BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 900|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 900
Author: Steinberg (D)
Amended: 5/9/11
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/2/11
AYES: Simitian, Blakeslee, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: Strickland, Hancock
SUBJECT : California regional water quality control
boards
SOURCE : Western Growers
DIGEST : This bill, with regard to a regional water
quality control board, provides that a person would not be
disqualified from being a member of that board because that
person receives, or has received during the previous two
years, a significant portion of his/her income directly or
indirectly from a person subject to waste discharge
requirements, or an applicant for waste discharge
requirements, that govern discharges not within the
jurisdiction of that regional board. This bill provides
that this revised eligibility provision relating to members
of a regional board shall be implemented only if certain
requirements are met.
ANALYSIS : Under existing law, the State Water Resources
Control Board and the nine California regional water
quality control boards prescribe waste discharge
CONTINUED
SB 900
Page
2
requirements in accordance with the federal national
pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit
program established by the federal Clean Water Act and the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne
Act). The Porter-Cologne Act prescribes requirements and
qualifications for the membership of the state board and
the regional boards, and prohibits a member of the state
board or a regional board from participating in specified
board actions that involve the member or any waste
discharger with which the member is connected as a
director, officer, or employee, or in which the board
member has a financial interest within the meaning of the
Political Reform Act of 1974.
The Porter-Cologne Act prohibits a person from being a
member of the state board or a regional board if that
person receives or has received during the previous two
years a significant portion of his/her income directly or
indirectly from any person subject to waste discharge
requirements or applicants for waste discharge requirements
that are prescribed pursuant to the NPDES permit program.
This bill provides that a person would not be disqualified
from being a member of a RWQCB because that person
receives, or has received during the previous two years, a
significant portion of his/her income directly or
indirectly from a person subject to waste discharge
requirements, or an applicant for waste discharge
requirements, that govern discharges not within the
jurisdiction of that RWQCB. Also provides that this
revised eligibility provision relating to members of a
RWQCB must shall be implemented only if the USEPA
determines the provision complies with the federal Clean
Water Act.
Previous Legislation
SB 1001 (Perata), 2007-08 Session: (a) restructured the
membership of the nine RWQCB structure by decreasing
membership to seven members, (b) increased the compensation
of RWQCB membership and changed the qualification criteria
for appointment from specific sectors to appointment based
on his/her demonstrated interest and proven ability in the
field of water quality, and (c) established a process at
CONTINUED
SB 900
Page
3
the SWRCB to better ensure RWQCBs are adequately carrying
out the regulatory requirements governing water quality in
their respective regions, and examined the adequacy of the
SWRCB's fee-based water quality programs. SB 1001 was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Comment
The Little Hoover Commission Report -- Clearer Structure,
Cleaner Water: Improving Performance and Outcomes at the
State Water Boards . In 2009 the Little Hoover Commission
released a report finding that "the decentralized
governance structure, with nine regional water quality
boards operating with distinct policies and processes,
hinders accountability and transparency. The result is a
system that has lost the confidence of most stakeholders."
The Commission's report made four overarching
recommendations: (a) change the makeup of both SWRCB and
RWQCBs; (b) increase the use of data and scientific
research; (c) increase collaboration among government
agencies; (d) increase economic analysis and analysis in
decisionmaking. This report has not resulted in changes to
the water boards to date, however, its findings also point
to a need for changes to the boards' governance structure.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/11/11)
Western Growers (source)
Alliance of Western Milk Producers
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Agricultural Irrigation Association
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations
California Forestry Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
CONTINUED
SB 900
Page
4
California Metals Coalition
California Pear Growers
California Rice Commission
California Rice Industry Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Trucking Association
California Warehouse Association
California Wheat Growers Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition
El Dorado Irrigation District
Grower Shipper Association of Central California
Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis
Obispo Counties
Kings River Conservation District
Kings River Water Association
Monterey County Farm Bureau
Nisei Farmers League
Northern California Water Association
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
Partnership for Sound Science in Environmental Policy
Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau
Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Plant Health Association
Wine Institute
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/11/11)
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Heal the Bay
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the sponsor and
supporters:
"Porter/Cologne conflict of interest requirements have
caused a tremendous amount of concern to the regulated
CONTINUED
SB 900
Page
5
community as it is increasingly difficult to find
qualified people to serve. Every RWQCB has a designated
seat for a member from 'irrigated agriculture.' Clearly,
the Legislature in creating these entities sought to
ensure that farmers would be appointed to and serve as
fully voting members of these boards. Yet over time, the
effects of stringent application of the conflict
provisions in the state water code have caused a dramatic
reduction in the pool of farmers eligible to be
appointed, and have forced non-participation of the few
who are appointed when regulatory proposals affecting
agriculture are decided. The result has been growing
insulation of water regulators from this important
regulated community, and a concomitant loss of confidence
in, and support for, the actions of the regional water
boards relative to agriculture.
"The simple modifications proposed in this measure would
restore the full participation of agriculture on these
boards as was originally intended and serve to restore
the credibility of their regulatory programs and
encourage greater cooperation in their implementation.
Additionally, the 10 percent rule provision has likewise
been problematic in finding qualified people to serve.
This bill would apply the 10 percent rule provision to
income from persons/entities that receive NPDES permits
from the member's regional water board, and would not
apply the restriction to income that is from
persons/entities subject to an NPDES permit issued by the
other RWQCB. It is our understanding this measure would
address about 10-15 percent of the historical regional
board 10 percent rule conflicts."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state that this bill
would weaken conflict of interest requirements for no
reason. "It has been our direct experience over many years
of seeking to fill Regional Water Board seats with
qualified members that this task can sometimes be
challenging - but for many reasons other than a potential
business conflict outside of the area where the appointee
lives and works, as described in SB 900. The low pay
($100/day) and conflicts with statewide permits (changes to
which are unlikely to pass federal U.S. EPA legal scrutiny)
are the major difficulties with filling seats, not
CONTINUED
SB 900
Page
6
other-region business ties. Moreover, contrary to the
sponsor's assertion, it is inaccurate to state that the
federal 10% conflict provisions have caused a "dramatic
reduction" in the pool of farmers eligible to be appointed.
In fact, because the '10% rule' only applies to Clean
Water Act NPDES permit holders and the Act exempts
irrigated agriculture return flows, irrigated agriculture
waiver holders are not bound by this federal conflicts
mandate. In addition to being unnecessary from a legal or
a practical perspective in solving issues with filling
Regional Water Board seats, Section 3 raises significant
concerns from a policy perspective, in light of the close
manner in which the Regional Water Boards interact. For
example, the Regional Boards pay close attention to and
react in numerous ways to each other's decisions, with
their permits and policies evolving regional act by
regional act. Also, most Regional Water Board decisions
that are of any meaningful controversy are appealed to the
State Board, which can then act to create statewide
precedent. Accordingly, income obtained from one region
can influence a Board member's actions and decisions in
another. For such reasons, and in light of the fundamental
importance of water to the state's population, economy and
environment, we
strongly urge that these proposed changes be rejected."
DLW:kc 5/11/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED