BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2480|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2480
Author: Bloom (D)
Amended: 8/15/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-2, 6/28/16
AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning
NOES: Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-25, 6/2/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Source watersheds: financing
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill declares it is state policy to recognize and
define source watersheds as integral components of California's
water system, and eligible for financing on an equivalent basis
with other water infrastructure projects.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law contains a number of statements of state water
policy. These include:
AB 2480
Page 2
1)The water resources of the State [are to] be put to beneficial
use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that
the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of
water be prevented. CWC §100.
2)All water within the State is the property of the people of
the State, but the right to the use of water may be acquired
by appropriation in the manner provided by law. CWC §102.
3)It is hereby declared to be the established policy of this
State that the use of water for domestic purposes is the
highest use of water and that the next highest use is for
irrigation. §106.
4)It is hereby declared to be the established policy of the
state that every human being has the right to safe, clean,
affordable, and accessible water adequate for human
consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. CWC §106.6.
This bill:
1)Declares it to be "the established policy of the state that
source watersheds are recognized and defined as integral
components of California's water infrastructure."
2)Makes the maintenance and repair of source watersheds is
eligible for the same forms of financing as other water
collection and treatment infrastructure.
3)Limits eligible maintenance and repair activities pursuant to
this bill to the following forest ecosystem management
activities:
a) Upland vegetation management to restore the watershed's
AB 2480
Page 3
productivity and resiliency.
b) Wet and dry meadow restoration.
c) Road removal and repair.
d) Stream channel restoration.
e) Conservation of private forests to preserve watershed
integrity through permanent prevention of land use
conversion and improved land management, achieved through,
and secured with, conservation easements.
f) Other projects with a demonstrated likelihood of
increasing conditions for water and snow attraction,
retention, and release under changing climate conditions.
4)Provides that nothing in this bill is intended to:
a) Constrain financing for source watersheds supplying
local, state, or federal water systems.
b) Supersede federal eligibility requirements or alter any
of the following:
i) Funding criteria or guidelines established for a
bond or other measure enacted by the voters.
ii) Funding programs related to pollution control,
cleanup, or abatement.
iii) Funding programs for addressing public health
emergencies.
Comments
ACWA Headwaters Framework. On March 20, 2015, the Association
of California Water Agencies (ACWA) released a policy framework
aimed at effectively managing headwaters areas such as the
Sierra Nevada, source of much of the state's water supply.
According to ACWA's press release, "The formal release of the
document, 'Improving the Resiliency of California's Headwaters,'
comes the day after Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders
outlined an emergency drought package to mobilize state
resources to deal with a fourth year of drought. Given the
severity of the drought, the risk of more destructive wildfires
this summer and ongoing climate change, ACWA believes it is time
to elevate headwaters issues and engage partners at all levels
'Improving the Resiliency of California's Headwaters - A
AB 2480
Page 4
Framework,' makes nearly 30 specific recommendations in the
areas of improved planning, coordination and implementation,
managing headwaters resources, research and financing headwaters
improvements."
Among the recommendations in ACWA's report were:
Improved headwaters management must become a high priority for
state, federal and local agencies.
Agencies at all levels should find ways to help public and
private landowners restore meadows and watersheds to improve
their critical functions and reduce wildfire impacts.
Stakeholders at all levels should invest and participate in
landscape-level research that explores water and forestry
relationships, including ecological forest thinning which can
have multiple benefits for water supply reliability, water
quality and ecosystems.
What Does The Science Show? While studies show a water supply
benefit to different watershed restoration activities, the
economics are a bit less clear. For example, a recent study by
the Nature Conservancy titled Estimating the Water Supply
Benefits from Forest Restoration in the Northern Sierra Nevada,
found:
"This assessment is a first attempt at calculating the water
supply benefits from watershed-scale forest restoration in the
northern Sierra Nevada. These watershed level results suggest
that the economic benefits from water yield increases may be an
important argument in favor of additional forest restoration
investments. Nevertheless it is important to emphasize that such
actions do not represent a solution to California's water
crisis, but rather a sensible investment in forest management
that is likely to create benefits for water users downstream."
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill "will
help watershed maintenance or repair projects access the same
forms of financing available to other water infrastructure
projects (special fund). To the extent that these projects
AB 2480
Page 5
compete with water infrastructure projects for funding. These
projects will result in cost pressures in the millions."
SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16)
Audubon California
Bear-Yuba Land Trust
California League of Conservation Voters
California ReLeaf
Defenders of Wildlife
League of Women Voters of California
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Mono Lake Committee
Pacific Forest Trust
Sequoia Riverlands Trust
Trust for Public Land
Wholly H2O
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/12/16)
Association of California Water Agencies
Calaveras Healthy Impact Product Solutions
Foothill Conservancy
San Diego County Water Authority
(1) Individual
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "California's
water system is highly complex and sophisticated. 80% of its
reservoir supply is held in two dam facilities, the Shasta and
Oroville Dams, which are the built infrastructure foundation for
the State and Central Valley Water Projects."
"[T]hese projects rely on more than the built infrastructure to
function. They rely on the five watersheds above the dams to
collect, treat and deliver that water to the dams. These are
the Feather, Pit, McCloud, Upper Sacramento and Trinity River
watersheds. While there is recognition that watersheds play
these functions in various parts of the water code, there is no
AB 2480
Page 6
policy or system of support for this natural infrastructure
which is integral to, and supplies and complements, the built
infrastructure of these water systems."
"Further, there is substantial scientific recognition that
watershed condition affects the quality and quantity of water
delivered by watersheds to dams. The condition of these five
watersheds is distinctly suboptimal. Enhancing that condition
would increase water quality (reducing sediment such as ash &
soil), lowering temperatures, and likely quantity (from 5-20% or
more depending on conditions) as well as fundamental function."
"Restoration and conservation in these watersheds has been
sporadic, inadequate and supported by general obligation bonds.
There has been no comprehensive plan developed for their
restoration and conservation to enhance our water security. Such
efforts to date have been both limited and uncoordinated and
fiscally inefficient."
"AB 2480 therefore recognizes the fundamental water system
infrastructure role of source watersheds, and set the foundation
for a comprehensive plan of restoration and conservation, with
the potential of future financing to be appropriately classed as
revenue bonds and similarly financed as the built infrastructure
improvements and maintenance are."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA), "AB 2480 would declare state
policy that source watersheds are recognized and defined as
integral components of California's water system. As amended,
this bill would now require that, to the extent feasible, the
maintenance and repair of source watersheds and associated
projects would receive financing consideration 'on the same
basis' with other water collection and treatment infrastructure
and would specify that the maintenance and repair activities
that are eligible for funding are limited to certain forest
ecosystem management activities. This bill does not define what
'on the same basis' would mean. The bill also does not include
language prohibiting the imposition of a public goods charge to
finance the provisions of this bill."
AB 2480
Page 7
"With respect to financing, much of the land within these source
watersheds is federal national forest lands. If we are going to
enhance these watersheds, we need to support a federal-state
partnership in the funding portion moving forward."
"ACWA supports watershed funding that is paid for through the
General Fund, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Cap and Trade),
or a future General Obligation Water Bond. We do not support a
public goods charge or statewide water tax to fund watersheds or
any other priorities."
"For these reasons, ACWA opposes AB 2480."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-25, 6/2/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low,
McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond,
Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Brough, Chang, Chávez,
Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen,
Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gray, Hadley
Prepared by:Dennis O'Connor / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
8/15/16 19:39:52
**** END ****