BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 935 Hearing Date: July 14,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Salas | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |June 23, 2015 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Dennis O'Connor |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Integrated Regional Water Management Plans: conveyance
projects: grants and expenditures.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1.Under the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of
2002, a regional water management group is authorized, but not
required, to prepare and adopt an integrated regional water
management plan (IRWMP).
IRWMPs can include regional projects or programs that
accomplish any of the following:
Reduce water demand through agricultural and urban water
use efficiency.
Increase water supplies through, groundwater storage and
conjunctive water management, desalination, precipitation
enhancement, water recycling, regional and local surface
storage, water-use efficiency, and stormwater management.
Improve operational efficiency and water supply
reliability, through conveyance facilities, system
reoperation, and water transfers.
Improve water quality, through improved drinking water
treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer
remediation, matching water quality to water use,
wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and
management of urban and agricultural runoff.
Improve resource stewardship, through agricultural lands
stewardship, ecosystem restoration, flood plain management,
AB 935 (Salas) Page 2
of ?
recharge area protection, urban land use management,
groundwater management, water-dependent recreation, fishery
restoration, including fish passage improvement, and
watershed management.
Improve flood management through structural and
nonstructural means, or by any other means.
Propositions 50, 84, and 1 all required that projects and
programs be included in an IRWMP in order to be fundable from
the bonds' Integrated Regional Water Management programs.
1.In November 2014, the voters ratified The Water Quality,
Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
(Proposition 1). Proposition 1 authorizes $7.545 billion in
general obligation bonds to fund ecosystems and watershed
protection and restoration, water supply infrastructure
projects, including surface and groundwater storage, and
drinking water protection.
Among other things, Proposition 1 provides $475 M to the
Natural Resources Agency to fulfill obligations of the state
in complying with the terms of any of the following a number
of settlement agreements and interstate compacts. This
includes obligations of the state in complying with the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act.
Proposition 1 also provided $510 M for expenditures of and
competitive grants and loans for projects that are included in
and implemented in an adopted integrated regional water
management plan.
Proposition 1 also included a provision (§79714) which states
that "Funding made available by this [bond] shall not be
appropriated by the Legislature to specific projects."
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
1)Require DWR to provide grants and expenditures, consistent
AB 935 (Salas) Page 3
of ?
with an adopted IRWMP, for the planning, design, and
construction of local and regional conveyance projects that
would do both of the following:
a) Support regional and interregional connectivity and
water management.
b) Provide one or more of the following benefits:
Improve regional or interregional water supply and
water supply reliability.
Mitigate conditions of groundwater overdraft,
saline water intrusion, water quality degradation, or
subsidence.
Adapt to the impacts of hydrologic changes.
Improve water security from drought, natural
disasters, or other events that could interrupt imported
water supplies.
Provide safe drinking water for disadvantaged
communities and economically distressed areas.
A regional water management group that receives such a grant
would be required to provide a cost share of not less than 50
percent of the total project costs from nonstate resources.
DWR would be authorized to waive or reduce the cost share for
projects that directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an
economically distressed area.
DWR would be authorized to adopt regulations to implement
these provisions.
1)Require DWR, using moneys appropriated to the department for
these purposes, to provide grant funding for the following
projects:
AB 935 (Salas) Page 4
of ?
a) A project that substantially conforms to the project
description for the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on
the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project set forth by the
draft investment strategy released by the San Joaquin River
Restoration Program (SJRRP) in December 2014.
b) A project that substantially conforms to the project
description for the San Joaquin River Recapture at
Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed through
Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir Project set forth
by the draft investment strategy released by the SJRRP in
December 2014.
The moneys provided by this bill, in combination with moneys
provided pursuant to the 50-percent cost share, would fully
fund the two projects.
2)Find and declare that a special law is necessary and that a
general law cannot be made applicable because California's
four-year drought has wreaked havoc on communities,
businesses, and agriculture on the eastern side of the San
Joaquin Valley. The two interconnector projects would allow
water to be better managed, providing relief to the eastern
San Joaquin Valley and other areas of the state.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "We need to develop and improve
conveyance facilities in order to optimize inter-regional water
supplies, facilitate the movement of water from the east side to
the west side, and make additional water available to be
distributed to places of need."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None Received
COMMENTS
What is the San Joaquin River Restoration Program? The SJRRP is
the result of a stipulation of settlement in September 2006 of
AB 935 (Salas) Page 5
of ?
an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the San
Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno. The parties to the
settlement were:
The U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce.
The Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Friant Water Users Authority.
The settlement agreement was based on two goals and objectives:
1)A restored river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta and naturally reproducing populations of
Chinook salmon.
2)A water management program to minimize water supply impacts to
San Joaquin River water users.
What Are The Projects? The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water
management goal. The purpose was to identify projects that, in
conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce
or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term
contractors as a result of releasing Restoration Flows. The
objective of the strategy was to develop, evaluate, and prepare
a prioritized set of implementable projects that could help
achieve this goal.
USBR, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified,
screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project
concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these,
21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement
priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015
report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy: Final
Report. Among other things, the Final Report presented a list
of Priority Projects evaluated at an appraisal level that
support the Water Management Goal of the SJRRP. The two
projects that would be funded through this bill are among the 21
projects evaluated in the Final Report.
Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal.
The Friant-Kern Canal is Federal Central Valley Project (CVP)
canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin
River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors
along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at
the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern
Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity, which is
used occasionally to deliver north the water from the Cross
AB 935 (Salas) Page 6
of ?
Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern
River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back
facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion
of the Friant-Kern Canal. The project would allow water that
was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River
that was then recaptured downstream to be conveyed via the
Cross Valley Canal to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal
to a number of Friant Contractors.
The Final Report ranked this project 4th of 21, with an
estimated cost of $7.6 million, and, including planning and
environmental review, a little over 2 years to complete the
project.
San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District
Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir.
Patterson Irrigation District (ID) is located just downstream
from the San Joaquin River and Merced River confluence and has
existing facilities that can convey limited water between the
San Joaquin River and the Delta-Mendota Canal. Patterson ID
has senior San Joaquin River water rights, and it is the first
district downstream of the SJRRP Restoration Area capable of
recapturing restoration flows. With this project, USBR and
Friant Contractors propose to 1) assist Patterson ID modernize
and expand the capacity of its cross district conveyance
facilities and 2) to facilitate water conveyance or exchange
agreements between Friant Contractors and Patterson ID so that
recaptured restoration flows can be stored via the
Delta-Mendota Canal in San Luis Reservoir for future direct
delivery and/or exchange to benefit Friant Contractors. This
project provides a method to recapture restoration flows
before it enters the Delta.
The Final Report ranked this project 12thof 21, with an
estimated cost of $53.6 million, and, including planning and
environmental review, a little over 4 years to complete the
project.
How Are They Funded? The final report assumed 50 percent
federal funding, with the balance made up of non-federal
sources.
Why These Projects? It is not entirely clear why the author
selected these two projects over the other 19. There are higher
AB 935 (Salas) Page 7
of ?
rated projects, especially compared to the San Joaquin River
Recapture at Patterson project.
Should State Fund SJRRP Water Management Projects? These
projects are designed to mitigate the water supply impact on
Friant Contractors of restoring flows on the San Joaquin River.
These flows are necessary for the USBR to comply with state law
regarding keeping in good condition fish that may be below a
dam. The state has already committed to helping restore the San
Joaquin River itself. It is not clear why the state should also
fund projects to offset the impact of restoration flows on the
Friant Contractors.
With What Funds? It is not clear what funds DWR could use to
provide the grants required by this bill. DWR is on pace to
awarding all of its remaining Proposition 84 funds by the end of
this year. Proposition 1 included a provision stating that the
legislature cannot appropriate Prop 1 funds for a specific
project. While this bill does not directly appropriate funds,
by directing DWR to use previously appropriated moneys to fund
these two projects, the effect would be the same.
Which IRWMPs? It is not clear which, if any, adopted IRWMPs
include these projects.
Subverting The Regional Prioritization Process . DWR has a
fairly extensive process to ensure that it funds IRWMP projects
that reflect the priorities of the regions. This bill
essentially says that regardless of what the region's priorities
are, these projects go first.
Camel's Nose? Through most of the 1990s, the usual practice for
funding water resource projects was for the legislature to
determine which specific projects to appropriate bond funds to;
either through the drafting of the bond measure or through
individual appropriation bills. Consequently, the investments
occasionally reflected political priorities more that policy
priorities. Beginning in the late 1990, the legislature began
drafting bond measures emphasizing competitive processes instead
of political process. Indeed, Proposition 1 included a
provision banning the legislature from appropriating funds for
specific projects. Should this bill be enacted, it might tempt
other members to attempt to direct funds to specific projects as
well. (See Amendment 1)
AB 935 (Salas) Page 8
of ?
Require IRWMP Funding? Most of the IRWMP Act is permissive,
regional management groups may decide which problems it wants to
solve, which types of projects it wants to have funded, etc.
This bill requires, instead of authorizes, DWR to fund
conveyance projects. (See Amendment 2)
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Delete Sections 2 & 3
AMENDMENT 2
On page 2, line 3, strike out "shall" and insert "may"
SUPPORT
California Citrus Mutual
Desert Water Agency
OPPOSITION
None Received
-- END --