The amendments proposed in SB 697 reflect a significant shift in how water rights are managed and adjudicated in California, potentially impacting both right holders and the overall management of water resources. By allowing the Board to compel reporting from claimants, the legislation aims to achieve a more accurate understanding of water use across systems. This could lead to more efficient water resource management, particularly in times of scarcity, ensuring sustainable use of water resources.
Summary
Senate Bill 697, introduced by Senator Laird, amends various sections of the Water Code relating to the determination of water rights within stream systems. The bill aims to enhance the procedures and regulatory framework under which the State Water Resources Control Board investigates and adjudicates water rights. Key provisions include the authorization for the Board to conduct detailed investigations of water use without the necessity of a field investigation and to issue information orders to water right claimants requiring them to submit detailed reports of their water usage.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB 697 appears to support increased oversight and management of water rights by the State Water Resources Control Board, with proponents arguing that informed decisions based on accurate data will benefit all stakeholders involved. However, concerns may arise regarding the burden of compliance that could fall on smaller water right holders or new claimants, leading to apprehension about the feasibility of meeting the proposed requirements, particularly from those wary of the state's increased regulatory presence.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding SB 697 include fears that the increased regulatory framework could impose significant administrative burdens on water users who may be ill-equipped to meet the new reporting requirements. There is also concern from certain stakeholders about the level of discretion granted to the Board in determining the adequacy of information provided by claimants and whether this could lead to overreach or unjust penalties on water users unable to comply with the orders set forth.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, providing limitations on state and local law enforcement agency requests for federal adoption of a seizure under the act, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence forfeiture proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence, authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants and requiring the Kansas bureau of investigation to submit forfeiture fund financial reports to the legislature.