Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Water Resources, which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.

This bill would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department to provide funding for a certain project provided that certain conditions are met.

Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Water Resources, which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.

This bill would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department to provide funding for a certain project provided that certain conditions are met.

Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Water Resources, which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.

This bill would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department to provide funding for a certain projects, project provided that certain conditions are met.

Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Water Resources, which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.

This bill would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the department to provide funding for certain projects. projects, provided that certain conditions are met.

Existing law, the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act, authorizes a regional water management group to prepare and adopt an integrated regional water management plan with specified components relating to water supply and water quality. Existing law authorizes the Department of Water Resources to award grants to eligible projects consistent with an adopted integrated regional water management plan.

This bill would require the department to provide grants and expenditures, consistent with an integrated regional water management plan, for the planning, design, and construction of local and regional conveyance projects that support regional and interregional connectivity and water management and provide certain benefits. The bill would require a regional management group that is awarded a grant pursuant to these provisions to provide a cost share of not less than 50% of the total project costs from nonstate resources and would authorize the department to waive or reduce this requirement for projects that directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations to implement these provisions. The bill would require the department, pursuant these provisions, to provide grant funding for certain projects, as specified.

Existing law, the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act, authorizes a regional water management group to prepare and adopt an integrated regional water management plan with specified components relating to water supply and water quality. Existing law authorizes the Department of Water Resources to award grants to eligible projects consistent with an adopted integrated regional water management plan.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation that would require the department to provide grants and expenditures, consistent with an integrated regional water management plan, for the planning, design, and construction of local and regional conveyance projects that support regional and interregional connectivity and water management and provide certain benefits. The bill would require a regional management group that is awarded a grant pursuant to these provisions to provide a cost share of not less than 50% of the total project costs from nonstate resources and would authorize the department to waive or reduce this requirement for projects that directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations to implement these provisions.

Existing law, the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act, authorizes a regional water management group to prepare and adopt an integrated regional water management plan with specified components relating to water supply and water quality. Existing law authorizes the Department of Water Resources to award grants to eligible projects consistent with an adopted integrated regional water management plan.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation that would require the department to provide grants and expenditures, consistent with an integrated regional water management plan, for the planning, design, and construction of local and regional conveyance projects that support regional and interregional connectivity and water management and provide certain benefits.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 935

Author:(Salas)

As Amended Ver:August 17, 2016

Majority vote

(W., P., & W.)

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

SUMMARY: This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR), upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund a reverse flow pump-back project on the Friant-Kern Canal that substantially conforms to the project description set forth by the draft investment strategy released by the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) in December 2014. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to grant up to $7 million for the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project (Project).
2. Limits the DWR's funding share of the Project to up to 80% of the total.
3. Establishes prerequisites to funding, including:
   1. All feasibility studies are complete and draft environmental impact reports (EIRs) required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are available for public review.
   2. Financial commitments to the DWR director are equal to or greater than 75% of the non-state cost share of the project.
4. Requires the Project, if funded, to comply with any applicable provisions of state and federal law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the DWR within the Natural Resources Agency, which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.
2. Prohibits a public agency, under CEQA, from making a discretionary decision to approve a project, including funding a project, if there are potentially significant impacts on the environment that could be reduced by feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: The Assembly version of this bill contained a general requirement for the DWR to fund local and regional conveyance projects. The Senate version of this bill deletes the general requirement and instead, specifies funding of a project that would help minimize water supply impacts to Friant Division Long-Term Contractors from actions to help implement the SJRRP.

According to the author this bill would provide funding for the planning, design, and construction of a Sustainable Water Conveyance Project that would support regional and interregional connectivity and deliver water to and from the California Aqueduct. We need to develop and improve conveyance facilities in order to optimize inter-regional water supplies, facilitate the movement of water from east to west, and make additional water available to places of need. This project would help increase water availability and enable deliveries of surplus water in wet years to recharge groundwater and banking facilities.

The San Joaquin River is the second longest river in California and historically supported large runs of salmon and other cold-water fish. After Friant Dam was constructed by the United States (U.S.) Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), parts of the San Joaquin River went completely dry in most years. Environmental groups then brought litigation citing, among other claims, the requirements in California law that the owner of any dam must allow sufficient water to pass through to keep fish in good condition below the dam. In 2006, after 18 years of litigation, a federal court approved a settlement between the federal government, the environmental plaintiffs, and the Friant Water Users Authority. The SJRRP settlement had two objectives: a restoration program that would provide the river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and support naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon, and a water management goal of minimizing water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

Thereafter, Reclamation initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal in order to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Contractors. Reclamation, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy Final Report (Final Report). The Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal project that would be funded through this bill was fourth among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity which is used occasionally to deliver water north from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The Project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River, captured downstream, and conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal, to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors. The Final Report ranked this project 4th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million that included planning and environmental review, and a little over two years to complete. The project has been estimated to convey approximately 15,000-30,000 acre-feet annually and is expected to avoid 2,750 metric tons of carbon emissions over the life of the project.

It is not clear what the source of funding will be for the Project. This bill does not make an appropriation. If and when there is an appropriation the source of funds for that appropriation would be determined by the Legislature and the Governor.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0004926

Date of Hearing: August , 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Marc Levine, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 935 (

Author:Salas) – As Amended Ver:August 17, 2016

SUBJECT: Water projects

SUMMARY: This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR), upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund a reverse flow pump-back project on the Friant-Kern Canal that substantially conforms to the project description set forth by the draft investment strategy released by the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) in December 2014. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to grant up to $7 million for the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project (Project).
2. Limits the DWR's funding share of the Project to up to 80% of the total.
3. Establishes prerequisites to funding, including:
   1. All feasibility studies are complete and draft environmental impact reports (EIRs) required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are available for public review.
   2. Financial commitments to the DWR director are equal to or greater than 75% of the non-state cost share of the project.
4. Requires the Project, if funded, to comply with any applicable provisions of state and federal law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the DWR within the Natural Resources Agency, which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.
2. Prohibits a public agency, under CEQA, from making a discretionary decision to approve a project, including funding a project, if there are potentially significant impacts on the environment that could be reduced by feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: This bill requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to grant up to $7 million for the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project.

1. Assembly Version: The Assembly version of this bill contained a general requirement for the DWR to fund local and regional conveyance projects. The Senate version of this bill deletes the general requirement and instead, specifies funding of a project that would help minimize water supply impacts to Friant Division Long-Term Contractors from actions to help implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP).
2. Author’s Statement: This bill would provide funding for the planning, design, and construction of a Sustainable Water Conveyance Project that would support regional and interregional connectivity and deliver water to and from the California Aqueduct. We need to develop and improve conveyance facilities in order to optimize inter-regional water supplies, facilitate the movement of water from east to the west, and make additional water available to places of need.  This project would help increase water availability and enable deliveries of surplus water in wet years to recharge groundwater and banking facilities.
3. San Joaquin River Restoration Program: The San Joaquin River is the second longest river in California and historically supported large runs of salmon and other cold-water fish. After Friant Dam was constructed by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), parts of the San Joaquin River went completely dry in most years. Environmental groups then brought litigation citing, among other claims, the requirements in California law that the owner of any dam must allow sufficient water to pass through to keep fish in good condition below the dam. In 2006, after 18 years of litigation, a federal court approved a settlement between the federal government, the environmental plaintiffs, and the Friant Water Users Authority. The SJRRP settlement had two objectives: a restoration program that would provide the river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and support naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon, and a water management goal of minimizing water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

Thereafter, Reclamation initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal in order to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Contractors. Reclamation, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy Final Report (Final Report). The Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal project that would be funded through this bill was fourth among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

1. Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project: The Friant-Kern Canal is a Federal Central Valley Project canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity which is used occasionally to deliver water north from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The Project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River, captured downstream, and conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal, to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors. The Final Report ranked this project 4th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million that included planning and environmental review, and a little over 2 years to complete. The project has been estimated to convey approximately 15,000-30,000 acre-feet annually and is expected to avoid 2,750 metric tons of carbon emissions over the life of the project.
2. Source of Funding: It is not clear what the source of funding will be for the Project. This bill does not make an appropriation. If and when there is an appropriation the source of funds for that appropriation would be determined by the Legislature and the Governor.
3. Support Arguments: The Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant –Kern Canal Restoration Project is an important water conveyance project in the San Joaquin Valley that will greatly enhance the state’s ability to manage water. This bill will provide a means to better circulate water in the south valley, will ensure greater flexibility in our complicated water system, and where appropriate create more water for the citizens, communities, and businesses of the South San Joaquin Valley.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Citrus Mutual

Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District

Lower Tule River Irrigation District

Pixley Irrigation District

Tea Pot Dome Water District

Opposition

None on file

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

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 935

Author:(Salas)

As Amended Ver:August 17, 2016

Majority vote

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

SUMMARY: This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR), upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund a reverse flow pump-back project on the Friant-Kern Canal that substantially conforms to the project description set forth by the draft investment strategy released by the San Joaquin River Restoration Program in December 2014.

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

1. Requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to grant up to $7 million for the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project (Project).
2. Limit the DWR's funding share of the Project to up to 80% of the total.
3. Establish prerequisites to funding, including:
   1. All feasibility studies are complete and draft environmental impact reports (EIRs) required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are available for public review.
   2. Financial commitments to the DWR director are equal to or greater than 75% of the non-state cost share of the project.
4. Requires the Project, if funded, to comply with any applicable provisions of state and federal law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the DWR within the Natural Resources Agency, which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.
2. Prohibits a public agency, under CEQA, from making a discretionary decision to approve a project, including funding a project, if there are potentially significant impacts on the environment that could be reduced by feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: The Assembly version of this bill contained a general requirement for the DWR to fund local and regional conveyance projects. The Senate version of this bill deletes the general requirement and instead, specifies a project that would help minimize water supply impacts to Friant Division long-term contractors from actions to help implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP).

The San Joaquin River is the second longest river in California and historically supported large runs of salmon and other cold-water fish. After Friant Dam was constructed by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), parts of the San Joaquin River went completely dry in most years. Environmental groups then brought litigation citing, among other claims, the requirements in California law that the owner of any dam must allow sufficient water to pass through to keep fish in good condition below the dam. In 2006, after 18 years of litigation, a federal court approved a settlement between the federal government, the environmental plaintiffs, and the Friant Water Users Authority. The SJRRP settlement had two objectives: a restoration program that would provide the river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and support naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon, and a water management goal of minimizing water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

Thereafter, Reclamation initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal in order to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Contractors. Reclamation, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy Final Report (Final Report).

The Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal project that would be funded through this bill is among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

The Friant-Kern Canal is a Federal Central Valley Project canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity which is used occasionally to deliver north the water from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River, captured downstream, and conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal, to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors. The Final Report ranked this project 4th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million that included planning and environmental review, and a little over two years to complete. The project has been estimated to convey approximately 15,000-30,000 acre-feet annually and is expected to avoid 2,750 metric tons of carbon emissions over the life of the project.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0004764

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 935

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/14/15

AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Vidak, Wolk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires, upon appropriation of the Legislature, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide up to $7 million to fund the Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/17/16 delete provisions requiring funding of the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District project.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.

This bill:

1. Requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project.
2. Caps the state funding for the project at $7 million and requires a minimum 20 percent non-state cost share.
3. Requires the project to meet the following requirements as a condition for state funding:
   1. All feasibility studies are complete and draft environmental impact reports are available for public review.
   2. The director of DWR receives commitments for not less than 75 percent of the nonstate cost share requirement of the project.

Comments

San Joaquin River Restoration Program. In September 2006, the US Department of Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority entered into a settlement that ended an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno. The settlement resulted in the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) which has two goals and objectives: (1) a restored river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon; and (2) a river management program to minimize water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal. The purpose was to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term contractors. USBR, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy: Final Report.

Among other things, the Final Report presented a list of priority projects evaluated at an appraisal level that supports the water management goal of the SJRRP. The project that would be funded through this bill is among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity, which is used occasionally to deliver north the water from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River that was then recaptured downstream to be conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors.

The Final Report ranked this project 4th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 2 years to complete the project.

Why This Project? It is not entirely clear why the author selected this project over the other 20. There are higher rated projects.

Should State Fund SJRRP Water Management Projects? These projects are designed to mitigate the water supply impact on Friant Contractors of restoring flows on the San Joaquin River. These flows are necessary for the USBR to comply with state law regarding keeping in good condition fish that may be below a dam. The state has already committed to helping restore the San Joaquin River itself. It is not clear why the state should also fund projects to offset the impact of restoration flows on the Friant Contractors.

With What Funds? It is not clear what funds DWR could use to provide the grants required by this bill. Proposition 1 included a provision stating that the Legislature cannot appropriate Prop 1 funds for a specific project.

Camel’s Nose? Through most of the 1990s, the usual practice for funding water resource projects was for the legislature to determine which specific projects to appropriate bond funds to; either through the drafting of the bond measure or through individual appropriation bills. Consequently, the investments occasionally reflected political priorities more than policy priorities. Beginning in the late 1990, the legislature began drafting bond measures emphasizing competitive processes instead of political process. Indeed, Proposition 1 included a provision banning the legislature from appropriating funds for specific projects. Should this bill be enacted, it might tempt other members to attempt to direct funds to specific projects as well.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

Prior Senate Appropriations Committee cost estimates are not relevant with recent amendments.

Relevant Appropriations Committee Staff Comments on previous version of this bill:

1. “This bill does not specify a funding source and it is unclear whether there are bond monies available for these projects. DWR is on pace to awarding all of its remaining Proposition 84 funds by the end of this year and Proposition 1 included a provision stating that the Legislature cannot appropriate Proposition 1 funds for a specified project. In the absence of a fund source being specified, staff assumes the cost would be borne by the General Fund.
2. “Staff notes that while the state has made a commitment to helping restore the San Joaquin River itself, the state was not a party to the settlement. Thus the projects are solely the responsibility of the federal government.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/18/16)

California Citrus Mutual

Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District

Kern-Tulare Water District

South Valley Water Association

Tulare County Farm Bureau

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/18/16)

Castaic Lake Water Agency

City of Clovis

City of Reedley

City of Selma

Coachella Valley Water District

Consolidated Irrigation District

Fresno Irrigation District

Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District

Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Water Association

Modesto Irrigation District

Raisin City Water District

Turlock Irrigation District

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “We need to develop and improve conveyance facilities in order to optimize inter-regional water supplies, facilitate the movement of water from the east side to the west side, and make additional water available to be distributed to places of need.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents to the previous version of this bill raised concerns about the apparent earmarking of funds for this project.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15

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

Prepared by:

8/18/16 17:10:05

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 935

Author: Salas (D)

Amended: 9/4/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/14/15

AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Vidak, Wolk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Water projects

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund the Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal and the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir, upon appropriation of the Legislature.

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/4/15 add additional conditions for state funding of the two projects authorized by this bill.

ANALYSIS: Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.

This bill:

1. Requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund two projects:

   1. The Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project, and

   2. The San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District.

2. Caps the state funding for these projects a $75 million and requires a minimum 20 percent non-state cost share.

3. Requires the projects to meet the following requirements as a condition for state funding:

   1. All feasibility studies are complete and draft environmental impact reports are available for public review.

   2. The director of DWR receives commitments for not less than 75 percent of the nonstate cost share requirement of the project.

Background

San Joaquin River Restoration Program. In September 2006, the US Department of Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority entered into a settlement that ended an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno. The settlement resulted in the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) which has two goals and objectives: (1) a restored river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon; and (2) a river management program to minimize water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal. The purpose was to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term contractors. USBR, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy: Final Report.

Among other things, the Final Report presented a list of priority projects evaluated at an appraisal level that support the water management goal of the SJRRP. The two projects that would be funded through this bill are among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity, which is used occasionally to deliver north the water from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River that was then recaptured downstream to be conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors.

The Final Report ranked this project 4th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 2 years to complete the project.

San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir. Patterson Irrigation District (ID) is located just downstream from the San Joaquin River and Merced River confluence. Patterson ID has senior San Joaquin River water rights, and it is the first district downstream of the SJRRP Restoration Area capable of recapturing restoration flows. With this project, USBR and Friant Contractors propose to 1) assist Patterson ID modernize and expand the capacity of its cross district conveyance facilities and 2) to facilitate water conveyance or exchange agreements between Friant Contractors and Patterson ID so that recaptured restoration flows can be stored via the Delta-Mendota Canal in San Luis Reservoir for future direct delivery and/or exchange to benefit Friant Contractors. This project provides a method to recapture restoration flows before it enters the Delta.

The Final Report ranked this project 12^th of 21, with an estimated cost of $53.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 4 ½ years to complete the project.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, cost pressure of $61.2 million to the General Fund for DWR to fund the specified projects.

Appropriations Committee Staff Comments:

1. “This bill does not specify a funding source and it is unclear whether there are bond monies available for these projects. DWR is on pace to awarding all of its remaining Proposition 84 funds by the end of this year and Proposition 1 included a provision stating that the Legislature cannot appropriate Proposition 1 funds for a specified project. In the absence of a fund source being specified, staff assumes the cost would be borne by the General Fund.

2. “Staff notes that while the state has made a commitment to helping restore the San Joaquin River itself, the state was not a party to the settlement. Thus the projects are solely the responsibility of the federal government.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/15)

California Citrus Mutual

Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District

Desert Water Agency

Kern-Tulare Water District

South Valley Water Association

Tulare County Farm Bureau

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/15)

City of Clovis

City of Fresno

City of Reedley

City of Selma

Consolidated Irrigation District

Fresno Irrigation District

Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District

Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Water Association

Raisin City Water District

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “We need to develop and improve conveyance facilities in order to optimize inter-regional water supplies, facilitate the movement of water from the east side to the west side, and make additional water available to be distributed to places of need.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of irrigation districts and other water suppliers “are concerned with the ‘shall fund’ directive to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), particularly as valley water agencies are forced to compete for limited funding for projects developed through regional integrated water management planning. AB 935 must be amended to clarify that funds appropriated from voter-approved General Obligation bonds may not be used to support these projects unless they are awarded under the competitive processes administered by DWR.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15

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

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

9/8/15 16:19:35

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 935

Author: Salas (D), et al.

Amended: 7/16/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/14/15

AYES: Pavley, Stone, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Vidak, Wolk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Water projects

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund the Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal and the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir, upon appropriation of the Legislature.

ANALYSIS: Existing law establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which manages and undertakes planning with regard to water resources in the state.

This bill requires the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund two projects:

1. The Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project, and

2. The San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District.

Background

In September 2006, the US Department of Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority entered into a settlement that ended an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno. The settlement resulted in the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) which has two goals and objectives: (1) a restored river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon; and (2) a river management program to minimize water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal. The purpose was to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term contractors. USBR, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy: Final Report.

Among other things, the Final Report presented a list of priority projects evaluated at an appraisal level that support the water management goal of the SJRRP. The two projects that would be funded through this bill are among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity, which is used occasionally to deliver north the water from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River that was then recaptured downstream to be conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors.

The Final Report ranked this project 4th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 2 years to complete the project.

San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir. Patterson Irrigation District (ID) is located just downstream from the San Joaquin River and Merced River confluence. Patterson ID has senior San Joaquin River water rights, and it is the first district downstream of the SJRRP Restoration Area capable of recapturing restoration flows. With this project, USBR and Friant Contractors propose to 1) assist Patterson ID modernize and expand the capacity of its cross district conveyance facilities and 2) to facilitate water conveyance or exchange agreements between Friant Contractors and Patterson ID so that recaptured restoration flows can be stored via the Delta-Mendota Canal in San Luis Reservoir for future direct delivery and/or exchange to benefit Friant Contractors. This project provides a method to recapture restoration flows before it enters the Delta.

The Final Report ranked this project 12^th of 21, with an estimated cost of $53.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 4 ½ years to complete the project.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, cost pressure of $61.2 million to the General Fund for DWR to fund the specified projects.

Appropriations Committee staff further commented: “This bill would require DWR to provide up to 100% of the funding of the two specified projects for a total of $61.2 million. As this bill does not actually make an appropriation, these costs are technically cost pressures. This bill does not specify a funding source and it is unclear whether there are bond monies available for these projects. DWR is on pace to awarding all of its remaining Proposition 84 funds by the end of this year and Proposition 1 included a provision stating that the Legislature cannot appropriate Proposition 1 funds for a specified project. In the absence of a fund source being specified, staff assumes the cost would be borne by the General Fund.

“Staff notes that while the state has made a commitment to helping restore the San Joaquin River itself, the state was not a party to the settlement. Thus the projects are solely the responsibility of the federal government.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)

California Citrus Mutual

Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District

Desert Water Agency

Kern-Tulare Water District

South Valley Water Association

Tulare County Farm Bureau

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)

City of Clovis

City of Fresno

City of Reedley

City of Selma

Consolidated Irrigation District

Fresno Irrigation District

Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District

Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Water Association

Raisin City Water District

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “We need to develop and improve conveyance facilities in order to optimize inter-regional water supplies, facilitate the movement of water from the east side to the west side, and make additional water available to be distributed to places of need.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of irrigation districts and other water suppliers “are concerned with the ‘shall fund’ directive to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), particularly as valley water agencies are forced to compete for limited funding for projects developed through regional integrated water management planning. AB 935 must be amended to clarify that funds appropriated from voter-approved General Obligation bonds may not be used to support these projects unless they are awarded under the competitive processes administered by DWR.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 6/3/15

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

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

8/30/15 19:13:07

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 935 (Salas) - Water projects.

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 935 would require the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to fund two projects: (1) the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project and (2) the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District.

Fiscal Impact:

Cost pressure of $61.2 million to the General Fund for DWR to fund the specified projects.

Background:

In September 2006, the US Department of Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority entered into a settlement that ended an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno. The settlement resulted in the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) which has two goals and objectives: (1) a restored river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon; and (2) a river management program to minimize water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal. The purpose was to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term contractors. USBR, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy: Final Report.

Among other things, the Final Report presented a list of priority projects evaluated at an appraisal level that support the water management goal of the SJRRP. The two projects that would be funded through this bill are among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

• Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity, which is used occasionally to deliver north the water from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River that was then recaptured downstream to be conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors.

The Final Report ranked this project 4^th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 2 years to complete the project.

• San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir. Patterson Irrigation District (ID) is located just downstream from the San Joaquin River and Merced River confluence. Patterson ID has senior San Joaquin River water rights, and it is the first district downstream of the SJRRP Restoration Area capable of recapturing restoration flows. With this project, USBR and Friant Contractors propose to 1) assist Patterson ID modernize and expand the capacity of its cross district conveyance facilities and 2) to facilitate water conveyance or exchange agreements between Friant Contractors and Patterson ID so that recaptured restoration flows can be stored via the Delta-Mendota Canal in San Luis Reservoir for future direct delivery and/or exchange to benefit Friant Contractors. This project provides a method to recapture restoration flows before it enters the Delta.

The Final Report ranked this project 12^thof 21, with an estimated cost of $53.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 4 ½ years to complete the project.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require DWR to fund the Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal and the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir, upon appropriation of the Legislature.

Staff Comments:

This bill would require DWR to provide up to 100% of the funding of the two specified projects for a total of $61.2 million. As this bill does not actually make an appropriation, these costs are technically cost pressures. This bill does not specify a funding source and it is unclear whether there are bond monies available for these projects. DWR is on pace to awarding all of its remaining Proposition 84 funds by the end of this year and Proposition 1 included a provision stating that the Legislature cannot appropriate Proposition 1 funds for a specified project. In the absence of a fund source being specified, staff assumes the cost would be borne by the General Fund.

Staff notes that while the state has made a commitment to helping restore the San Joaquin River itself, the state was not a party to the settlement. Thus the projects are solely the responsibility of the federal government.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Fran Pavley, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 935 Hearing Date: July 14, 2015

Subject: Integrated Regional Water Management Plans: conveyance projects: grants and expenditures.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

1. Under the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002, a regional water management group is authorized, but not required, to prepare and adopt an integrated regional water management plan (IRWMP).

IRWMPs can include regional projects or programs that accomplish any of the following:

• Reduce water demand through agricultural and urban water use efficiency.

• Increase water supplies through, groundwater storage and conjunctive water management, desalination, precipitation enhancement, water recycling, regional and local surface storage, water-use efficiency, and stormwater management.

• Improve operational efficiency and water supply reliability, through conveyance facilities, system reoperation, and water transfers.

• Improve water quality, through improved drinking water treatment and distribution, groundwater and aquifer remediation, matching water quality to water use, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and management of urban and agricultural runoff.

• Improve resource stewardship, through agricultural lands stewardship, ecosystem restoration, flood plain management, recharge area protection, urban land use management, groundwater management, water-dependent recreation, fishery restoration, including fish passage improvement, and watershed management.

• Improve flood management through structural and nonstructural means, or by any other means.

Propositions 50, 84, and 1 all required that projects and programs be included in an IRWMP in order to be fundable from the bonds’ Integrated Regional Water Management programs.

2. In November 2014, the voters ratified The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1). Proposition 1 authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds to fund ecosystems and watershed protection and restoration, water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, and drinking water protection.

Among other things, Proposition 1 provides $475 M to the Natural Resources Agency to fulfill obligations of the state in complying with the terms of any of the following a number of settlement agreements and interstate compacts. This includes obligations of the state in complying with the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act.

Proposition 1 also provided $510 M for expenditures of and competitive grants and loans for projects that are included in and implemented in an adopted integrated regional water management plan.

Proposition 1 also included a provision (§79714) which states that “Funding made available by this [bond] shall not be appropriated by the Legislature to specific projects.”

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would:

1. Require DWR to provide grants and expenditures, consistent with an adopted IRWMP, for the planning, design, and construction of local and regional conveyance projects that would do both of the following:

1. Support regional and interregional connectivity and water management.

2. Provide one or more of the following benefits:

• Improve regional or interregional water supply and water supply reliability.

• Mitigate conditions of groundwater overdraft, saline water intrusion, water quality degradation, or subsidence.

• Adapt to the impacts of hydrologic changes.

• Improve water security from drought, natural disasters, or other events that could interrupt imported water supplies.

• Provide safe drinking water for disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas.

A regional water management group that receives such a grant would be required to provide a cost share of not less than 50 percent of the total project costs from nonstate resources.

DWR would be authorized to waive or reduce the cost share for projects that directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area.

DWR would be authorized to adopt regulations to implement these provisions.

2. Require DWR, using moneys appropriated to the department for these purposes, to provide grant funding for the following projects:

1. A project that substantially conforms to the project description for the Reverse Flow Pump-back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal Restoration Project set forth by the draft investment strategy released by the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) in December 2014.

2. A project that substantially conforms to the project description for the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir Project set forth by the draft investment strategy released by the SJRRP in December 2014.

The moneys provided by this bill, in combination with moneys provided pursuant to the 50-percent cost share, would fully fund the two projects.

3. Find and declare that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable because California’s four-year drought has wreaked havoc on communities, businesses, and agriculture on the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley. The two interconnector projects would allow water to be better managed, providing relief to the eastern San Joaquin Valley and other areas of the state.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “We need to develop and improve conveyance facilities in order to optimize inter-regional water supplies, facilitate the movement of water from the east side to the west side, and make additional water available to be distributed to places of need.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None Received

COMMENTS

What is the San Joaquin River Restoration Program? The SJRRP is the result of a stipulation of settlement in September 2006 of an 18-year lawsuit to provide sufficient fish habitat in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam near Fresno. The parties to the settlement were:

• The U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce.

• The Natural Resources Defense Council.

• The Friant Water Users Authority.

The settlement agreement was based on two goals and objectives:

1. A restored river with continuous flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and naturally reproducing populations of Chinook salmon.

2. A water management program to minimize water supply impacts to San Joaquin River water users.

What Are The Projects? The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) initiated an investment strategy in support of the SJRRP water management goal. The purpose was to identify projects that, in conjunction with other activities, could cost-effectively reduce or avoid water supply impacts to the Friant Division long-term contractors as a result of releasing Restoration Flows. The objective of the strategy was to develop, evaluate, and prepare a prioritized set of implementable projects that could help achieve this goal.

USBR, in collaboration with the Friant Contractors, identified, screened, developed, evaluated, and ranked over 500 project concepts to form a list of approximately 60 projects. Of these, 21 projects were further evaluated as ready-to-implement priority projects. The results were presented in a March 2015 report titled Water Management Goal Investment Strategy: Final Report. Among other things, the Final Report presented a list of Priority Projects evaluated at an appraisal level that support the Water Management Goal of the SJRRP. The two projects that would be funded through this bill are among the 21 projects evaluated in the Final Report.

• Reverse Flow Pump-Back Facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) canal that conveys water from Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River near Fresno, southward to various Friant Contractors along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, terminating at the Kern River near Bakersfield. Currently, the Friant-Kern Canal has limited pump-back operational capacity, which is used occasionally to deliver north the water from the Cross Valley Canal or water extracted from water banks on the Kern River fan. This project would install permanent pump-back facilities with higher capacities along the southern portion of the Friant-Kern Canal. The project would allow water that was released for restoration flows on the San Joaquin River that was then recaptured downstream to be conveyed via the Cross Valley Canal to be pumped back up the Friant-Kern Canal to a number of Friant Contractors.

The Final Report ranked this project 4^th of 21, with an estimated cost of $7.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 2 years to complete the project.

• San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson Irrigation District Conveyed Through Delta-Mendota Canal to San Luis Reservoir. Patterson Irrigation District (ID) is located just downstream from the San Joaquin River and Merced River confluence and has existing facilities that can convey limited water between the San Joaquin River and the Delta-Mendota Canal. Patterson ID has senior San Joaquin River water rights, and it is the first district downstream of the SJRRP Restoration Area capable of recapturing restoration flows. With this project, USBR and Friant Contractors propose to 1) assist Patterson ID modernize and expand the capacity of its cross district conveyance facilities and 2) to facilitate water conveyance or exchange agreements between Friant Contractors and Patterson ID so that recaptured restoration flows can be stored via the Delta-Mendota Canal in San Luis Reservoir for future direct delivery and/or exchange to benefit Friant Contractors. This project provides a method to recapture restoration flows before it enters the Delta.

The Final Report ranked this project 12^thof 21, with an estimated cost of $53.6 million, and, including planning and environmental review, a little over 4 ½ years to complete the project.

How Are They Funded? The final report assumed 50 percent federal funding, with the balance made up of non-federal sources.

Why These Projects? It is not entirely clear why the author selected these two projects over the other 19. There are higher rated projects, especially compared to the San Joaquin River Recapture at Patterson project.

Should State Fund SJRRP Water Management Projects? These projects are designed to mitigate the water supply impact on Friant Contractors of restoring flows on the San Joaquin River. These flows are necessary for the USBR to comply with state law regarding keeping in good condition fish that may be below a dam. The state has already committed to helping restore the San Joaquin River itself. It is not clear why the state should also fund projects to offset the impact of restoration flows on the Friant Contractors.

With What Funds? It is not clear what funds DWR could use to provide the grants required by this bill. DWR is on pace to awarding all of its remaining Proposition 84 funds by the end of this year. Proposition 1 included a provision stating that the legislature cannot appropriate Prop 1 funds for a specific project. While this bill does not directly appropriate funds, by directing DWR to use previously appropriated moneys to fund these two projects, the effect would be the same.

Which IRWMPs? It is not clear which, if any, adopted IRWMPs include these projects.

Subverting The Regional Prioritization Process. DWR has a fairly extensive process to ensure that it funds IRWMP projects that reflect the priorities of the regions. This bill essentially says that regardless of what the region’s priorities are, these projects go first.

Camel’s Nose? Through most of the 1990s, the usual practice for funding water resource projects was for the legislature to determine which specific projects to appropriate bond funds to; either through the drafting of the bond measure or through individual appropriation bills. Consequently, the investments occasionally reflected political priorities more that policy priorities. Beginning in the late 1990, the legislature began drafting bond measures emphasizing competitive processes instead of political process. Indeed, Proposition 1 included a provision banning the legislature from appropriating funds for specific projects. Should this bill be enacted, it might tempt other members to attempt to direct funds to specific projects as well. (See Amendment 1)

Require IRWMP Funding? Most of the IRWMP Act is permissive, regional management groups may decide which problems it wants to solve, which types of projects it wants to have funded, etc. This bill requires, instead of authorizes, DWR to fund conveyance projects. (See Amendment 2)

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1

Delete Sections 2 & 3

AMENDMENT 2

On page 2, line 3, strike out “shall” and insert “may”

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 935

Author:(Salas)

As Amended Ver:March 26, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide grants and expenditures for the planning, design, and construction of local and regional conveyance projects that support regional and interregional connectivity and other listed benefits. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires DWR to provide grants and expenditures for local and regional conveyance projects that are consistent with an adopted integrated regional water management plan (IRWM) and also provide one or more of the following:

   1. Improve regional or interregional water supply reliability.

   2. Mitigate conditions of groundwater overdraft, groundwater quality, or land subsidence.

   3. Adapt to the impacts of hydrologic changes.

   4. Improve water security from drought, natural disasters, and other events that interrupt water supplies.

   5. Provide safe drinking water for disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas.

2. Requires a local cost-share of not less than 50% unless the area is a disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area.

3. Authorizes DWR to adopt regulations to implement the regional conveyance grant and expenditure program.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation funding for water-related projects and programs in Proposition 1, the Safe Drinking Water, Quality, and Infrastructure Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) including, among other funding:

   1. $2.7 billion for surface and groundwater storage projects, continuously appropriated to the California Water Commission; and,

   2. $810 million for IRWM projects with $100 million of that amount directed at water conservation and $200 million of that amount dedicated to stormwater management.

2. Proposition 1 defines a disadvantaged community as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 % of the statewide annual median household income.

3. Proposition 1 defines an economically distressed area as an area that meets the following:

1. A municipality with a population of 20,000 persons or less, a rural county, or a reasonably isolated and divisible segment of a larger municipality where the segment of the population is 20,000 persons or less;

2. The area has an annual median household income that is less than 85% of the statewide median household income; and,

3. DWR finds the area has one or more of the following conditions: is in financial hardship; unemployed at a rate that is 2% higher than the statewide average; or, has a low population density.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially significant, funding shifts from other water management activities to local and regional conveyance projects (IRWMP bond funding). Also, increased costs to DWR of $250,000 to $350,000 to develop regulations (IRWMP bond funding).

COMMENTS: This bill would require DWR to fund conveyance projects, as specified. The Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis notes that approximately $375 million for planning and implementation grants within the IRWM funding category could be used to fund this bill. That figure is based on the $510 million of Proposition 1 IRWM funds that are eligible to fund conveyance projects less bond issuance costs, audit costs, and funds dedicated to addressing the needs of disadvantaged communities.

The author states that conveyance is necessary in order to fully realize the benefits of virtually every type of local water management, such as desalination, recycling, use efficiency, and storage projects. The author notes that the recently-passed Proposition 1 has money allocated in it for surface water storage and groundwater storage projects and that, in order to create the greatest possible statewide benefit, it will be necessary to have adequate connections between both.

Other supporters state that this bill could help benefit agencies in terms of the study, design, and construction of a physical connection to the State Water Project and that this bill would provide for up to a 50% state match for the total project costs.

There is no known opposition to this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Tina Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0000767

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 935

Author:(Salas) – As Amended Ver:March 26, 2015

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide grants and expenditures for the planning, design, and construction of local and regional conveyance projects as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires grants and expenditures to be consistent with an adopted integrated regional water management plan (IRWM) and achieve one or more of the following benefits:

1. Improved regional or interregional water supply reliability.

2. Mitigation of conditions of groundwater overdraft and subsidence, and improved groundwater quality.

3. Adaptation to the impacts of hydrologic changes.

4. Improved water security from drought, natural disasters, and other events that interrupt water supplies.

5. Providing safe drinking water for disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas.

1. Requires a local cost-share of not less than 50% unless the area is a disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area.

2. Authorizes DWR to adopt regulations to the implement the regional conveyance grant and expenditure program.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Unknown, potentially significant, funding shifts from other water management activities to local and regional conveyance projects (IRWMP bond funding).

2. Increased costs of $250,000 to $350,000 for DWR to develop regulations (IRWMP bond funding).

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, conveyance is necessary to fully realize the benefits of virtually every type of local water management project, such as desalination, recycling, water use efficiency, and storage projects.

The author further contends that the recently passed water bond, Proposition 1 (AB 1471, Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014), provides funding for surface water storage and groundwater storage projects , however, in order to create the greatest possible statewide benefit, it will be necessary to have adequate connections between both.

2. Proposition 1 IRWMP funding. Proposition 1, the Safe Drinking Water, Quality, and Infrastructure Act of 2014, authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation funding for water-related projects and programs. Proposition 1 includes $510 million for the IRWM program and specifically carves out at least $51 million for direct expenditure or non-competitive grants to ensure the involvement of disadvantaged communities in the IRWM process. Proposition 1 also requires at least another $51 million be expended within the IRWM regions on projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.

Bond issuance and audit costs are approximately 7%, so this bill would be funded from the remaining approximately $375 million for planning and implementation grants within the IRWM funding category.

3) Disadvantaged Communities and Economically Distressed Areas. Proposition 1 defines a disadvantaged community as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 % of the statewide annual median household income. Proposition 1 defines an economically distressed area as the following:

1. A municipality with a population of 20,000 persons or less or a rural county, or a reasonably isolated and divisible segment of a larger municipality where the segment of the population is 20,000 persons or less.

2. The area has an annual median household income that is less than 85% of the statewide median household income.

3. An area DWR finds to be in financial hardship, an area with unemployed at a rate that is 2% higher than the statewide average; or, an area with a low population density.

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