BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1749
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mathis |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |6/15/2016 |Hearing |6/29/2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Joanne Roy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: City
of Porterville.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law, under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA):
1) Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental
impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is
exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions,
as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines).
(Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). Exemptions relating
to pipelines include:
a) A project of less than one mile in length within a
public street or highway, or another public right-of-way
for the installation of a new pipeline or maintenance,
repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation,
replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing
pipeline. "Pipeline" means "subsurface pipelines and
subsurface or surface accessories or appurtenances to a
pipeline, such as mains, traps, vents, cables, conduits,
vaults, valves, flanges, manholes and meters."
(§21080.21).
i) Requires a resource agency to consider only the
length of pipeline that is within its legal
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 2
of ?
jurisdiction in determining the applicability of this
exemption to a natural gas pipeline safety
enhancement activity under review by the resource
agency. (§21080.21).
ii) Defines "natural gas pipeline" to mean a public
utility activity as part of a program to enhance the
safety of intrastate natural gas pipelines in
accordance with a decision, rule, or regulation
adopted by the Public Utilities Commission; and
defines "resource agency" to mean the State Lands
Commission, California Coastal Commission, Department
of Fish and Game, or the State Water Resources
Control Board, and local or regional agencies with
permitting authority under the California Coastal Act
of 1976 or regional water quality control board
requirements. (§21080.21).
iii) Sunsets the provisions above, in §21080.21, on
January 1, 2018. (§21080.21).
b) The inspection, repair, restoration, reconditioning,
relocation, replacement, or removal of an existing
pipeline less than eight miles in length, or any valve,
flange, meter, or other equipment directly attached to the
pipeline if certain conditions are met (e.g., "pipeline"
is covered under the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act
of 1981 [for transporting hazardous liquid substances or
highly volatile liquid substances], project is not less
than eight miles from any section of pipeline that has
been subject to this exemption in the past 12 months,
certain notice is provided, project is located within an
existing right-of-way and restored to its condition prior
to the project, notice requirements). (§21080.23).
c) Development and approval of building standards by state
agencies for recycled water systems until July 1, 2017.
(§21080.45).
d) During the drought state of emergency proclaimed by the
Governor on January 17, 2014, for a public agency to
mitigate drought conditions by building or expanding a
recycled water pipeline and related groundwater
replenishment infrastructure if it is within an existing
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 3
of ?
right-of-way, does not impact wetlands or sensitive
habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully
mitigated. This authority remains operative until the
state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017,
whichever occurs first. (§21080.08).
e) Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor altercation of
existing private or public structures involving negligible
or no expansion, including existing facilities of both
investor and publicly owned utilities used to provide
electric power, natural gas, sewage, or other public
utility services. (CEQA Guidelines §15301(b)).
f) Replacement or reconstruction of existing structures
and facilities where the new structure will be located on
the same site as the structure replaced and will have
substantially the same purpose and capacity, including
replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems
or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of
capacity. (CEQA Guidelines §15301(c)).
2) Defines "recycled water" to mean water which, as a result of
treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use
or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is
therefore considered a valuable resource. (Water Code
§13050(n)).
This bill:
1) Exempts from CEQA a water treatment project determined by the
City of Porterville as the best option based on a feasibility
study regarding long-term solutions to water supply issues in
the unincorporated area known as East Porterville.
2) Specifies that the project may be one of the following
options:
a) The construction of a series of satellite water
treatment facilities adjacent to to existing water
distribution line.
b) The construction of an advanced water recycling
treatment facility located either adjacent to the city's
existing wastewater treatment facility or at a preferred
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 4
of ?
location.
c) Upgrades to the city's existing wastewater treatment
facility to allow for tertiary treatment of the city's
wastewater.
3) Sunsets the provisions of this bill January 1, 2021.
Background
1) Background on CEQA.
a) Overview of CEQA Process. CEQA provides a process for
evaluating the environmental effects of a project, and
includes statutory exemptions, as well as categorical
exemptions in the CEQA guidelines. If a project is not
exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to
determine whether a project may have a significant effect
on the environment. If the initial study shows that there
would not be a significant effect on the environment, the
lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the
initial study shows that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the lead agency
must prepare an EIR.
Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed
project, identify and analyze each significant
environmental impact expected to result from the proposed
project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those
impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to
approving any project that has received environmental
review, an agency must make certain findings. If
mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a
project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring
program to ensure compliance with those measures.
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant
effects in addition to those that would be caused by the
proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure
must be discussed but in less detail than the significant
effects of the proposed project.
b) What is analyzed in an environmental review? Pursuant
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 5
of ?
to CEQA, an environmental review analyzing the significant
direct and indirect environmental impacts of a proposed
project may include water quality, surface and subsurface
hydrology, land use and agricultural resources,
transportation and circulation, air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions, terrestrial and aquatic biological
resources, aesthetics, geology and soils, recreation,
public services and utilities such as water supply and
wastewater disposal, and cultural resources. The analysis
must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of any past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects/activities
within study areas that are applicable to the resources
being evaluated. A study area for a proposed project must
not be limited to the footprint of the project because
many environmental impacts of a development extend beyond
the identified project boundary. Also, CEQA stipulates
that the environmental impacts must be measured against
existing physical conditions within the project area, not
future, allowable conditions.
c) CEQA provides hub for multi-disciplinary regulatory
process. A CEQA exemption does not alleviate a project
proponent from its obligation to obtain mandatory permits
or adhere to specified regulatory programs. CEQA assists
in moving a project through the multi-disciplinary,
regulatory process because responsible agencies rely on
the lead agency's environmental documentation in acting on
the aspect of the project that requires its approval and
must prepare its own findings regarding the project. A
variety of issues, many of which involve permitting and/or
regulatory program requirements, should be coordinated and
analyzed together as a whole. CEQA provides a
comprehensive analysis of a project's impacts in those
subject areas.
2) Recycled water.
a) Overview of Recycled Water. Recycled water is treated
wastewater from various sources such as domestic sewage,
industrial wastewater, and stormwater runoff, and is
conveyed to a water treatment plant. Before recycled
water can be used for these beneficial uses, the regional
water quality control boards (RWQCBs) and the Department
of Public Health (DPH) require treatment to remove
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 6
of ?
pollutants that could be harmful to the beneficial use.
Recycled water is used for nonpotable (not for drinking)
purposes, such as agriculture, landscape, public parks,
and golf course irrigation. Other nonpotable applications
include cooling water for power plants and oil refineries,
industrial process water for such facilities as paper
mills and carpet dyers, toilet flushing, dust control,
construction activities, concrete mixing, and artificial
lakes.
Recycled water can satisfy many nonpotable water demands, as
long as it is adequately treated to ensure water quality
appropriate for the use. Most recycled water treatment
plants produce tertiary treated water, meaning the water
has been through three levels of treatment including
filtration and disinfection. In uses where there is a
greater chance of human exposure to the water, more
treatment is required. As for any water source that is
not properly treated, health problems can arise from
drinking or being exposed to recycled water if it contains
disease-causing organisms or other contaminants.
Although most water recycling projects have been developed to
meet nonpotable water demands, a number of projects use
recycled water indirectly for potable purposes. These
projects include recharging groundwater aquifers and
augmenting surface water reservoirs with recycled water.
For example, Orange County has a wastewater-recycling
program where wastewater is treated to a level meeting
state and federal drinking water standards and is then
released into local groundwater recharge basins, where it
will eventually be re-drawn for municipal or private use.
b) Regulatory Authorities of Recycled Water in California.
A number of regulatory agencies have adopted requirements
that must be followed when producing, distributing, and
using recycled water. DPH has adopted strict public
health and safety requirements and guidelines, which help
protect the public from any potential risk associated with
use of recycled water (Titles 17 and 22 of the California
Code of Regulations). The State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs grant permits to oversee
production, conveyance, and use of recycled water. Local
Departments of Public Health may also have guidelines and
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 7
of ?
inspection requirements for the use of recycled water,
such as requirements for the use of backflow devices to
prevent mixing of recycled water with potable water. The
sanitation districts have adopted ordinances and
requirements for recycled water users pertaining to the
use of recycled water that incorporate requirements and
regulations imposed upon the sanitation districts by other
regulatory agencies.
3) Tulare County and emergency water needs. Due to the number
of private shallow wells in Tulare County, the county's
population has had serious challenges related to water supply
and quality. The county has been working the past two years
to address its emergency water needs and to develop long-term
solutions. As of April 2016, the state has allocated over
$148.4 million toward emergency drought response and
long-term solutions throughout Tulare County, including the
following:
a) $7.3 million from the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) for emergency bottled water delivery to an
estimated 1,000 homes; connection of homes with dry wells
to community systems; and consolidation of water systems.
b) $5.8 million in funding from the California Office of
Emergency Services (OES) to set up and maintain nearly 600
temporary household water tanks for residents with dry
wells.
c) $133.5 million in SWRCB grants to permanently address
water contamination issues; expand and upgrade water and
wastewater systems; and drill new wells in several
communities.
d) $1.8 million in Department of Water Resources (DWR)
funding to establish new wells to support the communities
of East Porterville, Monson, Okieville, and the Tule River
Tribe.
Such efforts are making a significant difference for
thousands of residents throughout Tulare County.
4) City of Porterville and unincorporated East Porterville. The
City of Porterville has a population of approximately 55,500
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 8
of ?
people. East Porterville is an unincorporated community of
approximately 7,500 residents, many of whom are farmworkers
with many of them having lost jobs picking, processing, and
packaging vegetables and fruits due to drought-stricken
farms.
Groundwater generally supplies most domestic uses in Tulare
County, including both the City of Porterville and East
Porterville. The City has a municipal water system hooked up
to a deep, industrial-grade well and has not gone dry.
However, East Porterville lacks such public infrastructure.
Since Tulare County started tracking private well failures in
September 2014, 996 were reported as of April 2015, many of
them in East Porterville. As of May 2016, 12% of the state's
failed wells are in East Porterville. The state is currently
spending over $500,000/month on tank and bottled water
programs in the area.
5) City of Porterville water and wastewater. According to the
City of Porterville, the city "has jurisdiction over water
and wastewater services within the city limits and within its
Urban Development Boundary (which includes the vast majority
of the East Porterville area), and accordingly, has
jurisdiction over the sources of recycled water and/or the
potential service area. The City's Wastewater Treatment
Facility (WWTF) treats sewer flows from residential,
commercial, and industrial users within the city's
boundaries, including East Porterville area by virtue of an
agreement between the City and the Porter Vista Public
Utility District. Collectively, the City's WWTF treats on
average at least 4 million gallons of effluent per day, which
equates to more than 12 acre-feet per day and approximately
5,000 acre-feet per year.
The city has traditionally depended on groundwater from the Tule
Sub-basin of the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region to supply
drinking water, through a network of 35 potable supply wells.
The Tule Sub-basin, along with many other sub-basins in the
surrounding area, has been classified in a critical overdraft
condition, as determined by the State.
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "AB 1749 is a
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 9
of ?
simple yet vital measure aimed at ensuring California is able
to adequately mitigate the effects of the existing drought,
while also preparing for future droughts. California should
continue to encourage projects that preserve our precious
water supply and promote water sustainability, such as
groundwater replenishment and recycled water programs, rather
than hindering them with strict CEQA regulations."
2) Five years until construction begins. According to the City
of Porterville, "It is estimated that the feasibility study,
selection of option and financing, design, and finally
beginning construction will likely take up to five years."
Five years is ample time for the lead agency to conduct an
environmental review for this project. The project, lead
agency, and the community would benefit from the CEQA process
because an environmental review helps decisionmakers make an
informed decision by assessing each option/alternative, the
design, how best to proceed with construction, and potential
impacts on the community; as well as provide transparency and
an opportunity for public participation.
The City will not begin construction for approximately five
years - Conducting an environmental review in that time frame
is not an issue. It would be prudent for the City to act
responsibly by using the five-year time period to conduct an
environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure that its
long-term water solution is safe and viable; and that it is
not trading unnecessary expediency for unintended
consequences.
3) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of
Porterville has submitted a funding application to SWRCB.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund uses federal
capitalization grants, state match funds, loan repayments,
and interest earnings to offer low cost financing for a
variety of water quality projects. If the Porterville
project receives such funding, an environmental review will
be required pursuant to NEPA. It is not uncommon for a
project to be subject to both NEPA and CEQA.
If the project is subject to NEPA, no expediency would be gained
from an exemption from CEQA because the lead agency must
still conduct an environmental review pursuant to NEPA. A
joint CEQA/NEPA environmental review document could be done.
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 10
of ?
4) East Porterville Emergency Water Project. Three state
agencies, DWR, OES, and SWRCB, are working with Tulare County
local governments on an emergency water supply project to
provide drinking water to homes in East Porterville where
numerous private water wells are not usable because they are
either contaminated or have gone dry during California's
drought. Homes without a sustainable supply of safe drinking
water have received water deliveries under an emergency
Household Tank Program since 2014.
A new water distribution system is being designed that will
connect East Porterville residences without usable water to a
City of Porterville well with existing water distribution
lines for some residences or new pipes that will be laid
along East Porterville streets. Approximately 1,800
properties will benefit from this permanent water solution
and eventually will be annexed to the City of Porterville,
with the state paying connection costs for homes whose owners
agree at the outset of the project to the terms and
conditions of an Extraterritorial Service Agreement.
The East Porterville Emergency Water Project is divided into two
phases. Phase 1will begin connecting 500 homes this summer.
Phase 2 has the remaining 1,300 residences scheduled to
receive service through a new system by the end of 2017.
Phase 1 is exempted from CEQA as an emergency project. For
Phase 2, DWR is conducting a CEQA environmental review, which
is expected to be completed in the next six months.
Considering that DWR is proceeding with a CEQA review for the
Phase 2 East Porterville water supply project and expects
residents to receive service through the new system by the
end of next year, a question arises as to the need for a CEQA
exemption for a related project that has yet to be determined
and will not begin construction until five years from now.
5) Concerns regarding recycled water. Although recycled water
is generally understood to be a positive means for
supplementing/increasing water supply in the state, it has
its share of concerns that could benefit from being analyzed
and addressed in a project's environmental review. For
example:
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 11
of ?
a) Corrosion of water system pipes. The recent water
crisis in Flint, Michigan, serves as a strong reminder
that water infrastructure can have many vulnerabilities,
such as corrosion. Recycled water can corrode pipes.
Corrosion is an electro-chemical reaction on metallic
surfaces caused by the presence of highly reactive ions in
recycled water, such as chloride, sulfide, or sulfate, and
can be increased by high pH levels, alkalinity, and
reduced oxygen concentrations. The rate of corrosion is
related to factors, such as: pH of the water, amount of
oxygen in the water, chemical makeup of the water,
temperature of the water, velocity/pressure of water in
the pipe. The internal corrosion of piping systems may
raise health concerns including the negative impacts
associated with the leaching of lead, copper and other
harmful metals from water pipes into the drinking water
supply.
b) Natural contaminants, e.g. arsenic, are contaminants
nonetheless. According to the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), natural contaminants, such as arsenic,
occur at high concentrations in about 20% of the
groundwater resources used for supply in California.
Groundwater provides about one-third of California's
drinking supply in a typical year, but more during drought
conditions. According to USGS, 11% of groundwater used by
public water operators shows arsenic levels exceeding the
10 parts per billion arsenic threshold.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), arsenic is
one of WHO's ten chemicals of major public health concern.
Inorganic arsenic is acutely toxic. Intake of inorganic
arsenic over a long period can lead to chronic arsenic
poisoning. Effects, which can take years to develop
depending on the exposure level, include skin lesions,
peripheral neuropathy, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases,
and cancer. Human exposure to elevated levels of
inorganic arsenic occurs mainly through the consumption of
groundwater containing naturally high levels of inorganic
arsenic, food prepared with this water, and food crops
irrigated with high arsenic water sources. For example,
in one estimate, arsenic-contaminated, potable groundwater
in Bangladesh alone was attributed 9,100 deaths and
125,000 Disability Adjusted Life Years in 2001.
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 12
of ?
As mentioned above, Orange County has a wastewater-recycling
program where wastewater is treated to a level meeting
state and federal drinking water standards and is then
released into local groundwater recharge basins, where it
will eventually be re-drawn for municipal or private use.
In August 2015, Scott Fendorf, a biogeochemist at Stanford
University published a study and found that when highly
purified wastewater was stored in an Orange County
aquifer, the water caused arsenic to escape from clay
sediments in a way that naturally infiltrating water did
not. In some instances, researchers said that arsenic
concentrations exceeded the drinking water limit of 10
micrograms per liter; the increases were temporary and
levels eventually returned to normal. According to the
researchers at Stanford University and the Orange County
Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System, the
root of the problem was that the purified, recycled water
lacked the minerals that native water acquires as it soaks
into the earth or flows along rivers. Professor Fendorf
said that this may be the first time highly purified water
was identified as a trigger by which arsenic can
contaminate groundwater. (Monte Morin, "Purified
wastewater triggers release of arsenic within aquifer,
study finds," The Los Angeles Times, September 4, 2015.)
c) A side of pharmaceuticals with your vegetables.
Studies have found a variety of drugs in crops, such as
cholesterol medications, caffeine, and triclosan. In a
recent study, researchers found that the anticonvulsive
epilepsy drug, carbamazepine, which is released in urine,
can accumulate in crops irrigated with recycled water and
end up in the urine of produce-eaters not on the drug.
Pharmaceuticals may get trapped in an infinite
urine-to-vegetable-to-urine cycle, which exposes consumers
to drug doses with unknown health effects. (Beth Mole,
"Prescription meds get trapped in disturbing
pee-to-food-to-pee loop," Environmental Science &
Technology, April 20, 2016). The researchers found that
while the amounts of the drug in a produce-eater's urine
were four orders of magnitude lower than what is seen in
the urine of patients purposefully taking the drug, there
is a possibility that trace amounts could still have
health effects in some people, such as those with a
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 13
of ?
genetic sensitivity to the drugs, pregnant women,
children, and those who eat a lot of produce, such as
vegetarians. With the growing practice of reclaiming
wastewater for crop irrigation, the produce contamination
could become more common and more potent. California,
which grows a large portion of US produce, currently uses
reclaimed water for 6% of its irrigation needs.
As mentioned above, although recycled water is an important
component in addressing water supply issues in this state,
recycled water is not without its concerns and should be
analyzed and addressed to ensure public health and
environmental safety.
6) SWRCB's recycled water policy. SWRCB's report, Policy for
Water Quality Control for Recycled Water (last revised in
January 2013), states, "We strongly encourage local and
regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local
water for California by emphasizing appropriate water
recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply
infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including
dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of
supply are drought-proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon
footprint and can be sustained over the long-term." Among
the goals adopted, is to "increase the use of recycled water
over 2002 levels by at least one million acre-feet per year
(afy) by 2020 and by at least two million afy by
2030?Included in these goals is the substitution of as much
recycled water for potable water as possible by 2030."
(SWRCB, Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water,
p. 1).
SWRCB's Recycled Water Policy includes ways to expedite the
implementation of recycled water projects. The report makes
no mention that CEQA is an impediment to either reaching
these goals or increasing the use of recycled water in the
state, but rather encourages public agencies to use the
presumption that recycled water has a beneficial impact "in
evaluating the impacts of recycled water projects on the
environment as required by [CEQA]." (Ibid, p. 3).
7) Recycled water projects complying with CEQA. The State
Clearinghouse's CEQA database shows that in the past few
years, there have been multiple recycled water pipeline
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 14
of ?
projects that involve constructing recycled water pipeline
and have complied with CEQA. Many of these projects required
a mitigated negative declaration (MND) as opposed to an EIR.
CEQA provides that if an initial study shows that there would
not be a significant effect on the environment, then the lead
agency must prepare a negative declaration or a mitigated
negative declaration (ND/MND). The lead agency then prepares
a draft ND/MND and publishes the document for public review
for at least 21 days. After comments are considered, the
lead agency can either recirculate the ND/MND if public
comments required the project scope to change, or the lead
agency can adopt the document. The lead agency must file a
Notice of Determination after adopting the document and there
is a 30-day statute of limitations for legal challenge.
The benefit to the project proponent, by complying with CEQA and
preparing an ND/MND when there is no significant impact, is
that these environmental documents can be completed more
quickly, at less cost, and have a shorter statute of
limitations for legal challenge than an EIR. The benefit to
the public is transparency, informed decisionmaking, public
comment, and the knowledge that the project's impacts are
less than significant.
Considering that the City of Porterville is looking at multiple
options, it is possible that the project the city ends up
choosing may only require an ND/MND.
8) Is Ignoring Impacts Prudent? In addition to potential
effects on water quality and supply there may be other
significant impacts that would not be addressed with an
exemption as proposed by this bill. For example, such an
exemption may adversely affect roads and may cause conflicts
with entrances to nearby homes and businesses considering a
right-of-way can be fairly expansive such as 50 feet or more
in width. There may also be adverse noise and air quality
impacts for area residents, or sensitive uses such as
schools, senior centers, and hospitals. With a CEQA
exemption, as provided by this bill, there would be no
consideration of these and other impacts under the Act.
The CEQA review process provides an avenue for decisionmakers to
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 15
of ?
make informed decisions. Does bypassing CEQA potentially
create more of a liability for those decisionmakers who
should have known about potential impacts, but chose not to?
Also, does the short-term benefit of expediency justify
potentially long-term, permanent consequences/damages to the
community?
9) What do we lose with a CEQA exemption? It is not unusual for
certain interests to assert that CEQA impedes on a project
coming to fruition or that a particular exemption will
expedite construction of a particular type of project and
reduce costs. This, however, frequently overlooks the
benefits of environmental review: to inform decisionmakers
and the public about project impacts, identify ways to avoid
or significantly reduce environmental damage, prevent
environmental damage by requiring feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures, disclose to the public reasons why an
agency approved a project if significant environmental
effects are involved, involve public agencies in the process,
and increase public participation in the environmental review
and the planning processes.
If a project is exempt from CEQA, certain issues may not get
addressed. For example:
How can decisionmakers and the public be aware of
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives of an exempt
pipeline?
Is it appropriate for the public to live with the
consequences of exempt projects where impacts are not
mitigated and alternatives are not considered regarding
certain matters, such as air quality, water quality, noise,
cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts?
Because adverse project impacts do not disappear when
they are not identified and mitigated with an exemption,
does the exemption result in a direct transfer of
responsibility for mitigating impacts from the project
applicant/developer to the public ( i.e. , taxpayers) if
impacts are ultimately addressed after completion of the
project?
If taxpayers, rather than a developer, are ultimately
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 16
of ?
responsible for mitigating impacts of an exempt project
after project completion, what assessments or taxes will be
increased to fund mitigation or pay for alternatives at a
later date?
Regardless of the merits of any project, short-term,
long-term, and/or permanent consequences of a project should
be known by the decisionmakers, the project proponent, and
the public before a project is approved, and mitigated or
avoided if possible before it is too late - CEQA specifically
provides for that informed decisionmaking. Recycled water
projects pose challenges, risks, and serious consequences,
such as the potential for urban sprawl, that should be
assessed and subject to environmental review.
1) Conclusion. CEQA compels public agencies, in a public
setting, with public participation, to consider and decide on
projects with full knowledge about the environmental
conditions and consequences of their actions; and a CEQA
environmental review document, which is the result of a
meticulous and methodical process, compiles all of the
necessary facts in one place. Bearing in mind that a project
may have long-term or permanent environmental impacts, is it
not prudent for these determinations to be made in a
thoughtful, transparent manner, and that environmental damage
caused by a project be avoided or minimized when feasible?
Considering the multiple issues raised above, in addition to the
fact that construction is not expected until five years from
now, the Committee may wish to consider whether it would be
prudent for the City of Porterville to comply with CEQA and
whether this bill is needed.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) exempts from CEQA the installation
of new, and maintenance of existing, recycled water pipelines
less than eight miles in length. AB 2438 is scheduled to be
heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 29,
2016.
SB 88 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 27, Statutes
of 2015) exempts recycled water water projects to mitigate
drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed
AB 1749 (Mathis) Page 17
of ?
by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project consists of
construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and
directly related infrastructure within existing rights-of-way
and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project
does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the
construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with
applicable law. This exemption remains operative until the
current drought state of emergency expires or until January 1,
2017, whichever occurs first.
AB 2417 (Nazarian, 2014) exempted from CEQA the installation of
new, and maintenance of existing, recycled water pipelines less
than eight miles in length. AB 2417 was held in Senate
Environmental Quality Committee.
AB 83 (Jeffries, 2011) provided an exemption from CEQA for
installation of a new recycled water pipeline less than eight
miles in length within a paved public street highway, or
right-of-way. AB 83 failed in the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee.
SOURCE: Author
SUPPORT:
None received
OPPOSITION:
California League of Conservation Voters
Sierra Club California
-- END -