BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    SB 1398


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          1398 (Leyva)


          As Amended  August 18, 2016


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  36-0


           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                   |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------|
          |Environmental   |5-1  |Alejo, Dahle,          |Gray                 |
          |Safety          |     |Arambula, Lopez,       |                     |
          |                |     |McCarty                |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |----------------+-----+-----------------------+---------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-2 |Gonzalez, Bloom,       |Bigelow, Obernolte   |
          |                |     |Bonilla, Bonta,        |                     |
          |                |     |Calderon, Daly,        |                     |
          |                |     |Eggman, Gallagher,     |                     |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,        |                     |
          |                |     |Holden, Jones, Quirk,  |                     |
          |                |     |Santiago, Wagner,      |                     |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood, Chu       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
          |                |     |                       |                     |
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 









                                                                    SB 1398


                                                                    Page  2






          SUMMARY:  Requires, by July 1, 2018, a public water system (PWS)  
          to identify and replace known lead service lines.  Specifically,  
          this bill:  


          1)States the intent of the Legislature to ensure that lead water  
            pipes are identified and replaced as promptly as possible;  
            that public water systems evaluate water service lines of  
            unidentified composition and take appropriate action to  
            ascertain whether they contain lead; and, that public water  
            systems manage the replacement of service lines on a schedule  
            that is commensurate with the risks and costs involved. 


          2)Requires, by July 1, 2018, a PWS to compile an inventory of  
            known lead user service lines in use in its system, and  
            identify areas that may have lead user service lines in use in  
            its distribution system.  Requires a PWS to provide a timeline  
            for replacement of known lead user service lines in its  
            distribution 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  
            user service lines in its systems to do either of the  
            following:


             a)   Determine the existence or absence of lead user service  
               lines in use in their distribution systems and provide that  
               information to the State Water Board; or,


             b)   Provide a timeline for replacement of user service lines  
               connecting a water main to an individual water meter or  
               service connection whose content cannot be determined to  
               the State Water Board.









                                                                    SB 1398


                                                                    Page  3






          4)Authorizes the State Water Board to approve the timelines for  
            lead user service line replacement and establishes a timeframe  
            for approving, denying and revising the PWS's proposed  
            timelines.  Requires an approved timeline to be a public  
            record and available on the State Water Board's Internet Web  
            site.


          5)Prohibits the State Water Board, where a portion of a public  
            water system's distribution system is located within in a  
            Superfund site under an active federal cleanup order, from  
            proposing a timeline for lead user service line replacement  
            that does not conform to any applicable federal regulatory  
            requirements or timelines. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, any additional costs to the State Water Board would  
          not be significant, and likely absorbable.


          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."








                                                                    SB 1398


                                                                    Page  4







          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.  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 that  
          protect against further corrosion. 


          To address the issue of lead in drinking water, this bill would  
          require a PWS to compile an inventory of all known lead user  
          service lines in use in its distribution system, and identify  
          areas that may have lead service lines 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.  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. 








                                                                    SB 1398


                                                                    Page  5






          Who is falling through the cracks in California:  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 federal and state safe drinking water standards.  
           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. 

          On July 9, the Fresno Bee reported that lead has been found at  
          various residences with galvanized pipes in Northern Fresno,  
          possibly a result of corrosion from the City of Fresno's  
          (Fresno) water supplies from the Surface Water Treatment  
          Facility.  Much is unknown about what is causing the problem and  
          how large the problem is.  Fresno is testing homes in an effort  
          to pinpoint the factors causing the problem, from water  
          chemistry to corrosion control to the types of pipes and  
          fixtures in affected homes.  Potential solutions could be  
          incremental adjustments of pH levels, corrosion-control  
          chemicals in the water, running faucets to flush water from the  
          fixtures, and/or to replacing plumbing fixtures or service lines  
          coming off Fresno's water meters.  As of last month, a total of  
          69 faucets in 39 homes tested positive for lead contamination at  
          levels in exceedance of 15 parts per billion, the threshold set  
          by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) at  
          which corrective action must be taken.

          Federal lead testing requirements:  Under the Safe Drinking  
          Water Act (SDWA), the US EPA is mandated to set enforceable  
          drinking water standards, or maximum contaminant levels (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% of the  
          samples collected are at or above the action level for lead, it  
          can trigger 'actions' that include lead user service line  
          replacement.  The LCR requires lead samples to be collected  








                                                                    SB 1398


                                                                    Page  6





          every six months.  The LCR, however, is not an exhaustive  
          requirement for identifying the real potential for lead pipes  
          (or user service lines) 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. 


          This bill is getting in front of the problem by necessitating  
          the replacement of all known lead-containing service lines  
          before they potentially leach lead into the drinking water they  
          convey. 




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Paige Brokaw / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965  FN:  
          0004403