HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - Legislative & Public Outreach Committee - 10/27/2008EastValley
1
Water District
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Date: October 27, 2008
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Place: 3654 E. Highland Ave, Suite 12
Highland, CA 92346
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Public Comments.
2. Discussion regarding the establishment of a formal Legislative Program.
3. Discussion regarding contract and requirements of State Lobbyist Robert Reeb.
4. Discussion regarding contract and requirements of Federal Lobbyist Fred Hicks.
5. Update from the General Manager regarding the San Bernardino Basin recycled
water project.
6. Update from the General Manager regarding the Seven Oaks Dam Water
Quality Study.
ADJOURN
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disability- related
modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in order to
participate in the above - agendized public meeting should be directed to the District's
Administrative Manager at (909) 885 -4900 at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.
Legislative Advocacy
M -2 1 of 4
EVWD LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Purpose
To establish the District policy regarding legislative advocacy, pending
legislation, sponsored legislation, and correspondence to legislators or other
elected officials and policy makers.
Background
An effective program of legislative representation includes coordinating efforts
and advocating legislative policies of the Governing Board before governmental
bodies. This includes members, committees, and staff of the state Legislature and
Congress, staff of state and federal agencies and commissions, and the office of
the Governor and President. In addition, occasionally it may be necessary to
direct legislative advocacy activities toward local or regional decision - making
bodies. Normally, the timing of such advocacy needs will permit the prior
notification and authorization of the Governing Board. At times, however,
advance notification and authorization will be impracticable due to the pressing
nature of District business or time constraints in Sacramento or Washington (e.g.,
during the early formative stages of important pieces of legislation, or during
peaks in legislative activity when the sheer volume of legislative decision - making
compresses reaction times). It is the purpose of this policy to provide the
parameters within which such advocacy efforts shall be undertaken.
FEDERAL AND STATE ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORMS
PoUcy Statement
It is the policy of the Governing Board to develop and adopt an Annual District
Legislative Platform. The Platform shall be developed via the Legislative
Committee and through the assistance of the General Manager, contract
advocates, and relevant staff. The Platform will develop specific goals and
objectives and will guide the strategies necessary for accomplishment of the
District's Legislative Advocacy Program. The Platform shall be developed
beginning each mid October, to be ready by January 1 of the following year, to be
used as a plan to sponsor or effect legislation that will benefit ratepayers and
promote the effectiveness and economy of operations of the District.
Poiicv Amplification
1. District Departments, as necessary, through the General Manager shall submit
platform proposals to be considered as inclusions to the District sponsored Annual
Legislative Platform.
2. The proposals shall be compiled into a draft by the General Manager to be
analyzed and screened by the Legislative Committee and General Manager for
review and input by December 151 of each year.
3. The Legislative Advocate(s) will work with the District to identify goals and
objectives and to discuss ideas and problem solving that can be facilitated through
the legislative platform.
4. A vetted final draft Annual Legislative Platform shall be reviewed by the
Legislative Committee and be submitted for Governing Board action prior to
January 1.
5. The Legislative Committee, Legislative Advocate(s), members of the Governing
Board, and General Manager are tasked to meet with the District's legislative
delegation at the beginning of the legislative session to review and transmit the
program and work to secure sponsorship for the proposals.
6. The Governing Board, Legislative Committee, and Legislative Advocate(s) will
coordinate their efforts and seek authors for each proposed legislative proposal,
lobby as necessary, and provide periodic reports to the Governing Board.
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER / EMPLOYEE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
Policy Statement
1. The District's Legislative Committee is designed for and instructed to engage in
legislative matters affecting the District.
2. It is the policy of the Governing Board to participate in appropriate coalitions,
Associations, and industry working groups.
3. No Governing Board Member or employee shall present a position on pending
legislation other than the official position of the District adopted by the Board on
such legislation.
4. Notwithstanding Section 2, any Governing Board Member or employee may take
positions on pending legislation and present such positions provided the positions
are clearly identified as the positions of the Board member and not of the District.
Policy Amplification
1. Any Governing Board member or employee going to Sacramento or Washington,
D.C. to influence the outcome of pending legislation must coordinate all activities on
legislative matters with the District's Legislative Committee and Legislative
Advocate(s). Such coordination will avoid duplications, complement District efforts,
and provide an opportunity to determine the most contemporary information.
2. Presentations of testimony by any Governing Board member or employee at
legislative committees or other legislative hearings shall be coordinated with the
District's Legislative Committee and contract Legislative Advocate(s). The contract
Legislative Advocate(s) shall assist the District Board member or employee with the
presentation.
3. This policy does not preclude a Governing Board Member or employee from
traveling on personal time, at personal expense, and testifying on any matter as a
citizen. However, in such cases, the Governing Board Member or employee may not
identify himself as a representative of the District or purport to speak on behalf of the
District.
ADOPTING POSITIONS ON PENDING LEGISLATION
Policy Statement
1. It is the policy of the Governing Board to take official positions on pending
legislation as may be necessary to forward the best interests of the ratepayers and
District.
2. It is the policy of the Governing Board that only the Governing Board may take
official positions on pending legislation and such positions shall be taken by action of
the Governing Board.
3. Notwithstanding Section 1, any Governing Board Member or employee may take
positions on pending legislation and present such positions provided the positions are
clearly identified as the positions of the individual member and not the positions of
the Board.
4. It is the policy of the Governing Board to support legislation that benefits ratepayers
and promotes District effectiveness or economy of operations and oppose legislation
that is detrimental to ratepayers or which would increase costs, erode revenues, or
create unnecessary workload for the District.
5. Legislation regarding specific functional areas and programs having statewide impact
without special significance to the District will not normally require a Board position
as such positions are best sponsored through the appropriate state or local
associations.
Policy Amplification
1. The Governing Board Legislative Committee and General Manager, in cooperation
with the District's Legislative Advocate(s), will review and screen bills that are
introduced in the Legislature to identify those bills that may impact the ratepayers or
District, and will advocate and advance officially adopted positions as identified bills
go through the legislative process.
2. The Legislative Committee and General Manager will make a recommendation to if a
Governing Board position is warranted.
3. If a Governing Board position is warranted, appropriate Staff will be relied upon to
submit pertinent information to the Legislative Committee and General Manager for
review. Appropriate Staff will also be relied upon to identify if a bill referred for
analysis will have no impact.
4. The Legislative Committee and General Manager will analyze District staff
information and make appropriate recommendation to the Governing Board for
consideration of an official Board position at a regular Board session.
5. Under compelling circumstances, a temporary Governing Board position may be
authorized provided the bill and critical information is submitted to the Legislative
Committee Chairman and the General Manager, is analyzed and recommended by the
Legislative,Committee Chairman and General Manager, and is authorized and
endorsed by the Chairman of the Board. Such a temporary position shall have the
same status as an official District position but must be subsequently ratified by the
Board at the next regular meeting or withdrawn.
6. It is recognized that Governing Board Members and employees often participate in
statewide professional organizations, and that these organizations often take positions
regarding pending legislation. Governing Board members or employees are not
permitted, as District representatives to statewide organizations, to take legislative
positions contrary to those adopted by the Governing Board. In instances where
these officials are asked to support organizational positions on issues which have not
been formally considered by the Governing Board, they should seek guidance from
the Legislative Committee as to whether the professional organization's position is
consistent with general Governing Board direction or if a specific position should be
recommended for adoption.
7. Legislative positions adopted by the Governing Board on pending legislation shall
remain in effect during the current or immediately preceding session of the State
Legislature and during the current or any preceding session of the U.S. Congress,
for which the Governing Board adopted a position.
SPONSORED LEGISLATION
Policy Statement
Legislation regarding specific functional areas and programs having statewide
impact without special significance to the District will not normally be included in
the platform, such legislation is generally best sponsored through the appropriate
federal, state or local association.
COMMUNICATION WITH ELECTED AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
OFFICIALS
Policy Statement
It is the policy of the Governing Board to communicate and transmit adopted
Legislative priorities.
Policy Amplification
Written correspondence to federal, state or local elected officials on behalf of the
District shall be transmitted over the signature of the Chairman of the Board. The
Governing Board Chairman may delegate signature authority if necessary and
appropriate. This limitation shall not affect correspondence on behalf of the
District initiated by the District's Legislative Advocate(s).
2. Before seeking the signature of the Chairman of the Board, as described above,
such written correspondence shall be routed for review and concurrence through
the District's Legislative Committee.
3. The Legislative Committee requires copies of written correspondence covered by
this section be presented to the Governing Board Members before or concurrently
with mailing.
4. Governing Board Members and employees may communicate any District official
position to any elected or governmental officials without prior approval.
5. All other direct communication with elected officials by Governing Board
Members and employees, when acting as representatives of the District, whether
written or oral, shall be coordinated with the Legislative Committee for
transmission to the full Governing Board and General Manager.
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Proposal for Lobbying Services
East Valley Water District
900 K Street, Suite 300 Sacramento CA 95814 PH: 916 -558 -1926 FX: 916 - 558 -1932
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................... ............................... 1
Firm Qualifications ........................................... ............................... 2
Relevant Experience ........................................ ............................... 5
Clientele.............................................................. ............................... 11
Professional References .................................. ............................... 11
Fee for Services ................................................ ............................... 12
1. Introduction
Reeb Government Relations, LLC is pleased to respond to a request for
proposals for lobbying services in California's capital on behalf of the East
Valley Water District.
East Valley Water District is a special district that was formed in 1954
through an election by local residents who wanted water service by a public
water agency. The mission of the East Valley Water District is to provide its
customers with a safe and reliable water supply that is delivered at a fair and
cost - effective price. Today, the District provides water and wastewater
services to a service population of about 65,000 in the cities of Highland and
San Bernardino and surrounding unincorporated areas. The District collects
no ad valorem property tax money as all services are financed by rate
system revenues.
The East Valley Water District's main sources of water are the Bunker Hill
Groundwater Basin and high quality surface water from the Santa Ana River.
In addition, the District has the option of obtaining supplemental water
during dry years from the State Water Project through the San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District.
The District's Board of Directors and management understand that regulatory
decisions and legislative actions in Sacramento can significantly impact the
mission of the District. The District now seeks to retain a lobbying firm to
represent its interests in Sacramento. Reeb Government Relations, LLC is
particularly well- suited to meet the needs of the District in the areas of
legislative and regulatory advocacy, as well as assisting the District to
develop and maintain strong relationships with legislators in the era of term
limits.
Reeb Government Relations, LLC represents only local public agencies at this
time —with seven clients that focus on local government, water, wastewater
and flood control issues. Some of the firm's clients are State Water
Contractors, some rely on a mixture of groundwater and surface water for
supplies, and a number of clients provide wastewater and recycled water
services. Bob Reeb, principal of the firm, has the breadth and depth of
experience representing local water agencies like East Valley Water District
that is unmatched in Sacramento. Mr. Reeb has been involved in every major
piece of water - related legislation before the California Legislature for the past
12 years. He is not only a capable lobbyist, but is able to negotiate and draft
amendments to legislation on behalf of his clients. His expertise and
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 2
effectiveness is recognized by ACWA members, other lobbying firms,
legislators, legislative staff and Schwarzenegger Administration personnel.
Mr. Reeb maintains regular and personal contact with each client throughout
the calendar year, including both the legislative session and interim recess
during the fall of each year. Contact principally occurs through e -mail and the
telephone. Legislative reports, including the status and summary of key
measures as well as notes and recommendations, are regularly prepared by
Mr. Reeb. Typically, Mr. Reeb will visit with the Board of Directors twice each
year in the District —once in the spring following the introduction of
legislation in the state capitol, and once in the fall to present an annual
report of activities undertaken by the firm on behalf of the District. Mr. Reeb
also attends association conferences and seminars such as those offered by
the Association of California Water Agencies in order to remain current on
industry news, issues and practices and to afford opportunities for visiting
with clients in a less formal setting.
2. Firm Qualifications
Reeb Government Relations, LLC was established in January 2005 by Bob
Reeb, principal and owner, to assist a select number of public sector clients
with policy analysis, issues management and legislative and regulatory
advocacy.
Reeb Government Relations, LLC offers its public sector clients knowledge,
integrity and experience.
Knowledge
Reeb Government Relations, LLC specializes in a diverse spectrum of issues
involving California state and local governments. Bob Reeb, due to work
experience in both private and public sector settings spanning nearly three
decades, has developed knowledge and expertise in the following areas of
practice:
Natural Resources
Focusing on water supply development, water rights, water transfers,
drinking water, groundwater, flood protection, wastewater, and water
recycling, including the California Endangered Species Act, Federal Water
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 3
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control
Act, California Environmental Quality Act, Urban Water Management Planning
Act, California Safe Drinking Water Act, and Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup Act.
Local Government
Focusing on governance, infrastructure development, public works, public
contracts, energy and utilities, public finance, land use planning, and local
government organization, including the Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg Local
Governmental Reorganization Act of 2000, Ralph M. Brown Act, and
California Public Records Act.
Mr. Reeb is a graduate of the University of California at Davis with a Bachelor
of Arts degree in political science /public service.
Integrity
A shared sense of purpose is essential to develop an effective and efficient
relationship between client and lobbyist. Reeb Government Relations, LLC is
committed to a strong work ethic; honesty; providing value to clients; and
communication that develops understanding and accomplishes goals. Bob
Reeb shares the commitment of today's top performing local agencies to
planning, innovation, open communication and fiscal accountability in the
delivery of essential public services.
Experience
Mr. Reeb has a unique professional background with experience in
journalism, water policy analysis, water agency management, public finance
investment banking, and issue advocacy. His experience in public water and
wastewater systems at the local government level is unmatched by any
lobbyist practicing in Sacramento.
Mr. Reeb most recently served as the State Legislative Director for the
Association of California Water Agencies for over 9 years, representing the
interests of the Association's 450 agency and affiliate members before the
California Legislature, the Governor's office and the Executive Branch
agencies, departments and commissions. While with ACWA, he participated
in the development of many impressive coalitions in order to more
successfully pursue the Association's legislative agenda. ACWA's State
Legislative Department was recognized by the American Society of
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 4
Association Executives for its 1996 effort to secure passage of SB 900, which
state voters later approved as Proposition 204.
During his tenure with ACWA, Mr. Reeb was involved in every major piece of
legislation relating to recycled water, drafting key provisions of current law,
and working extensively with WateReuse Association, California Water
Association (investor -owned utilities), California Municipal Utilities Association
and others. He received the 1999 Gordon Cologne Award from the
WateReuse Association of California for "outstanding achievement in
promoting or increasing the use of recycled water in the State of California."
Following graduation from UC Davis, Mr. Reeb worked four years as a weekly
newspaper reporter and editor. He then worked seven years for the California
Assembly for Assembly Member Jim Costa, serving five years as senior
consultant to the Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee and specializing in water
resources policy development and analysis. Mr. Reeb assisted Assembly
Member Costa in the enactment of significant legislation, including the Water
Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986 (Proposition 44), the
Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 (Proposition 82), and the Costa -
Isenberg Water Transfer Act. It was during this time that Mr. Reeb also was
elected to the Dixon City Council, serving one term in office. Mr. Reeb
represented Dixon on the Solano County Transportation Commission,
Association of Bay Area Governments, and Solano Economic Opportunity
Council.
Mr. Reeb managed the El Dorado County Water Agency from 1989 to 1993,
when the agency was active in long range water planning and securing water
rights. The Agency received a 1992 National Achievement Award from the
National Association of Counties for negotiating an innovative water rights
permit processing agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board.
From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Reeb was a licensed municipal securities
representative and worked for two regional investment banking firms where
he focused on water and sewer finance.
Firm Services
Legislative advocacy services include:
Representation in the State Capitol with respect to a client's legislative
program.
Identifying, analyzing and monitoring legislation.
Legislative reporting services.
Participation and attendance at meetings.
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 5
Regulatory advocacy services include:
Representation for regulatory and administrative agencies to develop
workable solutions to difficult problems.
Identifying, analyzing, monitoring and influencing the promulgation of
regulations.
Identifying State grant and loan programs and assisting clients with
program requirements.
3. Relevant Experience
AB 140, Garcia (Chapter 29, Statutes of 2007)
The Desert Water Agency Law was enacted in 1961 to create the Desert
Water Agency and prescribe its boundaries, organization, operation,
management, financing and other powers and duties. The Agency is
authorized to generate electricity by means of hydroelectric power
generation. The energy generated by such projects may be used for Agency
purposes or sold at wholesale to public or private entities.
AB 140 authorizes the Agency to pursue other means of generating electricity
for purposes of operating Agency facilities and producing a stream of income
to help underwrite capital improvements to the Agency's water and recycled
water infrastructure. The latter purpose will assist the Agency in keeping rate
increases to a minimum.
Reeb Government Relations assisted the Agency to secure introduction of AB
140 by Assembly Member Garcia, developed background material in support
of the legislation, prepared support letters, negotiated amendments and
testified on behalf of the bill. Reeb Government Relations also worked to
secure the support of the Association of California Water Agencies for the
legislation.
Proposition 1E Early Implementation Project (2007)
State voters approved Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood
Prevention Bond Act of 2006, in the November 2006 General Election. The
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 6
bond measure allocates $3 billion for the repair or replacement of levees and
other facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control in California's Central Valley.
Reeb Government Relations, LLC, under contract to Peterson Consulting,
Inc., represents the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority, which seeks
state funding under Proposition 1E for a levee project in Yuba County along
the Feather River. Mr. Reeb has been working with personnel in the
Department of Water Resources, the state administering agency for the flood
prevention bond, to gain inclusion of the project among various Early
Implementation Projects. Mr. Reeb also has arranged and participated in
briefings for key legislative budget committee staff and legislators.
The Three Rivers project was identified as an Early Implementation Project in
the proposed bond expenditure plan released by the Department in February
2007. At this time, the Three Rivers project is under consideration for
funding in Fiscal Year 2007 -08.
Water Right Permit & License Fees (2007)
The California Legislature in 2003 shifted financial support for the State
Water Resources Control Board's Division of Water Rights from the State
General Fund to water right permit and license holders. The shift was made
in order to help balance the State General Fund. The State Board adopted an
emergency regulation that spread the costs among as many water right
permit and license holders as it held under its jurisdiction.
Subsequently, many water right holders and groups representing the fee
payors challenged the fees in court, arguing that the fee was unconstitutional
and unfairly applied by the State Board. That case is now before the
California Supreme Court. In the meantime, lobbying firms retained on behalf
of the fee payors have sought legislation, SB 258 (Ducheny) to reduce or
repeal the fees as well as to regain General Fund support for the Division of
Water Rights. Reeb Government Relations, LLC is active in this effort on
behalf of three of its clients.
Delta Levee Project Funding (2006)
Reeb Government Relations, LLC was contacted in late 2005 to assist in the
drafting of an initiative statute to be qualified through a statewide signature
gathering process for placement on the November 2006 General Election
ballot. Mr. Reeb was asked to draft provisions relating to levee maintenance
and special projects in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. This work was
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 7
accomplished on behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control
Association. Mr. Reeb has participated in drafting ballot measures and
identifying program and project funding for state general obligation bond
measures for over 20 years.
As a result of his participation and support received from the Association of
California Water Agencies, Mr. Reeb succeeded in obtaining $275 million for
delta levee projects in the proposed ballot measure, which later qualified and
became Proposition 84, The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006. Proposition 84
was approved by state voters on November 7, 2006.
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Adjustment (2005)
The State of California reallocated property tax revenue from cities, counties
and special districts to public schools in 1992 in an effort to balance the state
budget. An error was made regarding the classification of Santa Ynez River
Water Conservation District, which lead to more revenue being reallocated
than was appropriate. The error was not discovered until a subsequent
additional property tax shift in 2003. The District approached the State
Controller and Department of Finance to correct the error in 2004, but was
not successful in its attempts to obtain a correction or repayment of the
excess payments due to the potential negative impact on the State General
Fund that would result from a reversal of the earlier classification
determination.
The District retained Reeb Government Relations, LLC in January 2005. Mr.
Reeb contacted the District's legislative delegation to seek assistance in
resolving the error. Mr. Reeb also contacted key personnel in the State
Controller's office and Department of Finance. On May 31, 2005 the State
Controller's office reached a decision that an error had indeed been made
and that an adjustment to the property tax revenue allocation for the District
was in order. The Department of Finance reached the same conclusion days
later and, as a result, a reversal of $60,000 was made on behalf of the
District.
SB 181, Machado (Chapter 167, Statutes of 2003)
This legislation was sponsored by the Association of California Water
Agencies. The legislation was introduced on February 12, 2003 and signed
into law on August 2, 2003, Mr. Reeb was the lead lobbyist in support of the
legislation.
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 8
Solano Irrigation District was subject to a compliance order issued by the
California Department of Health Services (DHS) to provide treatment of raw
agricultural water that might be consumed inside of rural homes. While the
District worked with and received the concurrence of its customers to
implement a drinking water treatment option, the District was concerned that
future homeowners would not understand the type of water service that they
would receive from the public water system.
SB 181 established procedures for a Public Water System to notify and
record the status of compliance with drinking water directives of the DHS for
individual properties in a service area. Mr. Reeb worked with DHS and the
California Land Title Association to address concerns that were raised during
the legislative process.
SB 1586, Haynes (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2002)
This legislation was sponsored by the California Building Industry Association.
The legislation was introduced on February 20, 2002 and signed into law on
September 15, 2002. Mr. Reeb was the lead lobbyist in opposition to the
legislation.
Under the Cortese - Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of
2000, when any district to which annexation of territory is proposed has
adopted and transmitted to the local agency formation commission a
resolution requesting termination of proceedings within a prescribed time
period, the commission is required to terminate the proceedings. This
provision was included at the request of ACWA, California Special Districts
Association and California Association of Sanitation Agencies over the
objections of the California Building Industry Association.
AB 1586, as introduced, would have repealed the above - referenced
annexation termination authority. The special district community secured a
sufficient number of votes to kill the legislation in the Senate Local
Government Committee, and amendments were written to preserve the
ability of local agencies to terminate annexation proceedings. The
amendments continued to require the commission to terminate the
proceedings after consideration of the district's resolution, but also required
such a resolution to be based upon written findings supported by substantial
evidence in the record that the request is justified by financial or service
concerns, as defined. The bill made a district's resolution subject to judicial
review.
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 9
SB 1093, Costa (Chapter 968, Statutes of 2001)
Mr. Reeb was responsible for positioning ACWA as its State Legislative
Director to respond to member needs as they arose, which at times, came to
light near the end of a legislative session. SB 1093 is an example of the
ability to respond quickly upon learning of a member agency problem during
the summer legislative recess.
ACWA assumed sponsorship of SB 1093 in August 2001. The subject matter
of the legislation amended into the bill on August 27, 2001 and signed into
law on September 27, 2001. Mr. Reeb was the lead lobbyist in support of the
legislation.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, prohibits bodily contact with water in a
reservoir in which water is stored for domestic use. SB 1093 exempted from
this prohibition recreational activity in which there is bodily contact with
water by any participant in Sly Park Reservoir provided that specified
conditions were satisfied. The bill required the El Dorado Irrigation District
EID) to file a report concerning implementation of the provisions of the bill
with the State Department of Health Services (DHS) by January 1, 2005.
Recreational activity had been allowed at Sly Park Reservoir since its
completion in the mid- 1950s. The reservoir was a unit of the Federal Central
Valley Project. Once the reservoir was transferred to EID, DHS was prepared
to enforce the prohibition against bodily contact. Mr. Reeb asked Senator
Costa to delete the contents of his legislation, placing it into a committee
omnibus bill, and then amend the EID provisions into SB 1093. Mr. Reeb was
successful in gaining enactment of the legislation despite initial opposition
from the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and the Blue Water Network.
SB 989, Sher (Chapter 812, Statutes of 1999)
Mr. Reeb was responsible during his tenure with ACWA for monitoring,
analyzing and influencing legislation relating to the California Safe Drinking
Water Act. SB 989 was among the preeminent bills in which he was involved.
This legislation was sponsored by the Association of California Water
Agencies. The legislation was introduced on February 26, 1999 and signed
into law on October 10, 1999. Mr. Reeb was the lead lobbyist in support of
the legislation.
MTBE was a synthetic chemical added to gasoline to improve air quality as
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 10
part of the federal Clean Air Act. Limited quantities had been used in gasoline
in California since the 1970s. In 1992, oil companies began using it
extensively in California to meet reformulated gas requirements of the state
Air Resources Board. MTBE had begun being detected in groundwater and
surface water sources throughout California as early as 1995. MTBE
contamination forced water suppliers to shut down drinking water wells in
Santa Monica, South Lake Tahoe, Santa Clara Valley and in the Sacramento
area. Private wells in the town of Glennville were also shut down. A study by
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory concluded that MTBE is a
frequent and widespread contaminant" in groundwater throughout California
and does not degrade significantly once it is there. The study estimated that
MTBE had contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 shallow monitoring sites
in California. Hundreds of drinking water wells could be affected if the
contamination moves into deeper groundwater basins.
SB 989 required the development of a timetable for eliminating the use of
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in motor vehicle fuel at the earliest
possible date, and sought to protect groundwater supplies by specifying
increased monitoring and containment requirements for certain underground
storage tanks. It also increased financial assistance for upgrading
underground tanks, and required multimedia evaluation of new specifications
for motor vehicle fuel.
Finally, the legislation updated the Drinking Water Treatment and Research
Fund in the State Treasury to make payments to public water systems for the
costs of treating contaminated groundwater and surface water for drinking
water purposes, investigating contamination, acquiring alternate drinking
water supplies, and for conducting research into treatment technologies. The
Fund was created by a prior Sher bill, SB 2198 (Chapter 997, Statutes of
1998) that also was sponsored by ACWA and for which Mr. Reeb served as
the lead support lobbyist.
SB 989 initially was opposed by the Sierra Club of California, which wanted to
preserve the clean air benefits of MTBE, and the Western States Petroleum
Association, which wanted to avoid having to reformulate gasoline and retool
oil refineries. This unusual combination of opponents made the lobbying and
negotiating strategy quite complicated, but ultimately, Senator Sher and
ACWA were able to overcome opposition arguments and obtain legislative and
gubernatorial approval.
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 11
4. Clientele
California Central Valley Flood Control Association
Desert Water Agency
El Dorado Irrigation District
Newhall County Water District
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District (2005)
Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
5. Professional References
Mr. Ron Davis
State Legislative Director
Association of California Water Agencies
910 K Street, Suite 100
Sacramento CA 95814
PH: 916 -441 -4545
E -mail: rdavis(a)acwa.com
Ms. Ane Deister
General Manager
El Dorado Irrigation District
2890 Mosquito Road
Placerville CA 95667
PH: 530 - 622 -4513
E -mail: adeisterC)a eid.org
Mr. Brent Graham, Secretary/Treasurer
Valley Ag Water Coalition
1001 Chase Avenue
Corcoran CA 93212
PH: 559 -992 -4127
E -mail: bgraham(o)tlbwsd.com
Proposal for Lobbying Services
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
Page 12
Mr. David Luker
General Manager -Chief Engineer
Desert Water Agency
P. O. Box 1710
Palm Springs CA 92263 -1710
PH: 760 -323 -4971
E -mail: dluker(codwa.oro
Mr. Richard Marshall
Executive Director
California Central Valley Flood Control Association
910 K Street, Suite 310
Sacramento CA 95814
PH: 916 - 446 -0197
E -mail: dick(a)cvflood.org
Mr. Bruce A. Wales
General Manager
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District
P. O. Box 719
Santa Ynez CA 93460
PH: 805 - 693 -1156
E -mail: brucewales(asvrwcd,com
6e Fee for Services
Reeb Government Relations proposes a monthly retainer in the amount of
6,000 per month with reimbursable expenses not to exceed $3,000 during
the term of the contract (typically, an annual contract). A contract for the
duration of the current two -year legislative session is also an option.
Reeb Government Relations LLC
910 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento CA 95814
Phone: 916 -558 -1926
Facsimile: 916 -558 -1932
robertreeb@comcast.net
LOBBYING FIRM RETENTION CONTRACT
The following constitutes a lobbying firm retention contract between REEB
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, LLC ( "RGR" hereinafter), or its legal successor in
interest, and EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ("EVWD" hereinafter), or its legal
successor in interest. Assignment to a legal successor in interest shall occur only on the
written consent of the other parry.
1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED— EVWD engages the services of RGR as an
independent contractor with the responsibility for providing advice, coordination and
representation on behalf of EVWD relating to legislative and regulatory matters. Such
services shall include:
A. Representation in the State Capitol and with the Executive Branch in
regard to EVWD's California legislative and regulatory program.
B. Research and analysis of State legislative and regulatory issues and related
initiatives; drafting legislation and amendments thereto relating to such
issues.
C. Legislative reporting services as may be required by EVWD.
D. Participation and attendance at meetings, upon request by EVWD,
including, but not limited to, meetings relating to issues management and
formation of lobbying coalitions.
RGR will work under the direction of the General Manager and will coordinate
services to be performed with same.
2. TERMS OF PAYMENT— EVWD will pay RGR, according to terms and
conditions set forth herein, a fee of SEVENTY -TWO THOUSAND AND NO 1100
East Valley Water District
Lobbying Firm Retention Contract
Page 2
DOLLARS ($72,000.00) for the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. This
amount shall be paid in twelve (12) equal installments of SIX THOUSAND AND
N01100 DOLLARS ($6,000.00) due on the first (1") of each month from July 2008
through June 2009, inclusive. Payment shall cover all time expended by RGR personnel
and independent contractors retained by RGR, unless otherwise agreed to by RGR and
EVWD.
A. Invoices shall be submitted monthly by RGR for payment by EVWD.
Payment is past due the next business day following the fifteenth of the
month. If EVWD has any valid reason for disputing any portion of an
invoice, EVWD will so notify RGR within seven (7) calendar days of
receipt of invoice, and if no such notification is given, the invoice will be
deemed valid. The portion of RGR's invoice that is not in dispute shall be
paid in accordance with the procedures set forth herein.
B. EVWD shall reimburse RGR all costs incurred in connection with the
services rendered. Reimbursable costs shall include travel costs and other
costs approved by EVWD. Travel costs are defined as air travel, lodging,
meals and incidentals, ground transportation, and all costs associated with
travel. All travel expenses must receive EV WD's prior approval. RGR shall
provide to EVWD substantiation of reimbursable costs incurred. In no
event shall the aggregate amount of reimbursable costs payable by EVWD
during the term of contract exceed the amount of THREE THOUSAND
AND NO 1100 DOLLARS ($3,000.00). Any expense incurred in excess of
THREE THOUSAND AND N01100 DOLLARS ($3,000.00) shall be the
legal responsibility of RGR.
C. A finance charge of 1.5% per month on the unpaid amount of an invoice
will be charged on past due accounts. Payments by EVWD will thereafter
be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid balance.
Any attorney fees, court costs, or other costs incurred in collection of
delinquent accounts shall be paid by EVWD. If payment of invoices is not
current, RGR may suspend performing further work.
3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR —It is understood that RGR will function as an
independent contractor and will hold itself out as such and will be without authority to
obligate EVWD for indebtedness, contracts, or other legal obligations.
East Valley Water District
Lobbying Firm Retention Contract
Page 3
4. POLITICAL REFORM ACT —RGR will be solely responsible for its filing and
reporting obligations pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, as it may be amended
from time to time. RGR shall assist EVWD with the preparation of its filing and reporting
obligations. EVWD will be solely responsible for its filing and reporting obligations
pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, as it may be amended from time to time.
5. GOVERNING LAW - This agreement shall be governed by and construed
pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT - This is the entire agreement of the parties and no other
representations, promises or agreements, oral or otherwise, shall be of any force or effect.
This agreement may be supplemented, amended or revised only in writing by agreement
of the parties.
7. TERM OF CONTRACT —This engagement shall be subject to review at any
mutually agreed upon time. Either party may terminate this engagement without cause by
giving written notice at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of termination. The effective
date of this agreement is July 1, 2008, and it shall tenninate on June 30, 2009.
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
P.O. Box 3427
San Bernardino CA 92413
By: Z&ert M. rtin, P.E.
General Manager
REEB GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, LLC
910 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento CA 95814
Date: Date:
By: Robert J. Reeb
Principal and Owner
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
910 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, Catifornia 95814
Phone: 916-558-1926
Facsimile: 916 -558 -1932
Robert Martin
c3eneral Manager
Fast Valley Water District
P.O. Box 3427
San Bernardino, California 92413
l3alance forward from last invoice
New Activity Since Last Invoice
October 2008 Retainer
Expenses
W eve'®
SEP 18/2006Fgsf ''
EV Vi8t'erDl
Invoice No.: 009 -OCT -2008
Date: September 15, 2008
Prior balance (credit) before this invoice:
Ac
0.00
0.00
6,000.00
Subtotal: $ 6,000.00
Subtotal: 0.00
Total Charges: $ 6,000.00
Total Balance Due: $ 6,000.00
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
910 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916 - 558-1926
Facsimile: 916-558-1932
Robert Martin
General Manager
East Valley Water District
P.O. Box 3427
San Bernardino, California 92413
Balance forward from last invoice
Invoice No.: 009 -SEP -2008
Date: August 15, 2008
c.
Prior balance (credit) before this invoice: 0.00
Now Activity ;since Last Invoice
September 2008 Retainer
Expenses
6,000.00
AtJG 16 sbu,,
East a ,,,,ey'-*gtar 01010tubtotal: $ 6,000.00
Subtotal: 0.00
Total Charges: $ 6,000.00
Total Balance Due: $ 6,000.00
I
Reeb Government Relations, LLC "'` HIF0°lo
910 K Street, Suite 300
JlU i ` ?OOB
Sacramento, California 95814 Hitlraki6g Y+at@r Dishisi
Phone: 916 -558 -1926
Facsimile: 916 -558 -1932
Robert Martin Invoice No.: 009 -AUG -2008
General Manager Date: July 16, 2008
East Valley Water District
P.O. Box 3427
San Bernardino, California 92413
Balance forward from last invoice
New Activity Since Last Invoice
August 2008 Retainer
Expenses
Prior balance (credit) before this invoice
0.00
0.00
6,000.00
Subtotal: $ 6,000.00
Subtotal: 0.00
Total Charges: $ 6,000.00
Total Balance Due: $ 6,000.00
Page 1 of 1
Justine Hendricksen
From: Bob Reeb [robertreeb @comcast.net]
lent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:32 AM
ro: Justine Hendricksen
Subject: FPPC Third Quarter Report Activity
Hi Justine,
14(e re is the list of legislation upon which I worked in the 3rd Quarter:
A.B 844, AB 2046, AB 2175, SB 447, SB 691, SBX2 1.
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
910 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento CA 95814
Phone: 916-558-1926
Fax: 916 -558 -1932
Cell: 916- 402 -4278
H.-mail: robertreeb@comcast.net
10/20/2008
East Valley Water District
2007 -06 Regular Session, Second Year
Legislative Review
April 16, 2006
Prepared by
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
A5 11654 buffman Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act.
Introduced: 02/23/2007
Last Amend: 03/11/2008
Status: 03/13 /2008 - Withdrawn from committee. Re- referred to Com. on RLS.
Is Fiscal: Y
Is Urgency: N
Location: 03/13/2008 -S RLS.
Summary: The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River
and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (initiative bond act) authorizes the issuance of
bonds in the amount of $5.388 billion for purposes of financing a safe drinking, water
quality and supply, flood control, and resource protection program.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to establish principles to guide the
implementation of the initiative bond act. The bill would require applicants for funding for
projects that assist local public agencies to meet the long -term water needs of the state
to identify the manner in which the proposed project will contribute to meeting the
performance standards included in the applicable integrated regional water
management plan. The bill would require the Department of Water Resources to
conduct a study, consistent with an existing provision of the initiative bond act, to
determine the status and effectiveness of groundwater management plans and
programs. The bill would define administrative costs for the purposes of the initiative
bond act. The bill would require the Secretary of the Resources Agency to prepare and
submit to the Legislature an annual report with regard to the expenditure of funds
pursuant to the initiative bond act. This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws.
Laws: An act add Sections 75004.5, 75026.3, 75051.2, and 75070.7 to the Public
Resources Code, and to repeal and add Part 2.2 (commencing with Section 10530) of
Division 6 of the Water Code, relating to water.
Notes; This bill is essentially the same legislation as AB 1489 (Huffman) from 2007,
which was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File. The principle
difference between the 2007 legislation and this bill is that this bill does not include
controversial provisions relating to groundwater management.
The purpose of this bill is to provide policy direction from the Legislature to the
Department of Water Resources regarding the implementation of the Proposition 84
chapter that provides funding for integrated regional water management (IRWM) plans.
Proposition 84, however, does not require the Legislature to adoption legislation to
implement the program. In fact, DWR has been proceeding on its own and under the
authority of the provisions of Proposition 84 to develop and adopt guidelines. The issues
presented are as follows: (1) Shall the Legislature dictate the items and issues that, at a
minimum, must be considered and /or included in an IRWM? (2) Shall the Legislature
dictate to DWR that the guidelines require that the development and implementation of
an IRWM Plan include a public process that provides outreach and an opportunity to
participate in plan development and implementation? (3) Should this legislation provide
for a broad prohibition against projects that are "inconsistent with federal or state water
qual, y laws ?"
As for the first issue, Proposition 84 and existing law regarding IRWM planning (Chapter
1 of Part 2.2 of Division 6 of the Water Code (commencing with Section 10530)) provide
a list of programs and projects which may be included in an IRWM Plan. Both
Proposition 84 and existing law were written to provide local agencies the maximum
leeway to develop a regional plan on a voluntary, consensus -based process. This bill,
however, not only dictates the minimum programs and projects that would have to be
included; the bill would require IRWM plans to include consideration of water quality
basin plan objectives, the water - related needs of disadvantaged communities and 11
other items. Proposition 84, on the other hand, requires DWR to give preference to
proposals that integrate a number of the items listed as requirements in AB 1654.
As for the second issue, this bill would require DWR to evaluate IRWM plans and
projects based on the extent a regional water management group provides outreach
and an opportunity to participate with persons other than water agencies. This addition
to a voter - approved initiative may be legally suspect, in that subsequently enacted
legislative statutes may only interpret or bring clarity to an issue raised by provisions of
the initiative, but cannot amend the initiative without subsequent voter approval.
Finally, at the end of this bill, a provision states that "A plan or project shall not be
funded pursuant to this division (IRWM planning) if it would fund activities inconsistent
with applicable state and federal water quality laws." On its face, such a prohibition
makes sense. However, the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant that
discharges to the waters of the United States may not be consistent with the goal of
recovering impaired water bodies under the Federal Clean Water Act. Is "inconsistent"
the appropriate standard here?
Under state law, the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act, it is recognized that it
may be possible for the quality of water to be changed to some degree as a result of a
waste discharge without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. Factors to be
considered by a regional board in establishing water quality objectives shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to, all of the following: (a) Past, present, and probable future
beneficial uses of water, (b) Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit
under consideration, including the quality of water available thereto, (c) Water quality
conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all
factors which affect water quality in the area, (d) Economic considerations, (e) The need
for developing housing within the region, and (f) The need to develop and use recycled
water.
The $1 billion for IRWM projects and programs included in Proposition 84 was intended
to provide local water agencies with the funding necessary to pursue water supply
development and water supply reliability projects, including water quality improvements,
on a regional basis. This bill, however, may make it more challenging to do so. In fact,
the bill would require recently adopted IRWM plans to be modified in order to qualify for
Proposition 84 funding.
The bottom line issue before the District Board of Directors, then, is whether DWR
should be allowed to adopt guidelines through a public process or whether the
Legislature needs to provide policy direction /requirements as presented by this bill.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Opposed unless amended
AO 1806 Volk Fish and wildlife: rescue or relocation: emergency contingency
plans.
Introduced: 01 /16/2008
Last Amend: 04/08/2008
Status: 04/15 /2008 -From W.,P. & W.: Do pass as amended. To APPR..
Is Fiscal: Y
Is Urgency: N
Location: 04/16/2008 -A APPR.
Summary: Under existing federal law, the United States Bureau of Reclamation
operates the Central Valley Project and appropriates water for the beneficial uses of
that project pursuant to permits granted by the State Water Resources Control Board
and subject to specified state laws. The Department of Water Resources operates the
State Resources Development System and appropriates water for that system pursuant
to permits granted by the state board.
This bill would require the state board to impose terms and conditions on permits for the
State Water Project and the federal project with regard to the delta that provide
reasonable mitigation for both direct and indirect adverse impacts on delta fishery
resources arising from the operation of the water export facilities of the state system
and the federal project.
Laws: An act to add Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1450) to Division 2 of the
Fish and Game Code, and to add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 12210) to Part
4.5 of Division 6 of the Water Code, relating to fish and wildlife resources.
Notes: Water supplies provided by the State Water Project to Southern California have
been significantly reduced due to regulatory actions under the Federal Endangered
Species Act and judicial orders. The recent Wanger decision in federal district court has
significantly reduced the ability of the State Water Project to reliably meet the water
supply needs of the State Water Contractors. These regulatory actions and judicial
orders are both aimed at reducing the impact of the State Water Project on Delta
fisheries. The provisions of AB 1806 can only further erode the reliability of CVP and
SWP supply deliveries. AB 1806 could only result in a costly and time - consuming
process before the state board and will not likely produce any appreciable benefits for
Delta fisheries.
The state board, pursuant to Section 1391 of the Water Code, has fully enumerated a
number of conditions relating to CVP and SWP operations. Further, the state board,
pursuant to Section 1394, reserves jurisdiction to amend, revise, supplement, or delete
terms and conditions in the permits issued to the State Water Project. The state board
adopted Water Right Decision 1641 in March 2000 and amended the decision as
recently as 2002. D -1641 is part of the state board's implementation of the 1995 Bay -
Delta Plan. Many of the objectives in the 1995 Bay -Delta Plan are best implemented by
making changes in the flow of water or in the operation of facilities that move water.
Accordingly, this decision amended water rights by assigning responsibilities to the
persons or entities holding those rights to help meet the objectives, including the State
Water Project.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) currently being developed under the direction
of the Schwarzenegger Administration will provide protections for native Delta fish far in
excess of mitigation. The CVP, SWP and the local public agencies that receive water
supplies from those projects are developing the BDCP under the Natural Communities
Conservation Planning Act standard that requires recovery rather than mitigation. The
CVP and SWP contractors are working with the State and federal fishery agencies, the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Water Resources, and the major
environmental organizations working in the Delta expect to finish the BDCP on an
expedited schedule by December 2009. The BDCP will be added to the current efforts
of the SWP and CVP to protect the Delta fishery.
Addressing the current decline in the Delta fishery will require a comprehensive
response. The findings in the Pelagic Organism Decline Progress Report: 2007
Synthesis of Results (Synthesis Report) stands in stark contrast to the heavy burdens
placed soieiy on the CVP and SWP by this biii. The Synthesis Report states that
Entrainment at the CVP and SWP pumps ... seem like an unlikely single cause of the
POD...:' Unfortunately section 12210 of the bill limits the obligation to mitigate for
impacts to the Delta fishery to the CVP and SWP.
Other factors killing the Delta's fishery are not addressed at all by the bill. The impacts
of factors such as toxic runoff, ammonia -laden releases from urban water treatment
plants, invasive species, climate change, in -Delta agricultural diversions, in -Delta
agricultural releases, cyclical and declining ocean conditions, commercial and
recreational harvest, lack of food supply, and disease all would not require mitigation
under this bill. Solving the Delta's environmental and water supply problems will require
a comprehensive approach that addresses all of the factors affecting the Delta and
includes the cooperation of the many stakeholders in the Delta.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Oppose
AB 2975 LaiLdj Water conservation.
Introduced: 02/20/2008
Last Amend: 04/08/2008
Status: 04/15/2008 -From W.,P. & W.: Do pass. To APPR..
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 04/16/2008 -A APPR.
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to convene an
independent technical panel to provide information to the department and the
Legislature on new demand management measures, technologies, and approaches.
Demand management measures" means those water conservation measures,
programs, and incentives that prevent the waste of water and promote the reasonable
and efficient use and reuse of available supplies. This bill would require the department
to establish a statewide target to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use
in California by December 31, 2020. By December 31, 2020, each urban water supplier
would be required to reduce its per capita water use by 20 %, except as provided. By
December 31, 2010, and not less than every 5 years thereafter, the department would
be required to establish and make available to the public a list of technically feasible
urban water conservation measures available to assist urban water suppliers in meeting
this requirement.
Laws: An act to amend Section 10631.5 of, and to add Part 2.55 (commencing with
Section 10608) to Division 6 of, the Water Code, relating to water conservation.
Notes: This bill represents a complete abandonment of the voluntary, consensus -
based approach to urban water conservation through the California Urban Water
Conservation Council. The sponsor of this bill, Natural Resources Defense Council, is
an active participant in that council. This bill would establish a top -down approach to
water conservation for urban and agricultural water suppliers.
The bill also presents a significant change from the California Water Plan Update
process by which the California Department of Water Resources projects future water
demand, in consideration of multiple factors including water conservation. Under this
bill, DWR sets the conservation targets for urban and agricultural uses and develops a
list of technically feasible conservation measures. Urban water suppliers must adopt
those measures that are locally cost effective and adopt a numeric conservation target.
Then, an urban supplier must report progress to DWR on a biannual basis as confirmed
by an independent evaluation. DWR is authorized to require additional water
conservation measures to be imposed if there is insufficient progress in meeting the
local target. The ability of local elected boards of directors to make decisions relating to
the implementation of local water conservation measures could be usurped by a state
agency; a local elected governing body could lose the ability to make decisions at the
local level relating to the appropriate mix of water conservation practices as compared
to water supply development or other management options.
Existing law provides that any public entity which supplies water at retail or wholesale
for the benefit of persons within the service area or area of jurisdiction of the public
entity may adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of
water used by those persons for the purpose of conserving the water supplies of the
public entity. The ordinance or resolution may also encourage water conservation
through rate structure design (Section 395, Water Code).
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires an urban water supplier like
EVWD to provide a description of local water demand management measures. This
description includes: (1) A description of each water demand management measure
that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the
steps necessary to implement any proposed measures, as well as a schedule of
implementation for all water demand management measures proposed or described in
the plan; (2) A description of the methods, if any, that the District will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or described under
the plan; and (3) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use
within the District's service area, and the effect of the savings on the District's ability to
further reduce demand. EVWD is further required to evaluate each water demand
management measure listed under current law that is not currently being implemented
or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evaluation, EVWD must give first
consideration to the implementation of water demand management measures, or
combination of measures, that offer lower incremental costs than expanded or
additional water supplies (Section 10631(f), Water Code).
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Oppose
AU 2501 (Volk Water: planning.
Introduced: 02/21/2008
Last Amend:
Status: 04/14/2008 -Do pass as amended and be re- referred to the Committee on
Appropriations.
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 04/15/2008 -A APPR.
Summary: Under existing law, various state and local agencies engage in water
resource planning.
This bill would enact the Climate Change and Water Resource Protection Act of 2008,
The bill would require the Department of Water Resources, as part of its statewide
water resource management responsibilities, to include an analysis of the potential
effects of climate change, to the extent applicable, in reports or plans relating to water
management or planning that the department is required to prepare. The bill would
prohibit the department from approving a request for a specified grant, submitted after
January 1, 2011, unless certain requirements are met. The department would be
required, by July 1, 2009, to identify available peer- reviewed information, or the best
available scientific information, regarding climate change and water resources for the
state and each of the state's hydrologic regions for specified uses. The bill would require
an urban water supplier and an agricultural water supplier that is required to prepare a
water management plan to take certain action relating to specified climate change
information, as provided.
Under existing law, various bond acts have been approved by the voters to provide
funds for water projects, facilities, and programs. The Disaster Preparedness and Flood
Prevention Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1 E) authorizes the issuance of bonds in the
amount of $4.09 billion for the purposes of financing disaster preparedness and flood
prevention projects. The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control,
River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) authorizes the issuance
of bonds in the amount of $5.388 billion for the purposes of financing a safe drinking
water, water quality and supply, flood control, and resource protection program. The
Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,
approved by the voters at the November 5, 2002, statewide general election,
authorizes, for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water quality, and water
reliability program, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3.44 billion.
This bill, with regard to those bond funds, would appropriate $610.89 million as follows:
of the funds made available pursuant to Proposition 1 E, $50 million to the Department
of Water Resources for essential emergency preparedness supplies and projects, and
150 million to the department for stormwater flood management project grants; of the
funds made available pursuant to Proposition 84, $50 million to the State Department of
Public Health for grants for small community drinking water system infrastructure
improvements and related actions, $50.4 million to the State Department of Public
Health for grants for projects to prevent or reduce the contamination of groundwater that
serves as a source of drinking water, $40 million to the department for administrative
costs, planning grants, and local groundwater assistance grants, $50 million to the
department for projects that improve the quality of the drinking water supply from the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, $60 million to the department and the Central Valley
flood Protection Board to increase the department's ability to respond to levee breaches
and to reduce the potential for levee failure, $100 million to the department and the
board for the acquisition, preservation, protection, and restoration of Sacramento -San
Joaquin Delta resources, $12 million to the department to complete planning and
feasibility studies associated with new surface storage under the California Bay -Delta
Program, $15 million to the department for planning and feasibility studies to identify
potential options for the reoperation of the state's flood protection and water supply
systems, $10 million to the department for response to climate change, and $10 million
to the department for planning and feasibility studies to implement the Delta Vision. The
bill also would appropriate Proposition 50 funds to the department for planning and
feasibility studies associated with surface storage under the California Bay -Delta
Program.
Laws: An act to add Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 10100) to Division 6 of, and to
add Division 33 (commencing with Section 83000) to, the Water Code, relating to water,
and making an appropriation therefor.
Notes: This bill combines AB 224 (Wolk) from 2007 and SBX2 1 (Perata), which was
introduced in the second extraordinary session. This bill includes proposed
appropriations that are also contained in SBX2 1. This is significant for two reasons.
First, Senate and Assembly Democrat leadership have not seen eye -to -eye on these
appropriations due, in large part, to the division of labor between the two houses on
water issues and health care. The Senate took the lead on the former, while the
Assembly took the lead on the latter. Second, it is important to secure legislative
authorization for a number of the projects and programs included in AB 2501 and
SBX 2 1, including much - needed funding for groundwater contamination cleanup, delta
levee maintenance and improvements, and fishery restoration projects in the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. In fact, the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force in
November 2007 urged the Legislature and the Schwarzenegger Administration to move
quickly on interim actions in the Delta to improve conditions for fisheries and water
conveyance.
There are some concerns with this bill, however, that need to be addressed through
amendments. First, the appropriation of $50 million from Proposition 1 E for emergency
preparedness projects in the Delta would require the CALFED Bay -Delta Authority or a
successor entity to approve projects. This requirement may not be appropriate. DWR
and the Department of Fish and Game have cooperated on delta levee maintenance
and improvement projects under an MOU in the Delta. It may be more appropriate to
reference the MOU as compared to the CALFED Bay -Delta Authority.
A proposed appropriation of $60 million to increase DWR's ability to respond to levee
breaches and to reduce the potential for levee failure is proposed to be taken from the
Proposition 84 funding set aside for delta levee maintenance and improvement. The
appropriate funding section is Section 75032 under the proposition, not Section 75033.
A similar concern relates to the appropriation of $100 million for the acquisition,
preservation, protection and restoration of Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta islands. The
amount would oversubscribe the funding proposed for expenditure out Proposition 84
that was intended to cover state expenditures under the delta levee maintenance
program under Part 9 (commencing with Section 12980) of Division 6 of the Water
Code, and special flood protection projects under Chapter 2 (commencing with
Subdivision 12310) of Part 4.8 of Division 6 of the Water Code. At a minimum, funding
from other sources, such as Section 75050(a) (Proposition 84 funds for the Department
of Fish and Game for bay -delta fish restoration) would be appropriate.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Support/Amend
AR 2q9l(gnM Groundwater.
Introduced: 02/22/2008
Last Amend: 04103/2008
Status: 04/15/2008 -From W.,P. & W.: Do pass. To APPR..
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 04/16/2008 -A APPR.
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR), not later
than January 1, 1980, to report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature with
regard to certain investigations undertaken by the department relating to the state's
groundwater basins, and groundwater pumping and groundwater recharge within those
basins.
This bill would require the department to conduct, every 5 years, those groundwater
investigations and to report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature with regard
to those investigations commencing not later than January 1, 2010, and each January
thereafter in those years ending in 5 and 0.
Laws: An act to amend Section 12924 of the Water Code, relating to groundwater.
Notes: The Groundwater Resources Association is the sponsor of this bill. DW R has
studied and reported on California's groundwater resources twice in the last 30 years, in
a report commonly called Bulletin 118. Since the last publication of Bulletin 118 in 2003,
legislative debate has focused on how state and local agencies should develop
information on California's groundwater resources. A groundwater reporting bill passed
in each of the fast three years, but each one was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger
SB 820 (Kuehl), SB 1640 (Kuehl) and SB 178 (Steinberg)). Much of the controversy
surrounding the earlier versions of these bills focused on the role of local agencies as
compared to the State gaining greater authority over the management of groundwater
basins. Objections to later versions of the bill focused on fiscal matters and whether
local agencies should be responsible for reporting groundwater information to the State
or whether local agencies should pay for the State to report on their groundwater
basins.
According to the sponsor of this bill, AB 2691 will expand the base of information as to
California's groundwater use, and improve the state's ability to plan California's water
future. This bill does not address the more controversial issues raised by the previous
legislation, but it should be closely monitored as it moves forward in the legislative
process this year. The bill was amended in the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife
Committee last Tuesday to require DWR to coordinate its activities with local agencies
involved in the production or management of groundwater resources.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Watch
6413 2913 Salas Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta: strategic plan.
Introduced: 02/22/2008
Last Amend: 04/07/2008
Status: 04/15 /2008 -From W.,P. & W.: Do pass as amended. To APPR..
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 04/16/2008 -A APPR.
Summary: The California Bay -Delta Authority Act establishes the California Bay -Delta
Authority in the Resources Agency. The act requires the authority and the implementing
agencies to carry out programs, projects, and activities necessary to implement the
Bay -Delta Program, defined to mean those actions that address the goals and
objectives of the CALFED Bay -Delta Programmatic Record of Decision, dated August
28, 2000, or as it may be amended.
This bill would require the description, characterization, or definition of water supply
uses in the plan to include an adequate and reliable water supply for the users of the
State Water Resources Development System and the Central Valley Project. The bill
would require the recommendations for institutional changes to give preference to
modifying existing institutions, as determined to be necessary, to accomplish the
strategic plan over the establishment of new institutions and to seek to streamline
regulatory requirements rather than increasing regulatory burdens. The bill would
require that the strategic financing plan include provisions for delta beneficiaries to pay
their fair share for the benefits that they receive, an equitable distribution of project
capital costs, and reliable sources of funding to provide for implementation of the
strategic plan. This bill contains other existing laws.
Laws: An act to amend Section 79473 of the Water Code, relating to the Sacramento -
San Joaquin Delta.
Notes: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is the sponsor of this bill.
According to the author, the purpose of this bill is to provide further legislative guidance
in terms of defining the role of the state in designing future long -term solutions for the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and to ensure a robust discussion of Delta governance
in 2009. The provisions of the bill do not raise any new issues that are not required
under current law —SB 1574 (Kuehl), Chapter 535, Statutes of 2006 that required
development of a long -term vision for the Delta.
The sponsor of the bill believes, however, that the enactment of this bill will prompt a
more robust discussion of specific issues. The bill, for example, differs somewhat from
the direction mapped out by the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force in its November
2007 report in that this bill would state a preference for modifying existing institutions as
compared to the task force recommendation that a more comprehensive governance
structure be implemented. While this bill sought to The task force is working on its
strategic plan and intends to produce a final report in October or November of this year.
This bill, should it become law, would not take effect until January 1, 2009. So, while it
would be too late to change the direction of the task force, it could still inform the
legislators sworn into a new 2 -year session in December 2008.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Watch
AB 29383 De Leon Fish: screening of water diversions.
Introduced: 02/22/2008
Last Amend: 04/08/2008
Status: 04/15/2008 -From W.,P. & W.: Do pass as amended. To APPR..
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 04/16/2008 -A APPR.
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Game to examine certain
conduits, and order the owner of a conduit to install a screen when, in the opinion of the
department, it is necessary to prevent fish from passing into the conduit. Existing law
also makes it unlawful for the owner of any conduit to refuse, fail, or neglect to install a
screen in compliance with an order from the department or to permit the screen to be
removed, except for repairs or cleaning. Existing law requires that, if the department
makes an order to install a screen, it shall pay the owner of the conduit 1/2 of the
estimated cost of the construction or installation of the screen.
This bill, except as specified, would require any person diverting water from the
Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta, as defined, to develop and submit to the
department a prescribed fish entrainment monitoring program. The bill would require the
department, no later than December 31, 2012, to review the results of these individual
entrainment monitoring programs and would authorize the department to issue a
remedial order, as prescribed. The bill would require the department to conduct a pilot
program for the monitoring of entrainment of fish species in the delta by designing and
constructing facilities for, and managing fish entrainment monitoring programs at,
representative diversion sites. This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws.
Laws: An act to add Section 5986.5 to, and to add Article 4.5 (commencing with
Section 6050) to Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 6 of, The Fish and Game Code, and to
amend Sections 5101 and 5103 of the Water Code, relating to fish, and making an
appropriation therefor.
Notes: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is the sponsor of this bill,
which is supported by many State Water Contractors and other Delta export interests.
Recent dramatic Delta fishery declines and reduced water export pumping required by a
federal judge in response to those declines has led to statewide discussion of Delta
fishery protection. The topics in that discussion include the direct effects of both water-
project export diversions and local diversions for in -Delta uses. The December 2007
Delta Vision report estimates that in -Delta diversions represent between 4 and 5
percent of total Delta inflow, compared to about 17% for Delta exports. The lack of any
reporting on in -Delta diversions (other than Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and
the State Water Project (SWP) diversions leads to a lack of information on the quantity
and timing of diversions within the region. In contrast, the CVP /SWP diversions are
closely regulated and monitored.
In the Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee, the sponsor and the author agreed to narrow
the scope of the bill to require the Department of Fish and Game to initiate a monitoring
and sampling program on a smaller number of diversions.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Support
g713q22(Encl) State Water Project: delivery reliability report.
Introduced: 02/22/2008
Last Amend: 03/24/2008
Status: 04/02/2008 -From committee: Do pass, and re -refer to Com. on APPR. Re-
referred.
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 04/02/2008 -A APPR.
Caiendar: 04/16/08 9 a.m. - Room 4202 ASM APPROPRIATIONS
Summary: Under existing law, the Department of Water Resources operates the State
Water Project, which includes state water facilities, as defined.
This bill would require the department, commencing in 2011, and every 2 years
thereafter, to prepare a water delivery reliability report which sets forth the then - existing
delivery capability of the State Water Project and the total amount of water allocated to
each State Water Project contractor for that year and each of the 10 years immediately
preceding the report. The bill would require the report to take into consideration a range
of hydrologic conditions, and to identify potential water management options to increase
water reliability, to provide a clear explanation of the appropriate and inappropriate uses
of categories of water delivered pursuant to State Water Project contracts, to analyze
the possible effects of climate change on the State Water Project, and to explain the
data used to generate the report. The bill would require the department to obtain
scientific peer review of the report, to address the concerns raised by the peer review,
and to provide a draft of the preliminary report to the public prior to issuing the final
report. The bill would require the department to deliver the final report to specified
parties, including the Legislature, and to make the report available on its Internet Web
site.
Laws: An act to add Section 143 to the Water Code, relating to water.
dotes: The Planning and Conservation League (PCL) is the sponsor of this bill. A party
to the Monterrey Agreement settlement, PCL now seeks to codify one provision of the
settlement, plus add to it.
Since 2003, DWR has prepared and provided these biennial delivery reliability reports
as required. Each report has also included narrative on how local water agencies can
integrate the SWP reliability information along with their other water management
capabilities into an overall assessment of water supply reliability. In its most recent
update, DWR has also included estimates of the wide range of potential changes to
water supply that may result from climate change. With each report, DWR has provided
a public review process. That process has included issuance of a draft available for
public review, a comment period during which public comments were accepted, and at
least with the initial report, a written DWR response to each comment letter received.
The Delivery Reliability Report is a legal requirement of a settlement agreement — there
is not a need for AB 2970 to legislatively mandate the report, since DWR already has a
legal obligation to prepare the report.
AB 2970 would add a few requirements to the report DWR has already been preparing.
It would require DWR to explain the appropriate and inappropriate uses of all categories
of SWP water. The language used here is unclear and could easily be misinterpreted. if
the issue is how various categories of SWP water may be used by SWP contractors,
this is specified in the SWP contracts. If the issue is whether it is appropriate or not for a
contractor to plan on delivery of certain categories of SWP water, that is a determination
best made at the local level, based on each contractor's local water management, and
its access to storage and other water supplies sources. This is not a one - size- fits -all
determination that can be made by DWR. Further, the more recent delivery reliability
reports already include some discussion of this issue.
Finally, the peer review process provided in AB 2970 would add considerable additional
time to the preparation process for these biennial reports, with questionable benefit. The
requirement to issue a draft at least one year prior to report finalization effectively
ensures that the information provided is not current at the time a report is finalized. The
peer review and response requirement, on top of a later public review process, would
result in additional staff requirements for a nearly constant process of report drafting,
review and response, and finalization, all for a report that is updated every two years.
Further, the value of an ongoing peer review is questionable. The type of delivery
reliability information presented in this report is not new — DWR has presented this
same type of information in various publications for decades and the framework for
presenting it is well established. The reliability report is not the type of scientific study
that would benefit from a scientific peer review, the only peer review that would improve
the report would be a review by peers responsible for planning for and managing water
utilities. Mandating a biennial peer review would be an unnecessary additional step that
would guarantee untimely information.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Oppose
S 2727 Simitian Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta, Clean Drinking Water,
Water Supply Security, and Environmental Improvement Act of 2008.
Introduced: 12/04/2006
Last Amend: 03/06/2008
Status: 03/06 /2008 -From committee with author's amendments. Read second time.
Amended. Re- referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 03/06/2008 -A W.R. & W.
Summary: Under existing law, various bond acts have been approved by the voters to
provide funds for water projects, facilities, and programs. Under existing law, various
state agencies administer programs relating to water supply, water quality, and flood
management in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta.
This bill would enact the Sacramento- San.Joaquin River Delta, Clean Drinking Water,
Water Supply Security, and Environmental Improvement Act of 2008, which, if approved
by the voters, would authorize, for the purposes of financing a water quality,
environmental enhancement, and water supply reliability program, the issuance,
pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, of bonds in the amount of
4,000,000,000. The bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the bond act to
the voters at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election. This bill contains other
related provisions.
Lays: An act to add Division 26.6 (commencing with Section 79600) to the Water
Code, relating to financing a water quality, environmental enhancement, and water
supply reliability program, by providing the funds necessary therefor through an election
for the issuance and sale of bonds of the State of California and for the handling and
disposition of those funds.
Notes- The Legislature has called for a variety of actions to resolve the conflicts in the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. During its 2005 -2006 Regular Session, the Legislature
passed and the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1200 (Laird), Senate Bill 1574 (Kuehl),
and Assembly Bill 1803 (Committee on Budget). Together, these bills required an
assessment of the potential impacts on water supplies of catastrophic failures in the
delta, identification and evaluation of options to protect water supplies and the
ecosystem of the delta, the development of a vision for a sustainable delta, and a
strategic plan to achieve a sustainable Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta.
Additionally, SB 1574 created a Delta Vision Committee to develop the vision and
strategic plan. The Committee is composed of the Secretary of the Resources Agency
as chair, and the Secretaries of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,
Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Environmental Protection
Agency, and the President of the Public Utilities Commission. On September 28, 2006,
the Governor issued an Executive Order that, among other things, establishes a Blue
Ribbon Task Force that is charged with developing a vision for a sustainable delta. The
Executive Order directs the Task Force to report to the to the Delta Vision Committee
and Governor its findings and recommendations on the sustainable management of the
Delta by January 1, 2008 and a strategic plan to implement the delta vision by October
31, 2008.
This bill raises a number of concerns for the State Water Contractors and local agencies
that might rely, in whole or in part, on State Water Project supplies as a part of local
water supplies. First, the bill would establish a new authority in state government and
grant to the authority a broad range of powers relating to the delivery of a reliable state
water supply. The bill would authorize the authority to contract to design, construct, and
own one or more facilities to move water from the Sacramento River to federal and state
pumping facilities on behalf of the State Water Project, the federal Central Valley
Project, and local water agencies that can reasonably be served by those facilities.
Second, the bill would authorize the authority to impose a fee for the transmission of
water through these facilities. The bill would require the authority to impose other fees,
including a fee, not to exceed $50 per acre -foot of water transmitted through the
facilities, or otherwise pumped from the delta, on federal and state contractors and
affected local water agencies. The bill would authorize the authority to impose a fee on
specified water users to mitigate impacts on delta ecological functions caused by their
c+lversions. The biil would require the funds generated by these fees to be continuously
appropriated to the authority for an environmental restoration program.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Oppose
Sly 1,102(Machado) California Bay -Delta Authority Act.
Introduced: 01 /15/2008
Last Amend: 04/07/2008
Status: 04/15 /2008 -Read second time. To third reading.
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 04/1512008 -S THIRD READING
Calendar: 04/17/08 55 SEN THIRD READING FILE
Summary: The California Bay -Delta Authority Act establishes the California Bay -Delta
Authority in the Resources Agency. The act requires the authority and the implementing
agencies to carry out programs, projects, and activities necessary to implement the
Bay -Delta Program, defined to mean those projects, programs, commitments, and other
actions that address the goals and objectives of the CALFED Bay -Delta Programmatic
Record of Decision, dated August 28, 2000, or as it may be amended. This bill would
repeal the act. This bill contains other related provisions.
Laws: An act to add Article 5 (commencing with Section 200) to Chapter 2 of Division 1
of, and to repeal Division 26.4 (commencing with Section 79400) of, the Water Code,
relating to water.
Notes: The author is the sponsor of this legislation. The CALFED Bay -Delta Program
has lost the confidence of the Legislature and many water community members over
the past several years. The author believes the Bay -Delta Authority should be
dismantled and the Secretary for Resources should proceed on implementation of the
various program elements. The bill will be subject to negotiations between the Senate
Democrats and the Schwarzenegger Administration, although with the much - anticipated
release of a Delta Vision Process strategic plan later this year, it might be premature to
decide the fate of the Bay -Delta Program.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Watch
SgM Perata Water equality, flood control, water storage, and wildlife
preservation.
Introduced: 09/14/2007
Last Amend:
Status: 01/07 /2008 -Read third time. Passed. To Assembly.
Is Fiscal: Yes
Is Urgency: No
Location: 01/07/2008 -A ASSEMBLY
Summary: Under existing law, various bond acts have been approved by the voters to
provide funds for water projects, facilities, and programs. The Disaster Preparedness
and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1 E) authorizes the issuance of
bonds in the amount of $4.09 billion for the purposes of financing disaster preparedness
and flood prevention projects. The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84)
authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5.388 billion for the purposes of
financing a safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, and resource
protection program. The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach
Protection Act of 2002, approved by the voters at the November 5, 2002, statewide
general election, authorizes, for the purposes of financing a safe drinking water, water
quality, and water reliability program, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $3.44
billion.
This bill, with regard to those bond funds, would appropriate $610.89 million as follows:
of the funds made available pursuant to Proposition 1 E, $50 million to the Department
of Water Resources for essential emergency preparedness supplies and projects, and
150 million to the department for stormwater flood management project grants; of the
funds made available pursuant to Proposition 84, $50 million to the State Department of
Public Health for grants for small community drinking water system infrastructure
improvements and related actions, $50.4 million to the State Department of Public
Health for grants for projects to prevent or reduce the contamination of groundwater that
serves as a source of drinking water, $40 million to the department for administrative
costs, planning grants, and local groundwater assistance grants, $50 million to the
department for projects that improve the quality of the drinking water supply from the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, $60 million to the department and the Central Valley
flood Protection Board to increase the department's ability to respond to levee breaches
and to reduce the potential for levee failure, $100 million to the department and the
board for the acquisition, preservation, protection, and restoration of Sacramento -San
Joaquin Delta resources, $12 million to the department to complete planning and
feasibility studies associated with new surface storage under the California Bay -Delta
Program, $15 million to the department for planning and feasibility studies to identify
potential options for the reoperation of the state's flood protection and water supply
systems, $10 million to the department for response to climate change, and $10 million
to the department for planning and feasibility studies to implement the Delta Vision. The
bill also would appropriate Proposition 50 funds to the department for planning and
feasibility studies associated with surface storage under the California Bay -Delta
Program.
Lags: An act to add Division 33 (commencing with Section 83000) to the Water Code,
relating to water, and making an appropriation therefor.
Notes: This bill includes proposed appropriations that are similar to those proposed in
AB 2501. SBX 2 1 includes much - needed funding for groundwater contamination
cleanup, delta levee maintenance and improvements, and fishery restoration projects in
the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. The Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force in
November 2007 urged the Legislature and the Schwarzenegger Administration to move
quickly on interim actions in the Delta to improve conditions for fisheries and water
conveyance.
There are some concerns with this bill, however, that need to be addressed through
amendments. First, the appropriation of $50 million from Proposition 1 E for emergency
preparedness projects in the Delta would require the CALFED Bay -Delta Authority or a
successor entity to approve projects. This requirement may not be appropriate. DWR
and the Department of Fish and Game have cooperated on delta levee maintenance
and improvement projects under an MOU in the Delta. It may be more appropriate to
reference the MOU as compared to the CALFED Bay -Delta Authority.
A proposed appropriation of $60 million to increase DWR's ability to respond to levee
breaches and to reduce the potential for levee failure is proposed to be taken from the
Proposition 84 funding set aside for delta levee maintenance and improvement. The
appropriate funding section is Section 75032 under the proposition, not Section 75033.
A similar concern relates to the appropriation of $100 million for the acquisition,
preservation, protection and restoration of Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta islands. The
amount would oversubscribe the funding proposed for expenditure out Proposition 84
that was intended to cover state expenditures under the delta levee maintenance
program under Part 9 (commencing with Section 12980) of Division 6 of the Water
Code, and special flood protection projects under Chapter 2 (commencing with
Subdivision 12310) of Part 4.8 of Division 6 of the Water Code. At a minimum, funding
from other sources, such as Section 75050(a) (Proposition 84 funds for the Department
of Fish and Game for bay -delta fish restoration) would be appropriate.
Current Position: Not Yet Considered
Recommended Position: Support/Amend
Page 1 of 1
Justine Hendricksen
From: Bob Martin
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:20 AM
70: Justine Hendricksen
Subject: FW: AB 2046 Recommendation
JPH - please add this to our next agenda. Place all of Bob's backup in the board packet. Thanks, Bob
Original Message---- -
From: Bob Reeb [mailto:robertreeb @comcast.net]
sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:31 AM
To: Bob Martin
CC Justine Hendricksen
subject: AB 2046 Recommendation
Hi Bob,
I mentioned AB 2046 when we met last with the board of directors. I believe that EV WD should
consider an "Oppose" position on the bill given the current situation of the District -- reliance on
groundwater and perchlorate contamination in the groundwater basin. The bill is opposed by ACWA
and the California Building Industry Association, among others.
1. have attached a memorandum on the bill, as well as the legislation and an analysis prepared by the
Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee. The bill will likely be on the Assembly Floor before
May 30, so time is of the essence if you want to weigh in.
Please call me if you have any questions or require further information on AB 2046.
Bob
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
910 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento CA 95814
Phone: 916 -558 -1926
ax: 916 -558 -1932
ell: 916 - 402 -4278
mail: robertreebpcomcast.net
5/19/2008
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
MEMORANDUM
MAY 6, 2008
71' ®: Robert Martin, General Manager
East Valley Water District
FROM: Bob Reeb
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
SUBJECT: Assembly Bill No. 2046 (Jones)
AB 2046 was introduced on February 19, 2008 by Assembly Member Dave Jones (D- Sacramento). The bill
would amend Sections 10631 and 10910 of the Water Code, relating to water supply.
Existing Law and the Changes Proposed by AB 2046
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 10620) of Part 2.6 of
Division 6 of the Water Code) requires an urban water supplier to prepare and adopt an urban water
management plan for submission to the Department of Water Resources. The act requires, if groundwater is
identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the urban water supplier, that certain
information be included in the plan.
AB 2046, as amended on April 28, 2008, would provide that if groundwater is identified as an existing or
planned source of water available to the urban water supplier, the plan would only be permitted to include the
amount of groundwater that meets applicable state standards on the date the plan is prepared.
Existing law requires a city or county that determines that a proposed residential development of more than 500
equivalent dwelling units is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water
system that may supply water for the project and to request that public water system to prepare a water supply
assessment (Part 2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code). This requirement
also applies to a proposed commercial or industrial project that would demand an amount of water equivalent
to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. If no public water system is
identified, the city or county is required to prepare the water supply assessment. If a water supply for a proposed
proje:ci includes groundwater, certain additional information is required to be included in the water supply
assessment, including a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is
projected to be pumped and an analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from
910 K Street, Suite 300 ! (916) 558 -1926 PH
Sacramento, California 95814 1 (916) 558 -1932 FAX
Memorandum
May 6. 2008
Page 3
the costs incurred to comply with the requirements of the legislation. Instead, AB 2046 would provide that no
reirribursement is necessary because an urban water supplier or local agency has the authority to levy service
charges, fees or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by the legislation.
This change will likely enable Assembly Member Jones to move AB 2046 out of the Appropriations Committee
to the Assembly Floor as the legislation would no longer place funding requirements of the State General Fund.
The April 28 amendments described here and above are not likely to result in any changes to the entities listed
in support or opposition to the legislation.
It is unlikely that any amendments could be offered to the author of AB 2046 that would make the legislation
amenable to water suppliers. Clearly, contaminated groundwater cannot be served for public consumption
unless it is treated or blended to meet drinking water standards. There is existing approved treatment technology
to remove contaminants like perchlorate, nitrate and most contaminants of concern in groundwater. At the same
time, t7 ere is little incentive or compelling interest to treat groundwater until it is needed as a source to meet
projected demands.
AB 2046 is yet another effort on the part of environmental advocacy groups and others to attack housing and
business sector growth using water supply as a cudgel. The legislation focuses on urban water management
plans, which form the basis for an urban water supplier to assess its capability to serve proposed development at
both the environmental review stage (SB 610, Costa, cited above) and the tentative subdivision map stage (SB
221, :Kuehl). AB 2046 also would amend the Costa legislation by limiting the availability of groundwater during
the environmental review process —a point in time that likely pre -dates the construction of housing by three to
seven years. Interestingly, AB 2046 would not similarly amend the Kuehl law. In a letter to the Senate Daily
Journal before the end of the 2001 legislative session, Senator Kuehl wrote that "it is not the intent of the author
to preclude projected water supplies that can be reasonably relied upon, so long as there is substantial evidence
put on the record that demonstrates that the projected water supplies will likely be available by the time the
housing units are ready for construction ... SB 221 is not intended to require that a public water system have a
bventy -year supply of water in place and immediately available at the time a final subdivision map is approved
by a pity or county."
Section 10631 of the Water Code, in regard to the content of an urban water management plan, requires an
urban water supplier to identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of
water available to the supplier over 20 years in 5 -year increments. If groundwater is identified as an existing or
planned source of water available to the supplier, Section 10631 requires all of the following information to be
included in the plan:
A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans
adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for
groundwater management.
A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps
groundwater.
A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by
the urban water supplier for the past five years.
A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be
pumped by the urban water supplier.
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2008
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 28, 2008
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE - 2007 -o8 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2046
Introduced by Assembly Member Jones
February 19, 2008
An act to amend Sections 10631 and 10910 of the Water Code,
relating to water supply.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2046, as amended, Jones. Water supply assessments: groundwater.
1) Existing law requires a city or county that determines a project,
as defined, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to
identify any public water system that may supply water for the project
and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water
supply assessment. If no public water system is identified, the city or
C.olmty is required to prepare the water supply assessment. Existing law
requires, if a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater,
that certain additional information be included in the water supply
assessment, including a detailed description and analysis of the amount
and location of groundwater that is projected, to be pumped and an
analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins
from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected
water demand associated with the proposed project.
This bill would require the water supply assessment to include only
the amount of groundwater projected to be pumped and the groundwater
included in the sufficiency analysis that
97
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.9
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
3— AB 2046
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 10631 of the Water Code is amended to
read:
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter
and shall do all of the following:
a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current
and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors
affecting the supplier's water management planning. The projected
population estimates shall be based upon data from the state,
regional, or local service agency population projections within the
service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five -year
increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing
and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the
same five -year increments described in subdivision (a). If
groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water
available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be
included in the plan:
1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by
the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part
2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific
authorization for groundwater management.
2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which
the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For those basins for
which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump
groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court
or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the
urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order
or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information
as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as
overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted
if present management conditions continue, in the most current
official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of
the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts
being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the
tong -term overdraft condition.
3) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount,
and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier
for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based
97
5— AB 2046
I (H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or
conjunctive use, or any combination thereof.
3 (I) Agricultural.
4[ (2) The water use projections shall be in the same five -year
3 increments described in subdivision (a).
6 (g) Provide a description of the supplier's water demand
7 management measures. This description shall include all of the
8 following:
9 (1) A description of each water demand management measure
10 that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for
I t implementation, including the steps necessary to implement any
12 proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all of the
13 following:
14 (A) Water survey programs for single - family residential and
15 multifamily residential customers.
16 (B) Residential plumbing retrofit.
17 (C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair.
13 (D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and
19 retrofit of existing connections.
20 (E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives.
21 (F) High - efficiency washing machine rebate programs.
2:2 (G) Public information programs.
23 (H) School education programs.
24 (1) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and
2.5 institutional accounts.
26 (J) Wholesale agency programs.
27 (K) Conservation pricing.
28 (L) Water conservation coordinator.
29 (M) Water waste prohibition.
30 (1V) Residential- ttkra-lavv-flush ultralowflush toilet replacement
31 programs.
32 (2) A schedule of implementation for all water demand
33 management measures proposed or described in the plan.
34 (3) A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will
35 use to evaluate the effectiveness of water demand management
35 measures implemented or described under the plan.
37 (4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings
38 on water use within the supplier's service area, and the effect of
39 the savings on the supplier's ability to further reduce demand.
97
1
2
L1
i
6
fi
9
10
1:'.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
2`.i
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
7— AB 2046
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California," dated September 1991, may submit the annual reports
identifying water demand management measures currently being
implemented, or scheduled for implementation, to satisfy the
requirements of subdivisions (g) and (h).
1) Urban water suppliers that rely upon a wholesale agency for
a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water
use projections from that agency for that source of water in
five -year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The
wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water
supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier's plan that
identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and
planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available
from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the
same five -year increments, and during various water -year types
in accordance with subdivision-(e) (d). An urban water supplier
may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale
agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of
subdivisions (b) and -(e) (d).
SEC. 2. Section 10910 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10910. (a) Any city or county that determines that a project,
as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section
21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the
Public Resources Code, shall comply with this part.
b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an
environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated
negative declaration is required for any project subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1
of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that
is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project
identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as
defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project.
If the city or county is not able to identify any public water system
that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall
prepare the water supply assessment required by this part after
consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose
service area includes the project site, the local agency formation
commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project
site.
97
fi
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
1 fi
I'
1 f>
19
20
2).
22
23
2<4
25
26
27
28
29
30
3),
32
33
34
33
36
3%
38
39
40
9— AB 2046
2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water
rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system,
or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part
pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing
information related to all of the following:
A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an
identified water supply.
B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery
of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary
infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in
order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
e) If no water has been received in prior years by the public
water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply
with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water
supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the
public water system, or the city or county if either is required to
comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall also include
in its water supply assessment pursuant to subdivision (c), an
identification of the other public water systems or water service
contractholders that receive a water supply or have existing water
supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the
same source of water as the public water system, or the city or
county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to
subdivision (b), has identified as a source of water supply within
its water supply assessments.
f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes
groundwater, the following additional information shall be included
in the water supply assessment:
1) A review of any information contained in the urban water
management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the
proposed project.
2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which
the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which
a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump
groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court
or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the
public water system, or the city or county if either is required to
comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal
97
11— AB 2046
1
2. meeting standards applienble for the proposed ttse or to been treate
3 to the treatment standafd applieable to the proposed use. that meets
4 applicable state standards for the proposed use on the date the
5 assessment is prepared.
6 (h) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each
7 public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or
8 county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request
9 was received. The governing body of each public water system,
10 or the city or county if either is required to comply with this-aet
11 part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment
12 prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.
13 (2) Prior to the expiration of the 90 -day period, if the public
14 water system intends to request an extension of time to prepare
B and adopt the assessment, the public water system shall meet with
16 the city or county to request an extension of time, which shall not
17 exceed 30 days, to prepare and adopt the assessment.
18 (3) If the public water system fails to request an extension of
19 time, or fails to submit the assessment notwithstanding the
20 extension of time granted pursuant to paragraph (2), the city or
21 county may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the governing
22 body of the public water system to comply with the requirements
23 of this part relating to the submission of the water supply
24 assessment.
25 (i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project
26 has been the subject of a water supply assessment that complies
27 with the requirements of this part, no additional water supply
28 assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part
29 of a larger project for which a water supply assessment was
30 completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part
31 and for which the public water system, or the city or county if
32 either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision
33 (b), has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the
34. projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in
35 addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not
36 limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of
37 the following changes occurs:
38 (1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase
39 in water demand for the project.
97
A.F.; 2046 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
AB 2046
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Lois Wolk, Chair
AS 2046 (Jones) - As Amended: March 28, 2008
SUBJECT Water supply determinations: groundwater
SUMMARY : Excludes contaminated groundwater from water supply
estimates in city /county development determinations and urban
water management plans. Specifically, this bill .
1)Allows water supply assessments to include groundwater only if
such water has been determined to meet applicable health
standards or has been treated to such standards.
2)Allows urban water management plans to identify groundwater as
an existing or planned source of water only if such water has
been determined to meet applicable health standards or has
been treated to such standards.
Pagel of 3
EXISTING LAW requires local agencies to determine that there is
a sufficient water supply before approving proposed developments
exceeding 500 residential units.
FISCAL EFFECT Unknown
COMMENTS - : AB 2046 would limit local agencies' ability to
identify goundwater as a drinking water source if it does not
meet public health standards. Cities and counties would not be
able to include contaminated drinking water in their water
supply assessments, and urban water suppliers would not be able
to include such water in their urban water management plans. (A
new round of such plans are due in 2010.) The trigger that
would allow inclusion of any groundwater in such water supply
estimates would be either compliance with public health
standards or adequate treatment to allow such compliance.
These limitations on consideration of groundwater apply, at
least indirectly, to the determinations of future water supply
required for large (500+ units), new housing developments. This
bill adds this groundwater limitation to the city /county water
supply assessments and urban water management plans, which
contribute to the determinations that local agencies are
required to make to approve such large developments.
file: / /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \NSTINE \Local %2OSettings \Temporary %2OInter... 5/19/2008
HICKS- I2ICHARDSON ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 2115
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22152 -0115
October 1, 2008
FR.EDE3. iIICKS. PhD.
Managing Partner
TO: Robert Martin
FROM: Hicks - Richardson Associates
SUBJECT: Monthly Invoice for September, 2008
INVOICE
TEL. 703 - 866-4290
FAX: 703-866-4928
Finai1:fbhicks aoicom
For services rendered to the East Valley Water District by Hicks - Richardson Associates
during the month of October, 2008.
5,000.00 TOTAL INVOICE
Memo
OCT - 6 lade
Et i Valley I %jr pmt
FUCKS- RICHARDSON ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 2115
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22152 -0115
September 2, 2008
FRED B. HICKS. PhD.
Managing Partner
TO: Robert Martin
FROM: Hicks - Richardson Associates
SUBJECT: Monthly Invoice for August, 2008
INVOICE
TEL.'103- 866 -1290
FAX: 703 - 866.4928
Email:fbhicl3Ta oLarm
For services rendered to the East Valley Water District by Hicks - Richardson Associates
during the month of August, 2008.
5,000.00 TOTAL INVOICE
RECRYED
CEP 5 2009
lafty Waterf?isWe
HICKS-RICHARDSON ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 2115
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22152-0115
August 1, 2008
F-IED B. IUCKS. Ph.D.
Manalzing Partier
TO: Robert Martin
FROM: Hicks-Richardson Associates
SUBJECT: Monthly Invoice for July, 2008
INVOICE
TEL. 703-86&-4.,290
FAX: 703-86&4928
Em2d:fbluclm@ao1com
For services rendered to the East Valley Water District by Hicks-Richardson Associates
during the month of July, 2008.
5,000.00 Personnel
66.00 In-Town Washington Travel
5,066.00 TOTAL INVOICE
A
REC FRED
AUG 2008
s Lt Va I I eY Water Distie
Page 1 of 1
Justine Hendricksen
From: Bob Martin
lent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:15 PM
To: Justine Hendricksen
subject: FW: Briefing Piece for Legislative Committee
Original Message---- -
From: fbhicks @aol.com [mailto:fbhicks @aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:28 PM
To: Bob Martin
Subject: Briefing Piece for Legislative Committee
Bob,
Please take a look at the attachment which is a draft for a briefing piece from me to the Legislative
Committee. You will note that I have established four areas of potential concern including:
1) Identifying and completing the solution to the Seven Oaks Dam Water Quality issue.
2) Launching of the Water Factory 21st Century Project.
3) Perchlorate MCL.
4) Radon MCL.
Some may say, "but isn't the Federal government going to be broke starting in FY09? How can they
enter into new partnerships ?"
1he answer is that the Congressional Leadership has established infrastructure as one of the funding
priorities they will pursue, both for the job creation potential in the immediate sense and in terms of a
national investment in the longer term. The second attachment is a side by side comparison of the
House and Senate versions of the Second Stimulus bill. As you can see, both have huge amounts of new
funding for water infrastructure both for the Corps and the Bureau.
Thanks.
Fred
McCain or Obama? Stay updated on coverage of the Presidential race while you browse - Download Now!
10/23/2008
October 21, 2008
TO: East Valley Water District Legislative Committee
FROM: Hicks - Richardson Associates
SUBJECT: Thoughts On East Valley's Federal Agenda
Overview
The inauguration of the next President and the convening of the 111th Congress in
January present East Valley Water District with unprecedented opportunities to engage
the Federal sector with regard to regional water challenges and national regulatory issues.
The District has been a leader in these endeavors since 1995 when it began its successful
advocacy for drinking water research; and again in 1997 when it became a leader with
regard to the perchlorate issue and yet again in 1999 when it helped to thwart an ill -
conceived EPA national radon regulation.
East Valley can continue to this leadership by working to create Federal partnerships and
outreach that address large regional water issues as well as looming regulatory
challenges. Four priority issues might include:
Seven Oaks Dam Water Issue
The operation of the Seven Oaks Dam compromised the surface water supply of East
Valley and other water agencies. Since 2005, East Valley has been the leader in bringing
this issue to the attention of the Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers. This has
resulted in $4,684,000 being appropriated for the Seven Oaks Dam Water Study with
another $1,500,000 pending in the FY09 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The Corps is close to completing the study portion of the issue and making
recommendations for addressing the long -term implications of the Dam's impact on
water quality. We must focus on the Appropriations and the Water Resources
Development Act Authorization to bring the Seven Oaks Dam issue to a successful
conclusion including:
Securing the $1.5 million for the Seven Oak Dam Water issue in the final version
of the FY09 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Working with the Congress and the Corps to ensure that the millions of dollars
Appropriated for the issue are now shifted over to support actual construction to
address the problem.
Identifying the agreed upon solution to address water quality issues. Include the
solution in the upcoming WRDA reauthorization bill so it is authorized into law.
Moving forward during FY09 with the solution and in FYI and beyond to
provide the necessary stream of funding.
Water Factory 21" Century Project
East Valley is set to be a key player in this regional water project that reclaims
wastewater and ensures that it remains in the Bunker Hill Basin. As the reliability of
import water continues to decline this project will help secure the water future of the
region. The San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District is also developing an
artificial wetlands project through which the reclaimed water could also be run. This
would further upgrade reused water before it is replenished back into the groundwater.
To make these projects a reality we must:
Work with the Congressional delegation to introduce the concept and seek
Federal funding partners.
Work to secure authorization for the project. This could include a "budget cross-
cut that would authorize a number of Federal agencies to participate.
Work to secure start-up Appropriations in FYI or even FY09.
Perchlorate
East Valley has been a leader with regard to perchlorate since 1997. Having just
completed a 5`h perchlorate /emerging contaminants conference, this tradition continues.
With frustration over the Bush Administration's deciding against setting an MCL for
perchlorate, the next Administration will likely move in the opposite direction and
propose an MCL. The Federal community will wish to tap into East Valley's expertise
with regard to perchlorate. Earlier in the year the staff of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works called Bob Martin in for a one hour Q &A session
regarding East Valley's experiences in dealing with perchlorate. We believe there will
be many more in the future.
Radon
There is a general consensus that EPA will renew its attempt to set a radon regulation
based on its 1999 proposal. East Valley was a key player over the past 10 years both in
stopping this regulation and also offering common sense alternatives. The District is an
active player with a network of like- minded water associations, including ACWA,
individual water agencies, and a Members of Congress and their staffs. Early in the New
Year, we must be ready to confront this issue once again, both with regard to opposing a
renewal of the 1999 proposal and also offering our own common sense alternatives.
a.
Q
rn
iy
W1
tttP
nlll
O
O
w
O
O
V
V1 FP11
a
r
S,
e®
tiN
on
U
U C
0 O o O^
I
1,0.40.
W C o U
CD
0 0 00 00 ro
o° o o o0 00
CD
0 ° ° p 0
N W C4 o A. stirs Ge s~is V) 609
wb•
C rn
70
as
o w p
00 Q o •o O
o > a O
O o > w C
o oCL j
ate; s 9CG oq
u ° 3
x O O W
O N O u O W O W W
O sa ODO C UC
y b O O N
W1 45 G6 Gn Go G6 6s
a
wL
z
U
w
rtr
Y
y r
F O Q F R
zZ
7,
F. o a
i