BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 2453 HEARING DATE: June 24, 2014
AUTHOR: Achadjian URGENCY: No
VERSION: March 28, 2014 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: No
SUBJECT: Paso Robles Basin Water District.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Paso Robles Area Subbasin.
The Paso Robles Area Subbasin is located in northern San Luis
Obispo County and southern Monterey County. According to the
Department of Water Resources, it is a subbasin of the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin.
The subbasin supplies water for 29 percent of the County's
population and an estimated 40 percent of the agricultural
production of the County. The municipal and industrial (M&I),
domestic, and agricultural demands in the Basin currently rely
exclusively on groundwater (including the underflow of streams).
The M&I water demands include the cities of Paso Robles and
Atascadero, the communities of Templeton, Shandon, Creston, San
Miguel, Bradley, Camp Roberts, and the small community systems
in Whitley Gardens and Garden Farms. Individual domestic
groundwater users and isolated subdivisions are located
throughout the Basin, often in the more rural areas dispersed
among the agricultural areas. Agricultural water users
constitute an estimated 67 percent of the pumpage in the Basin
and are concentrated on the alluvial valleys of the streams and
rivers and along the Highway 46 corridor.
Groundwater Management.
California does not currently require active management of
groundwater on a statewide basis. In 1992 the legislature
passed and the governor signed AB 3030 (Costa). That bill
provided a mechanism for local agencies to voluntarily create
Groundwater Management Plans (GMP), also known as AB 3030 plans.
Those statutes were later amended by SB 1938 (Machado) to
require any public agency seeking State funds administered
1
through DWR for the construction of any groundwater projects or
groundwater quality projects to prepare and implement a GMP with
certain specified components. New requirements included
establishing Basin Management Objectives, preparing a plan to
involve other local agencies in a cooperative planning effort,
and adopting monitoring protocols that promote efficient and
effective groundwater management.
A local agency that adopts a groundwater management plan under
the provisions of AB 3030 (as amended) has the authority of a
water replenishment district, including the authority to fix and
collect fees and assessments for groundwater management.
However it appears that no agency with an AB 3030 plan has opted
to use those replenishment district authorities.
In 2011, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (District) and the City of Paso Robles
completed developing a groundwater management plan, funded in
part by state grants, that appears to meet the SB 1938
standards.
Groundwater management is also achieved through local
groundwater ordinances. Ordinances are laws adopted by local
agencies such as cities or counties. More than twenty counties
have adopted groundwater ordinances, and others are being
considered. The authority of counties to regulate groundwater
has been challenged, but in 1995 the California Supreme Court
declined to review a lower court decision (Baldwin vs. Tehama
County) that holds that state law does not occupy the field of
groundwater management and does not prevent cities and counties
from adopting ordinances to manage groundwater under their
police powers. However, the precise nature and extent of the
police power of cities and counties to regulate groundwater is
uncertain.
On February 25th 2014, the County of San Luis Obispo Board of
Supervisors approved a resolution adopting the New Development
Water Conservation Program. The program implements the Paso
Robles Groundwater Basin Urgency Ordinance (Ordinance No.3246),
which requires all new development in the Paso Robles
Groundwater Basin Area to offset new water use through
verifiable evidence or participation in an Approved County Water
Conservation Program.
More than 20 types of local agencies are authorized by statute
to provide water for various beneficial purposes. Many of these
agencies also have statutory authority to institute some form of
2
groundwater management. Most of these agencies are identified in
the Water Code, but their specific authority related to
groundwater management varies. Local agencies with authority to
deliver water for beneficial uses and may have authority to
institute some groundwater management include:
Community Services District
County Sanitation District
County Service Area
County Water Authority
County Water District
County Water Works District
Flood Control & Water Conservation District
Irrigation District
Metropolitan Water District
Municipal Utility District
Municipal Water District
Public Utility District
Reclamation District
Recreation and Park District
Resort Improvement District
Resource Conservation District
Water Conservation District
Water District
Water Replenishment District
Water Storage District
The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District has, to date, taken the lead on groundwater management
efforts in the County.
Greater authority to manage groundwater has been granted to a
small number of local agencies or districts created through a
special act of the Legislature. Currently, 13 local agencies
have specific groundwater management authority as a result of
the creation of special act districts. The specific authority of
each agency varies, but they can generally be grouped into two
general categories: 1) the agency has authority to limit export
and extraction (upon evidence of overdraft or threat of
overdraft) or 2) the agency does not have authority to limit
extraction but the users in the basin are required to report
extractions to the agency (who can levy fees from groundwater
management or water supply replenishment).
Change in Groundwater Levels.
Groundwater levels in the western portion of the Paso Robles
Area Subbasin have declined in excess of 70 feet since 1997
3
during a period when precipitation was just slightly less than
the long-term average annual precipitation. The area with the
greatest change in groundwater elevation is near where highway
46 enters the City of Paso Robles, and has been shown to have
the greatest and most consistent decline of water levels since
1980. While there is no perennial yield estimate for this area,
the sustained groundwater level decline represents a stressing
of the groundwater resource and has resulted in water quality
problems or has required wells to be deepened.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would authorize, under the California Water District
Law, the governing board structure and powers of the Paso Robles
Basin Water District in San Luis Obispo County, with the
district's boundaries to be established by the San Luis Obispo
County Local Agency Formation Commission.
The bill would authorize the Paso Robles Basin Water District to
exercise the authorities provide under AB 3030 (as amended) and
declares that the creation of the district shall not modify the
powers of the County of San Luis Obispo or the San Luis Obispo
County Flood and Water Conservation District.
The bill would also establish the governing and voting structure
for the district.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the Paso Robles Agricultural Alliance for
Groundwater Solutions (PRAAGS) and the California Association of
Winegrape Growers (CAWG), "The latest update to the county's
Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Model indicates groundwater has
been in decline for a number of years. A conventional
California Water District model, among others, was considered
and found not to meet the diverse needs of the various local
interests."
"AB 2453 proposes to create a unique governing structure for the
Paso Robles Basin Water District should it be established by the
San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission. The
governance structure propose in the measure is a nine-member
board of directors, comprised of three at-large members elected
by registered voters in the district and six members elected on
the basis of acreage - two each from small, medium, and large
landowners, respectively."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
A coalition of environmental organizations write, "While we
4
support local management of groundwater supply, the candidate
qualification and voting process to form and determine Paso
Robles Basin Water District directors proposed in AB 2453 are
unfair to local residents who do not own large acreage of land.
As written, AB 2453 incorporates an acreage-based voting model
to form and elect 6 out of the 9 water district directors and
requires that those running for the position of director be
landowners themselves. There would be nine directors elected to
the board: two elected by large landowners, two elected by
medium landowners, two elected by small landowners, and three
members at large elected by all registered voters. The vote to
decide whether or not to form this type of water district is
strictly acreage-based. This type of voting system and
landownership requirements for water district directors will
send a signal to local residents that their votes and opinions
do not have the same weight as their neighbors who own land or
more land. We would like to see a system where residents are
treated equally regardless of the amount of lands owned. This
could be done by putting in place a one-voter-one-vote system
and removing the landownership requirement for eligibility to be
a director."
COMMENTS
Most of the Debate is Outside Our Jurisdiction. Most of the
debate on this bill has been regarding the election process for
the board and the membership of the board - issues not in our
jurisdiction. Our focus is on whether or not the district would
have sufficient powers and authorities to manage its share of
the groundwater subbasin. The Senate Committee on Governance
and Finance, which heard this bill on June 18, 2014, addressed
the election process and membership of the board.
Actions in Previous Committees. The Senate Governance and
Finance Committee heard AB 2453 on June 18. The committee
analysis and the ensuing debate in committee focused largely on
the issues of the election process for the board and the
membership of the board. The bill passed out of committee 6-0,
with a commitment from the author to take amendments on the
governance components of the bill in the Senate Natural
Resources and Water Committee. The amendments do the following:
Specify that three members of the district's governing board
who are to be elected at large, on a one-voter/one-vote basis,
to be elected from among all eligible voters from within the
district.
Specify that the formation process used to establish the Paso
5
Robles Basin Water District, including both the petition and
election, shall be done on a one-landowner/one-vote basis and
not weighted voting based on property holdings.
Address technical amendments raised in the Governance and
Finance Committee's analysis.
What About Managing The Subbasin? Very few letters addressed
issues regarding the powers and authorities necessary to manage
the groundwater subbasin. Those that did tended to oppose the
bill and argued that one of the reasons the bill was unnecessary
was because there had already been much work towards groundwater
management, and that existing institutions were sufficient.
What Management Powers Would It Have? The bill proposes to
organize the district under the California Water Districts Act.
That Act allows districts, subject to LAFCo authorization, to
have fairly broad powers for the acquisition and distribution of
water. However, none of those powers are specific to managing
groundwater.
This bill proposes to address the lack of groundwater specific
authorities by granting the district the authority afforded to
local agencies as provided in the AB 3030 statutes, as those
statutes may be amended. The AB 3030 statutes are focused
largely on the development and implementation of AB 3030 plans.
As noted above, an agency that complies with those statutes,
which would include developing its own groundwater management
plan, would also have the authority of a water replenishment
district, including the authority to fix and collect fees and
assessments for groundwater management. However, replenishment
districts are largely focused on acquiring water and recharging
the subbasin. It is not clear whether or not the ultimate
solution to the Paso Robles Area Subbasin is to recharge the
subbasin with imported water.
Must LAFCo Accept All Powers Granted Under AB 3030? As noted in
the Senate Governance and Finance Committee analysis of this
bill, "AB 2453 specifies that, if formed under the California
Water District Code principal act, the Paso Robles Basin Water
District would have the authorities specified [through AB 3030].
The language in the bill suggests that the district also would
have the authorities authorized under the principal act, which
would be subject to LAFCO review. In effect, the district would
be subject to LAFCO review for some powers, but not those
granted statutorily by the bill. The Committee may wish to
clarify that if formed, the district's authority granted under
AB 2453 also would be subject to LAFCO review." See Amendment
6
1.
What Powers Do Other Groundwater Management Agencies Have? As
noted above, the Legislature has created 13 special act
districts, with powers and authorities specifically designed for
groundwater management agencies. For example, the Fox Canyon
Groundwater Management Agency Act grants that agency authorities
such as (not an exhaustive list):
Collect data and conduct technical and other investigations of
all kinds in order to carry out the provisions of this act.
Recommend and encourage waste water reuse and other water
development projects.
By ordinance, exercise any of the following powers:
Require conservation practices and measures within the
affected portion of its territory.
Control groundwater extractions by regulating, limiting,
or suspending extractions from extraction facilities, the
construction of new extraction facilities, the enlarging of
existing extraction facilities, and the reactivation of
abandoned extraction facilities.
Commence and prosecute legal actions to enjoin
unreasonable uses or methods of use of water-within the
agency or outside the territory of the agency to the extent
those uses or methods of use adversely affect the
groundwater supply within the agency.
Impose spacing requirements on new extraction facility
construction to minimize well interference.
Impose reasonable operating regulations on extraction
facilities to minimize well interference, including
requiring pumpers to operate on a rotation basis.
By ordinance, require extraction facilities to be registered
with the agency within 30 days of notice being given to the
operator of the extraction facility.
By ordinance, require that the operator of a registered
extraction facility provide the agency annually with the
following information regarding the extraction facility:
The name and address of the operator of the extraction
facility.
The name and address of the owner of the land upon which
the extraction facility is located.
A description of the equipment associated with the
extraction facility.
The location of the water extraction facility.
By ordinance, require extraction facilities to be equipped
with waterflow measuring devices installed and calibrated by
the agency or, at the agency's option, by the extraction
facility operator.
7
The committee may wish to allow the local LAFCo, when
establishing the Paso Robles Basin Water District, to also
incorporate any powers and authorities granted to the Fox Canyon
Groundwater Management Agency Act that the LAFCo deems
appropriate. See Amendment 2.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1: Clarify that if formed, the district's
authority granted under AB 3030 also would be subject to
LAFCO review.
AMENDMENT 2: Allow the local LAFCo, when establishing the
Paso Robles Basin Water District, to also incorporate any
powers and authorities granted to the Fox Canyon
Groundwater Management Agency Act that the LAFCo deems
appropriate.
SUPPORT
California Association of Winegrape Growers
City of El Paso de Robles
Family Winemakers of California
Frank. R. Mecham, Supervisor, San Luis Obispo County
Mesa Vinyard Management Inc.
Paso Robles Agricultural Alliance for Groundwater Solutions
(PRAAGS)
Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Blue Ribbon Commission
Pro Water Equity
Road Runner Farm
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
Vino Farms, LLC
Wine Institute
Individuals (86)
OPPOSITION
Debbie Arnold, Supervisor, San Luis Obispo County
California Coastal Protection Network
California Labor Federation
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California Water Impact Network
Center for biological diversity
Clean Water Action California
Community Water Center
8
Defenders of Wildlife
Desal Response Group
Food & Water Watch
Moonrise Ranch
North Country Water
Planning and Conservation League
San Luis Obispo County Cattlemen's Association
Sierra Club California
Southern California Watershed Alliance
United Farm Workers
Individuals (54)
9