BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1242 Hearing Date: June 23,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Gray | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |May 5, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Dennis O'Connor |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Water quality: impacts on groundwater: instream
flows
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1.Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Porter-Cologne), the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Board) is required to adopt a state policy for water
quality control.
The policy is to consist of any or all of the following:
Water quality principles and guidelines for long-range
resource planning, including ground water and surface water
management programs and control and use of recycled water.
Water quality objectives at key locations for planning
and operation of water resource development projects and
for water quality control activities.
Other principles and guidelines deemed essential by the
state board for water quality control.
In developing the policy, the State Board is required to
consult with and carefully evaluate the recommendations of
concerned federal, state, and local agencies.
1.Porter-Cologne also requires the Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (Regional Boards) to formulate and adopt water
quality control plans (WQCPs) for all areas within each region
of the state that protect beneficial uses of water and meet
AB 1242 (Gray) Page 2
of ?
water quality objectives. The State Board is similarly tasked
with developing statewide plans (e.g., the California Ocean
Plan and the Bay-Delta Plan).
WQCPs are to include objectives that will ensure the
reasonable protection of all beneficial uses, protection of
water quality, and the prevention of nuisance. Porter-Cologne
recognizes that it may be possible for the quality of water to
be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting
beneficial uses. Consequently, regional boards are required to
consider various factors in establishing water quality
objectives, including:
Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of
water.
Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit
under consideration, including the quality of water
available thereto.
Water quality conditions that could reasonably be
achieved through the coordinated control of all factors
which affect water quality in the area.
Economic considerations.
The need for developing housing within the region.
The need to develop and use recycled water.
In developing WQCPs, the Regional Boards are required to
consult with and consider recommendations of affected state
and local agencies.
WQCPs adopted or amended by Regional Boards must be approved
by the State Board.
1.Development and adoption of state policy for water quality
control and WQCPs are subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA requires, for any project or plan subject to CEQA that
would potentially have significant environmental impacts, an
environmental impact report that, among other things,
identifies the following:
All significant effects on the environment of the
AB 1242 (Gray) Page 3
of ?
proposed project.
Mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant
effects on the environment, including, but not limited to,
measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of energy.
Alternatives to the proposed project.
1.The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires, by
June 30, 2017, the formation of one or more Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in all high and medium priority
basins.
SGMA requires, by January 31, 2020, Groundwater Sustainability
Plans (GSPs) GSAs in all high and medium priority basins
subject to a chronic condition of overdraft develop and adopt
that provide for the sustainable management of the groundwater
basin, as defined.
SGMA requires by January 31, 2022, GSPs all other high and
medium priority basins to develop and adopt GSPs.
SGMA requires GSPs to include, among other things:
Measurable objectives, as well as interim milestones in
increments of five years, to achieve the sustainability
goal in the basin within 20 years of the implementation of
the plan.
A description of how the plan helps meet each objective
and how each objective is intended to achieve the
sustainability goal for the basin for long-term beneficial
uses of groundwater.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would do two things:
1.Require the State Board, in formulating state policy for water
quality control and adopting or approving a water quality
control plan that affects a groundwater basin, to take into
AB 1242 (Gray) Page 4
of ?
consideration any applicable GSP or alternative adopted or
approved SGMA.
2.Require the State Board, before adopting or approving water
quality objectives or a program of implementation that
requires instream flows for protection of instream beneficial
uses, to identify projects for fish recovery that may be
undertaken in lieu of instream flows.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "For the past year, the State Water
Resources Control Board has considered a proposal to develop new
unimpaired flow requirements on the Tuolumne, Merced, and
Stanislaus rivers. The proposed plan would require an additional
350,000 acre feet of water annually to be diverted from the
rivers to flow out to San Francisco Bay Delta.
"If adopted, the Board's proposal will 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 Board recognizes
these impacts would have significant 'but unavoidable' adverse
impacts to the region.
"In 2014, the Legislature passed the Sustainability Groundwater
Management Act which promised to empower local communities with
the tools to achieve sustainable management goals. The adoption
of the Board's proposal without mitigating measures would deny
Central Valley basins one of the most important tools in that
tool box: the ability to recharge the depleted groundwater table
with surface flows.
"AB 1242 would ensure that the Board considers water neutral
projects to help fish populations before diverting water out of
the Valley."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
According to a coalition of environmental and environmental
justice organizations, "Under existing law, the State Water
Resources Control Board and its regional boards are required, as
AB 1242 (Gray) Page 5
of ?
they develop water quality control plans for the State, to
consider all existing and potential future beneficial uses of
water, as well as economic considerations ?These water quality
control plans include pollution standards, instream flows, and
other measures to best manage the scarce water resources of the
state and to comply with other statutory and common law
obligations. In setting these standards, the State and regional
boards already consider impacts to groundwater resources, and
they are required to mitigate those impacts to less than
significant levels when feasible, or to adopt a statement of
overriding considerations ? In addition, in developing water
quality control plans the State Water Resources Control Board
already considers both flow and nonflow measures, such as
habitat restoration, pollution controls, or improved water use
efficiency, in order to protect and restore fisheries and other
beneficial uses.
"AB 1242, in contrast, attempts to undermine more than a century
of California law, which requires maintaining adequate instream
flows below dams in order to maintain healthy rivers and
fisheries. The bill would limit the State Board's ability to
require instream flows in a water quality control plan by
requiring the State Water Resources Control Board to identify
measures to be taken instead of instream flow, regardless of
whether such measures can successfully protect and restore
healthy rivers and fish and wildlife populations. The bill could
even be read to require the Board to eliminate all instream flow
in a river, completely drying up the river.
"For all of these reasons, we strongly urge the committee to
vote NO on AB 1242."
COMMENTS
Is This Bill Necessary? Porter-Cologne already requires the
state board, when developing a state policy for water quality
control, to consult with and carefully evaluate the
recommendations of concerned federal, state, and local agencies.
Local agencies would include groundwater sustainability
agencies formed to develop and implement GSPs. There are
similar requirements for developing WQCPs.
The state board also has to comply with CEQA when adopting a
AB 1242 (Gray) Page 6
of ?
state policy or a WQCP. Such analysis requires identifying and
evaluating alternatives to establishing instream flows for
protection of instream beneficial uses.
The author's staff has stated that they are not looking for an
analysis of projects for fish recovery beyond that required of
CEQA. If so, it is not clear what this bill would provide
beyond that required under current law.
Related Bills. A number of bills were introduced this year to
address one or more aspects of groundwater management in general
and SGMA in particular. Bills still under active consideration
this year are:
AB 453 (Bigelow)Authorizes existing groundwater management
plans (aka AB 3030 plans) to be renewed and
amended for high and medium priority basins, until
a GSP is adopted. Also grants agencies operating
under an AB 3030 plan the same powers and
authorities of a groundwater management agencies
the authorities of a groundwater sustainably
agency.
AB 617 (Perea)Makes numerous changes throughout SGMA: Some
changes are minor and technical; others are
substantive policy changes, such as eliminating
the requirement that a groundwater sustainability
agency submit its groundwater sustainability plan
to DWR as a condition of a groundwater
sustainability agency becoming authorized exercise
its powers to implement SGMA.
AB 938 (Salas)Makes a minor technical change regarding
reprioritization of groundwater basins under SGMA.
AB 939 (Salas)Makes a minor technical change regarding making
data in support of a proposed available to the
public.
AB 1390 (Alejo)Streamlines legal processes used to assign water
rights in a groundwater basin.
SB 13 (Pavley)Makes numerous non-substantive technical changes
to SGMA.
SB 226 (Pavley)Streamlines legal processes used to assign water
rights in a groundwater basin.
Double-Referral. The Rules Committee referred this bill to both
the Committee on Natural Resources and Water and to the
AB 1242 (Gray) Page 7
of ?
Committee on Environmental Quality. Therefore, if this bill
passes this committee, it will be referred to the Committee on
Environmental Quality, which will consider the issues within
their jurisdiction
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
SUPPORT
Agricultural Council of California
Almond Hullers & Processors Association
Building and Construction Trades Council of Stanislaus, Merced,
Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties
California Diary Campaign
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Women for Agriculture
City of Atwater
City of Ceres
City of Dos Palos
City of Gustine
City of Livingston
City of Los Banos
City of Merced
City of Modesto
City of Patterson
City of Turlock
Coalition of California Utility Employees
Congressman Jim Costa
Glen-Colusa Irrigation District
Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
Harris Farms, Inc.
IBEW - Local 684
IBEW - Local 1245
Latino Community Roundtable
League of California Cities - Central Valley Division
Merced County
Merced County Farm Bureau
Merced County Sheriff Vernon Warnke
Merced Irrigation District
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Modesto Irrigation District
Northern California Water Association
Regional Water Authority
Stanislaus Business Alliance
AB 1242 (Gray) Page 8
of ?
Stanislaus County
Stanislaus County Farm Bureau
Stevinson Water District
The Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
Turlock Chamber of Commerce
Turlock Irrigation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Growers Association
Yosemite Community College District
Yosemite Farm Credit
OPPOSITION
California League of Conservation Voters
Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Water Action
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Community Water Center
Friends of the River
Klamath Riverkeeper
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
Union of Concerned Scientists
-- END --