BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 173 Hearing Date: March 24,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Nielsen | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |February 5, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Dennis O'Connor |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Groundwater: de minimis extractors
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires that
all high- and medium-priority groundwater basins be managed by a
groundwater sustainability agency (agency) in accord with a
groundwater sustainability plan (plan).
Among other things, SGMA authorizes agencies to require through
its plan that all wells be metered and the reporting of annual
water use to the agency. This authorization does not extend to
"de minimis extractors."
SGMA also authorizes agencies to impose fees, including permit
fees and fees on groundwater extraction or other regulated
activity, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability
program. This authorization does not extend to imposing fees on
a de minimis extractor unless the agency has regulated the users
pursuant to SGMA.
SGMA defines "de minimis extractor" as a person who extracts,
for domestic purposes, two acre-feet (af) or less per year.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would change the definition of "de minimis extractor"
from a person who extracts two af or less per year to a person
who, for domestic purposes, extracts 10 af or less per year.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
SB 173 (Nielsen) Page 2
of ?
The Author asserts, "'de miminis' extractors are defined as
those who pump no more than 2 acre feet per year. While this is
intended to include smaller domestic wells, the 2 acre feet per
year limit draws a fine line between those that are truly the
focus of the legislation, large agriculture, and those that
should not be included in the onerous reporting requirements and
fees that are part of the bill. Landowners who reside on
smaller parcels and have minimal landscaping, gardens and
orchards, swimming pools, or small livestock herds, would likely
need to pump more than 2 acre feet per year. Clearly, these
small parcels are not a cause of overdraft problems."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None Received
COMMENTS
Black's Law Dictionary defines de minimis as "a Latin phrase
that means of a trifling consequence and a matter that is so
small that the court does not wish to even consider it."
Are domestic wells of a trifling consequence? In many all high-
and medium-priority groundwater basins, the answer appears to be
no. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed data
for Northern California groundwater basins based on well logs.
Those data show that domestic wells constitute a significant
number of wells and/or extractions in many high- and
medium-priority basins. For example, the table below summarizes
well data for ten high- and medium-priority basins:
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Basin/Subbas| # of |% of All | If All | If All |Difference|
| in | Domestic | Wells | Domestic | Domestic | |
| | Wells | | Wells | Wells | |
| | | |Produce 2 | Produce | |
| | | |Acre-Feet | 10 | |
| | | | |Acre-Feet | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Redding | 1,328 | 92.5% | 2,656 af |13,280 af |10,624 af |
SB 173 (Nielsen) Page 3
of ?
|Area/Bowman | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Sacramento | 4,481 | 80.7% | 8,962 af |44,810 af |35,848 af |
|Valley/Red | | | | | |
|Bluff | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Redding | 2,077 | 75.3% | 4,154 af |20,770 af |16,616 af |
|Area/Enterpr| | | | | |
|ise | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|San Joaquin | 3,125 | 69.0% | 6,250 af |31,250 af |25,000 af |
|Valley/Cosum| | | | | |
|nes | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Redding | 2,580 | 68.2% | 5,160 af |25,800 af |20,640 af |
|Area/Anderso| | | | | |
|n | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Sacramento | 2,398 | 56.9% | 4,796 af |23,980 af |19,184 af |
|Valley/Vina | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Sacramento | 2,415 | 56.6% | 4,830 af |24,150 af |19,320 af |
|Valley/Corni| | | | | |
|ng | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Sacramento | 2,870 | 51.2% | 5,740 af |28,700 af |22,960 af |
|Valley/Sutte| | | | | |
|r | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|Sacramento | 2,904 | 46.1% | 5,808 af |29,040 af |23,232 af |
|Valley/Solan| | | | | |
|o | | | | | |
|------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
|San Joaquin | 6,402 | 46.1% |12,804 af |64,020 af |51,216 |
|Valley/Easte| | | | |af |
|rn San | | | | | |
|Joaquin | | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These data reflect only those well for which DWR has a
well log on file. To the extent there are missing records,
these data would tend to undercount the number of wells.
The data show that in some high- and medium-priority basins,
domestic wells dominate the basin. It may well be challenging
SB 173 (Nielsen) Page 4
of ?
for groundwater sustainability agencies to develop a sustainable
groundwater management plan if over 75% - 93% of the wells are
exempt from having to meter extractions or report annual use.
In other basins, the sheer number of domestic wells could lead
to from nearly 13,000 af of exempt extractions per year under
current law, to over 64,000 af per year under the proposed bill,
a potential difference of over 51,000 af per year. 51,000 af is
sufficient water to provide for the needs of about 102,000
families in urban California for a year.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
SUPPORT
None Received
OPPOSITION
None Received
-- END --