BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1986
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1986 (Wilk) - As Amended April 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Water, Parks and Wildlife |Vote:|12 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to reissue notices of applications for permits to
appropriate water and provide opportunity for protests under
specified conditions. Specifically, this bill:
AB 1986
Page 2
1)Requires the SWRCB, if it has not rendered a final
determination on an application for a permit to appropriate
water within 20 years from the date the application was filed,
to issue another notice of application, as prescribed, and
mail the notice to the applicant and interested parties.
2)Excludes applications that have already been canceled or
denied, for which a new notice and opportunity to protest has
been provided in the past five years, and for which the SWRCB
has already agreed to hold a hearing and allow interested
parties to participate.
3)Requires the applicant to publish and post the notice as
prescribed by applicable law.
4)Authorizes any interested person to file a written protest
with the SWRCB against the application within the time frame
allowed in the notice or by the SWRCB for good cause.
5)Requires the SWRCB to conduct proceedings on the application
in accordance with existing law governing hearings on
protested applications.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Increased ongoing annual costs of $280,000 (2PY) for SWRCB to
re-notice applications, process new protests and possibly hold a
water rights hearing or field investigation (Water Rights Fund).
COMMENTS:
AB 1986
Page 3
Rationale. According to the Author, in 1990, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) issued two 10-year contracts to mine 56 million
tons of aggregate from a site near Soledad Canyon and the 14
Freeway. The current owner of the proposed mine site is CEMEX.
In August of last year, BLM announced that the contracts, held
for more than 25 years but never acted on, had been cancelled.
CEMEX has appealed that decision.
CEMEX's predecessor in interest filed an application with the
SWRCB in 1991 to appropriate 322 acre-feet of water per year
from the Santa Clara River for use on the mine site. The SWRCB
never acted on the application which is still pending and could
be reactivated. If the application were reactivated, the time
period for filing of protests has long passed.
This bill would require publication of a new notice of
application, and would reopen the protest period and related
administrative processes. According to the author, this notice
will allow members of the community to make a case with state
regulators as to why the mine and associated application to
appropriate water for the project should be denied.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1986
Page 4