Greetings,
Senate Passes Water Bond, Three Policy
Bills
Assembly Action Could
The
Senate took historic action last night to pass a $9.9 billion
water bond by Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto). Policy bills on
Delta governance and conservation also passed on Senate floor
votes last night, while a third bill on groundwater monitoring
passed this afternoon. A policy bill on water rights enforcement
is currently pending on the Senate floor, with the session
expected to resume later tonight.
The
water bond and policy elements are contained in separate bills
before the Senate. The policy bills are joined so that passage
of one bill requires passage of all.
The
Assembly may take up the bills as early as this evening. Any
changes made in the Assembly would have to return to the Senate
for concurrence.
The
ACWA Board of Directors has taken a support position on the
Cogdill bond bill as well as the policy bills related to Delta
governance, conservation, and groundwater monitoring. ACWA staff
continues to seek changes to the water rights enforcement
language, specifically with regard to the ability of the state
board to initiate adjudications of water rights and penalties on
illegal diversions. ACWA prefers the language contained in SB 7X
6 (De Leon), and is seeking to replace the language now before
the Senate in the water rights enforcement bill originally
introduced by Sen. Fran Pavley (now SB 7X 5
(Steinberg)).
New Floor Analysis Distributed on Delta
Bill
Assembly committee staff has released a draft floor
analysis of the main Delta policy bill, SB 7X 1 (Simitian). The
bill includes a definition of the co-equal goals, establishes a
governance structure for the Delta and requires certain
pre-requisites for implementation of the Bay-Delta Conservation
Plan, including establishment of in-stream flow
criteria.
The
in-stream flow criteria language has been highly controversial
for some ACWA members. The establishment of such criteria would
be a new concept in
The
analysis clarifies that the “flow criteria do not
predetermine how any issue will be decided in any later
proceeding before the State Water Resources Control
Board.” In addition, translating the criteria into flow
objectives, which would be legally binding, would require
further proceedings pursuant to existing law with a full
evidentiary hearing and cross-examination. The flow criteria do
not require a particular outcome in later regulatory
proceedings, according to the analysis, and are aimed primarily
at facilitating planning earlier in the BDCP
process.
The
draft floor analysis is available at http://www.acwa.com/issues/09leg_SB1_x7_STR.pdf.
More Updates to Follow
ACWA
will continue to keep its members apprised as developments
occur. Updates will be posted on ACWA’s site at http://www.acwa.com/issues/09LegWaterPackage.asp.
