Small System Water Authority Act of 2018.
The legislation mandates that if a public water system reporting violations does not remedy the issues within a specified timeframe, the State Water Resources Control Board may cause the formation of a Small System Water Authority. The authority will be tasked with implementing corrective actions to comply with drinking water standards. The bill also requires quarterly progress reports from entities with accepted plans and annual public hearings to evaluate their progress, thereby enhancing accountability and oversight at the local level. Furthermore, the State Board would provide financial assistance to the authorities for their operational needs in the initial years following their formation, ensuring that the transition is financially viable.
Assembly Bill No. 2050, known as the Small System Water Authority Act of 2018, introduces significant reforms to California's approach to managing public water systems, particularly those that serve disadvantaged communities. The primary aim of the bill is to establish Small System Water Authorities that have the authority to absorb and efficiently operate noncompliant public water systems — specifically those that serve fewer than 10,000 users or have less than 3,000 service connections and have failed to meet state and federal drinking water standards for an extended period. Through this framework, the bill seeks to ensure that all Californians have access to safe and reliable drinking water, while also clarifying the responsibilities of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Public Utilities Commission regarding oversight and compliance.
General sentiment around AB 2050 appears favorable among advocates for public health and safety as it aims to rectify disparities in access to safe drinking water. Stakeholders recognize the potential for improved management of smaller, struggling water systems through centralized authority designed to streamline operations and enhance compliance with safety standards. However, there is some apprehension from local agencies concerned about the new responsibilities and whether adequate funding will be available to support the mandated improvements without imposing undue financial burdens.
Some key points of contention have emerged, particularly regarding the delineation of responsibilities among local agencies and the state board, and the implications of imposing a state-mandated local program on already strained local budgets. Critics express concerns over whether the intended consolidation could undermine local governance and accountability in water management. In addition, the requirement that entities file and implement remedial plans adds layers of bureaucracy which some argue may slow down urgent necessary improvements in water quality within certain systems.