YOUR DUES DOLLARS AT WORK A MID-YEAR TEMPERATURE CHECK ON CCA’S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES by CCA Vice President of Government Affairs Kirk Wilbur June is an eventful month in the State Capitol: it is the month during which most bills passed out of the Assembly are first considered in the Senate (and vice-versa), and it is also the month in which most two-year bills – those which passed out of their chamber of origin in the first year of a legislative session but which progressed no further – are taken back up in the second chamber. Additionally, assemblymembers tend to be more deferential toward assemblymembers’ bills and senators tend to be more deferential to their fellow senators. Many bills receive much harsher scrutiny – and face greater uphill climbs – in the ‘second house.’ This dynamic contributed to a trio of significant CCA wins in early June, with a two-year bill that would have upended water rights enforcement being significantly watered down, another two-year water rights measure being abandoned altogether and a proposal to restrict groundwater well drilling getting shot down in committee for a third consecutive year. AB 460 Substantially Amended Assembly Bill 460, introduced by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), in the first year of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, quickly became one of CCA’s primary lobbying targets in 2023, as the sweeping bill contained numerous threats to water rightsholders. Given that the author was then-Chair of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, these threats were particularly significant. As introduced, AB 460 would have allowed any “interested party” to bring a complaint to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) alleging that a water rightsholder had violated a curtailment order, water quality objective or the terms of a water right. The bill then would have allowed the SWRCB to bring an “interim relief proceeding” against the individual accused of that violation. If the Board determined that “the matter is urgent,” the bill would have allowed the agency to dispense with the requirement to provide adequate notice of the enforcement proceeding prior levying fines. Finally, if the SWRCB were to issue an interim relief order, the bill would have authorized fines of
14 California Cattleman July 2024
$10,000 per day of violation and $5,000 for each acrefoot of water diverted in violation of the order. The bill was a direct response to a muchpublicized 2022 incident in which a northern California water association diverted water for agricultural use in violation of a curtailment order issued by the SWRCB. While the diverters had very real concerns regarding the health and well-being of their livestock, the conversation around the incident largely centered on comments made in the media that it was more economical for water users to violate the curtailment order – for which the State could impose only a $500-per-day fine – than to continue suffering the effects of water unavailability. CCA had numerous concerns with the legislation as introduced. While it may make sense for a downstream, senior water rightsholder to be able to bring a complaint to the Board, allowing any “interested party” to petition the SWRCB for an alleged violation of the Water Code was ripe for abuse by radical environmental groups which have for years fought before the Water Board and in the courts to put an end to livestock grazing in California. Dispensing with the notice requirement raised significant concerns relative to constitutional rights to due process. The bill’s scope was also excessively broad – for instance, it would have rendered directly enforceable water quality objectives typically intended only for planning purposes. CCA and a wide array of water agencies and agricultural interests aggressively fought AB 460 as it worked its way through the Assembly. Finally, CCA and other opponents notched a significant win in late June of 2023 when BauerKahan pulled the bill from a hearing in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee when it had become clear the measure lacked sufficient support to pass out of that Committee. Having advanced out of its house of origin last year, however, AB 460 remained eligible to be taken