Climate Change Environmental Review Obligations for Water Agencies

1. Climate Change Environmental Review Obligations for Water Agencies AB 32 effects on water agencies, including their obligations under CEQA

2. AB 32 Compliance • Requires 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020 • Californians have managed to reduce emissions by 9.8% per capita since 1990 • If not for population growth – we would have met the targets set for AB 32

3. AB 32 Potential Duties: Water agencies related operations and construction projects: • Should note potential global warming impacts from the generation of Greenhouse gases (GHG). • Only GHG really a concern for Water Agencies is CO2, though wastewater agencies may have methane emissions. Gases which are not a concern methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perflurocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and water vapor. • Could conduct their own audit, to assure they are not responsible for other types of GHG emissions other than those associated with electrical use.

4. Planning AB 32 Opportunities: Water agencies may be considered to receive credits for “voluntary reductions” by: • Taking steps characterized as “early actions” • Implementing an credit rather than a giveaway. • Water agencies may be able to obtain credits/portion of the revenues from the auction approach towards responses to climate change.

5. State Agency Activities • DWR’s divestment of energy purchases from GHG generating sources • Requirements that Grants/Plans address Climate Change • IRWMPs to address Climate Change proposed legislation • Potentially in Prop 84 Grant Guidelines

6. CEQA Approaches To Greenhouse Gas Emissions and AB 32 • CEQA Mandates for Analysis of Impacts • CEQA Challenges • Approaches to the Analysis of Impacts • Growth Related Impacts • Thresholds of Significance • Avoiding and Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Statement of Overriding Considerations • Conclusion

7. CEQA Mandates for Analysis of Impacts • Need to disclose impacts • AB 32 could be construed to mean that impacts from GHG emissions and effects of climate change should be addressed in CEQA documents. • Addressing a project’s impacts on climate change should be done on a cumulative rather than project specific basis. • Directly linking to climate change is probably speculative

8. CEQA Challenges • To date, legal challenges related to GHG emissions/climate change have been to CEQA documents prepared for land use/transportation planning documents • Few to water related projects

9. Approaches to Analysis of Impacts • Screening • Qualitative • Quantitative

10. Growth Related Impacts • Does the project accommodate growth that results in significant GHG emissions? • Best approach may be to work with land use agencies within the your service area to document GHG impacts in General Plan EIRs. • The project can then be said to be within the scope of the broader EIR and the impacts of the GHGs from any growth (and possibly any cumulative impacts) already addressed.

11. Thresholds of Significance • At this point there is minimal guidance and no published thresholds • Substantial emissions require mitigation • Up to lead agencies to determine significance

12. Avoiding and Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Water Conservation • Recycled Water Use • Local Water Use • Equipment Replacement with Energy Efficient/Alternative Energy Equivalents • Standard Mitigation/Offsets used by other projects

13. Statement of Overriding Considerations • Approving a project with Overriding Considerations despite potentially significant climate change effects is likely to be problematic due to AB 32. • Would need to cite growth expected by land use agencies and the state in the area and the need to serve that expected growth water.

14. Conclusion • Future Water Agencies Responses will be Contingent on the State’s Activities in Relation to AB 32