BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 1370 HEARING DATE: April 8, 2014
AUTHOR: Galgiani URGENCY: Yes
VERSION: March 24, 2014 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
REFERRALS: Environmental Quality & FISCAL: Yes
Governance and Finance
SUBJECT: Reliable Water Supply Bond Act of 2014.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
In November 2009, the legislature passed and the governor signed
SBX7 2 (Cogdill). Also known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, that law placed on the
November 2010 ballot an $11.14 B general obligation bond before
the voters to fund various water resources programs and
projects.
The legislature has amended the bond proposal three times,
including twice delaying the placement of the bond before the
voters. After initially being delayed to the November 2012
ballot, the bond was subsequently delayed to the November 2014
ballot, where it remains now.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would replace the $11.14 B water bond that is
currently on the November 2014 ballot with a new $6.26 B general
obligation bond titled "Reliable Water Supply Bond Act of 2014."
Proceeds from this bond would be continuously appropriated to
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund four specific
surface storage reservoirs:
Sites Reservoir, a proposed off-stream reservoir on the west
side of the Sacramento Valley in Colusa and Glenn Counties.
Temperance Flat Reservoir, a proposed on-stream reservoir
upstream of Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River in Fresno and
Madera Counties.
Expansion of the San Luis Reservoir, an off-stream reservoir
on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Merced County.
1
Expansion of the storage capacity of Shasta Dam by 18.5
acre-feet, an on-stream reservoir on the Sacramento River in
Shasta County.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "There is no realistic solution to
California's diverse and ever-increasing water needs that does
not rely heavily on additional storage. Although our population
has nearly doubled over the past few decades, we have not
significantly increased our water storage."
"Senate Bill 1370 would place a $6.26 billion water bond on the
November 2014 ballot that would fund four important water
storage projects. These projects include the expansion of the
San Luis Reservoir, raising Shasta Dam, construction of the
Sites Reservoir, and the Temperance Flats Project. The bill is
aligned with current federal efforts in Congress being made by
Representatives Jim Costa, John Garamendi, and others from
California's Congressional delegation to increase California's
lack of water storage capacity."
"If we are to provide enough water to support an ever-growing
population of thirty-nine million people, to sustain the
country's best agricultural land, to protect and restore the
Delta, and to maintain adequate river flows for salmon runs and
groundwater recharge, then it is crucial that we create more
storage."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None Received
COMMENTS
Ignores Other Storage Options. All of the other water bond
proposals make other storage options eligible for bond funding.
All include eligibility of groundwater storage and conjunctive
use projects. Some also include eligibility for local and
regional surface storage projects, storage for recycled water,
and projects that restore storage capacity lost due to
siltation, seismic risk, and other impairments.
Does Not Limit Funding To Public Benefits. All of the other
water bond proposals limit state funding for storage to that
funding the public benefits associated with the project. While
definitions vary from proposal to proposal, none provide water
for the water supply benefits. Tacitly, this is done to avoid
subsidizing the cost of water.
2
Wild & Scenic Protections. This proposal, unlike the other
water bond proposals, makes raising Shasta Dam an eligible
project for state funding. As noted in the Shasta Lake Water
Resources Investigation Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
raising Shasta Dam would have an adverse effect on the
free-flowing condition of the McCloud River, or on its wild
trout fishery. Doing so would violate provisions in the state's
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which provides, in part, "no
department or agency of the state shall assist or cooperate
with, whether by loan, grant, license, or otherwise, any agency
of the federal, state, or local government in the planning or
construction of any dam, reservoir, diversion, or other water
impoundment facility that could would have an adverse effect on
the free-flowing condition of the McCloud River, or on its wild
trout fishery." (PRC 5093.542 (c))
Continuous Appropriation. This proposal would continuously
appropriate funds to the DWR for these projects. This raises
two issues. First, as noted in the committee background for our
September 25, 2013 informational hearing, continuous
appropriations eliminate one of the Legislature's key checks on
the powers of the executive branch, namely, the power to
appropriate funds.
Second, while there is some difference of opinion among the
different bond proposals regarding the appropriateness of
continuously appropriation, all the proposals administer the
bond funds through the California Water Commission, a
deliberative body reflecting a broad range of perspectives.
This bill provides the funds directly to DWR, with no oversight
from anyone.
No Other State Priorities For Funding? All the other bond
proposals provide funds for a variety of different water
resources purposes. At the very least, most provide funding to
address drinking water and water quality problems of
disadvantaged communities, investments in integrated regional
water management projects, Delta sustainability, and other water
and water related natural resource purposes.
Related Measures:
SB 848 (Wolk) - would repeal the water bond currently on the
November 2014 and would replace it with the Safe Drinking
Water, Water Quality, and Water Supply Act of 2014, a $6.825 B
general obligation bond to finance a variety of water
resources related programs and projects.
SB 927 (Cannella and Vidak) - would amend the water bond
3
currently on the November 2014, reducing the authorized amount
from $11.14 B to $9.217 B, and rename the measure the Safe,
Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014.
AB 1445 (Logue) - would repeal the water bond currently on the
November 2014 and would replace it with the California Water
Infrastructure Act of 2014, a $8.0 B general obligation bond
to finance public benefits associated with water storage
projects.
AB 1331 (Rendon) - would repeal the water bond currently on
the November 2014 and would replace it with the Clean and Safe
Drinking Water Act of 2014, a $8.0 B general obligation bond
to finance a variety of water resources related programs and
projects.
AB 2043 (Bigelow and Conway) - would repeal the water bond
currently on the November 2014 and would replace it with the
Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014, a
$7.935 B general obligation bond to finance a variety of water
resources related programs and projects.
AB 2554 (Rendon) - would repeal the water bond currently on
the November 2014 and would replace it with the California
Water Infrastructure Act of 2014, a $8.5 B general obligation
bond to finance public benefits associated with water storage
projects.
AB 2686 (Perea) - would repeal the water bond currently on the
November 2014 and would replace it with the Clean, Safe, and
Reliable Water Supply Act of 2014, a $9.25 B general
obligation bond to finance a variety of water resources
related programs and projects.
Referred to Environmental Quality Committee. This analysis does
not address issues within the purview of the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee. Issues likely to be raised by
that committee include:
The loss of funds to meet drinking water and water quality
needs.
Other water quality related issues raised in the committee
background for the September 25, 2013 joint hearing.
Referred to Governance and Finance Committee. This analysis
does not address issues within the purview of the Senate
Governance and Finance Committee. Issues likely to be raised by
that committee include:
The potential effect of this measure on the state's bonded
indebtedness.
Other issues associated with the authorization of general
obligation debt.
4
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
SUPPORT: None received
OPPOSITION: None Received
5