BILL ANALYSIS
AB 226
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 226 (Ruskin) - As Amended: May 6, 2009
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the California Coastal Commission to impose
administrative penalties upon violators of the California
Coastal Act. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes the commission, by majority vote, to impose
administrative penalties, ranging from $5,000 to $50,000,
against violators of the Coastal Act.
2)Allows the commission to file a lien against property of a
violator for failure to pay the penalty.
3)Directs all funds derived from these penalties be deposited in
the Coastal Act Services Fund to fund commission activities,
upon appropriation by the Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potential penalty revenues to the commission, in the range of
$500,000 to $2,000,000 a year. This revenue could displace an
equal amount of commission funding from the GF.
2)Minor savings, less than $150,000 a year, to the commission in
avoided staffing and other expenses related to pursuing
Coastal Act violations in court.
3)Potential minor savings to the AG's office from representing
the commission before court.
4)Loss of annual penalty revenue, potentially in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars, to the Coastal Conservancy.
AB 226
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends penalties are necessary to all
environmental statutes to persuade would-be violators to
comply with the law, thereby avoiding harm to the environment.
Unlike many other environmental protection agencies, the
commission currently is not authorized to levy penalties for
violations of the laws the commission is tasked to protect.
For these reasons, the author seeks to equip the commission
penalty authority, consistent with recommendations made by the
Legislative Analyst's Office.
AB 226
Page 3
2)Background .
a) The State Coastal Act of 1976 permanently established
the Coastal Commission, following its initial creation by a
voter initiative in 1972. The act seeks to protect the
state's resources along California's coast. The
commission's primary responsibility is to implement the
act's provisions, including regulation of development in
the coastal zone. It is also the state's planning and
management agency for the coastal zone.
Under the Coastal Act, all nonexempt development in the
coastal zone requires a permit. That permitting process
allows the Coastal Commission and local governments to
review proposed projects to ensure that they will not have
impacts inconsistent with the environmental protection
policies of the Coastal Act and of the plans created by
local governments to implement the Coastal Act, known as
"Local Coastal Programs" (LCPs).
b) Penalties Not Among Commission's Enforcement Tools. To
address violations of the Coastal Act, the commission
generally uses cease and desist orders to halt ongoing
violations and to obtain compliance with the Coastal Act or
LCPs. The commission generally uses restoration orders to
bring about removal of unpermitted development and/or
restoration of damaged coastal resources. But the
commission's enforcement options do not include monetary
penalties, which only a court can impose. Nor can the
commission represent itself in enforcement cases that go to
court. Rather, the Attorney General must represent the
commission, adding time and expense to enforcement of the
Coastal Act. Under existing law, all enforcement revenues
are transferred to the Coastal Conservancy to fund its
coastal access program.
c) Many Enforcement Agencies Have Penalty Authority. The
commission may not be the only environmental/resource
agency lacking the authority to impose monetary penalties.
It is, however, atypical. Other state environmental
protection agencies that possess penalty authority include
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, State
Lands Commission, California Energy Commission, Department
of Health Services, Air Resources Board, Department of Fish
and Game, State Water Resources Control Board, and the
AB 226
Page 4
Integrated Waste Management Board.
d) Commission Attributes Backlog to Lack of Penalty
Authority. Currently, there is a backlog of 1,300 pending
Coastal Act violation enforcement cases. The commission
blames this backlog, in part, on its lack of penalty
authority. Because violators know the commission lacks to
resources to pursue monetary violations for most violations
in court, the commission claims that many violators choose
to delay compliance on the assumption that they will never
face monetary penalties.
3)Fear of the Bounty Hunter. Opponents claim that, armed with
the authority provided by this bill, the commission will
become a bounty hunter, seeking opportunities to extract
penalty revenue from supposed violators of the Coastal Act,
penalty revenue that, under this bill, would be available to
fund commission activities. Opponents also see in the bill a
lack of procedural rights in that the commission could
unilaterally impose administrative penalties. However, these
opponents do not address the record of other agencies
successfully managing similar penalty authority or the fact
that commission decisions are subject to judicial review.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081