Water
Farm Bureau has taken oppose positions, as part of a coalition of agriculture and business water users, on four bills authored by Assemblymember Bennett being heard in the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife on March 28. The bills are:
AB-429 This bill his bill would in certain instances where domestic wells go dry - prohibit a county, city, or any other water well permitting agency from approving a permit for a new groundwater well or for an alteration to an existing well in a basin subject to the act and classified as a critically overdrafted basin unless specified conditions are metrestricts the water available for food production and restricts the local control of groundwater previously guaranteed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
AB-560 This bill would require courts to refer the proposed judgment to the State Water Resources Control Board for an advisory determination as to whether the proposed judgment will substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the board, or the department to achieve sustainable groundwater management. This is unnecessary regulatory oversight to judicial proceedings that will add time, cost, and uncertain outcomes to adjudications.
AB-676 This bill would amend Water Code Section 106, a foundational code section for water management in California. The purpose of Section 106 is to provide clear policy directive that the highest use of water in California is for domestic purposes and that the next highest use is for irrigation. This section creates an important legal tool for the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and courts in regulating and managing water resources in the state, ensuring that water is used in a sustainable and equitable manner that benefits all water users. AB 676 would significantly confuse the understanding of this foundational code section by inserting redundant references to existing laws that have nothing to do with establishing priority of use. This bill would certainly create litigation risk.
AB-1563 This bill imposes significant costs upon well applicants and increases the likelihood of legal challenges to well permitting decisions. Small family farmers are the least likely to be able to afford the new requirements in this bill, particularly when these farmers are already struggling to keep their businesses running. In addition, the proposed requirements in the bill are untimely, considering current state study into well permitting best practices.
On the Senate side, SB-366 authored by Senator Anna Caballero has been amended. In an effort to set defined long term water storage goals, the bill would require the Department of Water Resources, in coordination with the California Water Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, other state and federal agencies as appropriate, and a stakeholder advisory committee to develop a comprehensive plan for addressing the state’s water needs and meeting specified water supply targets established by the bill for purposes of “The California Water Plan.”
The bill would require the plan to provide recommendations and strategies to ensure enough water supply for all beneficial uses. The bill would require the plan to include specified components, including an economic analysis and a long-term financing plan, and require DWR to develop the long-term financing plan to meet the water supply targets and include the final financing plan as part of each update. Staff: Peter Ansel; pansel@cfbf.com
.svg.png?cacheid=0.9616018850896426)
