BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2124
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Eduardo Garcia and Lackey |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |6/23/2016 |Hearing |6/29/2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Rachel Machi Wagoner |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Water: testing and reports
ANALYSIS:
Existing law,
Under the California Safe Drinking Water Act (California SDWA),
1) Governs drinking water quality and requires the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to ensure that all public
water systems are operated in compliance with the California
SDWA.
2) Requires a public water system to obtain and provide an
analysis of the water to SWRCB as provided.
3) A person who knowingly makes a false statement or
representation in a report submitted, maintained, or used for
purposes of compliance with the California SDWA may be
subject to a misdemeanor.
This bill:
1) Requires the public water system to include in the analysis
samples from schools, day care facilities, and health care
facilities, to the extent those locations are within the
public water system.
2) Requires the public water system to report to SWRCB other
information regarding the samples taken at those sites.
AB 2124 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 2
of ?
3) Requires SWRCB to post this information on its Internet Web
site, as provided.
4) Requires the public water system to report to SWRCB the
public and private schools to which the public water system
provides water.
5) Because a misstatement in these reports could be a crime
under the provision described above, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of a
crime.
Background
1) Drinking water contamination in disadvantaged communities.
According to the SWRCB report, "Communities that Rely on
Contaminated Groundwater," released in January 2013, 682
community public water systems, which serve nearly 21 million
people, rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source
of drinking water. The report points out that an additional
two million Californians rely on groundwater from either a
private domestic well or a smaller groundwater-reliant system
that is not regulated by the state, the water quality of
which is uncertain. The findings from State Water Board
report, and a 2012 UC Davis study, "Addressing Nitrate in
California's Drinking Water," suggest that drinking water
contamination in California disproportionally affects small,
rural and low-income communities that depend mostly on
groundwater as their drinking water source.
The recent drought has further compromised the state's
drinking water supplies. Since many rural households rely on
shallow domestic wells or small, poorly funded community
water supply systems, they have been hardest hit. According
to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), as of
early July 2015, more than 2,000 dry domestic wells were
reported, mostly in the Central Valley and Sierras, with more
than half in Tulare County. Emergency water supply needs
have also been identified for more than 100 small water
community water systems around the state.
2) Drinking water contamination in schools: Schools have also
faced challenges in providing safe drinking water. The
AB 2124 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 3
of ?
Community Water Center, in partnership with researchers at
Stanford University and California State University,
Stanislaus, is currently assessing the prevalence of unsafe
water in California public schools. Preliminary results of
their assessment suggest that an estimated 813 - 1,522
schools in California experienced at least one MCL violation
between 2003-2014, with an estimated 336-534 schools
experiencing at least one MCL violation in two or more years
during the same time period. The assessment suggests that
arsenic, dibromochloropropanes, trihalomethanes, haloacetic
acids, and nitrates were the most commonly occurring school
water contaminants during 2003 - 2014, excluding bacterial
contaminants. The study found that schools on their own
nontransient, noncommunity water systems appear to be
impacted by unsafe drinking water at a higher rate than
schools on larger public community water systems. The study
suggests that 42% - 48% of schools that have experienced an
MCL violation are in disadvantaged communities (as determined
by the top 25% of census tracts identified using the
California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool
(CalEnviroScreen 2.0).
3) Safe drinking water provision in schools: Last year, the
California Endowment launched Agua4All, a pilot project, in
partnership with the nonprofit organizations Rural Community
Assistance Corporation (RCAC), Community Water Center and
Pueblo Unido CDC. One of the goals of Agua4All is to install
water taps in communities that lack access to safe drinking
water. Agua4All has installed 75 water stations in the
eastern Coachella Valley, and 71 water stations and 86
point-of-use filters in South Kern County. According to
RCAC, now more than 25,000 students have access to safe
drinking water that didn't before. RCAC notes that the
point-of-use filtration systems installed on water taps
through the Agua4All program were funded by funds allocated
from the SWRCB's Clean Up and Abatement Account.
4) Recent actions to address drinking water needs: In December
2013, Governor Brown established an interagency drought
response team to coordinate drought relief efforts, and in
January 2014, he declared a statewide drought emergency.
According to the PPIC, the state has recently significantly
improved its emergency response for communities lacking
drinking water. The multiple agencies involved have
AB 2124 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 4
of ?
strengthened coordination to identify needs and deliver help.
In light of increasing drinking water system failures
exasperated by the drought, both the Legislature and the
Governor have taken many steps to provide funding for drought
relief, including funding for the provision of safe drinking
water. For example, Proposition 1 authorized $7.545 billion
in general obligation bonds for water projects, including
surface and groundwater storage; ecosystem and watershed
protection and restoration; and, drinking water protection.
Proposition 1 allocates $260 million for drinking water
grants and loans for public water system infrastructure
improvements and related actions to meet safe drinking water
standards, ensure affordable drinking water, or both. As of
February 1, 2016, about $9 million of this allocation was
awarded.
Additionally, on March 27, 2015, Governor Brown approved a $1
billion emergency drought relief package when he signed AB 91
(Committee on Budget, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2015) and AB 92
(Committee on Budget, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2015). As a
result of the Governor's action, SWRCB approved $19 million
in funding from the Cleanup and Abatement Account to meet
interim emergency drinking water needs for those communities
with a contaminated water supply or which suffer
drought-related water outages or threatened emergencies. In
an effort to distribute funds as quickly and efficiently as
possible, SWRCB is coordinating with the Regional Water
Quality Control Boards, SWRCB's Division of Drinking Water
district offices, the Office of Emergency Services,
Department of Water Resources, and other stakeholders (e.g.,
environmental justice groups, community assistance groups) to
identify those communities that are most at risk and require
financial assistance. Approximately $11 million of this
funding source has been committed or spent.
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of Bill. The author states that an estimated 25% of
California schools do not provide free, fresh drinking water
to students at meal times every day; despite state and
federal laws that require it. According to the author, the
most recent state survey, nearly 500 small community water
systems and schools haven't supplied safe drinking water to
AB 2124 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 5
of ?
their communities and schoolchildren for years, or even
decades. The author asserts that these numbers underestimate
the problem, because no state agency regularly maps this
data.
The author argues that adequate water consumption is critical
to basic health. If children and youth do not drink water,
they often drink sugary beverages instead which can lead to
diseases like type-2 diabetes and childhood obesity. There
also is correlation between educational achievement and
hydration. Without water, learning is impaired. However, if
the available water is contaminated, children should not
drink it. Contaminated water is associated with cancer,
impaired development, cardiovascular disease, neurotoxicity
and diabetes.
The author states that state and federal laws require that
schools provide access to drinking water at school during
meal times. But schools that are just beginning to recover
from the recession don't have the resources to install
fountains or water bottle filling stations to deliver
reliable water to students. Instead many are struggling to
meet this important mandate by providing stopgap measures
such as bottled water to students only during lunch time.
Students drink less water, schools spend more and it adds to
our overburdened waste streams.
2) SB 334 (Leyva, 2015) would have prohibited drinking water
that does not meet the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA) drinking water standards for lead from being
provided at a school facility, requires schools that have
lead-containing plumbing components to flush all drinking
water sources at the beginning of each school day, and
deletes the authority for school district governing boards to
adopt a resolution stating that it is unable to comply with
the requirement to provide access to free, fresh drinking
water during meal times in the food service areas.
Governor Brown vetoed SB 334 stating "I agree that all
California students should have access to safe drinking water
but this bill creates a state mandate of uncertain but
possibly very large magnitude.
As our first order of business, local schools should
AB 2124 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 6
of ?
understand the nature of their water quality problem, if
there is one. Accordingly, I am directing the State Water
Resources Control Board to work with school districts and
local public water systems to incorporate water quality
testing in schools as part of their lead and copper rule.
School districts should utilize this information to ensure
all students are provided safe water."
It is not clear, given that just last fall Governor Brown
directed SWRCB to work with school districts and public water
systems, that enough time has been given for a process to be
developed and implemented out of that directive. It appears
that this legislation prematurely sets up a costly and
resource intensive reporting process prior to SWRCB working
to collect the data requested by the Governor in his SB 334
veto message.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 334 (Leyva, 2015) would have prohibited drinking water that
does not meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) drinking water standards for lead from being provided
at a school facility, requires schools that have lead-containing
plumbing components to flush all drinking water sources at the
beginning of each schoolday, and deletes the authority for
school district governing boards to adopt a resolution stating
that it is unable to comply with the requirement to provide
access to free, fresh drinking water during meal times in the
food service areas. SB 334 was vetoed by Governor Brown.
AB 496 (Rendon, Chapter 664, Statutes of 2015) authorizes the
California Department of Education (CDE) to receive funds from
any available state and federal source, to be allocated to
school districts to comply with the existing requirement to
provide fresh drinking water during meals. AB 496 requires the
CDE to identify available sources of funding, including funds
for safe drinking water programs administered by the CDE, the
State Department of Public Health, the Department of Water
Resources, and the State Water Resources Control Board.
AB 2124 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 7
of ?
SB 1413 (Leno, Chapter 558, Statutes of 2010) requires school
districts to provide access to free, fresh drinking water during
meal times in the food service areas. School districts may
adopt a resolution stating that it is unable to comply with this
requirement and demonstrate the reasons why it is unable to
comply due to fiscal constraints or health and safety concerns.
AB 629 (Krekorian, 2009), would have required a school district,
by January 1, 2012, to conduct a one-time analysis of the level
of lead in water in schools that were constructed before January
1, 1993. The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 2965 (Krekorian, 2008), would have required a school district
to conduct a one-time assessment of water toxicity levels at
point of entry and delivery in schools 40 years of age or older.
The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SOURCE: Pueblo Unio
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
Community Water Center
SUPPORT:
Because this bill was gut and amended on June 20th stakeholders
did not have a chance to review and comment prior to
finalization of the analysis.
OPPOSITION:
Because this bill was gut and amended on June 20th stakeholders
did not have a chance to review and comment prior to
finalization of the analysis.
-- END --
AB 2124 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 8
of ?