3. Water Quality
In our new RCP decision, D.07-05-062, we cite to the California Supreme Court's holding in Hartwell Corp. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 256 (2002), that the Commission has constitutional and statutory responsibilities to ensure that water utilities provide water that protects the public health and safety. In support of our responsibilities, the Commission's General Order (GO) 103 states that: "Any utility supplying water for human consumption...shall comply with the laws and regulations of the state or local Department of Health Services." (GO 103 at Section II(1)(a).) In a recent Cal Water case for the Bakersfield and South San Francisco districts, we held that GO 103 applies broadly to utility compliance with all provisions of California's Safe Drinking Water Act.9
In order to properly review each utility's compliance with water quality requirements, the Commission has incorporated water quality into the minimum data requirements for a GRC filing and we also provide that, when the assigned Commissioner or ALJ deem appropriate, a water quality consultant may be hired by the Commission to make specific findings and recommendations concerning the utility's water quality compliance.10
In its opening brief, DRA addresses the expanded role it intends to take in reviewing the water quality information in each GRC application. This role, however, will not extend to rendering an opinion on whether or not a utility complies with all water quality regulations. DRA views its role as evaluating the impact of GRC application proposals and considering the economics of proposed capital investments to assure that ratepayers receive the lowest possible rates, consistent with reliable and safe service levels.
Cal Water has submitted water quality testimony for each district based on the filing requirements of D.04-06-018, the RCP in effect at the time of filing its applications. Cal Water's testimony, summarized in Exhibit 1, states that it has not been issued a citation by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) since its last GRC in each of the eight districts and that it meets all federal and state drinking water standards.
In reviewing the reports, we find two issues of concern, both in the Bakersfield district: First, Cal Water initially estimated that it could have as many as 23 wells that might be out of compliance with the more stringent arsenic standard adopted in January 2006 by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further testing indicated only six current wells might be at risk. At hearing, Cal Water testified that these wells have all been taken off-line or blended with other water.
The second issue of concern is Cal Water's report that since the last GRC there have been seven wells in the Bakersfield district that have tested in excess of primary or secondary Maximum Contamination Levels for the following: iron, manganese, color, turbidity, sulfate, carbon tetrachloride, methyl-tertiary-butyl ether, and 1.2-dichloroethane.11 Cal Water testifies that these wells have either been deactivated or it has initiated the required actions such as quarterly monitoring programs.
DRA testifies that it did not have concerns with the water quality in the Bakersfield district because DHS did not reported a concern; DRA did not perform any independent review or analysis.
Based on our review, we find that the evidence does not indicate any violations of applicable water quality standards by Cal Water in these eight districts.
9 See D.04-05-060, mailed on May 28, 2004, D.04-09-039 mailed on September 28, 2004 and D.04-09-064 mailed on September 29, 2004.
10 See D.07-05-062, mailed May 30, 2007, mimeo. at 24-5.
11 The full report is Exhibit 4.
