BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   January 21, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                   AB 25 (Gilmore) - As Amended:  January 13, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Environmental  
          Safety       Vote:                            7-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill increases the size of the population that can be  
          served by "publicly owned treatment works serving a small  
          community" and provides alternative penalties to public school  
          districts for their waste water discharge violations.   
          Specifically, this bill:

          1)Changes the definition of a publicly owned treatment works  
            (POTW) serving a small community, for which there are  
            alternative water discharge violation penalty provisions, from  
            one that serves 10,000 persons or fewer to one that servers  
            20,000 persons or fewer.

          2)Provides the water boards the authority to require a public  
            school district to apply all or part of the penalty amount for  
            a "serious waste discharge violations" to projects that remedy  
            the violation, provided the following conditions are met:  the  
            compliance project is designed to correct the violations  
            within five years and is in accordance with the enforcement  
            policy of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and  
            the school district has prepared a financing plan to complete  
            the compliance project.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor absorbable costs to SWRCB.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale.    The author contends this bill better aligns water  
            quality control laws concerning "small communities" with  








                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  2

            similar statutes, as well as the rational behind those  
            statutes.  Additionally, the author believes the bill provides  
            flexibility in water quality enforcement that will allow  
            public school districts to remedy water discharge violations  
            without extreme financial hardship, flexibility existing law  
            provides to POTWs serving small communities.  

          2)Background. 


              a)   California's Water Boards.  The state's nine Regional  
               Water Quality Control Boards (regional water boards)  
               develop and enforce water quality objectives and  
               implementation plans to protect the beneficial uses of the  
               state's waters.  Each regional board has nine part-time  
               members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the  
               Senate. The regional water boards develop "basin plans" for  
               their respective hydrologic areas, issue waste discharge  
               permits, enforce water violations, and monitor water  
               quality.

               The SWRCB was created by the Legislature in 1967. It  
               consists of five full-time members, each appointed to a  
               four-year term by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.  
                SWRCB sets statewide policy, coordinates and supports the  
               actions of the regional water boards, and reviews  
               challenges to regional water board actions. SWRCB also  
               allocates surface water rights.


              b)   Waste Discharge Requirements and Penalties.   The  
               Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act authorizes SWRCB and  
               regional water boards to set waste discharge requirements.   
               Current law also establishes mandatory minimum penalties of  
               $3,000 for each serious waste discharge violation.  Current  
               law additionally provides that a POTW serving a small or  
               low-income rural community may apply the amount of penalty  
               to completion of a compliance project that remedies the  
               waste discharge violation.

              c)   Differing Definitions of  Small  .   Different sections of  
               existing law provide differing definitions of a "small  
               community."  Water Code Section 13193.9, which concerns the  
               SWRCB's allocation of funds on behalf of a wastewater  
               collection, treatment, or disposal project, defines a  








                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  3

               "small disadvantaged community" as a municipality with a  
               population of 20,000 persons or less, or a reasonably  
               isolated and divisible segment of a larger municipality  
               encompassing 20,000 persons or less, with an annual median  
               household income that is less than 80 percent of the  
               statewide median.  Public Resources Code Section 30925,  
               which deals with the board's awarding of grants for water  
               pollution control projects, defines a "small community" as  
               a municipality with a population of 20,000 persons or less,  
               a rural county, or a reasonably isolated and divisible  
               segment of a larger municipality where the segment of the  
               population is 20,000 persons or less, with a financial  
               hardship, as determined by the State Water Board.   
               Conversely, Water Code Section 13385, which this bill  
               attempts to modify, defines a "publicly owned treatment  
               works serving a small community" as one that serves 10,0000  
               persons or fewer or that serves a rural county with a  
               financial hardship, as determined by the state board.


           1)Why Stop at Public School Districts  ?  According to the author,  
            public school districts are like POTWs serving small  
            communities, in that both can be financially devastated by  
            imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for waste discharge  
            violations, the dollar amounts of which can accrue for years  
            before imposition by the water board.  In passing this bill,  
            the policy committees have accepted the parallel drawn by the  
            author between these two types of public entities.  However,  
            it can be argued that community colleges and public  
            universities, too, can be severely harmed by waste water  
            discharge penalties.  It is unclear why the author proposes  
            alternative compliance mechanisms for public school districts  
            but not for other public education institutions.

           2)Related Legislation.   AB 914 (Logue) would have expanded the  
            definition of a publicly owned treatment works serving a small  
            community, and provides an additional alternative to  
            imposition of mandatory minimum civil penalties for water code  
            violations on these treatment works.  AB 914 passed the  
            Assembly 77-3.  The governor vetoed the bill, citing the  
            adequacy of the water boards' existing authority to achieve  
            the bill's goals and a lack of clarity in the bill that may  
            have led to costly litigation. 










                                                                  AB 25
                                                                  Page  4

           3)Support.   This bill is supported by both the League of  
            California Cities and the California State Association of  
            Counties.  There is no registered opposition.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081