The "suspense" round of legislative Appropriations hearings is scheduled for next week. That is when the Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees speed through hundreds of bills that have cleared their committees of reference to see which among them move to their respective floors and which are put on "suspense," otherwise known as all but dead for the year. The second round takes place in August when bills from the other house go through the same abbreviated process to see which among them move forward toward the Governor's desk.
In short, this is the Legislature's way of killing bills that too many of the members consider sufficiently controversial that they just don't want to take a vote or issue a position thereon.
Unlike recent sessions in which the California golf community had a compelling interest in amending, mitigating, or defeating certain bills, this session has offered up bills that merited watching for myriad reasons, but nothing particularly more than that. There was one exception - AB 1590 (Friedman; D-Burbank), a bill that would have banned the use of all non-organic pesticides and fertilizers on golf courses owned and attached to large resorts in the California coastal zone.
There may be no more than 6 such golf resorts in the state, but to the degree to which the subject of the bill was not resorts, but the application of approved fertilizers, the distance between applying to 6 courses and 60 courses would have been a very short and straight line. The irony in this strange bill is that golf courses outside California's coastal zone are already highly restricted in many of the non-organics used in other states, and golf courses within the coastal zone are restricted well over and above that by the California Coastal Commission and the State Agricultural Commissioner, among others.
AB 1590 crashed before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee with a thud rarely heard for a bill of a clear "environmental" bent before that particular Committee. It was an ill-conceived bill to be sure and one that had to make legislators with one or more of those 60 courses in their district nervous, but we still expected it to pass out of committee before perhaps dying when it got to Assembly Appropriations next week. But we were spared the angst associated with having to wait.
The same cannot be said for certain bills that we have been watching with interest this session that deal very specifically with the unraveling of certain riparian and pre-1914 water rights that have long been untouchable - a pattern of reconsideration similar to the upending on the table in the Colorado Basin, where California's senior rights are not likely to hold to the degree to which doing so could endanger the flow of drinking water to Phoenix and Tucson.
- AB 460 (Bauer-Kahan; D-Orinda) - Would authorize the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to fine farmers and others who "unlawfully" divert water that the agency deems injurious to the environment, which raises the following question: Is a diversion "unlawful" if it violates the California Constitution's invocation of the state's ability to control the use of water for public benefit or is it "unlawful" if it exceeds the senior rights held by the diverter? There is already a remedy for the latter under water law and the state's codes, and that is why ACWA and others opposing the legislation are so adamant in their opposition, despite protestations from the bill's supporters that AB 460 doesn't obviate long-held senior water rights.
- AB 1337 (Wicks; D-Oakland) - Would give the Water Resources Control Board more authority to limit diversions from rivers by those who now hold the most senior water rights, including pre-1914 rights.
- SB 389 (Allen; D-Santa Monica) - Considered a companion to AB 1337 to the degree to which it too upends certain longstanding senior water rights by giving the SWRCB specific authority to limit the holders of pre-1914 rights' ability to divert water when deemed inconsistent with environmental needs as determined by the SWRCB.
These bills have passed out of their policy committees and are on their way to Appropriations. The California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau, and Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) have vigorously opposed them and tried to secure significant amendments - efforts thus far in vain. In the past, whenever ACWA viscerally has opposed a water bill, that bill has generally died. We're watching to see whether the pattern holds, and these bills die in Appropriations, or whether we've arrived at the day long predicted when pre-1914 rights, senior arrangements, and the old arrangements like the "Law of the Colorado River" are forced to succumb to the realities of aridification.
These bills are not to be confused with those water, turf, and land use bills that we are also watching but watching much more to see how they play out in a way we believe will result in something that moves forward to the Governor's desk after September 14 than how they fare in the two Appropriations Committees. More about those in a future Update.
