BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                            Senator Kevin de León, Chair


          AB 2071 (Levine) - Recycled water: pasture animals.
          
          Amended: June 30, 2014          Policy Vote: EQ 6-0
          Urgency: No                     Mandate: No
          Hearing Date: August 4, 2014                      Consultant:  
          Marie Liu     
          
          This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
          
          
          Bill Summary: AB 2071 would require the State Water Resources  
          Control Board (board) to determine whether it is safe for public  
          and animal health to use disinfected tertiary treated recycled  
          water for the purpose of providing water to pasture animals,  
          excluding certain dairy animals, and to establish uniform  
          statewide recycling criteria for this use to mitigate any safety  
          concerns.

          Fiscal Impact: 
              One-time costs of up to $300,000 from the General Fund for  
              an expert panel
              Ongoing costs of $260,000 to the General Fund to the board  
              to either establish uniform state wide recycling criteria or  
              to develop then administer a permit to approve the use of  
              recycled water for pasture animals.
              Unknown potential research costs from the General Fund if  
              the board has insufficient existing information to make the  
              determination on whether the use of recycled water for  
              pasture animals is safe or not.

          Background: Water Code §13521 requires the board to establish  
          uniform statewide recycling criteria for each varying type of  
          use of recycled water where the use involves the protection of  
          public health.

          Food and Agriculture Code §§33515 and 33516 establishes criteria  
          for the drinking water supply for livestock, and requires that  
          the water supply for dairy areas must meet the drinking water  
          standards.

          Proposed Law: This bill would require, by December 31, 2016, the  
          board, in consultation with impacted state agencies, to  








          AB 2071 (Levine)
          Page 1


          determine whether the use of disinfected tertiary treated  
          recycled water for pasture animals is safe for public and animal  
          health. In making this determination, the board would be  
          required to consider recommendations from the existing Advisory  
          Panel on Constituents of Emerging Concerns in Recycled Water,  
          state-funded research on water-recycling, and research by the  
          state board relating to unregulated pollutants.

          If the board determines that there would be harm to public or  
          animal health, the board would be required to establish uniform  
          statewide recycling criteria for the use of disinfected tertiary  
          recycled water for pasture animals. If the board determines that  
          there will be no harm to public or animal health, it would be  
          authorized to approve the use of disinfected tertiary treated  
          recycled water for the purpose of providing water to pasture  
          animals.

          This bill would prohibit the use of disinfected tertiary treated  
          recycled water as a water supply for dairy animals that are  
          currently producing dairy products for human consumption.

          Staff Comments: This bill would necessitate the establishment of  
          a new expert panel to make the determination regarding the use  
          of recycled water for pasture animals as required by this bill.  
          The expert panel would be necessary as the board has no existing  
          expertise on animal health. Also, the scope of the panel may  
          need to be rather large as "pasture animals" are not defined and  
          could include a large range of animals with differing needs.  
          Staff notes that the panel needs to consider threats to animal  
          health as well as human health - considerations which will  
          likely require two different sets of experts. The expert panel  
          will have anticipated costs of $200,000 to $300,000 to pay  
          participants, travel, and general meeting costs. Additionally,  
          the board would likely need two PYs at a cost of approximately  
          $260,000 to manage and staff the expert panel. These costs are  
          in line with other expert panels that the board and the  
          Department of Public Health (the agency who previously was  
          responsible for the Safe Drinking Water Program) have  
          established on other matters. 

          Once the panel makes its determination, the board would then  
          likely transfer the two PYs that were managing the expert panel  
          to develop the uniform statewide recycling criteria or to  
          develop and issue permits for the use of disinfected tertiary  








          AB 2071 (Levine)
          Page 2


          treated water for pasture animals, depending on the  
          determination. Therefore the staff costs of $260,000 would be  
          ongoing and may potentially be partially offset by future permit  
          fees. Staff notes that the board currently does not issue any  
          permits for the use of recycled water, only the discharge of  
          recycled water. 

          This bill would require the board to make a determination on  
          whether recycled water can be used for pasture animals or not.  
          The board would not have the option of making an inconclusive  
          decision because of the lack of data and information. As such,  
          if the expert panel finds that there is insufficient existing  
          data to make a determination, the board would be presumably be  
          required to conduct research at an unknown cost to fill in the  
          information gaps so that the board can make a determination.