BILL ANALYSIS
AB 83
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Byron D. Sher, Chairman
2003-2004 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 83
AUTHOR: Corbett
AMENDED: August 19, 2003
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: August 21, 2003
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Derek Ishikawa
Kip Lipper
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT;
BOTTLED WATER
SUMMARY :
Existing federal law, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) :
1) Regulates bottled water as a food product.
2) Provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with broad
regulatory authority over food products, including bottled
water.
3) Provides specific FDA Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)
requirements for bottled water that provide guidance with
respect to sanitation, product quality, testing, record
keeping, and facility design.
4) Establishes uniform "Standard of Identity" definitions for
bottled water classifications.
5) Establishes limits for more than 75 microbiological,
physical, chemical, radiological substances for both source
water and finished bottled water products.
6) Establishes uniform nutrition labeling for food products and
bottled water.
7) Provides FDA with a wide range of enforcement tools,
including civil or criminal actions, if a product is either
adulterated or misbranded and a company declines to take
AB 83
Page 2
corrective action.
8) Permits the sale of bottled water that contains a contaminant
in excess of an maximum contaminant level (MCL) if the level
of contamination is harmful to health and the substandard
nature of the product is disclosed through a statement on the
label.
9) Establishes uniform nutrition labeling for food products and
bottled water.
10)Authorizes states to manage drinking water quality if the
state is certified as having a program as stringent as, or
more stringent than, the framework provided by the federal
Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA).
Existing state law :
1)Requires public water systems (PWS) to comply with recommended
public health goals for drinking water contaminants, as
established by the Department of Health Services (DHS).
2)Requires PWS to maintain an emergency notification plan
approved by the department, to issue consumer confidence
reports, and to comply with annual inspections.
3)Requires bottled and vended water to meet all of the same
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) that are required of public
water systems.
4)Provides for the licensure and regulation by DHS of persons
engaged in activities related to the bottled, vended, hauled,
and processed water, pursuant to the Sherman Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law).
5)Permits the unannounced inspection of bottled and vended water
licensees by DHS on an as-needed basis.
6)Requires bottlers and waterhaulers to provide specified
contact information and bottled/vended water content
information to be made available to customers on labels for
bottled or vended water or on billing statements for bottlers
and waterhaulers.
AB 83
Page 3
AB 83
Page 4
This bill :
1) Transfers the provisions relating to the licensure and
regulation of persons engaged in bottled and vended water
activities from the Sherman Law to the SDWA.
2) Requires bottled water licensees to comply with provisions
similar to those imposed on public water systems regarding
emergency notification plans, CCRs, and annual inspections.
3) Revises the annual fee license schedule to reflect cost-based
reimbursement and creates the Safe Bottled and Vended Water
Account in the General Fund, comprised of fees based on DHS'
costs in conducting these activities, from which moneys would
be expended for purposes of administering the provisions
above.
4) By July 1, 2005, requires DHS to adopt regulations that
establish appropriate penalties for multiple violations,
including, but not limited to, written warnings, increased
inspection frequency, suspension of license, revocation of
license, monetary penalties, or permanent removal of a
water-vending machine from service.
5) Maintains the federal requirements relating to bottled water
by requiring that any person who processes, packages,
distributes, transfers, or stores bottled water or vended
water continue to comply with all manufacturing processes
required by federal law.
6) Requires bottled and vended water to meet all MCLs set for
public drinking water by DHS in order to ensure that bottled
water presents no significant adverse effect on public
health.
7) Requires a licensee to notify DHS and notify consumers as
required by DHS, if specified standards are not met or the
licensee fails to take certain steps in compliance with the
act such as :
Exceedence of any MCL set for public drinking water;
Failure to carry out any DHS-mandated monitoring; or,
Failure to comply with the conditions of any variance.
AB 83
Page 5
1) Prohibits DHS from issuing a license or a variance to any
bottled or vending water operation unless it has an approved
emergency notification plan or has been provided an exemption
by DHS that serves the "public interest."
9)Requires each licensee to establish, or utilize, an existing
toll-free, multilingual telephone hotline for consumers to
request additional information regarding water quality, CCRs,
and information from local health departments regarding the
quality of bottled water, if applicable. A water vending
machine licensee may use a local telephone number instead.
10)Requires as a condition of licensure, each licensee to
prepare a consumer confidence report according to DHS' most
recent guidelines, and specifies the contents for the annual
CCR, which shall be available to the consumer and posted on
DHS' website. The report shall include: the source of the
bottled or vended water; the definitions of MCLs, primary
drinking water standards and public health goals (PHGs); a
report on any regulated contaminant found in the water over
the past year; the contact information for additional consumer
information; and, a disclosure of any variance granted to the
licensee by DHS.
11)Specifies that the CCR must also have information in Spanish,
and any other language of a population that exceeds 10 percent
of the state's population based on current United States
Census data, stressing the importance of the report or
offering additional information, as determined to be necessary
by DHS.
12)Specifies certain labeling requirements in both English and
Spanish for vended water containers or machines which shall
include at a minimum: the name and address of the operator; a
statement that the water is obtained from an approved public
water system or licensed private water source; any treatment
process used, the efficacy of that process in reducing
regulated contaminants to levels below detection by that
process, and, if appropriate, a statement indicating if no
contaminants are reduced by the treatment process; contact
information, and any relevant information from the CCR of
either the vendor or public water system.
AB 83
Page 6
13)Beginning July 1, 2004, requires bottled water sold at retail
or wholesale in this state in a plastic beverage container to
place on its label, an annually updated "CA Water Quality
Notice" to include the following: a statement indicating the
possible presence of unregulated contaminants, a statement
indicating the availability of more water quality information,
including a CCR, and one of a set of three distinct water
quality disclosures, depending on the presence or absence of
regulated contaminants as reported in the previous year's CCR,
as follows. For bottled water where no regulated contaminants
were reported, a statement indicating the lack of detection of
such contaminants. For bottled water where regulated
contaminants have been detected, but at levels not exceeding
the public health goal (PHG), a definition of public health
goal, a statement indicating the presence of regulated
contaminants, a statement indicating that none of the named
contaminants were detected at levels exceeding the PHG. For
bottled water where regulated contaminants have been detected
at levels exceeding the PHG, a definition of public health
goal, a statement indicating the presence of regulated
contaminants, the names of those regulated contaminants
detected at levels above the PHG, and an indication of the
health concerns that resulted in the regulation of the
contaminant.
14)Requires bottlers and bottled water distributors that
distribute directly to consumer to annually mail, deliver, or
otherwise obtain a copy of the CCR. In addition, each
licensee would provide its CCR to DHS for posting on the
department's website.
15)Authorizes any duly designated DHS representative at any
reasonable hour of the day, to enter and inspect any licensed
facility or any place where bottled water or vended water
records are stored, kept, or maintained. DHS may also inspect
and copy any records, reports, test results, or other
information required to carry out this article. In addition,
DHS is authorized to establish any monitoring equipment or
obtain water supply samples necessary to assess compliance
with this article.
16)Requires each licensee to reimburse the department for actual
AB 83
Page 7
enforcement costs incurred by the department for specified
enforcement actions.
17)Requires DHS to inspect all water bottling plants,
water-vending machines, retail water facilities, private water
sources, and facilities and vehicles used in transporting
drinking water at least once every three years.
18)Makes any failure to comply with the inspection provisions a
misdemeanor.
19)Provides that in any civil action brought by DHS for
enforcement purposes, the prevailing party shall be awarded
litigation costs, including, but not limited to, salaries,
benefits, travel expenses, operating equipment, overhead,
other litigation costs, and attorney's fees, as determined by
the court in any civil court action brought to enforce this
article.
20)Makes certain findings relating to the differences between
the way drinking water is regulated by DHS under the SDWA and
the Sherman Law.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author's office:
"Nearly 70% of all Californians consumer some or all of their
drinking water from bottled water sources, including retail
bottles, vending machines, water coolers, and through
point-of-use systems. Despite the significant reliance on
bottled water products as a source of drinking water,
California law does not require bottled or vended water to
provide consumers with information about the quality of water
they are consuming.
The California Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates the
quality of "tap water" in the state through enforceable
drinking water standards and oversight In many cases, bottled
water may be no better than tap water, but under the existing
statutory and regulatory framework, and in the absence of
consumer "right-to-know" reporting requirements, consumers
have no easy way of knowing the quality of their bottled
AB 83
Page 8
water product. Unlike public water systems, bottled water
sources and facilities are not inspected annually, do not
provide "right-to-know" reports to consumers, and do not pay
for state regulatory oversight of their industry. AB 83 is
intended to require bottled water suppliers to meet the same
water quality standards as local tap water providers."
2) The popularity of bottled waters raises some concerns .
Market researchers
expect that bottled water may soon become the nation's second
most popular beverage, after soft drinks. According to the
Beverage Marketing Corp, manufacturers sold more than $7.7
billion worth of bottled water last year, an increase of 12.3
percent from 2001. The marketing group reports that, in
2002, the average consumer drank 21 gallons of bottled water,
about 11 percent more than in 2001.
Most consumers are drawn to the convenience and taste of
bottled water In similar fashion, some consumers-and many
members of immigrant communities who come from regions where
tap water is highly suspect and continue to maintain this
skepticism-are also drawn to bottled or vending machine water
believing it is more healthy and less contaminated than tap
water. It should be noted that vended water machines, often
found outside of grocery stores, draw from a public water
system, and after some further treatment within the water
vending machine, dispense water to containers supplied by the
customer.
Several environmental and consumer advocacy groups argue that
water coming out of a bottle is no cleaner or safer than tap
water, in general, and is well beyond the price of tap water.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that
bottled water is 240 times to 10,000 times more expensive
than tap water. While consumers may pay a few dollars for
every thousand gallons of tap water, they can pay almost $2
per gallon of some brands of bottled water. In a report
published in 1999 by NRDC, Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure
Hype. This report examined the public perception that
bottled water is safer for babies and one's health generally.
The NRDC study included testing of more than 1,000 bottles
of 103 brands of bottled water.
AB 83
Page 9
While most of the tested waters were found to be of high
quality, some brands were contaminated - about one-third of
the waters tested contained some level of contamination,
including synthetic organic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic.
In at least one sample, allowable limits under both state
and bottled water industry standards were exceeded. While
the report does not claim there is a widespread acute health
risk, it notes that public concern about tap water quality is
at least partly responsible for the growth in bottled water
sales, which have tripled in the past 10 years.
There are instances where certain groups with sensitive or
severely compromised immune systems may appropriately desire
drinking water other than tap water, notwithstanding its
availability and its general safety. Depending on the water
quality of a public water system at a particular time or
location, members of these groups-including newborns, infants
and children, AIDS patients, and the elderly may be more
sensitive to the effects of various constituents found in
public drinking water.
Many of these individuals, in trying to distinguish between
the myriad of bottled and vended waters, may not have the
proper information to make an informed purchase. Treated as
a food product under federal and state laws, bottled water
has nutrition labeling requirements that are similar to other
food products-providing information about calories and
protein, but nothing concerning the level and kind of the
water's contaminants. Currently, an individual with concerns
about lead in water is not readily able to distinguish
between various brands of bottled water. Given the kind of
information provided under existing nutrition labeling
requirements, consumers have little means of distinguishing
between vended, bottled, and tap water-let alone the myriad
varieties and brands within each category.
3) Federal regulation treats bottled water as a food product .
At the federal level, regulation of bottled water is part of
FDA's larger food safety program, which requires
manufacturers produce safe, wholesome and truthfully labeled
food products. The FDA has also established regulations
specifically for bottled water, including standard of
identity regulations, which define different types of bottled
AB 83
Page 10
water, and standard of quality regulations, which set maximum
levels of contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and
radiological) allowed in bottled water. From a regulatory
standpoint, the FDA describes bottled water as water that is
intended for human consumption and that is sealed in bottles
or other containers with no added ingredients, except that it
may contain a safe and suitable antimicrobial agent.
Generally, over the years, the FDA has adopted EPA standards
for tap water as standards for bottled water. As a result,
standards for contaminants in tap water and bottled water are
very similar. However, in some instances, standards for
bottled water are different than for tap water. Lead is one
prominent example. Because lead can leach from pipes as
water travels from water utilities to home faucets, the EPA
set an action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb) in tap
water. This means that when lead levels are above 15 ppb in
tap water that reaches home faucets, water utilities must
treat the water to reduce the lead levels to below 15 ppb.
In bottled water, where lead pipes are not used, the lead
limit is set at 5 ppb. Based on FDA survey information,
bottlers can readily produce bottled water products with lead
levels below 5 ppb. This action was consistent with the FDA's
goal of reducing consumers' exposure to lead in drinking
water to the extent practicable.
4) Transfer of bottle/vended water division presents costs, but
may prove useful. East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD), one of the bill's sponsors, states that AB 83 would
"eliminate the double-standard regarding the regulation of
bottled water as compared to the regulation of tap water?by
enhancing the regulatory oversight of the bottled and vended
water industry in California. Specifically, this bill would
move oversight of bottled and vended waters from the Sherman
Law to SDWA, so that bottled and vended water regulation
would be administered by the DHS' Drinking Water Program
instead of its Food Safety Program.
Proponents of the bill state that this move would help to
recognize the growing role that bottled and vended waters are
playing as primary sources of drinking water for an
increasing number of Californians by making certain that the
same consumer protections contained in the SDWA relating to
AB 83
Page 11
tap water also apply to bottled and vended water products.
In essence, the sponsors argue that resulting gains in
economies of scale will help to ensure that oversight of all
important sources of drinking water-be it vended, bottled, or
tap-is consistent.
Opponents of the bill believe that imposing another set of
requirements on the bottled water purveyors is redundant in
most areas and conflicts with federal regulations in others.
The California Chamber of Commerce feels that this bill will
"serve no purpose other than to increase costs to the
industry and ultimately the consumer." The International
Bottled Water Association believes that the regulations,
which treat bottled water as a "food product," are sufficient
and that these state and federal regulations are required by
law to be as stringent as standards for public water systems.
It says that public water systems' regulations, drawn up for
"nonpackaged, continuous distribution systems," are different
and should stay that way. Opponents contend that the
consumer should be confident in their bottled water because,
as a food product, it simply cannot be sold legally if it
violates the laws that cover it. They assert that the
enforcement mechanisms of the FDA are more stringent than
those under the SDWA.
5) Bill would provide for expanded consumer "right-to-know"
reporting duties for bottled and vended water.
a) Consumer Confidence Reports. Under existing federal
and state laws, public water systems are required to
provide each customer of the system with an annual report,
referred to as a consumer confidence report (CCR), on the
level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by
that system. The CCRs summarize the results of drinking
water monitoring taken over the previous year. CCRs
provide consumers with practical information, including:
1) the quality of the local drinking water; 2) whether or
not the tap water meets EPA's safety standards; 3) likely
sources of any contaminants; 4) what the health risks are
in systems that violate the safety standards; 5)
information on sources; and 6) violations and enforcement
data. Bottled and vended water purveyors are not
currently required to provide this kind of information to
AB 83
Page 12
consumers.
b) Bill would require licensees to prepare CCRs and make
them available. Bottlers, vendors, and water retailers
would have to prepare CCRs and make them available on
website and upon consumer request. This measure would
additionally require vended water purveyors to prominently
post the source of the water, CCR-type information, and an
explanation of the machine's treatment process and its
efficacy on their machines. Explanation of the machine's
treatment process and its efficacy would be required to be
provided in both Spanish and English.
i) Supporters state that CCRS would provide
important consumer information . Proponents argue
that this information would provide much-needed
consumer disclosure information to the state's many
residents that rely on bottled, vended, and retail
facility water as major sources of drinking water.
Although existing statute requires bottlers, vendors,
and water retailers to subject their water to a
series of tests, supporters of the bill argue that
the results of these tests are inaccessible and are
not in a consumer-friendly format. As a result,
consumers have little opportunity to substantively
differentiate between different vendors, bottlers,
and retailers based on water quality. For instance,
some bottle waters may contain contaminants such as
nitrates, lead, arsenic, and microbes that can pose
risks to the public health, especially pregnant
women, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised
people.
Newscasts and newspaper articles, moreover, have
highlighted anecdotal stories of vended water or
water retailer fraud-whereby certain machines have
provided unimproved tap water to unknowing consumers
as "vended" water. The additional disclosures
provided in this bill, supporters argue, would help
to prevent such situations-in addition to providing
consumers with important health-related information.
ii) Opponents of the bill argue that CCRs are
AB 83
Page 13
unnecessary . Opponents, such as the International
Bottled Water Association and Glacier Water-the
state's largest vended-water company-state that
several of these provisions are unworkable and
unnecessary. Bottlers, for example, contend that
they do not currently prepare CCRs and would not be
readily able to adapt existing annual and quarterly
DHS bottled water quality analyses to a CCR-type
format. Instead, they suggest requiring DHS to post
on its website annual and quarterly finished product
testing analyses that must already be submitted by
all bottlers.
Vendors maintain that vended water machines draw from
local public water systems and therefore CCR-type
information would change from water system to water
system-a significant administrative burden given the
thousands of vended water machines throughout the
state. Moreover, opponents argue that there are no
guarantees that such information, if posted, would
remain on the side of the machine-opening up the
vended water purveyors to fines and penalties.
iii) Suggested Amendment: Notice of availability of
CCRs may provide consumers with sufficient
information . Rather than require that CCRs be posted
on the sides of vending machines where they might be
subject to vandalism or weather-related damage, and
less intelligible than a personal copy that a
consumer might inspect at his/her leisure, the
committee may wish to consider whether it might be
more appropriate for vendors to provide notice on
their machines that the CCR is available by phone,
email, mail, or on a website on their machines. In
addition, the committee may also wish to consider
requiring vendors to post the date of the machine's
last servicing to better assure consumers of the
machine's continued efficacy.
iv) Additional consumer protections may be gained
by providing comparative water quality analysis on a
single website/document . Currently, the bill requires
licensees, except for vended and retail water
AB 83
Page 14
purveyors, to prepare CCRs and post them on a
website. While website-posted CCRs certainly improve
access to water quality information, such information
could be provided in an even more accessible and
consumer-friendly manner. Given the difficulties of
gathering and then comparing CCRs from various
bottled and vended water companies, the committee may
wish to consider establishing a single website that
could serve as a water quality information
"clearinghouse" that would facilitate
comparison-shopping by consumers. Such a
website-hosted by the department-could post detected
levels of a range of selected water quality
indicators on a side-by-side basis for easier
comparison.
c) Bill would require water quality information to be
included on bottled water labeling. This measure would
require bottled water labels to include an annually
updated "CA Water Quality Notice," no less than one inch
by one inch, which would include:
Disclosure of regulated contaminants
detected, but that do not exceed the public health
goal.
Disclosure of regulated contaminants
detected above public health goals, and the health
concerns associated with these contaminants.
Statements explaining "public health goal"
and disclosing the potential presence of unregulated
contaminants.
Contact information for further water
quality inquiries.
i) FDA has considered CCR-type labeling for bottled
water . As a result of the 1996 SDWA amendments signed by
President Clinton, the FDA in consultation with US
Environmental Protection Agency was required to conduct a
draft study on the feasibility of appropriate methods, if
any, of informing customers of the contents of bottled
water. The FDA has evaluated the applicability of having
a draft study on the feasibility of appropriate methods,
if any, of informing customers of the contents of bottled
water. The FDA concluded that it was feasible and that
AB 83
Page 15
most, but not all, of the information contained within a
CCR is relevant to bottled water. (Some information is
relevant only to public water systems.) The FDA
recognized that there was some important additional
information that could be placed on the label, but
believed the best method to disseminate the information
to consumers was through a phone number or address.
The FDA concluded that the volume of information on a CCR
precluded placing it on a water bottle, along with the
fact that the information in the CCR could change
frequently enough to make it a burden to business to
change the label. The FDA did not believe that the
Internet should be the sole source for customer
information, given the large number of customers who lack
Internet access.
ii) Supporters state that water quality labels would
provide important consumer information . NRDC states that
the "labeling component?that requires water bottlers to
place a summary of their "right-to-know reports" on the
bottle itself?is the most direct way to empower consumers
to make informed choices about the water they drink and
give to their children." Some bottled water may contain
contaminants such as nitrates, lead, arsenic, and
microbes that can pose risks to the public health,
especially pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and
immunocompromised people.
Supporters also argue that providing water quality
information on the labels would also help to educate
consumers about important water quality terms, such as
"public health goal" that are currently used in public
water system CCRs.
iii) Opponents of the bill argue that the bill's
additional label requirements are unnecessary and
preempted by federal law . Opponents to the bill
reiterate their concerns that these labeling requirements
are unnecessary, given existing federal law that
prohibits the sale of any bottled water if it violates
the laws that cover it. They further assert that the
labeling requirements will conflict with federal labeling
AB 83
Page 16
requirements and be preempted. Opponents point out that
in 1995, the FDA considered and rejected a requirement
that bottled water labels specify the water source.
Opponents contend that CCRs are not really used by the
public in the way the sponsors contend, so requiring
their preparation and distribution would waste time and
money. Also they say that the CCR information will not
necessarily reflect existing conditions in the bottle
because the measurements are from the previous year.
Moreover, opponents state that given the space
constraints posed by the limited surface area of bottled
water containers, it would be difficult to provide
consumer-friendly water quality information on labels
that wouldn't be better provided in some other off-label,
more comprehensive format, such as a report or a website.
iv) DHS has voiced similar preemption concerns
regarding additional labeling . While not taking a stance
on the merits of such additional labeling, DHS itself has
stated that federal laws regarding nutrition and
specifically bottled water labeling are quite specific,
and would likely preempt the state from establishing
substantial labeling requirements where those
requirements significantly impacted interstate commerce.
The department has cited at least one instance in 1997
where federal courts agreed that federal law preempted
the state from establishing a state identity standard for
"spring water."
v) Suggested Amendment: Smaller, one-sentence
disclosures on labels may be more appropriate . Due
concerns about workability issues of including CCR-type
information on labeling and remaining likelihood of
federal preemption of state labeling laws, it may be more
appropriate for the label to require bottlers to include
on their label a statement indicating both the
availability and means of obtaining a CCR for the bottled
water.
1) Inspections of bottled and vended water facilities and
equipment would occur on a three-year rotating basis .
Currently, DHS inspects bottled, vended, and retail water
facilities on an as-needed basis.
AB 83
Page 17
a) Current Bill . This bill would subject bottlers and
vendors to inspections by DHS or an authorized
representative on a rotating three-year basis-with bottlers
being inspected the first year, and vended water
machines-some 8,600 statewide-being largely inspected the
second and third years. According to DHS, inspections of
bottled water facilities and vended water machines
currently occur on an as-needed basis-with a focus on
historical violators or consumer-identified problems.
Supporters contend that such inspections would ensure
regulatory conformity and could be accomplished
cost-effectively-and help to end situations where "bad"
actors purvey unimproved tap water as "vended water."
b) Opponents argue that inspections are duplicative,
unnecessary, and costly . Bottlers are not necessarily
opposed to increased inspections, but question their
necessity given existing oversight by both USFDA & DHS.
Vended water purveyors argue that inspecting all machines
is unnecessary and that they currently conduct a series of
water quality tests. Again, vendors state that they do not
contaminate tap water and only improve tap water that must
already meet EPA MCLs. Moreover, both bottlers and vendors
cite the lack of demonstrated need for increased
inspections in the absence of a demonstrated health risk
posed by both bottled and vended water. Both state that
they are subject to trade association guidelines that are
in many respects more stringent that either federal or
state standards, and state that regular maintenance and
servicing by company employees obviates the need for
regular inspections by DHS.
Concerned about the fiscal impact of reimbursing DHS for
inspection of all of its vended water machines, vendors
draw attention to the fact that there are some 8,600
machines located throughout the state. Vendors argue that
inspecting all machines is unnecessary, and that a random
sample would suffice.
c) DHS has concerns about the impact of mandatory
inspections on its other duties. DHS has indicated that
while it dedicates six personnel years (PYs) to its bottled
AB 83
Page 18
and vended water division, actual employees shift away from
those duties on an as-needed basis to address far other,
far more prevalent health concerns, such as food-borne
outbreaks. According to the department, a statutory
bottled and vended water inspection mandate that would not
seem to result in any measurable public health benefit
might constrain its ability to effectively respond to other
more pressing foodborne concerns. The department has also
indicated that bottled and vended water have not presented
a historical public health risk and thus, inspections
performed on an as-needed basis have been sufficient to
ensure compliance.
d) Combination of limited DHS-testing and enhanced
self-certification may provide cost-effective oversight.
Though increased oversight of both bottled and vended water
facilities seems appropriate, it does not seem necessary to
inspect all vended water machines in the state. Perhaps
the department could conduct a random sample of a
particular company's machines or inspections that provide
particular focus for regions of concern (e.g. LA County or
Central Valley) would seem more appropriate.
Alternatively, to minimize the department's costs, but
ensure increased oversight of bottlers, vendors, and
retailers, the committee may wish to consider requiring
vendors, bottlers, and retailers to self-test and/or
self-certify the results of an enhanced range of water
quality tests for all facilities. To provide an additional
level of oversight, the committee may also wish to consider
requiring DHS to conduct a series of limited tests that
would, for example, randomly subject licensees to an
inspection of some percentage of their machines/facilities.
1) Bill would replace existing licensing fees with cost-based
reimbursement.
The measure would support its regime of enhanced regulatory
oversight through cost-based reimbursement, i.e., licensees
would pay back the department for the costs of inspecting and
ensuring water quality compliance. The sponsors assert that
existing levels of fees for the bottled and vended water
regulatory program are insufficient to fund adequate
oversight of bottled-water and vended-water products when
AB 83
Page 19
compared to funding that is generated by drinking water
program regulatory fees paid by public water systems, which
do reimburse the department for enforcement costs.
Opponents-especially Glacier Water-argue that requiring
licensees to reimburse DHS for unspecified and potentially
large costs of inspections would not only be costly-but
unnecessary. If increased inspections were to be part of
this measure, opponents would prefer fixing fees at set
costs.
2) Proposed penalties may be better consolidated under existing
provisions under SDWA . This bill would provide civil and
monetary penalties for bottlers and vended water purveyors
that violate its provisions, similar to those existing for
public water systems under SDWA. To provide greater clarity
and parity between bottled/vended water purveyors and public
water systems, it may be more appropriate to reorganize these
enforcement and penalty provisions within existing articles
of SDWA that deal specifically with violations, penalties,
and compliance orders.
3) Technical Amendment. Given concerns that federal bottled
water laws might preempt certain provisions of this measure,
the author may wish to consider including a severability
clause to ensure the continued viability of unaffected
sections.
SOURCE : Clean Water Action, Natural Resources Defense
Council
And East Bay Municipal Utilities District
SUPPORT : AIDS Project Los Angeles, American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees,
Association of California Water Agencies,
Attorney General, State of California, Breast
Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Fund, California
Communities Against Toxics, California League of
Conservation Voters, California Municipal
Utilities Association, California Nurses
Association, California Water Association, City
and County of San Francisco, City of Hemet,
Consumer Action, Consumers Union, Environmental
Justice Coalition for Water, Gray Panthers
AB 83
Page 20
California, Latino Issues Forum, Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, National
Environmental Trust, Physicians for Social
Responsibility-Los Angeles, Planning and
Conservation League, San Francisco AIDS
Foundation, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
Sierra Club California, Southern California Water
Committee, West County Toxics Coalition, 30
individuals
OPPOSITION : Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water, California
Bottle Water Association, California Chamber of
Commerce, California Grocers Association,
California Nevada Soft Drink Association,
California Taxpayers Association, Carlsbad
Chamber of Commerce, Culligan Water, Danone
Waters of North America, Glacier Water, Greater
Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce, International
Bottle Water Association, Latin Business
Association, Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce, Mid Valley Chamber of Commerce,
National Automatic Merchandising Association,
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, San
Diego Chamber of Commerce, Yosemite Waters,
Approximately 100 owners of grocery stores
AB83 - Bottled water. Sponsor: Ellen Corbett / 2003-2004 Legislature
- Summary
- This bill requires bottled water licensees to comply with provisions similar to those imposed on public water systems regarding emergency notification plans, consumer confidence reports and inspections, and creates the Safe Bottled and Vended Water Account in the General Fund.
- Status
- This bill passed the Assembly, but did not pass the Senate. It did not become law.
Contribution data provided by the
National Institute on Money in State Politics
Except as otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License by MAPLight.org. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available: please contact us.
Latest Comments
No comments have been posted yet.
See More | New Comment