BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 246
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 246 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: March 29, 2011
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:6-4
E.S. & T.M. 5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill extends civil prosecution authority for violations of
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to district
attorneys and to certain city attorneys. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Permits a regional water quality control board, commencing
January 1, 2012, to delegate to its executive officer the
authority to apply to the Attorney General (AG), a district
attorney, or the city attorney of a city with a population
exceeding 750,000 (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and
San Jose) for judicial enforcement of the Act.
2)Authorizes local prosecutors per (1), upon request of the
State Water Quality Control Board or a regional board, to,
upon approval of the AG:
a) Bring a civil action to enforce specified provisions of
the Act.
b) Petition the court for issuance of a preliminary or
permanent injunction regarding violations of the Act.
3)Provides that a request to the AG per (2) is deemed approved
unless the AG issues a written denial within 30 days of
receiving a request.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Nonreimbursable costs to local prosecutors electing to file
civil actions and injunctions upon request of the regional
AB 246
Page 2
water boards, offset to some extent by penalty revenues.
2)Minor absorbable costs for the AG to review requests from
local prosecutors for the authority provided in this bill.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act, the State Water Resources Control Board has the ultimate
authority over state water quality policy. There are also nine
regional water quality control boards with oversight
responsibility at local and regional levels. Under existing
provisions of the Act, the regional board may delegate any of
its powers and duties vested in it to its executive officer,
with certain exceptions, one being the application to the AG
for judicial enforcement. In addition, while the Act allows
district attorneys to prosecute selected violations as
criminal cases, only the AG is allowed to bring a civil action
or petition the appropriate court to impose, assess, and
recover civil penalties for violations of the Act.
2)Purpose . According to the author's office, there have been a
number of instances in which a regional board had asked a
district attorney to pursue criminal charges arising from a
water pollution incident, but based on the facts and
circumstances, a civil case was deemed more appropriate. In
such instances, however, the only option a regional board now
has is to apply to the AG for judicial enforcement. The author
argues that it is reasonable that district attorneys and city
attorneys should have the ability to pursue civil enforcement
of the Porter-Cologne Act, which would mirror provisions of
existing law already allowing local prosecutors to file civil
actions to enforce other environmental statutes involving
hazardous waste, air pollution, and other hazardous material
spills.
3)Prior Legislation . A similar bill, AB 1946 (Nava) of 2008, was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who argued that, in lieu of
increasing civil actions, "Greater emphasis needs to be placed
on increasing the accountability, consistency, and
effectiveness of the regional and state boards."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 246
Page 3