BILL ANALYSIS
SB 413
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 413
AUTHOR: Ducheny
AMENDED: April 20, 2009
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 27, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll
Mortensen
SUBJECT : WASTE DISCHARGE FEES
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) Pursuant to both the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter-Cologne)
requires completion of basin plans.
2) Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
establishes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
and regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) in the
California Environmental Protection Agency, which must be
"the principal state agencies with primary responsibility
for the coordination and control of water quality" (Water
Code 13000 et seq.).
a) Requires the nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards to adopt water quality control plans (basin
plans) for watersheds within each region.
b) Provides that these basin plans shall become part of
the California Water Plan when such plans have been
reported to the Legislature (Water Code 13141).
c) Requires each regional board to establish water
quality objectives in its basin plan to ensure the
reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the
prevention of nuisances.
d) Requires each basin plan to include a program of
SB 413
Page 2
implementation for achieving those objectives, including
necessary actions to achieve water quality objectives,
time schedules for the actions, and a description of
surveillance to determine compliance with objectives.
e) Authorizes the assessment of Waste Discharge
Requirement (WDR) fees annually for the allowance of
discharging wastes pursuant to a WDR order that may
affect California's surface and ground water (Water Code
13260).
f) Authorizes the assessment of an annual fee to
permittees for each WDR they hold. The total WDR fee
revenue supports the majority of the costs of SWRCB and
the RWQCBs' regulatory programs.
g) Provides that the total amount of annual fees
collected must equal the amount necessary to cover
expenses related to the issuance, administration,
reviewing, monitoring and enforcement of WDRs and
waivers of WDRs.
h) Provides that the WDR fees are deposited in the WDR
Permit Fund and are for the purposes of carrying out the
requirements of the Act.
This bill :
1) Amends the definition of "recoverable costs" for purposes
of WDR fees, to specify that it includes costs incurred by
the RWQCB's to prepare basin plans.
2) States that the portion of the fee calculated for
recovering the costs for preparing basin plans shall be
calculated in a manner than ensures that fee payers are not
paying disproportionately more than their impacts or
benefits justify.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, reforms or
improvement at the state and regional water boards has been
one of her priorities. To that end, one of the issues that
SB 413
Page 3
was raised in the Little Hoover Commission Report "Clearer
Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and
Outcomes at the State Water Boards", was the fact that
outdated basin plans undermine the credibility of water
quality throughout the different regions. These plans are
the basis for all water quality plans and some are more
than a decade old.
2) Little Hoover Commission Report . In January of this year,
the Little Hoover Commission release a reporting entitled,
"Cleaner Structure, Cleaner Water: Improving Performance
and Outcomes at the State Water Boards". This document
recommends extensive changes and updates to the way the
SWRCB and the regional boards do business. They indicate
that the current structure and system needs major reform to
help protect and improve water quality. Among dozens of
recommendations, one related to the sorely outdated,
under-staffed and under-funded efforts regarding the
preparation and updates to basin plans.
3) Basin Plans . Basin plans, or formally titled, water
quality control plans, provide the basis for protecting
water quality in California. They are the cornerstone for
enforcement and planning and absolutely critical for the
SWRCB and the regional board to carry out their mandates.
Each plan must contain water quality objectives, which in
the judgment of the SWRCB and regional boards will ensure
the protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of
nuisance, and a program of implementation for achieving
those objectives, including a description of the nature of
actions that are necessary to achieve the objectives, time
schedules for the actions to be taken, and a description of
surveillance to be undertaken to determine compliance with
objectives.
Basin plans provide for a definitive program of actions
designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to
protect beneficial uses of water. They are used as a
regulatory tool for the regional boards. Enforcement
orders cite the basin plan's water quality standards and
prohibitions applicable to a particular discharge. The
basin plan is also used by other agencies in their
permitting and resource management activities. It also
SB 413
Page 4
serves as an educational and reference document for
dischargers and members of the public.
4) Lack of Data and Scientific Research . One of the main
issues facing the SWRCB and the regional boards is a lack
of data and scientific research. Data collection is also a
problem. According to the Little Hoover Report, water
quality monitoring is sporadic throughout the state,
leaving SWRCB and the regional boards to regulate on the
basis of incomplete information. A 2004 report noted that
as much as 75 percent of the state's rivers, streams, lakes
and reservoirs were unmonitored.
The SWRCB and the regional boards struggle to organize what
data they do have, however. One analysis of the water
boards' program to protect and enhance wetlands was
hampered because more than 40 percent of the files for the
program could not be located. And while the SWRCB and the
regional boards conduct and fund scientific research, they
have done a poor job of coordinating or consolidating that
research or working to infuse it into regulatory programs.
5) Basin Plans Out-of-Date . The Little Hoover Report also
points out that the lack of data and science mean that
basin plans are often decades out-of-date. As basin plans
guide virtually all regulations in each region, this
undermines the legitimacy of the state's regulatory
efforts. Basin plans list the uses of water bodies and the
limits on contaminants in each of the water bodies to
support those uses. Despite this, the state has not
committed the resources to update them. According to the
report, less than 3 percent of the SWRCB and the regional
board's nearly 1,600 employees are dedicated to updating
basin plans. The SWRCB's funding structure, which relies
mostly on fees to support specific permitting programs and
almost no General Fund dollars, leaves little money
available for this critical task. The state must give this
task higher priority, commensurate with the role the plans
play in ensuring and protecting water quality.
6)Step in the Right Direction . As the Little Hoover report
indicates, there is much work to be done in this policy
area. Providing adequate funding for the SWRCB and the
SB 413
Page 5
regional boards to implement the Act is key to improving and
preserving water quality in this state. The Legislative
Analyst's Office has recommended a look toward a
comprehensive water quality fee based on the "polluter pays"
principle. However, until an effort that addresses the
overarching resource needs, this bill makes a step in the
direction of providing a funding source for basin plans.
7)Amendment Needed . This bill contains a provision that
requires the SWRCB to calculate any increase to the
discharge fee " . . . in a manner than ensures that fee
payers are not paying disproportionately more than their
impacts or benefits justify." This raises two points. One
raised in the Little Hoover Commission Report was the SWRCB
needs to have flexibility to match resources to priorities.
The second is that this calculation would be difficult to
quantify. Thus, the bill should be amended remove the
requirement for the calculation.
SOURCE : Senator Ducheny
SUPPORT : None on file
OPPOSITION : None on file