BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 935|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 935
Author: Salas (D), et al.
Amended: 8/17/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/14/15
AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson,
Monning, Vidak, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Water projects
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires, upon appropriation of the
Legislature, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide
up to $7 million to fund the Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities
on the Friant-Kern Canal.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/17/16 delete provisions requiring
funding of the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson
Irrigation District project.
AB 935
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the
Department of Water Resources (DWR), which manages and
undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.
This bill:
1)Requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to
fund the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern
Canal Restoration Project.
2)Caps the state funding for the project at $7 million and
requires a minimum 20 percent non-state cost share.
3)Requires the project to meet the following requirements as a
condition for state funding:
a) All feasibility studies are complete and draft
environmental impact reports are available for public
review.
b) The director of DWR receives commitments for not less
than 75 percent of the nonstate cost share requirement of
the project.
Comments
San Joaquin River Restoration Program. In September 2006, the US
Department of Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority entered
into a settlement that ended an 18-year lawsuit to provide
sufficient fish habitat in the San Joaquin River below Friant
AB 935
Page 3
Dam near Fresno. The settlement resulted in the San Joaquin
River Restoration Program (SJRRP) which has 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; and (2) a river management
program to minimize water supply impacts to San Joaquin River
water users.
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. 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 supports
the water management goal of the SJRRP. The project that would
be funded through this bill is 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 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
AB 935
Page 4
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.
Why This Project? It is not entirely clear why the author
selected this project over the other 20. There are higher rated
projects.
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. Proposition 1
included a provision stating that the Legislature cannot
appropriate Prop 1 funds for a specific project.
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 than 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
AB 935
Page 5
other members to attempt to direct funds to specific projects as
well.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
Prior Senate Appropriations Committee cost estimates are not
relevant with recent amendments.
Relevant Appropriations Committee Staff Comments on previous
version of this bill:
1)"This bill does not specify a funding source and it is unclear
whether there are bond monies available for these projects.
DWR is on pace to awarding all of its remaining Proposition 84
funds by the end of this year and Proposition 1 included a
provision stating that the Legislature cannot appropriate
Proposition 1 funds for a specified project. In the absence of
a fund source being specified, staff assumes the cost would be
borne by the General Fund.
2)"Staff notes that while the state has made a commitment to
helping restore the San Joaquin River itself, the state was
not a party to the settlement. Thus the projects are solely
the responsibility of the federal government."
SUPPORT: (Verified8/18/16)
California Citrus Mutual
Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District
Kern-Tulare Water District
AB 935
Page 6
South Valley Water Association
Tulare County Farm Bureau
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/18/16)
Castaic Lake Water Agency
City of Clovis
City of Reedley
City of Selma
Coachella Valley Water District
Consolidated Irrigation District
Fresno Irrigation District
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
Kings River Conservation District
Kings River Water Association
Modesto Irrigation District
Raisin City Water District
Turlock Irrigation District
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: Opponents to the previous version
of this bill raised concerns about the apparent earmarking of
funds for this project.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
AB 935
Page 7
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
Prepared by:Dennis O'Connor / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
8/18/16 17:10:05
**** END ****