BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 565 HEARING DATE: April 14, 2009
AUTHOR: Pavley URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 13, 2009 CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental QualityFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Water recycling.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Water Recycling Act of 1991 established a statewide goal to
recycle a total of 700,000 acre-feet of water per year by 2000,
and one million acre-feet of water by 2010.
Subsequently, the Urban Water Management Planning Act was
amended to require urban water management plans to include, to
the extent available, information on recycled water and its
potential for use as a water source in the service area.
Similarly, the law governing the California Water Plan was
amended to require the state plan to include current and
projected supplies of water provided by water recycling and
reuse.
In 2002, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed AB 331
(Goldberg). That bill required the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) to convene the 2002 Recycled Water Task Force.
The purpose of the Task Force was to advise DWR regarding
opportunities for using recycled water in industrial and
commercial applications and in identifying impediments and
constraints to increasing the industrial and commercial use of
recycled water.
The Task Force was chaired by a member of the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), with representatives from DWR
and the Department of Health Services serving as Co-Vice Chairs.
The result of the Task Force was a 2003 report that included
1
recommendations for additional state and federal funding for
recycling projects and research, public outreach and education,
changes in plumbing codes, and legislation to increase local
flexibility to regulate water softeners.
On February 3, 2009, the SWRCB adopted a water recycling policy.
According to that policy, "The purpose of this Policy is to
provide direction to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(Regional Water Boards), proponents of recycled water projects,
and the public regarding the appropriate criteria to be used by
the State Water Board and the Regional Water Boards in issuing
permits for recycled water projects."
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would add a new part to the water code, titled Ocean
Discharge Recycling Plan. Specifically, this bill would:
1.Require the SWRCB, in collaboration with the Department of
Public Health (DPH) and DWR, to adopt a statewide plan to
ensure that at least 50 percent of the wastewater is annually
discharged directly into the ocean, as of the year 2009, is
recycled and put to beneficial use by the year 2030.
The plan would be required to:
(1) Identify all regulatory, financial,
engineering, jurisdictional, and other impediments to
meeting the statewide ocean discharge recycling goal.
(2) Identify all impediments to direct potable
reuse of the water.
(3) Develop specific actions and strategies to
remove those impediments.
In developing the plan, the SWRCB would be required to
seek input from wastewater dischargers, urban water
suppliers, local government agencies, and other interested
parties.
The SWRCB would be authorized to appoint an advisory
committee, task force, or any other group or groups that
the board deems necessary or desirable to assist the board
in carrying out this part.
Upon adoption of the plan, the SWRCB would be required
to submit copies of the plan to the Governor and the
Legislature.
1.Require the SWRCB, to impose an annual fee on discharges of
2
wastewater into the ocean, to reimburse the SWRCB, DWR, and
DPH for the costs of developing the plan and any measures
implementing the plan subject to the following requirements:
The fee would be imposed on each person that discharges
wastewater directly into the ocean.
The fee shall be in addition to any other fees imposed
by the SWRCB.
The SWRCB would be required to adopt regulations to
implement the fee provisions.
1.Make numerous findings and declarations regarding the
importance of water recycling.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the Author, "Each year, urban California discharges
approximately 3 - 4 million acre-feet of wastewater into the
ocean. Unlike discharges into rivers or streams that can be
recaptured downstream and then be reused, ocean discharges are
lost to additional use. This water is truly wasted."
"At the same time, urban California continues to grow. The
California Department of Finance projects California's
population to reach almost 60 million people by 2050, adding
over 25 million since the 2000 decennial census. These new
Californians are going to need water. It is critical that
California finds new ways to accommodate growth, with its
resultant increase in water demand, in as an environmentally
benign as possible."
Natural Resources Defense Council observes, "Water recycling is
an important element of California's water future, in light of
the likely impacts of climate change and the ecosystem collapse
in the Bay-Delta. The Delta Vision Strategic Plan recommended
substantial investment in water recycling as part of a package
to reduce the state's unsustainable reliance on water exports
from the Bay Delta. Orange County's existing water recycling
plant currently provides a "drought proof" source of water for
nearly 500,000 people, and the recently enacted Omnibus Public
Lands Act authorizes the federal Bureau of Reclamation to assist
in development of 7 water recycling projects in California."
Heal the Bay notes, "Our founder and renowned water conservation
advocate, Dorothy Green, summed it up best by stating: 'Despite
the looming crisis in water, we have enough to live on, but not
enough to waste?' By implementing SB 565 and utilizing recycled
water technology, many California communities could make use of
3
this lost water."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Most of the arguments in opposition focus on two issues - the
challenge of reaching the target under current law, and the
imposition of fees to cover the costs of developing and
implementing the plan. The California Association of Sanitation
Districts' (CASD) comments are typical:
"There are many reasons that we are not achieving our recycling
goals, the principle one being a lack of adequate funding for
treatment and distribution infrastructure. The State cannot
reach the volumes of recycling called for in the bill through
irrigation, due to the seasonality of the demand plus the very
high cost of dual plumbing systems. Approaching the ambitious
goal of recycling 50 percent of the water currently going to the
ocean will require that California expand eligible uses of
recycled water, to include reservoir augmentation and other
potable reuse options. While these uses are being allowed
elsewhere in the world, including Australia, at present there
are no regulations that would allow these types of uses in
California. Moreover, the California Department of Public
Health, rather than the State Water Board, would be tasked with
developing regulations to govern these uses. We are also
concerned about the prospect of yet another regulatory fee being
imposed on local governments, which have already been hard hit
by the economic climate and are facing staffing decreases,
server budget cuts, and declining revenues."
COMMENTS
Definition of "Person" . There has been some confusion regarding
the provision of this bill that would impose a fee on any person
who discharges water into the ocean. The Water Code defines
person as "any person, firm, association, organization,
partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability
company, or company." A review of persons with ocean discharge
permits shows no private individuals with discharge permits.
Numerous Impediments. CASD correctly identifies a number of
impediments to greater use of recycled water. While some of
those impediments may be diminished some by the SWRCB's recently
adopted recycling policy, the vast majority are not. In
addition, to the challenges described by CASD, another class of
major impediments are jurisdictional issues regarding
duplication of services among water treatment facilities and
4
potable water suppliers.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
5
SUPPORT
Planning & Conservation League (Sponsor)
California Coastkeeper Alliance - if amended
Heal the Bay
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
Sonoma County Water Agency
Private Citizen (1)
OPPOSITION
Association of California Water Agencies
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
Cal-Tax
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
6