BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                       AB 935


                                                                      Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          935 (Salas)


          As Amended  March 26, 2015


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                 |Noes                 |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
          |Water           |15-0  |Levine, Bigelow,     |                     |
          |                |      |Dababneh, Dahle,     |                     |
          |                |      |Dodd, Beth Gaines,   |                     |
          |                |      |Cristina Garcia,     |                     |
          |                |      |Gomez, Harper,       |                     |
          |                |      |Lopez, Mathis,       |                     |
          |                |      |Medina, Rendon,      |                     |
          |                |      |Salas, Williams      |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-0  |Gomez, Bigelow,      |                     |
          |                |      |Bonta, Calderon,     |                     |
          |                |      |Chang, Daly, Eggman, |                     |
          |                |      |Gallagher,           |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |Eduardo Garcia,      |                     |
          |                |      |Gordon, Holden,      |                     |
          |                |      |Jones, Quirk,        |                     |
          |                |      |Rendon, Wagner,      |                     |








                                                                       AB 935


                                                                      Page  2





          |                |      |Weber, Wood          |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
          |                |      |                     |                     |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          SUMMARY:  Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to  
          provide grants and expenditures for the planning, design, and  
          construction of local and regional conveyance projects that  
          support regional and interregional connectivity and other listed  
          benefits.  Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Requires DWR to provide grants and expenditures for local and  
            regional conveyance projects that are consistent with an adopted  
            integrated regional water management plan (IRWM) and also  
            provide one or more of the following:


             a)   Improve regional or interregional water supply  
               reliability.


             b)   Mitigate conditions of groundwater overdraft, groundwater  
               quality, or land subsidence.


             c)   Adapt to the impacts of hydrologic changes.


             d)   Improve water security from drought, natural disasters,  
               and other events that interrupt water supplies. 


             e)   Provide safe drinking water for disadvantaged communities  
               and economically distressed areas.










                                                                       AB 935


                                                                      Page  3





          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 implement the regional  
            conveyance grant and expenditure program.


          


          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation funding for  
            water-related projects and programs in Proposition 1, the Safe  
            Drinking Water, Quality, and Infrastructure Act of 2014  
            (Proposition 1) including, among other funding:


             a)   $2.7 billion for surface and groundwater storage projects,  
               continuously appropriated to the California Water Commission;  
               and, 


             b)   $810 million for IRWM projects with $100 million of that  
               amount directed at water conservation and $200 million of  
               that amount dedicated to stormwater management.


          2)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.


          3)Proposition 1 defines an economically distressed area as an area  
            that meets the following:









                                                                       AB 935


                                                                      Page  4






             a)   A municipality with a population of 20,000 persons or  
               less, 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; and,


             c)   DWR finds the area has one or more of the following  
               conditions: is in financial hardship; unemployed at a rate  
               that is 2% higher than the statewide average; or, has a low  
               population density.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, unknown, potentially significant, funding shifts from  
          other water management activities to local and regional conveyance  
          projects (IRWMP bond funding).  Also, increased costs to DWR of  
          $250,000 to $350,000 to develop regulations (IRWMP bond funding).


          COMMENTS:  This bill would require DWR to fund conveyance  
          projects, as specified.  The Assembly Appropriations Committee  
          analysis notes that approximately $375 million for planning and  
          implementation grants within the IRWM funding category could be  
          used to fund this bill. That figure is based on the $510 million  
          of Proposition 1 IRWM funds that are eligible to fund conveyance  
          projects less bond issuance costs, audit costs, and funds  
          dedicated to addressing the needs of disadvantaged communities.


          The author states that conveyance is necessary in order to fully  
          realize the benefits of virtually every type of local water  
          management, such as desalination, recycling, use efficiency, and  
          storage projects.  The author notes that the recently-passed  








                                                                       AB 935


                                                                      Page  5





          Proposition 1 has money allocated in it for surface water storage  
          and groundwater storage projects and that, in order to create the  
          greatest possible statewide benefit, it will be necessary to have  
          adequate connections between both.


          Other supporters state that this bill could help benefit agencies  
          in terms of the study, design, and construction of a physical  
          connection to the State Water Project and that this bill would  
          provide for up to a 50% state match for the total project costs.


          There is no known opposition to this bill.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                               
                          Tina Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096  FN:  
          0000767