Water Package Summary

COMPREHENSIVE WATER PACKAGE BACKGROUND: The comprehensive package that was signed by the Governor in October has two distinct parts; 4 policy bills and the bond.

POLICY PACKAGE: Following is a summary of the policy bills which are now law. There is no linkage between these bills and the bond. They will be implemented regardless of whether on not he bond passes Water Conservation (SB 7) The urban users will be required to reduce usage 10% by 2015 and 20% by 2020. A taskforce representing commercial and industrial users (which include wineries, food processors and potentially some packing houses) will be formed to develop methodology to evaluate/recommend potential conservation practices for these groups. Agriculture: The industry has no hard targets for reducing water usage. Water districts/agencies will be required to develop best management practices/plans. For growers who access federal water, this is already a requirement for those districts, so no real change for federal water users. Groundwater Monitoring: (SB 6) This section focuses on quantity, not quality. There will be very little impact on individuals. Usage monitoring requirements will be left at the agency level. Reporting by the districts to the state will be voluntary, but there is the caveat that if they choose not to report, they would be unable to access any of the bond money for groundwater issues. The language doesn’t create any new authority at the state level, and the understanding is that there are no mandatory metering requirements. Illegal Surface Water Diversion and Enforcement (SB 8) Penalties and fines for Illegal water diversion in the Delta have been on the books for decades, however the fine structure had not been adjusted in 20 years. These fees will be increased and new dollars will be allocated to Department of Water Resources to hire additional enforcement personnel. Delta Governance: (SB 1) Creates a “commission” appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate, to establish policy and procedures for restoring the delta’s ecosystem and improving its economic health. Any conveyance system around or through the delta would come under this jurisdiction. This component was also very controversial as many stakeholders in the Delta community felt that they were left out of the process and are concerned that they will not have appropriate representation on the “commission.” Also, appropriates funding from Proposition 84 to fund the TwoGates Fish Protection Demonstration Program, a project in the central Delta which will utilize operable gates for protection of sensitive species (smelt) and management of water supply.

THE BOND: $11.1 billion – Will be placed on November 2010 ballot. Details: For more specific information, refer to the second attachment on this email

455 million for drought relief projects and drought relief for disadvantaged communities . $3 billion for Water Storage $2.25 billion for Delta Sustainability $1.7 billion for Watershed Conservation $1 billion for Groundwater Clean-up and Protection $1.25 billion for Water Recycling and Water Conservation

Continued

The Pros and Cons offered by the advocates and opponents of the Bond PROS: • •

• • • •

Provides for surface storage which will insure a reliable, stable water supply for the long term . Cal Fed record of decision projects, Sites Reservoir, Temperance Flat and Los Vagueros expansion stand the best chance of receiving bond funds. These projects receive priority due to the sheer magnitude of the public benefits and their measurable benefits to the Delta, a key precondition of receiving bond funds. If not now, When? The state’s population will continue to grow, while the state’s water infrastructure has not kept pace. New surface storage is critical. Cannot conserve our way to adequate supplies, as claimed by some opponents to surface storage. Provides vehicle for conveyance through or around the Delta Provides for eco restoration improved economic health for the Delta

CONS:  Too expensive given California’s fiscal crisis  Too many costly add-ons that are not specific to the water crisis  Surface Storage: Allocates $3.0 billion for surface storage, but opponents state language 



 

in bill does not require that dams will be built at Temperance Flat or Sites Reservoir in Colusa County. California has already passed a number of water bonds to address environmental concerns. Eg. Prop 84 in 2006 authorized nearly $5.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, water conservation efforts, etc. Prop 50 in 2002 authorized $3.4 billion in general bonds for various

water–related environmental projects. SJV stakeholders would be responsible for their cost-share of building a dam at Temperance Flat, and there are not any guarantees that at some point that water would not be taken away for environmental purposes, such as the SJ river settlement. The stakeholders would still be liable for their share of the construction expense. Bond does not pay for any part of Peripheral Canal. Language says all payments and costs are paid by water users. Does not provide any short term remedies on either west or east side of SJV.