BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1527
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AB 1527 (Perea) - As Amended: April 9, 2014
SUBJECT : Public water systems: drinking water.
SUMMARY : Establishes new requirements on the Department of
Public Health (CDPH) when administering programs to fund
improvements of small community water systems, including a
requirement to review and consider specified documents and
recommendations made by the affected local agency formation
commission (LAFCO). Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature to encourage
LAFCOs to focus on the consolidation, merger, or extension of
public water systems, especially those located in
disadvantaged communities, by seeking financial assistance.
2)Makes the following changes to the requirements that the CDPH,
when administering Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) programs to
fund improvements and expansions of small community water
systems, must follow:
a) Requires CDPH to promote service delivery alternatives
that improve water supply efficiency and affordability,
including, but not limited to, the consolidation of
governmental agencies, consolidation of water systems, and
the extension of services to disadvantaged communities
where service delivery options will help affected agencies,
communities, and the state to meet the goals of improved
water quality, improved water reliability, and a reduction
of the cost of drinking water.
b) Requires, instead of authorizes, funding for feasibility
studies performed prior to a construction project to
include studies of service delivery alternatives that
improve efficiency and affordability of capital
improvements and service delivery, if at least one of the
potentially affected agencies serves a disadvantaged
community, unless CDPH makes a written determination that
the service delivery alternatives are not feasible.
c) Requires CDPH, in making the feasibility determination,
AB 1527
Page 2
to do all of the following:
i) Review and consider the affected LAFCO's special
studies of government agencies, sphere of influence
studies, and service reviews completed within the
previous five calendar years;
ii) Consult with the executive officer of the affected
LAFCO to determine whether any circumstances have changed
since the studies were completed or if there is any
additional information that would assist CDPH in its
determination; and,
iii) Review and consider the conclusions and
recommendations of other local and regional studies
designed to develop and identify regional solutions for
drinking water delivery.
d) Requires CDPH, if an alternative service delivery option
will improve efficiency and affordability of infrastructure
and service delivery, to fund construction projects that
include the alternative service delivery option, unless
CDPH makes a written determination that that is not
feasible. Deletes the provision authorizing CDPH to give
priority to funding construction projects that involve the
physical restructuring of two or more community water
systems, if at least one is a small community water system
that serves a disadvantaged community.
3)Provides that if an applicant submits an application that
includes a service delivery alternative that will improve
efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service
delivery, the applicant need not be a small community water
system and CDPH may increase the priority of the application.
4)Requires the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to manage and
award Proposition 84 financial assistance to a city, county,
LAFCO, special district, nonprofit organization, or entities
in a joint powers agreement for the preparation, planning, and
implementation of a public water system consolidation, merger,
or extension of services project for the purposes of promoting
water conservation.
5)Requires the SGC to give priority to funding projects proposed
by a disadvantaged community.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 1527
Page 3
1)Pursuant to the federal SDWA, authorizes the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set standards for
drinking water quality and to oversee the states, localities,
and water suppliers who implement those standards.
2)Pursuant to the California SDWA (Health and Safety Code (HSC)
� 116275 et seq.), requires CDPH to regulate drinking water
and to enforce the federal SDWA and other regulations.
3)Requires CDPH, in administering SDWA programs to fund
improvements and expansions of small community water systems,
to do all of the following:
a) Give priority to funding projects in disadvantaged
communities;
b) 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 water quality and reliability and reduce
drinking water costs;
c) Allow funding for feasibility studies performed prior to
a construction project to include studies of the
feasibility of consolidating two or more community water
systems, at least one of which is a small community water
system that serves a disadvantaged community; and,
d) In instances where it is shown that small community
water system consolidation will further specified goals,
give priority to funding construction projects that involve
the physical restructuring of two or more community water
systems, at least one of which is a small community water
system that serves a disadvantaged community, into a
single, consolidated system.
4)Provides that regional solutions to water contamination
problems are often more effective, efficient, and economical
than solutions designed to address solely the problems of a
single small public water system, and it is in the interest of
the people of the State of California to encourage the
consolidation of the management and the facilities of small
water systems to enable those systems to better address their
water contamination problems.
AB 1527
Page 4
5)Provides, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality
and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond
Act of 2006 (Proposition 84), as approved by the voters,
funding for safe drinking water, water quality and supply,
flood control, natural resource protection, and park
improvements.
6)Requires LAFCOs to comprehensively review all of the agencies
that provide the identified service or services within the
designated geographic area and authorizes LAFCOs to assess
various alternatives for improving efficiency and
affordability of infrastructure and service delivery within
and contiguous to the sphere of influence, including, but not
limited to, the consolidation of governmental agencies.
7)Authorizes LAFCOs, when conducting a service review, to
include a review of whether the agencies under review,
including any public water system, are in compliance with the
California SDWA.
8)Establishes the SGC and requires the SGC to identify and
review activities and funding programs of member state
agencies that may be coordinated to improve air and water
quality, improve natural resource protection, increase the
availability of affordable housing, improve transportation,
meet the goals of the California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006, encourage sustainable land use planning, and
revitalize urban and community centers in a sustainable
manner. Requires the SGC to manage and award grants and loans
to support the planning and development of sustainable
communities.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
Need for the bill . According to the author's office, "Many
Californians cannot access funding to address their drinking
water problems because they (a) rely on private wells with fewer
than 15 connections, (b) live in disadvantaged communities that
simply do not have the technical and managerial resources to
seek funding for drinking water infrastructure (c) cannot afford
the costs of treated water. One of the best ways to provide
safe, clean, affordable drinking water delivery to small,
disadvantaged communities who rely on contaminated drinking
AB 1527
Page 5
water is to consolidate their water system with another district
or extend services from another district. One advantage of
consolidating or extending water delivery services is that it
increases economies of scale, making water infrastructure more
affordable for ratepayers. Fortunately, many of these
communities are close to other communities that have similar
water quality concerns or have the capacity to serve them with
drinking water though service extension. More and more, local
agencies, including LAFCOs, are identifying how and where
consolidations and service extensions may offer the best
solution to drinking water problems, especially in disadvantaged
communities. These studies and reports to identify solutions
are good, however the state agency responsible for funding many
of these projects, CDPH, is not required to include or consider
the significant work that has been performed by LAFCOs. The AB
1527 would connect the work locals have conducted with how the
state funds projects. Requiring CDPH to review and consider
LAFCO's recommendations will avoid missed opportunities to
provide Californians with safe, clean, and affordable drinking
water."
Recent state drinking water policy : In 2012, the Legislature
and Governor Brown recognized the principle that all people have
a right to safe drinking water by enacting AB 685 (Eng). This
state policy declares that every human being has the right to
clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human
consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. While in
California the majority of residents receive drinking water that
meets public health standards, recent studies have shown that
many disadvantaged and rural communities have not had, and
continue not to have access to safe, accessible, and affordable
drinking water.
Prevalence of contaminated drinking water sources : The January
2013, the SWRCB report "Communities that Rely on Contaminated
Groundwater," identified 682 community public water systems
(PWSs) that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source
of drinking water. These water systems serve nearly 21 milling
people. The SWRCB report also revealed that 265 community PWSs
that rely on contaminated groundwater and serve a little over
two million people had received at least one drinking water
quality violation within the last CDPH compliance cycle. The
findings from this report and a January 2012, University of
California at Davis study, "Addressing Nitrate in California's
Drinking Water," suggest that drinking water contamination in
AB 1527
Page 6
California disproportionally affects small, rural, and
low-income communities that depend mostly on groundwater as
their drinking water source.
CDPH consolidation requirements : According to US EPA,
restructuring can be an effective means to help small water
systems achieve and maintain technical, managerial, and
financial capacity, and to reduce the oversight and resources
that states need to devote to these systems.
The goal of consolidation and regional projects was recognized
from the inception of the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (SDWSRF) (SB 1307, Statutes of 1997), which is the state
program to implement the federal funding program, when the
Legislature declared that it is in the interest of the people to
encourage the consolidation of the management and the facilities
of small water systems. To promote consolidation, CDPH
established the Consolidation Incentive Program, which provides
an incentive to encourage larger systems to consolidate nearby
noncompliant systems. Typically, CDPH only invites drinking
water systems that are out of compliance with drinking water
standards to submit applications for SDWSRF funding. However,
through the consolidation incentive process, lower-ranked
projects that don't usually receive SDWSRF invitations can
become eligible for SDWSRF funding. By agreeing to consolidate
a neighboring noncompliant system, CDPH will re-rank a
low-ranked project into a fundable category.
In order to provide further support and direction for CDPH's
consolidation efforts, AB 783 (Arambula), Chapter 614, Statutes
of 2007, required CDPH to prioritize funding of water projects
in disadvantaged communities and directs CDPH to encourage,
provide funds for studies on, and prioritize funding for
projects that consolidate small public water systems in certain
situations.
AB 1527 replaces AB 783's language regarding prioritization for
small community water systems. Existing law directs CDPH to
give priority to funding projects that "encourage the
consolidation of small community water systems that serve
disadvantaged communities;"
AB 1527 replaces that language with "promote service delivery
alternatives that improve efficiency and affordability of
infrastructure and service delivery?" The bill also requires
funding for feasibility studies performed prior to a
AB 1527
Page 7
construction project to include studies of service delivery
alternatives that improve efficiency and affordability of
capital improvements and service delivery, instead of
authorizing the funding to include studies of the feasibility of
consolidating two or more community water systems, as current
law allows.
Strategic Growth Council (SGC) requirements : SB 732
(Steinberg), Chapter 729, Statutes of 2008, created the SCG, a
cabinet level committee, within the provisions of Proposition
84. The SCG is tasked with coordinating the activities of
member state agencies to provide, fund, and distribute data and
information to local governments and regional agencies that will
assist in developing and planning sustainable communities and to
manage and award grants and loans to support the planning and
development of sustainable communities.
This bill requires the SGC to manage and award Proposition 84
financial assistance to a city, county, LAFCO, special district,
nonprofit organization, or entities in a joint powers agreement,
for the preparation, planning, and implementation of a public
water system consolidation, merger, or extension of services
project for the purposes of promoting water conservation and
requires the SGC to give priority to funding projects proposed
by a disadvantaged community.
Arguments in support : Sierra Club California writes that,
"There are hundreds of thousands of Californians who are
deprived of the most basic human needs, clean and affordable
water? This bill would help promote the consolidation of water
systems and infrastructure expansion that could help small and
disadvantaged communities clean up their drinking water."
Arguments in opposition : The California Special Districts
Association argues that the intent language in the bill should
be amended so as not to "support consolidation for
consolidation's sake;" the bill should be amended to "ensure
this legislation does not further delay existing applications in
process;" and, the bill should be amended to address some of the
"very real obstacles" that entities face when attempting to
achieve consolidation.
Related previous legislation :
1)AB 2238 (Perea, 2012). Would have required DPH to consider
AB 1527
Page 8
specified information from the appropriate LAFCO when
processing an application for SDWSRF funding, but was
subsequently amended to address emergency funding from the
Emergency Clean Water Grant Fund. The earlier versions of AB
2238 were substantially simlar to the current provisions of AB
1527. AB 2238 failed passage in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
2)AB 115 (Perea), Chapter 630, Statues of 2013. Expands the
eligibility for planning grants from the 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.
3)AB 983 (Perea), Chapter 515, Statutes of 2011. Made several
changes to the laws governing the SDWSRF, including allowing
certain disadvantaged communities to be eligible for grants up
to 100% of project costs.
4)SB 244 (Wolk), Chapter 513, Statutes of 2011. Requires
LAFCOs, in determining the sphere of influence of each local
agency, to additionally consider, for a city or special
district that provides public facilities or services related
to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire
protection, the present and probable need for those public
facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within the existing sphere of influence.
Double referral : This bill was heard by the Assembly Committee
on Local Government on
pril 23, 2014, and passed on a 6-2 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Sierra Club California
Opposition
California Special Districts Association
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
AB 1527
Page 9