BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 957
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
AB 957
(Mathis) - As Amended March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement
Act of 2014
SUMMARY: Amends the eligibility criteria for recycled water
projects that are funded by Proposition 1, The Water Quality,
Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Prop. 1), in
order to give consideration to communities with groundwater
problems. Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes findings related to the benefits recycled water projects
could provide for groundwater-dependent communities affected
by drought and lacking adequate safe, clean, and reliable
water supplies.
2)Amends the meaning of "water supply reliability improvement"
in the Prop. 1 recycled water project eligibility criteria to
require consideration of whether the project is for a
community that is heavily dependent on groundwater from a
basin in overdraft.
3)Amends the meaning of "public health benefits from improved
drinking water quality or supply" in the Prop. 1 recycled
AB 957
Page 2
water project eligibility criteria to require consideration of
whether the project is for a community that has extended, or
is in the process of extending, its service delivery area to
individuals, communities, or both, reliant on either
contaminated groundwater or groundwater wells that have run
dry.
4)Defines "contaminated groundwater" as groundwater that exceeds
a primary or secondary drinking water standard.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation bond funding
for water-related projects and programs under Proposition 1.
2)Makes $725 million in Prop. 1 funding available, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, for grants or loans for
water recycling and advanced treatment technology projects,
including:
a) Water recycling projects that produce potable and
nonpotable water.
b) Contamination and salt removal projects including
groundwater and seawater desalination.
c) Pilot projects for potable reuse and other salt and
contaminant removal technology.
d) Multibenefit projects that improve water quality.
AB 957
Page 3
e) Technical assistance and grant writing assistance for
disadvantaged communities.
3)Requires, under Prop.1, at least a 50% local cost-share for
recycled water projects unless the area is economically
disadvantaged or distressed.
4)Specifies that recycled water projects funded by Prop. 1 must
be selected on a competitive basis, considering all of the
following criteria:
a) Water supply reliability improvement.
b) Water quality and ecosystem benefits related to
decreased reliance on diversions from the Delta or instream
flows.
c) Public health benefits from improved drinking water
quality or supply.
d) Cost-effectiveness.
e) Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission impacts.
AB 957
Page 4
f) Reasonable geographic allocation to eligible projects
throughout the state, including both northern and southern
California and coastal and inland regions.
5)Requires recycled water competitive programs implemented under
Prop. 1 to be consistent with the State Water Board's water
recycling and contaminant and salt removal programs.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: This bill modifies Prop. 1 eligibility criteria for
recycled water and contaminant and salt removal projects in
order to give heightened consideration to communities heavily
dependent on groundwater or communities who have, or are trying
to, extend service to communities with contaminated water or
whose wells are going dry
1)Author's statement: The author states that this bill seeks to
maximize the beneficial use of scarce groundwater resources in
overdrafted basins by promoting and incentivizing the funding
of recycled water projects in those areas. The author states
this bill adds additional factors to be considered when
awarding Prop. 1 water bond recycling funds and that this bill
will help provide communities with dry wells or contaminated
aquifers access to water supplies.
2)Proposition 1 was heavily negotiated. In 2009, former
Governor Schwarzenegger convened the Legislature in
extraordinary session to take up issues related to protecting
and restoring the Delta ecosystem and improving water
reliability and management, including addressing water
conveyance, storage, conservation and groundwater and
considering a general obligation bond. Subsequently, an
historic five-bill package of water legislation was passed and
AB 957
Page 5
signed, including SB 2 (Cogdill), Chapter 3, Statutes of the
2009-10 Seventh Extraordinary Session (SB 2 X7).
SB 2 X7 called for the Water Bond to be placed on the November
2010 ballot. If approved by the voters, the Water Bond would
have authorized the issuance of $11.14 billion in general
obligation bonds for a wide range of projects and purposes
including water conservation and efficiency, groundwater
protection and cleanup, integrated regional water management,
ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, water
recycling, and water storage.
However, in 2010, supporters of the Water Bond recognized that
a sluggish economy coupled with the state's need to focus on
its dire budget shortfall meant that delaying the bond vote
could increase its chances of success. Subsequently, the
Water Bond was moved to the 2012 general election. In 2012,
polling revealed that an incomplete economic recovery meant
the Water Bond was still unlikely to pass. In response, it
was moved again, this time to the 2014 general election.
In 2013, discussions began regarding whether the 2009 Water
Bond needed to be reduced. On February 26, 2013 the Senate
Natural Resources and Water Committee held a joint oversight
hearing with the Senate Governance and Finance Committee
entitled, Overview of California's Debt Condition: Priming the
Pump for a Water Bond (joint hearing). The stated purpose of
the joint hearing was to "inform members about the state's
debt condition, its capacity to incur additional debt for
water and other competing infrastructure needs, and issues
regarding using debt finance to improve the state's water
quality, supply, and infrastructure." Background documents
for the joint hearing referenced the Governor's proposed
AB 957
Page 6
2013-14 Budget, which acknowledges that since 2000 voters have
authorized $100 billion in new general obligation bonds and
the state has issued more than $28 billion since 2009. On
March 12, 2013 the Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee held a second bond-related oversight hearing
entitled: What's Changed Since the Legislature Passed the
Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010?
The purpose of that hearing was to explore what modifications,
if any, should be made to the Water Bond in light of
circumstances which may have changed since it was originally
approved by the Legislature in 2009.
From October 2013 through May 2014 this Committee held
multiple Capitol hearings on the bond as well as nine field
hearings in various parts of the State. By the time AB 1471
(Rendon), Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014 placed Prop. 1 on the
November 4, 2014 statewide ballot there had been nine
different substantive bond proposals discussed in the
Legislature ranging from $5.8 billion to over $10 billion.
1)The State Water Board is currently in the process of
developing Prop. 1 recycled water and desalination guidelines:
This year's emergency drought legislation, AB 92, among other
actions, accelerated the governor's proposed January 10 budget
allocation of $131.7 million in Prop. 1 funding for recycled
water and appropriated it immediately. The State Water Board
responded by issuing draft amended Water Recycling Funding
Program (WRFP) guidelines and holding three workshops, one in
Perris in southern California, one in Fresno in the Central
Valley, and one in Sacramento in northern California. Public
comments on the WRFP draft guidelines were due April 24, 2015.
AB 957
Page 7
This bill would alter the recycled water criteria after the
guidelines are developed.
3)Prior and related legislation:
AB 1265 (Caballero), Chapter 126, Statutes of 2010, moved the
Water Bond to the 2012 general election. AB 1265 both changed
the timing of the Water Bond vote and deleted a provision
allowing for-profit entities to be members of joint powers
authorities for bond-funded surface water storage projects.
AB 1422 (Perea), Chapter 74, Statutes of 2012 moved the Water
Bond to the November 4, 2014 statewide general election but
otherwise left the text unchanged.
AB 92 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 1, Statutes of 2015
accelerated several funding provisions from Prop. 1 including
the $131.7 million as mentioned above for the State Water
Board to build on the existing water recycling grant program
and $135.5 million for the State Water Board to improve access
to clean drinking water for disadvantaged communities and help
small communities pay for wastewater treatment. In addition
there was $15 million from the General Fund and special funds
for emergency drinking water projects, including hauled water,
bottled water, design and construction of connections to
adjacent public water systems, new wells and well
rehabilitation and $4 million from the Cleanup and Abatement
Account for the SWRCB to provide emergency safe drinking water
to disadvantaged communities impacted by the drought.
4)Supporting arguments: Supporters state that this bill
addresses the fact that several private drinking water wells
in California have already gone dry or become heavily
contaminated during our severe drought. Supporters state that
in Kern County, for example, the Arvin Community Services
District recently extended drinking water service to
AB 957
Page 8
neighboring individual homeowners whose wells had gone dry.
Supporters note that as the crisis deepens, statewide
resources will be critical in enabling local communities to
provide drinking water to those victimized by drought.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Kern County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
Association of California Water Agencies
Analysis Prepared by:Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916)
319-2096
AB 957
Page 9