BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 814 Hearing Date: March 29,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hill | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |March 17, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Dennis O'Connor |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Drought: excessive water use: urban retail water
suppliers
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1.The California Constitution declares that:
The water resources of the state are to be put to
beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are
capable.
The waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of
use of water is to be prevented.
The conservation of such waters is to be exercised with
a view to the reasonable and beneficial use of the waters
in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.
1.Existing law authorizes any public entity that supplies water
at retail or wholesale for the benefit of persons within the
service area or area of jurisdiction of the public entity to,
by ordinance or resolution, adopt and enforce a water
conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used for
the purpose of conserving the water supplies of the public
entity.
Existing law further provides that a violation of a
requirement of a water conservation program is a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than
30 days, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both.
SB 814 (Hill) Page 2
of ?
2.Under the California Public Records Act, local agencies are to
make the name, utility usage data, and the home address of
utility customers available upon request IF the local agency
determines that the utility customer who is the subject of the
request has used utility services in a manner inconsistent
with applicable local utility usage policies.
3.Governor Brown has made a series of emergency declarations and
executive orders regarding the ongoing drought. In
particular, in April 2015, the Governor issued an executive
order that, among other things, directed the State Water
Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a 25
percent reduction in potable urban water usage through
February 28, 2016. The State Board has adopted regulations
regarding achieving that reduction, including the
establishment of penalties for failure to comply.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
1.Prohibit, during a period for which the Governor has issued a
proclamation of a state of emergency under the California
Emergency Services Act based on drought conditions, excessive
water use by either:
a. A residential customer in a single-family residence, or
by
b. A customer in a multiunit housing complex in which each
unit is individually metered or submetered by the water
supplier is prohibited.
2.Require each urban retail water supplier to establish a method
to identify and restrict excessive water use, through one of
two options:
a. Establishing a rate structure that includes block tiers,
water budgets, penalties for prohibited uses, or rate
surcharges over and above base rates for excessive water
use by a residential water customer.
b. Establishing an excessive water use ordinance, rule, or
SB 814 (Hill) Page 3
of ?
tariff condition, or amending an existing ordinance, rule,
or tariff condition, that includes a definition of
excessive water use by single-family residential customers
and customers in multiunit housing complexes in which each
unit is individually metered or submetered.
The ordinance could include a process to issue
written warnings to a customer and perform a site audit
of customer water usage prior to deeming the customer in
violation.
Excessive water use would be measured in terms of
either gallons or hundreds of cubic feet of water used
during the urban retail water supplier's regular billing
cycle.
In establishing the definition of excessive use, the
water supplier could consider factors that include, but
are not limited to, all of the following:
o Average daily use.
o Full-time occupancy of households.
o Amount of landscaped land on a property.
o Rate of evapotranspiration.
o Seasonal weather changes.
A violation of an excessive use ordinance, rule, or
tariff condition established pursuant to subparagraph
would be an infraction punishable by a fine of up to five
hundred dollars ($500) per hundred cubic feet of water,
or per 748 gallons, used above the excessive water use
threshold established by the urban retail water supplier
in a billing cycle.
o Any fine imposed pursuant to this subparagraph
would be added to the customer's water bill and is due
and payable with that water bill.
o Each urban retail water supplier would be
required to have a process for nonpayment of the fine,
which shall be consistent with the water supplier's
existing process for nonpayment of a water bill.
A violation of an excessive water use ordinance,
rule, or tariff condition where a residence had a
demonstrable water leak and a repair was underway to
eliminate that leak would be a basis for granting an
appeal and shall be considered for waiver of the charges
consistent with the urban retail water supplier's
excessive water use ordinance and existing policies for
leak adjustments.
An urban retail water supplier would be required to
SB 814 (Hill) Page 4
of ?
establish a process for the appeal of a fine imposed
pursuant to this bill whereby the customer could contest
the imposition of the fine for excessive water use. The
water supplier would further be required to provide the
customer with an opportunity to provide evidence of a
bona fide reason for the excessive water use, including
evidence of a water leak, a medical reason, or any other
reasonable justification for the water use, as determined
by the urban retail water supplier.
1.Amend the California Public Records Act to require local
agencies to make the name, utility usage data, and the home
address of utility customers available upon request if the
local agency determines that a utility customer has used
utility services in a manner inconsistent with applicable
local utility usage policies, provided that the home address
of the customer is not disclosed without the customer's
consent.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "No one should be able to buy their way
out of a drought. That's what SB 814 is about. Under mandated
water conservation targets during the worst drought in our
state's recorded history, most Californians are making their
best effort to conserve water. But, there are a number of people
throughout the state who appear to be using as much water as
they want, when they want, without any repercussions. SB 814
makes sure all Californians share in the efforts to conserve
water by requiring that urban retail water suppliers have a
policy in place to curb excessive water use."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None Received
COMMENTS
Fining major water users seems to work. For example, a recent
article in the LA Times documented how despite educational
campaigns, usage restrictions, and written notices for people
suspected of wasting water, Beverly Hills missed its mandatory
25 percent reduction in water use, triggering state fines.
However, once the city began penalizing wasteful water users,
city water usage fell by 26 percent.
SB 814 (Hill) Page 5
of ?
Why is this bill necessary? Proponents argue that penalties
associated with violating water conservation programs are
ineffective as they are low priority crimes that are rarely
prosecuted. The author's intent with the penalty language is to
be consistent with the penalty language in the State Board's
emergency regulations, which establish penalties violating Sec
864 (d): "?is an infraction punishable by a fine of up to five
hundred dollars ($500)?"
Also, while nothing in current law appears to prohibit a water
agency from establishing an excessive water use ordinance, the
author argues that by putting this bill's language in statute,
it will encourage otherwise reluctant water agency to pursue
water wasters more vigorously.
Is disclosure of excess water use allowed? There seems to be
some uncertainty as to whether disclosure of the identity and
other information about individual gross water users is required
under the Public Records Act. Some agencies, such as East Bay
Municipal Utility District, have disclosed such information
about their customers. However, committee staff have heard
anecdotally that others interpret the current language to mean
that the request has to be made for a specific customer, not for
everyone who meets specified criteria; e.g., gross water users.
This issue will likely be explored more fully in the Judiciary
Committee (see below).
Related Bills:
AB 1520 (Committee on Judiciary). Existing law provides that
the Public Records Act shall not be construed to require the
disclosure of specified information concerning any utility
customers of local agencies, except for certain purposes.
AB 1520 would, instead, provide that the act shall not be
construed to require the disclosure of specified information
concerning residential utility customers of local agencies.
Double-Referral. The Rules Committee referred this bill to both
the Committee on Natural Resources and Water and to the
Committee on Judiciary. Therefore, if this bill passes this
committee, it will be referred to the Committee on Judiciary,
which will consider the issues within their jurisdiction.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
SB 814 (Hill) Page 6
of ?
SUPPORT
California League of Conservation Voters
Clean Water Action
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION
None Received
-- END --