BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1306|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1306
Author: Blakeslee (R)
Amended: 5/22/12
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 4/23/12
AYES: Simitian, Strickland, Blakeslee, Kehoe, Lowenthal
NOES: Hancock
NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/21/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
SUBJECT : State Water Resources Control Board
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill expands the requirement for the State
Water Resources Control Board to conduct an external
scientific peer review to include general permit
application requirements for stormwater discharges and a
conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements from
irrigated lands except under some conditions.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), establishes the
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
2
structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into
the waters of the United States and regulating quality
standards for surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful
to discharge any pollutant from a point source into
navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program controls discharges. Industrial,
municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if
their discharges go directly to surface waters.
2. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act (Porter-Cologne), the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) has the authority over state water
rights and water quality policy. Porter-Cologne also
establishes nine regional water quality control boards
(RWQCBs) to oversee water quality at the local/regional
level. Under the auspices of the EPA, the SWRCB and
nine RWQCBs also have the responsibility of granting
NPDES permits, for certain point-source discharges.
3. Establishes external scientific peer review requirements
for all boards, departments and offices in the
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
(Health and Safety Code Section 57004)
This bill, for the specific purpose of requiring a
scientific peer review under the Health and Safety Code,
adds to the definition of "rule" the adoption of general
permit application requirements for stormwater discharges
and conditional waivers of waste discharge requirements
from irrigated lands adopted by an RWQCB, thereby expanding
the types of actions taken by the water boards requiring
scientific peer review. It provides that the lack of
sufficient fees to cover the cost of a peer review only
exempts the peer review requirement in the case of a
general permit application for stormwater discharges or a
conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements. This
bill also deems the SWRCB or a RWQCB to have complied with
the provisions of the bill, if a scientific peer review has
been done on the scientific basis or scientific portion of
an adopted rule.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
3
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, on-going
costs of $30,000 to $60,000 from the Waste Discharge Permit
Fund (special fund) for additional peer review. Existing
annual fees are likely sufficient to cover these costs.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/23/12)
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Metals Coalition
California Precast Concrete Association
California State Association of Counties
Chemical Industry Council of California
City of Salinas
League of California Cities
Lumber Association of California & Nevada
National Federation of Independent Business
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue
Western Growers
Western Wood Preservers' Institute
Wine Institute
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/23/12)
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Clean Water Action
Environment California
Sierra Club California
Seventh Generation Advisors
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters argue that, for
regulated entities, ensuring the quality and consistency of
any scientific rationale underpinning a regulation is
important. Supporters argue that this bill recognizes that
the most effective way to achieve a desired water quality
is through the collaboration with stakeholders to develop
fair programs and objectives backed by solid science.
Supporters believe, through such inclusive regulatory
proceedings, it is more likely that programs will receive
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
4
the support required for widespread success.
According to the author's office, in the early 1990s there
was a bi-partisan concern about the quality and consistency
of the science underpinning major environmental protection
regulations. The author's office argues that one of the
more significant reforms from this time was the requirement
for an external peer review of all proposed regulations by
a CalEPA board, department or office prior to adoption. SB
1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, Statutes of 1997, included peer
review provisions, which were recommended by a report
commissioned by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment in response to Governor Wilson's Executive Order
W-137-96.
The author's office states, in 1998 following the passage
of SB 1320, CalEPA issued a "Policy and Guiding Principles
for External Scientific Peer Review." The guidance
document noted that peer review is an important and
effective mechanism for evaluating the accuracy or validity
of technical data, observations, and scientific aspects of
regulatory decisions and initiatives. In providing
guidance, the document differentiated between actions that
require an external peer review - such as "products that
address emerging or controversial issues, have significant
cross-media implications, or establish a significant
precedent" - and those actions that do not require an
external peer review - such as "permit, variance standards,
and conditions set by Cal/EPA BDOs, unless they are applied
through regulation." The author states that while issuance
of an individual permit or variance to a specific
individual arguably does not require an external scientific
peer review, the adoption of general permit requirements
that apply across a broad sector arguably do, especially if
the proposed general requirements "address emerging or
controversial issues, have significant cross-media
implications, or establish a significant precedent."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state that this bill
requires both stormwater and irrigated lands discharge
requirements to undergo scientific peer review, and argue
that these water board programs have historically been
exempt from this peer review requirement because of the
extensive review already built into the programs.
CONTINUED
SB 1306
Page
5
Opponents further believe the development of discharge
requirements is the final step in a long process that
includes the development of water quality objectives,
assignment of load allocations, environmental review, and,
in the case of agricultural requirements, economic
analysis. Opponents note that it is not clear what purpose
is served by requiring additional scientific review of
these particular board functions, other than to delay
program implementation. Opponents also note that
unfortunately, delayed implementation comes at a very high
cost, citing the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences
study which identified a quarter of a million residents of
the Salinas Valley and Tulare Lake Basin that are already
impacted by nitrate contamination - warning
that 80% of the population of these areas could be impacted
by 2050, if action is not taken to address agricultural
inputs.
DLW:mw 5/23/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED