BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 985
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 985 (Pavley)
As Amended August 18, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :31-3
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-6 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Rendon, Fong, Frazier, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Gomez, Gonzalez, Bloom, | |Bradford, |
| |Rodriguez, Yamada | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Bigelow, Allen, Dahle, |Nays:|Bigelow, Donnelly, Jones, |
| |Beth Gaines, Gatto, | |Linder, Wagner |
| |Patterson | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows one or more public agencies to voluntarily
develop a stormwater resource plan (SRP) but makes adoption of a
SRP the prerequisite to receiving future grant funds for
stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Finds and declares that stormwater and dry weather runoff are
underutilized sources of surface water and groundwater
supplies that should be captured and put to beneficial use.
2)Defines stormwater and dry weather runoff, and makes
conforming changes to Stormwater Resource Planning Act of 2009
(SRPA) and the Rainwater Capture Act of 2012.
3)Adds requirements that SRPs identify and prioritize:
a) 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 to maximize water supply, water quality,
flood management, environmental, and other community
SB 985
Page 2
benefits within the watershed; and
b) Opportunities to use lands or easements in public
ownership for stormwater and dry weather runoff projects.
4)Deletes the requirement that SRPs be consistent with
integrated regional water management (IRWM) plans and instead
requires submission of the SRP to the IRWM group for
incorporation into its IRWM plan.
5)Prohibits state bond funding for stormwater and dry weather
runoff capture projects unless there is an SRP that complies
with this Act or unless the funds are for:
a) The purpose of developing a stormwater plan; or,
b) A grant to a disadvantaged community with a population
of 20,000 or less that is not a co-permittee under the
Federal Clean Water Act, as specified, with a municipality
that has a population greater than 20,000.
6)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) to develop a policy setting forth various requirements
for complying with the SRPA.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes, but does not require, cities, counties, and
special districts to develop and implement SRPs.
2)Mandates certain content if SRPs are to comply with the SRPA,
including, but not limited to:
a) Watershed-scale scope;
b) Community participation in plan development and
implementation;
c) Consistency with, and assistance in meeting, various
water quality requirements;
d) Consistency with any adopted IRWMPs;
SB 985
Page 3
e) Identification of opportunities to manage stormwater to
achieve multiple benefits, which may include: augmentation
of local water supply through reuse, including groundwater
recharge or storage; pollution and runoff volume control;
reestablishment of natural water drainage treatment and
infiltration; and, habitat and open space enhancement,
including wetlands, riverside habitats, parkways, and
parks; and,
f) Identification of projects and programs to ensure
effective SRP implementation.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there would be one-time increased costs of
approximately $390,000 from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund for
the State Water Board to develop the required policy.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to increase the usefulness and
accountability of stormwater and dry weather runoff projects
implemented under SRPs in order to maximize multiple public
benefits to water supply, water quality, flood management, the
environment, and communities. With the passage of AB 1471
(Rendon), Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014, a $7.545 billion bond
will be placed on the November 2014 ballot (Proposition 1). If
Proposition 1 passes, it will provide $200 million dollars for
grants for multibenefit stormwater management projects.
The author asserts that in many parts of the state stormwater
and dry weather runoff are underutilized sources of surface
water and groundwater supplies and that if we are going to
reduce our dependence on imported water through regional
solutions, we must become more frugal with them. The author
maintains that instead of viewing stormwater as a resource, it
is often seen as a problem that must be moved to the ocean as
quickly as possible or as a source of contamination. Supporters
of this bill believe it will engender better stormwater
planning, including on public lands, and will help maximize
multibenefit resource use and protection by capturing additional
water supplies while at the same time reducing pollution to
rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal waters.
Opponents to this bill assert that it would place additional
burdens on local government related to stormwater resources
planning. Opponents argue that many local governments already
look for, and identify, opportunities for wastewater
SB 985
Page 4
infiltration reuse. Opponents maintain that it is unnecessary
for the state to mandate this process on publically owned lands,
which will require additional staff time and local government
resources, both of which are scarce due to thin budgets.
Opponents have also raised issues regarding the greater use of
stormwater potentially impacting water rights.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0004884