At a press conference in Los Angeles on November 6, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SBX7 6 and SBX7 8 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and expressed his support for the entire Delta/ water reform legislative package approved by the Legislature, in the early morning hours of November 4. (The Governor subsequently signed the three remaining bills in the package.) The agreement came less than one month into the special session on water called by the Governor in mid-October.
The package includes five bills and includes an $11.14 billion bond bill that will head to the November 2010 ballot to be approved by voters. The bills address a variety of water issues including the management of the Delta, groundwater monitoring, water conservation, water diversion/use reporting, and governance of the Delta.
Intense closed-door negotiations surrounded the package up until the final hour. The last two sticking points of the all-night session related to the water rights enforcement measure and the further parsing out of the water bond dollars. In the end, the controversial water rights language was dropped, and other provisions regarding water diversions in the Delta were amended into another bill. In the end, the water bond gained the necessary support with the addition $1 billion sought by Los Angeles for conservation and monitoring.
The package makes substantial changes to the management of the Delta, and while it does not specifically authorize a peripheral canal, the package sets the stage for major decisions on Delta conveyance. The legislation does create a new Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, a new Delta Stewardship Council, and establishes a statewide water conservation program, among other things.
Specifically to counties, the package includes a new statewide groundwater monitoring program. The program would require groundwater monitoring by local agencies, the county, water replenishment districts, or a groundwater management agency or association. If these entities choose not to perform the monitoring, they would exclude themselves from receiving any water grants or loans administered by the state, and the Department of Water Resources would assume the responsibility of monitoring. There is an exemption included in the language from this penalty for a service area that qualifies as a disadvantaged community.
The legislation also calls for an increased level of regulation of local agencies land use activities by the Delta Stewardship Council, the newly-created state governing body, in addition to that provided by the Delta Protection Commission. Conversely, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) process for the Canal facility, known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), requires no such oversight. Additional detail on these bills is provided later in this report.
Due to the closed-door nature of these legislative negotiations, Contra Costa County’s efforts through the Delta Counties Coalition to seek a number of important changes to these bills were, unfortunately, unsuccessful. (Although early efforts resulted in bill language that remained largely intact, language in other areas was modified significantly from what the Delta Counties Coalition had proposed, and other proposals were not considered.) Our state legislative delegation showed their support for Delta interests by voting against SB 1 (Governance) and SB 2 (Water Bond). For additional information on the impacts of the legislative package on counties and Delta counties specifically, see Attachment A “Impacts of Water Legislation on California Counties,” prepared by Solano County Supervisors Reagan and Vasquez.
Federal Activity
In light of the passage of this package of legislation, federal interest and activity regarding the Delta, and additional federal assistance needed for the Delta and its communities, the Delta Counties Coalition arranged a trip to Washington, D.C. for December 2-4, 2009 to meet with key congressional representatives and agency staff. Supervisor Piepho represented Contra Costa County. (See also Attachment B, DCC Schedule/Notes.)
Prior to the trip, the Delta Counties Coalition (DCC) had agreed to promote the following near-term recommendations to our federal delegation and agency staff:
1) Establish a process through which the DCC can engage with the administration, and the delegation, on an on-going basis. The DCC must be central to the development of proposals to address Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues in a comprehensive, sustainable manner. We also request that representatives from the appropriate federal agencies actively participate on the entities established in California’s recently enacted Delta/Water legislative package, including but not limited to, the Delta Stewardship Council, the Delta Protection Commission, the Delta Conservancy, and the Science Advisory Board.
2) Secure funding support in the 2010-2011 federal budget and appropriations processes to:
a) Assist the DCC in analyzing aspects of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) that will not be covered in the NEPA and CEQA analyses, notably the socio-economic, environmental and hydrologic impacts of BDCP on the region;
b) Provide resources to permit the DCC to participate with the BDCP as it is developed in order to avoid conflicts and provide implementable outcomes.
3) Secure federal support for the local and regional habitat management plans in the five Delta counties, particularly those adjacent to the BDCP and assist federal regulatory agencies and counties in integration of local terrestrial habitat management plans in the five Delta counties with the aquatic habitat being created by Delta Smelt and Salmon Biological Opinions.
4) Accelerate federal studies associated with developing storage options and implementing water conservation, recycling, re-use, and regional self sufficiency as part of an improved statewide storage, flood management, and water supply systems.
a) Immediate funding to study minimum in-stream flow requirements, as well as salinity in-flows/intrusion and how they affect federal project operation.
b) Evaluate the impacts of BDCP and an alternative water conveyance facility (i.e., the Peripheral Canal) on existing project levees and other federal water projects and facilities.
c) Develop and fund a new regional landscape level management program or model specifically for the Delta – such as those developed for the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Everglades, or Chesapeake Bay programs.
5) Provide additional resources for infrastructure projects and emergency response projects such as the completion of through Delta transportation corridor studies and levee improvements; and an increase in funding to the Public Safety Interoperability grant program to assist Delta Counties with emergency response and recovery.
In addition to these efforts, the Delta Counties Coalition also recently submitted to our federal delegation a request for support of a project in the 2010 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) related to the Delta: the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Infrastructure Authority. This project is intended to serve as the beginning of discussions on how best to align the authorities of the Army Corps of Engineers with efforts to develop and implement a comprehensive solution to the water resource problems facing the Delta. Among other things, our proposal seeks to provide the Corps with the authority to participate in levee improvement, water supply and water quality projects as well as critical ecosystem and habitat restoration initiatives.
Project Description: In partnership with Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta counties and communities, authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide financial and other assistance to Delta counties and communities in protecting and enhancing water quality and quantity, enhancing habitat and the environment for all species in the Delta, improving flood control and protection, and protect Delta counties and communities, their economies, and their quality of life in restoring the Delta for endangered species and water supplies.
Summary of State Water Legislative Package
The following is a summary from CSAC staff of the five bills approved by the Legislature in Special Session 7X on water. Comments from County staff in this summary are shown in italics.
________________________________________
SBX7 1 (Simitian) – Delta Management – Public Resources
As Amended on November 4, 2009
SBX7 1, the Delta management reform bill by Senator Joe Simitian, would make changes to the management of the Delta and establish guidelines for the creation of a new Delta plan. Specifically, the bill would do the following:
• Place into statute the concept of co-equal goals; providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting and restoring the Delta eco¬system.
• Make changes to the Delta Protection Commission (DPC), including changes to its membership and scope. The DPC would be required to develop an economic sustainability plan for the Delta and will study and recommend whether to change the boundaries of the Primary Zone. The DPC will retain its existing authority to consider appeals of Primary Zone land-use decisions.
• Create a new Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. The conservancy would be charged primarily with Delta eco-system restoration. Funding for the conservancy would be appropriated from Proposition 84 and 1E funds, with no ongoing source of funding identified.
• Repeal the Bay-Delta Authority Act.
• Create a new Delta Stewardship Council (Council), and establish the legal framework for the management of the Delta. The Council would be a regulatory agency charged with developing a Delta plan, to further the co-equal goals, promote a reliable water supply, promote conservation, and attempt to reduce risks to people, property, and state interests in the Delta.
• The DPC would also be charged with ensuring consistency of the Delta Plan. The Council can review and advise local and regional agencies on the consistency of their plans with the Delta Plan. State and local agencies that propose to implement actions that occur within the legal Delta would be required to submit consistency certifications to the Council. The Council would review the certification to determine whether the project is consistent with the Delta Plan. There are exemptions to this consistency determination, including routine operation and maintenance, state regulatory actions, regional transportation plans, and State Water Project and / Central Valley Project operations.
Additionally, the bill contains an exemption for any plan, program, project, or activity within the secondary zone of the Delta that the applicable metropolitan planning organization (MPO), pursuant to SB 375, has determined is consistent with either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, and ARB determines meets the greenhouse gas reduction targets. The bill specifically defines “consistent with” to mean, “the use designation, density, building intensity, transportation plan, and applicable policies specified for the area in the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy, and any infrastructure necessary to support the plan, program, project, or activity.”
The bill requires the State Water Board, in consultation with the DPC, to appoint a Delta Watermaster to provide timely monitoring and enforcement of Board actions. This authority is limited to diversions in the Delta or actions that apply to conditions in the Delta.
• Create a Delta Independent Science Board and Delta Science Program.
• Require the Council to consider the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) for incorporation into the larger Delta Plan.
________________________________________
SBX7 2 (Cogdill) – Bond Bill – Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010
As Amended on November 4, 2009
SBX7 2, by Senator Dave Cogdill, would place before the voters an $11.14 billion bond for the purposes of financing a variety of water programs, including water supply, Delta sustainability, water system operational improvement, conservation and watershed protection, groundwater protection, water storage, drought relief, and water recycling. The bond does not explicitly include any funding for the proposed peripheral canal (but leaves the door open to potential mitigation cost coverage). The bond would also be issued in at least two stages, by authorizing the sale of no more than half of the bond by 2015.
CSAC will take a position on the bond measure next year following review and approval by the CSAC Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Committee, Executive Committee, and CSAC Board of Directors.
The following is a summary of the bond’s funding categories:
WATER BOND -- SBX7 2 (Cogdill)
CHAPTER 5 - Drought Relief $455,000,000
- Drought Relief Projects $90,000,000
- Economic Impact from Drought $90,000,000
- Small Community Wastewater $75,000,000
- Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan $80,000,000
- New River $20,000,000
- Local and Regional Projects in San Diego $100,000,000
CHAPTER 6 - Regional Supply $1,400,000,000
- IRWMP - allocated $1,000,000,000
- (Unallocated/Interregional) $50,000,000
- Local Conveyance $350,000,000
CHAPTER 7 - Delta $2,250,000,000
- Projects $750,000,000
- Ag Economy (out of project pot) [$250,000,000]
- Eco/ BDCP $1,500,000,000
CHAPTER 8 - Statewide Flexibility/Storage $3,000,000,000
CHAPTER 9 - Watershed and Water Quality $1,785,000,000
CHAPTER 10 - Groundwater $1,000,000,000
CHAPTER 11 - Recycling $1,250,000,000
Recycling $1,000,000,000
Conservation $250,000,000
TOTALS $11,140,000,000
________________________________________
SBX7 6 (Steinberg) –Groundwater Monitoring
As Amended on November 4, 2009
SBX7 6, by Senator Darrell Steinberg creates a statewide groundwater monitoring program. The bill states legislative intent to have systematic monitoring and public reporting of groundwater information in all groundwater basins and sub-basins. However, the bill does authorize the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prioritize groundwater basins for the purposes of monitoring.
Specifically, this bill allows local groundwater management entities, including counties, water replenishment districts, local agencies, groundwater management agencies, or associations to volunteer to assume the responsibility of monitoring all or part of a basin. SBX7 6 does not specifically require counties to assume this responsibility. However, if local entities, including counties, choose not to assume this responsibility they would exclude themselves from receiving water grants and loans administered by the state, and DWR would assume the responsibility of groundwater monitoring. There is an exemption included in the bill for disadvantaged communities. Additionally, the bill requires DWR, if no local agency volunteers, to directly perform groundwater monitoring functions and charge well owners for the costs of such activity. County staff understands that Section 10933.5(c) expressly prohibits DWR from assessing a fee or charge to recover costs for groundwater monitoring. Section 10936 authorizes DWR to recover all its costs under this statute to unallocated 2006 water bond revenue.
CSAC communicated to the Legislature and the Administration its concerns with the bill’s approach to groundwater monitoring. Although SBX7 6 now names DWR as the default groundwater monitor, the bill still penalizes counties and other local entities over situations in which they have no control.
________________________________________
SBX7 7 (Steinberg) – Water Conservation
As Amended on November 4, 2009
SBX7 7, by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, would set water conservation targets. Specifically, this bill would:
• Require the state to achieve a 10% reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2015, and a 20% statewide reduction by December 31, 2020.
• Require each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets and an interim urban water use target by July 1, 2011, and specifies methodologies for achieving the targets. Public hearing requirements are also included to allow community input on the supplier’s water use target implementation plan.
• Prohibit urban suppliers from requiring changes that reduce process water 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, but allows for reductions in emergencies. “Process water" is defined as water used for producing a product or product content.
• Require, on or before July 31, 2012, agricultural water suppliers to implement efficient water management practices. Mandated practices are limited to installing water meters and charging for water according to the amount used. Suppliers are exempt from additional specified practices if the supplier documents that such practices are not locally cost effective or technically feasible.
• Require the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare reports to the Legislature regarding the progress of urban water management plans and agricultural efficient water management practices.
• Require DWR to promote implementation of regional water resources management practices.
• Condition state water grants/loans for urban and agricultural water suppliers on compliance with provisions of the bill, but allow funding for water conservation under certain conditions and funding by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
• Provide that all costs incurred by a water utility, as a result of the bill’s requirements, may be recoverable in rates subject to review and approval by the Public Utilities Commission.
• Reauthorize the Agricultural Water Management Planning Program.
• Exempt from the bill’s water conservation and water management planning requirements any agricultural supplier serving less than 25,000 of irrigated land if the state does not provide funding for those purposes.
• Provide an exemption from the bill’s provisions for agricultural water suppliers that are parties to the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement. (This enables irrigators to sell water to municipalities.)
________________________________________
SBX7 8 (Steinberg) – Water Diversion Reporting/Reallocation of Bond Funding
As Amended on November 4, 2009
SBX7 8, by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board and DWR to adopt emergency regulations for the filing of reports of water diversion or use. Specifically, the bill would:
• Repeal water diversion reporting exemptions for diverters in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
• Increase fines and penalties relating to reporting of diversions.
• Redirect funds from Proposition 84 (2006) and 1E (2006) to pay for various Delta-related projects and purposes. This includes $250 million in grants to local public agencies to implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans and $222 million to DWR for levee and flood control projects.
• Authorize the addition of 25 water rights enforcement staff at the State Water Resources Control Board, to be paid for from the Water Rights Fee Fund.