BILL ANALYSIS
SB 310
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 310 (Ducheny)
As Amended August 31, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :22-14
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-0WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE
8-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Davis, Feuer, |Ayes:|Huffman, Arambula, |
| |Monning, Ruksin | |Blumenfield, Caballero. |
| | | |Krekorian, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Salas, Yamada |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Fuller, Anderson, Tom |
| | | |Berryhill, Fletcher |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
---------------------------------
|Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, |
| |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, John |
| |A. Perez, |
| |Skinner, Solorio, |
| |Torlakson, Hill |
| | |
|-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| |Nielsen, Audra Strickland |
| | |
---------------------------------
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.
SB 310
Page 2
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. Require the State Water Resources Control Board
to establish, via emergency regulations, a fee schedule for
RWQCB's review of a WIP.
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.
7)FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, the bill would result in the following fiscal
effects:
1)Potential long-term Waste Discharge Fund savings of an unknown
amount resulting from more effective stormwater management and
an associated reduction in water quality violation enforcement
actions.
2)Annual cost in 2009-10 through 2012-13, ranging from
approximately $150,000 to $450,000 (Waste Discharge Fund), to
the RWQCB to participate in the development of WIPs and to
review them. The bill directs these RWQCB costs to be
reimbursed by the local government(s) responsible for developing
the WIPs.
3)Annual costs in 2009-10 through 2012-13, ranging from $300,000
to $550,000 (Waste Discharge Fund), to the State Water Board for
program oversight and coordination.
4)Local costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the millions of
SB 310
Page 3
dollars, to the extent local governments develop watershed
improvement plans and the scope of those plans.
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
regulators want local officials to reduce urban runoff and clean
up stormwater. The constitutional limits created by Proposition
218 (1996 - "Right to Vote on Taxes Act") 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 resolve this
dilemma by establishing a detailed watershed water quality plans
as spelled out in the bill, and then local officials can charge
user-based fees or regulatory fees.
Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
SB 310
Page 4
319-3965
FN: 0002663