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