BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2595
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 2595 (Hall) - As Amended: April 9, 2012
SUBJECT : Desalination
SUMMARY : Requires Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to convene a
multi-stakeholder task force to report to the Legislature by
December 31, 2013 on opportunities for streamlining the current
statewide permitting processes for seawater desalination
facilities in California.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires OPC to coordinate activities of state agencies that
are related to the protection and conservation of coastal
waters and ocean ecosystems to improve the effectiveness of
state efforts to protect ocean resources within existing
fiscal limitations.
2)Requires a person planning to perform or undertake any
development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal
development permit from the California Coastal Commission
(CCC) or local government enforcing a Local Coastal Program.
3)Charges Department of Water Resources (DWR) with finding
economic and efficient methods of desalination to meet the
growing water requirement of the state of California.
4)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to
formulate and adopt a water quality control plan for ocean
waters through the development of the California Ocean Plan.
5)Grants the State Lands Commission (SLC) leasing authority over
all public trust lands owned by the state. Public trust lands
generally consist of tide and submerged lands and beds of
navigable channels, streams, rivers, creeks, lakes, bays, and
inlets.
6)Required a Water Desalination Task Force convened by DWR and
comprised of 27 public and private stakeholder groups to
deliver a report to the legislature in 2003. The task force
looked into potential opportunities and impediments for using
AB 2595
Page 2
brackish water and seawater desalination in California, and
examined what role, if any, the state should play in
furthering the use of desalination technology.
THIS BILL :
1)Requires OPC to report to the Legislature by December 31, 2013
on opportunities for streamlining the current statewide
permitting processes for seawater desalination facilities in
California. The report shall evaluate impediments to
desalination projects relative to the current permitting
process and investigate opportunities to improve the process.
The report shall also recommend potential administrative and
legislative actions for streamlining the permitting process
while maintaining current regulatory protections.
2)Requires OPC to convene and chair the Seawater Desalination
Permit Streamlining Task Force (Task Force) to review the
current permitting processes required by all state regulatory
agencies for the planning, design, construction, monitoring,
and operation of seawater desalination facilities, to identify
opportunities for streamlining the permitting process, and to
advise the OPC in implementation of #1 above, including making
recommendations to the Legislature that (a) establish a clear
pathway for obtaining state permits; (b) define the regulatory
scope for each permitting agency; (c) eliminate redundant
requirements between California permitting agencies; (d)
describe the data needed to complete each permit; (e) develop
best practices for communication among regulatory agencies and
the regulated community; and (f) ensure that any recommended
changes maintain the current regulatory protections.
3)Requires the Task Force's report to (a) focus on how state
regulations are applied by permitting agencies and commissions
during the permitting process; (b) review the scope for each
permitting agency and commission, while maintaining current
regulatory protections; and (c) accommodate any new
regulations developed by the State Water Resources Control
Board for the California Ocean Plan.
4)Requires that the Task Force include one representative from
each of the following state entities: (a) Department of Water
Resources; (b) State Water Resources Control Board; (c)
California Coastal Commission; (d) State Lands Commission; (e)
State Department of Public Health; (f) State Energy Resources
AB 2595
Page 3
Conservation and Development Commission; (g) California
Environmental Protection Agency; (h) Natural Resources Agency;
and (i) Department of Parks and Recreation.
5)Requires that the Task Force include one representative from
each of the following, as determined by OPC: (a) Commission
for Economic Development; (b) a coastal regional water quality
control board in which is located at least one proposed
seawater desalination facility; (c) a recognized environmental
advocacy group; (d) two separate and broadly recognized
environmental advocacy groups that focus on coastal
protection; (e) a water purveyor that is a public entity that
is developing or proposing to develop a seawater desalination
facility, (f) an entity that supplies water at wholesale to
urban water suppliers; (g) a nonprofit association created to
further the use of seawater desalination that includes both
private and public members; (h) a recognized environmental
justice advocacy group; (i) a recognized business advocacy
group; (j) a recognized organization representing public
union members; and (k) a recognized organization representing
private union members.
6)Appropriates $250,000 to the Department of Water Resources for
expenditure by the department to pay the costs for convening
the Task Force and for preparation of the Desalination
Streamlining Report. This expenditure will be paid out of a
fund created by the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and
Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act
of 2006 (i.e. Proposition 84).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the bill. According to the author,
The need for this bill is to investigate streamlining
California's permitting process for ocean desalination
projects. Currently, there are roughly 30 related local,
state, and federal permits and related approvals involved
in reviewing and issuing permits?�This bill will create] a
task force �to] review the process and develop
recommendations for streamlining the process without
changing the regulatory standards that protect the
environment.
AB 2595
Page 4
2)Background. Water desalination, also known as desalting or
desalinization, is the removal of salts and dissolved solids
from saline water (brackish or seawater) to produce fresh
water. Desalination is an important water source in parts of
the arid Middle East, Persian Gulf, North Africa, Caribbean
islands, and other locations where the natural availability of
fresh water is insufficient to meet demand and where
traditional water-supply options are implausible or
uneconomical.
For years, desalination has been considered as a possible
source of fresh water for areas of coastal California. Along
many parts of the coast, the amount of available water has
been one of the primary limits on the rate of growth.
However, despite the abundance of water in the Pacific Ocean,
desalination's relatively high costs and energy requirements
have resulted in coastal areas getting most of their water
supply from other sources, such as groundwater, imported
water, and water conservation measures.
Recent changes in desalination technology have reduced its
costs to levels closer to those of other sources of fresh
water. Additionally, many are looking at desalination as a
way to provide a more reliable supply of water during the
state's recurring droughts and to reduce the dependence of
coastal communities on water imported from inland areas.
According to DWR, although desalination is estimated to
contribute less than 10 percent of the total water supply
needs in California, it still represents a significant portion
of the State's water supply portfolio.
3)Proposition 50. In November 2002, California voters passed
Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water,
Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002. Proposition 50
authorized $3.44 billion in general obligation bonds to fund a
variety of specified water and wetlands projects. One-hundred
million dollars were specifically earmarked for "contaminant
and salt removal technologies." Of this $100 million, at
least $50 million was to be spent on a grant program for
desalination projects. This program, administered by the
DWR, aimed to assist local public agency to develop new local
water supplies through the construction of brackish water and
ocean water desalination projects and help advance water
AB 2595
Page 5
desalination technology and its use by means of feasibility
studies, research and development, and pilot and demonstration
projects. Two rounds of funding were conducted under this
grant program to support 48 desalination projects, including 7
construction projects, 14 research and development projects,
15 pilots and demonstrations, and 12 feasibility studies.
4)AB 2717 Task Force. Also in 2002, the Legislature approved AB
2717 (Hertzberg), which asked DWR to convene the California
Water Desalination Task Force (AB 2717 Task Force) to look
into potential opportunities and impediments for using
seawater and brackish water desalination, and to examine what
role, if any, the state should play in furthering the use of
desalination technology.
In 2003, the AB 2717 Task Force published a report of findings
and recommendations. In the introduction of this report, the
AB 2717 Task Force recognized that "desalination can provide
significant value and numerous benefits" by
a) Providing additional water supply to meet existing and
projected demands
b) Replacing water lost from other sources and relieving
drought conditions
c) Enhancing water reliability and supplying high quality
potable water
d) Reducing groundwater overdraft and restoring use of
polluted groundwater
e) Replacing water that can be used for river and stream
ecosystem restoration
The report lists 41 findings regarding water desalination.
"One of the primary findings is that economically and
environmentally acceptable desalination should be considered
as part of a balanced water portfolio to help meet
California's existing and future water supply and
environmental needs."
Other notable findings are
#3. Every region of California has unmet
AB 2595
Page 6
environmental water needs (e.g., insufficient water
availability to meet habitat needs).
#7. Many communities and water districts are
interested in developing desalination facilities as a
local, reliable source of water to reduce their
dependence on imported water and/or to meet existing
or projected demand. Some communities see desalination
as a way to reduce their diversions from rivers and
streams, thus contributing to ecosystem restoration.
#19. While they vary on a site-specific level,
potential impediments to seawater desalination include
the environmental impacts associated with the
feedwater intake and brine/concentrate disposal. As is
the case with many other water management strategies,
other potential issues include cost, siting and
growth-inducement.
#20. With proper design and location of outfalls,
brine/concentrate disposal may not be a major
impediment to desalination.
The report lists 29 recommendations. The primary
recommendation of the AB 2717 Task Force is that each
desalination facility should be reviewed "on a case-by case
basis �b]ecause each facility is essentially unique, given
local water supply and reliability needs, site-specific
environmental conditions, project objectives, and proposed
technology?"
Other notable recommendations in the report are
#2. Include desalination, where economically and
environmentally appropriate, as an element of a
balanced water supply portfolio, which also includes
conservation and water recycling to the maximum extent
practicable.
#5. In conjunction with local governments, assess the
availability of land and facilities for
environmentally and economically acceptable seawater
desalination.
#7. Create an Office of Desalination within the
AB 2595
Page 7
Department of Water Resources to advance the State's
role in desalination.
#16. Identify ways that desalination can be used in a
manner that enhances, or protects the environment,
public access, public health, view sheds, fish and
wildlife habitat and recreation/tourism.
#17. To improve communication, cooperation, and
consistency in permitting processes, encourage review
processes for each desalination project to be
coordinated among regulators and the public.
#29. In addition to other eligibility criteria, State
funding should give high priority to those
desalination projects that provide the greatest public
benefits, such as: 1) serve areas implementing all
conservation and recycling programs to the maximum
extent practicable; 2) demonstrate long-term
environmental benefits; 3) avoid or reduce
environmental impacts to the extent possible; 4)
reduce health risks by improving water quality; and 5)
ensure equitable access to benefits from desalination
projects and include feasible mitigation for any
environmental justice impacts.
As a follow-up to the work of the AB 2717 Task Force, a
one-day workshop was held at the University of
California, Santa Barbara to review and comment on a
draft framework for planning associated with desalination
facilities. Additionally, representatives of regulatory
agencies with primary responsibilities for desalination
related permits participated in a one-day workshop to
identify roadblocks, differing approaches, and ways to
improve the permitting process.
5)Desalination Handbook. In 2008, the Center for Collaborative
Policy at California State University, Sacramento prepared the
California Desalination Planning Handbook (Desalination
Handbook) for DWR. The basis for the Desalination Handbook
was the key findings and major recommendations made in the AB
2717 Task Force report. Additionally, many members of the AB
2717 Task Force provided comments to the Desalination Handbook
and helped shape its focus and content.
AB 2595
Page 8
The Desalination Handbook acknowledges that the regulatory
process has created obstacles for some desalination project
sponsors that resulted in delays and additional costs. For
example, agencies may require information that is different in
either content or format. Additionally, an agency may not be
clear about the level of detail necessary to meet
informational or data requirements.
The Desalination Handbook, however, also acknowledges that
some permitting issues have been self-inflicted. An example
is provided of a desalination project sponsor who received
clear direction from regulators, only to change the project
and not re-confirm that the changes would still meet
permitting requirements.
In light of these issues, the Desalination Handbook offers
strategies to avoid permitting obstacles. The strategies are
included in chapters that are titled "Overview of Potential
Seawater and Groundwater Desalination Challenges and
Impediments," "Guiding Principles for Developing
Environmentally and Economically Acceptable Desalination
Projects," "Planning Framework for Desalination Projects," and
"Regulatory And Permitting Issues."
These chapters provide, among other things,
a) Ten "guiding principles" that will help a project avoid
planning and permitting setbacks.
b) A seven step process guiding a project from "Conceptual
Proposal" to "Construct Project"-there is even a flowchart.
c) Advice on establishing a "Permitting Review Committee"
to create a line of communication with regulators to
facilitates the permitting process.
d) An explanation of the permits and agencies that may be
involved in a project.
The Desalination Handbook concludes with the primary
recommendation from the AB 2717 Task Force, which is that each
desalination project needs to be considered on its own merits
due to the many site specific variables to be considered.
1)CCC Desalination Report. In 2004, the CCC released a report
AB 2595
Page 9
titled "Seawater Desalination And the California Coastal Act."
This report incorporates the work of the AB 2717 Task Force
as well as comments received during a 90-day public comment
period CCC held for the draft CCC Desalination Report.
This report makes key findings, including the primary
recommendation from the AB 2717 Task Force, which supports a
case-by-case review of each proposed desalination facility.
The report also contains chapters on "Coastal Act
Environmental Policies Related to Desalination" and "Other
Regulations and Permits," which are both focused on helping a
desalination project sponsor understand the requirements in
the permitting process. Like the Desalination Handbook, the
CCC Desalination Report suggests that early coordination among
project applicants and the various agencies will likely result
in a more efficient review process.
2)SWRCB's Ocean Plan. The California Ocean Plan is the state's
water quality control plan for ocean waters. It lists
"beneficial uses" of California's ocean waters that need to be
protected; establishes "water quality objectives" necessary to
achieve protection for those beneficial uses; identifies areas
where discharges are prohibited; and sets forth a program of
implementation (including waste discharge limitations,
monitoring, and enforcement) to ensure that water quality
objectives are met.
SWRCB staff is developing amendments to the Ocean Plan that
will address issues associated with desalination facilities.
The planned amendments will aim to control potential adverse
impacts to aquatic life and other beneficial uses of
California's bays, enclosed estuaries, and ocean waters
associated with the intakes for desalination facilities, the
brine discharges from desalination facilities, and other brine
discharges from sources such as groundwater desalting plants.
The planned amendments will likely contain the following
elements: (a) provisions to minimize adverse impacts to
aquatic life associated with the intakes for desalination
facilities; (b) a narrative water quality objective for
salinity to ensure that brine discharges from desalination
facilities and other sources do not cause adverse impacts; and
(c) implementation provisions.
These amendments are expected to be finalized by 2013.
AB 2595
Page 10
3)DWR's California Water Plan. The California Water Plan
provides a collaborative planning framework for elected
officials, agencies, tribes, water and resource managers,
businesses, academia, stakeholders, and the public to develop
findings and recommendations and make informed decisions for
California's water future. DWR is currently coordinating a
multiagency effort to update the California Water Plan. This
update is currently scheduled for release in December 2013.
This plan will incorporate, among other things, "resource
management strategies" for desalination.
4)Environmental Issues with Desalination . The major
environmental issues associated with desalination projects
involve entrainment and impingement of marine organisms, brine
composition and discharge, greenhouse gas emissions,
environmental justice, and whether more affordable and
environmentally protective alternatives are being considered
first.
a) Entrainment and Impingement. Intakes from desalination
facilities may cause direct harm to aquatic life by
trapping fish and larger organisms against intake screens
when withdrawing water (impingement) or by killing smaller
organisms that pass through the initial intake screens
(entrainment). Indirect impacts may include less available
food for wildlife dependent on these aquatic organisms.
The entrainment and impingement are major environmental
issues for desalination facilities that propose to
co-locate with once-through cooling coastal power plants.
Co-locating is an attractive option because desalination
facilities can utilize existing once-through cooling
infrastructure to minimize costs. However, this
infrastructure was developed decades ago and without
consideration of many of the environmental issues that are
recognized today.
In 2010, the SWRCB established, pursuant to the federal
Clean Water Act, a policy with technology-based standards
to reduce the harmful effects associated with cooling water
intake structures on marine and estuarine life. This policy
applies to the 19 existing power plants (including two
nuclear plants) that currently have the ability to withdraw
over 15 billion gallons per day from the state's coastal
AB 2595
Page 11
and estuarine waters using once-through cooling. These
power plants now have to take mitigation measures that
either reduce intake flow and velocity or reduce impacts to
aquatic life comparably by other means.
In light of SWRCB's new policy on once-through cooling, OPC
has expressed its desire to work with the SWRCB, the CCC,
and other appropriate entities to assess the effectiveness
of interim mitigation projects proposed to address impacts
to the marine environment from intake structures.
b) Brine Composition and Discharge. The salt, minerals,
and other compounds left over from the desalination process
are disposed of as a concentrated brine solution that may
be more than twice as saline as the ocean. The concern is
that discharging untreated brine waste to the ocean may
adversely affect marine life because of increased salinity,
decreased oxygen, higher temperatures, and possibly higher
turbidity. In addition, desalination facilities may add
chemicals to recondition membranes and during the water
treatment process, which may be toxic to marine life if
released into ocean waters.
Brine is much more salty and therefore denser and heavier
than ocean water and depending on the discharge methods,
may settle on the ocean bottom. Accumulation of brine on
the seafloor may have an adverse impact on bottom-dwelling
organisms in the vicinity of the discharge.
c) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The water sector consumes a
tremendous amount of energy to capture, treat, transport,
and use water. The California Energy Commission estimates
that the water sector in California used 19 percent and 32
percent of total electricity and natural gas use,
respectively, in 2001. Substantial quantities of diesel
were also consumed in California's water sector. Because
desalination is the most energy-intensive source of water,
desalination will increase the amount of energy consumed by
the water sector. The currently proposed desalination
plants would increase the water related energy use by 5
percent over 2001 levels. The energy-intensive nature of
desalination means that extensive development can
contribute to greater dependence on fossil fuels, an
increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and a worsening of
climate change.
AB 2595
Page 12
d) Environmental Justice. Most of the proposed
desalination plants in California are likely to be located
in existing industrial areas to take advantage of
infrastructure and local resources. Because low-income
populations tend to live in these areas, desalinations
plants may have a disproportionate impact on these
communities. These communities have traditionally borne
significant air quality impacts from local facilities,
higher exposure to noise and industrial chemicals, and
truck traffic. Local communities may also suffer as a
result of the desalination plant's water-quality impacts,
especially communities with people who rely on caught fish
to supplement their protein intake.
e) Environmentally Protective Alternatives. The potential
benefits of ocean desalination are great, but the economic,
cultural, and environmental costs of wide commercialization
remain high. In many parts of the world, alternatives can
provide the same freshwater benefits of ocean desalination
at far lower economic and environmental costs. These
alternatives include treating low-quality local water
sources, encouraging regional water transfers, improving
conservation and efficiency, accelerating wastewater
recycling and reuse, and implementing smart land-use
planning.
As recommended by the AB 2717 Task Force, the state should
include desalination, where economically and
environmentally appropriate, as an element of a balanced
water supply portfolio, which also includes conservation
and water recycling to the maximum extent practicable.
5) Is this Bill Appropriate? A common theme in the above
reference reports is that the state and local governments
should develop a balanced water strategy that includes
desalination, but first considers conservation and water
recycling to the maximum extent practicable. As such,
rather than focusing on the quickest way to permit
desalination facilities, which is the intent of this bill,
it seems more appropriate to support the creation of a
state strategy to ensure that desalination facilities are
built where they are absolutely needed and with minimal
environmental impacts.
AB 2595
Page 13
Notwithstanding the need for a state strategy on desalination,
it seems duplicative to invest resources into streamlining the
desalination permitting process, at least at this point. The
Desalination Handbook provides detailed information on ways to
avoid obstacles in the permitting process. The CCC
Desalination Report also provides guidelines for successfully
navigating through the permitting process. These resources
should be utilized. If the desalination industry or the
regulatory agencies identify inefficiencies during the
permitting process, they should be encouraged to address them
through administrative action, regulations, or specific
legislation.
Not only can this bill be considered duplicative, it can also
be viewed as premature. As stated above, the SWRCB is
preparing amendments to its Ocean Plan with regard to
permitting desalination facilities. DWR is also updating the
California Water Plan, which will include integrated resource
management strategies for desalination. Both of these
activities will not be completed until at least 2013 and they
may significantly change permitting requirements. It does not
seem prudent to put resources into identifying streamlining
possibilities while these plans are still being developed.
It is also not clear that there is a compelling need for
permit streamlining. The author asserts that streamlining is
necessary because "there can be in-excess of 30 local, state,
and federal permits and related approvals involved in
reviewing and issuing permits for ocean desalination projects
that often lead to an inefficient permitting pathway and
redundant requirements." According to an SLC staff report
regarding a major desalination facility in Carlsbad, approvals
were only needed from five agencies : City of Carlsbad,
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of
Health Services, SLC, and CCC. According to the CCC, "the
actual number of permits needed is substantially less than 30,
and of those, only a handful-from about four to six-are
standard state agency permits.
Lastly, this bill appropriates $250,000 from Proposition 84
moneys to investigate streamlining. It appears that this
funding may not actually be available. It also seems
inappropriate to spend public moneys on a process that will
directly benefit for-profit desalination companies that likely
have the resources, experience, and incentives to facilitate a
AB 2595
Page 14
discussion on recommendations for streamlining.
6) Suggested Amendments. If the committee is interested in
the general concept of improving the permitting process for
desalination facilities, it may wish to consider amendments
that
a) Replace the term "streamlining" in the bill with
"improving." The term "streamlining" may imply that the
sole goal is to make the permitting process faster and
cheaper. "Improving," on the other hand, implies that the
goal is to make the process better, which may include
faster permitting, but may also include enhancing the level
of review.
b) Extends the report deadline from December 31, 2013 to
December 31, 2014 to allow the Task Force to consider the
changes to the SWRCB's Ocean Plan and DWR's California
Water Plan that will be finalized in 2013.
c) Shift the Task Force's decision making authority to the
agencies that have the most important permitting
responsibilities while still allowing the other
stakeholders to act in an advisory capacity. The committee
may also want to eliminate, add, and consolidate certain
stakeholders from the process to achieve a well-rounded,
well informed Task Force.
d) Require recommendations on how the desalination
permitting process should fit in as an element of a
balanced state water portfolio, which includes conservation
and water recycling to the maximum extent possible.
e) Protect the independent review authority of independent
agencies such as the SLC and the CCC.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CalDesal (sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Association of California Water Agencies
BIOCOM
AB 2595
Page 15
California Chamber of Commerce
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
Cambria Community Services District
El Toro Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District
San Diego County Water Authority
Mesa Consolidated Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Orange County Water District
San Diego County Water Authority
San Gabriel County Water District
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Opposition
California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Protection Network
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Cambria Land Trust
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Desal Response Group
Greenspace
Natural Resources Defense Council
North Coast Rivers Alliance
Orange County Coastkeeper
Our City SF
Residents for Responsible Desalination
San Diego Coastkeeper
Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092