BILL ANALYSIS
SB 261
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
SB 261 (Dutton) - As Amended: June 29, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : Water Management Plans: conservation
SUMMARY : Sets a statewide goal to achieve a 20% reduction in
per capita urban water use by 2020, relying on local water
agency efforts, and requires agricultural water management
plans. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to include a
strategy for use of agricultural water use efficiency
management programs, including costs and benefits of the
efficiency improvements in on-farm distribution systems.
2)Defines certain terms related to water conservation and water
use efficiency, including:
a) "Baseline" means an urban water supplier's average total
residential water use in acre-feet during the 10 years
ending in 2004.
b) "High-efficiency water use" means the sum of 55 gallons
per capita, per day for indoor residential uses and 70% of
evapotranspiration as outlined in the state's model water
efficient landscape ordinance for outdoor residential uses.
c) "Local water resources management" means use of
alternative sources of water, including captured
stormwater, recycled water, desalination and conjunctive
use of underground and surface storage, recovery of losses
in conveyance systems, and reuse of water.
d) "Statewide aggregate water conservation goal" means the
Governor's statewide aggregate goal of a 20% reduction in
water use by 2020, which totals 1.74 million acre-feet.
3)Requires urban water suppliers to develop and implement a
water conservation plan, but exempts urban water suppliers who
have achieved high-efficiency water use from requirement to
SB 261
Page 2
implement a water conservation plan.
4)Establishes elements of required water conservation plan,
including the following:
a) Water-use efficiency, including urban best management
practices (BMPs), climate-appropriate landscaping, and
accelerated water metering.
b) Local water resources management, including changes in
water use to match water quality with water quality
objectives for each beneficial use and use of alternative
local sources of water supply.
c) Water efficiency planning, including estimates of future
conserved water from "local water resources management,"
indoor/outdoor residential water use, potential
implementation of measures for commercial, industrial and
institutional (CII) sector.
d) Explanation why achievement of 20% per capita water use
reduction is not feasible.
e) Interim milestones for progress toward water agency
conservation estimates.
5)Requires urban water suppliers that will achieve
high-efficiency water use before 2020 to document their plan
for such achievement, and therefore exempts such suppliers
from broader water conservation plan requirement.
6)Requires urban water suppliers to provide updates on their
water conservation plan in their urban water management plan
in 2010, 2015 and 2020.
7)Requires exempt high-efficiency water agencies that fail to
achieve high-efficiency water use to comply with water
conservation plan requirement.
8)Allows retail urban water suppliers to collaborate in water
conservation plans/projects.
9)Requires development of a website for reporting of specified
water conservation information required to be submitted,
subject to availability of bond funds for such purpose.
SB 261
Page 3
10)Requires DWR to contract with Cal. State University Water
Resources and Policy Initiative (Institute) to evaluate urban
water conservation plans, based on specified information.
a) Requires Institute to report quantity of conserved
water.
b) Allows retail urban water suppliers to consult with
Institute regarding how to improve water supplier's water
use efficiency or local water resources management program.
11)Requires water suppliers estimating less than 20% reduction
to submit a new plan to reduce water use by 20% or more, if
2010 urban water management plans do not reduce aggregate per
capita water use by 20%.
a) Allows other water agencies to submit revised plans.
b) Requires Institute to report aggregate water use
reductions based on revised plans.
12)If aggregate estimated water use, based on revised 2012
plans, does not achieve 20% target:
a) Requires Institute to report on cost of achieving 20%
reduction, with specified information.
b) Authorizes DWR to adopt regulations to achieve statewide
20% target, but exempts water suppliers that will achieve
20% reduction or high-efficiency water use and specifies
elements of regulations.
13)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
DWR to convene task force to develop best management practices
for the CII (commercial, industrial and institutional) sector.
a) Specifies membership, chairmanship and funding for task
force.
b) Requires task force to report specified information to
SWRCB/DWR by April 1, 2011.
14)Allows wholesale urban water suppliers, with consent of
retail urban water suppliers, to perform planning, reporting
SB 261
Page 4
and implementation of water conservation programs, with
specified reporting requirements.
15)Requires DWR, SWRCB and CALFED (or successor) to provide
financial incentives to support water use efficiency and local
water resources management measures.
16)Excuses from water conservation requirements any urban water
supplier that begins implementing water conservation plans but
encounters contrary court orders or is unable to raise
sufficient revenues.
17)Provides for liberal construction of the bill to achieve its
purpose in a manner that provides the greatest possible
flexibility and discretion to local agencies and protect water
rights.
18)Requires agricultural water suppliers (delivering water for
irrigation of more than 35,000 acres of land) to prepare and
adopt agricultural water management plans.
a) Allows agricultural water suppliers to prepare plans in
cooperation with other agencies.
b) Requires updates to the plans in years ending in 0 and
5.
c) Specifies required information in agricultural water
management plans.
d) Clarifies that plans do not require water use efficiency
measures that are not locally cost-effective and
technically feasible.
e) Allows suppliers that submit plans to Agricultural Water
Management Council or the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to
satisfy plan requirements with those submissions.
f) Allows agricultural water suppliers to consult with
other public agencies.
g) Specifies a public process for review of agricultural
water management plans, including Internet availability and
distribution to public agencies.
SB 261
Page 5
h) Clarifies that SWRCB may require more information in a
water conservation plan.
i) Makes agricultural water suppliers that do not complete
plans ineligible for state funding.
19)Clarifies that water-use efficiency and local water resources
management measures are water conservation measures that
receive water rights protection.
20)Repeals statutory legislative findings regarding water
conservation.
21)Makes legislative findings and intent regarding water
conservation and water resource development.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Senate Appropriations Committee, analyzing a
previous version, estimated completely recoverable costs for a
task force on water conservation. Costs of this version of the
bill are unknown at this time, although the sponsors estimated
costs in the millions of dollars.
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,
and supports this bill. Differences, however, as to how to
achieve such increased conservation remain. An Assembly bill,
AB 49 (Feuer), proposes an alternative approach to achieving the
Governor's call. These conservation bills have a connection to
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as increased conservation in
SB 261
Page 6
areas that rely on water from the Delta watershed may help the
Delta ecosystem. The Delta Vision Strategic Plan identified
statewide water conservation as a critical goal for improving
Delta conditions.
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
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 that 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.
Voluntary Process . SB 261 proposes a multi-step process to
achieve the Governor's call for a 20% reduction, relying
primarily on the good faith efforts of water agencies to propose
their own methods and amounts of conservation. The bill does,
however, mandate BMPs and conservation plans. Water agencies
will have two chances to propose conservation plans, before DWR
begins developing conservation regulations in 2014. The bill
sponsors assert that both incentives (potential for future water
conservation and infrastructure funding) and threats (potential
for DWR to regulate water conservation) will ensure all water
agencies do everything they can. One bill sponsor commented:
"The whole thing is predicated on future money."
It is unclear whether these voluntary efforts will succeed, and
avoid DWR regulation. Waiting for two rounds of water agency
submissions to a university center may delay conservation
requirements for 5-6 years, until DWR can implement regulation.
In the year since the Governor's call for a 20% reduction, many
SB 261
Page 7
agencies have claimed that they should not be required to
achieve the 20% reduction. Sacramento, with one of the highest
per capita rates of water use, asserts that it should have a
lower standard because lot size is bigger and 50% of the excess
runoff flows back to the River, albeit with household pesticides
and other contaminants. Last year, the city of Fairfield
claimed that it is in the "area of origin" of water, does not
suffer as much shortage because it gets water from the state and
federal water projects north of the Delta, and therefore should
have no duty to conserve water.
Bill sponsors respond that the bill mandates implementation of
the CUWCC BMPs, although the bill allows the agencies to use the
conservation MOU to gain an exemption if they can show that
conservation measures are not locally cost-effective or
technically feasible. Those agencies that assert that they
should not be required to achieve the 20% target often claim
that conservation is not cost-effective because their water is
so cheap.
Cal State Institute . This bill proposes to rely on a Cal State
University institute to determine whether the target will be
achieved, and help water agencies improve their water
conservation program, relying on unappropriated bond funding to
pay for the Cal State program. CUWCC, which has overseen
implementation of conservation BMP's since 1991, noted that the
bill's proposal would duplicate much of its organizational work
over the last 18 years, recreating the conservation database and
agency assistance programs at a new Cal State program. The bill
sponsors have expressed great confidence in the Cal State
institute, but have not explained the need for creating this new
program, at a substantial cost.
Local Water Resource Management . In contrast to AB 49, this
bill gives credit toward water conservation for agency
implementation of new water projects that create alternative
water supplies, including captured stormwater, recycled water,
desalination and conjunctive use of underground and surface
storage, recovery of losses in conveyance systems, and reuse of
water. Bill sponsors explain that allowing credit for these
creative alternatives to traditional water supply development
will change the perspective of water agencies, promoting water
resource management instead of just water production. All these
alternative supplies rely on using a drop of water multiple
times, instead of losing it to runoff. While these alternatives
SB 261
Page 8
should be encouraged, it is not clear that they achieve
"conservation" as that word is commonly used.
Agricultural Water Management Plans . Much of the attention on
the bill has focused on the urban component, but amendments now
have added a component requiring agricultural water agencies (d
35,000 acres) to prepare agricultural water management plans. A
representative of the California Farm Bureau asserted that this
proposal came from the agricultural community. In opposing AB
49, agricultural organizations called efforts to quantify
agricultural water use efficiency and assess such agricultural
water management plans "neither necessary nor desirable." With
continued public pressure to come up with a proposal to do
something for water conservation in agriculture, they have
proposed these plans, which they had resisted in similar bills
in recent years. This bill, however, does not provide for any
assessment as to quality or achievement of the plan. They are
made available to the public, but not reviewed by DWR as
previous bills had proposed. Agricultural water agencies that
contract with the federal Central Valley Project, are required
to submit the plans for approval to the Bureau of Reclamation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of CA Water Agencies
CA Assoc. of Nurseries & Garden Centers
CA Cattlemen's Association
CA Chamber of Commerce
CA Citrus Mutual
CA Cotton Growers & Ginners Assoc.
CA Farm Bureau Federation
CA League of Food Processors
CA Rice Commission
Chemical Industry Council of CA
City of Corona
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Friant Water Authority
GreenPlumbers USA
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Jurupa Community Services District
SB 261
Page 9
Nisei Farmers League
Northern CA Water Association
Orange County Water District
Regional Council of Rural Countries
Rubidoux Community Services District
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Growers
Western Municipal Water District
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Western States Petroleum Association
Opposition
Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education
CA League of Conservation Voters
Clean Water Action
Defenders of Wildlife
Food and Water Watch
Forests Forever
Heal the Bay
Natural Resources Defense Council
Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen's Assoc.
Planning and Conservation League
Solano Co. Water Agency (unless amended)
Sierra Club CA
StopWaste
The Bay Institute
Water4Fish
Analysis Prepared by : Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096