BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2270
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 2270 (Laird)
As Amended August 4, 2008
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-19|(May 29, 2008) |SENATE: |27-12|(August 7, |
| | | | | |2008) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-19|(August 12, | | | |
| | |2008) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: W.,P., & W.
SUMMARY : Requires additional reporting on recycled water use
and allows local agencies discretion to control salinity inputs
(including water softeners) if the appropriate Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) makes a finding that controlling
salinity inputs will contribute to the achievement of a water
quality objective.
The Senate amendments clarify the process for allowing local
agency control of salinity inputs and reporting of recycled
water use by local agencies. Specifically, the amendments:
1)Limit the authority to allow local agencies to control
salinity input to the RWQCBs, thereby eliminating such
authority for State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
2)Authorize the local agency to determine the "reasonable value"
of a water softener that is required to be removed.
3)Require the finding by the SWRCB that allows a local agency to
have discretion on controlling salinity inputs to be based on
evidence in the record.
4)Require submission of certain recycled water use information
AB 2270
Page 2
to the SWRCB, including authorization for SWRCB to require
electronic submission of such information.
EXISTING LAW authorizes use of recycled water under certain
conditions and imposes conditions on local agency limitations on
use of water softeners.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was similar to the version
passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : Senate Appropriations Committee estimates
Department of Water Resources (DWR) costs of $200,000 every five
years starting in 2009-10 to include and update more recycled
water information in the California Water Plan. Appropriations
from Proposition 84 bond proceeds may pay these costs.
COMMENTS : The Water Recycling Act of 1991 set a 2010 target for
California to use one million acre-feet of recycled water.
While there is no definitive calculation of the amount of
recycled water use, recent estimates suggest 600-700,000
acre-feet of current recycled water use. The most recent
California Water Plan estimates future recycled water use at
between 900,000 and 1.4 million acre-feet, in 2030. This likely
failure to meet the 2010 target has been attributed to several
factors, including inconsistent RWQCB regulation.
In response to concerns about the state's progress on recycled
water, the State Water Resources Control Board has developed a
statewide policy, in order to encourage greater use of recycled
water. SWRCB has deferred adopting that policy while a
stakeholder group considers amendments. The SWRCB's proposed
policy includes a requirement that the RWQCBs (except Santa Ana,
which already has a salt management plan) adopt salt management
plans, as increased salt loads in the source water makes
recycling more difficult. Urban salinity discharges to the
state's rivers and streams also have received increased
attention in recent years, particularly in the burgeoning San
Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley RWQCB has reduced allowable
salt discharges.
The authorization of local regulation of salinity inputs,
AB 2270
Page 3
particularly water softeners, is the controversial part of this
bill. Unlike existing law that limits local agency discretion
to regulate or otherwise control salinity inputs into local
sewer systems, this bill would give local agency discretion -
after its RWQCB determines there is a local problem - to tailor
local controls on the particular problem its community suffers
from salinity inputs, including water softeners.
The water softener industry opposes this bill, suggesting that
it is "outlawing an industry and denying citizens the right to
improve the quality of their water." These opponents do not
explain that there are alternatives to the self-regenerating
water softeners that discharge significant amount of salts into
public waste water. No one has a "right" to discharge
pollutants into the public. This bill allows local regulation
of salinity inputs where the community has a problem with
salinity discharges or recycling, but does not outlaw the water
softener industry. By allowing each agency to make the
determination how to regulate salinity inputs, this bill allows
tailored responses to specific problems facing each community,
which may differ.
Senate amendments : The Senate amendments clarify the process
for making determinations related to water softeners and
salinity inputs. They specify that the appropriate regional
board must make the initial determination as to the need for
salinity control and based on "evidence in the record." The
local agency determines the "reasonable value" of a water
softener if it decides that water softeners must be removed.
The evidentiary amendment imposes a decision standard that
requires actual evidence to show a problem with salinity and the
likelihood that salinity controls will help meet a water quality
objective. Such a finding will require an evidentiary hearing,
but the board may use existing rules of evidence.
Payments for softener removal : If a local agency chooses to
require actual removal of a water softener (as contrasted with
prohibition on its use), then the agency must determine and pay
the reasonable value of that softener. This bill's requirement
of compensation for removal of water softeners is not
necessarily required by the United States Constitution's Fifth
AB 2270
Page 4
Amendment requiring just compensation for government taking of
private property. The compensation requirement in this bill
would be a policy decision of the Legislature that payment
should be made to those who discharge salt to the sewer system,
regardless of whether they have a right to such compensation.
This provision contradicts the more common policy of "polluter
pays," in which the polluter or discharger pays to reduce and/or
clean up the discharge and is not paid with public funds to stop
pollution or discharges.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
This bill would require the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) to establish statewide water recycling
targets every five years and would also enable local
governments to control salinity input to their sewer
systems, including those from water softeners.
Increasing the use of recycled water in the state is
an absolutely necessary activity to increase water
supply reliability for the future of our growing
state. Unfortunately, this bill also includes
provisions that go too far in limiting residential use
of water softeners.
I recognize that excess salinity in surface and ground
water is a serious water quality problem in various
regions throughout the state, including the Central
Valley and southern California. However, current law
already includes provisions that allow local agencies
to regulate water softeners. The provisions of this
bill create a system that could unduly limit choices
for consumers and small water systems, with
potentially little positive impact given the
relatively limited contribution of water softeners to
our salinity problems.
AB 2270
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by: Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0007996