BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1774 HEARING DATE: June 22, 2010
AUTHOR: Saldana URGENCY: No
VERSION: May 28, 2010 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental QualityFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Recycled water: state agency landscape irrigation.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution requires the
prevention of waste or unreasonable use of water. It further
provides that the right to water does not extend to water that
is wasted or unreasonably used.
Under current law, the use of potable domestic water for
irrigating residential landscapes is a waste or unreasonable use
within the meaning of Article X, Section 2, if recycled water is
available that meets specific conditions, as determined by the
State Water Resources Control Board through an adjudicative
proceeding. As established in Water Code 13550, those specific
conditions include that the recycled water is of adequate
quality, is furnished at a reasonable cost, meets public health
requirements, will not adversely affect downstream water rights,
and will not degrade the environment.
Further, Water Code 13552.4 prohibits a person or public agency
from using potable water for nonpotable uses, including
irrigation of cemeteries, golf courses, parks, highway
landscaped areas, and industrial uses, if suitable recycled
water is available as provided in 13550.
Current law also provides public agencies the authority to
require the use of recycled water for irrigation of residential
landscaping, if all of the following requirements are met:
Recycled water is available to the user and meets the
requirements set forth in 13550, as determined by the state
board after notice and a hearing.
The use of recycled water does not cause any loss or
diminution of any existing water right.
1
The irrigation systems are constructed in accordance with
state regulations governing recycled water.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
Expand the application of Article X, Section 2 to
non-residential landscapes.
Authorize a public agency to require a state agency, whose
property is located within the jurisdiction of the public
agency, to use recycled water for landscape irrigation of its
property, if specific requirements are met. Those requirements
are:
Recycled water is available to the user and the source of
recycled water is of adequate quality for the proposed use.
The use of recycled water does not cause any loss or
diminution of any existing water right.
The irrigation systems are constructed in accordance with
state regulations governing recycled water.
The recycled water can be furnished at a reasonable cost to
the state agency user.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the sponsor, public agencies are significant water
users. For example, the majority of the top water users in the
City of San Diego are local, State and Federal agencies, with
three of them, CalTrans, University of California, and San Diego
State University being state agencies.
"The purpose of AB 1774 is to remove impediments to the use of
recycled water by state agencies for landscape irrigation. The
current statutory scheme requiring state agencies to use
recycled water for landscape irrigation has not resulted in
increased use of recycled water by state agencies. AB 1774
proposed to improve the use of recycled water by shifting the
authority to require a state agency to use recycled water to the
local jurisdiction."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None
COMMENTS
What problem are we solving? In response to questions from
committee staff, the State Board reports that it has not
received a request by the San Diego County Water Authority nor
City of San Diego, nor anyone else for that matter, to compel
CalTrans to use recycled water, nor has the State Board received
2
a request for a hearing under section 13552.4 of the Water Code.
If the proponents have not even tried to use the system
established under the law, how can they know that there are
problems with that system?
How would this bill solve the problem? It might be that public
agencies are not using recycled water as much as they could or
should. However, the problem might not lay with the law. It
could be, for example, that the real problem is a lack of budget
appropriations for conversion of irrigation systems. Or there
could be a problem getting approvals from the Department of
General Services. The potential impediments to conversion to
recycled water could be large.
Why take the State Board out of the picture? The State Board
process is, by law, an adjudicative proceeding, with numerous
provisions for due process, such as rules governing presentation
of testimony, rules of evidence, etc. This bill does not
require due process considerations.
The State Board is also required to consider factors beyond what
this bill would require of public agencies. Specifically, the
State Board is also required to find that the recycled water
meets public health requirements, will not adversely affect
downstream water rights, and will not degrade the environment.
Related Bills: Earlier this year, this committee passed SB 1173
(Wolk). It would expand the current prohibition on from using
potable water for nonpotable uses if suitable recycled water is
available to prohibiting the use of raw or potable water.
Dual Referred to Environmental Quality. Should this bill passes
this committee, the motion should be "Do Pass to the Committee
on Environmental Quality."
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
SUPPORT
San Diego County Water Authority (Sponsor)
Desert Water Agency
East Bay Municipal Utility District
OPPOSITION
None Received
3
4