BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1249
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1249
AUTHOR: Salas
AMENDED: May 20, 2014
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 18, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Karen Morrison
SUBJECT : INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS:
NITRATE, ARSENIC, PERCHLORATE, OR HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM CONTAMINATION
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Established the Integrated Regional Water Management
Planning Act of 2002 (Water Code §10530 et seq., SBX2 1,
Perata, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2008). This act:
a) Authorizes a regional water management group to
prepare and adopt an integrated regional water
management (IRWM) plan.
b) Allows incorporation of other water management
planning processes into the IRWM process, including
groundwater management, urban water management, water
supply assessments and land-use general plans.
c) Sets minimum standards and priorities for IRWM plans,
including water supply reliability, water quality,
watershed resources, needs of disadvantaged communities,
and the human right to water.
d) Funds IRWM through allocations from Proposition 84.
2) Approved by voters, enacted the Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) , which authorized
$5.388B in general obligation water bonds. Proposition 84
provides $1B for projects to meet the long-term water needs
AB 1249
Page 2
of the state, including the delivery of safe drinking water
and the protection of water quality and the environment,
through the funding of IRWM plans and projects.
3) Enacted the Drought Relief Bill (SB 104, Chapter 3,
Statutes of 2014), which provides water services related to
the drought and reallocates $250M from Proposition 84 funds
for future general IRWM funding.
This bill :
1) Extends funding for IRWM plans to any future water bonds.
2) Requires an IRWM plan to explain how the plan addresses any
identified nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent
chromium contamination in the region, or to provide an
explanation as to why the plan does not address the
contamination.
3) Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide
a preference to projects that address nitrate impacts in
areas identified by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) as nitrate high-risk areas, and to projects that
address arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium
impacts. This includes projects that provide safe drinking
water to small disadvantaged communities.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "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 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.
"DWR should give preferences in the Proposition 84 IRWM Grant
Program, to proposals with IRWM plans that address access
to safe drinking water for small disadvantaged communities
AB 1249
Page 3
that are in nitrate high-risk areas.
"There have been several concerns that disadvantaged
communities lack the resources to participate in local IRWM
plans. Concerns have been raised that disadvantaged
communities do not have resources or technical assistance
to compete with financially resourced institutional
stakeholders. Because disadvantaged communities cannot
participate and become part of local plans, they cannot
benefit from the Integrated Water Management Grant Program
funds. [?] Disadvantaged communities are not benefitting
from [IRWM] funds because their problems are not priorities
for organizations receiving the funds."
This bill gives "preference ? to funding plans that address
nitrate impacts for areas identified by the SWRCB as
nitrate high-risk areas. It would also give preference to
other contaminants: arsenic, perchlorate, and hexavalent
chromium."
2) Background on groundwater contaminants . Although 98% of
Californians who draw from the public water supply receive
safe drinking water, contamination of groundwater occurs in
community water systems across California.
In a study conducted on 2,584 community water systems by SWRCB
under AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008),
680 were identified that rely on a contaminated groundwater
source. These systems serve nearly 21 million people, and
75% of those systems rely entirely on groundwater.
In addition, two million Californians rely on drinking water
from either a private well or a small unregulated water
system, and there is very little data on the quality of
this drinking water.
The SWRCB study, released in January 2013, found that the ten
most frequently detected principal contaminants were found
in over 90% of the active contaminated groundwater sources
(wells) identified in this report. In decreasing order of
detection, these contaminants are: arsenic, nitrate, gross
alpha activity, perchlorate, tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, uranium, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane,
AB 1249
Page 4
fluoride, and carbontetrachloride.
The report also identified nine constituents of concern
(COCs): hexavalent chromium (Chrom6),
1,2,3-trichloropropane, boron, manganese, vanadium, 1,
4-dioxane, N-nitroso-dimethylamine, lead, and tertiary
butyl alcohol. COCs are chemicals that were detected by
the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) in
drinking water that lack or do not yet have a maximum
contaminant level (MCL).
3) Background on Integrated Regional Water Management .
Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) was first
introduced in California in 2002. IRWM allows a region of
California to collaboratively manage all aspects of water
within that area. Currently, there are 48 IRWM regions in
California; these regions cover 87% of the state's area and
99% of the population.
DWR provides grants and loans to the IRWM regions to implement
water plans to meet various considerations, including water
quality.
4) Current access to funding to clean up drinking water . Of
the 680 community water systems that are identified as
relying on a contaminated groundwater source, 166 systems
were not receiving or actively seeking funding to address
their drinking water needs from IRWM programs or other
funding sources.
Forty-two of these 166 systems have also received a notice of
an MCL violation during the most recent CDPH compliance
cycle.
According to the SWRCB, public funding sources to address
groundwater supply and contamination issues are limited.
Specifically, the funds from Proposition 84 for IRWM plans
was exhausted in the last round of project approvals,
although the Drought Relief Bill provided an additional
$250M for new projects. However, $250M will likely only
fund one more round of IRWM project funding.
5) Review process for IRWM projects . Under current law, DWR
AB 1249
Page 5
reviews proposed IRWM projects using a variety of criteria.
Among these criteria, DWR must provide a preference for
projects that address statewide priorities (such as surface
water and groundwater quality) or that address critical
water supply or water quality needs for disadvantaged
communities within the region. In addition, 10% of the
funds must go to projects that benefit disadvantaged
communities.
Although these priorities address water quality and
disadvantaged communities, in practice, the needs of small
disadvantaged communities are not always addressed in IRWM
plans.
6) Target contaminants .
a) Nitrate (NO3-) . 96% of nitrate contamination in
groundwater results from agricultural fertilizers and
animal wastes applied to cropland. The health impacts
from nitrate exposure are primarily associated with
acute, or short-term, exposure. Acute exposure to high
levels of nitrate in infants can cause shortness of
breath and low oxygen levels in the blood, a potentially
fatal condition known as blue baby syndrome.
The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate at 10 ppb N
(45 ppb NO3-). In 2007, 75% of cases where elevated
levels of nitrate were detected were located in the San
Joaquin Valley.
In 2008, SBX2 1 (Perata, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2008)
required the SWRCB to develop pilot projects on nitrate
contaminations in the Tulare Lake Basin and the Salinas
Valley. Under the law, the SWRCB contracted with
University of California, Davis to prepare a report.
The final draft, released in 2013, found that nitrate
contamination in groundwater poses a problem for about
254,000 people in California's Tulare Lake Basin and
Salinas Valley. In general, nitrate contamination is
most prominent in areas with extensive agriculture.
In the SWRCB's final Report to the Legislature,
Recommendations Addressing Nitrate in Groundwater, the
AB 1249
Page 6
Board recommended that California "prioritize systems
with contaminants with potential impacts, such as
nitrates, as well as those systems that serve
disadvantaged communities." However, similar language
could be used for any contaminant that affects systems
that serve disadvantaged communities.
b) Arsenic (As) . Arsenic is a naturally occurring
contaminant that typically enters drinking water
supplies from natural deposits in the earth. Chronic
exposure to arsenic in drinking water can result in skin
damage, problems with the circulatory system, and an
increased risk of cancer.
In 2001, the MCL for arsenic was lowered from 50 to 10 ppb.
The 2013 groundwater study conducted by SWRCB demonstrated
that 54% of surveyed wells had arsenic levels above the
MCL, and the contaminated wells were distributed across
California.
c) Perchlorate (ClO4-) . Perchlorate is an oxidizer
commonly used in jet fuel and is known to cause adverse
neurological development in fetuses and infants, to
cause goiter in pregnant women, and to interfere with
the endocrine system. The Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established a public
health goal of 6 ppb, which is equivalent to CDPH's MCL.
The United States EPA is developing a proposed national
primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate.
In the groundwater study conducted by SWRCB in 2013, 179
active community water system wells (57 community water
systems) had levels of perchlorate above the MCL.
d) Hexavalent chromium (Cr6+, Chrom6) . Chrom6 is a
widely detected water contaminant with primarily
anthropogenic sources. Naturally occurring Chrom3 is
associated with certain geologic formations or
chrome-iron ore deposits, but under certain conditions,
it may occur as Chrom6 in drinking water. Anthropogenic
sources of Chrom6 include paint pigments, wood
preservatives, and leaching from hazardous waste sites.
AB 1249
Page 7
According to the SWRCB, the top four counties with
Chrom6 in their public water wells are Los Angeles,
Yolo, Riverside, and San Bernardino. Chronic exposure
to Chrom6 is linked to lung cancer in workers.
Traditionally, chromium content in water has been measured
as a function of total chromium (Chrom3 and Chrom6).
Although Chrom3 is essentially inert, it interconverts
with Chrom6 in the body. CDPH had established an MCL of
50 ppb for total chromium, but with the growing health
concerns related to Chrom6, California reevaluated its
drinking water standards.
In 2011, OEHHA has assigned a public health goal for Chrom6
of 0.02 ppb. In 2013, CDPH released a draft MCL of 10
ppb, and finalization of the MCL could occur later this
year.
In the 2013 SWRCB groundwater study (which was released
prior to CDPH's announcement of the Chrom6 MCL), Chrom6
was detected at levels above 1 ppb in 1,378 wells across
314 community water systems.
7) Suggested amendments .
a) The bill currently relies on the identification of a
"nitrate high-risk area by the state board." The SWRCB
is still in the process of developing a nitrate
high-risk map, and it is unclear when the stakeholder
process will be complete. In addition, the bill is
inconsistent in addressing nitrate high-risk areas while
addressing contamination in general for arsenic,
perchlorate, and Chrom6.
An amendment is needed to require IRWM plans to address
areas with nitrate contamination without reference to
"nitrate high-risk areas".
b) The bill currently uses the term "impacts," and this
term is inconsistent with other usage in the bill.
An amendment is needed to change "impacts" to
AB 1249
Page 8
"contamination."
c) The bill currently requires DWR to provide a
preference for projects that implement IRWM plans that
address various groundwater contaminants. The current
phrasing is unclear and could be interpreted to give any
project a preference so long as the broader plan
addresses nitrate, perchlorate, arsenic, or Chrom6
contamination.
An amendment is needed to clarify this phrasing to ensure
that the specific project addresses groundwater
contamination.
d) The bill currently requires a preference to be given
to projects that address certain contaminants,
"including projects that provide safe drinking water to
small disadvantaged communities." This phrasing does
not actually address the current discrepancies in
funding for disadvantaged communities.
An amendment is needed to replace "including" with "giving
particular priority to."
8) Policy questions .
a) What about other contaminants? The bill requires
that DWR give four contaminants special consideration
when reviewing IRWM projects. However, there are other
contaminants that are found in groundwater that can
cause human disease. These include bacteria, organic
compounds, and other inorganic compounds (such as lead).
What is the basis for giving priority to one
contaminant over another?
b) Definition of small disadvantaged community . The
2010 federal census did not collect the household
economic data necessary for making this determination
about small disadvantaged communities. Therefore, many
communities will have to conduct income surveys in order
to show that they meet the definition in law. These
surveys are an added expense and can take time to
conduct prior to submitting an application for funding.
AB 1249
Page 9
9) Related legislation .
AB 69 (Perea, 2013) would establish the Nitrate at Risk Fund
to provide loans or grants to water systems operating in
high nitrate risk areas. The bill is currently in the
Senate Agriculture Committee.
AB 1630 (Alejo, 2013) would appropriate $500,000 to the State
Water Resources Control Board for use by the Greater
Monterey County Regional Water Management Group to develop
an integrated plan to address the drinking water and
wastewater needs of the disadvantaged communities in the
Salinas Valley. This bill is currently in the Senate
awaiting referral.
AB 2737 (Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials, 2014) would require a pilot project requiring
the SWRCB to work with local communities to develop
solutions to address arsenic and nitrate contamination in
drinking water. The bill was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : California League of Conservation Voters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
OPPOSITION : San Diego County Water Authority