HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - Legislative & Public Outreach Committee - 10/19/20091
m OEastValley
Water District
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Date: October 19, 2009
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Plane: 3654 E. Highland Ave, Suite 12
Highland, CA 92346
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Public Comments.
2. Review and discussion of current and pending State Legislation.
3. Discussion and update regarding the Delta Water Package (2009 Delta & Water
Reform Legislation)
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.
East Valley Water District
2009 -10 Session, First Year
AB 39 (Huffman) Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta: Delta Plan.
Introduced: 12/1/2008
Last Amend: 9/9/2009
Status: 9/9 /2009 -From Conference Committee: With recommendation: That Senate
amendments be concurred in and that the bill be further amended. To print.
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 9/9/2009 -A. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Calendar: 10/14/2009 #69 SENATE CONFERENCE REPORTS AT THE DESK
AB 49 (Feuer) Water conservation: urban and agricultural water management planning.
Introduced: 12/1/2008
Last Amend: 9/9/2009
Status: 9/9 /2009 -From Conference Committee: With recommendation: That Senate
amendments be concurred in and that the bill be further amended. To print.
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 9/9/2009 -A. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Calendar: 10/14/2009 #70 SENATE CONFERENCE REPORTS AT THE DESK
AB 300 (Caballero) Subdivisions: water supply.
Introduced: 2/17/2009
Last Amend: 6/30/2009
Status: 7/7/2009 -In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 7 /7/2009 -S. N. R. & W.
AB 815 (Ma) Public contracts: bidding procedures.
Introduced: 2/26/2009
Last Amend: 6/1/2009
Status: 6/18 /2009- Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: N
Location: 6/18/2009 -S. L. GOV.
AB 900 (De Leon) Water diversion and use: reporting.
Introduced: 2/26/2009
Last Amend: 8/17/2009
Status: 9/11 /2009 - Withdrawn from committee. Re- referred to Com. on RLS. Withdrawn from
committee. Ordered placed on third reading file.
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 9/11/2009 -S. THIRD READING
Calendar: 10/14/2009 #118 SENATE ASSEMBLY BILLS -THIRD READING FILE
AB 1242 (Ruskin) State water policy.
Introduced: 2/27/2009
Last Amend: 9/4/2009
Status: 10/11 /2009 - Vetoed by the Governor
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 10/11/2009 -A. VETOED
AB 1294 (Morning) State Water Resources Development System.
Introduced: 2/27/2009
Status: 6/8 /2009 - Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(8). (Last location was PRINT on
2/27/2009)
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: N
Location: 6/8/2009 -A. 2 YEAR
AB 1438 (Co. nwav) Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Introduced: 2/27/2009
Last Amend: 9/2/2009
Status: 10/11 /2009 - Chaptered by the Secretary of State, Chapter Number 531, Statutes of
2009
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 10/11/2009 -A. CHAPTERED
SB 12 (Simition) Resources: Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Council.
Introduced: 12/1/2008
Last Amend: 9/9/2009
Status: 9/9 /2009 -From Conference Committee: Be adopted. (Ayes 8. Senators Steinberg,
Pavley, Padilla, and Florez, Assembly Members Bass, Huffman, Caballero, and Solorio.
Noes. 0. Page 2351.)
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 9/1/2009 -S. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Calendar: 10/14/2009 #68 SENATE CONFERENCE REPORTS AT THE DESK
SB 229 (Pavley) Water: diversion and use: groundwater.
Introduced: 2/23/2009
Last Amend: 9/9/2009
Status: 9/9 /2009 -From Conference Committee: Be adopted. (Ayes 8. Senators Steinberg,
Florez, Padilla, and Pavley, Assembly Members Bass, Huffman, Caballero, and Solorio.
Noes. 0. Page 2351.)
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 9/1/2009 -S. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Calendar: 10/14/2009 #66 SENATE CONFERENCE REPORTS AT THE DESK
SB 261 (Dutton) Water use: water management plans.
Introduced: 2/2412009
Last Amend: 7/1312009
Status: 8/27/2009 -Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 8/19/2009 -A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
SB 321 (Benoit) Local government: assessments: election requirements.
Introduced: 2/25/2009
Last Amend: 7/15/2009
Status: 10/11 /2009 - Chaptered by the Secretary of State, Chapter Number 580, Statutes of
2009
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 10/11/2009 -S. CHAPTERED
SB 407 (Padilla) Property transfers: plumbing fixtures replacement.
Introduced: 2/26/2009
Last Amend: 9/4/2009
Status: 10/11 /2009 - Chaptered by the Secretary of State, Chapter Number 587, Statutes of
2009
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 10/11/2009 -S. CHAPTERED
SB 457 (Wolk) Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta.
Introduced: 2/26/2009
Last Amend: 6/30/2009
Status: 7/7/2009 -Set, second hearing. Further hearing to be set.
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 6/18/2009 -A. W.P. & W.
SB 458 (Steinberg) Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Conservancy: Delta Protection
Commission.
Introduced: 2/2612009
Last Amend: 9/9/2009
Status: 9/9/2009 -From Conference Committee: Be adopted. (Ayes 8. Senators Steinberg,
Florez, Padilla, and Pavley, Assembly Members Bass, Huffman, Caballero, and Solorio.
Noes. 0. Page 2352.)
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 9/1/2009 -S. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Calendar: 10/14/2009 #67 SENATE CONFERENCE REPORTS AT TH'E DESK
SB 808 (Folk) San Francisco Bay /Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Estuary: strategic work
plan.
Introduced: 2/27/2009
Status: 5/1 /2009 - Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was N.R. & W. on
03/19/2009)
Is Urgency: Y
Is Fiscal: Y
Location: 5/1/2009 -S. 2 YEAR
Total Measures: 16
rage 1 of 2
Justine Hendricksen
From: Justine Hendricksen
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:56 AM
To: Justine Hendricksen
Subject: FW: Update on Delta Water Package
Hi,
This was sent to Bob Martin and Director Morales. Also, a summary of bills showing governor's
actions will be sent by tomorrow. I will be sending a more extensive written annual report to the
district in the next week to 10 days and will then need to schedule a date to come down and
meet with the board and present the annual report.
Reel) Government Relations, LLC
1107 9th Street, Suite 510
Sacramento, California 95814
PH: 916 -558 -1926
FX: 916- 558 -1932
MB: 916- 402 -4278
E-mail: robertreeb @comcast.net
Greetings:
The provisions of the policy legislation and the provisions of the water bond have not yet been
released to the legislators or the public. However, the attached analyses prepared by Alf
Brandt of the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee have been released (or at least
made available to certain parties - -I'm not sure which is correct at this point in time). Obviously,
the clevil will be in the details.
The Assembly Democrats have been advised by the Office of the Speaker to be prepared to
return to Sacramento Sunday afternoon for an evening caucus meeting, the purpose of which
may be to receive a briefing on the water package. The Assembly would then meet on Monday
and possibly other days to consider the water package as well as address non- related
Assembly bills coming back from the Senate this week. The latter bills are 2/3 vote bills that
were not acted on by the Senate in the final hours of the regular session, which ended in the
early morning hours of Saturday, September 12. A hearing is promised on the water package- -
likely to be held by the Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee. The last time the committee met
was the evening of Friday, September 11 when still -warm copies of nearly 200 pages of
amendments to SB 68 were presented by committee Chair Jared Huffman. Three persons
spoke at some length in support of the bill, three persons spoke for a few minutes in
10/15/2009
rage t of z
opposition, and some 70 persons were allowed to state their name, who they represented and
the position (OPPOSE) of their client(s). Some of the latter group pushed the envelope a bit by
adding a statement or two as to why their client(s) opposed the bill.
It is interesting to note that the hearing or hearings are being scheduled to blunt the criticism
that the Big 5 meetings were held behind closed doors or "in secret." Democratic legislative
staff are drafting the legislation this week -- BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND IN SECRET!!!
Following hour - after -hour of informational hearings and conference committee hearings, no
significant policy changes have been made to any of the policy areas of the bill - -save
provisions relating to Delta Stewardship Council and its authority in regard to the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan.
I'll update you as breaking news warrants.
Reeb Government Relations, LLC
1107 9th Street, Suite 510
Sacramento, California 95814
PH: 916- 558 -1926
FX: 916- 558 -1932
MB: 916- 402 -4278
E -mail: robertreeb @comcast.net
111MIl0#211I111
r -•
2009 Delta & Water Reform Legislation — October 12
I California Delta Governance & Planning
SUMMARY: Reforms policy and governance for the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta).
Specifically, the proposed agreement for Delta governance:
1) Reconstitutes and redefines role of the Delta Protection Commission (DPC), to narrow
membership to focus on local representation and to expand DPC role in economic
sustainability.
a) Requires DPC to create a regional economic sustainability plan, including creation of a
Delta Investment Fund in the State Treasury.
b) Requires DPC to submit recommendations regarding potential expansion of or change to
the Delta's primary zone to the Legislature.
2) Creates a new Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (Conservancy), to support efforts
that advance environmental protection and the economic well -being of Delta residents.
a) Establishes and limits the Conservancy's powers and duties, to focus its efforts on
collaborative projects in the Delta and Suisun Marsh.
b) Requires the Conservancy to develop a strategic plan consistent with the Delta Plan and
other applicable regional plans affecting the Delta or Suisun Marsh
c) Establishes the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Fund in the State Treasury.
3) Repeals the California Bay -Delta Authority Act.
4) Establishes new legal framework for Delta management, emphasizing the coequal goals of
providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and
enhancing the Delta ecosystem" as foundation for state decisions as to Delta management.
5) Requires the Delta Stewardship Council, Department of Water Resources (DWR) or
Department of Fish & Game (DFG) to take certain "early actions," including certain Delta
ecosystem restoration projects such as "Two -Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project."
6) Requires State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to develop new flow criteria for
the Delta ecosystem necessary to protect public trust resources.
7) Creates Delta Stewardship Council (Council) as an independent state agency.
a) Establishes 7- member Council, with four appointments by the Governor, two by the
Legislature, and the chair of the Delta Protection Commission, with staggered terms.
b) Specifies authority of Council, including appeals of state /local agency determinations of
consistency with Delta Plan.
Page t
8) Creates Delta Watermaster as enforcement officer for SWRCB in the Delta.
9) Creates Delta Independent Science Board (Science Board) and Delta Science Program.
10) Requires Council to develop, adopt, and commence implementation of the "Delta Plan" by
January 1, 2012, with a report to the Legislature by March 31, 2012.
a) Requires Delta Protection Commission (DPC) to develop proposal to protect, enhance,
and sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural, and economic values
of the Delta as an evolving place.
b) Requires Delta Plan to further the coequal goals of Delta ecosystem restoration and a
reliable water supply.
11) Requires Delta Plan to promote statewide water conservation, water use efficiency, and
sustainable use of water, as well as improvements to water conveyance /storage and operation
of both to achieve the coequal goals.
12) Requires Delta Plan to attempt to reduce risks to people, property, and state interests in the
Delta by promoting effective emergency preparedness, appropriate land uses, and strategic
levee investments.
13) Requires Council to consider including the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) under
certain circumstances, including:
a) Conditions BDCP incorporation into Delta Plan and state funding for BDCP public
benefits on compliance with the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b) Requires certain analyses as part of CEQA compliance for BDCP:
c) Requires DWR to consult with Council and Science Board during development of BDCP.
d) Requires BDCP to include transparent, real -time operational decisionmaking process in
which fishery agencies ensure applicable biological performance measures are achieved
in a timely manner.
EXISTING LAW establishes more than 200 state and local agencies with responsibilities and
authority in the Delta, including DPC, DWR, DFG, and the California Bay -Delta Authority
COMMENTS: Since the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife (WP &W) Committee
considered the Delta governance and planning provisions, as part of SB 68, on September 11,
this portion of the 2009 Delta /Water legislative package has changed very little. The only
change is the staggering of the governor's appointments to the Delta Stewardship Council.
Instead of staggering the Governor's first appointments by 1 -4 years, the Governor's initial
appointees will have either four -year or six -year terms. For more information on the Delta
governance /planning segment, please see the bill analysis for SB 68, on the WP &W webpage.
Analysis Prepared by: Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916) 319 -2096
Page 2
7
2009 Delta & Water Reform Legislation — October 12
Water Rights Enforcement Tools
SUMMARY: Provides enforcement tools for the State Water Resources Control Board
SWRCB) to enforce existing water rights laws. Specifically, the proposed agreement on water
rights enforcement tools:
1) Increases consequences for not reporting water diversions or use.
a) Establishes rebuttable presumption that diversions /use did not occur in certain SWRCB
proceedings, but would not apply to diversion /use occurring before January 1, 2009;
b) Creates rebuttable presumption that no use occurred in certain SWRCB proceedings, but
would not apply to diversion /use occurring before January 1, 2009;
c) Raises current additional penalty for unauthorized diversions from 100% of amount of
fees that would have been collected had that diversion been reported, to 150 %;
d) Authorizes additional penalty for failing to file, or material statements in, statements of
diversion and use of 150% of the amount of fees that would have been collected; and,
e) Adds a new penalty for violators of monitoring requirements or activities, not to exceed
five hundred dollars ($500) for each day in which the violation occurs.
2) Imposes or increases penalties for violating water rights laws.
a) Increases penalties for unauthorized diversion or use to:
i) $1,000 per day of violation for the first offense
ii) either $1,000 per day or the highest market value of the water subject to trespass —
whichever is higher — for subsequent violations
b) Increases penalties for violating a cease and desist order to the greater of $1000 per day
1" offense) /$5000 per day (subsequent offenses) or the highest market value of the water
diverted or used in violation of the cease and desist order.
c) Adds penalty, not to exceed $500 per day of violation, for any violation of term or
condition of a permit, license, certificate, or registration, or any order or regulation
adopted by SWRCB to prevent waste or unreasonable use; and,
3) Allows SWRCB, in certain investigations, to order any water diverter or water user to
prepare technical or monitoring program reports under penalty of perjury;
4) Expands list of filing fees, to include: registrations for small domestic use or livestock
stockpond use; petitions to change the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use of a
water right that is not subject to a permit or license to appropriate water; and statements of
water diversion and use.
Page 1
5) Authorizes SWRCB to initiate statutory adjudication to determine rights of various claimants
to the water of a stream system under its own motion if after a hearing it finds that the public
interest and necessity will be served by a determination of the rights involved
EXISTING LAW requires SWRCB to administer and enforce the California water rights system.
COMMENTS: Since the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife (WP &W) Committee
considered provisions for these SWRCB water right enforcement tools, as part of SB 68
Steinberg) on September 11, this portion of the 2009 Delta /water legislative package has
changed significantly, although not substantially. In comparison to SB 68 (9/11/09 version), this
proposed agreement would:
Add authority /appropriation for SWRCB to hire 25 additional enforcement personnel.
Delete SWRCB authority to issue interim relief that would stop diversions as litigation
over that diversion proceeds.
Change the penalties for illegal diversion by:
distinguishing between first and subsequent offenses
reducing fines for first offenses to up to $1000 /day (not $1000 /acre -foot as well)
or the highest market value of the water, whichever is greater
increasing fines for subsequent offenses to up to $5000 /day or the highest market
value for the water diverted illegally, whichever is greater
Delete expansion of SWRCB authority to issue cease - and - desist orders for violations of
unreasonable use limits, public trust doctrine that protects fishery and other public
resources, or monitoring requirements.
Delete legislative intent to enforce reasonable use /public trust vigorously.
Delete requirement that SWRCB increase penalties for inflation.
Eliminate reporting exemptions for Delta diversions, consistent with AB 900 (DeLeon).
SWRCB Enforcement Tools: This proposal provides new and increased penalties for violating
water rights law and expands SWRCB's authority to enforce existing water rights laws. The bill
does not change existing water rights law or expand SWRCB jurisdiction. In effect, these
changes would level the playing field to support better enforcement of water rights laws. These
penalties have not been increased in decades and fail to reflect the economic value of
compliance. In some cases, there is no penalty at all, such as violation of permit terms. While
SWRCB may be able to issue a cease - and - desist order for illegal diversions, such techniques set
a high bar for enforcement and fail to recover enforcement costs.
The Delta Vision Committee Implementation Report (AKA the Chrisman Report, December
2008), while not commenting on this precise set of penalties and enforcement authorities, called
for legislation to enhance and expand the SWRCB's water rights administrative accountability.
These recommendations do not adversely affect the current water right priority system, including
area -of- origin priorities, but rather strengthen the current administrative system. As the Chrisman
Report suggested, "appropriate enforcement will protect existing water rights." This proposal
would give SWRCB authority to take actions to make the water rights system work for all water
users and the environment, including:
better enforcement of existing water diversion /use reporting requirements
SWRCB authority to start an adjudication of water rights on a stream
connection between illegal diversions and economic values
Analysis Prepared by: Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. /(9J6) 319 -2096
Page 2
2009 Delta & Water Reform Legislation — October'
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
SUMMARY: Establishes statewide groundwater monitoring program. Specifically, the
proposed agreement on this program:
1) Requires a local groundwater management entity to monitor groundwater elevations (i.e.,
distance from surface to water):
a) Requires entities that volunteer for groundwater monitoring to notify the Department of
Water Resources as to its interest, with specified information.
b) Requires DWR to consult with interested parties to determine which entity would
monitor, based on certain priorities, if more than one entity volunteers for monitoring.
2) Requires DWR to work with each monitoring entity to determine appropriate manner of
reporting groundwater elevations.
3) Groundwater elevation monitoring starts January 1, 2012, and is made publicly available.
4) Requires DWR to identify extent of monitoring, by 2012, and determine, in basins without
monitoring, if there was a local party willing to conduct the monitoring or interest in
developing a groundwater management association or plan.
5) Requires DWR to update groundwater report by 2012, and in years ending in 5 and 0.
6) Bars groundwater basins that do not comply with groundwater monitoring requirements from
receiving state water bond funding.
EXISTING LAW allows voluntary, cooperation in management of groundwater basins, but does
not provide for any reporting of groundwater elevation. State Water Resources Control Board
has authority to protect groundwater quality.
COMMENTS: These provisions from the proposed agreement would establish a
statewide groundwater monitoring program to ensure that groundwater elevations in all
groundwater basins and subbasins be regularly and systematically monitored local])/ and that the
resulting groundwater information be made readily and widely available.
In the past five years, the Legislature has approved three bills to improve the State's access to
groundwater information, but the Governor vetoed all three. In intervening years, groundwater
problems have grown worse, largely because California is the last western state without any state
groundwater management, and California has very little information about the conditions of its
groundwater basins. Excessive pumping in the last century has led to substantial subsidence, as
much as 55 feet in some areas. Recently, for example, on the west side of the San Joaquin
Valley, where allocations of Delta water from the federal Central Valley Project were minimal,
farmers responded by pumping more groundwater. DWR then reported that the State Water
Project's canal, which passes through the area on its way south, may suffer cracks because of the
high level of pumping and resulting slumping of the ground under the canal.
Page 1
Proposed Agreement: Since the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife (WP &W)
Committee considered this groundwater monitoring program, as part of SB 68 (Steinberg) on
September 11, this portion of the 2009 Delta /water legislative package has changed significantly,
although not substantially. While the proposed agreement would require local monitoring, the
consequence of a basin refusing to monitor groundwater is the loss of access to any state bond
funding. The specific proposals for changes to the September 11 version of this program
include:
Deleting authority for DWR, if no one in a basin volunteers, to monitor groundwater
elevations and charge local groundwater users the costs of such monitoring.
Requiring an entity in each basin to monitor groundwater.
Conditioning groundwater basin access to state bond funds on compliance with
monitoring requirements.
Clarifies that monitoring program does not authorize any entity to either enter private
property without consent or require private property owners to submit groundwater
information.
The precise language of how to accomplish these changes has not been completed.
Analysis Prepared by: Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916) 319 -2096
Page 2
2009 Delta & Water Reform Legislation — October 12
Urban and Agricultural Water Use Efficiency
SUMMARY: Requires the state to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per capita wager use in
California by December 31, 2020, requires agricultural water management plans and efficient
water management practices for agricultural water suppliers, and promotes expanded
development of sustainable water supplies at the regional level. Specifically, this proposal:
1) Establishes statewide urban water conservation target of 10% by 2015, and 201/o by 2020
2) Establishes processes for urban water suppliers to meet the conservation targets:
a) Requires urban retail water suppliers, individually or on a regional basis, to develop an
urban water use target by July 1, 2011;
b) Provides 4 methodologies for urban water suppliers to choose from to set and achieve their
water use target:
i) 20% reduction in baseline daily per capita use, or
ii) Combination of efficiency standards for residential indoor use [55 gallons per capita
daily (gpcd)]; residential outdoor use (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance);
and commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) use (10 % reduction); or,
iii) 5% reduction in the Department of Water Resources (DWR) regional targets; or
iv) A method to be developed by DWR by December 31, 2010.
c) Requires minimum 5 % reduction in base water use by 2020 for all urban water suppliers.
d) Allows recycled water to count toward meeting urban supplier's water use target if
recycled water offsets potable water demands.
e) Allows urban suppliers to consider certain differences in their local conditions when
determining compliance.
f) Requires urban water suppliers to hold public hearings to allow for community input on
the supplier's implementation plan for meeting their water use target, and requires the
implementation to avoid placing a disproportionate burden on any customer sector.
g) Conditions eligibility for water management grants and loans on an urban water supplier's
compliance with meeting the requirements established by the bill.
3) Prohibits urban suppliers from requiring changes that reduce process water — defined in the
bill as water used in production of a product — and allows urban water supplier to exclude
process water from the development of the urban water target if substantial amount of its
water deliveries are for industrial use.
4) Requires DWR review and reporting on urban water management plans and report to the
Legislature by 2016 on progress in meeting the 20% statewide target, including
recommendations on changes to the standards or targets in order to achieve the 20% target.
5) Creates a CII Task Force to develop best management practices (BMPs), assess the potential
for statewide water savings if the BMPs are implemented, and report to the Legislature.
6) Re- establishes agricultural water management planning program.
a) Defines "agricultural water supplier" as one that delivers water to 10,000 or more of
irrigated acres, excluding recycled water, but exempts suppliers serving less than 25,000
irrigated areas unless funding is provided to the supplier for those purposes.
b) Requires development and implementation of agricultural water management plans, with
specified components by 2012, with 5 -year updates.
c) Requires DWR to review plans and report to the Legislature on status and effectiveness.
d) Requires two "critical" efficient agricultural water management practices (measurement
and pricing) and — only if locally cost - effective — 14 additional practices.
e) Conditions eligibility for water management grants and loans on an agricultural water
suppliers' compliance with meeting the requirements for implementation of efficient
water management practices.
f) Establishes agricultural water supplier reporting requirements on agricultural efficient
water management practices.
7) Requires DWR to promote implementation of regional water resource management practices
through increased incentives /removal of barriers and specifies potential changes.
8) Requires DWR, in consultation with SWRCB, to develop or update statewide targets as to
recycled water, brackish groundwater desalination, and urban stormwater runoff.
COMMENTS
Proposed Agreement: Since SB 68 was heard by the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife
WP &W) Committee on September 11, the following amendments related to water conservation
have been proposed:
1) Amend Section 10608.8 to do the following:
Include the water use efficiency measures adopted pursuant to Part 2.8 (agricultural
water management) to receive the protections provided by Water Code Section 1011.
Specify that the failure of an urban water supplier to meet their conservation targets
can not be used as evidence of waste and unreasonable use proceedings.
2) Amend Water Code Section 375 to be consistent with restrictions on process water included
in Section 10608.26(d)1.
3) Amend Section 10608.20 by adding a 4th option for an urban water supplier to choose from
to develop an urban water use target. The 4th option is a method to be developed by the
department by December 31, 2010 and which would consider difference in local land use
patterns and climate.
4) Amend Section 10608.26 to expand the list of Health and Safety conditions that will not be
impacted by the water conservation requirements.
5) Amend Section 10608.28 to authorize a regional water management group to meet the
conservation requirements of the bill if an urban water supplier provides written consent.
6) Amend Section 10608.43 to require the CII task force to consult with the Department of
Water Resource prior to submitting their report to the Legislature on new water use
efficiency measures for CII.
Urban Water Conservation: This bill would establish a statewide target to reduce urban per
capita water use by 20 percent by 2020. This target is consistent with the Governor's February
2008 proposal. The Delta Vision Strategic Plan also recommended legislation requiring "Urban
water purveyors to implement measures to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita
water use statewide throughout California by December 31, 2020." This bill would require urban
retail water suppliers, individually or on a regional basis, to develop an urban water use target by
December 31, 2010, would require each urban water supplier to meet their target by 2020, and to
meet an interim target (half of their 2020 target) by 2015.
Flexibility. This bill provides options for how water agencies can achieve higher levels of water
conservation but requires those options to meet a per capita reduction in water use. The bill sets
the 1120 by 2020" target (and the interim 2015 target) for the entire state and then allows water
agencies to choose one of four methods for determining their own water -use target for 2020.
Water suppliers also can choose to join with a broader group of suppliers to meet the targets
regionally. Finally the bill provides urban water suppliers with the option of shifting; more water
use to recycled water to meet their targets.
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Water Management: This bill restricts urban
water suppliers from imposing conservation requirements on process water. Other sections of
the proposal address other CII concerns, including requiring urban water suppliers to avoid
disproportionate impacts on any one sector and requiring an open transparent process for all
water customers to review and provide input into the water supplier implementation plan. There
are also no mandated conservation requirements or targets in the bill for CII.
Agricultural Water Management: For agriculture, this bill relies on implementation of efficient
water management practices (EWMPs) for water use, which have been developed, at least in
part, by the Agricultural Water Management Council (AWMC). The bill creates two EWMP
categories: "critical" that all agricultural water suppliers (i.e. measurement and pricing
structures) must implement and "additional" EWMPs that must be implemented if the measures
are locally cost effective and technically feasible. The two mandatory EWMPs are already
required of all federal water contractors (e.g. Westlands WD and Friant WA) since 1992 under
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).
Agricultural Water Management Plans: This bill reauthorizes dormant provisions of the Water
Code that required agricultural water suppliers to prepare agricultural water management plans.
This places agricultural water suppliers on an equal footing with urban suppliers who have been
required to prepare and submit water management plans for approximately 15 years. This bill
defines agricultural water suppliers as those with 10,000 acres of irrigated land, but exempts
from the bill's requirements any supplier serving less than 25,000 of irrigated land if the state
does not provide funding for implementation.
Sustainable Water Mana ement: This bill requires DWR to develop incentives for sustainable
water management and alternative water supplies such as brackish water desalination and
stormwater recovery.
Analy is Prepared bv: Alf W. Brandt & Kate Williams / W., P. & W. / (916) 319 -2096