BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1925
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
AB 1925
(Chang) - As Amended March 16, 2016
SUBJECT: Desalination: statewide goal
SUMMARY: Establishes a statewide goal to desalinate 300,000
acre-feet of water a year by 2025 and 500,000 acre-feet a year
by 2030. Specifically, this bill:
Makes findings that water supplies are diminishing, that there
is a need for greater certainty in access to high quality water,
and that desalinated water can meet a portion of future water
demands.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Declares interest in desalination to assist in meeting future
water needs.
2)Establishes a statewide goal to recycle 700,000 acre-feet of
water annually by the year 2000 and 1,000,000 acre-feet by the
year 2010.
AB 1925
Page 2
3)Requires all urban water suppliers to prepare and adopt an
urban water management plan and update them every five years.
Among other requirements, urban water management plans must
identify and quantify water resources, including desalination.
4)Appropriates $50 million for oceanwater desalination and $784
million for groundwater cleanup.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS: The bill establishes a statewide goal to desalinate
water.
1)Authors Statement: Establishing goals for the production of
water through ocean desalination will steer the entire state
in the direction of providing significant amounts of potable
water on a daily basis regardless of rainfall. There is no
one water source California can depend on, we need an "all of
the above" approach that includes drought-proof sources like
desalination.
2)Background: This bill presumes that desalination is a
desirable option at the local level across the state.
However, the role of desalination in local water needs is
inherently a local decision. Questions about the ability to
meet water needs through conservation, stormwater capture, and
recycling water must be put into context with the relative
environmental and economic cost of desalination.
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. This is especially true in times of drought.
The State has taken action through the Water Action Plan to
lay out a path to sustainable water management. This and
AB 1925
Page 3
other documents 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.
3) State in the State of Ocean Water Desalination: The State
Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) in May 2015
adopted an amendment to its Water Quality Control Plan for
Ocean Waters providing for the first time a uniform and
consistent guideline for ocean water desalination facilities.
The factsheet on the amendment states "There is broad
agreement that the state's water management system is
currently unable to satisfactorily meet both ecological and
human needs, too exposed to wet and dry climate cycles and
natural disasters, and inadequate to handle additional
pressures of future population growth and climate change.
Solutions are complex and expensive, and they require the
cooperation and sustained commitment of all Californians
working together. To be sustainable, solutions must strike a
balance between the need to provide for public health and
safety, protect the environment and support a stable economy.
Desalination is no exception."
Desalinating ocean water typically requires pulling in
oceanwater through intake pipes using energy to push that
ocean water through membranes which leaves behind equal parts
fresh water and a dense brine that is twice as salty as the
ocean. The technology to desalinate oceanwater through this
AB 1925
Page 4
process was largely developed in the 1950's and first utilized
on a large scale in the United States in 1977. Fundamentally,
the technology has changed very little over the last 50 years,
though there has been improvement in energy needs.
There is both an environmental and economic cost to
desalinating oceanwater. The construction of a plant will
have impacts. The intake can have significant impact on sea
life if it is directly in the ocean. The source of power can
have impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. How the brine is
disposed of can have significant impacts on sea life and ocean
water quality.
Recognizing the costs of traditional water sources are going
up and will continue to rise. However, oceanwater
desalination remains relatively expensive today. The large
facilities constructed or planned in California cost in the
range of $1 billion. The fresh water produced will likely
cost in the range of $2,000 per acre-foot. About half of the
cost of desalination comes from energy requirements. In
comparison, higher priced sources of urban fresh water today
cost in the range of $1,000 per acre-foot. The cost of
conserving an acre-foot of urban water is in the $100-200
range.
While there has been extensive evaluation of oceanwater
desalination for decades there has been limited adoption
because of cost and environmental considerations. There are
just over a dozen facilities around the state that have been,
will be, or may be constructed. At this time there is
AB 1925
Page 5
approximately 55,000 annual acre-feet of oceanwater
desalination in production with an estimated additional 80,000
annual acre-feet likely to be desalinated in the next 5 to 10
years. The total projected volume of currently known ocean
desalination sites, existing and under evaluation, are
projected to be 380,000 acre-feet annually.
The state has set other water use goals: The State Water
Board by resolution has set the goal of increasing the use of
recycled water in the state over 2002 levels by at least
1,000,000 acre-feet per year by 2020 and by at least 2,000,000
acre-feet per year by 2030. That resolution builds on law
that set a goal to recycle 700,000 acre-feet per year by the
year 2000 and 1,000,000 acre-feet per year by the year 2010.
As of 2012 there was an estimated 670,000 acre-feet of
recycled water used annually.
Existing law requires that urban water per capita use be
reduced by 20 percent over 2011 levels by 2020. This last
year, largely in response to drought, urban water use was
reduced by approximately 25%.
The state has taken steps to advance desalination: The
administration through the Water Action Plan has taken an "all
of the above" approach to improving water management in the
state. The Water Action Plan lays out a multi-action agenda
that includes conservation, stormwater capture, recycled
AB 1925
Page 6
water, and desalination. The Water Action Plan coordinates
and directs the states approach to water management.
Executive Order B-29-15 from April of 2015 directs permitting
agencies to prioritize approval of infrastructure projects
that increase local water supplies. Included in those
infrastructure projects are desalination plants.
Existing law requires urban water suppliers through urban
water management plans to consider the role of desalination in
their water portfolio.
The Legislature appropriated $50 million of Proposition 50
(2002) for oceanwater and brackish water desalination. The
Legislature has appropriated $50 million, to date, out of a
total of $100 million of Proposition 1 bond funds directed
toward oceanwater desalination. Additionally, some of the
appropriated $784 million of Proposition 1 bond funds for
ground water cleanup could be used for brackish water
desalination.
Right level of Emphasis: While the state has clearly taken an
active role in promoting desalination it has not gone further
AB 1925
Page 7
than making it a viable option. The determination of the
viability of that option has, to date, been left up to local
decision making.
The ultimate effect of this legislation is to drive greater
state funding toward desalination.
The committee may wish to consider whether desalination should
be elevated to a higher funding priority which may ultimately
serve to reduce prioritization of and spending on other
options such as conservation, efficiency, stormwater capture,
and recycled water. This may be appropriate for various local
levels, but the committee may wish to consider whether this is
appropriate as a statewide goal.
4)Prior and Related Legislation:
a) AB 2717 (Hertzberg) Chapter 957, Statues of 2002,
convenes the California Water Desalination Task Force to
look into potential opportunities and impediments for
using oceanwater and brackish water desalination.
b) AB 541 (Ducheny), Chapter 833, Statues of 1997,
AB 1925
Page 8
establishes a statewide recycled water goal.
c) SB7 x 7 (Steinberg), Chapter 4, Statues of 2009,
establishes a 20 percent urban water conservation over
2011 levels by 2020.
d) AB 1471 (Rendon), Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014,
placed Proposition 1, a $7.545 billion general obligation
bond for water-related projects and programs on the
November 4, 2014, ballot where it passed with 67% of the
vote.
5)Supporting Arguments:
AB 1925 would help advance desalination for both ocean
water and brackish groundwater cleanup in California as it
establishes goals for future development of desalinated
water. Local water managers throughout the state must be
given the flexibility to consider several options to
diversify their water supply portfolio in order to assure
their customers a safe, reliable water supply.
Desalination is an excellent option to help provide
California's clean, safe, and reliable drinking water. AB
1925 highlights the importance of desalinated water, and
emphasizes the need to prioritize desalinated water as a
resource.
6)Opposing Arguments:
AB 1925
Page 9
Setting a statewide desalination goal inappropriately
prioritizes development of desalination projects, which
have significant environmental impacts, as well as high
costs to the public. California should not waste funds on
this type of investment at this time. Desalination is more
expensive than conservation, efficiency, stormwater
capture, and wastewater recycling. The State of California
should prioritize less environmentally harmful, less
expensive water resources and only pursue ocean water or
groundwater desalination when more cost-effective and less
environmentally damaging water resource options have been
exhausted. AB 1925 diverts resources to the most expensive
source of water on the planet.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Association of California Water Agencies (and amend)
CalDesal
California Chamber of Commerce
AB 1925
Page 10
Eastern Municipal Water District
Mesa Water District
Poseidon Water
South Coast Water District
Opposition
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by:Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916)
319-2096
AB 1925
Page 11