BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1284
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1284 (Ducheny) - As Amended: June 23, 2010
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 9-0
Judiciary 10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill exempts certain waste discharge reporting violations
from existing mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs). Specifically,
this bill:
1)Provides that failure to file a discharge monitoring report
for a reporting period in which no discharge occur does not
constitute a "serious violation" triggering MMPs, if certain
conditions are met.
2)Establishes a one-time $3,000 fine per delinquent report for a
discharger who has not received notice from the State Water
Resources Control Board or a regional water quality control
board of an enforcement action imposing MMPs and who has not
violated effluent limitations. Subsequent reporting
violations would be subject to the penalties described in
current law. This provision would sunset January 1, 2014.
3)Allows a regional board to extend the time schedule for
bringing a waste discharge into compliance for an additional
five years, to a possible total time schedule of 10 years if
the discharger can demonstrate additional time is necessary to
comply with effluent limitations.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor absorbable costs to the state water board and regional
boards.
SB 1284
Page 2
2)Potential loss of penalty revenue, likely in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. (Waste Discharge Permit Fund and
Cleanup and Abatement Fund)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Supporters contend MMPs should apply to willful
violators of waste discharge laws but not to entities, such as
public agencies, that fail to file a report indicating no
discharges occurred during a given period. These supporters
describe this bill as maintaining the dissuasive effect of
MMPs while providing fairer, less burdensome penalties on
those who commit minor and technical violations.
2)Background .
a) Maximum Minimum Penalties . MMPs were established in
1999 in response to concerns that the state and regional
water boards were failing to enforce Water Code violations.
Existing statute requires an MMP of $3,000 for each
"serious" violation. The state and regional water boards
are also required to assess MMPs of $3,000 for multiple
chronic violations. This penalty applies when the
discharger does any of the following four or more times in
any period of six consecutive months: Violates effluent
limitations; fails to file a report of waste discharge or
file an incomplete report; or violates a toxicity effluent
limitation where the report does not contain
pollutant-specific effluent limitations for toxic
pollutants.
b) The Case of Pico Union . Proponents site the case of the
Pico Union Water District as an example of the inordinate
burden that can result from the imposition of MMPs. The
water district failed to file 16 separate reports from 2005
to 2008 for discharges into the San Gabriel River from
wells. The Pico Union Water District asserts they were
unaware of the need to submit such reports. As a result of
district's failure to file the reports, the Los Angeles
water board fined Pico Union $627,000. In January of 2009
the water district appealed the fine amount and requested
the entire fine be removed. That appeal is currently
pending.
3)Support . This bill is supported by the Association of
SB 1284
Page 3
California Water Agencies (ACWA) and the Regional Council of
Rural Counties (RCRC), who contend the statute requiring MMPs
is too broad and can result in an inordinate burden on
entities that have made relatively minor or technical
violations of the water code.
4)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081