BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 209
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
209 (Pavley)
As Amended September 2, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 25-13
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Natural |7-1 |Williams, Cristina |Harper |
|Resources | |Garcia, Hadley, | |
| | |McCarty, Rendon, Mark | |
| | |Stone, Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |12-4 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Nazarian, |Gallagher, Jones |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Rendon, Weber, | |
| | |Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SB 209
Page 2
SUMMARY: Revises the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
(SMARA), renames the Office of Mine Reclamation to instead be
the Division of Mines (Division), and creates the Supervisor of
Mines and Reclamation to direct the Division. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Increases the maximum reporting fee for any single mining
operation from $4,000 to $10,000 annually over a three year
period. Increases the total allowable revenue generated by the
reporting fees from $3.5 million to $8 million annually.
2)Requires each surface mining operation to have financial
assurance mechanisms, as defined. Prohibits the release of the
mechanisms unless there is written consent from the lead
agency and the Department of Conservation (DOC). Requires
subsequent operators of surface mining operations to post a
mechanism within 30 days of transfer of operation.
3)Creates a new process to review reclamation plans, including
that the lead agency must provide the Director of the
Department of Conservation with a complete reclamation plan
for the Director to review. Requires the lead agency to
respond to the Director's comments and either describe how
they plan to adopt the comment, or reasons why they will not
adopt the comment.
4)Exempts a borrow pit surface mining operation, owned or
operated by the lead agency solely for use by the lead agency
from certain requirements that apply to idle mines.
5)Requires DOC and the California State Mining and Geology Board
(Board) to adopt regulations that set minimum qualifications
for a person conducting an inspection of a surface mining
operation and provide a training program for all surface mine
SB 209
Page 3
inspectors.
6)Allows a lead agency employee to inspect surface mining
operations that are owned by the local agency.
7)Requires the lead agency, among other things, to combine the
notice of violations with an order to comply if the violation
cannot be corrected within 30 days. Allows an order to comply
to take effect without a hearing if the operator does not
request one. Allows an order to comply to include
administrative penalties of not more than $5,000 per day from
the original date of noncompliance.
8)Requires the Board to either have the lead agency develop a
remedial plan or exercise some or all of a lead agency's
powers under SMARA, except for permitting or vested rights
determinations, if the lead agency fails to implement the law.
Requires the Board to conduct a public hearing to determine if
the lead agency has corrected it implementation and
enforcement of SMARA and requires it to restore some or all of
its powers if it has taken corrective actions.
9)Requires that this bill will only become operative if both
this bill and AB 1142 (Gray) of the current legislative
session are enacted.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Creates SMARA, which prohibits a person from conducting
surface mining operations unless the lead agency for the
operation issues a surface mining permit and approves a
reclamation plan and financial assurances for reclamation.
Depending on the circumstances, a lead agency can be a city,
SB 209
Page 4
county, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, or the Board. Reclamation plans and financial
assurances must be submitted to the Director of the DOC for
review.
2)Requires the Board to impose an annual reporting fee for each
active or idle mining operation. Specifies that the maximum
fee for any single mining operation may not exceed $4,000
annually and may not be less than $100 annually, as adjusted
for the cost of living, for the purpose of carrying out SMARA.
3)Provides a mechanism by which the Board can strip a local
agency of its lead agency status for failure to implement
state law, the Board then serves as the lead agency.
4)Requires lead agencies to require financial assurances of each
surface mining operation to ensure reclamation is performed in
accordance with the surface mining operation's approved
reclamation plan.
5)Requires the financial assurance to remain in effect for the
duration of the surface mining operation and until the
reclamation is complete. Requires the amount of financial
assurance to be adjusted annually to account for new lands
disturbed by surface mining operations, inflation, and
reclamation of lands accomplished in accordance with the
approved reclamation plan.
6)Requires lead agencies to conduct annual mine inspections to
determine compliance with SMARA.
7)Establishes administrative penalties of not more than $5,000
per day from the original date of noncompliance for operators
SB 209
Page 5
who violate or fail to comply with an order by the lead agency
or director.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, the administrative fee increase authorized in the
bill will result in an estimated increase in revenue between
$3.6 million and $6.2 million (special fund). The actual
revenue increase will depend upon how the State Mining and
Geology Board (SMGB) calculate fees for different operations.
The statute requires that SMGB set fees on an equitable basis
reflecting the size and type of operation.
COMMENTS: There are over a thousand active mines in California
that remove aggregate for building material, metals, and
minerals. California is the only state in the United States
where surface mine reclamation is not regulated by the state.
Local governments including cities and counties are the lead
agencies for most mines. However, DOC and the Board oversee
their permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions. Mining
operators are required under SMARA to develop and implement
reclamation plans, which will return the mine to a condition
where it can be used for another purpose after the mining
operation is complete. Annual reports and inspections are
supposed to ensure that mining operators are making progress
toward reclamation. However, there are instances when the mine
operator cannot be located or is unable to complete the mine
reclamation. Financial assurances are required to make sure
there will be resources available to reclaim the mine. The
state and lead agencies have an interest in properly reclaimed
mines, because a surface mine is a large hole in the ground and
can have many dangerous features. I f the mine is reclaimed, the
land can be returned to another use. If it is not, the state or
the lead agency could be responsible for protecting the public
from the dangers of the mine, cleaning up the mine, and
reclaiming the mine.
SB 209
Page 6
In the Governor's signing statement for SB 447 (Lara), Chapter
417, Statutes of 2013, he called for a top-to-bottom review of
SMARA. Multiple stakeholder group meetings have been held to
discuss the administration's concerns with SMARA. Issues that
are under discussion include:
1)Meaningful reclamation of disturbed mine lands;
2)Adequate financial assurance;
3)Financial assurances are not released until reclamation is
complete;
4)Financial assurance can be used for reclamation if the mine
owner does not reclaim their mine;
5)Quality inspections of mines occur annually;
6)When inspectors find non-compliance enforcement is clear,
timely, and meaningful;
7)The Board has tools to improve local SMARA implementation;
8)Reporting fees and penalties are paid by operators and that
fees cover the cost of the program; and,
9)Inappropriate exemptions from SMARA are stopped.
The goal of these talks is to amend SMARA to meet its intent.
In last couple of months DOC released language on these issues
and solicited feedback from stakeholders. This language was
SB 209
Page 7
amended into this bill, and therefore, the current bill is the
product of the Governor's stakeholder process.
This bill contains many provisions that are identical, overlap
or conflict with AB 1142, which also reforms SMARA. These bills
both contain language that requires contingent enactment. The
authors of these bills may wish to consider floor amendments to
resolve chaptering issues with their legislation.
Analysis Prepared by:
Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0002027