BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1882
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1882 (Williams) - As Introduced February 11, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Natural Resources |Vote:|6 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), or the appropriate regional water quality control board
(RWQCB) to review and concur with any Underground Injection
Control (UIC) project subject to review or approval. This bill
AB 1882
Page 2
allows SWRCB, or the appropriate RWQCB to propose additional
requirements for a project, including groundwater monitoring.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Increased expenditure authority and ongoing costs of $2.1
million for SWRCB to fund 15 positons (Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Administrative Fund) to ensure existing UIC
projects are operating in conformance with the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act and state laws and regulations.
According to SWRCB, the extensive technical review will
include somewhere in the vicinity of 30,000 wells to determine
if each injection project is protective of current and future
beneficial uses of groundwater. These project-by-project
reviews are technically complex and may require between 30 to
60 hours each.
The reviews may include evaluating the Division of Oil, Gas
and Geothermal Resources' (DOGGR) assessment as well as
verifying the injection project is protective of water quality
in the area.
2)Minor absorbable DOGGR costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Last year's resources budget trailer bill (SB 83)
requires the Secretary for Environmental Protection (CalEPA)
and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency (NRA) to
appoint an independent review panel to evaluate DOGGR's
administration of the UIC Program and consider whether it
would be beneficial to transfer the program to SWRCB. This
evaluation is required to be completed on or before January 1,
AB 1882
Page 3
2018.
The joint project review in this bill is consistent with the
review process outlined in SB 83. However, this bill is an
alternative approach to transferring the UIC program to SWRCB.
2)Background. In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act gave the US
EPA the authority and responsibility to control underground
injection to protect underground drinking water sources. In
1982, a primacy agreement was signed that allowed DOGGR to
implement the US EPA's UIC program for oil and gas wells in
California.
In 2014, it was discovered that there were two versions of
this agreement, one allowing exemptions for 11 aquifers with
high water quality and another denying those exemptions and
requiring all existing injection wells into those aquifers be
phased out over 18 months. DOGGR's UIC permitting decisions
have been based on the assumption that these exemptions were
granted for the 11 aquifers in question.
The discovery of the two different versions of agreement led
to numerous federal and state responses and legislative
directives.
Currently, the SWRCB is reviewing and commenting on UIC
projects. It has requested more data on some projects and has
AB 1882
Page 4
indicated it will work with DOGGR to incorporate groundwater
monitoring in others. However, it is unclear whether this
will be a permanent arrangement or until US EPA's concerns
with the program have been addressed. This bill codifies the
agreement.
3)Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by numerous
water agencies, public health and environmental groups, and
local governments to ensure groundwater safety.
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), California
Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), California Chamber
of Commerce (CalChamber), and California Manufacturers and
Technology Association oppose this bill claiming it will
create a confusing and duplicative underground injection
permit process that will only lead to time-consuming and
costly legal challenges without providing any additional
environmental and groundwater protections beyond those already
provided under existing law.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1882
Page 5