Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drinking Water Chromium6 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances SB 466 to limit third-party suits for water systems implementing chromium-6 compliance plans
Summary
SB 466 would provide limited legal protections for public water systems that are implementing State Water Resources Control Board-approved chromium-6 compliance plans, shielding such systems from third-party civil litigation during the compliance period; the committee passed the bill to the Committee on Judiciary.
SB 466, presented to the committee by Senator Anna Caballero, would limit third-party civil suits against public water systems that are implementing and complying with a State Water Resources Control Boardapproved chromium-6 maximum contaminant level (MCL) compliance plan during the plans approved schedule.
Senator Caballero said chromium-6 occurs naturally in some groundwater basins and that the State Water Resources Control Boardset a chromium-6 MCL of 10 parts per billion effective in 2024. Compliance dates for public water systems vary by size, with deadlines between Oct. 1, 2026 and Oct. 1, 2028 under the adopted rule. Supporters argued the bill is a temporary, narrowly tailored measure to prevent costly litigation that could divert resources from designing, financing and building treatment systems to meet the MCL.
Michael Amabile, mayor of Los Banos, testified that all of the citys wells exceed the new 10 ppb threshold and that compliance could cost his city an estimated $65 million for treatment infrastructure. Scott Burrett of Coachella Valley Water District said his agency expects up to $400 million in upfront costs and that domestic water rates could substantially rise for customers. Supporters said the bill does not limit State Water Board or Attorney General enforcement when appropriate and that protections apply only while a provider is following an approved compliance plan and meeting required milestones.
Committee members asked whether litigation already exists; witnesses said exceedance reporting is occurring now but the MCL enforcement that would open the door to civil suits becomes actionable beginning Oct. 2026. Members also asked whether individuals would retain any path to seek damages for proven injury; proponents said the Attorney General retains enforcement authority and amendments taken after Senate hearings limit the shield in certain circumstances, but committee members sought additional clarifications for judicial committees.
The committee voted to pass SB 466 to the Committee on Judiciary. The author said she is open to alternative statutory language described in the committee analysis that would limit "being deemed in violation" during plan implementation rather than providing a broad civil-liability bar, and to further discussions with judicial committee staff.
