California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1648

Introduced
2/17/23  
Introduced
2/17/23  
Refer
3/16/23  
Refer
3/16/23  
Report Pass
3/16/23  
Refer
3/20/23  
Refer
3/20/23  

Caption

Water: Colorado River conservation.

Impact

The legislation is expected to have significant implications for California's water management framework, particularly regarding the relationship between local, state, and federal authorities. Existing provisions set out under the California Plan aim to ensure that the state operates within its allocated resources from the Colorado River. By self-implementing conservation through other sourcing, the Metropolitan Water District and Los Angeles would have had more flexibility in managing their supply. However, the bill restricts this flexibility, compelling these entities to work within narrower confines and likely risking complications in fulfilling conservation agreements made with federal and state entities.

Summary

AB 1648, introduced by Assembly Member Bains, addresses water conservation issues related to the Colorado River. The bill specifically prohibits the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles from enhancing water conservation efforts or achieving reductions in water consumption through the increased importation of water from other areas in California, such as the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This prohibition is particularly aimed at preventing compliance with federal mandates that could require these agencies to source water elsewhere to meet their conservation targets.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 1648 is likely mixed, reflecting both support and opposition from various stakeholders. Proponents argue that restricting water imports helps to localize management and accountability regarding Colorado River water usage. They contend that greater reliance on conservation strategies would promote sustainable practices. Conversely, critics express concerns that this restriction could hinder vital conservation efforts needed to address California's ongoing water shortages, particularly amidst prolonged drought conditions. This dichotomy illustrates the tension between regulatory control and adaptive management within California's complex water system.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding AB 1648 include its potential retroactive application as specified in the bill, starting from January 1, 2023, which may raise legal questions regarding agreements already in place prior to this date. Furthermore, the legislative intent to craft future laws that further restrict the City and County of Los Angeles from using imported water for federally mandated conservation efforts indicates an ongoing debate about the balance between local governance and compliance with federal water management practices. This could provoke significant pushback from urban water authorities and agricultural interests alike, who may feel their operational capabilities are unfairly constrained.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2610

Protected species: authorized take: System Conservation Implementation Agreement.

CA ACR176

Cruising.

CA AB580

Surface mining: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

CA AB2246

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: exemption: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

CA SB1124

Public health goal: primary drinking water standard: manganese.

CA SB366

The California Water Plan: long-term supply targets.

CA AB1901

Dog training services: disclosure requirement.

NV SJR3

Urges the United States Bureau of Reclamation to consider certain actions, alternatives and measures for the protection and management of the Colorado River. (BDR R-349)