BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
                             Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:            SB 173          Hearing Date:    March 24,  
          2015
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Nielsen                |           |                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Version:   |February 5, 2015                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|Dennis O'Connor                                      |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          
                    Subject:  Groundwater:  de minimis extractors

          BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
          The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires that  
          all high- and medium-priority groundwater basins be managed by a  
          groundwater sustainability agency (agency) in accord with a  
          groundwater sustainability plan (plan).  

          Among other things, SGMA authorizes agencies to require through  
          its plan that all wells be metered and the reporting of annual  
          water use to the agency.  This authorization does not extend to  
          "de minimis extractors."

          SGMA also authorizes agencies to impose fees, including permit  
          fees and fees on groundwater extraction or other regulated  
          activity, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability  
          program.  This authorization does not extend to imposing fees on  
          a de minimis extractor unless the agency has regulated the users  
          pursuant to SGMA.

          SGMA defines "de minimis extractor" as a person who extracts,  
          for domestic purposes, two acre-feet (af) or less per year.

          PROPOSED LAW
          This bill would change the definition of "de minimis extractor"  
          from a person who extracts two af or less per year to a person  
          who, for domestic purposes, extracts 10 af or less per year. 

          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT







          SB 173 (Nielsen)                                        Page 2  
          of ?
          
          
          The Author asserts, "'de miminis' extractors are defined as  
          those who pump no more than 2 acre feet per year.  While this is  
          intended to include smaller domestic wells, the 2 acre feet per  
          year limit draws a fine line between those that are truly the  
          focus of the legislation, large agriculture, and those that  
          should not be included in the onerous reporting requirements and  
          fees that are part of the bill.  Landowners who reside on  
          smaller parcels and have minimal landscaping, gardens and  
          orchards, swimming pools, or small livestock herds, would likely  
          need to pump more than 2 acre feet per year.  Clearly, these  
          small parcels are not a cause of overdraft problems."

          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
          None Received





          COMMENTS
          
           Black's Law Dictionary  defines de minimis as "a Latin phrase  
          that means of a trifling consequence and a matter that is so  
          small that the court does not wish to even consider it."

           Are domestic wells of a trifling consequence?  In many all high-  
          and medium-priority groundwater basins, the answer appears to be  
          no.  The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed data  
          for Northern California groundwater basins based on well logs.   
          Those data show that domestic wells constitute a significant  
          number of wells and/or extractions in many high- and  
          medium-priority basins.  For example, the table below summarizes  
          well data for ten high- and medium-priority basins:


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Basin/Subbas|   # of   |% of All |  If All  |  If All  |Difference|
          |     in     | Domestic |  Wells  | Domestic | Domestic |          |
          |            |  Wells   |         |  Wells   |  Wells   |          |
          |            |          |         |Produce 2 | Produce  |          |
          |            |          |         |Acre-Feet |    10    |          |
          |            |          |         |          |Acre-Feet |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Redding     |  1,328   |  92.5%  | 2,656 af |13,280 af |10,624 af |








          SB 173 (Nielsen)                                        Page 3  
          of ?
          
          
          |Area/Bowman |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Sacramento  |  4,481   |  80.7%  | 8,962 af |44,810 af |35,848 af |
          |Valley/Red  |          |         |          |          |          |
          |Bluff       |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Redding     |  2,077   |  75.3%  | 4,154 af |20,770 af |16,616 af |
          |Area/Enterpr|          |         |          |          |          |
          |ise         |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |San Joaquin |  3,125   |  69.0%  | 6,250 af |31,250 af |25,000 af |
          |Valley/Cosum|          |         |          |          |          |
          |nes         |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Redding     |  2,580   |  68.2%  | 5,160 af |25,800 af |20,640 af |
          |Area/Anderso|          |         |          |          |          |
          |n           |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Sacramento  |  2,398   |  56.9%  | 4,796 af |23,980 af |19,184 af |
          |Valley/Vina |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Sacramento  |  2,415   |  56.6%  | 4,830 af |24,150 af |19,320 af |
          |Valley/Corni|          |         |          |          |          |
          |ng          |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Sacramento  |  2,870   |  51.2%  | 5,740 af |28,700 af |22,960 af |
          |Valley/Sutte|          |         |          |          |          |
          |r           |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |Sacramento  |  2,904   |  46.1%  | 5,808 af |29,040 af |23,232 af |
          |Valley/Solan|          |         |          |          |          |
          |o           |          |         |          |          |          |
          |------------+----------+---------+----------+----------+----------|
          |San Joaquin |  6,402   |  46.1%  |12,804 af |64,020 af |51,216    |
          |Valley/Easte|          |         |          |          |af        |
          |rn San      |          |         |          |          |          |
          |Joaquin     |          |         |          |          |          |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          Note: These data reflect only those well for which DWR has a  
          well log on file.  To the extent there are missing records,  
          these data would tend to undercount the number of wells.

          The data show that in some high- and medium-priority basins,  
          domestic wells dominate the basin.  It may well be challenging  








          SB 173 (Nielsen)                                        Page 4  
          of ?
          
          
          for groundwater sustainability agencies to develop a sustainable  
          groundwater management plan if over 75% - 93% of the wells are  
          exempt from having to meter extractions or report annual use.

          In other basins, the sheer number of domestic wells could lead  
          to from nearly 13,000 af of exempt extractions per year under  
          current law, to over 64,000 af per year under the proposed bill,  
          a potential difference of over 51,000 af per year.  51,000 af is  
          sufficient water to provide for the needs of about 102,000  
          families in urban California for a year.

          SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None 
          
          SUPPORT
          None Received 

          OPPOSITION
          None Received

          
                                      -- END --