BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2049
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2049 (Arambula) - As Amended: April 19, 2010
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 8-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill restricts a water user from transferring State Water
Project (SWP) water from agricultural use to municipal use.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a water user who contracts with the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) for SWP water for agricultural use from
transferring any portion of that water to municipal use
unless:
a) The groundwater basin of the service area from which the
water is to be transferred is regularly, systematically,
and logically monitored in accordance with existing law.
b) DWR receives written evaluation of the economic, social,
and environmental effects of the transfer upon the service
area from which the water is to be transferred.
2)Prohibits a water user that transfers surface water from
agricultural use to municipal use for a period of 10 or more
years from using groundwater on the land previously served by
that surface water, unless the groundwater use is
systematically and continuously monitored and reported to the
DWR.
3)Authorizes DWR to collect a fee to a water user in order to
cover the costs of implementing this bill, including the cost
of groundwater monitoring.
FISCAL EFFECT
AB 2049
Page 2
1)Potential, ongoing, GF costs of as much as $2.3 million,
equivalent to 16 positions, for groundwater meter installation
monitoring and enforcement, historical groundwater use
determination, negotiate with land owners and adopt
regulations.
2)Potential, ongoing GF costs of $450,000, the equivalent of
three positions, to perform local economic analyses.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author intends this bill as a response to the
actions of Sandridge Partners, a farming and real estate
company with operations in Kings County that, in 2009, sold
14,000 acre feet of its annual SWP entitlement to the Mojave
Water Agency for $77 million dollars, with Sandridge intending
to replace the sold water with, in part, increased groundwater
pumping. The author claims such actions violate the public
trust inherent in SWP water deliveries, harm local farming
economies, and threaten long-term viability of California
agriculture. The author contends this bill provides long-term
protection of surface water for agricultural use, thereby
protecting groundwater supplies, agricultural land, farms and
farm jobs.
2)Background .
a) The State Water Project is a massive water conveyance
system managed by DWR. The project moves water from
Northern California and through the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta for delivery to parts of the Bay Area, Central
Valley, and Southern California. The project was built in
the 1960s with proceeds of voter-approved bonds. Today,
project costs largely are covered with fees paid by users
of SWP water who contract with DWR. Other monies,
including federal funds and the General Fund, also pay some
of the project's costs.
Water moved by SWP fulfills a number of purposes. The
project provides water to hundreds of thousands of acres of
agricultural land. It also supplies drinking water to over
20 million Californians. In addition, the project makes
water available for recreation, wildlife and environmental
uses and helps the state's water managers control flooding.
DWR relies on transfers of water between SWP users,
AB 2049
Page 3
including transfers between agricultural and metropolitan
users subject to this bill, to manage the state's variable,
complex and interdependent water supplies.
b) Groundwater an Important Water Supply Source, Too.
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), 43 %
of Californians get at least some of their drinking water
from groundwater supplies, meaning water that penetrates
the land's surface and stored underground. When surface
water supplies are plentiful, groundwater makes up as
little as 30% of California's water supply. But when
surface water is scarce, the state can receive as much as
40% of its water from groundwater supplies. For this
reason, it is in the state's interest to ensure groundwater
supplies are properly managed. Despite groundwater's
importance, groundwater overuse and groundwater
contamination are serious problems in some parts of
California, including the Central Valley. Nonetheless, the
state has no statewide groundwater use permitting system.
3)There is no registered support for this bill.
4)Opposition . This bill is opposed by a long list of local
government organizations, water agencies and districts, and
industry and agricultural groups.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081