BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 2595 HEARING DATE: June 26, 2012
AUTHOR: Hall URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 14, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Desalination.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1. Requires the Ocean Protection Council (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. Assigns 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
1
a report to the Legislature in 2003. The task force looked into
potential opportunities and impediments for using brackish water
and seawater desalination in California, and examined what role,
if any, the state should play in furthering the use of
desalination technology.
7. There is ongoing work on desalination at the SWRCB and DWR
and addressing several desal questions has been included in the
new strategic plan of the Ocean Protection Council.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would do the following things:
1. Require OPC to report to the Legislature by December 31, 2013
on opportunities for improving the current statewide permitting
processes for seawater desalination facilities in California.
The report would evaluate opportunities to improve the process
for permitting desalination projects relative to the current
permitting process and investigate opportunities to improve the
process. The report would also recommend potential
administrative and legislative actions for streamlining the
permitting process while maintaining current regulatory
protections.
2. Require 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 improving the permitting process, and to
include 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. Require 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
2
California Ocean Plan. The recommendations are also to consider
previous reports, such as the 2004 Seawater Desalination report
from the Coastal Commission, the 2003 report prepared by the
California Water Desalination Task Force pursuant to AB 2717
(Hertzberg), Chapter 957, Statutes of 2002, and the 2008
California Desalination Planning Handbook prepared by the Center
for Collaborative Policy at CSU Sacramento.
4. The recommendations would discuss how desalination fits in as
an element of a balanced state water portfolio that includes
conservation and water recycling to the maximum extent possible.
5. Require that the task force include the following members:
one representative from each of the following state entities
which as stated earlier, would be chaired by the OPC: (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 Conservation and Development Commission; (g)
California Environmental Protection Agency; (h) Natural
Resources Agency; (i) Department of Parks and Recreation, and
(j) the Department of Fish and Game.
6. In addition, the task force would include one representative
from each of the following, as determined by OPC: (a) Commission
for Economic Development; (b) six coastal regional water quality
control board representatives from regional water board
districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9; (c) a recognized environmental
advocacy group; (d) three 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
and (l) a recognized nonprofit representing water companies
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission.
3
For those keeping score at home, the task force would seem to
have 29 members.
7. 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
desalination project fund created in Prop 50.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
1. According to the author and supporters, desalination plants
face a fragmented and inefficient method of review and approval.
They argue that coastal communities and even inland communities
should have a consistent and clear regulatory guidance if and
when they are considering desal plants.
2. The proposed task force would review and assess all currently
required permitting processes for the planning, design,
construction, and operation of desal facilities.
3. The sponsor, CalDesal, contends that California needs a more
workable approval process. It contends that as many as 30
agencies could be involved in approving a desal plant's various
permits. It also contends that there may be conflicting or
inconsistent regulatory requirements.
4. CalChamber says that with a dozen existing desal plants on
the coast and two dozen more going through planning, it is clear
that the time involved in permitting is too long (although the
time frame is not specified) and that there is redundancy in the
permitting process.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The opposition comes from the Coastal Commission and a variety
of nonprofit organizations many of whom stress that they
recognize that desalination will have an important role in
California's future water supply.
The Commission makes the following points, among others:
1. The recommendations from previous studies have not been
implemented-the proposed study is therefore premature and
duplicative. It is premature because two agencies, the OPC, and
the SWRCB, are working on their own approach to this problem
without the mandate of this bill, and it is duplicative because
4
previous recommendations from previous studies have not been
implemented.
2. Permitting of desal is not particularly difficult for
applicants who work through agency processes and try to
coordinate approval processes.
3. The Commission also objects to several phrases in the bill,
such as: (1) establish a clear pathway for obtaining state
permits; (2) define the regulatory scope of each permitting
agency; (3) eliminate redundant requirements between agencies;
(4) describe the date needed to complete each permit; and (5)
develop best practices for communicating among agencies and the
regulatory community.
4. These respective phrases, the Commission argues, commit
several errors: They assume a one-size-fits-all approach for
permitting projects that by their very nature are different,
they ask for information that is clearly available, they assume
redundancies that may not exist, and they fail to recognize the
benefits of early coordination.
Different points made by nonprofit groups include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1. Despite the OPC and the SWRCB actions to phase out the use of
technology at power plants called "once through cooling," desal
proponents are continuing to design plants using this technology
and should not now be asking for "fast-tracking" of those
plants. Even plants proposing to use alternative technologies
should be required to go through existing processes to minimize
and mitigate their impacts. Desal plants should be developed in
ways that are consistent with the SWRCB policy on
once-through-cooling.
2. The bill does not impose any limits on the technology that
should be considered which some nonprofits contend should be
limited to the latest desal technologies that minimize impacts
to marine life and coast resources.
3. Following on the heels of many other desal studies in
California (many of which are cited in the bill on page 5, lines
30-36), these groups contend that the proposed task force is
redundant, work-intensive and unnecessary. They note that many
of the recommendations of these previous studies have not been
implemented. One such study, the 2008 California Desalination
5
Handbook, represents a $600,000 study that would be replicated
to a significant degree by this study.
4. It is a waste of money, especially of increasingly scarce
bond revenues. If the private companies involved in the
permitting process want to recommend changes to the law, they
should do it with their own money, not a study sponsored by the
state.
5. The proponents exaggerate the number of required permits.
Opponents contend the number is not 30 but closer to 6.
COMMENTS
A recent amendment shifts the funding for the study from Prop.
84 to Prop 50. It turned out that inadequate funds from Prop 84
were available.
The Prop 50 provisions, sections 79545-79547.2 of the water
code, apply to desalination, but they have three requirements,
two of which are not addressed:
A. It requires 50% matching funds. The sponsors agree to be
bound by this provision.
B. It requires a competitive process within DWR for grants
pursuant to this section. This bill would circumvent that
provision and award funds directly to the proposed study.
C. It requires that grants go to projects, not planning. This
bill would circumvent that provision.
The Committee has three primary options:
1. Disregard these provisions which are not subject to
amendment by the Legislature since they were adopted by the
voters. This option, and the second option, may provide the
author and sponsor an opportunity to find a lawful and
acceptable funding source before the bill is heard in
Appropriations, at which point a funding source would need to be
in place.
2. Strip out the funding source and allow the sponsors to find a
lawful and acceptable funding source before the bill is heard in
Appropriations.
3. Hold the bill until a lawful and acceptable funding source is
identified with the commitment to work with the author to keep
6
the bill moving at such a point with the mutual understanding
that the necessary rule waivers could be difficult to obtain.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
If the bill moves forward, staff recommends the following
amendments:
AMENDMENT 1
A recent amendment substituted the term "water suppliers"
for "water agencies." The new term has a definition in the
Water Code at section 1745(b) which should be
cross-referenced.
AMENDMENT 2
The bill should clarify that the task force should be
chaired by a member of the OPC chosen by the OPC chair.
AMENDMENT 3
To keep the study objective, amend scope of study on page
5, lines 8-14 to delete assumptions that there is not a
clear permitting process and that current practices have
been determined to be "redundant."
SUPPORT
Association of California Water Agencies
Biocom
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, LLP
California Chamber of Commerce
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
California Water Association
City of Anaheim
Contra Costa Water District
Cucamonga Valley Water District
El Toro Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District
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
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
WaterReuse California
7
OPPOSITION
California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Protection Network
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Clean Water Action
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Democracy for America Marin
Food and Water Watch
Greenspace - Cambria Land Trust
Heal the Bay
Marin Water Coalition
Natural Resources Defense Council
North coast Rivers Alliance
Orange County Coastkeeper
Our City San Francisco
Planning and Conservation League
Residents for Responsible Desalination
San Diego Coastkeeper
Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives
Sierra Club California
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
8