=
=
BILL ANALYSIS =
=
=
=0C
=20
------------------------------------------------------------=20
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 178|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------=20
=20
=20
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 178
Author: Steinberg (D) and Kuehl (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
=20
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE : 6-1, =
3/27/07
AYES: Steinberg, Margett, Kehoe, Kuehl, Machado, Migden
NOES: Hollingsworth
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cogdill
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 10-6, 5/31/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl, Oropeza, =20
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg, Yee
NOES: Cox, Aanestad, Ashburn, Dutton, Runner, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Battin
SUBJECT : Groundwater
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes a statewide =
groundwater =20
elevation monitoring program.
ANALYSIS : California does not have any statewide =
laws =20
governing groundwater supplies.
California does have statewide laws governing groundwater =20
quality. In particular, the Porter Cologne Act, among =20
other things, directs the State Water Resources Control =20
Board (SWRCB) and the regional water quality control boards =20
CONTINUED
=0C
SB =
178
Page =
=20
2
to promulgate and enforce statewide regulations governing =20
groundwater quality.
California does have laws governing groundwater supplies in =20
some parts of the state. For example, in the counties of =20
Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Ventura, current =20
law requires any person who extracts groundwater in excess =20
of 25 acre-feet in any year to file an annual notice of =20
extraction with the SWRCB. This requirement, with certain =20
exceptions, applies to any groundwater extracted after =20
1955. Moreover, after 1959, failure to file a notice for =20
any calendar within six months after the end of that =20
calendar year is deemed equal to nonuse of the groundwater.
The Legislature has created 13 special act districts to =20
manage groundwater supplies. Included in these districts =20
are Orange County Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water =20
District, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and =20
Long Valley Groundwater Management District.
Current law requires the Department of Water Resources =20
(DWR) to report on groundwater conditions. Current law =20
only requires DWR to reports its findings to the Governor =20
and the Legislature no later than January 1, 1980. DWR has =20
updated this report infrequently and only upon =20
appropriation of funds for that purpose.
This bill establishes a statewide groundwater elevation =20
monitoring program as follows:
1.Local groundwater management interests will notify DWR as =20
to who will conduct the monitoring of groundwater =20
elevations, what area they will monitor, their =20
qualifications for conducting the monitoring, etc.
2.If more than one party seeks to become the monitoring =20
entity for the same portion of a basin or subbasin, DWR =20
will consult with the interested parties to determine who =20
will perform the monitoring functions. In determining =20
which party will conduct the monitoring, DWR will be =20
required to adhere to the following order:
A. A watermaster or water management engineer who was =20
appointed by a court as a part of an adjudication =20
=0C
SB =
178
Page =
=20
3
proceeding.
B. A groundwater management agency with statutory =20
authority to manage groundwater pursuant to its =20
principal act or a water replenishment district.
C. A local agency that is managing all or part of a =20
groundwater basin or subbasin under what is known as =20
an AB 3030 plan (Water Code Section 10750 et seq.), =20
or a local agency or county that is managing all or =20
part of a groundwater basin pursuant to any other =20
legally enforceable groundwater management plan with =20
provisions that are substantively similar to AB 3030.
D. A local agency that is managing all or part of a =20
groundwater basin or subbasin pursuant to an =20
integrated regional water management plan that =20
includes a groundwater management component that =20
complies with the requirements of SB 1938 (Water Code =20
Section 10753.7).
E. A county that is not currently managing all or =20
part of a groundwater basin.
F. A voluntary cooperative groundwater monitoring =20
association formed pursuant to this bill.
3.Monitoring entities will be required to begin monitoring =20
and reporting groundwater elevations by January 1, 2010. =20
The groundwater elevation data will be made readily =20
available to DWR, interested parties and the public.
4.By January 1, 2010, DWR will begin to identify the extent =20
of monitoring of groundwater elevations that is being =20
undertaken within each basin and subbasin. If DWR =20
determines that no one is monitoring all or part of a =20
basin or subbasin, DWR will be required to determine if =20
there was a local party willing to conduct the =20
monitoring.
5.If DWR determines there is no local interest in =20
conducting the monitoring and the existing monitoring =20
network is insufficient to demonstrate seasonal and long =20
term trends in groundwater elevations, and the Board of =20
=0C
SB 178
Page =
=20
4
Mining and Geology concurs with that determination, then =20
DWR will be authorized to monitor groundwater elevations =20
and to assess a fee to well owners within the DWR =20
monitored area to recover its direct costs.
This bill also requires DWR to update the groundwater =20
report by January 1, 2010, and thereafter in years ending =20
in five and zero.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: =
Yes =20
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 =
2008-09 =20
2009-10 Fund
Develop/maintain $1,000 $2,000 =
=20
$2,000 GF/SF*
data management
systems=20
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/1/07)
Groundwater Resources Association
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/1/07)
Department of Finance
Western Growers Association
Regional Council of Rural Counties
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's =
office, =20
"California's don't ask - don't tell" policy for =20
groundwater is not working. While the state has over 500 =20
distinct groundwater basins and subbasins, no one has =20
oversight or management responsibilities over all or even =20
part of any of these groundwater basins or subbasins unless =20
a court has ordered it, the Legislature has established a =20
special district to do it, or a voluntary group of =20
groundwater users chose to do it. For much of the state, =20
this means that no one is looking out for groundwater."
=0C
SB =
178
Page =
=20
5
According to the Sierra Club, "Currently, more than nine =20
million Californians rely on groundwater as their sole =20
source of supply. And, while demands on groundwater are =20
growing, information about the condition of the state's =20
groundwater is lacking. The #1 finding of DWR's latest =20
Groundwater Bulletin stated: "Groundwater provides about =20
30% of the State's water supply in an average year, yet in =20
many basins the amount of groundwater extracted annually is =20
not accurately known."
According to the Groundwater Resources Association (GRA), =20
"GRA strongly believes that the requirements outlined in SB =20
178 will help the State manage its water needs. The =20
monitoring and information required in SB 178 is essential =20
to planning for the State's water needs and should be taken =20
into consideration now, as funding decisions are considered =20
by the Legislature."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to Western =
Growers =20
Association, "Under the bill's current structure, the =20
Department of Water Resources (Department) is authorized to =20
select which local entity will be responsible for local =20
monitoring activities and does not allow for any entity or =20
individual who can meet the technical requirements to =20
submit data. It is our organization's view that no entity =20
should be given control in producing and submitting such =20
data.
"Additionally, the Department already has a widespread =20
system of groundwater monitoring wells that generate data =20
and many areas of the state employ successful local =20
groundwater management strategies. Rather than place a =20
state mandate on local entities, it would be more =20
appropriate for the state to use the current information =20
from its existing wells and use general fund monies to =20
fully fund operation of its existing groundwater monitoring =20
system.
"Fundamentally, the members of Western Growers consider =20
groundwater resources as a local, rather than state, =20
resource. The use of underlying groundwater is a real =20
property right in California and published California case =20
law has determined that groundwater is not a public trust =20
resource. The correlative overlying right to use =20
=0C
SB =
178
Page =
=20
6
groundwater is an affair between overlying water users of =20
any given basin and should not become an affair between =20
landowners and the state." =20
=20
CTW:cm 6/1/07 Senate Floor Analyses=20
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****