BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1242
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1242 (Gray)
As Amended May 5, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Water |8-4 |Bigelow, Dodd, Beth |Levine, Cristina |
| | |Gaines, Gray, |Garcia, Lopez, |
| | |Harper, Mathis, |Williams |
| | |Medina, | |
| | |Ridley-Thomas | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Natural |8-1 |Williams, Dahle, |Mark Stone |
|Resources | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Hadley, Harper, | |
| | |McCarty, Rendon, | |
| | |Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |16-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Gordon, | |
AB 1242
Page 2
| | |Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the State Water Resources Control Board, when
setting flow requirements for a Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP),
to take into consideration any applicable groundwater
sustainability plans if a groundwater basin could be affected and
to identify projects for fish recovery that may be undertaken in
lieu of instream flows.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Maintains that the waters of the state are held in trust for the
people of California and cannot be privately owned but can only
be reasonably and beneficially used.
2)Tasks the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) with protecting and enforcing water rights and water
quality laws, included delegated water quality authorities under
the federal Clean Water Act. Places nine Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) under the State Water
Board.
3)Requires the Regional Water Boards, or State Water Board under
specified circumstances, to formulate and adopt WQCPs for all
areas within each region of the state that protect beneficial
uses of water and meet water quality objectives.
4)Defines beneficial uses of the waters of the state to include
AB 1242
Page 3
domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial supply; power
generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and
preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other
aquatic resources or preserves.
5)Requires the WQCP to include objectives that will ensure the
reasonable protection of all beneficial uses, protection of
water quality, and the prevention of nuisance while considering
factors such as past, present and probably future beneficial
uses of water, environmental characteristics, regional
economics, the need to develop housing, and the need to expand
and use recycled water.
6)Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prioritize
California's groundwater basins in order to focus state
resources. The basins are prioritized as either high, medium,
low, or very low based on a combination of factors including,
but not limited to, overlying population, level of dependence
for urban and agricultural water supplies, and impacts on the
groundwater from overdraft, subsidence, saline water intrusion,
and water quality degradation.
7)Requires, by June 30, 2017, the formation of one or more
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in all high and
medium priority basins subject to the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA).
8)Requires, by January 31, 2020, that GSAs in all high and medium
priority basins subject to a chronic condition of overdraft
develop and adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) that
provide for the sustainable management of the groundwater basin,
as defined.
9)Requires, by January 31, 2022, that GSAs in all other high and
AB 1242
Page 4
medium priority basins subject to SGMA develop and adopt GSPs.
10)Allows the State Water Board to impose an interim plan for
management of a groundwater basin if no GSA is formed by the
deadline, no GSP is adopted by the appropriate deadline, or a
GSP is adopted which DWR deems insufficient and where the basin
is in a chronic condition of overdraft or in a condition where
groundwater pumping is causing a significant depletion of
interconnected surface waters.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, increased contract costs for the State Water Board to
perform the duties required in the bill of up to $21 million
(General Fund or special fund).
COMMENTS: This bill would require the State Water Board to
consider SGMA GSPs, or any alternatives, when setting instream
flow requirements that could "affect" a groundwater basin. This
bill is assuming that if the State Water Board requires adequate
water to be left instream to meet water quality needs, then locals
will pump more groundwater in response.
This bill is also requiring the State Water Board to identify
projects for fish recovery that may be undertaken in lieu of
instream flows. However, in the Delta, there is significant
scientific disagreement as to whether habitat projects or other
actions can substitute for flows needed to recovery fisheries.
The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet in the Delta and part
of the flow passes through the San Francisco Bay and out to sea
under the Golden Gate Bridge. The Delta is important to the
natural environment and economy of California. The Delta's flows
provide part of the drinking water supply for two-thirds of the
State's population and water for a multitude of other urban uses
AB 1242
Page 5
as well as supplying some of the State's most productive
agricultural areas both inside and outside of the Delta. The
Delta is also one of the largest ecosystems for fish and wildlife
habitat production in the United States, including commercial runs
of salmon.
This bill is a direct response to the State Water Board's current
process of setting in-stream flows sufficient to meet the Delta's
WQCP needs. For 30 years parties on the Sacramento River and its
tributaries, including the State Water Project and federal Central
Valley Project, have been required to help meet flow requirements
in accordance with the 1995 Delta WQCP. However, at the time that
the 1995 Delta WQCP was developed, the parties on the Merced,
Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers, which are tributaries to the San
Joaquin River, claimed there was insufficient scientific
information to establish flow requirements and proposed a
multi-year experiment to inform the determination.
The objective of the experiment, called the "Vernalis Adaptive
Management Plan" or "VAMP" was to evaluate the relative
relationship between flows down the tributaries and export pumping
in the Delta on fish survival. VAMP ended in 2011 after more than
a decade during which the VAMP participants did not provide the
high end of the flow range that was necessary to complete the
experiment. Meanwhile, populations of at-risk fish species
crashed in the Delta.
The Delta WQCP received a minor update in 2006. As part of that
update four "emerging issues" were identified. These included:
the decline of pelagic or "open water" fish such as smelt and
threadfin shad; climate change impacts; Delta and Central Valley
salinity; and, San Joaquin River flows. With regard to San
Joaquin River flows, the State Water Board referenced data that
showed various fish species within the Delta and San Joaquin River
basin had not shown significant signs of recovery since adoption
of the VAMP experiment and recommended additional study.
AB 1242
Page 6
Thereafter, in 2009, the State Water Board commenced a triennial
update of the WQCP that is ongoing and will include a
determination of what responsibility parties on the individual
tributaries to the San Joaquin River have for contributing to
Delta flows.
The author states this bill is necessary because the State Water
Board is considering a proposal to develop new unimpaired flow
requirements on the Tuolumne, Merced, and Stanislaus Rivers. The
author maintains that the proposed plan would significantly
increase the level of water into the Delta and thus devastate the
groundwater basins in the valley by reducing surface water
recharge opportunities and eliminating surface water deliveries to
domestic and agricultural water users. The author maintains that
the State Board's action will deny Central Valley basins one of
the most important tools in the tool box: the ability to recharge
the depleted groundwater table with surface flows.
Opponents state that this bill would unreasonably limit the
authority of the State Water Board to balance the use of water in
the state for all beneficial uses, including fish and wildlife
that are held in trust by the state. Opponents state that this
bill also threatens vulnerable communities from unsustainable
groundwater management by inserting a broad and inappropriate
requirement that essentially makes every Basin Plan subservient to
any and all GSPs in that basin with the effect of interfering with
the State Water Board's ability to protect water quality.
Specifically, with regard to the San Joaquin River and its
tributaries, opponents note that in some years more than 80% of
the natural flow of these rivers is diverted, which has
devastating impacts on salmon, steelhead, and other native
fisheries as well as the health of the Delta. Opponents add that
during the negotiations for SGMA the author attempted to link
groundwater management and the State Water Board's potential
requirement for the San Joaquin River tributaries to provide
adequate water to the Delta, but the approach was rejected.
AB 1242
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by:
Tina Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN:
0000772