BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2617
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2617 (Mayes)
As Amended May 27, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Water |15-0 |Levine, Gallagher, | |
| | |Bigelow, Dodd, | |
| | |Eggman, Cristina | |
| | |Garcia, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Gomez, | |
| | |Harper, Lopez, | |
| | |Mathis, Medina, | |
| | |Olsen, Salas, | |
| | |Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
AB 2617
Page 2
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
prepare a report analyzing the costs and benefits of incentives
for certain water efficiency measures. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the DWR, by December 1, 2017, in consultation with
experts at the University of California, California State
University, the State Water Resources Control Board (Water
Board), the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission, and local water districts, 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.
2)Requires that the water efficiency measures considered in the
proposed report include but not be limited to the following
measures:
a) Turfgrass removal and replacement with
drought-resistant turfgrass or artificial turf.
b) Turfgrass removal and replacement with native or
drought-tolerant plants.
c) Non-native or high water using plant removal and
replacement with native or drought-tolerant plants,
drought-resistant turfgrass, or artificial turf.
d) Use of conservation-based irrigation technology such
AB 2617
Page 3
as smart controllers.
e) Investments in graywater infrastructure to supply
water for outdoor landscapes.
f) 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
adverse environmental impacts of the water efficiency measures
considered, and the projected benefits of recommended
voluntary water efficiency measures. Adverse environmental
impacts are defined to include, but are not limited to,
impacts on climate change, net effect on carbon sequestration,
increased erosion, and impacts to stormwater runoff.
4)Requires the DWR to issue a final report by July 1, 2018, that
includes both of the following:
a) All material developed for the report required by
this bill, updated as appropriate to further the stated
legislative intent.
b) Recommendations to public entities to help them
achieve water-resilient communities and prioritize
cost-effective water efficiency measures with low adverse
environmental impacts based on local conditions, such as
education, granting incentives or rebates, or other
voluntary measures.
5)States legislative intent for the state to promote
water-resilient communities by identifying the relative
AB 2617
Page 4
cost-effectiveness of water efficiency measures and
recommending those that have the potential to cost-effectively
achieve the greatest reduction in water use, taking into
account local conditions, and to produce net environmental
benefits that outweigh any adverse environmental impacts.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Promotes landscape water conservation through water efficient
landscape ordinances. Local agencies must have a water
efficient landscape ordinance or the 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
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Unknown additional costs, likely in the $300,000 to $400,000
range for the DWR to develop the report.
2)Increased costs for the Water Board to participate in the
evaluations of water efficiency measures of approximately
AB 2617
Page 5
$70,000 per year.
COMMENTS: This bill requires the DWR, in consultation with
other entities, to produce a report that analyzes various water
efficiency incentive programs. The report would be required to
include an analysis of specific water efficiency programs but
could include others.
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 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 DWR to produce a report
on water efficiency incentives and to consider any adverse
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.
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 the 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
AB 2617
Page 6
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 DWR operated 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, which is approximately equivalent to
replacing 44,000 legacy toilets with high water efficiency
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 offered a
rebate based on each square foot of turf removed. The City of
Sacramento also offered 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
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.
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
AB 2617
Page 7
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.
Analysis Prepared by: Diane Colborn /
W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0003318