BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1095 Hearing Date: July 14,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Eduardo Garcia | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |July 7, 2015 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Katharine Moore |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Salton Sea: restoration projects.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Salton Sea, California's largest man-made lake, is located
in a desert sink in Southern California. The Salton Sea's water
level is currently maintained primarily by agricultural runoff,
which, by existing agreement - the Quantification Settlement
Agreement (QSA) - will start being reduced in 2017. (The
history of California, the Colorado River's water supply and the
events that led to the QSA are described in the Comments
section.)
The current sea was formed in 1905 when the Colorado River
flooded its banks during the building of the All-American Canal.
However, from the prehistoric era through the 1800s, the sea bed
has periodically filled and receded numerous times.
The Salton Sea has significant value as a natural resource. It
is one of the most important remaining wetland areas in
California for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Over 95% of
the state's historical wetlands have been converted to other
uses. The Salton Sea supports over 400 species of birds, and is
an internationally important stopover site for the hundreds of
thousands of bird migrating along the Pacific Flyway. Fishery
resources in the Salton Sea have, however, declined lately due
to the increasing salinity - about double that of the ocean -
worsening water quality and a decline in the amount of the Sea's
water.
AB 1095 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 2
of ?
Without significant restoration efforts, the QSA water transfers
when fully implemented are highly likely to result in the
collapse of the Sea's ecosystem over the next 10 - 20 years, and
the sea itself will shrink in area considerably. Fine particle
pollution is likely to increase in the Coachella and Imperial
Valleys due to the exposed sea bed. The Imperial Valley already
suffers from the highest childhood asthma hospitalization rate
in the state and both Valleys containing high numbers of seniors
who are especially susceptible to poor air quality.
Existing law authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation
funding for water-related projects and programs in Proposition
1, which was passed by the voters in November 2014. Proposition
1 authorizes $475 million in order to fulfill state obligations
related to a variety of agreements including restoration of the
Salton Sea.
Existing law establishes the Salton Sea Restoration Act (act)
with the legislative intent of providing that the state
undertakes restoration of the Sea's 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.
Existing law also requires the act's 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 Sea, elimination
of air quality impacts from restoration projects, and protection
of water quality.
Existing law requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources
Agency (agency) to, in consultation with the Department of Fish
and Wildlife, the Department of Water Resources, the Salton Sea
Authority, air quality districts, and the Salton Sea Advisory
Committee, undertake a restoration study to determine a
preferred alternative for restoration of the Sea, prepare a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) analyzing the
alternatives, and submit a preferred alternative to the
Legislature. In 2007, the agency completed and released the
AB 1095 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 3
of ?
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 to implement over a
period of 75 years. 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. The $8.9 billion plan has not been
implemented.
In 2012, the agency, working 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 agency's
preferred alternative identified in the EIS/EIR would include
construction of 3,770 acres of habitat ponds. Funding was
provided for the first phase of the SCH Project using
Proposition 84 bond monies (approximately $27 million was
allocated) and included construction of 800 to 1,200 acres of
habitat ponds. Additional funding for implementation of the SCH
Project is being pursued.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would require the agency to submit to the Legislature
a list of shovel-ready restoration projects for the sea,
including information regarding project costs and project
completion timelines on or by March 31, 2016. "Shovel-ready" is
defined as those projects that are substantially through
planning, environmental review or permitting.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The San Diego County Water Authority writes in support, "[t]he
key element of the QSA that remains unaddressed is the state's
obligation with respect to Salton Sea restoration. The QSA
implementing legislation requires the state to identify a
preferred Salton Sea restoration alternative and funding plan.
In 2007, the state identified and submitted to the Legislature
an $8.9 billion preferred alternative. The Legislature did not
act on the preferred alternative, nor has a viable funding plan
been developed."
"AB 1095 would initiate the important process of attempting to
identify near-term projects to determine an appropriate spending
AB 1095 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 4
of ?
plan utilizing Proposition 1 funds for the Salton Sea
restoration effort."
"We believe it is imperative that any spending plan for Salton
Sea restoration must be framed by a clear and workable vision
and priorities. [?] Implementation-ready projects should support
effective air quality mitigation and wildlife habitat creation
with a high functional value."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
Importance of shovel-ready projects . As noted above, water
flowing into the Sea will start being reduced in 2017.
Therefore there is merit in identifying restoration projects
that can be implemented rapidly in order to mitigate the
projected adverse environmental and human health impacts, among
others. The state has an obligation to pay for, but the
Legislature is not required to allocate funds for, mitigation
and restoration efforts beyond a certain funding level under the
QSA, as described below. The timing of the release of the
information required by this bill may also be helpful for the
budget cycle.
Governor's Budget . The May Revise to the Governor's Budget
acknowledged that "[p]rior comprehensive plans to restore the
sea are no longer feasible due to cost and decreased water
availability resulting from the drought in California and in the
southwestern state." The Administration announced the creation
of a Salton Sea Task Force to develop new medium and long-term
restoration plans through a stakeholder process. A leader will
be appointed to a new position to lead the Task Force and manage
construction of projects to benefit wildlife habitat and air
quality. No additional funds were allocated, however.
History of the Colorado River, agreements to share its water and
the state's obligation to the sea . Multiple western states
depend upon the Colorado River for water. In 1922, the Colorado
River Compact (compact) was signed by the seven Colorado River
basin states. The compact apportions annual Colorado River flows
between these states. The Upper Division - Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming - receive 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF)
annually, and an additional annual 7.5 MAF were assigned to the
AB 1095 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 5
of ?
Lower Division. The Lower Division flows were apportioned as
follows: California (4.4 MAF), Arizona (2.8 MAF) and Nevada (0.3
MAF). The flows assigned were based on data collected prior to
1922 and later observations indicate this total volumetric flow
was on the high side. California had historically also taken an
additional "surplus" 0.8 MAF not being used by the other state's
in order to average about 5.2 MAF of Colorado River water
annually.
Over time, the other signatories to the compact pressured the
federal government to require California to reduce the amount of
water it took to 4.4 MAF annually. California received a
deadline of December 31, 2002 to come up with a plan to comply
or else the then-Secretary of the Interior threatened to stop
declaring surpluses and cut off California's access to the extra
water supply. The major Colorado River water rights holders in
California - the Imperial Irrigation District, the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, the San Diego County
Water Authority and the Coachella Valley Water District - agreed
to quantify their water rights, engage in a series of water
transfers and restore the Sea. This agreement is the QSA
mentioned above. The Sea was included in the QSA because the QSA
called for agriculture-to-urban water transfers starting in 2017
that would reduce the runoff from the Imperial Irrigation
District that was providing the majority of water inflow to the
Sea.
The state's obligation to fund restoration of the sea is related
to the QSA. In order 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 Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coachella
Valley Water District, the Imperial Irrigation District, and the
San Diego County Water Authority. 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 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
AB 1095 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 6
of ?
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.
Imperial Irrigation District petition . In 2014, the Imperial
Irrigation District filed a controversial petition before the
State Water Resources Control Board asking that the Board
require the state and the parties to the water transfer
agreement to come up with a "realistic, feasible restoration
plan." The petition seeks to condition water sales to San Diego
on the state fulfilling its promises to pay for offsetting
environmental mitigation and restoration. A workshop was held
in March 2015 by the Board, and no formal action by the Board
appears to have been taken.
Recent related legislation
AB 71 (V. Manuel Pérez, c. 402, Statutes of 2013). This bill
required the agency secretary, in consultation with the Salton
Sea Authority, to lead Salton Sea restoration efforts.
AB 148 (V. Manuel Pérez, c. 124, Statutes of 2014). This bill
made technical and clarifying changes to AB 71.
SUPPORT
San Diego County Water Authority
OPPOSITION
None Received
-- END --