BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page 1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 115 (Perea)
          As Amended  September 6, 2013
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |76-0 |(April 18,      |SENATE: |36-0 |(September 10, |
          |           |     |2013)           |        |     |2013)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:    E.S. & T. M.  

           SUMMARY  :  Expands the eligibility for planning grants from the  
          Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SDWSRF) by allowing  
          multi-agency grant applications when at least one of the  
          communities served by the construction project will meet safe  
          drinking water standards.

           The Senate amendments  :
           
           1)Limit the authorization for multi-agency grants and loans to  
            planning grants; and 
           
           2)Provide that if legislation transfers the authority for the  
            California Safe Drinking Water Act from the Department of  
            Public Health (DPH), the bill's implementation would be  
            delayed for one year after the effective date of the transfer  
            of authority.

           EXISTING LAW  :



          1)Establishes, pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act  
            (SDWA), the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SDWSRF),  
            which provides states with a financing mechanism to ensure  
            safe drinking water to the public.

          2)Requires DPH, in administering SDWA programs, to fund  
            improvements and expansions of small community water systems,  
            and to encourage the consolidation of small community water  
            systems that serve disadvantaged communities in instances  
            where consolidation will help the affected agencies and the  
            state to improve the quality and reliability of water  
            delivered and reduce the cost of drinking water.








                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page 2


           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill expanded the eligibility  
          for grants and loans from the SDWSRF by allowing consolidated  
          applications.  This bill permitted multiple water systems to  
          apply for funding in a single application and allowed a single  
          agency to apply for funds to treat water systems outside of  
          their jurisdiction.   

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, this bill would result in unknown cost pressures,  
          potentially in the millions of dollars, to the SDWSRF for  
          increased applications for grants.

           COMMENTS  :  

           Need for the bill  .  According to the author, this bill is  
          designed to address the need for regional solutions for  
          communities with unsafe drinking water.  Specifically, he  
          states: "Often times within a given region, there are water  
          systems representing different communities in close proximity to  
          each other.  In these instances the consolidation of a water  
          system with another nearby system has been an alternative  
          solution that has worked in areas throughout the state and is  
          recommended by state agencies (the State Water Resources Control  
          Board, Nitrate Report) because it helps increase the amount of  
          residents paying into one treatment facility rather than  
          residents of multiple communities paying for multiple  
          facilities.  This long-term solution that increases the economy  
          of scale through consolidation or regionalization is very  
          difficult and uncertain.  Unfortunately under current law, there  
          is no effective mechanism for two or more communities to apply  
          together for funding excluding many communities from funding  
          and/or creating inefficiencies at the local and state level."

           Prevalence of groundwater contamination in disadvantaged  
          communities  .  In 2008, AB 2222 (Caballero), Chapter 670,Statutes  
          of 2008, required the State Water Resources Control Board  
          (SWRCB) to submit a report to the Legislature to identify the  
          following:  communities that rely on contaminated groundwater as  
          a primary source of drinking water, the principal contaminants  
          in groundwater, and potential solutions and funding sources to  
          clean up groundwater.

          The resultant SWRCB draft report, "Communities that Rely on  
          Contaminated Groundwater", identified 2,584 community Public  








                                                                  AB 115
                                                                  Page 3

          Water Systems (PWS) in California that rely on groundwater as  
          their primarily source of drinking water.  According to this  
          report, most of the community PWS with violations of drinking  
          water standards are located in the Southern California Inland  
          Empire, the east side of San Joaquin Valley, the Salinas Valley  
          and the Santa Maria Valley.  The findings from this report and  
          the University of California, Davis study suggest that drinking  
          water contamination in California disproportionally affects  
          small, rural and low-income communities that depend mostly on  
          groundwater as their drinking water source. 

          Communities that rely on contaminated groundwater typically  
          treat their water before it is delivered and consumed.  However,  
          disadvantaged communities generally get their water from small  
          PWS that often lack the infrastructure and the financial  
          resources to remove the contaminants from the groundwater prior  
          to the water being delivered.  By contrast, communities that  
          receive their water supply from large PWS are better able to  
          cope with groundwater contamination.  Large PWS have the  
          economic means to absorb the cost associated with treatment and  
          the technical capacity to address water contamination.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)  
          319-3965 


                                                               FN: 0002776