BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 334
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 334
(Leyva) - As Amended August 17, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|6 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Environmental Safety and Toxic | |7 - 0 |
| |Materials | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the State Department of Public Health (DPH)
to test drinking water sources at a sample of schoolsites for
SB 334
Page 2
lead in the drinking water, and deletes the authority of a
governing board of a school district 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. This bill further prohibits drinking
water that does not meet the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA standards for lead from being provided
at a school facility. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to
conduct a one-time test of drinking water sources at a sample
of schoolsites constructed prior to January 1, 1993 for lead
in the drinking water. Sites tested by a certified
professional that they meet US EPA standards are included in
the sample. The sample must include schools that are
representative of the state by geographical region, size of
enrollment, and disadvantaged communities. It is the intent of
the Legislature to prioritize testing of schoolsites that have
high risk factors.
2)Requires the data collected by the CDPH to include drinking
water lead testing information, including, but not limited to,
dates of testing, number and type of drinking water sources
tested, and test results. Upon collection of the data, the
CDPH is required to notify the school districts with schools
that were tested of the test results.
3)Requires CDPH and the California Department of Education (CDE)
to establish a process for receiving, recording, and making
public the data received from testing water at schoolsites and
posting the data collected during drinking water lead testing
on each department's respective Internet Web sites.
4)Requires a school district that has drinking water sources
with drinking water that does not meet the US EPA drinking
SB 334
Page 3
water standards for lead to work with the CDPH and the local
department of public health to identify the most urgent
mitigation needs and develop a protocol or plan for
mitigation.
5)Requires the protocol or plan developed by school districts to
identify timelines and funding sources for mitigation. Further
requires the plan to be presented to and adopted by the
governing board of the school district at a regularly
scheduled public meeting within six months of the school
district's receipt of the drinking water test results.
6)Requires a school that has lead-containing plumbing components
to flush all drinking water sources at the beginning of each
schoolday, consistent with protocols recommended by the US
EPA. A school is not required to flush drinking water sources
that have been shut off or have been certified as free of
lead.
7)Requires the CDPH to make information available to school
districts, by posting on its Internet Web site or through any
other means for distributing information it deems effective,
about the US EPA's technical guidance for reducing lead in
drinking water in schools.
8)Appropriates an unspecified amount from the Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention (CLPP) Fund to CDPH for purposes of
conducting the testing requirement in the bill.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Cost pressure of approximately $1.7 million to the Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention (CLPP) Fund to support testing
SB 334
Page 4
requirements of the bill and associated administrative costs
to the CDPH. The bill includes a blank appropriation from the
CLPP for this purpose.
According to the CDPH, a study similar to the one required by
this bill utilized a contracted field staff of six and tested
200 schools for lead in paint, soil, and water. The study took
two years to complete. Using this study as a proxy, CDPH
estimates approximately 250 schools will need to be tested per
the requirements of the bill. They estimate the testing will
take approximately 7.5 months if the same number of field
staff are used, or about 1.25 years if three field staff are
used.
The CLPP Fund is supported through fees paid by paint and
gasoline manufacturers. The estimated 2015-16 fund balance is
$65.2 million. CDPH does not believe the CLPP is an allowable
source of funding for the activities delineated in the bill.
If the CLPP is not an allowable funding source, the bill
places pressure on the General Fund to support CDPH
administrative costs.
2)Unknown state mandated costs to school districts, likely in
the millions of dollars, to develop and adopt plans to improve
water in the event a school district's drinking water does not
meet federal standards, perform the required daily flushing if
a school has lead-containing plumbing components, provide
notifications to parents, students, teachers, and other
personnel of drinking water test results and, provide
alternative sources of drinking water from plumbed or
unplumbed sources. Significant cost pressures, in the
millions of dollars, for school districts to identify the most
urgent needs and implement mitigation plans, which may include
plumbing replacement.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Current law requires school districts to provide
SB 334
Page 5
free, fresh drinking water during meal times in the food
service areas. A school district may provide cups and
containers of water or bottled water to comply with this
requirement. Current law allows a governing board to adopt a
resolution stating that it is unable to comply with the
requirement due to fiscal constraints or health and safety
concerns. This bill strikes this authorization and instead
requires a school district to offer drinking water through
drinking water access points, defined as a station that is
plumbed or unplumbed. An unplumbed access point may include
water bottles and portable water dispensers.
This bill also requires the CDPH to test a sample of schools
for lead in the drinking water, and requires school districts
that do not meet the US EPA drinking water standards for lead
to work with the CDPH and the local department of public
health to identify the most urgent mitigation needs and
develop a protocol or plan for mitigation.
The bill prohibits a school from providing water that does not
meet the USEPA drinking water standards, and requires a school
that has lead-containing plumbing components to flush all
drinking water sources at the beginning of each schoolday.
This latter requirement applies to all schools, not just those
that are tested.
2)The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention (CLPP) fund. In 1991,
the Legislation enacted AB 2038, the Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Act. The legislation also created a fund to
support the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention program. The
fund is assessed on entities who have historically, or who
currently, put lead into the environment such as the gasoline
industry, architectural coatings industry and air emitters.
Over the years, the Constitutionality of these fees have been
questioned but ultimately found to be valid, as long as there
is a nexus between the fee and its use. Lead in plumbing and
SB 334
Page 6
water fixtures does not fall under architectural coatings.
This bill focuses on a study to test school water fixtures and
water fountains to see if they dispense water with lead in it.
According to CDPH, the agency that oversees the CLPP fund,
allowable levels of lead in plumbing is an area that is under
the legislative jurisdiction of Department of Toxic and
Substance Control and has no relationship to the lead fee.
3)Opposition. The California Association of School Business
Officials (CASBO) acknowledge California's school facilities
are in need of significant repairs and modernization to ensure
students are learning in healthy and safe environments.
However, CASBO opposes this bill since it would only identify
the school-sites with water quality problems, and would not
provide the resources to modernize the aging school
infrastructure contributing to poor water quality. CASBO cites
California Department of Education (CDE) estimates that show
out of 8,439 traditional public schools (303,399 classrooms)
about 71 percent of classrooms are more than 25 years old.
Because most school-sites in California were built prior to
1993, the cost of modernizing school plumbing infrastructure
is difficult to quantify, but could reach tens of millions. In
the absence of any new bond funding for school facilities,
school districts would have to use existing General Fund
resources to finance the modernization of existing water
sources and the construction of new drinking water fountains.
CASBO notes this bill would also create pressure to increase
funding to the K-12 mandate block grant if its requirements
are determined to be a reimbursable state mandate.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 334
Page 7