BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1842 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 29, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE Marc Levine, Chair AB 1842 (Levine) - As Introduced February 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Water: pollution: fines SUMMARY: Creates a civil penalty of up to $10 per gallon or pound of polluting material discharged into waterways for those found to have polluted. Reduces the penalty on every gallon or pound for every gallon or pound recovered. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides for a base fine/ penalty of up to $2000 on criminal or $25,000 on civil polluters of state waters. 2)Under criminal proceedings provides for up to a $10 fine/ penalty per gallon or pound of material that is not removed from state waters. Provides for a similar penalty under administrative proceedings. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. COMMENTS: Creates a civil penalty identical to penalties that AB 1842 Page 2 exist for polluting waterways under criminal and administrative actions. 1)Author's Statement: AB 1842 protects California's waterways by underscoring the importance of appropriate sanctions that reflect the severity of a violation. California is home to some of the most beautiful coastline, bays, estuaries, streams, and rivers in the nation. Gross polluters of our waterways must be held accountable and strong enforcement is needed. 2)Background: Since the early 70's environmental law has been central to implementing a wide range of environmental programs designed to protect air, water, natural resources, wildlife and public health. In the case of pollution of our waterways, including our drinking water, environmental laws help address problems with discharge. However, simply having environmental laws in place is not enough to ensure problems of discharge do not arise. Having penalties for violations of the law help ensure that polluters meet the requirements of the law. Additionally the law must always be adapting to ensure that compliance is more desirable than non-compliance. Under existing law, to face the most severe penalties through a criminal violation of polluting the waters of the state an offender must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in law. In additional to prison time and a fine, a criminally, liable offender may have to pay a surcharge of up to $10 per gallon or pound of polluting material. The surcharge per gallon or pound is reduced for every gallon or pound of material that is recovered and properly disposed of. AB 1842 Page 3 Under existing law, a fine and an up to $20 per gallon surcharge for a criminal violation can be applied through administrative actions on certain pollution. In a civil proceeding the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence, the lowest standard in law, that they acted in good faith. The polluting material surcharge that exists through both the criminal and administrative action is not available to be applied in the civil case. This limits the flexibility of a prosecutor especially in the case where they believe that a criminal action will not be provable. This leaves a prosecutor with a choice between suggesting an administrative action where the surcharge would apply, or purse a civil action where the surcharge would not apply. Ultimately this can serve to hinder environmental enforcement. 3)Supporting Arguments: A prosecutor who believes that conduct fell short of a provable crime must forego the surcharge when filing a civil action. This is not only ironic in that the most severe criminal and least sever administrative remedies allow for the surcharge, but the middle remedy- civil action - does not, but also hampers prosecutors' filing flexibility and may be an impediment to environmental enforcement. The penalty provisions create an incentive for polluter to remedy the pollution, reducing the penalty for the illegally discharged materials that are recovered and responsibly disposed of. This simple change will help enforce water quality laws and ensure timely cleanup of accidents. AB 1842 Page 4 4)Opposing Arguments: This bill could potentially increase liability by subjecting public agencies to double liability. The bill should be amended to allow for only one penalty to be assessed. The bill should provide for a notification process between the Attorney General, the department, and the applicable regional or state water board so that a person who discharges illegally is assessed only once. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California District Attorneys Association (Sponsor) California League of Conservation Voters Sierra Club California Natural Resources Defense Council Opposition Association of California Water Agencies (unless amended) AB 1842 Page 5 Analysis Prepared by:Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096