BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2153
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 2153 (Krekorian) - As Amended: April 8, 2008
Policy Committee: Natural Resources
Vote: 5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a process by which developers of
residential and commercial buildings must mitigate the projected
increase in water consumption from these buildings by taking
measures to equally reduce water consumption elsewhere in the
same hydrologic region.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potentially substantial costs, in the millions of dollars
annually statewide starting in 2008-09, to cities and counties
and other local lead agencies under CEQA to review and approve
project mitigation measures and to enforce the mitigation
process. These costs are covered by revenue generated by
CEQA-related fees imposed on project developers.
SUMMARY CONTINUED
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires new residential and commercial construction projects
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
implement all feasible & cost-effective water efficiency
measures.
2)Requires these projects, after efficiency measures are
implemented, to mitigate any increase in the projected annual
increase in water consumption within the same hydrologic
region by doing any of the following:
a) Water efficiency measures.
AB 2153
Page 2
b) Infrastructure rehabilitation to reduce water leaks.
c) Recycled water facilities.
d) Groundwater remediation and treatment facilities.
e) Stormwater capture facilities.
3)Makes the mitigation measures specified in #2 above subject to
review and approval by the city or county or other lead
agency, but does not require them to be so reviewed and
approved.
4)Requires the mitigation measures specified in #2 above to meet
all the following criteria:
a) 40% (of water consumption reduction) must be
accomplished by projects serving disadvantaged communities
within the same hydrologic region.
b) Project and programs must be "real", have a lifespan of
at least 20 years, and have quantifiable results that
produce an amount of water equal to the new residential or
commercial building project's projected water use.
c) Projects or programs, if feasible, must minimize
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and environmental impact,
reduce contaminated runoff, and provide environmental
benefits.
5)Requires affordable housing projects to implement all feasible
and cost-effective water efficiency measures, but exempts them
from the mitigation requirements.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends that developers of new
residential and commercial buildings should be primarily
responsible for making sure that overall water consumption in
the hydrologic region does not increase as a result of the new
buildings. This essentially translates to a "no growth"
policy with regard to water consumption within each hydrologic
region of the state. The author also believes that efforts to
"hold the line" on regional water consumption should benefit
disadvantaged communities that often lack adequate water
infrastructure to efficiently deliver water supplies. The
author exempts the developers of public buildings from these
requirements to avoid incurring any major state or local
agency costs.
AB 2153
Page 3
2)Background . California has long been challenged by the need
to provide adequate water supplies to an ever-increasing
population. Possible solutions involve increasing the state's
overall water supply by creating new reservoirs, increasing
the capacity of existing reservoirs, building desalination
recycled water facilities, fixing leaks in the water delivery
system, and/or treating contaminated groundwater basins, or
decreasing or slowing water demand in the state by increasing
water conservation and efficiency measures, reducing the
demands of landscaping, encouraging the infill construction of
multi-unit housing in urban areas, and/or limiting population
growth in more problematic hydrologic regions.
While local agencies are currently required to ensure adequate
water supplies are available to support the additional water
demands resulting from new major residential subdivision
development, this bill attempts to make sure that total water
consumption in individual hydrologic regions will not increase
due to the construction and use of new residential and
commercial buildings. By establishing a ceiling on water
consumption in each hydrologic region, the bill provides
substantial benefit to the existing residential and commercial
inventory in the region, especially those homes and buildings
in disadvantaged communities, and would make it easier for
local water suppliers to comply with the 20% per capital water
consumption reduction by 2020 called for the governor earlier
this year and proposed to be codified by AB 2175 (Laird).
3)What is Net Effect on Water Consumption ? This bill's
co-sponsors, the Planning and Conservation League and the
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, contend the
proposed mitigation requirements are intended to completely
offset any projected increase in water consumption resulting
from the use of a new residential or commercial building, with
measures that reduce water consumption or expand water supply
by the same amount. For example, if a new 500-home
subdivision, even after being fitted with all feasible and
cost-effective water efficiency devices and systems, is
projected to increase annual water consumption by 250
acre-feet (or 82 million gallons), the developer must mitigate
that increased water consumption by taking measures that
reduce water consumption or increase water supply in the same
hydrologic region by 250 acre-feet, of which 100 acre-feet
must be in disadvantaged communities.
AB 2153
Page 4
The net effect of the mitigation measure requirement, however,
may be to reduce overall consumption in the region beyond the
break-even point, depending on what water rights apply to the
land being developed into new residential and commercial
buildings, and how much water was being consumed on that land
before the development. Going back to the example, if the
500-home subdivision is built on a 100-acre plot of land that
possessed water rights that allowed diversions of 500 acre
feet per year, the potential savings in water consumption in
the region from the mitigation measures required by this bill
is actually 750 acre feet of water annually. If the 100-acre
plot of land was being actively used for agricultural purposes
using 400 acre-feet per year, while the new homes would
actually reduce water consumption on that land by 150 acre
feet per year, the developer would still have to take
mitigation measures to reduce water consumption or increase
water supply elsewhere in the hydrologic region by 250 acre
feet per year.
According to this bill's co-sponsors, the potential or actual
prior water consumption of particular plots of land are not
considered when determining how much water consumption
reductions or water supply increases must be provided by the
developer. In many cases, therefore, this bill will result in
a net benefit to a hydrologic region in terms of reduced water
consumption or increased water supply, or both.
4)Hydrologic Regions . There are 10 major hydrologic regions in
California, as follows:
a) North Coast.
b) San Francisco Bay.
c) Central Coast.
d) South Coast.
e) Sacramento River.
f) San Joaquin River.
g) Tulare Lake.
h) North Lahontan (eastern slope of north Sierra Nevada
Mountains and Cascades.
i) South Lahontan (eastern slope of south Sierra Nevada
Mountains and Tehachapis.)
j) Colorado River.
In addition, the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta and the Sierra
Nevada mountain counties contain significant water resources.
AB 2153
Page 5
5)Questions . There are several provisions and requirements open
to interpretation or do not clearly track with the author's or
co-sponsor's intent:
a) What projects are covered ? The mitigation measure
requirements apply to all new residential and commercial
building projects that are subject to CEQA. All
significant projects beyond minor modifications to an
existing property are subject to CEQA. The developers of
most of these projects are not required to develop full
environmental impact reports (EIRs), but are rather the
recipients of negative declarations made by the local or
state lead agency that mean the developer does not have to
go through the EIR process.
b) Should this new process be in CEQA law ? CEQA requires a
lead agency and project developer to consider the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the construction and
use of the project. This bill establishes a process to
control and reduce pressure on individual hydrologic
regions by reducing overall water consumption and/or
increasing overall water supply in the region. Such a
statutory requirement should not be placed in CEQA law, but
rather should be placed in the Water Code.
c) Subject to lead agency review and approval are
mitigation measures only ? This bill specifies that the
mitigation measures a developer must carry out are subject
to review and approval by the appropriate lead agency. The
appropriate lead agency could decide not to review and
approve these measures. The appropriate provision, to
achieve the author's and co-sponsors' goal, would read "The
mitigation measures?must be reviewed and approved by the
lead agency."
d) What is real ? This bill requires mitigation measures,
among other things, to be "real." This language appears to
be extraneous and rather subjective.
e) What produces water ? The mitigation measures a
developer must, among other things, "produce an amount of
water equal to the projected water usage of the project."
Many of the mitigation measures listed by this bill do not
produce water. Water efficiency measures, such as water
AB 2153
Page 6
conservation and fixing leaky delivery pipes, while
stretching water supplies, do not produce water.
6)Related Legislation :
a) AB 2175 (Laird) establishes a process by which urban
water consumption, on a per capita basis, would have to be
reduced by 20% by the year 2020, and by which agricultural
water consumption would have to be reduced substantially.
AB 2175 is on this committee's Suspense File.
b) AB 2751 (Wyland) - Chapter 194, Statutes of 2006
prohibits a local agency from imposing "fees" on developers
that include the "costs attributable to existing
deficiencies in public facilities." While AB 2751 applies
to fees imposed by local agencies, there may be some
question as to whether the mitigation measures required by
AB 2153 amount to "fees."
Analysis Prepared by : Steve Archibald / APPR. / (916)
319-2081