A California bill takes a novel approach to address clean drinking water | Opinion
A new California bill would help ensure that our drinking water is safe. The legislation is important — and unusual in its approach.
Senate Bill 466, authored by Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Merced, would shield water agencies from civil suits. The temporary legal immunity would protect them from lawsuits over chromium-6 contamination as they work to remove the cancer-causing chemical from drinking water supplies.
The bipartisan measure would protect public water systems from civil liability related to hexavalent chromium contamination, commonly known as chromium-6, as long as they are actively implementing state-approved compliance plans or awaiting approval for proposed cleanup strategies.
Most of us have seen the film “Erin Brockovich,” which addresses the health impacts of the chemical Chromium-6, a toxic heavy metal that occurs naturally in some groundwater and through industrial processes. It has been linked to cancer and other health problems when consumed in drinking water over long periods. Chromium-6 gained national attention in the 2000 film, which depicted the legal battle against PG&E over water contamination in Hinkley, California, that resulted in a $333 million settlement in the 1990s.
California adopted the nation’s strictest drinking water standard for Chromium-6 last year, requiring water agencies to reduce contamination levels found naturally in groundwater across 300 water sources statewide.
Caballero’s legislation has drawn support from water districts across California, including the city of Los Banos, which co-sponsored the bill. Los Banos officials estimate it will cost approximately $65 million — roughly half the city’s annual budget — to bring their water system into compliance with state standards.
“This bill strikes the balance between protecting public health and giving water providers the time and tools they need to deliver safe water without diverting funds to litigation when they are already doing everything required by the state to comply,” Caballero told The Fresno Bee.
Consumer attorneys initially opposed the legislation, arguing that the original version would have provided near-total immunity for water districts — even in cases of negligence.
“SB 466 grants public water systems a preemptive and absolute blanket shield from civil liability from negligence related to drinking water with hexavalent chromium,” the Consumer Attorneys of California wrote in their opposition letter.
However, Caballero amended the bill to address these concerns. The Consumer Attorneys of California has since removed its opposition and taken a neutral stance on the revised legislation.
The measure would not restrict state regulators’ enforcement powers. The State Water Resources Control Board would retain full authority to oversee compliance and impose penalties for violations of drinking water standards. Water agencies would only receive legal protection if they are actively working with state oversight to meet required standards — not for past negligence or failure to act.
The cleanup costs of the state’s regulations are expected to significantly impact water bills across affected communities. Caballero’s legislation aims to prevent water agencies from depleting ratepayer funds on legal defenses while simultaneously requiring expensive infrastructure upgrades to remove chromium-6 contamination.
For families across California already struggling with rising costs, the prospect of higher water bills to fund cleanup efforts — combined with lingering health questions — makes this legislation both necessary and deeply troubling.
Natasha Navarra is a California-based writer whose work spans cultural criticism, health care equity and literary fiction. Her essays and stories appear in the San Diego Union-Tribune, fiction magazines and other national outlets.