Creates and provides for the Community Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Act. (8/1/20) (EG SEE FISC NOTE LF RV)
The bill will significantly influence state laws governing public water systems, as it introduces a formal accountability process. Community water systems receiving a grade of 'D' or 'F' will be deemed operationally unacceptable and may face various enforcement actions including administrative compliance orders and the potential for receivership by the state. This creates a structure where local authorities must prioritize water system improvements or risk state-level intervention. The bill highlights a commitment to improving public health through better management of drinking water resources.
Senate Bill 168, known as the Community Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Act, aims to enhance the accountability and quality of community water systems in Louisiana. This legislation establishes a framework for the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) to implement a grading system, assessing community water systems from 'A' to 'F' based on multiple factors including water quality violations, financial sustainability, operation history, and customer satisfaction. By mandating regular assessments and public reporting of these grades, the bill aims to ensure that municipalities and other community-controlled water systems meet essential standards for public health and safety.
Overall, the sentiment around SB 168 appears largely positive among public health advocates and environmental groups, who see it as a necessary step toward better safeguarding drinking water quality. There may be concerns from stakeholders about the implementation costs and potential burdens on smaller communities, particularly regarding compliance and penalties. However, supporters argue that the long-term benefits of high-quality, reliable drinking water justify the state's proactive approach in enforcing standards and monitoring performance.
Notably, there may be contention regarding the extent of state oversight and the penalties associated with system failures. Some local governing bodies may view this as a loss of autonomy in managing their water systems. The requirement that communities must develop improvement plans for failing water systems could also lead to conflicts regarding revenue allocation, particularly if existing funds are tied to other obligations. The sensitivity surrounding such enforcement will likely influence ongoing debates about the balance between state accountability and local governance.