BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 467
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AB 467 (Stone) - As Amended: April 11, 2013
SUBJECT : Freshwater Protection Act.
SUMMARY : Creates the Freshwater Protection Fund (Fund) to
receive moneys for funding various activities relating to
drinking water solutions for disadvantaged and severely
disadvantaged communities, fertilizer management and groundwater
quality. Specifically, this bill :
1)Creates in the State Treasury the Fund.
2)Authorizes the Treasurer to receive money or other assets from
any source for deposit into the Fund, including gifts, grants,
and bequests.
3)Provides that moneys in the fund at the close of the fiscal
year shall remain in the Fund and shall not revert to the
General Fund.
4)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to be
the administrator of the Fund for auditing purposes.
5)Requires the SWRCB to expend money from the Fund, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, only for one or more of the
following purposes:
a) Direct assistance;
b) Indirect assistance;
c) Emergency response and removal of potential sources of
contamination;
d) Natural resource protection; and,
e) Administrative costs, not to exceed 20 percent of the
annual appropriation from the Fund.
6)Requires the SWRCB, in expending moneys from the Fund, to
prioritize programs that provide drinking water solutions for
disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities.
7)Defines "administrative costs" as including costs incurred
during any of the following:
AB 467
Page 2
a) Groundwater monitoring for fertilizers;
b) Development and enforcement of natural resource
protection rules;
c) Coordination of programs funded by the Fund with the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and
state programs to protect human and environmental health;
and,
d) Management of fertilizer sales information.
8)Defines "direct assistance" as including any of the following:
a) Programs that provide sustainable, affordable,
accessible drinking water solutions for disadvantaged and
severely disadvantaged communities, including those
communities served by drinking water systems between 2 and
14 connections and by private wells.
b) Programs that provide for alternate drinking water
supplies or treatment, including consolidation with an
existing non-contaminated water system;
c) Programs that provide for closure of wells that may
impact groundwater, such as abandoned, improperly
constructed, or drainage wells;
d) Programs devoted to integrated natural resources
conservation that encourage the judicious use of
fertilizers and other agricultural inputs and practices
that are protective of water quality;
e) Programs that provide monitoring of private wells to
detect fertilizers or fertilizers with other contaminants;
f) Programs that enhance investment of private and federal
funds in fertilizer management and remediation for
freshwater protection; and,
g) Other specified related programs.
9)Defines "indirect assistance" as including any of the
following:
a) Programs that provide education about fertilizers and
fertilizer management;
b) Programs that provide technical assistance on
fertilizers and fertilizer management;
c) Programs that provide for the promotion and
implementation of onsite evaluation systems and freshwater
protection practices;
d) Research programs for the determination of the impacts
AB 467
Page 3
of alternate management practices; and,
e) Research programs for the determination of natural
resources sensitivity and vulnerability to contamination.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the California SDWA (Health and Safety Code (HSC)
§ 116275 et seq.):
a) Requires the California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) to regulate drinking water and to enforce the
federal SDWA and other regulations.
b) Establishes a state maximum contaminant level for
nitrate in public water systems.
2)Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
provides that the SWRCB and the California regional water
quality control boards are the principal state agencies with
authority over matters relating to water quality (Water Code
(WC) § 13000, et seq.).
3)Requires the SWRCB to prepare and submit a report to the
Legislature that will improve understanding of the causes of
nitrate groundwater contamination; identify potential
remediation solutions and funding sources to recover costs
expended by the state to clean up or treat groundwater; and,
ensure the provision of safe drinking water to all communities
(WC § 83002.5).
4)Requires the SWRCB to submit a report to the Legislature that
identifies communities in California that rely on contaminated
groundwater as a primary source of drinking water; the
principal contaminants and constituents of concern; and,
potential solutions and funding sources to clean up or treat
groundwater, or provide alternative water supplies (WC §
10782).
5)Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Law
(SDWSRF) of 1997, establishes California's SDWSRF and
continuously appropriates the SDWSRF to CDPH to provide grants
or revolving fund loans for the design and construction of
projects for public water systems that will enable suppliers
to meet safe drinking water standards (HSC § 116760 et seq.).
6)Pursuant to the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal
and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 50), provides
AB 467
Page 4
funding for, among other things, water security for drinking
water programs, community treatment facilities and monitoring
programs, and matching funds for federal grants for public
water system infrastructure improvements (WC §79500, et seq.).
7)Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006
(Proposition 84), provides funding for, among other things,
protection and reduction of contamination of groundwater and
small community drinking water system improvements (Public
Resources Code § 75001, et seq.)
8)Authorizes the California Department of Food and Agriculture
to impose an assessment in an amount not to exceed one mill
($0.001) per dollar of all sales of fertilizing materials to
provide funding for research and education regarding the use
and handling of fertilizing materials, including, but not
limited to, any environmental effects. (Food and Agricultural
Code § 14611).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
Need for the bill: According to the author's office, the intent
of AB 467 is to respond to recent State studies chronicling the
chronic need for safe drinking water in disadvantaged
communities. Specifically, the author points out that in a
February 2013 report (discussed in more detail later), the SWRCB
argues that "The most critical recommendation in this report is
that a new funding source be established to ensure that all
Californians, including those in disadvantaged communities, have
access to safe drinking water, consistent with AB 685 [Eng,
2012]. The Legislature should provide a stable, long-term
funding source for provision of safe drinking water for small
disadvantaged communities." This bill intends to establish such
a funding source.
Nitrates/nitrites and public health : Recent state studies show
that nitrate is one of California's most prevalent groundwater
contaminants. High concentrations of nitrate in groundwater are
primarily caused by human activities, including fertilizer
application (synthetic and manure), animal operations,
industrial sources (wastewater treatment and food processing
facilities), and septic systems. Agricultural fertilizers and
AB 467
Page 5
animal wastes applied to cropland are by far the largest
regional sources of nitrate in groundwater, although other
sources can be locally important.
Nitrite is a chemical similar to nitrate, and it comes from the
same sources as nitrate. Once consumed, nitrate is converted
into nitrite in the body. Nitrite can interfere with the
ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen to the tissues of the
body, producing a condition called methemoglobinemia. This is
of greatest concern in infants, whose immature stomach
environment enables the conversion of nitrate into nitrite that
is absorbed into the blood stream. The effects of nitrite are
often referred to as "blue baby syndrome." High nitrate levels
may also affect the oxygen-carrying ability of the blood of
pregnant women.
Nitrate contamination in California : Senate Bill SBX2 1
(Perata) Chapter 1, Statutes of 2008 Second Extraordinary
Session, required the SWRCB, in consultation with other
agencies, to prepare a report to the Legislature focusing on
nitrate groundwater contamination in the state and potential
remediation solutions. In response, the SWRCB contracted with
the University of California to gather information to prepare
its report.
The University of California at Davis (UCD) prepared and
released its resultant report, Addressing Nitrate in
California's Drinking Water, to the SWRCB in January 2012.
While the study only examined nitrate contamination in the
four-county Tulare Lake Basin and the Monterey County portion of
the Salinas Valley, its findings are helpful at informing the
discussion about nitrate contamination statewide.
The UCD study showed that nitrate loading to groundwater in the
area is widespread and chronic, and is overwhelmingly the result
of crop and animal agricultural activities. Urban wastewater,
septic systems, and other sources have significant localized
impact. Due to long transit times, the impact of nitrates on
groundwater resources will likely worsen in scope and
concentration for several decades.
The study indicated that about 2.6 million people in these
regions rely on groundwater for drinking water, including those
in some of the poorest communities in California. Nitrate
contamination is increasing and currently poses public health
AB 467
Page 6
concerns for about 254,000 people in the study area.
Groundwater data show that 57% of the current population in the
study area uses a community public water system with recorded
raw (untreated) nitrate concentrations that have exceeded the
MCL at least once between 2006 and 2010. Continued basin-wide
trends in nitrate groundwater concentration may raise the
affected population to nearly 80% by 2050.
In addition to the UCD report, AB 2222 (Caballero) Chapter 670,
Statutes of 2008, requires the SWRCB to submit a report to the
Legislature that identifies communities in California that rely
on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking
water. The SWRCB report was released in January 2013, and
identified 682 communities (excluding systems not regulated by
the state), serving more than 21 million people, which rely on
groundwater contaminated with one or more principal
contaminants. The report also identified areas with nitrate
contamination.
Addressing nitrate contamination in drinking water : Technical
Report 8 of the UCD study ascertains that a range of safe
drinking water actions (alternative water supplies or drinking
water treatment), groundwater remediation, and source reduction
actions are needed to provide residents with safe drinking
water. Since nitrate source reduction or groundwater
remediation will take years to decades to significantly improve
drinking water quality, residents currently receiving unsafe
drinking water require other immediate alternatives.
Funding to address nitrate contamination in drinking water : A
variety of funding programs that currently exist to address
drinking water problems could be used to address nitrate
contamination, including funding through the SDWSRF, Proposition
50, and Proposition 84. However, the UCD report finds that
these and other existing funding programs have not met systems'
stated need to ensure safe drinking water in the Salinas Valley
and Tulare Lake Basin. Most current state funding to address
nitrate contamination is temporary (such as general obligation
bonds for loans through state propositions) and many programs
have already been fully allocated. In addition, most safe
drinking water funding programs do not provide support for
operation and maintenance costs, which is necessary for many
disadvantaged communities, and the State of California
specifically does not fund operation and maintenance activities.
AB 467
Page 7
Following the UCD report, the SWRCB submitted its final report
to Legislature, Recommendations Addressing Nitrate in
Groundwater, on February 20, 2013, which focused on specific
solutions for addressing nitrate contamination in groundwater.
According to the report, "The most critical recommendation in
this report is that a new funding source be established to
ensure that all Californians, including those in disadvantaged
communities, have access to safe drinking water, consistent with
AB 685 [Eng, 2012]. The Legislature should provide a stable,
long-term funding source for provision of safe drinking water
for small disadvantaged communities. Funding sources include a
point-of-sale fee on agricultural commodities, a fee on nitrogen
fertilizing materials, or a water use fee. In addition, the
Legislature also should authorize CDPH to assess a fee in lieu
of interest on Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loans,
or to assess other fees associated with these loans, to generate
funds for expanded assistance to water systems."
This bill intends to respond to the SWRCB's recommendation by
creating the Fund. The parameters of the Fund are modeled after
those governing the Michigan Freshwater Protection Fund. While
this bill creates a fund, it currently does not identify a
funding source. The author of the bill indicates that he plans
to work closely with stakeholders and the relevant state
agencies to develop an appropriate source of funding for the
fund created in this bill. Since re-designating funds from
existing sources could create a shortfall in existing programs,
the author may wish to consider new sources of revenue.
Committee hearings: Since November 2012, the ESTM Committee has
held a series of oversight hearings on the provision of safe,
affordable, accessible drinking water to all Californians,
especially those in disadvantaged communities. The first
hearing, held on November 14, 2012, reviewed the actions that
state agencies, including the CDPH, which manages the state's
Drinking Water Program (DWP), have taken to address the issue of
contaminated drinking water, especially in disadvantaged
communities. The second hearing, held on March 18, 2013,
considered whether efficiencies can be achieved and
effectiveness can be improved if the DWP is moved from CDPH,
which is housed in the California Health and Human Services
Agency, to the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA). The third hearing, held on April 2, 2013, focused on
California's groundwater contamination and the steps needed to
protect the State's drinking water.
AB 467
Page 8
These hearings, along with other recent State and administration
activities, have helped inform the discussion on the need for a
stable, long-term funding source to address the State's drinking
water problem.
Related legislation:
1)AB 69 (Perea). Establishes the Nitrate at Risk Area Fund to
fund solutions for disadvantaged communities with
nitrate-contaminated drinking water. This bill passed the
Assembly Committees on ESTM and on Appropriations. It is
currently on the Assembly floor.
Related prior legislation:
1)AB 1669 (Perea). Would have created the Nitrate at Risk Area
Fund, administered by the SWRCB, funds within which, upon
appropriation, would have been used to pay for solutions for
disadvantaged communities suffering from nitrate-contaminated
groundwater. Would have required the CDPH, working with the
SWRCB, to designate such areas by using existing data on
public water systems. This bill passed the Assembly Committee
on ESTM and was subsequently held under submission on the
suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
2)AB 685 (Eng). Declares that it is the established policy of
the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean,
affordable, and accessible water adequate for human
consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. Requires all
relevant state agencies, including the Department of Water
Resources, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the
State Department of Public Health, to consider this state
policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies,
regulations, and grant criteria. Chapter 524, Statutes of
2012.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
AB 467
Page 9
Forests Forever
Pesticide Action Network North America
Planning and Conservation League
PolicyLink
Sierra Club California
Wholly H20
Opposition
None received.
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965