BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Elaine K Alquist, Chair
BILL NO: AB 301
A
AUTHOR: Fuentes
B
AMENDED: April 1, 2009
HEARING DATE: June 10, 2009
3
CONSULTANT:
0
Orr/
1
SUBJECT
Vended water
SUMMARY
Requires applicants for licenses to bottle water in
California report the volume of the water, the source, and
the county of the source to the Department of Public
Health. Requires the Department to compile this information
and make it available to the public.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law:
Existing federal law authorizes the Federal Food and Drug
Administration to regulate standards for bottled water
products in interstate commerce, under the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Existing federal law authorizes the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate standards for
tap water, under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Existing state law:
Establishes the Department of Public Health, Food and Drug
Branch, which is responsible for licensing and regulating
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 301 (Fuentes) Page
2
manufacturers of bottled water and providers of vended
water.
The Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Law prescribes
various quality and labeling standards for bottled water
and vended water, and limits the levels of certain
contaminants that may be contained in those water products.
Requires a water-bottling plant to annually prepare a
bottled water report, including information about the
source of the bottled water, i.e. a spring, drilled well,
or municipal water supply, as a condition of licensure.
Existing law requires that the report include a brief
description of the treatment process used for producing the
bottled water.
Requires the department to charge and collect a fee for
each license application submitted, in an amount reasonably
necessary to produce sufficient revenue for the
department's enforcement efforts, and in accordance with a
prescribed fee schedule.
This bill:
Requires those applicants who apply for a license as a
water bottling plant or a private water source in the
state, to provide to the Department of Public Health:
1) The total volume of water bottled or sold for
wholesale or retail use during a specified time period
preceding the application submission, or an estimate
of the total volume of water the applicant expects to
bottle or sell during the period of licensure,
2) Whether the source of the water was a public or
private water agency, or artesian well, lake, river,
or spring, and,
3) The county where the source of water is located.
Requires the department to annually compile a listing of
this information and make it available to the public.
Requires that the department ensure the report does not
contain duplicative data as to applicants who apply for
both a water-bottling plant license and a private water
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 301 (Fuentes) Page
3
source license. Stipulates that water from a private water
source that is sold or delivered to a water bottling plant
shall be reported separately from water sold or delivered
for other uses from that same water source.
FISCAL IMPACT
Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates that this bill
will cost the Department around $70,000 in the first year,
and $40,000 each subsequent year to compile licensee
information and make it available to the public. Any costs
not covered by the fees the department collects will
presumably become General Fund expenses.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The author contends that information regarding how bottling
or vending operations affect groundwater aquifers or
surface water supplies is generally not available, and
reporting of this information is not currently required. In
a time of ongoing state drought and calls for water
rationing, the author believes that it is important that we
know how much of our state's resource is bottled and
shipped each year.
Bottled and vended water
According to the Department of Public Health, bottled water
is water sold or distributed to consumers in sealed
containers for drinking, culinary, or other purposes
involving a likelihood of being ingested by humans. Bottled
water must be bottled only at a licensed water bottling
plant. Vended water is water dispensed by a water vending
machine, retail water facility (or store), water from a
private water source, or water delivered by a water hauler
for drinking, culinary, or other purposes involving a
likelihood of being ingested by humans. Vended water does
not include bottled water.
Water shortage
The governor proclaimed a Water Shortage State of Emergency
in February of 2009, claiming that the state is in its
"third consecutive year of drought," where he described
that "the rainfall and snowpack deficits in each year of
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 301 (Fuentes) Page
4
the current drought have put California further and further
behind in meeting its essential water needs." The drought
is also affecting our agriculture industry. According to
the governor, "the lack of water has forced California
farmers to abandon or leave unplanted more than 100,000
acres of agricultural land" which could cost Californians
jobs and increase food prices. Continued unchecked
depletion of the potable water supply could also pose a
threat to our emergency preparedness efforts, which could
make residents even more vulnerable during a disaster.
Related legislation:
AB 2275 (Fuentes) 2008 is substantially similar to AB 301,
and would have required each applicant for a license as a
water-bottling plant or a private water source to provide
to the department specified information and would require
the department to annually compile a listing of this
information and make it available to the public, as
provided. Vetoed by the governor, with a generic veto
message he uniformly applied to several bills that reached
his desk in 2008.
AB 2186 (Salas) 2008 would have required each water-vending
machine, retail water facility, and private water source
that sells water at retail to display the identity of the
source from which the water was last obtained prior to
being bottled. The bill was set to be heard in Assembly
Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, but the
hearing was canceled by the author.
AB 1521 (Salas) 2007 would have required each container of
bottled water sold in this state to include on its label
the identity of the source from which the water was last
obtained prior to being bottled, in compliance with
applicable federal regulations. Required, as a condition
of licensure, that a water-bottling plant annually prepare
and submit to the department a consumer confidence report.
Vetoed by the governor.
SB 220 (Corbett) Chapter 575, Statutes of 2007 requires a
water-bottling plant to annually prepare a bottled water
report, including information about the source of the
bottled water, i.e. a spring, drilled well, or municipal
water supply, as a condition of licensure. The report must
also include a brief description of the treatment process
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 301 (Fuentes) Page
5
used for producing the bottled water. This bill also
enhanced the Department of Public Health's regulatory
process governing water dispensed from water vending
machines and the labeling requirements for bottled water.
AB 2644 (Montanez) 2006 would have increased the annual
license fee for a water-vending machine to $40, and would
require water-vending machines to be cleaned
and serviced at least once every 31 days. The bill would
have required that maintenance and complaint records be
kept for a minimum of two years and be made available to
the department upon request. Held on suspense in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SB 1772 (Ashburn) 2006 would have required the Department
of Health Services to ensure that samples of water-vending
machines are inspected annually and would set forth the
inspection criteria. This bill would have increased the
license fee per vending machine from $10.25 to $25,
adjusted annually. Held in the Assembly Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials committee without hearing.
SB 1302 (Alarcon) 2004 would have required the Department
of Health Services to conduct annual random inspections of
water-vending machines and retail water vendors through
visual inspections and the collection and testing of water
samples. The bill would require the department to make all
information collected in the random inspections available
to the public. The bill would also require the department
to conduct a consumer education program. The bill would
require the department to assess a fee sufficient to pay
the costs of the random inspections and the education
program. Held on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 1589 (Denham) 2004 would have required that bottled
water may not exceed 10 parts per billion of total
triahalomethanes or 5 parts per billion of lead, unless the
department establishes a lower level by regulation, and
vended water may not exceed 10 parts per billion of total
triahalomethanes, on average, or 5 parts per billion of
lead for public drinking water. Set to be heard in the
Senate Health and Human Services Committee, but was
cancelled by the author.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 301 (Fuentes) Page
6
AB 83 (Corbett) 2003 would have transferred the provisions
relating to the licensure and regulation of persons engaged
in the bottled water activities from the Sherman Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Law to the California Safe Drinking
Water Act. It would have required specified information on
labeling and in advertising bottled water products. The
bill would have required bottled water licensees to comply
with provisions similar to those imposed on public water
systems regarding emergency notification plans, consumer
confidence reports, and inspections. This bill would have
also revised the annual license fee schedule. Failed
passage on the Senate Floor.
Arguments in support
Supporters contend that credible and transparent
information would help both the public and decision makers
to understand more accurately the impacts of proposed
bottled-water facilities in California. Without this
information, local communities and decision makers may not
know exactly how much of their local water supply is sold
and transported out of the local area.
Arguments in opposition
The Department of Public Health does not believe that this
bill will provide any improvement in public health
protection to California consumers. The department feels
that the information they already collect regarding the
identity of source water from bottlers is sufficient to
ensure quality. The department also believes the
information they are being asked to collect may be
considered proprietary, because it can act as an indicator
of a company's financial health.
PRIOR ACTIONS
Assembly Floor: 49-27
Assembly Appropriations: 11-4
Assembly Environmental safety and Toxic Materials: 19-0
COMMENTS
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 301 (Fuentes) Page
7
1. Potential General Fund impact
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, to
the extent revenue generated by bottled-water licenses is
not adequate to cover these costs, they would have to be
covered by a General Fund appropriation. The author may
wish to work with the department to determine a way to
mitigate the fiscal impact to the General Fund.
POSITIONS
Support: AFSCME
Alliance for Democracy
Amigos de los Rios
Breast Cancer Fund
CA Coastkeeper Alliance
Center on Policy Initiatives
Clean Water Action CA
Concerned Citizen's Coalition of Stockton
Concerned McCloud Citizens
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Environmental Working Group
Friends of Los Angeles River
McCloud Watershed Council
Movement Generation
Planning and Conservation League
San Diego Area Municipal Employees Union
San Diego Bay Council
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the
Environment
Santa Monica Baykeeper
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Tree People, Tuolomne River Trust
Urban Semillas
Wildcoast
One individual
Oppose: Department of Public Health
-- END --