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 --