BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2153
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Loni Hancock, Chair
AB 2153 (Krekorian) - As Amended: April 8, 2008
SUBJECT : Water conservation.
SUMMARY : Amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
to require every new residential or commercial building subject
to CEQA first to implement all feasible and cost-effective water
efficiency measures, then to mitigate its annual water annual
consumption, as projected by its water supplier.
EXISTING LAW :
1)CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory
exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA
guidelines). CEQA requires mitigation of significant effects
on the environment.
2)CEQA exempts specified residential housing projects which meet
extensive criteria established to ensure the project does not
have a significant effect on the environment. The exemption
is available to:
a) Affordable agricultural housing projects not more
than 45 units within a city, or 20 units within an
agricultural zone, on a site not more than five acres in
size;
b) Affordable urban housing projects not more than 100
units on a site not more than five acres in size; and,
c) Urban infill housing projects under 100 units, on a
site not more than four acres in size, which is within
one-half mile of a major transit stop.
3)Prohibits approval of a tentative or parcel map, or a
development agreement for a subdivision of property of more
than 500 residential units, unless the legislative body of a
AB 2153
Page 2
city or county or the designated advisory agency provides
written verification from the applicable public water system
that a sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a
specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient
water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion
of the project.
4)Provides that whenever a city or county determines that a
project is subject to CEQA, the project must comply with the
provisions of law that evaluate the sufficiency of water
supplies.
5)Requires the CEC to prescribe energy conservation design
standards for new residential and new nonresidential
buildings, and also prescribe water efficiency standards for
those buildings, provided the adopted water efficiency or
conservation standards are necessary to save energy.
THIS BILL :
1)Amends CEQA to require every new residential or commercial
building subject to CEQA to:
a) Implement all feasible and cost-effective water
efficiency measures.
b) Mitigate its annual water annual consumption, as
projected by its water supplier.
1)Mitigation measures must be implemented within the same
hydrologic region as the new building and may include:
a) Water efficiency measures including interior and
exterior water conservation.
b) Infrastructure rehabilitation resulting in reduced
water loss due to leaking pipes or reduced need to flush
pipe systems.
c) Recycled water facilities.
d) Groundwater remediation and treatment facilities.
e) Stormwater capture facilities.
AB 2153
Page 3
2)Mitigation measures must also meet the following criteria:
a) At least 40 percent of the mitigation shall be
accomplished through projects that serve disadvantaged
communities.
b) Mitigation projects shall be real, have a life
expectancy of at least 20 years, and have quantifiable
results that produce an amount of water equal to the
projected water usage of the project.
c) Mitigation projects shall to the extent feasible
minimize greenhouse gas emissions, minimize environmental
impact, reduce contaminated runoff, and provide
environmental benefit.
3)Mitigation measures shall target affordable housing and, if
undertaken for public buildings, target public buildings, with
priority for schools.
4)Affordable housing projects are subject to water efficiency
requirements, but not mitigation requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown, potentially significant costs to the
state to comply with water efficiency and mitigation
requirements for new state buildings, offset by water use
savings over the life of the building.
AB 2153
Page 4
COMMENTS :
1)Water is for fighting over. Since California's last prolonged
drought in the early 1990's, Californians have taken numerous
steps to promote water conservation. In 1991, the Urban Water
Management Council's memorandum of understanding (MOU) was
executed among water agencies to promote "best management
practices" for water use efficiency. The next year, Congress
passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which
required agricultural users to develop water conservation
plans. In the decade that followed, the vast majority of
urban water agencies signed on to the MOU; agricultural water
agencies developed their own MOU; the CALFED Bay Delta Program
began implementing a water use efficiency program; and, the
Legislature passed laws requiring urban water management plans
to include water conservation plans.
Last year, AB 1560 (Huffman) extended water use efficiency
efforts into the private sector, establishing water use
efficiency standards for new residential and non-residential
buildings, provided the water efficiency standards are
necessary to save energy. The CEC has concluded that as much
as 19% of electric energy load is related to the movement,
treatment, and consumption of water and 39% of gas load is
related to heating water.
2)CEQA. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the
environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or
approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from
CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. If
the initial study shows that there would not be a significant
effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a
negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment, the
lead agency must prepare an EIR.
3)Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed
project, identify and analyze each significant environmental
impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent
feasible , and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to
the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has
received environmental review, an agency must make certain
findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated
AB 2153
Page 5
into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or
monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.
4)Zero net water use. This bill proposes a novel application of
the CEQA concept of mitigation. Rather than having mitigation
following project-specific analysis and identification of
significant effects on the environment, the bill would require
each new building to mitigate any projected water use, on the
basis that net water consumption should be avoided for new
construction as a statewide matter, regardless of individual
project details or local circumstances.
5)What types of buildings would be subject to this bill? It's
difficult to generalize, but affordable housing projects and
limited infill housing projects, as well as individual
single-family homes, that are exempt from CEQA, would not be
subject to this bill. Multi-unit apartment and housing
developments, or commercial buildings, of any significant size
likely would be subject to the bill. In addition, even a
project that receives a negative declaration is "subject to
CEQA," so the bill may apply to a project otherwise determined
to have no significant effect on the environment.
6)What process will govern the selection and validation of
mitigation measures? As stated above, CEQA mitigation is
handled by the lead agency on a project-by-project basis.
Pursuant to the CEQA process, the proposed mitigation measures
would be subject to public review and comment, then approval
by the lead (public) agency. In approving the project, the
agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure
compliance with those mitigation measures. The particular
mitigation measures likely would be selected by the project
developer and subject to review and approval by the lead
agency.
7)How much will it cost? Supporters suggest an average
mitigation cost per single-family home of about $350 or less,
based on 0.6 acre foot/year water use. Opponents informally
indicated much higher cost estimates, but have not provided
the Committee a specific figure.
8)Related legislation:
a) AB 2175 (Laird), pending in the Water, Parks and
Wildlife Committee, requires the Department of Water
AB 2153
Page 6
Resources (DWR) to:
Establish a statewide target to
achieve a 20% reduction in urban per capita water
use by 2020.
Establish a statewide numeric water
conservation target for agricultural water use
that provides for a significant increase in
agricultural water conservation by 2009.
Establish and publish a list of
technically feasible urban and agricultural water
conservation measures by 2010.
Each urban water supplier would be
required to reduce its per capita water use by 20%
by 2020.
Each agricultural water supplier would
be required to adopt numeric water conservation
targets to be achieved by 2015 and 2020.
b) AB 2219 (Parra), pending in the Water, Parks and
Wildlife Committee, amends the current water supply
assessment law to require the city or county to approve
or disapprove the subdivider's water savings projections
attributable to voluntary demand management measures
after being reviewed by the retail water supplier. The
city or county would have to reduce the anticipated water
demand for the project based on the water service
provider's voluntary water demand management measures.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bay Institute
Butte Environmental Council
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Trout
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Stockton
Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Defenders of Wildlife
Desal Response Group
East Bay Watershed Center
End Oil
AB 2153
Page 7
Environment California
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (co-sponsor)
Federation of Fly Fishers
Food and Water Watch
Friends of the River
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Parents for a Safer Environment
Planning and Conservation League (co-sponsor)
Sierra Club California
Opposition
Associated General Contractors California
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092