Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Existing law requires the department to perform various flood control activities throughout the state. Existing law establishes the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and authorizes the board to engage in various flood control activities along the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, their tributaries, and related areas. Existing law also authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to appropriate and spend money from the general fund of the county for specified flood control purposes in connection with streams or rivers in the county.

This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency preapplication for supplemental consultation and a model fee-for-service agreement, in consultation with a state agency with the power to issue a permit that would authorize a dam safety project or authorize a flood risk reduction project and any interested potential project applicants. The bill would authorize a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication and submit the preapplication to each state agency named in the preapplication at any time. The bill would require the submission to cause, as appropriate for the proposed project and as specified in the preapplication, a state agency to identify how the requested supplemental consultation will be provided. The bill would require supplemental consultation to occur at least once per quarter, except that supplemental consultation would not occur until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The bill would authorize the establishment and collection of fees payable by a project applicant submitting a preapplication as reimbursement to cover specified reasonable costs, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would authorize and encourage certain federal agencies to provide supplemental consultation for those projects.

Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to perform various flood control activities throughout the state. Existing law establishes the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and authorizes the board to engage in various flood control activities along the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, their tributaries, and related areas. Existing law also authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to appropriate and spend money from the general fund of the county for specified flood control purposes in connection with streams or rivers in the county.

This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency preapplication for supplemental consultation and a model fee-for-service agreement, in consultation with a state agency with the power to issue a permit that would authorize a dam safety project or authorize a flood risk reduction project and any interested potential project applicants. The bill would authorize a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication and submit the preapplication to each state agency named in the preapplication at any time. The bill would require the submission to cause, as appropriate for the proposed project and as specified in the preapplication, a state agency to identify how the requested supplemental consultation will be provided. The bill would require supplemental consultation to occur at least once per quarter, except that supplemental consultation would not occur until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The bill would authorize the establishment and collection of fees payable by a project applicant submitting a preapplication as reimbursement to cover specified reasonable costs, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would authorize and encourage certain federal agencies to provide supplemental consultation for those projects.

Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to perform various flood control activities throughout the state. Existing law establishes the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and authorizes the board to engage in various flood control activities along the Sacramento River, the San Joaquin River, their tributaries, and related areas. Existing law also authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to appropriate and spend money from the general fund of the county for specified flood control purposes in connection with streams or rivers in the county.

This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency preapplication for supplemental consultation and a model fee-for-service agreement, in consultation with a state agency with the power to issue a permit that would authorize a dam safety project or authorize a flood risk reduction project and any interested potential project applicants. The bill would authorize a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication and submit the preapplication to each state agency named in the preapplication at any time. The bill would require the submission to cause, as appropriate for the proposed project and as specified in the preapplication, a state agency to appoint a member of the interagency team to work on the proposed project and to meet identify how the requested supplemental consultation will be provided. The bill would require supplemental consultation to occur at least once per quarter, except that an interagency team is prohibited from commencing supplemental consultation would not occur until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The bill would authorize an applicant to request in the preapplication that the interagency team, if a project is large or complex, be colocated for a prescribed period and would require the cost of colocation to be covered by the project applicant by fees included in a written fee-for-service agreement. The bill would authorize the establishment and collection of fees payable by a project applicant submitting a preapplication as reimbursement to cover specified reasonable costs, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would authorize and encourage certain federal agencies to participate in the preapplication process and any interagency team developed. provide supplemental consultation for those projects.

This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and a model fee-for-service agreement, in consultation with a state agency with the power to issue a permit that would authorize a dam safety project or authorize a flood risk reduction project and any interested potential project applicants. The bill would authorize a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication and submit the preapplication to each state agency named in the preapplication at any time. The bill would require the submission to cause, as appropriate for the proposed project and as specified in the preapplication, a state agency to appoint a member of the interagency team to work on the proposed project and to meet at least once per quarter, except that an interagency team is prohibited from commencing until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The bill would authorize an applicant to request in the preapplication that the interagency team, if a project is large or complex, be colocated for a prescribed period and would require the cost of colocation to be covered by the project applicant by fees included in a written fee-for-service agreement. The bill would authorize the establishment and collection of fees payable by a project applicant submitting a preapplication as reimbursement to cover specified reasonable costs, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would authorize and encourage certain federal agencies to participate in the preapplication process and any interagency team developed.

Existing law prohibits an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing certain material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement, if required by the department to protect fish and wildlife resources.

Existing law also establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires a person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, extract materials, or make a substantial change in the use of any water, land, or structure within the area of the commissions jurisdiction, as defined, to secure a permit from the commission.

Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast. The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided.

Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board is designated as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law establishes 9 California regional water quality control boards to coordinate with the state board with respect to water quality control matters. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill material permits in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California regional water quality control board, for certain permits that each agency issues for a dam safety project or flood risk reduction project, beginning July 1, 2020, to keep an accurate record of permit processing times. The bill would require these agencies to issue a report that discloses any legally mandated permit processing times and the average permit processing times for all dam safety projects and flood risk reduction projects, as specified. The bill would require each entity to provide the quarterly report to certain committees of the Legislature and to post the report on the entitys Internet Web site, as prescribed.

This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and a model fee-for-service agreement, in consultation with a state agency with the power to issue a permit that would authorize a dam safety project or authorize a flood risk reduction project and any interested potential project applicants. The bill would authorize a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication and submit the preapplication to each state agency named in the preapplication at any time. The bill would require the submission to cause, as appropriate for the proposed project and as specified in the preapplication, a state agency to appoint a member of the interagency team to work on the proposed project and to meet at least once per quarter, except that an interagency team is prohibited from commencing until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The bill would authorize an applicant to request in the preapplication that the interagency team, if a project is large or complex, be colocated for a prescribed period and would require the cost of colocation to be covered by the project applicant by fees included in a written fee-for-service agreement. The bill would authorize the establishment and collection of fees payable by a project applicant submitting a preapplication as reimbursement to cover specified reasonable costs, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would authorize and encourage certain federal agencies to participate in the preapplication process and any interagency team developed.

Existing law prohibits an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing certain material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement, if required by the department to protect fish and wildlife resources.

Existing law also establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires a person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, extract materials, or make a substantial change in the use of any water, land, or structure within the area of the commissions jurisdiction, as defined, to secure a permit from the commission.

Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast. The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided.

Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board is designated as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law establishes 9 California regional water quality control boards to coordinate with the state board with respect to water quality control matters. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill material permits in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California Regional Water Quality Control Board, regional water quality control board, for certain permits that each entity administers, agency issues for a dam safety project or flood risk reduction project, beginning July 1, 2020, to keep an accurate record of permit processing times. The bill would require these entities agencies to issue a quarterly report that discloses any legally mandated permit processing times and the average permit processing times for all projects and for large-sized dam safety projects and flood risk reduction projects, as specified. The bill would require each entity to provide the quarterly report to certain committees of the Legislature and to post the report on the entitys Internet Web site, as prescribed. This bill would also require these entities to expedite permit processing and approval for a project that will maintain or improve human life safety protection through flood risk reduction or reduction of a risk of dam failure, as specified.

Existing law prohibits an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing certain material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement, if required by the department to protect fish and wildlife resources.

Existing law also establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires a person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, extract materials, or make a substantial change in the use of any water, land, or structure within the area of the commissions jurisdiction, as defined, to secure a permit from the commission.

Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast. The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided.

Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board is designated as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law establishes 9 regional water quality control boards to coordinate with the state board with respect to water quality control matters. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill material permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California Regional Water Quality Control Board, for certain permits that each entity administers, to keep an accurate record of permit processing times. The bill would require these entities to issue a quarterly report that discloses any legally mandated permit processing times and the average permit processing times for all projects and for large-sized projects, as specified. The bill would require each entity to provide the quarterly report to certain committees of the Legislature and to post the report on the entitys Internet Web site, as prescribed. This bill would also require these entities to expedite permit processing and approval for a project that will maintain or improve human life safety protection through flood risk reduction or reduction of a risk of dam failure, as specified.

 VETO  

Bill No: SB 1301

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/16/18

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Hueso, Jackson, McGuire, Monning, Stern, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone, Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/30/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Newman, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Cannella, De León

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 8/28/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Cannella, Chang, De León, Delgado, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/27/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Santa Clara Valley Water District

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and model fee-for-service agreement in order to expedite the review of dam and flood risk reduction projects. This bill provides for agency co-location under certain conditions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, in the Fish and Game Code, an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement under specified circumstances.
2. Establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires a person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, extract materials, or make a substantial change in the use of any water, land, or structure within the area of the commission’s jurisdiction to secure a permit from the commission.
3. Establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast. The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided.
4. Designates the State Water Resources Control Board as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

This bill:

1. For the purposes of implementing supplemental consultation among agencies, enhances interagency cooperation by requiring OPR to develop a joint multi agency preapplication for supplemental consultation and model fee-for-service agreement. A project applicant may complete the preapplication at any time, and is encourage to do coincide with the project’s timelines under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such a filing triggers the creation of an interagency team to work on proposed project provided that a fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The fee agreement is also to cover the costs of OPR in preparing the preapplication and the model fee-for-service agreement.
2. Requires the consultation to occur at least quarterly to consider specified actions that can expedite permit processing including consideration of project mitigation, expediting the processes under CEQA, and conflict resolution between any of the review agencies.
3. Authorizes supplemental consultation by a state agency to include other state or federal permitting agencies, if requested by the applicant.
4. Requires the costs of participating agencies to review the preapplication and participating in the supplemental consultation to be paid as a flat fee to each agency, as specified, by the applicant. Participating agencies are to provide the applicant with a good faith estimate of the reasonable costs for the supplemental consultation. The applicant would agree to these costs in a written fee-for-service agreement. Any fees shall supplement not replace existing fees or funding for permitting, as specified.
5. Encourages the participation of federal agencies in the preapplication process and any interagency team, as appropriate. This process does not limit the authority or discretion of participating state agencies.

Comments

The sponsor has compiled a list of 35 dams across the state with active restrictions due to seismic reasons. It is not known if that is the total universe of dams or flood projects that could utilize the provisions of this bill. Of the 35 identified dams, 7 are owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 4 are owned by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and 4 are owned by the bill’s sponsor. The remainder are owned by single entities none of whom own more than one except for the City of Torrance that owns two small dams.

The largest dams on this list are Lake Almanor in Plumas County (1.3 million acre-feet and owned by Pacific Gas and Electric), Perris in Riverside County (131,000 acre-feet owned by the California Department of Water Resources), El Capitan in San Diego (112,000 acre-feet and owned by that city), and Calaveras Dam, owned by the City and County of San Francisco (100,000 acre-feet and already undergoing renovation).

All of the remaining dams on the list have relatively small capacities, ranging from 46 acre-feet to 60,000 acre-feet. By comparison, the Oroville dam with which all Californians are now very much aware, has a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $300,000 for OPR to develop a pre-application and model fee-for-service agreement to implement the supplemental consultation process.
2. Estimated annual costs of between $450,000 and $600,000 for the Department of Water Resources to participate in the interagency review team.
3. Estimated annual costs of $250,000 for the State Water Resources Control Board to participate in the interagency review team.
4. Estimated annual costs of up to $1.3 million for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to participate in the interagency review team.
5. Estimated annual costs of between $10,000 and $20,000 per project application for the Coastal Commission to participate in the interagency review team, depending on the complexity of the project.

All costs are reimbursable through a fee for service.

SUPPORT: (Verified 10/1/18)

Santa Clara Valley Water District (source)

Alameda County Board of Supervisors

American Water Works Association (CA-NV Section)

Bay Area Council

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

City of Morgan Hill

County of Santa Clara

Cupertino Chamber of Commerce

Employees Association, AFSCME Local 101

Gilroy Chamber of Commerce

Metropolitan Water District

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Milpitas Chamber of Commerce

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers

OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/1/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, the bill, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, will provide state administrators, the Legislature, and the public with an improved permitting structure for important dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. The author points out that these projects reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Because these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones, they often face significant delays in the state regulatory process even after CEQA review has been completed. This is because state agencies, many of whom are under-funded, don’t provide meaningful comments during the CEQA process and only fully engage much later during the permit application review. The late engagement by state agencies can result in costly project redesigns, last-minute funding shortfalls, and significant delay in delivering life safety benefits to the public. The collaborative permitting approach established in this bill also allows potential co-location of the state agencies involved in a dam safety and flood risk reduction projects with the costs of that involvement paid for by the applicant.

The author and sponsor have provided information indicating that permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the regional water quality control boards may

take many months (and up to nearly 3 years) longer than existing statutes allow for those permits in the context of permits for selected flood risk projects.

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Senate Bill 1301 without my signature.

This bill requires state agencies involved in permitting dam safety and flood mitigation projects to provide project applicants quarterly supplemental consultation to those applicants who agree to pay the costs of the consultation.

Under this measure, state agencies must prioritize their limited resources on projects that have applicants willing to pay a "supplemental consultation" fee. Consequently, these agencies may be required to fast-track work on permits for minor projects at the expense of other projects that directly impact the public's health and safety.

This bill attempts to address a perceived shortfall in funding and staffing at the permitting agencies. The proper balance of state agency resources is deliberated in the annual budget process. I suggest the author propose this issue during next year's budget discussion.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/27/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Kiley, Melendez

Prepared by:

10/4/18 12:41:11

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1301

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/16/18

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Hueso, Jackson, McGuire, Monning, Stern, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone, Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/30/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Newman, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Cannella, De León

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/27/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: State permitting: environment: processing procedures: dam safety or flood risk reduction project

SOURCE: Santa Clara Valley Water District

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and model fee-for-service agreement in order to expedite the review of dam and flood risk reduction projects. This bill provides for agency co-location under certain conditions.

Assembly Amendments are technical and clarifying amendments to direct interagency collaboration to expedite permitting.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, in the Fish and Game Code, an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement under specified circumstances.
2. Establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires a person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, extract materials, or make a substantial change in the use of any water, land, or structure within the area of the commission’s jurisdiction to secure a permit from the commission.
3. Establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast. The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided.
4. Designates the State Water Resources Control Board as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

This bill:

1. For the purposes of implementing supplemental consultation among agencies, enhances interagency cooperation by requiring OPR to develop a joint multi agency preapplication for supplemental consultation and model fee-for-service agreement. A project applicant may complete the preapplication at any time, and is encourage to do coincide with the project’s timelines under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such a filing triggers the creation of an interagency team to work on proposed project provided that a fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The fee agreement is also to cover the costs of OPR in preparing the preapplication and the model fee-for-service agreement.
2. Requires the consultation to occur at least quarterly to consider specified actions that can expedite permit processing including consideration of project mitigation, expediting the processes under CEQA, and conflict resolution between any of the review agencies.
3. Authorizes supplemental consultation by a state agency to include other state or federal permitting agencies, if requested by the applicant.
4. Requires the costs of participating agencies to review the preapplication and participating in the supplemental consultation to be paid as a flat fee to each agency, as specified, by the applicant. Participating agencies are to provide the applicant with a good faith estimate of the reasonable costs for the supplemental consultation. The applicant would agree to these costs in a written fee-for-service agreement. Any fees shall supplement not replace existing fees or funding for permitting, as specified.
5. Encourages the participation of federal agencies in the preapplication process and any interagency team, as appropriate. This process does not limit the authority or discretion of participating state agencies.

Comments

The sponsor has compiled a list of 35 dams across the state with active restrictions due to seismic reasons. It is not known if that is the total universe of dams or flood projects that could utilize the provisions of this bill. Of the 35 identified dams, 7 are owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 4 are owned by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and 4 are owned by the bill’s sponsor. The remainder are owned by single entities none of whom own more than one except for the City of Torrance that owns two small dams.

The largest dams on this list are Lake Almanor in Plumas County (1.3 million acre-feet and owned by Pacific Gas and Electric), Perris in Riverside County (131,000 acre-feet owned by the California Department of Water Resources), El Capitan in San Diego (112,000 acre-feet and owned by that city), and Calaveras Dam, owned by the City and County of San Francisco (100,000 acre-feet and already undergoing renovation).

All of the remaining dams on the list have relatively small capacities, ranging from 46 acre-feet to 60,000 acre-feet. By comparison, the Oroville dam with which all Californians are now very much aware, has a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $300,000 for OPR to develop a pre-application and model fee-for-service agreement to implement the supplemental consultation process.
2. Estimated annual costs of between $450,000 and $600,000 for the Department of Water Resources to participate in the interagency review team.
3. Estimated annual costs of $250,000 for the State Water Resources Control Board to participate in the interagency review team.
4. Estimated annual costs of up to $1.3 million for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to participate in the interagency review team.
5. Estimated annual costs of between $10,000 and $20,000 per project application for the Coastal Commission to participate in the interagency review team, depending on the complexity of the project.

All costs are reimbursable through a fee for service.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/18)

Santa Clara Valley Water District (source)

Alameda County Board of Supervisors

American Water Works Association (CA-NV Section)

Bay Area Council

California State Association of Electrical Workers

California State Pipe Trades Council

City of Morgan Hill

County of Santa Clara

Cupertino Chamber of Commerce

Employees Association, AFSCME Local 101

Gilroy Chamber of Commerce

Metropolitan Water District

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Milpitas Chamber of Commerce

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, the bill, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, will provide state administrators, the Legislature, and the public with an improved permitting structure for important dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. The author points out that these projects reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Because these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones, they often face significant delays in the state regulatory process even after CEQA review has been completed. This is because state agencies, many of whom are under-funded, don’t provide meaningful comments during the CEQA process and only fully engage much later during the permit application review. The late engagement by state agencies can result in costly project redesigns, last-minute funding shortfalls, and significant delay in delivering life safety benefits to the public. The collaborative permitting approach established in this bill also allows potential co-location of the state agencies involved in a dam safety and flood risk reduction projects with the costs of that involvement paid for by the applicant.

The author and sponsor have provided information indicating that permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the regional water quality control boards may

take many months (and up to nearly 3 years) longer than existing statutes allow for those permits in the context of permits for selected flood risk projects.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/27/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Kiley, Melendez

Prepared by:

8/28/18 13:05:07

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1301

Author:(Beall)

As Amended Ver:August 6, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUMMARY: Establishes a supplemental consultation process for dam safety and flood-risk reduction projects to expedite the permitting of projects. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a "dam safety project" to mean a project or plan for work on a dam in which reducing the risk of dam failure is an objective of the project.
2. Defines a "flood risk reduction project" to mean a project or plan for work in which flood risk reduction is an objective of the project.
3. Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and model fee-for-service agreement. Allows a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication for supplemental consultation. Filling a preapplication for supplemental consultation triggers a review that requires a state agency, upon determination of project eligibility, to identify how the supplemental consultation will be provided.
4. Specifies that a supplemental consultation will not commence until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. Allows, upon request of the project applicant, other state and federal permitting agencies to attend a supplemental consultation. Requires the supplemental consultation to occur at least once per quarter, and have the following objectives:
   1. Identify actions that may be taken to expedite permit processing and approval;
   2. Consider potential significant environmental impacts and types of mitigation that may be required of the permit;
   3. Provide input on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review; and
   4. Identify potential conflicts between state and federal permits.
5. Specifies the process by which fees will be determined and paid for a joint multiagency preapplication and a supplemental consultation. Specifies that the fees do not supplement or replace existing funding for permitting.
6. Specifies that actions taken by a state agency through a supplemental consultation do not limit the authority or discretion of a state permitting agency with regard to the issuance of a permit.
7. Specifies federal permitting agencies that may and are encouraged to provide supplemental consultation.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Generally, provides that all discretionary projects are subject to environmental review under CEQA. Defines a responsible agency under CEQA to be a public agency, other than the lead agency, to have responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Specifies that a responsible agency complies with CEQA by considering an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration.
2. Generally, may require a number of permits of a project including permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), State Water Resources Control Board, California Air Resources Control Board, the California Coastal Commission, and the California Department of Transportation. Generally requires CEQA be complete before any of those permits may be issued.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $300,000 for OPR to develop a pre-application and model fee-for-service agreement to implement the supplemental consultation process.
2. Estimated annual costs of between $450,000 and $600,000 for the Department of Water Resources to participate in the interagency review team.
3. Estimated annual costs of $250,000 for the State Water Resources Control Board to participate in the interagency review team.
4. Estimated annual costs of up to $1.3 million for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to participate in the interagency review team.
5. Estimated annual costs of between $10,000 and $20,000 per project application for the Coastal Commission to participate in the interagency review team, depending on the complexity of the project.

All costs are reimbursable through a fee for service.

COMMENTS: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the identification of significant environmental impacts of discretionary projects to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. A "responsible agency" under CEQA includes all public agencies with approval authority over the project. CEQA requires responsible agencies to engage in the CEQA process by considering the environmental documents.

There are a number of permits that may be required of a dam safety or flood-risk reduction project including permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Water Resources Control Board, and others. Generally, agencies cannot issue permits until the CEQA process is complete.

Permits are intended to provide on-going environmental protection and allow for adaptation over time. The CEQA process is a one-time approval that may shape a project, but once CEQA compliance is achieved, it does not provide on-going protections.

Typically, state agencies do not have the resources necessary to fully review and comment on all projects going through the CEQA process. This bill attempts to provide a mechanism for state agencies to have additional resources to review dam safety and flood protection projects.

This bill provides a mechanism for expediting the permitting for flood control and dam safety projects that ultimately will provide public safety and protect human life and property.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0004121

Date of Hearing: August 8, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1301

Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:August 6, 2018

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

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes a supplemental consultation process for dam safety and flood-risk reduction projects to expedite the permitting of projects. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a joint multiagency pre-application and model fee-for-service agreement for dam safety and flood-risk reduction projects and allows a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency pre-application for supplemental consultation.
2. Specifies that a supplemental consultation will not commence until a written fee-for-service agreement is reached. Requires the supplemental consultation to occur at least once per quarter and have specified objectives:
   1. Identify actions that may be taken to expedite permit processing and approval.
   2. Consider potential significant environmental impacts and types of mitigation that may be required of the permit.
   3. Provide input on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review.
   4. Identify potential conflicts between state and federal permits.
3. Specifies the process by which fees will be determined and paid for a joint multiagency preapplication and a supplemental consultation. Specifies that the fees do not supplement or replace existing fees or funding for permitting by a state agency.
4. Specifies that actions taken by a state agency through a supplemental consultation do not limit the authority or discretion of a state permitting agency with regard to the issuance of a permit.
5. Specifies federal permitting agencies that may, and are encouraged to provide supplemental consultation.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs of approximately $300,000 for OPR to develop a pre-application and model fee-for-service agreement to implement the supplemental consultation process.
2. Estimated annual costs of between $450,000 and $600,000 for the Department of Water Resources to participate in the interagency review team.
3. Estimated annual costs of $250,000 for the State Water Resources Control Board to participate in the interagency review team.
4. Estimated annual costs of up to $1.3 million for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to participate in the interagency review team.
5. Estimated annual costs of between $10,000 and $20,000 per project application for the Coastal Commission to participate in the interagency review team, depending on the complexity of the project.

All costs are reimbursable through a fee for service.

COMMENTS:

Background and Purpose. The California Environmental Quality Act requires the identification of significant environmental impacts of discretionary projects to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. A "responsible agency" under CEQA includes all public agencies with approval authority over the project. CEQA requires responsible agencies to engage in the CEQA process by considering the environmental documents.

There are a number of permits that may be required of a dam safety or flood-risk reduction project including permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Water Resources Control Board, and others. Generally, agencies cannot issue permits until the CEQA process is complete.

Permits are intended to provide on-going environmental protection and allow for adaptation over time. The CEQA process is a one-time approval that may shape a project, but once CEQA compliance is achieved, it does not provide on-going protections.

Typically, state agencies do not have the resources necessary to fully review and comment on all projects going through the CEQA process. This bill attempts to provide a mechanism for state agencies to have additional resources to review dam safety and flood protection projects.

This bill provides a mechanism for expediting the permitting for flood control and dam safety projects that ultimately will provide public safety and protect human life and property.

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

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1301

Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:June 19, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: State permitting: environment: processing procedures: dam safety or flood risk reduction project

SUMMARY: Makes a dam safety project or a flood risk reduction project eligible for supplemental consultation, as specified, for the purpose of expediting the permitting of the project. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a “dam safety project” to mean a project or plan for work on a dam in which reducing the risk of dam failure is an objective of the project.
2. Defines a “flood risk reduction project” to mean a project or plan for work in which flood risk reduction is an objective of the project.
3. Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and model fee-for-service agreement. Allows a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication for supplemental consultation. Filling a preapplication for supplemental consultation triggers a review that requires a state agency, upon determination of project eligibility, to identify how the supplemental consultation will be provided.
4. Specifies that a supplemental consultation will not commence until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. Allows, upon request of the project applicant, other state and federal permitting agencies to attend a supplemental consultation. Requires the supplemental consultation to occur at least once per quarter, and have the following objectives:
   1. Identify actions that may be taken to expedite permit processing and approval;
   2. Consider potential significant environmental impacts and types of mitigation that may be required of the permit;
   3. Provide input on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review; and
   4. Identify potential conflicts between state and federal permits.
5. Specifies the process by which fees will be determined and paid for a joint multiagency preapplication and a supplemental consultation. Specifies that the fees do not supplement or replace existing funding for permitting.
6. Specifies that actions taken by a state agency through a supplemental consultation do not limit the authority or discretion of a state permitting agency with regard to the issuance of a permit.
7. Specifies federal permitting agencies that may and are encouraged to provide supplemental consultation.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Generally, provides that all discretionary projects are subject to environmental review under CEQA. Defines a responsible agency under CEQA to be a public agency, other than the lead agency, to have responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Specifies that a responsible agency complies with CEQA by considering an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration.
2. Generally, may require a number of permits of a project including permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), State Water Resources Control Board, California Air Resources Control Board, the California Coastal Commission, and the California Department of Transportation. Generally requires CEQA be complete before any of those permits may be issued.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: Makes a dam safety project or a flood risk reduction project eligible for supplemental consultation, as specified, for the purpose of expediting the permitting of the project.

Author’s Statement:

This bill will provide a mechanism for expediting permitting for flood control and dam safety projects that protect human life and safety.

Flood control projects and dam safety enhancements can reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Unfortunately, these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones and often face significant delays in the state regulatory process, even after California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review has been completed. State agencies are required by CEQA to provide advice and comment regarding environmental impacts during the environmental review and community engagement processes. However, under-resourced state agencies often fail to provide meaningful comment during the CEQA process and only fully engage much later during permit application review. Late engagement by state agencies can result in costly project redesigns, last-minute funding shortfalls, and significant delay in delivering the life safety benefits to the public.

Interagency collaboration on vital flood and dam safety projects would help the CEQA process work better for community stakeholders and project applicants. Fees paid by large projects needing this type of collaboration would increase the staffing resources available to state permitting programs. It also would help avoid permitting issues that lead to unanticipated costs such as late-phase project redesigns or significant mitigations for environmental impacts not contemplated in the CEQA process.

The bill would not exempt dam safety and flood risk reduction projects from CEQA or other environmental compliance, but would make those mechanisms work better when it matters most.

Background: CEQA and Permit Process. CEQA requires the identification of significant environmental impacts of discretionary projects to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. A "responsible agency" under CEQA includes all public agencies with approval power over the project. CEQA requires responsible agencies to engage in the CEQA process by considering the environmental documents.

There are a number of permits that may be required of a project including permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and State Water Resources Control Board for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. Generally, agencies cannot issue permits until the CEQA process has been completed. Permits require a specific description of a project that cannot be completed until the scope of a project has been determined through CEQA.

Permits are intended to provide on-going environmental protection and allow for adaptation over time. The CEQA process is a one-time approval that may shape a project, but once CEQA compliance is achieved does not provide on-going protections.

Typically, state agencies do not have the resources necessary to fully review and comment on all projects going through the CEQA process. This bill attempts to provide a mechanism for state agencies to have additional resources to review dam safety and flood protection projects.

Scope of Projects. The sponsor has compiled a list of 35 dams across the state with active restrictions due to seismic reasons. It is not known if that is the total universe of dams or flood projects that could utilize the supplemental consultation provisions of this bill. Of the 35 identified dams, seven are owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, four are owned by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and four are owned by the bill’s sponsor. The remainder are owned by single entities, none of whom own more than one — except for the City of Torrance that owns two small dams.

The largest dams on this list are Lake Almanor in Plumas County (1.3 million acre-feet and owned by Pacific Gas and Electric), Perris in Riverside County (131,000 acre-feet owned by the California Department of Water Resources), El Capitan in San Diego (112,000 acre-feet and owned by that city), and Calaveras Dam, owned by the City and County of San Francisco (100,000 acre-feet and already undergoing renovation).

All of the remaining dams on the list have relatively small capacities, ranging from 46 acre-feet to 60,000 acre-feet. By comparison, the Oroville Dam, with which all Californians are now very much aware, has a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet.

Prior and Related Legislation:

SB 594 (Beall), 2017, would have required state agencies to expedite permit processing and approval for a project that would maintain or improve human life safety protection through flood risk reduction or reduction of a risk of dam failure. The bill was not heard in a policy committee.

Supporting Arguments: In recent years, the number of projects seeking permits has increased while understaffing at state permitting agencies remains an issue. The supplemental consultation provided for under this bill would identity actions that could expedite the required permits, discuss environmental impacts and mitigation, provide feedback on environmental documents, and would resolve any conflicts between the various conditions proposed for permit approval. This collaborative approach would help the CEQA process work better for community stakeholders and project applicants. It would also help avoid permitting issues that lead to unanticipated costs such as late-phase project redesigns or significant mitigations for environmental impacts not contemplated in the CEQA process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AFSCME Local 101

Alameda County Board of Supervisors

Bay Area Council

County of Santa Clara

Cupertino Chamber of Commerce

Gilroy Chamber of Commerce

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Milpitas Chamber of Commerce

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Opposition

None on file

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

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1301

Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:June 19, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: State permitting: environment: processing procedures: dam safety or flood risk reduction project

SUMMARY: Makes a dam safety project or a flood risk reduction project eligible for supplemental consultation, as specified, for the purpose of expediting the permitting of the project. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines a “dam safety project” to mean a project or plan for work on a dam in which reducing the risk of dam failure is an objective of the project.
2. Defines a “flood risk reduction project” to mean a project or plan for work in which flood risk reduction is an objective of the project.
3. Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and model fee-for-service agreement. Allows a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication for supplemental consultation. Filling a preapplication for supplemental consultation triggers a review that requires a state agency, upon determination of project eligibility, to identify how the supplemental consultation will be provided.
4. Specifies that a supplemental consultation will not commence until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered into. Allows, upon request of the project applicant, other state and federal permitting agencies to attend a supplemental consultation. Requires the supplemental consultation to occur at least once per quarter, and have the following objectives:
   1. Identify actions that may be taken to expedite permit processing and approval;
   2. Consider potential significant environmental impacts and types of mitigation that may be required of the permit;
   3. Provide input on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review; and
   4. Identify potential conflicts between state and federal permits.
5. Specifies the process by which fees will be determined and paid for a joint multiagency preapplication and a supplemental consultation. Specifies that the fees do not supplement or replace existing funding for permitting.
6. Specifies that actions taken by a state agency through a supplemental consultation do not limit the authority or discretion of a state permitting agency with regard to the issuance of a permit.
7. Specifies federal permitting agencies that may and are encouraged to provide supplemental consultation.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Generally, provides that all discretionary projects are subject to environmental review under CEQA. Defines a responsible agency under CEQA to be a public agency, other than the lead agency, to have responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Specifies that a responsible agency complies with CEQA by considering an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration.
2. Generally, may require a number of permits of a project including permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), State Water Resources Control Board, California Air Resources Control Board, the California Coastal Commission, and the California Department of Transportation. Generally requires CEQA be complete before any of those permits may be issued.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: Makes a dam safety project or a flood risk reduction project eligible for supplemental consultation, as specified, for the purpose of expediting the permitting of the project.

Author’s Statement:

This bill will provide a mechanism for expediting permitting for flood control and dam safety projects that protect human life and safety.

Flood control projects and dam safety enhancements can reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Unfortunately, these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones and often face significant delays in the state regulatory process, even after California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review has been completed. State agencies are required by CEQA to provide advice and comment regarding environmental impacts during the environmental review and community engagement processes. However, under-resourced state agencies often fail to provide meaningful comment during the CEQA process and only fully engage much later during permit application review. Late engagement by state agencies can result in costly project redesigns, last-minute funding shortfalls, and significant delay in delivering the life safety benefits to the public.

Interagency collaboration on vital flood and dam safety projects would help the CEQA process work better for community stakeholders and project applicants. Fees paid by large projects needing this type of collaboration would increase the staffing resources available to state permitting programs. It also would help avoid permitting issues that lead to unanticipated costs such as late-phase project redesigns or significant mitigations for environmental impacts not contemplated in the CEQA process.

The bill would not exempt dam safety and flood risk reduction projects from CEQA or other environmental compliance, but would make those mechanisms work better when it matters most.

Background: CEQA and Permit Process. CEQA requires the identification of significant environmental impacts of discretionary projects to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. A "responsible agency" under CEQA includes all public agencies with approval power over the project. CEQA requires responsible agencies to engage in the CEQA process by considering the environmental documents.

There are a number of permits that may be required of a project including permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and State Water Resources Control Board for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. Generally, agencies cannot issue permits until the CEQA process has been completed. Permits require a specific description of a project that cannot be completed until the scope of a project has been determined through CEQA.

Permits are intended to provide on-going environmental protection and allow for adaptation over time. The CEQA process is a one-time approval that may shape a project, but once CEQA compliance is achieved does not provide on-going protections.

Typically, state agencies do not have the resources necessary to fully review and comment on all projects going through the CEQA process. This bill attempts to provide a mechanism for state agencies to have additional resources to review dam safety and flood protection projects.

Scope of Projects. The sponsor has compiled a list of 35 dams across the state with active restrictions due to seismic reasons. It is not known if that is the total universe of dams or flood projects that could utilize the supplemental consultation provisions of this bill. Of the 35 identified dams, seven are owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, four are owned by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and four are owned by the bill’s sponsor. The remainder are owned by single entities, none of whom own more than one — except for the City of Torrance that owns two small dams.

The largest dams on this list are Lake Almanor in Plumas County (1.3 million acre-feet and owned by Pacific Gas and Electric), Perris in Riverside County (131,000 acre-feet owned by the California Department of Water Resources), El Capitan in San Diego (112,000 acre-feet and owned by that city), and Calaveras Dam, owned by the City and County of San Francisco (100,000 acre-feet and already undergoing renovation).

All of the remaining dams on the list have relatively small capacities, ranging from 46 acre-feet to 60,000 acre-feet. By comparison, the Oroville Dam, with which all Californians are now very much aware, has a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet.

Double Referral: The bill is double referred to Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Prior and Related Legislation:

SB 594 (Beall), 2017, would have required state agencies to expedite permit processing and approval for a project that would maintain or improve human life safety protection through flood risk reduction or reduction of a risk of dam failure. The bill was not heard in a policy committee.

Supporting Arguments: In recent years, the number of projects seeking permits has increased while understaffing at state permitting agencies remains an issue. The supplemental consultation provided for under this bill would identity actions that could expedite the required permits, discuss environmental impacts and mitigation, provide feedback on environmental documents, and would resolve any conflicts between the various conditions proposed for permit approval. This collaborative approach would help the CEQA process work better for community stakeholders and project applicants. It would also help avoid permitting issues that lead to unanticipated costs such as late-phase project redesigns or significant mitigations for environmental impacts not contemplated in the CEQA process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

AFSCME Local 101

Alameda County Board of Supervisors

Bay Area Council

County of Santa Clara

Cupertino Chamber of Commerce

Gilroy Chamber of Commerce

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Milpitas Chamber of Commerce

Santa Clara Valley Water District

Opposition

None on file

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1301

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/16/18

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Hueso, Jackson, McGuire, Monning, Stern, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone, Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Santa Clara Valley Water District

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and model fee-for-service agreement in order to expedite the review of dam and flood risk reduction projects. This bill provides for agency co-location under certain conditions.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, in the Fish and Game Code, an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement under specified circumstances.
2. Establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires a person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, extract materials, or make a substantial change in the use of any water, land, or structure within the area of the commission’s jurisdiction to secure a permit from the commission.
3. Establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast. The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided.
4. Designates the State Water Resources Control Board as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

This bill:

1. Enhances interagency cooperation by requiring OPR to develop a joint multi agency preapplication and model fee-for-service agreement. A project applicant may complete the preapplication at any time, and is encourage to do coincide with the project’s timelines under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such a filing triggers the creation of an interagency team to work on proposed project provided that a fee-for-service agreement is entered into. The fee agreement is also to cover the costs of OPR in preparing the preapplication and the model fee-for-service agreement
2. Requires the interagency review team to meet at least quarterly to consider specified actions that can expedite permit processing including consideration of project mitigation, expediting the processes under CEQA, and conflict resolution between any of the review agencies,
3. Authorizes, for projects considered large or complex, the applicant to request that the interagency team be co-located for a specified period of time at a location other than the project applicant’s facility. Those costs would be covered by the applicant as provided in the fee agreement.
4. Requires the costs of participating agencies to review the preapplication and participating in the review team to be paid as a flat fee to each agency by the applicant. Participating agencies are to provide the applicant with a good faith estimate of the reasonable costs that would be incurred through the interagency team and any colocation. The applicant would agree to these costs in a written fee-for-service agreement.
5. Limits these procedures for interagency collaboration to projects that require permits from at least two state agencies, and encourages the participation of federal agencies in the preapplication process and any interagency team, as appropriate. This process does not limit the authority or discretion of participating state agencies.

Comments

The sponsor has compiled a list of 35 dams across the state with active restrictions due to seismic reasons. It is not known if that is the total universe of dams or flood projects that could utilize the interagency collaboration provisions of this bill. Of the 35 identified dams, 7 are owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 4 are owned by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and 4 are owned by the bill’s sponsor. The remainder are owned by single entities none of whom own more than one except for the City of Torrance that owns two small dams.

The largest dams on this list are Lake Almanor in Plumas County (1.3 million acre-feet and owned by Pacific Gas and Electric), Perris in Riverside County (131,000 acre-feet owned by the California Department of Water Resources), El Capitan in San Diego (112,000 acre-feet and owned by that city), and Calaveras Dam, owned by the City and County of San Francisco (100,000 acre-feet and already undergoing renovation).

All of the remaining dams on the list have relatively small capacities, ranging from 46 acre-feet to 60,000 acre-feet. By comparison, the Oroville dam with which all Californians are now very much aware, has a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to Senate Appropriations, the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates this bill would result in costs of $784,000 in 2018-19 and $1.3 million in 2019-20 to review requests for eligibility and process approval for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects, database development and maintenance, and coordinate the development of the multiagency pre-application and fee-for-service agreement (General Fund and fees on project applicants). There would likely be costs of $300,000 or more for OPR for increased administrative workload, developing a pre-application and model for fee-for-service agreements (fees on project applicants). The State Water Resources Control Board estimates costs of about $250,000 annually while the State Coastal Commission anticipates costs of up to $100,000 annually to participate in the OPR led permitting process.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18)

Santa Clara Valley Water District (source)

Employees Association of Santa Clara Valley Water District/AFSCME Local 101

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, the bill, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, will provide state administrators, the Legislature, and the public with an improved permitting structure for important dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. The author points out that these projects reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Because these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones, they often face significant delays in the state regulatory process even after CEQA review has been completed. This is because state agencies, many of whom are under-funded, don’t provide meaningful comments during the CEQA process and only fully engage much later during the permit application review. The late engagement by state agencies can result in costly project redesigns, last-minute funding shortfalls, and significant delay in delivering life safety benefits to the public. The collaborative permitting approach established in this bill also allows potential co-location of the state agencies involved in a dam safety and flood risk reduction projects with the costs of that involvement paid for by the applicant.

The author and sponsor have provided information indicating that permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the regional water quality control boards may

take many months (and up to nearly 3 years) longer than existing statutes allow for those permits in the context of permits for selected flood risk projects.

Prepared by:

5/28/18 9:49:11

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 1301 (Beall) - State permitting: environment: processing procedures

Bill Summary:

This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California Regional Water Quality Control Board to keep accurate records of the processing times for permits related to dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. This bill would also establish a consolidated permitting process for these projects.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 25, 2018

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates this bill would result in costs of $671,000 in 2018-19 and $1.1 million in 2019-20 and five new positions to review requests for eligibility and process approval for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects and coordinate the development of the multiagency pre-application and fee-for-service agreement. Of these amounts, $341,000 in 2018-19 and $629,000 in 2019-20 would be obtained through fee-for-service agreements with project applicants while the remaining amounts would be General Fund costs.
• There would likely be costs of $300,000 or more for the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for increased administrative workload, developing a pre-application and model for fee-for-service agreements (fees on project applicants).
• The State Water Resources Control Board estimates costs of about $250,000 annually while the State Coastal Commission anticipates costs of up to $100,000 annually to participate in the OPR led permitting process.

Author Amendments:

Eliminate the requirement for the affected agencies to keep accurate records of the processing times for permits related to dam safety and flood risk reduction projects.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 1301 (Beall) - State permitting: environment: processing procedures

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

Bill Summary:

This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California Regional Water Quality Control Board to keep accurate records of the processing times for permits related to dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. This bill would also establish a consolidated permitting process for these projects.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates this bill would result in costs of $784,000 in 2018-19 and $1.3 million in 2019-20 to review requests for eligibility and process approval for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects, database development and maintenance, and coordinate the development of the multiagency pre-application and fee-for-service agreement (General Fund and fees on project applicants).
• There would likely be costs of $300,000 or more for the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for increased administrative workload, developing a pre-application and model for fee-for-service agreements (fees on project applicants).
• The State Water Resources Control Board estimates costs of about $250,000 annually while the State Coastal Commission anticipates costs of up to $100,000 annually to participate in the OPR led permitting process.

Background:

Existing law, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative 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). CEQA provides that lead agencies must notify and consult responsible agencies and responsible agencies have an opportunity to comment on the CEQA process and mitigation measures to be included in an EIR.

Existing law designates the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law requires the Board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the Board and regional boards to issue dredged or fill permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Proposed Law:

This bill:

1. Require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California regional water quality control board, for certain permits that each agency issues for a dam safety project or flood risk reduction project, beginning July 1, 2020, to keep an accurate record of permit processing times.
2. Requires these agencies to issue a report that discloses any legally mandated permit processing times and the average permit processing times for all dam safety projects and flood risk reduction projects, as specified.
3. Require each entity to provide the quarterly report to certain committees of the Legislature and to post the report on the entity’s Internet Web site, as prescribed.
4. This bill would require the OPR to develop a joint multiagency pre-application and a model fee-for-service agreement, in consultation with a state agency with the power to issue a permit that would authorize a dam safety project or authorize a flood risk reduction project and any interested potential project applicants.
5. Authorizes a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency pre-application and submit the pre-application to each state agency named in the pre-application at any time.
6. Require the submission to cause, as appropriate for the proposed project and as specified in the pre-application, a state agency to appoint a member of the interagency team to work on the proposed project and to meet at least once per quarter, except that an interagency team is prohibited from commencing until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered.
7. Authorizes an applicant to request in the pre-application that the interagency team, if a project is large or complex, be co-located for a prescribed period; provides that the project applicant shall pay the costs of any colocation and require the cost of co-location to be covered by fees included in a written fee-for-service agreement.
8. Authorizes the establishment and collection of fees payable by a project applicant submitting a pre-application as reimbursement to cover specified reasonable costs.
9. Authorizes and encourages certain federal agencies to participate in the pre-application process and any interagency team developed.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 1301

SUBJECT: State permitting: environment: processing procedures

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
   1. Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative 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).
   2. Provides that lead agencies must notify and consult responsible agencies and responsible agencies have an opportunity to comment on the CEQA process and mitigation measures to be included in an EIR.
      
2. Designates the State Water Resources Control Board as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
   

This bill:

1. Require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California regional water quality control board, for certain permits that each agency issues for a dam safety project or flood risk reduction project, beginning July 1, 2020, to keep an accurate record of permit processing times.
2. Requires these agencies to issue a report that discloses any legally mandated permit processing times and the average permit processing times for all dam safety projects and flood risk reduction projects, as specified.
3. Require each entity to provide the quarterly report to certain committees of the Legislature and to post the report on the entity’s Internet Web site, as prescribed.
4. This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency preapplication and a model fee-for-service agreement, in consultation with a state agency with the power to issue a permit that would authorize a dam safety project or authorize a flood risk reduction project and any interested potential project applicants.
5. Authorizes a project applicant to complete a joint multiagency preapplication and submit the preapplication to each state agency named in the preapplication at any time.
6. Require the submission to cause, as appropriate for the proposed project and as specified in the preapplication, a state agency to appoint a member of the interagency team to work on the proposed project and to meet at least once per quarter, except that an interagency team is prohibited from commencing until a written fee-for-service agreement is entered.
7. Authorizes an applicant to request in the preapplication that the interagency team, if a project is large or complex, be co-located for a prescribed period and would require the cost of co-location to be covered by fees included in a written fee-for-service agreement.
8. Authorizes the establishment and collection of fees payable by a project applicant submitting a preapplication as reimbursement to cover specified reasonable costs.
9. Authorizes and encourages certain federal agencies to participate in the preapplication process and any interagency team developed.

Background

1. CEQA: Environmental review 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, then the lead agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (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 an 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.

For major infrastructure projects permits are required from a number of different agencies, according to the sponsor, the mitigation or permit requirements may conflict with other agencies’ permit requirements or with the mitigation as required in the EIR, thereby necessitating revisions to plans, design and potentially the EIR which could result in further delay of public safety projects.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, the bill, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, will provide state administrators, the Legislature, and the public with a transparent measurement of state performance regarding environmental permitting for important dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. The author points out that these projects reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Because these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones, they often face significant delays in the state regulatory process even after CEQA review has been completed. This is because state agencies, many of whom are under-funded, don’t provide meaningful comments during the CEQA process and only fully engage much later during the permit application review. The late engagement by state agencies can result in costly project redesigns, last-minute funding shortfalls, and significant delay in delivering life safety benefits to the public. Further, to expedite the permitting for these projects, the bill establishes a new approach for collaboration and possible co-location of the state agencies involved in a dam safety and flood risk reduction projects with the costs of that involvement paid for by the applicant.

The author and sponsor have provided information indicating that permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the regional water quality control boards may take many months (and up to nearly 3 years) longer than existing statutes allow for those permits in the context of permits for selected flood risk projects.

1. According to the sponsor, “painfully demonstrated by the recent drought, wildfires, mudslides, and floods. Flood control projects and dam safety enhancements can reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Unfortunately, these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones and often face significant delays in the state regulatory process, even after California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review has been completed.

Current law permits authorities to take quick action in response to emergencies by exempting lifesaving projects from normal regulatory permitting. However, some high priority projects to protect human life and safety do not rise to the level of an emergency of clear and imminent danger. Furthermore, due to understaffing at state permitting agencies, deadlines for permitting are often missed, particularly for large projects that yield the most public safety benefit.”

SOURCE:

Santa Clara Valley Water District District

SUPPORT:

Employees Association of Santa Clara Valley Water District/AFSCME Local 101

OPPOSITION:

None received

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB Hearing Date: April 16, 2018

Subject: State permitting: environment: processing times

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

1. Prohibits, in the Fish and Game Code, an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement under specified circumstances.
2. Establishes the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and requires a person or governmental agency wishing to place fill, extract materials, or make a substantial change in the use of any water, land, or structure within the area of the commission’s jurisdiction to secure a permit from the commission.
3. Establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the commission with regard to the regulation of development along the California coast. The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided.
4. Designates the State Water Resources Control Board as the state water pollution control agency for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act. Existing law requires the state board or the regional boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program established by the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires the state and regional boards to issue dredged or fill permits in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill focuses on increasing transparency for permits for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects and proposes a consolidated permitting process for these projects. On the first point, it would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California Regional Water Quality Control Board, to keep accurate records of the processing times for permits related to these projects.

The records include the date a permit is submitted, deemed complete, the number of resubmittals (if any) required for an application to be completed, and the date a permit application is approved or denied.

The agencies identified above would be required to annually report on the average processing times for covered permits, the statutorily required processing times for these permits, and other specified information. The report would be transmitted to the budget and policy committees of the Legislature and posted on the website of each agency.

On the second prong of the bill pertaining to expedited permitting for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects, the bill first defines dam safety and flood risk reduction projects and makes these projects eligible for interagency collaboration for the purpose of expending the permitting of the project.

The Office of Planning and Research is tasked with developing a joint multiagency preapplication and a model fee-for-service agreement that are developed in consultation with the agencies named earlier. The preapplication will identify information that is common to each of these state agency individual permit applications and any preliminary information a state agency may request to be included in the preapplication.

A project applicant may submit a joint multiagency preapplication at any time, but the bill encourages preapplications to be submitted with notices made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, such as a notice of preparation, or a notice of intent.

Filing such an application then triggers each of the relevant state agencies named earlier to appoint a member to an interagency team to work on the proposed project. The team would be required to meet at least quarterly to discuss the project with the applicant.

The team would not commence its activities until reimbursement from the applicant has been determined.

The interagency team would have a series of objectives: (1) to identify actions that may expedite permit processing such that the permit is approved within times established by existing law or faster; (2) to consider environmental impacts and potential mitigation; (3) to provide input on the environmental review document prepared pursuant to CEQA; (4) to resolve any conflicts between the agencies.

For projects considered large or complex, an applicant may additionally request in the preapplication that the interagency team be co-located in a common location for a prescribed period. At the preapplication stage, the costs of the proposed colocation shall be estimated and those costs shall be collected to recover the costs of state agency participation.

The bill provides that the fees payable by a project applicant shall cover the reasonable costs of the interagency team, the OPR costs in developing the pre-application and the fee-for-service agreement.

A flat fee would be paid by the applicant to cover each agency’s costs of appointing a member to the interagency team, as well as the costs of the services requested in the preapplication.

Participating agencies would be required to provide an estimate of their costs and for any co-location, should it be requested.

Applicants that receive services would be required to enter into a fee-for-service agreement that reimburses the agencies for their costs and any co-location.

The bill also provides that it applies only to projects that require a permit from at least two state agencies. It also provides that federal agencies are encourage to participate in the preapplication process and any interagency team that may benefit from federal participation.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, the bill, sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, will provide state administrators, the Legislature, and the public with a transparent measurement of state performance regarding environmental permitting for important dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. The author points out that these projects reduce the risks of natural disasters and save lives. Because these projects are typically located in rivers, streams, and riparian zones, they often face significant delays in the state regulatory process even after CEQA review has been completed. This is because state agencies, many of whom are under-funded, don’t provide meaningful comments during the CEQA process and only fully engage much later during the permit application review. The late engagement by state agencies can result in costly project redesigns, last-minute funding shortfalls, and significant delay in delivering life safety benefits to the public. Further, to expedite the permitting for these projects, the bill establishes a new approach for collaboration and possible co-location of the state agencies involved in a dam safety and flood risk reduction projects with the costs of that involvement paid for by the applicant.

The author and sponsor have provided information indicating that permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the regional water quality control boards may take many months (and up to nearly 3 years) longer than existing statutes allow for those permits in the context of permits for selected flood risk projects.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None received

COMMENTS

1. Double-referral The Rules Committee referred this bill to both the Committee on Natural Resources and Water and to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Therefore, if this bill passes this committee, it will be referred to the Committee on Environmental Quality, which will consider the provisions of this bill that involve the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. As the bill moves forward, the author should consider tightening the language regarding the timeline for the initial payment of the fee and subsequent payments, when appropriate for a given project.
3. How often will the provisions in this bill be used? The first part of the bill dealing reporting the time periods that permits for dam safety and flood risk are under consideration by state agencies is intended to improve the management and timeliness for the issuance of these permits. It will apply for the specified permits regardless of how frequently the second prong of the bill is used.

The second part of the bill dealing with interagency collaboration is more difficult to predict. The sponsor has compiled a list of 35 dams across the state with active restrictions due to seismic reasons. It is not known if that is the total universe of dams or flood projects that could utilize the interagency collaboration provisions of this bill. Of the 35 identified dams, 7 are owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 4 are owned by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and 4 are owned by the bill’s sponsor. The remainder are owned by single entities none of whom own more than one except for the City of Torrance that owns two small dams.

The largest dams on this list are Lake Almanor in Plumas County (1.3 million acre-feet and owned by Pacific Gas and Electric), Perris in Riverside County (131,000 acre-feet owned by the California Department of Water Resources), El Capitan in San Diego (112,000 acre-feet and owned by that city), and Calaveras Dam, owned by the City and County of San Francisco (100,000 acre-feet and already undergoing renovation).

All of the remaining dams on the list have relatively small capacities, ranging from 46 acre-feet to 60,000 acre-feet. By comparison, the Oroville dam with which all Californians are now very much aware, has a capacity of 3.5 million acre-feet.

SUPPORT

Employees Association of Santa Clara Valley Water District/AFSCME Local 101

Santa Clara Valley Water District

OPPOSITION

None Received

-- END --