BILL ANALYSIS
AB 49
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 49 (Feuer) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
Policy Committee: WPW Vote:7-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
Requires a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use by the
end of 2020 and requires agricultural water suppliers to
implement best management practices (BMPs) by July 31, 2012.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Substantial costs, in the millions of dollars from 2009-10
through 2020-21, to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
establish water reduction and water conservation targets,
develop a methodology to quantify the efficiency of
agricultural water use, determine urban water use reduction
and implementation of agricultural water use BMPs, and develop
required forms. (GF or Prop 84 bond proceeds.)
2)Substantial costs, in the millions of dollars annually from
2009-10 through 2020-21, to urban water suppliers to comply
with per capita water use reduction requirements. These costs
are covered by revenue generated from user fees and from
grants awarded from the state or federal government.
3)Substantial costs, in the millions of dollars from 2010-11
through 2020-21, to agricultural water suppliers to develop
and implement BMPs and to prepare and adopt agricultural water
management plans.
4)Substantial savings, in the millions of dollars annually
starting around 2014-15, to urban and agricultural water
suppliers if substantially increased water conservation
efforts and reduced water use results in significantly lower
water supply costs and significantly lower water supply
infrastructure expenditures.
AB 49
Page 2
SUMMARY (cont.)
Specifically, this bill:
Urban Water Suppliers
1)Requires DWR to develop, by December 31, 2010, regional urban
water use targets consistent with the goals of reducing urban
per capita water use by at least 10% on or before December 31,
2015, and by 20% on or before December 31, 2020, as well as
per capita water use calculation procedures.
2)Requires each urban water retailer to achieve the 2015 interim
urban water use target and the 2020 urban water use target.
3)Allows urban retail water suppliers to comply with the targets
through flexible mechanisms, such as participation in regional
cooperative programs and water use efficiency gains in any
water use sectors-residential, commercial, institutional, and
industrial.
4)States that all costs incurred by a water utility regulated by
the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to comply with these
provisions be recoverable through rates, subject to PUC
approval.
5)Requires urban wholesale water suppliers to report to DWR on
their progress towards meeting the water use reduction
targets.
6)Requires state agencies to reduce water use state facilities
in pursuit of these targets.
Agricultural Water Suppliers
1)Calls on an agricultural water supplier, on or before July 31,
2012, to implement water use efficiency BMPs, as described in
the bill and to adopt an agricultural water management plan by
December 31, 2011, again by December 31, 2015, and every five
years thereafter.
2)Requires these suppliers to report to DWR every five years on
which BMPs have been implemented and are planned to be
implemented and an estimate of water savings.
AB 49
Page 3
Other Provisions
1)Requires DWR, in consultation with other state agencies, to
develop a standardized water use reporting form for use by
each agency to assess, at a minimum, urban and agricultural
water supplier compliance with the bill's targets and
requirements.
2)States the Legislature's intent to use Proposition 84 bond
funds to implement the provisions of this bill.
3)Conditions receipt of urban and agricultural water management
grants upon progress towards meeting the water use targets
described in the bill, as determined by DWR.
4)Requires DWR to develop a methodology for quantifying the
efficiency of agricultural water use.
5)Requires DWR to report to the Legislature, by December 31,
2012, and, generally, every five year thereafter, on the
effectiveness of agricultural management plans.
6)Exempts agricultural management plans from compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author believes that water conservation is the
most feasible and cost-effective option available to help
bring long-term water demand in line with long-term water
supply. Statewide use of best water management practices and
feasible water conservation measures could reduce total annual
water demand by millions of acre feet, reducing or delaying
the need to construct and maintain new reservoirs and to
import water from other regions of the state. The author
believes that Prop 84 bond proceeds earmarked for water supply
needs and statewide water supply planning should focus on
helping urban and agricultural water suppliers meet long-term
water reduction targets and requirements.
2)Background . In March of 2008, the governor called on all
Californians to conserve water and to reduce their per capita
consumption of water by 20% by 2020. This bill reflects the
governor's statement, makes it a requirement for urban water
AB 49
Page 4
suppliers, and requires implementation of BMPs for
agricultural water suppliers and adoption of water
agricultural water management plans.
3)Other Legislation.
a) Prop 84 , approved by voters at the November 2006
statewide election, authorized the issuance of $5.388
billion worth of state general obligation bonds to fund
various resources-related projects and programs. Prop 84
earmarked $1 billion in bond proceeds to be provided by DWR
as grants to local agencies to meet the long-term water
needs of the state, including the delivery of safe drinking
water and the protection of water quality and the
environment. Eligible projects must implement integrated
regional water management plans that address the major
water-related objectives and conflicts within the region.
Projects must provide multiple benefits, including water
supply reliability, water conservation and water use
efficiency.
b) AB 2175 (Laird, 2008) was similar to this bill, in that
it required urban water suppliers to reduce per capita
water use in their areas, and established targets for
agricultural water conservation. The bill passed this
committee 12-5 and passed the Assembly 48-30 but, failed
passage in the Senate.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081