BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1713
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1713 (Eggman) - As Introduced January 26, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Water, Parks and Wildlife |Vote:|8 - 4 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits the construction of a peripheral canal 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)
AB 1713
Page 2
pumping facilities in the 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 that includes the total cost of
the project and expected impacts on taxpayers, water
ratepayers, and the General Fund.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time General Fund costs of around $220,000 to include the
text and analysis of the measure and arguments for and against
the measure in the statewide voter information guide.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, 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. This bill allows
voters to weigh in on the proposal.
2)Background. 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
AB 1713
Page 3
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.
3)Peripheral Canal. 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. 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, however, enough
signatures were gathered to qualify the "Peripheral Canal" for
a referendum vote of the people. In June 1982, Proposition 9,
the "Peripheral Canal" was repealed by a margin of three to
two.
4)Cal Fed, Delta Vision and BDCP. In 1994, two years after the
end of a drought, state and federal agencies joined together
to coordinate activities in the Delta. This 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. In
the final Record of Decision (ROD) 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.
Following a 2005 independent review critical of many aspects
AB 1713
Page 4
of CALFED, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger created a new
effort by Executive Order called "Delta Vision." Delta Vision
identified seven goals, which included building facilities to
improve the existing water conveyance systems and expand
statewide storage.
In 2006, CALFED parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with state and federal export contractors. Part of that MOA
initiated the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). BDCP was
intended to be a conservation plan for the Delta and its
upstream basins with the express mission of providing the
permits necessary to comply with the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) and the Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) through a state Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(NCCP) and a federal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
In 2009, SB7X set environmental standards for BDCP beyond
those required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) with specific analysis required for numerous conveyance
alternatives. Importantly, SB7X required BDCP to be approved
as a NCCP in order to be eligible for public funding.
5)WaterFix. In 2015, federal agencies determined that BDCP
likely would not meet the requirements of 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 of Water Resources
(DWR) splitting BDCP into WaterFix, the Delta conveyance piece
of BDCP, and EcoRestor the ecological restoration piece of
BDCP.
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 and public funds.
AB 1713
Page 5
6)Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by
environmental groups, Delta counties and other Delta interests
who argue that the permitting process for a major
infrastructure project should be transparent and 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.
This bill is opposed by Delta exporters, central valley and
Southern California counties, and numerous unions and chambers
of commerce. Opponents argue that 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. Opponents
are fundamentally opposed to asking voters to approve the
construction of infrastructure projects, particularly those
that are not funded by taxpayers.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081