BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE AGRICULTURE & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Senator Michael J. Machado, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1908 HEARING: 6/1/04
AUTHOR: Canciamilla FISCAL: No
VERSION: 4/12/04 CONSULTANT: Dennis
O'Connor
Recycled water.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Under existing law, a publicly owned utility is prohibited from
providing a "service similar to" the service that a county water
district provides for, on, or to any land within the boundaries
of the district that is subject to the lien of a general
obligation indebtedness.
Separately, under the Public Utilities Code, privately owned
water utilities are protected from duplication of service by a
public water utility.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would allow a public agency that recycles water to
serve that water within the boundaries of a county water
district. Specifically, it:
Makes legislative findings as to the importance of recycling
water and using the recycled water as an additional supply.
Defines the service of recycled water as not a "service
similar to" the service of potable, raw, or untreated water.
States that this bill does not alter any rights, remedies, or
obligations under the Public Utilities Code "duplication of
service" statutes.
COMMENTS
1.Is Recycled Water A "Service Similar To" The Service Of
Potable, Raw, Or Untreated Water? This is the $64,000
question.
Previous legislative actions treated recycled water different
from potable, raw, or untreated water, thereby suggesting
recycled water might not be a "service similar to" the service
of potable, raw, or untreated water. For example, the Health
and Safety Code places numerous restrictions on the use of
recycled water.
AB 1908 -- Page 2
At the same time, the Legislature has encouraged the expanded
use of recycled water in lieu of potable water supplies. For
example, the Water Recycling Law finds that the use of
recycled water constitutes the development of "new basic water
supplies."
It is possible, given current trends, that while supplying
recycled water today might not be a service similar to the
service of potable, raw, or untreated water, that in the not
too distant future the distinction might become much less
clear. If that is the case, this bill might not have much of
a shelf life.
2.Could Remove Obstacles To Greater Use. Supporters argue that
in its 2003 report, the Recycled Water Taskforce highlighted
the need to identify and eliminate unnecessary barriers to
maximizing water recycling. They assert that this bill would
remove one of the barriers to increasing the use of recycled
water.
3.Eliminates Protections For Water Suppliers? Opponents contend
that this bill conflicts with the provisions of existing
Public Utilities Code provisions - provisions that protect
privately owned water utilities from duplication of service by
a public water utility . However, this bill has an explicit
provision stating that this bill does not alter any rights,
remedies, or obligations under the Public Utilities Code
"duplication of service" statutes. Moreover, this bill
applies only to a publicly owned utility which might provide a
"service similar to" the service a county water district
provides.
4.May be Moot. This bill was originally designed to resolve a
conflict between the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and the
Contra Costa Water District. However, in a letter dated April
19, 2004, the two districts jointly wrote the author that they
were working cooperatively on a general agreement, which
establishes a process for planning and construction additional
water recycling projects in the region. In light of the
status of their discussions, they requested that the author
consider not to proceed with this bill.
PRIOR ACTIONS
Assembly Floor 61-5
Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife10-2
AB 1908 -- Page 3
SUPPORT
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
East Bay Municipal Utility District
OPPOSITION
Association of California Water Agencies
California Water Association