State of California
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality

MINUTES OF
STAKEHOLDER MEETING ON
INCIDENTAL RUNOFF OF RECYCLED WATER
9 DECEMBER 2003

Meeting Time and Location

9:00 am-11:30 am, 9 December 2003, Cal/EPA Building, 1st Floor Training Room, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, California.

Attendance
Forty-one persons attended the meeting.  See attachment for complete list.
Summary of Proceedings
A.  Background Information
Gordon Innes presented slides to describe the issue of incidental runoff from use of recycled water, the purpose of the current review of this issue, and background information.  The Recycled Water Task Force, convened by the state Department of Water Resources during 2002 and 2003 pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 331 (2001), issued its recommendations in June 2003.  Recommendation 4.2.1 was that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) should convene a committee to review the issue of incidental runoff of recycled water from sites where recycled water is used.  The objective is to determine ways to reduce the burden of compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit requirements.
Three types of incidental runoff have been identified for investigation:
1. Irrigation runoff from large turf areas: golf courses, parks, cemeteries, etc.
2. Irrigation runoff from community and residential landscaping
3. Discharges from ponds that contain recycled water during storms.
Treatment and runoff management requirements in the Water Recycling Criteria of the Department of Health Services in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations were reviewed.  The regulations provide, "Any irrigation runoff shall be confined to the recycled water use area, unless the runoff does not pose a public health threat and is authorized by the regulatory agency."
The most relevant provisions of state statutes are in the Water Code.  Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the state shall file a report of waste discharge (Section 13260).  The RWQCB shall issue waste discharge requirements for any existing or proposed discharge (Section 13263).  However, under state law a RWQCB may waive the requirements of Sections 13260 and 13263 if the waiver is not against the public interest (Section 13269).  Sections 13520-28 concern water recycling criteria for public health protection and permitting requirements for use of recycled water.
The federal regulations governing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) have been the primary basis for regulating incidental runoff (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 122).  The NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of "pollutants" from any "point source" into "waters of the United States."  (40CFR122.1(b)(1))  "Pollutant" means "dredged spoil, . . . sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, . . . and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water."  (40CFR122.2)  "Discharge of a pollutant" means an addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source.  "Point source" means "any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, . . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged.  This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural storm water runoff."
Because recycled water is of wastewater origin, it is considered to contain pollutants.  If these pollutants reach waters of the U.S. through a channel of some sort, federal regulations seem to mandate an NPDES permit.  Unlike state law, federal regulations do not have a provision for a waiver.
Terry Oda of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stated that "discharge of a pollutant" has been very broadly defined administratively and in courts.
Innes described four options that have been determined at this point for permitting recycled water use where incidental runoff is expected:
1. Specify water quality limits on discharges from recycled water storage ponds.  A potential problem with this approach is that ponds may collect pollutants from sources other than recycled water, such as pesticides used on golf courses or pollutants collected in storm water, that could cause effluent violations.
2. Declare a pond to be a "water of the U.S.".   In this case, water quality limits would be specified on recycled water discharged into the pond but not on water discharged from the pond.  Under this approach, other discharges to the pond, for example algaecide, would also have to be regulated.
3. Regulate irrigation runoff and pond discharges under municipal storm water permits.
4. Regulate pond discharges under the general industrial storm water permit.  Golf courses, cemeteries, etc. have not been classified as industrial activities.  While the state could change this classification, this precedent could create other regulatory problems for these sites.
Innes noted that several states were polled for how they regulate incidental runoff: Arizona, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.  Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington have relatively little water reuse experience.  Arizona has a regulation prohibiting runoff of recycled water or recycled water mixed with storm water from a reuse site.  State staff stated that runoff from ponds has not been a problem and that minor amounts of runoff onto sidewalks from irrigation is not strictly enforced.
In Florida most ponds storing recycled water are part of storm water management systems and are regulated under NPDES permits.  Runoff from irrigation with recycled water is not regulated beyond the degree of regulation imposed for potable water sources.  Such runoff is considered to be a dispersed non-point source discharge not subject to NPDES permitting.
In Texas ponds with recycled water are prohibited from discharge into waters of the state except for discharges directly resulting from rainfall events.  Reasonable control of application rates of recycled water for irrigation is expected, so that excessive application of water that results in surface runoff is avoided.
Innes reported that he met with RWQCB staffs to discuss the incidental runoff issue.  The RWQCBs did not report significant problems with noncompliance with water recycling requirements that prohibit discharges of incidental runoff.  Only Regions 5 (Central Valley) reported problems with noncompliance.  The RWQCBs reported that they had been able to work with dischargers to find solutions. One participant reported that a Region 2 general permit for water recycling allows minor amounts of incidental runoff.
[Note:  The actual three key provisions in the Region 2 permit are:
1. "Recycled water shall not be allowed to escape from the designated use area(s) as surface flow that would either pond and/or enter waters of the state."
2. "The incidental discharge of recycled water to waters of the State shall not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of water, and not result in water quality less than that prescribed in water quality control plans or policies."
3. "No recycled water shall be discharged from treatment facilities, irrigation holding tanks, storage ponds, or other containment, other than for permitted reuse in accordance with this Order, other Board issued Waste Discharge Requirements or NPDES permits, contingency plan in an approved Water Reuse Program (NOI report), or for discharge to a municipal sewage treatment system.]
Innes noted that it appears that newer golf courses or similar sites do not have runoff problems because they are being designed to use recycled water and to avoid runoff.  The problems usually occur at sites that are retrofitted for recycled water use.  There are design features or operational techniques that can be used to avoid the problem, such as locating ponds away from drainage courses, adding storage capacity to handle storm water runoff, draining ponds during winter, or replacing recycled water with fresh water during winter.
Jeff Stone stated that the State Department of Health Services would not consider the discharge of tertiary treated recycled water from storage ponds to be a public health problem.
Richard Katz commented that the State need to apply perspective, since pollution from incidental runoff is insignificant in most cases.
B.  Discussion of Issue

There was a general discussion of the incidental runoff issue and many comments were offered.  A summary of the comments is listed below:
1. California ranks second among states in the number of golf courses.
2. Chlorine residual in recycled water could be a pollution problem in runoff.
3. Metals and other chemicals in recycled water are regulated in some permits and not in others.
4. Potable water in ponds is generally not regulated, but it could be, as is the case of a golf course in Region 6 (Lahonton).
5. A regulatory approach is needed that reflects the need for recycled water as a water supply in California and the fact that incidental runoff does not generally represent a pollution problem.
6. It is difficult to prevent irrigation runoff entirely.
7. Irvine Ranch Water District has been working with storm water permit holders within its boundaries to reduce pollution, and the district has not found irrigation water to be a source of pollutants to be concerned about.
8. The state should reevaluate the federal definition of "pollutant" and whether recycled water legitimately belongs in this classification.  Recycled water is not "sewage" or "municipal waste."  It is a product that in most cases has received extensive treatment.

Several comments related to regulatory approaches:

1. All regulatory approaches need to be identified and put on the table.
2. There should be a uniform statewide framework for regulating incidental runoff; the issue should not be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
3. There should be a comprehensive state-issued list of best management practices (BMPs).  BMPs from this list should be selectively used on a facility specific basis.  RWQCBs should work with project or facility planners early in the planning and design process to incorporate appropriate BMPs to minimize incidental runoff.
4. The SWRCB should issue guidance or policy that addresses incidental runoff statewide or issue a General NPDES permit for incidental runoff.
5. Incorporate in a general NPDES permit appropriate BMPs and provisions for chemicals not already regulated in water reclamation permits.
6. If recycled water has tertiary treatment, allow minor amounts of incidental recycled water runoff as authorized by Section 60310 of Title 22.  ("Any irrigation runoff shall be confined to the recycled water use area, unless the runoff does not pose a public health threat and is authorized by the regulatory agency.")
7. Apply Water Code Section 13529.2 regarding unauthorized discharges.  This section requires accidental unauthorized discharges of recycled water to be reported to the RWQCB if the discharge exceeds 50,000 gallons of tertiary-treated recycled water or 1,000 gallons of disinfected secondary-treated recycled water.  [Note:  The implication of this section is that smaller discharges need not be reported and will not be penalized.  The section, however, concludes with this statement, "The requirements in this section supplement, and shall not supplant, any other provisions of law."]
8. Separate discharges related to storm events from discharges related to non-storm events in crafting regulatory solutions.
9. Separate the issue of irrigation runoff from the issue of pond overflows in crafting regulatory solutions.
10. Separate issues concerning pollutants normally present in freshwater (e.g., chlorine) or resulting from site management practices (e.g., algaecide addition to ponds) from those concerning constituents unique to recycled water.  Regulate recycled water only for pollutants unique to recycled water and not for pollutants that are not otherwise regulated when freshwater is used.

There appeared to be agreement that the current regulatory predicament stems from federal NPDES regulations and not state law.  State legislation would not be effective in resolving the incidental runoff regulatory problems.

C.  Next Steps

It was agreed that the SWRCB would take the following actions:

1. Look further into the federal regulations to see if there is more flexibility in regulating incidental runoff.
2. Develop a list of BMPs to reduce or eliminate incidental runoff.
3. Look further at the approaches of Regions 2 and 9 in regulating incidental runoff.
4. Look at the option of a statewide policy.
5. Produce a staff report on the incidental runoff issue by early February 2004.

The issue was raised whether, during the interim period while the incidental runoff issue is being investigated, fines would be issued for occurrences of incidental runoff.  Innes replied that if BMPs were being exercised, RWQCBs would probably be lenient.

 STAKEHOLDER MEETING ON
INCIDENTAL RUNOFF OF RECYCLED WATER
ATTENDEES AT 9 DECEMBER 2003 MEETING

Tim Anderson Sonoma County Water Agency
Dominic Atlan PGA (Professional Golfers' Association) of America
Mike Blankinship Blankinship & Associates
Kirk Bone Parker Development Company
Norris Brandt* Irvine Ranch Water District
Dan Carlson City of Santa Rosa
Richard Carlson San Diego County Department of Environmental Health
Ed Crouse Rancho Murieta Community Services District
Uzi Daniel West Basin and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts
Ane D. Deister El Dorado Irrigation District
Tracey Eden-Bishop El Dorado Irrigation District
Steve Faukner El Dorado Irrigation District
Julio S. Guerra City of Ione
Ali Harivandi University of California Cooperative Extension
Bob Holden Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Tom Howard State Water Resources Control Board
Tim Howe Foley & Lardner, California Golf Course Superintendents Association
Jim Husting California Golf Course Superintendents Association
Craig Johns California Resource Strategies
Richard Katz California State Water Resources Control Board
Nancy King California Department of Water Resources
Mike Lahmann California Golf Course Superintendents Association
Ken Landau Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Roberta Larson Somach, Simmons & Dunn (WateReuse Association)
Jessica Mullan League of California Cities
Matt Mullan Town of Windsor
Jim Maughan State Water Resources Control Board
Richard Mills State Water Resources Control Board
Cliff Moriyama California Business Properties Association
Terry Oda U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Art O'Brien City of Roseville
Ellen Powell City of Roseville
Marsha Prillwitz California Department of Water Resources
Martha Rincón Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Chris Scheuring Somach, Simmons & Dunn
H. Eric Schockman University of Southern California, Facilitator of meeting
Steve Setoodeh El Dorado Irrigation District
Karin Shine State Water Resources Control Board
Jeff Stone* California Department of Health Services
Dawit Tadesse State Water Resources Control Board
Bob Whitley Whitley, Burchett & Associates, WateReuse Association of California

* By telephone

Stakeholder Meeting on
Incidental Runoff of Recycled Water

 Tuesday, December 9, 2003
 First Floor Training Room
 Cal/EPA Building
 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814

Agenda

Item     Start Time    Minutes

1. Introductions   9:00 am    15 minutes
2. Staff Presentation   9:15 am    30 minutes
3. Discussion    9:45 am    120 minutes
4. Next Step    10:45 am    15 minutes

PRESENTATION BY GORDON INNES

We have been monitoring this situation for awhile however it has actually come full circle with many players now involved. The problem is how to handle/interpret Incidental Run-off of Reclaimed Water by end users. Oh boy...here we go. A specific incident or situation occurred up here in District 5 of the State Water Control Board whereas the agency was really coming down hard on a couple of golf courses in interpretation of these regulations. However the meeting was concerning how different regions were enforcing the regs differently from other regions. Get that? Anyway without boring you to tears, this could  turn out to be a huge issue concerning golf courses that use reclaimed water to irrigate their courses. We are not the only "stakeholders" however and the ramifications of this little section is huge...only in that if the interpretations of the regulations turn against our viewpoints the Federal Agencies could then become involved and that means federal permitting etc..etc.. Another words...a big headache.

A representative from George Steffes`s group Tim Howe, was there to help us sort all of this out...so we do have some legal help and guidance. I am attaching a brief section of the Recycled Water Task Force Report for your review so you can get a little bit up to speed on this. The California GCSA is now a "stakeholder" and our suggestions and inputs are being heard.

I will keep attending these meeting and definitely keep you informed about any new developments. If you would like to contact me and chat more about this..I would probably explain it a little better over the phone than I am here now.

Respectfully,

Jim Husting, CGCS
California GCSA
Government Relations
209-368-9040
 

4.2. INCIDENTAL RUNOFF

Issue

Recycled water applied for irrigation is intended to remain on the irrigated areas to avoid public health and nuisance problems from runoff.  Permits, issued by the RWQCBs, authorizing the use of recycled water for irrigation typically include provisions prohibiting runoff.  Incidental runoff or overspray of minor amounts of irrigated water at the edges of irrigated areas is difficult to prevent.  It is also difficult to prevent runoff of rainwater from areas irrigated with recycled water or from aesthetic ponds on golf courses filled with or previously filled with recycled water, especially during major storm events. Some RWQCBs strictly enforce the runoff prohibitions, resulting in the need for expensive design provisions or preventing the feasibility of using recycled water. The runoff prohibitions have been dubbed the "one molecule rule," implying that the existence of one molecule of wastewater origin in runoff constitutes a discharge of wastewater.

Recommendation 4.2.1

The SWRCB should convene a committee to review the legal requirements of federal and
State statutes and regulations that relate to the regulation of incidental runoff and to deter-
mine the regulatory and enforcement options that are available to Regional Water Quality
Control Boards. This review should include the following items.

a. An evaluation of best available scientific data that demonstrate the effects of discharges of incidental runoff. Many recycled water producers and/or distributors have performed varied testing and monitoring of incidental runoff that could be available to the committee. This scientific evidence may be in the form of reporting requirements to regional boards, testing requirements for spills, State Implementation Plan (13267 letter), or other reports prepared for various reasons. The committee should recommend best management practices that under normal environmental conditions would allow discharge of incidental runoff without harm to the environment.

b. How other states address comparable situations in regulation and enforcement.

c. Within current legal constraints, with respect to discharges from storage or decorative ponds at use sites, options to be evaluated should include, but not be limited to:

(i) Development of statewide general permit requirements for ponds filled with recycled water. Within the general permit, unintentional discharges of commingled recycled and storm water would not be treated as violations, but rather water that is a mixture of rainwater and recycled water that runs off a site as a direct result of rainfall. Specific requirements of the permit would include best management practices and a method of uniform enforcement across the State.

(ii) Regional Water Quality Control Board adoption of a specific waiver of waste discharge requirements for unintentional recycled water overflows pursuant to
Water Code section 13269.

(iii) Allowance of discharges under an NPDES permit with the following conditions:

(a) compliance point to be at the point of leaving the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) rather than exit of the pond,

(b) WWTP NPDES permit may incorporate any requirements applicable to use site ponds rather than a separate permit being required for each use site where a pond exists,

(c) Monitoring and testing shall be established relative to the pond/site, and

(d) California Toxics Rule would apply to WWTP discharge only.

d. With respect to other forms of incidental runoff, options similar to those above should be evaluated.

Approach and Implementation:

It is uncertain how much flexibility exists within the current framework of State and federal statutes and regulations in regulating incidental runoff of recycled water. It has been suggested that other states interpret federal requirements differently than the SWRCB and RWQCBs in California. It also appears that within California RWQCBs are not consistent in their regulation of incidental runoff. The Task Force participants discussed a recommendation to amend either State or federal statutes. However, it would not be appropriate to recommend statutory changes without understanding what options exist under current statutes and, if these options are inappropriate, which State or federal law should be amended.

The SWRCB should create a committee to conduct a legal analysis of the problem and the permissible options within the current legal framework. There is the possibility that a legislative remedy may be necessary, but this cannot be recommended without the legal analysis first. It would be helpful to decision-makers if there were more documentation regarding the water quality impacts of incidental runoff. If there are situations where a minor escape of recycled water from a use site would not have a negative impact, then there would be a basis for seeking more regulatory flexibility. Time frame: July 2003-January 2004.")

Thursday, the state Senate approved a bill that would force all California homes and business to be hooked up to water meters by 2025. No more flat rates for unlimited water use -- homeowners in Modesto and other valley cities would be billed based on how much water they use. 

The measure, which targets water-conservation holdouts in the Central Valley, is expected to receive final approval from the Assembly next week, then head to Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk. 

The Senate passed the bill 23-11.

It also calls for homes with meters already installed -- a requirement for new homes since 1992 -- to start receiving water bills based on usage by 2010. 

Lawmakers from Southern California, where metered water bills are the norm, have been pushing the issue for years. 

"Water is a precious resource in California," said Sen. Deirdre Alpert, D-San Diego, who steered the bill through a brief debate. 

The natural resource is so precious that Twain once remarked that out West, whiskey is for drinking, but water is for fighting over. 

But as booming valley communities face the possibility of costly new wells or reservoirs to keep up with the demand for water, the opposition to metering has waned. 

"I think people are fairly resigned to it," said Judith Ray, Modesto's deputy public works director. "The impression I get from talking to people around here is that people understand it's one of the best conservation tools going." 

Even Central Valley lawmakers were quick to accept defeat Thursday. 

"I know I'm a bit outnumbered here," said Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, who complained about the potential cost of installing meters in the capital city. 

Sens. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, and Chuck Pooch-igian, R-Fresno, voted against the bill. Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, supported it. 

Opponents want local control 

Critics of metering argue that communities with adequate water supplies should not have to meet the standards of areas in Southern California that are short of water. Metering should be left up to local water agencies, they say. 

Backers say the metering effort would save water and put less stress on the state's water supply, as homeowners notice that leaky sprinkler systems and toilets have financial consequences. 

"The bill, once they pay attention to their water use, is actually going to go down," said Mary Ann Dickinson, executive director of the California Urban Water Conservation Council. 

But with the cost of installing meters, the $20 to $30 monthly water bills that many valley residents see could easily double or triple in coming years. Metering costs could range from $300 for upgrading and connecting an existing meter to $2,000 for new installation and related sidewalk or pavement repairs. 

Local communities have been bracing for the meter mandate and talking about ways to beat the state-imposed deadlines. 

The Modesto City Council has discussed a plan to get meters up and running by 2019. The Turlock City Council is considering a five-year plan to get all homes metered. 

"At this point, it's no longer a choice and that's a fact we'll just have to accept," said Dan Madden, Turlock's water resources manager. 

Bee Capitol Bureau reporter Eric Stern can be reached at 916-326-5544 or estern@modbee.com. 

California could save enough water to serve 11 million people a year if city dwellers cut their water waste by a third, according to a new study by a Bay Area research group.

Through a combination of existing water conservation technologies, innovative regulations and public education, the state wouldn't have to build new dams, reservoirs and other water projects, said the study by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Oakland.

Even with the expected growth in the state's population, improvements in efficiency and conservation can "meet California's future water needs while increasing the amount of water returned to the natural environment," the study said.

"Conservation doesn't mean deprivation or brown lawns or cutting back on industry. It means doing what we want with less water,'' said lead author Peter Gleick, an international expert who founded the institute and this year received a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship.

The three-year study, called "Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California,'' is the first comprehensive look at water efficiency by the urban sector -- residential, commercial, institutional and industrial water users -- which uses 20 percent of the state's water.

In a future study, the institute intends to examine the agriculture sector, which uses 80 percent of the water, mainly to irrigate crops.

The potential water savings in the state's commercial sector is 714,000 acre-feet a year and in the industrial sector 260,000 acre-feet a year. An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land a foot deep.

Among the report's findings:

-- Replacing inefficient toilets, washing machines, showerheads and dishwashers and repairing leaks in residences would save 893,000 acre-feet a year, with an upgrade in toilets alone supplying nearly half of the savings.

-- Outdoor residential water use could be substantially cut by changing times of watering to reduce evaporation, letting lawns go dormant, installing efficient irrigation systems, using gray water and choosing drought-resistant plants.

Current annual estimates for out-of-doors watering at homes range from a low use of 983,000 acre-feet to a high of 1.9 million acre-feet a year.

-- Conservation at schools, hotels, restaurants, retail stores, offices, hospitals, golf courses and laundries could save 1,852 acre-feet a year.

-- Efficiency improvements in the dairy, meat, fruit and beverage processing industries and refining, high-tech, paper, textiles and fabricated metals industries could save 665 acre-feet a year.

The study can be found on the Web at www.pacinst.org/reports/waste_not.

E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com.

CA SB 543 
 AUTHOR: Machado (D) 
TITLE: Water Rights: Groundwater Cleanup Operations 
INTRODUCED: 02/20/2003 
LAST AMEND: 09/12/2003 
LOCATION: Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials 
Committee 
SUMMARY: 
Permits the water produced from a groundwater cleanup operation to be used, transferred, assigned or conveyed for beneficial use by the operator only if a written agreement for the allocation of treated water has been entered into between the operator and every injured public water system that has made a claim. Provides that no right shall vest in the operator solely by virtue of its extraction, treatment or discharge of water from that operation. 
STATUS: 
09/12/2003 From ASSEMBLY Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 
AND TOXIC MATERIALS with author's amendments. 09/12/2003 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. 
Re-referred to Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 
AND TOXIC MATERIALS. 
Priority: Hot 03/11/2003, Sent 09/16/2003 
Position: Watch 03/07/2003 

CA SB 922 
 AUTHOR: Soto (D) 
TITLE: Cleanup or Abatement Orders: Drinking Water 
Supply INTRODUCED: 02/21/2003 
LAST AMEND: 09/02/2003 
LOCATION: Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee 
SUMMARY: 
Provides that a cleanup and abatement order issued by the State Water Resources Control Board or a regional board may require the provision of, or payment for, uninterrupted replacement water service to each affected public water supplier or private well owner. Requires a regional or state board to request a water replacement plan from the discharger prior to provision of replacement water. Provides for mediation of replacement water claims. 
STATUS: 
09/02/2003 From ASSEMBLY Committee on WATER, PARKS AND 
WILDLIFE with author's amendments. 09/02/2003 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. 
Re-referred to Committee on WATER, PARKS AND 
WILDLIFE. 
Priority: Low 03/10/2003, Sent 09/03/2003 

CA SB 1155 
 AUTHOR: Machado (D) 
TITLE: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
INTRODUCED: 01/28/2004 
LOCATION: Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee 
SUMMARY: 
Prohibits a public agency, including the California Bay-Delta Authority, from assisting or cooperating with any other public agency for the purposes of increasing pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta beyond levels authorized under applicable operation criteria, until the authority undertakes certain actions that encourages pubic participation and in furtherance of certain described solution principles. 
STATUS: 
02/17/2004 To SENATE Committee on AGRICULTURE AND WATER 
RESOURCES. 

CA SB 1374 
 AUTHOR: Machado (D) 
TITLE: Water transfers: Third-Party Impacts 
INTRODUCED: 02/18/2004 
LOCATION: Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee 
SUMMARY: 
Authorizes the Water Resources Control Board to approve a petition for a long-term water transfer only if it additionally determines that the proposed transfer would not cause substantial negative third-party impacts. Prohibits the board from approving the petition unless it finds that the petitioners have met prescribed conditions relating to potential third-party impacts. 
STATUS: 
03/04/2004 To SENATE Committee on AGRICULTURE AND WATER 
RESOURCES. 
Priority: Medium 02/19/2004, Sent 02/19/2004 
Position: Watch 02/19/2004 

CA SB 1409 
 AUTHOR: Poochigian (R) 
TITLE: Water Rights 
INTRODUCED: 02/19/2004 
LOCATION: Senate Rules Committee 
SUMMARY: 
Makes nonsubstantive, technical changes to existing law that grants certain rights and privileges relating to the appropriation of water to persons, and extends those same rights and privileges to any entity capable of holding an interest in real property. 
STATUS: 
03/04/2004 To SENATE Committee on RULES. 

CA SB 1909 
 AUTHOR: Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee 
TITLE: Recycled Water 
INTRODUCED: 03/10/2004 
LOCATION: Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee 
SUMMARY: 
Substitutes the term "recycled water" for "reclaimed water" and the word "recycling" for "reclamation" in various provisions of the Water Code. 
STATUS: 
03/18/2004 To SENATE Committee on AGRICULTURE AND WATER 
RESOURCES.
Parties Interested in Incidental Runoff of Recycled Water: 
Here is an update of what is happening with the issue of incidental runoff of recycled water.  As you may recall, the California Recycled Water Task Force issued its final report in June 2003.  The report had a recommendation that the State Water Resources Control Board should review the legal requirements of federal and State statutes and regulations that relate to the regulation of incidental runoff of recycled water to determine the regulatory and enforcement options that are available to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards.  To implement this recommendation, State Board staff held a stakeholder meeting on December 9, 2003.  State Board staff considered comments received at the meeting and in writing and on February 24, 2004 sent a memorandum to the Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officers that contained staff recommendations on how to regulate incidental runoff of recycled water.  A copy of the memorandum is attached.  State Board staff is currently working on writing model conditions for implementing the recommendations. 
Thank you for your participation in the review.  If you have any questions, please send an E-mail to me at inneg@swrcb.ca.gov or call me at (916) 341-5517. 
Gordon Innes 
Senior Water Resources Control Engineer 

The California GCSA is trying to make the political leaders of our Nation, aware of the our concerns when decisions are about to be made that will effect our industry. 

Revised December 22, 2004 
Copyright 1998, the CGCSA

Contact Information

Telephone: 866-643-8707       FAX: 559-643-8707 

Postal address 221 W. Palm Ave.  Reedley, CA 93654

Electronic mail: rtillema@comcast.net  Webmaster: rtillema@comcast.net