Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards are the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. Under the act, the state board and the regional boards prescribe waste discharge requirements for the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state. Under the act, each regional board, with respect to its region, coordinates with the state board and other regional boards, with respect to water quality control matters, including the prevention and abatement of water pollution and nuisance. The act requires, upon the order of a regional board, a person who has caused or permitted, causes or permits, or threatens to cause or permit any waste to be discharged or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged into the waters of the state and creates, or threatens to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance, to clean up the waste or abate the effects of the waste, or, in the case of threatened pollution or nuisance, to take other remedial action.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the state board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health and vests with the state board specified responsibilities. The act requires the state board to adopt primary drinking water standards and maximum contaminant levels for contaminants in drinking water.

This bill would prohibit a person or entity providing replacement water, as defined, to address drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in groundwater from being deemed to have caused pollution or a nuisance, or from being liable for negligence or trespass, if certain conditions are applicable. met.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards are the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. Under the act, the state board and the regional boards prescribe waste discharge requirements for the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state. Under the act, each regional board, with respect to its region, coordinates with the state board and other regional boards, with respect to water quality control matters, including the prevention and abatement of water pollution and nuisance. The act requires, upon the order of a regional board, a person who has caused or permitted, causes or permits, or threatens to cause or permit any waste to be discharged or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged into the waters of the state and creates, or threatens to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance, to clean up the waste or abate the effects of the waste, or, in the case of threatened pollution or nuisance, to take other remedial action.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the state board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health and vests with the state board specified responsibilities. The act requires the state board to adopt primary drinking water standards and maximum contaminant levels for contaminants in drinking water.

This bill would prohibit a person or entity providing replacement water, as defined, to address drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in groundwater from being deemed to have caused pollution or a nuisance, or from being liable for negligence or trespass, if certain conditions are applicable.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards are the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. Under the act, the state board and the regional boards prescribe waste discharge requirements for the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state. Under the act, each regional board, with respect to its region, coordinates with the state board and other regional boards, with respect to water quality control matters, including the prevention and abatement of water pollution and nuisance. The act requires, upon the order of a regional board, a person who has caused or permitted, causes or permits, or threatens to cause or permit any waste to be discharged or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged into the waters of the state and creates, or threatens to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance, to clean up the waste or abate the effects of the waste, or, in the case of threatened pollution or nuisance, to take other remedial action.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the state board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health and vests with the state board specified responsibilities. The act requires the state board to adopt primary drinking water standards and maximum contaminant levels for contaminants in drinking water.

This bill would deem a person that causes or permits, or threatens to cause or permit, any waste to be discharged that contributes to the exceedance of the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in drinking water to not prohibit a person or entity providing replacement water, as defined, to address drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in groundwater from being deemed to have caused pollution or a nuisance or to not be liable nuisance, or from being liable for negligence or trespass, as specified, if the person or entity takes certain actions relating to replacement water until the maximum contaminant level for nitrate is no longer exceeded. trespass, if certain conditions are applicable.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards are the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality. Under the act, the state board and the regional boards prescribe waste discharge requirements for the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state. Under the act, each regional board, with respect to its region, coordinates with the state board and other regional boards, with respect to water quality control matters, including the prevention and abatement of water pollution and nuisance. The act requires, upon the order of a regional board, a person who has caused or permitted, causes or permits, or threatens to cause or permit any waste to be discharged or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged into the waters of the state and creates, or threatens to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance, to clean up the waste or abate the effects of the waste, or, in the case of threatened pollution or nuisance, to take other remedial action.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the state board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health and vests with the state board specified responsibilities. The act requires the state board to adopt primary drinking water standards and maximum contaminant levels for contaminants in drinking water.

This bill would deem a person that causes or permits, or threatens to cause or permit, any waste to be discharged that contributes to the exceedance of the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in drinking water to not have caused pollution or a nuisance or to not be liable for negligence or trespass, as specified, if the person or entity takes certain actions relating to replacement water until the maximum contaminant level for nitrate is no longer exceeded.

Date of Hearing: April 27, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1605

Author:(Caballero) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2017

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Maximum contaminant level: nitrate: replacement water

KEY ISSUE: Should a person or entity who has signed an agreement with the state water board to provide replacement drinking water in exChange FOR immunity from a board enforcement action, also be immune from civil liablity for nuisance, negligence, or trespass by other persons not a party to the agreement?

SYNOPSIS

This bill would provide a temporary, one-time immunity to certain agricultural owners and operators in the Salinas Basin who are signatories to the "Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement" (March 29, 2017) with the State Water Resources Control Board and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. As part of this agreement, the growers will provide replacement water to persons and communities in the Salinas Valley whose drinking water supply has unacceptably high levels of nitrates. Growers who participate in the settlement agree to provide replacement water, or take other required remedial actions; in turn, they admit no responsibility for contamination and will not be subject to enforcement actions by the state water board. This bill would give the growers further protection by providing that they shall not be liable in any civil action alleging nuisance, negligence, or trespass – the most likely civil actions that a person harmed by nitrates might bring. In order to benefit from this additional civil immunity, the growers would need to be signatories to the settlement agreement and do one of the following: provide replacement water; contribute to a mitigation fund for providing replacement water; participate in an alternative compliance project or program authorized by the state water board or regional board; or engage in any other activity as determined by the board. The application of this bill shall only apply for the duration of the March 29, 2017, agreement, and in no way shall exceed two years from the commencement date of the agreement. This bill, as introduced, was sponsored by the California Farm Bureau, which sought permanent immunity from civil liability for any grower who provided replacement water, funded replacement water, or participated in any program authorized by the state or regional water boards. However, the author has amended the bill (and will take further amendments today) that clearly limit the bill to signatories of the one-time March 29, 2017, agreement, and only for the duration of the agreement. With these amendments, the Farm Bureau is no longer sponsoring or supporting the bill. Despite these amendments, the bill is still opposed by environmental and consumer groups. The bill recently passed out the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, on the condition that certain amendments agreed to in that Committee would, for timing purposes, be formally taken in this Committee. In addition to those amendments, the author will also take an amendment in this Committee to express legislative intent that this bill is a temporary and one-time response to the unique circumstances of Salinas Valley and the March 29, 2017, agreement. However, even with these amendments, and even taking into account the temporary nature of the immunity provision, the bill nonetheless raises fundamental questions of fairness, as discussed in the analysis. The summary and analysis below reflect the bill as proposed to be amended.

SUMMARY: Grants one-time immunity from civil liability for a person or entity providing replacement water pursuant to a settlement agreement. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a person or entity providing replacement water to address drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in groundwater shall not be deemed to have caused pollution or a nuisance, public or private, to groundwater, or be liable for negligence or trespass if the person or entity is a signatory to the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement with the state board and regional board that became effective March 29, 2017, and is doing one of the following and anything else determined by the water board:
   1. Providing replacement water.
   2. Contributing to the cost of providing replacement water into a mitigation fund.
   3. Participating in an alternative compliance project or program that has been authorized by the state board or regional board in its water quality control plan.
2. Specifies that the above provisions apply for the duration of the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement that became effective March 29, 2017, but shall not exceed two years from the commencement date of the Interim Replacement Water Settlement.
3. Finds and declares that the immunity from liability provided by the above is only intended to apply to the unique needs and circumstances giving rise to the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement of March 29, 2017, for the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and is not intended to apply to any future settlement agreement between a person or entity providing replacement water and a state or regional water board.
4. Defines "replacement drinking water" to mean water that has been provided to persons or communities that meets drinking water standards, including, but not limited to, bottled water, water treated by in-home treatment units, water treated by wellhead treatment units, or surface water supplies that are provided in exchange for groundwater supplies.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and regional water quality control boards the principal state agencies with authority over matters relating to water quality and regulation of waste discharges that affect water quality. (Water Code Section 13020 et seq.)
2. Requires, upon the order of a regional water board, a person who has caused or permitted, or threatens to cause or permit, the discharge of waste into the waters of the state to clean up the waste or abate the effects of the waste, or in the case of threatened pollution or nuisance, to take other remedial actions. (Water Code Sections 13300-13308.)
3. Establishes as the policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. (Water Code Section106.3.)
4. Requires, under the California Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), drinking water to meet specified standards for contamination (maximum contaminant levels) as set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) or the State Water Board. (Health & Safety Code Section 116270 et seq.)
5. Establishes legal responsibility for a person's willful acts, including an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person. (Civil Code Section 1714.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: In 2008, the author's AB 2222 (Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) required the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB or "State Water Board") to submit a report on communities in California that must rely upon contaminated groundwater for their drinking water supply. That report was finally released in January of 2013 and identified an astonishing 683 contaminated public water systems, serving 21 million people. According to the report, drinking water contamination most often affects small, rural, and low-income communities. Although contaminated water systems were found throughout the state, the report found that, in the Salinas Valley, 58% of the groundwater is contaminated with nitrates. Caused by the application of fertilizers (both synthetic and manure) to crop lands, once in the human blood stream nitrates interfere with the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen to tissues of the body. This can cause, especially when present in the blood of pregnant women and infants, "blue baby syndrome," or methemoglobinemia. The Legislature first responded to the problem by including $500,000 in the 2014-2015 Budget Act for the Monterey County Regional Water Management Group to develop a plan to address nitrate contamination in drinking water supplies of the Salinas Valley.

On April 6, 2017, the State Water Board announced an "Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement" (effective date, March 29, 2017) between the State Water Board and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Salinas Basin Agriculture Stewardship Group, a coalition of local farm owners and operators. Over the next two years, the parties will respond to immediate needs and challenges as well as working toward permanent solutions to nitrate contamination. (California Water Boards, Press Release, April 6, 2017.) A core provision of the agreement requires the owners and operators in the Stewardship Group to finance and provide replacement water in exchange for the board's forbearance in taking certain types of enforcement actions against the growers. In short, the agreement represents a temporary settlement of the board's claims against the certain growers in the Salinas basin. (See "Recitals," in Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement, Effective date March 29, 2017, in possession of the committee.)

Extending the Settlement to Private Causes of Action is a One-Time Response: While the settlement agreement temporarily immunizes the signatories against enforcement actions by the State Water Board, this bill would additionally provide the signatories with immunity from liability for civil actions alleging negligence, nuisance, or trespass – the most likely causes of actions that a person harmed by the nitrate contamination might opt to bring. The immunity for civil liability would be limited in the following ways: (1) it will only be available to signatories of the March 29, 2017, agreement; (2) it will only apply to nitrate contamination; and (3) it will only apply to civil actions brought during the maximum two-year duration of the temporary program created by the interim settlement agreement of March 29, 2017. The author will take an amendment in this Committee expressly stating legislative intent that the civil immunity provided by this bill only applies to the unique circumstances in the Salinas Basin and the terms of this settlement agreement. The immunities granted by this bill would not apply to future settlement agreements, nor is this bill intended as a model to be used for subsequent agreements. Indeed, the bill is predicated on the understanding that this immunity represents a one-time response to the particular situation in the Salinas Valley. In order to make the temporary, one-time nature of this bill, the author will amend the bill in this Committee to clearly state legislative intent that this bill is not proposing such immunities as general framework or suggesting that the immunities proposed by this bill would be appropriate in other circumstances.

Statute of Limitations and Impact on Person's Harmed by Nitrates: This bill would eliminate the ability of Salinas Valley residents who are harmed by nitrate contamination to bring a civil action for negligence, trespass, or nuisance against any signatory of the agreement for the duration of the agreement. The bill, therefore, would not protect the signatories from actions brought prior to the agreement, nor would it prevent the signatories from being subject to civil actions filed after the agreement terminates, which could not be later than March 29, 2019. However, the Committee may wish to discuss with the author how the temporary immunity proposed by this bill will affect the applicable statute of limitations (SOL) for contaminations and resulting damages that may occur during the period of immunity. The applicable SOL will vary depending upon the nature of the cause of action. For example, the SOL for injury caused by negligence is two years (Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1). Perhaps most relevant for this bill, the SOL for any civil action for injury based on exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance is two years after the injury, or two years after the plaintiff becomes aware of, or should have become aware of, the injury and the cause of injury. (Id. Section 240.8.) If the action is based on trespass upon or injury to real property, the SOL is three years. (Id. Section 338 (b).) Therefore, the Committee may wish to ask the author to amend the bill to clarify that if an action accrues during the period of immunity granted by this bill, then the applicable SOL will be tolled until the end of that period.

Is it fair to deny a cause of action to a third party who is not a party to an agreement? Finally, it is worth stressing the point that it is highly unusual for an agreement between two parties to affect the rights of a third person who is not a party to the agreement. To be sure, under this bill, the immunity from liability is not created by the agreement, per se, but by the Legislature. Nonetheless, a person's right to seek damages for nitrate contamination will be determined by whether or not the person or entity that caused the contamination had signed an agreement with the state and regional water board. Should the fact that a polluter reaches an agreement with the water board that immunizes the polluter from board enforcement actions mean that any other person harmed by the polluter loses, even if only temporarily, the right to seek redress through a civil action? In short, the author argues that this bill is necessary in order to encourage farm owners and operators to sign on to the agreement and start providing much needed replacement water (or contribute to the cost of providing replacement water). The state and regional water boards, in other words, apparently concluded that this need was great enough for the boards to forgo their right to take enforcement actions against the signatories. But it does not follow that persons harmed by nitrate contamination would make the same calculation and forgo their rights to bring an action.

Is this bill necessary given that the agreement is already in place? Although the State Water Board has apparently not weighed in on this bill, it apparently believes that the March 29, 2017, settlement agreement is self-executing and does not require any enabling legislation. According to the author, this bill is necessary to "facilitate" greater and timelier participation by growers and landowners. However, members of the Salinas Basin Agricultural Stewardship Group are already participating, and they have already agreed to provide replacement drinking water and take other remedial actions required by the agreement. Presumably, the author believes that more growers might be inclined to belatedly sign on to the agreement because of the immunity provided by this bill and, in order to receive this immunity, they would be required to take additional steps, including contributing to a mitigation fund. The author also suggests that the immunity is necessary because some growers may be reluctant to sign on to the agreement for fear that it will create the impression that to do so will be an admission of wrongdoing. However, the recitals of the agreement clearly state the participants "deny any responsibility or liability for Nitrate Contamination Claims." Settlement claims typically include such disclaimers. Furthermore, if this were the basis for the signatories' fear of liability, the author could easily amend this bill so that it would reiterate that the settlement cannot be used as evidence of a signatory’s liability, in lieu of the bill’s current language.

In sum, it is not clear that this bill is necessary in order to encourage participation in the settlement, and the settlement already makes it clear that participation is not tantamount to an admission of responsibility.

Proposed Author Amendments: The author will take the following amendments today in Committee.

• Amend subdivision (a) of Section 13366.5, on page 2, lines 13-23, and page 3, lines 1-7, as follows:

13366.5. (a) A person or entity providing replacement water in accordance with this chapter to address drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in groundwater shall not be deemed to have caused pollution or a nuisance, public or private, to groundwater under Part 3 (commencing with Section 3479) of Division 4 of the Civil Code or this division, be liable for negligence under Section 1714 of the Civil Code, or be liable for trespass under common law if the person or entity is a signatory to the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement with the state board or regional water board that became effective on March 29, 2017, and is doing one of the following and anything else determined by the water board:

both all of the following apply:

(1) The person or entity participates in a state board or regional board approved activity. an activity that has been authorized by the state board or regional board pursuant to a replacement water settlement agreement and the state board or regional board retains oversight and involvement.

(2) The person or entity is subject to waste discharge requirements or a conditional waiver adopted pursuant to Section 13263 or 13269.

(3) The person or entity is a signatory to a replacement water settlement agreement with the state board or regional board.

(b) A person or entity is deemed to be participating in a state board or regional board approved an activity that has been authorized by the state board or regional board pursuant to a replacement water settlement agreement for the purposes of this section through any one of the following actions:

(1) Providing replacement water.

(2) Contributing to the cost of providing replacement water into a mitigation fund.

(3) Participating in an alternative compliance project or program that has been authorized by the state board or regional board in its water quality control plan.

• On page 3, line 19, change (c) to (b)
• On page 3, after line 21, insert a new subdivision (c) which reads as follows:

(c) The Legislature finds that the immunity from liability provided by this section is only intended to apply to the unique needs and circumstances giving rise to Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement of March 29, 2017, that applies to Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and is not intended to apply to any future settlement agreement between a person or entity providing replacement water and a state or regional water board.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, this bill will assist those who "provide alternative drinking water, participate in an alternative compliance project or program, or contribute to a fund to pay for alternative drinking water for those whose maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceeds the drinking water standard for nitrate." The author believes that some growers and landowners who are providing replacement drinking water may, by their participation, expose themselves to potential litigation or enforcement actions. By providing immunity from liability, the author believes that this measure "will facilitate greater and timelier participation by growers and landowners who fear participation being viewed as an admission that they are responsible for exceedances which could open them to future litigation or enforcement actions." The author adds that "the bill will be limited solely to signatories of a Salinas Valley Settlement Agreement entered into by the State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB], the local Monterrey County water quality agency, and local growers who were noticed with enforcement actions from SWRCB." The author stresses that the bill only applies to the "signatories, only for nitrate contamination, and only during the term of the Settlement Agreement, or while an active signatory thereto."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of consumer and environmental groups believe that this bill "creates a dangerous precedent" by curtailing the rights of persons to bring civil actions against parties who have caused nitrate contamination if those parties have signed an agreement with the water board. Opponents point out that this is "insufficient, as a solution that addresses the Water Board's needs might not address the needs of other parties." Additionally, the opponents write, "there has been no demonstrated need for this bill; there is no evidence that lawsuits of these kinds are being filed against nitrate dischargers." Opponents elaborate that settlement agreements "may not be accessible for all the community to be represented, either through procedural access or due to cost issues. While the Water Board may act on the public's behalf, local communities may not be satisfied with the end result [and they] should not have their legal rights curtailed by the Water Board's actions." Finally, opponents argue that it is premature to remove legal rights when there is no evidence that anyone is attempting to sue the signatories to the agreement or trying to use the settlement as an admission of liability.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Center for Food Safety

Consumer Attorneys of California

Environmental Justice: Coalition for Water

Sierra Club of California

Analysis Prepared by: Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Bill Quirk, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1605 (

Author:Caballero) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2017

SUBJECT: Maximum contaminant levels: nitrate: replacement water

SUMMARY: Provides legal relief for signatories participating in a state program to provide drinking water. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "replacement water" as water that has been provided to persons or communities that meets drinking water standards and may include, but is not limited to, bottled water, water treated by in-home treatment units, water treated by wellhead treatment units, or surface water supplies that are provided in exchange for groundwater supplies.
2. Exempts a person or entity who is providing replacement water to as a substitution for drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate in groundwater from civil liability for causing pollution or a nuisance, public or private, to groundwater; liability for negligence; or, liability for trespass under common law if all of the following conditions are met:
   1. The person or entity participates in an activity that has been authorized by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) pursuant to a replacement water settlement agreement and the State Water Board or Regional Water Board retains oversight and involvement;
   2. The person or entity is subject to waste discharge requirements or a conditional waiver; and,
   3. The person is a signatory to a replacement water settlement agreement with the State Water Board or Regional Water Board.
3. Considers a person or entity to be participating in an activity that has been authorized by the State Water Board or Regional Water Board pursuant to a replacement water settlement agreement if the person or entity is doing any one of the following actions:
   1. Providing replacement water;
   2. Contributing to the cost of providing replacement water into a mitigation fund; or,
   3. Participating in an alternative compliance project or program that has been authorized by the State Water Board or Regional Water Board in its water quality control plan.
4. Applies the provisions of this bill for the duration of the applicable settlement agreement.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes as the policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. (Water Code § 106.3)
2. Requires, pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and California SDWA, drinking water to meet specified standards for contamination (maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs) as set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) or the State Water Board. (Health & Safety Code § 116270, et seq.)
3. Establishes MCLs for the various forms of nitrate. (California Code of Regulations § 63341)
4. Establishes legal responsibility for a person's willful acts, including an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person. (Civil Code § 1714)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to the author,

"AB 1605 would assist those who voluntarily provide alternative drinking water, participate in an alternative compliance project or program, or contribute to a fund to pay for alternative drinking water for those whose maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceeds the drinking water standard for nitrate.

In order to address the issue, some growers and landowners have already voluntarily provided alternative drinking water, participated in an alternative compliance project or program, or contributed to a fund to pay for alternative drinking water for those whose MCL exceeds the drinking water standard for nitrate. However, their participation may expose them to potential litigation or enforcement actions. By providing liability coverage it will facilitate greater and timelier participation by growers and landowners who fear participation being viewed as an admission that they are responsible for exceedances which could open them to future litigation or enforcement actions.

AB 1605 would extend liability coverage to pollution and nuisance under the Water Code and the Civil Code, negligence under Civil Code section 1714, and common law trespass."

Human right to water: In 2012, California became the first state to enact a Human Right to Water law, AB 685 (Chapter 524, Statutes of 2012). Public policy continues to be focused on the right of every human being to have safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitation. Water supply, contaminants, costs of treatment and distribution systems, the number and nature of small public water systems (PWS), especially in disadvantaged communities, and many other factors will continue to challenge progress in addressing the Human Right to Water.

Nitrates: Nitrate is commonly used in fertilizers because plants need nitrates to live and grow. Nitrite comes from the same sources as nitrate. Once consumed, nitrate is converted into nitrite in the body. Nitrogen is applied to cropland in the form of synthetic fertilizers or as animal manure. The nitrogen in these fertilizers transforms to nitrate and is carried to groundwater by the percolation of water through the soil column, any time water from irrigation or rainfall percolates below the root zone.

The problem with nitrates is that nitrite can interfere with the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen to the tissues of the body, producing a condition called methemoglobinemia. The greatest threat is to infants, whose immature stomach environment enables conversion of nitrate to nitrite, which is then absorbed into the blood stream. The effects of nitrite are often referred to as the "blue baby syndrome" because their bodies are not absorbing enough oxygen. High nitrate levels may also affect the oxygen-carrying ability of the blood of pregnant women.

Legal limits on nitrates: The current state MCLs for nitrates were adopted by the California Department of Health Services in 1994 based on the US EPA's MCLs promulgated in 1991.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established its public health goals (PHGs) for nitrate and nitrite in 1997. The PHGs, based on methemoglobinemia in infants, are 45 parts per million (ppm) for nitrate (equivalent to 10 ppm nitrate-nitrogen), 1 ppm for nitrite-nitrogen and 10 ppm for joint nitrate/nitrite (expressed as nitrogen) in drinking water. The PHGs are the same as the drinking water MCLs. Typically PHGs inform the development of MCLs. In this case, the MCL predated the PHG.

Causes of nitrate contamination: High concentrations of nitrate in groundwater are primarily caused by human activities, including fertilizer application (synthetic and manure), animal operations, industrial sources (wastewater treatment and food processing facilities), and septic systems. Agricultural fertilizers and animal wastes applied to cropland are by far the largest regional sources of nitrate in groundwater, although other sources can be locally important.

Where is nitrate contamination?: Nitrate in drinking water is widespread in numerous areas of the state. PWSs, because they are regulated by the State Water Board (unlike private wells), are required to analyze drinking water sources for nitrates and report the results to the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water. Among regulated contaminants detected at levels greater than their MCLs in California, nitrates rank high.

A 2012 University of California at Davis (UC Davis) report, "Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water," indicated that about 2.6 million people in the four-county Tulare Lake Basin and the Monterey County portion of the Salinas Valley rely on groundwater for drinking water, including those in some of the poorest communities in California. The report found that nitrate contamination is increasing and currently poses public health concerns for about 254,000 people in the study area.

Assembly Bill 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) required the State Water Board to submit to the Legislature a report that identified, among other things, communities that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. The resultant report, "Communities That Rely on a Contaminated Groundwater Source For Drinking Water," which was released in January 2013, identified 682 community PWSs that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. These community water systems serve nearly 21 million people.

According to this report, most of the community PWSs 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 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.

In the Salinas Valley, 58% of raw groundwater has been found to be contaminated with nitrates, along with other contaminants including arsenic. Nitrate levels in the groundwater are particularly high south of Salinas, with levels as high as 690 ppm.

The Legislature recognized the need to address the nitrates in this region and included $500,000 in the 2014-15 Budget Act for the Monterey County Regional Water Management Group to develop an integrated plan to address drinking water and wastewater needs of the disadvantaged communities in the Salinas Valley with a specific focus on nitrate contamination in drinking water. That project is ongoing.

An additional two million Californians rely on groundwater from either a private domestic well or a smaller groundwater-reliant system that is not regulated by the State. Most of these residents lack an assessment of their water because they are not required to test its quality.

Costs for nitrate cleanup: The 2012 UC Davis nitrate report calculated that up to $36 million per year is needed for safe drinking water solutions to address nitrate contamination. The report elaborated that, "Costs for safe drinking water solutions to nitrate contamination in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley are roughly $20 and $36 million per year for the short- and long-term solutions, respectively. About $17 to $34 million per year will be needed to provide safe drinking water for 85 identified community public and state small water systems in the study area that exceed the nitrate drink­ing water MCL (serving an estimated 220,000 people). The annualized cost of providing nitrate-compliant drinking water to an estimated 10,000 affected rural households (34,000 people) using private domestic wells or local small water systems is estimated to be at least $2.5 million for point-of-use treatment for drinking use only. The total cost for alternative solutions translates to $80 to $142 per affected person per year, $5 to $9 per irrigated acre per year, or $100 to $180 per ton of fertilizer nitrogen applied in these groundwater basins."

Nitrate conundrum: Nitrate contamination is a long-recognized historic problem, and pinning responsibility for the historic contributions on the appropriate responsible parties is challenging. Because water flows, nitrates can move from one water table to another, and investigating the point source for the pollution, over time, and over changes in landowners and fertilizer uses, is very complicated. There have been numerous reports recommending solutions and legislative efforts to codify those and other ideas, but solutions are expensive, political, and controversial. AB 1605 is proposing one solution to protect California growers and is intended to shield the participants who willingly want to work out a solution to provide clean drinking water from legal constraints.

State Water Board settlement with Salinas Valley growers: On April 6, 2017, the State Water Board announced a temporary program to produce a replacement drinking water plan for Salinas Valley residents whose groundwater supplies are contaminated with unsafe levels of nitrate. The program will be organized and funded by the members of the Salinas Basin Agricultural Stewardship Group, a coalition of local agricultural owners and operators, and it will run for up to two years while the parties work toward permanent solutions to respond to the challenges of nitrate accumulation in the Salinas basin groundwater. The temporary program, also known as the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement (Agreement), covers small water systems and some domestic wells used by about 850 residents in the rural area.

The State Water Board’s Office of Enforcement and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board are suspending their current replacement water enforcement actions against parties that join the stewardship group for as long as two years while this new Agreement is instituted. Landowners who wish to become a member of the stewardship group are still able to join. Furthermore, the goal of the Agreement is for the Salinas Basin Agricultural Stewardship Group and State Water Board to work cooperatively towards the development and implementation of a funding mechanism and solutions for the provision of long-term replacement water.

Goals of this bill: The Salinas Basin Agricultural Stewardship Group and its members deny any responsibility or liability for the nitrate contamination claims, but have been afforded the opportunity by the State Water Board to provide replacement drinking water to certain systems and to individual wells impacted by nitrate levels above the MCL, on the terms and conditions provided by the Agreement.

The goal of AB 1605 is to provide relief from third party lawsuits to encourage growers to come to the table and sign onto the Agreement.

The Committee may wish to amend the bill to clarify that the legal immunity provided by the bill is limited to the growers who are signatories to this specific Agreement.

It is important to note that legislation is not necessary to effectuate the terms of the Agreement.

Arguments in support: Valley Ag Water Coalition asserts that AB 1605 is a narrowly-written bill that addresses nitrate contamination of groundwater. AB 1605 would provide that whenever specified persons provide replacement water that meets or exceeds primary drinking water standards that they will not be subject to liability for negligence or trespass.

Arguments in opposition: The Center for Food Safety argues that the bill would "Shield polluters from liability for the effects of their pollution, rendering meaningless limits and waste discharge requirements set by the State Water Board. Further, they state that the bill simultaneously strips thousands of Californians of their legal rights to protect themselves, including those protected by statute."

Sierra Club California argues that as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) will require agencies to address contamination issues, removing the ability for local agencies to sue may limit enforcement abilities for agencies under SGMA, and will make their jobs that much harder.

Technical amendments: The Committee may wish to amend the bill to specifically reference the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement as follows:

HSC § 13366.5. (a) A person or entity providing replacement water in accordance with this chapter to address drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level for nitrate in groundwater shall not be deemed to have caused pollution or a nuisance, public or private, to groundwater under Part 3 (commencing with Section 3479) of Division 4 of the Civil Code or this division, be liable for negligence under Section 1714 of the Civil Code, or be liable for trespass under common law if all of the following apply:

(1) The person or entity participates in an activity that has been authorized by the state board or regional board pursuant to a replacement water settlement agreement and the state board or regional board retains oversight and involvement.

(2) The person or entity is subject to waste discharge requirements or a conditional waiver adopted pursuant to Section 13263 or 13269.

(3) (1) The person or entity is a signatory to a replacement water settlement agreement the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement with the state board or regional board that became effective on March 29, 2017 and is doing one of the following actions, including, but not limited to:

(b) A person or entity is deemed to be participating in an activity that has been authorized by the state board or regional board pursuant to a replacement water settlement agreement for the purposes of this section through any one of the following actions:

(1) (A) Providing replacement water.

(2) (B) Contributing to the cost of providing replacement water into a mitigation fund.

(3) (C) Participating in an alternative compliance project or program that has been authorized by the state board or regional board in its water quality control plan.

(c) (b) This section applies for the duration of the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement that became effective on March 29, 2017, but shall not exceed two years from the commencement date of the Interim Replacement Water Settlement Agreement.

Double referral: Should AB 1605 be approved by the Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Almond Alliance of California

Association of California Egg Farmers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Grain & Feed Association

California Pear Growers Association

California Seed Association

Salinas Basin Agricultural Stewardship Group, LLC

Valley Ag Water Coalition

Opposition

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Center for Food Safety

Consumer Attorneys of California

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Natural Resources Defense Counsel

Sierra Club California

The Otter Project

Analysis Prepared by: Paige Brokaw / E.S. & T.M. /

Date of Hearing: April 4, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Bill Quirk, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1605 (

Author:Caballero) – As Amended Ver:March 28, 2017

SUBJECT: Maximum contaminant level: nitrate: replacement water

SUMMARY: Provides legal relief for non-compliance with California safe drinking water standards. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "replacement water" as water that has been provided to persons or communities that meets drinking water standards and may include, but is not limited to, bottled water, water treated by in-home treatment units, water treated by wellhead treatment units, or surface water supplies that are provided in exchange for groundwater supplies.
2. Exempt a person or entity, who is providing replacement water as a substitution for drinking water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate in groundwater from civil liability for causing pollution or a nuisance, public or private, to groundwater; liability for negligence; or, liability for trespass under common law if both of the following conditions are met:
   1. The person or entity participates in a State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) approved activity, as defined below; and,
   2. The person or entity is subject to waste discharge requirements or a conditional waiver.
3. Considers a person or entity to be participating in a State Water Board or Regional Water Board approved activity through any one of the following actions:
   1. Providing replacement water;
   2. Contributing to the cost of providing replacement water into a mitigation fund; or,
   3. Participating in an alternative compliance project or program that has been authorized by the State Water Board or Regional Water Board in its water quality control plan.
4. Sunsets these provisions as they apply to a person or entity once the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate in groundwater is no longer exceeded.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes, as the policy of the state, that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. (Water Code § 106.3)
2. Requires, pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and California SDWA, drinking water to meet specified standards for contamination (maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs) as set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) or the State Water Board. (H&S § 116270, et seq.)
3. Establishes MCLs for the various forms of nitrite. (California Code of Regulations § 63341)
4. Establishes legal responsibility for a person's willful acts, including an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person. (Civil Code § 1714)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: Need for the bill: According to the author, "AB 1605 would assist those who voluntarily provide alternative drinking water, participate in an alternative compliance project or program, or contribute to a fund to pay for alternative drinking water for those whose maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceeds the drinking water standard for nitrate.

In order to address the issue, some growers and landowners have already voluntarily provided alternative drinking water, participated in an alternative compliance project or program, or contributed to a fund to pay for alternative drinking water for those whose MCL exceeds the drinking water standard for nitrate. However, their participation may expose them to potential litigation or enforcement actions. By providing liability coverage it will facilitate greater and timelier participation by growers and landowners who fear participation being viewed as an admission that they are responsible for exceedances which could open them to future litigation or enforcement actions.

AB 1605 would extend liability coverage to pollution and nuisance under the Water Code and the Civil Code, negligence under Civil Code section 1714, and common law trespass."

Human right to water: In 2012, California became the first state to enact a Human Right to Water law, AB 685 (Chapter 524, Statutes of 2012). Public policy continues to be focused on the right of every human being to have safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitation. Water supply, contaminants, costs of treatment and distribution systems, the number and nature of small public water systems (PWS), especially in disadvantaged communities, and many other factors will continue to challenge progress in addressing the Human Right to Water.

Nitrates: Nitrate is commonly used in fertilizers because plants need nitrates to live and grow. Nitrite comes from the same sources as nitrate. Once consumed, nitrate is converted into nitrite in the body. Nitrogen is applied to cropland in the form of synthetic fertilizers or as animal manure. The nitrogen in these fertilizers transforms to nitrate and is carried to groundwater by the percolation of water through the soil column, anytime water from irrigation or rainfall percolates below the root zone.

The problem with nitrates is that nitrite can interfere with the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen to the tissues of the body, producing a condition called methemoglobinemia. The greatest threat is to infants, whose immature stomach environment enables conversion of nitrate to nitrite, which is then absorbed into the blood stream. The effects of nitrite are often referred to as the "blue baby syndrome" because their bodies are not absorbing enough oxygen. High nitrate levels may also affect the oxygen-carrying ability of the blood of pregnant women.

Legal limits on nitrates: The current state MCLs for nitrates were adopted by the California Department of Health Services in 1994 based on the US EPA's MCLs promulgated in 1991.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established its public health goals (PHGs) for nitrate and nitrite in 1997. The PHGs, based on methemoglobinemia in infants, are 45 parts per million (ppm) for nitrate (equivalent to 10 ppm nitrate-nitrogen), 1 ppm for nitrite-nitrogen and 10 ppm for joint nitrate/nitrite (expressed as nitrogen) in drinking water. The PHGs are the same as the drinking water MCLs. Typically PHGs inform the development of MCLs. In this case, the MCL predated the PHG.

Causes of nitrate contamination: High concentrations of nitrate in groundwater are primarily caused by human activities, including fertilizer application (synthetic and manure), animal operations, industrial sources (wastewater treatment and food processing facilities), and septic systems. Agricultural fertilizers and animal wastes applied to cropland are by far the largest regional sources of nitrate in groundwater, although other sources can be locally important.

Where is nitrate contamination? Nitrate in drinking water is widespread in numerous areas of the state. PWSs, because they are regulated by the State Water Board (unlike private wells), are required to analyze drinking water sources for nitrates and report the results to the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water. Among regulated contaminants detected at levels greater than their MCLs in California, nitrates rank high.

A 2012 University of California at Davis (UC Davis) report, "Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water," indicated that about 2.6 million people in the four-county Tulare Lake Basin and the Monterey County portion of the Salinas Valley rely on groundwater for drinking water, including those in some of the poorest communities in California. The report found that nitrate contamination is increasing and currently poses public health concerns for about 254,000 people in the study area.

Assembly Bill 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) required the State Water Board to submit to the Legislature a report that identified, among other things, communities that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. The resultant report, "Communities That Rely on a Contaminated Groundwater Source For Drinking Water," which was released in January 2013, identified 682 community PWSs that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. These community water systems serve nearly 21 million people.

According to this report, most of the community PWSs 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 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.

In the Salinas Valley, 58% of raw groundwater has been found to be contaminated with nitrates, along with other contaminants including arsenic. Nitrate levels in the groundwater are particularly high south of Salinas, as high as 690 ppm.

The Legislature recognized the need to address the nitrates in this region and included $500,000 in the 2014-15 Budget Act for the Monterey County Regional Water Management Group to develop an integrated plan to address drinking water and wastewater needs of the disadvantaged communities in the Salinas Valley with a specific focus on nitrate contamination in drinking water. That project is ongoing.

An additional two million Californians rely on groundwater from either a private domestic well or a smaller groundwater-reliant system that is not regulated by the State. Most of these residents lack an assessment of their water because they are not required to test its quality.

Costs for nitrate cleanup: The 2012 UC Davis nitrate report calculated that up to $36 million per year is needed for safe drinking water solutions to address nitrate contamination. The report elaborated that, "Costs for safe drinking water solutions to nitrate contamination in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley are roughly $20 and $36 million per year for the short- and long-term solutions, respectively. About $17 to $34 million per year will be needed to provide safe drinking water for 85 identified community public and state small water systems in the study area that exceed the nitrate drink­ing water MCL (serving an estimated 220,000 people). The annualized cost of providing nitrate-compliant drinking water to an estimated 10,000 affected rural households (34,000 people) using private domestic wells or local small water systems is estimated to be at least $2.5 million for point-of-use treatment for drinking use only. The total cost for alternative solutions translates to $80 to $142 per affected person per year, $5 to $9 per irrigated acre per year, or $100 to $180 per ton of fertilizer nitrogen applied in these groundwater basins."

Nitrate conundrum: Nitrate contamination is a long-recognized historic problem, and pinning responsibility for the historic contributions on the appropriate responsible parties is challenging. Because water flows, nitrates can move from one water table to another, and investigating the point source for the pollution, over time, and over changes in landowners and fertilizer uses, is very complicated. There have been numerous reports recommending solutions and legislative efforts to codify those and other ideas, but solutions are expensive, political, and controversial. AB 1605 is proposing one solution to protect California growers and is intended to shield the participants who willingly want to work out a solution to provide clean drinking water from legal constraints.

The value of liability: Parties responsible for contamination in exceedance of the MCL are legally required to address the contamination and bring the water into compliance with state and federal drinking water standards. Without legal liability, there is little incentive for compliance and no recourse for noncompliance.

AB 1605 proposes to exempt a person or entity that is in exceedance of the nitrate MCL from nuisance laws, negligence, and trespass as long as the person does one of three things (discussed in detail below).

According to the author, the measure "Is not to protect those who are willfully and negligently applying nitrogen in excess and polluting the groundwater. Rather, the protection is for those who are applying nitrogen fertilizers, a nutrient required for plant growth, utilizing best management practices recommended by university researchers and the best available science. Notwithstanding these good actions, if nitrates move past the root zone and into groundwater, this could be considered "pollution" under the Water Code. The concern is that third party groups or neighboring landowners who now have contaminated groundwater under their property (which would be an "injury") could use Civil Code section 1714 as a cause of action against the farmer by saying the application of nitrogen fertilizer was a "willful act" and/or was in "want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property.""

Providing the specified legal immunity for a polluter eliminates all state regulation and oversight, precludes third party lawsuits, and essentially muffles the voices of those impacted by the pollution and anyone else with a stake in the quality of drinking water.

Given the historic poor compliance with the nitrate MCL and the contrast and complication that provides to AB 685 compliance to provide clean water to all Californians, exempting polluters from liability seems counter to the state's interest in pursuing the Human Right to Water.

Options for legal protection: AB 1605 would allow a person or entity to enjoy those legal protections if s/he participates in a State Water Board or Regional Water Board approved activity, and if s/he is subject to waste discharge requirements or a conditional waiver.

Participation in an approved activity is ill-defined in the bill and may be insufficient for relieving a party of civil liability. The bill states that participation counts by either providing replacement water; contributing to the cost of providing replacement water into a mitigation fund; or, participating in an alternative compliance project or program that has been authorized by the State Water Board or Regional Water Board in its water quality control plan.

The first option, providing replacement water, is defined as "bottled water, water treated by in-home treatment units, water treated by wellhead treatment units, or surface water supplies that are provided in exchange for groundwater supplies." Supplying bottled water, without any parameters on how long that water is provided – and indefinitely would be an option the way this bill is written – would be insufferable. Surviving on bottled water for all consumption needs, including drinking, cooking, cleaning dishes, tooth brushing, etc., should not be acceptable for compliance.

As it relates to the provision of water treatment technologies, the bill does not state whether the costs for installation, or ongoing maintenance and operations (O&M), would be paid for by the person that caused the pollution. Many small communities cannot afford safe drinking water treatment and supply actions, and many do not have the technical or financial wherewithal to do O&M on water treatment units. A person or entity responsible for nitrate exceedances could provide a water treatment device that then saddles the resident or community with untenable costs and without drinking water if the treatment device cannot be operated.

The second option is "contribute to the cost of providing replacement water into a mitigation fund." Absent any detail on what constitutes a "contribution," a person could contribute less than what is commensurate to provide safe and clean drinking water to the community members adversely impacted by the contamination. It is also not clear how these funds will be set up, prioritized and distributed based on need. Without any legal recourse, there would, under the current bill, be no way to require that adequate funds be contributed.

Lastly, regulatory programs may not be strong enough to address the problem in time, and could leave people with undrinkable water while compliance takes years.

Arguments in support: The California Farm Bureau states, "In order to address the [nitrate] issue, growers and landowners have already voluntarily provided alternative drinking water, participated in an alternative compliance project or program, or contributed to a fund to pay for alternative drinking water for those whose MCL exceeds the drinking water standard for nitrate. However, their participation exposes them to potential litigation or enforcement actions. By providing liability coverage it will facilitate greater participation by growers and landowners who fear participation being viewed as an admission that they are responsible for exceedances which could open them to future litigation or enforcement actions."

Arguments in opposition: The Center for Food Safety argues that the bill would "Shield polluters from liability for the effects of their pollution, rendering meaningless limits and waste discharge requirements set by the State Water Board. Further, they state that the bill simultaneously strips thousands of Californians of their legal rights to protect themselves, including those protected by statute."

Sierra Club California argues that as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) will require agencies to address contamination issues, removing the ability for local agencies to sue may limit enforcement abilities for agencies under SGMA, and will make their jobs that much harder.

Double referral: Should AB 1605 be approved by the Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Association of California Egg Farmers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Farm Bureau Federation

California Grain & Feed Association

California Pear Growers Association

California Seed Association

Opposition

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California League of Conservation Voters

Center for Food Safety

Consumer Attorneys of California

Environmental Justice Coalition for Water

Natural Resources Defense Counsel

Sierra Club California

Analysis Prepared by: Paige Brokaw / E.S. & T.M. /