Photo: An engineer tests water from a wastewater treatment pond.

Two Bills That Connect Clean Water, Better Health, and Economic Growth

In the ongoing pursuit of better health through cleaner water, two pending California senate bills, SB 1448, the California Clean Water Accountability Act, and senate bill 1449, the Clean Water Accountability Act could provide funding to support water treatment projects currently under consideration in Southern California. Besides yielding more clean water, these bills will also lead to a reduction in tobacco use. A third bill, Assembly bill 377, the California Clean Water Act was signed into law in 2022. This new law establishes new clean water standards, establishes a new oversight agency, and requires polluters to pay for cleanup of their messes. Good stuff, we think.

SB 1448, the Clean Water Accountability Act, (pending in the state assembly). would increase transparency and accountability in the state’s clean water permitting process. The bill would require the State Water Resources Control Board to publish more information about water quality permits and make it easier for the public to comment on them. SB 1449, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would provide funding for water quality restoration projects. The bill would allocate $1 billion over the next five years to help improve water quality in California’s rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans.

As citizens, taxpayers, and professionals working in the clean water industry, Caliagua likes these bills. Three general reasons include restoration and improvement of our natural water sources, protection of the public health, provision for opportunities that improve water quality for all Californians.

Improved Health Outcomes
Tobacco-related issues are tied into the Clean Water Accountability and Clean Water Restoration Acts because tobacco products are significant pollutants in California’s waterways. Cigarette butts are the leading source of litter in the United States, and in many cases make their way into our waterways. Harmful, tobacco-related substances, such as nicotine, arsenic, and lead, also leach into California’s waterways. They contaminate drinking water, harm aquatic life, and damage ecosystems. Additionally, cigarette butts, and plastics coming from e-cigarettes and vaping products degrade water quality, harm wildlife, and damage ecosystems.

SB 1449, the Clean Water Restoration Act, also has tobacco industry-related components. Tobacco use is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and SB 1449 could help to reduce the number of people who die from tobacco-related illnesses. Banning flavored tobacco products, especially popular among younger people, would help to reduce youth tobacco use and protect the health of young people. At the same time, this ban would also reduce secondhand smoke inhalation which leads to birth defects, lung cancer, heart disease, and strokes. Pregnant women and children are especially at risk in this case.

Under the Clean Water Accountability Act, tobacco companies would be required to take steps preventing their products from polluting waterways. Initiation and management of litter prevention programs, and product modifications that increase the biodegradation of tobacco products are two such steps.

Public Support for These Bills
So far, only AB 377 has been signed into law. However, Caliagua is hopeful that one or both of these remaining bills will ultimately follow the same course. There are good reasons to think they may. Here’s why:

Public education: Public health advocates are working to educate the public about the dangers of flavored tobacco products and the benefits of banning them.

Public support: Both bills have strong support from public health advocates and the general public. A recent poll found that 72% of Californians support a ban on flavored tobacco products.

Grassroots organizing: Public health advocates are working to organize grassroots support for the bills. This includes organizing rallies and protests and contacting elected officials to urge them to support the bills.

Lobbying: Public health advocates are lobbying elected officials to support the bills. This includes meeting with elected officials, providing them with information about the bills, and urging them to vote in favor of the bills.

Democratic control: The California State Assembly and Senate are both controlled by Democrats, who are generally supportive of tobacco control measures. Governor Newsom’s support: Governor Gavin Newsom has already expressed support for a ban on flavored tobacco products. Lobbyists that support passage of both bills include:

American Lung Association, which has been lobbying for a ban on flavored tobacco products in California for many years.
California Coalition for Tobacco-Free Kids: This is a non-profit organization that advocates for policies to reduce tobacco use in California. CCTFK has lobbied for a ban on flavored tobacco products since 2019.
Truth Initiative: A non-profit organization working to prevent tobacco use among youth. They have promoted a ban on flavored tobacco products in California since 2018.
American Heart Association: AHA has lobbied for a ban on flavored tobacco products in California since 2017.
American Cancer Society: The ACS has been actively lobbied for a ban on flavored tobacco products in California since 2016.

Campaign Examples

While there is considerable public support, there are competing interests standing in the way of progress. Public support needs to increase to kick these bills into the net. The American Lung Association’s “Flavored Tobacco: Bad for Kids. Bad for You” campaign aims to educate the public about the dangers of flavored tobacco products and the benefits of banning them. Part of this campaign, on June 15, 2023, ALA held a virtual rally which was attended by over 1,000 people, including public health advocates, parents, and young people. The rally featured guest speakers from ALA, the California Coalition for Tobacco-Free Kids, and other organizations. Speakers talked about the dangers of flavored tobacco products and the importance of banning them. They also urged Governor Newsom to sign SB 1449 into law. Other recent ALA campaign activities: Releasing an April 2023 report detailing how flavored tobacco products are a major factor in the rise of youth tobacco use in California. Launching the FlavoredTobacco.org website – provides information about the dangers of flavored tobacco products and the benefits of banning them. Other Campaigns American Heart Association: Conducting a social media campaign using the hashtag #FlavoredTobaccoBadForKids to raise awareness about the issue. The California Coalition for Tobacco-Free Kids launched a petition calling on Governor Newsom to sign SB 1449 into law. The petition has already gathered over 100,000 signatures. Public health advocates have contacted elected officials to urge them to support the bills. They have sent letters, made phone calls, and met with elected officials in person.

A Source for Water Treatment Project Funding

Caliagua is committed to continuous improvement in California’s water quality. Passage of these bills could release state funding for Southern California water projects which are now in the planning stages. Capital investment for water treatment plant projects in Southern California is often a challenge. SB 1449 would provide funding for water quality restoration projects, which could include water treatment projects. SB 1448 would increase transparency and accountability in the clean water permitting process, which could lead to more water treatment projects being approved. Our region is facing several water quality challenges, and demand for clean water is constantly increasing. Signing SB 1448 and/ or SB 1449 into law could address these opportunities by providing the capital required to move forward on water treatment projects that are currently in either the planning or permitting stages. For instance: The Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment System – This project would use treated wastewater to recharge groundwater aquifers in Orange County. The project is estimated to cost $3.5 billion and is currently in the permitting process. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Pure Water Los Angeles Project – This project would use recycled water to supply drinking water to Los Angeles. The project is estimated to cost $1.7 billion and is currently in the early planning stages. The San Diego County Water Authority’s Pure Water San Diego Project – This project would use recycled water to supply drinking water to San Diego. The project is estimated to cost $2.8 billion and is currently in the early planning stages. In addition to these large-scale projects, there are also several smaller water treatment plant projects under consideration.

Some Challenges

While there are many great reasons to support these bills, as always those who stand in opposition. Chiefly, these are agricultural interests including:

Western Growers Association – representing over 3,000 agricultural businesses in California.

California Farm Bureau Federation – a non-profit representing over 350,000 California family farmers and ranchers.

United Dairymen of California – A dairy

cooperative representing over 1,500 California dairy farmers.
California Citrus Mutual – A California trade association representing over 4,000 citrus growers and shippers.
The California Avocado Commission – A trade association representing over 2,500 California avocado growers and shippers in California.

In general, reasons for opposition to the Clean Water Accountability act include:

The bill would increase the cost of compliance for agricultural operations.
The bill would make it more difficult for agricultural operations to get the permits they need to operate.
The bill would give the public too much power to influence the clean water permitting process

Reasons for opposing the Clean Water Restoration act include:

The bill would use taxpayer money to fund water quality restoration projects that are not necessary.
The bill would not be effective in improving water quality.
The bill would harm the agricultural economy.

Other studies have shown that passing these bills into laws could have positive economic impact. For instance, a study by the University of California, San Francisco estimated that a ban on flavored tobacco products in California could save the state $1.2 billion in healthcare costs over 10 years. This estimate assumed that a ban on flavored tobacco products would lead to a 10% reduction in youth tobacco use and a 5% reduction in adult tobacco use. Likewise, Truth Initiative, estimated that a ban on flavored tobacco products in the United States could save the country $234 billion in healthcare costs over 50 years. This estimate assumed that a ban on flavored tobacco products would lead to a 20% reduction in youth tobacco use and a 10% reduction in adult tobacco use.

Increased productivity is another positive impact that is likely to stem from declines in tobacco use. One study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that a 10% reduction in tobacco use could lead to an increase in productivity of $6.7 billion per year in the United States. This estimate assumed that people who quit smoking are more productive than those who continue to smoke. Another study, by the American Cancer Society, estimated that a 20% reduction in tobacco use could lead to an increase in productivity of $15.8 billion per year in the United States. This estimate assumed that people who quit smoking are more productive than those who continue to smoke, and that the productivity gains are sustained over time.

Tagged Blog