BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2669
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2669 (V. Manuel Perez) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 7-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill appropriates $2 million in Proposition 84 bond funds
for allocation to Riverside County for an integrated water
quality and wastewater treatment program plan, primarily to
address arsenic contamination. Specifically, this bill:
1)Appropriates to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) $2
million dollars from the $100 million included in Proposition
84 specifically for "interregional/unallocated" purposes.
2) Directs DWR to allocate the $2 million to Riverside County
for development of a water quality and wastewater treatment
program plan to address the drinking water and wastewater
needs-primarily arsenic contamination of drinking water-in
disadvantaged communities in unincorporated areas of the
county.
3)Directs DWR, in consultation with DPH, to submit the plan to
the Legislature by January 1, 2013.
FISCAL EFFECT
Appropriates to DWR, for specified use by Riverside County, $2
million of $100 million in Proposition 84 bond funds designated
as interregional/unallocated. According to DWR, the
interregional/unallocated Proposition 84 bond fund currently is
overappropriated by $4 million.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Proponents contend it is appropriate and
AB 2669
Page 2
precedented for the Legislature to direct DWR's allocation of
Proposition 84 bond funds to ensure that all California's
communities, including its most disadvantaged, have access to
clean, potable drinking water.
2)Background .
a) Proposition 84 . In 2006, voters approved Proposition
84, The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act.
Proposition 84 authorizes $5.4 billion in bonds to finance
programs for safe drinking water, water quality and supply,
flood control, and resource protection. Of that amount, $1
billion is available to 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. From
this $1 billion, the proposition allocates specific dollar
amounts to each of the state's 12 hydrologic regions
identified in the California Water Plan. In addition, the
proposition allocates $100 million of these funds for
interregional/ unallocated purposes. This bill seeks to
appropriate money from these interregional/unallocated
funds.
b) Arsenic an Old Case in Riverside County . Arsenic is a
semi-metal that enters drinking water supplies from natural
deposits in the earth or from agricultural and industrial
practices. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency sets 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. The element is commonly found in some areas of
Riverside County, where it regularly contaminates some
aquifers, including those serving certain mobile home parks
with many low-income residents, at concentrations well in
excess of federal standards.
3)Sidestepping the Bond Fund Allocation Process-But Not the
First Time . Proposition 84 establishes funding amounts for
broad purposes, such as the $1 billion to assist local public
agencies to meet the long-term water needs of the state.
Generally, DWR allocates those monies in keeping with those
broad purposes and according to internal processes and set
AB 2669
Page 3
criteria.
Some question whether it is appropriate for the Legislature to
sidestep DWR's allocation process and note that there maybe
other communities in the state suffering from similar or even
worse drinking water contamination. In one instance, however,
the Legislature already directed DWR's allocation of
Proposition 84 funds. SB X2 1 (Perata, Chapter 1, Statutes of
2008) contained almost identical language to this bill, though
it directed money to Tulare County, not Riverside.
4)Bond Funds Already Overappropriated . According to DWR, the
Legislature has already over-appropriated the $100 million of
Proposition 84 funding for interregional/ unallocated water
projects by $4 million. The Governor's 2010-11 Budget Act
proposes reversion of a prior appropriation made by SB X7
1(Simitian, 2009) for the "Two-Gates Fish Protection
Demonstration Program," thereby benefiting the fund balance by
$28 million. The budget act, however, also proposes to
allocate $26 for implementation of the Delta plan described in
SB X7 1 and for the water conservation measures described in
SB X7 7 (Steinberg, 2009). The author's office notes that,
while the funds may be overappropriated, the Legislature has
the authority to redirect DWR's bond fund allocations
according to its priorities.
5)Support . The bill is supported by the California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation and Poder Popular of the Coachella
Valley, who argue it is appropriate for the Legislature to
direct bond funds to ensure all Californians have access to
clean, potable drinking water.
6)Opposition . There is no registered opposition on file to this
bill. Some expressed concern during policy committee hearing,
however, that it might be inappropriate to sidestep DWR's
standard process for allocating bond funds consistent with the
broad goals and specific targets described in Proposition 84.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081