ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

Temporarily Tapped Out: More Time to Consider California’s Clean Water Funding Bill

 

How deep does the clean water issue go in California? Let’s first take a look at some somewhat recent and comprehensive findings:

There was good news and bad news regarding the cleanliness of California’s drinking water, according to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study released in 2015.

The research comprised part of California’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program, more commonly called GAMA. It included 10 years’ worth of test data from untreated water in 11,000 wells across the state. GAMA considered area population and development to weight findings from the well tests.

First the good news: Contamination from nitrates, solvents, pesticides, etc. occurred in high concentrations in only five percent of California’s groundwater resources. The bad news was that naturally occurring contaminants like arsenic or uranium were found in about 20 percent of the state’s groundwater resources.

So what should be done about water contaminants?

According to the USGS, local and regional agencies are responsible for cleaning up the problem of high contaminant levels, particularly in high population areas like the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys near Los Angeles. And the State Water Resources Control Board regulates safety under several state clean water laws, including the California Safe Drinking Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

But for some lawmakers, that may not be enough.

Temporarily Diverted: Clean Water Tax

Senate Bill 623, introduced by Senator Bill Monning (D-San Luis Obispo, Monterey and Santa Cruz), would impose the first-ever consumer tax on drinking water. 

The bill would levy a 95 cent per month tax on water meters “up to one inch or customers without water meters” (see Article 5 of SB 623).  The tax would increase, depending on the size of the water meter at issue, to as much as $10 per month for customers with water meters greater than four inches.

There would be exemptions from the tax for low-income customers, e.g. if the customer’s household income equals or is less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or if the water meter exclusively measures flow of non-potable/recycled water.

The taxes, estimated at $110 - 140M per year, will be diverted to a Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund to clean up our drinking water sources.

But there are an interesting mix of groups and individuals both for and against the bill. As a result of the controversy, SB 623 is now on a two year track and won’t be decided until 2018, which gives us all time to contemplate.

Strange Water Bed Fellows

According to the Visalia Times-Delta, more than one million California residents live in communities with unsafe drinking water because of 300 state water systems that don’t meet federal criteria.

Many of the communities with bad water are in the middle of the state – the breadbasket of California, where agriculture is the main industry. Perhaps that’s why the farming industry is teaming up with environmentalists to support this clean water bill.

A spokesperson for the Western Growers’ Association released this statement regarding the clean water fund:

The use of organic and commercial fertilizers are necessary to replenish soil nutrients to allow for crop production. We believe it is in the best interests of the people of the state of California to have a safe and secure food supply grown in California for the benefit of people everywhere . . . SB 623 strikes the needed balance between providing the necessary resources for addressing critical drinking water needs, while protecting agriculture from certain nitrate related enforcement actions in the short-term.

The Association of California Water Agencies, however, opposes SB 623 because the bill turns hundreds of water agencies into tax collectors, opens the door to more taxes on water in the future, and thus hinders the affordability of water, which is fundamental to life.

The Association thinks California’s General Fund and the income from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund should pay for cleaning up drinking water.

And not all environmental groups are on board with SB 623, as some contend the bill gives the agricultural industry a “pay to pollute” pass, as the bill would allow farmers to enroll in a waiver program by paying an applicable fee, potentially protecting them from environmental enforcement actions.

So one question that must be answered between now and a legislative vote in 2018: How best can we protect both our food and our drinking water suppliers? Will SB 623 take care of one challenge without sacrificing the other?

 

 

Environmental Legal Blogs - Now on YouTube

Have you seen our Environmental Legal Videos on YouTube? Here's one, regarding how you should react if a government agency or individual makes an environmental claim against you or your business:

More Environmental Legal Blogs videos are available by clicking the link to YouTube, on the left.

Major Supreme Court decision

On Tuesday, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether or not affected persons my judicially challenge an EPA order finding the persons to have violated the Clean Water Act before compliance with the order is accomplished, often at great expense. An Idaho couple had begun construction of a home near a lake; when the EPA got wind of this, it determined that the construction was on wetlands which were a “water of the United States” within the meaning of the Act and its regulations.

The couple challenged this determination but were told by both the District Court and by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that there was no judicial remedy available until the couple had complied with the EPA’s order to restore the property to its original condition under an EPA restoration work plan or until EPA decided to bring an enforcement action. Compliance would cost thousands and thousands of dollars. Alternatively, failure to comply would potentially subject these persons to enforcement action fines of $37,500-$75,000 per day, with the fines mounting daily while EPA took its time deciding whether or not to bring the action.

The Supreme Court unanimously held this situation to be a violation of due process, with Justice Alito in a concurring opinion stating that, by the time aggrieved persons choosing to fight the order could get judicial review, “potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.” Although the decision was made in the context of the Clean Water Act, it would appear that in appropriate circumstances the Court’s reasoning would apply in other federal regulatory contexts as well.

On the other hand, it must be emphasized that the Sackett decision’s due-process argument was made in the context of a challenge to EPA jurisdiction. Where a federal agency plainly has jurisdiction, the argument may not apply. Indeed, in her concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote: “Whether the Sacketts could challenge not only the EPA’s authority to regulate their land under the Clean Water Act, but also, at this pre-enforcement stage, the terms and conditions of the compliance order, is a question today’s opinion does not resolve.”

Thus,the Clean Water Act case arguably only makes a dent in the reach of federal power and does not constitute a wholesale reversal of the expansion of that power that has taken place over recent decades. Nevertheless, as a 9-0 decision cutting back somewhat on such power, the case is noteworthy.

Disease-causing strains of Fusarium prevalent in plumbing drains

A study examining the prevalence of the fungus Fusarium in bathroom sink drains suggests that plumbing systems may be a common source of human infections.

In the first extensive survey of its kind, researchers in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences sampled nearly 500 sink drains from 131 buildings -- businesses, homes, university dormitories and public facilities -- in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and California.

They analyzed fungal DNA to compare the spectrum of Fusarium species and sequence types found in drains with those recovered from human infections.

The study identified at least one Fusarium isolate in 66 percent of the drains and in 82 percent of the buildings. About 70 percent of those isolates came from the six sequence types of Fusarium most frequently associated with human infections.

 

 

 

via www.eurekalert.org

EPA recommends nationwide tests for hexavalent chromium in your drinking water | OregonLive.com

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday recommended that utilities nationwide test drinking water for hexavalent chromium.

The new guidelines, issued to state water agencies and public water system managers, acknowledge the growing concern over the cancer-causing form of chromium, known as chromium-6.

Environmental advocates and Oregon water officials lauded EPA's swift response to an advocacy group's December report that it found hexavalent chromium in 31 of 35 U.S. cities where it tested water. Among them: a privately owned water system in Bend.

While EPA won't decide whether to mandate a new drinking water standard until later this year, it recommends water suppliers step up monitoring and test water at various points of their systems to ensure that treatment and disinfection methods are not making matters worse.

via www.oregonlive.com

One wonders-couldn't EPA leave it to the States, counties and localities to decide the issue of drinking water standards? I realize I'll get comments wondering why I don't care about people being poisoned by chrome-6.

The comments will of coruse be assuming asusme that local, county and State offiicials somehow care less about their people than far-off Washington does. There is no evidence to support this assumption. Further, it is more likely that people affected by chromium issues in drinking water can have a meaingful say at their local level than they can with bureaucrats in the central government.

Some will argue that it is easier to corrupt local officials than federal ones. Of course, even were that true, at least corrupting a local agency would affect only the locality involved; corrupting the feds would involve the whole country.

Moreover, it's pretty clear that the feds are just as subject to corruption as are any state or local officials. Look at the Congressmen recently found to have violated the law or ethics rules.