BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

                                                                  AB 119
                                                                  Page 1

          AB 119 (Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee)
          As Amended  April 16, 2013
          Majority vote 

           ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY          7-0                   HEALTH       
          |Ayes:|Alejo, Dahle, Bloom,      |Ayes:|Pan, Logue, Ammiano,      |
          |     |Donnelly, Perea, Stone,   |     |Atkins, Bonilla, Bonta,   |
          |     |Ting                      |     |Chesbro, Gomez, Roger     |
          |     |                          |     |Hernández, Rendon,        |
          |     |                          |     |Maienschein, Mansoor,     |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Nazarian,       |
          |     |                          |     |Nestande, V. Manuel       |
          |     |                          |     |Pérez, Wagner,            |
          |     |                          |     |Wieckowski, Wilk          |

           APPROPRIATIONS      17-0                                        
          |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow,   |
          |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |
          |     |Calderon, Campos,         |
          |     |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez,  |
          |     |Hall, Holden, Linder,     |
          |     |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
          |     |                          |
           SUMMARY  :  Modifies the current approval process by the  
          Department of Public Health (DPH) for in-home water treatment  
          devices.  Specifically,  this bill  : 

          1)Requires DPH to approve for sale water treatment devices that  
            make health claims, provided that the manufacturer of the  
            device submits specified information to the department.  

          2)Requires submittal of the manufactures and water treatment  
            device certification information to DPH along with an annual  

          3)Allows DPH to charge an annual fee up to $4,000 per water  


                                                                  AB 119
                                                                  Page 2

            treatment device manufacture. 

          4)Authorizes DPH to set and adjust the fee on the treatment  
            device manufacturer by publishing the fee announcement on its  
            Internet Web site.  The fee modification would not be subject  
            to the rulemaking procedure of the Administrative Procedures  

          5)Provides that the fees collected by DPH may be used to  
            maintain a Web site of water treatment devices and for the  
            enforcement of the approval requirements by State or local  
            health officials.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Requires a water treatment device manufacturer who claims that  
            a drinking water treatment device will reduce contaminants or  
            makes other health related performance claims, to be certified  
            by the DPH as to the efficacy of the device (Health and Safety  
            (H & S) Code Section 116830).

          2)Requires water treatment device manufacturers to pay a fee to  
            the DPH for each treatment device application for  
            certification (H & S Code Section 116850).
          FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, the proposed $4,000 fee on manufacturers is  
          sufficient to fund the administrative costs to DPH.  An  
          estimated 35 manufacturers will pay the $4,000 fee annually  
          resulting in $140,000 revenue collected by DPH.  The current fee  
          is $1,200 for the initial approval, with a $400 renewal each  
          year for up to four years per device (rather than manufacturer).  
           The new fee will result in reduced revenues offset by a  
          corresponding decrease in workload.

           COMMENTS  :

           Need for the bill  .  According to the author, "This bill is  
          intended to streamline DPH's existing water treatment device  
          certification program, as the current certification program  
          provides no additional value to California consumers and has  
          prevented many residents, particularly those living in areas  
          where centralized water treatment plants are cost-prohibitive,  
          from being able to purchase state-of-the-art at-home water  


                                                                  AB 119
                                                                  Page 3

          treatment devices."

           California household water treatment devices  .  According to the  
          DPH, there are currently hundreds of California-certified  
          drinking water treatment devices.  Certified devices include  
          "point of use" and "point of entry" systems, which range from  
          pour-through pitchers and faucet-mount, carbon-filter systems to  
          reverse osmosis, ultraviolet disinfection and household water  

           Contaminants removed by certified devices include organic  
          chemicals such as methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE),  
          pesticides, herbicides and solvents; inorganics such as lead,  
          mercury, and perchlorate; and waterborne pathogens, such as  
          bacteria, virus and protozoan cysts, such as Giardia and  

          According to Clean Water Action, a proponent of the bill, "The  
          current program requires CDPH to independently certify each  
          point-of-use water treatment device before it can be sold in  
          retail outlets in the state.  While the purpose of this program  
          was laudable, in fact the certification program provides no  
          added value, as it simply duplicates testing already performed  
          by third party accrediting entities and serves to delay the  
          availability of new devices in the state.  The list of certified  
          devices maintained by CDPH on its website is of value, but is  
          out of date almost as soon as it is posted."

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)  

                                                                FN: 0000475