Jack Hawks
NARUC Committee on Water
July 15, 2014
Dallas, TX
Working together.
Achieving results.

• Hollywood and Maximum Contaminant
Levels (water quality regulatory standard)
• A New Hexavalent Chromium MCL,
Effective July 1st
• The Drought: Unrelenting Pressure


How Water Utilities Are Responding
New Emergency Drought Regulations

• 115 Regulated IOWCs
 9 Class A water utilities (>
10,000 connections)
 5 Class B water utilities (>2,000)
 24 Class C water utilities (> 500)
 77 Class D water utilities (< 500)
• 1.5 Million Customers
• $1.4 billion annual revenues
• 6 Million Served

Hollywood and Water Contamination
•
• A Civil Action (1996 – John Travolta)


Trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination of the town's water supply (Woburn, MA)
Financial settlement ($68 million) for town’s residents
Erin Brockovich (2000 – Julia Roberts)
 Hexavalent chromium (Cr +6 ) contamination in
Hinkley, CA
 PG&E financial settlement ($333 million) for town’s residents
 Much agitation in California State Legislature

+6

• Chromium is a naturally occurring element in rocks, animals, plants, soil; occurs predominantly as
 Trivalent chromium (Cr +3 ), essential to normal glucose, protein, and fat metabolism and thus an essential dietary element for humans
 Hexavalent chromium (Cr +6 ), used in making stainless steel, textile dyes, wood preservation, and for anticorrosion, treatment of cooling tower water
• Human body reduces Cr +6 to Cr +3
• USEPA has classified Cr +6 as a human carcinogen when inhaled because of results from animal studies

• 1977 - MCL established by USEPA and adopted by
California at 50 parts per billion for Total Chromium
(includes both Cr +6 and Cr +3 ); 1 ppb = about 1 drop of water in 250 chemical drums (3 seconds out of 100 yrs.)
• 1991 - USEPA raised federal MCL to 100 ppb
• 2000 – Julia Roberts wins Oscar for ‘Erin Brockovich’;
Prompts California legislature to force MCL development
• 2000 – City of Glendale begins treatment studies for Cr +6
• 2001 – California water utilities begin monitoring for Cr +6 under California UCMR

• March 2001 – CDHP requests that OEHHA prepare a
Public Health Goal for Cr +6
• May 2001 – National Toxicology Program (NTP) announces intent to conduct a long-term animal study to evaluate carcinogenicity of ingested Cr +6
• October 2001 – SB 351 is signed by the Governor, requiring CDHP to adopt a Cr +6 MCL by 1/1/2004
• November 2001 – OEHHA announces intent to develop a Cr +6 PHG
• 2004 – Water Research Foundation publishes three
Cr +6 reports

• 2007 – NTP reports there to be sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in rodents
• August 2009 – OEHHA releases draft PHG at 60 ng/L (parts per trillion; 1 ppt = 1 drop in 20 Olympic-sized pools)
• 2010 – USEPA announces in second Six-year Review of existing standards, no revision to Total Chromium MCL
•
September 2010
– External review draft of USEPA’s IRIS
Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium
• December 2010 – OEHHA releases revised draft PHG for Cr +6 at 20 ng/L (20 ppt)

• December 2010 – Environmental Working
Group releases report: Chromium-6 is
Widespread in US Tap Water
 Tested tap water in 35 cities
 Range of positive tests: 30 ppt to 13 ppb
 Cites WaterRF 2004 occurrence study
• April 3, 2011 – EWG press release: “Utilities
Knew of Chrome-6 Contamination For
Years ”

• July 2011 – OEHHA finalizes the
PHG for Cr +6 at 20 ppt
• CDPH can now finally start working on developing an MCL required by
SB 351
• It is now seven and one-half years since the SB 351 deadline

Project #
Water Research Foundation
Keeps Science Moving Forward
Project Title
(2011 – 2012)
4365
4404
Feasibility of Microfiltration in the RCF Process for Hexavalent Chromium
Removal
Trace Level Chromium-6 Occurrence and Analysis: Reviewing and
Testing the State of the Science
4414
4418
4423
WITAF 320/
4432
National implications of Community-level Cost for a Theoretical Cr(VI)
SDWA Standard
4445
Total and Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence Analysis
Guidelines for Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Testing
Assessment of Single-Pass Ion Exchange and Adsorptive Media for
Hexavalent Chromium Removal from Drinking Water
4449
Development of a Uniform Approach to Prepare Drinking Water Hex
Chrome Compliance Plans
Sources, Fate & Treatment of Hexavalent Chromium

• July 18, 2013 – NRDC, EWG file suit in Superior Court to force CDPH to propose and finalize a MCL for Cr +6
• Court rules in plaintiffs’ favor and requires CDPH to propose an MCL by
August 31, 2013

• 8/23/2013: CDPH Proposes Cr +6 MCL at 10 ppb
• Water Industry Comments Due 10/13/2013
• AWWA CA-NV Section/CWA/ACWA
 Coordinate comments
 Hire two expert engineering firms to analyze the
CDPH supporting evidence and produce technical documents
• Bottom Line: CDPH Vastly Underestimates
Incidence, Compliance Costs of Cr +6

• 20,000 comments received by CDPH
 About 250 were “significantly distinct”
 Remaining were form emails or post cards
• California Administrative Procedure Act allows up to one year to finalize a regulation (i.e., 8/23/2014)
• December 17, 2013
• Court finds in favor of NRDC/EWG and orders CDPH to finalize
MCL by April 15, 2014
• If there are substantial changes to the rule, must finalize by June
15, 2014 and allow an additional 15-day comment period

• CDPH refutes, dismisses most comments
• Reiterates MCL of 10 ppb
• New MCL went into effect on July 1, 2014
• Where is USEPA on all this?
 Not enough evidence in second six-year review
(2010) to warrant a federal Cr +6 MCL, nor change the total chromium MCL
 USEPA will await occurrence data on total chromium and Cr+6 under UCMR 3 (thru 2015)
 Continued IRIS review of Cr +6
 No decision on Cr +6 anytime soon

• For customers in affected service areas
 Statewide capital costs - $4.1 billion
 Annual O&M - $231 million
• Cal Water most affected of California IOUs
 25 wells affected at 10 ppb
 Capital costs up to $66 million, O&M up to $11 million/yr
• All affected water utilities, agencies, municipalities, districts struggling with compressed compliance time frame

• Memorandum Account Effective on July 1
 Cal Water can apply for cost recovery in future
 Not an automatic process
• Willows District Case History (2,610 customers)
 Tested in 2011-12; CR +6 levels averaged 16 ppb
 Total chromium averaged 24 ppb (vs. 50 ppb MCL)
 Capital costs – up to $17.3 million; O&M $360,000/yr
 Staggering treatment, selection of SBA, other cost reductions, etc. will reduce bill impacts
 Cal Water estimates impact from $63/month to
$111/month

U.S. Drought Monitor
California – 7/8/14
• 100% of California in drought for first time in recorded history
• 78% likelihood of El
Nino prediction in fall
2014 … But …
• El Nino years do not guarantee aboveaverage precipitation.
• A scary fire season

Folsom Reservoir, July 20, 2011 97% Capacity
Folsom Reservoir, January 16, 2014 17% Capacity

January 18, 2013 January 18, 2014

• Variable & Extreme
Over Time & Location
• Most Occurs Nov.- March
California Statewide Precipitation
SOURCE: http://education.usgs.gov/california/resources.html#water

• 6/9/14 Statewide Average - 0%
• Means major reservoirs will not be replenished
• Means reliance on groundwater has increase to 65+% from 38%
• Means falling groundwater levels, land subsidence, lower
GW storage capacity, water quality degradation
North Sierra/Trinity 0%
0%
0%
0%
Central Sierra 0%
South Sierra 0%

July 8, 2014

•
•
Mandatory: 62 water suppliers
Includes 6 rationing
•
• Voluntary: 154 water suppliers
Drought impacts are strongly tied to local and regional water supply conditions
* As of July 7, 2014, compiled by DWR

2013
• California Water Plan Update 2013 (draft)
• Governor establishes Drought Task Force
2014
•
Governor proclaims
Drought Emergency on Jan. 17
•
California Water
Action Plan released
•
Drought Legislation:
SB 103/104
•
Governor issues
Executive Order April
25 to re-double drought efforts

Governor’s April 25 Proclamation
Highlights
• Facilitate water transfers and exchanges
• Urban water suppliers directed to address outdoor water use
• Californians directed to eliminate water waste
 Limit outdoor watering; irrigation, washing hard surfaces, car washing; commercial establishments
• Homeowner association rules voided
• Assist with temporary interconnections between water systems
• Protect threatened and endangered species
• CEQA / Water Code sections suspended to speed up actions, including water transfers

• February 27, 2014 – CPUC adopted Res. W-4976
 Drought procedures for water conservation, rationing and service connection moratoria
 Comply with Governor’s call for 20% voluntary conservation
• Tariff Rule No. 14.1
 Water Conservation and Rationing Plan
 Lists non-essential and unauthorized water uses
• Tariff Schedule 14.1
 Mandatory rationing
 Requires DWA approval
• All Class A and B utilities have Rule 14.1 in place
• CPUC monitoring vulnerable systems

•
Voluntary Conservation Plan
•
Customers Notified by Bill Insert or Direct
Mailing
•
Option to Request Activation of Staged
Mandatory Rationing (Schedule 14.1)
•
Small Utilities (< 2,000 connections) Shall
Make Conservation Kits Available
•
Section A of Rule: Non-Essential Uses

Non-Essential, Unauthorized Water Use
• Anything more than “minimal” landscaping
• “Excessive” water use (per utility notification)
•
Potable water in gutters, streets
•
Private car washing (except w/shut-off nozzle)
•
Washing buildings, driveways, patios, etc., w/potable water
•
Use of potable water for lawns, gardens, etc., other than drip irrigation or hand watering on specific schedules
•
Use of potable water for construction purposes, dust control, etc., if other sources available

Non-Essential, Unauthorized Water Use
•
Use of potable water for street cleaning
•
Operation of commercial car washes unless 50% recycling per cycle
•
Use of potable water for outside plants, lawn, landscape, turf during certain hours
•
Use of potable water for decorative fountains, unless recycled water used
•
Use of potable water for filling/refilling swimming pools
•
Water service in restaurants, unless requested
•
Use of potable water to flush hydrants, except when required for public safety

Schedule 14.1 - Rationing
•
Utility makes decision on whether more stringent measures are required
•
Must file w/CPUC to activate staged mandatory rationing measures in Rule 14.1
•
Filing conditioned on:

Declaration of Mandatory Rationing – can be made by utility or governing agency (e.g., State Water Board)

Whether utility is unable to address voluntary conservation levels set by itself, its supplier or governing agency

Whether utility chooses to subsequently activate a different stage
•
Utility may not activate Schedule 14.1 unless authorized by CPUC
•
Customer notification, public hearing required

•
Utility may charge a water use violation fine if non-essential/unauthorized use is observed (min. 3 Ccf/person/ month)
•
After one written warning, utility can install flow-restricting device
•
All monies collected via fines or penalties will be used to offset lost revenues

•
Utilities w/partial decoupling WRAMs
 Can file for memorandum (tracking) accounts to track expenses, monies collected and lost revenues
– can letter request recovery of the net balance, but
… they must subtract amount equal to 20bp reduction in current authorized ROE – even then, recovery cannot exceed authorized ROR
•
Utilities w/full decoupling WRAMs
 Can file for memo account that only tracks expenses incurred and monies collected, since
WRAM already protects for lost revenues

•
•
Issued by State Water Resources Control Board July 8; approval on July 15 th
•
Mandatory conservation actions, monthly data collection of water production, temporary water restrictions – prohibits:


The direct application of water to any hard surface for washing.
Watering of outdoor landscapes that cause runoff to adjacent property, walkways, roadways, parking lots, etc.


Using hose to wash automobiles, unless fitted with shut-off nozzle.
Using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is recirculated.
Violations punishable by fines of $500 per day; any employee of a public agency may write and issue a ticket to a violator – raises all sorts of “water police” questions

•
State Board Chair Felicia Marcus has stated that new regs don’t apply to CPUC-regulated water utilities, but CPUC may well adopt them
• CWA’s July 14 comments note that Rule and
Schedule 14.1 constitute drought management response
• Water IOUs will continue to work with the CPUC to coordinate their existing drought response plans and programs with the State Board’s new regulations

Jack Hawks
California Water Association jhawks@calwaterassn.com
415.561.9650