BILL ANALYSIS
SB 261
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 261 (Dutton) - As Amended: July 13, 2009
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a statewide goal of a 20% reduction in
per-capita urban water use by 2020 through the development and
implementation of water conservation plans, and requires
agricultural water suppliers to prepare and adopt agricultural
water management plans. (Summary continued below.)
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Local costs of an unknown amount, but potentially totaling in
the millions of dollars, to retail urban water suppliers to
develop and implement urban water conservation plans and to
agricultural water suppliers to prepare and adopt agricultural
water management plans.
2)Annual GF costs of approximately $550,000, from 2010-11
through 2013-14, to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
contract with the California State University Water Resources
and Policy Institute for evaluation of urban water
conservation plans.
3)One-time GF costs ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 (GF) to
DWR to develop a Web site for reporting progress towards
meeting water conservation goals.
4)Potential GF costs of $100,000 in 2014 or later to DWR to
develop regulations to achieve statewide water conservation
goals.
5)Approximately $100,000 in one-time GF costs to DWR and State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to convene a task force
SB 261
Page 2
to develop best management practices for the commercial,
industrial and institutional sector, fully reimbursed by task
force participants.
6)Cost pressures, potentially in the millions of dollars, to
DWR, SWRCB, and CALFED to provide financial incentives to
support water use efficiency and local water resources
management measures. (Bond funds or other special funds.)
7)One-time GF costs of approximately $100,000 to DWR to develop
water conservation strategies to include in its update of the
California Water Plan.
8)Minor absorbable costs to DWR to include specified information
in its update of the California Water Plan.
SUMMARY (continued)
Specifically, this bill:
Urban Water Conservation
1)Requires each retail urban water supplier to develop and
implement an urban water conservation plan to meet the goal of
20% water conservation by 2020, as compared to "baseline"
water use. Such plans are to include best management
practices, water savings goals, and, if applicable, an
explanation of why the 20% goal will not be met.
2)Exempts from the urban water conservation plan requirement
those urban water suppliers that have achieved
"high-efficiency water use" by January 1, 2020.
3)Expresses the Legislature's intent that the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) contract with California State
University Water Resources and Policy Institute for the
evaluation of urban water conservation plans.
4)Requires DWR, or the institute on the department's behalf, to
develop a Web site for reporting progress towards meeting
water conservation goals.
5)Authorizes DWR to adopt regulations, beginning on January 1,
2014, to achieve statewide water conservation goals if the
SB 261
Page 3
institute's report shows inadequate progress towards meeting
statewide water conservation goals.
6)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
DWR to convene a task force, paid for by task force
participants, to develop best management practices for the
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional sector that achieve a
20% reduction in potable water use in the this sector by 2020.
7)Requires DWR, SWRCB and CALFED (or successor) to provide
financial incentives to support water use efficiency and local
water resources management measures.
Agricultural Water Conservation
1)Requires DWR to include in its update of the California Water
Plan 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)Requires agricultural water suppliers to prepare and adopt
agricultural water management plans.
3)States that agricultural water management plans shall not
require water use efficiency measures that are not locally
cost-effective and technically feasible.
4)Disqualifies from eligibility for state funding those
agricultural water suppliers that do not complete water
management plans.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. In February 2008, the governor called on
Californians to reduce per-capita water use by 20% by 2020.
This bill proposes an approach to achieve the goal announced
by the governor that would allow local water suppliers
flexibility in complying with that goal.
2)Background.
a) Planning for Water Conservation . Existing law requires
urban water suppliers to prepare water management plans and
conditions state funding on implementation of certain urban
SB 261
Page 4
water conservation measures. Obsolete statute used to
require agricultural water suppliers to prepare
agricultural water management plans. Federal law requires
contractors of the federal Central Valley Project to
prepare water conservation plans.
The California Water Plan is the state's plan for managing
and developing water resources statewide. Since publishing
the first water plan in 1957, DWR has prepared seven water
plan updates. Existing law requires the water plan to be
updated every five years.
b) Governor Calls for Increased Water Conservation . In
March of 2008, the governor called on all Californians to
conserve water and to reduce their per capita consumption
of water by 20% by 2020. This bill reflects the governor's
statement, makes it a requirement for urban water
suppliers, and requires implementation of BMPs for
agricultural water suppliers and adoption of water
agricultural water management plans.
3) Other Legislation.
a) AB 49 (Feuer, 2009) , similar to this bill, requires a
20% reduction in urban per-capita water use by the end of
2020 and requires agricultural water suppliers to implement
best management practices by July 31, 2012. The bill
passed the Assembly 43-30 and passed the Senate 21-13. The
bill, along with several other bills concerning water, is
now before a conference committee to reconcile differences
between the versions of the bill passed by the Assembly and
the Senate.
b) Proposition 84 , approved by voters at the November 2006
statewide election, authorized the issuance of $5.388
billion worth of state general obligation bonds to fund
various resources-related projects and programs. Prop 84
earmarked $1 billion in bond proceeds to be provided by DWR
as grants to local agencies to meet the long-term water
needs of the state, including the delivery of safe drinking
water and the protection of water quality and the
environment. Eligible projects must implement integrated
regional water management plans that address the major
water-related objectives and conflicts within the region.
Projects must provide multiple benefits, including water
SB 261
Page 5
supply reliability, water conservation and water use
efficiency.
c) AB 2175 (Laird, 2008) was similar to this bill, in that
it required urban water suppliers to reduce per-capita
water use in their areas and established targets for
agricultural water conservation. The bill passed this
committee 12-5 and passed the Assembly 48-30 but, failed
passage in the Senate.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081