BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 685
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 685 (Eng) - As Introduced: February 17, 2011
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 8-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill declares it state policy that every human being has
the right to clean, affordable, and accessible water on an
equitable basis, that is adequate for the health and well-being
of the individual and family. The bill directs state agencies
to employ all reasonable means to implement this policy and to
revise, adopt, or establish policies, regulations, and grant
criteria to further the policy.
FISCAL EFFECT
Possible costs of an unknown but possibly significant amount, to
implement the provisions of this bill, depending upon how it is
interpreted by implementing agencies. For example, the
Department of Public Health concludes it will need to dedicate
three staff members for one-to-two years to the review and, if
necessary, revision of existing drinking water policies.
Similarly, but more significantly, the State Water Resources
Control Board notes that, were the bill strictly interpreted, it
could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in state costs
if, for example, it led to a legal finding that the state is the
ultimate responsible party in water contamination cases.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The authors finds it important that state law,
consistent with findings by the United Nations, affirm the
human right to clean, affordable, accessible water.
2)Background . This bill clarifies a long-established state
AB 685
Page 2
policy favoring domestic use, to apply to 21st century
conditions. Water Code Section 106, which declares domestic
use as the "highest use" of water, originated in California's
1913 adoption of its first statutory/administrative water
rights system. In the same era, western states, which were
arid and eligible for development of federal irrigation
projects by the Bureau of Reclamation, adopted similar
statutory water rights schemes, which usually included a
similar policy. This common western state policy reflected a
public priority for taking care of human needs, ahead of
irrigation needs for water, as western states grew and
developed with the help of federal irrigation projects. Utah,
however, repealed its domestic use priority statute last year.
3)Related Legislation . AB 1242 (Ruskin, 2010), which was
substantially similar to this bill, passed the Assembly 53-24
and the Senate 23-14 but was vetoed by the governor.
4)Support. This bill is supported by numerous groups
representing environmental and human rights concerns. There is
no registered opposition to this bill.
5)Opposition . This bill is opposed by the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA), the Western Growers
Association and several other water service providers, who
contend the bill may lead to a requirement that water agencies
provide water service without consideration to affordability,
thereby increasing water bills and have other unintended
consequences.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081