BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2398
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2398 (Hueso)
As Amended May 21, 2012
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 9-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 8-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Campos, Fong, |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Miller, |
| |Gatto, Roger Hernández, | |Campos, Chesbro, Davis, |
| |Hueso, Jones, Lara, | |Feuer, Bonnie Lowenthal, |
| |Yamada | |Morrell |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Beth Gaines |Nays:|Donnelly |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, | | |
| |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, | | |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes major changes to the state's regulation of the
use of recycled water. This bill deletes much of the existing
statutory and regulatory language governing recycled water, and
the Water Recycling Act of 2012 (WRA) consolidates similar, and
in some cases identical, provisions into the WRA which is a new
division of the Water Code. Generally, this bill defines highly
treated recycled water as Advanced Treated Purified Water (ATPF)
and subjects its use to regulation by the Department of Public
Health (DPH), and defines less-treated, but still relatively
clean recycled water, known as disinfected tertiary recycled
water, as not waste water and subjects its use to regulation by
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This bill
provides monitoring and enforcement authority to DPH and SWRCB
AB 2398
Page 2
as well as fee authority to cover their permitting costs and
other related responsibilities.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides the State Board has the ultimate authority over state
water rights and water quality policy under the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne). However,
Porter-Cologne also establishes nine Regional Boards to
oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and
regional level.
2)Requires the Regional Boards, and sometimes the SWRCB, to
prepare and periodically update Basin Plans (water quality
control plans). Each Basin Plan establishes:
a) Beneficial uses of water designated for each water body
to be protected;
b) Water quality standards, known as water quality
objectives, for both surface water and groundwater; and,
c) The actions necessary to maintain these standards in
order to control point sources (end-of-pipe discharges) and
non-point sources of pollution to the state's waters.
1)Mandates permits issued to control pollution (i.e.,
waste-discharge requirements and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits) must implement Basin Plan
requirements (i.e., water quality standards), taking into
consideration beneficial uses to be protected.
2)Requires any person proposing to discharge waste within any
region to file a report of waste discharge with the
appropriate Regional Board. No discharge may take place until
the Regional Board issues waste discharge requirements or a
waiver of the waste discharge requirements.
3)Empowers the Water Boards, under the auspices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, to grant Clean Water Act
NPDES permits for certain point-source discharges. In
practice, California routinely issues NPDES permits to
selected point-source dischargers and either waste discharge
AB 2398
Page 3
requirements or conditioned water quality certification for
other discharges.
4)Requires any discretionary decision by a public agency with
the potential for significant impacts of the environment to
undergo environmental review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), unless otherwise exempt.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Annual special fund costs to DPH to develop and implement a
program to issue permits for raw water augmentation projects,
including a) conducting engineering evaluations; b)
establishing uniform water recycling criteria; c) reporting on
the feasibility of developing drinking water criteria for
potable reuse involving treated water augmentation; d)
convening and administering an expert panel on public health
issues and scientific and technical matter; e) appointing an
advisory group; and, f) conducting studies and investigations.
(Augmentation Permit Fund, created by this bill.)
2)Annual permitting fee revenue of an unknown amount sufficient
to cover DPH's annual costs (Augmentation Permit Fund).
3)Annual special fund costs to SWRCB, in the range of $450,000
to $900,000 (approximately equivalent to three to seven staff
members), to develop and implement a program for permitting
tertiary treated recycled water projects, including a)
reviewing monitoring reports; b) prescribing terms of permits
and monitoring requirements; c) enforcing and evaluating
compliance; d) analyzing laboratory samples; e) conducting
water monitoring and modeling; f) reviewing documents; and, g)
other administrative activities. (Water Recycling Permit Fund,
created by this bill.)
4)Annual savings to SWRCB, in the range of $165,000 to $325,000
(equivalent to one to three staff members) resulting from
transfer of certain recycled water projects permitting to DPH
that, absent this bill, would be permitted by SWRCB (Waste
Discharge Permit Fund.)
COMMENTS : The 2009 update of the California Water Plan, also
known as "Bulletin 160," projected that 0.9 million to 1.4
AB 2398
Page 4
million acre-feet of "new water" could be achieved by 2030
through the recycling of municipal wastewater that is currently
discharged into the ocean or saline bays. An acre-foot is
enough water to flood an acre of land a foot deep and supply, on
average, five people for one year. In 2008, the Legislative
Analyst's Office, in California's Water: An LAO Primer, found
that using a "least cost, highest gain" criterion for long-term
water supply options," investing in the long-term solution of
recycled municipal water would be the first funding priority."
This January, the National Water Research Institute (NWRI), in a
white paper entitled Direct Potable Reuse: Benefits for Public
Water Supplies, Agriculture, the Environment, and Energy
Conservation, concluded that treating a significant fraction of
the municipal wastewater now being discharged to the ocean to
drinking water standards and introducing direct potable reuse of
municipal wastewater could stabilize the water supply in
Southern California by augmenting reduced State Water Project
deliveries and ensuring against water supply interruptions due
to unforeseen events, such as a natural or human-made disasters.
The author of this bill states that recycled water is an
important component of California's sustainable water future and
economic strength and that this bill would expand the use of
recycled water in California by improving and streamlining the
existing regulatory and permitting process to reflect current
scientific study and advances in treatment technology. The
author concludes that by establishing a consistent and
appropriate regulatory and permitting framework for this
important alternative water supply, this bill will help secure
California's water supply reliability and provide the foundation
for California's future economic stability. Supporters state
that while many of their member agencies participate in recycled
water projects, the projects themselves can be difficult to get
off of the ground because of the complicated and fragmented
permitting processes that currently exist. Supporters believe
that creating a streamlined process of clear regulations and
permits will encourage local governments to pursue recycled
water projects as a means of local water supply sustainability.
Opponents are concerned that the changing the definition of
waste in this bill to exclude certain types of recycled water
could have negative impacts on the environment and human health.
Opponents question how tertiary treatment is differentiated
AB 2398
Page 5
from the most advanced technologies that supposedly produce
purified water in some Southern California treatment systems and
are concerned that incidental runoff will not be reported until
50,000 gallons has been spilled by each recycler. Opponents
state that 100 gallons is the most that should be considered
incidental and are also concerned about the negative impacts of
low doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals in water and
wastewater.
Please see the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee and
the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials policy
analyses for a full discussion of this bill. Following those
hearings, amendments were made to this bill on May 21, 2012, to
strengthen DPH and SWRCB authorities to regulate recycled water,
including adding additional enforcement and review provisions
and making technical and clarifying corrections.
Lastly, it should be noted that the 50,000 gallon reporting
requirement for unauthorized discharges of tertiary disinfected
recycled water is existing law under Porter-Cologne.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0003837