BILL ANALYSIS
AB 49
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 49 (Feuer and Huffman)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 7-4
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Caballero, Krekorian, | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, | |Hall, Krekorian, |
| |John A. Perez, Salas | |John A, Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Fuller, Anderson, Tom |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| |Berryhill, Fletcher | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 urban retail water suppliers to develop urban water
use targets and interim water use targets by December 31,
2010:
a) Allows urban retail water suppliers to determine and
report progress toward water use targets on an individual
or regional basis, and on a fiscal year or calendar year
basis;
b) States legislative intent for a cumulative 20%
reduction, from the baseline, in daily per capita water use
by 2020;
c) Specifies methods for urban retail water suppliers to
AB 49
Page 2
determine water use targets:
i) 80% of supplier's baseline per capita daily water
use;
ii) The sum of certain performance standards for certain
categories of water use; and,
iii) 95% of base per capita water use for suppliers that
are pre-1994 members of the California Urban Water
Conservation Council (CUWCC) and are at or below the
applicable state hydrologic region target set by CUWCC.
d) Requires urban retail water suppliers to report certain
baseline water use data in 2010;
e) Allows urban retail water suppliers to update their 2020
water use target in 2015;
f) Requires urban retail water suppliers to meet their own
interim water use targets by 2015 and final water use
targets by 2020; and,
g) Defines measure of progress toward water use targets as
supplier's compliance daily per capita water use, allowing
for adjustments for "weather-normalizing factors."
3)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.
4) Allows public utilities to recover the costs of water
conservation from ratepayers.
5) Requires urban wholesale water suppliers to assess
present and proposed conservation measures, programs and
policies required by this bill.
6) Requires urban water suppliers to report progress on
meeting water conservation targets in urban water
management plans.
AB 49
Page 3
7) Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
convene, by April 1, 2010 and in conjunction with CUWCC, a
task force to develop best management practices for the
commercial, industrial and institutional water-use sectors.
8) Requires DWR to report to the Legislature, by December
31, 2016, and based on 2015 urban water management plans,
on progress toward meeting 2020 water conservation targets.
9) Requires state agencies to reduce water use on their
facilities in support of urban retail water suppliers
meeting their targets.
10)Requires agricultural water suppliers to implement, by
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; and,
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;
AB 49
Page 4
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 tail water recovery
systems; and,
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; and,
d) Allows DWR to update best management practices after
technical and public input and consultation with certain
organizations.
11)Requires DWR to develop a standardized water use reporting
form, specifying certain information as to compliance with
conservation targets and best management practices.
12)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.
13)States legislative intent to use Proposition 84 bond
funding for water conservation.
14)Requires DWR to develop a methodology for quantifying
agricultural water use efficiency.
15)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
AB 49
Page 5
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;
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;
and,
i) Makes legislative findings and defines certain terms
related to agricultural water management planning
16)Makes legislative findings, states legislative intent, 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
AB 49
Page 6
Central Valley Project to prepare water conservation plans.
FISCAL EFFECT : Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates
costs as follows:
1)Substantial costs likely to be paid from special funds, in the
low millions of dollars from 2009-10 through 2020-21, to DWR
to review urban and agricultural water conservation.
2)Substantial costs, in the millions of dollars annually from
2009-10 through 2020- 21, to urban water suppliers to comply
with water conservation requirements, 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 implement
BMPs 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.
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. The Delta Vision Strategic Plan identified
statewide water conservation as a critical goal for improving
conditions in the Delta.
Urban Water Conservation : Over the last several years, the
Legislature has continued to promote greater water conservation,
through water rate structures, conditions on state funding for
conservation and other measures. Water agencies began making
AB 49
Page 7
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 (CUWCC) 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 in water conservation 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 determine their own
water-use target for 2020, and then achieve that target through
regional cooperation or selection of water-use sectors. The
reliance on each water supplier setting its own target addresses
the objection to last year's bill that it tried to make "one
size fit all."
Agricultural Water Conservation : 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 (e.g.,
water management services and pricing structures) 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.
Agricultural Water Management Plans : In addition to BMPs, AB 49
AB 49
Page 8
reauthorizes obsolete 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,
which is comparable to water conservation plans requirements for
water agency contractors with the federal Central Valley
Project, under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 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 : The agricultural community has opposed
this legislation, suggesting that the requirements on
agriculture are "neither necessary nor desirable." Agricultural
advocates object to imposing any costs or requirements for
water-use efficiency on agricultural water districts.
Analysis Prepared by : Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0001324