BILL ANALYSIS
SB 918
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 918
AUTHOR: Pavley
AMENDED: April 12, 2010
FISCAL: Yes HEARING
DATE:April 19, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:
Rachel Machi Wagoner
SUBJECT : WATER RECYCLING
SUMMARY :
Existing federal law :
1)Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), sets public health
regulatory standards for drinking water.
2)Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates discharge of
pollutants into the waters of the United States and sets
quality standards for surface waters.
Existing California law :
1)Requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to enforce
laws and regulations related to drinking water safety.
2)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to
enforce water quality laws and regulations for the state's
waterways.
3)Requires the assessment of penalties for violations of water
quality laws and requires the funds generated by these civil
penalties to be deposited into the Waste Discharge Permit
Fund, to be expended by SWRCB upon appropriation by the
Legislature for the purpose of pollution abatement in the
state's waters.
4)Establishes the Water Recycling Act of 1991, creating a
SB 918
Page 2
statewide goal to recycle a total of 700,000 acre-feet of
water per year by 2000 and 1,000,000 acre-feet of water per
year by 2010. Requires each urban water supplier to
prepare, and update every five years, an urban water
management plan with specified components, including
information on recycled water and its potential for use as a
water source in the service area of the urban water
supplier.
5)Requires DPH to establish uniform statewide recycling
criteria for each type of use of recycled water use.
This bill :
1) Makes various findings a declarations regarding the use and
benefits of recycled water.
2) Defines "direct potable reuse," "indirect potable reuse for
groundwater recharge" and "indirect potable reuse through
reservoir augmentation".
3) Requires DPH to adopt uniform water recycling criteria for
indirect potable reuse for groundwater recharge on or
before December 31, 2013.
4) Requires DPH to develop and adopt uniform water recycling
criteria for indirect potable reuse through reservoir
augmentation on or before December 31, 2016.
5) Requires DPH to investigate and report to the Legislature
on the feasibility of developing uniform water recycling
criteria for direct potable reuse, and requires a public
review draft report to the Legislature and public by June
30, 2016, and a final report by December 31, 2016.
6) Requires DPH to consider specified factors in developing
both the uniform criteria and the feasibility study.
7) Requires DPH to convene an expert panel to advise on
scientific and technical matters related to the development
of the aforementioned criteria, comprised of specified
experts. Allows DPH to also appoint an advisory group,
task force, or other group comprised of representatives of
SB 918
Page 3
water and wastewater agencies, local public health
officers, and related public health and environmental
organizations.
8) Provides that funds generated by civil penalties deposited
in the Waste Discharge Permit Fund between July 1, 2011 and
June 30, 2017 must be made available to DPH upon
appropriation by the Legislature in an amount of up to
$500,000 each fiscal year ($3 million dollars total), for
the purpose of completing these uniform water recycling
criteria requirements, and not to exceed specified amounts.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, each year,
California discharges nearly 4 million acre feet of
wastewater into the ocean - more than the State Water
Project delivers to the Bay Area, the Central Valley and
Southern Caliornia. Much of that water could be recylced.
However, because the state has not adopted uniform safety
standards, the permitting and design processes for building
and operating water recycling facilities are unpredictable,
discouraging local communities from tapping into this major
water source.
2) State regulation . DPH regulates projects under the State
Water Recycling Criteria (Title 22) and draft groundwater
recharge regulations. The draft recharge regulations, which
are used as guidance in evaluating projects, specifically
address protection of public health.
In January 2007, DPH posted a revised draft of the
Groundwater Recharge Regulations on its website and formed
an expanded Groundwater Recharge Regulations Working Group
(advisory group) to discuss and revise the draft
regulations. In August 2008, DPH posted a revised draft of
the regulations on its website and asked for public
comments to be submitted in October 2008.
In 2009, DPH submitted the draft to DPH's legal services
group for review. Once a final draft has been prepared
based on the legal services input, the complete regulatory
package must be prepared and the formal regulatory process
SB 918
Page 4
can begin.
3) Surface Water Augmentation criteria verses regulations .
Surface water augmentation, by the bill's definition, is
the placement of recycled water into a reservoir used as a
source of drinking water. This is a step closer to direct
potable reuse of recycled water.
While there have been successful surface water augmentation
projects conducted in other states and countries,
California has yet to embark on any surface water
augmentation projects. San Diego is working towards
initiating the first pilot project in the state, but it has
not commenced yet.
It is unclear why there is a need to rush into the
development of uniform regulations by December 31, 2016,
that would apply to any surface water augmentation project
in the state prior to having any public health data from a
first pilot project.
This may be a case of putting the cart before the horse.
It may make sense to conduct an analysis of the public
health impacts of at least one pilot project in the state
and have DPH develop the criteria prior to moving ahead
with uniform regulations for any project in the state to
ensure full caution and protection of public health.
4)Waste Discharge Permit Fund . The bill makes available, upon
appropriation of the Legislature, up to $ 3 million from the
Waste Discharge Permit Fund for 6 years. The Waste
Discharge Permit Fund is designated for abatement projects.
Is this the appropriate source of funding for regulatory
development activities, what projects will this money be
diverted from over the six years, and is $3 million dollars
an appropriate amount for these activities?
5)Related Legislation . AB 1100 (Duvall) of 2009, would have
defined potable reuse demonstration water and allowed it to
be bottled for consumption, subject to distribution limits
and labeling requirements, for educational purposes only.
(Failed passage in Senate Environmental Quality Committee.)
SB 918
Page 5
AB 410 (De la Torre) of 2009 would have set a statewide
water recycling target to a total of 1,300,000 acre-feet of
water per year by the year 2020, and 2,000,000 acre-feet of
water per year by the year 2030, and would require the
Department of Water Resources to assess progress toward
meeting that target every five years, based on information
provided in urban water management plans. (Pending in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.)
AB 2270 (Laird) of 2008 would have required additional
reporting on recycled water and allow local limitations on
salinity inputs. (Vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.)
AB 921 (Wayne) Chapter 295, Statutes of 1998, prohibited
DPH from issuing a permit to a public water system or from
amending a valid existing permit for the use of a reservoir
as a source of supply that is directly augmented with
recycled water, unless certain requirements imposed on DPH
are satisfied.
6)Suggested Amendments .
a) The findings and declarations in the March 17, 2010
version of the bill better reflect the intent of the
Legislature's public policy direction on recycled water.
It may be more appropriate to revert back to those
findings and declarations.
b) The March 17, 2010 version of the bill defines
"surface water augmentation." In the April 12, 2010
version of the bill, the term is changed to "indirect
potable reuse through reservoir augmentation." Given
that there is a definition for "indirect potable reuse
for groundwater recharge" also in the bill, it may
generate confusion between the two very different
technologies. It is recommended that the bill be amended
to go back to the March 17, 2010 term of "surface water
augmentation."
SOURCE : Watereuse, Planning and Conservation League
SUPPORT : County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
East Bay Municipal Utility District
SB 918
Page 6
OPPOSITION : None on file