BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 962|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 962
Author: Anderson (R) and Rubio (D), et al.
Amended: 5/29/12
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/23/12
AYES: Simitian, Strickland, Blakeslee, Hancock, Kehoe,
Lowenthal, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Price
SUBJECT : Public water systems: point-of-use treatment
SOURCE : Pacific Water Quality Association
DIGEST : This bill expands the authorization to use
point-of-use (POU)/point-of-entry (POE) treatment systems
from 200 service connections to public water systems with
up to 500 service connections and extends from January 1,
2014 to January 1, 2016, the emergency regulation governing
the permitted use of POU/POE.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the California Safe Drinking
Water Act, provides for the operation of public water
systems, and requires the State Department of Public Health
(DPH) to adopt regulations for these purposes. Under
existing law, regulations adopted by DPH are required to
include requirements governing the use of POE/POE treatment
CONTINUED
SB 962
Page
2
by public water systems in lieu of centralized treatment,
where feasible. Existing law requires DPH to adopt
emergency regulations governing the permitted use of
POU/POE treatment by public water systems in lieu of
centralized treatment and requires that these emergency
regulations remain in effect until the earlier of January
1, 2014, or the effective date of the required nonemergency
regulations. Existing law limits these regulations to
public water systems with less than 200 service
connections.
This bill will instead, limit these regulations to public
water systems with less service connections, and requires
the emergency regulations to remain in effect until the
earlier of January 1, 2016, or the effective date of the
required nonemergency regulations.
Existing law prohibits DPH from issuing a permit to a
public water system to allow the use of POU treatment,
unless DPH makes specified determinations.
This bill additionally prohibits DPH from issuing a permit
to a public water system to allow the use of POE treatment,
unless DPH makes specified determinations. This bill
requires that prior to the approval of a permit allowing
installation of POU/POE treatment devices, that a water
system submits a capital outlay plan outlining the plan for
construction of centralized treatment, as specified. This
bill also requires DPH to conduct a full audit of the water
system's finances. Lastly, this bill specifies in addition
to any other fee DPH may be authorized to charge, DPH shall
charge a fee to a public water system that is seeking a
permit, or an amendment to a valid existing permit, to
allow the use of a POU/POE treatment system to cover DPH's
costs in conducting activities pursuant to this section.
The fee shall be sufficient to pay, but shall not exceed,
DPH's costs.
Background
Point of Use/ Point of Entry Treatment . A POU treatment
device is any unit installed on a single water faucet or
bubbler that changes the water quality. POE treatment
device is any unit installed that changes the water quality
CONTINUED
SB 962
Page
3
of all potable water entering a building. POE/POU
treatment devices such as carbon filters are sometimes
installed to enhance the aesthetic quality (taste and odor)
of potable water supplied by a local water system. In
other cases, POE/POU treatment devices are installed to
meet drinking water standards in place of centralized
treatment.
Drinking water contamination in California . According to
DPH, 98 percent of the population of California served by
community water systems receives drinking water that meets
all primary drinking water standards. However, for the
nearly three-quarter-of-a-million Californians without
clean water, contaminants such as nitrates, hexavalent
chromium and arsenic threaten public drinking water safety.
The most impacted populations are located in disadvantaged
communities and are served by small water systems that have
difficulty finding the sufficient resources for maintenance
and operation or to undertake repairs and upgrades. DPH
currently utilizes funds from the Safe Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund and Propositions 50 and 84 bond funds to
assist in drinking water system upgrades. While these
funds have provided and continue to provide significant
assistance in the improvement of water systems, there is a
greater need than funding available. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency as well as DPH are working
to explore how to reach critical drinking water standards
while also acknowledging the need for affordability of
conveyance, especially in these small communities.
In acknowledgement of the strain that small water systems
face when trying to upgrade systems to meet necessary water
quality improvements, AB 2515 (V. M. Perez), Chapter 601,
Statutes of 2010, was enacted as a stop-gap to provide a
temporary measure while a permanent, safer and more
effective centralized treatment could be devised for these
small disadvantaged communities.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis,
there will be:
CONTINUED
SB 962
Page
4
Ongoing costs of approximately $200,000 annually from the
General Fund beginning in 2013-14 through 2016-17 for
additional permit review and audits.
Ongoing costs of $500,000 annually from the General Fund
beginning in 2013-14 for the certification of
point-of-use and point-of-entry treatment systems. This
cost will be partially offset by Water Device
Certification Fees of approximately $382,000 a year.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/12)
Pacific Water Quality Association (source)
Association of California Water Agencies
California Groundwater Association
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Water Quality Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/24/12)
California Association of Environmental Health
Administrators
Clean Water Action
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "SB 962
is a compassionate and environmentally-conscious measure to
maximize delivery of safe drinking water to more people."
The author asserts that, "access to clean drinking water is
a neglected priority in California, so to confront that
reality, Assemblymember V. Manuel Perez authored Assembly
Bill 2515 Chapter 601, Statutes of 2010 to allow
development of appropriate emergency regulations by the
Department of Public Health." The author states that,
"while those emergency regulations - governing the
permitted use of point-of-entry and point-of-use treatment
by public water systems - have been adopted, the effect is
yet to be fully felt." The author believes that the
regulations have been found to effectively exclude some
communities who should qualify for some help but through no
fault of their own are unfairly excluded. According to the
author, "unfortunately, for them -small communities whose
need exceeds 200 service connections -- this basic thirst
of clean drinking water still remains."
CONTINUED
SB 962
Page
5
The author states, "that access to safe drinking water in
California's small, unincorporated communities is vital.
This legislation will allow approved point-of-entry or
point-of-use water treatment devices to be employed in
communities of up to 2,500 connections when a centralized
treatment plant is not economically feasible."
The author asserts that, "the viability of POU/POE systems
is proven." The author provides, for example, "in 2005,
NSF International conducted a thorough study on a centrally
managed point-of-use strategy implemented in the community
of Grimes, California. In that town, nearly all the
residents agreed to the installation of POU systems in
their homes. It was found that a final barrier system cost
less than half the projected cost for central treatment.
Homeowners, who faced elevated levels of arsenic, placed
appropriate systems in their residences. Through rigorous
analysis, researchers were able to calculate the cost of
such systems against estimates for a central treatment
plant. Central treatment would have cost more than $24 per
month, according to the NSF International Report.
Depending on the level of monitoring and sampling followed,
however, the POU system was estimated at between $11.46 and
$18 per month. The systems were successful and cost
effective, and extended to more people access to clean and
safe drinking water."
DLW:do 5/29/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED