BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 985
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 6, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 985 (Pavley) - As Amended: June 24, 2014
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 8-6
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the requirements for cities, counties and
special districts to develop and implement voluntary stormwater
resource plans under the Storm Water Resources Act (Act) and
expands the plans to include dry weather runoff. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires plans to identify and prioritize stormwater and dry
weather runoff capture projects for implementation in a
quantitative manner, using a metrics-based and integrated
evaluation and analysis of multiple benefits as specified.
2)Requires cities, counties, and special districts to identify
opportunities to use existing public lands and easements and
buildings to capture, clean, store and use stormwater and dry
weather runoff either onsite or offsite. Also requires
projects and programs included in the plan to include decision
support tools and the necessary data to use the tools.
3) Requires plans to use measurable factors to identify,
quantify and prioritize potential stormwater and dry
weather runoff capture projects.
4)Deletes the requirement that plans are consistent with
integrated regional water management plans (IRWMPs).
5)Requires the development of a plan and compliance with the Act
in order to receive future bond funding for stormwater and dry
weather runoff capture projects but allows the use of future
bond funding to develop the plans.
SB 985
Page 2
6)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to
develop a policy for compliance with the Act by July 1, 2016.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time increased costs of approximately $390,000 (Waste
Discharge Permit Fund) for the SWRB to develop the required
policy
COMMENTS
1)Purpose. According to the author, in many parts of the state,
stormwater and dry weather runoff are underutilized sources of
surface water and groundwater supplies. Instead of being
viewed as a resource, they are often seen as a problem that
must be moved to the ocean as quickly as possible or as a
source of contamination, contributing to a loss of usable
water supplies and the pollution and impairment of rivers,
lakes, streams, and coastal waters.
This bill seeks to increase the usefulness and accountability
of stormwater and dry weather runoff projects in order to
maximize public benefits.
2)Background. The Stormwater Resources Act authorizes, but does
not require, cities, counties, and special districts to
develop and implement stormwater resource plans. These plans
are required to identify specific items, including
opportunities to augment local water supply through
groundwater recharge or storage for beneficial reuse of
stormwater, opportunities for source control for both
pollution and stormwater runoff volume and reuse of
stormwater, and projects to reestablish natural water drainage
treatment and infiltration systems. The plans must be
developed on a watershed basis and must provide for community
participation in plan development and implementation.
3) Stormwater and DryWeather Runoff. Stormwater is water
from rain or melting snow that does not soak into the
ground. It flows from rooftops, over streets, paved areas,
construction sites, bare soil, lawns, and land into storm
sewers and ditches. Some common pollutants found in storm
sewers and creeks include: animal waste, litter, motor oil,
yard clippings, fertilizers and pesticides, detergent and
other chemicals in car wash water and eroded sediment from
SB 985
Page 3
construction projects. Eventually, the polluted stormwater
flows directly to nearby creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and
the ocean degrading drinking water supplies, fish and
wildlife habitats, and downstream recreational areas
Dry weather runoff is typically contaminated water which finds
its way into storm drains from urban areas. It is composed
primarily of runoff from excess landscape irrigation, washing
of vehicles, hosing down of paved areas, storm drain
infiltration, natural groundwater from sub-drain systems and a
variety of other sources from urban activity. These nuisance
flows may be high in bacteriological contamination, nutrients,
oil and grease, and they may have high organic and inorganic
content, especially selenium.
4)Integrated Regional Water Management Program. According to
the Department of Water Resources, the fundamental principle
of IRWM is that regional water managers, who are organized
into regional water management groups are best suited and
positioned to manage water resources to meet regional needs.
While large inter-regional water management systems, such as
the State Water Project, Central Valley Project, and flood
management systems, are important, the majority of
California's water resource management investments are made at
the local and regional level. It is unclear why stormwater
resource plans are exempted from this regional program.
5)Prohibition of Bond Funding . Under current law, stormwater
resource plans are voluntary, however, there are required
elements if a local agency choses to establish one. This bill
prohibits project funding unless a local agency has completed
a stormwater resource pan, although funds are available for
creating the plan. This may be considered a de-facto mandate
on local agencies. It is unclear why funding plans is
preferable to funding projects and if local agencies are
required to have plans to receive funding, it is unclear why
these plans are not included in the IRWMPs.
6)Authors Amendments. The author is proposing amendments to
address impacts on disadvantaged communities and to lower the
costs of implementing the bill.
SB 985
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081