BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1366
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
AB 1366 (Feuer/Caballero/Strickland) - As Introduced: February
27, 2009
SUBJECT : Residential self-regenerating water softeners
SUMMARY : Authorizes local agencies that maintain a community
sewer system to control salinity inputs from residential
self-regenerating water softeners, to protect the quality of the
waters of the State. Specifically, this bill :
1)Applies the bill's authorization to specified hydrologic
regions (Central coast, South Coast, San Joaquin River, Tulare
Lake) and counties (Butte, Glenn, Placer, Sacramento, Solano,
Sutter and Yolo).
2)Authorizes any local agency that maintains a community sewer
system affected by a regional board's finding regarding
salinity to control salinity inputs from residential
self-regenerating water softeners (hereinafter "water
softeners").
a) Conditions such authorization for local agency control
on a regional water quality control board finding that
control of residential salinity input will contribute to
achievement of water quality objectives.
i) Limits findings to regional boards with jurisdiction
in one of the specified regions.
ii) Requires regional board to make finding at a public
hearing.
iii) Allows regional board finding in conjunction with
specified water quality actions
b) Requires local agency to hold at least one public
meeting to consider local economic issues and other
community input before controlling such salinity inputs.
3)Identifies, but does not limit, actions to control water
softener salinity inputs. Local agencies may:
a) Require water softeners to be rated at the highest
efficiency commercially available.
AB 1366
Page 2
b) Require plumbing permits be obtained before installation
of water softeners.
c) Require water softeners be hooked up to hot water only.
d) Require that potassium chloride, instead of sodium
chloride, be used in water softeners, if water quality
conditions warrant.
e) Enact a voluntary "buy back" program for removal of
existing water softeners.
f) Require removal of previously installed water softeners.
4)Requires local agencies that decide to remove previously
installed water softeners to compensate customers for the
reasonable value of such removed water softeners.
5)Requires regional board finding to be based on evidence in the
record, and sets standard of judicial review as the same
required for the regional board for the water quality action.
6)Specifies that no local ordinance is required if a regional
board makes the specified finding.
7)Specifies that this section does not limit use of portable
exchange water softening appliances or the authority of a
local public agency to regulate discharge from a centralized
portable exchange tank servicing facility into the community
sewer system.
8)Declares that this bill is necessary to address elevated
levels of salinity in the specified hydrologic regions,
thereby complying with the California Constitution's
requirement that all laws of a general nature have "uniform
operation."
9)Makes findings regarding water recycling, water softeners and
salinity in water.
EXISTING LAW authorizes use of recycled water under certain
conditions and imposes conditions on local agency limitations on
use of water softeners.
AB 1366
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
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 regulation among regional water
quality boards.
Recycling Update :In response to concerns about the state's
progress on recycled water, the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) adopted a statewide policy in February 2009, in
order to encourage greater use of recycled water. The SWRCB's
policy includes requirements for regional salt management plans,
as increased salt loads in the source water makes recycling more
difficult. Salinity discharges to the state's rivers and
streams, from both urban and agricultural sources, also have
received increased attention in recent years, particularly in
the burgeoning Central Valley. The Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board has reduced allowable urban salt
discharges to address this problem, although saline drainage off
the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley remains a problem.
This bill originated in and improves on last year's AB 2270
(Laird), a recycling bill that the Governor vetoed. The author
has narrowed and amended the bill to address the concerns
reflected in the veto message and new information that has
emerged. Those changes include:
1)Identified Regions. Limits authorization to the regions and
counties that SWRCB has identified as having significant
salinity problems that threaten surface water bodies and
high-use groundwater basins.
2)Public Process. Requires local agencies that consider
imposing controls on salinity inputs from water softeners to
hold a public meeting before adopting such controls, and
explicitly allows such agencies to decide not to adopt a water
softener ordinance.
3)Portable Exchange Water Softeners. Bars controls on
residential portable exchange water softeners, which do not
discharge to sewers.
AB 1366
Page 4
4)No Recycling Reporting. Deletes requirements for reporting on
recycled water use.
In essence, this bill focuses on what sponsors consider the most
important legal change - allowing local control of water
softener salinity inputs where the problem is significant.
Unlike existing law that limits local agency discretion to
regulate or otherwise control salinity inputs into local sewer
systems, this bill would give discretion to local agencies
within the identified regions - after its regional water board
determines there is a local problem - to tailor local controls
on the particular problem its community suffers from salinity
inputs, including water softeners.
Procedural Safeguards : This bill retains and expands the
procedural safeguards from AB 2270. First, it specifies that
the appropriate regional board must make the initial
determination as to the need for salinity control and based on
"evidence in the record" and be subject to judicial review on
the same standard as the regional board uses. This 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.
Second, the bill requires the local agency to determine and pay
the "reasonable value" of a water softener if it decides that
water softeners must be removed. This requirement of
compensation for removal of water softeners is not necessarily
required by the United States Constitution's Fifth 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.
Third, this bill requires public process before any such water
softener controls are imposed. Both regional boards and local
agencies are required to hold public meetings to consider such
controls. This addresses concerns that these decisions could be
AB 1366
Page 5
made without any notice by the board or agency simply adopting
the measures based on staff reports with little or no public
discussion of the issue.
Industry Opposition :The water softener industry opposes this
bill, as it did AB 2270. Last year, some in the industry
suggested that the bill was "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 domain (sewer or
stream). 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.
AB 1366
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of CA Water Agencies
CA Alliance for Golf
CA Association of Sanitation Agencies
CA Farm Bureau Federation
CA League of Food Processors
CA Municipal Utilities Association
CA Poultry Federation
Calleguas Municipal Water District
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
Eastern Municipal Water District
El Toro Water District
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Irvine Ranch Water District
League of CA Cities
Milk Producers Council
Nisei Farmers League
Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA
Orange County Sanitation District
San Diego County Water Authority
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Ventura County Agricultural Association
WateReuse California
Western Growers
Opposition
California Retailers Association
Culligan Water Solutions
Analysis Prepared by : Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096