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 ****