BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1249
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis A. Alejo, Chair
AB 1249 (Salas) - As Amended: January 6, 2014
SUBJECT : Integrated regional water management plans: nitrate
contamination.
SUMMARY : Requires integrated regional water management plans
(IRWMPs) to include consideration of the impacts of drinking
water contaminated by nitrates. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that IRWMPs include a description of high-risk
nitrate areas, as determined by the State Water Resources
Control Board (State Board), and an explanation of how the
IRWMP plans to address nitrate contamination.
2)Requires that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) give
Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control,
River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84)
funding priority to safe drinking water and water quality
projects that implement IRWMPs that address nitrate impacts in
areas that have been identified by the State Board as nitrate
high-risk areas, including projects that provide safe drinking
water to small, disadvantaged communities.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Pursuant to the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires
the California Department of Public Health to regulate
drinking water, and to enforce the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act and other regulation of nitrates in public drinking water
systems.
2)Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
provides that the State Board and the California Regional
Water Quality Control Boards are the principal state agencies
with authority over matters relating to water quality.
3)Requires the State Board 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
AB 1249
Page 2
ensure the provision of safe drinking water to all
communities.
4)Requires the State Board 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 to provide alternative water supplies.
5)Pursuant to Proposition 84, provides funding for, among other
things, the protection and reduction of contamination of
groundwater and for small community drinking water system
improvements.
6)Pursuant to Proposition 84, appropriates bond funds to DWR for
IRWMP activities. Requires DWR to allocate not less than 10%
of these funds to address the critical water supply needs of
disadvantaged communities and to facilitate participation of
those communities in integrated regional water management
planning.
FISCAL EFFECT : Not Known.
COMMENTS :
1)Need for the bill: According to the author, "this bill is
intended to provide direction to the California Department of
Water Resources to give preference, in the Integrated Regional
Water Management Grant program, to funding plans that address
nitrate impacts for areas identified by the State Water
Resources Control Board as nitrate high risk areas.
If an area within the boundaries of a funding plan has been
identified as a nitrate high-risk area by the State Water
Resources Control Board, the plan must include an explanation
of how the plan addresses the nitrate contamination. If the
plan does not address the nitrate contamination, an
explanation of why the plan does not address the contamination
must be included. "
2)Nitrate contamination in California : While many contaminants
are present in California's groundwater and drinking water,
nitrate contamination has been the focus of recent study.
Senate Bill SB X2 1 (Perata) Chapter 1, Statutes of 2008
AB 1249
Page 3
Second Extraordinary Session, required the State Board, 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 State Board contracted with the University of California
at Davis (UCD) to gather information for the report, which was
released in January 2012. The study showed that nitrate
loading to groundwater in the four-county Tulare Lake Basin
and the Monterey County portion of the Salinas Valley is
widespread and chronic, and is overwhelmingly the result of
crop and animal agricultural activities. Due to long transit
times, the impact of nitrates on groundwater resources will
likely worsen in scope and concentration for several decades.
According to the UCD study, infants who drink water containing
nitrate in excess of the maximum contaminant level for
drinking water may quickly become seriously ill and, if
untreated, may die because high nitrate levels can decrease
the capacity of an infant's blood to carry oxygen
(methemoglobinemia, or "blue baby syndrome"). High nitrate
levels may also affect pregnant women and susceptible adults.
In addition, nitrate and nitrite ingestion in humans has been
linked to goitrogenic (anti-thyroid) actions on the thyroid
gland, fatigue, reduced cognitive functioning, maternal
reproductive complications including spontaneous abortion, and
a variety of carcinogenic outcomes.
The fact that many of the affected communities are small and
impoverished adds to the challenges of providing safe drinking
water to these areas. Many of the community public water
systems are small water systems, which often already face
chronic financial problems. They have difficulty in applying
for and meeting the eligibility requirements for receiving
existing State funds because they lack economies of scale and
often have inadequate technical, managerial, and financial
capacity. Even when funding is provided, these systems often
lack the capacity to manage operation and maintenance costs or
make loan repayments.
The UCD study proposed a range of actions that could be taken
to address groundwater and drinking water contamination,
including policy and regulatory changes and funding options.
Following the UCD report, the State Board submitted its final
Report to the Legislature, Recommendations Addressing Nitrate
AB 1249
Page 4
in Groundwater , on February 20, 2013, which focused on
specific solutions for addressing nitrate contamination in
groundwater. The recommendations from that report included:
a) A new stable, long-term funding source should be
established to ensure that all Californians, including
those in disadvantaged communities, have access to safe
drinking water, consistent with AB 685 (Eng), 2012.
b) DWR should give preference, in the Proposition 84
IRWM Grant Program, to proposals with IRWMPs that address
access to safe drinking water for small disadvantaged
communities that are in nitrate high-risk areas.
3)State Board - nitrate high-risk study areas : The State Board
is currently developing maps identifying the nitrate high-risk
areas. The State Board is consulting with the Department of
Food and Agriculture in drafting these maps. According to the
State Board, they expect to present a completed set of draft
maps to members of the State Board in February, with the Board
voting on adoption of the maps soon afterwards. Prior to
final release, there will be a publicly-noticed informational
item at a future State Board meeting, followed by a vote to
adopt the maps by the Board at a subsequent meeting.
4)Integrated regional water management funding: The IRWM Grant
Program operated by DWR manages General Obligation Bond funds
from various sources, including Proposition 84. Proposition
84 amended the Public resources Code to authorize the
Legislature to appropriate one billion dollars for IRWM
projects that assist local public agencies in meeting long
term water needs, including the delivery of safe drinking
water and the protection of water quality and the environment.
Of that one billion dollars, $900,000,000, referred to as
"regional funding," was allocated to 11 hydrologic regions and
sub-regions or "funding areas." The remaining $100,000,000,
referred to as "inter-regional funding," was allocated to
address multi-regional needs or issues of statewide
significance. Proposition 84 authorizes DWR to either expend
directly or grant the inter-regional funds.
According to DWR, as of fiscal year 2013-2014, the State as
appropriated approximately $490 million of Proposition 84
AB 1249
Page 5
funds for local projects and has a balance of $473 million.
The Governor's proposed FY 2014-2015 budget includes the
appropriation of the remaining balance of these Proposition 84
IRWM funds.
5)Integrated regional water management priorities: Current law
provides a range of priorities for IRWMP funding. This bill
will provide a new priority for areas at high risk of nitrate
contamination. The current priorities, listed in Public
Resources Code Section75026. (b) and Water Code Section10544,
state that preference will be given to IRWMPs that:
a) Include regional projects or programs;
b) Effectively integrate water management programs and
projects within a hydrologic region;
c) Effectively resolve significant water-related conflicts
within or between regions;
d) Contribute to attainment of one or more of the
objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program;
e) Address critical water supply or water quality needs of
disadvantaged communities within the region;
f) Effectively integrate water management with land use
planning;
g) Are not receiving State funding for flood control or
flood prevention projects;
h) Provide multiple benefits, including, water quality
improvements, ecosystem benefits, reduction of in stream
erosion and sedimentation, and groundwater recharge; and,
i) Address additional statewide priorities.
6)Adequacy of the IRWMP process for disadvantaged communities :
Current statutes generally require a commitment of 10% of
IRWMP funds to disadvantaged communities with critical
drinking water problems. However, nonprofits that serve the
environment and disadvantaged communities have, with few
exceptions, been unable to effectively participate in local
planning and decision-making processes related to these
programs. In addition to being an extremely complex
bureaucratic model, the processes are not designed for the
participation of groups with limited resources.
The author may wish to consider measures to reduce their
complexity and encourage local participation and input.
7)Prior legislation:
AB 1249
Page 6
a) SB 790 (Pavley) Chapter 620, Statutes of 2009.
Established grant criteria for stormwater funding through
Proposition 84, and developed a local stormwater planning
process for grants to public agencies and non-profit
organizations for low-impact development projects for
stormwater runoff.
b) AB 626 (Eng) Chapter 367, Statutes of 2009. Required
DWR to achieve 10% statewide allocation of IRWMP funding
for disadvantaged communities within each region.
8)Related current legislation:
a) AB 69 (Perea). Establishes the Nitrate at Risk Area
Fund to fund solutions for disadvantaged communities with
nitrate-contaminated drinking water. This bill is
currently in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support:
None Received
Opposition:
None Received
Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965