BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 359 HEARING DATE: June 28, 2011
AUTHOR: Huffman URGENCY: No
VERSION: May 27, 2011 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Groundwater Management Plans
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Under existing law, local agencies may, but are not required, to
adopt groundwater management plans. Such plans are sometimes
known as "AB 3030 Plans."
If a local agency wishes to receive state funds administered by
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for groundwater projects
or for other projects that directly affect groundwater levels or
quality, the local agency must have an AB 3030 plan or
equivalent groundwater management plan meets specific
requirements. These requirements are sometimes known as "SB
1938 requirements." To meet the SB 1938 requirements, a local
agency must:
Prepare and implement a groundwater management plan that
includes basin management objectives for the groundwater basin
that is subject to the plan. The plan must include components
relating to the monitoring and management of groundwater
levels, groundwater quality degradation, inelastic land
surface subsidence, and changes in surface flow and surface
water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or
quality or are caused by groundwater pumping in the basin.
Prepare a plan that enables the local agency to work
cooperatively with other public entities whose service area or
boundary overlies the groundwater basin.
Prepare a map that details the area of the groundwater basin
and the area of the local agency that will be subject to the
plan, as well as the boundaries of other local agencies that
overlie the basin in which the agency is developing a
groundwater management plan.
Adopt monitoring protocols that are designed to detect changes
in groundwater levels, groundwater quality, inelastic surface
1
subsidence for basins for which subsidence has been identified
as a potential problem, and flow and quality of surface water
that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are
caused by groundwater pumping in the basin. The monitoring
protocols must be designed to generate information that
promotes efficient and effective groundwater management.
For areas outside delineated groundwater basins, local
agencies are required to prepare groundwater management plans
using use geologic and hydrologic principles appropriate to
those areas.
A local agency with an existing plan that meets the SB 1938
requirements, or a local agency that completes an upgrade of its
plan to meet those requirements within one year of applying for
funds, are be given priority for funding by DWR over local
agencies that are in the process of developing a groundwater
management plan. DWR is required to withhold funds from the
project until the upgrade of the groundwater management plan is
complete.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would change provisions governing both AB 3030 plans
and the SB 1938 requirements.
Specifically, this bill would change the process for developing
and adopting AB 3030 plans by adding the following requirements:
Local agencies would be required to provide DWR with a copy of
their resolution of intent to adopt a groundwater management
plan within 30 days of the date of adoption.
Local agencies would be required to allow any person or entity
to request to be placed on a list to receive notices regarding
plan preparation and copies of draft documents.
Local agencies would be required to provide any interested
person or entity with a copy of the proposed groundwater
management plan and map identifying recharge areas for the
cost of reproduction.
Local agencies would be required to notify interested persons
of the date, time, and place of the hearing to determine
whether to adopt the
Failure to maintain a contact list or provide interested
persons with the required information would not invalidate the
adoption of a groundwater management plan.
DWR would be required to post information on its internet site
information regarding local agencies that have jurisdiction to
develop groundwater management plans and any maps developed as
a part of a groundwater management plan.
2
This bill would also add the following elements to the SB 1938
requirements:
The groundwater management plan must include a map identifying
the recharge areas for the groundwater basin. Recharge areas
are defined as areas that substantially contribute to the
replenishment of the groundwater basin.
The local agency must provide the map to the appropriate local
planning agencies after adoption of the groundwater management
plan.
The local agency must notify organizations representing
landowners within the recharge areas that it has provided maps
to the local planning agencies. At a minimum, the local agency
must notify the following organizations:
o The California Farm Bureau Federation
o The Western Growers Association
o The California Cattlemen's Association, and
o The California Chamber of Commerce.
The bill would allow local agencies to request state funds to
map groundwater recharge areas to the extent that the request
is consistent with eligibility requirements for those funds.
The bill would also make technical changes regarding AB 3030
plans and SB 1938 requirements.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author quotes the California Department of Water Resources'
California Groundwater, Bulletin 118, issued in 2003:
"Groundwater recharge areas, and the human activities that
can render them unusable, are an example of the need to
coordinate land use activities to protect both groundwater
quality and quantity. Protection of recharge areas, whether
natural or man-made, is necessary if the quantity and
quality of groundwater in the aquifer are to be
maintained."
According to the author, "There is currently no requirement for
local agencies to identify and map groundwater recharge areas.
Without this information the ability to effectively manage a
groundwater basin is seriously limited."
"AB 359 promotes the management and protection of the state's
groundwater supplies by requiring, as a condition of receiving a
state grant or loan, local water agencies to map the recharge
areas that substantially contribute to the replenishment of the
groundwater basin, and submit this information to local planning
3
agencies. "
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None Received
COMMENTS
Bulletin 118. The state groundwater report commonly known as
Bulletin 118 has a long and important history in California.
The Bulletin 118 series was preceded by Water Quality
Investigations Report No. 3, Ground Water Basins in California,
published in 1952 by the Department of Public Works, Division of
Water Resources (the predecessor of DWR). The Bulletin 118
series is widely acknowledged as the source of information on
California's groundwater resources.
The most recent update of Bulletin 118 made 7 major findings.
The 7th finding was:
Land use decisions affecting recharge areas can reduce the
amount of groundwater in storage and degrade the quality of
that groundwater.
In many basins, little is known about the location of
recharge areas and their effectiveness.
Protection and preservation of recharge areas are seldom
considered in land use decisions.
If recharge areas are altered by paving, channel lining,
or other land use changes, available groundwater will be
reduced.
Potentially contaminating activities can degrade the
quality of groundwater and require wellhead treatment or
aquifer remediation before use.
There is no coordinated effort to inform the public that
recharge areas should be protected against contamination
and preserved so that they function effectively.
Naming Names . While supportive of the broad policy of the bill,
a number of people have raised significant concerns about the
bill calling out for notification of specific entities. Clean
Water Action's comments are typical. "Broad public notice of
these mapping efforts is key, and recent amendments requiring
local landowners to be notified of the mapping efforts make
sense. However, the language requiring specific notification of
the California Farm Bureau Federation, Chamber of Commerce,
Western Growers Association and California Cattleman's
Association seems either too narrow �or] excessive. If
organizations are to be named, local watershed and conservation
groups should be added to the list, as well as statewide
organizations, such as Clean Water Action, that have a specific
interest in protecting groundwater supplies, or the Trust for
4
Public Land, which is a large statewide property owner.
Conversely, specific organizations could be removed, citing
current notice requirements for planning agencies."
Could Benefit From Additional Polishing. While the bill has
been amended only twice, the newer provisions of the bill would
benefit from additional refining and some restructuring. For
example:
Definitions - the bill refers to "any person or entity," yet
the definition of person in the water code includes not just
persons, but firms, associations, organizations, etc.
Encroachment - as drafted, the bill could be interpreted to
allow local agencies to manage groundwater planning within the
service area of another local agency.
Revisions - presumably, the author's intent is that current
groundwater management plans would be revised to include the
new mapping provisions. Yet current law does not prescribe
how such revisions should be made.
Public Notice - in addition to the concerns about naming
names, the public notice provisions are inconsistent across
the entire groundwater management plan development process,
and the consequences for failing to follow the public notice
provisions of this bill could be refined.
Amendments to address these issues are reflected in the attached
mock-up.
Related Bills. This bill is similar to last sessions AB 2304
(Huffman). The Governor vetoed that bill because he was
"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." Neither that bill
nor this bill includes any language regarding rezoning lands to
be used for a groundwater recharge area.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: See attached mock-up
SUPPORT
California Groundwater Coalition (Co-sponsor)
Groundwater Resources Association (Co-sponsor)
American Society of Civil Engineers
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Groundwater Coalition
5
California Trout
Clean Water Action (and amend)
Community Water Center
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern California Water Association
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Trout Unlimited
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
Private Citizens (1)
OPPOSITION
None Received
6