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 --