The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-02-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - STATE LEGISLATION SB 146 (2)Agenda Item: 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: fill DATE: February 14, 2017 SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATION: SENATE BILL 146 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office PRESENTER: Michael Murphy RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council support and sponsor Senate Bill 146, as proposed to be amended, and direct staff to work with Senator Scott Wilk, other Members of the Legislature, appropriate legislative committee members and staff, State Water Resources Control Board members and staff, the Governor's office, and other interested parties to secure enactment of Senate Bill 146. BACKGROUND On December 8, 2016, Senator Scott Wilk (R-21) introduced Senate Bill 57, relating to water resources. On or after February 17, 2017, the contents of Senate Bill 57, as introduced, will be amended into Senate Bill 146. Senator Henry Stern (D-27), Assembly Member Dante Acosta (R-38) and Assembly Member Tom Lackey (R-36) are coauthors of the measure. Senate Bill 146, as proposed to be amended, would require that if the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has not made a final determination on an application to appropriate water within 25 years from the filing date of the application, then the board would need to issue a new notice and provide an opportunity for protests. This action would essentially reopen the process. Senate Bill 146 will be an updated successor to Assembly Bill 1986, authored by Mr. Wilk during the 2015/16 session of the California Legislature. Although approved by the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee in April 2016, AB 1986 was ultimately held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Appropriations Committee in late May 2016. Senate Bill 146, as proposed to be amended, would relate to CEMEX's proposed Soledad Canyon mining project, should the Bureau of Land Management's termination of two contracts with CEMEX ultimately not be upheld and the project is allowed to move forward. The bill will seek to guarantee that in the event the mining project goes forward, the public is afforded a full opportunity to ensure that the State Water Resources Control Board is in possession of the most current information prior to deciding whether to issue a water appropriation permit. Page 1 Packet Pg. 22 The original water appropriation permit application for the large-scale Soledad Canyon mining project is now over a quarter -century old, having been filed in 1991. It appears that the last significant action of the SWRCB regarding the application took place in 1994. The measure will not extinguish any valid rights of an applicant or limit the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board to issue notices or take other actions related to consideration of an application. The bill seeks to provide a fair opportunity for interested persons to file protests or otherwise be heard by the SWRCB regarding aged applications. In the case of the pending application related to the Soledad Canyon mining project, significant changes have occurred in the community within the past 25 years. For example, the State Water Resources Control Board may wish to consider the available and dependable water supply to the community as a result of the multi -year drought. Santa Clarita's water supply is comprised of approximately 50% groundwater and 50% imported water from the State Water Project. A review of the current role of the Santa Clara River, as it relates to habitat of the protected unarmored three -spine stickleback found in portions of the river near the proposed mining site and as a source of recharging the local aquifers, would appear appropriate when considering the permit application. Since 1990, Santa Clarita's population has more than doubled from approximately 110,000 residents to the current population of approximately 225,000. As these examples illustrate, a number of significant changes have occurred in the area over the past quarter -century. Therefore, it is appropriate for the State Water Resources Control Board to fully consider present day dynamics rather than relying on information that is significantly out-of-date in making decisions with long-term impacts. The City Council is requested to formally support and sponsor Senate Bill 146, as proposed to be amended, and direct staff to work with Senator Wilk, other Members of the Legislature, appropriate legislative committee members and staff, State Water Resources Control Board Members and staff, the Governor's office, and other interested parties to secure enactment of Senate Bill 146. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Adopt a "neutral" position on Senate Bill 146, as proposed to be amended. 2. Adopt an "oppose" position on Senate Bill 146, as proposed to be amended. 3. Other action, as determined by the City Council. Page 2 Packet Pg. 23 O FISCAL IMPACT The resources required to implement the recommended action are contained within the City's adopted 2016/17 budget. ATTACHMENTS SB 57, As Introduced 12-08-16 Page 3 Packet Pg. 24 3.a SENATE BILL No. 57 Introduced by Senator Wilk (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Acosta and Lackey) December 8, 2016 An act to add Section 1305 to the Water Code, relating to water resources. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 57, as introduced, Wilk. Water resources: permit to appropriate: application procedure. Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board administers a water rights program pursuant to which the board grants permits and licenses to appropriate water. Existing law requires an application for a permit to appropriate water to include, among other things, sufficient information to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that unappropriated water is available for the proposed appropriation. Existing law requires the board to issue and deliver a notice of an application as soon as practicable after the receipt of an application for a permit to appropriate water that conforms to the law. Existing law allows interested persons to file a written protest with regard to an application to appropriate water and requires the protestant to set forth the objections to the application. Existing law declares that no hearing is necessary to issue a permit in connection with an unprotested application, or if the undisputed facts support the issuance of the permit and there is no disputed issue of material fact, unless the board elects to hold a hearing. This bill, if the board has not rendered a final determination on an application for a permit to appropriate water within 25 years from the date the application was filed, would require the board to issue a notice and provide an opportunity for protests before rendering a final 99 Packet Pg. 25 SB 57 —2— 3.a determination, with specified exceptions. This bill would provide that it is not a limitation on the authority of the board to issue a notice or direct the applicant to issue a notice if, because of changes in the project or other circumstances, the issuance of a notice is necessary to provide a fair opportunity for interested persons to file protests or is in the public interest. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTIONI. Section 1305 is added to the Water Code, to read: 2 1305. (a) If the board has not rendered a final determination 3 on an application for a permit to appropriate water within 25 years 4 from the date the application was filed, the board shall issue a new 5 notice and provide an opportunity for protests under Chapter 4 6 (commencing with Section 1330) before rendering a final 7 determination. 8 (b) A notice and opportunity for protests pursuant to subdivision 9 (a) is not required if any of the following apply: 10 (1) The application is canceled or denied. 11 (2) A notice and opportunity for protests has been provided 12 within five years prior to the board rendering a final approval. 13 (3) The board holds a hearing or conducts proceedings under 14 Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 1345), after public notice 15 of the hearing or proceeding, and allows any person requesting 16 notice of the hearing or proceedings to participate as a party in the 17 hearing or proceeding, including the presentation of evidence, 18 without having to have filed protests. The board shall provide not 19 less than 45 days' written notice, in the same manner as would be 20 provided to an unresolved protestant, to any person requesting the 21 notice. 22 (4) The applicant is a public entity. 23 (c) This section is not a limitation on the authority of the board 24 to issue a notice or direct the applicant to issue a notice if, because 25 of changes in the project or other circumstances, the issuance of 26 a notice is necessary to provide a fair opportunity for interested 27 persons to file protests or is in the public interest. ,X 99 Packet Pg. 26