Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would, except as provided, authorize the regional board to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the regional board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the regional board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that provides a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would, except as provided, authorize the regional board to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the regional board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the regional board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that provides a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would, except as provided, authorize the regional board to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the regional board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the regional board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that provides a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would would, except as provided, authorize the regional board to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the regional board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the regional board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that provides a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would authorize the regional board to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the regional board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the regional board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that provides a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

This bill would authorize the state regional board to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the state regional board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the state regional board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that provides a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the state regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

This bill would authorize the state board to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the state board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the state board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the state board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

This bill would authorize the state board to order consolidation with a receiving sewer system for, or extension of the provision of sewer service to, by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the state board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the state board to take certain actions before ordering consolidation or extension of the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems and would additionally require the state board to find that at least 75% of the households in the community potentially subject to extension or consolidation of service have agreed to receive sewage service from the receiving sewer system. systems. The bill would authorize the state board to develop and adopt a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the state board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

Existing law declares it to be the established 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.

Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties. The act authorizes the state board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. The act authorizes the state board to order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation. The act requires the state board, before ordering consolidation or extension of service, to, among other things, consult with specified entities, hold at least one public meeting, and make certain findings. The act authorizes the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of consolidation.

This bill would also authorize the state board to set timeline and performance measures to facilitate completion of extension of service of drinking water.

This bill would authorize the state board to order consolidation with a receiving sewer system for, or extension of sewer service to, a disadvantaged community under specified circumstances. The bill would require the state board to take certain actions before ordering consolidation or extension of service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems and would additionally require the state board to find that at least 75% of the households in the community potentially subject to extension or consolidation of service have agreed to receive sewage service from the receiving sewer system.

This bill would expand the definition of disadvantaged community, for purposes of these consolidation and extension of service provisions, to also include a defined disadvantaged community that is in an incorporated area but not served by a public water system or wastewater system.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1215

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Stone, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NOES: Gaines

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/25/18

AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hertzberg, Lara

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hernandez, Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SENATE FLOOR: 30-8, 5/29/18

AYES: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Cannella, De León, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Newman, Nguyen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener

NOES: Anderson, Bates, Fuller, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-23, 8/30/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (regional boards) to order the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that has inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems.

Assembly Amendments

recast the provisions of the bill to authorize the regional boards rather than the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to order the provision of sewer service, clarify that "provision of sewer service" includes the collection or treatment of sewage in order to ensure that all portions of a sanitary sewer system are covered, and make other minor changes.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law, under the Clean Water Act (CWA):

1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. (Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.)
4. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements.
   1. In California, the SWRCB is the delegate agency responsible for the NPDES permit program.

Existing state law:

1. Establishes, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), the SWRCB and regional boards to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Provides, under the California Safe Drinking Water Act, for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the SWRCB various responsibilities and duties, including authorization to:
   1. Order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water, as specified.
   2. Order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation, as specified.

This bill authorizes the regional boards to order the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that has inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "onsite sewage treatment system" as including, but not limited to, a septic tank, cesspool, leach field, and seepage pit.
2. Requires the SWRCB to make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service.
3. Allows property owners of an affected residence to opt out of the provision of sewer service for a maximum of five years if their onsite sewage treatment system was installed within 10 years of the issuance of the order and it is not an inadequate onsite sewage treatment system.

Background

1. Wastewater and Septic in California. The mission of SWRCB is to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s Water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.

Wastewater treatment in California centers on the collection, conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal of wastewater. This process is conducted largely by public agencies, though there are also privatized systems in places where a treatment plant is not feasible.

In California, wastewater treatment takes place through 100,000 miles of sanitary sewers and at more than 900 wastewater treatment plants that manage the roughly 4 billion gallons of wastewater generated in the state each day.

However, there remain parts of California that do not have access to a centralized wastewater system where septic systems treat and dispose of wastewater from residential, commercial or industrial facilities in primarily rural areas that are not served by community sewers. Septic systems are underground wastewater treatment structures, commonly used in rural areas without centralized sewer systems. They use a combination of nature and proven technology to treat wastewater from household plumbing produced by bathrooms, kitchen drains, and laundry.

A typical septic system consists of a septic tank and a drainfield, or soil absorption field. The septic tank digests organic matter and separates floatable matter (e.g., oils and grease) and solids from the wastewater. Soil-based systems discharge the liquid (known as effluent) from the septic tank into a series of perforated pipes buried in a leach field, leaching chambers, or other special units designed to slowly release the effluent into the soil or surface water.

Alternative systems use pumps or gravity to help septic tank effluent trickle through sand, organic matter (e.g., peat and sawdust), constructed wetlands, or other media to remove or neutralize pollutants like disease-causing pathogens, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other contaminants. Some alternative systems are designed to evaporate wastewater or disinfect it before it is discharged to the soil or surface waters.

Porter-Cologne requires SWRCB and the regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to regulate discharges (including those from septic systems) to ensure long-term water quality protection. The following information is designed to help you understand the Water Board’s regulations pertaining to septic systems and management of those systems. Onsite wastewater systems refer to septic systems as well as other alternative types of onsite treatment (that are not septic). For more information visit our Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS Policy) page.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. “Wastewater quality and drinking water quality are inextricably linked. The fact is that families in California – in 2018- suffer with inadequate services because of poor government decisions made ages ago. It’s time to correct this to protect public health and our drinking water supplies.”

According to the sponsors, “Inadequate and failing onsite wastewater treatment systems fail to treat and dispose of wastewater before it is discharged into the environment in hundreds of communities throughout the state. Untreated wastewater contaminates soils and drinking water sources, exposing people to nitrates and harmful pathogens including fecal coliform and salmonella. The threat of untreated wastewater is greatest in the state’s lower income, unincorporated communities and mobile home communities but the threat exists even in incorporated areas still unserved by municipal wastewater service.”

The sponsors argue that “many of the communities most threatened by inadequate wastewater service are within a mile, a few hundred yards, or even yards from existing municipal wastewater service lines. While the solution is so close, it still eludes hundreds of communities and tens of thousands of families as some cities and special districts remain reluctant to extend their services to neighboring homes and communities.”

The sponsors state that “SB 1215 builds on SB 88 which granted the State [Water Resources Control] Board authority to incentivize and mandate regional drinking water solutions to provide a tool to address our state’s drinking water crisis. This bill would use a similar structure: it would complement available monetary incentives for consolidation by granting the state board the authority to require a municipal wastewater service provider to extend wastewater service to a community reliant on inadequate onsite wastewater treatment systems.”

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015) authorized the SWRCB to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system within a disadvantaged community, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, SWRCB would incur unknown ongoing costs possibly over $10 million to provide financial assistance to pay for provision of sewer service.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/30/18)

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Environmental Justice Alliance

California Institute for Rural Studies

Carbon Cycle Institute

Center for Climate Change and Health

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods

Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Clean Water Action

Community Water Center

Diocese of Fresno

Environment California

Environmental Health Coalition

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Rural Communities Assistance Corp.

Sierra Business Council

Sierra Club California

The 5 Gyres Institute

Trust for Public Land

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/18)

California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions

California Association of Sanitation Agencies

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-23, 8/30/18

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Dahle, Flora, Gallagher, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Fong, Kamlager-Dove, Medina

Prepared by:

8/30/18 20:54:30

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1215

Author:(Hertzberg)

As Amended Ver:August 24, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) to order the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that has inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "onsite sewage treatment system" as including, but not limited to, a septic tank, cesspool, leach field, and seepage pit.
2. Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service.
3. Allows property owners of an affected residence to opt out of the provision of sewer service for a maximum of five years if their onsite sewage treatment system was installed within 10 years of the issuance of the order and it is not an inadequate onsite sewage treatment system.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, State Water Board would incur unknown ongoing costs possibly over $10 million to provide financial assistance to pay for provision of sewer service

COMMENTS:

Recent amendments: Clarify that "provision of sewer service" includes the collection or treatment of sewage in order to ensure that all portions of a sanitary sewer system are covered and make other minor changes.

Sewer systems: Most cities, towns, and surrounding areas are served by municipal wastewater systems. These centralized systems convey sewage and storm water from the service area to treatment plants, where the waters are prepared for release back into local waterbodies.

Onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS): Not all properties are connected to centralized wastewater systems. Properties in rural areas, that lie beyond city or sanitation district limits, or that pre-date surrounding municipal systems and have not been retrofitted may instead use a septic system. As of 2012, the State Water Board estimated that California has about 1.2 million septic systems in use. OWTSs typically refer to septic tanks but may also refer to leach pits and cesspools. Property owners are responsible for OWTSs maintenance, which, for septic tanks, primarily involves removing solids every few years.

When many properties use OWTSs near the same waterbody, the combined effect can degrade water quality. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and pathogens in the waste contribute to algal blooms, wildlife kills, and disease. Generally, however, a properly placed and functioning OWTS is environmentally sound.

Options when OWTSs fail in disadvantaged communities: As communities on OWTSs age and their original septic tanks begin to fail, community members must decide whether to fix or replace the system or whether to convert the community to a sewer system. For disadvantaged communities located near an existing sewer system, the last option can be an attractive source of long-term, reliable service and valuable investment in the community. Collaborations between a disadvantaged community, city, local water district, and other state and local agencies have led to septic to sewer conversion projects. For example, the community of Enchanted Heights, located in and adjacent to the City of Perris, reportedly had sewage seeping into its streets due to inadequate, aged septic systems. There, a major local effort and multimillion principle forgiveness loan from the State Water Board enabled provision of sewer service by Eastern Municipal Water District to the community. However, according to the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, the bill’s sponsor, other disadvantaged communities including Lanare Community, Tombstone Territory, and Matheny Tract have struggled to gain service.

Existing authority and new authority: The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards currently have the authority to prohibit discharges from an OWTS provided they have substantial evidence indicating that the discharges will result in a violation of water quality objectives, will impair present or future beneficial uses of water, will cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination, or will unreasonably degrade the quality of any waters of the state. However, under state law (Porter-Cologne), they generally do not have the power to say how dischargers should fix a problem. This bill grants the Regional Water Boards the authority to address actual or potential water quality problems caused by inadequate OWTSs through a specific solution: ordering provision of service via annexation or extension of service, as specified.

Septic to sewer conversion: The process this bill lays out for ordering provision of sewer service to disadvantaged communities with inadequate onsite wastewater treatment systems closely follows the model set forth in SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015. SB 88 authorized the State Water Board to, where economically feasible, order consolidation of drinking water systems in disadvantaged communities with chronic lack of adequate, safe, and reliable drinking water. The procedure for ordering provision of service in SB 1215 very closely follows the procedure developed in SB 88, but makes some changes based on lessons learned through implementation of SB 88.

Analysis Prepared by: Amy Gilson / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0004846

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1215

Author:(Hertzberg)

As Amended Ver:August 20, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) to order the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that has inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "onsite sewage treatment system" as including, but not limited to, a septic tank, cesspool, leach field, and seepage pit.
2. Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service.
3. Allows property owners of an affected residence to opt out of an order for the provision of sewer service for a maximum of five years if their onsite sewage treatment system was installed within 10 years of the issuance of the order and it is not an inadequate onsite sewage treatment system.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, State Water Board would incur administrative costs of approximately $450,000 (3 Personnel Years) per year for three years as well as unknown ongoing costs possibly over $10 million to provide financial assistance to pay for provision of sewer service and other costs to comply with the requirements of the bill.

COMMENTS:

Sewer systems: Most cities, towns, and surrounding areas are served by municipal wastewater systems. These centralized systems convey sewage and storm water from the service area to treatment plants, where the waters are prepared for release back into local waterbodies.

Onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS): Not all properties are connected to centralized wastewater systems. Properties in rural areas that lie beyond city or sanitation district limits, or that pre-date surrounding municipal systems and have not been retrofitted may instead use a septic system. As of 2012, the State Water Board estimated that California has about 1.2 million septic systems in use. OWTSs typically refer to septic tanks but may also refer to leach pits and cesspools. Property owners are responsible for OWTSs maintenance, which, for septic tanks, primarily involves removing solids every few years.

OWTSs and water quality: When many properties use OWTSs near the same waterbody, the combined effect can degrade water quality. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and pathogens in the waste contribute to algal blooms, wildlife kills, and disease. Generally, however, a properly placed and functioning OWTS is environmentally sound.

Options when OWTSs fail in disadvantaged communities: As communities on OWTSs age and their original septic tanks begin to fail, community members must decide whether to fix or replace the system or whether to convert the community to a sewer system. For disadvantaged communities located near an existing sewer system, the last option can be an attractive source of long-term, reliable service and valuable investment in the community. Collaborations between a disadvantaged community, city, local water district, and other state and local agencies have led to septic to sewer conversion projects. For example, the community of Enchanted Heights, located in the City of Perris and on it western outskirts, reportedly had sewage seeping into its streets due to inadequate, aged septic systems. There, a major local effort and multimillion principle forgiveness loan from the State Water Board enabled provision of sewer service by Eastern Municipal Water District to the community. However, according to the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, which is sponsoring this bill, other disadvantaged communities including Lanare Community, Tombstone Territory, and Matheny Tract have struggled to gain sewer service.

Existing authority and new authority: The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards currently have the authority to prohibit discharges from an OWTS provided they have substantial evidence indicating that the discharges will result in a violation of water quality objectives, will impair present or future beneficial uses of water, will cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination, or will unreasonably degrade the quality of any waters of the state. However, under state law (Porter-Cologne), the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards generally do not have the power to say how dischargers should fix a problem. This bill grants the Regional Water Boards the authority to address actual or potential water quality problems caused by inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems through a specific solution: ordering provision of service via annexation or extension of service, as specified.

Septic to sewer conversion: The process SB 1215 lays out for ordering provision of sewer service to disadvantaged communities with inadequate onsite wastewater treatment systems closely follows the model set forth in SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015). SB 88 authorized the State Water Board to, where economically feasible, order consolidation of drinking water systems in disadvantaged communities with chronic lack of adequate, safe, and reliable drinking water. The procedure for ordering provision of service in SB 1215 very closely follows the procedure developed in SB 88, but makes some changes based on lessons learned through implementation of SB 88.

Analysis Prepared by: Amy Gilson / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0004380

Date of Hearing: August 15, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1215

Author:(Hertzberg) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes a regional water board (regional board) to order the delivery of sewer service by a receiving sewer system to a disadvantaged community served by one or more inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a regional board to take certain actions before ordering the delivery of sewer service including, but not limited to:
   1. Encouraging voluntary delivery of service, which may include voluntarily annexation to a city.
   2. Considering other enforcement remedies, as specified.
   3. Consulting with, and considering input from, relevant agencies including the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board).
   4. Notifying the sewer system and affected residents who might receive slower treatment services.
   5. Holding at least one public meeting.
   6. Finding the delivery of sewer service is an effective and cost-effective means to address the inadequate onsite sewage treatment system.
   7. Providing the opportunity to submit comment by mail or electronic mail.
2. Requires, upon issuance of a regional board’s order requiring the provision of sewer service, the State Water Board to:
   1. Make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service, including, but not limited to, compensation for any capacity lost as a result of the provision of sewer service and by paying the receiving sewer system’s capacity connection fee.
   2. Ensure payment of standard local agency formation commission fees caused by the regional board's order.
      
3. Specifies that, should capacity beyond what is needed for consolidation be provided, the State Water Board retains its rights to use the additional capacity without paying additional capacity charge fees for five years, unless it releases those rights in writing.
   
4. Prohibits additional costs or fees related to consolidation, including, but not limited to, other public works costs or upgrades, from delaying the provision of sewer service.
   
5. Prohibits the receiving sewer system from increasing charges on existing customers of the receiving sewer system solely as a consequence of the provision of sewer service unless the customers receive a corresponding benefit.
   
6. Prohibits the receiving sewer system from charging rates to newly absorbed customers of the sewer system that are higher than those necessary to provide service.
   
7. Authorizes the State Water Board to develop and adopt a policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that creates a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition a regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. State Water Board administrative costs of approximately $450,000 (3 PY) per year for three years to identify communities in need of service extensions and connections, facilitate negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions, hold public meetings, and conduct implementation activities to complete the delivery of service (special fund).
2. Unknown, ongoing significant annual costs for the regional boards to order cities, counties and special districts to provide sewer service to a disadvantaged community and to comply with the requirements of the bill. The State Water Board estimates the annual costs to range between $900,000 and $1,350,000 (special fund).
   
3. Unknown major costs pressures, in the millions of dollars, and potentially over $10 million, to provide financial assistance to pay for the infrastructure needed for the provision of sewer service, to the extent negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions fail and the State Water Board orders a local entity to provide sewer service (General Fund).
   
4. Unknown reimbursable state-mandated local costs. Any state reimbursement is not likely to be significant since local service providers may charge customers for the provision of sewer connections and service, and the bill requires the State Water Board to pay for infrastructure associated with service extensions, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature for that purpose. Any other costs subject to state reimbursement would be dependent upon a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent a local service provider incurs costs and files a successful claim (General Fund).

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Not all properties are connected to centralized wastewater systems. Properties in rural areas that lie beyond city or sanitation district limits, or that pre-date surrounding municipal systems and have not been retrofitted may instead use Onsite Wastewater treatment Systems (OWTSs), which typically refers to septic tanks. Some residences, mobile home parks, and commercial establishments including restaurants use septic tanks. As of 2012, the State Water Board estimated that California has about 1.2 million septic systems in use.

Property owners are responsible for septic tank maintenance, which primarily involves removing solids every few years. However, since they do not pay to use a municipal system, monthly costs are typically lower than the costs of those who do use municipal sewer service. That changes if a septic tank requires significant repair or replacement or when a failed septic tank pollutes surrounding areas. In those cases, costs may reach tens of thousands of dollars. Furthermore, when many properties use septic tanks near the same waterbody, the combined effect can degrade water quality. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and pathogens in the waste contribute to algal blooms, wildlife kills, and disease. Generally, however, a properly placed and functioning septic system is environmentally sound.

1. Purpose. According to the author, “SB 1215 grants regional water boards, when resources are available, to order consolidation or extension of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that has inadequate sewage onsite sewage treatment."
2. Prior Legislation. SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015, authorized the State Water Board to, where economically feasible, order consolidation of water systems in disadvantaged communities with chronic lack of adequate, safe, and reliable drinking water. The procedure for ordering provision of service in SB 1215 very closely follows the procedure developed in SB 88, but makes some changes based on lessons learned through implementation of SB 88. For example, SB 1215 provides an opportunity for stakeholders to submit comments to the regional boards.

Under SB 88, the State Water Board has completed two mandatory consolidations and initiated an additional nine mandatory consolidations of 13 failing water systems to date. The State Water Board has also issued 230 informal consolidation letters indicating the State Water Board’s intent to initiate consolidation, which have led to more than 40 voluntary consolidations.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1215

Author:(Hertzberg) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUBJECT: Provision of sewer service: disadvantaged communities.

SUMMARY: Allows the regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to order provision of service to disadvantaged communities served by onsite wastewater treatment systems. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Inadequate onsite sewage treatment system” as an onsite sewage treatment system that has the reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality objectives, to impair present or future beneficial uses of water, or to cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination of waters of the state;
   2. “Affected residence” as a residence that may be subject to provision of sewer service pursuant to the program established by this bill;
   3. “Affected resident” as a resident or property owner of an affected residence;
   4. “Disadvantaged community” as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income;
   5. “Annexation” as the inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district;
   6. “Extension of service” as having the same meaning as prescribed in local agency formation commission (LAFCO) law;
   7. “Onsite sewage treatment system” as an individual disposal system, community collection and disposal systems, and alternative collection and disposal system that use subsurface disposal that is not operated by a local agency or utility regulated by the Public Utilities Commission;
   8. “Provision of sewer service” as the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community by any of the following processes:
      1. Annexation where the receiving sewer system is a special district; and,
      2. Extension of service where the receiving sewer system is a city or county.
   9. “Receiving water system” as the sewer system that provides service to a disadvantaged community pursuant to this bill; and,
   10. “Special district” as defined in LAFCO law.
2. Provides that where a disadvantaged community or residents of a disadvantaged community are served by one or more inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems, the regional board may order the provision of sewer service by a receiving sewer system to the disadvantaged community, or to all or a portion of the area within the disadvantaged community. The regional board may set timelines and performance measures to facilitate completion of the provision of sewer service.
3. Specifies that before ordering the provision of sewer service, the regional board shall do all of the following:
   1. Encourage voluntary annexation or extension of service;
   2. Consider other enforcement remedies, as specified;
   3. Consult with, and fully consider input from, the relevant LAFCO regarding the sewer service in the affected area, the recommendations for improving service in a municipal service review, and any other relevant information;
   4. Consult with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB);
   5. Consult with, and fully consider input from, the local government with land use planning authority and environmental health oversight over the affected area, particularly regarding information in the general plan;
   6. Notify the potential receiving sewer system and affected residents within the disadvantaged community, and establish a reasonable deadline of no less than six months, unless a shorter period is justified, for the potential receiving sewer system and the affected property owners to negotiate annexation, extension of service, or another means of providing adequate sewage service;
   7. During the six month negotiation period, provide technical assistance and work with the potential receiving sewer system and the affected residents to develop a financing package that benefits both the receiving sewer system and the affected residents by fully addressing the receiving sewer system’s planning and capital costs and the affected residents’ connection costs;
   8. Hold at least one public meeting at the initiation of the process in a place as close as feasible to the affected areas. The regional board shall make reasonable efforts to provide a 30-day notice of the meeting to the affected residents and all affected local government agencies and sewer service providers. The meeting shall provide representatives of the affected residents and the potential receiving sewer system an opportunity to present testimony. The meeting shall provide an opportunity for public comment.
4. Requires the regional board to provide opportunity to submit comments by mail or electronic mail during the 30-day notice period and for at least one week after the public hearing.
5. Authorizes the regional board, upon a showing of good cause, to extend the six month negotiation period at the request of the potential receiving sewer system, the affected residents, or the LAFCO with jurisdiction over the sewer system.
6. Specifies that upon the expiration of the six month negotiation period, the regional board shall do the following:
   1. Consult with the potential receiving sewer system and the affected residents; and,
   2. Review both the written comments and comments received during the public meeting.
7. Requires that, before ordering the provision of sewer service, the regional board shall find all of the following:
   1. One or more affected residences are served by an inadequate onsite sewage treatment system;
   2. Reasonable efforts to negotiate voluntary annexation or extension of service were made;
   3. The provision of sewer service is appropriate and technically and economically feasible;
   4. There is no pending LAFCO process that is likely to resolve the problem in a reasonable amount of time;
   5. The provision of sewer service is an effective and cost-effective means to address the inadequate onsite sewage treatment system; and,
   6. The capacity of the proposed interconnection needed to accomplish the provision of sewer service designed to serve the disadvantaged community, as determined by the regional board.
8. Requires the SWRCB to, upon the issuance of a regional board’s order requiring provision of sewer service, to do all of the following:
   1. As necessary and appropriate, make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service, including, but not limited to, compensation for any capacity lost as a result of the provision of sewer service, by paying the receiving sewer system’s capacity connection fee at the rate it charges others, providing additional capacity is needed as a result of the provision of sewer service, and paying legal fees;
   2. Ensure payment of standard LAFCO fees caused by the regional board’s order. Additional costs or fees related to consolidation, including, but not limited to, other public works costs or upgrades, shall not be used to delay the provision of sewer service required by the order; and,
   3. Coordinate with the appropriate LAFCO and other relevant local agencies to document the change of organization.
9. Specifies that if capacity beyond what is needed for consolidation is provided, the SWRCB shall retain its rights to use additional capacity without paying additional capacity charge fees for five years, unless it releases those rights in writing.
10. Provides that the funding is available for the general purpose of providing financial assistance for the water infrastructure needed for the provision of sewer service and does not need to be specific to each individual project.
11. Requires the SWRCB to provide appropriate financial assistance for the provision of sewer service. The SWRCB’s existing financial assistance guidelines and policies shall be the basis for the financial assistance.
12. Specifies that the receiving sewer system shall not increase charges on existing customers
    of the receiving water system solely as a consequence of the provision of sewer service, unless the customers receive a corresponding benefit.
13. Prohibits the receiving sewer system from charging rates to newly absorbed customers of the receiving system that are higher than those necessary to provide the sewage service.
14. Specifies that LAFCO law does not apply to an action taken by the SWRCB or regional board, pursuant to this bill.
15. Authorizes the SWRCB to develop and adopt policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, which provides a process by which members of a disadvantaged community may petition the regional board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Existing federal law, under the Clean Water Act:
   1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
   2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
   3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances, such as pipes or man-made ditches. (Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.)
2. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements.
   1. In California, the SWRCB is the delegate agency responsible for the NPDES permit program.
3. Existing state law:
   
4. Establishes, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne),
   the SWRCB and regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water
   for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and
   to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present
   and future generations.
   
5. Provides, under the California Safe Drinking Water Act, for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the SWRCB various responsibilities and duties, including authorization to:
   
   1. Order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water, as specified; and,
      
   2. Order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation, as specified.
6. Enacts the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, which:
   
   1. Controls how local officials change the boundaries of cities and special districts, putting LAFCOs in charge of the proceedings; and,
      
   2. Directs LAFCOs to ensure that services are effectively and efficiently delivered, and local governments can only exercise their powers and provide services where allowed
      to by LAFCO, including the formation of new cities and special districts, modifications of existing boundaries, and dissolutions of unsustainable special districts.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill contains the following:

1. SWRCB administrative costs of approximately $600,000 in 2019-20 and 2020-21, and $750,000 ongoing annually thereafter for staff to identify communities in need of service extensions and connections, facilitate negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions, hold public meetings, conduct implementation activities to complete the provision of service, and perform ongoing enforcement activities. (Waste Discharge Permit Fund)
   
2. Unknown major costs in the millions, and potentially over $10 million, to provide financial assistance to pay for the infrastructure needed for the provision of sewer service, to the extent negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions fail and the SWRCB orders a local entity to provide sewer service. (General Fund)
   
3. Unknown reimbursable mandate costs. Staff estimates that any state reimbursements
   are not likely to be significant since local service providers may charge customers for the provision of sewer connections and service, and the bill requires the SWRCB to pay for infrastructure associated with service extensions, upon appropriation of funds by the
   
   Legislature for that purpose. Any other costs subject to state reimbursement would be
   dependent upon a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent a local service provider incurs costs and files a successful claim. (General Fund)
   

COMMENTS:

1. Wastewater Treatment and Regulation. Wastewater treatment in California centers on the collection, conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal of wastewater. This process is conducted largely by public agencies, though there are also privatized systems in places where a treatment plant is not feasible. In California, wastewater treatment takes place through 100,000 miles of sanitary sewers and at more than 900 wastewater treatment plants that manage the roughly four billion gallons of wastewater generated in the state each day.

However, there remain parts of California that do not have access to a centralized wastewater system where septic systems treat and dispose of wastewater from residential, commercial, or industrial facilities in primarily rural areas that are not served by community sewers. Septic systems (also called “onsite wastewater treatment systems”) are underground wastewater treatment structures, commonly used in rural areas without centralized sewer systems. They use a combination of nature and proven technology to treat wastewater from household plumbing produced by bathrooms, kitchen drains, and laundry.

The SWRCB and the nine regional boards regulate water quality in the state. Porter-Cologne requires SWRCB and the regional boards to regulate discharges, including those from septic systems and sewer systems, to ensure long-term water quality protection.

1. Local Government Boundaries. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act creates a LAFCO in each county to control the boundaries of cities, county service areas, and most special districts. The courts often refer to LAFCOs as the Legislature’s watchdog over boundary changes. To plan for the future boundaries and service areas of the cities and special districts, a LAFCO must adopt a policy document for each city and district called a sphere
   of influence. The LAFCO’s boundary decisions must be consistent with the spheres of influence of the affected cities or districts. Spheres must be updated at least every five years.

Local governments can only exercise their powers and provide services where LAFCO allows them to: within their boundaries (which are set by LAFCO), within their spheres
of influence but outside their boundaries (with authorization by LAFCO), and outside their spheres to address a major threat to public health if the extension is consistent with LAFCO’s policies. The Legislature approved AB 402 (Dodd), Chapter 431, Statutes of 2015, which established a pilot program in Napa County and San Bernardino County that allowed the extension of services outside a local agency’s sphere of influence to support existing or planned uses under specified conditions. A local government that wants to expand its territory must ask LAFCO to annex new territory into the local government’s boundaries.

To determine spheres of influence, LAFCOs must periodically conduct a “municipal service review” (MSR) to inform their decisions. Among other topics, MSRs must analyze and make determinations about whether adequate public services are available to current and future residents in the county, and whether services could be improved by governmental reorganizations.

1. Addressing Service Deficiencies. LAFCOs, along with the planning agencies of cities and counties, are supposed to ensure that services are effectively and efficiently delivered to all communities throughout the state. Nevertheless, some communities continue to lack adequate public services, including safe drinking water and functioning wastewater systems, often due to their low income status. In some cases, these disadvantaged communities are contained within a city but lack adequate water and wastewater services. In other cases, these communities are located in unincorporated areas. These “disadvantaged unincorporated communities” can be remote and far from other communities with better public services, but at other times they are adjacent to a city, special district, or county service area that provides water or wastewater services.

In recent years, the Legislature has taken several steps to try to address some of the service problems experienced by disadvantaged unincorporated communities. SB 244 (Wolk), Chapter 513, Statutes of 2011, aimed to prevent cities from carving out disadvantaged unincorporated communities by generally prohibiting annexations of small areas to a city if a disadvantaged unincorporated community is contiguous with that area. SB 244 also required LAFCOs to include in the MSR a description of the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence and to consider the water, sewer, or fire protection needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the sphere when considering updates. Finally, SB 244 required cities and counties to review the water and fire service needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general plans. SB 244 made it easier for LAFCOs to identify boundary changes and governmental reorganizations necessary to fix water and sewer service problems faced by disadvantaged communities.

1. Senate Bill 88. Subsequent legislation, SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015, took this effort a step further by authorizing SWRCB to order
   a consolidation of neighboring drinking water systems where it is economically feasible in order to address public health threats. SB 88 established an elaborate process for consolidating water systems that requires multiple public hearings, as well as consultations with affected entities, such as the water system being subsumed, the receiving water system, domestic well owners, and the local government with land use authority over the area, and the LAFCO.

Before ordering consolidation or extension of service, SWRCB must also encourage voluntary consolidations or extension of service, consider other enforcement remedies, obtain written consent from any domestic well owner, and provide technical assistance to both systems. The SWRCB must also make a series of findings, including that:

• 1. Consolidation or extension of service is the most effective and cost-effective means to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water; and,
     
  2. The capacity of the proposed interconnection needed to accomplish the consolidation is limited to serving the current customers of the subsumed water system.

Under SB 88, SWRCB must pay the full cost of the new capacity, including replacing any capacity lost as a result of the consolidation or extension of service, providing additional capacity needed as a result of the consolidation or extension of service, and legal fees. The

SWRCB must also pay the LAFCO’s costs and fees, adequately compensate the owners
of any privately owned subsumed water system, and coordinate with the appropriate local agency formation commission and other relevant local agencies to facilitate the change
of organization or reorganization. SB 88 also prohibited the consolidated water system
from increasing charges on existing customers of the receiving water system solely as a consequence of the consolidation or extension of service, unless the customers receive a corresponding benefit. Cleanup legislation the next year added a few additional requirements to the SB 88 process, including prohibiting fees or charges on a customer of a subsumed water system from exceeding the cost of consolidating the water system with a receiving system or the extension of service to the area [SB 552 (Wolk), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2016].

To date, SWRCB has completed two mandatory consolidations and initiated an additional nine mandatory consolidations of 13 failing water systems. SWRCB has also issued 230 informal consolidation letters indicating SWRCB’s intent to initiate consolidation, which have led to over 40 voluntary consolidations.

1. Bill Summary. This bill provides that where a disadvantaged community or residents
   of a disadvantaged community are served by one or more inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems, the regional board may order the provision of sewer service by a receiving sewer system to the disadvantaged community. The regional board may set timelines and performance measures to facilitate completion of the provision of sewer service. This bill prescribes the process the regional board must follow to mandate that sewer service be provided to a disadvantaged community, including requirements to make specific findings, consult with all affected stakeholders, allow for public engagement, and provide funding and technical assistance. This bill exempts the ordered annexation or extension of sewer services from LAFCO law. The Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability is the sponsor
   of this bill.
2. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Wastewater quality and drinking water quality are inextricably linked. The fact is that families in California – in 2018 – suffer with inadequate services because of poor government decisions made ages ago. It’s time to correct this to protect public health and our drinking water supplies.”
3. Policy Considerations. The Committee may wish to consider the following:
   1. Sure, but Will it Work? Inadequate sewer service is undoubtedly a problem in California. However, some avenues already exist for dealing with this issue. With the passage of SB 244, the Legislature required study of the service deficiencies in disadvantaged unincorporated communities. LAFCOs are properly charged with reviewing these services; it is one of their core duties. LAFCOs can make recommendations about how to best fix those deficiencies, including through annexation or extension of service. SB 1215 says that this is not enough and establishes a new program for regional boards to bypass LAFCO to order annexations or extensions
      of service.
      
   2. To Annex or Not to Annex. Annexations and extensions of service are two distinct changes of organizations that create two distinct outcomes. An extension of service is when a local agency extends the provision of services to individuals that do not reside within the actual boundaries of that agency. An annexation is when the boundaries and jurisdiction are changed to include territory, giving the annexed residents full rights and
      privileges as voters. In the case of a city annexing inhabited territory, all of the services provided by the city, including, but not limited to, planning, zoning, and permitting would have to be provided to the newly annexed individuals.

There are positives and negatives to simply extending services in place of a full annexation. With an extension of service, the residents outside of the local agency’s boundaries are unable to vote in elections for board or council members. Some have likened this process to taxation without representation. Additionally, annexations are not always popular. Many residents would rather live outside of city boundaries in unincorporated county territory because laws and regulations often differ. As this bill bypasses the typical LAFCO process, which includes significant opportunity for public engagement, it may be difficult to discern if an annexation or an extension of service is more appropriate.

• 1. Clarity. SB 1215 contains a number of terms and requirements that may be difficult to implement. First, “inadequate onsite sewage treatment system” means an onsite sewage treatment system that has the reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality objectives, to impair present or future beneficial uses of water, or to cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination of waters of the state. This bill does not define the term reasonable or provide a specific process for how this determination will be made.

Further, SB 1215 requires SWRCB to fully fund the new capacity and other costs of ordering provision of service. Yet it is unclear whether funds will be available for this purpose, which entity determines costs for interconnection, and whether the fees are reasonable. Concerns have been raised that there is a substantial amount of ambiguity
in this bill’s provisions, leaving open many questions regarding implementation. Such ambiguity could lead to significant legal challenges from the entities themselves, as well as current and future ratepayers.

• 1. Technical and Clarifying Amendments. The Committee may wish to consider the following technical and clarifying amendments:
     
     1. This bill prohibits the regional board from ordering a special district to simply extend its sewer services and is limited to ordering a full annexation. The proposed amendment will give the regional board the authority to order either an extension of service or an annexation when the order involves a special district.
        
     2. This bill only applies to annexations or extensions of services outside of an agency’s boundaries, but does not address the situation where a resident already lives within the jurisdiction of an agency that provides sewer service. The proposed amendment will allow for sewer service to be provided within city, county, or special district boundaries.
        
     3. This bill refers to consolidations in multiple provisions. The term consolidation refers to the merging of two or more local agencies. However, this bill is focused on onsite sewage treatment systems that are not regulated by a local agency. The
        
        proposed amendment will strike the term consolidation and replace it with the defined term “provision of sewer service.”
        
     4. The proposed bill refers to LAFCO fees. To avoid confusion with the fees associated with providing sewer service, this amendment will instead refer to LAFCO costs.
        

1. Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that, “Inadequate and failing onsite wastewater treatment systems fail to treat and dispose of wastewater before it is discharged into the environment in hundreds of communities throughout the state. Untreated wastewater contaminates soils and drinking water sources, exposing people to nitrates and harmful pathogens including fecal coliform and salmonella. The threat of untreated wastewater is greatest in the state’s lower income, unincorporated communities and mobile home communities, but the threat exists even in incorporated areas still unserved by municipal wastewater service.

“Many of the communities most threatened by inadequate wastewater service are within a mile, a few hundred yards, or even a few yards from existing municipal wastewater service lines. While the solution is so close, it still eludes hundreds of communities and tens of thousands of families as some cities and special districts remain reluctant to extend their services to neighboring homes and communities.

“SB 1215 builds on SB 88 which granted the state board authority to incentivize and mandate regional drinking water solutions to provide a tool to address our state’s drinking water crisis. This bill would use a similar structure: it would complement available monetary incentives for consolidation by granting the state board the authority to require a municipal wastewater service provider to extend wastewater service to a community reliant on inadequate onsite wastewater treatment systems.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
   
2. Double-Referral. This bill is scheduled to be heard in the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee on June 26, 2018.
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability [SPONSOR]

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Environmental Justice Alliance

California Institute for Rural Studies

Carbon Cycle Institute

Center for Climate Change and Health

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment

Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Clean Water Action

Community Water Center

Diocese of Fresno

Environment California

Environmental Health Coalition

Plastic Pollution Coalition

RCAC

Sierra Business Council

Sierra Club California

The 5 Gyres Institute

Trust for Public Land

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Bill Quirk, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1215

Author:(Hertzberg) – As Amended Ver:June 21, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 30-8

SUBJECT: Provision of sewer service: disadvantaged communities

SUMMARY: SB 1215 would authorize the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) to order the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that has inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines "Inadequate onsite sewage treatment system" as an onsite sewage treatment system that has the reasonable potential to cause a violation for water quality objectives, to impair present or future beneficial uses of water, or to cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination of waters of the state.
2. Defines "Annexation" as the inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district.
3. Defines "Extension of service" as having the same meaning as set forth in Section 56133 of the Government Code, that is, extension of services outside a city of district’s jurisdictional boundary.
   
4. Defines "Provision of sewer service" as the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community by any of the following processes:
   1. Annexation, in cases when the receiving sewer system is a special district; or,
   2. Extension of service, in cases when the receiving sewer system is a city of county.
      
5. Authorizes a Regional Water Board to order the provision of sewer service by a receiving sewer system to a disadvantaged community served by one or more inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems.
6. Requires a Regional Water Board to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service including, but not limited to:
   1. Encouraging voluntary provision of service;
   2. Consulting with, and considering input from, relevant agencies including the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board);
   3. Notifying the potentially receiving sewer system and affected residents;
   4. Holding at least one public meeting; and,
   5. Finding that provision of sewer service is an effective and cost-effective means to address the inadequate onsite sewage treatment system.
7. Requires, upon issuance of a Regional Water Board’s order requiring the provision of sewer service, the State Water Board to:
   1. Make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service, including, but not limited to, compensation for any capacity lost as a result of the provision of sewer service and by paying the receiving sewer system’s capacity connection fee.
   2. Ensure payment of standard local agency formation commission fees caused by the Regional Water Board’s order.
      
8. Specifies that, should capacity beyond what is needed for consolidation be provided, the State Water Board retains its rights to use the additional capacity without paying additional capacity charge fees for five years, unless it releases those rights in writing.
   
9. Prohibits additional costs or fees related to consolidation, including, but not limited to, other public works costs or upgrades, from delaying the provision of sewer service.
   
10. Prohibits the receiving sewer system from increasing charges on existing customers of the receiving sewer system solely as a consequence of the provision of sewer service unless the customers receive a corresponding benefit.
    
11. Prohibits the receiving sewer system from charging rates to newly absorbed customers of the sewer system that are higher than those necessary to provide service.
    
12. Authorizes the State Water Board to develop and adopt a policy, through the adoption of a policy handbook, that creates a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition a Regional Water Board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

EXISTING LAW:

Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 United States Code (USC) § 1251 et seq.):

1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
   
2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. (33 USC § 1341)
3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. (33 USC § 1342)
4. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements. (33 USC § 1342 (b))

Under state law:

1. Establishes, pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations. (Water Code (WC) § 13000 et seq.)
   
2. Requires a Regional Water Board to prescribe requirements for any proposed, changed, or existing wastewater discharge, except discharges into a community sewer system. Specifies that requirements implementing water quality control plans protect beneficial uses of the water and the need to prevent a nuisance. (WC § 13269 et seq.)
   
3. Requires each Regional Water Board to formulate and adopt water quality control plans, or basin plans, for all areas within the region. Requires each Regional Water Board to establish water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives within the basin plans. (WC § 13240)
   
4. Authorizes a Regional Water Board, in establishing or reviewing any water quality control plan or waste discharge requirements, or in connection with any action relating to any plan or requirement authorized by law, to investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region. (WC § 13267)
   
5. Requires the State Water Board to develop regulations or standards for the permitting and operation of onsite sewage treatment systems, including requirements for systems adjacent to impaired waters, requirements for corrective action when a system fails to meet the requirements or standards, and minimum requirements for monitoring. (WC § 13291)
   
6. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to assist private property owners with existing onsite sewage treatment systems who incur significant costs as a result of the implementation of the State Water Board’s onsite sewage treatment system policy using loans under the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. (WC § 13291.5, WC § 13475)
7. Defines a disadvantaged community as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income. (WC § 79505.5)
8. Authorizes the State Water Board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system within a disadvantaged community, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. (HSC § 116682)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to the author, "Hundreds of communities throughout the state rely on inadequate septic systems or more rudimentary waste collection and treatment systems to manage both gray water and black water. Lack of adequate wastewater management results in contaminated groundwater, drinking water sources, and soils, which in turn threatens both environmental and public health. Fortunately, many communities without adequate wastewater service are within a mile of a municipal wastewater provider. One solution to inadequate onsite treatment would be connecting with the nearby wastewater service provider. In this and many other circumstances, wastewater service extensions are the best and most cost-effective means of providing reliable wastewater service. However, the state does not have the tools necessary to compel service connection. SB 1215 grants the State Water Board authority, when resources are available, to order consolidation or extension of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that has inadequate sewage onsite sewage treatment."

Sewer systems: Most cities, towns, and surrounding areas are served by municipal wastewater systems. These centralized systems convey sewage and storm water from the service area to treatment plants, where the waters are prepared for release back into local waterbodies. For example, the City of Sacramento provides wastewater service to more than 75,000 customers. The City of Sacramento collects fees from rate payers to fund the system and wastewater treatment in the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is managed by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. The boundaries of this sanitation district are drawn by Sacramento County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). (LAFCOs are countywide commissions that oversee boundary changes of cities and special districts in order to coordinate logical changes in local government boundaries and encourage efficient provision of services, such as water and sewer service.) To comply with the federal Clean Water Act and California’s implementation of this law, wastewater treatment plants must obtain a NPDES permit from the State Water Board and the water they release into local water bodies must meet the water quality criteria prescribed in the permit’s waste discharge requirements.

Onsite wastewater treatment systems: Not all properties are connected to centralized wastewater systems. Properties in rural areas that lie beyond city or sanitation district limits, or that pre-date surrounding municipal systems and have not been retrofitted may instead use Onsite Wastewater treatment Systems (OWTSs), which typically refers to septic tanks, and the two terms will be used interchangeably in this analysis. Some residences, mobile home parks, and commercial establishments including restaurants use septic tanks. As of 2012, the State Water Board estimated that California has about 1.2 million septic systems in use.

In a standard septic system, wastewater flows from the building into the first compartment of the septic tank. Solids sink to the bottom of the tank and greasy material form a scum at the top. The clear zone in between flows into the second compartment of the septic tank and, from there, leaches into an underground drain field through series of perforated pipes. Septic tanks can also incorporate a water treatment step prior to distribution in the leach field.

Property owners are responsible for septic tank maintenance, which primarily involves removing solids every few years. However, since they do not pay to use a municipal system, monthly costs are typically lower. That changes if a septic tank requires significant repair or replacement or when a failed septic tank pollutes surrounding areas. In those cases, costs may reach tens of thousands of dollars. Furthermore, when many properties use septic tanks near the same waterbody, the combined effect can degrade water quality. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and pathogens in the waste contribute to algal blooms, wildlife kills, and disease. Generally, however, a properly placed and functioning septic system is environmentally sound.

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Policy: Septic systems are regulated by the State Water Board under their OWTS policy, adopted 2012 and required by AB 885 (Jackson, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2000). Prior to the adoption of this policy, California was one of only two states that had not adopted statewide standards for the permitting and operation of OWTSs. The OWTS Policy tiers septic system requirements based on their actual or risk for negative environmental and public health impacts. At the low-risk end, pre-existing septic systems in good working order are generally covered by Tier 0 and do not see additional requirements. Tiers 1 through 3 cover functioning septic systems that are low-risk (Tiers 1 and 2) or that are located near impaired water bodies (Tier 3).

SB 1215 primarily deals with failing septic systems which would fall into Tier 4- OWTS Requiring Corrective Action. Failure modes include an OWTS that is pooling wastewater at the surface, that has wastewater backing up into plumbing fixtures, that is affecting human health, or that threatens groundwater or surface water to a degree that would make it unfit for drinking or other uses. When a septic system fails, it is subject to Tier 4 requirements and the owner is responsible for repairing it as soon as reasonably possible.

As communities on OWTSs age and their original septic tanks begin to fail, community members must decide whether to fix or replace the system or whether to convert the community to a sewer system. For disadvantaged communities located near an existing sewer system, the last option can be an attractive source of long-term, reliable service and valuable investment in the community. Collaborations between a disadvantaged community, city, local water district, and other state and local agencies have led to septic to sewer conversion projects. For example, the community of Enchanted Heights, located in the City of Perris and on it western outskirts, reportedly had sewage seeping into its streets due to inadequate, aged septic systems. There, a major local effort and multimillion principle forgiveness loan from the State Water Board enabled provision of sewer service by Eastern Municipal Water District to the community. However, according to the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, which is sponsoring this bill, other disadvantaged communities including Lanare Community, Tombstone Territory, and Matheny Tract have struggled to gain sewer service.

Existing authority and new authority: The State and Regional Water Boards have the authority to prohibit discharges from an OWTS provided they have substantial evidence indicating that the discharges will result in a violation of water quality objectives, will impair present or future beneficial uses of water, will cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination, or will unreasonably degrade the quality of any waters of the state. The policy requires connection to a public sewer instead of installation of a new or replacement OWTS where the public sewer is within 200 feet unless the connection fees and construction cost are greater than twice the total cost of the replacement OWTS. However, under Porter-Cologne, the State and Regional Water Boards generally do not have the power to say how dischargers should fix a problem. Failure to meet Tier 4 requirements is subject to further enforcement action, such as notices of violation, cleanup orders, or administrative penalties.

This bill grants the Regional Water Boards the authority to address actual or potential water quality problems caused by inadequate onsite sewage treatment systems through a specific solution: ordering provision of service via annexation or extension of service, as specified. Based on the definitions of "annexation" and "extension of service" used in the bill, SB 1215 does not seem to empower a Regional Water Board to order provision of service within city or wastewater district boundaries.

However, some of the communities intended to benefit from this legislation span incorporation and unincorporated territory or fall squarely within a water system. For example, according to the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, there are rural disadvantaged communities that rely on septic tanks that are within the historic irrigation districts of the Coachella Valley that have expanded into wastewater services as well. The author and Committee may wish to consider an amendment to grant the Regional Water Boards the authority to order additional sewer service within city, county, or district boundaries.

Fixing septic systems: SB 1215 specifically targets situations where septic system users are nearby a public waste water system and where septic to sewer conversion is economically feasible. However, it is worth reviewing what resources are available to disadvantaged residents with failing septic systems because septic to sewer conversion projects can take years to complete and, in some cases, a Regional Water Board may find that septic to sewer conversion is not feasible for economic or other reasons. To provide financial assistance to residents with failing septic systems, local agencies may apply to the State Water Board for funds from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Fund) for use in mini-loan programs. These programs would provide low interest loans to private property owners to assist with costs associated with complying with the OWTS Policy. To date, no local agencies have applied to the Fund to administer a mini-loan program. However, some districts offer their own funding programs for septic system rehabilitation.

For example, the Coachella Valley Water District advertises a 2017 septic rehabilitation program, which offers applicants up to $30,000 per septic system at existing mobile home parks or up to $15,000 per septic system at existing individual residences in disadvantaged communities to rehabilitate failing septic systems. This program is funded by a Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management Round 4 Implementation Grant secured by the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group. The purpose of this rebate program is to improve failing septic systems in communities where no public sewer infrastructure exists and septic systems are the only option for sewage disposal. In order to be eligible, applicants must not have reasonable access to public sewer infrastructure.

Septic to sewer conversion: The process SB 1215 lays out for ordering provision of sewer service to disadvantaged communities with inadequate onsite wastewater treatment systems closely follows the model set forth in SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015). SB 88 authorized the State Water Board to, where economically feasible, order consolidation of water systems in disadvantaged communities with chronic lack of adequate, safe, and reliable drinking water. The procedure for ordering provision of service in SB 1215 very closely follows the procedure developed in SB 88, but makes some changes based on lessons learned through implementation of SB 88. For example, SB 1252 provides an opportunity for stakeholders to submit comments to the Regional Water Board.

According to the Senate Government and Finance Committee analysis of SB 1215, the State Water Board has completed two mandatory consolidations and initiated an additional nine mandatory consolidations of 13 failing water systems to date. The State Water Board has also issued 230 informal consolidation letters indicating the State Water Board’s intent to initiate consolidation, which have led to more than 40 voluntary consolidations.

SB 88 is also the template used by AB 2501 (Chu, 2018), which proposes to extend the State Water Board’s authority to ordering consolidation with a receiving water system when a disadvantaged community is reliant on a failing domestic well. Similar to drinking water consolidations, SB 1215, requires the State Water Board to, as necessary and appropriate make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service. SB 1215 would provide a new process by which the Regional Water Boards could facilitate and, if necessary, order provision of sewer service to disadvantaged communities located near existing sewer systems.

Suggested amendments:

• • • • 1. Technical amendments: As noted in the Senate Government and Finance analysis of SB 1215, "consolidation is what must occur when there are two local agencies that merge." Because SB 1215 onsite wastewater treatment systems do not constitute a local agency, the author and Committee many wish to consider replacing references to "consolidation" with "provision of service."
        2. SB 1215 authorizes a Regional Water Board to provision of sewer service through two mechanisms, annexation and extension of service. Based on the definitions of "annexation" (GOV §56017) and "extension of service" (GOV § 56133) cited in SB 1215, both routes involve provision of service outside the political borders of the city, county, or special district managing the sewer system that may be expanded to a disadvantaged community. However, as discussed above, some of the disadvantaged communities that SB 1215 intends to benefit lie partly or entirely within the relevant city, county, or special district. Therefore, the author and Committee may wish to consider an amendment that would expand the definition of "provision of sewer service" to include provision with a city, county, or special district.
           
        3. SB 1215 specifies that a regional Water Board may order that a disadvantaged community be annexed to a special district (e.g. a wastewater district) and may order extension of service to a disadvantaged community from a city or county. However, there may be instances where annexation of a disadvantaged community to a city may be appropriate, for example, when most of that community is already within city limits, and it is unclear whether this would be allowed as part of the process laid out in SB 1215. Furthermore, there may be instances where extension of service from a special district is the most appropriate way to provide sewer service to a disadvantaged community.

To address the points described in (2) and (3), the author and Committee may which to consider the following amendments:

13288(h) "Provision of sewer service" means the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community by any of the following processes:

(1) Annexation where the receiving sewer system is a special district

(2) Extension of service where the receiving sewer system is a city or, county, or special district.

(3) Additional sewer service provided within city, county, or special district boundaries.

13289(b)(1)(A) Encourage voluntary annexation or extension provision of sewer service of service, which may include voluntary annexation to a city.

Plus additional conforming changes.

Double referral: Should this bill pass the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, it will be re-referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee, where it is set for hearing June 27, 2018.

Related legislation:

SB 1333 (Wieckowski, 2018). This bill would extend various requirements in the Planning and Zoning Law to charter cities, including SB 244’s requirements to study service deficiencies of nearby disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general plans. SB 1333 is currently in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

AB 1989 (Mathis, 2018). This bill would have appropriated $50 million from the General Fund to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) for the Water and Wasterwater Loan and Grant Program. AB 1989 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 277 (Mathis, Chapter 438, Statutes of 2017). This bill created the Water and Wastewater Loan and Grant Program, which authorizes the State Water Board to implement low-interest loan and grant programs to fund water and wastewater facilities and improvements for households and small water systems.

SB 1318 (Wolk, 2016). This bill would have required LAFCOs to recommend plans for providing water or wastewater services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities that lack those services. SB 1318 was held in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015). This bill authorized the State Water Board to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a PWS within a disadvantaged community, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water.

SB 244 (Wolk, Chapter 513, Statutes of 2011). Aimed to prevent cities from carving out disadvantaged unincorporated communities and also required LAFCOs to include in the municipal service review a description of the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence and to consider the water, sewer, or fire protection needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the sphere when considering updates. Finally, SB 244 required cities and counties to review the water and fire service needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general plans. SB 244 made it easier for LAFCOs to identify boundary changes and governmental reorganizations necessary to fix water and sewer service problems faced by disadvantaged communities.

AB 885 (Jackson, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2000). This bill established a process for developing statewide performance standards for onsite sewage treatment systems including requiring the State Water Board to adopt regulations or standards for permitting and operation of onsite sewage treatment systems.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability (sponsor)

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Environmental Justice Alliance

California Institute for Rural Studies

Carbon Cycle Institute

Center for Climate Change and Health

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods

Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Clean Water Action

Community Water Center

Diocese of Fresno

Environment California

Environmental Health Coalition

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Rural Communities Assistance Corp.

Sierra Business Council

Sierra Club California

The 5 Gyres Institute

The Trust for Public Land

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Amy Gilson / E.S. & T.M. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1215

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Stone, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

NOES: Gaines

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/25/18

AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hertzberg, Lara

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hernandez, Moorlach

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to order the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that does not have adequate sewer service, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law, under the Clean Water Act:

1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. (Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.)
4. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements.
   1. In California, the SWRCB is the delegate agency responsible for the NPDES permit program.

Existing state law:

1. Establishes, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), the SWRCB and regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Provides, under the California Safe Drinking Water Act, for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the SWRCB various responsibilities and duties, including authorization to:
   1. Order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water, as specified.
   2. Order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation, as specified.
3. Establishes, under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in each county to control the boundaries of cities, county service areas, and most special districts. To plan for the future boundaries and service areas of the cities and special districts, a LAFCO must adopt a sphere of influence for each local entity, which must be updated at least every five years. To inform decisions about an agency’s sphere of influence, LAFCOs prepare “municipal service reviews”, which include an analysis of services provided in a particular area, and determinations with respect to seven specified factors. Among these are the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities, and the present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs and deficiencies, including those related to sewer, water, and fire protection in any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.

This bill:

1. Authorizes SWRCB to order the provision of sewer service, either through annexation or extension of service, to a disadvantaged community where residents are served by an onsite sewage treatment system that does not provide adequate sewer service, as specified. This bill also authorizes the SWRCB to develop and adopt a process by which members of a disadvantaged community may petition for consideration of provision of sewer service, and to set timelines and performance measures to facilitate completion of the provision of service.
2. Requires the SWRCB to do all of the following prior to ordering the provision of sewer service:

• Encourage voluntary annexation or extension of service.
• Consider other enforcement remedies, as specified.
• Consult with, and consider input from the relevant LAFCO, regional board, and the local government with land use authority and environmental health oversight.
• Notify the affected residents and potentially receiving sewer system, and establish a deadline of at least six months for the parties to negotiate annexation, extension of service, or other means of providing adequate sewer service. SWRCB would provide technical assistance and help develop a financing package, as specified.
• Hold at least one public meeting to provide an opportunity for affected residents and service providers to present testimony and for public comment.

1. Provides that upon the expiration of the deadline for negotiations, the SWRCB would be required to consult with affected residents and the potentially receiving sewer system, and conduct a public hearing with 30-days advance notice, as practicable, to provide an opportunity for affected residents and service providers to present testimony and for public comment. Before ordering the provision of sewer service, the SWRCB must make all of the following findings:

• The affected residents do not have adequate sewer service, as specified.
• The parties have made all reasonable efforts to negotiate voluntary annexation or extension of service.
• The provision of sewer service is appropriate and technically and economically feasible.
• There is no pending LAFCO process that is likely to resolve the issue in a reasonable amount of time.
• The provision of sewer service is the most effective and cost-effective means to provide adequate sewage service.
• The capacity of the proposed interconnection is limited to serving the affected residents, as determined by the SWRCB.

1. Requires SWRCB, upon ordering the provision of sewer service, to:

• Make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of infrastructure necessary to provide sewer service, as specified.
• Ensure payment of LAFCO fees caused by the SWRCB’s order.
• Coordinate with the appropriate LAFCO and relevant local agencies to facilitate the change of organization or reorganization.

1. Prohibits the receiving sewer system from increasing charges on existing customers, unless they receive a corresponding benefit, or from charging rates to newly absorbed customers that are higher than those necessary to provide the sewage service.

Background

Wastewater and Septic in California. The mission of SWRCB is to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s Water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.

Wastewater treatment in California centers on the collection, conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal of wastewater. This process is conducted largely by public agencies, though there are also privatized systems in places where a treatment plant is not feasible.

In California, wastewater treatment takes place through 100,000 miles of sanitary sewers and at more than 900 wastewater treatment plants that manage the roughly 4 billion gallons of wastewater generated in the state each day.

However, there remain parts of California that do not have access to a centralized wastewater system where septic systems treat and dispose of wastewater from residential, commercial or industrial facilities in primarily rural areas that are not served by community sewers. Septic systems are underground wastewater treatment structures, commonly used in rural areas without centralized sewer systems. They use a combination of nature and proven technology to treat wastewater from household plumbing produced by bathrooms, kitchen drains, and laundry.

A typical septic system consists of a septic tank and a drainfield, or soil absorption field. The septic tank digests organic matter and separates floatable matter (e.g., oils and grease) and solids from the wastewater. Soil-based systems discharge the liquid (known as effluent) from the septic tank into a series of perforated pipes buried in a leach field, leaching chambers, or other special units designed to slowly release the effluent into the soil or surface water.

Alternative systems use pumps or gravity to help septic tank effluent trickle through sand, organic matter (e.g., peat and sawdust), constructed wetlands, or other media to remove or neutralize pollutants like disease-causing pathogens, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other contaminants. Some alternative systems are designed to evaporate wastewater or disinfect it before it is discharged to the soil or surface waters.

Porter-Cologne requires SWRCB and the regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to regulate discharges (including those from septic systems) to ensure long-term water quality protection.

Comments

Purpose of Bill. “Wastewater quality and drinking water quality are inextricably linked. The fact is that families in California – in 2018- suffer with inadequate services because of poor government decisions made ages ago. It’s time to correct this to protect public health and our drinking water supplies.”

According to the sponsor, “Inadequate and failing onsite wastewater treatment systems fail to treat and dispose of wastewater before it is discharged into the environment in hundreds of communities throughout the state. Untreated wastewater contaminates soils and drinking water sources, exposing people to nitrates and harmful pathogens including fecal coliform and salmonella. The threat of untreated wastewater is greatest in the state’s lower income, unincorporated communities and mobile home communities but the threat exists even in incorporated areas still unserved by municipal wastewater service.”

The sponsor argues that “many of the communities most threatened by inadequate wastewater service are within a mile, a few hundred yards, or even yards from existing municipal wastewater service lines. While the solution is so close, it still eludes hundreds of communities and tens of thousands of families as some cities and special districts remain reluctant to extend their services to neighboring homes and communities.”

The sponsor states that “SB 1215 builds on SB 88 which granted the State [Water Resources Control] Board authority to incentivize and mandate regional drinking water solutions to provide a tool to address our state’s drinking water crisis. This bill would use a similar structure: it would complement available monetary incentives for consolidation by granting the state board the authority to require a municipal wastewater service provider to extend wastewater service to a community reliant on inadequate onsite wastewater treatment systems.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• SWRCB administrative costs of approximately $600,000 in 2019-20 and 2020-21, and $750,000 ongoing annually thereafter for staff to identify communities in need of service extensions and connections, facilitate negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions, hold public meetings, conduct implementation activities to complete the provision of service, and perform ongoing enforcement activities. (Waste Discharge Permit Fund)
• Unknown major costs in the millions, and potentially over $10 million, to provide financial assistance to pay for the infrastructure needed for the provision of sewer service, to the extent negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions fail and the SWRCB orders a local entity to provide sewer service. (General Fund)
• Unknown reimbursable mandate costs. Staff estimates that any state reimbursements are not likely to be significant since local service providers may charge customers for the provision of sewer connections and service, and the bill requires the SWRCB to pay for infrastructure associated with service extensions, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature for that purpose. Any other costs subject to state reimbursement would be dependent upon a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent a local service provider incurs costs and files a successful claim. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18)

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (source)

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Environmental Justice Alliance

California Institute for Rural Studies

Carbon Cycle Institute

Center for Climate Change and Health

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment

Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Clean Water Action

Community Water Center

Diocese of Fresno

Environment California

Environmental Health Coalition

Plastic Pollution Coalition

RCAC

Sierra Business Council

Sierra Club California

The 5 Gyres Institute

Trust for Public Land

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18)

None received

Prepared by:

5/26/18 15:26:23

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 1215 (Hertzberg) - Provision of sewer service: disadvantaged communities

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 1215 would authorize the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to order the provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that does not have adequate sewer service, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• SWRCB administrative costs of approximately $600,000 in 2019-20 and 2020-21, and $750,000 ongoing annually thereafter for staff to identify communities in need of service extensions and connections, facilitate negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions, hold public meetings, conduct implementation activities to complete the provision of service, and perform ongoing enforcement activities. (Waste Discharge Permit Fund)
  
• Unknown major costs in the millions, and potentially over $10 million, to provide financial assistance to pay for the infrastructure needed for the provision of sewer service, to the extent negotiations for voluntary annexations or service extensions fail and the SWRCB orders a local entity to provide sewer service. (General Fund)
  
• Unknown reimbursable mandate costs. Staff estimates that any state reimbursements are not likely to be significant since local service providers may charge customers for the provision of sewer connections and service, and the bill requires the SWRCB to pay for infrastructure associated with service extensions, upon appropriation of funds by the Legislature for that purpose. Any other costs subject to state reimbursement would be dependent upon a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, to the extent a local service provider incurs costs and files a successful claim. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, establishes a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in each county to control the boundaries of cities, county service areas, and most special districts. To plan for the future boundaries and service areas of the cities and special districts, a LAFCO must adopt a sphere of influence for each local entity, which must be updated at least every five years. To inform decisions about an agency’s sphere of influence, LAFCOs prepare “municipal service reviews” (MSRs), which include an analysis of services provided in a particular area, and determinations with respect to seven specified factors. Among these are the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities, and the present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs and deficiencies, including those related to sewer, water, and fire protection in any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.

Some communities continue to lack adequate public services, including safe drinking water and functioning wastewater systems. These communities are often poor and located in the unincorporated area of a county. In some cases these “disadvantaged unincorporated communities” are remote and far from other communities with better public services, but in others, a city may share a border with a disadvantaged community that has been excluded from its boundaries. Existing law requires cities and counties to review the water and fire services of disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general plans, and also requires LAFCOs to consider the water, sewer, or fire protection needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities within a jurisdiction’s sphere of influence when conducting municipal service reviews.

Wastewater treatment in California centers on the collection, conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal of wastewater. This process is conducted largely by public agencies, though there are also privatized systems in places where a treatment plant is not feasible. In California, wastewater treatment takes place through 100,000 miles of sanitary sewers and at more than 900 wastewater treatment plants that manage the roughly four billion gallons of wastewater generated in the state each day.

Some parts of California do not have access to a centralized wastewater system, and instead utilize septic systems that treat and dispose of wastewater from residential, commercial, or industrial facilities in primarily rural areas. Septic systems (also called “onsite wastewater treatment systems”) use a combination of nature and proven technology to treat wastewater from household plumbing produced by bathrooms, kitchen drains, and laundry. A typical septic system consists of a septic tank and a drainfield, or soil absorption field. The septic tank digests organic matter and separates floatable matter and solids from the wastewater. Soil-based systems discharge the liquid (known as effluent) from the septic tank into a series of perforated pipes buried in a leach field, leaching chambers, or other special units designed to slowly release the effluent into the soil or surface water.

The SWRCB and the nine regional water quality control boards (regional boards) regulate water quality in the state. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires SWRCB and the regional boards to regulate discharges (including those from septic systems and sewer systems) to ensure long-term water quality protection. Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, authorizes the SWRCB to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system serving a disadvantaged community consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. SWRCB may also order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water, as long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation.

Proposed Law:

SB 1215 would authorize the SWRCB to order the provision of sewer service, either through annexation or extension of service, to a disadvantaged community where residents are served by an onsite sewage treatment system that does not provide adequate sewer service, as specified. The bill would also authorize the SWRCB to develop and adopt a process by which members of a disadvantaged community may petition for consideration of provision of sewer service, and to set timelines and performance measures to facilitate completion of the provision of service.

The bill requires the SWRCB to do all of the following prior to ordering the provision of sewer service:

• Encourage voluntary annexation or extension of service.
• Consider other enforcement remedies, as specified.
• Consult with, and consider input from the relevant LAFCO, regional board, and the local government with land use authority and environmental health oversight.
• Notify the affected residents and potentially receiving sewer system, and establish a deadline of at least six months for the parties to negotiate annexation, extension of service, or other means of providing adequate sewer service. SWRCB would provide technical assistance and help develop a financing package, as specified.
• Hold at least one public meeting to provide an opportunity for affected residents and service providers to present testimony and for public comment.

Upon the expiration of the deadline for negotiations, the SWRCB would be required to consult with affected residents and the potentially receiving sewer system, and conduct a public hearing with 30-days advance notice, as practicable, to provide an opportunity for affected residents and service providers to present testimony and for public comment. Before ordering the provision of sewer service, the SWRCB must make all of the following findings:

• The affected residents do not have adequate sewer service, as specified.
• The parties have made all reasonable efforts to negotiate voluntary annexation or extension of service.
• The provision of sewer service is appropriate and technically and economically feasible.
• There is no pending LAFCO process that is likely to resolve the issue in a reasonable amount of time.
• The provision of sewer service is the most effective and cost-effective means to provide adequate sewage service.
• The capacity of the proposed interconnection is limited to serving the affected residents, as determined by the SWRCB.

Upon ordering the provision of sewer service, the bill would require the SWRCB to:

• Make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the receiving sewer system for the costs of infrastructure necessary to provide sewer service, as specified.
• Ensure payment of LAFCO fees caused by the SWRCB’s order.
• Coordinate with the appropriate LAFCO and relevant local agencies to facilitate the change of organization or reorganization.

The bill prohibits the receiving sewer system from increasing charges on existing customers, unless they receive a corresponding benefit, or from charging rates to newly absorbed customers that are higher than those necessary to provide the sewage service.

Related Legislation:

SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chap. 27/2015, authorizes SWRCB to require water systems that are serving disadvantaged communities with unreliable and unsafe drinking water to consolidate with or receive service from public water systems with safe, reliable, and adequate drinking water.

SB 1318 (Wolk), which died in the Assembly Local Government Committee in 2016, would have required LAFCOs to recommend plans for providing water or wastewater services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities that lack those services.

SB 244 (Wolk), Chap. 513/2011, includes provisions requiring cities and counties to review the water and fire services of disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general plans, and also requires LAFCOs to consider the water, sewer, or fire protection needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities within a jurisdiction’s sphere of influence when conducting municipal service reviews.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Mike McGuire, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Provision of sewer service: disadvantaged communities

Allows the State Water Resources Control Board to order provision of service to disadvantaged communities served by onsite wastewater treatment systems.

Background

Wastewater treatment and regulation. Wastewater treatment in California centers on the collection, conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal of wastewater. This process is conducted largely by public agencies, though there are also privatized systems in places where a treatment plant is not feasible. In California, wastewater treatment takes place through 100,000 miles of sanitary sewers and at more than 900 wastewater treatment plants that manage the roughly four billion gallons of wastewater generated in the state each day.

However, there remain parts of California that do not have access to a centralized wastewater system where septic systems treat and dispose of wastewater from residential, commercial, or industrial facilities in primarily rural areas that are not served by community sewers. Septic systems (also called “onsite wastewater treatment systems”) are underground wastewater treatment structures, commonly used in rural areas without centralized sewer systems. They use a combination of nature and proven technology to treat wastewater from household plumbing produced by bathrooms, kitchen drains, and laundry.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (regional boards) regulate water quality in the state. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires SWRCB and the regional boards to regulate discharges (including those from septic systems and sewer systems) to ensure long-term water quality protection.

Local government boundaries. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act creates a local agency formation commission (LAFCO) in each county to control the boundaries of cities, county service areas, and most special districts. The courts often refer to LAFCOs as the Legislature’s watchdog over boundary changes. To plan for the future boundaries and service areas of the cities and special districts, a LAFCO must adopt a policy document for each city and district called a sphere of influence. The LAFCO’s boundary decisions must be consistent with the spheres of influence of the affected cities or districts. Spheres must be updated at least every five years.

Local governments can only exercise their powers and provide services where LAFCO allows them to: within their boundaries (which are set by LAFCO), within their spheres of influence but outside their boundaries (with authorization by LAFCO), and outside their spheres to address a major threat to public health if the extension is consistent with LAFCO’s policies. In 2015, the Legislature approved AB 402 (Dodd), which established a pilot program in Napa County and San Bernardino County that allowed the extension of services outside a local agency’s sphere of influence to support existing or planned uses under specified conditions. A local government that wants to expand its territory must ask LAFCO to annex new territory into the local government’s boundaries.

To determine spheres of influence, LAFCOs must periodically conduct a “municipal service review” (MSR) to inform their decisions. Among other topics, MSRs must analyze and make determinations about whether adequate public services are available to current and future residents in the county, and whether services could be improved by governmental reorganizations.

Addressing service deficiencies. LAFCOs, along with the planning agencies of cities and counties, are supposed to ensure that services are effectively and efficiently delivered to all communities throughout the state. Nevertheless, some communities continue to lack adequate public services, including safe drinking water and functioning wastewater systems, often due to their low income status. In some cases, these disadvantaged communities are contained within a city but lack adequate water and wastewater services. In other cases, these communities are located in unincorporated areas. These “disadvantaged unincorporated communities” can be remote and far from other communities with better public services, but at other times they are adjacent to a city, special district, or county service area that provides water or wastewater services.

In recent years, the Legislature has taken several steps to try to address some of the service problems experienced by disadvantaged unincorporated communities. SB 244 (Wolk, 2011) aimed to prevent cities from carving out disadvantaged unincorporated communities by generally prohibiting annexations of small areas to a city if a disadvantaged unincorporated community is contiguous with that area. SB 244 also required LAFCOs to include in the MSR a description of the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence and to consider the water, sewer, or fire protection needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the sphere when considering updates. Finally, SB 244 required cities and counties to review the water and fire service needs of disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general plans. SB 244 made it easier for LAFCOs to identify boundary changes and governmental reorganizations necessary to fix water and sewer service problems faced by disadvantaged communities.

Senate Bill 88. Subsequent legislation—SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, 2015)—took this effort a step further by authorizing SWRCB to order a consolidation of neighboring drinking water systems where it is economically feasible in order to address public health threats. SB 88 established an elaborate process for consolidating water systems that requires multiple public hearings, as well as consultations with affected entities (such as the water system being subsumed, the receiving water system, domestic well owners, and the local government with land use authority over the area) and the LAFCO.

Before ordering consolidation or extension of service, SWRCB must also encourage voluntary consolidations or extension of service, consider other enforcement remedies, obtain written consent from any domestic well owner, and provide technical assistance to both systems. The SWRCB must also make a series of findings, including that:

• • • • Consolidation or extension of service is the most effective and cost-effective means to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water.
• The capacity of the proposed interconnection needed to accomplish the consolidation is limited to serving the current customers of the subsumed water system.

Under SB 88, SWRCB must pay the full cost of the new capacity, including replacing any capacity lost as a result of the consolidation or extension of service, providing additional capacity needed as a result of the consolidation or extension of service, and legal fees. The SWRCB must also pay the LAFCOs costs and fees, adequately compensate the owners of any privately owned subsumed water system, and coordinate with the appropriate local agency formation commission and other relevant local agencies to facilitate the change of organization or reorganization. SB 88 also prohibited the consolidated water system from increasing charges on existing customers of the receiving water system solely as a consequence of the consolidation or extension of service unless the customers receive a corresponding benefit. Cleanup legislation the next year added a few additional requirements to the SB 88 process, including prohibiting fees or charges on a customer of a subsumed water system from exceeding the cost of consolidating the water system with a receiving system or the extension of service to the area (SB 552, Wolk, 2016).

To date, SWRCB has completed two mandatory consolidations and initiated an additional nine mandatory consolidations of 13 failing water systems. SWRCB has also issued 230 informal consolidation letters indicating SWRCB’s intent to initiate consolidation, which have led to over 40 voluntary consolidations.

Some environmental justice advocates want to extend the SB 88 process to allow extensions of service to communities with inadequate wastewater service.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 1215 establishes a process by which SWRCB can order provision of sewer service to a disadvantaged community that does not have adequate sewer service, similar to the authority granted by SB 88. SB 1215 defines “provision of sewer service” to mean:

• Annexation where the receiving sewer system is a special district; or
• Extension of service where the receiving sewer system is a city or county.

Specifically, SB 1215 allows SWRCB to order the provision of sewer service where a disadvantaged community or residents of a disadvantaged community are served by an onsite sewage treatment system that is operated by either a local agency or an affected residence, and that does not provide adequate onsite sewage treatment service. This order may cover all or a portion of the area within the disadvantaged community that does not have adequate sewage service. SB 1215 allows SWRCB to set timelines and performance measures to facilitate completion of the provision of sewer service.

Before ordering the provision of sewer service as provided in this section, the SWRCB must encourage voluntary annexation or extension of service, consider other enforcement remedies, and consult with, and fully consider input from:

• The relevant LAFCO, regarding the sewer service in the affected area, the recommendations for improving service in an MSR, and any other relevant information;
• The regional board; and
• The local government with land use planning authority and environmental health oversight over the affected area, particularly regarding any information in the general plan on service deficiencies for disadvantaged communities, as required by SB 244.

SB 1215 also requires SWRCB to notify the potentially receiving sewer system and affected residents. Additionally, it establishes a reasonable deadline of no less than six months, unless a shorter period is justified, for the potentially receiving sewer system and the affected property owners to negotiate annexation, extension of service, or another means of providing an adequate sewage service. This deadline may be extended upon a showing of good cause. During this time, SWRCB must provide technical assistance and work with the potentially receiving sewer system and the affected residents to develop a financing package that benefits both the receiving sewer system and the affected residents.

SB 1215 requires SWRCB to hold a public meeting and make a reasonable effort to give 30 days’ notice to affected residents and agencies. The meeting must allow affected residents and entities to present testimony and public comment. After the deadline set by SWRCB elapses, SB 1215 requires SWRCB to hold a public hearing with similar notice requirements and opportunities for testimony and public comment.

SB 1215 requires SWRCB to make the following findings before ordering the provision of sewer service:

• The affected residences do not have adequate sewage service.
• All reasonable efforts to negotiate voluntary annexation or extension of service were made.
• The provision of sewer service is appropriate, and technically and economically feasible.
• There is no pending local agency formation commission process that is likely to resolve the problem in a reasonable amount of time.
• The provision of sewer service is the most effective and cost-effective means to provide adequate sewage service.
• The capacity of the proposed interconnection needed to accomplish the provision of sewer service is limited to serving the affected residences, as determined by the state board.

Once it orders the provision of sewer service, SB 1215 requires SWRCB to, as necessary and appropriate, make funds available upon appropriation by the Legislature to the receiving sewer system for the costs of completing the provision of sewer service. These costs include, but are not limited to:

• Replacing any capacity lost as a result of the provision of sewer service;
• Providing additional capacity needed as a result of the provision of sewer service; and
• Legal fees.

SB 1215 specifies that this funding is available for the general purpose of providing financial assistance for the infrastructure needed for the provision of sewer service and does not need to be specific to each individual project.

SB 1215 directs SWRCB to provide appropriate financial assistance for the infrastructure needed for the provision of sewer service, and says that SWRCB’s existing financial assistance guidelines and policies must be the basis for the financial assistance. SWRCB must also ensure payment of LAFCO fees related to the provision of service and coordinate with the appropriate LAFCO and other relevant local agencies needed to facilitate the change of organization or reorganization.

SB 1215 prohibits the receiving sewer system from:

• Increasing charges on existing customers of the receiving sewer system solely as a consequence of the provision of sewer service unless the customers receive a corresponding benefit; and
• Charging rates to newly absorbed customers of the sewer system that are higher than those necessary to provide the sewage service.

SB 1215 allows SWRCB to develop a petition process for members of a disadvantaged community to request that SWRCB consider ordering provision of sewer service, and says that LAFCO statutes do not apply to the provision of sewer service required by the bill.

The bill also defines “adequate sewage service” to mean onsite sewage treatment service or municipal wastewater service that processes and treats wastewater from customers so that untreated wastewater does not contaminate, or does not present an imminent threat to contaminate, surrounding groundwater, surface water, or soils, and does not back up into homes.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Communities throughout the state face the threat of contaminated water due to leaking septic tanks or other types of onsite wastewater treatment. Untreated wastewater contaminates soils and drinking water sources, exposing people to nitrates and harmful pathogens—often in the state’s poorest communities. Fortunately, many of these communities are also near functioning systems. California saw similar challenges with drinking water, and the Legislature responded by passing SB 88 to allow SWRCB to consolidate failing water systems to ensure that communities could get safe, adequate drinking water. SB 1215 borrows from this successful model by allowing SWRCB to take disadvantaged communities off of malfunctioning systems and get them reliable, adequate wastewater service where there is a nearby provider. SB 88 provided a strong incentive for communities to step up and help their poorer neighbors gain access to safe drinking water; SB 1215 will do the same for wastewater.

2. Sure, but will it work? Inadequate sewer service is undoubtedly a problem in California. However, some avenues already exist for dealing with this issue. With the passage of SB 244, the Legislature required study of the service deficiencies in disadvantaged unincorporated communities. LAFCOs are properly charged with reviewing these services; it is one of their core duties. LAFCOs can make recommendations about how to best fix those deficiencies, including through annexation or extension of service. SB 1215 says that this isn’t enough and establishes a new program for SWRCB to bypass LAFCO to order annexations or extensions of service. This process is expensive—SB 1215 requires SWRCB to fully fund the new capacity and other costs of ordering provision of service. Yet it is unclear whether funds will be available for this purpose. Finally, this process may also increase the monthly bills for residents of disadvantaged communities who are currently on septic tanks and therefore do not pay ongoing charges for sewer service. Given the other avenues available and the potential downsides of this approach, is a new process needed?

3. Let’s be clear. The Committee may wish to consider the following clarifying amendments:

• Define “extension of service” as used in existing LAFCO law. SB 1215 says that provision of sewer service can be done through either annexation, defined as in existing LAFCO law, or extension of service, but it is missing the corresponding reference to that definition in LAFCO law.
• Clarify whether local agencies may be forced to be subsumed by another agency. SB 1215 refers to onsite wastewater treatment provided by a local agency, but the bill only provides for annexation or extension of service. Under LAFCO law, a consolidation is what must occur when there are two local agencies that merge. The Committee may wish to consider whether local agencies should be subject to consolidation under the bill, and if so, whether to add necessary references to consolidations and subsumed sewer systems.
• Clarify application of LAFCO law to provision of sewer service under the bill. SB 88 provided that LAFCO law does not apply to an action taken by the state board under the section, but still allowed for LAFCOs to take the necessary actions to complete the consolidation. SB 1215 simply says LAFCO doesn’t apply to provision of sewer service under the bill, blocking LAFCO from doing its job. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 1215 to mirror the SB 88 language.

4. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because SB 1215 could require local governments to provide additional sewer service, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. But SB 1215 disclaims the state’s responsibility for reimbursing local costs because the local agencies have the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by the bill. However, SB 1215 also states that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill imposes other reimbursable mandates, reimbursement must be made pursuant to existing statutory provisions.

5. Incoming! The Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed SB 1215 at its April 18^th hearing on a vote of 6 to 1.

6. Related legislation. SB 1333, which the Committee will also hear at its April 25^th meeting, extends various requirements in the Planning and Zoning Law to charter cities, including SB 244’s requirements to study service deficiencies of nearby disadvantaged unincorporated communities in their general plans. SB 1318 (Wolk, 2016) would have required LAFCOs to recommend plans for providing water or wastewater services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities that lack those services. SB 1318 passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on a vote of 5-1, but died in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Support and Opposition

(4/19/18)

Support: Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (sponsor); California Coastkeeper Alliance; California Environmental Justice Alliance; California Institute for Rural Studies; Carbon Cycle Institute; Center for Climate Change and Health; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment; Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods; Central California Asthma Collaborative; Central California Environmental Justice Network; Clean Water Action; Community Water Center; Diocese of Fresno; Environment California; Environmental Health Coalition; Plastic Pollution Coalition; RCAC; Sierra Business Council; Sierra Club California; The 5 Gyres Institute; Trust for Public Land

Opposition: Unknown.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 1215

SUBJECT: Provision of sewer service: disadvantaged communities

ANALYSIS:

Existing law: Existing federal law under the Clean Water Act (CWA):

1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. (Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.)
4. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements.
   1. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the delegate agency responsible for the NPDES permit program.

Existing state law:

1. Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), establishes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Under the California Safe Drinking Water Act, provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various responsibilities and duties, including authorization to:
   1. Order consolidation with a receiving water system where a public water system or a state small water system, serving a disadvantaged community, as defined, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water, as specified.
   2. Order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of service is an interim extension of service in preparation for consolidation, as specified.

This bill:

1. Authorizes SWRCB to order the provision of sewer service by a special district, city, or county to a disadvantaged community, as defined, under specified circumstances. By authorizing the state board to require a special district, city, or county to provide sewer service, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
2. Requires SWRCB to take certain actions before ordering the provision of sewer service that are similar to those required for the consolidation or extension of water systems.
3. Authorizes SWRCB to develop and adopt a process by which members of disadvantaged communities may petition the state board for consideration of provision of sewer service.

Background

1. Wastewater and Septic in California. The mission of SWRCB is to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s Water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Wastewater treatment in California centers on the collection, conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal of wastewater. This process is conducted largely by public agencies, though there are also privatized systems in places where a treatment plant is not feasible.

In California, wastewater treatment takes place through 100,000 miles of sanitary sewers and at more than 900 wastewater treatment plants that manage the roughly 4 billion gallons of wastewater generated in the state each day.

However, there remain parts of California that do not have access to a centralized wastewater system where septic systems treat and dispose of wastewater from residential, commercial or industrial facilities in primarily rural areas that are not served by community sewers. Septic systems are underground wastewater treatment structures, commonly used in rural areas without centralized sewer systems. They use a combination of nature and proven technology to treat wastewater from household plumbing produced by bathrooms, kitchen drains, and laundry.

A typical septic system consists of a septic tank and a drainfield, or soil absorption field. The septic tank digests organic matter and separates floatable matter (e.g., oils and grease) and solids from the wastewater. Soil-based systems discharge the liquid (known as effluent) from the septic tank into a series of perforated pipes buried in a leach field, leaching chambers, or other special units designed to slowly release the effluent into the soil or surface water.

Alternative systems use pumps or gravity to help septic tank effluent trickle through sand, organic matter (e.g., peat and sawdust), constructed wetlands, or other media to remove or neutralize pollutants like disease-causing pathogens, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other contaminants. Some alternative systems are designed to evaporate wastewater or disinfect it before it is discharged to the soil or surface waters.

Porter-Cologne requires SWRCB and the regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to regulate discharges (including those from septic systems) to ensure long-term water quality protection. The following information is designed to help you understand the Water Board’s regulations pertaining to septic systems and management of those systems. Onsite wastewater systems refer to septic systems as well as other alternative types of onsite treatment (that are not septic). For more information visit our Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS Policy) page.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. “Wastewater quality and drinking water quality are inextricably linked. The fact is that families in California – in 2018- suffer with inadequate services because of poor government decisions made ages ago. It’s time to correct this to protect public health and our drinking water supplies.”

According to the sponsors, “Inadequate and failing onsite wasterwater treatment systems fail to treat and dispose of wastewater before it is discharged into the environment in hundreds of communities throughout the state. Untreated wastewater contaminates soils and drinking water sources, exposing people to nitrates and harmful pathogens including fecal coliform and salmonella. The threat of untreated wastewater is greatest in the state’s lower income, unincorporated communities and mobile home communities but the threat exists even in incorporated areas still unserved by municipal wasterwater service.”

The sponsors argue that “many of the communities most threatened by inadequate wasterwater service are within a mile, a few hundred years, or even yards from existing municipal wastewater service lines. While the solution is so close, it still eludes hundreds of communities and tens of thousands of families as some cities and special districts remain reluctant to extend their services to neighboring homes and communities.”

The sponsors state that “SB 1215 builds on SB 88 which granted the State [Water Resources Control] Board authority to incentivize and mandate regional drinking water solutions to provide a tool to address our state’s drinking water crisis. This bill would use a similar structure: it would complement available monetary incentives for consolidation by granting the state board the authority to require a municipal wastewater service provider to extend wasterwater service to a community reliant on inadequate onsite wastewater treatment systems.”

DOUBLE REFERRAL: SB 1215 is also referred to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance. If this bill is approved by the committee, the motion shall be a do pass to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 88 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 27, Statutes of 2015) Authorizes the SWRCB to order consolidation with a receiving water system where a PWS within a disadvantaged community, consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water.

SOURCE:

Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability

SUPPORT:

Carbon Cycle Institute

Community Water Center

California Coastkeeper Alliance

California Institute for Rural Studies

Central California Environmental Justice Network

Clean Water Action

Environmental Health Coalition

Diocese of Fresno

Center for Climate Change and Health

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice

California Environmental Justice Alliance

Environment California

Central California Asthma Collaborative

Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods

Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Rural Communities Assistance Corp.

The 5 Gyres Institute

Trust for Public Land

Sierra Business Council

Sierra Club California

OPPOSITION:

None received

-- END --