BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1284
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1284 (Ducheny)
As Amended June 23, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :31-0
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 9-0JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Nava, Miller, Blakeslee, |Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, |
| |Chesbro, Davis, Feuer, | |Evans, Hagman, Huffman, |
| |Monning, Ruskin, Smyth | |Jones, Knight, Monning, |
| | | |Saldana |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, |
| |Bradford, |
| |Huffman, Coto, Davis, De |
| |Leon, Gatto, Hall, |
| |Harkey, Miller, Nielsen, |
| |Norby, Skinner, Solorio, |
| |Torlakson, Torrico |
|-----+--------------------------|
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Exempts certain Water Code violations of waste
discharge reporting requirements from existing mandatory minimum
penalties (MMPs). Extends the time limit under which
dischargers must come into compliance with a permit requirement
from five years to 10 years. Specifically, this bill :
1)Revises current law to allow a Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), after a public hearing, 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 that additional time
is necessary in order to reach compliance with effluent
limitations.
2)Provides that the failure to file a discharge monitoring
SB 1284
Page 2
report for a reporting period in which no discharges occur
does not constitute a "serious violation" that gives rise to
mandatory minimum penalties if the discharger submits a
written statement to the regional board under penalty of
perjury stating that in fact no discharges occurred and
stating the reasons for the failure to file.
3)Provides that where a discharger has not previously received
notification from the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) or a RWQCB of an enforcement action imposing MMPs and
where the current violation consists of failures to file
discharge monitoring reports for reporting periods where
dischargers did not violate numeric effluent limitations, that
discharger will be subject to a total fines of $3,000 per
required report. Provides that after this one-time fine, a
discharger who subsequently fails to file the same report will
be fined in accordance with the current law. Sunsets this
provision on January 2014.
4)Provides that the limitations on MMPs created by this bill
would apply to dischargers who currently have outstanding
notices of violation as of the effective date of the act.
EXISTING LAW provides for the imposition of civil penalties,
including an MMP of $3,000 for each serious waste discharge
violation. The penalties may be issued administratively by the
SWRCB or the RWQCB or through the superior court. This may be
in addition to other penalties and fees.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, because the bill exempts some violations from MMPs,
the bill is likely to reduce future penalty revenues. The
amount of any potential penalty revenue loss is unknown.
COMMENTS :
1)Need for the bill. According to the sponsor, MMPs are a
deterrent and a punishment for willful violators, and should
remain in place for that intended purpose. However, the
sponsors feel that the way the statute is currently drafted;
the definition of a "serious violation" warranting the
imposition of an MMP is far too broad and exposes public
agencies who simply failed to file a report indicating no
discharges to the vast penalties. The sponsor asserts that SB
SB 1284
Page 3
1284 would provide that certain violations involving the
failure to file a discharge monitoring report for no
discharges or legal discharges should not be subject to those
MMPs.
2)Mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) were established in 1999 in
response to concerns over the SWRCB and RWQCB failing to take
enforcement actions against Water Code violations. According
to the SWRCB, the California Water Code Section 13385(h)
requires an MMP of $3,000 for each "serious" violation.
3)MMPs for failure to report. The MMP statute was designed to
address the failure of the SWRCB and the RWQCBs to enforce
reporting requirements waste for discharge permits. In 2003,
the Legislature strengthened the MMP laws by specifically
adding waste discharge reporting failures to the MMP [AB 1541
(Montanez), Chapter 609, Statutes of 2003]. The 2003
provisions were added to the stature when it was found that
only 1% of over 4000 reporting violations were subject to the
existing penalties.
4)The Pico Water District case. The proponents of this bill
have cited the penalties assessed against the Pico Water
District for failure to file 16 separate reports from 2005 to
2008 for discharges from wells into the San Gabriel River.
The Pico Water District has asserted that because of changes
in management at the district, as well as changes in their
consulting engineering firm, they were unaware of the need to
submit reports as required by their discharge permits.
The total fine assessed in 2008 by the Los Angeles RWQCB was
$627,000. The fine resulted from the $3,000 fine being
charged for each reporting period that the required reports
were not submitted over the 3 year period. In January of 2009
Pico Water District appealed the fine amount and has requested
that the entire fine be removed. That appeal is current
pending.
Analysis Prepared by : Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0005942