BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 935
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
935 (Salas) - As Amended March 26, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Water, Parks and Wildlife |Vote:|15 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
AB 935
Page 2
provide grants and expenditures for the planning, design, and
construction of local and regional conveyance projects as
specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires grants and expenditures to be consistent with an
adopted integrated regional water management plan (IRWM) and
achieve one or more of the following benefits:
a) Improved regional or interregional water supply
reliability.
b) Mitigation of conditions of groundwater overdraft and
subsidence, and improved groundwater quality.
c) Adaptation to the impacts of hydrologic changes.
d) Improved water security from drought, natural disasters,
and other events that interrupt water supplies.
e) Providing safe drinking water for disadvantaged
communities and economically distressed areas.
2)Requires a local cost-share of not less than 50% unless the
area is a disadvantaged community or an economically
distressed area.
3)Authorizes DWR to adopt regulations to the implement the
regional conveyance grant and expenditure program.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 935
Page 3
1)Unknown, potentially significant, funding shifts from other
water management activities to local and regional conveyance
projects (IRWMP bond funding).
2)Increased costs of $250,000 to $350,000 for DWR to develop
regulations (IRWMP bond funding).
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, conveyance is necessary to
fully realize the benefits of virtually every type of local
water management project, such as desalination, recycling,
water use efficiency, and storage projects.
The author further contends that the recently passed water
bond, Proposition 1 (AB 1471, Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014),
provides funding for surface water storage and groundwater
storage projects , however, in order to create the greatest
possible statewide benefit, it will be necessary to have
adequate connections between both.
2)Proposition 1 IRWMP funding. Proposition 1, the Safe Drinking
AB 935
Page 4
Water, Quality, and Infrastructure Act of 2014, authorizes
$7.545 billion in general obligation funding for water-related
projects and programs. Proposition 1 includes $510 million
for the IRWM program and specifically carves out at least $51
million for direct expenditure or non-competitive grants to
ensure the involvement of disadvantaged communities in the
IRWM process. Proposition 1 also requires at least another
$51 million be expended within the IRWM regions on projects
that benefit disadvantaged communities.
Bond issuance and audit costs are approximately 7%, so this
bill would be funded from the remaining approximately $375
million for planning and implementation grants within the IRWM
funding category.
3) Disadvantaged Communities and Economically Distressed
Areas. Proposition 1 defines a disadvantaged community as a
community with an annual median household income that is less
than 80 % of the statewide annual median household income.
Proposition 1 defines an economically distressed area as the
following:
a) A municipality with a population of 20,000 persons or
less or a rural county, or a reasonably isolated and
divisible segment of a larger municipality where the
segment of the population is 20,000 persons or less.
b) The area has an annual median household income that is
less than 85% of the statewide median household income.
c) An area DWR finds to be in financial hardship, an area
with unemployed at a rate that is 2% higher than the
statewide average; or, an area with a low population
density.
AB 935
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081