| HOME |
The HCED Committee met at the 2008 State Convention and, on my motion, recommended to the Board of Directors the creation of a Water Task Force to update the decades old water policies of the League in light of massive amounts of new water policies, regulations and legislation being generated by the State. The motion was adopted at the committee, by the Environmental Committee and by the Board of Directors.
In light of the fiscal problems in California, the committee received numerous updates on legislation pending but inactive during the budget moratorium. By the time that was settled we were more involved with water than anything else.
Meanwhile, the offshoot from the committee, the Water Task Force, started meeting.
Prior to the first meeting staff sent out copies of two state department reports on general water issues and a copy of the previous League policies on water. We were asked to comment in writing before the first meeting.
For the first meeting I arranged for all task force members to get a copy of the draft California Water Plan Update 2009 in executive summary and on CD. It was distributed at the meeting.
I also submitted, a week before the meeting, my comments and suggested amendments to the previous policies. At the meeting it was revealed that my comments had been distributed but that no one else had submitted anything.
Staff suggested breaking the topic up into major areas of concern such as water supply, delivery, quality, environment, discharge, urban and agricultural.
We chose our preferred areas during lunch and broke up into topic groups after lunch.
It was decided that my comments would be used in each group as a jumping off point. No progress was made that afternoon and each group decided to have conference calls for discussion before the next full task force meeting.
The conference calls were difficult to arrange to accommodate schedules. Therefore, multiple conference calls were arranged. The first round went through 75% of the material under consideration. The one scheduled for May 26th will deal with the balance prior to a full task force meeting in Sacramento toward the end of June.
Meanwhile, we have missed the comment period on the model Landscape Ordinance for California, the Strategic Plan Update 2008-2012, the Draft 20X202 Water Conservation Plan and the California Water Plan Update 2009, which comprise all of the major plans affecting local jurisdictions this year. I did comment, myself, on three of them and copied my comments to League Task Force staff. I also testified in person at one workshop on the Water Plan Update in San Luis Obsipo.
As one of the two Division representatives to the HCED Policy Committee it was my turn to give the report to the Division meeting in Santa Paula on August 22, 2008.
Between the March meeting in Ontario and the June 27 meeting in Sacramento, League staff kept us up to date on developments regarding various bills we were either opposing or seeking to have amended. Requests for letters of support for the League positions were responded to by many jurisdictions and/or individual members.
Specifically, letters of opposition to SB 375 by Senator Darrell Steinberg greatly assisted our staff in getting the bill gutted and reassembled in an acceptable manner. Recently, we’ve been able to change our stance and support the legislation.
At the June meeting we also addressed AB 2870 (DeSaulnier) regarding regionalism in the form of “blueprint” plans that could affect our local ability to control land uses and which could be used to impact our infrastructure funding streams. The recommended position was to oppose regional mandates and punishment for non-compliance in favor of encouragement with incentives.
The committee continued its support of the staff position regarding LUSCAT and applauded its crafting of a letter sent to the LUSCAT chairman.
The committee jealously guarded our independence and freedom of decision regarding SB 303 (Ducheny) as reiterated by staff in its June 13 letter to oppose unless amended regarding land use planning and greenhouse gas emissions.
The committee listened to and recommended consideration by the League’s Board of Directors of an approach to RHNA (Regional Housing Numbers Allocation) that would allocate the region’s needs based more heavily on a jobs/housing balance with transportation funding than upon jurisdictional population. This proposal would also realign the cycles such that they would be more synchronized.
The committee reconsidered its previous position on legislation affecting the composition and requirements of Airport Land Use Commissions. Presentations by representatives involved in the complexities of the situation convinced the committee once again that one size can’t fit all. Small jurisdictions and joint powers entities need special consideration. The committee position was amended to allow these variations without compromising the integrity of the system.
A sub-committee of both HCED and Environment was established subsequent to the meeting to address AB 2175 regarding statewide, mandatory water conservation. The sub-committee has been meeting by conference call and has a great many concerns. The basis for the standards to be applied is not clear and the methodology is poorly defined. It uses per person/per day (pp/pd) water use as a basis but exempts commercial and industrial activity. It is not clear, however, as to whether the pp/pd calculation is determined by total water used divided by population or if the exempt uses are backed out first. It establishes a narrow time frame to determine the base year and fails to allow consideration, or credit, for previous conservation efforts. It uses withdrawal of funds as a threat against failure to achieve measureable goals on a specific schedule. The conference call included a staff member of the bill’s sponsor. The group decided to recommend opposition to the bill as written. Further meetings will be scheduled as needed.
The current State effort to write and adopt the “California Water Plan Update 2009” and the California Department of Water Resources Control Board’s “Draft Strategic Plan” has also been noted and the sub-committee is being considered for continuation to address those documents and any related efforts during the balance of this year and next year.
These proposals are already in hearing with the technical advisory bodies composed mainly of State staff people. Many other organizations are expressing major concerns regarding threats to existing allocations, permits and licenses previously issued by the State. The state association representing water purveyors has already weighed in on the preliminary discussions and draft proposals. Individual water companies are also beginning to take notice and weigh in because they are not satisfied that their state organization is adequately representing them.
This effort has been flying under the radar for many years and just now has become significant enough to demand major notice and response. Every jurisdiction that provides water to its citizens should be paying close attention to the statewide goals and policies as well as the regional plans.
The initial draft is completed. The Working Draft is completed. The Pre-Administrative Draft is scheduled to be posted online on September 3rd. Final date to submit comments on that draft will be October 3rd. The Public Review Draft is scheduled to be posted online on December 31, 2008 with a final date to submit comments being June 5, 2009. The preview of the Final Update 2009 is scheduled to be posted online on December 31, 2009. However, the final date to submit comments is scheduled to be December 28, 2009…three days before it is to be posted online.