BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1317
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
SB
1317 (Wolk) - As Amended June 20, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 21-17
SUBJECT: Groundwater extraction permit
SUMMARY: Requires a city or county overlying a basin designated
as a high- or medium-priority basin to, under specified
conditions and with exceptions, prohibit the issuance of a
permit for a new groundwater extraction facility, or establish a
process which requires an applicant for a permit to demonstrate
the extraction of groundwater from the proposed facility will
not contribute to or create an undesirable result. Specifically,
this bill:
1)By January 1, 2018, requires cities and counties overlying a
basin designated as a high- or medium priority basin to
establish a process for a groundwater extraction facility
applicant to demonstrate that the extraction of groundwater
from the facility will not contribute to or create an
undesirable result or adopt an ordinance that prevents a new
groundwater extraction facility from contributing to or
creating an undesirable result.
SB 1317
Page 2
2)Prohibits the issuance of a groundwater extraction permit,
with exceptions, for a new groundwater extraction facility in
a probationary basin or basin subject to critical overdraft.
3)Removes the requirement that specified cities and counties
have a process for the issuance of a groundwater extraction
permit on or after January 31, 2022, or once the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) has determined a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the basin to be adequate.
4)Does not apply the provisions of the bill to an adjudicated
basin, a special act water district, or the county of Napa if
both the county's groundwater conservation ordinance and its
water availability analysis policy remain in effect and are
substantially the same as they existed on January 1, 2016.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies that cities and counties have a number of different
responsibilities, including land use planning and permitting,
and issuing permits for water well construction.
2)Requires the DWR to evaluate groundwater basins and designate
them as high, medium, low or very low, according to various
factors including, but not limited to, level of dependence
upon the basin by municipal and agricultural users.
3)Requires the DWR to investigate existing patterns of
groundwater extraction and groundwater recharge within basins
to identify basins that are subject to critical conditions of
SB 1317
Page 3
overdraft.
4)Requires that local agencies in high- and medium-priority
basins subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) form one or more Groundwater Sustainability Agency's
(GSAs) by June 30, 2017.
5)Requires that GSAs in basins with chronic overdraft develop
and adopt a GSP for their basin by January 31, 2020.
6)Requires that GSAs in all other high- and medium-priority
basins subject to SGMA develop and adopt GSPs by January 31,
2022.
7)Prohibits a groundwater extractor who increases pumping after
January 1, 2015, during the time the GSP is under development,
from using that pumping increase, as the basis of an expanded
claim to groundwater against other user's rights.
8)Defines sustainable groundwater management in a GSP as
avoiding undesirable results in the basin from groundwater
pumping that results in any of the following: lowering of
groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater storage, seawater
intrusion, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and
depletions of interconnected surface waters.
SB 1317
Page 4
9)Provides GSAs with optional tools for reaching sustainability
including, but not limited to, the ability to conduct
investigations, collect fees, limit pumping, require
measurement and reporting of groundwater extractions, monitor
compliance, charge civil penalties for violations, and
implement plans and programs to recharge a basin.
10)Authorizes the State Water Board to declare a basin in
probationary status under specified circumstances.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS: This bill requires a city or county overlying a basin
designated as a high- or medium-priority basin to, under
specified conditions and with exceptions, prohibit the issuance
of a permit for a new groundwater extraction facility, or
establish a process which requires an applicant for a permit to
demonstrate the extraction of groundwater from the proposed
facility will not contribute to or create an undesirable result.
1)Author's Statement: Even with the passage of SGMA many of
California's groundwater basins are in serious and immediate
danger of overdraft. We have to recognize that there are
urgent problems in some groundwater basins that must be
addressed before SGMA regulations start to take effect in
2020. Local governments need to take responsibility for their
at-risk and critically overdrafted basins. New wells are
being dug daily all over the state at an alarming rate in
anticipation of SGMA. New straws suck the water out of the
ground without any analysis of the impacts on neighboring
farmers or the community within the groundwater basin. This
SB 1317
Page 5
bill seeks to slow this run on wells so there will actually be
some groundwater left to manage in 2020.
2)Background: Groundwater is a critically important component
of water supply in California. Depending on conditions,
groundwater provides a third to nearly two-thirds of the
state's water supply. The swing in the amount of total state
supply that comes from groundwater is affected by a variety of
factors including drought, the ability to move water across
the state, local and state regulations, land use, and local
conditions. While there has been increasingly more
information gathered on groundwater wells and groundwater
supplies we do not yet have a clear picture of the status of
groundwater across the state.
The DWR estimates that there are between one to two million
water wells (irrespective of condition or whether used or
idle) scattered throughout the State. On average, 10,000 to
15,000 more wells are added to this total each year. Most are
situated in the 515 groundwater basins/subbasins in
California, although many are located in the hilly and
mountainous areas. They range from hand dug wells to carefully
designed large production wells drilled to great depths.
While costs of a well vary dramatically it is not unusual for
wells to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The DWR is responsible for maintaining information on well
completion reports, which must be submitted whenever a driller
constructs, alters, or destroys a well. Information on well
completion reports can be a valuable resource to learn about
subsurface geologic conditions. The Legislature passed SB 83
(Committee on Budget), Chapter 24, Statutes of 2015, that
among other things allows public access to well completion
reports. The DWR has about 800,000 reports on file, SB 83
required that personal information be removed from the reports
prior to making them public. Because it requires significant
effort to redact the personal data from all reports those
SB 1317
Page 6
reports will, most likely, not be made publicly available
until later this year.
In 2009, the Legislature passed SB6 x7 (Steinberg), Chapter 1,
Statues of 2009, Seventh Extraordinary Session, which mandated
a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track
seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in
California's groundwater basins. As a result the DWR
developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The law anticipates that the
monitoring of groundwater elevations required by the
legislation will be done by local entities. The first two
statewide CASGEM reports have been submitted, but do not yet
paint a complete groundwater picture for the state.
In 2014, in the fourth year of drought with mounting evidence
that groundwater was being depleted at an increasing rate,
California became the last western state to regulate
groundwater use through the enactment of SGMA. Overall, the
State has been withdrawing more groundwater annually than is
being replenished, on average by 1 million to 2 million
acre-feet per year.
SGMA did not alter groundwater rights. In most areas of the
State, overlying land owners may extract groundwater and put
it to beneficial use without impediment.
Implementation of SGMA: SGMA requires a local process for
high- or medium- priority basins to sustainably manage basins
within 20 years, with basins in critical overdraft having to
come into compliance two years earlier. California has 515
groundwater basins and subasins. Of the 515 basins, 127 have
been designated by the DWR as high- or medium-priority basins.
The 127 basins account for about 96% of the state's
groundwater use. Additionally, 21 basins have been identified
SB 1317
Page 7
by the DWR as being in a condition of critical overdraft.
While critically overdraft basins are spread throughout the
state, most of the San Joaquin Valley basins have been
designated as being in a condition of critical overdraft.
SGMA Soon Enough: The question this bill raises is will SGMA
be effective soon enough. One of the central features of SGMA
was that groundwater management in California is best
accomplished locally. GSA's are required to address
undesirable results that occur after January 1, 2015.
Meaning, there is reason for local agencies to prevent severe
actions that would make future implementation of
sustainability challenging. GSP's will be very through
documents with a scientific level of understanding and
coordination of regulation in each basin that does not exist
today. As a result, the current timeframes that exist in SGMA
are going to be challenging for many regions to meet.
This bill, by January 1, 2018, puts a limitation or
prohibition on groundwater extraction that contributes to or
creates an undesirable result. Undesirable results in high
and medium priority basins will not be defined until GSP's are
established by January 31, 2022. This is a flaw that requires
coming into compliance by 2018 with a standard that may not
exist until 2022.
Local Actions: Cities and counties are responsible for issuing
permits for groundwater extraction facilities. This bill is
modeled off of an ordinance in Stanislaus County which would
prohibit new groundwater wells that lead to "the unsustainable
extraction of groundwater within the unincorporated areas of
the County." Similar to this legislation, the Stanislaus
County ordinance requires applicants for groundwater
extraction facility permits to demonstrate that the extraction
from the facility will not "constitute unsustainable
extraction of groundwater". Other counties currently have or
SB 1317
Page 8
at times have put in place restrictions on groundwater
extraction in response to their local groundwater management
needs.
The Stanislaus County ordinance faced and prevailed, in
Superior Court, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
lawsuit. The challenge pertained to the County not applying a
CEQA analysis on the permitting of wells because of reliance
on the applicant certifying the impacts of the new facility.
Last year, the Legislature passed SB 88 (Committee on Budget),
Chapter 27, Statues of 2015, that among other things, excluded
city and county ordinances that limit or prohibit the drilling
of new or deeper groundwater wells from CEQA until July 1,
2017, or the end of the drought state of emergency declared by
the Governor, whichever is later.
It is clear that the authority to enact local ordinances
exists. It is clear that SGMA envisioned a local process that
could include local ordinances. It is not clear if requiring
local actions will enhance the ability to meet the
requirements of sustainable groundwater management under SGMA.
Double Referral: If this bill should pass this committee it
will be re-referred to Assembly Local Government Committee.
3)Prior and Related Legislation:
a) SB 1168 (Pavley), Chapter 346, Statutes of
2014, enacted SGMA.
b) AB 1738 (Dickinson), Chapter 347, Statutes of
SB 1317
Page 9
2014, enacted SGMA.
c) SB 88 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 27,
Statutes of 2015, added CEQA exemptions for city or
county ordinances limiting or prohibiting the drilling
of new or deeper groundwater wells.
d) SB 83 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 24,
Statutes of 2015, required public access to well
completion reports.
e) SB6 x7 (Steinberg), Chapter 1, Statues of
2009, Seventh Extraordinary Session, which mandated
statewide groundwater elevation monitoring.
1)Supporting Arguments: This bill will help prevent adverse
impact to communities, the environment, and the economy
dependent on groundwater while implementation of SGMA begins.
Throughout the State, many basins are seeing rapid drawdown of
groundwater levels due to unchecked permitting of new
groundwater extraction sites, leading to subsidence, reduced
water availability for communities, and environmental
degradation. In many counties, the decision to grant a well
permit is given no thought as to whether the well may cause
undesirable results or permanent damage to the aquifer. Since
the enactment of SGMA, and due to drought, we are seeing a
rapid increase in well drilling across California. This bill
will slow the pace of groundwater depletion by prohibiting the
permitting of new wells within critically overdrafted basins
and limiting well drilling in high and medium priority basins.
This is a much needed step in order to protect the State's
SB 1317
Page 10
aquifers from permanent damage as we implement SGMA, which
does not fully take effect until 2042.
2)Opposing Arguments: This bill undermines the intent of SGMA to
achieve groundwater sustainability through local management by
taking management decisions out of the hands of locals. The
bill substantially interferes with the implementation of SGMA
by mandating a city or county overlying a high or medium
priority water basin to establish a process by January 1,
2018, for issuing a groundwater extraction permit and
restricts permits for probationary basins and those in
critical overdraft. This bill hinders the ability of local
agencies to analyze and determine the necessary management
tools required to achieve sustainability in each basin. SGMA
should be given time to be implemented and the many
significant local efforts should be allowed to succeed before
adding additional mandates.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AZUL
California League of Conservation Voters
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Endangered Habitats League
Food and Water Watch
Institute for Ecological Health
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
SB 1317
Page 11
The Nature Conservancy
Union of Concerned Scientists
Wholly H2O
Opposition
Agricultural Council of California
Almond Hullers & Processors Association
Association of California Egg Farmers
Association of California Water Agencies
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Building Industry Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations
California Dairies, Inc.
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Groundwater Association
California League of Food Processors
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Floral Association
California Women for Agriculture
City of Roseville
Coachella Valley Water District
County of Del Norte Board of Supervisors
County of Sacramento
County of San Diego
Desert Water Agency
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Grower-Shipper Association of Central California
SB 1317
Page 12
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Indian Wells Valley Water District
Kern County Board of Supervisors
League of California Cities
Merced County Board of Supervisors
Nisei Farmers League
Regional Water Authority
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
San Joaquin Delta Coalition
Tehama Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
Analysis Prepared by:Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916)
319-2096