BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1739|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1739
Author: Dickinson (D), et al.
Amended: 8/7/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 7-1, 6/24/14
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Monning, Wolk
NOES: Cannella
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-24, 5/28/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Groundwater management
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act, which establishes procedures and guidelines for
the management of groundwater in California.
ANALYSIS : Existing law allows certain existing local agencies
to develop groundwater management plans (Water Code Section
10750 et seq.), which are commonly referred to as AB 3030
(Costa, Chapter 947, Statutes of 1997) plans. These plans must
be developed with public hearings and only if less than half of
the landowners in the proposed district do not protest the
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
2
development of the plan.
This bill:
1. Creates the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which
requires that all high- or medium-priority groundwater basins
be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or
coordinated GSP, except if the basin is a specified
adjudicated area. The GSPs will be developed by Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), which can be a local agency
or combination of local agencies that jointly elect to be a
GSA through a joint powers agreement or a memorandum of
agreement.
2. Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to review
the GSP after adoption and then at least every five years
thereafter for compliance and achievement of sustainability
goals. If no adequate plan is developed or if the GSP is not
being properly implemented, DWR and the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) will be authorized to designate a basin
as a probationary basin. Such a designation will trigger a
process by which a GSA will first be given an opportunity to
remedy the deficiency. If this does not occur, the SWRCB
will be authorized to develop an interim plan for the
probationary basin, which will remain in effect until any
deficiencies are resolved.
3. Requires a planning agency to refer to either an adopted GSP
or an interim plan adopted by the SWRCB before a general plan
is substantially amended. A GSA will also be required to
provide planning agencies with specific information.
4. Specifies the following responsibilities for the GSAs, DWR,
and SWRCB:
A. GSAs will be:
Required to notify DWR of its creation and
intent to undertake sustainable groundwater management
by January 1, 2017.
Required to consider the interests of all
beneficial uses and users of groundwater.
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
3
Required to maintain a list of persons
interested in receiving notices regarding plan
preparation, meeting announcements, availability of
draft plans, and other relevant documents.
Authorized to conduct various investigations for
the purpose of managing the groundwater basin. This
bill establishes civil penalties that may be imposed by
the GSA for extractions in excess of authorized
amounts.
Authorized to require metering of groundwater
extractions and to control groundwater extractions.
Required to develop a GSP, if the basin is a
high or medium priority basin that includes specified
information and aims to achieve a sustainability goal
in the basin within 20 years of the implementation of
the plan. Extensions may be granted in two five-year
increments beyond the 20-year sustainability timeframe
upon showing of good cause, as determined by DWR. The
GSA must submit the GSP to DWR for review after
adoption. The GSP must be adopted by January 1, 2020.
Required to report annually to DWR specified
information after the GSP is adopted, including, among
other things, the groundwater basin elevation,
aggregated extraction in the past year, and surface
water used for groundwater recharge.
Allowed to submit an alternative GSP if that
alternative meets specified requirements.
Required to periodically evaluate its GSP.
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
4
Required to hold a public hearing before
adopting or amending a GSP.
Allowed to impose a fee on groundwater
extraction or other regulated activity to fund the
costs associated with the GSP. This bill establishes a
procedure to allow for fee collection by the GSA.
B. The DWR will be:
Required to consider modifying groundwater basin
boundaries upon request of a local agency. DWR may
require the local agency to provide the information
necessary to justify changing the basin boundaries. The
California Water Commission (Commission) will be
required to hear and comment on any draft boundary
revisions.
Required to categorize each groundwater basin as a
high, medium, low, or very low priority by January 1,
2017. DWR will be required to reassess the
categorizations with every update of the California
Water Plan (Bulletin 118). This bill establishes the
criteria that will inform the categorization.
Required to develop best management practices
(BMPs) for the sustainable management of groundwater by
January 1, 2017. The BMPs must be developed with at
least three public meetings throughout the state and one
at a public meeting of the Commission.
Required to provide technical assistance to
groundwater extractors to promote water conservation.
Allowed to provide technical assistance to a GSA
upon request.
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
5
Required to periodically review GSPs, at least
every five years, for compliance with required elements
and whether the GSP is likely to achieve the
sustainability goal for the basin. The first review
must occur within two years of its submission by a GSA.
DWR may recommend correction actions to address any
deficiencies it identifies.
DWR will be required to develop, in consultation
with the SWRCB, guidelines for evaluating GSPs and
implementations of GSPs. The development of the
guidelines will be exempt from the Administrative
Procedures Act, but will need to be accomplished in a
public process.
Required to post on its Internet Web site adopted
GSPs and provide 60 days for the public to submit
comments to DWR regarding the plan.
Authorized to determine, in consultation with the
SWRCB, that a GSP is inadequate or is being
insufficiently implemented.
C. The SWRCB will be:
Authorized to use the Water Rights Fund to fund
its costs associated with the SWRCB's oversight and
enforcement responsibilities in groundwater.
Required to adopt a schedule of fees to recover
costs associated with its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities. The fees will be required to be set
in an amount sufficient to cover all costs incurred and
expended from the Water Rights Fund, though the costs
will be able to be recovered over a period of years
rather than immediately in the year in which the costs
were incurred.
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
6
Allowed to designate a basin as a probationary
basin if certain conditions are met, such as DWR has
determined that no GSA is formed by January 1, 2017, or
no adequate GSP or alternative has been developed by
January 1, 2020, and the SWRCB finds that the basin is
in a state of long-term overdraft.
Allowed to develop an interim plan for a
probationary basin if a GSA has failed to remedy the
deficiency with their GSP or implementation of their
GSP. The interim plan will be required to be developed
with a public hearing and will be required to contain
specified information.
Allowed to rescind the interim plan if it, in
consultation with DWR, determines that the GSP or
alternative has been made adequate.
Be allowed to issue a cease and desist order for
violations of any interim plan it develops.
Background
California is the last state without an enforceable set of
statewide groundwater management standards. While some of
California's groundwater basins are sustainably managed, many
are not.
A number of different entities may manage some aspect of
groundwater in California. These include:
Special Districts . Many types of special districts have some
groundwater related authorities under the water code and other
statutes. Such districts include county water districts,
municipal utility districts, community service districts, and
water replenishment districts.
Special Act Districts . The Legislature has created a number
of special districts whose specific purpose is to manage one
groundwater basin or another. These include agencies such as
the Orange County Water District and Fox Canyon Groundwater
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
7
Management Agency.
Court Appointed Watermasters . In an adjudication, the court
determines who has rights to pump from the groundwater basin,
how much they can pump, etc. The court also typically
appoints someone to be the "Watermaster" whose job is to
ensure that the basin is managed in accordance with the
court's decree.
Cities and Counties . The courts have held that cities and
counties, under their general police powers, have the
authority to enact ordinances regarding groundwater. More
than 20 counties have done so, generally addressing issues
such as banning transfers of groundwater out of the county.
Counties also issue drilling permits for water wells.
The powers to manage groundwater vary. In most special act
districts, the authorizing act allows the agency to require
groundwater users to report their extractions to the agency, who
can then levy fees for groundwater management or water supply
replenishment. Some acts also provide the special district the
authority to limit exports and extractions.
For most non-special act districts, the authority to manage
groundwater derives from what is commonly referred to as AB 3030
(Water Code Section 10750 et seq.). AB 3030 allows, but does
not require, certain defined existing local agencies to develop
groundwater management plans in defined groundwater basins and
subbasins.
An AB 3030 plan can be developed only after a public hearing and
adoption of a resolution of intention to adopt a groundwater
management plan. If landowners representing more than 50% of
the assessed value of lands within the proposed district do not
protest the plan, the plan can be adopted within 35 days. If
landowners representing a majority of the assessed value in the
proposed district oppose the plan, cannot be adopted and no new
plan may be attempted for one year.
AB 3030 plans cannot be adopted in adjudicated basins or in
basins where groundwater is managed under other sections of the
Water Code without the permission of the court or the other
agency.
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
8
Once the plan is adopted, rules and regulations must be adopted
to implement the program called for in the plan. Many plans
that have been adopted are relatively simple and in some cases
are a means of defining boundaries.
There are 149 adopted AB 3030 plans.
If a local agency wishes to receive state funds administered by
DWR for groundwater projects or for other projects that directly
affect groundwater levels or quality, the local agency must have
an AB 3030 plan or equivalent groundwater management plan meets
specific requirements. These requirements are sometimes known
as "SB 1938 [Machado, Chapter 603, Statutes of 2002]
requirements."
This January, the Governor released his final California Water
Action Plan (CWAP). Among the many initiatives in the CWAP is a
call to improve sustainable groundwater management:
Groundwater is a critical buffer to the impacts of
prolonged dry periods and climate change on our water
system. The administration will work with the Legislature
to ensure that local and regional agencies have the
incentives, tools, authority and guidance to develop and
enforce local and regional management plans that protect
groundwater elevations, quality, and surface
water-groundwater interactions. The administration will
take steps, including sponsoring legislation, if necessary,
to define local and regional responsibilities and to give
local and regional agencies the authority to manage
groundwater sustainably and ensure no groundwater basin is
in danger of being permanently damaged by over drafting.
When a basin is at risk of permanent damage, and local and
regional entities have not made sufficient progress to
correct the problem, the state should protect the basin and
its users until an adequate local program is in place.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
9
No additional state costs for fiscal year (FY) 2014-15 through
FY 2018-19 to the DWR for initial activities.
Annual costs $3.5 to $4 million from the General Fund
beginning in FY 2017-18 to DWR to review plans and to provide
ongoing technical support.
Annual costs of $260,000 to $390,000 from the Water Rights
Funds (special) for FY 2014-15 through FY 2016-17 to the SWRCB
for initial activities.
Annual costs of $325,000 to $600,000 from the General Fund
beginning in FY 2017-18 to the SWRCB for review of GSPs.
Unknown annual costs, estimated to be approximately $1.5 M,
from the Water Rights Fund (special) to the SWRCB for
enforcement actions beginning in FY 2017-18. These costs
would be at least partially offset by fees.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/14)
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Association of California Water Agencies
California Groundwater Council
California Tribal Business Alliance
California Trout
California Water Foundation
California Waterfowl Association
Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Water Action
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
Community Water Center
Groundwater Resources Association of California
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Irvine Ranch Water District
Klamath Forest Alliance
Klamath Riverkeeper
Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Orange County Water District
Pala Band of Mission Indians
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
10
Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
Trout Unlimited
Union of Concerned Scientists
United States Department of Defense, Regional Environmental
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/16/14)
African American Farmers of California
Agricultural Council of California
Allied Grape Growers
Almond Hullers & Processors Association
Association of California Egg Farmers
Blue Diamond Growers
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Ammonia Company
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Blueberry Association
California Canning Peach Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Dairies, Inc.
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain & Feed
California Groundwater Association
California League of Food Processors
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Floral Association
California Tomato Growers Association
California Warehouse Association
California Women for Agriculture
Campos Brothers Farms
Coachella Valley Water Agency
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
11
Dairy Farmers of America-Western Area
Del Monte Foods
Desert Water Agency
Family Business Association
Family Winemakers
Fruit Growers Supply Company
Grower-Shipper Association of Central California
Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
Counties
Kern County
Land O' Lakes
Nisei Farmers League
Pacific Coast Producers
Raisin Bargaining Association
Rural County Representatives of California
Stockton East Water District
San Joaquin County
Sun-Maid Growers of California
Sunsweet Growers Inc.
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association
Zone 7 Water Agency
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the California Water
Foundation (CWF), "AB 1739 addresses one of California's most
pressing water management issues - the need for improved and
sustainable groundwater management. The current drought and its
immediate impacts to the state's groundwater resources compel us
to search for solutions now so we are better prepared for
further droughts. Improved groundwater management will protect
critical water supplies and provide ecosystem and economic
benefits to the mid- and long-term.
"A new statewide policy for sustainable groundwater management
is urgently needed, and AB 1739 is an important piece of this
discussion. Numerous stakeholders have been involved and are
continuing to toward together on this legislation and ? SB 1168
[Pavley]. CWF is working with both authors to help ensure that
these bills provide the right provisions to empower local
groundwater management agencies with new tools and authorities,
and to create an appropriate state 'backstop' that will allow
the state to intervene, only when needed, to ensure groundwater
management goals are met."
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
12
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to the California Farm
Bureau Federation, "We are concerned the current process is
rushed to meet arbitrary deadlines without adequate time to
address such a complex issue. This measure will have huge
long-term economic impacts on farms, the State and local
economies and county tax roles, with a very real potential to
devalue land and impact farms and businesses viability and in
turn impact jobs. We believe groundwater must be managed
locally/regionally and that overlying property rights are
protected to avoid a taking. Without addressing these issues
with stakeholder input, this measure will certainly create a
significant fiscal impact to the state when many are forced to
defend their overlying property rights through adjudication.
"Overall, Farm Bureau believes we do not have a groundwater
problem solely from a lack of regulation, but from a failure to
update our water capture and delivery system to today's
conditions. Any legislation that creates a new groundwater
management regime must be coupled with real, substantive actions
to increase surface water supplies and restore water supply
reliability. The complexities of groundwater, groundwater
management and interactions with surface water are too great to
rush to judgment and to an isolated solution. We are not
suggesting the status quo, nor are we suggesting do nothing, but
we do recommend a carefully thought through process to develop
appropriate protections of our groundwater resources for future
generations. For these reasons we are actively engaged with
others to develop a path forward, but we must oppose AB 1739."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-24, 5/28/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Daly, Dickinson, Fong, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hern�ndez, Jones-Sawyer, Levine,
Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea,
John A. P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle, Donnelly, Fox,
Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Linder,
Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Nestande, Olsen,
Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
CONTINUED
AB 1739
Page
13
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Dababneh, Eggman, Frazier, Gray,
Hall, Holden, Vacancy
RM:d 8/17/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED