BILL ANALYSIS SB 1284 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1284 (Ducheny) As Amended August 20, 2010 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :31-0 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 9-0JUDICIARY 10-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Nava, Miller, Blakeslee, |Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, | | |Chesbro, Davis, Feuer, | |Evans, Hagman, Huffman, | | |Monning, Ruskin, Smyth | |Jones, Knight, Monning, | | | | |Saldana | ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 -------------------------------- |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, | | |Bradford, | | |Huffman, Coto, Davis, De | | |Leon, Gatto, Hall, | | |Harkey, Miller, Nielsen, | | |Norby, Skinner, Solorio, | | |Torlakson, Torrico | |-----+--------------------------| | | | -------------------------------- SUMMARY : Exempts certain Water Code violations of waste discharge reporting requirements from existing mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs). Extends the time limit under which dischargers must come into compliance with a permit requirement from five years to 10 years. Specifically, this bill : 1)Revises current law to allow a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), after a public hearing, to extend the time schedule for bringing a waste discharge into compliance for an additional five years, to a possible total time schedule of 10 years if the discharger can demonstrate that additional time is necessary in order to reach compliance with effluent limitations. 2)Provides that the failure to file a discharge monitoring report for a reporting period in which no discharges occur SB 1284 Page 2 does not constitute a "serious violation" that gives rise to mandatory minimum penalties if the discharger submits a written statement to the regional board under penalty of perjury stating that in fact no discharges occurred and stating the reasons for the failure to file. 3)Provides that where a discharger has not previously received notification from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or a RWQCB of an enforcement action imposing MMPs and where the current violation consists of failures to file discharge monitoring reports for reporting periods where dischargers did not violate numeric effluent limitations, that discharger will be subject to a total fines of $3,000 per required report. Provides that after this one-time fine, a discharger who subsequently fails to file the same report will be fined in accordance with the current law. Sunsets this provision on January 2014. 4)Provides that the limitations on MMPs created by this bill would apply to dischargers who currently have outstanding notices of violation as of the effective date of the act. EXISTING LAW provides for the imposition of civil penalties, including an MMP of $3,000 for each serious waste discharge violation. The penalties may be issued administratively by the SWRCB or the RWQCB or through the superior court. This may be in addition to other penalties and fees. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, because the bill exempts some violations from MMPs, the bill is likely to reduce future penalty revenues. The amount of any potential penalty revenue loss is unknown. COMMENTS : 1)Need for the bill. According to the sponsor, MMPs are a deterrent and a punishment for willful violators, and should remain in place for that intended purpose. However, the sponsors feel that the way the statute is currently drafted; the definition of a "serious violation" warranting the imposition of an MMP is far too broad and exposes public agencies who simply failed to file a report indicating no discharges to the vast penalties. The sponsor asserts that SB 1284 would provide that certain violations involving the failure to file a discharge monitoring report for no SB 1284 Page 3 discharges or legal discharges should not be subject to those MMPs. 2)Mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) were established in 1999 in response to concerns over the SWRCB and RWQCB failing to take enforcement actions against Water Code violations. According to the SWRCB, the California Water Code Section 13385(h) requires an MMP of $3,000 for each "serious" violation. 3)MMPs for failure to report. The MMP statute was designed to address the failure of the SWRCB and the RWQCBs to enforce reporting requirements waste for discharge permits. In 2003, the Legislature strengthened the MMP laws by specifically adding waste discharge reporting failures to the MMP [AB 1541 (Montanez), Chapter 609, Statutes of 2003]. The 2003 provisions were added to the stature when it was found that only 1% of over 4000 reporting violations were subject to the existing penalties. 4)The Pico Water District case. The proponents of this bill have cited the penalties assessed against the Pico Water District for failure to file 16 separate reports from 2005 to 2008 for discharges from wells into the San Gabriel River. The Pico Water District has asserted that because of changes in management at the district, as well as changes in their consulting engineering firm, they were unaware of the need to submit reports as required by their discharge permits. The total fine assessed in 2008 by the Los Angeles RWQCB was $627,000. The fine resulted from the $3,000 fine being charged for each reporting period that the required reports were not submitted over the 3 year period. In January of 2009 Pico Water District appealed the fine amount and has requested that the entire fine be removed. That appeal is current pending. Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0006341