BILL ANALYSIS
AB 49
Page 1
PROPOSED CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 1 - September 9, 2009
AB 49 (Feuer and Huffman)
As Amended July 9, 2009
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |43-30|(June 3, 2009) |SENATE: | |(July 13, 2009) |
| | | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
ASSEMBLY CONFERENCE VOTE : 4-0 SENATE CONFERENCE VOTE :4-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bass, Caballero, Huffman, |Ayes:|Steinberg, Florez, |
| |Solorio | |Padilla, Pavley |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: W., P. & W.
SUMMARY : Requires a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use
in California by December 31, 2020, and agricultural water
management plans for agricultural water suppliers, and promotes
expanded development of sustainable water supplies at the
regional level. Specifically, the conference committee
amendments :
1)Establish a statewide urban water conservation target:
a) Require urban per capita water use to be reduced by 10%
reduction by 2015; and,
b) Require urban per capita water use to be reduced by 20%
by 2020.
2)Establish a process for urban water suppliers to meet the
targets:
a) Define urban retail water supplier as one that directly
provides municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or
supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually;
b) Require urban retail water suppliers, individually or on
a regional basis, to develop an urban water use target by
December 31, 2010;
AB 49
Page 2
c) Require each urban water supplier to meet their target
by 2020, and to meet an interim target by 2015, defined as
half of their 2020 target;
d) Provide three methodologies for urban water suppliers to
choose from to develop their water use target:
i) A 20% reduction in baseline daily per capita use, or
ii) A methodology that combines efficiency standards for
residential indoor use [55 gallons per capita daily
(gpcd)]; residential outdoor use (Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance); and commercial, industrial, and
institutional (CII) use (10 % reduction); or,
iii) A 5% reduction in the DWR regional targets for gpcd.
e) Require minimum 5 % reduction in base water use by 2020
for all urban water suppliers.
f) Allow recycled water to count toward meeting urban
supplier's water use target if recycled water offsets
potable water demands.
g) Require urban water suppliers to report in their urban
water management plans due in 2010 the identified targets
in 2010, and to report progress in meeting the targets
every five years in subsequent updates of their urban water
management plans;
h) Allow urban suppliers to consider the following when
determining compliance:
i) Weather differences between the base year and
current reporting year;
ii) Substantial changes in commercial and industrial
water use due to increase business output and economic
development; and,
iii) Substantial changes to institutional water use
resulting from fire suppression or other extraordinary
AB 49
Page 3
events
i) Require urban water suppliers to hold public hearings to
allow for community input on the supplier's implementation
plan for meeting their water use target, and requires the
implementation to avoid placing a disproportionate burden
on any customer sector;
j) Prohibit urban suppliers from requiring changes that
would reduce the use of process water - defined in the bill
as water used in production of a product. The bill would
also allow an urban water supplier to exclude process water
from the calculation of gross water supply if a substantial
amount of the water provided in the service area is for
industrial use; and,
aa) Condition eligibility for water management grants and
loans on an urban water supplier's compliance with meeting
the requirements established by the bill.
3)Require DWR review and reporting:
a) Require DWR to review the 2015 urban water management
plans and report to the Legislature by 2016 on progress in
meeting the 20% statewide target; and,
b) The report could include recommendations on changes to
the standards or targets in order to achieve the 20%
reduction in per capita use.
4)Create a CII Task Force:
a) Require DWR to establish the task force by 2010 in
conjunction with the California Urban Water Conservation
Council; and,
b) Require the CII task force to develop best management
practices (BMPs); assess the potential for statewide water
savings if the BMPs are implemented; and report to the
Legislature by 2012 on proposed water use efficiency
standards for CII users based on several considerations.
5)Define agricultural water supplier as a supplier that provides
water to 10,000 or more of irrigated acres, excluding recycled
water used for irrigation.
AB 49
Page 4
6)Require Agricultural Water Management Plans:
a) Require agricultural water suppliers to prepare and
implement water management plans, with specified
components, by 2012 and update the plans every five years;
and,
b) Require DWR to review the plans and report to the
Legislature every five years on the status of the plans,
and the effectiveness of the plans in promoting efficient
agricultural water management practices.
7)Require Efficient Agricultural Water Management Practices
a) Require all agricultural water suppliers to implement 6
critical efficient water management practices (EWMPs).
Ten additional EWMPs would be required only if they are
locally cost effective and technically feasible; and,
b) Establish the six critical EWMPs as:
i) Measure water deliveries to customers to a level of
accuracy needed to implement a pricing structure that is
based in part on the quantity of water delivered;
ii) Designate a water conservation coordinator;
iii) Provide water management services to customers;
iv) Adopt a pricing structure that is based at least in
part on the quantity of water delivered to customers;
v) Identify potential for more flexible water
deliveries and storage; and,
vi) Evaluate and improve efficiency of the suppliers
pumps
c) Allow DWR to update the efficient water management
practices in consultation with the Agricultural Water
Management Council, the board, and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, after public hearings; and,
d) Condition eligibility for water management grants and
AB 49
Page 5
loans on an agricultural water suppliers' compliance with
meeting the requirements for implementation of efficient
water management practices.
8)Establish Agricultural Water Reporting Requirements:
a) Require agricultural water suppliers to:
i) Report to DWR in 2012 and every five years
thereafter, on what practices have been implemented, and
an estimate of the water savings expected; and,
ii) Submit documentation to DWR supporting a
determination that practice is not locally cost effective
or technically feasible.
b) Require DWR to report to the Legislature on 2013, 2016,
and 2021 on the status of implementing the efficient water
management practices and the associate water savings; and,
c) Require DWR to provide technical or financial assistance
to smaller agricultural water suppliers (defined as serving
between 10,000 and 25,000 irrigated acres) for development
of management plans.
9)Requires DWR to promote implementation of regional water
resource management practices through increased
incentives/removal of barriers and specifies potential
changes.
10)Require DWR, in consultation with SWRCB, to develop new
statewide targets or review and update existing targets for
regional water resource management practices including but not
limited to recycled water, brackish groundwater desalination,
and urban stormwater runoff.
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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Conference Committee.
AB 49
Page 6
The Senate amendments delete all the substantive provisions of
this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : The Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates
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 efforts.
COMMENTS : This bill includes four key components for promoting
improvement in the statewide management of water resources -
urban water conservation, "commercial, industrial, and
institutional" (CII) water management, agricultural water
management, and sustainable water management. Each of these
components raises important issues for the committee.
Urban Water Conservation : This bill would establish a statewide
target to reduce urban per capita water use by 20 percent by
2020. This target is consistent with the Governor's February
2008 proposal. The Delta Vision Strategic Plan also recommended
legislation requiring "Urban water purveyors to implement
measures to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita
water use statewide throughout California by December 31, 2020."
While most interest groups agree with the goal of improving
efficient water use and water resources management, there is a
dispute as to how best to do so. This bill focuses on achieving
the goal by greater water use efficiency - reducing demand.
This bill would require urban retail water suppliers,
individually or on a regional basis, to develop an urban water
use target by December 31, 2010, would require each urban water
supplier to meet their target by 2020, and to meet an interim
target (half of their 2020 target) by 2015.
Flexibility . AB 49 provides options for how water agencies can
achieve higher levels of water conservation but requires those
options to meet a per capita reduction in water use. The bill
sets the "20 by 2020" target (and the interim 2015 target) for
the entire state and then allows water agencies to choose one of
three methods for determining their own water-use target for
2020. Water suppliers also can choose to join with a broader
group of suppliers to meet the targets regionally. Finally the
bill provides urban water suppliers with the option of shifting
more water use to recycled water to meet their targets.
AB 49
Page 7
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Water Management :
This bill would require an urban water supplier to meet a
conservation target that could affect any urban sector of water
use, except it restricts the ability of an urban supplier form
imposing conservation action on process water. The bill would
require urban water suppliers to avoid disproportionate impacts
on any one sector and requires an open transparent process for
all water customers to review and provide input into the water
supplier implementation plan. One of the options for a supplier
to develop a water use target includes a methodology for
estimating reductions in each sector - which includes a 10%
reduction in CII. This 10% reduction is part of the target
development and does not dictate the method of implementing or
meeting the target. Conference Committee amendments reduced
concerns of CII water users.
Agricultural Water Management : This bill relies on
implementation of efficient water management practices (EWMPs)
for water use, which have been developed, at least in part, by
the Agricultural Water Management Council (AWMC). The bill
creates two EWMP categories: "critical" that all agricultural
water suppliers (e.g. water management services and pricing
structures) must implement and "additional" EWMPs that must be
implemented if the measures are locally cost effective and
technically feasible. The mandatory EWMPs are the same 6
measures currently required of all federal water contractors
(such as Westlands WD and Friant WA) since 1992 under the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).
Agricultural Water Management Plans : This bill reauthorizes
dormant provisions of the Water Code that required agricultural
water suppliers to prepare agricultural water management plans.
This places agricultural water suppliers on an equal footing
with urban suppliers who have been required to prepare and
submit water management plans for approximately 15 years. The
Legislature previously approved this concept in three bills by
former Senator Kuehl (2005-07). Although the Governor vetoed
those bills, his reasons were not related to this concept.
One key difference between this bill, the dormant provisions of
current law, and previous years' bills is the definition of
"agricultural water suppliers" - the agencies that would be
required to comply with these provisions. This bill defines
agricultural water suppliers as those with 10,000 acres of
AB 49
Page 8
irrigated land. The previous definition was a supplier
providing more than 50,000 acre-feet of water for agricultural
purposes. The definition for federal water contractors served
by the Central Valley Project is 2,000 acres or acre-feet
served. Agricultural interests oppose the lower threshold of
2,000 stating that Bureau of Reclamation essentially does all
the work for those smaller agencies. The definition of "urban
water supplier" puts the threshold at 3000 connections or 3000
acre-feet of deliveries. Previous years' bills provided for
DWR to determine the appropriate threshold for imposing
requirements.
Sustainable Water Management : One of the tensions among
different interest groups is whether the water use efficiency
program should include both demand reduction and increased water
supplies and what type of mandates or incentives should be used
to motivate compliance. This bill begins to address those
tensions by requiring DWR to develop incentives for sustainable
water management and alternative water supplies such as brackish
water desalination and stormwater recovery.
Analysis Prepared by : Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0003142