New Hope for a Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund for California?

Back in July I wrote an "RIP" post commemorating the death of the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, scuttled on June 8, 2018, during California state budget negotiations.

With the advent of a new governor, this fund has found new life.

Gavin Newsom budget calls for drinking water tax to help poor communities
(D. Kasler et al., Sacramento Bee, Jan. 10, 2019)

Applause for this initiative came from the Community Water Center, a proponent of the fund, per their Jan. 11, 2019, press release.

However, the opposition has not gone anywhere.

Despite record surplus, Gov. Newsom wants new water, phone taxes
(C. Reed, Cal Watchdog, Jan. 14, 2019)

Californians with bad water ask for help while opposition mounts to Newsom’s proposed tax
(M. Ashmun, Sacramento Bee, Feb. 7, 2019)

Neither have the proponents.

Read a Jan. 13, 2019, post "Shared interest in universal safe drinking water" by Dr. Jay Lund on the California WaterBlog, a blog maintained by the UC Davis’ Center for Watershed Sciences. Dr. Lund, Director of that center and UC Davis Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, doesn't explicitly promote the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, but does lay out the argument for having such a fund:

Prosperity and democracy together seem almost essential to having near-universal safe drinking water supplies.  Prosperity and democracy together bring effective social organization and resources needed to deliver safe and affordable drinking water. [...]  California’s failure to provide safe, affordable drinking water to the remaining roughly 1% of residents is probably the most solvable and affordable of California’s many difficult water problems.  There will always be isolated small systems with vexing problems, but the number of Californians currently without access to safe affordable drinking water is embarrassing and irresponsibly high.

Dr. Lund's Tweet promoting that blog post gives the moral of the story:

All water systems suffer when any drinking water system is unsafe.

The idea of "the human right to water," meanwhile, is progressing toward meaningful implementation in the state. This is taking form partly through a state report following on AB 685, asserting the human right to water in California. When Governor Brown signed AB 685 in 2012, California became "the first state in the nation to legislatively recognize the human right to water" per the California Water Board's web page "Human Right to Water Portal."

Comments on the draft report "A Framework and Tool for Evaluating California's Progress in Achieving the Human Right to Water" are due to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment  (OEHHA) by 5 PM Feb. 19, 2019. The deadline was extended from Feb. 4 to Feb. 19 at the request of some of the opponents to that original Human Right to Water Bill, a water utility and the professional organization for California water utilities, the Association of California Water Agencies.

I'm pleased to see that comments are to be sent to:

HR2W
Attn: Carolina Balazs
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1515 Clay Street, 16th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612

I saw Carolina Balazs present her impressive research on water quality issues in the San Joaquin Valley when I was a policy Master's student and she was a Ph.D. candidate at UC Berkeley. She worked with the Community Water Center during her research, and then was a staff research scientist at the CWC starting in 2012. Her research was used to support the CWC's campaign to pass the Human Right to Water bill (AB 685). She is uniquely well-suited (well-trained and well-informed) to be the broker of the process by which that bill turns into action.

What is the human right to water? 

The United Nations General Assembly recognized "the ‘human right to sanitation’ as a distinct right, together with the ‘human right to safe drinking water’" on Dec. 18, 2015 (per UN High Commissioner for Human Rights press release). There is an interesting 2016 PowerPoint titled "The Human Rights to Water and Sanitation : Progress in theory and practice" on the website for the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It appears to be from a presentation by Léo Heller, Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, including slides on the legal basis for the human rights to water and sanitation, and where they stand in regard to the various related UN development goals (MDGs, SDGs).

See my previous post on the passage of AB 685 in 2012.

Brief thoughts on the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund (RIP)

I've been AWOL from my blog for the past few months due to being hired by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to work on energy efficiency compliance issues as an Energy Analyst.

This is going to be a quickie dip into blogging and then back to analyzing energy.

A Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund was under discussion as part of the California budget, but was scrapped on June 8, 2018, per the Sacramento Bee (by D. Kasler and A. Ashton). The compromise that resulted involves new General Fund contributions to safe drinking water projects. The Maven's Notebook, a water policy blog founded by Chris Austin, noted that same day that the legislature is evidently (per Cal-EPA) showing "a commitment to continue discussions this summer."

I have deep respect for the Visalia-based Community Water Center, which supported the creation of this new public goods charge for water. I have to believe they aren't going to give up on this idea, which has been kicking around for a long time. There's lots of support for it, with two-thirds of Californians supporting the fund according to their background about the fund.

Their press release issued on June 8, 2018, doesn't mention that the fund was scuttled, but frames it as a victory because there is now a new commitment of resources dedicated to safe drinking water projects, and the aforementioned commitment to continue discussions this summer. Hopefully those discussions go somewhere where there is a lot more safe drinking water for California's poor and rural communities.

Meanwhile, let's talk about this idea of a public goods charge for water.

Here's an old CPUC-issued paper written in 2010 by some fellow alums from the Goldman School of Public Policy (at UC Berkeley), supporting the introduction of a public goods charge for water. My fellow water policy nerds proposed these reasons for the introduction of a public goods charge for water:

• A public goods charge for water creates a price signal for water conservation. 
• A public goods charge for water would provide a stable, sustainable funding mechanism to support the full list of conservation and efficiency activities specified in Assembly Bill 32. 
• The dual energy and water conservation programs specified in AB 32, which could not be fully funded through the other mechanisms we considered, will be effective to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. 
• Our proposed implementation strategy will help institutionalize regional water agencies, which are necessary for the state’s long‐term water‐planning effectiveness. 

(Note: AB 32, for anyone not immersed in California climate change work, is the landmark California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which primarily addressed greenhouse gas reduction goals.)

This paper proposes that the public goods charge be assessed via "volumetric surcharges on each water bill where metered, or by alternate means in the short‐term for areas not metered."

The Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund took another approach to raising funds. This was clarified in a blog post by attorney S. Holzer:

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.

Also, "the bill would allow farmers to enroll in a waiver program by paying an applicable fee..."

More on the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund as it was originally conceived:

A News Deeply/ Water Deeply article by Tess Townsend (May 8, 2018) California Considers Charge on Utility Bills to Create Safe Water Fund summarizes the scope of the proposed-and-now-scuttled fund thus:

A piece of legislation, introduced last year as Senate Bill 623 and later included as a trailer bill in the governor’s proposed budget, seeks to solve this structural problem by raising a $140 million annual Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, from a combination of charges on agriculture and residential water users. Money would go toward ongoing operation and maintenance costs for treatment in under-resourced districts. The charge on residential users would amount to about $1 a month for most households served by the 1,000 or so agencies collecting fund revenue.

You can read the original bill here.

From the above, I deduce that the amount collected wouldn't have been tied (or not tied tightly) to the rate of consumption of water. This means the funding stream wouldn't be choked by water conservation.

I just want to flag this point for people working on the development of future public goods charges. It's important.

You see, I have learned that the funding stream for the work I'm doing at the California Energy Commission in the Efficiency Division is tied to energy consumption. The upshot is that the more successful the CEC Efficiency Division is at its job, the less money it has.

The funding for my division comes from ERPA, the Energy Resources Program Account. The law dictating the creation of the ERPA was passed in 1974. You can read it here. It is a fee applied to a utility bill to fund public-interest programs related to that utility service. The 1974 law directs the state's electricity utilities to gather a surcharge per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed.

It wasn't thought through to its inevitable conclusion, apparently, as it now dwindles and the governor is demanding a doubling of energy efficiency in the state.

The Human Right to Water Affirmed in California

Congratulations, staff of the Community Water Center! You have worked long and hard to win yesterday's victory, when California Governor Brown signed the Human Right to Water Bill, AB 685 (see AB 685 with recent markups), introducing into the Water Code this language:

"It is hereby declared 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."

This could be an important leverage point for rural and unincorporated communities as California warms and becomes more arid.

Before now domestic use of water was prioritized in California water policy; however, that included all domestic use, including watering lawns and filling swimming pools.

In 2011 Governor Brown signed other legislation recommended as part of a Human Right to Water Bill Package:

• AB 983, the Access to Safe Drinking Water Act, to better serve communities lacking safe, affordable water;
• AB 938, about public water systems;
• AB 1221, about the State Water Quality Control Fund and the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account; 
• SB 244, about local government, land use, general plans, and disadvantaged unincorporated communities