The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on Tuesday asked Assembly Member John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) to consider significant amendments to AB 2175, a bill mandating agricultural and urban water conservation activities.

 During committee discussion following testimony, Committee Chairman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden) raised questions about the “top down” approach undertaken by the bill as well as secondary impacts generated by mandatory agricultural water conservation measures.

 Steinberg asked Laird initially to strike references in the bill to a proposed target of 500,000 acre-feet of agricultural water conservation and then later retracted his request and instead asked that the number be left in as a “placeholder,” citing potential similarities with urban industrial uses that could not be addressed during a short time period at the committee meeting.  Steinberg also asked whether a “water management plan” approach to water conservation activities is a better solution than mandated activities and thought it needed to “cook” longer before being approved.

 In his comments on the bill, Machado expressed serious concern for the changes in crop mix that would likely result from the mandated approach.  Citing the loss of 14 of the 16 tomato processors once based in Stockton, Machado blamed regulations and the inability of the City of Stockton to handle the processors’ wastewater as a reason for the closure of the plants.  As a result, he said, jobs were lost and the farming community was forced to change because of the loss of infrastructure.

 Committee Vice-chair Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Temecula) also raised questions about the secondary impacts the bill would have on the Quantification Settlement Agreement between Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego.  Increased water conservation pressure on IID to conserve water could lead to more fallowing, jeopardizing the long term QSA.

On a motion that required the bill to return to the committee for review before proceeding to the Senate Fiscal Committee and Senate floor, the bill received four aye votes and was on-call pending an additional vote to move it out of committee.