BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1095
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
AB 1095
(Eduardo Garcia) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
SUBJECT: Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement
Act of 2014: restoration funding: Salton Sea
SUMMARY: Appropriates an unspecified amount of funding to the
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) for Salton Sea
restoration projects from the $475 million that is available in
the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of
2014 (Proposition 1) for the state of California to comply with
obligations in specified settlements, compacts, and Acts.
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 (Prop.
1).
2)Under Prop. 1, authorizes $475 million in order to fulfill
State obligations related to: the Klamath Agreements; Tahoe
Compact; San Joaquin River Restoration Agreement; Salton Sea
Restoration; and, Central Valley Project Improvement Act
refuge water supplies.
AB 1095
Page 2
3)Establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Act (SSRA) with the
legislative intent of providing that the State undertakes
restoration of the Salton Sea ecosystem and the permanent
protection of the wildlife dependent on that ecosystem based
on a "preferred alternative" that is developed as a result of
a restoration study and alternative selection process.
4)Requires the SSRA preferred alternative to provide the maximum
feasible attainment of specified environmental objectives,
including restoration of long-term stable aquatic and
shoreline habitat to historic levels and diversity of fish and
wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea, elimination of air
quality impacts from restoration projects, and protection of
water quality.
5)Provides that for purposes of the SSRA restoration plan the
Salton Sea ecosystem includes the Salton Sea, agricultural
lands surrounding the Sea, and the tributaries and drains
within Imperial and Coachella Valleys that deliver water to
the Sea.
6)Requires the CNRA Secretary, in consultation with the
Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the Department of Water
Resources (DWR), the Salton Sea Authority (SSA), air quality
districts, and the Salton Sea Advisory Committee, undertake a
restoration study to determine a preferred alternative for
restoration of the Salton Sea, prepare a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) analyzing the alternatives,
and submit a preferred alternative to the Legislature on or
before December 31, 2006.
7)Establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Fund (SSRF), which is
administered by the DFW Director. Authorizes moneys deposited
in the SSRF to be expended, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, for the following purposes:
a) Environmental and engineering studies related to
restoration of the Salton Sea and the protection of fish
AB 1095
Page 3
and wildlife dependent on the Sea;
b) Implementation of conservation measures necessary to
protect fish and wildlife dependent on the Sea;
c) Implementation of the preferred Salton Sea restoration
alternative; and,
d) Administrative, technical, and public outreach costs
related to development and selection of the preferred
Salton Sea restoration alternative.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: This bill appropriates an unspecified amount of
funding from Prop. 1 for Salton Sea restoration.
1)Author's statement: The author states that this bill is
needed because the Salton Sea is California's largest inland
lake and very important to both the residents of Imperial and
Riverside counties and to the wildlife that relies upon the
Sea for habitat. The author adds that the Salton Sea is
nicknamed "California's Everglades" by some as it currently
supports 400 species of birds, many of them year-round, and is
a critical stopping point along the 5,000-mile Pacific Flyway.
The author adds that without restoration communities windblown
particle from the dry lakebed will worsen the already poor air
quality in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the detriment
of many who live there and already suffer air quality-related
health problems.
2)Background: The Salton Sea, California's largest lake, is
located in a low-lying trough or desert sink in Southern
California, much of which is below sea level. The current sea
AB 1095
Page 4
was formed in 1905 when the Colorado River flooded its banks
at a faulty construction site during the building of the
All-American Canal. However, the sea bed has periodically
filled and receded numerous times, from prehistoric times
through the 1800s. The present sea is fed primarily by
agricultural runoff. Since it has no natural outlet, it is
becoming increasingly saline and today is considerably saltier
than the ocean.
The State's obligation to fund Salton Sea restoration is
related to the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA),
which is in turn related to California's dependence on
Colorado River water. The Colorado River Compact is a 1922
agreement among the seven Colorado River basin states as to
how they will apportion Colorado River flows. Based on the
flows of the River prior to 1922, 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF)
were assigned to the Upper Division, consisting of Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and 7.5 MAF were assigned to the
Lower Division as follows: California 4.4 MAF , Arizona 2.8
MAF, and Nevada .3 MAF. But even though California received
the lion's share, it continuously relied upon another .8 MAF
of "surplus" from the other States to average about 5.2 MAF.
As the rest of the southwest grew, the other States began to
pressure the Secretary of the Interior to give California a
deadline to come up with a plan to ratchet back to 4.4 MAF.
As a result, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton gave
California a deadline of December 31, 2002 to come up with a
"4.4 Plan" or she threatened to discontinue declaring
surpluses and cut off the extra water supply.
Under California appropriative water law, the most senior
water rights holder takes all that he or she has used
reasonably, beneficially, and continuously, and then the next
most senior, and so on with any shortage falling wholly upon
the most junior water rights holders first. But in order to
AB 1095
Page 5
reach a 4.4 Plan, the major Colorado River water rights
holders, Imperial Irrigation District (Imperial), the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the San
Diego County Water Authority (San Diego), and the Coachella
Valley Water District (Coachella), agreed to quantify their
water rights, engage in a series of transfers, and restore the
Salton Sea. The reason for inclusion of the Salton Sea is
that, beginning in 2017, the QSA included ag-to-urban water
transfers that would reduce the runoff from IID that was
providing significant inflow to the Sea. As a result, the Sea
will shrink considerably in size, increasing salinity and
exposing large areas of dry sea bed playa.
3)Reasons for Salton Sea Restoration: The Salton Sea is one of
the most important wetland areas in California for migratory
waterfowl and shorebirds, since over 95% of California's
historical wetlands have been converted to other land uses.
The Salton Sea supports over 400 species of birds, and is an
internationally significant stopover site for hundreds of
thousands of birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway.
Recently, fishery resources in the sea have declined
significantly due to increasing salinity, evaporation and
declining water quality. Once the QSA water transfers are
fully implemented, it is generally recognized that without
restoration efforts the ecosystem of the Salton Sea will
collapse over the next decade or two.
The drying up of the sea also will have human health impacts.
As the Pacific Institute, an independent research and policy
analysis think tank writes in Hazard, the Future of the Salton
Sea with No Restoration Project (May 2006), more than 100
miles of dusty lakebed could be exposed to the desert winds.
That would cause fine particles to blow over the Coachella and
Imperial Valleys with the latter already suffering from the
highest childhood asthma hospitalization rate in the State and
both areas containing high numbers of seniors who are
especially susceptible to poor air quality.
AB 1095
Page 6
4)State Obligation to the Sea: To facilitate the implementation
of the QSA, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a
package of three bills in September 2003. This Legislation
details the financial responsibility the State assumes with
respect to mitigation, and requires the formation of a joint
powers authority (JPA) to implement and allocate mitigation
responsibilities between local agencies and the State. The
JPA consists of DFW, Coachella, Imperial, and San Diego.
Under the QSA, Coachella, Imperial, and San Diego agree to
fund the first $133 million (in 2003 dollars) for mitigation
costs related to habitat restoration and air quality and the
State of California assumed responsibility for all mitigation
and monitoring beyond that first $133 million. This
open-ended State obligation was subject to litigation with the
Third District Court of Appeal ruling that while the State is
contractually liable for the excess mitigation costs, neither
the QSA parties nor anyone else can compel the Legislature to
appropriate funds to pay for the mitigation. In other words,
the court found that the State's contractual obligation under
the QSA to pay for excess mitigation costs may be
unenforceable but it is not illusory as the Legislature could
choose to fund it.
1)Restoration proposals and funding: In 2007, the CNRA
completed a restoration study and released the Salton Sea
Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan and Final PEIR. The Agency
estimated that the preferred alternative identified in the
PEIR would cost over $8 billion, expended over a period of 75
years, to implement. The preferred alternative included a
saline habitat complex at the north and south end of the Sea,
a Marine Sea extending around the northern shoreline in a
horseshoe shape, air quality management facilities to reduce
particulate emissions from exposed playa, a brine sink for
discharge of salts, sedimentation distribution facilities, and
early start habitat projects to provide habitat pending
completion of other habitat components. A detailed financing
AB 1095
Page 7
plan was never developed for the preferred alternative, which
has not been endorsed by the Legislature. The PEIR also noted
that even the "no project" alternative would cost the State
over $1 billion due to state and federal requirements to
address air quality, water quality and habitat issues even if
no restoration plan is pursued.
In 2008, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office released
a report, Restoring the Salton Sea. The report recommended
that the Legislature set explicit statutory priorities for
addressing environmental problems at the Sea and, in
particular, establish the protection of air quality and the
preservation of wildlife habitat as the highest priorities for
expenditure.
In 2012, the CNRA, jointly with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, prepared and released a draft Salton Sea
Conservation Habitat (SCH) Project Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The SCH
Project EIS/EIR proposes a range of aquatic habitats to
support fish and wildlife species dependent on the Salton Sea.
The CNRA's preferred alternative identified in the EIS/EIR
would include construction of 3,770 acres of habitat ponds.
Proposition 84, The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and
Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act
of 2006 made $47 million available for deposit into the SSRF.
November 2012 the California State Auditor put out a report
whose title says it all: Salton Sea Restoration Fund: The
State Has Not Fully Funded a Restoration Plan and the State's
Future Mitigation Costs are Uncertain. The report establishes
that between fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2012-2013 the State
had spent approximately $32 million and anticipated another
approximately over $81 million in funding from Prop. 84 and
the SSRF water agencies. Prior to 2013, the majority of the
AB 1095
Page 8
SSRF was spent on habitat project planning and environmental
work, with some limited on-the-ground restoration. The
Governor's 2013-14 budget included $2 million to study funding
and restoration alternatives by the SSA and $28.4 million from
the SSRF for the first phase of implementation of the SCH
Project. The first phase includes on-the-ground construction
of 800 to 1,200 acres of habitat ponds. Additional funding
for implementation of the SCH Project is also being sought at
the federal level.
2)Prior and related legislation:
In 2003 and 2004, the Legislature approved a package of bills
facilitating the implementation of the QSA and calling for
restoration of the Salton Sea: SB 277 (Ducheny), Chapter 611,
Statutes of 2003; SB 317 (Kuehl), Chapter 612, Statutes of
2003; SB 654 (Machado), Chapter 613, Statutes of 2003; and, SB
1214, Chapter 614, Statutes of 2004 (Kuehl)). Among other
things, the legislative package directed DWR in consultation
with the newly-created Salton Sea Advisory Committee and SSA,
to prepare an ecosystem restoration study and associated
programmatic environmental documentation, and created the
SSRF. The agencies released a Salton Sea Ecosystem
Restoration Program plan and programmatic environmental impact
report in 2009 with an estimated cost of over $8 billion.
SB 51 (Ducheny), Chapter 303, Statutes of 2010, established,
among other things, the Salton Sea Restoration Council
(Council) to serve as the state agency responsible for
overseeing restoration of the Salton Sea. SB 51 required the
Council to evaluate Salton Sea restoration plans and to report
to the Governor and the Legislature by June 30, 2013, with a
recommended restoration plan.
The Governor's 2012 Reorganization Plan, as modified by budget
AB 1095
Page 9
trailer bill SB 1018 (Leno), Chapter 39, Statutes of 2012,
eliminated the Council, effective December 31, 2012, before
the Council ever actually met.
AB 71 (V. Manuel Pérez), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2013,
required the CNRA Secretary, in consultation with the SSA, to
lead Salton Sea restoration efforts.
AB 148 (V. Manuel Pérez), Chapter 124, Statutes of 2014 made
technical and clarifying changes to AB 71.
3)Supporting arguments: Supporters state that only after the
State and QSA parties committed to mitigation and restoration
measures was the QSA signed. Supporters add that the
conservation-based component of the water transfer agreement
with San Diego commences in 2017 after fifteen years of State
Water Resources Control Board-ordered return flows of
mitigation water to the Salton Sea and that, as a result, the
"need for funding to meet the State's obligation looms very,
very large indeed."
4)Proposed Committee amendment: The author advises that the
bill inadvertently omits from its language a reference to
Chapter 614 from the 2003-2004 Legislative package when
referring to the mitigation measures that should be funded.
Committee staff proposes amending Section 1 of the bill as
follows to correct the omission:
SECTION 1. Of the funds authorized pursuant to Section 79736
of the Water Code, the sum of ____ dollars ($____) is hereby
appropriated from the Water Quality, Supply, and
Infrastructure Improvement Fund of 2014 to the Natural
Resources Agency to support restoration projects that fulfill
the obligations of the state in complying with intrastate or
AB 1095
Page 10
multiparty water quantification settlement agreement
provisions, as set forth in Chapters 611, 612, and 613 , and
614 of the Statutes of 2003.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Imperial Irrigation District
Salton Sea Authority (if amended)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916)
319-2096
AB 1095
Page 11