BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1386
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1386 (Alan Lowenthal)
As Amended July 3, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :31-4
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Campos, Fong, Beth | | |
| |Gaines, | | |
| |Roger Hern�ndez, Hueso, | | |
| |Jones | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Halderman | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits the Central Basin Municipal Water District
(Central Basin MWD) from storing or managing water in the Central
Groundwater Basin unless by a contract with another entity or
pursuant to a court issued order and, by default, leaves the Water
Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) as the
principal entity authorized to do so.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Creates water replenishment districts for the purposes of
replenishing groundwater supplies within their boundaries.
2)States that a water replenishment district may store, transport,
recapture, recycle, purify, treat or otherwise manage and
control water for the beneficial use of persons or property
within its boundaries.
3)Creates municipal water districts (MWDs). Water Code Section
71610 states that a MWD may acquire, control, distribute, store,
spread, sink, treat, purify, recycle, recapture, and salvage any
water including sewage and storm waters, for the beneficial use
or uses of the MWD, its inhabitants, or the owners of rights to
water in the MWD.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
SB 1386
Page 2
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to prohibit Central Basin MWD from
asserting a right to store or manage groundwater in the Central
Groundwater Basin. A 1965 consent judgment declared and
established water rights in the Central Groundwater Basin and
enjoined extractions in excess of specified quantities. The 1965
judgment also reserved jurisdiction to the superior court with
respect to future matters that were not contemplated at the time.
Consistent with the 1965 judgment as amended (Amended Judgment),
the WRD has the right to replenish the Central Groundwater Basin
and enjoin extractions. But the Amended Judgment was silent as to
who has the right to store water in the basin.
In 2001, several parties sought an adjudication of the rights to
use underground storage space in the Central Groundwater Basin and
argued that the total useable storage space should be divided
among those with existing water extraction rights. The court
however rejected the theory that the right to extract water
conveys an automatic right to store water. In 2009 a new proposal
was submitted to the court by another group of pumpers with
extraction rights. That proposal sought to utilize 330,000
acre-feet of dewatered space in the Central Basin to store water
for later use (Storage Proposal). The Storage Proposal included
multiple provisions governing the storage and extraction of stored
water and proposed significant revisions to the Amended Judgment.
Initially, the superior court ruled that it lacked the
jurisdiction to consider the Storage Proposal since it was outside
the boundaries of the original 1965 judgment. But in January of
2012, an appellate court sent the matter back to the superior
court stating that the lower court not only had the power but the
duty to work out a solution consistent with the state's policy to
beneficially use water. The matter currently rests with the trial
court for a determination, on the merits, of the Storage Proposal.
The author of this bill states it is necessary in order to clarify
that the Central Basin MWD does not have the authority to manage
or control the storage of groundwater because there is already a
water rights judgment in place and a water replenishment district
that has authority to deal with groundwater supplies. The author
states that the duplicate authorities of the WRD and Central Basin
MWD result in uncertainty and create a barrier to an increased use
SB 1386
Page 3
of groundwater storage that could also help relieve pressure on
imported water supplies from Northern California. Supporters of
this bill state it is necessary because the Central Basin MWD has
recently inserted itself into the groundwater arena by purchasing
groundwater extraction rights, preparing a groundwater management
plan, and intervening as a party in the groundwater litigation.
In contrast, the Central Basin MWD criticizes this bill as
premature stating that the pending litigation in Los Angeles
Superior Court will directly address the issue of groundwater
storage rights. Central Basin MWD also defends its groundwater
storage plan as collaborative and states that the plan would
utilize Central Groundwater Basin storage capacity, secure an
affordable supply of water, establish emergency supplies, and
prepare against future reductions in imported supplies. Central
Basin MWD asserts that without its groundwater plan WRD and others
could continue to detrimentally and permanently damage the Central
Groundwater Basin and southeast Los Angeles communities could be
subject to higher priced water. Other opponents cite a March 2012
Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit as evidence that the
proper roles of water suppliers in Southeast Los Angeles County
are yet to be determined.
Several prior pieces of legislation concerned the conflict over
groundwater authorities and charges in the Central and West
Groundwater Basins, which are interconnected with the WRD
overlying both. AB 640 (De La Torre) of 2007, would have required
the Department of Water Resources to conduct a study to determine
basin specific charges for each basin within the district. AB 640
was placed on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file
and failed passage. SB 701 (Ron Calderon) of 2011, would have
established, among other provisions, that the Central Basin MWD
has primary oversight responsibility with respect to protecting
the public's interest in the Central Groundwater Basin. SB 701
was referred to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
but was never heard. AB 954 (Charles Calderon) of 2011, would
have required engineering surveys and reports for the West Basin
and the Central Basin, separately, and then specified that the
charges for replenishing each groundwater basin, removing
contaminants from each groundwater basin, and administering each
groundwater would be calculated on actual costs. AB 954 was
referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee but was never
heard.
SB 1386
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096 FN: 0004407