BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1242|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1242
Author: Gray (D)
Amended: 8/19/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/23/15
AYES: Stone, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Vidak, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley, Allen, Monning
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/15/15
AYES: Wieckowski, Gaines, Bates, Hill, Jackson, Leno, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-6, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Water quality: groundwater impacts
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires the State Water Resources Control
Board to consider any groundwater sustainability plan in
formulating state policy for water quality control or adopting
or approving a water quality control plan
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State
Board), under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Porter-Cologne), to adopt a state policy for water quality
AB 1242
Page 2
control.
a) The policy is to consist of any or all of the following:
i) 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.
ii) Water quality objectives at key locations for
planning and operation of water resource development
projects and for water quality control activities.
iii) Other principles and guidelines deemed essential by
the state board for water quality control.
b) In developing the policy, the State Board is required to
consult with and carefully evaluate the recommendations of
concerned federal, state, and local agencies.
2)Requires the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional
Boards), also under Porter-Cologne, 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 water quality objectives. The State Board is similarly
tasked with developing statewide plans (e.g., the California
Ocean Plan and the Bay-Delta Plan).
a) 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:
i) Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses
of water.
ii) Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic
unit under consideration, including the quality of water
available thereto.
AB 1242
Page 3
iii) Water quality conditions that could reasonably be
achieved through the coordinated control of all factors
which affect water quality in the area.
iv) Economic considerations.
v) The need for developing housing within the region.
vi) The need to develop and use recycled water.
b) In developing WQCPs, the Regional Boards are required to
consult with and consider recommendations of affected state
and local agencies.
c) WQCPs adopted or amended by Regional Boards must be
approved by the State Board.
3)Requires the development and adoption of state policy for
water quality control and WQCPs to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
a) 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:
i) All significant effects on the environment of the
proposed project.
ii) 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.
iii) Alternatives to the proposed project.
4)Requires, under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), by June 30, 2017, the formation of one or more
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in all high and
medium priority basins.
a) SGMA requires, by January 31, 2020, Groundwater
Sustainability Plans (GSPs) GSAs in all high and medium
AB 1242
Page 4
priority basins subject to a chronic condition of overdraft
develop and adopt that provide for the sustainable
management of the groundwater basin, as defined.
b) SGMA requires GSAs to develop and adopt GSPs in all
other high and medium priority basins by January 31, 2022.
c) SGMA requires GSPs to include, among other things:
i) 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.
ii) 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.
This bill requires the State Board, in formulating state policy
for water quality control or adopting or approving a water
quality control plan, to take into consideration, consistent
with the requirements of CEQA, any applicable groundwater
sustainability plan or alternative adopted or approved under the
SGMA and available information and data regarding the impacts of
groundwater use and management on beneficial uses of surface
waters.
Comments
Opposition is dropping off - in response to recent amendments, a
number of environmental organizations that were previously
"opposed" to this bill have moved to a "neutral" position. Such
organizations include Natural Resources Defense Council, Golden
Gate Salmon Association, Community Water Center, and Clean Water
Action. It is not clear if those remaining "oppose" are in fact
still opposed or simply haven't sent a letter removing their
opposition
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified8/19/15)
AB 1242
Page 5
Agricultural Council of California
Agricultural Council of California
Almond Hullers & Processors Association
Building and Construction Trades Council of Stanislaus, Merced,
Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties
California Bean Shippers Association
California Diary Campaign
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Women for Agriculture
City of Atwater
City of Ceres
City of Dos Palos, Mayor Jerry Antonetti
City of Gustine
City of Livingston
City of Los Banos
City of Merced
City of Modesto
City of Patterson, Mayor Luis Molina
City of Turlock, Mayor Gary Soiseth
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 Board of Supervisors
Merced County Farm Bureau
Merced County Sheriff Vernon Warnke
Merced Irrigation District
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Modesto Irrigation District
Northern California Water Association
Pacific Egg & Poultry Association
Regional Water Authority
Stanislaus Business Alliance
AB 1242
Page 6
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Stanislaus County Farm Bureau
Stevinson Water District
Turlock Chamber of Commerce
Turlock Irrigation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Growers Association
Yosemite Community College District
Yosemite Farm Credit
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/19/15)
California League of Conservation Voters
Center for Biological Diversity
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Contra Costa County
Friends of the River
Klamath Riverkeeper
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
Union of Concerned Scientists
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 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 eliminate surface water deliveries to domestic
and agricultural water users. The Board recognizes these impacts
would have "significant and unavoidable" adverse impacts on 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 consideration to local
groundwater sustainability plans would jeopardize one of the
AB 1242
Page 7
most important tools to achieving groundwater sustainability -
the ability to recharge the depleted groundwater table with
surface flows.
"With the difficulties caused by the state's historic drought,
and the mandate that the newly created groundwater
sustainability agencies create sustainable groundwater plans, it
is more important than ever that the State Water Board consult
all stakeholders as they develop a Bay-Delta Plan that balances
the needs of all water users."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents essentially argue that the
bill is unnecessary. "Under existing law, the State Water
Resources Control Board and its regional boards are required, as
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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-6, 6/2/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla,
Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo
Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray, Grove, Hadley,
Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer,
Kim, Lackey, Linder, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Thurmond, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,
AB 1242
Page 8
Wood, Atkins
NOES: Eggman, Levine, Lopez, Quirk, Mark Stone, Ting
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Chávez, Gordon, Nazarian, Rendon
Prepared by:Dennis O'Connor / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
8/19/15 21:02:21
**** END ****