Drinking water: cross-connection or backflow prevention device inspectors: certification.
The bill mandates that valid and current certifications for cross-connection inspection and backflow prevention device testing must be accepted until the State Water Resources Control Board adopts new standards, or until January 1, 2020, whichever comes first. Importantly, it prohibits water suppliers from refusing to recognize statewide certifications meeting state-set standards. Consequently, this enactment is expected to create a consistent level of competency across the state, thus enhancing public trust in drinking water safety and potentially reducing health risks associated with contaminated water supplies.
Assembly Bill 1529, introduced by Assembly Members Thurmond and Caballero, aims to enhance the safety of drinking water in California by establishing certification requirements for inspectors of cross-connection and backflow prevention devices. It modifies existing provisions under the California Safe Drinking Water Act, mandating that local health officers maintain certification programs for backflow prevention device testers consistent with state regulations. This bill reflects a legislative intent to improve public health by ensuring that testing and maintenance of critical water safety devices are conducted by properly certified individuals.
The sentiment surrounding AB 1529 appears to be supportive among public health advocates and professionals tasked with water safety. Advocates argue that the bill is crucial for enabling effective management of backflow prevention systems, which are essential for protecting public health from potential water contamination. However, there may be concerns from certain local agencies about the implications of state-mandated certifications on their operations and the costs associated with implementing such requirements.
Notably, AB 1529 establishes new criminal provisions for violations of its requirements, which raises discussions about the adequacy of prior preparation among local health departments to manage these changes. The lack of reimbursement provision for local agencies means that these entities may face additional financial burdens without state support. This aspect, along with the perceived overreach of state requirements, may lead to contention among local stakeholders regarding administrative capacities and the implications of state control over local water management practices.