NEWS & VIEWS ON ISSUES, LEGISLATION, AND REGULATIONS
water agencies are vastly different, the water community was
concerned that recommendations would not be applicable for
the publicly owned water agencies. Eventually, AB 1434 was re-tained
in the Senate Appropriations Committee and later died on
the Suspense File.
As the 2015 legislative year began, the Legislature retained
an overarching interest in studying rate assistance for low-in-come
water ratepayers, and newly elected Assembly member Bill
Dodd (D-Napa) introduced Assembly Bill 401 (AB 401). Commit-ted
to exploring the issue, Dodd urged water community input.
Although AB 401 had many similarities to the previously defeat-ed
AB 1434, the final version required the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) to propose a plan and funding mecha-nism
for a low-income water rate assistance program, with direc-tion
to provide recommendations to identify and account for le-gal
restrictions and limitations of publicly owned water agencies.
The water community was optimistic about having an interactive
dialogue with SWRCB once the bill was signed into law.
In 2016, SWRCB staff members worked with the University
of California, Los Angeles to identify the scope of the problem
that would translate into funding recommendations for a low-in-come
rate assistance program. Applying a 200 percent federal
poverty level benchmark, the report
determined that more than 30 percent
of California households could poten-tially
be eligible, at an estimated cost of
nearly $600 million. Additionally, the
report questioned the sufficiency and effectiveness of local rate
assistance programs. Individual utilities and statewide associ-ations
expressed concern that the unilateral assumptions at the
foundation of the study were made without an understanding
of the restrictions public water agencies must comply with re-garding
rate making and wanted a full explanation of how the
200 percent federal poverty level was applied with little consid-eration
of other eligibility triggers.
Although SWRCB held public workshops statewide, the wa-ter
community continued to question the report’s recommenda-tions.
Also in in 2015, the Brown Administration was working
on a legislative proposal to directly assist communities whose
water systems were neither cost effective nor operationally ef-fective
in treating contaminants. Language emerged that would
authorize SWRCB to require consolidation of failing systems into
larger systems capable of providing a reliable supply. The water
community expressed concern about passing on subsidization
costs under Proposition 218, the need for liability protections,
and whether subsumed communities would be able to pay their
respective share of increased costs. Clarifying amendments were
made, without final resolution of the issues. However, the ad-ministration
was adamant on including the language in the bud-get,
and Senate Bill 88 was amended to include the consolidation
provisions. With no specific or long-term funding source to offset
extended infrastructure and continued operations and mainte-nance,
the water community remained vigilant about costs be-ing
passed on to local water agencies and ratepayers. SB 88 was
eventually approved as part of the budget package.
To further incentivize voluntary consolidations, in 2016 for-mer
Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) introduced Senate Bill 552 (SB
552), which provided failing systems the option of contractual
16 SOURCE fall 2017
managerial services. While the intent had merit, the water com-munity
remained concerned about how mergers would be paid
for. SB 552 was signed into law by Gov. Brown.
As the 2017 legislative year neared its end, the water commu-nity
continued to work to address ongoing concerns with Senator
Bill Monning’s (D-Carmel) Senate Bill 623, intended to establish
a long-term funding mechanism to directly assist failing water
systems in disadvantaged communities. The bill moved through
the first half of the year as an “intent” bill to allow time for more
work and stakeholder outreach. While the water community
again acknowledged the need to address the most vulnerable in
disadvantaged communities, water agencies and associations ex-pressed
concern that any proposed funding mechanism would
result in costs to ratepayers of larger compliant systems.
Toward the end of the session, the bill’s author amended
SB 623 to include a water fee for urban residential, commercial,
and agricultural users as a funding mechanism for failing water
systems in disadvantaged communities. Because General Fund,
available bond funds, and federal funds were not included as
sources, many in the state’s water community opposed SB 623
and considered the proposed fee a “tax” on water. Acknowledg-ing
the breadth of such an enormous public policy decision, and
recognizing that SB 623 was not heard
in the appropriate policy committees
to assess the funding mechanism, As-sembly
Appropriations Committee
Chair Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San
Diego), moved the measure to the Assembly Rules Committee,
which essentially made SB 623 a two-year bill and provides
time during the fall interim for further collaboration and con-sideration
of additional options to using water user fees as a
funding source.
California’s water community has a strong record of ad-dressing
vital issues of reliability and access to safe drinking
water for all residents. However, given the recent history of bill
introductions and current regulatory efforts being assessed at the
SWRCB for AB 401 implementation, it is understandable that it
has become more galvanized in expressing its concern that pro-posed
funding requirements will result in additional costs to the
ratepayers, especially when those ratepayers may not see a direct
service benefit. While the water community has evolved in its
approach to this sensitive social and economic issue, what has
remained constant is its ongoing request for an open opportuni-ty
to have a fair, interactive, and reciprocal dialogue among all
stakeholders to responsibly and effectively address public health
and safety conditions that should not exist in California. Without
acknowledging and working through fundamental concerns of
all stakeholders, a productive consensus approach will continue
to be an elusive objective rather than a productive path to benefit
all Californians. S
Correction: In Summer 2017 Heads Up, we incorrectly identified the
Natural Resources Defense Council as the National Resources Defense
Council.
Rosalie Thompson is an in-house state legislative representative for the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. She served as a
legislative staffer in the State Capitol for 13 years and is currently chair
of CA-NV AWWA’s Government Affairs Committee.
HEADS UP
“Funding and ratepayer cost
remain concerns.”