BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2438
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Waldron, Nazarian |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |2/19/2016 |Hearing |6/29/ 2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Joanne Roy |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption:
recycled water pipelines.
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 jurisdiction
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 2 of
?
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, and 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
right-of-way, does not impact wetlands or sensitive
habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 3 of
?
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 review under CEQA a project of less than eight
miles in length within a public street, highway, or
right-of-way for the construction and installation of a new,
recycled water pipeline, or maintenance, repair, restoration,
reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or
demolition of an existing recycled water pipeline.
2) Defines "pipeline" to include 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.
3) Requires the lead agency to do all of the following:
a) Hold a noticed public hearing to consider and adopt
mitigation measures for potential traffic impacts of the
project.
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 4 of
?
b) File a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning
and Research and in the office of the county clerk of each
county in which the project is located within 20 days of
the approval of the project.
c) Ensure that the overlaying property owner has given
permission to access the property, in the case of a
right-of-way over private property, if access is not
granted in the express terms of the right-of-way.
d) Ensure the restoration of the public street, highway, or
right-of-way to a condition consistent with all applicable
local laws or regulations, or a negotiated agreement.
4) Requires the project applicant to comply with all applicable
laws and regulations, including California Code of Regulations
Chapter 3 (commencing with §60301) of Division 4 of Title 22
(i.e., water recycling criteria).
5) Provides that the exemption does not apply to any of the
following:
a) A project that is a part of a recycled water pipeline
project greater than eight miles.
b) A project that is located in a resource area, such as a
park, open space, protected habitat areas, or lands subject
to a conservation easement.
c) A project for which an excavation activity that is more
than one-half mile in length at any one time will be
undertaken.
6) Sunsets January 1, 2020.
7) Makes findings related to the drought and the benefits of
recycled water.
Background
1) Background on CEQA.
a) Overview of CEQA Process. CEQA provides a process for
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 5 of
?
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
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
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 6 of
?
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) Background: 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 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
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 7 of
?
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 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.
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "Water recycling
has the greatest potential to provide much needed water
resources in our state. The problem many communities face
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 8 of
?
when attempting to get the required infrastructure in the
ground, even when there is not much of an impact on the
environment, is that the project must still comply with the
cumbersome CEQA process. In most cases the recycled water
pipelines are going in the ground next to existing water
pipelines, which are found on streets and roadways in public
right-of-ways, but the CEQA process requires a project to
comply with numerous potential impacts creating extensive time
delays and costs.
"AB 2438 would help increase the accessibility of recycled water
for use by farms, industry or landscape irrigators, including
CalTrans; would reduce energy costs and environmental impacts
from importing water."
2) Concerns regarding recycled water. The author states, "Water
recycling has the greatest potential to provide much-needed
new water resources for communities throughout California.
The public and private sector, including agriculture, would
benefit greatly from the availability of more reclaimed
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:
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
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 9 of
?
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.
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
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 10 of
?
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 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, but as
noted by the author of this bill, the increase in usage is
being encouraged.
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.
3) Is ignoring impacts prudent? In addition to public health and
environmental impacts, there may be other significant impacts
that would not be addressed with an exemption as proposed by
this bill. For example, such a pipeline exemption may
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 11 of
?
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. Eight miles of new pipeline carrying recycled
water may also have long-term, growth-inducing impacts. 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
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?
4) What kind of recycled water does this exemption apply? This
bill exempts from CEQA the construction and installation of
recycled water pipeline. The bill is silent on the nature/use
of recycled water, such as potable or nonpotable use, or the
degree/type of treatment to which this exemption applies.
Current law provides no definition of "recycled water" in
CEQA. Recycled water is treated to a level that is
appropriate for its intended beneficial use. For example,
recycled water for landscape irrigation water is treated at a
lower level than recycled water meant for indirect potable
use. Is it the intent of the authors for this exemption to
apply to recycled water for all beneficial uses or only
nonpotable ones?
5) SWRCB's recycled water policy and compliance with CEQA.
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
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 12 of
?
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).
6) 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
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 (ND) or 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.
7) EIGHT miles of pipeline? To help put in perspective how long
eight miles of pipeline is, consider the following:
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 13 of
?
The City of San Francisco is seven miles from east
to west. This bill would allow for new pipeline to be
built across the entire city plus an additional mile
without an environmental review.
The Golden Gate Bridge is 1.7 miles - Eight miles
is the equivalent in distance to more than 4.5 Golden
Gate Bridges placed end-to-end.
Yosemite Valley stretches for 7.5 miles in a
roughly east-west direction.
The approximate distance between Santa Monica Pier
and Beverly Hills Blvd. in Beverly Hills is eight miles.
The length of 140.8 football fields placed
end-to-end is equal to eight miles.
Taking into account the sheer distance of a project that would
have no environmental review pursuant to this bill, do the
ends justify the means? Is it prudent to ignore up to eight
miles worth of potentially significant impacts?
1) Segmenting a project. Considering that AB 2438 exempts up to
eight miles of new pipeline, it is possible that this may be
part of a larger water recycling project. CEQA requires that
a project must be treated and analyzed as a whole and not
segmented into multiple, individual projects. So, for
example, if a new pipeline is connected to a new wastewater
facility, the AB 2438 proposed exemption would not apply - The
new pipeline cannot be segmented as a separate project and
must be considered as part of the project as a whole.
2) 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.
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 14 of
?
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
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,
including constructing up to eight miles of new pipeline, pose
challenges, risks, and serious consequences, such as the
potential for urban sprawl, that should be assessed and
subject to environmental review.
1) CEQA litigation.
It is not unusual for certain interests to blame CEQA lawsuits
for causing problems to a project. However, it should be
noted that the only tool for enforcing CEQA is litigation.
Those citing CEQA litigation as a problem do not indicate the
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 15 of
?
result of that litigation. For example, were significant
impacts that were not evaluated in the initial document
ultimately addressed? What would have been the result if
those impacts had not been mitigated (e.g., flooding, exposure
of people to hazards, inadequate public services, congestion)?
The total number of CEQA cases filed averages about 200 cases per
year statewide and make up approximately 0.02% of 1,100,000
civil cases filed annually in California.
The California Attorney General's office conducted a case study
of CEQA challenges in the City and County of San Francisco
from July 2011 through December 2011 and found that 18
lawsuits were filed out of 5,203 projects considered under
CEQA.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a review of
CEQA challenges in the City of Los Angeles from January 2011
through July 20, 2012, shows that of 1,182 projects reviewed
under CEQA, 18 were challenged, which is a litigation rate of
1.5%.
Although certain interests believe CEQA litigation to be a
swathing impediment to some projects, the numbers above seem
to indicate otherwise. And if a project is the subject of
litigation, perhaps the cause of action has merit and ensures
compliance with the law. The volume of CEQA litigation is low
considering the thousands of projects subject to CEQA each
year as well as the volume of civil litigation in general
statewide.
2) 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 minimized
when feasible?
Considering the multiple issues raised above, the Committee may
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 16 of
?
wish to consider if this bill adds significant enough benefit
to warrant the potential known significant harms.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1749 (Mathis) exempts from CEQA a water treatment project as
determined by the City of Porterville. AB 1749 will be heard by
the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 29, 2016.
SB 88 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 27, Statutes
of 2015), exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought
conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed 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:
American Council of Engineering Companies
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
Castaic Lake Water Agency
City of Camarillo, Mayor Mike Morgan
City of Santa Barbara, Mayor Helene Schneider
County of Riverside
AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) Page 17 of
?
Grangetto Ranches, Inc.
Mountain Counties Water Resources Association
Rainbow Municipal Water District
Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District
San Diego County Farm Bureau
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego Unincorporated Communities Governmental Affairs
Committee
San Gabriel Valley Water Association
Santa Margarita Water District
South Coast Water District
South Tahoe Public Utility District
Southwest California Legislative Council
Valley Center Municipal Water District
OPPOSITION:
California League of Conservation Voters
Sierra Club California
-- END -