BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2208|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2208
Author: Perea (D)
Amended: 6/12/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/2/12
AYES: Simitian, Strickland, Blakeslee, Hancock, Kehoe,
Lowenthal, Pavley
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-24, 5/17/12 - See last page for vote
(may not be relevant)
SUBJECT : Drinking water
SOURCE : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the Department of Public
Health (DPH), with the consent of the applicants, to
combine proposed studies and projects from multiple
applicants.
ANALYSIS :
Background
Lanare and Riverdale are two rural communities
approximately three miles apart in the Central Valley that
rely on arsenic-contaminated water supplies. According to
the World Health Organization, "drinking arsenic-rich water
over a long period results in various health effects
CONTINUED
AB 2208
Page
2
including skin problems (such as color changes on the skin,
and hard patches on the palms and soles of the feet), skin
cancer, cancers of the bladder, kidney and lung, and
diseases of the blood vessels of the legs and feet, and
possibly also diabetes, high blood pressure and
reproductive disorders."
In 2007, a water treatment plant was completed in Lanare
using federal funds. The small community was responsible
for paying for the plant's operation and maintenance, but
those costs were unaffordable for the community. The plant
shut down after only a few months of operation.
Recently, nearby Riverdale was awarded a DPH grant to
identify potential solutions to its arsenic contamination
problem. Given the proximity of Lanare and Riverdale and
their mutual arsenic problem, a single water treatment
plant should have been investigated as a means of
delivering affordable, clean water to both communities.
Dividing the overhead and maintenance costs between Lanare
and Riverdale would create an economy of scale that cannot
be matched by other solutions.
The author states they want to avoid situations like the
one in Lanare and Riverdale. By allowing DPH to combine
applications from individual communities into efficient
regional solutions, there is the potential to avoid
wasteful spending, maximizing resources to provide safe
drinking water to rural communities.
Comments
Safe Drinking Water State Resolving Fund (SDWSRF) .
Congress established the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund as part of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments
to better enable public water systems to comply with
national primary drinking water standards and to protect
public health. The SDWSRF provides financial assistance in
the form of capitalization grants to states to provide low
interest loans and other assistance to public water
systems. In order to receive these funds, states must
provide a state match equal to 20% of the federal
capitalization grants and must create a drinking water
state revolving fund program for public water system
CONTINUED
AB 2208
Page
3
infrastructure needs and other drinking water-related
activities. In response, California established the SDWSRF
through SB 1307 (Chapter 734, Statutes of 1997) to help
fund the state's drinking water needs.
Public drinking water system consolidation . Existing state
law and DPH policies encourage consolidation of public
drinking water systems to help address the problems of
water contamination. Legislation in 2007, (AB 783
(Arambula) Chapter, 614, Statutes of 2007) , provided
direction to improve and expand community water systems by
promoting the consolidation of small public water systems
when consolidation would improve the quality, reliability,
and affordability of water to these communities. This bill
is designed to establish a more prescriptive standard for
DPH when considering drinking water system improvements
that may include consolidation.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 2238 (Perea), requires DPH to review and consider
pertinent local agency formation commission studies or
reports and consult with the local agency formation
commission executive officer when processing an application
for SDWSRF funding.
AB 2529 (Wieckowski), makes several changes to the SDWSRF
Law of 1997 related to implementation of the act,
administering SDWSRF, and processing applications for
funding.
AB 983 (Perea), Chapter 515, Statutes of 2011, made several
changes to the laws governing the state program providing
grants and loans for safe drinking water projects,
including allowing certain disadvantaged communities to be
eligible for grants up to 100 percent of project costs.
AB 2515 (V.M. Perez), Chapter 601, Statutes of 2010,
authorized DPH to provide a grant from SDWSRF for
point-of-entry and point-of-use water treatment systems.
AB 2356 (Arambula), Chapter 607, Statutes of 2008, required
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to take
specified actions when allocating funds to small,
CONTINUED
AB 2208
Page
4
disadvantaged communities for wastewater collection,
treatment or disposal projects and establishing a payment
process pursuant to which the recipient of financial
assistance receives funds within 30 days of the date on
which SWRCB receives a project payment request.
AB 783 (Arambula), Chapter 614, Statutes of 2007, directed
DPH to prioritize funding of water projects in
disadvantaged communities; and directs DPH to promote,
provide funds for studies on, and prioritize funding for
projects which consolidate small public water systems in
certain situations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/5/12)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (source)
California Special Districts Association
Clean Water Action
Community United in Lanare
PolicyLink
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "DPH
receives applications for funding from cities or
communities and makes funding decisions based only on the
proposal included in the application. This can lead to
wasteful spending as adjacent communities apply for
assistance separately and eventually complete
state-financed water infrastructure projects that do not
benefit from economies of scale. We would like to give DPH
the authority to combine projects from neighboring
communities to make the best use of public funds."
DPH states that it currently "allow�s] multiple water
systems with similar problems in close proximity to receive
funding for a combined project. The water systems must be
willing participants; and each water system and the
appropriate solution must be evaluated on its own,
including technical, financial, environmental and
managerial feasibility."
This bill codifies DPH's authority to join proposed studies
CONTINUED
AB 2208
Page
5
and construction projects of multiple, willing applicants
for SDWSRF funding.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-24, 5/17/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Ma,
Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, V. Manuel P�rez,
Portantino, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski,
Williams, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, Beth Gaines,
Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Fletcher, Gorell, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Norby, Perea, Skinner, Yamada
DLW:n 7/5/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED