outcomes. DWR
estimates that this analysis could cost between $10,000 and
$50,000 each. It is unknown how often DWR would be asked to do
this analysis.
This bill establishes a process by which a GSA can notify the
board that a state entity is not cooperating in the
implementation of their GSP and thereby hindering its success.
To investigate a notice, the board estimates staff workload of
approximately $50,000 per notice. However, the board does not
AB 617 (Perea) Page 3 of
?
anticipate many notices being filed. Under the SGMA, the board
is allowed to establish a fee to fund its activities to
implement the act what would be deposited into the Water Rights
Fund. While the board has not yet established the fee schedule,
the fee ultimately could fund any of the board's costs with
investigating a notice.
-- END --