BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1095
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1095 (Eduardo Garcia)
As Amended June 1, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Water |11-2 |Levine, Dababneh, |Beth Gaines, Harper |
| | |Dodd, Cristina | |
| | |Garcia, Gomez, | |
| | |Lopez, Mathis, | |
| | |Medina, Rendon, | |
| | |Salas, Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |12-0 |Gomez, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Daly, | |
| | |Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 1095
Page 2
SUMMARY: Requires the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA),
on or before March 31, 2016, to submit to the Legislature a list
of shovel-ready Salton Sea restoration projects, including
information regarding project costs and project completion
timelines.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation funding for
water-related projects and programs in Proposition 1 (2014), 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.
3)Establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Act (SSRA) with the
legislative intent of providing that the State of California
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.
AB 1095
Page 3
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 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.
AB 1095
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, absorbable costs as Prop. 1 authorizes $475 million in
order to fulfill state obligations, including Salton Sea
Restoration.
COMMENTS: The Assembly Appropriations Committee struck the prior
language of this bill, which earmarked an unspecified amount of
Prop. 1 for Salton Sea restoration and instead inserted a
requirement for the CNRA to report to the Legislature on or before
March 31, 2016, on a list of shovel-ready Salton Sea restoration
projects.
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 windblown
particles 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.
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 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.
AB 1095
Page 5
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. In
response, 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. As a result, 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 Imperial 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.
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
AB 1095
Page 6
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 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.
To facilitate the implementation of the QSA, the Legislature
passed and the Governor signed a package of three bills in
September 2003. That legislation detailed the financial
responsibility the state assumed with respect to mitigation, and
required 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 agreed 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.
In 2007, the CNRA completed a restoration study and released the
AB 1095
Page 7
Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan and Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (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 PEIR 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. The $8 billion
plan was not implemented.
In 2012, the CNRA, jointly with the United States 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 (2006), 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. 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.
Multiple prior bills have sought to aid the sea, including most
recently AB 71 (V. Manuel Pérez), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2013,
which required the CNRA Secretary, in consultation with the SSA,
to lead Salton Sea restoration efforts and AB 148 (V. Manuel
Pérez), Chapter 124, Statutes of 2014, which made technical and
clarifying changes to AB 71.
Supporters state that only after the State and QSA parties
AB 1095
Page 8
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 15 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."
There is no known opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Tina Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN:
0000818