The majority of bills churning through this legislative session have to pass the Assembly and Senate by midnight Saturday, Aug. 31, or they die. And there are a slew of water bills racing toward that deadline.

While some may make it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, no one can say with certainty whether he will sign them, veto them, or ignore them.

Jesse Vad

SJV Water

First, some terminology:

Second reading: Each bill introduced must be read three times before final passage. Second reading occurs after a bill has been reported (meaning it passed) from committee.

Third reading: Third reading is the last stage a bill goes through in its house of origin before passing to the second house to go through the committee process all over again. On third reading, the author presents the bill for passage by the entire house.

Higher Penalties

AB 460 (Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda): Would increase penalties the state Water Resources Control Board can impose for unauthorized water diversions. People who ignore the Water Board’s “cease and desist” orders would pay $2,500 per day, up from $1,000 a day. It would also increase the penalty for those who violate a term or condition of a permit, license, certification or registration issued by the Water Board, from $500 a day to $1,000 a day. And those divert water unlawfully when there is a curtailment order could be charged $10,000 a day and $2,500 per acre foot diverted in violation.

A range of organizations and agencies including environmental groups, Indigenous tribes and water agencies such as, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Has passed through multiple committees and was ordered to third reading.

Wastewater Admin

AB 805 (Joaquin Arambula, D-Fresno): Would “allow for the State Water Board to: (1) appoint an administrator for failing wastewater systems & (2) fund cleanup and abatement,” wrote Maraid Jimenez, communications associate for nonprofit Community Water Center, in an email. “This would help communities like East Orosi.”

Community Water Center is cosponsoring the bill which is aimed at addressing issues that have plagued the small community of East Orosi. While East Orosi’s drinking water system is being consolidated with neighboring Orosi, the Water Board does not have authority for wastewater intervention.

The bill is supported by advocacy groups and has no opposition. It has passed multiple committees and was most recently ordered to third reading.

Related Story: Warring Sides Will Try Mediation to Settle Lawsuit Over Sinking Friant-Kern ...

Exempting Wetlands

AB 828 (Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael): Would require groundwater sustainability plans to include water supply and economic impacts on managed wetlands and small community water systems serving disadvantaged communities. It exempts managed wetlands and small community water systems from groundwater pumping regulations under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The exemptions are temporary and would end once the Department of Water Resources approves the next version of each subbasin’s GSP or if the Water Board enacts an interim plan. The exemptions would be lifted if groundwater pumping exceeds annual averages from 2015-2020.

The bill has a range of support including from environmental groups, hunting groups and other advocacy organizations, which argue that many current GSPs propose a “one size fits all” solution for groundwater allocations, hitting small communities and managed wetlands harder than other areas.

Agriculture groups and some water districts oppose the bill, arguing it would undercut groundwater sustainability agencies’ ability to raise funds by exempting small systems and managed wetlands from fees.

The bill has passed multiple committees and was ordered to third reading.

Charging Higher Water-Use Parcels

AB 1827 (Diane Papan, D-San Mateo): Would allow water utilities to proportionately charge higher use-parcels for increased costs of facilities to accommodate their water usage.

“If you’re a local water utility and there’s a certain parcel that’s using way more water, and they’re using so much water that you actually have to install new facilities to provide them the level of water service they are demanding, you can, as the utility, pass that cost on to that owner of the parcel,” said Alexandra Biering, senior policy advocate at the California Farm Bureau Federation.

The bill is sponsored by the Irvine Ranch Water District and the California Coast Keeper Alliance. It is supported by multiple cities, water districts, advocacy groups and environmental groups. It is only opposed by one individual from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. There is no opposition comment provided in the bill’s analysis.

The bill has passed both houses and is being proofread before being sent to the governor’s desk.

Recharge Permit Exemptions

AB 2060 (Esmeralda Soria, D-Fresno): Would exempt a temporary water right permit to divert water for underground storage from “Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement” requirements, which are agreements authorized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The CDFW allegedly ghosted Merced County after years of delays for permits sought by the county to clear debris and overgrowth from area creeks and ditches. Massive flood waters last winter backed up on that debris and overwhelmed waterways, causing catastrophic flooding in towns and neighborhoods.

The bill has gone through some amendments which require certain biological surveys and take away some of the flexibility of the bill’s original intent, said Biering.

“It is crucial that we provide every possible tool to water managers in our state, ensuring they can capture wet-year water and put it to beneficial use in dry years,” Soria wrote in the bill analysis. “This has tremendous potential to help local government entities meet their goals under SGMA while simultaneously protecting our communities from floodwaters.”

The bill is supported by multiple agricultural groups and is opposed only by the California Department of Finance, which argues it could result in excess costs and adverse impacts to wildlife.

Fee Process Changes

AB 2257 (Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City): Would change Proposition 218, which is the process required by law for proposed fee increases. Proposition 218 allows fee payers to protest and potentially deny increased fees, if a majority protest is achieved.

This bill would enhance notices sent to residents about a new fee. Notices would include information about how to submit objections and would clarify that a failure to submit objections will impact the ability to litigate the fees later. The bill would prohibit a party from suing agencies if timely objections were not submitted. It would give residents 45 days to submit objections.

The bill is supported by more than 24 public utilities, special districts and municipal governments. It is opposed by a coalition of taxpayer advocates.

Related Story: Friant Needs $90 Million to Pay for Massive Canal Project. Who Will Pony Up?

Water Testing

AB 2454 (Alex Lee, D-San Jose): Would require owners of domestic wells at rental properties to use free water testing programs, if available. Property owners would be required to provide results to tenants and, if the well is in violation of safety standards, provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water.

Community Water Center is co-sponsoring this bill. It is supported by environmental and advocacy groups.

“This bill would help ensure that residents living in areas where federal, state, or locally funded domestic well testing programs are present can access these programs, minimizing their potential exposure to toxic chemicals, and improving the ability of state and regional partners to effectively address groundwater contamination and provide access to safe drinking water,” wrote a coalition of supporters in the bill’s analysis.

The bill has no opposition. The bill has passed multiple committees and was ordered to second reading.

Westlands Solar Power

AB 2661 (Esmeralda Soria, D-Fresno): Would allow Westlands Water District to generate and deliver its own solar electricity and construct facilities such as power lines and energy storage.

According to Assemblymember Soria, the law is aimed at helping to meet California’s renewable energy goals by leveraging Westlands’ resources to build transmission and take advantage of increased solar generation.

“As amended, AB 2661 will allow Westlands to invest in solar energy generation, storage, and transmission, offering a viable alternative for land that has been removed from agricultural use due to reduced surface water supplies,” wrote Jeff Payne, assistant general manager of Westlands, in an email. “Investment in solar power will create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and support California’s statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality while helping mitigate the adverse effects of land being taken out of irrigated agricultural production.”

The bill is supported by multiple water districts, cities, agriculture groups and nonprofit Self-Help Enterprises. It has no opposition. It has passed multiple committees and was amended and ordered to second reading.

Wetlands Status Quo

AB 2875 (Laura Friedman, D-Burbank): This bill would make it state policy to ensure no net loss and long-term gain in the, “quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage.”

“It’s one of these ones that’s really vague,” said Biering of the California Farm Bureau.

Still, the bill is supported by environmental and advocacy groups and has no opposition. It has passed multiple committees and was ordered to third reading.

Long-Term Water Planning

SB 366 (Anna Caballero, D-Merced): Would change the requirements for the California Water Plan, the state’s strategic plan for managing and developing water resources. The California Water Plan is updated every five years.

The bill would require DWR to develop a long term water supply target for 2050. It also establishes an interim goal of an additional nine million acre feet of water or storage capacity by 2040.

The bill is supported by the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. It is opposed by the Mono Lake Committee which argues that a nine-million-acre-foot goal is unsupported by available evidence.

More Review of Oil Injection

SB 1304 (Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara): Would require a higher level of state review for oil injection wells which dispose of produced water and other waste from the oil production process back into the ground.

According to comments from Limón in the bill’s analysis, “oil companies often seek exemptions from the state and U.S. EPA to inject toxic waste water through aquifers that are used for drinking water, agriculture, and other beneficial uses. Injecting this waste can pose a potential path for the pollution to migrate into aquifers used for drinking water and can potentially cause serious harm to the public, including disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. Requiring a higher level of state review provides the local public and vulnerable populations an opportunity to voice concerns on how their drinking water may be affected by oil and gas production.”

The bill does not have any letters on file for support or in opposition. It has passed multiple committees and was ordered to third reading.

Related Story: Extreme Heat Strains Drinking Water Wells Throughout Valley

Floodwater Regs Lifted

SB 1390 (Anna Caballero, D-Merced): Would expand on the governor’s executive order from last year which temporarily lifted regulations and permit requirements for diverting and recharging flood water.

“It would make it easier for locals to do that sort of recharge under a local declaration of flood conditions, not a statewide one,” said Biering. “Sometimes locals know better, or can act faster, than the governor. So, we should also give locals the opportunity to do that.”

The bill is supported by nonprofit Sustainable Conservation and opposed by another nonprofit, the San Francisco Baykeeper.

San Francisco Baykeeper comments in the bill’s analysis say it would, “allow local agencies to freely pump water from California’s already fragile river systems in a misguided effort to reclaim floodwaters for groundwater recharge.”

The Turlock, Modesto and San Joaquin irrigation districts oppose the bill unless it’s amended. According to the agencies, it s too restrictive and counter to the state’s goal of putting excess water to beneficial use.

The bill has passed multiple committees and was ordered to third reading.

About SJV Water

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site dedicated to covering water in the San Joaquin Valley. Get inside access to SJV Water by becoming a member.