BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 134
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
AB 134 (Dickinson) - As Amended: March 23, 2011
SUBJECT : Appropriation of treated wastewater
SUMMARY : Allows the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District (SRCSD) to apply for a permit to appropriate an amount
of water up to the amount of discharged wastewater.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares the benefit of water recycling while also finding
that it is in the best interest of the people of California to
allow the SRCSD to benefit financially from its production and
discharge of high-quality recycled water in order to offset
the costs associated with a mandatory wastewater treatment
plant upgrade.
2)Allows the SRCSD to file an application for a permit to
appropriate an amount of water equal to the amount of treated
wastewater discharged, less carriage losses, if the water is
rediverted from the Sacramento River or Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta.
3)Declares a special law is necessary due to the unique problems
applicable to full utilization of the waters of the Sacramento
River into which the SRCSD discharges treated wastewater.
EXISTING LAW
1)Provides that the owner of a wastewater treatment plant shall
hold the exclusive right to the treated wastewater.
2)Requires approval from the State Water Resources Control Board
for a change in the point of discharge, place of use, or
purpose of use of treated wastewater, unless such change does
not decrease flow in any portion of a watercourse.
3)Protects wastewater which has been introduced into the
watercourse with the intention of maintaining or enhancing
fishery, wildlife, recreational or other instream beneficial
uses from being treated as abandoned and subject to
appropriation by others.
AB 134
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
The importance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
(Delta) as a regional, state and national treasure and an
integral part of an ecosystem which is home to more than 750
wildlife species and more than 120 species of fish is well
documented. Equally well documented has been the precipitous
decline of its fisheries including, but not limited to, fish
species listed under both the Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) such as Delta
smelt, winter-run Chinook salmon and spring-run Chinook salmon.
There have been many reasons for this decline including the
effects of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water
Project (SWP). The CVP/SWP, which operate in a coordinated
fashion, have two huge pumping plants located near one another
in the south of the Delta which export water primarily to
Central Valley agriculture and southern California cities.
Collectively, these pumping plants change the overall
hydrodynamics of the Delta including exerting a pull so strong
they force two rivers, Old River and Middle River, to cease to
flow westward towards the San Francisco Bay and instead run
backwards towards the pumps themselves. This reverse flow
causes direct losses of fish, larva and eggs due to entrainment
(being drawn in to the pumping facilities) and impingement
(being trapped against screens) as well as indirect losses due
to straying, predation, and loss of food production.
The killing of ESA and CESA listed species is legally prohibited
without a permit. Thus, the CVP/SWP are required to obtain
permits for their operations. Because the permits are specific
to CVP/SWP operations, they focus on measures to try to minimize
the operational impacts of the projects on fish, including by
limiting Old and Middle Rivers' reverse flow during seasons when
the fish species are most vulnerable (such as breeding). While
the permits do not cause the pumps to cease operating, they
affect the maximum amount of water than can be exported,
particularly from December through June. In addition, maximum
export pumping is constrained by Army Corps of Engineers permits
and the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
Water Quality Control Plan because, among other factors, the
outflow of water through the Delta is a hydraulic barrier to
salinity coming in from the ocean.
AB 134
Page 3
As part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process, a
stakeholder-driven effort to obtain new 50 year permits for
CVP/SWP operations, the agencies that contract with the federal
Bureau of Reclamation and State Department of Water Resources
for CVP/SWP export supplies have increasingly focused on the
possible role of other "stressors" besides the water projects in
the fish declines. In particular, they have contributed to
studies analyzing ammonia as affecting the Delta food web and
fish species and called for more stringent permits on discharges
into the Sacramento River from the Sacramento Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (Treatment Plant) owned and operated
by SRCSD. On December 9, 2010 the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board issued a new Waste Discharge Requirement
for the SRCSD Treatment Plant which, among its provisions,
requires increased wastewater filtration and limits ammonia
levels.
To date, SRCSD's wastewater discharges have formed part of the
water supply exported by the CVP/SWP. This is because, while
most water permits are for quantifiable amounts of water to be
diverted at a specific location during a specific time period
for a specific place of use, the CVP/SWP Delta pumping plants
take all the water in the system that they are capable of
diverting constrained by physical limitations (the size of the
pumps and canals) and legal standards. In some years this has
allowed them to deliver both contracted-for amounts of water
plus amounts in excess of those contracts.
SRCSD's concerns over its wastewater as export supply were
exacerbated by the BDCP proposal to build five new intakes on
the Sacramento River directly downstream of the SRCSD Treatment
Plant's outfall. Collectively, these proposed intakes are
almost fifty times larger than any other screened diversion in
the Delta and would be used to export water around the Delta via
a new peripheral canal. This location and timing of the BDCP
proposal has caused SCRSD to feel that they are being compelled
to provide drinking water quality water for current and future
export and to seek a mechanism to require the CVP/SWP
contractors, or any other entity which wishes to benefit from
this new high-quality water supply, to pay for it.
Support Arguments : SRCSD and other supporters of this bill
assert that Treatment Plant upgrades will cost up to $2 billion
and that a multi-faceted approach is needed at the "local, state
and federal level to minimize the burden on the Sacramento
AB 134
Page 4
Region." They point out this bill follows an approach that was
established in 1961 for the San Joaquin River and that the
amended version of the bill provides assurances that are
necessary to protect other legal users of water, including the
environment.
Opposition Arguments : Opponents state that some of the effluent
discharge that could be sold by SRCSD under this bill "has
historically been considered Delta inflow available for use
and/or export downstream." They state that "many other
communities have had to do similar upgrades to their sewage
treatment to meet Clean Water Act requirements without seeking
to radically transform existing water rights law."
Issues and Suggested Amendments : The Sacramento Area Council of
Governments, in a Background Report on Sacramento Area Resources
quoted figures showing that while the State average for water
consumption is about 165 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), with
Los Angeles around 135 GPCD, some purveyors around the
Sacramento region could be consuming 200 GPCD and even as much
as 400 GPCD. This is due to the low-cost water generally
prevalent in the Sacramento region. If this bill were to allow
the total volume of wastewater generated through inefficient
uses to become a valuable commodity, that could act as a
disincentive to conservation.
SB 7 (Steinberg) Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009-10 Seventh
Extraordinary Session requires the state to achieve a 20%
reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020.
The author may wish to consider an amendment recognizing the
need for increased conservation in the Sacramento Region and
limiting the total volume of wastewater that could be subject to
appropriation under this bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Apartment Association
CA Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Campbell Soup Company
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
City of Citrus Heights
City of Elk Grove
City of Rancho Cordova
AB 134
Page 5
City of Sacramento
City of West Sacramento
Downtown Sacramento Partnership
Jim Provenza, Yolo County Supervisor
Marriott Cal Expo Properties
Midtown Business Association
Mike McGowan, Yolo County Supervisor
Nor-Cal Beverage Co., Inc.
North State Building Industry Association
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Sacramento Metro. Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Co. Sanitation District+
Opposition
AB 134
Page 6
Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 7
Alameda County Water District
Association of CA Water Agencies
Burbank Chamber
Burbank Water and Power
California Chamber of Commerce
California Municipal Utilities Assoc.
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Castaic Lake Water Agency
Central City Association
Chambers of Commerce Alliance,
Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce
City of Corona (unless amended)
Coachella Valley Water District
Contra Costa Water District (unless amended)
Downey Chamber of Commerce
Eastern Municipal Water District
AB 134
Page 7
EI Monte/South EI Monte Chamber of Commerce
Friant Water Authority
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (unless amended)
Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Irvine Ranch Water District
Irwindale Chamber of Commerce
Kern County Water Agency
LaVerne Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Business Council
Metropolitan Water District of So. California
Mojave Water Agency
Montclair Chamber of Commerce
Montebello Chamber
North Orange County Legislative Alliance
Orange County Business Council
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau
Regional Chamber of Com/-San Gabriel Valley
San Diego County Water Authority
AB 134
Page 8
San Fernando Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of Chambers
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southern California Water Committee
Southwest California Legislative Council
The Greater Corona Valley Chamber of Commerce
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
United Chambers of the San Fernando Valley
Upland Chamber of Commerce
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Ventura Co. Economic Development Assoc.
Western Municipal Water District (unless amended)
Westlands Water District
AB 134
Page 9
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096