BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2049
Page 1
CORRECTED - 06/02/2010 Changes per consultant.
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2049 (Arambula)
As Amended May 28, 2010
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-4 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Arambula, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano, |
| |Blumenfield, Caballero, | |Bradford, |
| |Ruskin, | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, Yamada, | |Davis, Monning, Ruskin, |
| |Fong | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Fuller, Tom Berryhill, |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| |Fletcher, Salas | |Nielsen, Norby |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits a transfer or assignment of surface water or
water rights from an agricultural use to a municipal use, for a
period of twenty years or more, without an economic, social, and
environmental analysis of the effect of the transfer upon the
service area losing the water supply. Prohibits the
substitution of groundwater supplies for such transferred water
unless the groundwater is monitored. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) from approving a
transfer of surface water or water rights from agricultural
use to municipal use for a period of twenty years or more
unless the water user prepares, or contracts for the
preparation of, and provides to the SWRCB or DWR, a 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)Allows the SWRCB or DWR to charge a reasonable fee to cover
costs associated with the written evaluation required above,
including costs incurred for reviewing the evaluation.
AB 2049
Page 2
3)Prohibits a water user from substituting groundwater for water
supplies transferred from agricultural use to municipal use
for a period of twenty years or more unless the groundwater
basin of the service area from which the water supplies were
transferred is regularly, systematically, and locally
monitored in accordance with state law. Allows DWR to charge
a water user a reasonable fee to cover DWR's costs of
implementing
4)Allows DWR to charge a reasonable fee to cover costs
associated with the groundwater monitoring required above,
including costs incurred by DWR if it must perform the
groundwater monitoring function.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a petition to the SWRCB, and SWRCB approval, if there
will be a change in the point of diversion, place of use, or
purpose of use of water due to a transfer or exchange of water
or water rights.
2)Establishes that DWR shall operate and manage the State Water
Resources Development System (State Water Project or SWP) on
behalf of the State of California.
3)Recognizes that DWR has already received SWRCB approval for
all points of diversion, places of use, and purposes of use
that fall within the SWP service area; therefore, DWR can
approve contractual modifications which change apportionments
of water between SWP contractors without further SWRCB
approval.
4)Prohibits a public agency from approving a project as proposed
if it could have significant environmental impacts and there
are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the project's
significant environmental effects.
5)Makes the inclusion of economic or social information in
environmental review optional unless the economic or social
changes result in direct or indirect physical changes with
potentially significant adverse environmental effects.
AB 2049
Page 3
6)Requires that, on or before January 1, 2012, groundwater
elevations in all groundwater basins and subbasins be
regularly and systematically monitored locally and that the
resulting groundwater information be made readily and widely
available.
7)Requires DWR to perform the groundwater monitoring functions
for those portions of a basin or subbasin for which there is
no other monitoring entity but then prohibits the county and
specified local entities in that area from receiving state
water grants or loans.
FISCAL EFFECT : DWR claims potential, ongoing, annual costs of
as much as $2.3 million, equivalent to 16 positions, for
groundwater meter installation, monitoring, and enforcement,
historical groundwater use determination, negotiations with land
owners, and adoption of regulations. In addition, DWR states
there will be potential, ongoing annual costs of $450,000, the
equivalent of three positions, to review and evaluate economic,
social and environmental effects analyses submitted by water
users.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill
will provide fee revenue of an unknown amount, but sufficient to
cover DWR's costs.
COMMENTS : 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.
Although the SWRCB has authority over changes in permitted water
rights, DWR has already obtained approval for SWP points of
diversion, places of use, and purposes of use within the SWP
service area. This means transfers between SWP contractors fall
outside of the SWRCB's regulatory oversight and are approved by
DWR. The SWP service encompasses parts of Plumas, Butte, Napa,
Solano, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and then extends
continuously from Kings County to San Diego County.
In August 2009, Sandridge Partners, a landowner within the
service area of Dudley Ridge Water District in Kings County on
the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, agreed to permanently
sell 14,000 acre feet (af) of its annual SWP entitlement to the
AB 2049
Page 4
Mojave Water Agency, in San Bernardino County, for $77 million
dollars. Both the Dudley Ridge Water District and the Mojave
Water Agency are SWP contractors. In news articles, Sandridge
Partners was quoted as saying it intended to use part of the
funding from its sale to Mojave to expand groundwater pumping as
a substitute supply.
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, 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. 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.
SB6 (Steinberg), Chapter 1, Statures of 2009-10 Seventh
Extraordinary Session, requires elevations in all California
groundwater basins and subbasins to be regularly and
systematically monitored by January 1, 2012. If no local entity
will be responsible for the groundwater monitoring, DWR must
perform it but the county and local entities in that area will
become ineligible for state water grants or loans.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prohibits a
public agency from approving a project that will have a
significant impact on the environment if there are feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives which could reduce those
significant effects. If there may be significant environmental
effects, CEQA requires an environmental impact report be
prepared in order to fully inform decision makers prior to
taking action. DWR relied on a negative declaration filed by
the Mojave Water Agency as CEQA compliance for the Sandridge
transfer. A negative declaration is a statement by a lead
agency that a project will not have any significant effect on
the environment and therefore does not require any further
environmental analysis.
The author of this bill is concerned how, at a time when the San
Joaquin Valley was suffering from a well-publicized lack of
agricultural water due to drought and other factors, water could
be permanently transferred away from the region with very little
analysis of its physical effect upon the transferring area, no
analysis of its socioeconomic effect, and a stated intention to
AB 2049
Page 5
pump an already depleted groundwater aquifer.
Opponents to a previous version of this bill claim that there
have been relatively few permanent agriculture to municipal use
transfers and that when they do occur "they typically allow a
farmer to sell water that will accommodate a different use that
has an equal or higher economic value to the state of
California" and that "the marketplace should be left to
determine the ultimate allocation of SWP supplies."
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0004787