Water resources: permit to appropriate: application procedure: mining use.
By requiring the Board to issue new notices and allow protests at the 30-year mark, AB 1631 seeks to promote transparency and accountability in the management of water resources, particularly in relation to mining activities which could have substantial water use implications. This measure aims to ensure that the water rights system remains responsive to the needs and rights of local communities and other stakeholders involved in water disputes. If implemented, it has the potential to reshape how applications for water permits, especially involving mining, are processed in California, potentially decreasing the backlog of applications and enhancing stakeholder engagement.
Assembly Bill 1631, introduced by Assembly Member Schiavo, seeks to amend the Water Code by adding Section 1305, which impacts the permit application process for appropriating water specifically for mining purposes. This bill establishes a provision that mandates the State Water Resources Control Board to issue a new notice and allow public protests if a final determination on a permit application is not made within 30 years of its submission. The intention is to ensure that stakeholders and interested parties have an opportunity to voice their concerns and objections concerning water appropriations after a significant amount of time has passed since the initial application.
The overall sentiment surrounding AB 1631 appears to be cautiously optimistic among supporters, who argue that the bill is a necessary reform that addresses long-standing concerns about the water appropriation process, especially as it relates to mining. Supporters believe that renewed opportunities for public involvement will lead to more equitable management of California’s finite water resources. However, potential opponents may be concerned about the implications of delaying permits for mining activities, which could have economic repercussions for mining companies and related sectors.
Notably, one point of contention is whether the 30-year timeline for issuing a new notice and allowing protests may lead to complications in the permitting process, particularly for existing applications that have already been in limbo. Critics might argue that the bill could create bureaucratic hurdles that impede timely approvals for water use, especially in an era where water resources are increasingly critical. This highlights the tension between ensuring public involvement and the need for efficient water resource management in California.