Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act, requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. The act exempts from its requirements projects consisting of the construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated, and undertaken for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on a certain date. The act provides that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Porterville.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act, requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. The act exempts from its requirements projects consisting of the construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated, and undertaken for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on a certain date. The act provides that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

This bill, until January 1, 2021, would exempt from the acts requirements a water treatment project determined by the City of Porterville as the best option based on a certain feasibility study, as provided.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Porterville.

Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act, requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. The act exempts from its requirements projects consisting of the construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated, and undertaken for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on a certain date. The act provides that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

This bill bill, until January 1, 2021, would exempt from the acts requirements projects for the construction of recycled water treatment facilities and directly related pipelines approved or carried out by a public agency prior to July 1, 2017, for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions that meet certain requirements. The bill would provide that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency is terminated or until January 1, 2018, whichever occurs first. a water treatment project determined by the City of Porterville as the best option based on a certain feasibility study, as provided.

Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act, requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. The act exempts from its requirements projects consisting of the construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated, and undertaken for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on a certain date. The act provides that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

This bill would extend that date to January 1, 2019. exempt from the acts requirements projects for the construction of recycled water treatment facilities and directly related pipelines approved or carried out by a public agency prior to July 1, 2017, for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions that meet certain requirements. The bill would provide that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency is terminated or until January 1, 2018, whichever occurs first.

Because a lead agencys agency would have the duty to determine the applicability of this exemption would potentially be extended, exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Act, requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA The act also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA The act exempts from its requirements projects consisting of the construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated, and undertaken for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on a certain date. CEQA The act provides that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

This bill would extend that date to January 1, 2019.

Because a lead agencys duty to determine the applicability of this exemption would potentially be extended, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA exempts from its requirements projects consisting of the construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated, and undertaken for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on a certain date. CEQA provides that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

This bill would extend that date to January 1, 2022. 2019.

Because a lead agencys duty to determine the applicability of this exemption would potentially be extended, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA exempts from its requirements projects consisting of the construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated, and undertaken for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on a certain date. CEQA provides that this exemption remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

This bill would extend that date to January 1, 2022.

Because a lead agencys duty to determine the applicability of this exemption would potentially be extended, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1749

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 3-3, 6/29/16 (FAIL)

AYES: Gaines, Bates, Hill

NOES: Wieckowski, Leno, Pavley

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/10/16

AYES: Wieckowski, Gaines, Bates, Hill, Leno, Pavley

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-1, 5/27/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill establishes special administrative and judicial review procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the City of Porterville’s project related to water treatment facilities and recycled water.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.).
   
2. Defines “recycled water” to mean water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource. (Water Code §13050(n)).
   

This bill:

1. Defines, for purposes of this bill, “lead agency” as the City of Porterville.
   
2. Defines a “water treatment project” as a project determined by the City of Porterville as a long-term solution to the lack of water in East Porterville, and may be one of the following options:
   
   1. The construction of a series of satellite water treatment facilities adjacent to existing water distribution line.
      
   2. The construction of an advanced water recycling treatment facility located either adjacent to the city’s existing wastewater treatment facility or at a preferred location, as determined by the results of the city’s feasibility study.
      
   3. Upgrades to the city’s existing wastewater treatment facility to allow for tertiary treatment of the city’s wastewater.
      
3. Requires, within 10 days after the release of the draft EIR, the lead agency to conduct an informational workshop.
   
4. Requires, within 10 days before the close of the public comment period, the lead agency to hold a public hearing to receive testimony on the draft EIR and requires a transcript of the hearing to be included in the final EIR.
   
5. Authorizes, within five days after the close of the public comment period, a commenter on the draft EIR to request the lead agency for nonbinding mediation. Requires mediation to end within 35 days after the close of the public comment period.
   
6. Requires the lead agency to adopt, as a condition of approval, any measures agreed upon in mediation and prohibits a commenter from raising an issue addressed by that measure in a lawsuit.
   
7. Permits the lead agency to ignore written comments submitted after the close of the public comment period, with specified exceptions.
   
8. Requires the lead agency to provide all EIR documents and comments in an electronic format (except for copyright protected documents).
   
9. Requires the lead agency to certify the record of proceedings within five days of filing the notice of approval or determination and provide an electronic copy to a party that has requested a copy.
   
10. Requires the lead agency to lodge a copy of the record of the proceedings with the superior court within 10 days of the filing of petition for review or complaint.
    

Background

City of Porterville water and wastewater. According to the City of Porterville, the City has jurisdiction over water and wastewater services within the city limits and within its Urban Development Boundary (which includes the vast majority of the East Porterville area), and accordingly, has jurisdiction over the sources of recycled water and/or the potential service area. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) treats sewer flows from residential, commercial, and industrial users within the city’s boundaries, including East Porterville area by virtue of an agreement between the City and the Porter Vista Public Utility District. Collectively, the City’s WWTF treats on average at least 4 million gallons of effluent per day, which equates to more than 12 acre-feet per day and approximately 5,000 acre-feet per year.

The City has traditionally depended on groundwater from the Tule Sub-basin of the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region to supply drinking water, through a network of 35 potable supply wells. The Tule Sub-basin, along with many other sub-basins in the surrounding area, has been classified in a critical overdraft condition, as determined by the State.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “After five years of a devastating drought, the City of Porterville has found a solution to the problem with their Water Treatment plant. AB 1749 will help provide assistance to the project and help streamline it. This will provide relief to the citizens who have done without for so long. With the temperatures rising down in the valley and drought still lingering, there has to be some action to take to find a solution and provide relief. I feel AB 1749 does this.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/11/16)

City of Farmersville

City of Porterville

City of Santa Monica

United Way of Tulare County

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/11/16)

California League of Conservation Voters

Sierra Club California

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-1, 5/27/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Thurmond, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Mark Stone

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonta, Brough, Brown, Chiu, Dodd, Grove, Hadley, Melendez, O'Donnell, Ting

Prepared by:

8/12/16 13:22:06

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1749

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: City of Porterville.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.).
   
2. Defines “recycled water” to mean water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource. (Water Code §13050(n)).
   

This bill:

1. For purposes of this bill, defines “lead agency” as the City of Porterville.
   
2. Defines a “water treatment project” as a project determined by the City of Porterville as a long-term solution to the lack of water in East Porterville, and may be one of the following options:
   
   1. The construction of a series of satellite water treatment facilities adjacent to existing water distribution line.
      
   2. The construction of an advanced water recycling treatment facility located either adjacent to the city’s existing wastewater treatment facility or at a preferred location, as determined by the results of the city’s feasibility study.
      
   3. Upgrades to the city’s existing wastewater treatment facility to allow for tertiary treatment of the city’s wastewater.
      
3. Within 10 days after the release of the draft EIR, requires the lead agency to conduct an informational workshop.
   
4. Within 10 days before the close of the public comment period, requires the lead agency to hold a public hearing to receive testimony on the draft EIR and requires a transcript of the hearing to be included in the final EIR.
   
5. Within five days after the close of the public comment period, authorizes a commenter on the draft EIR to request the lead agency for nonbinding mediation. Requires mediation to end within 35 days after the close of the public comment period.
   
6. Requires the lead agency to adopt, as a condition of approval, any measures agreed upon in mediation and prohibits a commenter from raising an issue addressed by that measure in a lawsuit.
   
7. Permits the lead agency to ignore written comments submitted after the close of the public comment period, with specified exceptions.
   
8. Requires the lead agency to provide all EIR documents and comments in an electronic format (except for copyright protected documents).
   
9. Requires the lead agency to certify the record of proceedings within five days of filing the notice of approval or determination and provide an electronic copy to a party that has requested a copy.
   
10. Requires the lead agency to lodge a copy of the record of the proceedings with the superior court within 10 days of the filing of petition for review or complaint.
    

Background

City of Porterville water and wastewater. According to the City of Porterville, the city has jurisdiction over water and wastewater services within the city limits and within its Urban Development Boundary (which includes the vast majority of the East Porterville area), and accordingly, has jurisdiction over the sources of recycled water and/or the potential service area. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) treats sewer flows from residential, commercial, and industrial users within the city’s boundaries, including East Porterville area by virtue of an agreement between the City and the Porter Vista Public Utility District. Collectively, the City’s WWTF treats on average at least 4 million gallons of effluent per day, which equates to more than 12 acre-feet per day and approximately 5,000 acre-feet per year.

The city has traditionally depended on groundwater from the Tule Sub-basin of the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region to supply drinking water, through a network of 35 potable supply wells. The Tule Sub-basin, along with many other sub-basins in the surrounding area, has been classified in a critical overdraft condition, as determined by the State.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “After five years of a devastating drought, the City of Porterville has found a solution to the problem with their Water Treatment plant. AB 1749 will help provide assistance to the project and help streamline it. This will provide relief to the citizens who have done without for so long. With the temperatures rising down in the valley and drought still lingering, there has to be some action to take to find a solution and provide relief. I feel AB 1749 does this.”
   
2. Reconsideration. AB 1749 was heard in this committee on June 29, 2016 and failed with a vote of 3-3. The bill was subsequently amended into its current form.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

None received

OPPOSITION:

None received

-- END –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1749

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: City of Porterville.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA (CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines). (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). Exemptions relating to pipelines include:
   
   1. A project of less than one mile in length within a public street or highway, or another public right-of-way for the installation of a new pipeline or maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline. “Pipeline” means “subsurface pipelines and subsurface or surface accessories or appurtenances to a pipeline, such as mains, traps, vents, cables, conduits, vaults, valves, flanges, manholes and meters.” (§21080.21).
      
      1. Requires a resource agency to consider only the length of pipeline that is within its legal jurisdiction in determining the applicability of this exemption to a natural gas pipeline safety enhancement activity under review by the resource agency. (§21080.21).
         
      2. Defines “natural gas pipeline” to mean a public utility activity as part of a program to enhance the safety of intrastate natural gas pipelines in accordance with a decision, rule, or regulation adopted by the Public Utilities Commission; and defines “resource agency” to mean the State Lands Commission, California Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, or the State Water Resources Control Board, and local or regional agencies with permitting authority under the California Coastal Act of 1976 or regional water quality control board requirements. (§21080.21).
         
      3. Sunsets the provisions above, in §21080.21, on January 1, 2018. (§21080.21).
         
   2. The inspection, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, or removal of an existing pipeline less than eight miles in length, or any valve, flange, meter, or other equipment directly attached to the pipeline if certain conditions are met (e.g., “pipeline” is covered under the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 [for transporting hazardous liquid substances or highly volatile liquid substances], project is not less than eight miles from any section of pipeline that has been subject to this exemption in the past 12 months, certain notice is provided, project is located within an existing right-of-way and restored to its condition prior to the project, notice requirements). (§21080.23).
      
   3. Development and approval of building standards by state agencies for recycled water systems until July 1, 2017. (§21080.45).
      
   4. During the drought state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, for a public agency to mitigate drought conditions by building or expanding a recycled water pipeline and related groundwater replenishment infrastructure if it is within an existing right-of-way, does not impact wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated. This authority remains operative until the state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first. (§21080.08).
      
   5. Operation, repair, maintenance, or minor altercation of existing private or public structures involving negligible or no expansion, including existing facilities of both investor and publicly owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewage, or other public utility services. (CEQA Guidelines §15301(b)).
      
   6. Replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity, including replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. (CEQA Guidelines §15301(c)).
      
2. Defines “recycled water” to mean water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource. (Water Code §13050(n)).
   

This bill:

1. Exempts from CEQA a water treatment project determined by the City of Porterville as the best option based on a feasibility study regarding long-term solutions to water supply issues in the unincorporated area known as East Porterville.
   
2. Specifies that the project may be one of the following options:
   
   1. The construction of a series of satellite water treatment facilities adjacent to to existing water distribution line.
      
   2. The construction of an advanced water recycling treatment facility located either adjacent to the city’s existing wastewater treatment facility or at a preferred location.
      
   3. Upgrades to the city’s existing wastewater treatment facility to allow for tertiary treatment of the city’s wastewater.
      
3. Sunsets the provisions of this bill January 1, 2021.
   

Background

1. Background on CEQA.
   
   1. Overview of CEQA Process. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of a project, and includes statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA guidelines. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that there would not be a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.
      
      Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.
      
      If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the proposed project, the effects of the mitigation measure must be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project.
      
   2. What is analyzed in an environmental review? Pursuant to CEQA, an environmental review analyzing the significant direct and indirect environmental impacts of a proposed project may include water quality, surface and subsurface hydrology, land use and agricultural resources, transportation and circulation, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, terrestrial and aquatic biological resources, aesthetics, geology and soils, recreation, public services and utilities such as water supply and wastewater disposal, and cultural resources. The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects/activities within study areas that are applicable to the resources being evaluated. A study area for a proposed project must not be limited to the footprint of the project because many environmental impacts of a development extend beyond the identified project boundary. Also, CEQA stipulates that the environmental impacts must be measured against existing physical conditions within the project area, not future, allowable conditions.
      
   3. CEQA provides hub for multi-disciplinary regulatory process. A CEQA exemption does not alleviate a project proponent from its obligation to obtain mandatory permits or adhere to specified regulatory programs. CEQA assists in moving a project through the multi-disciplinary, regulatory process because responsible agencies rely on the lead agency’s environmental documentation in acting on the aspect of the project that requires its approval and must prepare its own findings regarding the project. A variety of issues, many of which involve permitting and/or regulatory program requirements, should be coordinated and analyzed together as a whole. CEQA provides a comprehensive analysis of a project’s impacts in those subject areas.
      
2. Recycled water.
   
   1. Overview of Recycled Water. Recycled water is treated wastewater from various sources such as domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, and stormwater runoff, and is conveyed to a water treatment plant. Before recycled water can be used for these beneficial uses, the regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) and the Department of Public Health (DPH) require treatment to remove pollutants that could be harmful to the beneficial use. Recycled water is used for nonpotable (not for drinking) purposes, such as agriculture, landscape, public parks, and golf course irrigation. Other nonpotable applications include cooling water for power plants and oil refineries, industrial process water for such facilities as paper mills and carpet dyers, toilet flushing, dust control, construction activities, concrete mixing, and artificial lakes.
      
      Recycled water can satisfy many nonpotable water demands, as long as it is adequately treated to ensure water quality appropriate for the use. Most recycled water treatment plants produce tertiary treated water, meaning the water has been through three levels of treatment including filtration and disinfection. In uses where there is a greater chance of human exposure to the water, more treatment is required. As for any water source that is not properly treated, health problems can arise from drinking or being exposed to recycled water if it contains disease-causing organisms or other contaminants.
      
      Although most water recycling projects have been developed to meet nonpotable water demands, a number of projects use recycled water indirectly for potable purposes. These projects include recharging groundwater aquifers and augmenting surface water reservoirs with recycled water. For example, Orange County has a wastewater-recycling program where wastewater is treated to a level meeting state and federal drinking water standards and is then released into local groundwater recharge basins, where it will eventually be re-drawn for municipal or private use.
      
   2. Regulatory Authorities of Recycled Water in California. A number of regulatory agencies have adopted requirements that must be followed when producing, distributing, and using recycled water. DPH has adopted strict public health and safety requirements and guidelines, which help protect the public from any potential risk associated with use of recycled water (Titles 17 and 22 of the California Code of Regulations). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs grant permits to oversee production, conveyance, and use of recycled water. Local Departments of Public Health may also have guidelines and inspection requirements for the use of recycled water, such as requirements for the use of backflow devices to prevent mixing of recycled water with potable water. The sanitation districts have adopted ordinances and requirements for recycled water users pertaining to the use of recycled water that incorporate requirements and regulations imposed upon the sanitation districts by other regulatory agencies.
      
3. Tulare County and emergency water needs. Due to the number of private shallow wells in Tulare County, the county’s population has had serious challenges related to water supply and quality. The county has been working the past two years to address its emergency water needs and to develop long-term solutions. As of April 2016, the state has allocated over $148.4 million toward emergency drought response and long-term solutions throughout Tulare County, including the following:
   
   1. $7.3 million from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for emergency bottled water delivery to an estimated 1,000 homes; connection of homes with dry wells to community systems; and consolidation of water systems.
      
   2. $5.8 million in funding from the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) to set up and maintain nearly 600 temporary household water tanks for residents with dry wells.
      
   3. $133.5 million in SWRCB grants to permanently address water contamination issues; expand and upgrade water and wastewater systems; and drill new wells in several communities.
      
   4. $1.8 million in Department of Water Resources (DWR) funding to establish new wells to support the communities of East Porterville, Monson, Okieville, and the Tule River Tribe.
      

Such efforts are making a significant difference for thousands of residents throughout Tulare County.

1. City of Porterville and unincorporated East Porterville. The City of Porterville has a population of approximately 55,500 people. East Porterville is an unincorporated community of approximately 7,500 residents, many of whom are farmworkers with many of them having lost jobs picking, processing, and packaging vegetables and fruits due to drought-stricken farms.
   
   Groundwater generally supplies most domestic uses in Tulare County, including both the City of Porterville and East Porterville. The City has a municipal water system hooked up to a deep, industrial-grade well and has not gone dry. However, East Porterville lacks such public infrastructure. Since Tulare County started tracking private well failures in September 2014, 996 were reported as of April 2015, many of them in East Porterville. As of May 2016, 12% of the state’s failed wells are in East Porterville. The state is currently spending over $500,000/month on tank and bottled water programs in the area.
   
2. City of Porterville water and wastewater. According to the City of Porterville, the city “has jurisdiction over water and wastewater services within the city limits and within its Urban Development Boundary (which includes the vast majority of the East Porterville area), and accordingly, has jurisdiction over the sources of recycled water and/or the potential service area. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) treats sewer flows from residential, commercial, and industrial users within the city’s boundaries, including East Porterville area by virtue of an agreement between the City and the Porter Vista Public Utility District. Collectively, the City’s WWTF treats on average at least 4 million gallons of effluent per day, which equates to more than 12 acre-feet per day and approximately 5,000 acre-feet per year.
   
   The city has traditionally depended on groundwater from the Tule Sub-basin of the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region to supply drinking water, through a network of 35 potable supply wells. The Tule Sub-basin, along with many other sub-basins in the surrounding area, has been classified in a critical overdraft condition, as determined by the State.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “AB 1749 is a simple yet vital measure aimed at ensuring California is able to adequately mitigate the effects of the existing drought, while also preparing for future droughts. California should continue to encourage projects that preserve our precious water supply and promote water sustainability, such as groundwater replenishment and recycled water programs, rather than hindering them with strict CEQA regulations.”
   
2. Five years until construction begins. According to the City of Porterville, “It is estimated that the feasibility study, selection of option and financing, design, and finally beginning construction will likely take up to five years.” Five years is ample time for the lead agency to conduct an environmental review for this project. The project, lead agency, and the community would benefit from the CEQA process because an environmental review helps decisionmakers make an informed decision by assessing each option/alternative, the design, how best to proceed with construction, and potential impacts on the community; as well as provide transparency and an opportunity for public participation.
   
   The City will not begin construction for approximately five years – Conducting an environmental review in that time frame is not an issue. It would be prudent for the City to act responsibly by using the five-year time period to conduct an environmental review pursuant to CEQA to ensure that its long-term water solution is safe and viable; and that it is not trading unnecessary expediency for unintended consequences.
   
3. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Porterville has submitted a funding application to SWRCB. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund uses federal capitalization grants, state match funds, loan repayments, and interest earnings to offer low cost financing for a variety of water quality projects. If the Porterville project receives such funding, an environmental review will be required pursuant to NEPA. It is not uncommon for a project to be subject to both NEPA and CEQA.
   
   If the project is subject to NEPA, no expediency would be gained from an exemption from CEQA because the lead agency must still conduct an environmental review pursuant to NEPA. A joint CEQA/NEPA environmental review document could be done.
   
4. East Porterville Emergency Water Project. Three state agencies, DWR, OES, and SWRCB, are working with Tulare County local governments on an emergency water supply project to provide drinking water to homes in East Porterville where numerous private water wells are not usable because they are either contaminated or have gone dry during California’s drought. Homes without a sustainable supply of safe drinking water have received water deliveries under an emergency Household Tank Program since 2014.
   
   A new water distribution system is being designed that will connect East Porterville residences without usable water to a City of Porterville well with existing water distribution lines for some residences or new pipes that will be laid along East Porterville streets. Approximately 1,800 properties will benefit from this permanent water solution and eventually will be annexed to the City of Porterville, with the state paying connection costs for homes whose owners agree at the outset of the project to the terms and conditions of an Extraterritorial Service Agreement.
   
   The East Porterville Emergency Water Project is divided into two phases. Phase 1will begin connecting 500 homes this summer. Phase 2 has the remaining 1,300 residences scheduled to receive service through a new system by the end of 2017. Phase 1 is exempted from CEQA as an emergency project. For Phase 2, DWR is conducting a CEQA environmental review, which is expected to be completed in the next six months.
   
   Considering that DWR is proceeding with a CEQA review for the Phase 2 East Porterville water supply project and expects residents to receive service through the new system by the end of next year, a question arises as to the need for a CEQA exemption for a related project that has yet to be determined and will not begin construction until five years from now.
   
5. Concerns regarding recycled water. Although recycled water is generally understood to be a positive means for supplementing/increasing water supply in the state, it has its share of concerns that could benefit from being analyzed and addressed in a project’s environmental review. For example:
   
   1. Corrosion of water system pipes. The recent water crisis in Flint, Michigan, serves as a strong reminder that water infrastructure can have many vulnerabilities, such as corrosion. Recycled water can corrode pipes. Corrosion is an electro-chemical reaction on metallic surfaces caused by the presence of highly reactive ions in recycled water, such as chloride, sulfide, or sulfate, and can be increased by high pH levels, alkalinity, and reduced oxygen concentrations. The rate of corrosion is related to factors, such as: pH of the water, amount of oxygen in the water, chemical makeup of the water, temperature of the water, velocity/pressure of water in the pipe. The internal corrosion of piping systems may raise health concerns including the negative impacts associated with the leaching of lead, copper and other harmful metals from water pipes into the drinking water supply.
      
   2. Natural contaminants, e.g. arsenic, are contaminants nonetheless. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), natural contaminants, such as arsenic, occur at high concentrations in about 20% of the groundwater resources used for supply in California. Groundwater provides about one-third of California’s drinking supply in a typical year, but more during drought conditions. According to USGS, 11% of groundwater used by public water operators shows arsenic levels exceeding the 10 parts per billion arsenic threshold.
      
      According to the World Health Organization (WHO), arsenic is one of WHO’s ten chemicals of major public health concern. Inorganic arsenic is acutely toxic. Intake of inorganic arsenic over a long period can lead to chronic arsenic poisoning. Effects, which can take years to develop depending on the exposure level, include skin lesions, peripheral neuropathy, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. Human exposure to elevated levels of inorganic arsenic occurs mainly through the consumption of groundwater containing naturally high levels of inorganic arsenic, food prepared with this water, and food crops irrigated with high arsenic water sources. For example, in one estimate, arsenic-contaminated, potable groundwater in Bangladesh alone was attributed 9,100 deaths and 125,000 Disability Adjusted Life Years in 2001.
      
      As mentioned above, Orange County has a wastewater-recycling program where wastewater is treated to a level meeting state and federal drinking water standards and is then released into local groundwater recharge basins, where it will eventually be re-drawn for municipal or private use. In August 2015, Scott Fendorf, a biogeochemist at Stanford University published a study and found that when highly purified wastewater was stored in an Orange County aquifer, the water caused arsenic to escape from clay sediments in a way that naturally infiltrating water did not. In some instances, researchers said that arsenic concentrations exceeded the drinking water limit of 10 micrograms per liter; the increases were temporary and levels eventually returned to normal. According to the researchers at Stanford University and the Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment System, the root of the problem was that the purified, recycled water lacked the minerals that native water acquires as it soaks into the earth or flows along rivers. Professor Fendorf said that this may be the first time highly purified water was identified as a trigger by which arsenic can contaminate groundwater. (Monte Morin, “Purified wastewater triggers release of arsenic within aquifer, study finds,” The Los Angeles Times, September 4, 2015.)
      
   3. A side of pharmaceuticals with your vegetables. Studies have found a variety of drugs in crops, such as cholesterol medications, caffeine, and triclosan. In a recent study, researchers found that the anticonvulsive epilepsy drug, carbamazepine, which is released in urine, can accumulate in crops irrigated with recycled water and end up in the urine of produce-eaters not on the drug. Pharmaceuticals may get trapped in an infinite urine-to-vegetable-to-urine cycle, which exposes consumers to drug doses with unknown health effects. (Beth Mole, “Prescription meds get trapped in disturbing pee-to-food-to-pee loop,” Environmental Science & Technology, April 20, 2016). The researchers found that while the amounts of the drug in a produce-eater’s urine were four orders of magnitude lower than what is seen in the urine of patients purposefully taking the drug, there is a possibility that trace amounts could still have health effects in some people, such as those with a genetic sensitivity to the drugs, pregnant women, children, and those who eat a lot of produce, such as vegetarians. With the growing practice of reclaiming wastewater for crop irrigation, the produce contamination could become more common and more potent. California, which grows a large portion of US produce, currently uses reclaimed water for 6% of its irrigation needs.
      

As mentioned above, although recycled water is an important component in addressing water supply issues in this state, recycled water is not without its concerns and should be analyzed and addressed to ensure public health and environmental safety.

1. SWRCB’s recycled water policy. SWRCB’s report, Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water (last revised in January 2013), states, “We strongly encourage local and regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local water for California by emphasizing appropriate water recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of supply are drought-proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long-term.” Among the goals adopted, is to “increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least one million acre-feet per year (afy) by 2020 and by at least two million afy by 2030…Included in these goals is the substitution of as much recycled water for potable water as possible by 2030.” (SWRCB, Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water, p. 1).
   
   SWRCB’s Recycled Water Policy includes ways to expedite the implementation of recycled water projects. The report makes no mention that CEQA is an impediment to either reaching these goals or increasing the use of recycled water in the state, but rather encourages public agencies to use the presumption that recycled water has a beneficial impact “in evaluating the impacts of recycled water projects on the environment as required by [CEQA].” (Ibid, p. 3).
   
2. Recycled water projects complying with CEQA. The State Clearinghouse’s CEQA database shows that in the past few years, there have been multiple recycled water pipeline projects that involve constructing recycled water pipeline and have complied with CEQA. Many of these projects required a mitigated negative declaration (MND) as opposed to an EIR.
   
   CEQA provides that if an initial study shows that there would not be a significant effect on the environment, then the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration (ND/MND). The lead agency then prepares a draft ND/MND and publishes the document for public review for at least 21 days. After comments are considered, the lead agency can either recirculate the ND/MND if public comments required the project scope to change, or the lead agency can adopt the document. The lead agency must file a Notice of Determination after adopting the document and there is a 30-day statute of limitations for legal challenge.
   
   The benefit to the project proponent, by complying with CEQA and preparing an ND/MND when there is no significant impact, is that these environmental documents can be completed more quickly, at less cost, and have a shorter statute of limitations for legal challenge than an EIR. The benefit to the public is transparency, informed decisionmaking, public comment, and the knowledge that the project’s impacts are less than significant.
   
   Considering that the City of Porterville is looking at multiple options, it is possible that the project the city ends up choosing may only require an ND/MND.
   
3. Is Ignoring Impacts Prudent? In addition to potential effects on water quality and supply there may be other significant impacts that would not be addressed with an exemption as proposed by this bill. For example, such an exemption may adversely affect roads and may cause conflicts with entrances to nearby homes and businesses considering a right-of-way can be fairly expansive such as 50 feet or more in width. There may also be adverse noise and air quality impacts for area residents, or sensitive uses such as schools, senior centers, and hospitals. With a CEQA exemption, as provided by this bill, there would be no consideration of these and other impacts under the Act.
   
   The CEQA review process provides an avenue for decisionmakers to make informed decisions. Does bypassing CEQA potentially create more of a liability for those decisionmakers who should have known about potential impacts, but chose not to? Also, does the short-term benefit of expediency justify potentially long-term, permanent consequences/damages to the community?
   
4. What do we lose with a CEQA exemption? It is not unusual for certain interests to assert that CEQA impedes on a project coming to fruition or that a particular exemption will expedite construction of a particular type of project and reduce costs. This, however, frequently overlooks the benefits of environmental review: to inform decisionmakers and the public about project impacts, identify ways to avoid or significantly reduce environmental damage, prevent environmental damage by requiring feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, disclose to the public reasons why an agency approved a project if significant environmental effects are involved, involve public agencies in the process, and increase public participation in the environmental review and the planning processes.
   
   If a project is exempt from CEQA, certain issues may not get addressed. For example:
   

• How can decisionmakers and the public be aware of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives of an exempt pipeline?
  
• Is it appropriate for the public to live with the consequences of exempt projects where impacts are not mitigated and alternatives are not considered regarding certain matters, such as air quality, water quality, noise, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts?
  
• Because adverse project impacts do not disappear when they are not identified and mitigated with an exemption, does the exemption result in a direct transfer of responsibility for mitigating impacts from the project applicant/developer to the public (i.e., taxpayers) if impacts are ultimately addressed after completion of the project?
  
• If taxpayers, rather than a developer, are ultimately responsible for mitigating impacts of an exempt project after project completion, what assessments or taxes will be increased to fund mitigation or pay for alternatives at a later date?

Regardless of the merits of any project, short-term, long-term, and/or permanent consequences of a project should be known by the decisionmakers, the project proponent, and the public before a project is approved, and mitigated or avoided if possible before it is too late – CEQA specifically provides for that informed decisionmaking. Recycled water projects pose challenges, risks, and serious consequences, such as the potential for urban sprawl, that should be assessed and subject to environmental review.

1. Conclusion. CEQA compels public agencies, in a public setting, with public participation, to consider and decide on projects with full knowledge about the environmental conditions and consequences of their actions; and a CEQA environmental review document, which is the result of a meticulous and methodical process, compiles all of the necessary facts in one place. Bearing in mind that a project may have long-term or permanent environmental impacts, is it not prudent for these determinations to be made in a thoughtful, transparent manner, and that environmental damage caused by a project be avoided or minimized when feasible?
   
   Considering the multiple issues raised above, in addition to the fact that construction is not expected until five years from now, the Committee may wish to consider whether it would be prudent for the City of Porterville to comply with CEQA and whether this bill is needed.
   

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2438 (Waldron, Nazarian) exempts from CEQA the installation of new, and maintenance of existing, recycled water pipelines less than eight miles in length. AB 2438 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 29, 2016.

SB 88 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015) exempts recycled water water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project consists of construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights-of-way and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law. This exemption remains operative until the current drought state of emergency expires or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

AB 2417 (Nazarian, 2014) exempted from CEQA the installation of new, and maintenance of existing, recycled water pipelines less than eight miles in length. AB 2417 was held in Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 83 (Jeffries, 2011) provided an exemption from CEQA for installation of a new recycled water pipeline less than eight miles in length within a paved public street highway, or right-of-way. AB 83 failed in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

SOURCE:

Author

SUPPORT:

None received

OPPOSITION:

California League of Conservation Voters

Sierra Club California

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:

Author:(Mathis)

As Amended Ver:April 27, 2016

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY: Establishes a temporary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for specified recycled water projects approved during the current drought state of emergency. Specifically, this bill:

1. Exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project:
   1. Is approved or carried out by a public agency prior to July 1, 2017;
   2. Consists of construction of a recycled water treatment facility located on city-owned property and directly related pipelines that are less than one mile in length and located within existing developed rights-of-way; and
   3. Does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law.
2. Remains operative until the current drought state of emergency has expired or until

January 1, 2018, whichever occurs first.

1. Is an urgency measure.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.
2. Exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project consists of construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law. This exemption remains operative until the current drought state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first (SB 88 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015).
3. Exempts a pipeline project less than one mile in length within a public street or highway or any other public right-of-way for the installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline. Excludes any surface facility related to the operation of the underground pipeline.
4. Defines "recycled water" as water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no additional state costs.

COMMENTS:

CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. In June 2015, SB 88, a drought relief budget trailer bill, added an exemption for recycled water projects. At the time, the project cited as the reason for the exemption was a large water recycling project proposed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District consisting of multiple pipelines, groundwater recharge ponds, injection wells, and related facilities. According to the water district, the exemption has not been used and the entire proposed project may not be eligible for the exemption.

This bill would establish a similar, though narrower exemption, with a longer deadline (project approval by July 1, 2017). This bill targets proposed water recycling projects to address the water supply crisis in Porterville in the author's district.

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0003025

Date of Hearing: May 18, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1749

Author:(Mathis) – As Amended Ver:April 27, 2016

Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes a temporary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for specified recycled water projects approved during the current drought state of emergency. Specifically, this bill:

1. Exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project:
   1. Is approved or carried out by a public agency prior to July 1, 2017;
   2. Consists of construction of a recycled water treatment facility located on city-owned property and directly related pipelines that are less than one mile in length and located within existing developed rights-of-way; and
   3. Does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law.
2. Sunsets when the current drought state of emergency has expired or on January 1, 2018, whichever occurs first.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No additional state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Rationale. In 2015, SB 88 provided a CEQA exemption for recycled water projects to help mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014.

The SB 88 exemption applies: 1) if the project consists of construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline, and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way and directly related groundwater replenishment; and 2) if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law. This exemption remains operative until the current drought state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first.

According to the author, although SB 88 provided much needed assistance in the way of establishing projects designed to mitigate the effects of the current and future droughts, the established exemption date is not conducive to accomplishing the projects needed if the drought emergency continues.

This bill establishes a similar, though narrower exemption, with a longer deadline intended to apply to proposed recycling water projects in the city of Porterville.

1. Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

If the initial study shows that there would not be a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).

There is currently a CEQA exemption for relatively small-scale pipeline maintenance and installation projects less than one mile in length. A more specific exemption is available for projects up to eight miles in length involving maintenance and replacement, but not expansion, of pipelines, such as petroleum pipelines regulated under the Pipeline Safety Act.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Das Williams, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1749 (

Author:Mathis) – As Amended Ver:April 27, 2016

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: recycled water pipeline (Urgency)

SUMMARY: Establishes a temporary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for specified recycled water projects approved during the current drought state of emergency.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.
2. Exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project consists of construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law. This exemption remains operative until the current drought state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first (SB 88, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015).
3. Exempts a pipeline project less than one mile in length within a public street or highway or any other public right-of-way for the installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline. Excludes any surface facility related to the operation of the underground pipeline.
   
4. Defines “recycled water” as water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource.

THIS BILL:

1. Exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project:
   1. Is approved or carried out by a public agency prior to July 1, 2017;
   2. Consists of construction of a recycled water treatment facility located on city-owned property and directly related pipelines that are less than one mile in length and located within existing developed rights-of-way; and
   3. Does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law.
2. Remains operative until the current drought state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2018, whichever occurs first.
3. Is an urgency measure.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. In June 2015, SB 88, a drought relief budget trailer bill added an exemption for recycled water projects. At the time, the project cited as the reason for the exemption was a large water recycling project proposed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District consisting of multiple pipelines, groundwater recharge ponds, injection wells, and related facilities. According to the water district, the exemption has not been used and the entire proposed project may not be eligible for the exemption.

This bill would establish a similar, though narrower exemption, with a longer deadline (project approval by July 1, 2017). The bill targets proposed water recycling projects to address the water supply crisis in Porterville in the author's district.

1. Author's statement:

SB 88 provided much needed assistance in the way of establishing projects designed to mitigate the effects of the current and future droughts. However, the established exemption date is not conducive to accomplishing the necessary projects needed for a continuation of the drought emergency. If the current sunset date arrives without change, then future drought mitigation projects will not come to fruition due to complex CEQA regulation.

1. No evidence that CEQA is an unreasonable impediment to recycled water projects. A review of CEQA notices submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) shows that recycled water projects have been routinely approved via exemption or negative declaration. Categorical exemptions are available for maintenance, replacement, and reconstruction of existing public utility facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. This bill is operative only during the current drought state of emergency, but projects necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency can be exempted via CEQA, as well as via the Governor's broad authority under the Emergency Services Act. There's no record that the SB 88 exemption has been used to date and no evidence of its necessity or effect on any particular project.
2. Related legislation. AB 2438 (Waldron) establishes a CEQA exemption for installation of new, and maintenance of existing, recycled water pipelines less than eight miles in length. AB 2438 passed this Committee on April 11, 2016, by a vote of 8-1 and is pending on the Assembly Floor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support (prior version)

Associated Builders and Contractors of California

California Chamber of Commerce

City of Santa Monica

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Southwest California Legislative Council

Opposition (prior version)

California League of Conservation Voters

Clean Water Action California

Natural Resources Defense Council

Planning and Conservation League

Sierra Club California

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Das Williams, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1749 (

Author:Mathis) – As Amended Ver:March 28, 2016

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: recycled water pipeline

SUMMARY: Extends the sunset, from 2017 to 2019, of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for specified recycled water projects approved during the current drought state of emergency.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.
2. Exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project consists of construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law. This exemption remains operative until the current drought state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first (SB 88, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015).
3. Exempts a pipeline project less than one mile in length within a public street or highway or any other public right-of-way for the installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline. Excludes any surface facility related to the operation of the underground pipeline.
   
4. Defines “recycled water” as water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. In June 2015, SB 88, a drought relief budget trailer bill, added the exemption amended by this bill. At the time, the project cited as the reason for the exemption was a large water recycling project proposed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District consisting of multiple pipelines, groundwater recharge ponds, injection wells, and related facilities. According to the water district, the exemption has not been used and the entire proposed project may not be eligible for the exemption.

1. Author's statement:

SB 88 provided much needed assistance in the way of establishing projects designed to mitigate the effects of the current and future droughts. However, the established exemption date is not conducive to accomplishing the necessary projects needed for a continuation of the drought emergency. If the current sunset date arrives without change, then future drought mitigation projects will not come to fruition due to complex CEQA regulation.

1. No evidence that CEQA is an unreasonable impediment to recycled water projects. A review of CEQA notices submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) shows that recycled water projects have been routinely approved via exemption or negative declaration. This bill exempts pipeline projects within existing rights of way. All such projects are exempt under current law if they are under one mile. In addition, categorical exemptions are available for maintenance, replacement, and reconstruction of existing public utility facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. This bill is operative only during the current drought state of emergency, but projects necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency can be exempted via CEQA, as well as via the Governor's broad authority under the Emergency Services Act.

There's no record that the SB 88 exemption has been used to date and no evidence of its necessity or effect on any particular project. If the committee feels an extension is warranted, it may wish to consider a shorter extension, as well as the addition of conditions consistent with other exemptions approved by the committee, such as prohibiting impacts on protected species or cultural resources, requiring the lead agency to hold a public hearing and adopt mitigation measures for potential construction impacts, and requiring the notice of exemption to be filed with Office of Planning and Research.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Associated Builders and Contractors of California

California Chamber of Commerce

City of Santa Monica

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Southwest California Legislative Council

Opposition

California League of Conservation Voters

Clean Water Action California

Natural Resources Defense Council

Sierra Club California

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092

Date of Hearing: March 14, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Das Williams, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1749 (

Author:Mathis) – As Introduced Ver:February 2, 2016

SUBJECT: California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: recycled water pipelines

SUMMARY: Extends the sunset, from 2017 to 2022, of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for specified recycled water projects approved during the current drought state of emergency.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.
2. Exempts recycled water projects to mitigate drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, if the project consists of construction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way, and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive habitat, and where the construction impacts are fully mitigated consistent with applicable law. This exemption remains operative until the current drought state of emergency has expired or until January 1, 2017, whichever occurs first (SB 88, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015).
3. Exempts a pipeline project less than one mile in length within a public street or highway or any other public right-of-way for the installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, relocation, replacement, removal, or demolition of an existing pipeline. Excludes any surface facility related to the operation of the underground pipeline.
   
4. Defines “recycled water” as water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Background. CEQA provides a process for evaluating the environmental effects of applicable projects undertaken or approved by public agencies. If a project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study is prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study shows that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration. If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.

Generally, an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant environmental impact expected to result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any project that has received environmental review, an agency must make certain findings. If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure compliance with those measures.

CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines. In June 2015, SB 88, a drought relief budget trailer bill, added the exemption amended by this bill. At the time, the project cited as the reason for the exemption was a large water recycling project proposed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District consisting of multiple pipelines, groundwater recharge ponds, injection wells, and related facilities. According to the water district, the exemption has not been used and the entire proposed project may not be eligible for the exemption.

1. Author's statement:

SB 88 provided much needed assistance in the way of establishing projects designed to mitigate the effects of the current and future droughts. However, the established exemption date is not conducive to accomplishing the necessary projects needed for a continuation of the drought emergency. If the current sunset date arrives without change, then future drought mitigation projects will not come to fruition due to complex CEQA regulation.

1. No evidence that CEQA is an unreasonable impediment to recycled water projects. A review of CEQA notices submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) shows that recycled water projects have been routinely approved via exemption or negative declaration. This bill exempts pipeline projects within existing rights of way. All such projects are exempt under current law if they are under one mile. In addition, categorical exemptions are available for maintenance, replacement and reconstruction of existing public utility facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. This bill is operative only during the current drought state of emergency, but projects necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency can be exempted via CEQA, as well as via the Governor's broad authority under the Emergency Services Act.

There's no record that the SB 88 exemption has been used to date and no evidence of its necessity or effect on any particular project. Given the lack of a record, and the fact that the original sunset was only 18 months, a 5-year extension seems excessive. If the committee feels an extension is warranted, it may wish to consider a shorter extension, as well as the addition of conditions consistent with other exemptions approved by the committee, such as prohibiting impacts on protected species or cultural resources, requiring the lead agency to hold a public hearing and adopt mitigation measures for potential construction impacts, and requiring the notice of exemption to be filed with OPR.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Chamber of Commerce

Opposition

Clean Water Action California

Natural Resources Defense Council

Sierra Club California

Analysis Prepared by: Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092