Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would authorize the State Water Resources Control Board, on behalf of itself or a regional board, to accept donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would authorize the State Water Resources Control Board, on behalf of itself or a regional board, to accept donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would authorize a regional board the State Water Resources Control Board, on behalf of itself or a regional board, to accept and spend donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan, thereby making an appropriation. plan.

Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires each California regional water quality control board to adopt water quality control plans and to establish water quality objectives in those plans, considering certain factors, to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance.

This bill would authorize a regional board to accept and spend donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would authorize the California regional water quality control board, Los Angeles region, to accept and spend certain funds from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to prepare a major revision to the water quality control plan for the Los Angeles region, as prescribed.

Existing law, the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act, establishes the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and authorizes the district to control and conserve the flood, storm, and other wastewater of the district.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to the provision naming the act.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1133

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Stone, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0, 5/10/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Bradford, Cannella, De León, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Newman, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hertzberg

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/16/18 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Los Angeles County Business Federation

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes a regional water quality control board (regional board) to accept and spend donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan.

Assembly Amendments

specify that both the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and regional boards may accept donations as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law under the Clean Water Act (CWA):

1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. (Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.)
4. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements. In California, SWRCB is the delegate agency responsible for the NPDES permit program.

Existing state law, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne):

1. Establishes the SWRCB and regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Requires SWRCB formulate and adopt state policy for water quality control and each regional board formulate and adopt water quality control plans (aka basin plans) for all areas within the region that ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance as specified.

This bill authorizes a regional board to accept and spend donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan.

Background

1. Basin Plans. A basin plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, a basin plan:
   1. Designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters,
   2. Sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and
   3. Describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region.
   4. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable SWRCB and regional board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. Those of other agencies are referenced in appropriate sections throughout the basin plan.

The basin plan serves as a resource to the regional board and others who use water and/or discharge wastewater in the region and provides valuable information to the public about local water quality issues.

Basin plans are reviewed and updated as necessary. Following adoption by a regional board, a basin plan and subsequent amendments are subject to approval by the State Board, the State Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1. Municipal Stormwater. Municipal stormwater systems discharge both waste and pollutants. State law controls waste discharges impacting water. Federal law regulates discharges of pollutant[s]. Both state and later-enacted federal law require a permit to operate such systems. Because of the incredible impact of stormwater on water quality, permits and specific requirements for stormwater are incorporated in regional boards’ basin plan.

California’s Porter-Cologne, enacted in 1969, established SWRCB, along with nine regional water quality control boards, and gave those agencies primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. SWRCB establishes statewide policy. The regional boards formulate and adopt water quality control plans and issue permits governing the discharge of waste.

Porter-Cologne requires any person discharging, or proposing to discharge, waste that could affect the quality of state waters to file a report with the appropriate regional board. The regional board then prescribes requirements as to the nature of the discharge, implementing any applicable water quality control plans (basin plans). The operators must follow all requirements set by the regional board.

CWA was enacted in 1972, and also established a permitting system. CWA is a comprehensive water quality statute designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. CWA prohibits pollutant discharges unless they comply with: (1) a permit; (2) established effluent limitations or standards; or (3) established national standards of performance.

CWA allows any state to adopt and enforce its own water quality standards and limitations, so long as those standards and limitations are not less stringent than those in effect under CWA.

CWA created NPDES, authorizing US EPA to issue a permit for any pollutant discharge that will satisfy all requirements established by CWA or the US EPA Administrator. The federal system notwithstanding, a state may administer its own permitting system if authorized by the US EPA. If the US EPA concludes a state has adequate authority to administer its proposed program, it must grant approval and suspend its own issuance of permits.

For a state to acquire permitting authority, the governor must give US EPA a description of the program proposed to be established and the attorney general must affirm that the laws of the state provide adequate authority to carry out the described program.

US EPA may withdraw approval of a state’s program and also retains some supervisory authority: States must inform US EPA of all permit applications received and of any action related to the consideration of a submitted application. California was the first state authorized to issue its own pollutant discharge permits. Shortly after the CWA’s enactment, the Legislature amended Porter-Cologne, to authorize state issuance of permits, specifying that state and regional boards issue waste discharge requirements ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of CWA together with any more stringent effluent standards or limitations necessary to implement water quality control plans, or for the protection of beneficial uses, or to prevent nuisance. To align the state and federal permitting systems, the legislation provided that the term “waste discharge requirements” under the Act was equivalent to the term “permits” under the CWA. Accordingly, California’s permitting system now regulates discharges under both state and federal law.

In 1987, Congress amended the CWA to clarify that a permit is required for any discharge from a municipal storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more. Under those amendments, a permit may be issued either on a system- or jurisdiction-wide basis, must effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewers, and must require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The phrase “maximum extent practicable” is not further defined.

US EPA regulations specify the information to be included in a permit application. Among other things, an applicant must set out a proposed management program that includes management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The permit-issuing agency has discretion to determine which practices, whether or not proposed by the applicant, will be imposed as conditions.

1. Why Is Stormwater Pollution A Problem? Stormwater pollution is a major environmental and public health issue. It leads to unsanitary living environments, unhealthy surface waters, such as lakes, creeks and rivers, unhealthy ocean and beach conditions, and street and neighborhood flooding during the rainy season. It’s created when trash, cigarette butts, animal waste, pesticides, motor oil and other contaminants left on the ground are washed or thrown directly into storm drains. This toxic soup mixes with millions of gallons of rainwater and flows untreated into local creeks, rivers and the ocean - polluting our waterways, as well as degrading neighborhoods and other natural resources.

As an example, according to a factsheet posted by SWRCB in 2009:

With nearly 10 million people living in Los Angeles County, each resident’s contribution to stormwater pollution adds up quickly to create a serious public health situation. In a 1997 study conducted by Pelegrin Research Group, an estimate of the number of times per month that Los Angeles County residents engage in polluting activities was established, known as pollution volumetrics. According to an updated 2001 study, it is conservatively estimated that each month in LA County, residents contribute to stormwater pollution by:

Dropping cigarette butts on the ground nearly 915,000 times

Dropping litter on the ground or out a car window more than 830,000 times

Allowing paper or trash to blow into the street more than 800,000 times

Throwing something in the gutter or down a storm drain nearly 280,000 times

Emptying a car ashtray into the street more than 40,000 times\

Hosing leaves or dirt off a driveway or sidewalk into the street nearly 420,000 times

Washing off paint brushes under an outdoor faucet more than 130,000 times

Spraying the garden or lawn with pesticide more than 210,000 times

Walking a dog without picking up the droppings more than 82,000 times

Also, in Los Angeles County, approximately 100 million gallons of contaminated water and debris drain through the storm drain system each dry day. That would fill the Rose Bowl 1.2 times. (On rainy days the daily flow can increase to 10 billion gallons per day).

1. Natural Resource Degradation. Stormwater pollution in Los Angeles County has significant impacts on the region’s water quality, while also posing risks to the health and safety of residents, degrading natural resources, threatening the area’s tourist driven economy and lowering property values in local neighborhoods. The impacts of stormwater pollution include:
   1. Health Impacts. Stormwater pollution increases serious health risks to people swimming or fishing in the Santa Monica or San Pedro Bay, especially within 400 yards of storm drain outlets.

A study conducted by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project found that stormwater pollution in the ocean leads to increased risk of viral infections, earaches, sinus problems, fever, flu and skin rashes and viral diseases such as hepatitis for those swimming in the ocean close to storm drain outfalls, especially following a rainstorm when litter and contaminants are flushed into the storm drain system. The Governor’s Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI), funded by portions of four voter-approved bond measures, has already begun the cleanup effort statewide through construction of diversion and treatment facilities. The Erase the Waste campaign provides an educational link to the CBI, focused on Los Angeles County, and helps residents become part of the solution.

The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services recognizes the increased health danger associated with stormwater pollution and has a standing rain advisory that “recommends that beach users avoid contact with ocean water, especially near flowing storm drains, creeks and rivers for a period of 3 days after rainfall ends.”

Heal the Bay’s 2002-2003 Annual Beach Report Card on the health of Los Angeles County’s beaches gave 56% of monitored beaches a failing grade during wet weather, meaning the conditions were hazardous to human health and would have adverse health effects to swimmers who enter the water.

When bacteria levels exceed the State Standards, a warning sign is posted and swimmers are encouraged not to enter the water. Stormwater contaminants are one of the main causes of increased bacteria levels at our local beaches. During 2002, there were 269 warnings posted on Los Angeles County beaches for a total of 1,181 days where the ocean was too polluted for human use.

Research conducted by regional agencies, respected environmental nonprofit organizations and academic institutions have identified stormwater pollution and urban runoff as the leading sources of pollutants to Los Angeles County’s inland rivers, creeks, the ocean and beaches along the area’s coastline. The widespread critical issue has reached a level that has prompted local, state and federal policymakers and regulatory agencies to enact and enforce more stringent stormwater permit regulations, financial penalties and other compliance measures.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “this bill is critical because regional boards have not adequately considered the cost of implementing pollution control requirements. By authorizing the Los Angeles Regional Water Control Board to receive funds from permittees the costs of such requirements will be far more easily attainable. A thorough modernization of the basin plan could provide a more realistic plan that adequately considered costs associated with stormwater quality.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

• Potential unknown increased revenue received from donations to update basin plans.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/17/18)

Los Angeles County Business Federation (source)

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA)

Building Industry Association of Southern California

Business Resource Group

California Building Industry Association

California Contract Cities Association

California Small Business Alliance

City of Pasadena

City of Santa Clarita

City of Signal Hill

Construction Industry Coalition for Water Quality

Engineering Contractors Association

Hospital Association of Southern California

Independent Cities Association

League of California Cities

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities® (Division)

Mission Valley Bank

NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association (SoCal Chapter)

Regional Water Authority

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

SoCalGas Sempra Energy Utility

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/17/18)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/16/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Cristina Garcia, Low, McCarty

Prepared by:

8/18/18 12:40:17

**** END ****

Date of Hearing: August 8, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1133

Author:(Portantino) – As Amended Ver:June 6, 2018

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

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), on behalf of itself or a regional water quality control board (regional water board), to accept donations of moneys from permittees for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan (basin plan), as consistent with the designated use of the funds.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Potential unknown increased revenue received from donations to update basin plans.

COMMENTS:

Background and Purpose. State law requires each regional water board to develop, adopt, and implement a basin plan for the region under its jurisdiction. The basin plan lays out a program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in a manner results in the maximum benefit to the people of California. The basin plan provides long-term standards and programmatic guidance for regional water quality.

Regional water boards review basin plans every three years as part of the triennial review process required by the federal Clean Water Act. Triennial reviews are comprehensive and include a public scoping hearing to identify the water quality issues that should be addressed.

The State Water Board allocates funding to each regional water board to carry out their overall water quality protection responsibilities, including updating basin plans as needed through the triennial review process.

According to the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, "Although regional boards are authorized to update their basin plans to include new and updated analyses of water quality in the region, many indicate they are challenged to do so on a regular basis due to funding constraints."

This bill clarifies the State Water Board, on behalf of itself or a regional water board, may accept donations from a permittee for the purpose of updating a basin plan if the update is consistent with the designated use of the funds.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS

Bill Quirk, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1133

Author:(Portantino) – As Amended Ver:June 6, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: Water quality control plans: funding

SUMMARY: Authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to, on behalf of itself or a regional water quality control board (regional water board), accept donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan (basin plan), as consistent with the designated use of the funds.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), the state to, from time to time, but at least once every 3 years, hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. (40 Code of Federal Regulations § 131.20)
2. Makes legislative findings that the people of the state have a primary interest in the conservation, control, and utilization of the water resources of the state, and that the quality of all the waters of the state shall be protected for use and enjoyment by the people of the state. (Water Code (WC) § 13000)
3. Establishes the State Water Board and the regional water boards. (WC § 13100) Requires the State Water Board to formulate and adopt state policy for water quality control. (WC § 13140) Designates the State Water Board as the state water pollution control agency for all purposes stated in the federal Clean Water Act. (WC § 13160)
4. Requires the State Water Board to formulate, adopt, and revise general procedures for the formulation, adoption, and implementation of basin plans by regional water boards. Requires the State Water Board to, during the process of formulating or revising such procedures, consult with and evaluate the recommendations of any affected regional water boards. (WC § 13164)
5. Requires the State Water Board to allocate to the regional water boards funds appropriated to the State Water Board that may be necessary for the administrative expenses of the regional water boards. Requires the regional water boards to submit annual budgets to the State Water Board. (WC § 13168)
6. Requires each regional water board to formulate and adopt basin plans for all areas within the region. Requires the regional water boards to, during the process of formulating basin plans, consult with and consider the recommendations of affected state and local agencies. Requires the regional water board to periodically review the basin plans and authorizes the regional water board to revise the basin plans. (WC § 13240)
7. Requires each regional water board to establish water quality objectives in basin plans that in its judgment will ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance. Recognizes that it may be possible for the quality of water to be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. (WC § 13241)
8. Requires the program for achieving water quality objectives to include, but not be limited to, a description of the nature of actions that are necessary to achieve the objectives; a time schedule for the actions to be taken; and, a description of surveillance to be undertaken to determine compliance with the objectives. (WC § 13242)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill: According to background information submitted by the author, "Although, regional water board[s] continuously update Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans), many city officials question whether the current permits are based on current science and methodologies[,] given the dated models and data used [in] basin plans. A thorough modernization of Basin Plans could provide a more realistic plan that adequately consider[s] costs associated with stormwater quality… Water boards lack sufficient budgets to fulfill all responsibilities prescribed to them."

Water quality management in California: In California, the State Water Board and nine regional water boards carry out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality. The State Water Board holds overall responsibility for setting statewide policy on the administration of water rights and on water quality control. The regional water boards are responsible for the adoption and implementation of basin plans; the issuance of waste discharge requirements; and, performing other water quality control functions, subject to State Water Board review or approval, within their respective regions.

Water quality control plans (basin plans): State law requires each regional water board to develop, adopt after a public hearing, and implement a basin plan for the region under its jurisdiction. The basin plan lays out a program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of the water in a manner that will result in the maximum benefit to the people of California. It includes, among other components, descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic components of water quality regulation in the region; a designation of beneficial uses for surface and ground water in the region; the water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses; and, the strategies and schedules for achieving the water quality objectives. The basin plan provides long-term standards and programmatic guidance for regional water quality.

Updates to basin plans: Basin plans are flexible documents that regional water boards must review and revise as new data and information become available or as specific needs arise. Regional water boards perform updates of the basin plan in response to state and federal legislative requirements; in response to new or updated federal, state, and local plans that affect water quality; and, as funding becomes available.

The federal Clean Water Act requires the state to, from time to time and at least once each three year period, hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying, and adopting standards. Additionally, state law requires the regional water boards to "periodically review" basin plans. In response, regional water boards review basin plans every three years as part of the triennial review process. Triennial reviews are comprehensive and include a public scoping hearing to identify the water quality issues that should be addressed.

Funding for basin plan updates: The State Water Board allocates funding to each regional water board to carry out their overall water quality protection responsibilities, including updating basin plans as needed through the triennial review process.

According to the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, "Although regional [water] boards are authorized to update their basin plans to include new and updated analyses of water quality in the region, many indicate they are challenged to do so on a regular basis due to funding constraints."

This bill will clarify that the State Water Board may, on behalf of itself or a regional waterboard, accept donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a basin plan as consistent with the designated use of the funds.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

The Los Angeles County Business Federation (Sponsor)

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

Building Industry Association of Southern California, Los Angeles/ Ventura Chapter

Business Resource Group

California Building Industry Association (CBIA)

California Contract Cities Association

California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance

California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA)

California Small Business Alliance

City of Santa Clarita

City of Signal Hill

Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality

Engineering Contractors Association

Hospital Association of Southern California

Independent Cities Association

League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Mission Valley Bank

NAIOP/Commercial Real Estate Development Association, SoCal Chapter

Richard Watson & Associates

San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

Southern California Gas Company

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

Opposition

None received.

Analysis Prepared by: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. /

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1133

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/18/18

AYES: Wieckowski, Stone, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Skinner, Stern

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: The Los Angeles County Business Federation

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes a regional water quality control board (regional board) to accept and spend donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law under the Clean Water Act (CWA):

1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. (Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.)
4. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the delegate agency responsible for the NPDES permit program.

Existing state law, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne):

1. Establishes the SWRCB and regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Requires SWRCB formulate and adopt state policy for water quality control and each regional board formulate and adopt water quality control plans (aka basin plans) for all areas within the region that ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance as specified.

This bill authorizes a regional board to accept and spend donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan.

Background

1. Basin Plans. A basin plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, a basin plan:
   1. Designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters,
   2. Sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and
   3. Describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region.
   4. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable SWRCB and regional board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. Those of other agencies are referenced in appropriate sections throughout the basin plan.

The basin plan serves as a resource to the regional board and others who use water and/or discharge wastewater in the region and provides valuable information to the public about local water quality issues.

Basin plans are reviewed and updated as necessary. Following adoption by a regional board, a basin plan and subsequent amendments are subject to approval by the State Board, the State Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1. Municipal Stormwater. Municipal stormwater systems discharge both waste and pollutants. State law controls waste discharges impacting water. Federal law regulates discharges of pollutant[s]. Both state and later-enacted federal law require a permit to operate such systems. Because of the incredible impact of stormwater on water quality, permits and specific requirements for stormwater are incorporated in regional boards’ basin plan.

California’s Porter-Cologne, enacted in 1969, established SWRCB, along with nine regional water quality control boards, and gave those agencies primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. SWRCB establishes statewide policy. The regional boards formulate and adopt water quality control plans and issue permits governing the discharge of waste.

Porter-Cologne requires any person discharging, or proposing to discharge, waste that could affect the quality of state waters to file a report with the appropriate regional board. The regional board then prescribes requirements as to the nature of the discharge, implementing any applicable water quality control plans (basin plans). The operators must follow all requirements set by the regional board.

CWA was enacted in 1972, and also established a permitting system. CWA is a comprehensive water quality statute designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. CWA prohibits pollutant discharges unless they comply with: (1) a permit; (2) established effluent limitations or standards; or (3) established national standards of performance.

CWA allows any state to adopt and enforce its own water quality standards and limitations, so long as those standards and limitations are not less stringent than those in effect under CWA.

CWA created NPDES, authorizing US EPA to issue a permit for any pollutant discharge that will satisfy all requirements established by CWA or the US EPA Administrator. The federal system notwithstanding, a state may administer its own permitting system if authorized by the US EPA. If the US EPA concludes a state has adequate authority to administer its proposed program, it must grant approval and suspend its own issuance of permits.

For a state to acquire permitting authority, the governor must give US EPA a description of the program proposed to be established and the attorney general must affirm that the laws of the state provide adequate authority to carry out the described program.

US EPA may withdraw approval of a state’s program and also retains some supervisory authority: States must inform US EPA of all permit applications received and of any action related to the consideration of a submitted application. California was the first state authorized to issue its own pollutant discharge permits. Shortly after the CWA’s enactment, the Legislature amended Porter-Cologne, to authorize state issuance of permits, specifying that state and regional boards issue waste discharge requirements ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of CWA together with any more stringent effluent standards or limitations necessary to implement water quality control plans, or for the protection of beneficial uses, or to prevent nuisance. To align the state and federal permitting systems, the legislation provided that the term “waste discharge requirements” under the Act was equivalent to the term “permits” under the CWA. Accordingly, California’s permitting system now regulates discharges under both state and federal law.

In 1987, Congress amended the CWA to clarify that a permit is required for any discharge from a municipal storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more. Under those amendments, a permit may be issued either on a system- or jurisdiction-wide basis, must effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewers, and must require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The phrase “maximum extent practicable” is not further defined.

US EPA regulations specify the information to be included in a permit application. Among other things, an applicant must set out a proposed management program that includes management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The permit-issuing agency has discretion to determine which practices, whether or not proposed by the applicant, will be imposed as conditions.

1. Why Is Stormwater Pollution A Problem? Stormwater pollution is a major environmental and public health issue. It leads to unsanitary living environments, unhealthy surface waters, such as lakes, creeks and rivers, unhealthy ocean and beach conditions, and street and neighborhood flooding during the rainy season. It’s created when trash, cigarette butts, animal waste, pesticides, motor oil and other contaminants left on the ground are washed or thrown directly into storm drains. This toxic soup mixes with millions of gallons of rainwater and flows untreated into local creeks, rivers and the ocean - polluting our waterways, as well as degrading neighborhoods and other natural resources.

As an example, according to a factsheet posted by SWRCB in 2009:

With nearly 10 million people living in Los Angeles County, each resident’s contribution to stormwater pollution adds up quickly to create a serious public health situation. In a 1997 study conducted by Pelegrin Research Group, an estimate of the number of times per month that Los Angeles County residents engage in polluting activities was established, known as pollution volumetrics. According to an updated 2001 study, it is conservatively estimated that each month in LA County, residents contribute to stormwater pollution by:

Dropping cigarette butts on the ground nearly 915,000 times

Dropping litter on the ground or out a car window more than 830,000 times

Allowing paper or trash to blow into the street more than 800,000 times

Throwing something in the gutter or down a storm drain nearly 280,000 times

Emptying a car ashtray into the street more than 40,000 times\

Hosing leaves or dirt off a driveway or sidewalk into the street nearly 420,000 times

Washing off paint brushes under an outdoor faucet more than 130,000 times

Spraying the garden or lawn with pesticide more than 210,000 times

Walking a dog without picking up the droppings more than 82,000 times

Also, in Los Angeles County, approximately 100 million gallons of contaminated water and debris drain through the storm drain system each dry day. That would fill the Rose Bowl 1.2 times. (On rainy days the daily flow can increase to 10 billion gallons per day).

1. Natural Resource Degradation. Stormwater pollution in Los Angeles County has significant impacts on the region’s water quality, while also posing risks to the health and safety of residents, degrading natural resources, threatening the area’s tourist driven economy and lowering property values in local neighborhoods. The impacts of stormwater pollution include:
   1. Health Impacts. Stormwater pollution increases serious health risks to people swimming or fishing in the Santa Monica or San Pedro Bay, especially within 400 yards of storm drain outlets.

A study conducted by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project found that stormwater pollution in the ocean leads to increased risk of viral infections, earaches, sinus problems, fever, flu and skin rashes and viral diseases such as hepatitis for those swimming in the ocean close to storm drain outfalls, especially following a rainstorm when litter and contaminants are flushed into the storm drain system. The Governor’s Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI), funded by portions of four voter-approved bond measures, has already begun the cleanup effort statewide through construction of diversion and treatment facilities. The Erase the Waste campaign provides an educational link to the CBI, focused on Los Angeles County, and helps residents become part of the solution.

The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services recognizes the increased health danger associated with stormwater pollution and has a standing rain advisory that “recommends that beach users avoid contact with ocean water, especially near flowing storm drains, creeks and rivers for a period of 3 days after rainfall ends.”

Heal the Bay’s 2002-2003 Annual Beach Report Card on the health of Los Angeles County’s beaches gave 56% of monitored beaches a failing grade during wet weather, meaning the conditions were hazardous to human health and would have adverse health effects to swimmers who enter the water.

When bacteria levels exceed the State Standards, a warning sign is posted and swimmers are encouraged not to enter the water. Stormwater contaminants are one of the main causes of increased bacteria levels at our local beaches. During 2002, there were 269 warnings posted on Los Angeles County beaches for a total of 1,181 days where the ocean was too polluted for human use.

Research conducted by regional agencies, respected environmental nonprofit organizations and academic institutions have identified stormwater pollution and urban runoff as the leading sources of pollutants to Los Angeles County’s inland rivers, creeks, the ocean and beaches along the area’s coastline. The widespread critical issue has reached a level that has prompted local, state and federal policymakers and regulatory agencies to enact and enforce more stringent stormwater permit regulations, financial penalties and other compliance measures.

• 1. Economic Impact. Beach attendance has dropped by 56% since 1983. The recreation and tourism industry is one of the top employers in the nation, and is a particularly valuable part of the Los Angeles coastal economy. Each year, Americans take more than 1.8 billion trips to water destinations, largely for recreation, spending money and creating jobs in the process. Activities related to the county’s $2 billion annual tourism industry depend largely on the access and enjoyment of clean waters. If the perception of our beaches deteriorates, it poses broader implications for the region’s financial growth.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “this bill is critical because regional boards have not adequately considered the cost of implementing pollution control requirements. By authorizing the Los Angeles Regional Water Control Board to receive funds from permittees the costs of such requirements will be far more easily attainable. A thorough modernization of the basin plan could provide a more realistic plan that adequately considered costs associated with stormwater quality.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/8/18)

The Los Angeles County Business Federation (source)

League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/8/18)

None received

Prepared by:

5/9/18 14:08:12

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Wieckowski, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 1133

SUBJECT: California regional water quality control board: water quality control plans: funding: Los Angeles region

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law under the Clean Water Act (CWA):

1. Establishes the structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
2. Makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.
3. Provides that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. (Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.)
4. Authorizes states to implement and enforce the NPDES permit program as long as the state’s provisions are as stringent as the federal requirements.
   1. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the delegate agency responsible for the NPDES permit program.

Existing state law, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne):

1. Establishes the SWRCB and regional water quality control boards (regional boards) to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resource allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations.
2. Requires SWRCB formulate and adopt state policy for water quality control and each regional board formulate and adopt water quality control plans (aka basin plans) for all areas within the region that ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance as specified.

This bill:

1. Makes various finds pertaining to the Los Angeles Water Board’s Basin Plan, as specified.
2. Authorizes a regional board to accept and spend donations of moneys from a permittee for the purpose of updating a water quality control plan, thereby making an appropriation.
3. Authorizes the California regional water quality control board, Los Angeles region, to accept and spend certain funds from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to prepare a major revision to the water quality control plan for the Los Angeles region, as prescribed.

Background

1. Basin Plans. A basin plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, a basin plan
   1. Designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters,
   2. Sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and
   3. Describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region.
   4. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable SWRCB and regional board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. Those of other agencies are referenced in appropriate sections throughout the basin plan.

The basin plan serves as a resource to the regional board and others who use water and/or discharge wastewater in the region and provides valuable information to the public about local water quality issues.

Basin plans are reviewed and updated as necessary. Following adoption by a regional board, a basin plan and subsequent amendments are subject to approval by the State Board, the State Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1. Municipal Stormwater. Municipal stormwater systems discharge both waste and pollutants. State law controls waste discharges impacting water. Federal law regulates discharges of pollutant[s]. Both state and later-enacted federal law require a permit to operate such systems. Because of the incredible impact of stormwater on water quality, permits and specific requirements for stormwater are incorporated in regional boards’ basin plan.

California’s Porter-Cologne, enacted in 1969, established SWRCB, along with nine regional water quality control boards, and gave those agencies primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. SWRCB establishes statewide policy. The regional boards formulate and adopt water quality control plans and issue permits governing the discharge of waste.

Porter-Cologne requires any person discharging, or proposing to discharge, waste that could affect the quality of state waters to file a report with the appropriate regional board. The regional board then prescribes requirements as to the nature of the discharge, implementing any applicable water quality control plans (basin plans). The operators must follow all requirements set by the regional board.

CWA was enacted in 1972, and also established a permitting system. CWA is a comprehensive water quality statute designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. CWA prohibits pollutant discharges unless they comply with: (1) a permit; (2) established effluent limitations or standards; or (3) established national standards of performance.

CWA allows any state to adopt and enforce its own water quality standards and limitations, so long as those standards and limitations are not less stringent than those in effect under CWA.

CWA created NPDES, authorizing US EPA to issue a permit for any pollutant discharge that will satisfy all requirements established by CWA or the US EPA Administrator. The federal system notwithstanding, a state may administer its own permitting system if authorized by the US EPA. If the US EPA concludes a state has adequate authority to administer its proposed program, it must grant approval and suspend its own issuance of permits.

For a state to acquire permitting authority, the governor must give US EPA a description of the program proposed to be established and the attorney general must affirm that the laws of the state provide adequate authority to carry out the described program.

US EPA may withdraw approval of a state’s program and also retains some supervisory authority: States must inform US EPA of all permit applications received and of any action related to the consideration of a submitted application. California was the first state authorized to issue its own pollutant discharge permits. Shortly after the CWA’s enactment, the Legislature amended Porter-Cologne, to authorize state issuance of permits, specifying that state and regional boards issue waste discharge requirements ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of CWA together with any more stringent effluent standards or limitations necessary to implement water quality control plans, or for the protection of beneficial uses, or to prevent nuisance. To align the state and federal permitting systems, the legislation provided that the term “waste discharge requirements” under the Act was equivalent to the term “permits” under the CWA. Accordingly, California’s permitting system now regulates discharges under both state and federal law.

In 1987, Congress amended the CWA to clarify that a permit is required for any discharge from a municipal storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more. Under those amendments, a permit may be issued either on a system- or jurisdiction-wide basis, must effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewers, and must require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The phrase “maximum extent practicable” is not further defined.

US EPA regulations specify the information to be included in a permit application. Among other things, an applicant must set out a proposed management program that includes management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The permit-issuing agency has discretion to determine which practices, whether or not proposed by the applicant, will be imposed as conditions.

1. Why Is Stormwater Pollution A Problem? Stormwater pollution is a major environmental and public health issue. It leads to unsanitary living environments, unhealthy surface waters, such as lakes, creeks and rivers, unhealthy ocean and beach conditions, and street and neighborhood flooding during the rainy season. It’s created when trash, cigarette butts, animal waste, pesticides, motor oil and other contaminants left on the ground are washed or thrown directly into storm drains. This toxic soup mixes with millions of gallons of rainwater and flows untreated into local creeks, rivers and the ocean - polluting our waterways, as well as degrading neighborhoods and other natural resources.

As an example, according to a factsheet posted by SWRCB in 2009:

With nearly 10 million people living in Los Angeles County, each resident’s contribution to stormwater pollution adds up quickly to create a serious public health situation. In a 1997 study conducted by Pelegrin Research Group, an estimate of the number of times per month that Los Angeles County residents engage in polluting activities was established, known as pollution volumetrics. According to an updated 2001 study, it is conservatively estimated that each month in LA County, residents contribute to stormwater pollution by:

Dropping cigarette butts on the ground nearly 915,000 times

Dropping litter on the ground or out a car window more than 830,000 times

Allowing paper or trash to blow into the street more than 800,000 times

Throwing something in the gutter or down a storm drain nearly 280,000 times

Emptying a car ashtray into the street more than 40,000 times

Hosing leaves or dirt off a driveway or sidewalk into the street nearly 420,000 times

Washing off paint brushes under an outdoor faucet more than 130,000 times

Spraying the garden or lawn with pesticide more than 210,000 times

Walking a dog without picking up the droppings more than 82,000 times

Also, in Los Angeles County, approximately 100 million gallons of contaminated water and debris drain through the storm drain system each dry day. That would fill the Rose Bowl 1.2 times. (On rainy days the daily flow can increase to 10 billion gallons per day).

1. Natural Resource Degradation. Stormwater pollution in Los Angeles County has significant impacts on the region’s water quality, while also posing risks to the health and safety of residents, degrading natural resources, threatening the area’s tourist driven economy and lowering property values in local neighborhoods. The impacts of stormwater pollution include:

• 1. Health Impacts. Stormwater pollution increases serious health risks to people swimming or fishing in the Santa Monica or San Pedro Bay, especially within 400 yards of storm drain outlets.

A study conducted by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project found that stormwater pollution in the ocean leads to increased risk of viral infections, earaches, sinus problems, fever, flu and skin rashes and viral diseases such as hepatitis for those swimming in the ocean close to storm drain outfalls, especially following a rainstorm when litter and contaminants are flushed into the storm drain system. The Governor’s Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI), funded by portions of four voter-approved bond measures, has already begun the cleanup effort statewide through construction of diversion and treatment facilities. The Erase the Waste campaign provides an educational link to the CBI, focused on Los Angeles County, and helps residents become part of the solution.

The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services recognizes the increased health danger associated with stormwater pollution and has a standing rain advisory that “recommends that beach users avoid contact with ocean water, especially near flowing storm drains, creeks and rivers for a period of 3 days after rainfall ends.”

Heal the Bay’s 2002-2003 Annual Beach Report Card on the health of Los Angeles County’s beaches gave 56% of monitored beaches a failing grade during wet weather, meaning the conditions were hazardous to human health and would have adverse health effects to swimmers who enter the water.

When bacteria levels exceed the State Standards, a warning sign is posted and swimmers are encouraged not to enter the water. Stormwater contaminants are one of the main causes of increased bacteria levels at our local beaches. During 2002, there were 269 warnings posted on Los Angeles County beaches for a total of 1,181 days where the ocean was too polluted for human use.

Research conducted by regional agencies, respected environmental nonprofit organizations and academic institutions have identified stormwater pollution and urban runoff as the leading sources of pollutants to Los Angeles County’s inland rivers, creeks, the ocean and beaches along the area’s coastline. The widespread critical issue has reached a level that has prompted local, state and federal policymakers and regulatory agencies to enact and enforce more stringent stormwater permit regulations, financial penalties and other compliance measures.

• 1. Economic Impact. Beach attendance has dropped by 56% since 1983. The recreation and tourism industry is one of the top employers in the nation, and is a particularly valuable part of the Los Angeles coastal economy. Each year, Americans take more than 1.8 billion trips to water destinations, largely for recreation, spending money and creating jobs in the process. Activities related to the county’s $2 billion annual tourism industry depend largely on the access and enjoyment of clean waters. If the perception of our beaches deteriorates, it poses broader implications for the region’s financial growth.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “this bill is critical because regional boards have not adequately considered the cost of implementing pollution control requirements. By authorizing the Los Angeles Regional Water Control Board to receive funds from permittees the costs of such requirements will be far more easily attainable. A thorough modernization of the basin plan could provide a more realistic plan that adequately considered costs associated with stormwater quality.”
2. Fundamental inaccuracies. The findings in this bill refer to the partial and incomplete assertions of several reports, two of which are 16 years old and outdate to assert what is needed to update the Los Angeles Basin Plan. As such, taken out of context and out-of-date, these assertions are opinions and are inaccurate.

For example, it is fundamentally incorrect that the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan is outdated. The bill states that the last major revision of the plan was in 1994. This is simply inaccurate. There have been several comprehensive updates of the various chapters of the basin plan. .

The triennial review process is the federally established process for reviewing and modifying if appropriate water quality standards, including beneficial use designations and implementation provisions.

In recent years, the Los Angeles Water Board conducted triennial reviews of the Basin Plan in 2001-2004, 2005-2007, 2008-2010, 2011-2013 and 2014-2016. We are in the process of conducting our 2017-2019 triennial review.

Chapter 4, pertaining to stormwater (which is the focus of this bill) was updated in 2016.

An amendment is needed to strike all of the findings in this bill.

1. Outdated, Illegal and Inappropriate Revisions to Basin Plans. The underlying assertion in this bill seems to be that the basin plans, and specifically the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s basin plan, can be updated in ways that will result in less stringent requirements, particularly for stormwater discharges. The implication of the bill seems to be that the basin plans are outdated and, thus, are resulting in unnecessary and costly requirements on stormwater dischargers. The bill prescribes a scope of revisions to the basin plans that are not legally viable, or have already been considered and, in a number of cases, already made by the water boards or are not consistent with the purpose and mandate of a basin plan.
2. For example :

• Requires a fiscal capability assessment process be incorporated into the basin plan. A basin plan is meant to evaluate and measures to manage the impacts to health and the environment and beneficial uses of water from discharges. It would be inconsistent and inappropriate to say that that evaluation and management is only to be done in the context of the fiscal capabilities of a discharger.
• Distinguishes between engineered channels and natural streams. Some permittees contend that water quality standards should not apply to engineered channels; however, most of these are waters of the State and waters of the U.S. Therefore, they must be protected as required by the federal Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
• Incorporates a compliance floor above which permittees are not expected to comply with water quality objectives. Again as the basin plan is the plan for the region to protect the beneficial uses of water such considerations are inappropriate.
• Illegally suggests that the regional boards, in their basin plans, should develop and apply water quality standards differently for “traditional point sources” and stormwater. This has been raised numerous times before the Los Angeles Water Board and the State Water Board. Water quality standards set forth in Basin Plans apply to waterbodies (surface and ground water); they must be set at the levels necessary to protect beneficial uses and maintain high quality water per state and federal antidegradation requirements and do not apply separately to different sources of pollution.
• Incorporates stormwater-specific water quality objectives. Again it is not consistent with and is not appropriate to develop water quality objectives specific to a discharge (objectives are to the beneficial use of the water).

Amendments are needed to strike all of the content pertaining to revisions to the basin plan.

1. The bill authorizes the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to accept and spend certain funds from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to prepare a major revision to the water quality control plan for the Los Angeles region, as prescribed.” utilizing funds from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District as proposed would be inappropriate as these funds are intended for multi-benefit projects that will not only address stormwater quality, but will also address local water resiliency by augmenting local water supply and improve community health and cohesion by greening our cities and improving recreational opportunities.

An amendment is needed to clarify that these funds must be used for the purposes in which they are mandated.

SOURCE:

The Los Angeles County Business Federation

SUPPORT:

The League of Cities, Los Angeles County Division

OPPOSITION:

None received

- END --