BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 467
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 467 (Stone)
As Amended April 11, 2013
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 6-1
APPROPRIATIONS 16-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Alejo, Dahle, Bloom |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Chesbro, Stone, Ting | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |
| | | |Gomez, Hall, Ammiano, |
| | | |Linder, Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Wagner, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Donnelly |Nays:|Donnelly |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to
expend money from the Fund, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, 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% of the annual
appropriation from the Fund.
2)Requires the SWRCB, in expending moneys from the Fund, to
prioritize programs that provide drinking water solutions for
AB 467
Page 2
disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities.
3)Defines "administrative costs" as including costs incurred
during any of the following:
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.
4)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.
AB 467
Page 3
5)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
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:
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.
3)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 effect.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, cost pressures in the hundreds of millions of dollars
AB 467
Page 4
to fulfill the activities identified in the bill. This bill
does not provide a funding source. The bill is likely to have
increased administrative costs for SWRCB in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Many of the administrative costs and
direct actions defined in the bill are statutory activities of
other departments such as the Department of Public Health, the
Department of Water Resources, and the Department of Food and
Agriculture. It is likely that SWRCB would have to contract or
enter into memorandums of agreement with other state departments
and agencies to fulfill the requirements of this bill.
COMMENTS :
Need for the bill: According to the author, the intent of this
bill 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
animal wastes applied to cropland are by far the largest
regional sources of nitrate in groundwater, although other
sources can be locally important.
The University of California at Davis (UCD) prepared and
released the report, Addressing Nitrate in California's Drinking
Water, to the SWRCB in January 2012. 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
AB 467
Page 5
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
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.
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 6
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0000835