Drinking water: primary standard for hexavalent chromium: exemption.
If enacted, SB 466 would significantly alter the liability landscape for public water systems concerning hexavalent chromium. By providing immunity from civil lawsuits for non-governmental parties, the bill aims to encourage these systems to adhere to compliance plans without the fear of litigation. This could lead to increased implementation of necessary upgrades and improvements to address contamination issues without the added pressure of potential legal consequences.
Senate Bill 466, introduced by Senator Caballero, focuses on the regulation of hexavalent chromium in drinking water by adding Section 116341 to the Health and Safety Code. The bill provides public water systems that meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) standards for total chromium protection from civil liability concerning hexavalent chromium while they are implementing and complying with a state board-approved compliance plan. This exemption applies during both the approval phase and while executing the plan, or until the state reviews the proposed compliance plan.
The sentiment around SB 466 appears to be supportive among those who view it as a practical measure that encourages compliance with existing drinking water safety standards. Proponents argue that removing liability will facilitate quicker actions to improve public health. However, concerns may arise from environmental advocates and members of the community who fear that this could lead to reduced accountability for public water systems and a potential decline in water quality standards.
Notable contentions surrounding SB 466 include the concern that while it aims to support compliance, it may inadvertently reduce the incentive for public water systems to prioritize immediate solutions to hexavalent chromium contamination. Critics worry that the liability exemption could result in complacency or slow down necessary remediation efforts, as systems may rely on the legal protections instead of actively addressing concerns. The balance between protecting public health and ensuring accountability remains a critical point of discussion among stakeholders.