A proposal to add new fees to water bills to help pay for improvements to water systems in rural areas with tainted supplies is back before the Legislature, and this time it has the support of the Brown administration.

Last year, activists sought to build support for the concept of a new levy on water after reports came out that at least 300 communities in California had water supplies that were at least as unsafe as those in Flint, Michigan – a city that has gotten national attention for years for its lead-tainted water. Most of the communities were in Central Valley farm areas.

State Sen. Bill Monning, D-Monterey, used the “gut-and-amend” approach to rework SB623 from a bill more generally about improving water quality into a measure that added a maximum 95-cent fee to the monthly bills of all but poor water customers, among other provisions. But the amended bill never advanced.

This year, a similar fee proposal was included in Brown’s 2018-19 budget bill. The fee could go higher than 95 cents per month for some residential users, depending on meter size. Businesses would also have to pay fees that could go as high as $10 a month for heavy industrial and commercial users. The task of collecting the fees would be assigned to the State Water Resources Control Board,

Under Brown’s budget, the state Department of Food and Agriculture would also collect fees from companies that produce and use fertilizer and from dairy operations. The Sacramento Bee reported last month the fees were justified by the Brown administration on the grounds that fertilizer and manure runoff were to blame for significant groundwater pollution.

A 2016 study from the UC Davis Agriculture Sustainability Institute found that nitrogen pollution from synthetic fertilizers had already contaminated state aquifers to such an extent that a clean-up effort would take decades – even if use of the fertilizers was immediately banned.

Water agencies say existing revenue sources should be used

The Association of California Water Agencies, which has more than 400 member agencies that deliver about 90 percent of the state’s water, opposes the Brown administration’s proposal, which it calls a “water tax.” Its website argues that the 300 communities with dangerous water supplies can have their infrastructure repaired using existing funding sources.

There is no widely agreed-on estimate of how much money such repairs would cost. A private consulting firm estimated the annual tab would be about $140 million, the Legislative Analyst’s Office reported last month. But the LAO questioned whether the numbers could be trusted. If the estimate is right, that means the repairs would cost a little more than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state’s current $125 billion general fund budget.

Talking points used by Association of California Water Agency members cite this statistic. They also emphasize that new billing mandates would be severe headaches for smaller water districts with tiny staffs.

But the Brown budget proposal has also quickly rounded up supporters who declare that it is unconscionable that the 300 communities – which have an estimated 1 million residents – have to deal with “Third World conditions.”

That was how state Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Azusa, characterized the matter in an interview last month with the Sacramento Bee. Hernandez visited some of affected communities last year and found that it was common for residents to spend as much as 10 percent of their earnings on buying clean water.

Early exposure to lead has long been associated with cognitive problems. Writing last year in Mother Jones, Irvine journalist Kevin Drum said such exposure has been linked to lower IQs, violent crime and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder. The gradual increase in IQ across the world has been linked to new laws against lead-based paint and piping.

But in California, state law only requires lead testing for children who live in or frequently visit buildings built before the crackdown on lead-based paint began in the 1970s and for those who get benefits under government welfare programs.

“Given the ages of California’s infrastructure, lead exposure risks are ubiquitous,” Quirk told Kaiser Health News. “The current screening process only tests certain children. Better data can help us better identify clusters and arm the state with a thorough, more comprehensive response.”

In Flint, national media have focused for two years on the problems with water supplies created when Flint city leaders stopped using water piped in from Detroit’s water system to save money by using cheaper water from the polluted Flint River and other local sources. That led to a public health emergency being declared after the supply change apparently sent the number of children with elevated exposure to lead in blood tests soaring to 5 percent, twice the national norm. In December, Congress appropriated $120 million to help Flint deal with the problem.

State lead problems concentrated in Fresno area

But shortly afterward, Reuters issued a massive study based on lead exposure in the blood of children in ZIP code-based data compiled by the federal government in 21 states, including California. It found thousands of communities with lead problems as bad or worse than Flint’s. It identified 13 ZIP codes in California with elevated lead exposure among children. CalWatchdog was the first to report on Reuters’ specific findings about the Golden State.

Quirk’s district is just south of Fruitvale (ZIP code 94601), the Oakland community with the highest percentage of children exposed to excessive lead: 7.57 percent. Next worse was the Sand City-Seaside community (ZIP 93955) east of Monterey. The rate was 7.44 percent.

Nine ZIP codes in the Fresno area had problems worse than Flint: The worst off was Selma, southeast of Fresno (ZIP 93662), where 6.62 percent of children had excessive exposure.

The last two California communities with high children lead exposure were south-central Los Angeles (ZIP 90011), with a rate of 5.28 percent, and Rosemead-South San Gabriel (ZIP 91770), where the rate was 5.17 percent.

It’s not clear yet how much support or opposition Quirk is likely to attract. Reuters’ report didn’t spur anything like a Flint-style reaction among the California media. Meanwhile, health insurance lobbyists are likely to say that the state should pay the tab for a state-mandated test. Medi-Cal now pays for lead screening of children whose families receive government assistance, while health insurers pay for the screening – and pass along the cost through premiums – of children whose families have insurance.