(1)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill, until January 30, 2020, would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, to request estimates of certain information from an applicant for a new well located within a critically overdrafted basin as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to both the public and to groundwater sustainability agencies and easily accessible. The bill would authorize a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(1)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill, until January 30, 2020, would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, to request estimates of certain information from an applicant for a new well located within a critically overdrafted basin as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to both the public and to groundwater sustainability agencies and easily accessible. The bill would authorize a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(1)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill bill, until January 30, 2020, would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, to request estimates of certain information from an applicant for a new well located within a critically overdrafted basin as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to both the public and to groundwater sustainability agencies and easily accessible. The bill would authorize a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(1)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, to request estimates of certain information from an applicant for a new well located within a critically overdrafted basin as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to both the public and to groundwater sustainability agencies and easily accessible. The bill would authorize a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires a person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, or abandons or destroys a well, or deepens or reperforates a well, to file a report of completion, containing certain required information, with the department. Under existing law, the failure to comply with this requirement or the willful and deliberate falsification of a report of completion is a misdemeanor.

This bill would require a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include certain additional information, including, among other things, the proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume. By adding to reporting requirements, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(1)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, and where the proposed well is to request estimates of certain information from an applicant for a new well located within a critically overdrafted basin, to comply with certain requirements basin as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make certain the information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to both the public and to groundwater sustainability agencies and publicly available and easily accessible and, before issuing any new well permit, to undertake a notice and comment period that includes a noticed public meeting, as prescribed. and easily accessible. The bill would authorize a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires a person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, or abandons or destroys a well, or deepens or reperforates a well, to file a report of completion, containing certain required information, with the department. Under existing law, the failure to comply with this requirement or the willful and deliberate falsification of a report of completion is a misdemeanor.

This bill would require a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include certain additional information, including, among other things, the proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume. By adding to reporting requirements, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(1)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, and where the proposed well is located within a critically overdrafted basin, to comply with certain requirements as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make certain information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to groundwater sustainability agencies and publicly available and easily accessible and, before issuing any new well permit, to undertake a notice and comment period that includes a noticed public meeting, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the department and designated as subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022, except as specified. The act authorizes the department to provide technical assistance to any groundwater sustainability agency in response to that agencys request for assistance in the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

This bill would require the department to provide cities and counties overlying a critically overdrafted basin with ongoing technical assistance to implement the provisions described in paragraph (2). (1).

(3)Existing law requires a person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, or abandons or destroys a well, or deepens or reperforates a well, to file a report of completion, containing certain required information, with the department. Under existing law, the failure to comply with this requirement or the willful and deliberate falsification of a report of completion is a misdemeanor.

This bill would require a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include certain additional information, including, among other things, the proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume. By adding to reporting requirements, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(1)Existing provisions of the California Constitution declare the policy that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of these waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use of the waters in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. Existing law establishes various state water policies, including the policy that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water.

This bill would require, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well, reasonableness of each partys beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of specified factors.

(2)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, and where the proposed well is located within a critically overdrafted basin, to comply with certain requirements as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make certain information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to groundwater sustainability agencies and publicly available and easily accessible and, before issuing any new well permit, to undertake a notice and comment period that includes a noticed public hearing, meeting, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a city or county to issue a new well permit pursuant to an adopted ordinance within a critically overdrafted basin when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the department and designated as subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022, except as specified. The act authorizes the department to provide technical assistance to any groundwater sustainability agency in response to that agencys request for assistance in the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

This bill would require the department to provide cities and counties overlying a critically overdrafted basin with ongoing technical assistance to implement the provisions described in paragraph (2).

(4)Existing law requires a person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, or abandons or destroys a well, or deepens or reperforates a well, to file a report of completion, containing certain required information, with the department. Under existing law, the failure to comply with this requirement or the willful and deliberate falsification of a report of completion is a misdemeanor.

This bill would require a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include certain additional information, including, among other things, the proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume. By adding to reporting requirements, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(1)Existing provisions of the California Constitution declare the policy that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of these waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use of the waters in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. Existing law establishes various state water policies, including the policy that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water.

This bill would require, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well used primarily for domestic use, well, reasonableness of each partys beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of specified factors.

(2)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, and where the proposed well is located within a critically overdrafted basin, to comply with certain requirements as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make certain information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to groundwater sustainability agencies and publicly available and easily accessible and, before issuing any new well permit, to undertake a notice and comment period that includes a noticed public hearing, as prescribed. The bill would require authorize a city or county to find that an applicant for a new water well has complied with these requirements before issuing issue a well permit for a new well located in a critically overdrafted basin, with specified exceptions. pursuant to an adopted ordinance when these requirements have been met. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the department and designated as subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022, except as specified. The act authorizes the department to provide technical assistance to any groundwater sustainability agency in response to that agencys request for assistance in the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

This bill would require the department to provide cities and counties overlying a critically overdrafted basin with ongoing technical assistance to implement the provisions described in paragraph (2).

(4)Existing law requires a person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, or abandons or destroys a well, or deepens or reperforates a well, to file a report of completion, containing certain required information, with the department. Under existing law, the failure to comply with this requirement or the willful and deliberate falsification of a report of completion is a misdemeanor.

This bill would require a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include certain additional information, including, among other things, the proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume. By adding to reporting requirements, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(1)Existing provisions of the California Constitution declare the policy that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of these waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use of the waters in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. Existing law establishes various state water policies, including the policy that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water.

This bill would require, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well used primarily for domestic use, reasonableness of each partys beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of specified factors.

(2)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, and where the proposed well is located within a critically overdrafted basin, to comply with certain requirements as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county overlying that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make certain information about the new well included in the application for a well permit available to groundwater sustainability agencies and publicly available and easily accessible and, before issuing any new well permit, permit, to undertake a notice and comment period. period that includes a noticed public hearing, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit a new water well from being developed in a critically overdrafted basin except in compliance with these provisions and require a city or county to find that an applicant for a new water well has complied with these requirements before issuing a well permit for a new well located in a critically overdrafted basin, with specified exceptions. The bill would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to be in compliance with these provisions, as determined by the Department of Water Resources, to be eligible to receive state funding for groundwater recharge or other water supply projects. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the department and designated as subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022, except as specified. The act authorizes the department to provide technical assistance to any groundwater sustainability agency in response to that agencys request for assistance in the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

This bill would require the department to provide cities and counties overlying a critically overdrafted basin with ongoing technical assistance to implement the provisions described in paragraph (2).

(4)Existing law requires a person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, or abandons or destroys a well, or deepens or reperforates a well, to file a report of completion, containing certain required information, with the department. Under existing law, the failure to comply with this requirement or the willful and deliberate falsification of a report of completion is a misdemeanor.

This bill would require a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include certain additional information, including, among other things, the proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume. By adding to reporting requirements, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

(2)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, to comply with certain requirements as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to make certain information about the new well included in the application for a well permit publicly available and easily accessible and, before issuing any new well permit, to undertake a notice and comment period. The bill would prohibit a new water well from being developed in a critically overdrafted basin except in compliance with these provisions and with specified exceptions. The bill would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to be in compliance with these provisions, as determined by the Department of Water Resources, to be eligible to receive state funding for groundwater recharge or other water supply projects. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the department and designated as subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022, except as specified. The act authorizes the department to provide technical assistance to any groundwater sustainability agency in response to that agencys request for assistance in the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

This bill would require the department to provide cities and counties overlying a critically overdrafted basin with ongoing technical assistance to implement the provisions described in paragraph (1). (2).

(1)Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt a model water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance implementing certain standards for water well construction, maintenance, and abandonment and requires each county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, not later than January 15, 1990, to adopt a water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment ordinance that meets or exceeds certain standards. Under existing law, if a county, city, or water agency, where appropriate, fails to adopt an ordinance establishing water well, cathodic protection well, and monitoring well drilling and abandonment standards, the model ordinance adopted by the state board is required to take effect on February 15, 1990, and is required to be enforced by the county or city and have the same force and effect as if adopted as a county or city ordinance.

This bill would require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, as defined, to comply with certain requirements as part of an application for a well permit. The bill would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to make certain information about the new well included in the application for a well permit publicly available and easily accessible and, before issuing any new well permit, to undertake a notice and comment period. The bill would prohibit a new water well from being developed in a critically overdrafted basin except in compliance with these provisions and with specified exceptions. The bill would require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to be in compliance with these provisions, as determined by the Department of Water Resources, to be eligible to receive state funding for groundwater recharge or other water supply projects. By increasing the duties of cities and counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the department and designated as subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022, except as specified. The act authorizes the department to provide technical assistance to any groundwater sustainability agency in response to that agencys request for assistance in the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan.

This bill would require the department to provide cities and counties overlying a critically overdrafted basin with ongoing technical assistance to implement the provisions described in paragraph (1).

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

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

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 252

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-2, 3/28/17

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Atkins, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Stern

NOES: Stone, Vidak

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/26/17

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Lara

NOES: Nguyen, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hernandez

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 23-14, 5/30/17

AYES: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Dodd, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Newman, Pan, Portantino, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Gaines, Glazer, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, Hernandez, Roth

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-31, 9/11/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill establishes conditions on the issuance of water well drilling permits for wells in overdrafted basins.

Assembly Amendments

delete provisions regarding well interference, delete provisions regarding notifying lenders and adjacent landowners of the proposed well, clarify provisions regarding the type of information required to be on an application for a well permit, clarify the methods a city or county may use to make the permit information public, add a January 30, 2020 sunset, and make other technical and clarifying changes.

Existing law:

1. Establishes, in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), that it was the Legislature’s intent “To recognize and preserve the authority of cities and counties to manage groundwater pursuant to their police powers.”
2. Assigns cities and counties a number of different responsibilities, including issuing permits for water well construction.
3. Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to designate groundwater basins as high- or medium-priority basins and to further identify basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft.
   1. High- and medium-priority basins identified as subject to critical conditions of overdraft must be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) under a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2020.
   2. All other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins must be managed under a GSP or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2022.

This bill:

1. Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to do take specific actions as part of an application for a well permit, including providing specific information about the new well in the application for the well permit.
2. Requires a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the information provided in the new well permit application available to the public.
3. Authorizes a city or county to issue a permit for a new water well in a critically overdrafted basin when these new requirements have been met. These requirements do not apply to:
   1. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimis extractor.
   2. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well.
   3. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that substantially complies with these new requirements.
   4. An applicant for a new water well in or a city or county overlying a basin that is not a critically overdrafted basin.
   5. An applicant for a new water well located within a basin that has a groundwater sustainability plan that has been determined to be adequate.
4. Sunsets these provisions on January 30, 2020.
5. Makes a number of findings regarding the need for the new requirements.

Comments

Based in large part on Stanislaus County. The new article established by this bill largely mirrors the new well drilling provisions in Stanislaus County’s groundwater ordinance.

A bridge until GSPs are adopted. This bill is intended to provide guidance on permitting new wells up until the time new GSPs are adopted in the affected basins. Many, if not all such GSP are likely to include provisions governing the spacing and other aspects of new wells.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill has negligible state impact.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/17)

Bay Area Council

CalCAN

California Alliance of Family Farmers

California Coastal Protection Network

California Groundwater Coalition

California League of Conservation Voters

CERES

Condor’s Hope

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Karuk Tribe

Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability

North Coast Stream Flow Coalition

North County Watch

Planning and Conservation League

Sierra Club California

The Nature Conservancy

Union of Concerned Scientists

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/17)

Association of California Water Agencies

Kern County

Kings River Conservation District

Milk Producers Council

Tulare County

Western Growers Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was a critical step toward achieving groundwater sustainability. However, it will not be fully implemented for several years, allowing groundwater overdraft to continue, negatively impacting water supplies for existing pumpers. Greater transparency is needed to provide existing pumpers and landowners with important information about the use of shared groundwater resources, specifically regarding applications for new well permits. This bill protects existing groundwater pumpers and landowners most at risk from increased groundwater overdraft by increasing transparency about proposed new wells in critically overdrafted basins. It requires new well permit applicants to provide basic information about the proposed well, and requires cities and counties to make the details of new well permit applications publicly available, prior to approval.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents raise a number of issues, including:

• It undermines the intent of SGMA to achieve groundwater sustainability through local management by requiring cities and counties that overlay overdraft basins to take specific actions regarding new wells.
• It imposes significant burdens on well applicants and cities and counties that could open the door for litigation. SB 252 creates an extensive list of information an applicant must provide. These requirements are overly burdensome, raise privacy issues due to the information being made public.
• The Legislature should allow SGMA and local efforts to succeed before adding additional mandates.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-31, 9/11/17

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

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Cooper

Prepared by:

9/11/17 21:42:12

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 252

Author:(Dodd)

As Amended Ver:

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 23-14

SUMMARY: This bill codifies factors to be considered in well interference complaints and establishes conditions on the issuance of water well drilling permits for wells in overdrafted basins. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, and if the proposed well is located within a critically overdrafted basin, to request estimates of the following information, to the extent it can be reasonably known, as part of the application:
2. A map of the location, as specified;
3. The depth;
4. The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, schedule and annual extraction volume;
5. The geologic siting information, including, but not limited to, water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain;
6. The distance from any potential sources of pollution onsite and on adjacent properties, as specified;
7. The distance from ponds, lakes, and streams within 300 feet;
8. Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed;
9. For a well below Corcoran clay, a map showing the location of canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads within two miles;
10. The size in acres of the area to be served by the well; and,
11. The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other.
12. Requires a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include the same information this bill requires for the new well application.
13. Requires a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the required information publicly available and easily accessible to groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) located within the basin where the new well is located. Specifies that methods include, but are not limited to, posting the information on the city's or county's Internet Web site or providing the availability of an email mailing list management system for all interested parties.
14. Allows a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when the requirements of this bill are met, in addition to any requirements set forth in an ordinance adopted by the city or county or the standards adopted by a regional board for an area under the jurisdiction of the city or county, pursuant to existing law, as applicable.
15. Provides that the provisions of the bill do not apply to any of the following:
16. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimis extractor;
17. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well;
18. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill, as certified in a public finding by the city or county that it has an ordinance in effect that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill;
19. An applicant for a new water well that is not located within a critically overdrafted basin;
20. An applicant for a new water well located within a basin that is not designated as a probationary basin by the State Water Resources Control Board and that has a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) adopted in accordance with existing law; and,
21. A public agency that substantially meets or exceeds the requirements of the bill through another requirement of law. Specifies that in order to be exempt, the applicant shall document the laws that substantially meet or exceed the requirements and how the requirements of those laws are met.
22. Defines terms for purposes of the bill.
23. Makes a number of findings and declarations pertaining to critically overdrafted basins and the need for greater transparency.
24. Sunsets the local provisions of the bill as of January 31, 2020.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes, in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), that it was the legislature's intent "To recognize and preserve the authority of cities and counties to manage groundwater pursuant to their police powers."
2. Establishes that water rights of neighboring groundwater pumpers are correlative—therefore a groundwater pumper may use groundwater in a manner that does not interfere with other users under the general principle of common law.
3. Resolves water well interference cases under principles of common law.
4. Assigns cities and counties a number of different responsibilities, including issuing permits for water well construction.
5. Specifies that cities and counties have a number of different responsibilities, including land use planning and permitting, and issuing permits for water well construction.
6. Requires the DWR to evaluate groundwater basins and designate them as high, medium, low or very low, according to various factors including, but not limited to, level of dependence upon the basin by municipal and agricultural users.
7. Requires the DWR to investigate existing patterns of groundwater extraction and groundwater recharge within basins to identify basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft.
8. Requires that local agencies in high- and medium-priority basins subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) form one or more Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) by June 30, 2017.
9. Requires that GSAs in basins with chronic overdraft develop and adopt a GSP for their basin by January 31, 2020.
10. Requires that GSAs in all other high- and medium-priority basins subject to SGMA develop and adopt GSPs by January 31, 2022.
11. Prohibits a groundwater extractor who increases pumping after January 1, 2015, during the time the GSP is under development, from using that pumping increase, as the basis of an expanded claim to groundwater against other user's rights.
12. Defines sustainable groundwater management in a GSP as avoiding undesirable results in the basin from groundwater pumping that results in any of the following: lowering of groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and depletions of interconnected surface waters.
13. Provides GSAs with optional tools for reaching sustainability including, but not limited to, the ability to conduct investigations, collect fees, limit pumping, require measurement and reporting of groundwater extractions, monitor compliance, charge civil penalties for violations, and implement plans and programs to recharge a basin.
14. Authorizes the State Water Board to declare a basin in probationary status under specified circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible state costs.

Background: Groundwater is the portion of water from precipitation that does not run into surface streams but rather infiltrates (either naturally or deliberately) under the surface of the ground. In a sense, all groundwater starts as some form of surface water, meaning that the two types of water are integrally connected. Much like a sponge, the ground, depending on soil type, soaks up the groundwater into basins available for use. This can happen over a period ranging from several years to over a millennium in some cases. Areas where groundwater is present or saturated are called aquifers, which generally have boundaries defined as basins. As water is drawn out of these basins, via wells or seepage into surface streams, groundwater availability can be reduced.

Groundwater supplies about 30% of California's overall dedicated water supplies in average precipitation years. In dry years, this increases statewide to about 40%. This is because when surface water supplies are restricted, both local water agencies and irrigators (farmers) increase groundwater pumping to meet water supply needs. At least 43% of Californians obtain at least a portion of their drinking water annually from groundwater sources.

During years where surface water deliveries are not available and rainfall is scarce, groundwater may provide up to 100% of irrigation water for certain areas. In some areas where surface supplies are not accessible or economically feasible, groundwater provides 100% of a community's public water.

The DWR estimates that there are between one to two million water wells (irrespective of condition or whether used or idle) scattered throughout the state. On average, 10,000 to 15,000 more wells are added to this total each year. Most are situated in the 515 groundwater basins/sub-basins in California, although many are located in the foothill and mountainous areas.

In 2009, the Legislature passed SB 6 X7 (Steinberg), Chapter 1, Statutes of 2009-10 Seventh Extraordinary Session, mandating a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. As a result the DWR developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The law anticipates that the monitoring of groundwater elevations required by the legislation will be done by local entities. The first two statewide CASGEM reports have been submitted, but do not yet paint a complete groundwater picture for the state.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established, through an initial set of three bills in 2014, a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management. SGMA requires groundwater-dependent regions to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Specifically, SGMA requires a local process for high- or medium- priority basins to sustainably manage basins within 20 years, with basins in critical overdraft having to come into compliance two years earlier. Of the 515 basins, groundwater basins and sub-basins in California, 127 have been designated by the DWR as high- or medium-priority basins. The 127 basins account for about 96% of the state's groundwater use. Additionally, 21 basins have been identified by the DWR as being in a condition of critical overdraft. While critically overdraft basins are spread throughout the state, most of the San Joaquin Valley basins have been designated as being in a condition of critical overdraft.

Correlative Water Rights. SGMA did not alter groundwater rights. The water rights of neighboring groundwater pumpers are correlative. Each may use only his or her reasonable share for beneficial uses. In most areas of the state, overlying land owners may extract groundwater and put it to beneficial use without impediment. According to the author, this bill is intended to address water rights within a groundwater basin. When one well interferes with another, the common law allows a well owner to protect his or her water right by bringing an action for well interference. The author's staff asserts the language in proposed Water Code Section 106.1 is drawn from Section 850A of the Second Restatement of Torts. The Restatement of Torts summarizes principles of common law, and it is often cited by courts.

Recent Amendments. Recent amendments taken in Appropriations Committee: 1) streamline the findings and declarations to the scope of the amended bill; 2) clarify that the local requirements of the bill are in effect until December 31, 2020; and, 3) make other technical and clarifying changes.

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001609

Date of Hearing: August 30, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 252

Author:(Dodd) – As Amended Ver:August 21, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to request estimates of certain information form an applicant for a new well. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, and if the proposed well is located within a critically overdrafted basin, to request estimates of the following information, to the extent it can be reasonably known, as part of the application:
2. A map of the location, as specified;
3. The depth;
4. The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, schedule and annual extraction volume;
5. The geologic siting information, including, but not limited to, water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain;
6. The distance from any potential sources of pollution onsite and on adjacent properties, as specified;
7. The distance from ponds, lakes, and streams within 300 feet;
8. Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed;
9. For a well below Corcoran clay, a map showing the location of canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads within two miles;
10. The size in acres of the area to be served by the well; and,
11. The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other.
12. Requires a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include the same information this bill requires for the new well application.
13. Requires a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the required information publicly available and easily accessible to groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) located within the basin where the new well is located. Specifies that methods include, but are not limited to, posting the information on the city’s or county’s Internet Web site or providing the availability of an email mailing list management system for all interested parties.
14. Allows a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when the requirements of this bill are met, in addition to any requirements set forth in an ordinance adopted by the city or county or the standards adopted by a regional board for an area under the jurisdiction of the city or county, pursuant to existing law, as applicable.
15. Provides that the provisions of the bill do not apply to any of the following:
16. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimis extractor;
17. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well;
18. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill, as certified in a public finding by the city or county that it has an ordinance in effect that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill;
19. An applicant for a new water well that is not located within a critically overdrafted basin;
20. An applicant for a new water well located within a basin that is not designated as a probationary basin by the State Water Resources Control Board and that has a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) adopted in accordance with existing law; and,
21. A public agency that substantially meets or exceeds the requirements of the bill through another requirement of law. Specifies that in order to be exempt, the applicant shall document the laws that substantially meet or exceed the requirements and how the requirements of those laws are met.
22. Defines terms for purposes of the bill.
23. Makes a number of findings and declarations pertaining to critically overdrafted basins and the need for greater transparency.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible state impact.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “Cumulatively, critical water basins experience nearly 2 million acre feet of overdraft annually. Subsidence in some locations has exceeded more than 20 feet in the last two decades. Subsidence leads to crumbling roads, bridges, aqueducts, pipelines, and more. Those are state assets that state taxpayers and ratepayers paid for, and for which they will have to pay to repair. Public health is at risk as aquifer depletion leads to higher concentrations of pollutant contamination. State policy guarantees clean drinking water for all Californians. Transparency will help all stakeholders to contemplate innovative solutions and assist the implementation of SGMA plans as they are adopted.”
2. Background. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management. SGMA requires groundwater-dependent regions to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Specifically, SGMA requires a local process for high- or medium- priority basins to sustainably manage basins within 20 years, with basins in critical overdraft having to come into compliance two years earlier. Of the 515 basins, groundwater basins and sub-basins in California, 127 have been designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as high- or medium-priority basins. The 127 basins account for about 96% of the state’s groundwater use. Additionally, 21 basins have been identified by the DWR as being in a condition of critical overdraft. While critically overdrafted basins are spread throughout the state, most of the San Joaquin Valley basins have been designated as being in a condition of critical overdraft. This bill applies to wells that are in cities and counties that overly basins in critical overdraft.
3. Suggested Amendments. SGMA requires basins with chronic overdraft to develop and adopt a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) by January 31, 2020. Since this bill only applies to basins with GSPs, it makes sense to sunset the provisions of the bill at the same time.

Additionally, if a small portion of a basin is not covered by a GSP under the provisions of this bill, the entire basin would be subject to the provisions of the bill. The author may wish to specify that the actual site in which the well is located is what matters as it relates to whether this bill is applicable.

Well completion logs are submitted to DWR by well drillers within 60 days of completion of the well project. The information required involves the details of siting and construction, and methods for preventing contaminated waters from one aquifer from mixing with another aquifer. Failure to comply with this requirement is a misdemeanor. Adding the additional information required in the well permit, some of which is only known, or reasonably known, by the landowner, does not make sense. The author may wish to remove this provision.

Lastly, the finding and declarations go beyond the scope of the bill. The author may wish to modify or delete these provisions.

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

Date of Hearing: July 12, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 252

Author:(Dodd) – As Amended Ver:June 28, 2017

SENATE VOTE: 23-14

SUBJECT: Water wells.

SUMMARY: Requires a city or county to provide public notice, receive public comment, and hold a public meeting for a well permit application if the well is proposed in a critically overdrafted basin, except in specified circumstances, and prescribes the conditions that must be met prior to permit issuance by the city or county. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide a city or county overlying a basin designated by DWR as subject to critical conditions of overdraft with ongoing technical assistance to implement the provisions listed below.
2. Requires a well completion report for a water well in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to include additional information, pursuant to 3c), below.
3. Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin, and where the proposed well is located within a critically overdrafted basin, to do all of the following as part of an application for a well permit:
   1. Verify that the applicant has read a specified section of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and acknowledges that the extraction of groundwater may not be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against, any claim of prescription in a medium- or high-priority basin between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or the approval by DWR of an alternative, whichever is sooner;
   2. Notify all contiguous landowners of the application for the well permit, where it can be found for review, and the public meeting and opportunity for public comment, pursuant to 4), below;
   3. Include all of the following information to the extent that it can be reasonably known about the new well in the application for the well permit:
      1. A map of the location, as well as information including, but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates and elevation of the proposed well;
      2. The depth;
      3. The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume;
      4. The geologic siting information, including, but not limited to, water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain;
      5. The distance from any potential sources of pollution onsite and on adjacent properties, including, but not limited to, existing or propose septic systems, wells, animal or fowl enclosures, transmission lines, or sewer lines;
      6. The distance from ponds, lakes, and streams within 300 feet;
      7. Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed;
      8. For a well below Corcoran clay, a map showing the location of canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads within two miles;
      9. The estimated cumulative extraction volume before January 1, 2020, and after 20 years;
      10. The size in acres of the area to be served by the well; and,
      11. The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other.
   4. Verify that the applicant has complied with all requirements of this section and include a list of all notified parties, pursuant to 3b), above.
4. Requires a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to do both of the following:
   1. Make the information provided pursuant to 3c), above, publicly available and easily accessible and available to groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) located within the basin where the new well is located. Specifies that methods include, but are not limited to, posting the information on the city’s or county’s Internet Web site or providing the availability of an email mailing list management system for all interested parties; and,
   2. Before issuing any new well permit for a well located within a critically overdrafted basin, undertake a notice and comment period that includes a public meeting, noticed pursuant to 5), below, that gives landowners, GSAs, and other groundwater extractors an opportunity to comment on the application for the new wells.
5. Requires notice of the meeting to be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the meeting to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within the radius set by the city or county of the real property upon which the proposed well is located. Specifies, in lieu of using the latest equalized assessment roll, that the agency may use records of the county assessor that contain more recent information than the equalized assessment roll. Provides that the city or county, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice, may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the city or county in which the proceeding is conducted at least 10 days prior to the meeting, if the number of owners to whom the notice would be mailed or delivered is greater than 1,000.
6. Requires, if the notice is mailed or delivered, pursuant to 5), above, the notice to be any of the following:
   1. Published, pursuant to a specified section of the Government Code, in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the city or county at least 10 days prior to the meeting;
   2. Posted at least 10 days prior to the meeting in at least three public paces within the boundaries of the city or county, including one public place in the area directly affected by the proceeding; and,
   3. Published on a publicly available Internet Web site with the available feature of an email mailing list management system for receipt of postings on this Internet Web site.
7. Requires the notice to include the date, time, and place of the meeting, the identity of the officer or body responsible for issuing the well permit or his or her designee who will conduct the meeting, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of the real property upon which the proposed well would be located.
8. Allows a city or county to issue a new well permit within a critically overdrafted basin when the requirements of this bill are met, in addition to any requirements set forth in an ordinance adopted by the city or county or the standards adopted by a regional board for an area under the jurisdiction of the city or county, pursuant to existing law, as applicable.
9. Provides that the provisions of the bill do not apply to any of the following:
   1. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimis extractor;
   2. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well;
   3. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill, as certified in a public finding by the city or county that it has an ordinance in effect that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill;
   4. An applicant for a new water well that is not located within a critically overdrafted basin;
   5. An applicant for a new water well located within a basin that is not designated as a probationary basin by the state board and that has a GSP adopted in accordance with existing law; and,
   6. A public agency that substantially meets or exceeds the requirements of the bill through another requirement of law. Specifies that in order to be exempt, the applicant shall document the laws that substantially meet or exceed the requirements and how the requirements of those laws are met.
10. States that the bill’s provisions do not, in any manner, alter, change, affect, modify, or enlarge the authority of the city or county to deny, condition, or otherwise modify the proposed well, nor the standards, measurements, or criteria applicable to the approval of the proposed well permit, under an ordinance adopted by the city or county or under the standards adopted by a regional board for an area under the jurisdiction of the city or county pursuant to existing law, as specified.
11. Defines terms for purposes of the bill.
12. Makes a number of findings and declarations pertaining to critically overdrafted basins and the need for greater transparency.
13. States that no reimbursement is required because a local agency has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessment sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Assigns cities and counties a number of different responsibilities, including issuing permits for water well construction.
2. Specifies that cities and counties have a number of different responsibilities, including land use planning and permitting, and issuing permits for water well construction.
3. Prohibits a groundwater extractor who increases pumping after January 1, 2015, during the time the GSP is under development, from using that pumping increase, as the basis of an expanded claim to groundwater against other user's rights.
4. Establishes SGMA to provide local groundwater agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater.
5. Requires, by January 31, 2020, all basins designed as high- or medium-priority basins by DWR that have been designated in Bulletin 118, as may be updated or revised on or before January 1, 2017, as basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft, to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans.
6. Requires, by January 31, 2022, all basins designed as high- or medium-priority basins by DWR that are not subject to 5), above, to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans.
7. Allows any local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin to elect to be a GSA for that basin, except as specified.
8. Requires the local agency or agencies to hold a public hearing in the county or counties overlying the basin, prior to electing to be a GSA, and to provide specified notice of that hearing, pursuant to existing law.
9. Requires a local agency or combination of local agencies that elects to be the GSA to submit a notice of intent to DWR, as specified.
10. Allows a combination of local agencies to form a GSA by using any of the following methods:
    1. A joint powers agreement (JPA); or,
    2. A memorandum of agreement or other local agreement.
11. Requires a GSP to be developed and implemented for each medium- or high- priority basin by a GSA to meet the sustainability goal established, pursuant to SGMA.
12. Specifies that a GSP may be any of the following:
    1. A single plan covering the entire basin developed and implemented by one GSA;
    2. A single plan covering the entire basin developed and implemented by multiple GSAs; or,
    3. Multiple plans implemented by multiple GSAs and coordinated, pursuant to a single coordination agreement that covers the entire basins, as specified.
13. Allows the State Water Board, after notice and public hearing, to designate a basin as a probationary basin, if the board makes certain specified findings.
14. Requires DWR, in conjunction with other public agencies, to conduct an investigation of the state’s groundwater basins, and requires DWR to identify the state’s groundwater basins on the basis of geological and hydrological conditions and consideration of policy boundary lines whenever practical. Requires DWR to also investigate existing general patterns of groundwater extraction and groundwater recharge within those basins to the extent necessary to identify basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft. Allows DWR to revise the boundaries of groundwater basins based on its own investigations or information provided by others. Requires DWR to report its findings to the Governor and Legislature in years ending in 5 or 0.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Groundwater is the portion of water from precipitation that does not run into surface streams but rather infiltrates (either naturally or deliberately) under the surface of the ground. In a sense, all groundwater starts as some form of surface water, meaning that the two types of water are integrally connected. Much like a sponge, the ground, depending on soil type, soaks up the groundwater into basins available for use. This can happen over a period ranging from several years to over a millennium in some cases. Areas where groundwater is present or saturated are called aquifers, which generally have boundaries defined as basins. As water is drawn out of these basins, via wells or seepage into surface streams, groundwater availability can be reduced.

Groundwater supplies about 30% of California’s overall dedicated water supplies in average precipitation years. In dry years, this increases statewide to about 40%. This is because when surface water supplies are restricted, both local water agencies and irrigators (farmers) increase groundwater pumping to meet water supply needs. At least 43% of Californians obtain at least a portion of their drinking water annually from groundwater sources.

During years where surface water deliveries are not available and rainfall is scarce, groundwater may provide up to 100% of irrigation water for certain areas. In some areas where surface supplies are not accessible or economically feasible, groundwater provides 100 % of a community’s public water.

The DWR estimates that there are between one to two million water wells (irrespective of condition or whether used or idle) scattered throughout the state. On average, 10,000 to 15,000 more wells are added to this total each year. Most are situated in the 515 groundwater basins/sub-basins in California, although many are located in the foothill and mountainous areas.

In 2009, the Legislature passed SB6 x7 (Steinberg), Chapter 1, Statues of 2009, Seventh Extraordinary Session, mandating a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. As a result, the DWR developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The law anticipates that the monitoring of groundwater elevations required by the legislation will be done by local entities. The first two statewide CASGEM reports have been submitted, but do not yet paint a complete groundwater picture for the state.

Of the 515 basins, groundwater basins and sub-basins in California, 127 have been designated by the DWR as high- or medium-priority basins. The 127 basins account for about 96% of the state’s groundwater use. Additionally, 21 basins have been identified by the DWR as being in a condition of critical overdraft. While critically overdraft basins are spread throughout the state, most of the San Joaquin Valley basins have been designated as being in a condition of critical overdraft.

1. Local Groundwater Management and SGMA. The Legislature passed SGMA [SB 1168 (Pavley), AB 1739 (Dickinson) and SB 1319 (Pavley), Statutes of 2014], creating a statewide requirement to sustainably manage groundwater resources. The package of bills was signed by Governor Brown with the objective to ensure the long-term reliability of groundwater resources and connected surface water resources by requiring sustainable management. GSAs must by formed by 2017, GSPs for critically overdrafted basins must be written by 2020, and sustainability must be reached by 2040. Prior to 2014, there was no statutory mandate to manage groundwater in California.

Prior to SGMA, there were several ways that groundwater was managed at the local level.
A local agency that provided water service was authorized to develop and implement a groundwater management plan, known as AB 3030 plans. The Legislature also created a number of “special act special districts” that addressed groundwater management – these local agencies were created via statute to establish unique governance structures and grant powers that were customized to the problems and solutions of a particular groundwater basin. The acts creating these special act special districts are located in the Water Appendix.

Local Control and Governance Options under SGMA. SGMA requires local entities in medium- and high-priority basins to establish GSAs by June 2017, to avoid state intervention. GSAs must self-identify by June 30, 2017, to DWR, and can include a city, a county, a special district, or a combination of these agencies organized via a legal agreement, like a JPA or Memorandum of Agreement. One agency can form a GSA for the entire basin, or multiple agencies can form individual GSAs and coordinate for basin sustainability. There are multiple options for local agencies to manage groundwater under SGMA, including alternatives to forming a GSA and developing a GSP. SGMA does not specify exactly how GSAs should govern local groundwater resources to achieve sustainability goals.

All groundwater basins designated as medium- or high-priority and identified as subject to critical conditions of overdraft must be managed under one or more GSPs by January 31, 2020. The deadline is two years later (January 31, 2022) for other medium- or high-priority basins. The goal of the GSPs is to achieve operation within the basins’ sustainable yield within 20 years of plan implementation.

1. Bill Summary. This bill requires a city or county to provide public notice, receive public comment, and hold a public meeting for a well permit application if the well is proposed in a critically overdrafted basin, and prescribes the contents of the application that must be met prior to permit issuance by the city or county. The applicant must include all of the following information to the extent that it can be reasonably known about the new well in the application for the well permit:
   1. A map of the location, as well as information including, but not limited to, global positioning system coordinates and elevation of the proposed well;
   2. The depth;
   3. The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume;
   4. The geologic siting information, including, but not limited to, water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain;
   5. The distance from any potential sources of pollution onsite and on adjacent properties, including, but no limited to, existing or proposed septic systems, wells, animal or fowl enclosures, transmission lines, or sewer lines;
   6. The distance from ponds, lakes, and streams within 300 feet;
   7. Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed;
   8. For a well below Corcoran clay, a map showing the location of canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads within two miles;
   9. The estimated cumulative extraction volume before January 1, 2020, and after 20 years;
   10. The size in acres of the area to be served by the well; and,
   11. The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other;

Once in receipt of this information, the city or county must make the information publicly available and easily accessible and available to GSAs located within the basin where the new well is located. Before the city or county can issue the new well permit, that city or county must undertake a notice and comment period that includes a public meeting, as specified, that gives landowners, GSAs, and other groundwater extractors an opportunity to comment on the application for the new well.

Provisions in the bill also require well permit applicants to notify all contiguous landowners of the application, where it can be found for review, and the public meeting and opportunity for public comment that is required in the bill, in addition to verifying that the applicant has read specified provisions of SGMA related to extraction of groundwater between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of the GSP. The applicant must also self-certify that they have complied with requirements for additional information for the well permit, and that they have notified the required parties of the well permit application.

The bill specifically deals with those basins that are in critical overdraft, and exempts certain types of well permits from the provisions of the bill, including the following:

• 1. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimis extractor;
  2. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well;
  3. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill, as certified in a public finding by the city or county that it has an ordinance in effect that substantially complies with the requirements of this bill;
  4. An applicant for a new water well that is not located within a critically overdrafted basin;
  5. An applicant for a new water well located within a basin that is not designated as a probationary basin by the state board and that has a GSP adopted in accordance with existing law; and,
  6. A public agency that substantially meets or exceeds the requirements of the bill through another requirement of law. Specifies that in order to be exempt, the applicant shall document the laws that substantially meet or exceed the requirements and how the requirements of those laws are met.

This bill allows a city or county to issue a new well permit when the requirements above have all been met, in addition to any requirements set forth in an ordinance adopted by the city or county or the standards adopted by a regional board for an area under the jurisdiction of the city or county, as applicable. This bill is sponsored by the author.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Cumulatively, critical water basins experience nearly 2 million acre feet of overdraft annually. Subsidence in some locations has exceeded more than 20 feet in the last two decades. Subsidence leads to crumbling roads, bridges, aqueducts, pipelines, and more. Those are state assets that state taxpayers and ratepayers paid for, and for which they will have to pay to repair. Public health is at risk as aquifer depletion leads to higher concentrations of pollutant contamination. State policy guarantees clean drinking water for all Californians.

“Depleted aquifers place stress on alternative water supplies from the delta, much of which is in my Senate District. This stress makes it more difficult to balance competing needs for Delta water. Some suggest that we do nothing until SGMA plans are prepared and adopted several years from now. The longer we wait to consider the undesirable results of drilling, the more difficult it will be to achieve groundwater sustainability once the plans are adopted.

“Notwithstanding the enactment of SGMA in 2014, the increased pumping from irrigation wells has resulted in more than 3,100 domestic and small community wells in critical basins to go dry. Drilling costs for everyone have increased, and we are hard-pressed to clean up what’s left in the ground. Transparency will help all stakeholders to contemplate innovative solutions and assist the implementation of SGMA plans as they are adopted.”

1. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
   1. Filling the Gap. GSAs are required to address undesirable results that occur after January 1, 2015. By January 31, 2020, high-and medium-priority basins identified as subject to critical conditions of overdraft must be managed by a GSP. This means that in the next two years, these GSAs will be working diligently, with support from the state, to develop and adopt a GSP. Cities and counties are allowed to, but are not required to, participate in GSAs. In the interim period, before the adoption of a GSP, existing local well permitting rules, common law, the state constitutional provisions related to water, and existing state laws (including those pertaining to groundwater basin adjudications), present the current means to manage the groundwater.

Supporters argue that groundwater levels have continued to decline since SGMA passed, and that this bill is necessary to bridge the gap by requiring greater scrutiny and transparency prior to GSPs being in place in 2020. Opponents, to the contrary, argue that any additional mandates on top of SGMA will take away from the ability of GSAs to dedicate their resources toward developing a GSP, and will only serve as a distraction to meeting the requirements of SGMA.

• 1. Transparency. Supporters argue that greater transparency – including the notification to contiguous land owners, list of specified requirements in the well application, public noticing, public comment and public meeting requirements – is needed to provide existing pumpers and landowners with important information about the use of shared groundwater resources. Opponents, however, argue that requiring the city or county to hold a notice and comment period that includes a public meeting for each well application requires the city or county to expend resources for a meeting in which no decision is made and no new information is collected, and would not actually achieve meaningful transparency.
  2. Litigation Concerns. Opposition argues that provisions in the bill will open well permit applicants up to potential litigation, specifically in the list of information an applicant must provide that is “reasonably known” by that applicant. Opposition also argues that the requirement to “notify contiguous landowners” of the well permit is vague and unclear in terms of how to satisfy such requirements, and might be used against the applicant should the notification be found inadequate.

1. Committee Amendments. In order to address some of the concerns raised above, the Committee may wish to consider the following amendments:
   1. Require Cities and Counties to request estimates on well permit application. In Section 13808, require cities and counties overlying a critically overdrafted basin in which there is a well permit application to request estimates of the information from the applicant or the applicant’s agent (instead of requiring an applicant to provide the information as part of an application for a well permit).
   2. Remove provisions, as follows:
      1. Strike the requirement to verify that the applicant has read the specified section of SGMA pertaining to extraction of groundwater contained in Section 13808 of the bill, and strike the requirement to provide notice to contiguous landowners of the well permit in Section 13808.
      2. Strike the requirements for cities and counties to undertake the notice and comment period that includes a public meeting in Section 13808.2 of the bill.
   3. No ordinance update. Add language to ensure that nothing in the bill’s requirements for the list of information specified in the well permit application in Section 13808 triggers a city or county to amend its existing ordinance.
   4. Accessible information. Clarify that information provided in the well application needs to be made available to the public for each pending well application.
   5. Municipal Wells. Add, to the list of exemptions contained in Section 13808.4, “A city or county municipal well to provide water supply solely for residents of the city or county.”
2. Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill will improve transparency and accountability of new wells by improving reporting requirements in overdrafted basins, including the proposed depth and capacity, estimated extraction volume, planned use, location, and other details about these new wells. They argue that increased drilling in the recent past years in critically overdrafted basins is driving down aquifer levels and drying up shallower wells, including domestic wells. Overdrafting of groundwater has been shown to damage infrastructure, and they are concerned that continued overdraft will affect expensive state infrastructure, such as highways and canals.
3. Arguments in Opposition. Opposition argues that this bill undermines the intent of SGMA to achieve groundwater sustainability through local management. Requiring cities and counties that overlay overdraft basins to take specific actions regarding new wells is counter to SGMA’s goal and hinders the ability of local agencies to analyze and determine the necessary management tools required to achieve sustainability in each basin. Opponents also argue that the bill imposes significant burdens on well applicants and cities and counties that could open the door for litigation, and creates an extensive list of information an applicant must provide, which opponents feel are overly burdensome.
4. Double-referral. This bill was heard in the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on
   June 27, 2017, and passed with a 9-6 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Audubon California

Borrego Water District

California Climate and Agriculture Network

California Coastal Protection Network

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Groundwater Coalition

California League of Conservation Voters

CERES

Clean Water Action

Community Alliance with Family Farmers

Community Water Center

Condor’s Hope

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Karuk Tribe

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

North Coast Streamflow Coalition

North County Water

Planning and Conservation League

Sierra Club

The Nature Conservancy

Union of Concerned Scientists

Opposition

African-American Farmers of California

Agricultural Council of California

Almond Alliance of California

Association of California Egg Farmers

Association of California Water Agencies

California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Citrus Mutual

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Inc.

California Dairies, Inc.

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Fresh Fruit Association

California Grain and Feed

California Groundwater Association

California League of Food Processors

Opposition (continued)

California Pear Grower Association

California Seed Association

California State Association of counties

California Strawberry Commission

California Tomato Growers Association

California Warehouse Association

Family Winemakers of California

Far West Equipment Dealers Association

Fresno County Board of Supervisors

Kern County Water Agency

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Water Association

League of California Cities (unless amended)

Milk Producers Council

Nisei Farmers League

Northern California Water Association (unless amended)

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors

Tulare County Board of Supervisors

Valley Ag Water Coalition

Western Agricultural Processors Association

Western Growers Association

Western Plant Health Association

Wine Institute

Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 252

Author:(Dodd) – As Amended Ver:June 14, 2017

SENATE VOTE: 23-14

SUBJECT: Water wells

SUMMARY: This bill codifies factors to be considered in well interference complaints and establishes conditions on the issuance of water well drilling permits for wells in overdrafted basins. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, in an action alleging liability for interference with a water well, the reasonableness of each party’s beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of specific factors.
2. Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to take specific actions as part of an application for a well permit, including providing specific information about the new well in the application for the well permit.
3. Requires a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the information provided in the new well permit application available and easily accessible and to provide a notice and comment period.
4. Authorizes a city or county to issue a permit for a new water well in a critically overdrafted basin when these new requirements have been met. These requirements do not apply to:
   1. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimus extractor.
   2. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well.
   3. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that substantially complies with these new requirements.
   4. An applicant for a new water well in or a city or county overlying a basin that is not a critically overdrafted basin.
   5. An applicant for a new water well located within a basin that is not designated as a probationary basin by the state board and that has a groundwater sustainability plan that has been determined to be adequate.
5. Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to do all of the following as part of an application for a well permit:
   1. Acknowledge that, pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the extraction of groundwater may not be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against, any claim of prescription in a medium- or high-priority basin between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).
   2. Inform any lenders for the new well of that acknowledgement.
   3. Agree that if the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) finds through the development of a GSP that the new well contributes to an undesirable result, the new well will cease production unless the applicant can contribute to an offset or other course of action determined by the GSA.
   4. Notify all adjacent landowners of the application for the well permit and where it can be found for review and the public hearing and opportunity for public comment.
   5. Include all of the following information about the new well in the application for the well permit:
      1. A map of the location, global positioning system coordinates, and elevation of the proposed well.
      2. The depth of the well.
      3. The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume.
      4. The geologic siting information, including water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain.
      5. The distance from structures onsite and on adjacent properties, including, but not limited to, existing or proposed septic systems, wells, animal or fowl enclosures, transmission lines, or sewer lines.
      6. Distance from ponds, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
      7. Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed.
      8. For a well below Corcoran clay, the location of infrastructure sensitive to subsidence within two miles, including, but not limited to, canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads.
      9. The estimated cumulative extraction volume before January 1, 2020, and after 20 years.
      10. The size in acres of the area to be served by the well and the size in acres of the contiguous owned property on which the well is located.
      11. The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other.
6. Requires the DWR to provide a city or county overlying a basin designated by the DWR as subject to critical conditions of overdraft with ongoing technical assistance to implement the new article.
7. Makes a number of findings regarding the need for the new requirements.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes, in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), that it was the legislature’s intent “To recognize and preserve the authority of cities and counties to manage groundwater pursuant to their police powers.”
2. Establishes that water rights of neighboring groundwater pumpers are correlative—therefore a groundwater pumper may use groundwater in a manner that does not interfere with other users under the general principle of common law.
3. Resolves water well interference cases under principles of common law.
4. Assigns cities and counties a number of different responsibilities, including issuing permits for water well construction.
5. Specifies that cities and counties have a number of different responsibilities, including land use planning and permitting, and issuing permits for water well construction.
6. Requires the DWR to evaluate groundwater basins and designate them as high, medium, low or very low, according to various factors including, but not limited to, level of dependence upon the basin by municipal and agricultural users.
7. Requires the DWR to investigate existing patterns of groundwater extraction and groundwater recharge within basins to identify basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft.
8. Requires that local agencies in high- and medium-priority basins subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) form one or more Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (GSAs) by June 30, 2017.
9. Requires that GSAs in basins with chronic overdraft develop and adopt a GSP for their basin by January 31, 2020.
10. Requires that GSAs in all other high- and medium-priority basins subject to SGMA develop and adopt GSPs by January 31, 2022.
11. Prohibits a groundwater extractor who increases pumping after January 1, 2015, during the time the GSP is under development, from using that pumping increase, as the basis of an expanded claim to groundwater against other user's rights.
12. Defines sustainable groundwater management in a GSP as avoiding undesirable results in the basin from groundwater pumping that results in any of the following: lowering of groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and depletions of interconnected surface waters.
13. Provides GSAs with optional tools for reaching sustainability including, but not limited to, the ability to conduct investigations, collect fees, limit pumping, require measurement and reporting of groundwater extractions, monitor compliance, charge civil penalties for violations, and implement plans and programs to recharge a basin.
14. Authorizes the State Water Board to declare a basin in probationary status under specified circumstances.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Between $300,000 and $1 million (special fund) to DWR to provide technical assistance to landowners and local jurisdictions.
• Unknown costs to the state as a landowner dependent upon wells.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement:

Cumulatively, critical water basins experience nearly 2 million acre feet of overdraft annually. Subsidence in some locations has exceeded more than 20 feet in the last two decades. Subsidence leads to crumbling roads, bridges, aqueducts, pipelines and more. Those are state assets that state taxpayers and ratepayers paid for, and for which they will have to pay to repair. Public health is at risk as aquifer depletion leads to higher concentrations of pollutant contamination. State policy guarantees clean drinking water for all Californians.

Depleted aquifers place stress on alternative water supplies from the delta, much of which is in my senate district. This stress makes it more difficult to balance competing needs for delta water. Some suggest that we do nothing until sustainable groundwater management plans are prepared and adopted several years from now. The longer we wait to consider the undesirable results of drilling, the more difficult it will be to achieve groundwater sustainability once the plans are adopted.

Notwithstanding the enactment of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014, the increased pumping from irrigation wells has resulted in more than 3,100 domestic and small community wells in critical basins to go dry. Drilling costs for everyone have increased, and we are hard pressed to clean-up what’s left in the ground. Transparency will help all stakeholders to contemplate innovative solutions and assist the implementation of sustainable groundwater management plans as they are adopted.

Background: Groundwater is the portion of water from precipitation that does not run into surface streams but rather infiltrates (either naturally or deliberately) under the surface of the ground. In a sense, all groundwater starts as some form of surface water, meaning that the two types of water are integrally connected. Much like a sponge, the ground, depending on soil type, soaks up the groundwater into basins available for use. This can happen over a period ranging from several years to over a millennium in some cases. Areas where groundwater is present or saturated are called aquifers, which generally have boundaries defined as basins. As water is drawn out of these basins, via wells or seepage into surface streams, groundwater availability can be reduced.

Groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s overall dedicated water supplies in average precipitation years. In dry years, this increases statewide to about 40 percent. This is because when surface water supplies are restricted, both local water agencies and irrigators (farmers) increase groundwater pumping to meet water supply needs. At least 43 percent of Californians obtain at least a portion of their drinking water annually from groundwater sources.

During years where surface water deliveries are not available and rainfall is scarce, groundwater may provide up to 100 percent of irrigation water for certain areas. In some areas where surface supplies are not accessible or economically feasible, groundwater provides 100 percent of a community’s public water.

The DWR estimates that there are between one to two million water wells (irrespective of condition or whether used or idle) scattered throughout the state. On average, 10,000 to 15,000 more wells are added to this total each year. Most are situated in the 515 groundwater basins/sub-basins in California, although many are located in the foothill and mountainous areas.

In 2009, the Legislature passed SB6 x7 (Steinberg), Chapter 1, Statues of 2009, Seventh Extraordinary Session, mandating a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. As a result the DWR developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The law anticipates that the monitoring of groundwater elevations required by the legislation will be done by local entities. The first two statewide CASGEM reports have been submitted, but do not yet paint a complete groundwater picture for the state.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established, through an initial set of three bills in 2014, a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management. SGMA requires groundwater-dependent regions to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Specifically, SGMA requires a local process for high- or medium- priority basins to sustainably manage basins within 20 years, with basins in critical overdraft having to come into compliance two years earlier. Of the 515 basins, groundwater basins and sub-basins in California, 127 have been designated by the DWR as high- or medium-priority basins. The 127 basins account for about 96% of the state’s groundwater use. Additionally, 21 basins have been identified by the DWR as being in a condition of critical overdraft. While critically overdraft basins are spread throughout the state, most of the San Joaquin Valley basins have been designated as being in a condition of critical overdraft.

Correlative Water Rights. SGMA did not alter groundwater rights. The water rights of neighboring groundwater pumpers are correlative. Each may use only his or her reasonable share for beneficial uses. In most areas of the state, overlying land owners may extract groundwater and put it to beneficial use without impediment. According to the author, this bill is intended to address water rights within a groundwater basin. When one well interferes with another, the common law allows a well owner to protect his or her water right by bringing an action for well interference. The author’s staff asserts the language in proposed Water Code section 106.1 is drawn from Section 850A of the Second Restatement of Torts. The Restatement of Torts summarizes principles of common law, and it is often cited by courts.

SGMA Soon Enough? This bill also asks the question, “will SGMA be effective soon enough?” One of the central features of SGMA is that groundwater management in California is to be accomplished locally, with state support and intervention only after local efforts have not been successful. GSA’s are required to address undesirable results that occur after January 1, 2015. The law makes it incumbent upon locals to address groundwater issues that come up after that date, including the drilling of new wells and their impacts. By January 31, 2020, high and medium priority basins identified as subject to critical conditions of overdraft must be managed by a GSP. This means that in the next two years, these GSAs will be working constantly, with support from the state, to develop and adopt a GSP. Cities and counties are allowed to, but are not required to, participate in GSAs. In the interim period, before the adoption of a GSP, existing local well permitting rules, common law, the state constitutional provisions related to water, and existing state laws (including those pertaining to groundwater basin adjudications), present the current means to manage the groundwater.

A Two-Year Effective Bill, or Longer? Section 13808.4 (5) of this bill states that cities and counties may only approve well permits if the following applies: “an applicant for a new water well located within a basin that is not designated as a probationary basin by the state board and that has a groundwater sustainability plan adopted in accordance with (current law).” SGMA requires GSPs to begin implementation of their plans by January 2020, following a series of requirements including a 90-day review period. For basins not in probationary status, this bill would only be in effect for two years (assuming the bill is put into effect January 1, 2018). For basins in probationary status, state intervention, as prescribed in law, will essentially work to the same effect.

Local Actions. Cities and counties are responsible for issuing permits for groundwater extraction facilities. This bill is modeled off of an ordinance in Stanislaus County which would prohibit new groundwater wells that lead to “the unsustainable extraction of groundwater within the unincorporated areas of the County.” The Stanislaus County ordinance requires applicants for groundwater extraction facility permits to demonstrate that the extraction from the facility will not “constitute unsustainable extraction of groundwater.” Other counties currently have or at times have put in place restrictions on groundwater extraction in response to their local groundwater management needs. This includes fourteen counties overlaying most of the medium and high-priority basins.

The Stanislaus County ordinance faced and prevailed, in Superior Court, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit. The challenge pertained to the County not applying a CEQA analysis on the permitting of wells because of reliance on the applicant certifying the impacts of the new facility. Last year, the Legislature passed SB 88 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 27, Statues of 2015, that among other things, excluded city and county ordinances that limit or prohibit the drilling of new or deeper groundwater wells from CEQA until July 1, 2017, or the end of the drought state of emergency declared by the Governor, whichever is later.

Double Referral: If this bill should pass this committee it will be re-referred to Assembly Local Government Committee. The bill raises various questions that may be considered in more depth in that committee including the timeframe of the bill, and proposed meeting and noticing requirements.

Recent Author’s Amendments Affect Local Government and Timelines: According to the author, recent amendments primarily: (1) clarify the local well permit ordinances are not affected by this bill; (2) clarify notice procedures; (3) ensure that no new discretionary decisions are required where they are not now required; and, (4) allow well permits wherever the well application has already gone through a full environmental review pursuant to local permitting requirement.

Arguments in Support: Supporters argue that this bill will improve transparency and accountability of new wells by improving reporting requirements in overdrafted basins, including the proposed depth and capacity, estimated extraction volume, planned use, location, and other details about these new wells. They argue that increased drilling in the recent past years in critically overdrafted basins is driving down aquifer levels and drying up shallower wells, including domestic wells. Overdrafting of groundwater has been shown to damage infrastructure, and they are concerned that continued overdraft will affect expensive state infrastructure, such as highways and canals.

According to the author, “Recently, the Department of Water Resources released a new report from NASA, showing that areas of the San Joaquin Valley, some of which have critical water basins, continue to experience significant subsidence, resulting in damage to state and federal water infrastructure. Acting DWR Director William Croyle said that the rate of subsidence are ‘troubling and unsustainable…the current rates jeopardize infrastructure serving millions of people. Groundwater pumping now puts at risk the very system that brings water to the San Joaquin Valley. The situation is untenable.’”

Arguments in Opposition: A number of arguments have been raised, mainly by agricultural interests. In opposing the bill, they refer to the Governor’s signing message related to the SGMA bill package in 2014, which stated “a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally. Local agencies will now have the power to assess the conditions of their groundwater basins and take the necessary steps to bring those basins in a state of chronic long-term overdraft into balance.” According to the opposition:

1. The bill changes common law concerning groundwater disputes and will trigger basin-wide adjudications, undermining the SGMA process. Claims of well interference, or quiet title, against a well owner believed to be unlawfully impacting rights to use groundwater, except in very limited circumstances, leads to a basin-wide groundwater adjudication. This is because the only way for a well owner to demonstrate well interference is to prove the alleged interferer is pumping in excess of their correlative right to groundwater in the basins.
2. It undermines the intent of SGMA to achieve groundwater sustainability through local management. Requiring cities and counties that overlay overdraft basins to take specific actions regarding new wells is counter to SGMA’s goal and hinders the ability of local agencies to analyze and determine the necessary management tools required to achieve sustainability in each basin.
3. The bill imposes significant burdens on well applicants and cities and counties that could open the door for litigation. SB 252 creates an extensive list of information an applicant must provide. These requirements are overly burdensome, raise privacy issues due to the information being made public.
4. The bill would deprive cities and counties overlying critically overdrafted basins from receiving state funding for projects necessary to comply with SGMA if the DWR deems a city or county is not in compliance with the requirements of the bill.
5. The bill does not have a sunset, so cities and counties overlying critically overdrafted basins will be required to comply with the requirements of this bill in perpetuity, even if the GSA in the basin determines there is a better course of action to be taken concerning groundwater extractions than is mandated in the bill.
6. The Legislature should allow SGMA and local efforts to succeed before adding additional mandates.

Prior and Related Legislation.

The three-bill package of legislation forming SGMA and related statutes is: SB 1168 (Pavley), Chapter 346, Statutes of 2014; AB 1739 (Dickinson) Chapter 347, Statutes of 2014; and, SB 1319 (Pavley), Chapter 348, Statutes of 2014.

SB 1317 (Wolk), of 2016, would have required a city or county overlying a basin designated as a high- or medium-priority basin to, under specified conditions and with exceptions, prohibit the issuance of a permit for a new groundwater extraction facility, or establish a process which requires an applicant for a permit to demonstrate the extraction of groundwater from the proposed facility will not contribute to or create an undesirable result. This bill died in Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

Suggested Committee Amendments: In addition to technical and conforming language, suggested committee amendments focus the bill by:

1. Removing Section 106.1 which codified current practice relative to liability for well interference.
2. Focusing the findings and declarations relative to existing law and practice, including impacts to groundwater users in critically overdrafted basins;
3. Removing notification to lenders;
4. Removing language that provides for well cessation if the GSA finds through a GSP the well creates an undesirable result (this section is unnecessary with recent amendments that make this bill redundant after a GSP is adopted);
5. Clarifying the information that will be included in the well permit, so long as it is reasonably known.
6. Allowing for notification of well permits to be made through a ‘list-serve’ to all interested parties, in addition to other options provided by a city or county; and,
7. Clarify language relative to the role of a county assessor in the notification of meetings.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Audubon California

California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN)

California Coastal Protection Network

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Groundwater Coalition

California League of Conservation Voters

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Ceres

Clean Water Action

Community Alliance with Family Farmers

Community Water Center

Condor’s Hope Ranch, Cuyama Valley, Santa Barbara County

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Karuk Tribe

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Nature Conservancy, The

North Coast Streamflow Coalition

North County Watch

Planning and Conservation League

Sierra Club

Union of Concerned Scientists

Opposition

African American Farmers of California

Agricultural Council of California

Almond Alliance of California

Association of California Egg Farmers

Association of California Water Agencies

California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Citrus Mutual

California Cotton Ginners & Growers Association

California Dairies, Inc.

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Fresh Fruit Association

California Grain & Feed Association

California Groundwater Association

California League of Food Processors

California Pear Growers

California Seed Association

California State Association of Counties

California Strawberry Commission

California Tomato Growers Association

California Warehouse Association

Family Winemakers of California

Far West Equipment Dealers Association

Fresno County Board of Supervisors

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Water Association

League of California Cities

Milk Producers Council

Nisei Farmers League

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority

Valley Ag Water Coalition

Western Agricultural Processors Association

Western Growers Association

Western Plant Health Association

Wine Institute

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 252

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-2, 3/28/17

AYES: Hertzberg, Allen, Atkins, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Stern

NOES: Stone, Vidak

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-2, 4/26/17

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Lara

NOES: Nguyen, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hernandez

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/17

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill codifies factors to be considered in well interference complaints and establishes conditions on the issuance of water well drilling permits for wells in overdrafted basins.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Resolves water well interference cases under principles of common law.
2. Establishes, in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), that it was the legislature’s intent “To recognize and preserve the authority of cities and counties to manage groundwater pursuant to their police powers.”
3. Assigns cities and counties a number of different responsibilities, including issuing permits for water well construction.
4. Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to designate groundwater basins as high- or medium-priority basins and to further identify basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft.
   1. High- and medium-priority basins identified as subject to critical conditions of overdraft must be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) under a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2020.
   2. All other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins must be managed under a GSP or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2022.

This bill:

1. Requires, in an action alleging liability for interference with a water well, the reasonableness of each party’s beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of specific factors.
2. Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to do take specific actions as part of an application for a well permit, including providing specific information about the new well in the application for the well permit.
3. Requires a city or county that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make the information provided in the new well permit application available and easily accessible and to provide a notice and comment period.
4. Authorizes a city or county to issue a permit for a new water well in a critically overdrafted basin when these new requirements have been met. These requirements do not apply to:
   1. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimis extractor.
   2. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well.
   3. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that substantially complies with these new requirements.
   4. An applicant for a new water well in or a city or county overlying a basin that is not a critically overdrafted basin.
   5. An applicant for a new water well located within a basin that is not designated as a probationary basin by the state board and that has a groundwater sustainability plan that has been determined to be adequate.
5. Makes a number of findings regarding the need for the new requirements.

Comments

Domestic Wells Are Particularly Vulnerable. The vast majority of water wells in California are for domestic purposes. Such wells tend to be fairly shallow and low volume. As such, they are particularly vulnerable to changes in groundwater conditions. Indeed, until fairly recently, stories of domestic wells going dry have been regularly featured in the news.

Well Interference Can Simply Be A Problem Of Well Spacing. Opponents suggest that resolving well interference problems generally requires adjudicating the entire groundwater basin. However, sometimes the problem is that wells are simply too close to each other. If a small shallow domestic well is too close to a significantly larger and deeper well, the operation of the larger well can easily create a cone of depression that drops below the bottom of the smaller well, even if both wells are pumping well within their correlative groundwater rights.

Common Law On Well Interference. The water rights of neighboring groundwater pumpers are correlative. Each may use only his or her reasonable share for beneficial uses. When one well interferes with another, the common law allows a well owner to protect his or her water right by bringing an action for well interference.

The author’s staff asserts the language in proposed Water Code section 106.1 is drawn from Section 850A of the Second Restatement of Torts. The Restatement of Torts summarizes principles of common law, and it is often cited by courts.

Based In Large Part On Stanislaus County. The new article established by this bill largely mirrors the new well drilling provisions in Stanislaus County’s groundwater ordinance.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Between $300,000 and $1 million (special fund) to DWR to provide technical assistance to landowners and local jurisdictions.
• Unknown costs to the state as a landowner dependent upon wells.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/17)

California Climate and Agriculture Network

California Coastal Protection Network

California Groundwater Coalition

California League of Conservation Voters

Ceres

Clean Water Action

Community Alliance with Family Farmers

Community Water Center

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Karuk Tribe

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

North Coast Streamflow Coalition

North County Watch

Owners Condor's Hope Ranch

Sierra Club

The Nature Conservancy

Union of Concerned Scientists

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/17)

African-American Farmers of California

Agricultural Council of California

Almond Alliance of California

Association of California Egg Farmers

Association of California Water Agencies

California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Citrus Mutual

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Inc.

California Dairies, Inc.

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Fresh Fruit Association

California Grain and Feed

California Groundwater Association

California League of Food Processors

California Pear Growers Association

California Seed Association

California Strawberry Commission

California Tomato Growers Association

California Warehouse Association

Far West Equipment Dealers Association

Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Water Association

Milk Producers Council

Nisei Farmers League

Northern California Water Association

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors

Western Agricultural Processors Association

Western Growers Association

Western Plant Health Association

Wine Institute

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was a critical step toward achieving groundwater sustainability. However, it will not be fully implemented for several years, allowing groundwater overdraft to continue, negatively impacting water supplies for existing pumpers. Greater transparency is needed to provide existing pumpers and landowners with important information about the use of shared groundwater resources, specifically regarding applications for new well permits. This bill protects existing groundwater pumpers and landowners most at risk from increased groundwater overdraft by increasing transparency about proposed new wells in critically overdrafted basins. It requires new well permit applicants to notify their neighbors of their intent and provide basic information about the proposed well, and requires cities and counties to make the details of new well permit applications publicly available, prior to approval.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of agricultural interests raises a number of objections to SB 252, including:

• It undermines the intent of SGMA to achieve groundwater sustainability through local management by requiring cities and counties that overlay overdraft basins to take specific actions regarding new wells.
• It undermines local efforts to comply with the SGMA process by requiring any new well to cease production if a GSA determines the new well contributes to an undesirable result.
• It changes common law concerning groundwater disputes and will trigger basin-wide adjudications. Claims of well interference, or quiet title, against a well owner believed to be unlawfully impacting rights to use groundwater, except in very limited circumstances, leads to a basin-wide groundwater adjudication. This is because the only way for a well owner to demonstrate well interference is to prove the alleged interferer is pumping in excess of their correlative right to groundwater in the basin.
• It imposes significant burdens on well applicants and cities and counties that could open the door for litigation. SB 252 creates an extensive list of information an applicant must provide. These requirements are overly burdensome, raise privacy issues due to the information being made public.
• The legislature should allow SGMA and local efforts to succeed before adding additional mandates.

Prepared by:

5/27/17 15:38:07

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 252 (Dodd) - Water wells

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

Bill Summary:

SB 252 requires, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well, the reasonableness of each party’s beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of specified factors.

Fiscal Impact:

• Between $300,000 and $1 million (special fund) to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide technical assistance to landowners and local jurisdictions.
• Unknown costs to the state as a landowner dependent upon wells.

Background:

In response to a multi-year drought, the Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014. Among other provisions, the Act directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to categorize the state’s groundwater basins into high, medium, low, and very low priorities, based on factors such as the population overlying the basin, number of wells in the basin, and overlying irrigated acreage. The DWR must also identify basins subject to critical overdraft—where more water is consistently being removed than replaced.

Under SGMA, basins designated as high or medium priority must be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA). That agency must develop a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to ensure that by 2040, the basin is in a sustainable condition—there can be no “undesirable results” (such as land sinking, known as “subsidence”) from use of the basin. If a basin does not have a GSA or the agency fails to adopt or implement a plan, the State Water Resources Control Board may designate the basin as “probationary” and can develop its own plan to achieve sustainability for the basin.

SGMA grants GSAs substantial new authorities to regulate groundwater use within their jurisdiction, including to impose fees to fund groundwater sustainability programs and to regulate, limit, or suspend:

• Extractions from individual groundwater wells or extractions from groundwater wells in the aggregate.
• Construction of new groundwater wells.
• Enlargement of existing groundwater wells.
• Reactivation of abandoned groundwater wells.

However, SGMA also states that counties have authority over well permitting unless that authority is specifically delegated to a GSA, and that nothing in SGMA impairs the land use authority of cities and counties.

Other Water Laws and Regulations. The California Water Code declares it to be “the established policy of this State that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation.”

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires every person who drills, destroys, deepens, or reperforates a water well to file with DWR a report of completion of that well (a “well log”). Well logs are publicly available and must include the following information:

• A description of the well site sufficiently exact to permit location and identification of the well.
• A detailed log of the well.
• A description of type of construction.
• The details of perforation.
• The methods used for sealing off surface or contaminated waters.
• The methods used for preventing contaminated waters of one aquifer from mixing with the waters of another aquifer.
• The signature of the well driller.

Some counties have already used their police power to regulate groundwater use. Prior to the passage of SGMA, 30 of California’s 58 counties had adopted ordinances regulating groundwater in some manner. At least four counties have recently imposed moratoria on drilling new water wells of varying durations, while others have considered and rejected moratoria. Stanislaus County recently updated its groundwater ordinances to require an application for a new well to show that it will not negatively affect the county’s groundwater supplies.

Despite these actions, some wells in the state continue to run dry; for example, as of April 10, 2017, there were 103 active well failures reported in Tulare County. Wells may dry up due to numerous factors, including overall drought conditions, soil or other site-specific conditions at the location of the well, and the action of nearby wells that lower the water table out of reach of shallower wells (“well interference”). Some advocates who are concerned about the impacts of groundwater pumping want to make information about new wells available before they are dug.

Proposed Law:

This bill:

• Requires, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well used primarily for domestic use, the reasonableness of each party’s beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of specified factors
• Requires an applicant for a new well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to perform several actions as part of the application. The application must also include specified information, to the extent that it can be reasonably known, about the new well.
• Requires a city or county, including a charter city, that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to make certain information available to the GSA for the basin where the well is located and to the public in an easily accessible manner. The city or county must also allow for a notice and comment period on that well application that includes a public hearing that follows the existing procedure for notice and public hearing in the planning and zoning law.
• States that this bill does not modify or enlarge the obligation of a city or county under existing law to develop a well ordinance to protect water quality at the direction of DWR or the regional water quality control board.

Related Legislation:

SB 1317 (Wolk, 2016) would have required cities and counties overlying high- or medium-priority basins to establish a process to issue a groundwater extraction permits for the development of a groundwater extraction facility. Would have prohibited issuing a groundwater extraction permits for a new groundwater extraction facility in either a probationary basin or basin subject to critical conditions of overdraft. The bill passed the Senate, but was not heard in the Assembly.

Staff comments:

Fiscal impact.

Department of Water Resources

The DWR indicates costs of approximately $300,000 to $1,000,000 to provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions, depending upon the level of assistance requested. Staff notes a budget change proposal is currently being considered that would fund these, and other activities, related SGMA.

Costs to the State

According to the Department of General Services, some state entities are reliant upon well water. It is unknown how many, and if any would be subject to this bill. However, staff notes potential costs to the state to the extent any state entity is affected by this bill.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Mike McGuire, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Water wells

Requires disclosure of certain information in applications for new wells in critically overdrafted basins.

Background

Land Use Regulation. The California Constitution allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that local governments derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

The Planning and Zoning Law allows cities and counties to adopt zoning ordinances that regulate private behavior to achieve public goals. Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects—the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the permit if the application is complete. Other permitting processes may be “discretionary,” where a conditional use permit allows a land use that is not authorized by right in a zoning ordinance, but may be authorized if the property owner takes certain steps, such as to mitigate the potential impacts of the land use. Both of these processes require hearings by the local zoning board and public notice to affected landowners and those within 300 feet of the affected property at least 10 days in advance. Residents may appeal permitting decisions and other actions to either a board of appeals or the legislative body of the city or county. Cities and counties may adopt ordinances governing the appeals process.

While ministerial processes are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a conditional use permit can be subject to CEQA if they would result in a project because the approving agency can exercise some discretion over the permit.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. In response to a multi-year drought, the Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014. Composed of three bills—AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley) and SB 1319 (Pavley)—SGMA comprehensively reformed California’s groundwater laws. Among other provisions, the Act directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to categorize the state’s groundwater basins into high, medium, low, and very low priorities, based on factors such as the population overlying the basin, number of wells in the basin, and overlying irrigated acreage. The DWR must also identify basins subject to critical overdraft—where more water is consistently being removed than replaced.

Under SGMA, basins designated as high or medium priority must be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA). That agency must develop a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to ensure that by 2040, the basin is in a sustainable condition—there can be no “undesirable results” (such as land sinking, known as “subsidence”) from use of the basin. If a basin does not have a GSA or the agency fails to adopt or implement a plan, the State Water Resources Control Board may designate the basin as “probationary” and can develop its own plan to achieve sustainability for the basin. The deadlines for GSAs to adopt their plans vary by basin: high and medium priority basins in critical overdraft must adopt a plan by January 31, 2020; other high and medium priority basins have until January 31, 2022. In basins designated medium- or high-priority basins by DWR, no extraction of groundwater between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of a GSP may be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against, any claim of prescription in a water rights dispute.

SGMA grants GSAs substantial new authorities to regulate groundwater use within their jurisdiction, including to impose fees to fund groundwater sustainability programs and to regulate, limit, or suspend:

• Extractions from individual groundwater wells or extractions from groundwater wells in the aggregate.
• Construction of new groundwater wells.
• Enlargement of existing groundwater wells.
• Reactivation of abandoned groundwater wells.

However, SGMA also states that counties have authority over well permitting unless that authority is specifically delegated to a GSA, and that nothing in SGMA impairs the land use authority of cities and counties.

Other Water Laws and Regulations. The California Water Code declares it to be “the established policy of this State that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation.”

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires every person who drills, destroys, deepens, or reperforates a water well to file with DWR a report of completion of that well (a “well log”). Well logs are publicly available and must include the following information:

• A description of the well site sufficiently exact to permit location and identification of the well.
• A detailed log of the well.
• A description of type of construction.
• The details of perforation.
• The methods used for sealing off surface or contaminated waters.
• The methods used for preventing contaminated waters of one aquifer from mixing with the waters of another aquifer.
• The signature of the well driller.

Some counties have already used their police power to regulate groundwater use. Prior to the passage of SGMA, 30 of California’s 58 counties had adopted ordinances regulating groundwater in some manner. At least four counties have recently imposed moratoria on drilling new water wells of varying durations, while others have considered and rejected moratoria. Stanislaus County recently updated its groundwater ordinances to require an application for a new well to show that it will not negatively affect the county’s groundwater supplies.

Despite these actions, some wells in the state continue to run dry; for example, as of April 10, 2017, there were 103 active well failures reported in Tulare County. Wells may dry up due to numerous factors, including overall drought conditions, soil or other site-specific conditions at the location of the well, and the action of nearby wells that lower the water table out of reach of shallower wells (“well interference”). Some advocates who are concerned about the impacts of groundwater pumping want to make information about new wells available before they are dug.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 252 requires, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well used primarily for domestic use, the reasonableness of each party’s beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of the following factors:

• The purpose of the use.
• The extent and amount of the harm caused by extractions for that use.
• The practicality of avoiding the harm by adjusting the use or method of use of one water user or the other.
• The practicality of adjusting the quantity of the water used by each water user.
• The protection of existing values of water uses, land investments, and enterprises.
• The justice of requiring the user causing harm to bear the loss.

SB 252 requires an applicant for a new well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to perform several actions as part of the application, specifically to:

• Verify that he or she has read and acknowledges the provision of SGMA that states that groundwater extraction between January 1, 2015, and the date a GSP is adopted or an alternative is approved cannot be used to defend a claim of prescription in a medium- or high-priority basin.
• Inform any lenders for the new well of that acknowledgement.
• Agree that if the GSA finds through the development of a GSP that the new well contributes to an undesirable result, the new well will cease production unless the applicant can contribute to an offset or other course of action determined by the GSA.
• Notify all adjacent landowners of the application for the well permit and where it can be found for review and public comment.
• Verify that he or she has complied with the above requirements and included all required information in the application.
• Include a list of all notified parties, including lenders and adjacent landowners.

The application must also include all of the following information, to the extent that it can be reasonably known, about the new well:

• A map of the location, global positioning system coordinates, and elevation of the proposed well.
• The depth of the well.
• The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume.
• The geologic siting information, including water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain.
• The distance from any potential sources of pollution on site and on adjacent properties, including, but not limited to, existing or proposed septic systems, wells, animal or fowl enclosures, transmission lines, or sewer lines.
• Distance from the nearest surface water, including ponds, lakes, streams, and wetlands that are within 300 feet.
• Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed.
• For a well below Corcoran clay, the location of infrastructure sensitive to subsidence within two miles, including, but not limited to, canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads.
• The estimated cumulative extraction volume before January 1, 2020, and after 20 years.
• The size in acres of the area to be served by the well and the size in acres of the contiguous owned property on which the well is located.
• The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other.

A city or county, including a charter city, that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin must make the above information available to the GSA for the basin where the well is located and to the public in an easily accessible manner. The city or county must also allow for a notice and comment period on that well application that includes a public hearing that follows the existing procedure for notice and public hearing in the planning and zoning law.

SB 252 also requires a city or county to find that an applicant for a new water well has complied with the requirements of this article before issuing a well permit for a new well located in a critically overdrafted basin. The requirements of the bill do not apply to: an applicant for a new water well who would extract 2 acre feet or less per year; replacement wells that do not increase water extractions; a city or county that has a process for well permitting that substantially complies with the requirements in the bill, upon making a finding; an application for a well not in a critically overdrafted basin; or a well in a basin that has a GSP determined to be adequate by DWR.

SB 252 also:

• States that it does not modify or enlarge the obligation of a city or county under existing law to develop a well ordinance to protect water quality at the direction of DWR or the regional water quality control board.
• Requires well logs for wells completed in critically overdrafted basins to include the information that the bill requires an application for a well drilling permit to contain.
• Requires DWR to provide a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin with technical assistance to implement the provisions of the bill.
• Includes findings and declarations to support its purposes, including that it supports groundwater management by local agencies and is not a limitation on the authority of local agencies or the state under other law.
• Defines its terms through cross-references to SGMA.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. California recently emerged from one of the most severe droughts on record. That drought resulted in emergency water shortages throughout the state—some due to homeowners’ private wells going dry, leaving people without water for drinking or bathing. One way these domestic wells go dry is due to interference from nearby wells that are more powerful and pull water away from shallower wells. This problem is especially acute in critically overdrafted basins, where water use is so out of balance that it’s expected to cause significant problems. Right now, residents in many cities and counties don’t know when a well that could affect them is being dug nearby, and similarly, applicants for new wells may not know of all the nearby wells that could be affected. These conflicts can lead to litigation over who has the right to pump water or water shortages for disadvantaged residents who may not know what remedies they have available under law. SB 252 solves this problem by codifying common law regarding well interference so that domestic well owners know their rights. It also heads off conflicts over wells by ensuring that (1) applicants for new wells in critically overdrafted basins notify affected nearby landowners and other affected parties, and (2) the public has access to information to understand the impacts of new wells and an opportunity to comment on those proposals. SB 252 still allows well applicants to obtain their permits ministerially if that’s what the local ordinance provides for; it just lets residents have their say first.

2. One size doesn’t fit all. SGMA was very carefully crafted to maintain local control over groundwater management and stated the Legislature’s intent to recognize and preserve the authority of cities and counties to manage groundwater pursuant to their police powers. Local governments have already begun to implement local regulations where they make sense in advance of SGMA’s requirements—including well ordinances. Local governments are best positioned to understand these needs and have the tools necessary to act on them through their police powers and the authorities granted to GSAs. SGMA further provided local agencies with sufficient time to complete the necessary studies to understand their basin conditions and carefully assess the best ways to bring their basins into balance. SB 252 upsets the carefully negotiated balance in SGMA. It undermines local efforts by dictating through state law which well owners must cease production of an undesirable result is found, instead of leaving it up to the GSA to consider the needs of all the users in the basin. Finally it may set a precedent for additional state interference in local land use decisions.

3. Home rule. Local governments have carefully crafted their well ordinances following lengthy public processes and analysis, and local officials still bear the scars from those fights. Opponents argue that SB 252 reopens these wounds by requiring local governments to revise their well ordinances to comply with an unfunded state mandate and imposes additional duties on them to collect an extensive list of information that may not even be known to the applicant at the time. Furthermore, by requiring a city or county to make a finding before issuing a permit, it potentially introduces CEQA analysis even if a local ordinance provides for ministerial review. To avoid significantly modifying local approval processes, the Committee may wish to consider amending SB 252 to remove the requirement to make a finding and instead authorize a city or county to issue the well permit when the requirements of this article have been met pursuant to an adopted ordinance.

4. Let’s be clear. SB 252 requires applicants for well permits in critically overdrafted basins where the well is below Corcoran clay to identify the location of “infrastructure sensitive to subsidence” within two miles of the well. However, the bill doesn’t define this term, nor specify what types of infrastructure might be affected or provide an amount of subsidence that would be necessary to have an impact. Without this information, it may be difficult to comply with this provision. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 252 to define this term or removing the provision entirely.

5. Why only domestic? Opponents of the bill argue that SB 252 modifies common law regarding well interference by establishing a new process for domestic well users to bring suit against owners of wells for other purposes, and that this could lead to more litigation and costly and interminable basin-wide adjudications. The proponents of the bill argue that it is simply codifying existing common law. As noted in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis of the bill: “The focus on domestic wells is consistent with the provisions of [the California Water Code]. That said, it might make sense to broaden the provisions regarding well interference to all wells.” The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 252 to apply to all wells, instead of just domestic wells.

6. Charter cities. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own "municipal affairs." In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define "municipal affairs," the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. SB 252 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding and declaration that preventing undesirable results in critically overdrafted basins is a matter of statewide concern.

7. Incoming! The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee approved SB 252 by a vote of 7-2 on March 28, 2017.

8. Mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. According to the Legislative Counsel’s Office, SB 252 creates a new state-mandated local program. But SB 252 disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local agencies by including findings and declarations that local agencies may levy fees to cover the costs of the program and because the costs incurred will be due to the expansion of an existing crime.

9. Related legislation. SB 1317 (Wolk, 2016) would have required cities and counties overlying high- or medium-priority basins to establish a process to issue conditional use permits for developing a new well. It would also have prohibited issuing a new well permit in either a probationary basin or basin subject to critical conditions of overdraft. SB 1317 passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on a vote of 5-2 but died in the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee.

Support and Opposition

(4/21/17)

Support: California Climate and Agriculture Network; California Coastal Protection Network; California Groundwater Coalition; California League of Conservation Voters; Clean Water Action; Community Alliance of Family Farmers; Community Water Center; Environmental Defense Fund; Environmental Justice Coalition for Water; Karuk Tribe; Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability; League of Women Voters California; North Coast Streamflow Coalition; North County Watch; Owners Condor's Hope Ranch; Planning and Conservation League; Sierra Club; The Nature Conservancy; Union of Concerned Scientists.

Opposition: African-American Farmers of California; Agricultural Council of California; Almond Alliance of California; Association of California Egg Farmers; Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA); California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers; California Association of Wheat Growers; California Association of Winegrape Growers; California Bean Shippers Association; California Building Industry Association; California Business Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce; California Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Inc.; California Dairies, Inc.; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Fresh Fruit Association; California Grain and Feed; California League of Food Processors; California Pear Growers Association; California Seed Association; California Strawberry Commission; California Tomato Growers Association; California Warehouse Association; Far West Equipment Dealers Association; Kings River Conservation District; Milk Producers Council; Nisei Farmers League; Northern California Water Association; San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors; Valley Ag Water Coalition; Western Agricultural Processors Association; Western Growers Association; Western Plant Health Association; Wine Institute.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Mike McGuire, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Water wells

Requires disclosure of certain information in applications for new wells in critically overdrafted basins.

Background

Land Use Regulation. The California Constitution allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that local governments derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

The Planning and Zoning Law allows cities and counties to adopt zoning ordinances that regulate private behavior to achieve public goals. Some local ordinances provide “ministerial” processes for approving projects—the zoning ordinance clearly states that a particular use is allowable, and local government does not have any discretion regarding approval of the permit if the application is complete. Other permitting processes may be “discretionary,” where a conditional use permit allows a land use that is not authorized by right in a zoning ordinance, but may be authorized if the property owner takes certain steps, such as to mitigate the potential impacts of the land use. Both of these processes require hearings by the local zoning board and public notice to affected landowners and those within 300 feet of the affected property at least 10 days in advance. Residents may appeal permitting decisions and other actions to either a board of appeals or the legislative body of the city or county. Cities and counties may adopt ordinances governing the appeals process.

While ministerial processes are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a conditional use permit can be subject to CEQA if they would result in a project because the approving agency can exercise some discretion over the permit.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. In response to a multi-year drought, the Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014. Composed of three bills—AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley) and SB 1319 (Pavley)—SGMA comprehensively reformed California’s groundwater laws. Among other provisions, the Act directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to categorize the state’s groundwater basins into high, medium, low, and very low priorities, based on factors such as the population overlying the basin, number of wells in the basin, and overlying irrigated acreage. The DWR must also identify basins subject to critical overdraft—where more water is consistently being removed than replaced.

Under SGMA, basins designated as high or medium priority must be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA). That agency must develop a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to ensure that by 2040, the basin is in a sustainable condition—there can be no “undesirable results” (such as land sinking, known as “subsidence”) from use of the basin. If a basin does not have a GSA or the agency fails to adopt or implement a plan, the State Water Resources Control Board may designate the basin as “probationary” and can develop its own plan to achieve sustainability for the basin. The deadlines for GSAs to adopt their plans vary by basin: high and medium priority basins in critical overdraft must adopt a plan by January 31, 2020; other high and medium priority basins have until January 31, 2022. In basins designated medium- or high-priority basins by DWR, no extraction of groundwater between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of a GSP may be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against, any claim of prescription in a water rights dispute.

SGMA grants GSAs substantial new authorities to regulate groundwater use within their jurisdiction, including to impose fees to fund groundwater sustainability programs and to regulate, limit, or suspend:

• Extractions from individual groundwater wells or extractions from groundwater wells in the aggregate.
• Construction of new groundwater wells.
• Enlargement of existing groundwater wells.
• Reactivation of abandoned groundwater wells.

However, SGMA also states that counties have authority over well permitting unless that authority is specifically delegated to a GSA, and that nothing in SGMA impairs the land use authority of cities and counties.

Other Water Laws and Regulations. The California Water Code declares it to be “the established policy of this State that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation.”

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires every person who drills, destroys, deepens, or reperforates a water well to file with DWR a report of completion of that well (a “well log”). Well logs are publicly available and must include the following information:

• A description of the well site sufficiently exact to permit location and identification of the well.
• A detailed log of the well.
• A description of type of construction.
• The details of perforation.
• The methods used for sealing off surface or contaminated waters.
• The methods used for preventing contaminated waters of one aquifer from mixing with the waters of another aquifer.
• The signature of the well driller.

Some counties have already used their police power to regulate groundwater use. Prior to the passage of SGMA, 30 of California’s 58 counties had adopted ordinances regulating groundwater in some manner. At least four counties have recently imposed moratoria on drilling new water wells of varying durations, while others have considered and rejected moratoria. Stanislaus County recently updated its groundwater ordinances to require an application for a new well to show that it will not negatively affect the county’s groundwater supplies.

Despite these actions, some wells in the state continue to run dry; for example, as of April 10, 2017, there were 103 active well failures reported in Tulare County. Wells may dry up due to numerous factors, including overall drought conditions, soil or other site-specific conditions at the location of the well, and the action of nearby wells that lower the water table out of reach of shallower wells (“well interference”). Some advocates who are concerned about the impacts of groundwater pumping want to make information about new wells available before they are dug.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 252 requires, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well used primarily for domestic use, the reasonableness of each party’s beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of the following factors:

• The purpose of the use.
• The extent and amount of the harm caused by extractions for that use.
• The practicality of avoiding the harm by adjusting the use or method of use of one water user or the other.
• The practicality of adjusting the quantity of the water used by each water user.
• The protection of existing values of water uses, land investments, and enterprises.
• The justice of requiring the user causing harm to bear the loss.

SB 252 requires an applicant for a new well permit in a critically overdrafted basin to perform several actions as part of the application, specifically to:

• Verify that he or she has read and acknowledges the provision of SGMA that states that groundwater extraction between January 1, 2015, and the date a GSP is adopted or an alternative is approved cannot be used to defend a claim of prescription in a medium- or high-priority basin.
• Inform any lenders for the new well of that acknowledgement.
• Agree that if the GSA finds through the development of a GSP that the new well contributes to an undesirable result, the new well will cease production unless the applicant can contribute to an offset or other course of action determined by the GSA.
• Notify all adjacent landowners of the application for the well permit and where it can be found for review and public comment.
• Verify that he or she has complied with the above requirements and included all required information in the application.
• Include a list of all notified parties, including lenders and adjacent landowners.

The application must also include all of the following information, to the extent that it can be reasonably known, about the new well:

• A map of the location, global positioning system coordinates, and elevation of the proposed well.
• The depth of the well.
• The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume.
• The geologic siting information, including water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain.
• The distance from any potential sources of pollution on site and on adjacent properties, including, but not limited to, existing or proposed septic systems, wells, animal or fowl enclosures, transmission lines, or sewer lines.
• Distance from the nearest surface water, including ponds, lakes, streams, and wetlands that are within 300 feet.
• Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed.
• For a well below Corcoran clay, the location of infrastructure sensitive to subsidence within two miles, including, but not limited to, canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads.
• The estimated cumulative extraction volume before January 1, 2020, and after 20 years.
• The size in acres of the area to be served by the well and the size in acres of the contiguous owned property on which the well is located.
• The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other.

A city or county, including a charter city, that receives an application for a well permit in a critically overdrafted basin must make the above information available to the GSA for the basin where the well is located and to the public in an easily accessible manner. The city or county must also allow for a notice and comment period on that well application that includes a public hearing that follows the existing procedure for notice and public hearing in the planning and zoning law.

SB 252 also requires a city or county to find that an applicant for a new water well has complied with the requirements of this article before issuing a well permit for a new well located in a critically overdrafted basin. The requirements of the bill do not apply to: an applicant for a new water well who would extract 2 acre feet or less per year; replacement wells that do not increase water extractions; a city or county that has a process for well permitting that substantially complies with the requirements in the bill, upon making a finding; an application for a well not in a critically overdrafted basin; or a well in a basin that has a GSP determined to be adequate by DWR.

SB 252 also:

• States that it does not modify or enlarge the obligation of a city or county under existing law to develop a well ordinance to protect water quality at the direction of DWR or the regional water quality control board.
• Requires well logs for wells completed in critically overdrafted basins to include the information that the bill requires an application for a well drilling permit to contain.
• Requires DWR to provide a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin with technical assistance to implement the provisions of the bill.
• Includes findings and declarations to support its purposes, including that it supports groundwater management by local agencies and is not a limitation on the authority of local agencies or the state under other law.
• Defines its terms through cross-references to SGMA.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. California recently emerged from one of the most severe droughts on record. That drought resulted in emergency water shortages throughout the state—some due to homeowners’ private wells going dry, leaving people without water for drinking or bathing. One way these domestic wells go dry is due to interference from nearby wells that are more powerful and pull water away from shallower wells. This problem is especially acute in critically overdrafted basins, where water use is so out of balance that it’s expected to cause significant problems. Right now, residents in many cities and counties don’t know when a well that could affect them is being dug nearby, and similarly, applicants for new wells may not know of all the nearby wells that could be affected. These conflicts can lead to litigation over who has the right to pump water or water shortages for disadvantaged residents who may not know what remedies they have available under law. SB 252 solves this problem by codifying common law regarding well interference so that domestic well owners know their rights. It also heads off conflicts over wells by ensuring that (1) applicants for new wells in critically overdrafted basins notify affected nearby landowners and other affected parties, and (2) the public has access to information to understand the impacts of new wells and an opportunity to comment on those proposals. SB 252 still allows well applicants to obtain their permits ministerially if that’s what the local ordinance provides for; it just lets residents have their say first.

2. One size doesn’t fit all. SGMA was very carefully crafted to maintain local control over groundwater management and stated the Legislature’s intent to recognize and preserve the authority of cities and counties to manage groundwater pursuant to their police powers. Local governments have already begun to implement local regulations where they make sense in advance of SGMA’s requirements—including well ordinances. Local governments are best positioned to understand these needs and have the tools necessary to act on them through their police powers and the authorities granted to GSAs. SGMA further provided local agencies with sufficient time to complete the necessary studies to understand their basin conditions and carefully assess the best ways to bring their basins into balance. SB 252 upsets the carefully negotiated balance in SGMA. It undermines local efforts by dictating through state law which well owners must cease production of an undesirable result is found, instead of leaving it up to the GSA to consider the needs of all the users in the basin. Finally it may set a precedent for additional state interference in local land use decisions.

3. Home rule. Local governments have carefully crafted their well ordinances following lengthy public processes and analysis, and local officials still bear the scars from those fights. Opponents argue that SB 252 reopens these wounds by requiring local governments to revise their well ordinances to comply with an unfunded state mandate and imposes additional duties on them to collect an extensive list of information that may not even be known to the applicant at the time. Furthermore, by requiring a city or county to make a finding before issuing a permit, it potentially introduces CEQA analysis even if a local ordinance provides for ministerial review. To avoid significantly modifying local approval processes, the Committee may wish to consider amending SB 252 to remove the requirement to make a finding and instead authorize a city or county to issue the well permit when the requirements of this article have been met pursuant to an adopted ordinance.

4. Let’s be clear. SB 252 requires applicants for well permits in critically overdrafted basins where the well is below Corcoran clay to identify the location of “infrastructure sensitive to subsidence” within two miles of the well. However, the bill doesn’t define this term, nor specify what types of infrastructure might be affected or provide an amount of subsidence that would be necessary to have an impact. Without this information, it may be difficult to comply with this provision. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 252 to define this term or removing the provision entirely.

5. Why only domestic? Opponents of the bill argue that SB 252 modifies common law regarding well interference by establishing a new process for domestic well users to bring suit against owners of wells for other purposes, and that this could lead to more litigation and costly and interminable basin-wide adjudications. The proponents of the bill argue that it is simply codifying existing common law. As noted in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis of the bill: “The focus on domestic wells is consistent with the provisions of [the California Water Code]. That said, it might make sense to broaden the provisions regarding well interference to all wells.” The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 252 to apply to all wells, instead of just domestic wells.

6. Charter cities. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own "municipal affairs." In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn't define "municipal affairs," the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it's an issue of statewide concern. SB 252 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding and declaration that preventing undesirable results in critically overdrafted basins is a matter of statewide concern.

7. Incoming! The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee approved SB 252 by a vote of 7-2 on March 28, 2017.

8. Mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. According to the Legislative Counsel’s Office, SB 252 creates a new state-mandated local program. But SB 252 disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local agencies by including findings and declarations that local agencies may levy fees to cover the costs of the program and because the costs incurred will be due to the expansion of an existing crime.

9. Related legislation. SB 1317 (Wolk, 2016) would have required cities and counties overlying high- or medium-priority basins to establish a process to issue conditional use permits for developing a new well. It would also have prohibited issuing a new well permit in either a probationary basin or basin subject to critical conditions of overdraft. SB 1317 passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on a vote of 5-2 but died in the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee.

Support and Opposition

(4/21/17)

Support: California Climate and Agriculture Network; California Coastal Protection Network; California Groundwater Association; California League of Conservation Voters; Clean Water Action; Community Alliance of Family Farmers; Community Water Center; Environmental Defense Fund; Environmental Justice Coalition for Water; Karuk Tribe; Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability; League of Women Voters California; North Coast Streamflow Coalition; North County Watch; Owners Condor's Hope Ranch; Planning and Conservation League; Sierra Club; The Nature Conservancy; Union of Concerned Scientists.

Opposition: African-American Farmers of California; Agricultural Council of California; Almond Alliance of California; Association of California Egg Farmers; Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA); California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers; California Association of Wheat Growers; California Association of Winegrape Growers; California Bean Shippers Association; California Building Industry Association; California Business Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce; California Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Inc.; California Dairies, Inc.; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Fresh Fruit Association; California Grain and Feed; California League of Food Processors; California Pear Growers Association; California Seed Association; California Strawberry Commission; California Tomato Growers Association; California Warehouse Association; Far West Equipment Dealers Association; Kings River Conservation District; Milk Producers Council; Nisei Farmers League; Northern California Water Association; San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors; Valley Ag Water Coalition; Western Agricultural Processors Association; Western Growers Association; Western Plant Health Association; Wine Institute.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 252 Hearing Date: March 28, 2017

Subject: Water wells

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

1. Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution requires, in part, that:
   1. The water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable,
   2. The waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and
   3. The conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.
2. Water Code Section 106 (WC §106) declares it to be “the established policy of this State that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation.”
3. The two principle bills that enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), SB 1168 (Pavley, Ch. 346, Stat. 2014) and AB 1738 (Dickinson, Ch. 347, Stat. 2014), included parallel legislative findings and intent statements. The findings included:
   1. Failure to manage groundwater to prevent long-term overdraft infringes on groundwater rights.
   2. Groundwater resources are most effectively managed at the local or regional level.
   3. Groundwater management will not be effective unless local actions to sustainably manage groundwater basins and subbasins are taken.

Both bills also stated that it was the legislature’s intent “To recognize and preserve the authority of cities and counties to manage groundwater pursuant to their police powers.”

1. Cities and counties have a number of different responsibilities, including issuing permits for water well construction.
2. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires every person who drills, destroys, deepens, or reperforates a water well to file with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) a report of completion of that well. Well completion reports are often referred to as a well log. Well logs are required to include the following information:
   1. A description of the well site sufficiently exact to permit location and identification of the well.
   2. A detailed log of the well.
   3. A description of type of construction.
   4. The details of perforation.
   5. The methods used for sealing off surface or contaminated waters.
   6. The methods used for preventing contaminated waters of one aquifer from mixing with the waters of another aquifer.
   7. The signature of the well driller.

By law, well logs are available to the public.

1. California has 515 groundwater basins and subbasins that provide about 40 percent of the state’s water supply. Of these 515 basins, 127 have been designated by DWR as high- or medium-priority basins. These 127 basins account for about 96 percent of the state’s groundwater use and are overlain by about 88 percent of the population served by groundwater. Additionally, 21 of these basins have been identified by DWR as being in a condition of critical overdraft.
2. SGMA requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by DWR that are designated as basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed by a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) under a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a GSP or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2022, except as specified.
3. Among the powers SGMA grants to GSAs are:
   1. “To control groundwater extractions by regulating, limiting, or suspending extractions from individual groundwater wells or extractions from groundwater wells in the aggregate, construction of new groundwater wells, enlargement of existing groundwater wells, or reactivation of abandoned groundwater wells, or otherwise establishing groundwater extraction allocations…”

To impose spacing requirements on new groundwater well construction to minimize well interference and impose reasonable operating regulations on existing groundwater wells to minimize well interference, including requiring extractors to operate on a rotation basis.

However, a GSA is not authorized to issue permits for the construction, modification, or abandonment of groundwater wells, except as authorized by a county with authority to issue those permits. A GSA may request of the county, and the county shall consider, that the county forward permit requests for the construction of new groundwater wells, the enlarging of existing groundwater wells, and the reactivation of abandoned groundwater wells to the groundwater sustainability agency before permit approval.

SGMA also states that groundwater management pursuant to SGMA must be consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution. Further, nothing in SGMA modifies rights or priorities to use or store groundwater consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution, however, SGMA provides that in basins designated medium- or high-priority basins by DWR, no extraction of groundwater between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of a GSP may be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against, any claim of prescription.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would:

1. Require, in an action alleging liability for interference with a well used primarily for domestic use, the reasonableness of each party’s beneficial use of water to be determined through consideration of the following factors:
   1. The purpose of the use.
   2. The extent and amount of the harm caused by extractions for that use.
   3. The practicality of avoiding the harm by adjusting the use or method of use of one water user or the other.
   4. The practicality of adjusting the quantity of the water used by each water user.
   5. The protection of existing values of water uses, land investments, and enterprises.
   6. The justice of requiring the user causing harm to bear the loss.
2. Add to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act under Chapter 10. Water Wells and Cathodic Protection Wells, a new article titled “Article 5. Wells in Critically Overdrafted Groundwater Basins.”
3. Require an applicant for a new well permit in a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to do all of the following as part of an application for a well permit:
   1. Acknowledge that, pursuant to SGMA, the extraction of groundwater may not be used as evidence of, or to establish or defend against, any claim of prescription in a medium- or high-priority basin between January 1, 2015, and the date of adoption of a GSP.
   2. Inform any lenders for the new well of that acknowledgement.
   3. Agree that if the GSA finds through the development of a GSP that the new well contributes to an undesirable result, the new well will cease production unless the applicant can contribute to an offset or other course of action determined by the GSA.
   4. Notify all adjacent landowners of the application for the well permit and where it can be found for review and the public hearing and opportunity for public comment.
   5. Include all of the following information about the new well in the application for the well permit:
      1. A map of the location, global positioning system coordinates, and elevation of the proposed well.
      2. The depth of the well.
      3. The proposed capacity, estimated pumping rate, anticipated pumping schedule, and estimated annual extraction volume.
      4. The geologic siting information, including water table depth, seasonal fluctuations, recharge area and rate, if known, and location to flood plain.
      5. The distance from structures onsite and on adjacent properties, including, but not limited to, existing or proposed septic systems, wells, animal or fowl enclosures, transmission lines, or sewer lines.
      6. Distance from ponds, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
      7. Any existing wells on the property, including well use, depth, diameter, screen interval, pumping rate, estimated or measured annual extraction volume, and, if available, information on specific capacity or other pumping tests completed.
      8. For a well below Corcoran clay, the location of infrastructure sensitive to subsidence within two miles, including, but not limited to, canals, ditches, pipelines, utility corridors, and roads.
      9. The estimated cumulative extraction volume before January 1, 2020, and after 20 years.
      10. The size in acres of the area to be served by the well and the size in acres of the contiguous owned property on which the well is located.
      11. The planned category of water use, such as irrigation, stock, domestic, municipal, industrial, or other.
4. Require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to do both of the following:
   1. Make the information provided in the new well permit application available and easily accessible, such as by posting the information on Internet.
   2. Before issuing any new well permit, undertake a notice and comment period that includes a public hearing that gives landowners and other groundwater extractors an opportunity to comment on the application for the new wells.
5. Prohibit a new water well from being developed in a critically overdrafted basin except in compliance with this new article. This prohibition does not apply to:
   1. An applicant for a new water well who would be a de minimis extractor.
   2. An applicant for a replacement water well that would not increase the amount of extractions above the amount of water extracted from the existing well.
   3. A city or county with a process for the issuance of a well permit that meets or exceeds the requirements of this article.
   4. An applicant for a new water well in or a city or county overlying a basin that is not a critically overdrafted basin.
6. Require a city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin to be in compliance with this new article to be eligible to receive state funding for groundwater recharge or other water supply projects.
7. Require DWR to provide a city or county overlying a basin designated by the department as subject to critical conditions of overdraft with ongoing technical assistance to implement the new article.
8. Add to the required information for a well log the additional information required under 3) e) above.
9. Make a number of findings regarding the need for the new article, including:
   1. Consistent with SGMA, it is not the role of the state to dictate groundwater management actions or to prohibit pumping as those authorities are delegated to local GSAs with oversight from the state.
   2. Greater transparency is needed to provide existing pumpers and water users in critically overdrafted basins with important information about the use of shared groundwater resources, specifically regarding applications for new well permits.
   3. Those applying for permits for new wells in a critically overdrafted basin should understand the risks of making those investments and the potential impact on existing groundwater users.
   4. New wells are likely to threaten existing groundwater users in critically overdrafted basins, which is an issue of statewide importance and requires statewide action to avoid undesirable results to groundwater and state resources while local communities are working to comply with the provisions of SGMA.
   5. Preventing undesirable results in critically overdrafted basins pursuant to this article is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this act applies to charter cities.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “Recently, the Department of Water Resources released a new report from NASA, showing that areas of the San Joaquin Valley, some of which have Critical Water Basins, continue to experience significant subsidence, resulting in damage to state and federal water infrastructure. Acting DWR Director William Croyle said that the rate of subsidence are ‘troubling and unsustainable…the current rates jeopardize infrastructure serving millions of people. Groundwater pumping now puts at risk the very system that brings water to the San Joaquin Valley. The situation is untenable.’”

“The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was a critical step toward achieving groundwater sustainability. However, it will not be fully implemented for several years, allowing groundwater overdraft to continue, negatively impacting water supplies for existing pumpers. Greater transparency is needed to provide existing pumpers and landowners with important information about the use of shared groundwater resources, specifically regarding applications for new well permits. This bill protects existing groundwater pumpers and landowners most at risk from increased groundwater overdraft by increasing transparency about proposed new wells in critically overdrafted basins. It requires new well permit applicants to notify their neighbors of their intent and provide basic information about the proposed well, and requires cities and counties to make the details of new well permit applications publicly available, prior to approval.”

“The bill also codifies the current standard of liability for well interference to protect domestic well owners from unreasonable interference by other wells. A domestic well owner has a water right that protects their well from unreasonable interference by other wells. Because most counties do not regulate well location, well owners must resort to the courts to protect their rights. But litigation is not an attractive option for them, in part, because the existing law is unclear (there is no statute). This bill would codify the existing rules as set forth in case law. Because the rules are found in scattered cases and other legal authorities, it provides clarity.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

A coalition of agricultural interests raises a number of objections to SB 252:

• It undermines the intent of SGMA to achieve groundwater sustainability through local management. Requiring cities and counties that overlay overdraft basins to take specific actions regarding new wells is counter to SGMA’s goal and hinders the ability of local agencies to analyze and determine the necessary management tools required to achieve sustainability in each basin.
• It undermines local efforts to comply with the SGMA process. By requiring any new well to cease production if a GSA determines the new well contributes to an undesirable result, SB 252 takes control out of the locals’ hands by imposing groundwater pumping restrictions and misconstrues the purpose of local development of a GSP.
• It negatively impacts property rights by picking and choosing which groundwater extractors may continue to extract groundwater after a GSP is implemented. Requiring permit applicants to agree to cease production if the GSA finds the new well contributes to an undesirable result would result in the deprivation of the landowner’s property right and would lead to a basin-wide adjudication proceeding, undermining any positive planning that would occur through the SGMA process.
• It changes common law concerning groundwater disputes and will trigger basin-wide adjudications, undermining the SGMA process. The new section on well interference applies to all groundwater basins, favors domestic well owners over others, and leaves the question of if there is a different standard the courts will now have to apply to non-domestic well users, such as farmers and ranchers.

Further, claims of well interference, or quiet title, against a well owner believed to be unlawfully impacting rights to use groundwater, except in very limited circumstances, leads to a basin-wide groundwater adjudication. This is because the only way for a well owner to demonstrate well interference is to prove the alleged interferer is pumping in excess of their correlative right to groundwater in the basin.

• It imposes significant burdens on well applicants and cities and counties that could open the door for litigation. SB 252 creates an extensive list of information an applicant must provide. These requirements are overly burdensome, raise privacy issues due to the information being made public.

Further, SB 252 would require a city or county to undertake an unspecified public notice and comment period before issuing any new well permit. This leaves cities and counties in the tenuous position of holding a notice and comment period, which must include a public hearing, without guidance on how to fulfill this requirement.

• It would deprive cities and counties overlying critically overdrafted basins from receiving state funding for projects necessary to comply with SGMA if DWR deems city or county is not in compliance with the requirements of the bill. This potentially removes a large source of funding for groundwater projects from basins in critical need of recharge and supply projects to comply with SGMA.

Further, SB 252 does not have a sunset date, so cities and counties overlying critically overdrafted basins will be required to comply with the requirements of this bill in perpetuity, even if the GSA in the basin determines there is a better course of action to be taken concerning groundwater extractions than is mandated in the bill.

• The legislature should allow SGMA and local efforts to succeed before adding additional mandates.

COMMENTS

Domestic Wells Are Particularly Vulnerable. The vast majority of water wells in California are for domestic purposes. Such wells tend to be fairly shallow and low volume. As such, they are particularly vulnerable to changes in groundwater conditions. Indeed, until fairly recently, stories of domestic wells going dry have been regularly featured in the news.

Well Interference Can Simply Be A Problem Of Well Spacing. Opponents suggest that resolving well interference problems generally requires adjudicating the entire groundwater basin. However, sometimes the problem is that wells are simply too close to each other. If a small shallow domestic well is too close to a significantly larger and deeper well, the operation of the larger well can easily create a cone of depression that drops below the bottom of the smaller well, even if both wells are pumping well within their correlative groundwater rights.

Common Law On Well Interference. The water rights of neighboring groundwater pumpers are correlative. Each may use only his or her reasonable share for beneficial uses. When one well interferes with another, the common law allows a well owner to protect his or her water right by bringing an action for well interference.

The author’s staff asserts the language in proposed Water Code section 106.1 is drawn from Section 850A of the Second Restatement of Torts. The Restatement of Torts summarizes principles of common law, and it is often cited by courts.

The focus on domestic wells is consistent with the provisions of WC §106. That said, it might make sense to broaden the provisions regarding well interference to all wells.

Consistent with SGMA? One of the overarching themes in SGMA is that the legislature established the desired outcomes and provided local agencies a suite of tools to attain those desired outcomes, and it was up to local agencies to determine which set of those tools they were going to use to meet attain the desired outcomes. This bill proposes that one tool local agencies in all 21 of the critically overdrafted basins must use is a more deliberate approach to permitting new wells.

Coordination with GSAs. SGMA requires GSAs to be formed by June 30, 2017, and this bill would become effective January 1, 2018, at the soonest. Given that GSAs have the authority to adopt well spacing requirement and other regulations to minimize well interference, it might make sense to require cities, counties, and GSAs in overdraft basins to collaborate in adopting the well permitting requirements under this bill and developing and implementing any well spacing regulations by the GSA. This is an issue that might be explored further in the Governance and Finance Committee. (See below)

Based In Large Part On Stanislaus County’s Groundwater Ordinance. The new article established by this bill largely mirrors the new well drilling provisions in Stanislaus County’s groundwater ordinance. One significant difference is that Stanislaus’s well application delineates how far from the proposed well various items must be identified, where in this bill, distances are unstated.

For example, the Stanislaus permit application requires the identification of the following:

• Streams and lakes within 2 miles of the proposed well.
• Springs, seeps, wetlands and other groundwater dependent ecosystems within 3 miles of the proposed well.
• Existing sewer lines, cisterns and septic disposal systems within 250 feet of the proposed well.
• Concentrated animal feeding operations within 1 mile of the proposed well.
• Reported hazardous materials and hazardous waste sites or release incidents within 1 mile of the proposed well.

It is not clear whether the distances Stanislaus used are appropriate for all overdraft basins. However, should the committee pass this bill, the committee may wish to encourage the author to work with committee staff to develop amendments to either establish the required distances in statute or to explicitly provide cities and counties the authority to set those distances in collaboration with the appropriate GSA.

Incentive To Comply Likely To Be Ineffective. The bill would prevent city or county overlying a critically overdrafted basin from receiving state funding for groundwater recharge or other water supply projects if DWR determines the city or county to be out of compliance with the new article. However, it seems more likely that the GSA would be the entity seeking state funding for groundwater recharge or other water supply projects, not cities or counties. This too is an issue that might be explored further in the Governance and Finance Committee. (See below)

Related Bills. SB 1317 (Wolk, 2016). Would have required cities and counties overlying high- or medium-priority basins to establish a process to issue a groundwater extraction permits for the development of a groundwater extraction facility. Would have prohibited issuing a groundwater extraction permits for a new groundwater extraction facility in either a probationary basin or basin subject to critical conditions of overdraft. The bill passed the Senate, but was not heard in the Assembly.

Double-Referral. The Rules Committee referred this bill to both the Committee on Natural Resources and Water and to the Committee on Governance and Finance. Therefore, if this bill passes this committee, it will be referred to the Committee on Governance and Finance, which will consider the issues within their jurisdiction. Those issues are likely to include topics such as:

• How long should the comment period be for considering new well drilling permits?
• Does this bill change the issuance of well permits from a ministerial to a discretionary act?
• Is there a more appropriate way to encourage compliance by cities and counties with the provisions of this bill?
• Should cities, counties, and GSAs in overdraft basins be required to collaborate in adopting the well permitting requirements?

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None

SUPPORT

California Climate and Agriculture Network

California Coastal Protection Network

California League of Conservation Voters

Clean Water Action

Community Water Center

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Karuk Tribe

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

North Coast Streamflow Coalition

North County Watch

Owners Condor's Hope Ranch

Sierra Club

The Nature Conservancy

Union of Concerned Scientists

OPPOSITION

African-American Farmers of California

Agricultural Council of California

Almond Alliance of California

Association of California Egg Farmers

Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)

California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Citrus Mutual

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Inc.

California Dairies, Inc.

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Fresh Fruit Association

California Grain and Feed

California League of Food Processors

California Pear Growers Association

California Seed Association

California Strawberry Commission

California Tomato Growers Association

California Warehouse Association

Far West Equipment Dealers Association

Milk Producers Council

Nisei Farmers League

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors

Western Agricultural Processors Association

Western Growers Association

Western Plant Health Association

Wine Institute