BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 571 HEARING DATE: April 12, 2011
AUTHOR: Wolk URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Proposed To Be Amended CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: California Water Commission
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Under current law, it is the policy of the state that the
California Water Plan, with any necessary amendments,
supplements, and additions to the plan, is accepted as the
master plan which guides the orderly and coordinated control,
protection, conservation, development, management and efficient
utilization of the water resources of the state. The original
water plan, also known as "Bulletin 3," contained a detailed
discussion of the needs of the various regions of the state,
potential projects for addressing those needs, and cost
estimates for each of the potential projects. One of those sets
of projects, the Feather River Projects, was later authorized
and became known as the State Water Project. The water plan is
required to be updated every 5 years. While Department of Water
Resources (DWR) is responsible for the content of the plan, DWR
is required by law to establish and consult with an advisory
committee, comprised of representatives of agricultural and
urban water suppliers, local government, business, production
agriculture, and environmental interests, and other interested
parties. The most recent update was completed in 2009.
The California Water Commission (Commission) was created in 1957
as a part of the DWR. Its original purpose was to advise, and
make recommendations to the director with respect to any matters
and subjects under his jurisdiction. The Commission also was
required to approve any regulations proposed by DWR. In 1967,
the Commission's authorities were expanded to include an annual
review of the progress in constructing and operating the State
Water Project (SWP). The Commission was also granted the power
to name DWR facilities. Finally, in any conflict of opinion
1
between the Commission and the director of DWR, the position of
the director prevails.
The Legislature has placed an $11.14 B water bond on the
November 2012 ballot. Upon voter approval of the proposed water
bond, $3 B would be continuously to the Commission for public
benefits associated with water storage projects. The Commission
would select projects through a competitive public process that
ranks potential projects based on the expected return for public
investment as measured by the magnitude of the public benefits.
The Commission would be required to develop and adopt
regulations for quantifying the public benefits of the proposed
projects. The regulations would be required to include the
priorities and relative environmental value of ecosystem
benefits as provided by the Department of Fish and Game and the
priorities and relative environmental value of water quality
benefits as provided by the State Water Resources Control Board.
The bond language makes clear that the director of DWR could
not override any decision of the Commission with regard to
administering the $3 B for water storage projects.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
1.Establish the California Water Commission as an independent
agency,
Delete provisions providing that the director of DWR has
the authority to overrule the Commission,
Authorize the Commission to hire staff,
Authorize the Commission to sue and be sued, and
Authorize the Commission to administer the development
and implementation of the California Water Investment Plan
established in a new division of the Water Code (see #3
below).
1.Revise the requirements of the California Water Plan,
Require DWR to collaborate with other state agencies to
provide a report to the Commission documenting the results
of a study evaluating the current and future condition of
the state's water resources and the impact those conditions
have or may have on natural resources and those that rely
on those resources;
Require DWR to collaborate with other state agencies to
provide a draft report to the Commission recommending
programs, policies, and facilities to address impacts of
statewide and interregional concern identified in the
report evaluating water resources, including estimated
2
costs to implement each recommendation;
Require regional water planning agencies, established in
the new division of the Water Code, to provide a draft
report to the Commission recommending programs, policies,
and facilities to address impacts of regional and local
concern identified in the report evaluating water
resources, including estimated costs to implement each
recommendation;
Require the Commission to adopt the update to the
California Water Plan after resolving any conflicts between
the recommendations of DWR and the regional water planning
agencies;
1.Create a new division in the Water Code titled "Water
Resources Investment Planning" with the intent to:
Establish the process for the Commission to develop and
adopt the "California Water Investment Plan," similar to
the State Transportation Improvement Plan;
Establish the process for the Commission to make the
fund allocations for specific projects and programs,
including bond proceeds and other funds that may be made
available through the state from state and federal sources;
Establish the process for the state agencies to develop
and implement the "State Water Investment Plan" consistent
with the most recently adopted update to the California
Water Plan;
Establish "regional water planning agencies" that would
perform a function similar to regional transportation
planning agencies; and
Establish the process for the regional water planning
agencies to develop and implement the "regional water
investment plan."
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "California's water management has been
hampered by lack of funding, lack of transparency, and lack of
prioritization. In the past few decades California has moved
away from pay-as-you-go and beneficiary pays models, creating a
perpetual need for general fund backed water bonds. The
reliance on water bonds allows water funding to be allocated
based on political needs rather than on what may be best for the
water resources in California."
"In addition, science, monitoring and management needs
associated with water management have been underfunded. These
vitally important programs are not appropriately funded by water
3
bonds, which must be spent solely on capitol projects."
"The California Water Financing Reform Act, based on
recommendations from the Little Hoover Commission, the State
Treasurer's Office and the State Auditor, would institute a new
mechanism for developing a responsible plan for California water
resources, identifying appropriate funding mechanisms, and to
providing funding for those priorities in a responsible,
strategic, open and transparent manner."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None
COMMENTS
Mock-up. The attached mock-up would replace the existing
language of the bill. The mock-up reflects the following
changes:
Harmonizes the language with SB 34 (Simitian). Deletes all
provisions that presupposed how future revenue sources might
be structured. Those issues would all be addressed SB 34,
which is similarly being proposed in mock-up form.
Rewrites the findings and declarations to make much more clear
the policy objectives and logical framework for the bill.
Restructures the bill, including creating a new division of
the Water Code to establish the process for the Commission to
develop and adopt the California Water Investment Plan,
similar to the State Transportation Improvement Plan.
Makes more clear those areas that are works in progress by
leaving blanks for issues requiring additional attention.
Current Process Is Ad Hoc At Best. The current funding process
is driven almost solely by the provisions of various bond
authorizations. While there has been some measure of
consistency in structure among recent bonds, there is no
coordination among the different funding agencies. Instead, DWR
does what it thinks best with its funds without regard to the
State Board's priorities, the State Board does what it thinks
best with its funds without regard to the DWR's priorities, and
so on. There is little sense of a broadly accepted set of state
priorities, either in the structure of the bonds or in the
disbursement of the funds.
Does This Bill Make Sense In The Absence Of A Funding Stream?
While the current process of periodic bond authorizations does,
at times, seem haphazard, the reality is that each bond does
establish how those funds are to be administered. A greater
4
collaborative process among state and regional agencies might
help focus some bond programs. However, it would seem the real
benefit of a more formal planning and funding structure would be
to prioritize and allocate an ongoing and stable source of
funds.
Water Plan Needs Help, Regardless. By any measure, the original
California Water Plan was a magnificent effort, especially
considering the era in which it was developed and the technology
available to create it. It identified specific projects to be
considered, quantified expected yield of each project, and
estimated costs associated with each option. With those data,
it was relatively simple to determine the most cost effective
set of options and the budget required to implement them.
Granted, the focus was principally on constructing new
facilities instead of considering broader management options,
but that was simply a reflection of the times.
The current water plan pales in comparison. Most telling, none
of the water plans issued in the last 15 years or so were of any
value in trying to draft any of the recent water bonds. Nor are
any of the data useful for, say, trying to estimate the yield of
a proposed water charge. Whether or not the full objectives of
this bill are realized this session, successfully refocusing the
water plan would be of value.
Open Questions. This bill poses a number of currently
unanswered questions. Three particularly hot topics are:
Who Should Be On The Regional Agencies? Most regional water
planning efforts are dominated by water supply agencies. This
bill proposes to include a much more broad set of participants
including wastewater management agencies, stormwater
management agencies, cities, and counties. A reasonable case
could probably be made to also include local watershed groups,
environmental justice groups, etc. Determining the
appropriate composition of the regional agencies will be a
challenge.
How To Get Beyond the "Big Staple?" While some integrated
regional water plans (IRWMPs) are in fact regional plans, too
often IRWMPs are simply a collection of everyone's favorite
project all stapled together as one document. Creating a
robust regional planning effort for water related projects and
programs will be no small feat. More areas than not are
struggling with developing plans to resolve issues with
non-point pollutants and TMDLs. A truly comprehensive
5
regional water planning effort would not only address
non-point pollutants, but stormwater management, groundwater
recharge, water recycling, and restoring aquatic habitat.
Besides Money, What's In It For The Regions? This bill is
asking a lot of regional water interests in the form of
additional planning, coordination, consulting with state
agencies, etc. There may or may not be additional funds for
regional projects. If not, what is the incentive for them to
cooperate?
Related Bills. SB 34 (Simitian) would enact the California
Water Resources Investment Act of 2011 to establish a
sustainable revenue source to fund the public benefits of water
related projects and programs.
Work In Progress. This bill postulates a number of principles
that need to be validated, and then turned into operative
statute. In addition to the items discussed above, issues
requiring particular attention include:
The definition of public benefits.
The bifurcating of decision making between the State and
funding regions.
The mechanism for developing regional water investment plans
and the state water investment plan
The process for the water Commission to make fund allocations
for current, pending, and future water bonds
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: See attached mock-up
SUPPORT
None Received
OPPOSITION
None Received
6