BILL ANALYSIS
SB 310
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
SB 310 (Ducheny) - As Amended: June 22, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 22-14
SUBJECT : Stormwater: Watershed Improvement Plans
SUMMARY : Authorizes local government agencies that have
permits for stormwater system 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.
a) Specifies required elements of a WIP, including
financing, best management practices, and protection of
water quality,
b) Authorizes RWQCBs to participate in the preparation of a
WIP.
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)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.
4)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.
5)Clarifies that this act does not alter requirements for water
rights.
SB 310
Page 2
EXISTING LAW
1)Establishes the NPDES to regulate the discharge of pollutants,
including urban stormwater, into U.S. waters, pursuant to the
federal Clean Water Act.
2)Authorizes SWRCB to issue discharge permits under the federal
Clean Water Act (CWA).
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee this bill would result in an annual cost to the RWQCBs
of 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 : This bill would create an alternative process for
addressing stormwater management. Instead of regulating
stormwater project-by-project, city-by-city, or
permittee-by-permittee, this bill would allow discharge
permittees to address stormwater by developing a "watershed
improvement plan." This plan would address both water quality
and quantity (i.e. stormwater retention) in the entire
watershed, if approved by the RWQCB.
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
subdivisions, they increase the amount of impervious surfaces
and accelerate water runoff. 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. Major Builders Council sponsored this bill.
While the regulatory limits on stormwater have expanded,
Proposition 218's constitutional limits on fees make it
difficult for local officials to fund stormwater or charge
property-related fees for stormwater facilities and services -
requiring notices, hearings, protests, and elections. SB 310
attempts to resolve this dilemma by allowing local governments,
with approved plans, to charge user-based or regulatory fees for
implementing the plans. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
(HJTA) opposes the bill based on the fee provisions, asserting
SB 310
Page 3
that these fees would not be regulatory because they would be
collected from every developed property and would fund public
facilities, not regulatory programs, to address stormwater.
HJTA asserts that they would not be user-based or regulatory,
although it should be noted that this bill imposes the fee only
on those activities that generate runoff.
RWQCB review of these plans may create substantial costs, but
this bill, in its current version, allows the RWQCB to request
funds to recover the cost of reviewing the proposed plans only
if it approves the plan. The Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials Committee, which heard the bill on June 30, passed the
bill on the condition that the author accepted amendments to
allow the RWQCB to recover costs from the entity proposing the
WIP.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Major Builders Council (co-sponsor)
California Building Industry Association (co-sponsor)
California Association of Realtors
Opposition :
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Alf W. Brandt / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096