AB 1243
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
AB 1243 (Gray) – As Introduced February 27, 2015
SUBJECT: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Enforcement
SUMMARY: Requires that 50% of the fines collected by the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board) when locals violate the provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) are deposited in a Groundwater Recharge Fund to fund local
groundwater recharge projects. Specifically, this bill:
1) Establishes the Groundwater Recharge Grant Fund in the State Treasury, with funds
available to the State Water Board, by appropriation, for grants to local governments and
water districts for groundwater recharge infrastructure projects.
2) Requires half of all funds the State Water Board recovers in response to a violation or
threatened violation of SGMA be deposited in the Groundwater Recharge Grant Fund.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) prioritize California's groundwater
basins in order to focus state resources. The basins are prioritized as either high, medium,
low, or very low based on a combination of factors including, but not limited to, overlying
population, level of dependence for urban and agricultural water supplies, and impacts on the
groundwater from overdraft, subsidence, saline water intrusion, and water quality
degradation.
2) Requires, by June 30 2017, the formation of one or more Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies (GSAs) in all high and medium priority basins subject to the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
3) Requires, by January 31, 2020, that GSAs in all high and medium priority basins subject to a
chronic condition of overdraft develop and adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs)
that provide for the sustainable management of the groundwater basin, as defined.
4) Requires, by January 31, 2022, that GSAs in all other high and medium priority basins
subject to SGMA develop and adopt GSPs.
5) Allows the State Water Board to impose an interim plan for management of a groundwater
basin if no GSA is formed by the deadline, no GSP is adopted by the appropriate deadline, or
a GSP is adopted which DWR deems insufficient and where the basin is in a chronic
condition of overdraft or in a condition where groundwater pumping is causing a significant
depletion of interconnected surface waters.
6) Allows the State Water Board to require direct reporting of groundwater extractions in any
area subject to SGMA where no GSA is formed by the deadline and allows the State Water
Board to charge fees for its costs of management.
AB 1243
Page 2
7) Continuously appropriates $2.7 billion to the California Water Commission to fund the
public benefits of surface water storage and groundwater storage projects in California,
including up to 50% of the project's cost.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: This bill requires 50% of all penalty monies collected by the State Water Board
for SGMA violations be rebated back to local agencies and water districts for groundwater
recharge projects.
In 2010, California voters passed Proposition 26, the so called "Stop Hidden Taxes" initiative.
Prop. 26 places great limitations on the ability of State and local agencies to fund programs by
requiring that all fees that State agencies charge must be proportional to the cost of running the
program or otherwise be considered a tax requiring a supermajority of the Legislature to pass.
However, even Prop. 26 specifically exempts from its tax prohibition any fine, penalty, or other
monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as a result of a
violation of law. This is a recognition that fines and penalties are not meant to provide a special
benefit to anyone, they are punitive.
Because funds for violations are not subject to Prop. 26, they can be directed by agencies to
address more general problems, such as compliance assistance for disadvantaged communities.
In contrast Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Act of 2014, contains
$2.7 billion, which is continuously appropriated to the California Water Commission (CWC) to
fund the public benefits of both surface water and groundwater storage projects. Under Prop. 1,
the CWC may fund up to 50% of a project's cost.
Supporting arguments: The author states this bill is needed because while "overuse and
excessive pumping of groundwater can cause significant problems, such as subsidence,
recharging groundwater basins is relatively cheap and easy while providing a significant storage
option that has been underutilized in the past." The author adds that while Proposition 1 provides
$100 million in funding to groundwater sustainability agencies to develop and implement GSPs,
"local jurisdictions lack a dedicated source of funding for recharge infrastructure."
Opposing arguments: Opponents point out that "in addition to assuring compliance with laws
and regulations, fines are assessed to cover the cost of compliance actions. Artificially setting
the level of payment into the Groundwater Recharge Fund could have the effect of raising the
size of the fines that the Board assesses. Opponents also state that they oppose this bill because
"groundwater recharge is only one tool to achieve sustainability, but local agencies may need
Board funding for a variety of projects and technical assistance, not just recharge."
Suggested Committee Amendments
This bill requires 50% of all penalty funds to be diverted into a groundwater recharge project
grant program. However, the bill does not take into account how much of those funds are
needed for the State Water Board to run the enforcement program. So, that would drive up the
cost of fines. This bill also denies the State Water Board the flexibility to use half of its
groundwater enforcement funds where it sees fit by requiring that half must go towards local
agencies' groundwater recharge projects. However, recharge projects are only one potential
AB 1243
Page 3
solution. There could be a disadvantaged community or other group who needs help funding
technical planning. There could be another group who can't reach agreement on governance
without a mediator. There may be a local GSA that would like to offer incentives to landowners
to join a cooperative program or who needs help funding monitoring that is in lieu of putting a
measuring device on each well. The State Water Board is not required to provide funding to
these groups, but it would likely be precluded from using enforcement funds to help if half of all
of those funds must go towards groundwater recharge infrastructure projects.
Since Prop. 1 already provides $2.7 billion for surface water and groundwater storage projects,
Committee staff suggests that the State Water Board be specifically authorized, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, to use funds recovered in response to a violation or threatened
violations of SGMA, which exceed the cost of the State Water Board's SGMA enforcement
program, for loans, grants, or other actions to help facilitate formation of GSAs, implementation
of GSPs, or other actions to advance the purposes of SGMA.
Related legislation
This is one of 14 bills in the Legislature proposing changes to SGMA and its related statutes.
The other bills are: AB 452 (Bigelow) prohibiting the State Water Board from using Water
Rights Fund monies for SGMA enforcement, except funds collected from SGMA enforcement;
AB 453 (Bigelow) allowing groundwater management plans adopted prior to SGMA to be
amended and extended; AB 454 (Bigelow) adding one year to the deadline to form a GSA or
adopt a GSP; AB 455 (Bigelow) requiring the Judicial Council to come up with a 270-day
process for completing all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legal challenges to
SGMA projects; AB 617 (Perea) adding mutual water companies to GSAs; AB 938 (Salas)
making minor technical changes to SGMA; AB 939 (Salas) changing the time period for
providing technical data upon which a fee is based from 10 days to 20 days before the meeting to
adopt the fee; AB 1242 (Gray) prohibiting the State Water Board from setting in-stream flows
standards unless the Board mitigates for the potential local response of increased groundwater
use; AB 1390 (Alejo) creating a streamlined process for groundwater adjudications and
exempting them from SGMA, except minimal reporting requirements; AB 1531 (Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Committee) making minor technical changes to SGMA; SB 13
(Pavley) making noncontroversial technical cleanup changes to SGMA; SB 226 (Pavley) adding
a streamlined groundwater adjudication section to SGMA; and SB 487 (Nielsen) exempting
SGMA projects from CEQA.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
Union of Concerned Scientists
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Leadership Counsel for Justice &
Accountability
Center for Biological Diversity
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by: Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096