BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 359
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 359 (Huffman) - As Amended: April 11, 2011
SUBJECT : Groundwater management plans.
SUMMARY : Adds additional notification and mapping requirements
when a local agency is drafting a groundwater management plan.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires a local agency that develops a groundwater management
plan and drafts a resolution to adopt a plan, to provide a
copy of a resolution of intention to the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) within 30 days of the date of adoption.
2)Requires the local agency, upon written request, to provide a
copy of the proposed groundwater management plan to an
interested person and to notify those interested persons at
least 30 days prior to the commencement of the second hearing
to determine whether to adopt the plan.
3)Requires DWR to post on its Internet Web site the information
DWR possesses regarding the local agencies that have
jurisdiction to develop groundwater management plans and maps,
including agencies who have submitted resolutions of intention
to adopt groundwater management plans or agencies that have
opted to assume groundwater basin level monitoring functions.
4)Specifies that the groundwater projects to which these
requirements apply include projects that are part of an
integrated regional water management program or plan.
5)Requires, commencing January 1, 2013, that a groundwater
management plan include a map identifying recharge areas, as
defined, for the groundwater basin and, after adoption of the
groundwater management plan, provide the map to local planning
agencies.
6)Allows a local agency to request state funds to map
groundwater recharge areas if eligible funding is available.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 359
Page 2
1)Requires, prior to legislative body to adopting or
substantially amending a general plan, the planning agency to
submit copies of such plans to a public water system, as
defined, with 3,000 or more service connections, that serves
water to customers within the area covered by the proposal.
2)Provides that the public water system shall have at least 45
days to comment on the proposed plan and to provide the
planning agency with specified information.
3)Requires a public water system to provide a planning agency
with the following information, as is appropriate and
relevant:
a) The current version of its urban water management;
b) The current version of its capital improvement program
or plan;
c) A description of the source or sources of the total
water supply currently available to the water supplier by
water right or contract, taking into account historical
data concerning wet, normal, and dry runoff years;
d) A description of the quantity of surface water that was
purveyed by the water supplier in each of the previous five
years;
e) A description of the quantity of groundwater that was
purveyed by the water supplier in each of the previous five
years;
f) A description of all proposed additional sources of
water supplies for the water supplier, including the
estimated dates by which these additional sources should be
available and the quantities of additional water supplies
that are being proposed;
g) A description of the total number of customers currently
served by the water supplier,
as identified by the following categories and by the amount
of water served to each category:
i) Agricultural users;
AB 359
Page 3
ii) Commercial users;
iii) Industrial users; and,
iv) Residential users;
h) Quantification of the expected reduction in total water
demand, identified by each customer category, associated
with future implementation of water use reduction measures
identified in the water supplier's urban water management
plan; and,
i) Any additional information that is relevant to
determining the adequacy of existing and planned future
water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands
on these water supplies.
4)Encourages local agencies to work cooperatively to manage
groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and, if not
otherwise required by law, to voluntarily adopt groundwater
management plans.
5)Requires a groundwater plan to contain components related to
funding, management, and monitoring in order for a local
agency to be eligible for groundwater project funds
administered by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).
6)Allows a groundwater plan to voluntarily contain additional
listed components.
7)Requires all of the groundwater basins identified in DWR's
Bulletin 118 to be regularly and systematically monitored and
the information to be readily and widely available.
8)Makes entities managing groundwater, including local agencies
that are monitoring groundwater pursuant to a groundwater
management plan, eligible for state water grants and loans.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)According to the author's office, groundwater is one of
California's most important natural resources and our reliance
on it continues to grow. Periodically, DWR produces a report
AB 359
Page 4
on California's groundwater entitled Bulletin 118. In the
most recent version of Bulletin 118, produced in 2003,
California was not only the single largest user of groundwater
in the nation, extracting 14.5 million acre-feet annually, but
that use represented 20% of all the groundwater extracted in
the entire United States. Protecting the quality, quantity,
and sustainability of groundwater is critical. Bulletin 118
estimated that 43% of all Californians obtain their drinking
water from groundwater. Yet, despite California's heavy
reliance on groundwater, basic information for many of the
groundwater basins is lacking.
Bulletin 118 highlighted the need for water managers and local
land use planners to identify groundwater recharge areas and
protect them from paving and contamination in order to ensure
they could continue to replenish high quality groundwater.
2)According to the author's office, the purpose of AB 359 is to
increase the protection of groundwater recharge areas in order
to better manage and protect our groundwater supplies. Without
this information the ability to effectively protect and manage
a groundwater basin is seriously limited.
3)This measure is almost identical to AB 2304 (Huffman, 2009)
that was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In his veto
message the Governor stated "I am concerned about the impact
this bill could have on privately-owned properties, both those
currently used as recharge areas and those that might be used
in the future. Once mapped and those maps are provided to
local governments, the bill intends that these lands will be
rezoned to restrict their use to being a groundwater recharge
area. Property law in California already allows landowners
and water districts to work outside of the watchful eye of
government and come to a private agreement about how they can
manage both their land and water resources. Although not
perfect, maintaining this current system allows them to work
together to develop solutions. An area that serves as a
recharge basin today probably isn't the only place that can be
used to recharge a groundwater basin. And areas that are
currently used for this purpose might be better put to some
other use in the future. Unfortunately, this bill would
eliminate this type of flexibility and negotiation between a
landowner and a water district."
4)Support arguments: Supporters of this bill feel it takes
AB 359
Page 5
modest but important steps and will "provide for increased
coordination and consultation between California's water
supply agencies and land use approval agencies and the
protection of recharge areas in California's groundwater
basins." Supporters also point out that it contains improved
public notice requirements that will better enable local
community members to provide input in the groundwater
management plan process.
Opposition arguments: The opposition states that their
underlying concern is "the impact this bill could have on
privately-owned properties and farming practices, both those
currently used as recharge areas and those that might be used
in the future. Once mapped and those maps are provided to
local governments, it is a natural conclusion that these lands
will be rezoned to restrict their use. Once these new
resource areas are identified, opposition is concerned that a
landowner will not be formally notified that the land has been
mapped as an area that substantially contributes to
groundwater recharge."
5)This bill was heard by the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
on March 22, 2011, where it passed with a 7-0 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CA Groundwater Coalition �SPONSOR]
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club CA
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Opposition
CA Chamber of Commerce (unless amended)
CA Cattlemen's Association (unless amended)
CA Farm Bureau Federation (unless amended)
Western Growers Association (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
AB 359
Page 6