BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 814| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 814 Author: Hill (D) Amended: 3/30/16 Vote: 21 SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-2, 3/29/16 AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Wolk NOES: Stone, Vidak SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 SUBJECT: Drought: excessive water use: urban retail water suppliers SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill declares that excessive water use by a residential customer during a state of emergency based on drought conditions is prohibited. This bill further requires each urban retail water supplier to establish a method to identify and restrict excessive water use. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Declares, in the California Constitution, that: a) The water resources of the state are to be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable. SB 814 Page 2 b) The waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water is to be prevented. c) 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. 2)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. 3)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. 4)Directs, via the Governor's April 1, 2015 executive order regarding the ongoing drought, 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. This bill: 1)Prohibits, 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)Requires each urban retail water supplier to establish a method to identify and restrict excessive water use, through SB 814 Page 3 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 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. i) 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. ii) 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. iii) In establishing the definition of excessive use, the water supplier could consider factors that include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (1) Average daily use. (2) Full-time occupancy of households. (3) Amount of landscaped land on a property. (4) Rate of evapotranspiration. (5) Seasonal weather changes. iv) 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. (1) 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. (2) Each urban retail water supplier would be SB 814 Page 4 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. v) 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. vi) An urban retail water supplier would be required to 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. 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. 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 SB 814 Page 5 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. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified5/3/16) California League of Conservation Voters Clean Water Action Sierra Club California OPPOSITION: (Verified5/3/16) Association of California Water Agencies El Dorado Irrigation District Desert Water Agency Mesa Water District 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: Opponents raise a number of points. El Dorado Irrigation District and Desert Water Agency "believe the provisions of SB 814 represent an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into the responsibility of local elected officials to establish policy for the urban retail water suppliers they SB 814 Page 6 govern. Mesa Water District states "The infraction is a philosophical sticking point, Mesa Water's customers aren't stealing water, they pay for all the water they use plus they already pay penalty fees/fines if they are found to waste water." The Association of California Water Agencies seeks amendments to provide local water agencies more flexibility in implementing this bill. They also seek more specifics about the timeframe for compliance, such as how to know precisely when they need to begin and end compliance. Prepared by:Dennis O'Connor / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116 5/4/16 14:57:56 **** END ****