BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 685|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 685
Author: Eng (D), et al.
Amended: 8/22/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMM : 5-3, 07/07/11
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Kehoe, Simitian, Wolk
NOES: La Malfa, Cannella, Fuller
NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/16/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-24, 06/01/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State water: regional water management
planning
SOURCE : California Center for Public Health Advocacy
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton
Clean Water Action California
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Food & Water Watch
Safe Water Alliance
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry -
California
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
CONTINUED
AB 685
Page
2
Urban Semillas
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
DIGEST : This bill establishes in law a state policy that
all residents of the state have a right to clean,
affordable, and accessible water for human consumption, and
directs relevant state agencies to implement the policy.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Prioritizes the use of water for domestic purposes, which
includes water for human sustenance, household
conveniences, and domestic or barnyard animals, as the
highest use of water, and the next highest use is
irrigation.
2.Finds and declares that every citizen of California has
the right to pure and safe drinking water.
This bill:
1.Establishes in the law the policy of the state that
"every human being has the right to safe, clean,
affordable, and accessible water adequate for human
consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes."
2.Requires state agencies, including the Department of
Public Health, the Department of Water Resources, and the
State Water Resources Control Board, to consider the
policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies,
regulations, and grant criteria when those policies,
regulations, and criteria are pertinent to the uses of
water described in this section.
3.Specifies that this bill shall not apply to water
supplies for new development.
4.Directs that implementation of the bill shall not
infringe on the rights or responsibilities of any public
water system.
5.States that this bill does not expand any obligation of
the state to provide water or to require the expenditure
AB 685
Page
3
of additional resources to develop water infrastructure.
Background
In 1913, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed the
Water Commission Act. In addition to establishing a formal
state process for appropriating surface water, the Water
Commission Act established as state policy that domestic
water use was a higher priority that other water uses.
When California's water laws were codified in 1943, that
policy was captured in Water Code Section 106, which
states:
"It is hereby declared to be the established policy of
this State that the use of water for domestic purposes
is the highest use of water and that the next highest
use is for irrigation."
In 1989, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB
21 (Sher). Among other things, that bill established, in
Health and Safety Code �116270, Legislative findings and
declarations stating:
"(a) Every citizen of California has the right to pure
and safe drinking water."
Under the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act
of 2002 (IRWMP), a regional water management group is
authorized, but not required, to prepare and adopt an
IRWMP. Adoption of an IRWMP, or its equivalent, is a
condition for qualifying for certain categories of bond
funds under Proposition 84 and the proposed 2012 water
bond. Much, but not all, of the state is covered by one or
more IRWMPs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2012-13 2013-14
2014-15 Fund
AB 685
Page
4
Department of Public Health $150
$150Special
review of regulations
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/22/12)
California Center for Public Health Advocacy (co-source)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-source)
Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton (co-source)
Clean Water Action California (co-source)
Community Water Center (co-source)
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (co-source)
Food & Water Watch (co-source)
Safe Water Alliance (co-source)
Southern California Watershed Alliance (co-source)
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry - California
(co-source)
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (co-source)
Urban Semillas (co-source)
Winnemem Wintu Tribe (co-source)
Alliance for Democracy
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Asociacion de Gente Unida por el Agua
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Food Policy Advocates
California League of Conservation Voters
Committee for a Better Seville
Environmental Working Group
Green California
Health officers Association of California
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Self Help Enterprises
United for Change in Tooleville
Vecinos Unidos
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Fresno
Section
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, U.S.
Section
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/22/12)
AB 685
Page
5
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District 7
Association of California Water Agencies
Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District
Brown Valley Irrigation District
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Central Basin Water Association
Coachella Valley Water District
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Desert Water Agency
East Valley Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
El Dorado Irrigation District
Friant Water Authority
Helix Water District
Kern County Water Agency
Kings River Conservation District
Kings River Water Association
Orchard Dale Water District
Placer County Water Agency
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District
Rowland Water District
San Gabriel County Water District
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority
Stockton East Water District
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Vista Irrigation District
West Valley Water District
Western Growers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "More
than 11.5 million Californians rely on water suppliers that
faced at least one violation of State Drinking Water
Standards. As many as 8.5 million Californians rely on
supplies that experienced more than five incidences of
excessive levels of contaminants in the drinking water in a
single year. In communities where the sole water supply is
contaminated, families that are unable to afford treatment
AB 685
Page
6
are often left entirely without safe water. The Central
Valley and Central Coast regions, where more than 90% of
the communities rely solely on groundwater, are
particularly at risk. More than 250,000 people in the
Central Valley alone, lack access to a consistent source of
safe, affordable water. California does not have a
universal statewide lifeline water rate or allocation,
similar to our lifeline rates for energy and phone service,
so when costs become excessive, families that cannot pay
their bills risk losing water service entirely.
"Adding a provision to the Water Code that explicitly
states that access to an amount of clean water necessary
for basic human needs is a 'right' of every Californian
would ensure that state agencies, dealing with water
resources, will make these agencies conform their programs
and practices to this policy."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents tend to focus on the
requirement that water be "affordable." The Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA), for example, questions
"to what extent water agencies would be forced to comply
with the law." ACWA notes that, "Currently, when a
customer is unable to pay his or her water bill, the water
agency eventually discontinues water service to the
property of the unpaid bill. Under this bill, a customer
has a right to water. If the water supplier were not
allowed to cut service because a customer could not afford
water service, other customers would have to subsidize
service for those who cannot afford service."
Additionally, some opponents of this bill argue that by
establishing a potentially enforceable human right to
water, this bill has uncertain legal implications which may
result in litigation.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-24, 06/01/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall,
Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
AB 685
Page
7
Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Pan, Perea, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Jones,
Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Garrick, Gorell, Jeffries, V. Manuel
P�rez
CTW:n 8/23/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****