BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 848
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 848
AUTHOR: Wolk
AMENDED: February 12, 2014
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: February 19,
2014
URGENCY: Yes CONSULTANT: Rachel Machi
Wagoner
SUBJECT : SAFE DRINKING WATER, WATER QUALITY, AND WATER
SUPPLY ACT OF 2014
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Approved by the voters, enacted the Water Security, Clean
Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002
(Proposition 50) , which authorized $3.4 billion (B) in
general obligation bonds to fund a variety of water projects
and provides the following to address water quality issues:
a) $640 million (M) for integrated regional water
management plan (IRWMP), which among other things
addresses pollution reduction, water treatment, and land
and water acquisitions to improve or protect water
quality.
b) $435M for safe drinking water for small community
drinking water system upgrades, contaminant removal and
treatment, water quality monitoring, and drinking water
source protection.
c) $370M for clean water and water quality projects,
including water pollution prevention, water recycling,
water quality improvements, coastal nonpoint source
pollution control, Lake Tahoe water quality improvements,
and land and water acquisitions to protect water quality
in the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain region.
d) $100M for desalination projects, treatment or removal
SB 848
Page 2
of specified contaminants, and drinking water
disinfecting projects.
2) Approved by voters, enacted the Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) , which authorized
$5.388B in general obligation bonds to fund safe drinking
water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway
and natural resource protection, water pollution and
contamination control, state and local park improvements,
public access to natural resources, and water conservation
efforts. More specifically, Proposition 84 provides the
following to address water quality issues:
a) $1.525B for safe drinking water and water quality
projects, including:
i) $10M to fund emergency and urgent actions to
ensure safe drinking water supplies.
ii) $180M for small community drinking water
system infrastructure improvements and related
actions to meet safe drinking water standards.
iii) $50M to provide the state share needed to
leverage federal funds to assist communities in
providing safe drinking water.
iv) $80M to provide the state share needed to
leverage federal funds to assist communities in
making infrastructure investments necessary to
prevent pollution of drinking water sources.
v) $60M for projects to prevent or reduce
contamination of groundwater that serves as drinking
water.
vi) $1B for projects to meet the long-term water
needs of the state, including the delivery of safe
drinking water and the protection of water quality
and the environment.
vii) $130M to implement Delta water quality
SB 848
Page 3
improvement projects that protect drinking water
supplies.
viii) $15M for projects that reduce the discharge of
pollutants from agricultural operations into surface
waters of the state.
b) $90M for stormwater pollution reduction and prevention
to protect rivers, lakes, and streams.
c) $540M to prevent contamination and degradation of
coastal waters and watersheds.
d) $90M for urban greening projects that include, among
other things, improvements to water quality.
Proposed Bond Currently On November 2014 Ballot : SBx7 2
(Cogdill), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009, provided for the
submission of a bond act, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, to the voters at the
November 2, 2010, statewide general election. However, the
bond act has been postponed twice and is currently expected to
be on the ballot for the November 4, 2014 election. SBx7 2
provides a total of $11.14B to finance a safe drinking water
and water supply reliability program, and includes the
following to address water quality issues:
1) Chapter 5. Drought Relief ($455M):
a) $190M for purposes, among other things, such as water
recycling and related infrastructure and groundwater
cleanup.
b) $75M for small community wastewater treatment
projects.
c) $80M for the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Up to $8M for projects within the City of Maywood to
provide safe drinking water.
d) $20M for water quality and public health projects on
the New River.
SB 848
Page 4
2) Chapter 6. Water Supply Reliability: Eligible projects to
implement an adopted IRWMP:
a) Funds may be used for investing in new water
technology, meeting state water recycling and water
conservation goals, adapting to climate change impacts,
reducing contributions to climate change, or other
projects to improve statewide water management systems.
b) $350M for conveyance projects that, among other
things, mitigate conditions of groundwater overdraft,
saline water intrusion, water quality degradation or
subsidence, or provide safe drinking water for
disadvantaged communities and economically distressed
areas.
3) Chapter 7. Delta Sustainability ($2.25B):
a) $750M for projects in the Delta, including, among
other things, improving drinking water quality derived
from the Delta, and improving water quality facilities
and infrastructure. At least $50M of the $750M for
improvements to wastewater treatment facilities upstream
of the Delta to improve Delta water quality.
b) $1.5B for projects to protect and enhance the
sustainability of the Delta ecosystem, including, among
other things, projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from exposed Delta soil, and projects that reduce and
remediate mercury contamination of the Delta and its
watersheds.
4) Chapter 8. Statewide Water System Operational Improvement
($3B): Eligible projects for funding include, among other
things, groundwater contamination prevention or remediation
that provide water storage benefits, water quality
improvements in the Delta, or in other river systems, or
that clean up and restore groundwater resources.
5) Chapter 9. Conservation and Watershed Protection ($1.785B):
$50 million to the California State University for the
purposes of funding research and education efforts on, among
other things, water use and water quality.
SB 848
Page 5
6) Chapter 10. Groundwater Protection and Water Quality ($1B):
Funds are to be used for projects preventing or reducing
contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of
drinking water.
7) Chapter 11. Water Recycling Program ($1B): Funds are to be
used for water recycling and advanced treatment technology
projects.
This bill :
1) Replaces the $11.14B water bond that is currently on the
November 2014 ballot with a new $6.825B general obligation
bond titled "The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and
Water Supply Act of 2014."
2) Seeks voter approval to make unappropriated bond funds from
specific water bonds, which were authorized in 2000 and
earlier, eligible for appropriation for water supply
projects.
3)Organizes the proposed bond measure as follows (bolded
sections include provisions specifically related to water
quality):
--------------------------------------------------------
|Chapter |Short Title | |
|1. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |Findings and Declarations | |
|2. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |Definitions | |
|3. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |Safe Drinking Water and Water |$ 900M |
|4. |Quality Projects | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |Water Supply Enhancement Projects | 2,000 |
|5. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
SB 848
Page 6
|Chapter |Sacramento San Joaquin Delta | 1,200 |
|6. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |Watershed and Ecosystem | 1,700 |
|7. |Improvements | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |Water Storage Projects | 1,025 |
|8. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |General Provisions | |
|9. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
|Chapter |Fiscal Provisions |________ |
|10. | | |
|---------+------------------------------------+---------|
| | | |
| | |$6.825B |
--------------------------------------------------------
4)Chapter 4. Safe Drinking Water and Water Quality Projects .
Authorizes $900M in funding for the following:
a) $400M to the State Water Resources Control
Board (Board) for projects to address immediate safe
drinking water needs.
Up to $25M may be used for technical
assistance to disadvantaged communities.
At least 10% of the funds allocated for
projects serving severely disadvantaged communities.
Up to $10M may be used to finance
development and demonstration of new technologies
and related facilities for water contaminant removal
and treatment appropriate for use by small and state
small water systems.
b) $100M for grants and direct expenditures to
finance urgent public health emergency actions to
ensure that safe drinking water supplies are available
to all Californians.
c) $400M to the Board for deposit in the Small
Communities Grant Subaccount for grants for wastewater
treatment projects. Requires the Board to give
SB 848
Page 7
priority to projects that serve disadvantaged
communities and severely disadvantaged communities,
and to projects that address public health hazards.
Eligible projects include projects that identify,
plan, design, and implement regional mechanisms to
consolidate wastewater systems or provide affordable
treatment technologies.
Of the $400M, allocates $20M to the Board for grants
and loans to private well and septic owners to protect
drinking water sources.
5)Chapter 5. Water Supply Enhancement Projects . Provides $2B
in funding for the following:
a) $1.5B to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for
competitive grants for projects that develop, improve, or
implement an adopted IRWMP and improve the quality or
supply of safe drinking water, reduce the amount of water
imported to the region, or address any of the following
other critical water supply reliability issues:
Groundwater clean up or pollution
prevention in sources of drinking water.
Advanced water treatment technology
projects to remove contaminants from drinking water,
water recycling, and related projects, such as
distribution or groundwater recharge infrastructure.
Urban and agricultural water conservation
and water use efficiency projects.
Other integrated water infrastructure
projects that address one or more water management
activities and improve the reliability or quality of
regional water supplies, including the repair or
replacement of aging water management
infrastructure.
Requires projects receiving IRWMP funds to have at least a
25% local match, but authorizes DWR to suspend or reduce
the cost share requirements for either of the following:
Projects serving disadvantaged communities,
or
Projects that result in a direct reduction
in water imported from the Delta.
SB 848
Page 8
To be eligible for IRWMP funding, requires a region to
comply with the following:
Have an adopted integrated regional water
management plan.
For each urban or agricultural water
supplier that would benefit from the project, have
adopted and submitted to DWR an urban or
agricultural water management plan, as appropriate.
Requires DWR to certify that the plans met the
requirements of the Urban or Agricultural Water
Management Planning Act, and the urban and
agricultural water conservation requirements
established under SBx7 7(2009, Steinberg).
For each local agency whose service area
includes a groundwater basin that would benefit from
a groundwater management project, have adopted and
submitted to DWR a groundwater management plan.
Requires DWR to certify that the groundwater
management plan met the requirements of the
Groundwater Management Planning Act.
Have a water budget that describes local
and imported water supplies and uses in sufficient
detail to inform long-term efforts towards
sustainable water management, and, where applicable,
include a description of any measures anticipated to
reduce the amount of water imported to the region in
the future. Requires DWR to develop guidelines for
complying with this requirement.
Requires, where applicable, an integrated
water management plan to be consistent with and
implement Water Code �85021 (state policy to reduce
reliance on the Delta).
Where applicable, IRWMP funding would be made available to
water agencies to assist in directly reducing the amount
of water imported from the Delta.
Requires the California Water Commission to review the
DWR's implementation of the IRWMP program and certify that
requirements for grant eligibility are met prior to DWR
making final grant awards.
SB 848
Page 9
$1.4B distributed to regions pursuant to a
specific schedule. The schedule is based on
each region receiving $50M and the balance of
the funds distributed to each region in
proportion to population.
$100M for grants for projects that
significantly advance the application and
effectiveness of innovative integrated regional
water management strategies. Prioritizes
projects that address groundwater overdraft and
related impacts. Eligible projects include the
following:
Innovative decision support
tools to model future regional climate
change impacts.
Groundwater management
plans and projects that further sustainable
groundwater management.
Other projects determined
by DWR to advance innovative strategies for
the integration of water management.
b) $500M to the Board for competitive grants for
projects that develop, implement, or improve a stormwater
capture and reuse plan and that capture and put to
beneficial use stormwater or dry weather runoff.
Stormwater capture and reuse projects developed pursuant
to an adopted integrated regional water management plan
are also eligible for funding provided the projects were
developed in substantive compliance with the Stormwater
Resources Planning Act. Eligible projects include any of
the following:
Projects that capture, convey, treat, or
put to beneficial use stormwater or dry weather
runoff.
The development of stormwater capture and
reuse plans.
Decision support tools, data acquisition,
and data analysis to identify and evaluate the
benefits and costs of potential stormwater capture
and reuse projects.
Projects that, in addition to improving
SB 848
Page 10
water quality, provide public benefits, such as
augmentation of water supply, flood control, open
space and recreation, and projects designed to mimic
or restore natural watershed functions.
Gives special consideration to plans or projects that
provide multiple benefits such as water quality, water
supply, flood control, natural lands, or recreation.
Requires a 25% local cost share for grant funds, which
may be suspended or reduced for disadvantaged
communities.
6)Chapter 6. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta . Provides $1.2B in
funding for the following:
a) $800M to the Delta Conservancy for water quality,
ecosystem restoration, fish protection facilities, and
community sustainability projects that benefit the Delta.
Eligible projects include:
i. Projects to improve water quality
facilities or projects that contribute to
improvements in water quality in the Delta.
ii. Habitat restoration, conservation, and
enhancement projects to improve the condition of
special status, at risk, endangered, or threatened
species in the Delta and the Delta counties.
iii. Projects to assist in preserving
economically viable and sustainable agriculture and
other economic activities in the Delta.
iv. Multibenefit recycled water projects that
improve groundwater management and Delta tributary
ecosystems.
v. Scientific studies and assessments that
support the Delta Science Program.
Requires a minimum of $500M be made available for
items i & ii above.
Requires the Conservancy to:
Achieve wildlife conservation objectives
through projects on public lands or voluntary
projects on private lands to the extent possible.
Funds could be used for payments to landowners for
SB 848
Page 11
the creation of measurable habitat improvements or
other improvements to the condition of endangered or
threatened species.
Coordinate, cooperate, and consult with the
city or county in which a grant is proposed to be
expended or an interest in real property is proposed
to be acquired and with the Delta Protection
Commission. Acquisitions shall be from willing
sellers only.
Requires grantees to demonstrate to the Conservancy
how local economic impacts, including impacts related
to the loss of agricultural lands, will be mitigated.
Authorizes the Conservancy to develop and implement a
competitive habitat credit exchange mechanism in order
to maximize voluntary landowner participation in
projects that provide measurable habitat or species
improvements in the Delta. These funds could not be
used to subsidize or decrease the mitigation
obligations of any party.
b) $400M to reduce the risk of levee failure and flood
in the Delta for any of the following:
Local assistance under the Delta levee
maintenance subventions program.
Special flood protection projects under
Chapter 2 (commencing with �12310) of Part 4.8 of
Division 6, as that chapter may be amended.
Levee improvement projects that increase
the resiliency of levees within the Delta to
withstand earthquake, flooding, or sea level rise.
Emergency response and repair projects.
7)Chapter 7. Watershed and Ecosystem Improvement . Provide
$1.7B in funding for the following:
a) $500M for water quality, river, and watershed
protection and restoration projects of statewide
importance outside of the Delta. Funds would be allocated
as follows:
$250M to implement the Klamath
Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement. Up to $50M
SB 848
Page 12
may be made available for restoration projects
in California pursuant to the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement provided that the full
$250M is not needed for dam removal projects.
$100M to help fulfill state obligations
under the Quantification Settlement Agreement.
$100M for projects that help fulfill
state obligations under the San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement.
$50M for projects that help fulfill state
obligations under the Tahoe Regional Planning
Compact. Funds to implement this provision
would be appropriated to the Tahoe Conservancy.
b)$875M for projects that protect and improve California's
watersheds, wetlands, forests, and floodplains. Funds
would be allocated to specific conservancies, the Wildlife
Conservation Board (WCB), and the Ocean Protection Council
(OPC) according to a specific schedule.
c)$250M to the Secretary for Natural Resources for a
competitive program to fund multibenefit watershed and
urban rivers enhancement projects in urban watersheds that
increase regional and local water self-sufficiency and
that meet at least two or more of the following
objectives:
Promote groundwater recharge and water
reuse.
Reduce energy consumption.
Use soils, plants, and natural processes to
treat runoff.
Create or restore native habitat.
Increase regional and local resiliency and
adaptability to climate change.
d) $20M to the Department of Parks and Recreation to
address public
health deficiencies in drinking water and wastewater
quality at state
parks.
e) $30M to the Board to fund watershed activities by
resources conservation districts.
SB 848
Page 13
f) $25M to the Board to fund competitive grants for special
districts and
nonprofit organizations for projects that reduce
or manage runoff
from agricultural lands for the benefit of
surface and groundwater
quality.
8) Chapter 8. Water Storage Projects . Provides $1.025B in
funding for the following:
a) $1B to the California Water Commission for
any of the following:
Surface storage projects identified in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Programmatic Record of Decision,
excluding projects at Lake Shasta.
Groundwater storage projects and
groundwater contamination prevention or remediation
projects that create additional groundwater storage
capacity.
Conjunctive use and reservoir reoperation
projects including associated infrastructure.
Projects that restore the capacity of
reservoirs currently impaired by sediment buildup,
seismic vulnerability, or other impairment.
Projects that result in a permanent
reduction of water exported from the Delta and a
transfer of the equivalent water right to instream
flow. Priority shall be given to projects that also
result in the permanent elimination of irrigation
runoff contributing to salinity in the San Joaquin
Valley.
Recycled water storage facilities.
A project within the Delta watershed must provide
measurable improvements to the Delta ecosystem.
Funds may be expended solely for the following public
benefits:
Ecosystem improvements, including, but not
limited to, changing timing of diversions,
improvement in flow conditions, temperature, or
SB 848
Page 14
other benefits that contribute to restoration of
aquatic ecosystems and native fish and wildlife.
Water quality improvements in the Delta or
in other river systems that provide significant
public trust resources or that clean up and restore
groundwater resources.
Flood control benefits, including, but not
limited to, increases in flood reservation space in
existing reservoirs by exchange for existing or
increased water storage benefits.
Requires the commission to select projects through a
competitive process based on expected public benefits
received for public investment. Requires the
commission, in consultation with the Department of
Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the Board, and DWR, to
develop and adopt, by regulation, methods for
quantification and management of public benefits. The
regulations must include priorities and relative
environmental value of ecosystem benefits provided by
DFW and the priorities and relative environmental
value of water quality benefits as provided by the
Board. Funds may not be expended for the costs of
environmental mitigation measures or compliance
obligations except for those associated with providing
the public benefits. The public benefit cost share of
a project may not exceed 50% of the total cost of the
project.
No funds may be allocated to a project until the
commission approves the project based on the following
determinations:
The commission has adopted the regulations
and specifically quantified and made public the cost
of the public benefits associated with the project.
DWR has entered into a contract with each
party that will derive benefits, other than public
benefits, from the project that ensures the party
will pay its share of the total costs of the
project. The benefits available to a party shall be
consistent with that party's share of total project
costs.
DWR has entered into a contract with DFW
SB 848
Page 15
and the Board, after those agencies have made a
finding that the public benefits of the project for
which that agency is responsible meet all the
requirements of this chapter, to ensure that public
contributions of funds pursuant to this chapter
achieve the public benefits identified for the
project.
The commission has held a public hearing
for the purposes of providing an opportunity for the
public to review and comment on the information
required to be prepared pursuant to this section.
The commission has found and determined
that the project is feasible, is consistent with all
applicable laws and regulations, and will advance
the long-term objectives of restoring ecological
health and improving water management, including the
beneficial uses of the Delta.
All environmental documentation has been
completed and all other federal, state, and local
approvals, certifications, and agreements required
to be completed have been obtained.
a) $25M to the department for studying the
feasibility of additional surface storage projects.
Funds provided by this provision are not available to
study the feasibility of any storage project
identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Programmatic
Record of Decision.
9)Other Provisions of the Bond .
All moneys provided by the bond are subject to
appropriation by the Legislature.
Requires the bonds authorized by this measure to be
prepared, executed, issued, sold, paid, and redeemed as
provided in the State General Obligation Bond Law except
those provisions restricting the use of bonds to fund
the costs of construction or acquisition of capital
assets.
Eligible applicants under this division are public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, public utilities,
mutual water companies, and Indian tribes having a
federally recognized governing body carrying out
substantial governmental duties in, and powers over, any
SB 848
Page 16
area. To be eligible for funding under this division, a
project proposed by a public utility that is regulated
by the Public Utilities Commission or a mutual water
company shall have a clear and definite public purpose
and shall benefit the customers of the water system.
Up to 10% of funds allocated for each program may
be used to finance planning and monitoring necessary for
the successful design, selection, and implementation of
the projects authorized under that program. Water
quality monitoring is required to be integrated into the
surface water ambient monitoring program administered by
the Board.
No more than 5% of the funds allocated for a
program may be used to pay the administrative costs of
that program.
Funds provided by this bond:
o Shall not be used to acquire land via
eminent domain.
o Shall not be used to support or pay for
the costs of environmental mitigation measures or
compliance obligations of any party except as part
of the environmental mitigation costs of projects
financed by this division.
o Shall not be expended to pay costs
associated with design, construction, operation,
maintenance, or mitigation of new Delta conveyance
facilities.
o Shall not be used to acquire or transfer
water rights except for a permanent dedication of
water for in stream purposes.
Projects funded with proceeds from this bond are
required to promote state planning priorities consistent
with Gov. Code �65041.1 and sustainable communities
strategies consistent with Gov. Code �65080(b)(2)(B).
Whenever feasible, restoration and ecosystem
protection projects must use the services of the
California Conservation Corps or certified community
conservation corps.
Special consideration is given to projects that
employ new or innovative technology or practices,
including decision support tools that demonstrate the
multiple benefits of integration of multiple
jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, water
SB 848
Page 17
supply, flood control, land use, and sanitation.
Exempts all bond funded programs, except those
funded by Chapter 8. Water Storage Projects, from
Administrative Law review of guidelines, funding
criteria, etc.
Each state agency administering a bond funded
competitive grant program is required to develop project
solicitation and evaluation guidelines. The guidelines
may include a limitation on the dollar amount of grants
to be awarded. Before disbursing grants, the state
agency must conduct three public meetings to consider
public comments prior to finalizing the guidelines. The
state agency must publish the draft solicitation and
evaluation guidelines on its Internet Web site at least
30 days before the public meetings. Upon adoption, the
state agency must transmit copies of the guidelines to
the fiscal committees and the appropriate policy
committees of the Legislature.
The State Auditor is required to conduct an annual
programmatic review and an audit of expenditures from
the fund. The State Auditor shall report its findings
annually on or before March 1 to the Governor and the
Legislature, and shall make the findings available to
the public.
The Legislature is authorized to enact legislation
necessary to implement programs funded by this measure.
1) Other Provisions of the Bill . Seeks voter approval
authorizing the Legislature to appropriate currently
unappropriated funds from specific water bonds. The funds
would then be available to be appropriated for grants and
direct expenditures to accomplish the purposes of Chapter 5.
Water Supply Enhancement Projects. The specific bond
measures with unappropriated balances are:
The Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law
of 1986
The Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988
The Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act of 1996
The Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000, the Safe
Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and
Flood Protection Bond
COMMENTS :
SB 848
Page 18
1)Purpose of Bill . According to the author:
California faces critical water challenges in the
next decade. Legal battles and controversial
projects have slowed the response to the ecosystem
crisis in the Delta. Small communities throughout
the Central Valley lack access to safe drinking
water. Our cities face some of the highest flood
risks of any metropolitan areas in the country.
Climate change is stressing water supplies throughout
California.
Funding to meet these water challenges is dwindling.
Yet, controversy and lack of fiscal restraint have
resulted in water bond proposals that are not viable
and cannot be supported by California's voters.
SB 848 is a $6.8 billion water bond that focuses on
California's most critical and broadly supported
water needs: regional and local water supplies
throughout the state; critical drinking water needs;
delta ecosystem restoration and stronger levees to
improve water delivery; groundwater and surface water
storage that provide public benefits; and better
flood protection.
SB 848 would replace the $11.14B, pork-filled water
bond currently slated for the 2014 ballot-which is
too expensive and too controversial to ever pass with
the voters.
SB 848 doesn't fund everything. It doesn't fund
enormous tunnels or large projects that lack
consensus. But it does fund a great number of water
supply improvements for every community in the state,
including new water systems, surface and groundwater
storage projects, groundwater cleanup, recycling and
conservation. Only the most fiscally competitive
projects will be funded.
SB 848 focuses on financing the most cost-effective
local and regional projects, projects that will
SB 848
Page 19
provide greater water supply independence and
self-reliance while delivering a more clean and
reliable supply of water for all of California's
communities.
2)Related Measures . SB 927 (Cannella and Vidak) amends the
water bond currently on the November 2014 ballot, reducing
the authorized amount from $11.14B to $9.217B, and renames
the measure the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water
Supply Act of 2014.
AB 1331 (Rendon) repeals the water bond currently on the
November 2014 ballot and replaces it with the Clean and Safe
Drinking Water Act of 2014, a $6.5B general obligation bond
to finance a variety of water resources related programs and
projects.
AB 1445 (Logue) repeals the water bond currently on the
November 2014 ballot and replaces it with the California
Water Infrastructure Act of 2014, a $5.8B general obligation
bond to finance public benefits associated with water storage
projects.
3)Amendments Needed .
a) Chapter 3: Definitions .
There are several terms used in Chapter 4 that do not have
statutory definitions.
Amendments are needed to clarify these terms. The
suggested definitions are derived from the current
practices used by state or federal agencies to implement
grant programs.
"Initial operation and maintenance costs" means those
initial, eligible, reimbursable costs under a
construction funding agreement that are incurred up
to, and including, initial startup testing of the
constructed project in order to deem the project
complete.
"Interim" means the limited period of time needed to
address the identified urgent need for safe drinking
SB 848
Page 20
water, not to exceed three years.
"Small water system" means a public water system that
serves 15 or more service connections but not more
than 3,300 persons and regularly serves drinking water
to more than an average of 25 individuals daily for
more than 60 days out of the year.
"State small water system" means a public water system
that serves at least five, but no more than 14,
service connections and does not regularly serve
drinking water to more than an average of 25
individuals daily for more than 60 days out of the
year.
b) Chapter 4. Safe Drinking Water and Water Quality
Projects .
i) �79722 allocates $400M for grants and loans "for
public water systems to meet drinking water standards
and ensure affordability." Within this section there
are several clarifying amendments needed to ensure that
the monies go to ensure clean drinking water.
(1) An amendment is needed to specify that the
grants and loans shall be made available to meet
primary or secondary safe drinking water standards or
contaminants identified by the state or federal
government for development of a primary or secondary
drinking water standard.
(2) The introduced version of the bill contained
language specifying, "Eligible recipients either
operate small or state small water systems in
disadvantaged communities and are public agencies or
incorporated mutual water companies or are public
agencies or nonprofit organizations authorized to act
on behalf of small or state small water systems in
disadvantaged communities."
The amended version of the bill specifies that small
water systems or state small water systems are
eligible entities, but removes other criteria. By
SB 848
Page 21
removing the criteria the bill now makes private
for-profit systems eligible for grant funding.
While it may be worthwhile to allow a private water
system to apply for funding or help to provide access
to safe drinking water, an amendment is needed to
explicitly state that a water system cannot use state
funds to the system's financial benefit by improving
water infrastructure and also charging the system's
rate payers for the same improvements.
(3) SB 244 (Wolk) (2011) requires a local agency
formation commission (LAFCo) to include in its
written statement a determination with respect to the
location and characteristics and the present and
planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of
public services, including sewers, water, and
structural fire protection needs or deficiencies, of
any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within
or adjacent to the sphere of influence.
An amendment is needed to require the Board, when
granting funding to projects where a LAFCo has
recommended extension of service, consolidation or
some other shared solution, to address it in the
feasibility study for the project.
(4) �79724 makes $100M available for public
health emergency actions to ensure that safe drinking
water supplies are available to all Californians and
specifies that eligible actions may include providing
an interim water supply, improvements to existing
water systems, establishing connections to adjacent
water systems, purchase, installation, and operation
and maintenance of interim water treatment equipment
and systems.
(a) An amendment is needed to allow this
money to additionally be used for wastewater
projects that urgently address potential
contamination of a drinking water source.
(b) There is no definition in statute of
SB 848
Page 22
"public health emergency actions" and the actions
allowed in this section are not consistent with
what has previously been considered necessary to
address a drinking water "emergency."
An amendment is needed to strike public health
emergency actions and replace with "urgent actions
needed to provide drinking water in disadvantaged
and severely disadvantaged communities that lack
access to safe drinking water.
(c) Similar to the non-emergency grants there
should be a limit on the size of these grants. The
committee suggests a $250,000 maximum but
recommends that further investigation be done on
the likely cost of candidate projects.
(d) Additionally, in order to clarify that
these funds should only be used for situations
requiring urgent action, an amendment is needed to
delete references to planning and design. Actions
to address a crisis that warrants an immediate
response should not include planning and design,
which tend to address longer-term solutions.
(e) Similarly (d) allows for grants for
"design, purchase, installation, and operation and
maintenance of interim water treatment equipment
and systems." This language is very broad and
would appear to allow for grants for entire water
systems rather than address critical and immediate
needs. An amendment is needed to limit the
language to purchase, installation, and operation
and maintenance of interim water treatment
equipment.
(5) �79726 provides $400M for grants for
wastewater treatment projects to keep contaminants
out of rivers, lakes, streams, groundwater, and
coastal waters, and for other projects to protect the
public and fish and wildlife from contaminated
sources of water.
SB 848
Page 23
(a) A technical amendment is needed to
clarify that money is to be deposited into the
State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small
Community Grant.
(b) �79726 (b) creates the Private Well and
Septic Systems Investment Fund and deposits $20M to
be used for "private well and septic owners to
protect drinking water sources and ensure safe and
affordable drinking water for all Californians."
An amendment is needed to clarify that this is not
a gift of public funds to individual residents.
(i) The word "private" implies
individual ownership. "Domestic" refers to
residential purposes and can apply to multiple
service connections. An amendment is needed to
delete the word "private" and replace it with
the word "domestic" in order to clarify that
this is not sepcifcally for individual
households.
(ii) An amendment is needed to add
requiring the Board to develop criteria for
allocation of these grants to specify that these
grants are for the benefit of small communities
to treat drinking water or protect drinking
water from contamination. The criteria should
include an income threshold equivalent to the
definition of a disadvantaged community
(c) Similar to �79722, which provides funds
for drinking water projects, an amendment is needed
to set aside $10M to provide technical assistance
to disadvantaged communities that need assistance
executing a wastewater project.
(6) �79735 provides $500M for "projects that
develop, implement, or improve a stormwater capture
and reuse plan, and that capture and put to
beneficial use stormwater or dry weather runoff."
Prior bonds provided funding for flood or stormwater
SB 848
Page 24
management. Stormwater capture and reuse is a new
type of project funded by a water bond so it may be
necessary for the Board to develop regulations on how
best to allocate this money. An amendment is needed
to require the Board to develop criteria for
allocation of these funds that ensures protection of
ground and surface water quality.
As this is a new purpose for bond funds, it is not
clear what specific types of projects would be funded
from this $500 M and how much those projects would
cost. Proposition 84 provided $90 M for stormwater
management. This is more than 5 times that amount.
The committee may wish to consider if this is the
appropriate amount to be set aside for this purpose.
(7) Additional Sections Needed .
(a) One of the major hurdles for eligible
recipients applying for grant funding is having a
capital reserve in place or having the ability to
accumulate enough reserve from ratepayers on an
affordable schedule.
An amendment is needed to add a section to the bond
that establishes a capital reserve fund at the
Board by providing $2.5M from funds allocated in
�79722 to start the fund. Individual communities
that receive grants pursuant to �79722 would be
able to utilize this reserve fund as a way to pool
their reserve resources allowing for establishment
of technical, managerial and financial capacity and
to pay for those reserves over an affordable
schedule.
(b) If the Board is going to provide
technical assistance funds for both drinking water
and wastewater projects then an amendment is needed
to add a section to allow the Board to administer
the funds together to maximize efficiency.
(c) Chapter 9 (General Provisions) specifies
a process by which guidelines must be adopted for
SB 848
Page 25
public participation and specifies how many
meetings must be conducted to engage the public.
The Board has an existing process in place that is
more robust than what is required by the bond. It
would be more efficient to allow the Board to
utilize its existing process. An amendment is
needed to allow the Board to utilize their process
in allocating the funds.
(d) Also, in Chapter 9, where the bill
clarifies that allocation of this bond shall comply
with other water laws, an amendment is needed to
add a subsection specifying that funds allocated
pursuant to this division shall comply with adopted
basin plans.
(e) Chapter 5 allocates $1.5B to DWR for
competitive grants for projects that develop,
improve, or implement an adopted IRWMP and improve
the quality or supply of safe drinking water,
reduce the amount of water imported to the region,
or address any of the following other critical
water supply reliability issues.
Because these funds are meant to be spent on regional
solutions that address both water supply and
quality concerns, it makes sense that both water
agencies that are responsible for supply and
quality be included in the allocation of these
funds. An amendment is needed to create a
committee that consists of both the Director of DWR
and the Chair of the Board to allocate the funds.
4)Recommendations .
a) Should recycled water be included in IRWMP funding or
should a portion of the IRWMP funding be allocated to the
Board for recycled water funding? Concerns by recycled
water proponents were raised during the Senate Natural
Resources and Water Committee hearing of this legislation
on February 11, 2014 that the IRWMP process is not the
most efficient way to allocate funds for recycled water
SB 848
Page 26
and the Board has a process for these projects with which
proponents are familiar. Is it prudent to utilize the
existing process at the Board for these types of projects?
b) Similarly, the Board has a current process for funding
groundwater cleanup projects. Should there be money
specifically allocated to the Board to utilize existing
processes for providing funding for groundwater cleanup as
opposed to using the IRWMP process?
4)Policy Questions .
a) Disadvantaged Communities . As raised during the
Senate Natural Resources and Water and Environmental
Quality Committees hearing on September 24, 2013, the
definition of disadvantaged community in this bond is the
same as used elsewhere in California law, including both
Propositions 50 and 84. However, the 2010 federal census
did not collect the household economic data necessary for
making this determination about small disadvantaged
communities. Therefore, many communities will have to
conduct income surveys in order to show that they meet the
definition in law. These surveys are an added expense and
can take time to conduct prior to submitting an
application for funding.
The committee has evaluated other potential tools for
identifying the communities most in need of these funds
and has not found a better indicator. The author may wish
to continue to explore this issue as the bill moves
forward to see if there are better ways to identify the
communities most in need.
b) Consistency with other bills ? There are several other
funding vehicles currently being discussed in the
Legislature that would address funding of water supply and
water quality projects. How does a new bond proposal fit
with budget proposals and potential legislation aimed at
addressing California's immediate drought needs? For
instance, the Governor's budget contains funds to extend
SB 848
Page 27
the Board's Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment
Program (GAMA). However, should that funding not be
included in the final budget, that program will need
funding and should be considered as part of the bond. This
committee may want to hear this bill again to ensure all
of the water quality funding vehicles fit together.
c) Is $900M sufficient to make an impact ? SB 848 contains
$900 million for drinking water and wastewater facility
improvements. As noted in the background materials from
the Senate Natural Resources and Water and Environmental
Quality Committees' hearing on September 24, 2013, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency estimated
that California's 20-year drinking water infrastructure
needs exceed $40 billion. While a bond can only
supplement a small portion of that need, will $900M be
sufficient to accomplish the Legislature's intent for this
bond?
5)Triple Referral to Senate Governance and Finance Committee .
This bill was heard by the Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee on February 11, 2014, and passed out with a vote of
6-0.
If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to
re-refer the bill to the Senate Governance and Finance
Committee.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : Big Sur Land Trust
California Association of Local Conservation
Corps
California Association of Resource Conservation
Districts
California Trout
City of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Ecology Action
Environmental Defense Fund
SB 848
Page 28
Friends of the Desert Mountains
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Leadership Counsel for Justice and
Accountability
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Natural Resources Defense Council
PolicyLink
Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz
County
Riverside County Supervisor John J. Benoit
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
Sierra Club California
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Sonoma County Water Agency
The Nature Conservancy
Trout Unlimited
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
Water Bond Coalition
OPPOSITION : Association of California Water Agencies
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners and Growers
Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Castaic Lake Water Agency
Eastern Municipal Water District
Kern County Water Agency
Mesa Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Mojave Water Agency
Monte Vista Water District
Nisei
Northern California Water Association
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
SB 848
Page 29
Senator Ben Hueso, 40th District
Southern California Water Committee
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water
District
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Municipal Water District
Westlands Water District
Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District