BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 310
                                                                  Page 1

          Date of Hearing:   June 30, 2009

           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
                                Wesley Chesbro, Chair
                    SB 310 (Ducheny) - As Amended:  June 22, 2009

           SENATE VOTE  :   22-14
           
          SUBJECT  :   Stromwater management:  watershed improvement plans.

           SUMMARY  :   Authorizes local government agencies that have  
          permits for stormwater systems discharges to create a watershed  
          improvement plan (WIP) to improve stormwater management.   
          Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Authorizes a city, county or special district that is a  
            permittee or co-permittee under a National Pollutant Discharge  
            Elimination System (NPDES) permit for a municipal stormwater  
            system to develop a watershed improvement plan, as specified.

          2)Requires Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to  
            review and approve a WIP if they find that the proposed plan  
            will facilitate compliance with one or more water quality  
            requirements.

          3)Requires a RWQCB to review each WIP developed and approve it  
            if it finds that the proposed WIP will facilitate compliance  
            with one or more water quality requirements.

          4)Authorizes RWQCBs to participate in the preparation of a WIP.

          5)Authorizes a county, city or specified district, or  
            combination thereof, to impose fees on activities that  
            generate or contribute to runoff, stormwater, or surface  
            runoff pollution to pay the costs of the preparation of a WIP  
            or the implementation of a WIP.

          6)Authorizes a county, city, or special district, or combination  
            thereof, to plan, design, implement, construct, operate, and  
            maintain controls and facilities to improve water quality.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Establishes the NPDES to regulate the discharge of pollutants  
            into U.S. waters, pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act.   








                                                                 SB 310
                                                                  Page 2

            Section 402p of the federal law requires best management plans  
            to reduce pollutants in urban stromwater discharges.

          2)Establishes the SWRCB as the water pollution control agency  
            for the purposes of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which  
            includes administration of the NPDES program in California,  
            pursuant to 402 of the CWA.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee this bill would result in an annual cost to the RWQCBs  
          approximately $200,000 to review WIPs submitted by local  
          governments.  The cost to local agencies to develop and  
          implement the WIPs is not known.  The State and local cost would  
          be recovered from fees placed on generators of runoff only if  
          the WIP is approved by the RWQCB.

           COMMENTS  :

           1)Purpose of Bill  .  According to the author's office, the  
            purpose of this legislation is to maintain existing regulatory  
            requirements, while putting California in a leadership role in  
            stromwater management through facilitating city, county, and  
            other municipal stormwater permittees' adoption of cooperative  
            watershed-based stormwater management programs.  The intent is  
            to establish multiple watershed-based pilot programs that  
            would demonstrate more effective ways to isolate receiving  
            waters from impact sources.  According to the sponsors of the  
            bill, the California Major Builders Council, SB 310 seeks to  
            change the program to allow watershed-based runoff management  
            strategies and thereby encourage less project-based regulation  
            for new projects.

           2)Regulating urban stormwater runoff  .  California's RWQCBs have  
            expanded the regulation of urban stormwater runoff, leading to  
            city taxpayers paying the costs for implementing stormwater  
            control programs, particularly for existing development.  As  
            builders put up shopping centers and houses, they increase the  
            amount of impervious surfaces and accelerate water runoff.   
            Parks, farms, and ranches contribute to runoff; there's even  
            runoff from undeveloped land.  New developments are often  
            required to mitigate their stormwater impacts, although some  
            developers assert that they are required to pay for more than  
            their share.

           3)Establishing fees for stormwater clean-up  .  Water quality  








                                                                  SB 310
                                                                  Page 3

            regulators want local officials to reduce urban runoff and  
            clean up stormwaters.  The constitutional limits created by  
            Proposition 218 make it hard for local officials to charge  
            property-related fees for stormwater facilities and services.   
            Besides notices, hearings, and protests, property-related fees  
            for stormwater and urban runoff purposes need elections.  SB  
            310 attempts to resolves this dilemma by establishing a  
            detailed watershed water quality plans spelled out in the  
            bill, and then local officials can charge user-based fees or  
            regulatory fees.

           4)Paying the cost of reviewing the WIP .  The bill, as currently  
            drafted, allows the RWQCB to request funds to recover the cost  
            of reviewing the propose WIP (Section 16102 (c)).  This  
            provision does not require the local agency to provide the  
            reimbursement to the RWQCB and requires that the WIP be  
            approved by the RWQCB before the cost of the plan review can  
            be reimbursed.

             Recommended Amendments:   Direct the local agencies seeking  
            approval of the WIP to reimburse the RWQCB for the cost of  
            reviewing the proposed plan.

           5)Prior Legislation  .  AB 938 (Calderon) 2007.  Would have  
            allowed a county or a city to convene watershed quality  
            committees to provide cooperation in achieving local water  
            quality solutions, and authorizes cities and counties to  
            operate facilities for the diversion of urban runoff.  Held in  
            the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
           
          6)Double Referral:  This bill was double-referred by the Assembly  
            Rules Committee to the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife  
            Committee.

           

          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support
           
          California Major Builders Council (co-source)
          California Building Industry Association (co-source)
          California Association of Realtors
          Western Municipal Water District









                                                                  SB 310
                                                                  Page 4

          Opposition
           
          None Known


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)  
          319-3965