BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2669
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Pedro Nava, Chair
AB 2669 (V. Manuel Perez) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
SUBJECT : The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006:
integrated water quality and wastewater treatment program plan:
Riverside County.
SUMMARY : Appropriates $2,000,000 of Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection
Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) bond funds to the Department
of Water Resources (DWR) for allocation to Riverside County for
an integrated water quality and wastewater treatment program
plan to address drinking water and wastewater needs of
disadvantaged communities in the unincorporated areas of
Riverside County. Requires the plan to primarily address
arsenic contamination of drinking water. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Appropriates, of the $100,000,000 of Proposition 84 funds made
available for "Interregional/ Unallocated" purposes,
$2,000,000 to DWR for allocation to Riverside County for the
development of a plan to address the drinking water and
wastewater needs of, and primarily address arsenic
contamination of drinking water in, disadvantaged communities
in the unincorporated areas of Riverside County.
2)Requires that these funds are available for assessment and
feasibility studies necessary to develop the plan. Requires
the plan to primarily address arsenic contamination of
drinking water, and to include recommendations for planning,
infrastructure, and other water management actions.
3)Requires Riverside County to consult with appropriate
stakeholders, including representatives of disadvantaged
communities and the Coachella Valley Water District, when
preparing the plan.
4)Requires DWR, in consultation with the State Department of
Public Health, to submit the plan to the Legislature by
AB 2669
Page 2
January 1, 2013.
EXISTING LAW : Pursuant to Proposition 84,
1)Authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of
$5,388,000,000 for the purpose of financing a safe drinking
water, water quality and supply, flood control, and resource
protection program.
2)Authorizes $1,000,000,000 of those funds to be available to
the DWR, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for grants for
projects that assist local public agencies to meet the
long-term water needs of the state, including the delivery of
safe drinking water and the protection of water quality and
the environment.
3)Allocates, of the $1,000,000,000 of Proposition 84 funds
mentioned above, specific funding amounts to each hydrologic
region as identified in the California Water Plan. Allocates
$100,000,000 of these funds for "Interregional/ Unallocated"
purposes.
4)Authorizes the "Interregional/ Unallocated" funds to be
expended directly or granted by DWR to address multi-regional
needs or issues of statewide significance.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriates $2,000,000 of Proposition 84 bond
funds to DWR for allocation to Riverside County.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill : According to the author's office, "Small
rural communities in Eastern Coachella Valley lack adequate
waste treatment and drinking water infrastructure. Currently,
most mobile home parks in the Eastern Coachella Valley are rural
and remote, and are served by private wells, where land owners
are responsible for the water quality. In the Eastern Coachella
Valley, numerous small community water systems serving mobile
home park communities have been found to contain levels of
arsenic that far exceed legal limits and should not be consumed.
Yet many of these wells remain untreated and residents remain
without a consistent and reliable source of drinking water. To
AB 2669
Page 3
ensure a consistent and reliable source of water we need to do
all we can to connect these communities to the regional water
and waste water provider- the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD). AB 2669 would begin the process for water
infrastructure development."
Arsenic in drinking water : Arsenic is a semi-metal element that
enters drinking water supplies from natural deposits in the
earth or from agricultural and industrial practices. Non-cancer
effects of arsenic exposure include thickening and discoloration
of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness
in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic
has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney,
nasal passages, liver, and prostate.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set
the arsenic standard for drinking water at 10 parts per billion
to protect consumers served by public water systems from the
effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic.
Arsenic in Riverside County : According to the author's office,
the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
conducted tests in 2010 that show that 24 identified water
systems exceed arsenic standards. These systems tested positive
for arsenic levels ranging from 12 to 91 parts per billion. The
sponsors also contend that there are several communities in the
region with high levels of arsenic in their drinking water that
might not have been included in the survey.
Availability of funds : According to DWR, the Legislature has
already over-appropriated the $100,000,000 of Proposition 84
funding for "Interregional/ Unallocated" water project purposes
by $4,075,000. While the Governor's 2010-11 Budget Act proposes
the reversion of the SB X7 1 "Two-Gates Fish Protection
Demonstration Program" appropriation ($28,000,000), appropriated
by the Legislature in 2009, thus bringing the total allocation
to $76,075,000, $25,900,000 is proposed in the same budget for
implementation of SB X7 1 (Delta Plan) and SB X7 7 (Water
Conservation). Therefore, even if the "Two Gates" appropriation
is reversed, only $25,000 would remain in this funding source
under this scenario.
AB 2669
Page 4
Appropriate use of bond funds : California has already over
allocated Proposition 84 bond funds. Every new program that
allocates money to specific project deducts money that is
already allocated for another project. Is the $2,000,000
allocation in this bill the most beneficial use of these funds
for California?
Related legislation: SB X2 1 (Perata, CHAPTER 1, Statutes of
2008) contained almost identical language to AB 2669 for Tulare
County.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Poder Poplar of the Coachella Valley
Opposition
None received.
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965