BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 467
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 467
AUTHOR: Stone
AMENDED: April 11, 2013
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: July 3, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rachel Machi
Wagoner
SUBJECT : FRESHWATER PROTECTION ACT
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Pursuant to the California Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA):
a) Requires the California Department of Public
Health (DPH) to regulate drinking water and to
enforce the federal SDWA and other regulations.
b) Establishes a state maximum contaminant
level for nitrates in public water systems.
c) Defines a public water system as a system
for the provision of water for human consumption
through pipes or other constructed conveyances that
has 15 or more service connections or regularly
serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60
days out of the year.
2) Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act, provides that the State Water Resources Control
Board (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
AB 467
Page 2
education regarding the use and handling of fertilizing
materials, including, but not limited to, any
environmental effect.
This bill 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:
1) Requires SWRCB to expend money from the Fund, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, for the following
purposes: direct assistance; indirect assistance;
emergency response and removal of potential sources of
contamination; natural resource protection; and
administrative costs, not to exceed 20% of the annual
appropriation from the Fund.
2) Requires SWRCB, in expending moneys from the Fund, to
prioritize programs that provide drinking water solutions
for 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; or,
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 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
AB 467
Page 3
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.
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
AB 467
Page 4
natural resources sensitivity and vulnerability to
contamination.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of 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), 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 author believes that the Legislature should provide a
stable, long-term funding source for provision of safe
drinking water for small disadvantaged communities. The
author states that this bill intends to establish such a
funding source.
2) 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.
3) SBX2 1 (Perata). Chapter 1, Statutes of 2008 required
SWRCB to prepare a report to the Legislature to "improve
understanding of the causes of nitrate 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."
AB 467
Page 5
The University of California at Davis (UCD) prepared this
study on behalf of SWRCB. The UCD study, "Addressing
Nitrate in California's Drinking Water," was submitted to
SWRCB in January 2012. It showed that nitrate loading to
groundwater in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley
is widespread and chronic, and is overwhelmingly the
result of crop and animal agricultural activities, urban
wastewater, and septic systems.
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.
Groundwater data shows 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 basinwide trends in nitrate groundwater
concentration may raise the affected population to nearly
80% by 2050.
Due to long transit times, the impact of nitrates on
groundwater resources will likely worsen in scope and
concentration for many decades.
SWRCB completed and released its January 2013 report,
"Recommendations Addressing Nitrate in Groundwater,"
based on the study done by UCD. The SWRCB report focused
on specific solutions for addressing the nitrate
contamination in groundwater. According to the SWRCB
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. 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
AB 467
Page 6
fee. In addition, the Legislature also should
authorize DPH 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 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. While the
provisions of this bill will fulfill an important
recommendation to addressing nitrate contamination in
groundwater, the author needs to identify how these
activities are going to be funded.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : Audubon California
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Forests Forever
Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability
Pesticide Action Network North America
Planning and Conservation League
PolicyLink
Sierra Club California
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Wholly H20
OPPOSITION : None on file