BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 1173
                                                                  Page  1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 1173 (Wolk)
          As Amended  August 2, 2010
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :22-11  
           
           WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE     7-4 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY     6-3    
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Huffman, Arambula,        |Ayes:|Nava, Chesbro, Davis,     |
          |     |Blumenfield, Caballero,   |     |Feuer, Monning, Ruskin    |
          |     |Bonnie Lowenthal, Salas,  |     |                          |
          |     |Yamada                    |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Fuller, Anderson, Tom     |Nays:|Miller, Blakeslee, Smyth  |
          |     |Berryhill, Fletcher       |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           APPROPRIATIONS      12-5                                        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford,        |     |                          |
          |     |Huffman, Coto, Davis, De  |     |                          |
          |     |Leon, Gatto, Hall,        |     |                          |
          |     |Skinner, Solorio,         |     |                          |
          |     |Torlakson, Torrico        |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller,   |     |                          |
          |     |Nielsen, Norby            |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           SUMMARY  :   Prohibits, conditionally, the use of raw water for  
          nonpotable use if recycled water is available.  Specifically,  
           this bill  :

          1)Defines "raw water" as untreated surface water or groundwater  
            but excludes remediated groundwater or rainwater.

          2)Expands, to include the use of raw water for nonpotable use,  
            the existing declaration that the use of potable domestic  
            water for nonpotable use is a waste or unreasonable use if  








                                                                  SB 1173
                                                                  Page  2


            recycled water is available.  

          3)Adds reliability to the criteria by which the State Water  
            Resources Control Board (SWRCB) determines the availability of  
            recycled 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  
            use of water if recycled water is available that meets certain  
            conditions for quantity, quality, and cost.

          3)Requires the SWRCB to determine how much recycled water is  
            available of adequate quality.
          4)Requires recycled water to meet certain health and safety  
            standards as determined by SWRCB and the Department of Public  
            Health (DPH).

          5)Requires DPH to review all new recycled water projects but  
            allows DPH to recover its costs of review through existing  
            billing mechanisms.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   

          1)Minor costs of less than $100,000 every few years to SWRCB to  
            conduct a waste and unreasonable use hearing.

          2)Minor, absorbable costs to DPH to review water recycling  
            projects.  (General Fund, to be reimbursed by fee revenue  
            collected pursuant to existing authority.) 

           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, meets public health  
          requirements, will not adversely affect downstream water rights,  








                                                                  SB 1173
                                                                  Page  3


          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 authors 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 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and  
          over-drafted groundwater basins.

          The author amended this bill to alleviate concerns that because  
          remediated groundwater and rainwater do not meet the  
          Porter-Cologne Act's definition of recycled water, this bill  
          could result in a finding that the application of remediated  
          groundwater or rainwater to a non-potable use, such as  
          landscaping irrigation, was an unreasonable use of water.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)  
          319-2096 


                                                                FN: 0006015