Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Bills topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears legislative subcommittee review; recommends watch or support on several water bills
Summary
The legislative subcommittee reviewed multiple state bills affecting groundwater governance and water planning and recommended positions ranging from watch to support or oppose, including support for AB 1044 to form a Tule East GSA boundary and watch positions on bills addressing tribal beneficial use and California water planning.
The Tulare County Water Commission reviewed a legislative subcommittee report that outlined recommended county positions on several California bills affecting groundwater governance, water planning and contaminant mitigation.
Rogelio, a county staff member, summarized the subcommittee’s informal recommendations and said the subcommittee lacked a quorum at its last meeting; the recommendations presented to the commission were therefore unofficial. He ran through several bills and the subcommittee’s suggested stances.
Key recommendations included a watch position on AB 293, which would require that Form 700 filings for Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) board members be published on a GSA website; a watch position on AB 362, which adds tribal water uses to the definition of beneficial use and would require incorporating tribal water quality standards into some decisions; and a support position on AB 1044, a bill the county wrote to establish a Tule East GSA boundary following changes in local participation.
The subcommittee recommended watch positions on bills related to groundwater adjudications (AB 1413 and AB 1466) and on SB 72, which would revise how the California Water Plan is developed and require Department of Water Resources (DWR) to set a long‑term water supply planning target for 2050. It also suggested a watch position on SB 224, which would require DWR to adopt a new water‑supply forecasting model and hold related public meetings. For PFAS mitigation, SB 454 would establish a mitigation fund but does not identify funding sources; the subcommittee recommended opposing SB 454 unless funding is identified. The subcommittee suggested a watch (or possible oppose) posture on SB 599, which changes authorities for diverting flood flows.
Commissioners asked whether the county takes Farm Bureau positions into account. Trelawny Bullis, who identified himself as a District 1 representative and water resources manager for AC Foods, asked about Farm Bureau input; staff said they sometimes receive Farm Bureau materials and also consult the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) positions when relevant.
The subcommittee said it will reconvene and bring finalized recommendations back to the commission when it has a quorum. No formal county votes on these bills were taken at the meeting.
