Water management planning.
The proposed modifications would have far-reaching implications for urban water suppliers, who must now meet specific water use targets and report annually on their compliance. Failure to meet these targets could result in financial penalties, with courts authorized to impose civil liabilities up to $10,000 for violations. By enforcing stricter oversight on urban water suppliers and requiring detailed annual reporting, the bill aims to foster accountability and better water resource management at both urban and agricultural levels. Such provisions also seek to extend enforcement mechanisms to prevent water wastage during drought conditions.
Assembly Bill 1667, introduced by Assembly Member Friedman, seeks to enhance water management practices in California in response to ongoing water scarcity issues. The bill amends several sections of the Water Code, primarily focusing on urban and agricultural water management. A significant provision mandates the State Water Resources Control Board to establish long-term standards for urban water conservation, with a deadline for adoption set before May 20, 2021. This includes the development of performance measures for various sectors including commercial and industrial water use, aiming to streamline regulation and ensure compliance among water suppliers.
Overall sentiment about AB 1667 appears to be supportive among proponents of sustainable water practices, citing it as a critical step toward addressing California's water crisis. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential burden on smaller urban and agricultural water suppliers who may struggle to adapt to the new administrative requirements. Stakeholders are particularly concerned about the balance between regulatory compliance and operational feasibility, especially under challenging economic circumstances exacerbated by ongoing droughts.
A significant point of contention within the discussions surrounding AB 1667 pertains to the regulations imposed on agricultural water suppliers. The bill requires these suppliers to prepare and adopt more comprehensive water management plans and annual reports organized by geographical basins. Critics argue that these additional requirements could lead to increased operational costs and burdens on small agricultural entities already facing economic pressures. Moreover, the emphasis on penalties for non-compliance may be viewed as heavy-handed, particularly in a sector that relies heavily on careful water management in times of drought.