BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1173
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 15, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
SB 1173 (Wolk) - As Amended: June 10, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 22-11
SUBJECT : Recycled water
SUMMARY : There is an existing prohibition on using potable
domestic water for non-potable uses when recycled water is
available and appropriate. This bill applies that prohibition to
both raw water and potable water when recycled water is
available. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "raw water" as untreated surface water or groundwater
but excludes remediated groundwater.
2)Modifies the existing prohibition against using domestic
potable water for non-potable uses if recycled water meeting
certain criteria for quantity, quality and cost is available
to a prohibition on using "raw water and potable water" for
non-potable uses if recycled water meeting certain criteria
for quantity, quality, and cost is available.
3)Adds a criterion that the supply of recycled water must also
be "reliable" before use can be required. In determining
reliability, this bill requires the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) to consider whether the recycled water
supply is subject to interruption.
4)Makes conforming changes to the statutes on water reuse by
substituting the words "the use of raw or potable water" for
the words "the use of potable domestic water."
EXISTING LAW
1)Provides, under Article X, Section 2 of the California
Constitution, that the right to use water does not extend to
waste or unreasonable use.
2)States that the use of potable domestic water for nonpotable
uses, including, but not limited to cemeteries, golf courses,
parks, or highway landscaped areas, is a waste or unreasonable
SB 1173
Page 2
use of water if recycled water is available that meets certain
conditions for quantity, quality, and cost.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. Senate Appropriations Committee
states that the SWRCB estimates that under the bill an
additional waste and unreasonable use hearing will occur once
every two to three years. A typical hearing costs about $65,000
to complete.
COMMENTS :
Under current law, the use of potable domestic water for
non-potable purposes is a waste or unreasonable use within the
meaning of California Constitutional Article X, Section 2, if
recycled water is available that meets specific conditions.
Those conditions include that the recycled water is of adequate
quality, is furnished at a reasonable cost, that it meets public
health requirements, will not adversely affect downstream water
rights, and will not degrade the environment. This means that
if recycled water is available that meets the conditions
established in statute and a water user instead uses potable
water, the water rights associated with the potable water are at
risk for violating Article X, Section 2.
According to the author's office, "Recycled water has been
identified as one of the most promising potential sources of new
water supplies to meet the growing water needs of California.
Use of recycled water is particularly beneficial because its use
frees up water for treatment and use as drinking water or it
provides an alternative to increasing diversions from sensitive
ecosystems such as the Delta and over-drafted groundwater
basins.
"State law currently encourages the use of recycled water for
industrial, landscape and other non-potable uses, in place of
the use of potable water supplies. In some cases, however, raw
water, rather than potable water is used for industrial cooling
and other non-potable uses. Unfortunately, while the use of
recycled water would provide similar benefits if used to replace
the demand of these non-potable uses, current law does not cover
the replacement of raw water with recycled water.
"This bill simply extends current law to encourage the use of
recycled water in place of raw water in addition to potable
water. With this extension, we can ensure that recycled water
SB 1173
Page 3
use is maximized and that raw water can be re-directed for
treatment and use for potable needs or left in the river or
aquifer for environmental or storage purposes."
Because remediated groundwater does not meet the Porter-Cologne
Act's definition of "recycled water," the Association of
California Water Agencies was concerned this bill could result
in a finding that the application of remediated groundwater to
non-potable uses was an unreasonable use of water. In response,
the author amended the bill to clarify that "raw water" does not
include remediated groundwater.
This bill has one opponent, a retirement community, who advises
they have seven clubhouses and two golf courses and thus have
"voted to oppose this bill, unless it is amended, as it would
require that recycled water be used when available." That is
existing law.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Landscape Contractors (if amended)
California Water Association
City of Camarillo
Contra Costa Water District
County of Los Angeles (if amended)
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Planning and Conservation League
Opposition
Laguna Woods Village
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096