BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2561 Page 1 (Without Reference to File) CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 2561 (Irwin) As Amended August 31, 2016 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: | 76-0 |(April 28, |SENATE: | 38-0 |(August 31, | | | |2016) | | |2016) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W. SUMMARY: Extends the existing sunset in law which excludes photovoltaic or wind energy generation if the facility would demand no more than 75 acre-feet of water annually from a water supply assessment (WSA) for one year. Specifically, this bill: Extends the sunset exemption from a WSA for photovoltaic and wind energy in existing law from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2018. The Senate amendments: Remove provisions of this bill AB 2561 Page 2 pertaining to the establishment of the California Central Coast Veterans Cemetery (CCCSVC) Project Donation Fund, and instead extend the sunset for one year for photovoltaic or wind energy generation that demand no more than 75 acre-feet annually from a WSA and add an urgency clause. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires a WSA whenever a city or county determines a proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The WSA must be included in any CEQA document prepared for the project. 2)Specifies what constitutes a project that would be subject to a WSA, generally, as having the scale of 500 new residential connections and among other specific definitions, includes: A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. 3)Until January 1, 2017, exempts from the definition of a project a proposed photovoltaic or wind energy generation facility if the facility would demand no more than 75 acre-feet of water annually. 4)Requires a WSA to: a) Identify any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. b) Discuss the water systems total projected water AB 2561 Page 3 supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses. c) If the project relies in whole or in part on groundwater, requires additional information, including a description of any groundwater basins that will supply the project; the court or State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) order if the basin is adjudicated; and an analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins. 5)Requires, under the Subdivision Map Act, cities and counties to demonstrate that a sufficient water supply is available as a condition of their approval of a tentative map for a subdivision with more than 500 dwelling units. Specifically requires: a) Sufficient water supply is defined as the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses. b) Proof of sufficient water must be based on a written verification from the applicable public water system. In order to be sufficient, the water supply must be able to meet the demands of existing and future planned uses in addition to the subdivision's demand over the next 20 years. c) The public water system's written verification of its ability or inability to provide a sufficient water supply to meet the projected demand associated with the proposed AB 2561 Page 4 subdivision must be supported by substantial evidence. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. Similar previous legislation from 2011 had negligible state costs, if any, according to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. COMMENTS: In 2001, the Legislature passed SB 610 (Costa), Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001, and SB 221 (Kuehl), Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001. Collectively, these two bills are also known as the "show me the water" bills. The purpose of these bills, as noted in the findings for SB 610, was "to strengthen the process pursuant to which local agencies determine the adequacy of existing and planned future water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands on those water supplies." To assist local governments in deciding whether to approve projects, SB 610 required a WSA whenever a city or county determines a proposed project, as defined, is subject to CEQA. The WSA must be included in any CEQA document prepared for the project. In turn, a provision of CEQA requires compliance with the SB 610 requirements. The WSA is required to include a discussion regarding whether the total projected water supplies (during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years) over the next 20 years will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, over and above that required for existing and planned future uses. Further, when a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the WSA must include additional information about the sufficiency of the groundwater supply. Projects may be challenged in court for failure to prepare an adequate water supply assessment. SB 267 (Rubio), Chapter 588, Statutes of 2011, specifically exempts from a WSA a photovoltaic or wind energy generation project if the facility demands no more than 75 acre-feet of water annually until January 1, 2017. Typically, because AB 2561 Page 5 photovoltaic and wind energy generation projects occupy more than 40 acres, they would have been subject to a WSA prior to this exemption. This bill came into print as a sunset elimination on August 19, 2016. This is now a one year sunset extension likely leading to a similar measure in the 2017 legislative year. SB 267 included a sunset to provide the Legislature with the opportunity to re-evaluate the exemption and determine an appropriate path forward. What constitutes a significant use of water and a reliable water supply has dramatically changed since the "show me the water" legislation passed in 2001 and since photovoltaic and wind energy generation was exempt in 2011. Since 2011, the state has experienced the worst drought on record and has begun regulation of groundwater. This, combined with advancements in water efficiency, makes for a very different evaluation of how each acre-foot is to be used compared to just 5 years ago. Moving forward how the "show me the water" policies are implemented will likely receive greater attention as to when a WSA will be triggered. Questions remain about the appropriate metric that truly indicates that a project uses little water, and if specific local conditions should be considered. There are questions about the self-certification for using no more than 75 acre-feet under existing law and if there should be greater accountability in demonstrating total use. With 15 years having passed since the passage of the "show me the water" package of legislation there are questions of whether the time has come to reevaluate when and how a WSA should apply. All of these questions should be examined if and when future legislation to amend the "show me the water" comes forward. Analysis Prepared by: AB 2561 Page 6 Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0005048