BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2071
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2071 (Levine)
As Amended May 23, 2014
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 15-0 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Rendon, Bigelow, Allen, |Ayes:|Alejo, Dahle, Bloom, |
| |Bocanegra, Dahle, Fong, | |Donnelly, Gomez, |
| |Frazier, Beth Gaines, | |Lowenthal, Ting |
| |Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, | | |
| |Gray, Patterson, | | |
| |Rodriguez, Yamada | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | |
| |Holden, Jones, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires, by December 31, 2016, that the State
Department of Public Health (DPH), in consultation with the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) and others,
as specified, determine if the voluntary use of disinfected
tertiary treated recycled water for watering pasture animals is
safe for public and animal health. If the use of tertiary
treated recycled water is found to be currently unsafe, DPH is
required to establish uniform statewide recycling criteria for
safe use. This bill prohibits the use of tertiary treated
recycled water in the water supply of dairy animals that are
currently producing dairy products for human consumption.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 2071
Page 2
1)Requires that the water supply for a milk house or room and
dairy barn shall be of a safe and sanitary quality and that
the bacterial quality shall conform to public drinking water
standards.
2)Requires that for dairy farms the water supply for drinking by
livestock shall not be stagnant, polluted with manure, urine
drainage, decaying vegetable or animal matter, or pathogenic
bacteria of any source.
3)Specifies that tertiary-treated recycled water is wastewater
that has been filtered and subsequently disinfected and meets
stringent requirements for bacterial content.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, this bill would:
1)Increase General Fund costs to DPH of about $200,000 to
convene a panel of experts
2)Unknown potential research costs if DPH determines available
data on the effects of recycled water usage by pasture animals
is not sufficient to make the determination.
3)Minor, absorbable costs for DFA to provide consultation.
It is likely DPH would convene an expert panel to examine this
issue similar to the Potable Reuse expert panel, which required
a contract with an outside agency to oversee and administer the
panel.
COMMENTS : This bill would require DPH to make a determination
as to whether the use of tertiary-treated recycled water for
pasture animals is safe. Currently, there do not appear to be
regulations pertaining to the use of tertiary-treated recycled
water for this purpose. Because regulations do not disallow the
use, some water providers have interpreted that to mean the
practice is allowed and in fact have allowed this use in some
parts of California. Recycled water is also used to water
pasture animals in Arizona and Australia.
In response to water shortages due to the drought emergency, the
WateReuse Association facilitated a convening of experts on
AB 2071
Page 3
pathogens in manure and wastewater and contaminants in recycled
water to consider tertiary-treated recycled water as an
alternate source of drinking water for pasture animals. In an
opinion paper entitled Risks and Benefits of Tertiary Sewage
Effluent as Drinking Water for Livestock in California, those
experts considered whether tertiary-treated recycled water
presented an elevated or unacceptable level of risk relative to
other available livestock watering sources. Their conclusion was
that using tertiary-treated recycled water as a temporary water
source during a drought emergency was a minimal risk in almost
all cases and certainly a better alternative than losing animals
due to lack of water. As a permanent water source they opined
tertiary-treated recycled water might warrant additional
monitoring and concluded that advanced means of mitigation such
as activated carbon filters or implementing reverse osmosis or
advanced oxidation would be ideal but might be expensive and
labor intensive. The experts also recognized that animals may
have potentially similar or higher exposures to estrogens and
other contaminants from drinking water in streams and ponds
where animals have defecated and urinated.
The author states this bill is needed because unprecedented
drought conditions are creating enormous pressure on limited
water resources and that there is uncertainty about the use of,
and possibly a challenging regulatory process to use, tertiary
treated recycled water for livestock watering. The author
maintains that this bill will ensure that there is a health
standard for the use of tertiary recycled water for livestock
watering and that, moreover, the steps necessary to use this
resource will be made clear. Supporters state that this bill is
welcome legislation that should clarify many ambiguities
associated with the safe use of tertiary-treated recycled water
for livestock. Other supporters state that as California
attempts to grapple with the worst drought in modern history,
the Legislature needs to encourage additional avenues for the
use of recycled water, particularly where such use might
displace the use of potable water supplies.
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0003818
AB 2071
Page 4