BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2617
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
AB 2617
(Mayes) - As Amended March 28, 2016
SUBJECT: Water efficiency measures
SUMMARY: Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
prepare a report analyzing the costs and benefits of incentives
for various specified water efficiency measures. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires the CEC, by December 1, 2017, in consultation with
experts at the University of California, California State
University, local water districts, and others, and in
cooperation with the State Water Resources Control Board
(Water Board) and the Department of Water Resources (DWR), to
develop and solicit comments on a proposed report that
contains an analysis of the relative costs and benefits of
incentives for various water efficiency measures, including
the impact of evapotranspiration rates in different
hydrological regions of the state. Defines evapotranspiration
for these purposes.
2)Requires that the water efficiency measures considered in the
proposed report include but not be limited to the following
four measures:
AB 2617
Page 2
a) Turfgrass removal and replacement with
drought-resistant turfgrass or artificial turf.
Turfgrass is defined to mean any living grass that is
used as specified.
b) Use of conservation-based irrigation technology such
as smart controllers.
c) Investments in graywater infrastructure to supply
water for outdoor landscapes.
d) Rebates for highly efficient consumer appliances and
landscape systems. Highly efficient consumer appliances
and landscape systems are defined to include, but are not
limited to, irrigation systems, toilets, showers, pool
covers, and clothes washers.
3)Requires that the proposed report include an analysis of
unintended adverse environmental impacts of the water
efficiency measures considered, and the projected benefits of
recommended voluntary water efficiency measures.
4)Requires the CEC to issue a final report by July 1, 2018, that
includes all of the following:
a) Identification of the most cost-effective incentives
for water efficiency measures, measured by the amount of
water use reduction per dollar spent.
b) Recommendations to public entities for prioritizing
the most cost-effective measures.
AB 2617
Page 3
c) Analysis of any unintended adverse environmental
impacts from the water efficiency measures. Unintended
adverse environmental impacts is defined to include, but
are not limited to, impacts on climate change, net effect
on carbon sequestration, increased erosion, and impacts
to stormwater runoff.
d) Projected benefits of recommended voluntary water
efficiency measures.
5)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that the state
identify and recommend the most cost-effective water
efficiency measures that achieve the greatest reduction in
water use and avoid any unintended adverse environmental
impacts.
6)Defines various terms for purposes of this bill.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Promotes landscape water conservation through water efficient
landscape ordinances. Local agencies must have a water
efficient landscape ordinance or DWR's model water efficient
landscape ordinance applies. The model ordinance addresses
water conservation and appropriate plant use, encourages the
capture and retention of stormwater, and encourages the use of
economic incentives to promote the efficient use of water.
2)Promotes landscape water conservation through urban water
management planning. Under the Urban Water Management
Planning Act, urban water agencies are required to develop and
AB 2617
Page 4
adopt urban water management plans. Among other things, urban
water management plans are to describe water demand management
measures including large landscape conservation programs and
incentives.
3)Requires the CEC to carry out studies on energy efficiency,
and to adopt energy and water efficiency standards for
building design and construction. Requires the CEC, in
consultation with DWR, to adopt by regulation performance
standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation
equipment, including irrigation controllers and moisture
sensors to reduce energy and water consumption.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: This bill requires the CEC, in consultation with
other entities, to produce a report that analyzes various water
efficiency incentives programs. The report would be required to
include an analysis of four specific water efficiency programs
but could include others. The four measures required to be
analyzed in the report include turfgrass removal and replacement
with drought-tolerant turfgrass or artificial turf,
conservation-based irrigation technology such as smart
controllers, graywater infrastructure for outdoor landscaping,
and rebates for high energy efficiency appliances and systems
such as irrigation, toilets, showers, pool covers, and clothes
washers.
1)Author's Statement: The author states that while millions of
dollars have been spent on water efficiency incentives in
response to California's drought, there is not an
authoritative independent report comparing the relative costs
and benefits of different incentive options. An audit of the
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power's turfgrass
replacement program released by the city controller in
AB 2617
Page 5
November 2015 found that the turf rebate program saved less
water per dollar spent than other conservation programs, such
as rebates on high-efficiency appliances, which yielded a
water savings almost five times higher than turf replacement.
This bill would direct the CEC to produce a report on water
efficiency incentives and to consider any unintended
environmental impacts. The report can serve as a guide to
local water retailers as they evaluate which incentives make
sense for their customers, and lead to greater increases in
water efficiency at the lowest possible cost.
2)Background: Water applied to landscapes is 50% of residential
water consumption statewide, but varies considerably by
region, from 30% in some coastal communities to 60% or more in
some inland areas. According to DWR's website, outdoor
landscaping is the single largest use of residential water,
and in most residential yards turfgrass is the largest
consumer of water. Reducing or eliminating how much grass is
present in residential landscapes can thus produce significant
water savings. The Governor's Executive Order issued in April
2015 directed specific actions to reduce potable water use in
the urban sector. Directive number 3 of the order called for
50 million square feet of turf to be replaced with
drought-tolerant landscapes, to be accomplished by, among
other things, a residential turf rebate program implemented by
DWR.
The Department of Water Resources is operating a $24 million
turf replacement program with rebates of $2 per square foot
capped at $2,000 per household. The rebates are directed to
local turf replacement programs. This is estimated to benefit
more than 10,000 homes, with $12 million targeted to
disadvantaged communities hardest hit by the drought. The
program is projected to yield 1,200 acre feet of water savings
annually. This is reportedly approximately equivalent to
replacing 44,000 legacy toilets with high water efficiency
AB 2617
Page 6
toilets.
In recent years, a number of local governments and agencies
have established rebate programs to encourage conservation.
For example, in an effort to reduce water consumption, the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California offers a
rebate based on each square foot of turf removed. The City of
Sacramento is currently offering cash to help customers remove
their front yard turf and replace it with native and drought
tolerant plants.
A report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)
found that well-installed drip irrigation can attain
efficiency levels approaching 90-95%, and that low-water
plants need only 20% of the evapotranspiration rate compared
to 80% for lawns. Field studies conducted by the Southern
Nevada Water Authority estimated conversion from turf to
low-water landscaping plants brought water use down from 73
gallons per square foot to 17.2 gallons, for a 76% water
savings.
The sponsors of this bill assert that the environmental
benefits of turfgrass include carbon sequestration. A 2008
research report commissioned by the sponsors entitled
"Technical Assessment of the Carbon Sequestration Potential of
Managed Turfgrass in the United States" by Dr. Ranajit Sahu
found that one acre of managed turfgrass will hold about .46
tons or 920 lbs. of carbon in a year. After subtracting the
amount of CO2 emitted by mowers, the study concluded that
turfgrass produced a net carbon sink of 760 lbs. However,
critics of the study have asserted that it failed to take into
account the amount of CO2 emitted by lawn chemicals, the
manufacture and transport of fertilizers, and the effects of
irrigation. By comparison, temperate forests can hold 2,000 to
6,000 lbs of carbon per year per acre, and native grasslands
can sequester 2,400 to 3,000 lbs per year. Studies show that
different types of vegetation and how they are managed will
sequester different quantities of CO2.
AB 2617
Page 7
A 2010 Florida study found that highly manicured and
maintained lawn areas may actually emit more CO2 than they
sequester. While Florida has a different climate and soils
than California, the take home message of the study was that
highly maintained lawns and trees sequester much less CO2 than
more natural areas with little maintenance. With more lawn
cover than tree canopy cover, the balance can actually shift
to emitting CO2. The calculations of the study were simplified
as they did not add the carbon cost of making and maintaining
the power equipment or the carbon cost of growing and
transporting sod. The study also did not calculate the
emission of nitrous oxide (N2O) from fertilization
applications, but noted that urban turfgrass typically emits
N2O after fertilization and/or irrigation. According to the
study, N2O has a worse global warming potential as its
heat-absorbing potential is approximately 300 times more than
CO2. Thus, urban open space that has a large amount of mowed,
irrigated, fertilized lawns can be a source of CO2 rather than
a sink. Because below-ground soil carbon sequestration was
not calculated, the study cautioned that full carbon credit
could not be assessed and that the above-ground numbers
reported should therefore be regarded as a first look at the
potential carbon value of urban greenspace. The study
concluded that at this stage natural greenspaces in and around
urban areas, with little to no maintenance, seem to be the
best option for CO2 sequestration. Natural urban greenspaces
also have other benefits, such as biodiversity conservation,
reduced stormwater runoff, and reduced fertilizer
applications. The study concluded that overall, the
conservation of urban open space could play a role in reducing
Florida's carbon footprint, but highly maintained urban
greenspace could be regarded as a source of greenhouse gases.
3)Prior and Related Legislation: AB 1881 (Laird) Chapter 559,
Statues of 2006, established the Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act.
AB 2617
Page 8
AB 2525 (Holden) which was heard and passed by this committee on
March 29, 2016, requires DWR to create a program to encourage
local economic incentives that promote water efficient
landscapes. AB 2525 requires DWR to create a program to fund
the advancement of turf rebates, jobs, and education of
eco-landscaping.
AB 1928 (Campos) requires the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission to adopt landscape
irrigation equipment performance standards and labeling
requirements. AB 1928 was heard and passed by this committee
on March 29, 2016.
Support Arguments: Supporters emphasize the CEC's experience in
performing cost benefit analyses, and that industry, local
government and the environmental community have worked
cooperatively with the CEC in development of cost benefit
analyses on energy efficiency building standards. Other
supporters describe turfgrass as a resilient groundcover
solution that sequesters carbon and air pollutants. They
assert that large scale removal of turfgrass from lawns has
detrimental environmental effects and is not the most cost
effective water conservation tool. Supporters claim benefits
provided by grass lawns include reducing stormwater runoff,
filtering pollutants from water and air, reducing soil
erosion, mitigating heat island effect, increasing human and
pet health, diminishing noise and light pollution, and
producing oxygen.
4)Opposition Arguments: None received.
5)Suggested Amendments: This bill requires that the study look
at four specific water efficiency measures, but does not
specifically require that the option of turfgrass removal and
replacement with native or drought-tolerant, low-water use
plants be analyzed. In addition, this bill requires the CEC
to analyze the unintended adverse environmental impacts that
could result from the measures, but not the beneficial
AB 2617
Page 9
environmental impacts. The stated legislative intent in this
bill includes avoiding any adverse environmental impacts, but
the actual legislative intent might more accurately be
described as producing a net result in which the beneficial
environmental impacts of a chosen measure outweigh any adverse
impacts. In order to better accomplish the author's stated
intent, the following amendments are recommended:
On page 2, amend line 8 to read:
"that achieve the greatest reduction in water use and produce
net environmental benefits that outweigh and avoid any
unintended adverse environmental impacts."
On page 3, after line 14 insert:
"(2) Turfgrass removal and replacement with native or
drought-tolerant plants."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Building Industry Association
California Pool and Spa Association
Irrigation Association
National Hispanic Landscape Alliance
AB 2617
Page 10
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
SFParks
Turfgrass Producers International
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916)
319-2096