BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1713
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
AB 1713
(Eggman) - As Introduced January 26, 2016
SUBJECT: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: peripheral canal
SUMMARY: Prohibits the construction of a peripheral canal, as
defined, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) unless
certain requirements are met. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "peripheral canal" as a facility or structure to
convey water from the Sacramento River to the State Water
Project (SWP) or the federal Central Valley Project (CVP)
pumping facilities in the southern Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta (Delta).
2)Prohibits the construction of a peripheral canal unless
authorized by an initiative vote on or after January 1, 2017.
3)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office to complete an
economic feasibility analysis of the peripheral canal prior to
the election on the initiative.
4)Prohibits the construction and operation of a peripheral canal
from diminishing or negatively affecting the water supplies,
water rights, or quality of water for water users within the
Delta watershed.
AB 1713
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) authority to protect Delta municipal, industrial,
agricultural, and fish and wildlife beneficial water uses
through the adoption and implementation of a Water Quality
Control Plan (WQCP) for the Delta.
2)Provides the State Water Board authority to condition and
enforce water rights permits to implement WQCPs. Requires the
State Water Board use the best available science to develop
flow criteria necessary to protect the Delta environment.
3)Provides the Department of Water Resources (DWR) authority to
construct and operate the SWP and to construct, maintain, and
operate additional SWP units that further the purposes of the
SWP.
4)Prohibits the DWR from constructing any diversion, conveyance,
or other facility to divert from the Sacramento River to the
south Delta until the State Water Board issues an order
approving the change.
5)Prohibits construction of any new Delta conveyance facility
until the SWP and the CVP contractors enter into a contract to
pay for environmental and community impacts from the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility.
6)Establishes coequal goals in the Delta of a more reliable
water supply for California and protecting, restoring and
enhancing the Delta ecosystem while mandating that the coequal
goals are to be achieved in a manner that protects and
enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource,
and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place.
7)Creates the Delta Stewardship Council (Council) which, among
other tasks, must develop and implement the Delta Plan (Plan)
a long-term management plan for the Delta that meets the
AB 1713
Page 3
coequal goals.
8)Requires that the Delta Plan promote options for new and
improved infrastructure relating to Delta water conveyance,
storage systems, and operations to achieve the co-equal goals.
9)Permits inclusion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)
into the Delta Plan only if it complies with a Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that the CEQA analysis
specifically looks at flow related operational requirements
and a reasonable range of Delta conveyance alternatives.
FISCAL EFFECT: unknown
COMMENTS: Prohibits the construction of a peripheral canal, as
defined, in the Delta unless authorized by an initiative vote.
1)Author's Statement: This bill prohibits the construction of a
water conveyance system in the Delta unless first expressly
approved by the voters of California through an initiative. A
major infrastructure project such as the currently proposed
WaterFix project should be affirmatively approved by those who
would be directly assessed for its high cost and those who
would be forced to live with its numerous adverse impacts.
The tunnels will only serve to benefit one portion of the
State at the expense of another and, contrary to existing
state law, cause direct and irreparable harm to the Delta.
This bill appropriately allows voters to weigh in on an
extremely expensive proposal with potentially devastating
impacts both within and outside of the Delta.
2)Background: There is broad agreement that the state's water
management system is currently unable to satisfactorily meet
both ecological and human needs. Under current water use,
demands surpass supply. Especially, in times of drought. The
AB 1713
Page 4
State has taken action through the Water Action Plan to lay
out a path to sustainable water management. This and other
documents, necessarily put all options on the table to improve
the water management system. Those options include but are
not limited to conservation, efficiency, stormwater capture,
groundwater replenishment, recycled water, and desalination.
Due to limited resources it is important that the state invest
first in actions of the highest value to create the greatest
improvements in water reliability for human and natural
requirements.
The Delta is crucial and is in decline: The Delta is both the
hub of the California Water System and the most valuable
estuary and wetland ecosystem on the west coast of the
Americas. The Delta provides water to more than 25 million
Californians and 3 million acres of agricultural land. It
supports a four hundred billion dollar a year economy, is part
of the Pacific Flyway, is critical habitat to 700 native plant
and animal species, and is home to more than 500,000 people.
California is an arid state with limited precipitation. The
mountains in the northern part of the state serve as the
state's water catcher and largest natural surface reservoir.
These mountains receive the bulk of their precipitation as
snow in the winter. The majority of human needs in the state
are hundreds of miles from the primary water source. This
hurdle of time and place of use led to major reengineering of
the hydrology of the state. Beginning in 1933 and largely
culminating in 1968 a major redirecting of water from the
mountains to the cities and valleys through the construction
of the CVP and the SWP made the Delta the hub for water in
California.
The Delta watershed and California's water infrastructure are
in crisis and existing pressures on the Delta are not
sustainable. Among other human impacts the CVP and the SWP
AB 1713
Page 5
operations have altered the natural amount, duration,
direction and timing of water flows. As a result, today there
are about 100 Delta wildlife species, 140 plant species and 13
species of fish that have some form of legal or regulatory
protection. There have been numerous species-related
restrictions on the management of water exports from the Delta
since 1991, with restrictions being in place continuously
since 2008.
Simply receiving more precipitation does not appear to be
sufficient to resolve the challenges for species and
deliveries in the Delta as a significant part of the problem
stems from the fact that the infrastructure associated with
deliveries itself is environmentally damaging. 2016, an
average precipitation year, is an example of what the future
of this environmental and infrastructure challenge would
appear to hold. CVP Sacramento Valley interests are projected
to receive 100% of their deliveries while many CVP San Joaquin
Valley interests are projected to receive 5% of deliveries. It
seems that further restrictions on deliveries from the Delta
and continued ecological decline are a certainty under the
status quo.
The expectation behind proposed changes in conveyance in the
Delta has always been that it will improve the reliability of
water deliveries out of the Delta. A common concern with that
expectation has been what the environmental impacts of that
reliability will be, and what the impacts would be on the
people who live in the Delta.
Long Look at Conveyance and Delta Management: Since prior to
the completion of both the CVP and the SWP there has been an
ongoing debate about how to manage the Delta. Management and
conveyance in the Delta have been and continue to be closely
linked together. Because management and conveyance have been
the responsibility of Federal, State, and Local governments,
AB 1713
Page 6
plans have not always been coordinated and have occurred in
overlapping ways. Much of the debate on coordination,
conveyance, and management came to a head in legislation that
was passed in 2009. The timeline on this debate, with respect
to conveyance in the Delta has progressed as follows:
First "Peripheral Canal" 1965-1982
In 1965 the first plan for a "Peripheral Canal" was put forth.
This plan was for a 43 mile-long, 400 feet wide, 30 feet deep
unlined ditch running from the Sacramento River in the north
of the Delta to the SWP and the CVP pumping plants in the
south Delta. The "Peripheral Canal" would have been capable
of delivering 23,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). At that
time, many did not believe that building such a canal would
require a vote of the people.
In 1980 the Legislature passed SB 200 (Ayala) and ACA 90
(Kapiloff) that approved the "Peripheral Canal" and placed
Proposition 8 on the November 1980 ballot. Proposition 8 was
approved by the voters. This ultimately did not move forward,
however, when enough signatures were gathered to qualify the
"Peripheral Canal" for a referendum, or veto by the people.
In June 1982, Proposition 9, the "Peripheral Canal" was
repealed by a margin of three to two and.
CALFED 1994-2000
After the vote on Proposition 9 the idea of changing
conveyance in the Delta was put on the back burner for some
time. A drought from 1987-1992, however, brought renewed
attention to the conflicts in the Delta. 1994, two years
after the end of the drought, state and federal agencies
joined together to coordinate activities in the Delta. This
AB 1713
Page 7
coordination ultimately resulted in the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program (CALFED). CALFED initiated a long-term planning
process to improve the Delta and increase the reliability of
its water supply. As part of that plan CALFED reconsidered
some type of peripheral conveyance to address export water
supply reliability and ecosystem restoration in the Delta.
CALFED called this new conveyance an "isolated facility" and
tried to distinguish it from the prior "Peripheral Canal".
Ultimately however, in a Record of Decision signed in August
of 2000, the CALFED Program chose the existing through-Delta
system as the preferred alternative for continuing to convey
export water supplies.
Delta Vision 2005-2008
Following a 2005 independent review critical of many aspects
of CALFED, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger created a new
effort by Executive Order called "Delta Vision." Delta Vision
built on CALFED's work but aimed at addressing the full array
of issues necessary to achieve a sustainable Delta. Delta
Vision identified seven goals which they deemed should be part
of a comprehensive water plan for the state. Significantly
the recommendations included:
Building facilities to improve the existing water
conveyance systems and expand statewide storage.
Delta restoration must be founded on the co-equal
goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem
restoration.
Recognition and enhancement of the unique cultural,
recreational, and agricultural values of the Delta as an
evolving place.
AB 1713
Page 8
Establish a new governance structure with the
authority, responsibility, and accountability to achieve
these goals.
BDCP 2006-2015
In 2006 CALFED was in financial trouble, as a result CALFED
singed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with state and federal
export contractors. Part of that MOA initiated BDCP. BDCP
was described as "a conservation plan for the Delta and its
upstream basins" with the express mission of obtaining for
SWP/CVP Delta operations the permits necessary to comply with
the California Endangered Species Act and the Federal
Endangered Species Act (FESA) through a state NCCP and a
federal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
Delta Legislation 2009
When California faced a third consecutive dry year, In 2009,
former Governor Schwarzenegger called an Extraordinary Session
of the Legislature to address water issues. That Extraordinary
Session produced several pieces of Legislation including SB 1
(Simitian, Chapter 5, Statutes of the 7th Extraordinary
Session 2009-2010). Among numerous changes, this legislation
tied Delta conveyance, governance, and funding together. SB 1
x7 clarified that any new conveyance facility could not be
constructed without approval from the State Water Board. It
required the State Water Board to develop new flow criteria
for the Delta and include that flow criteria in any approval
for new conveyance.
SB 1 x7 set environmental bars for BDCP beyond those required
under CEQA with specific analysis required for numerous
conveyance alternatives, and included a reasonable range of
AB 1713
Page 9
flow criteria, rates of diversion, and other operational
criteria. Importantly, SB 1 x7 required BDCP to be approved
as an NCCP in order to be eligible for public funding.
Additionally, SB 1 x7 established the Council as a governance
body in the Delta. Part of the Council's responsibility is to
develop a Delta Plan and make determinations of consistency
with the Delta Plan. Any new conveyance facility would very
likely fall under an action that would be evaluated by the
Council for consistency with the Delta Plan.
The Plan is required to:
Further the restoration of the Delta through
advancing the coequal goals of providing water
reliability and enhancing the Delta ecosystem in a manner
that protects the unique culture of the Delta.
Promote statewide water conservation, water use
efficiency, and sustainable use of water.
Promote options for conveyance, storage, and
operation that achieve the coequal goals.
WaterFix 2015-Present
In 2015 federal agencies determined that BDCP likely would not
meet the requirements of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and
that the Delta conveyance associated with BDCP would not
receive 50 year permits for operation. This effectively led
to the end of BDCP and resulted in the Department splitting
BDCP into WaterFix, the Delta conveyance piece of BDCP, and
EcoRestor the ecological restoration piece of BDCP.
AB 1713
Page 10
Recent estimates put the cost of WaterFix at $17 billion and
EcoRestor at $8 billion. Under existing law, the CVP and the
SWP contractors will have to pay the cost of WaterFix. The
funding for EcoRestor is less clear and will likely come from
a mix of sources including CEQA mitigation.
Much of SB 1 x7 still applies to how conveyance and governance
continue to be carried out in the Delta. Importantly, the
approval process for conveyance at the State Water Board and
the Council remains in place.
Big Gulp, Little Sip
One of the driving concepts behind any conveyance facility is
the idea of "Big Gulp, Little Sip". This refers to the
ability to move large portions of water in wet years so as to
reduce dependence on the Delta in dry years. The central
question is what size is the right size. Or what approach
will have the greatest effect for achieving the coequal goals.
The original "Peripheral Canal" was an extremely large
facility. What is being discussed today through WaterFix is a
facility that is approximately 40% of the size of the initial
proposal. To be clear, WaterFix is an extremely large
facility, one in which the hydrologic impacts are not entirely
clear because a facility of this kind is unprecedented. The
uncertainty of the impacts of project of this magnitude is
ultimately what has limited its ability to receive long-term
federal permits.
Approval of New Conveyance
AB 1713
Page 11
A ballot initiative up in this November's election is
substantially similar to this bill. Under the initiative, the
state would have to seek voters' permission before funding
projects that cost more than $2 billion with revenue bonds.
The administration had been and may still propose such bonds
for the Delta conveyance plan. This bill would require a
different vote to occur after January 1, 2017, that is
specifically on the peripheral canal with an economic
feasibility analysis.
Clearly a large scale conveyance project in the Delta would
have to comply with CEQA and all of the associated
requirements for approval of the project. Additionally at
least part of the ability to gain approval for a Delta
conveyance facility was clearly laid out through SB 1 x7 and
that process must still be adhered to today. This includes
approval at the State Water Board and a finding of consistency
by the Council if there is approval by the State Water Board.
How the Council would make a finding of consistency with the
Plan would play out is not clear, but it seems likely that
process would inform any CEQA challenge.
This bill is also similar to AB 1594 (Huber) 2010 and AB 550
(Huber) 2011. Those bills specifically required Legislative
approval of any "Peripheral Canal". Those bills did not
receive approval in this committee.
1)Prior and Related Legislation:
AB 2583 (Frazier) of 2016, revises and recasts the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. AB 2583 is
pending in this committee.
AB 550 (Huber) of 2011, would have prohibited construction of
a peripheral canal unless there was expressed Legislative
AB 1713
Page 12
approval. AB 550 failed passage in this Committee.
AB 1594 (Huber) of 2010, would have prohibited construction of
a peripheral canal unless there was expressed Legislative
approval. AB 1594 was held in this Committee.
SB 1 x7 (Simitian) Chapter 5, Statues of the 7th extraordinary
session of 2009-2010, established the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Reform Act requiring Delta management to meet the
coequal goals.
2)Supporting Arguments: The permitting process for a major
infrastructure project should be transparent. A major
infrastructure project such as the currently proposed Twin
Tunnels project should be affirmatively approved by those who
would be directly assessed for its high cost and those who
would be forced to live with its numerous adverse impacts.
Many of those who voted against the peripheral canal proposal
in 1982 are likely to question why avoiding voters this time
is somehow in the best interest of Californians. At a
minimum, the issue should be presented to voters statewide for
their consideration.
3)Opposing Arguments: This bill will cause unnecessary delays
and bureaucracy, jeopardizing the only viable solution
available to secure water supplies for 2/3 of the state while
improving the health of the Delta. Current rains have
demonstrated that the existing outdated water distribution
infrastructure does not allow us to capture and transfer water
to storage in wet years. Fundamentally, the state should not
ask voters to approve the construction of infrastructure
projects, particularly those that are not funded by taxpayers.
4)REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1713
Page 13
Support
CA Save Our Streams Council
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Water Impact Network (C-WIN)
Clean Water Action
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County of Sacramento
Delta Counties Coalition
Environmental Protection Information Center
Fish Sniffer Magazine
Food & Water Watch
Foothill Conservancy
AB 1713
Page 14
Friends of the River
Klamath Riverkeeper
Northern California Council of the International Federation of
Fly Fishers
Planning and Conservation League
Restore the Delta
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
San Joaquin Board of Supervisors
Opposition
Alameda County Zone 7 Water Agency
American Council of Engineering Companies California
Associated General Contractors of California
Association of California Water Agencies
Burbank Water and Power
AB 1713
Page 15
California Alliance for Jobs
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Contract Cities Association
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
California Municipal Utilities Association
California State Building and Construction Trades Council
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Castaic Lake Water Agency
Central City Association of Los Angeles
Central Coast Water Authority
AB 1713
Page 16
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Chamber of Commerce, Mountain View
Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara
Counties
City of Glendale Water and Power
City of Torrance
Coachella Valley Water District
Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Desert Water Agency
East Orange County Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
El Monte/South El Monte Chamber of Commerce
El Toro Water District
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Foothill Municipal Water District
AB 1713
Page 17
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce
Imperial County Building and Construction Trades Council
Inland Action
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Allied Workers Local Union 16
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 11
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 332
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 441
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 477
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 551
AB 1713
Page 18
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 6
Irvine Ranch Water District
Kern County Taxpayer Association
Kern County Water Agency
Kern, Inyo and Mono Building and Construction Trades Council
La Verne Chamber of Commerce
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Long Beach Water Commission
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades
Council
Mesa Water District
AB 1713
Page 19
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Mojave Water Agency
Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Orange County Business Council
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Rancho California Water District
Rubidoux Community Services District
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council
San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
AB 1713
Page 20
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Margarita Water District
Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Workers 105
South Bay Labor Council
Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16
Southern California Water Committee
Southwest California Legislative Council
Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors
State Water Contractors, Inc.
AB 1713
Page 21
Temescal Valley Water District
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
United Chambers of Commerce of San Fernando Valley & Region
United Water Conservation District
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Ventura County Taxpayers Association
Walnut Valley Water District
West Basin Municipal Water District
Western Growers Association
Western Municipal Water District
Western Riverside Council of Governments
AB 1713
Page 22
Westlands Water District
Yorba Linda Water District
Analysis Prepared by:Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916)
319-2096