BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1398
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
SB
1398 (Leyva) - As Amended June 20, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 31-0
SUBJECT: Public water systems: lead pipes
SUMMARY: Requires, by July 1, 2018, a public water system (PWS)
to identify and replace known leaded plumbing. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires, by July 1, 2018, a PWS to compile an inventory of
known lead pipes in use in its system, and identify areas that
may have lead pipes in use in its system.
2)Requires a PWS to provide a timeline for replacement of known
lead pipes in its system to the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board).
3)Requires, by July 1, 2020, a PWS with areas that may have lead
pipes in its systems to:
a) Determine the existence or absence of lead pipes in
these areas and provide that information to the State Water
Board; or,
SB 1398
Page 2
b) Provide a timeline for replacement of pipes whose
content cannot be determined.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the policy of the state that every human being has
the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water
adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary
purposes. (Water Code § 106.3)
2)Establishes the California Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
(Health & Safety Code (H&S) § 116270, et seq.)
3)Defines a PWS as a system for the provision of water for human
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances
that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at
least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.
(H&S § 116275)
4)Establishes the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to
provide financial assistance for community water systems to
achieve compliance with the SWDA. (H&S §116760.30)
5)Requires, pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and
California SDWA, drinking water to meet specified standards
for contamination (maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs) as set
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
or the State Water Board. (H&S § 116270, et seq.)
6)Declares childhood lead exposure as the most significant
SB 1398
Page 3
childhood environmental health problem in the state and
establishes the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program to
reduce the incidence of childhood lead exposure in California.
(H&S § 124125, et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, enactment of this bill could result in minor costs to
the State Water Board.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill: According to the author, "Given the age of
many of the underground pipes utilized within PWSs, it is not
commonly known where lead pipes disproportionately threaten the
public health of local communities. In fact, current federal or
state law does not require water districts to report locations
of lead service pipes. While lead pipes may be less common in
California, it is vital that we know where these pipes are and
eliminate them ? SB 1398 enhances public knowledge of remaining
lead pipes in use and implements a plan for their complete
removal from water for human consumption. By setting in motion
a plan to remove all lead from public water system pipes, SB
1398 helps to reduce public health risks and the costs of
corrosion control treatment from lead in public water system
pipes."
Human right to water: In 2012, California became the first state
to enact a Human Right to Water law, AB 685 (Chapter 524,
Statutes of 2012). Public policy continues to be focused on the
right of every human being to have safe, clean, affordable, and
accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and
sanitation. Water supply, contaminants, costs of treatment and
distribution systems, the number and nature of small PWSs,
especially in disadvantaged communities, and many other factors
will continue to challenge progress in addressing the Human
SB 1398
Page 4
Right to Water.
The problem with lead: Lead has been listed under California's
Proposition 65 since 1987 as a substance that can cause
reproductive damage and birth defects and has been listed as a
chemical known to cause cancer since 1992. According to the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, lead has
multiple toxic effects on the human body. In particular,
decreased intelligence in children and increased blood pressure
in adults are among the more serious non-carcinogenic effects.
There is no level that has been proven safe, either for children
or for adults.
Lead in plumbing: Beginning January 1, 2010, California law
prohibited the introduction into commerce of any pipe, pipe or
plumbing fitting, or fixture intended to convey or dispense
water for human consumption through drinking or cooking that is
not "lead free" as defined in statute. This includes kitchen
faucets, bathroom faucets, and any other end-use devices
intended to convey or dispense water for human consumption
through drinking or cooking. However, service saddles, backflow
preventers for non-potable services such as irrigation and
industrial uses, and water distribution main gate valves that
are two inches in diameter and above are excluded.
Lead in water: The most prevalent sources of lead in drinking
water are from pipes, fixtures, and associated hardware from
which the lead can leach. According to Lead in Drinking Water
and Human Blood Levels in the United States, published by the
National Center for Environmental Health in 2012, nearly all
lead in users' tap water does not come from the primary water
source or from the municipal treatment plant, but is a result of
SB 1398
Page 5
corrosion resulting from materials containing lead coming into
contact with water after it leaves the treatment plant. Lead can
enter a building's drinking water by leaching from lead service
connections, from lead solder used in copper piping, and from
brass fixtures.
The amount of lead in tap water can depend on several factors,
including the age and material of the pipes, concentration of
lead in water delivered by the public utility (or, for private
domestic wells, the concentration of lead in raw groundwater),
and corrosivity (acidity, temperature, and the concentration of
other mineral components) of the water. More corrosive water can
cause greater leaching from pipes. As pipes age, mineral
deposits will form a coating on the inside of the pipes protect
against further corrosion.
In March, 2016, USA Today Network released findings from a
nationwide investigation on lead in drinking water, which found
that, "nearly 2,000 water systems spanning all 50 states where
testing has shown excessive levels of lead contamination."
To address this issue, SB 1398 would require a PWS to compile an
inventory of all known leaded pipes in use in its system, and
identify areas that may have lead pipes in use in its system.
The PWS would then have to establish a timeline for replacing
those known lead pipes and a separate timeline for investigating
and replacing the unknown pipes.
Flint, Michigan: Flint is located along the Flint River
northwest of Detroit, Michigan. In April 2014, Flint switched
its water supply from Lake Huron (via Detroit) to the Flint
River. The Flint River water is corrosive (high pH and low
salinity levels), which, absent an added corrosion inhibitor
chemical like orthophosphate, can erode the pipes or solder
exposing lead. As a cost-saving measure, water officials opted
not to add the corrosion inhibitor chemicals. The corrosive
Flint River water caused lead from aging pipes to leach into the
water supply, causing extremely elevated levels of lead.
SB 1398
Page 6
As a result, between 6,000 and 12,000 children in Flint have
been exposed to drinking water with high levels of lead and they
potentially will experience a range of serious health problems.
This has led to a federal lawsuit, the resignation of several
officials, and a public health state of emergency for all of
Genesee County.
What do we know about California's pipes? There are about 7,500
PWSs throughout the state. The State Water Board's Division of
Drinking Water (DDW) regulates all PWSs, which are singularly
defined as a system for the provision of water for human
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that
has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least
25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Private
well owners are not regulated by the state and therefore their
drinking water is not overseen by the state's regulatory rules
for drinking water standards.
California has stringent testing and monitoring protocols in
place that ensure that drinking water supplies meet California's
MCLs and that appropriate chemistry is maintained to inhibit
corrosion of the pipes delivering drinking water that prevents a
Flint, Michigan-type incident from occurring in California. More
specifically, the State Water Board tracks all water sources in
California for pH and salinity levels for potential corrosion,
and tracks which water providers add corrosion inhibitors to
their water supplies.
In addition, state regulation requires drinking water testing to
be done on a regular basis. As it relates to lead and potential
contamination from plumbing, PWSs conduct water sampling once
every six months for lead. Testing frequency relaxes if test
results consistently show no lead exceedances. According to the
State Water Board, most water systems are on a schedule to test
for lead once every three years.
SB 1398
Page 7
However, according to the State Water Board, 98% of Californians
are served by PWSs drinking water that meets federal and state
drinking water standards, which leaves 2% of California's
drinking water failing to meet the goal of AB 685. While the
contaminated water serving that 2% is likely contaminated at the
drinking water source, lead contamination from corroded plumbing
could be a contributing factor.
Federal lead testing requirements: Under the SDWA, the US EPA is
mandated to set enforceable MCLs for contaminants. While there
is no MCL for lead, in 1991, the US EPA adopted the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR), which established "action levels" for lead of
15 g/L (0.015 mg/L). The LCR requires a PWS to test water at
the tap at a sample of their customers served for lead levels.
If more than 10 percent of the samples collected are at or above
the action level for lead, it can trigger actions that include
public education, water quality parameter monitoring, corrosion
control treatment, source water monitoring/treatment, public
education, and lead service line replacement. The LCR requires
lead samples to be collected every 6 months. The LCR, however,
is not an exhaustive requirement for identifying the real
potential for leaded pipes in a PWSs territory.
Given recent events in Flint, Michigan, the US EPA is increasing
oversight of state programs to identify and address any
deficiencies in current implementation of the LCR. The US EPA is
meeting with every state drinking water program across the
country to ensure states are taking appropriate actions to
address lead action level exceedences, including optimizing
corrosion control, providing effective public health
communication and outreach to residents to reduce lead exposure,
and removing lead service lines where required by the LCR.
On February 29, 2016, the US EPA sent a letter to the State
Water Board noting that the State Water Board's DDW should work
SB 1398
Page 8
with the US EPA to identify strategies and actions to improve
the safety and sustainability of our drinking water systems. The
US EPA suggested additional resources are needed to work with
the US EPA to develop and distribute guidance related to the
LCR.
LCR data is currently submitted to each district and hand
entered into a local database to be submitted into a statewide
database. Currently, the State Water Board is only able to
report about 30% of the data required by the US EPA with
existing staff resources.
Governor's Budget: The Governor's FY 2016/2017 Budget includes
10 positions and $1.4 million to increase compliance with the US
EPA's federal requirements related to drinking water. That
includes funding for the State Water Board to prepare guidance
documents and engage in outreach to schools to assist local
efforts for water quality testing, and support public water
systems in improving compliance with federal LCR reporting
requirements.
The funding is intended to ensure that DDW is able to have
timely and quality data in order to track compliance, issue
enforcement actions, and follow up on directives regarding the
provision of safe drinking water by PWSs. It will also provide
guidance to PWSs and local agencies to expedite reliable data
transfer into state and federal databases that can be made
available for public consumption.
To support state efforts, the US EPA will be providing
information to assist states in understanding steps needed to
ensure optimal corrosion control treatment and on appropriate
sampling techniques.
SB 1398
Page 9
Mitigation measures: Under current law, if lead is known to be
in a system and the federal LCR action level or any other state
or federal regulatory level for lead is exceeded, then
mitigation measures are required to be in place. SB 1398
requires PWSs to replace any pipes with known lead, and current
law makes clear that that if a PWS has known leaded pipes in its
system that it shall implement mitigation measures until their
own deadline is met to replace the known leaded pipes.
Mitigation measures can include the installation of point-of-use
and point-of-entry treatment devices that are designed to filter
out contaminants, including lead, before consumption or use.
Related legislation: SB 334 (Leyva, 2015) proposed prohibiting
drinking water that does not meet the US EPA's drinking water
standards for lead from being provided at a school facility,
among other provisions. It was vetoed by Governor Brown. The
veto message stated:
"As our first order of business, local schools should
understand the nature of their water quality problem, if
there is one. Accordingly, I am directing the State Water
Resources Control Board to work with school districts and
local public water systems to incorporate water quality
testing in schools as part of their lead and copper rule.
School districts should utilize this information to ensure
all students are provided safe water."
The Governor's FY 2016/2017 Budget responds to his SB 334 veto
message. Similarly, SB 1398 can be seen as a follow-up effort to
last year's legislation to identify the scope of the problem
regarding leaded pipes.
Proposed amendments: The Committee may wish to consider making
the following amendments to:
1. Clarify that the service lines, not just the pipes,
SB 1398
Page 10
should be evaluated for lead and replaced as-needed; and,
2. Give the State Water Board authority to approve and/or
revise a PWS's timeline for service line replacement.
If adopted, the amendments to the bill would drafted as follows:
116885. (a)By July 1, 2018, a public water system shall compile
an inventory of known lead pipes lead service lines in use in
its distribution system, and identify areas that may have lead
pipes lead service lines in use in its distribution system.
(b)(1) After completing the inventory required pursuant to
subdivision (a), a public water system shall provide a timeline
for replacement of known lead pipes lead service lines in use in
its distribution system to the State Water Resources Control
Board.
(2) By July 1, 2020, public water systems with areas that may
have lead pipes lead service lines in its use in their
distribution systems shall do either of the following:
(A) Determine the existence or absence of lead pipes lead
service lines in these areas use in their distribution
systems and provide that information to the State Water
Resources Control Board.
(B) Provide a timeline for replacement of the pipes,
tubings, and fittings connecting a water main to an
individual water meter or service connection pipes whose
content cannot be determined to the State Water Resources
Control Board.
(c) The board shall approve the timelines established pursuant
SB 1398
Page 11
to (a) and (b).
Within 30 days of submission of a timeline to the Board, the
Board shall review and either approve the public water system's
proposed timeline for lead pipe replacement, or deny the
proposed timeline and propose a revised timeline to the public
water system.
If the board denies and proposed revisions to the timeline, the
Board shall explain, in writing, to the public water system why
the public water system's timeline was not approved, and which
factors the Board used to propose a revised timeline and why.
If the board fails to act within 30 days of the receipt of the
timeline, the timeline shall be deemed approved.
If the public water system rejects the board's revised timeline,
the public water system and the Board shall develop a compromise
timeline within 30 days.
An approved timeline or a compromise timeline shall be a public
record and available on the board's Internet Web site.
(d)For the purposes of this section, "public water system" has
the meaning provided in Section 116275.
(e)For the purposes of this section, lead service line has the
meaning provided in California Code of Regulations, Title 22,
Division 4, Chapter 17.5.
SB 1398
Page 12
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Association of Environmental Health Administrators
California Environmental Justice Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
California Public Interest Group
Center for Food Safety
Community Water Center
East Bay Municipal Water District
Environment California
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Environmental Working Group
Food and Water Watch
Natural Resources Defense Council
Pacific Water Quality Association
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
Sierra Club California
Water Program Manager
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Paige Brokaw / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
SB 1398
Page 13