The State Water Resources Control Board will not appeal a recent court decision that called out the board for not conducting an economic feasibility analysis of drinking water when it came to imposing an extremely high standard of maximum contaminant level for Chromium 6.

Ourania Riddle, a member of the Solano County Taxpayers Association confirmed that the board voted not to appeal the trial court’s decision on Chromium 6.

“The State Water Resources Control Board adopted a resolution today to remove the current maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the pollutant hexavalent chromium found in drinking water,” wrote the board in a prepared statement. “The State Water Board will now begin work on establishing a new MCL for the contaminant.”

The board must file with the court by Aug. 15 proof that it has submitted to the Office of Administrative Law a “change without regulatory effect” to delete the text of the Chromium MCL pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 1, Section 100.

In 2014, the California Department of Public Health set a new state drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium at 10 parts per billion. The lawsuit, filed by the Solano County Taxpayers Association and the California Manufacturers & Technology Association in 2014, asked the court to order DPH to withdraw the 10 ppb drinking water standard and to adopt a new standard at a level that is economically feasible. It asserted that the state did not consider economic feasibility in adopting a drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium.

The court sided with the SCTA.

“The Court found that the State had not conducted an economic feasibility analysis of the drinking water standard as is required by law and ordered that the standard be withdrawn and a new standard be established,” the ruling stated.

The board explained in the statement that, “The court did ‘not decide whether the MCL is economically feasible,’ nor did it conclude whether the MCL was too high or too low. Rather, the court said the regulation did not adequately document why the MCL was economically feasible.”

Additionally, since the current MCL will be removed, the State Water Board will no longer enforce compliance plans that public water systems entered into for hexavalent chromium.

Riddle, who was the president of the SCTA at the time the lawsuit was field, explained that the board expects it to take two years to come up with a new standard. Until then, the Chromium 6 level goes back to the previous standard which was 50 parts per billion.

During the meeting, the SWRC board noted that, “While the board staff disagrees with the court’s conclusion, the board staff’s recommendation is to not appeal the trial court’s decision. It will likely be more expedient to begin the process of adopting a new MCL, rather than expending time and resources appealing the court’s order. The State Water Board hopes that the wealth of data obtained during the nearly three years the MCL has been in place will enable the Board to adopt the new regulation more quickly.”

Riddle said she was one of numerous speakers who addressed the Board.

“The taxpayers of Solano County are pleased with the court’s ruling and look forward to the deliberative process of analyzing and understanding the economic feasibility of a new state standard for hexavalent chromium,” she told the board. “SCTA and the many other stakeholders and water systems around the state look forward to providing data and participating in the development of a state policy for evaluating economic feasibility in this context. We will help in any way we can to get this rule making right for our community and all of California.”

Hexavalent chromium occurs naturally in water supplies across the state at levels that often exceed the 10 ppb standard. According to engineering studies commissioned by the Association of California Water Agencies and submitted to the Department of Public Health on the proposed regulation, efforts to eliminate this naturally occurring hexavalent chromium would have cost water utilities upwards of $4 billion. These costs would have been passed on to California consumers. In its August 2013 analysis of the drinking water standard, DPH reported that in smaller water districts, an average household would pay $5,630 more per year on their water bills to meet the 10 ppb standard.

Vacaville Utilities Director Royce Cunningham said the city has spent several hundred thousand dollars to date on design costs, and on well modification costs to several of its wells. Vacaville was anticipating to spend $15 million to become fully compliant with the 10 ppb mcl by January 2020.

According to the water board, Chromium 6 remains a threat to public health as it is still present in the water supply of many public water systems. Because of this, the Board will establish a new MCL for Chromium 6 as close as possible to the public health goal set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

“The new standard could be at the same level as the now invalid one,” the board noted.

It added that public water systems that planned and, in some cases, completed projects to install treatment may be able to use that information and experience in any work necessary to comply with the new MCL when it is adopted.

“Public water systems that have already (been) installed and are operating treatment systems are encouraged to continue to operate these facilities,” the board wrote.

An update was not available before press time on a pending lawsuit about the Chromium 6 in Vacaville’s drinking water filed by Sebastopol-based California River Watch.

Attorneys Jack Silver and David Weinsoff filed the lawsuit in March on behalf of California River Watch in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. While acknowledging that the city is spending millions to address this issue, River Watch alleges that the city is violating federal hazardous waste laws and has failed to adequately warn the community.

The city contends, however, the level of chromium in Vacaville’s drinking water has always been below the current federal standard of 100 parts per billion and the previous California standard of 50 parts per billion.

“We appreciate our residents’ concerns about their drinking water,” the city said in a prepared statement at the time the lawsuit was filed. “Our drinking water is safe. The State of California has certified our drinking water as safe. Our water is regularly tested to assure the safety of our drinking water supply.”