BILL ANALYSIS
SB 918
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
SB 918 (Pavley) - As Amended: June 1, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 24-12
SUBJECT : Water recycling
SUMMARY : Requires the State Department of Public Health (DPH)
to establish standards for various types and uses of recycled
water. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the DPH to adopt uniform water recycling criteria
a) by December 31, 2013 for indirect potable use
by groundwater recharge, and
b) by December 31, 2016 for indirect potable use
by surface water augmentation.
i. The criteria for surface water
augmentation must be reviewed and approved by an
expert panel of 6 members with specified
expertise (a toxicologist, wastewater engineer,
drinking water engineer, epidemiologist,
microbiologist, and a chemist).
ii. Requires that the criteria for
indirect potable reuse through surface water
augmentation developed by DPH shall consider 10
specified sources of information on water reuse.
iii. Provides that members of the expert
panel may be compensated for travel expenses.
2)Requires DPH to investigate and report to the Legislature on
the feasibility of developing criteria for direct potable
reuse of recycled water, by December 31, 2016. The report to
the Legislature shall include a consideration of six specific
factors related to direct potable reuse of recycled water.
3)Authorizes the DPH to convene an advisory group on the
development of direct potable reuse criteria, to include at
least 9 representatives of water agencies, local governments,
environmental, public health, environmental justice and
SB 918
Page 2
business. Members of the advisory group may be compensated
for travel expenses.
4)Authorizes expenditure from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund
from July 1, 2011 until June 30, 2017 for implementation of
the bill. The Fund is currently allocated for use by the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires the SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs) to enforce water quality laws and regulations
for the state's waterways.
2)Requires DPH to establish uniform statewide recycling criteria
for each type of use of recycled water where the use involves
the protection of public health.
3)Requires the assessment of penalties for violations of water
quality laws and requires the funds generated by these
penalties to be deposited into the Waste Discharge Permit
Fund, to be expended by SWRCB upon appropriation by the
Legislature for the purpose of pollution abatement in the
state's waters.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose : According to the bill's author, "California
discharges nearly 4 million acre feet (maf) of wastewater into
the ocean each year? ?and much of that water could be
recycled. However, because the state has not adopted uniform
safety standards, the permitting and design processes for
building and operating water recycling facilities are
unpredictable, discouraging local communities from tapping
into this major water source."
Under the current framework, each project that proposes to use
recycled water must undergo its own specific permitting
process regarding the water quality of the recycled water.
The current law requires project-by-project permitting, and
the uncertainty associated with the permitting process, as
well as the extended timeline, act as a strong deterrent for
any local agency that is considering investing millions of
SB 918
Page 3
dollars to begin a recycled water program.
2)Three parts of the bill
a) Groundwater replenishment regulations, by
2013: DPH is instructed to complete the regulations
pertaining to the use of recycled water for
groundwater replenishment; these regulations have been
in draft form since 2008.
b) Surface water augmentation criteria, by 2016:
DPH is instructed to develop criteria for the use of
recycled water for surface water augmentation, but
only if the review by an expert panel (set up for this
purpose) concludes that the criteria protect public
health
c) A study of direct potable reuse, with a report
to the Legislature, by 2016: DPH is instructed to
investigate the feasibility of direct potable reuse of
recycled water, and may assemble an advisory group to
assist in the study.
3)About recycled water : Recycled water, also commonly known as
reclaimed water, is water that began as wastewater (sewage)
then underwent treatment in a wastewater treatment plant to
remove pollutants and pathogens. Depending on the level of
treatment, the regulatory requirements, availability of
infrastructure, and the acceptance in the local community,
recycled water can be used for many purposes, that can be
divided into three categories:
a) Non-potable reuse: such as lawn, crop, or
ornamental plant irrigation, industrial processes
(e.g. cooling). This is currently the most common use
for recycled water in California.
b) Indirect potable reuse: such as groundwater
basin recharge. The recycled water is used to
replenish either an underground or an above-ground
body of water (i.e., either an aquifer or a stream or
lake) that is later, and after additional treatment,
used to supply a drinking water system. This use has
been practiced in Southern California since 1962, and
has been expanding in recent years.
c) Direct potable reuse: would consist of the
introduction of recycled water directly into a
SB 918
Page 4
drinking water system (with appropriate treatment
before distribution). It is not currently practiced
in California or the US, and there is only one
operational direct potable use system in the world, in
Windhoek, Namibia.
The main difference between direct and indirect potable
reuse is that the latter includes spatial or temporal
separation between the introduction of recycled water
and its distribution as drinking water, whereas with
the direct potable reuse water flows "pipe-to-pipe"
with no spatial or temporal buffer.
No direct potable reuse projects have been proposed in
California.
4)Comment : From "Toilet-to-tap", to "Showers-to-flowers" and
"Virtual river".
The attitude towards recycled water in California has changed in
the past five decades, so that today it is seen as a resource,
rather than a "surplus" or "waste", and there is recognition
that an increased use of recycled water could contribute to
the security and stability of the State's water supply.
Interestingly, the potable reuse of recycled water in California
had gotten off to a rocky start. Some of the early
groundwater recharge projects in the 1970s (nicknamed
"toilet-to-tap" by opponents) were designed without much
public input and with what appeared to have been a
"good-enough" approach to quality of the recycled water; they
were roundly rejected by local residents and voters. On the
other hand, the non-potable reuse projects ("purple pipe"),
had continued to expand, gained public acceptance, and most
Californians today are familiar with recycled water irrigation
(nicknamed "showers-to-flowers" by supporters).
In the last decade, water managers in Southern California have
renewed their interest in using recycled water for potable
reuse, but with a dramatically different approach: the
emphasis now is on scientific and public input, a transparent
process, and water quality criteria and treatment methods that
ensure a high degree of safety. Other important developments
include the improvements in water treatment technology, and
the focus on ensuring the removal of the contaminants of
emerging concern (endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, etc.)
from the recycled water. Thus, the quality of some of the
recycled water is better than the quality of the aquifer it is
recharging (examples in Southern California and Nevada).
SB 918
Page 5
As a result, the recent (2000-2005) recycled water projects in
Southern California have been met largely with public support,
especially as it has become increasingly apparent that the
potentially large amount or recycled water - a "virtual river"
- represents a very stable, locally available source of water.
5)State agencies affected: DPH, and State Water Resources
Control Board; neither has an official position on the bill.
6)Proposed amendments : California Coastkeeper Alliance and Heal
the Bay have suggested a minor wording change in Section 1 (k)
(2), page 5 line 6: instead of "shall be made available"
substitute "may be made available". The bill's sponsor argues
that this change would be immaterial, because the sentence
includes the words "?upon appropriation by the Legislature?".
The Committee might wish to consider whether such a "funding"
amendment might be better evaluated in the bill's next
destination, the Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Planning & Conservation League (Co-Sponsor)
WateReuse (Co-Sponsor)
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Coastkeeper Alliance (if amended)
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Water Association
City of San Jos?
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Heal the Bay (if amended)
Irvine Ranch Water District
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
San Diego Coastkeeper
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Opposition
None on file.
SB 918
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Igor Lacan / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096