New California bill would protect water agencies fighting ‘Erin Brockovich’ toxin | Opinion
There is a veteran Sacramento Democrat who wants to give water agencies immunity from lawsuits over a carcinogen in their supplies.
If that seems weird, here is what state Sen. Anna Caballero is trying to do.
Her goal is clean water that is safer for the public to drink. But to achieve that, Caballero believes public water agencies must be free from the threat of being sued so they can develop a plan to deal with a cancer-causing contaminant that many find in their groundwater.
Caballero, the Democrat who represents Merced, Madera and Fresno counties in the state Senate, is the author of Senate Bill 466. Her co-sponsor is Republican Alexandra Macedo, the Assembly member from Tulare.
The focus of their bill is a naturally occurring constituent called chromium. It is found in soils throughout California, like on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, in Sacramento and Merced counties, even in desert and coastal areas. It can also get into groundwater by pollution from industry, like chrome-plating shops.
Chromium can occur in two forms. One is harmless. The other, called chromium-6, can cause cancer if consumed over time. That is what water districts have to get out of their supplies to meet the state health standard of 10 parts per billion, which is equivalent to 10 drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
Also known as hexavalent chromium, it is the substance made famous in the movie “Erin Brockovich.”
The challenge to remove hexavalent chromium is costly. Los Banos, the city of 50,000 in western Merced County, predicts it would have to spend $65 million for new equipment to bring down chromium-6 to the state standard.
As reported by CalMatters, a statewide nonprofit news site, Los Banos Mayor Michael Amabile wants his city to have time to bring its water into compliance. It will also need state funding to pay for upgrading its water department.
“I really don’t want to go down as the mayor that quadruples water rates, so I need the help from the state,” Amabile told CalMatters.
The bill exempts water providers from lawsuits if they are actively working on plans to bring down chromium-6 levels. Water agencies would also be shielded once their plans get submitted and undergo review by the state. Regulators would retain all their enforcement authority.
With more than a decade of experience in the statehouse and early-career service as an attorney advocating for farmworkers, Caballero seems an unlikely champion for water districts dealing with a known carcinogen. In her online biography, Caballero stresses how she tries to listen to constituents. She thinks she has done that in this case.
“The goal of SB 466 is not to block accountability, but to make sure resources go toward fixing the problem — not fighting premature lawsuits while a water system is actively working under state oversight to meet the standard,” she told me in an email response.
“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.”
Anna Caballero’s immunity plan
In a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate staff pointed out that “immunity from liability tends to strip incentives to act with reasonable care by taking away the consequence of having to pay for any damages caused by doing otherwise.”
The Consumer Attorneys of California also took issue with blanket immunity, so Caballero agreed to amendments that would allow a government agency to bring action if it finds a water agency not properly meeting the bill’s requirements for removing chromium-6 from supplies.
Joining Los Banos as a main supporter of the bill is the Coachella Valley Water District in southeastern California. It says SB 466 is needed because the district has only two years to come into compliance, a shorter-than-normal period.
Also among the bill’s backers is the city of Kerman. In the first quarter of this year, the city officially notified residents that four of its wells showed concentrations of chromium-6 beyond the state limit. “We are working to complete a hexavalent chromium compliance plan that will be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board to address this exceedance,” the city said in its notice. Kerman has until Oct. 1, 2027 to come into compliance.
SB 466 was approved in the Senate and awaits final approval in the Assembly.
Public water safety
Environmentalists believe the state threshold for chromium-6 concentrations is too high and should be lowered, and they fault state regulators for yielding to arguments by water districts that cleaning up would be too expensive.
“Over the last 15 years I’ve seen protecting the public from hexavalent chromium become politicized at the expense of public health,” testified Andria Ventura at a state Water Board hearing last year. She is the California legislative and policy director for Clean Water Action.
“I’ve seen how ratepayers, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color, are used as pawns with claims that they can’t pay the high costs of treatment. It’s been a dark stain on California.”
Ventura’s point is well made. For example, some low-income communities in the San Joaquin Valley suffer from water polluted with nitrates due to fertilizers used by farmers.
Yet a water department as large as Los Banos cannot be brought into legal jeopardy over an inability to pay for a new treatment system that must go online in mere years. Cleaning out chromium-6 will take some time — and money.
Caballero’s bill seeks to be a buffer while still ensuring the state does not lose any enforcement capability. As strange as it is for a senior Democrat in the Legislature to argue for protecting water agencies with contaminated supplies, in this case it makes sense.
This story was originally published July 24, 2025 at 5:30 AM.
