BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session AB 617 (Perea) - Groundwater. ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: July 16, 2015 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 9 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: No | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: AB 617 would make changes regarding the development and use of Sustainable Groundwater Plans. Fiscal Impact: Unknown costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the General Fund for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop regulations on what constitutes "consistent" data. Unknown costs, but likely in the mid-tens of thousands of dollars per disputed data set, to the General Fund for DWR to assist local agencies on determining whether specific data sets are consistent or not. Unknown costs, likely in the mid-tens of thousands of dollars per notice, to the Water Rights Fund (special) to the State Water Resources Control Board (board) to investigate notices that a state entity is not cooperating in the implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan. AB 617 (Perea) Page 1 of ? Background: Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) which required groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) to develop a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) for high and medium priority groundwater basins in California. The GSA is required to consider the interest of all beneficial users and users of groundwater when developing and implementing GSPs, including disadvantaged communities (WAT §10732.2). DWR and the GSA may provide technical assistance to entities that extract or use groundwater to promote water conservation and to protect groundwater resources. Furthermore, DWR may provide technical assistance to any GSA, upon request, for the development and implementation of a GSP. (WAT §10729) The Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act authorized a regional water management group to prepare and adopt an integrated regional water management plan (IRWMP) with specified components. The IRWMP may include actions regarding groundwater management planning. Proposed Law: This bill would make several changes in regards to SGMA. Specifically, this bill would: Specify that a regional water management group may incorporate a groundwater sustainable plan into its integrated regional water management plan. Make changes to the establishment of a prescriptive right to water prior to the adoption of a GSP. Define "in-lieu use" as the use of surface water by persons that could otherwise extract groundwater in order to leave groundwater in the basin. And explicitly allow a GSP to include in-lieu use projects. Explicitly allow a GSA to enter into written agreements and funding with a private party to assist in, or facilitate the AB 617 (Perea) Page 2 of ? implementation of, a GSP or any elements of a GSP. Allow GSAs who are intending to develop and implement multiple GSPs for a single basin to use "consistent" data instead of the current requirement that they use "the same" data. Allow the State Water Resources Control Board (board) to direct a state entity to cooperate in the implementation of a GSP if a GSA files a notice with the board that a state entity is not working cooperatively regarding implementation, and the board agrees with the notice. Staff Comments: By allowing GSAs to use data that is "consistent" rather than "the same" in developing multiple GSPs for a single groundwater basin is likely to have unknown costs to DWR. First, DWR will likely need to revise its regulations to give guidance on what data could be considered consistent. These costs could be minor if DWR is able to incorporate this change into their regulatory process currently underway. However, if DWR regulations on data are finished before the passage of this bill thereby requiring a modification of the regulations, or if the regulations are challenged because of opposition on how the regulations determine consistency, DWR may have regulatory costs in the low- or mid- hundreds of thousands of dollars. Secondly, DWR may have costs associated with this provision to the extent that it is asked to help determine whether two particular datasets are consistent or not, which could involve DWR using the two datasets in a model to compare outcomes. DWR estimates that this analysis could cost between $10,000 and $50,000 each. It is unknown how often DWR would be asked to do this analysis. This bill establishes a process by which a GSA can notify the board that a state entity is not cooperating in the implementation of their GSP and thereby hindering its success. To investigate a notice, the board estimates staff workload of approximately $50,000 per notice. However, the board does not AB 617 (Perea) Page 3 of ? anticipate many notices being filed. Under the SGMA, the board is allowed to establish a fee to fund its activities to implement the act what would be deposited into the Water Rights Fund. While the board has not yet established the fee schedule, the fee ultimately could fund any of the board's costs with investigating a notice. -- END --