BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 555 Page 1 Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE Marc Levine, Chair SB 555 (Wolk) - As Amended July 7, 2015 SENATE VOTE: 36-2 SUBJECT: Urban retail water suppliers: water loss management. SUMMARY: Requires each urban retail water supplier, on or before July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, to submit annual water loss audit (WLA) reports to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as specified and requires DWR to post such WLAs and provide technical assistance. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires DWR, by January 1, 2017, to adopt rules for standardizing and validating WLAs, including the method for submitting WLAs, and to update those rules within six months of a release of subsequent editions of the American Water Works Association's (AWWA's) Water Audits and Loss Control Programs Manual. 2)Requires DWR, as part of its rules, to specify the technical qualifications required of a person performing validations and the certification requirements for a person selected by an SB 555 Page 2 urban retail water supplier to provide validations of its own water loss audit report. 3)Defines validating, for the purpose of this bill, to mean a process whereby a technical expert, who is identified by name and qualifications, engages with the urban retail water supplier to confirm the quality and accuracy of the WLA report data by following the principles and terminology set out in the AWWA manual and free software. 4)Requires that on or before July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, that each urban retail water supplier shall submit completed and validated WLA report for the previous calendar year. 5)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), using available funds, to contribute up to $400,000 towards DWR's costs incurred in performing validations of water loss audit reports for the 2016-17 fiscal year. Thereafter requires the State Water Board to determine if validations should be paid for using state funds or if urban retail water suppliers should be solely responsible for their own validation costs. 6)Requires each WLA report to be accompanied by information identifying the steps taken to: a) Increase the validity of data entered into the final audit. b) Reduce the volume of apparent losses. SB 555 Page 3 c) Reduce the volume of real losses. 7)Specifies that a chief financial officer, chief engineer, or general manager of the urban retail water supplier shall attest to the WLA. 8)Requires DWR to return incomplete, invalid, or unattested WLAs to the urban retail water supplier for resubmission within 90 days. 9)Requires DWR to post all validated WLAs on its Internet Web site and to otherwise make the WLAs available for public viewing. 10)Requires DWR, using available funds, to provide technical assistance to urban retail water suppliers regarding water loss detection programs. 11)Requires the State Water Board, no earlier than January 1, 2019 and no later than July 1, 2020, to adopt rules requiring urban retail water suppliers to meet performance standards for the volume of water losses. 12)Requires the State Water Board to employ full life cycle cost accounting to evaluate the costs of meeting the performance standards. EXISTING LAW: SB 555 Page 4 1)Requires all urban water suppliers to prepare and adopt UWMPs, update them every five years, and submit them to the Department of Water Resources. Among other requirements, UWMPs must: a) Provide a description of the service area of the supplier; b) Identify and quantify water resources; and, c) Make water use projections. 2)Specifies that compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act is a prerequisite to receiving state funding for water projects and programs. 3)Requires, beginning with the 2015 update, that UWMPs contain a calculation of the distribution system water losses. 4)Requires distribution system water losses to be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by DWR using water loss calculations that are based on the water system balance methodology developed by the AWWA. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis: 1)One-time costs of $400,000 from the General Fund to DWR to develop the rules guiding the water audit reports. 2)Unknown ongoing costs, but likely in the range of $150,000 to $200,000, from the General Fund to review audits annually, provide technical assistance to urban water suppliers, and update the water audit report regulations every five years. SB 555 Page 5 COMMENTS: This bill seeks to increase water use efficiency by requiring water suppliers to document and control water losses from their systems through annual audit reports to DWR. This bill also directs DWR to set audit standards and provide technical assistance. This bill also requires the State Water Board to provide funding for validation assistance to urban water suppliers for the first audits due under this bill and then to later adopt rules requiring urban retail water suppliers to meet performance standards. 1)Author's statement: The author advises that California's water supply is under intense pressure from climate change, increasing population, and aging infrastructure. The financial demands from communities around the state for additional water and wastewater currently exceed the available state and federal budgetary resources. The author advises that "despite the availability of free audit software and the establishment of a Best Management Practice for water loss by the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), urban water suppliers have been slow to realize the full potential of water loss control. One reason for the slow adoption of water loss control methods is the unreliability of water loss audit data. One CUWCC study found that 35% of water audit data submitted by California water suppliers was invalid." The author concludes that by "requiring urban water suppliers to report system audit results and directing DWR to set audit standards, while providing the necessary technical assistance, water suppliers will achieve effective water loss control and SB 555 Page 6 contribute to California's water management, climate mitigation and climate adaption goals." 2)Background: According to the California Water Plan, in its discussion on urban water use efficiency, "the amount of water lost due to leakage in the distribution system of the State's water suppliers is not well known. This is largely due to the fact that not all water suppliers perform regular water loss audits. If water audits are not conducted, it is difficult for a water agency to know the extent of its losses and unlikely that the agency will implement practices to reduce these losses." 3)Prior and related legislation: SB 1420 (Wolk), Chapter 490, Statutes of 2014 requires, among other provisions, that beginning with the 2015 update UWMPs are to contain a calculation of the distribution system water losses. 4)Supporting arguments: Supporters state that water lost from leaks and breaks in urban water suppliers' distribution systems is a significant problem in California. Supporters add that a 2010 study conducted for the California Public Utilities Commission estimated that 10% of urban water (870,000 acre-feet) is lost to leaks and that 40% of that water (350,000 acre-feet) could be cost-effectively recovered through pressure management, leak repair, and targeted pipe replacement. Other supporters state that conducting annual water loss audits will help California achieve its goal of reducing urban water use 20% by 2020 and that water conservation is a key strategy to make the best use of our limited water supplies. 5)Opposing arguments: Opponents are concerned that this bill does not take into consideration the cost-effectiveness of SB 555 Page 7 eliminating water loss or validating water loss surveys. Opponents request a definition for the term "validation" and a percentage "floor" of calculated water loss that once met would allow an urban retail water supplier to "be exempt from providing specified information supplemental to the validated water loss survey." Opponents want a "cap on the requirement to continually improve the validity of the water audit" and a requirement that water audit "survey must focus on reducing real as opposed to apparent water losses." 6)Suggested Committee amendments: Committee staff suggests amendments that achieve the following five corrections and improvements. These amendments, which are attached in mockup form: a) Remove language indicating a technical expert performing a validation of a WLA report would "engage with" an urban retail water supplier. The use of the term "engage with" was misinterpreted by stakeholders to infer that a technical expert performing an audit must be an external third party to the urban retail water supplier. This bill states that DWR will provide rules regarding certification for a person selected by an urban retail water supplier. That language is intended to provide the urban retail water supplier the choice of using a qualified expert who is either employed in-house by the urban retail water supplier, if one is available, or a third-party. b) Clarify that relying on the AWWA manual and software cited in this bill as the basis for validation principles and terminology also incorporates any updates or revisions of those resources. SB 555 Page 8 c) Delete a redundant and confusing reference to DWR adopting rules regarding the "timing" for submitting validated WLA reports. The timing for submitting the reports is already specified in this bill. d) Extend the date for when the first validated WLA report is due to October 1, 2017. This allows for additional time after DWR adopts rules on January 1, 2017 for urban retail water suppliers to complete and validate WLA reports. e) Specify that by October 1, 2016 the State Water Board will fund and provide WLA report validation assistance to urban retail water suppliers. This change is meant to achieve two goals: i) streamline the WLA report validation assistance process by having the State Water Board, who is the funding agency, directly obtain or provide the assistance; and, ii) establish a deadline by which the assistance will be made available so that urban retail water suppliers are provided up to a year to avail themselves of the assistance before their validated WLA report is due. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California League of Conservation Voters Clean Water Action Dignity Health Gap Inc. SB 555 Page 9 MillerCoors Natural Resources Defense Council San Diego County Water Authority Sierra Club California Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Sonoma County Water Agency Symantec The Coca Cola Company Opposition Association of California Water Agencies (unless amended) California Municipal Utilities Association (unless amended) Analysis Prepared by:Tina Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096