BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2595
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2595 (Hall)
As Amended May 1, 2012
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 9-1 NATURAL RESOURCES 6-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Halderman, Bill |Ayes:|Chesbro, Knight, |
| |Berryhill, Blumenfield, | |Dickinson, Grove, |
| |Campos, Beth Gaines, | |Halderman, Skinner |
| |Gatto, Roger Hern�ndez, | | |
| |Hueso, Lara | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Huffman |Nays:|Huffman, Monning |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | |
| |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, | | |
| |Ammiano, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, | | |
| |Solorio, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Creates a task force to make recommendations on
improving the current seawater desalination facility (desal)
permitting processes while maintaining current regulatory
protections. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the need
for efficient water resource management, the benefits of
desal, and the complexity of permitting.
2)Requires a representative of the Ocean Protection Council
(OPC) to convene, and act as chair, for a Seawater
Desalination Permit Improvement Task Force (Task Force) whose
recommendations will be included in a report submitted to the
Legislature by December 31, 2014.
AB 2595
Page 2
3)Specifies that, in addition to the OPC, the Task Force shall
include:
a) One voting representative each from the: Department of
Water Resources (DWR), State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), California Coastal Commission (CCC), State Lands
Commission (SLC), and State Department of Public Health
(DPH).
b) One non-voting advisory representative from each, as
determined by OPC: the Commission for Economic
Development, the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission, a recognized environmental advocacy
group, two separate and broadly recognized environmental
advocacy groups that focus on coastal protection, a public
water purveyor that is developing or proposing to develop a
seawater desalination facility, a wholesale water supplier,
a nonprofit association created to further the use of
seawater desalination, an environmental justice advocacy
group, a business advocacy group, an organization
representing public unions, an organization representing
private unions, the California Environmental Protection
Agency, the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of
Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game, and
the Coastal Regional Water Quality Control Boards, if
available.
1)Requires the report to establish a clear permit process that
will eliminate redundant requirements between California
permitting agencies and improve communication while
maintaining current regulatory protections and independent
review.
2)Requires the report's recommended actions to be made in a way
that:
a) Accommodates any new policies developed by the SWRCB
for the California Ocean Plan or DWR for the State Water
Plan;
b) Considers the prior 2003 California Water Desalination
Task Force Report, the 2004 Seawater Desalination and the
California Coastal Act report prepared by the CCC, and the
AB 2595
Page 3
2008 California Desalination Planning Handbook prepared by
the California State University, Sacramento, Center for
Collaborative Policy; and,
c) Discusses how desal should fit in as an element of a
balanced state water portfolio that includes conservation
and water recycling to the maximum extent possible.
3)The report must be adopted by a majority of the voting
members. In the case of a tie the OPC representative, who is
chair, votes again to break the tie.
4)Appropriates $250,000 from grant funds in the Safe Drinking
Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) that are
made available to DWR to assist local agencies in meeting the
long term water needs of the state and requires DWR use those
funds to pay the costs of convening the Task Force and
preparing the report.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Charges DWR with finding economic and efficient methods of
desalination to meet the growing water requirement of the
State of California.
2)Requires that any project subject to a discretionary approval
by a public agency which could have potentially significant
impacts on the environment must undergo environmental review.
3)Empowers various local, state and federal agencies with
jurisdictions including, but not limited to, land use
decisions, threatened and endangered species, state lands,
public health and welfare, transportation, and utilities to
require permits or agreements from projects that could
adversely affect those resources.
4)Requires the SWRCB to formulate and adopt a water quality
control plan for ocean waters through the development of the
California Ocean Plan. The plan is currently being updated
with environmentally protective, science-based regulations,
specifically for desalination projects.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
AB 2595
Page 4
Committee:
1)One-time costs of an unknown amount, collectively in the low
hundreds of thousands, to the following agencies to
participate in the taskforce and prepare the report: OPC,
DWR, CCC, DPH, the SWRCB, SLC, CEC, Environmental Protection
Agency, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Parks and
Recreation and Department of Fish and Game (various special
funds).
2)One-time appropriation of $250,000 from Proposition 84's Safe
Drinking Water and Water Quality Projects monies. (DWR
reports that, of the Proposition 84 funds identified by this
bill, only $25,000 remains available for appropriation.)
3)Cost pressure in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars to
fund the work of the public agencies participating in the Task
Force (General Fund, special funds and bond funds.)
COMMENTS :
In 1965 the Legislature passed the Cobey-Porter Saline Water
Conversion Law calling for development of economical desal
processes which could reduce the need for water imports. In
2002 DWR was directed to convene the California Water
Desalination Task Force (2003 Task Force) and report to the
Legislature on potential opportunities and impediments for using
seawater and brackish water desal, and to examine what role, if
any, the state should play in furthering the use of desal
technologies. The overarching recommendation of the 2003 Task
Force was that desal projects should be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis because each facility is essentially unique.
Also in 2002, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal
and Beach Protection Act (Proposition 50) provided $50 million
in matching grants for desal projects.
The author and supporters of this bill state that desal is an
important option for local and regional water managers to
consider in meeting future water supply needs and that an
unworkable process of up to thirty different permits is the
greatest impediment to desal projects. Supporters assert that
it takes years to go through the process of designing and
building a plant and that this bill will provide a much-needed
review of the permitting process through and open and inclusive
AB 2595
Page 5
dialogue.
Opponents argue that the proponents have failed to demonstrate a
problem when Coastal Commission data demonstrates that the
average permitting time for desal projects is seven months if
one excludes the permitting times for projects submitted by one
particular applicant whom the commission describes as
intentionally uncooperative. Opponents also state the bill
would inappropriately use oversubscribed public bond funds for
an activity that mainly benefits private entities that have the
resources to develop, recommend and advocate desalination
permitting reforms on their own.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy/ W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0003828