BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2049
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2049
AUTHOR: Dahle
AMENDED: Introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 18, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rachel Machi
Wagoner
SUBJECT : DRINKING WATER: POINT-OF-ENTRY AND POINT-OF-USE
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Existing law :
1) Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), requires
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. California has authority over drinking water,
delegated by US EPA.
2) Establishes the Drinking Water Program within the Department
of Public Health (DPH) to regulate public drinking water
systems.
3) Authorizes point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE)
devices for water treatment to meet drinking water standards
as specified by state and federal law.
4) Requires regulations adopted under the SDWA to include
requirements governing the POU and POE treatment by public
water systems in lieu of centralized treatment where it can
be demonstrated that centralized treatment is not immediately
economically feasible and is limited to: a) less than 200
service connections, b) use allowed under the SDWA's
implementing regulations, and c) water systems that have
submitted pre-applications with the DPH for funding to
correct the violations for which the POU/POE treatment is
provided.
AB 2049
Page 2
This bill expands the authorization to use POU/POE treatment
systems, as specified above, from 200 service connections to
public water systems with up to 500 service connections.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author "AB 2049 will to
expedite the delivery of safe, clean drinking water in
communities served by smaller water systems. The bill will
allow water systems with less than 500 service connections to
use point-of-entry and point-of-use treatment devices to
provide clean drinking water when centralized treatment is
not immediately economically feasible, such devices are
allowed under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
water system has applied to the Department of Public Health
for funding to correct the violations."
2) Drinking Water Contamination in California . According to
DPH, 98% of the population of California served by community
water systems receives drinking water that meets all primary
drinking water standards. However, for the nearly one
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. US
EPA 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
AB 2049
Page 3
centralized treatment could be devised for these small
disadvantaged communities.
3) 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. A POE treatment
device is any unit installed that changes the water quality
of all potable water entering a building. POE and 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 and POU treatment devices are installed to meet
drinking water standards in place of centralized treatment.
4) Limitations of POU/POE Treatment . While POU/POE treatment
has advanced in recent years it cannot provide equivalent
treatment to centralized treatment.
a) Multiple Contaminants . POU/POE treatment technologies
can provide sufficient treatment for one specific
contaminant. However, they are not designed to treat the
complex myriad contaminants that may be in drinking water.
So while it may address the primary contaminant of
concern, other contaminants may not be sufficiently
removed. Additionally, contaminants in water affect the
water quality individually and cumulatively. POU/POE
treatment systems are not designed to address the
cumulative impacts to water quality.
b) Adjustment for Quality . Water quality levels are not
static. Centralized treatment systems are regularly
monitored and the treatment is adjusted as changes in the
water quality and levels of the range of contaminants
change. POU/POE treatment systems cannot be adjusted as
the water quality changes, so their efficacy may vary.
c) POU Does Not Treat All Water . Because POU treatment
systems attach to the faucet, their treatment is limited
to water that comes through that faucet. Showers, washing
machines and other faucets, such as those in bathrooms,
will not be treated. POU treatment devices are not
appropriate in households where the treated contaminant
presents health risks when inhaled, such as volatile
AB 2049
Page 4
organic compounds (VOCs) or hexavalent chromium, that may
be released into the air and inhaled, especially in warm
water like a shower because in those households only the
drinking water would be treated. With many contaminants
that could pose an additional risk, especially in homes
with children, these systems are meant as a very temporary
stopgap measure until centralized water treatment can be
provided.
d) Lack of Accountability and Monitoring . Centralized
treatment facilities are regularly inspected and monitored
to ensure sufficient maintenance by either DPH or the
county environmental health jurisdictions. There is no
built in inspection, monitoring or maintenance when water
systems use POU/POE treatment. Ensuring proper working
order to POU/POE devices is crucial. If filters are not
changed when needed, some systems can build up
contaminants in the system and release them into the water
in high concentrations.
Who is expected to make sure that the systems are always
working properly? Is it practical to expect that water
systems will regularly monitor and repair each of the
POU/POE devices?
5) Two Classes of Drinking Water Quality . Improving
California's drinking water quality is crucially important.
As solutions for meeting drinking water standards to protect
public health are contemplated, it is important to ensure
that solutions that compromise standards are not used.
Expanded use of POU/POE treatment devices essentially creates
two classes for drinking water in California -- those that
get centralized treatment that is monitored and accountable
for meeting drinking water standards and those that get a
lower standard of quality and accountability.
6) What are the Fees Paying For ? Water systems are often not
government agencies, but rather privately owned for-profit
companies collecting a fee for service. Water systems
deliver drinking water that is required to meet all drinking
water standards and collect a fee for that service. What are
these systems doing with fee revenues while delivering water
that is undrinkable and unusable and does not meet state and
AB 2049
Page 5
federal water quality standards? Perhaps rather than
downgrading treatment standards, water systems should be
evaluated that are failing to meet their obligation, and
resources directed to on-going maintenance, repair upgrades,
and capital outlay.
7) The University of California at Davis (UC Davis) Nitrate
Study . Recently UC Davis released a report on the extensive
nitrate contamination in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas
Valley groundwater that highlights the extent of the
contamination, the primary sources, public health and
financial costs of cleaning up and treating groundwater for
drinking water amounting to billions of dollars of damage.
Should efforts be focused on preventing and remediating
ground and surface water contamination so that the state is
not faced with difficult decisions about weakening water
treatment standards in order for water systems to afford to
provide some level of treated drinking water? Does
authorizing measures like POU/POE create a disincentive for
taking the needed steps to address contaminated water?
8) Questions Regarding the Bill .
a) Why now ? Is there a demonstrated need to expand the
POU/POE treatment allowance? Who would be impacted by
expanding this statute?
Is it appropriate to expand this authorization, knowing
that there are water quality risks, when there has not
been successful implementation on a smaller scale and
there has not been an opportunity to evaluate the use of
this treatment technology on that smaller scale?
There has not been a demonstrated need to expand the use
of these devises that would justify the increased.
b) Who is Responsible for Maintenance, Upkeep and Repair ?
For POU/POE systems to work as designed they must be
properly maintained and filters must be promptly replaced.
Who is inspecting all of these POU/POE systems and
maintaining and replacing the filters? Who is going to be
responsible for the maintenance and replacement of all of
the filters?
AB 2049
Page 6
c) Who is Paying for the Systems, the Installation,
Maintenance, Replacement Filters and Inspections ?
Oversight of water systems is done by DPH or the county
environmental health jurisdictions. This bill does not
contemplate who would conduct and pay for these
inspections and maintenance or who would pay for the
systems and replacement filters.
d) How are contaminated filters disposed ? POU/POE systems
collect and concentrate the contaminants that they treat.
How will these filters with concentrations of arsenic or
hexavalent chromium be disposed? Is it appropriate to be
throwing several thousands of these filters full of
contaminants in the trash every few months?
e) Where is This Needed ? What communities within
California are in need of this expansion and what is the
appropriate number of service connections to allow POU/POE
treatment devices as a temporary solution while the water
system develops a permanent centralized treatment
solution?
f) Why is Use of POU/POE Necessary? Why are the water
systems within these communities unable to meet the water
quality standard and why do they not have the financial
capability and reserve to do the necessary upgrades and
maintenance to the system?
g) What happens if communities expand without having
necessary infrastructure? How can we prevent communities
that currently do not have sufficient centralized
treatment from expanding without building the appropriate
centralized treatment infrastructure?
h) How does the state ensure long-term centralized
treatment? How can water systems that use POU/POE
treatment as a temporary solution ensure that the
necessary capital outlay to build the sufficient
centralized treatment system is available and have the
necessary financial support to maintain and upgrade that
system as necessary?
AB 2049
Page 7
9) Previous Legislation .
AB 119 (Assembly Committee On Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials, Chapter 403, Statutes of 2013) removes the
statutory requirement for the DPH to independently certify
POU and POE water treatment devices and instead requires DPH
to verify that the specified devices have been certified by
third party certification organizations and publish specified
information on the DPH website and requires manufacturers to
pay a regulatory fee to cover DPH's administration and
enforcement costs.
SB 962 (Anderson, 2012) would have increased from 200 to 500,
the limit on the number of service connections served by a
small community water system that the DPH may permit to use
POU/POE water treatment in place of centralized water
treatment. SB 962 was held by the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 2056 (Chesbro, 2011) would have expanded the authorization
to use POU treatment as a permanent solution for public water
systems with up to 20 service connections by requiring DPH to
allow continued use of POU treatment beyond the 3-year
maximum. If DPH requires a demonstration of economic
feasibility for public water systems serving 20 or less
residential connections, the applicant may use "available
census tract data to demonstrate median household income."
AB 2056 failed passage in the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee on a vote of 2-3.
AB 2515 (V. Manuel P�rez, Chapter 601 Statutes of 2010)
requires DPH to adopt emergency regulations governing the use
of point-of-entry and point-of-use water treatment systems,
and authorizes DPH to award grants for the installation of
POU/POE water treatment systems.
AB 1541 (Assembly Committee on Health, Chapter 542, Statutes
of 2009) authorizes POU/POE devices for water treatment to
meet drinking water standards where it can be demonstrated
that centralized water treatment is not immediately
economically feasible, as specified: 1) for water systems with
less than 200 service connections; 2) usage allowed under the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act and its related regulations;
AB 2049
Page 8
3) the water systems have submitted pre-applications with DPH
for funding to correct the violations for which the
point-of-use treatment is provided.
10)Transfer of the Drinking Water Program from DPH to the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) . The Legislature is
currently, in the 2014-2015 Budget considering transferring
the entire Drinking Water Program from DPH to SWRCB. In
doing a reorganization of this program there will be many
complications in transferring duties, staff, budgets and each
individual statutory mandate from one agency to another. Any
legislation that alters this statute while the two agencies
work to transfer the Drinking Water Program add additional
complications and may put in jeopardy the important
responsibilities that are already in place.
Consideration of any additional changes to the Drinking Water
Program should be held until after the successful and
completed transfer of the program.
11)Possible amendments.
If the committee believes that there is a need to expand the
use of POU/POE treatment in California, then any legislation
should :
a) Require DPH to conduct a full audit of the water system
to examine why the water system has been unable to do the
necessary upgrades and maintenance in order to comply with
water quality standards.
b) Require the water system to develop and submit a
capital outlay plan for building a centralized treatment
system within five years.
c) Prohibit the water system from adding new service
connections until such time that appropriate centralized
treatment is provided.
SOURCE : Author
SUPPORT : Western Growers Association
AB 2049
Page 9
OPPOSITION : None on file