BILL ANALYSIS
AB 49
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
AB 49 (Feuer and Huffman) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Water conservation
SUMMARY : Requires achievement of a 20% reduction in urban per
capita water use in California by 2020. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires the state to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per
capita water use in California on or before December 31, 2020,
with incremental progress of at least 10% by 2015.
2)Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop
regional urban water use targets (both interim and long-term),
through a public process, by December 31, 2010.
3)Requires each urban retail water supplier to meet its urban
water use target by 2020, and interim target by 2015.
4)Allows flexibility for urban retail water suppliers to meet
urban water use targets, relying on regional
cooperation/planning and water use efficiency gains in any or
all water use sectors - residential, commercial, institutional
and industrial.
5) Allows public utilities to recover the costs of water
conservation from ratepayers.
6) Requires urban wholesale water suppliers to assess
present and proposed conservation measures, programs and
policies required by this bill.
7) Requires urban water suppliers to report progress on
meeting water conservation targets in urban water
management plans.
8) Requires state agencies to reduce water use on their
facilities in support of urban retail water suppliers
meeting their targets.
9) Requires agricultural water suppliers to implement, by
AB 49
Page 2
July 31, 2012, certain best management practices for water
use efficiency.
a) Requires agricultural water suppliers to implement
certain "critical" best management practices:
i) Measure volume of water delivered to customers to
implement volumetric pricing.
ii) Designate a water conservation coordinator.
iii) Make certain water management services to water
users.
iv) Adopt a pricing structure for water customers based
at least in part on quantity.
v) Evaluate policies of agencies providing water to
agricultural water supplier for more flexible water
deliveries and storage.
vi) Evaluate and improve pump efficiencies.
b) Requires agricultural water suppliers to implement
additional best management practices if locally cost
effective and technically feasible:
i) Facilitate alternative land use for lands with
exceptionally high water use.
ii) Facilitate use of recycled water under certain
conditions.
iii) Facilitate financing of capital improvements for
on-farm irrigation systems.
iv) Implement incentive pricing structure promoting
certain water use efficiency goals.
v) Line or pipe water distribution systems and
construct regulatory reservoirs.
vi) Increase flexibility in water ordering by water
customers within operational limits.
vii) Construct and operate spill and tailwater recovery
systems.
viii) Increased planned conjunctive use of surface and
groundwater storage.
c) Requires agricultural water suppliers to report to DWR
on best management practices, allowing compliance through
submission of agricultural water management plan or
submission to federal Bureau of Reclamation.
d) Allows DWR to update best management practices after
AB 49
Page 3
technical and public input and consultation with certain
organizations.
10)Requires DWR to develop a standardized water use reporting
form, specifying certain information as to compliance with
conservation targets and best management practices.
11)Conditions water management grants/loans for urban or
agricultural water suppliers on compliance with water
conservation requirements, after an unspecified date,
except that such suppliers may obtain funding to support
water conservation, under certain conditions, or the
supplier's entire service area qualifies as a disadvantaged
community.
12)States legislative intent to use Proposition 84 funding
for water conservation.
13)Requires DWR to develop a methodology for quantifying
agricultural water use efficiency.
14)Reauthorizes provisions requiring agricultural water
management plans, allowing for compliance through water
conservation plans submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation
or the Agricultural Water Management Council or through
urban water management plans or regional water plans
meeting the requirements of this part:
a) Requires agricultural water suppliers to adopt
agricultural water plans by December 31, 2011 and 2015 and
every five years thereafter.
b) Requires agricultural water suppliers to notify cities
and counties of preparation of an agricultural water
management plan and allows for consultation with
cities/counties.
c) Specifies content of agricultural water management
plans, with some similarity to existing requirements for
urban water management plans.
d) Requires certain public process for development,
adoption and amendment of agricultural water management
plans.
AB 49
Page 4
e) Requires DWR to prepare and submit a report summarizing
and evaluating status of agricultural water management
plans, including recommendations for improvements, but
specifically barring DWR from critiquing individual plans.
f) Narrows grounds and statute of limitations for
litigation challenging agricultural water management plans
to examining compliance with this part.
g) Exempts agricultural water management plans from
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
h) Conditions state water management grants/loans to
agricultural water suppliers on compliance with this part.
i) Makes legislative findings and defines certain terms
related to agricultural water management planning
15)Makes legislative findings and defines certain terms
regarding water conservation.
EXISTING LAW requires "urban water suppliers" to prepare urban
water management plans that consider water conservation, and
conditions state funding on certain urban water conservation
measures. Also, obsolete statute formerly required agricultural
water suppliers to prepare agricultural water management plans
by 1992. Federal law requires contractors of the federal
Central Valley Project to prepare water conservation plans.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill responds to Governor Schwarzenegger's
February 2008 call for Californians to reduce per capita water
use by 20% by 2020. This bill follows an earlier effort to
implement the Governor's call, AB 2175 (Laird/Feuer), which died
in the Senate last year. In the meantime, a statewide drought
has worsened and consensus support for greater water
conservation has emerged, with environmentalists and water
agencies advocating achievement of the Governor's call. The
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) adopted
principles for increasing water conservation earlier this year.
Differences, however, as to how to achieve such increased
conservation remain.
Urban Water Conservation. Over the last several years, the
AB 49
Page 5
Legislature has continued to promote greater water conservation,
through conditioning state funding on agency progress on
conservation and other measures. Water agencies began making
serious effort at conservation during the last major drought in
the early 1990's. At that point, urban water agencies created
the California Urban Water Conservation Council and identified a
series of "best management practices" (BMPs) for water agencies
to implement, through a voluntary memorandum of understanding
(MOU). Conservation achieved great success in Southern
California, whose water use now approximates levels of 30 years
ago - despite a population increase of approximately 30%.
Such success is not uniform, however, as reported by the
California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA) in 2004. CBDA reported
that the number of agencies who signed the Water Conservation
MOU had increased to 190, but "rates of compliance with the
voluntary BMPs remain low." Today, the Sacramento region uses
approximately twice the water used by Southern Californians on a
per capita, per day basis.
Flexibility in Implementation. This version of the bill
provides greater flexibility in how water agencies can achieve
higher levels of water conservation, instead of setting specific
water use targets in the bill. It sets the "20 by 2020" target
(and the interim 2015 target) for the entire state and then
allows water agencies the flexibility to achieve that target,
through regional cooperation or selection of water-use sectors.
The bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
develop regional urban water use targets by 2010. In developing
those targets through a public process, DWR will be able to
account for regional differences in water use and supply, as
well as previous success in implementing conservation measures.
This change addresses the objection to last year's bill that it
tried to make "one size fit all."
Agricultural Water Conservation. Agriculture continues to use
the lion's share of California's developed water supplies -
approximately 80%. (This does not include the water left
instream for environmental purposes.) Water conservation
efforts vary widely within the agricultural community. Some
water users who pay higher prices for water or have less
reliable supplies have invested substantially in water
conservation. Others, who enjoy better supply reliability and
lower costs, have done less. Information on agricultural water
use efficiency is less available, because state law does not
AB 49
Page 6
require comprehensive planning and reporting of agricultural
water management/conservation efforts.
Much of last year's bill debate focused on conservation in
agriculture. Urban water agencies insisted that agriculture
must participate in some kind of conservation effort, and
agricultural agencies objected to the different proposals for
their participation. Like the urban debate, this debate
concentrates on adjusting to differing conditions.
This bill relies on implementation of agricultural BMPs for
water use, which have been developed, at least in part, by the
Agricultural Water Management Council (AWMC). The bill creates
two BMP categories - "critical" BMPs that must agricultural
water suppliers must implement by all and "additional" BMPs that
must be implemented if the measures are locally cost effective
and technically feasible. It also requires reporting on BMP
implementation by agricultural water suppliers. This structure
allows for water agencies to adjust to the needs of their water
users, as the mandatory BMPs promote but do not actually require
conservation, such as water management services and pricing
structures.
Agricultural Water Management Plans. In addition to BMPs, AB 49
reauthorizes outdated Water Code provisions that formerly
required agricultural water suppliers to prepare agricultural
water management plans. The Committee previously has approved
this concept in three bills by former Senator Kuehl (2005-07).
The Governor vetoed all three, mostly due to costs of
comprehensive reporting/planning requirements in those bills.
This bill defines "agricultural water suppliers" that are
required to create a plan and conserve water as those with 2000
acres of irrigated land or 2000 acre-feet of water deliveries.
The definition of "urban water supplier" puts the threshold at
3000 connections or 3000 acre-feet of deliveries. Previous
bills provided for DWR to determine the appropriate threshold
for imposing requirements.
Opposition's Concerns. Representatives of the agricultural
community (primarily) submitted a coalition letter opposing AB
49 for the following reasons:
duplicative requirements for agricultural water
conservation and water plans
mandate of BMPs not locally cost efficient not
AB 49
Page 7
technically feasible
too low a threshold for agricultural water management
plans (i.e. 2000 acre/acre-feet)
difficulty in estimating net water savings in
agriculture, due to re-use
"neither necessary nor desirable" quantification of
agricultural water use efficiency
"neither necessary nor desirable" DWR reporting on
agricultural water management plans
application to commercial, industrial and institutional
water users
In essence, the agricultural advocates object to imposing any
costs or requirements for water-use efficiency on agricultural
water districts. The letter does not offer any alternatives for
how agriculture might achieve additional efficiency or how
conservation can contribute to relief from the current drought.
Some parts of the agricultural community, including signatories
to this letter, have called on the State to spend billions in
taxpayer funding for water infrastructure, but have not
suggested how agricultural water conservation could contribute
to resolving California's water challenges. The letter also
does not discuss the San Joaquin Valley's reliance on water from
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which currently suffers from
crisis and has not been able to export sufficient water to
agriculture, including some of the signers to this letter. The
Delta Vision Strategic Plan identified statewide water
conservation as a critical goal for improving conditions in the
Delta.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Natural Resources Defense Council (Sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Opposition
Agricultural Council of CA
CA Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
CA Association of Winegrape Growers
CA Chamber of Commerce
CA Citrus Mutual
AB 49
Page 8
CA Cotton Growers and Ginners Assoc.
CA Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
CA Farm Bureau Federation
Friant Water Authority
Imperial Irrigation District
Irrigation Association
Kern County Water Agency
Modesto Irrigation District
Nisei Farmers League
Northern CA Water Association
Solano County Water Agency
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Growers
Wine Institute
Analysis Prepared by : Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096