BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1701
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1701 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: March 27, 2012
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 8-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board
(state board) to enter into an agreement for oversight of
abatement of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) only with
a city or a county certified by the state board. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Defines a "local agency," for purposes of implementing local
oversight of LUST abatement and cleanup, as (a) before July 1,
2013, a city or a county and (b) after July 1, 2013, a city or
a county certified by the state board.
2)Authorizes the state board to certify a city or county for
purposes of implementing the local oversight of LUST program
and provides criteria by which the board is to do so.
3)Authorize the state board, after January 1, 2013, to enter
into an agreement for local oversight of LUST abatement only
with a city or a county certified by the state board.
4)Requires the state board, as of July 1, 2013, if it has not
certified a city or county that had been overseeing local LUST
abatement prior to this date, to assign LUST abatement
oversight cases to a regional water board or to another city
or county that has been certified by the board.
5)Requires the state board to review, at least once every three
years, the ability of a certified city or county to implement
local oversight of LUST abatement and authorizes the state
board to decertify a city or county, following review.
FISCAL EFFECT
AB 1701
Page 2
Minor, absorbable net costs to the state board. The board will
incur workload, approximately equivalent to one staff member
annually, to certify cities and counties and to review
qualifications for certification. The state board expects this
workload largely to be offset by a reduction in workload
resulting from replacement of the existing, and time-consuming,
contract-by-contract-based local programs with more-standardized
state certification.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author intends this bill to standardize local
oversight of LUST abatement and cleanup, thereby speeding
cleanup of hazardous substances and better protecting
groundwater resources while reducing the cost of compliance.
2)Background.
Regulation of Water Quality. The State Water Resources
Control Board, in conjunction with nine semiautonomous
regional boards, regulates water quality in the state. The
regional boards-which are funded by the state board and are
under the state board's oversight-implement water quality
programs in accordance with policies, plans and standards
developed by the state board. Current law also requires every
petroleum underground storage tank (UST) owner to pay a
fee-known as the UST Maintenance Fee and set, as of January
2012, at 1.4 cents per gallon. UST fee revenue is placed in
the UST Cleanup Fund and is available to assist eligible
businesses and individuals pay for unexpected and catastrophic
expenses associated with the cleanup of leaking petroleum
USTs. The fund also provides money to regional water boards
and local regulatory agencies to abate emergency situations or
to cleanup abandoned sites that pose a threat to human health,
safety and the environment as a result of a petroleum release
from a UST.
LUSTs, LIAs and LOPs. The state board is required to
implement a local oversight program for the abatement of, and
oversight of the abatement of, unauthorized releases of
hazardous substances, such as petroleum, from leaking
underground storage tanks. The program is implemented by the
regional boards and numerous local agencies with varying
requirements.
Generally, there are two categories of local agencies that
AB 1701
Page 3
oversee abatement and cleanup of LUSTs. The first category is
known as local implementation agencies (LIAs). LIAs are
mostly cities and counties, or their subdivisions, whose
oversight of LUSTs and other hazardous substance regulation
predates the state's uniform program for the management of
hazardous substances, which began in 1996. LIAs are not
directly responsible to any state agency. Some UST owners
complain LIA requirements sometimes vary substantially from
state requirements, leading to confusion and delay in LUST
abatement and cleanup. Some contend LIAs lack legal authority
to oversee LUST abatement.
The second category of local agencies overseeing LUST
abatement is local oversight programs (LOPs). Like LIAs, LOPs
are generally comprised of cities and counties or their
subdivisions. LOPs, however, operate according to a contract
with the state board. LOPs, therefore, receive their LUST
oversight authority directly from, and are accountable to, a
state agency. Some UST owners contend LOP requirements, when
compared to those of LIAs, are consistent and predictable.
3)Support. This bill is supported by the California Independent
Oil Marketers Association, an industry group representing many
UST owners.
4)Opposition. As this analysis is being written, there is no
formal opposition registered to this bill. However, some
local agencies acting as LIAs, including some of the state's
largest municipalities, may object to the requirement to be
certified by the state board.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081