BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2056
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2056
AUTHOR: Chesbro
AMENDED: April 26, 2012
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: July 2, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rachel Wagoner
SUBJECT : PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS: POINT OF USE AND POINT OF ENTRY
TREATMENT
SUMMARY :
Existing law ,
1) Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), requires the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set
standards for drinking water quality and oversee the states,
localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.
California has authority over drinking water, delegated by US
EPA.
2) Under the California Safe Drinking Water Act, establishes the
drinking water program within the Department of Public Health
(DPH) to regulate public drinking water systems. (Health and
Safety Code §116275 et seq.).
3) Authorizes point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) devices
for water treatment to meet drinking water standards as
specified by state and federal law. Regulations adopted by
DPH must include requirements governing the use of POU and POE
treatment by public water systems in lieu of centralized
treatment where it can be demonstrated that centralized
treatment is not immediately economically feasible and is
limited to: a) less than 200 service connections, b) use
allowed under the SDWA and its implementing regulations, and
c) water systems that have submitted pre-applications with DPH
for funding to correct the violations for which the POE and
POU treatment is provided. (§116380).
4) Prohibits DPH from issuing a permit allowing POU treatment
AB 2056
Page 2
unless DPH determines after conducting a public hearing in the
community served by the public water system that there is not
substantial community opposition to the devices. The issuance
of a permit must be limited to no more than 3 years or until
funding for centralized treatment is available, whichever is
first. (§116552).
This bill expands the authorization to use POU treatment as a
permanent solution for public water systems with up to 20 service
connections by requiring DPH to allow continued use of POU
treatment beyond the 3-year maximum (#4 above). If DPH requires
a demonstration of economic feasibility for public water systems
serving 20 or less residential connections, the applicant may use
"available census tract data to demonstrate median household
income."
COMMENTS
1) Purpose of the Bill . According to the author, "This is a
district bill that focuses on the Loch Haven Mutual Water
District in Sonoma County." According to Alan Kafton, a
member of the Loch Haven Mutual Water Company and sponsor of
AB 2056, the Loch Haven Mutual Water Company supplies 19 rural
homes located on 3 or more acres and much of the water is used
for irrigation. The sponsor indicates that, according to DPH,
POU systems are inconsistent with §116270 of the state's Safe
Drinking Water Act, which provides that the Act "is intended
to ensure that the water delivered by public water systems of
this state shall at all times be pure, wholesome, and potable.
This ÝAct] provides the means to accomplish this objective."
According to the sponsor, a centralized system will cost at least
$250,000, which is over $13,000 per household, POE systems
cost about $5,000 per household, and POU systems cost less
than $1,000 per household.
2) Drinking water contamination in California . According to DPH,
98% of the population of California served by community water
systems receives drinking water that meets all primary
drinking water standards. However, for the nearly of a
million Californians without clean water, contaminants such as
nitrates, hexavalent chromium and arsenic threaten public
AB 2056
Page 3
drinking water safety. The most impacted populations are
located in disadvantaged communities and are served by small
water systems that have difficulty finding the sufficient
resources for maintenance and operation or to undertake
repairs and upgrades. DPH currently utilizes funds from the
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Propositions 50
and 84 bond funds to assist in drinking water system upgrades.
While these funds have provided and continue to provide
significant assistance in the improvement of water systems,
there is a greater need than funding available. The US EPA as
well as DPH are working to explore how to reach critical
drinking water standards while also acknowledging the need for
affordability of conveyance, especially in these small
communities.
In acknowledgement of the strain that small water systems face
when trying to upgrade systems to meet necessary water quality
improvements, AB 2515 (V. M. Perez) Chapter 601, Statutes of
2010, was enacted as a stop gap to provide a temporary measure
while a permanent, safer and more effective centralized
treatment could be devised for these small disadvantaged
communities.
3) Point of Use/ Point of Entry Treatment . A POU treatment
device is any unit installed on a single water faucet or
bubbler that changes the water quality. POE treatment device
is any unit installed that changes the water quality of all
potable water entering a building. POE and POU treatment
devices such as carbon filters are sometimes installed to
enhance the aesthetic quality (taste and odor) of potable
water supplied by a local water system. In other cases, POE
and POU treatment devices are installed to meet drinking water
standards in place of centralized treatment.
4) Limitations of POU/POE treatment . While POU/POE treatment has
advanced in recent years it does not provide equivalent
treatment to centralized treatment.
a) Multiple contaminants . POU/POE treatment technologies
can provide sufficient treatment for one specific
contaminant. However, they are not designed to treat the
complex myriad contaminants that may be in drinking water.
AB 2056
Page 4
So while it may address the primary contaminant of concern,
other contaminants may not be sufficiently removed.
Additionally, contaminants in water affect the water
quality individually and cumulatively. POU/POE treatment
systems are not designed to address the cumulative impacts
to water quality.
b) Adjustment for quality . Water quality levels are not
static. Centralized treatment systems are regularly
monitored and the treatment is adjusted as changes in the
water quality and levels of the range of contaminants
change. POU/POE treatment systems cannot be adjusted as
the water quality changes, so their efficacy may vary.
c) POU does not treat all water . Because POU treatment
systems attach to the faucet, their treatment is limited to
water that comes through that faucet. Showers, washing
machines and other faucets, such as those in bathrooms,
will not be treated. POU treatment devices are not
appropriate in households where the treated contaminant
presents health risks when inhaled, such as volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) or hexavalent chromium that may be
released into the air and inhaled, especially in warm water
like a shower because in those households only the drinking
water would be treated. With many contaminants that could
pose an additional risk, especially in homes with children,
these systems are meant as a very temporary stopgap measure
until centralized water treatment can be provided.
d) Lack of Accountability and monitoring . Centralized
treatment facilities are regularly inspected and monitored
to ensure sufficient maintenance by either DPH or the
county environmental health jurisdictions. There is no
built in inspection, monitoring or maintenance when water
systems use POU/POE treatment. Ensuring proper working
order to POU/POE systems is crucial. If filters are not
changed when needed, some systems can build up contaminants
in the system and release them into the water in high
concentrations.
Who is expected to make sure that the systems are always
working properly?
AB 2056
Page 5
5) Safeguards against expanding a second best treatment system .
Improving California's drinking water quality is crucially
important. As solutions for meeting drinking water standards
to protect public health are contemplated, it is important to
ensure that solutions that compromise standards are not used.
Expanded use of POU/POE treatment devices essentially creates
two classes for drinking water in California - those that get
centralized treatment that is monitored and accountable for
meeting drinking water standards and those that get a lower
standard of quality and accountability. Senate Committee on
Environmental Quality members expressed the following concerns
when hearing SB 962 (Anderson) in April relating to POU/POE
treatment:
a) What communities within California are in need of this
expansion and how many service connections are appropriate
for allowing POU/POE treatment as a temporary solution
while the water system develops a permanent centralized
treatment solution?
b) Why are the water systems within these communities
unable to meet the water quality standard and why do they
not have the financial capability and reserve to do the
necessary upgrades and maintenance to the system?
c) How can we prevent communities from expanding before
building the appropriate centralized treatment
infrastructure?
d) How can water systems that use POU/POE treatment as a
temporary solution ensure that the necessary capital outlay
to build the sufficient centralized treatment system is
available and have the necessary financial support to
maintain and upgrade that system as necessary?
Senator Anderson amended SB 962 to address committee concerns by
requiring a capital outlay plan for centralized treatment prior
to approval, prohibiting the growth of the water system to
include any additional service connections prior to having
sufficient centralized treatment, and requiring an audit by DPH
to determine why the water system does not have the fiscal
AB 2056
Page 6
stability to conduct the necessary upgrades.
6) Related legislation. AB 1540 (Committee on Health) Chapter
298, Statutes of 2009, adds the authorization for POU
treatment in lieu of centralized treatment for public water
systems with less than 200 service connections under specified
conditions, requires DPH to adopt regulations to include
requirements governing the use of POU and POE treatment by
public water systems in lieu of centralized treatment, as
specified, prohibits the department from issuing or amending a
permit to allow the use of POU treatment unless the department
determines, after a public hearing, that there is no
substantial community opposition, and limits the issuance of
that permit to the lesser of 3 years or until funding for
centralized treatment is available, whichever comes first.
AB 2515 (V.M. Perez) Chapter 601, Statutes of 2010, provides an
expedited process for DPH to establish criteria for the use of
POU water treatment devices and authorizes the DPH to award
grants for POE and POU treatment systems, provided that the
water system serves a severely disadvantaged community and
that the grant meets other existing requirements.
SB 962 (Anderson) of 2012 expands the authorization for use of
POU/POE devices from 200 service connections to 500 service
connections and adds various requirements for approval of use
of the devices.
7) Outstanding issues .
a) Why 20 service connections ? What is the demonstrated
need to allow for permanent use of POU/POE devices for 20
service connections or less?
Is it appropriate to expand this authorization, knowing
that there are water quality risks, when there has not been
successful implementation of the program and there has not
been an opportunity to evaluate the use of this treatment
technology on that scale?
b) Why census tract data to demonstrate financial need ? AB
2056 allows for census tract data to be used in lieu of
AB 2056
Page 7
financial data from the specific property owners within the
water system. The census tract contains many properties
that are not within the water district. Why does this bill
aim to include financial data that is not relevant to
determining the financial need of the water system?
8) Contrary to previous legislative action . The Senate
Environmental Quality Committee and the Legislature have
acknowledged a need to allow for the use of this lesser
technology in cases where small, disadvantaged communities
need temporary relief while they develop a permanent
centralized treatment facility.
This bill runs directly contrary to previous actions taken by
the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and the Legislature
by allowing permanent use of these devices and by allowing for
vague disclosure of financial information to demonstrate
financial need to use this lesser technology.
This bill is also likely to encourage development of small
communities without adequate infrastructure in an effort to
save money at the cost of public health protection - while
also encouraging development in more isolated and rural areas.
SOURCE : Alan Kafton, member, Loch Haven Mutual Water
Company
SUPPORT : None on file.
OPPOSITION : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
Clean Water Action, Community Water Center