BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1249
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1249 (Salas)
As Amended January 6, 2014
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-0 APPROPRIATIONS 13-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Alejo, Dahle, Bloom, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Stone, Ting | |Bradford |
| | | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, |
| | | |Linder, Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Bigelow, Allen, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR)
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 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, cost pressures, likely in the millions of dollars, to
DWR to award grant monies to projects to address nitrate
contamination. However, actual grant awards may not necessarily
differ from grant awards DWR would have made absent this bill
(Proposition 84).
AB 1249
Page 2
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. SB
1 X2 (Perata), Chapter 1, Statutes of 2008 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
AB 1249
Page 3
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 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
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), Chapter 524,
Statutes of 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 $1 billion for IRWM projects that
assist local public agencies in meeting long term water needs,
including the delivery of safe drinking water and the
AB 1249
Page 4
protection of water quality and the environment.
Of that $1 billion, $900 million, referred to as "regional
funding," was allocated to 11 hydrologic regions and
sub-regions or "funding areas." The remaining $100 million,
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 (FY) 2013-2014, the State
has appropriated approximately $490 million of Proposition 84
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0002995