June 20 2018 UPDATE On 50 Gallon Per Person Per Day Water Bill

Article Source: CA State Assemblyman Kevin Mullin's Office

UPDATE below is after this post was written and BEFORE it was posted:

""Hi Robert,

I spoke with the State Water Resources Control Board and they said they will have public meetings and hearing to inform the public of what they will be doing. The person I spoke with also directed me to a Sac Bee article that provides good information on what the bill does and clears up some misconceptions. Here is the link:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article212605634.html.

So the bill sets a “water budget” and certain standards that local water agencies should encourage their customers to meet. One of those standards is the 55 gallon indoor water usage. This would be the average per capita water use standard. Since it is an average across a water district, some households can use more, because some will use less. In addition, the $1,000 fine mentioned in the bill would apply to local water agencies, not individual households. There is nothing in the bill that says individuals will be fined if they use more than the 55 gallon per person per day standard.

Thanks,

Kevin Fong""

The following update on AB1668 & SB606 provided as shown below.

I have asked HOW will the voters learn the framework as created by the Dept of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board. I will publish the answer upon receipt.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your follow up email. AB 1668 and its companion bill SB 606 were both recently signed by Governor Brown. The Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board are still in the process of creating the framework and policies needed to implement these bills. As such, we don’t have answers to some of your questions. In the meantime, please see the attached bill analysis for AB 1668 and SB 606, which will provide some of the answers you are looking for.

Best,

Kevin Fong

Field Representative

Office of Assemblymember Kevin Mullin

1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 302

San Mateo, CA 94402

P: 650-349-2200

F: 650-341-4676

Kevin.Fong@asm.ca.gov

From: Robert Riechel [mailto:robertriechel@att.net]

Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 6:34 PM

To: Fong, Kevin

Cc: Medina Rico E.

Subject: Re: AB 1668

Thank you for your reply

A couple of questions:

When will the 50 or 52 or 55 gallons per day per resident go into effect?

How will interior water use be calculated against outside water use when most properties have 1 meter together measuring inside and outside water together?

When will the listed $1,000.00 per day fine go into effect and who gets the money?

What process has or will be set up to get this info to ALL residents?

What appeal process was included in the bill?

Might Assemblyman Mullin present these answers and others to a meeting of the San Bruno City Council?

Thanks

Robert Riechel

cell 650-740-3459

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1668

Author:(Friedman)

As Amended Ver:May 3, 2018

Majority vote

ASSEMBLY:

44-25

(May 31, 2017)

SENATE:

24-14

(May 14, 2018)

Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W.

SUMMARY: This bill only becomes operative if both it and SB 606 (Hertzberg) of the current legislative session are enacted. If both bills are enacted they would jointly create new long-term urban water use standards, as specified.

While both this bill and SB 606 must be enacted for either to take effect, this bill contains distinct provisions on agricultural water management planning and drought planning for small water suppliers and rural communities. Additionally, this bill contains several other provisions. Specifically, this bill:

• 1)Jointly with SB 606, establishes authority for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in coordination with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to establish long-term urban water use efficiency standards by June 30, 2022. The standards are to, among other things, include:
  • a)Requiring the long-term efficient water use standards to have a component for indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with dedicated irrigation meters in connection with Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial (CII) water use, and a volume for water loss, as specified.
  • b)Establishing an urban water use objective as the aggregate of the efficient water use components (indoor residential, outdoor residential, outdoor irrigation of CII on a dedicated meter, and water loss) based on previous year water use and reported annually.
  • c)Requiring the DWR in coordination with the SWRCB to, no later than October 1, 2021, recommend guidelines and methodologies for calculating the urban water use objective. Provides that an urban retail water supplier that delivers potable reuse water, as defined, may receive a bonus incentive to use up to 10% additional water beyond what is established in their urban water use objective. Additionally, specifies operation of existing facilities that allow for an urban water supplier to receive a bonus incentive of up to 15%.
  • d)Establishing an indoor water use standard of 55 gallons per capita daily (GPCD) until January 1, 2025. Beginning January 1, 2025, until January 1, 2030, establishes an indoor water use standard of 52.5 GPCD and beginning January 1, 2030, establishes an indoor water use standard of 50 GPCD. Establishes a process for the DWR in coordination with the SWRCB to jointly recommend to the Legislature a standard that more appropriately reflects best practices for indoor water use that is different from the standards established in this bill.
  • e)Requiring the DWR in coordination with the SWRCB to conduct studies and investigations and recommend, no later than October 1, 2021, standards for outdoor residential use for adoption by the SWRCB. Requires the standards to incorporate the principles, as specified, of the model water efficient landscape ordinance. Requires the DWR to provide each urban retail water supplier with data that can reasonably be applied to the standard, and is sufficient to allow the urban retail water supplier to verify its accuracy at the parcel level. Authorizes an urban retail water supplier to use alternative data in calculating their outdoor water use standard if the water supplier demonstrates to the DWR that the alternative data are equivalent, or superior, to the data provided by the DWR.
  • f)Requiring the DWR in coordination with the SWRCB to conduct studies and investigations and recommend no later than October 1, 2021, performance measures for CII water use for adoption by the SWRCB.
  • g)Requiring the DWR in coordination with the SWRCB to adopt regulations for variances, as specified.
  • h)Authorizing the SWRCB to issue information orders on and after July 1, 2024, written notices on and after July 1, 2025, and conservation orders on and after July 1, 2026, to an urban water supplier that does not meet its urban water use objective. Prohibits the conservation orders from requiring an urban water supplier to impose civil liability.
  • i)Establishing liability of $1,000 per day for a violation of orders or regulations on the long-term standards after November 1, 2027. Increases the liability to $10,000 if there is a drought emergency declared by the Governor or during a critically dry year that is preceded by two or more below average rainfall years.
  • j)Requiring the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to, on or before January 10, 2024, provide a report, as specified, evaluating the implementation of the long-term standards. Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature that the chairperson of the SWRCB and the director of the DWR appear before the Legislature on or around January 1, 2026, and report, as specified, on the implementation of the long-term standards.
  • k)Specifying that nothing in the long-term urban water use efficiency standards shall be construed to determine or alter water rights.
  • l)Prohibiting the SWRCB from updating or reviewing the water use efficiency standards unless there is authorization to update the standards in separate legislation.
• 2)Distinct from SB 606, this bill, would revise Agricultural Water Management Planning, including to:
  • a)Require Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs) to quantify measures to increase the efficiency of agricultural water use efficiency, include an annual water budget, describe the agricultural water supplier's water management strategy with specified elements, and include a drought plan describing the actions of the agricultural water supplier for drought preparedness and management of water supplies and allocations during drought conditions.
  • b)Require the DWR to provide tools and resources to assist an agricultural water supplier in developing and quantifying components necessary to develop a water budget.
  • c)Require the DWR to submit its report summarizing and evaluating AWMPs to the Legislature on or before April 30 in years ending in seven and in years ending in two.
• 3)Include numerous other provisions, including to:
  • a)This bill, distinct from SB 606, would require the DWR to propose to the Governor and the Legislature, by January 1, 2020, recommendations and guidance regarding the development and implementation of countywide drought and water shortage contingency plans to address drought planning for small water suppliers and rural communities.

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill, and instead:

• 1)Require contingent enactment with SB 606.
• 2)Add the provisions on long-term urban water use efficiency standards.
• 3)Add the provisions on drought planning for small water suppliers and rural communities.
• 4)Delete the provisions related to water shortage planning. Similar water shortage planning provisions are currently in SB 606.
• 5)Add the provisions related to AWMPs that are similar to what was in AB 1667 (Friedman) as amended May 30, 2017.

EXSITING LAW:

• 1)Declares that because of the conditions prevailing in this state, the general welfare requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.
• 2)Empowers the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency, including a drought state of emergency. A state of emergency proclamation allows the Governor to make, amend, and rescind orders and regulations, which have the force and effect of law.
• 3)Requires a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use on or before December 31, 2020.
• 4)Requires each urban retail water supplier to develop an urban water use target based on one of the following methods:
  • a)Water use of 80% of the urban retail water supplier's baseline per capita water use.
  • b)A water budget based on indoor use, outdoor use, and commercial, industrial and institutional uses.
  • c)Water use of 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target.
  • d)A method developed by the DWR.
• 5)Defines "base daily per capita water use" as the average of gross water use over a period of time that is no longer than 15 continuous years and no shorter than five continuous years beginning no earlier than December 31, 1989, and ending no later than December 31, 2010. Establishes the standard period to be the 10 continuous years from December 31, 2004, through December 31, 2010. Allows five additional years for an urban water supplier that meets at least 10% of its 2008 retail demand through recycled water.
• 6)Requires every urban water supplier to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP). Requires the UWMP be updated at least once every five years. Requires UWMPs to describe the service area of the supplier, including, in five-year increments to 20 years, current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's water management plan. Requires UWMPs to identify and quantify existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier, in five-year increments to 20 years.
• 7)Requires the UWMPs provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis (WSCA). Requires the WSCA to include stages of action to be taken in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50% reduction in water supply. Requires the WSCA to include an estimate of minimum water supply available during each of the next three water years based on the driest three-year historic sequence. Requires the WSCA to include mandatory prohibitions of water use.
• 8)Requires agricultural water suppliers to adopt Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs). Exempts agricultural water suppliers that provide water to less than 25,000 irrigated acres from the requirement to adopt AWMPs. Makes an agricultural water supplier who does not adopt an AWMP ineligible for a water grant or loan from the state.
• 9)Requires the SWRCB to adopt rules requiring an urban retail water supplier to meet performance standards for the volume of water loss no later than July 1, 2020.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• 1)Approximately $300,000 annually (General Fund) to SWRCB for two staff positions to develop regulations, conduct necessary outreach about regulations, administer the program, and enforce new requirements.
• 2)Approximately $10.6 million (General Fund) to DWR over five years for five full-time positions, contracting costs, and equipment necessary to develop the standards and performance measures, implement the reporting and compliance data management system, provide technical assistance, and develop recommendations.

COMMENTS: California experienced the worst drought on record from 2012-2016, with the first four years estimated to be the driest four-year period in the last 450 years. While the most recent drought was historic, current climate change models predict that severe drought will become a more common occurrence.

In January of 2014, the Governor issued an executive order declaring a drought state of emergency and requesting a voluntary 20% reduction in urban potable water use. For the first time in the state's history, the Governor issued an executive order in April of 2015, requiring the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) implement mandatory restrictions to achieve a 25% statewide reduction in urban potable use, over 2013 levels of use. There are approximately 410 urban water suppliers that serve approximately 90% of the population of the state.

In May of 2015, the SWRCB adopted an emergency regulation placing each urban water supplier in a conservation tier ranging between 4% and 36%. In May of 2016, the SWRCB adopted an emergency regulation that replaced the percentage reduction requirement with a localized "stress test" requiring urban water suppliers to ensure a three-year supply of water to their customers under drought conditions. For the most part, all actions associated with the 2012-16 drought were ended when the Governor declared the drought emergency over on April 7, 2017.

The actions taken by the SWRCB in 2015 and 2016, were criticized by some, as not recognizing past efforts to use water more efficiently, supporting investments in drought resilient supply, and in some instances not being applied in a way that would produce water savings that could reasonably benefit other regions of the state. The 2016 "stress test" approach was also criticized as not being a meaningful enough step to prevent shortages should 2017 have become another dry year.

On May 9, 2016, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-37-16 to "make water conservation a way of life" in California. Among other things, the executive order required the DWR to work with the SWRCB to develop a conservation framework. Since the executive order, five departments and agencies including the DWR and the SWRCB issued a final report on April 7, 2017, on "making water conservation a way of life" (framework).

There have been eight policy bills in the 2017-2018 session that have been related to proposals in the framework. Additionally, there has been a budget trailer bill related to the framework.

On April 25, 2017, the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee heard and passed seven bills related to the framework. On May 16, 2017, the Assembly formed a bipartisan 10 member water working group. The working group submitted a letter on June 7, 2017, to the administration requesting the administration pursue a policy bill that include principles which the working group had developed.

In response to the letter, the administration agreed to work through the legislative policy process.

This bill and SB 606 were amended with identical language on August 21, 2017. Subsequent amendments on August 29, 2017, September 6, 2017, in the first week of April 2018, and in the first week of May 2018 have refined the requirements in the long-term standards on indoor water use standards, bonus incentive for potable reuse water, the public process associated with the development of the long-term standard, and have split the policy while requiring contingent enactment between this bill and SB 606.

This bill, jointly with SB 606, will now provide authority for long-term standards for the efficient use of water, and expressly limit that authority to the 2021-26 UWMP planning cycle. The bills require the standard to be a water budget-based methodology. The standard is to include specific components on indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with dedicated irrigation meters in connection with CII water use, and water loss through leaks. The bill establishes an ongoing 10% bonus incentive for potable reuse water delivered to users covered by the long-term standards. This would allow for an urban retail water provider to exceed their urban water use objective by up to 10%. Additionally, the bill would allow for urban retail water suppliers who operate existing facilities that are producing potable reuse water, as specified, by January 1, 2022 to be eligible for a 15% bonus incentive. The bills establish a water use objective to be the sum of the standard components as the benchmark by which urban water suppliers are measured to determine if they are meeting the standards.

The DWR and the SWRCB are required to solicit broad public participation from stakeholders in the development of the long-term standards. The bills require the inclusion of variances for water uses, and specify a process for the development and approval of variances. The bills further require that the development of data necessary for the development of the outdoor residential standards is reasonably accurate for compliance with the water use objective, and specify that the DWR shall provide data to urban water suppliers sufficient to allow its accuracy to be verified at the parcel level. The bills establish an enforcement mechanism for the standards of civil liability and provide the SWRCB with the authority to issue information notices, written notices, and conservation orders to urban water suppliers that do not meet their water use objective. The bills prohibit the SWRCB from requiring an urban water supplier to impose civil liability.

This bill makes substantive revisions to AWMPs by requiring them to have an annual water budget, water management objectives, and efficiency quantification.

This bill further develops a concept first introduced in AB 1667 on July 3, 2017, related to drought planning in rural communities. The purpose of the required rural drought planning recommendations by the DWR is to implement lessons learned from communities, such as East Porterville, and avoid rural communities experiencing protracted periods of time where they must rely on trucked or bottled water.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0002917

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE

Office of Senate Floor Analyses

(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478

SB 606

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Bill No: SB 606

Author: Hertzberg (D), et al.

Amended: 5/7/18

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-28, 5/14/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Water management planning

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to adopt water efficiency regulations, outlines requirements for water suppliers, specifies penalties for violations, and makes technical, conforming changes.

Assembly Amendments

gut the previous language and replace it with the current language.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

• 1)Declares, under Article X, Section 2, of the California Constitution, “that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented …”
• 2)Requires the state to achieve 20% reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. Provides four methods for urban water suppliers to meet the 20% reduction goal. Urban water suppliers were to report their progress in meeting the goal in their 2015 urban water management plans (UWMPs).
• 3)Requires, pursuant to the Urban Water Management Act, urban water suppliers to produce an UWMP in years ending in “0” and “5” (except for 2015, where the deadline was extended to July 1, 2016). Among other requirements, UWMPs are to describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation, and demand management activities. Plans are also to include a water shortage contingency analysis, and a strategy and time schedule for implementation of the plan. An urban water supplier that does not prepare, adopt, and submit its UWMP to DWR is ineligible to receive funding from Proposition 204 (1996) or Proposition 13 (2000).

This bill:

• 1)Establishes urban water use objectives and water use reporting requirements, including:
  • a)Requires an urban water supplier to calculate an aggregate urban water use objective for the previous calendar year by November 1 of each year, beginning November 1, 2023.
  • b)Provides a bonus incentive for potable reuse water equal to the volume of that delivered, up to 15% for existing projects, as defined, and 10% for all other potable reuse projects.
  • c)Authorizes an urban retail water supplier to use alternative data in calculating the urban water use objective if the water supplier demonstrates to DWR that the alternative data are equivalent, or superior, in quality and accuracy to the data provided by the department.
  • d)Requires an urban water supplier to submit an annual report to DWR that reports the urban water use objective and actual water use by November 1 of each year.
  • e)Authorizes SWRCB to issue information orders, written notices, and conservation orders to an urban water supplier that does not meet its water use objective. Conservation orders are prohibited from curtailing or otherwise limiting the supplier’s exercise of water rights.
  • f)Authorizes SWRCB to issue a regulation or informational order requiring a wholesale water supplier, and urban retail water supplier, or distributor of a public water supply to submit information relating to water production, water use, or water conservation.
  • g)Requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office, by January 10, 2024, to evaluate and report to the Legislature on the implementation of the urban water conservation standards and water use reporting established by this bill.
  • h)States the Legislature’s intent that the chair of SWRCB and director of DWR, on or about January 1, 2026, appear before the appropriate policy committees of both houses and report on the implementation of urban water conservation standards and water use reporting established by this bill.
• 2)Revises UWMP, including:
  • a)Requires UWMPs to include a simple lay description of the reliability of its water supplies, the agency’s strategy for meeting its water needs, and other information necessary to provide a general understanding of the agency’s plan.
  • b)Requires UWMPs to contain a drought risk assessment that examines water shortage risks for a drought lasting the next five years.
  • c)Requires an urban water supplier to prepare, adopt, and periodically review a water shortage contingency plan as part of its UWMP.
  • d)Requires a water shortage contingency plan to include, among other things, annual water budget forecast procedures, standard water shortage levels, shortage response actions, and communication protocols and procedures.
  • e)Requires, as a part of the shortage contingency plan, a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions. This may include a determination that a particular source of water supply is fully reliable under most, if not all, conditions.
  • f)Requires an urban water supplier to make the water shortage contingency plan available to its customers and any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 30 days after adoption.
  • g)Requires an urban water supplier to conduct a water supply and demand assessment and provide that information to DWR with information for anticipated shortage, triggered shortage response actions, compliance and enforcement actions, and communication actions consistent with the supplier’s water shortage contingency plan each May.
  • h)Requires the DWR to prepare and submit to SWRCB, by June 1 of each year, a report summarizing the submitted water supply and demand assessment results along with appropriate reported water shortage conditions developed by DWR and information regarding various shortage response actions implemented as a result of water budget forecast assessments, as prescribed, for SWRCB to determine if noncompliance enforcement is necessary.
  • i)Makes other changes regarding UWMPs to also apply to water shortage contingency plans.
  • j)Revises the funding restrictions on non-compliant water agencies to match that which applies to agricultural water management plans.
  • k)Requires, instead of authorize, the governing body of a distributor of a public water supply to declare a water shortage emergency condition to prevail within the area served by the distributor whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply of the distributor to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection.
• 3)Adds and revises findings and declarations and statements of legislative intent regarding how this bill is to be implemented.
• 4)Includes language making enactment of this bill contingent upon enactment of AB 1668 (Friedman, 2017).

Background

• 1)In May of 2016 Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed Executive Order (B‐37‐16) (EO) that updated the drought emergency declaration, and directed state agencies to take specific additional actions designed to make water conservation a California way of life.
• 2)Beginning in June 2016, the administration had a series of meetings and workshops with key interest groups to develop specific proposals for implementing the EO. In April 2017, the administration released a report titled “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Implementing Executive Order B-37-16.” That report, often referred to as “the framework,” made specific recommendations for long‐term improvements to water supply management that support water conservation.
• 3)On July 11, 2017, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee (SNRW) had a special order of business to hear four bills related to the administration’s proposed framework. These were AB 1323 (Weber), AB 1654 (Rubio), AB 1667 (Friedman), and AB 1668 (Friedman). SNRW heard presentations from the administration and three authors on their objectives for their proposals. The chair then laid out a process for harmonizing the interests of the Senate, Assembly, administration, and the various interest groups.

Also in April 2017, the administration released trailer bill language that purported to make the changes in law necessary to implement the recommendations in the framework. Ultimately, neither the Senate nor Assembly budget committees approved that language. However, the language in the trailer bill was subsequently amended into AB 1667 (Friedman) on July 3, 2017.

During the summer break, staff from SNRW, the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee, and the authors’ offices worked with the administration and the various interest groups to develop an ultimate package. This bill and AB 1668 (Friedman) make up that two bill package.

The staff from SNRW, the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee, and the authors’ offices worked with the administration and the various interest groups to refine the bills over the fall break and well into this year.

Comments

Focus now solely on efficiency, not conservation. There was much concern expressed regarding earlier bills that these bills were going to require reductions in potable or recycled water sales. Much of this concern stemmed from the use of the term “urban water use targets,” which the current water code defines in Water Code (WAT) Section 10608.12(q) as “the urban retail water supplier’s targeted future daily per capita water use.”

This bill dropped the use of urban water use targets. Instead, it establishes an “urban water use objective,” which the new Section10608.12(s) defines as “an estimate of aggregate efficient water use for the previous year based on adopted water use efficiency standards and local service area characteristics for that year, as described in Section 10609.20.”

The focus of this bill is now on efficient water use, not water conservation. Conforming changes were made throughout the bill.

Locals now clear decision makers. This bill makes clear that local urban water suppliers have primary responsibility for meeting standards-based water use targets, and they shall retain the flexibility to develop their water supply portfolios, design and implement water conservation strategies, educate their customers, and enforce their rules.

Role of the Legislature. This bill preserves the Legislature’s authority over long-term water use efficiency target setting and ensures appropriate legislative oversight of the implementation of this chapter by doing all of the following:

• Sets the standard for indoor residential water use in statute.
• Requires the water loss standard to be the same as that required by SB 555 (Wolk, Chapter 679, Statutes of 2015).
• Ties the irrigation standards to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
• Provides one-time-only authority to DWR and SWRCB to adopt water use efficiency standards. Authorization to update the standards shall require separate legislation.

Outdoor residential water use. There have been a lot of concerns raised with the data required to support establishing a water agency’s urban water use objective for outdoor residential water use. This bill, in conjunction with AB 1668, addresses those concerns as follows:

• DWR is required, by January 1, 2021, to provide each urban retail water supplier with data regarding the area of residential irrigable lands in a manner that can reasonably be applied to the standards adopted pursuant to this section. The data are required to be at a level of detail sufficient to allow the urban water supplier to verify its accuracy at the parcel level.
• An urban retail water supplier may use alternative data in calculating the urban water use objective if the supplier demonstrates to DWR that the alternative data are equivalent, or superior, in quality and accuracy to the data provided by DWR.
• DWR is further prevented from recommending standards pursuant to this section until it has conducted pilot projects or studies, or some combination of the two, to ensure that the data provided to local agencies are reasonably accurate for the data’s intended uses.

Water rights protections. A number of concerns have also been raised about the potential for earlier bills to encroach on water rights. This bill addresses those issues as follows:

• It explicitly states that nothing regarding the establishment and implementation of the urban water use objectives shall be construed to determine or alter water rights. WAT Sections 1010 and 1011 apply to water conserved through implementation of these objectives.
• It also provides that a conservation order issued by SWRCB in accordance with these provisions shall not curtail or otherwise limit the exercise of water rights.

Recycled water part I. There have been numerous, often conflicting, comments on how recycled water should be treated in establishing urban water use objectives. Among the issues raised was a concern that the bills may require the use of less recycled water, especially during periods of drought. This bill, in conjunction with SB 606, addresses that and other concerns about recycled water as follows:

• This bill no longer focuses on water conservation. Instead, its focus is on the efficient use of all water resources, including recycled water.
• Standards for outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with dedicated irrigation meters in connection with CII water use is based on MWELO – that is, it must be efficient per MWELO. However, there is also a provision for the adoption of variances for significant landscaped areas irrigated with recycled water having high levels of total dissolved solids.
• All other CII use of recycled water is excluded from the calculation of the urban water use objective.
• There is no water loss standard for non-potable water, including recycled water. It is excluded from the calculation of the urban water use objective.

Recycled water part II. There have been numerous, often conflicting, comments on how potable reuse water should be treated in establishing urban water use objectives. The most recent amendments to this bill provide that an urban retail water supplier that delivers water from a groundwater basin, reservoir, or other source that is augmented by potable reuse water may adjust its urban water use objective by a bonus incentive as follow:

• A water agency with a potable reuse project that meets the following criteria, shall have a bonus incentive of up to 15% of its urban water use objective:
  • Certified environmental documents by 1/1/19.
  • Producing and delivering potable reuse water by 1/1/22.
  • Uses microfiltration and reverse osmosis technologies.
• A water agency with a potable reuse project that does not meet those criteria, shall have a bonus incentive of up to 10%.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

• 1)Increased first year costs of $520,000 and ongoing annual costs of approximately $300,000 to 325,000 per year for the following three years for DWR to implement water shortage contingency plan requirements and provide required annual reports to SWRCB (GF).
• 2)One-time DWR GF costs of $250,000 to conduct a feasibility study of requiring water loss reporting for urban wholesalers (GF).
• 3)Increased annual ongoing SWRCB costs of $150,000.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/18)

7th Generation Advisers

Apana

Association of Professional Landscape Designers

Audubon California

Bay Area Council

California American Water

California League of Conservation Voters

California Municipal Utilities Association

California Professional Firefighters

California Water Association

California Water Service

Ceres

City of El Monte

City of Los Angeles

City of Roseville

City of Sacramento

Clean Water Action

Clif Bar

Climate Resolve

Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation

Comite Civico del Valle

Community Water Center

Contra Costa Water District

E2

East Bay Municipal Utility District

Environment California

Environmental Habitats League

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Environmental Water Caucus

FLŌ

Friends of the River

Heal the Bay

Imagine H2O

Inland Empire Utilities Agency

Irvine Ranch Water District

Kohler Co.

Las Virgenes Municipal Water District

League of Women Voters of California

Levi Strauss & Co.

Long Beach Water Department

Lutheran Office of Public Policy

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Mujeres de la Tierra

Municipal Water District of Orange County

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nebia

Orange County Water District

Pacific Institute

Pacoima Beautiful

PepsiCo

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Seventh Generation

Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

South Yuba River Citizens League

Southern California Watershed Alliance

Squaw Valley/Alpine Meadows

Surfrider Foundation

The Nature Conservancy

The North Face

The Otter Project

The River Project

Tree People

Trust for Public Land

Union of Concerned Scientists

Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District

Water Canary

WateReuse

Watersmart Software

Western Municipal Water District

Wexus

Wholly H2O

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/18)

Alameda County Water District

Association of California Water Agencies

Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency

Bella Vista Water District

Calaveras County Water District

CalDesal

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Special Districts Association

Camrosa Water District

Carmichael Water District

Citrus Heights Water District

City of Fairfield

City of Lincoln

City of Poway

City of Redding

City of Santa Rosa

City of Watsonville

City of Yuba City

Coachella Valley Water District

Cucamonga Valley Water District

Desert Water Agency

Dublin San Ramon Services District

East Orange County Water District

El Dorado Irrigation District

El Toro Water District

Elk Grove Water District

Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District

Fair Oaks Water District

Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District

Humboldt Baykeeper

Indian Wells Valley Water District

Inland Empire Waterkeeper

Kern County Water Agency

Klamath Riverkeeper

Laguna Beach County Water District

Los Angeles Waterkeeper

Malaga County Water District

Mesa Water District

Monterey Coastkeeper

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

Mountain Counties Water Resources Association

Nevada Irrigation District

Olivenhain Municipal Water District

Orange County Business Council

Orange County Coastkeeper

Otay Water District

Padre Dam Municipal Water District

Paradise Irrigation District

Regional Water Authority

Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District

Rowland Water District

Rural County Representatives of California

Russian Riverkeeper

Sacramento County

Sacramento Metro Chamber

Sacramento Suburban Water District

San Diego Coastkeeper

San Diego County Water Authority

San Juan Water District

Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

Santa Margarita Water District

Scotts Valley Water District

Serano Water District

Sierra Club California

Solono Irrigation District

South Feather Water & Power Agency

South Tahoe Public Utility District

Three Valleys Municipal Water District

Trabuco Canyon Water District

Tuolumne Utilities District

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Vista Irrigation District

Yorba Linda Water District

Yuba Riverkeeper

Zone 7 Water Agency

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Last year, after the most severe drought in modern history, I and others in this house began a process of making long term water use in California more sustainable. SB 606, and its companion AB 1668, ensures our state will be more prepared to handle future water shortages. This is something that has never been done before.

“It is a framework for drought resiliency in the 21st Century and for water use efficiency – a framework built on hundreds of hours of meetings, significant compromise, and finding common understanding. It is fair to water suppliers and empowers the Legislature, not the administration. For example, the bill focuses on the efficient uses of water, rather than curtailing water rights. And local districts are in control about how and where to find water savings, not some state agency.

“The bill helps communities to grow by adjusting their targets as they add new residents, businesses, and parks. It provides for gradual enforcement by the State Water Board, and strictly prohibits the state from requiring civil penalties on water users. The bills include variances and allowances for special and unique circumstances, rather than forcing a once-sized fits all approach.

“And there is a significant bonus incentive for water districts that have invested in a potable reuse system.

“The result is something we should all be proud of. Groups as diverse as Orange County Water District, the NRDC, and Pepsi all support this legislation. It is has been a long and complicated process, but SB 606 and AB 1668 will set us on the right path forward.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Coastkeeper Alliance, “The most recent amendments to AB 1668 (as amended 5/3/2018) and SB 606 (as proposed to be amended) increase a “bonus” for potable reuse projects from ten percent to fifteen percent. This would artificially raise the efficiency targets for a number of water districts who are constructing or operating potable reuse projects. While we strongly support the expanded use of water recycling, California simply cannot afford to waste any water, especially such a highly treated, expensive supply as recycled water. This increased potable reuse bonus comes on the heels of dozens of amendments that our coalition has accepted over the past eighteen months in order to make the legislation flexible and workable for water suppliers.

“This latest amendment to increase the potable reuse bonus is unfair, unnecessary, and sets a poor precedent to allow exemptions for some suppliers to continue current practices instead of creating a fair, comprehensive framework. One of the biggest benefits of the new framework as initially crafted was that it would create a fair playing field for all communities by setting standards for water use that, along with population, land use, and climate, would be used to set customized water use targets. The bonus is unfair to communities who are unable to develop potable reuse projects because of cost or other constraints outside of their control. The legislation already includes provisions to account for local conditions in setting the use target, so this ‘bonus’ would allow communities using potable recycled water to use more water than is reasonable, essentially codifying water waste. The increased bonus was developed to benefit a select group of large southern California cities, although not a single water supplier has provided data demonstrating a need for a recycled water ‘bonus.’

“Despite our opposition to these bills in their final form, we hope to work with your offices on future reforms that secure a resilient and secure water future for our communities, environment, and economy.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-28, 5/14/18

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Eggman, Friedman, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rubio, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Cooley, Cunningham, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooper, Cristina Garcia, Gray, Rodriguez

Prepared by: Dennis O'Connor / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

5/17/18 9:42:25

**** END ****

=

Robert Riechel

Send your articles and photos to:

E=Mail: SanBrunoPatch.Robert@Yahoo.com

WEB: https://patch.com/california/s...

Photo Credit: San Bruno CA Patch Archives

Source Credit: Office of CA State Assemblyman Kevin Mullin

CLICK on link below to Subscribe to News Alerts and a Daily Email Newsletter for San Bruno Patch

http://link.patch.com/join/3-0-subscribe?list=US_CA_SANBRUNO_282

#SanBrunoPatch