BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 226| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 226 Author: Pavley (D) Amended: 9/3/15 Vote: 21 SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-2, 4/14/15 AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Wolk NOES: Stone, Fuller NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 4/28/15 AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski NOES: Anderson NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 SENATE FLOOR: 23-14, 5/26/15 AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski, Wolk NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Huff, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Runner, Stone, Vidak NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, Hall ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-3, 9/10/15 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: groundwater adjudication SOURCE: Author SB 226 Page 2 DIGEST: This bill integrates and streamlines the groundwater adjudication process for groundwater basins that are subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), primarily by adding a new chapter to SGMA. Assembly Amendments delete provisions regarding the judicial process for determining groundwater rights and added provisions regarding how the state enforcement provisions of SGMA apply to groundwater adjudications. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Expresses the State's regulatory and supervisory authority over all waters in the state, surface and underground, by declaring that all waters in the state are property of the people of the State, while recognizing that rights may be acquired to the use of water. 2)Establishes background principles that apply to all water diversion and use, including the Constitutional prohibition against waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of diversion or unreasonable method of use. 3)Allows a party with rights to extract and use water in a groundwater basin to initiate a lawsuit so the court can decide the groundwater rights of all parties overlying the basin and others who may export water out the basin. 4)Authorizes a court to order a reference to the State Water Resources Control Board (state board), as referee, of any and all issues involved in a suit brought in any court of SB 226 Page 3 competent jurisdiction in this state for determination of rights to water. 5)Requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) that are designated as subject to critical overdraft conditions to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or coordinated GSPs by January 31, 2020. 6)Requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a GSP or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2022. 7)Authorizes a local agency to request that the DWR revise the boundaries of a basin. 8)Authorizes state board to designate certain high- and medium-priority basins as a probationary basin if certain criteria are met. 9)Authorizes the state board to develop an interim plan for a probationary basin if the state board determines that a local agency has not remedied a deficiency that resulted in designating the basin as a probationary basin within a certain timeframe. This bill: 1)Authorizes the state to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication conducted as specified in AB 1390 (Alejo) of the 2015-16 Regular Session. 2)Requires a court, in an adjudication action to determine rights to groundwater in a basin that is required to have a SB 226 Page 4 GSP under SGMA, to manage the proceedings in a manner that: a) Minimizes interference with the timely completion and implementation of a GSP, b) Avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs in the development of technical information and a physical solution, and c) Is consistent with the attainment of sustainable groundwater management within the timeframes established by SGMA. 3)Authorizes an entity, when directed by the court in an adjudication action to file such a request, to request that the DWR revise the boundaries of a basin. 4)Prohibits the provisions relating to probationary basins and interim plans from applying to a judgment approved by the court if: a) The judgment is submitted to DWR for evaluation and assessment, and b) DWR determines that the judgment satisfies the objectives of SGMA for the basin. 5)Requires DWR to submit to the court assessments and any recommended corrective actions for these judgments and would require the court to determine whether to amend the judgment to adopt DWR's recommended corrective actions. 6)Prohibits a court from approving entry of judgment in an SB 226 Page 5 adjudication action for a basin required to have a GSP under SGMA unless the court finds that the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the board, or the department to comply with SGMA and to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Background Among other things, the SGMA requires that each high- and medium-priority groundwater basins be managed pursuant to a groundwater sustainability plan, with the goal of achieving sustainability within 20 years. Many basins will be able to achieve sustainability through more active and deliberate management. In some basins, however, to avoid undesirable results, some groundwater uses may need to be reduced or otherwise changed. SGMA states in several places that it does not determine or change groundwater rights. To define, reduce, or otherwise change groundwater rights one must use the common law process of adjudication. An adjudication of groundwater rights is initiated by a lawsuit. The impetus for such a suit is usually some alleged harm purportedly caused by excessive groundwater depletion. These harms could include chronic lowering of groundwater levels; subsidence; misallocation of storage; water quality; seawater intrusion; well interference; shortages; or water rights disputes. In basins where a lawsuit is brought to adjudicate the basin, the groundwater rights of all the overliers and appropriators are determined by the court. The court also decides: 1) who the extractors are; 2) how much groundwater those well owners can extract; and 3) who the Watermaster will be to ensure that the basin is managed in accordance with the court's decree. The Watermaster must report periodically to the court. SB 226 Page 6 Given the different kinds of groundwater rights and the relationships between them, coming to a determination is a complex task, often taking well over a decade of judicial activity - the Antelope Valley adjudication has taken 15 years and counting. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for some basins to comply with the requirements of SGMA if they have to wait 15+ years for a final determination of rights pursuant to existing law. On November 20, 2014, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee held an informational hearing, titled "Resolving Disputes Regarding Groundwater Rights: Why Does It Take So Long and What Might Be Done to Accelerate the Process?" At that hearing, witnesses identified a number of items that cause unnecessary delay. These included issues of basin boundaries, notice and service, discovery, and expert testimony. Comments Everyone Agrees The Current Process Needs Improvement. At the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee hearing last November, no one argued that the current adjudication process couldn't be improved. Indeed, all agreed that adjudications took much too long and all were able to identify a number of areas of the process that could be streamlined. Appellate Court Justice Ronald Robie described the real problem best at the November 2014 hearing when, commenting on the decade plus time to complete an adjudication, he observed "That's good for the lawyers, but you know that when you do have that many lawyers working, you're also costing a lot of money to the people who have the rights, so groundwater adjudications at the common law can be expensive to the parties." SB 226 Page 7 Related Legislation SB 226 and AB 1390 (Alejo) constitute a single adjudication proposal split into two contingently enacted bills. Briefly: 1)SB 226 includes all the necessary changes to SGMA. This including how adjudications in high- and medium-priority basins would be accommodated within SGMA without changing any of the policies inherent within SGMA. 2)AB 1390 includes all process and procedural changes necessary to accelerate adjudications without changing groundwater rights law. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: Unknown costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for state agency intervention in water rights suits. SUPPORT: (Verified 9/10/15) Agricultural Council of California Almond Hullers and Processors Association Association of California Egg Farmers California Association of Wheat Growers California Bean Shippers Association California Cattlemen's Association California Chamber of Commerce California Farm Bureau Federation California Grain and Feed Association SB 226 Page 8 California League of Conservation Voters California Pear Growers Association California Seed Association Clean Water Action California Community Water Center Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability Pacific Egg and Poultry Association Sierra Club California The Nature Conservancy Western Growers Association OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/15) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "Under current law, groundwater rights adjudications take an extraordinarily long time and are extraordinarily expensive. As we were working last year to enact the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) two things became clear: 1) there will almost certainly be more such adjudications, and 2) it will be difficult, if not impossible, for some basins to comply with the requirements of SGMA if we don't speed up the adjudication process." "SB 226 and AB 1390 tackle head on the various time sinks witnesses identified at this committee's hearing last November on groundwater adjudication. Briefly: 1)SB 226 includes all the necessary changes to SGMA. This including how adjudications in high- and medium-priority basins would be accommodated within SGMA without changing any of the policies inherent within SGMA. 2)AB 1390 includes all process and procedural changes necessary to accelerate adjudications without changing groundwater SB 226 Page 9 rights law. "With these changes, SB 226 will reduce needless delays while still protecting due process rights." ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-3, 9/10/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NOES: Brough, Dahle, Gallagher NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Patterson, Waldron Prepared by: Dennis O'Connor / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116 9/10/15 23:22:53 **** END ****