BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1249|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1249
Author: Salas (D)
Amended: 6/30/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/25/14
AYES: Hill, Gaines, Fuller, Hancock, Jackson, Leno, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 58-17, 1/27/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Integrated regional water management plans:
nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium
contamination
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires that integrated regional water
management (IRWM) plans include information regarding nitrate,
arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium, should those
contaminants exist within the boundaries of the plan.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Establishes the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning
CONTINUED
AB 1249
Page
2
Act of 2002, SBX2 1, (Perata, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2008).
2.Authorizes a regional water management group to prepare and
adopt an IRWM plan.
3.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.
4.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.
5.Funds IRWM through allocations from Proposition 84.
6.Enacts the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006
(Proposition 84), which authorizes $5.388 billion in general
obligation water bonds. Proposition 84 provides $1 billion
for projects to meet the long-term water needs 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.
7.Enacts the Drought Relief Bill (SB 104, Senate Budget and
Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 3, Statutes of 2014), which
provides water services related to the drought and reallocates
$250 million from Proposition 84 funds for future general IRWM
funding.
This bill:
1.Extends funding for IRWM plans to any future water bonds.
2.Requires that if an area within the boundaries of an IRWM plan
has nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium
contamination, the IRWM plan shall include a description of
each of the following:
A. The location and extent of that contamination in the
region.
B. The impacts caused by the contamination to communities
AB 1249
Page
3
within the region.
C. Existing efforts being undertaken in the region to
address the impacts.
D. Any additional efforts needed to address the impacts.
1.Requires that if a grant application includes areas that have
nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium
contamination, the regional water management group must
include in the grant application information regarding how a
project or projects in the application helps to address the
contamination or an explanation why the application does not
include such a project or projects.
2.Requires, for grant applications that include areas that have
nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium
contamination, the Department of Water Resources to consider
whether the regional water management group has included
projects that help address the impacts caused by the
contamination, including projects that provide safe drinking
water to small disadvantaged communities.
Background
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 the
State Water Resources Control Board (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,
AB 1249
Page
4
these contaminants are: arsenic, nitrate, gross alpha activity,
perchlorate, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, uranium, 1,
2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, 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).
IRWM . 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.
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 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 $250 million for new
projects. However, $250 million will likely only fund one more
round of IRWM project funding.
Review process for IRWM projects . Under existing law, DWR
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
AB 1249
Page
5
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
Related Legislation
AB 69 (Perea, 2013) establishes the Nitrate at Risk Fund to
provide loans or grants to water systems operating in high
nitrate risk areas.
AB 1630 (Alejo, 2013) appropriates $500,000 to the SWRCB 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.
AB 2737 (Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials, 2014) requires 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, cost pressures
at least in the millions of dollars to existing and future bond
monies available for IRWM plan development and implementation.
SUPPORT : (Per Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis
of 5/20/14--Unable to reverify at time of writing)
California League of Conservation Voters
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
OPPOSITION : (Per Senate Environmental Quality Committee
analysis of 5/20/14--Unable to reverify at time of writing)
AB 1249
Page
6
San Diego County Water Authority
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "The State
Board [SWRCB] 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 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 also gives preference to other
contaminants: arsenic, perchlorate, and hexavalent chromium."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to the San Diego County
Water Authority, "While the intended objective of AB 1249 is to
address nitrate pollution in groundwater, a water quality
problem that can pose serious health risks, doing so by
prioritizing IRWM projects by a selected criterion goes against
the foundational construct of the IRWM Program. It is not
consistent with the concept and theory behind integrated
regional cooperative efforts like the IRWM Program to elevate
one issue above others in terms of priority. The Regional
Management Group, as a collaborative entity, should establish
the regional funding priorities on its own accord. AB 1249
AB 1249
Page
7
would impose new burdens for Regional Management Groups in
preparing already complex and cumbersome IRWMPs, contracts, and
contract amendments."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 58-17, 1/27/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman,
Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer,
Levine, Linder, Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Olsen, Pan, Perea, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove,
Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez,
Morrell, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Conway, Logue, Nestande, V. Manuel
Pérez
RM:e 8/16/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****