BILL ANALYSIS
SB 565
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 565
AUTHOR: Pavley
AMENDED: April 13, 2009
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 27, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Bruce Jennings
SUBJECT : WATER RECYCLING
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Establishes 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, pursuant to the Water Recycling
Act of 1991.
2) Requires 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,
pursuant to revisions of the Urban Water Management
Planning Act.
3) Requires the state plan to include current and projected
supplies of water provided by water recycling and reuse,
pursuant to revisions of the California Water Plan.
4) Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to advise
DWR concerning 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, pursuant to the AB
331 and the creation of the Recycled Water Task Force
(2002).
This bill :
1) Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
in collaboration with the Department of Public Health (DPH)
and DWR, to adopt a statewide plan to ensure that at least
SB 565
Page 2
50 percent of the wastewater 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 require
the state board to:
a) Identify all regulatory, financial, engineering,
jurisdictional, and other impediments to meeting the
statewide ocean discharge recycling goal.
b) Identify all impediments to direct potable reuse of
the water.
c) 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.
2) Requires the SWRCB, to impose an annual fee on discharges
of 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:
a) The fee would be imposed on each person who
discharges wastewater directly into the ocean.
b) 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.
3) Makes various findings and declarations regarding the
importance of water recycling.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . Each year, urban California discharges
approximately 3 - 4 million acre-feet of wastewater into
SB 565
Page 3
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. It is also critical that we focus on
strategies that support greater regional independence. SB
565 does just that.
2) Background . The Recycled Water Task Force was chaired by a
member of the 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
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."
3) Arguments in Support . 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
from the Bay Delta. Orange County's existing water
recycling plant currently provides a "drought proof" source
SB 565
Page 4
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."
4) Arguments In Opposition . Opponents' comments include
several 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, and the issues
surrounding the use of recycled water. The California
Association of Sanitation Districts' (CASD) states:
"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? 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, severe budget cuts, and declining revenues."
The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles argue, in part,
that their work to date on water recycling is not properly
credited in SB 565, but more largely that achieving the
goals of this bill require a very substantial effort:
The Sanitation Districts believe that it would be very helpful
for this bill to focus on increasing funding for recycled
water capital projects via the water bond discussions
currently underway and addressing new ways to dramatically
increase water recycling in the future, such as through
direct potable reuse. The latter will require a whole new
regulatory framework?"
5) Water Recycling. The Legacy of Chemical Contaminants . One
SB 565
Page 5
of the likely avenues for advancing water recycling
involves groundwater storage. In this regard, the author
needs to be mindful of the substantial problems with
introducing recycled waters to groundwater basins. And
even if recycled waters are not stored, there remain
complex issues concerning the identification and analysis
of chemical contaminants in the state's waters.
Identifying chemical contaminants in California's waters -
a universe of substances which is not known with any
precision -- likely numbers into the many hundreds, if not
thousands, of substances. Given this context, it is easy
to discern that even a recycled water policy that rests on
meeting both drinking water standards as well as other
water quality objectives may be wholly inadequate for
protecting the quality of California's waters.
As a consequence, a policy that simply expedites the recycling
of water without providing some basis for rapid diagnostics
coupled with a comprehensive analysis of chemical
contaminants may well compromise the quality of the state's
waters. The recent national reporting on pharmaceutical
contaminants illustrates but one dimension of the problem
posed by unregulated and uncharacterized contaminants in
water.
In light of the state board's Recycled Water Policy adopted in
February of this year, it may be prudent to amend SB 565 to
specifically reference and include the Board's continuing
work on Contaminants of Emerging Concern as well as the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to inform
the development of the plan.
6) Clarification: Developing a Plan Consistent with Existing
Law . Without question, various authoritative sources note
the need for California to better utilize its waters.
There may be instances, nevertheless, in which ocean
discharges of water may constitute a benefit, such as with
respect to the biological impact on aquatic ecology. Since
the potential environmental and health consequences of
water recycling must be considered in the context of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the bill
should be amended to explicitly note that the development
of the statewide plan is consistent with CEQA as well as
the State's water quality laws.
SB 565
Page 6
SOURCE : Senator Pavley and Planning and Conservation
League
SUPPORT : California Coastkeeper Alliance
Heal the Bay
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
Sonoma County Water Agency
1 Individual
OPPOSITION : Association of California Water Agencies
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Chamber of Commerce
California Taxpayers' Association
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Southern California Water Committee