BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2063
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 16, 2012

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    AB 2063 (Alejo) - As Amended:  April 30, 2012 

          Policy Committee:                             Water, Parks and 
          Wildlife     Vote:                            9-1

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill allows certain communications between interested 
          parties and regional or state water board members, declaring 
          them not to be ex parte communications, or to be allowable ex 
          parte communications, provided the board member reports the 
          communication using standard disclosure forms to be adopted by 
          the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the regional 
          board.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor, absorbable costs to SWRCB to develop reporting forms and 
          to report ex parte communications (special fund).

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  .  The author contends this bill will help ensure 
            members of the public are given adequate opportunities to 
            present their views and opinions to board members.

           2)Background.   According to the Office of the Chief Counsel of 
            the SWRCB, an ex parte communication is a communication to a 
            board member about a pending water board matter that occurs in 
            the absence of other parties to the matter and without notice 
            and opportunity for all parties to participate in the 
            communication.  In very general terms, the Chief Counsel 
            explains the water boards' prohibition on  ex parte 
            communication as follows:  
                 
              a)   If a proceeding is not pending or impending before a 
               water board, board members may communicate with the public 








                                                                  AB 2063
                                                                  Page  2

               and governmental officials regarding general issues within 
               the water board's jurisdiction. Water board members may 
               also participate in information gathering efforts such as 
               tours or site visits.
                
             b)   If an adjudicative proceeding is pending or impending 
               before a water board, ex parte communications with that 
               water board's members regarding an issue in that proceeding 
               are prohibited. 

             c)   If a rulemaking or other proceeding is pending or 
               impending before a water board, a board member may, if he 
               or she chooses.

            The Chief Counsel explains the rationale behind the 
            prohibition on ex parte communication thusly:

            Ex parte communications are fundamentally offensive in 
            adjudicative proceedings because they involve an opportunity 
            by one party to influence the decision maker outside the 
            presence of opposing parties, thus violating due process 
            requirements. Such communications are not subject to rebuttal 
            or comment by other parties. Ex parte communications can 
            frustrate a lengthy and painstaking adjudicative process 
            because certain decisive facts and arguments would not be 
            reflected in the record or in the decisions. Finally, ex parte 
            contacts may frustrate judicial review since the record would 
            be missing such communications. 

           3)Support.   This bill is supported by a long list of industry 
            groups who regularly have adjudicative business before the 
            water boards who believe they may receive better outcomes if 
            they had more opportunities to communicate with board members.  
             
           4)Opposition.   This bill is opposed by the Coastkeeper Alliance 
            and the Sierra Club of California, who contend the bill would 
            harm open process requirements without demonstrating there is 
            a need to do so.  
           
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081