BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 962
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 19, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
SB 962 (Anderson) - As Amended: May 29, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 38-0
SUBJECT : Public Water Systems: point-of-use treatment.
SUMMARY : Expands the authorization, from 200 connections to
500 connections, for small public water systems (PWS) to use
point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) treatment in lieu of
centralized water treatment. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes numerous findings on the use and effectiveness of POU
and POE treatment for small water systems unable to afford
centralized treatment construction and maintenance.
2)Expands authorization for use of POU and POE treatment from
water systems of less than 200 connections to 500 service
connections.
3)Extends the emergency regulations governing the permitted use
of POU and POE treatment from January 1, 2014 to January 1,
2016.
4)Requires the PWS applying for POU and POE treatment permit to
submit to the Department of Public Health (DPH) a capital
outlay plan outlining the plan for construction of centralized
treatment within five years of the permit application.
5)Prohibits the addition of any service connections until
centralized treatment is available.
6)Requires DPH to conduct a full audit of the water system's
finances to examine funding needs of the system and provide
recommendations for future treatment.
7)Requires DPH to charge a fee to a PWS seeking a new or amended
permit to cover DPH's cost of conducting the audit and
pursuant activities.
EXISTING LAW :
SB 962
Page 2
1)Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), delegates
the authority of United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) to California to implement a drinking water program.
As a primacy state (having federally delegated authority),
California must enact laws and regulations related to drinking
water that conform to the federal SDWA and that are no less
stringent than the federal regulations.
2)Establishes the Drinking Water Program within DPH to regulate
public drinking water systems.
3)Provides for the use of POU and POE water treatment devices by
a PWS device, if the PWS meets the following criteria:
a) The PWS has less than 200 service connections; and
b) The PWS has submitted pre-applications with DPH for
funding to correct the violations for which the POU
treatment is provided.
4)Prohibits DPH from issuing or amending a permit to allow the
use of POU treatment unless DPH determines, after a public
hearing, that there is no substantial community opposition.
5)Limits the issuance of a permit for the use of POU treatment
to the lesser of three years or until funding for centralized
treatment is available.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, enactment of this bill will result in:
1)Ongoing costs of approximately $200,000 annually form the
General Fund beginning in 2013-14 through 2016-17 for
additional permit review and audits.
2)Ongoing costs of $500,000 annually from the General Fund
beginning in 2013-14 for the certification of POU and POE
treatment systems. This cost will be partially offset by
Water Device Certification Fees of approximately $382,000 a
year.
COMMENTS :
1)Need for the Bill : According to the author, access to safe
drinking water in California's small, unincorporated
SB 962
Page 3
communities is vital. This legislation will allow approved
POU and POE water treatment devices to be employed in
communities of up to 500 connections when a centralized
treatment plant is not currently economically feasible. The
author states that this bill addresses "future needs of
growing communities by creating a pathway to centralized
treatment and ensuring financial transparency for ratepayers."
2)Alternatives to Centralized Treatment : A point-of-use (POU)
device treats only potable water in a residential setting, and
is usually on, or near, the kitchen faucet. Point-of-entry
(POE) treatment is a larger device that is situated between
the building and the water supply, thereby treating all water
entering the building.
3)SDWA Allows POU Treatment for Small Systems: The US EPA
defines "small community water systems" as systems serving
10,000 people or fewer. Recognizing that there is a spectrum
of needs within small water systems, US EPA evaluated
treatment technologies and their costs for three categories of
small systems; systems serving 25 to 500 people, systems
serving 501 to 3,300 people and systems serving 3,301 to
10,000 people.
The 1996 amendments to the SDWA provided that POU and POE
units are a viable, low-cost treatment method for some small
water systems. The regulations require that POU and POE units
be owned, controlled, and maintained by the PWS or by a person
under contract with the PWS operator. This ensures proper
operation, maintenance, and compliance with the maximum
contaminant levels or treatment technique. The units must be
equipped with mechanical warnings so that customers are
automatically notified of operational problems. Only units
that have been independently certified according to American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards may be used as
part of a compliance strategy.
4)DPH Emergency Regulations : In 2010-11, DPH adopted Interim
POU and POE Regulations (CCR Title 22, Chapter 15, Articles
2.5 and 2.7) that closely follow federal regulations, with
additional guidelines for economic feasibility testing. This
economic analysis requires that the community water system
provide to DPH information demonstrating the estimated cost of
centralized treatment in relation to the median household
income (MHI) of the community and average water bills.
SB 962
Page 4
5)Water Treatment Device Certification Program : DPH currently
certifies POU and POE treatment systems under its Water
Treatment Device Certification program. This program was
slated for elimination under the Governor's 2012-13 budget
proposals, but that measure was rejected by the Assembly
Budget Subcommittee 1 (5/31/12) and the Senate Budget
Subcommittee 3 (5/24/12). If the program does end up being
cut in the 2012-13 budget, this bill would require its
reinstatement.
6)Support : Writing in support of the bill, the Regional Council
of Rural Counties states that "many small and rural
communities are larger than 200 connections but are not large
enough to support the cost of centralized water treatment
plans." The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
asserts that "small water systems need this flexibility in
order to provide the best quality water at the lowest possible
cost to ratepayers."
7)Opposition: The opposition argues that POU and POE treatment
is designed as a temporary, emergency solution and that
extending the size of community who can use this sets a
dangerous precedent. The California Association of
Environmental Health Administrators writes that "POE and POU
treatment is not a viable, acceptable and long-term fix to the
State's drinking water challenges."
8)Committee Comments:
a) Legislative Intent : Section 1 of this bill makes many
(18) findings and declarations. These findings are largely
background, and do not speak to the legislative intent of
the bill. These findings should be stricken from the bill.
b) Limitations to POU and POE Treatment:
POU and POE treatment is not the solution for every
contaminant in every community.
POU and POE units are approved US EPA compliance
technologies for some organic contaminants, turbidity,
fluoride, iron, chlorine, arsenic, nitrate, ammonia,
microorganisms including cysts, among other contaminants.
These devices cannot be used for volatile organic compounds
or micro-organisms, however.
SB 962
Page 5
The UC Davis Nitrate Study of 2012 notes that systems may
have multiple forms of groundwater contamination at the
same time. Treatment must accommodate the spectrum of
water quality concerns as well as local water chemistry and
distribution system conditions. Some contaminants may be
mitigated simply by blending water sources to reduce the
concentration, while others must be filtered by reverse
osmosis, ion exchange, or other means of treatment.
Writing in opposition to the bill, the Health Officers
Association of California (HOAC) states that "POU and POE
treatments are considered stopgap measures to be taken in
extreme circumstances. Centralized treatment is the best
way to remove multiple contaminants from drinking water, to
respond to dynamic environmental conditions, and to ensure
that all water entering a home is safe for drinking,
cooking, washing, and other household needs."
c) Who is Paying the Fee? To be approved for a POU
treatment permit, applicants are required to apply for
centralized treatment funding from DPH, which includes
demonstration that the cost of centralized treatment is not
economically feasible, based on current water bills and MHI
of the community. It seems reasonable that DPH should
recover the increased cost of permitting, but charging the
PWS for the analysis is likely to result in higher costs to
ratepayers. Will the PWS be able to use the state
revolving grant or loan funds towards the DPH fees?
The PWS must provide some amount of financial information
in their permit application. While DPH does need to
recover the cost of extra review, will DPH be charging the
PWS for an audit of information that has already been
provided?
This bill declares that "small systems struggle to meet
ever-changing maximum contaminant level mandates", but
these standards are often announced many years before
compliance is required. For example, in response to new
research, the US EPA revised the arsenic maximum
contaminant level (MCL) standards, reducing the MCL from 50
parts per billion (ppb) down to 10 ppb in January of 2001.
The compliance deadline for a PWS to meet the revised
standard was set at January of 2006. This bill requires
DPH to conduct a full financial audit of the PWS to examine
SB 962
Page 6
why the water system does not have the funding to necessary
to complete needed upgrades.
Related Prior Legislation :
AB 1540 (Committee on Health), Chapter 298, Statutes of 2009.
This bill updated California drinking water laws to maintain
California's federally designated authority to implement a
drinking water program that conforms to the federal SDWA. The
SDWA allows a PWS to use POU devices for water treatments to
meet drinking water standards. AB 1540 allows POU and POE
devices under California law.
AB 2515 (V. Manuel P�rez), Chapter 601, Statutes of 2010. This
bill provided an expedited process for DPH to establish criteria
for use of POU water treatment devices and authorizes DPH to
award grants for POE and POU treatment systems, provided that
the water system serves a severely disadvantaged community and
that the grant meets other existing requirements.
Related Current Legislation:
AB 2056 (Chesbro), exempts small PWS of 20 connections or less
from the three year limit on permits for POE and POU treatment
in lieu of centralized water treatment. This bill would allow
these systems to use census tract data as MHI information for
the demonstration of economic feasibility, if required in the
pre-application for POU treatment. This bill is currently in
the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Pacific Water Quality Association (sponsor)
Water Quality Association
Association of California Water Agencies
Regional Council of Rural Counties
California Groundwater Association
Clean Water Action
Opposition
California Association of Environmental Health Administrators
Health Officers Association of California
SB 962
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by : Dharia McGrew / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965