BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair
BILL NO: AB 145
AUTHOR: Perea and Rendon
AMENDED: June 18, 2013
HEARING DATE: June 26, 2013
CONSULTANT: Moreno
SUBJECT : State Water Resources Control Board: drinking water.
SUMMARY : Transfers, from the Department of Public Health to the
State Water Resources Control Board, all of the authority,
duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction for
the purposes of the California Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Existing law:
1.Requires, under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
the federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set
standards for drinking water quality and oversee the states,
localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.
2.Establishes, under the California Safe Drinking Water Act
(CSDWA), the Drinking Water Program within the Department of
Public Health (DPH) to regulate public drinking water systems
under delegated authority from the US EPA.
3.Establishes the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(SDWSR Fund) to provide grants or revolving fund loans for the
design and construction of projects for public water systems
that will enable suppliers to meet safe drinking water
standards. Requires DPH to administer the SDWSR Fund.
This bill:
1.Transfers, from DPH to the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Water Board) all of the authority, duties, powers,
purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction for the purposes
of the CSDWA and the SDWSR Fund. Requires the Division of
Drinking Water Quality of the State Water Board to carry out
those functions.
2.Prohibits this bill from being construed to impair the
authority of a local health officer (LHO) to enforce this
chapter or a county's election not to enforce this chapter, as
Continued---
AB 145 | Page 2
specified.
3.Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) to, in consultation with the California Health and
Human Services Agency, prepare a project initiation document
for the transfer of the state drinking water program.
4.Requires the project initiation document to be completed by
April 1, 2014, and provided to the Legislature, as specified,
with copies to be provided to the Joint Budget Committee, the
Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials, the Assembly Committee on Health, the Assembly
Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife, the Senate Committee
on Environmental Quality, and the Senate Committee on Health.
Requires the project initiation document to be included in the
May Revision of the 201415 fiscal year budget submitted to the
Legislature.
5.Requires this bill to be implemented during the 201415 fiscal
year.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there are unknown administrative costs for
transferring the program, likely in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, which are potentially offset by future efficiencies.
PRIOR VOTES :
Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife: 9- 2
Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials:5- 2
Assembly Appropriations: 16- 1
Assembly Floor: 45- 24
Senate Environmental Quality: 7- 0
COMMENTS :
1.Author's statement. Last year Governor Brown signed into law
AB 685, establishing that every human has the right to safe,
clean, affordable, and accessible water. AB 685 was a
monumental step in California water governance but according
to a recent report from the State Water Resources Control
Board (Water Board), over 2 million Californians still do not
have access to safe drinking water. California has two
primary agencies that oversee water quality- the Water Board
and the Department of Public Health (DPH). In order for
California to provide drinking water to everyone, the state
needs to consolidate its water quality programs under one
roof. The challenges facing communities' drinking water needs
AB 145 | Page
3
are many times the same or related to the issues they face in
groundwater protection and wastewater services. Having two
Agencies responsible for water quality policy leads to
miscommunication and duplicative, or even worse, contrary
policies on how best to address water quality problems in
California. The State's Drinking Water Program was originally
placed under the Health Agency because the main concern then
was to prevent contamination and treat for biologic pathogens.
Today, California is primarily struggling with environmental
contamination in source water where comprehensive, regional
solutions need to be employed that incorporate prevention,
remediation and treatment as part of one plan. DPH does not
have the staff or expertise to develop and implement policy
related to remediation of contamination and is not equipped to
adequately implement comprehensive policy to address
environmental contaminants from source to tap. At the federal
level, both clean water and drinking water programs are
administered by the US EPA. In California, Cal EPA has
several programs that protect the health of both humans and
the environment conjunctively such as the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, who sets the public
health goals for drinking water that DPH then uses to create
the Maximum Contaminant Level. As drinking water resources
become more complex and limited, a holistic approach at
looking at water will be needed for the state to produce
comprehensive solutions for all Californians.
2.CDPH non-compliance with the SDWA. On April 19, 2013, US EPA
issued a notice to DPH for non-compliance with the
requirements of the SDWA, its implementing regulations, and
the terms and conditions of SDWSR Fund grant agreements funded
by US EPA for fiscal years 2009-11. US EPA determined that
DPH has not timely and efficiently committed and expended the
funds in SDWSR Fund, nor employed adequate financial resources
to operate SDWSR Fund in a sound financial manner, in
violation of the terms and conditions of the grant agreements.
The notice stated that California has the largest
unliquidated obligation in the nation.
The letter of non-compliance from US EPA was a result of
multiple communications by US EPA notifying DPH that its
administration of SDWSR Fund did not meet SDWA requirements.
In US EPA's annual Program Evaluation Report, conducted in
April 2012, US EPA concluded that California was out of
compliance in the following areas:
AB 145 | Page 4
a. Annual report - Missing program detail and
information;
b. Timely and Expeditious Use of Funds - Insufficient
information to determine accurate fund utilization
values, and untimely and insufficient expenditure of
federal funds;
c. Financial Management - Unable to verify and
reconcile set aside draws; and,
d. Binding Commitments - Inconsistent tracking and
achievement of binding commitment requirement.
According to US EPA, DPH had until June 24, 2013 to submit a
Corrective Action Plan (CAP). If the state fails to meet US
EPA's requirements, US EPA may suspend payment to the SDWSR
Fund. Additionally, US EPA can take other enforcement actions
such as withholding further grant funds, wholly or partly
suspending current awards, or wholly or partly terminating
current awards.
3.DPH response. In a cover letter to DPH's CAP dated June 24,
2013, the director stated that there would be a distribution
of $84 million by the end of June 2013 to water projects and
that in the following two fiscal years, there will be an
additional $600 million dispersed, putting DPH on track to
meet the targets set by the US EPA. DPH's CAP identified five
areas that it was committed to improve in:
a. Full implementation of the cash flow model developed in
collaboration with the US EPA;
b. Funding agreements with water systems, including
disbursement schedules based on project milestones;
c. A planned assessment of the project priority list
processes;
d. The assignment of five regional funding coordinators and
an additional attorney; and,
e. Programmatic changes to provide direction and
accountability necessary to implement the CAP.
The CAP also highlighted DPH's projected outcomes, including
executing binding commitments for 95 percent of all available
SRF funds by the end of June 2013, meeting or exceeding the US
EPA disbursement goals, and a reduction in the federal ULO
amount of $160 million, ahead of the target set by US EPA.
4.Double referral. This bill was heard in the Senate
AB 145 | Page
5
Environmental Quality Committee on June 12, 2013, and passed
with a 7-0 vote.
5.Support. According to supporters, "We work in and for,
disadvantaged communities in California, many who have lacked
safe and reliable drinking water for numerous years and are
regulated by the DPH. DPH's inability to help these
communities has made it clear that the current administration
of DWP by the DPH is a barrier to achieving safe drinking
water. SWRCB is the appropriate unit of State government to
oversee all the State's activities regarding water quality,
including those currently performed by DPH. SWRCB has
expertise in water quality and could quickly and efficiently
take on the additional responsibility. SWRCB already oversees
several funding programs under Prop 84 as well as the CWSRF."
6.Opposition. The Rural County Representatives of California
(RCRC) believes that the Drinking Water Program should remain
in the Department of Public Health (CDPH) as the focus of the
CDPH is public health and moving the program would be
disruptive. The focus of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) is water quality and water rights, not public
health. The RCRC is concerned that by moving the Drinking
Water Program to the SWRCB there would be huge negative
impacts to the many complex programs and initiatives currently
underway at the SWRCB.
7.Opposition Unless Amended. The Association of California Water
Agencies (ACWA) argues, "ACWA's member agencies that provide
safe drinking water to millions of customers across the state
are regulated by DPH and find that the State's Drinking Water
Program, including the permitting and inspection functions,
generally works well. We suggest that the focus needs to be
on targeted solutions that truly address the drinking water
problems that disadvantaged communities in unincorporated
areas are facing. ACWA's member agencies are concerned that
moving the entire drinking water program could negatively
affect the parts of the program that work and not solve the
problems that do exist." The California Municipal Utilities
Association argues that the transfer would create disruptions
of vital division functions; the transfer would inherently
undermine human health functions; and, the transfer could
distract SWRCB from existing high profile priorities."
AB 145 | Page 6
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Teamster Public Affairs Council
Catholic Charities- Diocese of Stockton
City of San Joaquin
Clean Water Action California
Community Water Center
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Food and Water Watch
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Natural Resource Defense Council
PAN North America
Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles
PolicyLink
Sierra Club California
United Food and Commercial Workers Western States
Council
Wholly H20
Oppose:Alameda County Water District
Bolinas Community Public Utility District
California Conference of Local Health Officers
California Public Health Association-North
Castaic Lake Water Agency
Health Officers Association of California
Independent Special Districts of Orange County
Lake County Special Districts
Mariposa Public Utility District
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Riverside Public Utilities
Rural County Representatives of California
United Water Conservation District
Weeks Drilling & Pump Co.
2 Individuals
(Unless Amended):
American Society of Civil Engineers Region 9
American Water Works Association; California-Nevada
Section
Association of California Water Agencies
Bella Vista Water District
Brown Valley Irrigation District
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Water Association
Central Basin Water Association
AB 145 | Page
7
Channel Islands Beach Community Services District
Citrus Heights Water District
City of Arcadia
City of Azusa
City of Brentwood
City of Corona
City of Lakewood
City of La Verne
City of Millbrae
City of Norwalk
City of Roseville
City of Sacramento
City of Santa Rosa
City of Tehachapi
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Turlock
Coachella Valley Water District
Contra Costa Water District
Crescenta Valley Water District
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Desert Water Agency
Dublin San Ramon Services District
East Bay Municipal Utility District
East Valley Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
El Dorado County Water Agency
El Dorado Irrigation District
El Toro Water District
Filtronics, Inc.
Friant Water Authority
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
Health Officers Association of California
Hidden Valley lake Community Services District
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
Indio Water Authority
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Kania Enterprise
Lake Hemet Municipal District
Las Virgenes Water District
Lincoln Avenue Water Company
Livermore, California
McKinleyville Community Services District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Minner & Associates
Monte Vista Water District
AB 145 | Page 8
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Newhall County Water District
Ollvenhaln Municipal Water District
Orchard Dale Water District
Otay Water District
Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Park Water Co.
Professional Engineers in California Government
Redwood Valley County Water District
Rowland Water District
Sacramento Suburban Water District
San Antonio Water Company
San Diego County Water Authority
San Gabriel County Water District
San Gabriel Valley Water Association
San Jose Water Company
San Juan Water District
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Southeast Water Coalition
Southwest California Legislative Council
Stockton East Water District
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Trussell Technologies Inc
TPH Consulting
Valley Center Municipal Water District
Vista Irrigation District
Walnut Valley Water District
West Valley Water District
Western Canal Water District
Zone 7 Water Agency
5 Individuals
-- END --