BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1731
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1731 (Perea)
As Introduced February 14, 2014
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 10-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bocanegra, Dahle, Fong, | | |
| |Frazier, Gatto, Gomez, | | |
| |Gonzalez, Gray, | | |
| |Rodriguez, Yamada | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Patterson | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires that not less than 10% of the funding in
each integrated regional water management (IRWM) region be used
to facilitate and support the participation of disadvantaged
communities (DACs) in IRWM planning and for projects that
address the critical water supply or water quality needs of
those communities.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides $1 billion in Proposition 84 (Prop. 84) funds to the
Department of Water Resources (DWR) for IRWM projects.
2)Divides that $1 billion of Prop. 84 IRWM funds and allocates
it by hydrologic region.
3)Specifies that DWR shall allocate grants on a competitive
basis and give preference to proposals that satisfy six
criteria including ones that address critical water supply or
water quality needs for disadvantaged communities within a
region.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : This bill would require that 10% of any regional
funding for IRWMs go to DACs. The goals of this bill are
similar to SB 1 (Perata), Chapter 2, Statues of 2008 Second
AB 1731
Page 2
Extraordinary Session as modified by AB 626 (Eng), Chapter 367,
Statutes of 2009; and, SB 855 (Budget and Fiscal Review
Committee), Chapter 718, Statutes of 2010.
Among other actions, SB 1 repealed and re-enacted the division
of Water Code related to IRWMs and set certain minimum standards
for those plans. SB 1 also appropriated $139 million in Prop.
84 IRWM funding to DWR for implementation and planning grants
and specified that not less than 10% be used to facilitate and
support the participation of disadvantaged communities in IRWM
planning and for projects that address critical water supply or
water quality needs for disadvantaged communities.
AB 626 modified SB 1 to recognize that Prop. 84 funds are
divided by hydrologic region. AB 626 clarified that funding to
DACs should be not less than 10% of the total amount of grants
awarded within each region. AB 626 required DWR to implement
the 10% mandate with due diligence but only to the extent it did
not affect the expeditious allocation of IRWM grants. AB 626
also required DWR to make a progress report to the Legislature
by July 1, 2010, with regard to the implementation of the DAC
requirement.
On October 7, 2010, DWR issued a two-page report to the
Legislature stating that, at that time, grant proposal
solicitation efforts were still underway but that it would meet
the DAC allocation requirements of AB 626.
SB 855 appropriated $250 million in Prop. 84 IRWM funds to DWR
and specified that at least 10% of the funds were to support the
participation of disadvantaged communities in IRWM planning and
for projects that address critical water supply or water quality
needs for those communities.
SB 104 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 3, Statutes
of 2014, was part of the package of urgency legislation
addressing the drought. SB 104 appropriates, among other
measures, $472.5 million to DWR for IRWM grants. SB 104
requires that DWR award $200 million through an expedited
solicitation round for drought-related projects and programs.
The remaining $250.7 million is not restricted to
drought-related projects and includes $21.8 million for projects
identified in previous grant rounds.
AB 1731
Page 3
The author points to last year's State Water Resources Control
Board report Communities that Rely on a Contaminated Groundwater
Source for Drinking Water as an example of why it is important
to direct IRWM funds to disadvantaged communities. That report
demonstrates that contaminated drinking water is a problem
confronting many small disadvantaged communities who are not
responsible for the pollution and least able to pay to remediate
it. The report identifies IRWM grants as a primary remaining
source of public funding to address it.
Supporters state that the IRWM planning program is key to
developing sustainable communities through investments in local
water supply, stormwater management, environmental restoration
and job training. However, supporters point out that, despite
previous mandates, over the history of the IRWM program DACs
have faced ongoing challenges accessing funding and
participating in the IRWM process. Supporters state that this
bill is necessary so that DACs are better integrated and truly
benefit from the IRWM program.
Opponents oppose the bill unless it is amended. Opponents
acknowledge that facilitating the participation of DACs in the
IRWM process of some regions, such as the San Joaquin Valley, is
a real issue. But opponents question whether a 10% set-aside is
necessary for areas of the state that may not have those same
challenges. For example, opponents state that some DACs are
part of cities in urban areas where facilitation has not been an
issue.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0003096