SB 1081: Waste discharge requirements: minimum penalties: exception: publicly owned treatment works.
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2026-04-09
Current Status:
In Progress
(2026-05-14: May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.)
Introduced
In Committee
Awaiting First Chamber Vote
Passed First Chamber
In Committee
Awaiting Second Chamber Vote
Passed Second Chamber
Enacted
Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the 9 California regional water quality control boards regulate water quality and prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (act) and the national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program. The act requires mandatory minimum penalties to be assessed for serious violations, as defined, relating to waste discharge requirements, and for certain violations relating to waste discharge requirements and reports whenever there are 4 or more violations in a period of 6 consecutive months, except as provided. The act authorizes the state board or regional board, in lieu of assessing all or a portion of those mandatory minimum penalties against a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community, to instead require the publicly owned treatment works to spend an equivalent amount towards the completion of a compliance project proposed by the publicly owned treatment works if the state board or regional board make specified findings. The act defines a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community for these purposes to mean a publicly owned treatment works serving a population of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, with a financial hardship as determined by the state board after consideration of specified factors.
This bill would amend that definition to include serving a community of 3,000 residents or less as a factor in the state boards determination of financial hardship. expand the authorization for the state board or regional board to require funding of a compliance project in lieu of the otherwise mandatory penalty to apply to a publicly owned treatment works serving a population of 3,000 persons or fewer, with a financial hardship, determined by the state board, within the 10 years preceding the assessment of the penalty.
Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the 9 California regional water quality control boards regulate water quality and prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (act) and the national pollutant discharge elimination system permit program. The act requires mandatory minimum penalties to be assessed for serious violations, as defined, relating to waste discharge requirements, and for certain violations relating to waste discharge requirements and reports whenever there are 4 or more violations in a period of 6 consecutive months, except as provided. The act authorizes the state board or regional board, in lieu of assessing all or a portion of those mandatory minimum penalties against a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community, to instead require the publicly owned treatment works to spend an equivalent amount towards the completion of a compliance project proposed by the publicly owned treatment works if the state board or regional board make specified findings. The act defines a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community for these purposes to mean a publicly owned treatment works serving a population of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, with a financial hardship as determined by the state board after consideration of specified factors.
This bill would amend that definition to include serving a community of 3,000 residents or less as a factor in the state boards determination of financial hardship.
(a)A person who violates any of the following shall be liable civilly in accordance with this section:
(1)Section 13375 or 13376.
(2)A waste discharge requirement or dredged or fill material permit issued pursuant to this chapter or any water quality certification issued pursuant to Section 13160.
(3)A requirement established pursuant to Section 13383.
(4)An order or prohibition issued pursuant to Section 13243 or Article 1 (commencing with Section 13300) of Chapter 5, if the activity subject to the order or prohibition is subject to regulation under this chapter.
(5)A requirement of Section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, 401, or 405 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1341, or 1345), as amended.
(6)A requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved pursuant to waste discharge requirements issued under Section 13377 or approved pursuant to a permit issued by the administrator.
(b)(1)Civil liability may be imposed by the superior court in an amount not to exceed the sum of both of the following:
(A)Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each day in which the violation occurs.
(B)Where there is a discharge, any portion of which is not susceptible to cleanup or is not cleaned up, and the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons, an additional liability not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25) multiplied by the number of gallons by which the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons.
(2)The Attorney General, upon request of a regional board or the state board, shall petition the superior court to impose the liability.
(c)Civil liability may be imposed administratively by the state board or a regional board pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 13323) of Chapter 5 in an amount not to exceed the sum of both of the following:
(1)Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day in which the violation occurs.
(2)Where there is a discharge, any portion of which is not susceptible to cleanup or is not cleaned up, and the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons, an additional liability not to exceed ten dollars ($10) multiplied by the number of gallons by which the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons.
(d)For purposes of subdivisions (b) and (c), discharge includes any discharge to navigable waters of the United States, any introduction of pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works, or any use or disposal of sewage sludge.
(e)In determining the amount of any liability imposed under this section, the regional board, the state board, or the superior court, as the case may be, shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or violations, whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement, the degree of toxicity of the discharge, and, with respect to the violator, the ability to pay, the effect on its ability to continue its business, any voluntary cleanup efforts undertaken, any prior history of violations, the degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings, if any, resulting from the violation, and other matters that justice may require. At a minimum, liability shall be assessed at a level that recovers the economic benefits, if any, derived from the acts that constitute the violation.
(f)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), for the purposes of this section, a single operational upset that leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant parameter shall be treated as a single violation.
(2)(A)For the purposes of subdivisions (h) and (i), a single operational upset in a wastewater treatment unit that treats wastewater using a biological treatment process shall be treated as a single violation, even if the operational upset results in violations of more than one effluent limitation and the violations continue for a period of more than one day, if all of the following apply:
(i)The discharger demonstrates all of the following:
(I)The upset was not caused by wastewater treatment operator error and was not due to discharger negligence.
(II)But for the operational upset of the biological treatment process, the violations would not have occurred nor would they have continued for more than one day.
(III)The discharger carried out all reasonable and immediately feasible actions to reduce noncompliance with the applicable effluent limitations.
(ii)The discharger is implementing an approved pretreatment program, if so required by federal or state law.
(B)Subparagraph (A) only applies to violations that occur during a period for which the regional board has determined that violations are unavoidable, but in no case may that period exceed 30 days.
(g)Remedies under this section are in addition to, and do not supersede or limit, any other remedies, civil or criminal, except that no liability shall be recoverable under Section 13261, 13265, 13268, or 13350 for violations for which liability is recovered under this section.
(h)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, and except as provided in subdivisions (j), (k), and (l), a mandatory minimum penalty of three thousand dollars ($3,000) shall be assessed for each serious violation.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a serious violation means any waste discharge that violates the effluent limitations contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements for a Group II pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 20 percent or more or for a Group I pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 40 percent or more.
(i)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, and except as provided in subdivisions (j), (k), and (l), a mandatory minimum penalty of three thousand dollars ($3,000) shall be assessed for each violation whenever the person does any of the following four or more times in any period of six consecutive months, except that the requirement to assess the mandatory minimum penalty shall not be applicable to the first three violations:
(A)Violates a waste discharge requirement effluent limitation.
(B)Fails to file a report pursuant to Section 13260.
(C)Files an incomplete report pursuant to Section 13260.
(D)Violates a toxicity effluent limitation contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements where the waste discharge requirements do not contain pollutant-specific effluent limitations for toxic pollutants.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a period of six consecutive months means the period commencing on the date that one of the violations described in this subdivision occurs and ending 180 days after that date.
(j)Subdivisions (h) and (i) do not apply to any of the following:
(1)A violation caused by one or any combination of the following:
(A)An act of war.
(B)An unanticipated, grave natural disaster or other natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, the effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.
(C)An intentional act of a third party, the effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.
(D)(i)The operation of a new or reconstructed wastewater treatment unit during a defined period of adjusting or testing, not to exceed 90 days for a wastewater treatment unit that relies on a biological treatment process and not to exceed 30 days for any other wastewater treatment unit, if all of the following requirements are met:
(I)The discharger has submitted to the regional board, at least 30 days in advance of the operation, an operations plan that describes the actions the discharger will take during the period of adjusting and testing, including steps to prevent violations and identifies the shortest reasonable time required for the period of adjusting and testing, not to exceed 90 days for a wastewater treatment unit that relies on a biological treatment process and not to exceed 30 days for any other wastewater treatment unit.
(II)The regional board has not objected in writing to the operations plan.
(III)The discharger demonstrates that the violations resulted from the operation of the new or reconstructed wastewater treatment unit and that the violations could not have reasonably been avoided.
(IV)The discharger demonstrates compliance with the operations plan.
(V)In the case of a reconstructed wastewater treatment unit, the unit relies on a biological treatment process that is required to be out of operation for at least 14 days in order to perform the reconstruction, or the unit is required to be out of operation for at least 14 days and, at the time of the reconstruction, the cost of reconstructing the unit exceeds 50 percent of the cost of replacing the wastewater treatment unit.
(ii)For the purposes of this section, wastewater treatment unit means a component of a wastewater treatment plant that performs a designated treatment function.
(2)(A)Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a violation of an effluent limitation where the waste discharge is in compliance with either a cease and desist order issued pursuant to Section 13301 or a time schedule order issued pursuant to Section 13300, if all of the following requirements are met:
(i)The cease and desist order or time schedule order is issued after January 1, 1995, but not later than July 1, 2000, specifies the actions that the discharger is required to take in order to correct the violations that would otherwise be subject to subdivisions (h) and (i), and the date by which compliance is required to be achieved and, if the final date by which compliance is required to be achieved is later than one year from the effective date of the cease and desist order or time schedule order, specifies the interim requirements by which progress towards compliance will be measured and the date by which the discharger will be in compliance with each interim requirement.
(ii)The discharger has prepared and is implementing in a timely and proper manner, or is required by the regional board to prepare and implement, a pollution prevention plan that meets the requirements of Section 13263.3.
(iii)The discharger demonstrates that it has carried out all reasonable and immediately feasible actions to reduce noncompliance with the waste discharge requirements applicable to the waste discharge and the executive officer of the regional board concurs with the demonstration.
(B)Subdivisions (h) and (i) shall become applicable to a waste discharge on the date the waste discharge requirements applicable to the waste discharge are revised and reissued pursuant to Section 13380, unless the regional board does all of the following on or before that date:
(i)Modifies the requirements of the cease and desist order or time schedule order as may be necessary to make it fully consistent with the reissued waste discharge requirements.
(ii)Establishes in the modified cease and desist order or time schedule order a date by which full compliance with the reissued waste discharge requirements shall be achieved. For the purposes of this subdivision, the regional board may not establish this date later than five years from the date the waste discharge requirements were required to be reviewed pursuant to Section 13380. If the reissued waste discharge requirements do not add new effluent limitations or do not include effluent limitations that are more stringent than those in the original waste discharge requirements, the date shall be the same as the final date for compliance in the original cease and desist order or time schedule order or five years from the date that the waste discharge requirements were required to be reviewed pursuant to Section 13380, whichever is earlier.
(iii)Determines that the pollution prevention plan required by clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) is in compliance with the requirements of Section 13263.3 and that the discharger is implementing the pollution prevention plan in a timely and proper manner.
(3)A violation of an effluent limitation where the waste discharge is in compliance with either a cease and desist order issued pursuant to Section 13301 or a time schedule order issued pursuant to Section 13300 or 13308, if all of the following requirements are met:
(A)The cease and desist order or time schedule order is issued on or after July 1, 2000, and specifies the actions that the discharger is required to take in order to correct the violations that would otherwise be subject to subdivisions (h) and (i).
(B)The regional board finds that, for one of the following reasons, the discharger is not able to consistently comply with one or more of the effluent limitations established in the waste discharge requirements applicable to the waste discharge:
(i)The effluent limitation is a new, more stringent, or modified regulatory requirement that has become applicable to the waste discharge after the effective date of the waste discharge requirements and after July 1, 2000, new or modified control measures are necessary in order to comply with the effluent limitation, and the new or modified control measures cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days.
(ii)New methods for detecting or measuring a pollutant in the waste discharge demonstrate that new or modified control measures are necessary in order to comply with the effluent limitation and the new or modified control measures cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days.
(iii)Unanticipated changes in the quality of the municipal or industrial water supply available to the discharger are the cause of unavoidable changes in the composition of the waste discharge, the changes in the composition of the waste discharge are the cause of the inability to comply with the effluent limitation, no alternative water supply is reasonably available to the discharger, and new or modified measures to control the composition of the waste discharge cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days.
(iv)The discharger is a publicly owned treatment works located in Orange County that is unable to meet effluent limitations for biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, or both, because the publicly owned treatment works meets all of the following criteria:
(I)Was previously operating under modified secondary treatment requirements pursuant to Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311(h)).
(II)Did vote on July 17, 2002, not to apply for a renewal of the modified secondary treatment requirements.
(III)Is in the process of upgrading its treatment facilities to meet the secondary treatment standards required by Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311(b)(1)(B)).
(C)(i)The regional board establishes a time schedule for bringing the waste discharge into compliance with the effluent limitation that is as short as possible, taking into account the technological, operational, and economic factors that affect the design, development, and implementation of the control measures that are necessary to comply with the effluent limitation. Except as provided in clause (ii), for the purposes of this subdivision, the time schedule shall not exceed five years in length.
(ii)(I)For purposes of the upgrade described in subclause (III) of clause (iv) of subparagraph (B), the time schedule shall not exceed 10 years in length.
(II)Following a public hearing, and upon a showing that the discharger is making diligent progress toward bringing the waste discharge into compliance with the effluent limitation, the regional board may extend the time schedule for an additional period not exceeding five years in length, if the discharger demonstrates that the additional time is necessary to comply with the effluent limitation. This subclause does not apply to a time schedule described in subclause (I).
(iii)If the time schedule exceeds one year from the effective date of the order, the schedule shall include interim requirements and the dates for their achievement. The interim requirements shall include both of the following:
(I)Effluent limitations for the pollutant or pollutants of concern.
(II)Actions and milestones leading to compliance with the effluent limitation.
(D)The discharger has prepared and is implementing in a timely and proper manner, or is required by the regional board to prepare and implement, a pollution prevention plan pursuant to Section 13263.3.
(k)(1)In lieu of assessing all or a portion of the mandatory minimum penalties pursuant to subdivisions (h) and (i) against a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community, the state board or the regional board may elect to require the publicly owned treatment works to spend an equivalent amount towards the completion of a compliance project proposed by the publicly owned treatment works, if the state board or the regional board finds all of the following:
(A)The compliance project is designed to correct the violations within five years.
(B)The compliance project is in accordance with the enforcement policy of the state board, excluding any provision in the policy that is inconsistent with this section.
(C)The publicly owned treatment works has prepared a financing plan to complete the compliance project.
(2)For the purposes of this subdivision, a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community means a publicly owned treatment works serving that satisfies either of the following:
(A)Serves a population of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, with a financial hardship as determined by the state board after considering such factors as median income of the residents, rate of unemployment, or low population density in the service area of the publicly owned treatment works, or serving a community of 3,000 residents or less. works.
(B)Serves a population of 3,000 persons or fewer, with a financial hardship, determined as described in subparagraph (A), within the 10 years preceding the assessment of the penalty.
(l)(1)In lieu of assessing penalties pursuant to subdivision (h) or (i), the state board or the regional board, with the concurrence of the discharger, may direct a portion of the penalty amount to be expended on a supplemental environmental project in accordance with the enforcement policy of the state board. If the penalty amount exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), the portion of the penalty amount that may be directed to be expended on a supplemental environmental project may not exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) plus 50 percent of the penalty amount that exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).
(2)For the purposes of this section, a supplemental environmental project means an environmentally beneficial project that a person agrees to undertake, with the approval of the regional board, that would not be undertaken in the absence of an enforcement action under this section.
(3)This subdivision applies to the imposition of penalties pursuant to subdivision (h) or (i) on or after January 1, 2003, without regard to the date on which the violation occurs.
(m)The Attorney General, upon request of a regional board or the state board, shall petition the appropriate court to collect any liability or penalty imposed pursuant to this section. Any person who fails to pay on a timely basis any liability or penalty imposed under this section shall be required to pay, in addition to that liability or penalty, interest, attorneys fees, costs for collection proceedings, and a quarterly nonpayment penalty for each quarter during which the failure to pay persists. The nonpayment penalty shall be in an amount equal to 20 percent of the aggregate amount of the persons penalty and nonpayment penalties that are unpaid as of the beginning of the quarter.
(n)(1)Subject to paragraph (2) and Section 1551, funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.
(2)(A)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, moneys collected for a violation of a water quality certification in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or for a violation of Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1341) in accordance with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) that are not subject to Section 1551 shall be deposited into the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and separately accounted for in that fund.
(B)The funds described in subparagraph (A) shall be expended by the state board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to assist regional boards, and other public agencies with authority to clean up waste or abate the effects of the waste, in cleaning up or abating the effects of the waste on waters of the state or for the purposes authorized in Section 13443.
(o)The state board shall continuously report and update information on its internet website. The state board shall report annually on or before December 31 regarding its enforcement activities. The information shall include all of the following:
(1)A compilation of the number of violations of waste discharge requirements in the previous calendar year, including stormwater enforcement violations.
(2)A record of the formal and informal compliance and enforcement actions taken for each violation, including stormwater enforcement actions.
(3)An analysis of the effectiveness of current enforcement policies, including mandatory minimum penalties.
(p)The amendments made to subdivisions (f), (h), (i), and (j) during the second year of the 200102 Regular Session apply only to violations that occur on or after January 1, 2003.
(a)A person who violates any of the following shall be liable civilly in accordance with this section:
(1)Section 13375 or 13376.
(2)A waste discharge requirement or dredged or fill material permit issued pursuant to this chapter or any water quality certification issued pursuant to Section 13160.
(3)A requirement established pursuant to Section 13383.
(4)An order or prohibition issued pursuant to Section 13243 or Article 1 (commencing with Section 13300) of Chapter 5, if the activity subject to the order or prohibition is subject to regulation under this chapter.
(5)A requirement of Section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, 401, or 405 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1341, or 1345), as amended.
(6)A requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved pursuant to waste discharge requirements issued under Section 13377 or approved pursuant to a permit issued by the administrator.
(b)(1)Civil liability may be imposed by the superior court in an amount not to exceed the sum of both of the following:
(A)Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each day in which the violation occurs.
(B)Where there is a discharge, any portion of which is not susceptible to cleanup or is not cleaned up, and the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons, an additional liability not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25) multiplied by the number of gallons by which the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons.
(2)The Attorney General, upon request of a regional board or the state board, shall petition the superior court to impose the liability.
(c)Civil liability may be imposed administratively by the state board or a regional board pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 13323) of Chapter 5 in an amount not to exceed the sum of both of the following:
(1)Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day in which the violation occurs.
(2)Where there is a discharge, any portion of which is not susceptible to cleanup or is not cleaned up, and the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons, an additional liability not to exceed ten dollars ($10) multiplied by the number of gallons by which the volume discharged but not cleaned up exceeds 1,000 gallons.
(d)For purposes of subdivisions (b) and (c), discharge includes any discharge to navigable waters of the United States, any introduction of pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works, or any use or disposal of sewage sludge.
(e)In determining the amount of any liability imposed under this section, the regional board, the state board, or the superior court, as the case may be, shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or violations, whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement, the degree of toxicity of the discharge, and, with respect to the violator, the ability to pay, the effect on its ability to continue its business, any voluntary cleanup efforts undertaken, any prior history of violations, the degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings, if any, resulting from the violation, and other matters that justice may require. At a minimum, liability shall be assessed at a level that recovers the economic benefits, if any, derived from the acts that constitute the violation.
(f)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), for the purposes of this section, a single operational upset that leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant parameter shall be treated as a single violation.
(2)(A)For the purposes of subdivisions (h) and (i), a single operational upset in a wastewater treatment unit that treats wastewater using a biological treatment process shall be treated as a single violation, even if the operational upset results in violations of more than one effluent limitation and the violations continue for a period of more than one day, if all of the following apply:
(i)The discharger demonstrates all of the following:
(I)The upset was not caused by wastewater treatment operator error and was not due to discharger negligence.
(II)But for the operational upset of the biological treatment process, the violations would not have occurred nor would they have continued for more than one day.
(III)The discharger carried out all reasonable and immediately feasible actions to reduce noncompliance with the applicable effluent limitations.
(ii)The discharger is implementing an approved pretreatment program, if so required by federal or state law.
(B)Subparagraph (A) only applies to violations that occur during a period for which the regional board has determined that violations are unavoidable, but in no case may that period exceed 30 days.
(g)Remedies under this section are in addition to, and do not supersede or limit, any other remedies, civil or criminal, except that no liability shall be recoverable under Section 13261, 13265, 13268, or 13350 for violations for which liability is recovered under this section.
(h)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, and except as provided in subdivisions (j), (k), and (l), a mandatory minimum penalty of three thousand dollars ($3,000) shall be assessed for each serious violation.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a serious violation means any waste discharge that violates the effluent limitations contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements for a Group II pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 20 percent or more or for a Group I pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 40 percent or more.
(i)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, and except as provided in subdivisions (j), (k), and (l), a mandatory minimum penalty of three thousand dollars ($3,000) shall be assessed for each violation whenever the person does any of the following four or more times in any period of six consecutive months, except that the requirement to assess the mandatory minimum penalty shall not be applicable to the first three violations:
(A)Violates a waste discharge requirement effluent limitation.
(B)Fails to file a report pursuant to Section 13260.
(C)Files an incomplete report pursuant to Section 13260.
(D)Violates a toxicity effluent limitation contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements where the waste discharge requirements do not contain pollutant-specific effluent limitations for toxic pollutants.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a period of six consecutive months means the period commencing on the date that one of the violations described in this subdivision occurs and ending 180 days after that date.
(j)Subdivisions (h) and (i) do not apply to any of the following:
(1)A violation caused by one or any combination of the following:
(A)An act of war.
(B)An unanticipated, grave natural disaster or other natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible character, the effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.
(C)An intentional act of a third party, the effects of which could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight.
(D)(i)The operation of a new or reconstructed wastewater treatment unit during a defined period of adjusting or testing, not to exceed 90 days for a wastewater treatment unit that relies on a biological treatment process and not to exceed 30 days for any other wastewater treatment unit, if all of the following requirements are met:
(I)The discharger has submitted to the regional board, at least 30 days in advance of the operation, an operations plan that describes the actions the discharger will take during the period of adjusting and testing, including steps to prevent violations and identifies the shortest reasonable time required for the period of adjusting and testing, not to exceed 90 days for a wastewater treatment unit that relies on a biological treatment process and not to exceed 30 days for any other wastewater treatment unit.
(II)The regional board has not objected in writing to the operations plan.
(III)The discharger demonstrates that the violations resulted from the operation of the new or reconstructed wastewater treatment unit and that the violations could not have reasonably been avoided.
(IV)The discharger demonstrates compliance with the operations plan.
(V)In the case of a reconstructed wastewater treatment unit, the unit relies on a biological treatment process that is required to be out of operation for at least 14 days in order to perform the reconstruction, or the unit is required to be out of operation for at least 14 days and, at the time of the reconstruction, the cost of reconstructing the unit exceeds 50 percent of the cost of replacing the wastewater treatment unit.
(ii)For the purposes of this section, wastewater treatment unit means a component of a wastewater treatment plant that performs a designated treatment function.
(2)(A)Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a violation of an effluent limitation where the waste discharge is in compliance with either a cease and desist order issued pursuant to Section 13301 or a time schedule order issued pursuant to Section 13300, if all of the following requirements are met:
(i)The cease and desist order or time schedule order is issued after January 1, 1995, but not later than July 1, 2000, specifies the actions that the discharger is required to take in order to correct the violations that would otherwise be subject to subdivisions (h) and (i), and the date by which compliance is required to be achieved and, if the final date by which compliance is required to be achieved is later than one year from the effective date of the cease and desist order or time schedule order, specifies the interim requirements by which progress towards compliance will be measured and the date by which the discharger will be in compliance with each interim requirement.
(ii)The discharger has prepared and is implementing in a timely and proper manner, or is required by the regional board to prepare and implement, a pollution prevention plan that meets the requirements of Section 13263.3.
(iii)The discharger demonstrates that it has carried out all reasonable and immediately feasible actions to reduce noncompliance with the waste discharge requirements applicable to the waste discharge and the executive officer of the regional board concurs with the demonstration.
(B)Subdivisions (h) and (i) shall become applicable to a waste discharge on the date the waste discharge requirements applicable to the waste discharge are revised and reissued pursuant to Section 13380, unless the regional board does all of the following on or before that date:
(i)Modifies the requirements of the cease and desist order or time schedule order as may be necessary to make it fully consistent with the reissued waste discharge requirements.
(ii)Establishes in the modified cease and desist order or time schedule order a date by which full compliance with the reissued waste discharge requirements shall be achieved. For the purposes of this subdivision, the regional board may not establish this date later than five years from the date the waste discharge requirements were required to be reviewed pursuant to Section 13380. If the reissued waste discharge requirements do not add new effluent limitations or do not include effluent limitations that are more stringent than those in the original waste discharge requirements, the date shall be the same as the final date for compliance in the original cease and desist order or time schedule order or five years from the date that the waste discharge requirements were required to be reviewed pursuant to Section 13380, whichever is earlier.
(iii)Determines that the pollution prevention plan required by clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) is in compliance with the requirements of Section 13263.3 and that the discharger is implementing the pollution prevention plan in a timely and proper manner.
(3)A violation of an effluent limitation where the waste discharge is in compliance with either a cease and desist order issued pursuant to Section 13301 or a time schedule order issued pursuant to Section 13300 or 13308, if all of the following requirements are met:
(A)The cease and desist order or time schedule order is issued on or after July 1, 2000, and specifies the actions that the discharger is required to take in order to correct the violations that would otherwise be subject to subdivisions (h) and (i).
(B)The regional board finds that, for one of the following reasons, the discharger is not able to consistently comply with one or more of the effluent limitations established in the waste discharge requirements applicable to the waste discharge:
(i)The effluent limitation is a new, more stringent, or modified regulatory requirement that has become applicable to the waste discharge after the effective date of the waste discharge requirements and after July 1, 2000, new or modified control measures are necessary in order to comply with the effluent limitation, and the new or modified control measures cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days.
(ii)New methods for detecting or measuring a pollutant in the waste discharge demonstrate that new or modified control measures are necessary in order to comply with the effluent limitation and the new or modified control measures cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days.
(iii)Unanticipated changes in the quality of the municipal or industrial water supply available to the discharger are the cause of unavoidable changes in the composition of the waste discharge, the changes in the composition of the waste discharge are the cause of the inability to comply with the effluent limitation, no alternative water supply is reasonably available to the discharger, and new or modified measures to control the composition of the waste discharge cannot be designed, installed, and put into operation within 30 calendar days.
(iv)The discharger is a publicly owned treatment works located in Orange County that is unable to meet effluent limitations for biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, or both, because the publicly owned treatment works meets all of the following criteria:
(I)Was previously operating under modified secondary treatment requirements pursuant to Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311(h)).
(II)Did vote on July 17, 2002, not to apply for a renewal of the modified secondary treatment requirements.
(III)Is in the process of upgrading its treatment facilities to meet the secondary treatment standards required by Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311(b)(1)(B)).
(C)(i)The regional board establishes a time schedule for bringing the waste discharge into compliance with the effluent limitation that is as short as possible, taking into account the technological, operational, and economic factors that affect the design, development, and implementation of the control measures that are necessary to comply with the effluent limitation. Except as provided in clause (ii), for the purposes of this subdivision, the time schedule shall not exceed five years in length.
(ii)(I)For purposes of the upgrade described in subclause (III) of clause (iv) of subparagraph (B), the time schedule shall not exceed 10 years in length.
(II)Following a public hearing, and upon a showing that the discharger is making diligent progress toward bringing the waste discharge into compliance with the effluent limitation, the regional board may extend the time schedule for an additional period not exceeding five years in length, if the discharger demonstrates that the additional time is necessary to comply with the effluent limitation. This subclause does not apply to a time schedule described in subclause (I).
(iii)If the time schedule exceeds one year from the effective date of the order, the schedule shall include interim requirements and the dates for their achievement. The interim requirements shall include both of the following:
(I)Effluent limitations for the pollutant or pollutants of concern.
(II)Actions and milestones leading to compliance with the effluent limitation.
(D)The discharger has prepared and is implementing in a timely and proper manner, or is required by the regional board to prepare and implement, a pollution prevention plan pursuant to Section 13263.3.
(k)(1)In lieu of assessing all or a portion of the mandatory minimum penalties pursuant to subdivisions (h) and (i) against a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community, the state board or the regional board may elect to require the publicly owned treatment works to spend an equivalent amount towards the completion of a compliance project proposed by the publicly owned treatment works, if the state board or the regional board finds all of the following:
(A)The compliance project is designed to correct the violations within five years.
(B)The compliance project is in accordance with the enforcement policy of the state board, excluding any provision in the policy that is inconsistent with this section.
(C)The publicly owned treatment works has prepared a financing plan to complete the compliance project.
(2)For the purposes of this subdivision, a publicly owned treatment works serving a small community means a publicly owned treatment works serving a population of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, with a financial hardship as determined by the state board after considering such factors as median income of the residents, rate of unemployment, or low population density in the service area of the publicly owned treatment works. works, or serving a community of 3,000 residents or less.
(l)(1)In lieu of assessing penalties pursuant to subdivision (h) or (i), the state board or the regional board, with the concurrence of the discharger, may direct a portion of the penalty amount to be expended on a supplemental environmental project in accordance with the enforcement policy of the state board. If the penalty amount exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), the portion of the penalty amount that may be directed to be expended on a supplemental environmental project may not exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) plus 50 percent of the penalty amount that exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).
(2)For the purposes of this section, a supplemental environmental project means an environmentally beneficial project that a person agrees to undertake, with the approval of the regional board, that would not be undertaken in the absence of an enforcement action under this section.
(3)This subdivision applies to the imposition of penalties pursuant to subdivision (h) or (i) on or after January 1, 2003, without regard to the date on which the violation occurs.
(m)The Attorney General, upon request of a regional board or the state board, shall petition the appropriate court to collect any liability or penalty imposed pursuant to this section. Any person who fails to pay on a timely basis any liability or penalty imposed under this section shall be required to pay, in addition to that liability or penalty, interest, attorneys fees, costs for collection proceedings, and a quarterly nonpayment penalty for each quarter during which the failure to pay persists. The nonpayment penalty shall be in an amount equal to 20 percent of the aggregate amount of the persons penalty and nonpayment penalties that are unpaid as of the beginning of the quarter.
(n)(1)Subject to paragraph (2) and Section 1551, funds collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.
(2)(A)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, moneys collected for a violation of a water quality certification in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or for a violation of Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1341) in accordance with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) that are not subject to Section 1551 shall be deposited into the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and separately accounted for in that fund.
(B)The funds described in subparagraph (A) shall be expended by the state board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to assist regional boards, and other public agencies with authority to clean up waste or abate the effects of the waste, in cleaning up or abating the effects of the waste on waters of the state or for the purposes authorized in Section 13443.
(o)The state board shall continuously report and update information on its internet website. The state board shall report annually on or before December 31 regarding its enforcement activities. The information shall include all of the following:
(1)A compilation of the number of violations of waste discharge requirements in the previous calendar year, including stormwater enforcement violations.
(2)A record of the formal and informal compliance and enforcement actions taken for each violation, including stormwater enforcement actions.
(3)An analysis of the effectiveness of current enforcement policies, including mandatory minimum penalties.
(p)The amendments made to subdivisions (f), (h), (i), and (j) during the second year of the 200102 Regular Session apply only to violations that occur on or after January 1, 2003.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| May 14, 2026 | May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission. |
| May 8, 2026 | Set for hearing May 14. |
| Apr 27, 2026 | April 27 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 17, 2026 | Set for hearing April 27. |
| Apr 16, 2026 | April 20 hearing postponed by committee. |
| Apr 14, 2026 | Set for hearing April 20. |
| Apr 9, 2026 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 8, 2026 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 3792.) (April 8). |
| Apr 8, 2026 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 8). |
| Mar 10, 2026 | Set for hearing April 8. |
| Feb 26, 2026 | Referred to Com. on E.Q. |
| Feb 17, 2026 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 16. |
| Feb 13, 2026 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2026 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 8, 2026 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) | ** Support | |
| League Of California Cities | ** Support |
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
SB 1081 (Laird) - Waste discharge requirements: minimum penalties: exception: publicly owned treatment works
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
This bill would expand the authorization for the State Water Resources Control Board (state board) or nine regional water quality control boards (regional board) to require funding of a compliance project in lieu of the otherwise mandatory penalty to apply to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) serving a population of 3,000 persons or fewer, with a financial hardship, determined by the state board, within the 10 years preceding the assessment of the penalty.
Fiscal Impact:
- Ongoing forgone revenues of an unknown but potentially significant amount (State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account) due to expanded eligibility for compliance projects to POTWs that serve communities with 3,000 residents or less, with a financial hardship, determined by the state board, within the 10 years preceding the assessment of the penalty.
- The State Water Board does not anticipate any costs.
Background:
Enforcing the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA prohibits any entity from discharging pollutants from a point source into a Water of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which prescribes limits on what can be discharged, requires monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies, and may impose best management practices. POTWs are wastewater treatment facilities that treat domestic and/or industrial wastewater and hold NPDES permits.
If a permitted discharger, such as a POTW, violates a condition set in its permit, such as exceeding an effluent limitation or a failure to report, they are subject to civil and administrative liability and may face monetary penalties. For specified violations of an NPDES permit, an administrative civil liability for the mandatory minimum penalty (MMP) of $3,000 or more is required to be assessed by the State or Regional Water Boards. These types of penalties are deposited into the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.
The State and Regional Water Boards prioritize enforcement and strive to ensure that enforcement is firm, fair, and consistent across the state. Enforcement actions taken in response to violations are intended to be consistent amongst violations that are similar in nature and have similar water quality impacts. They are also meant to ensure a discharger returns to compliance in a timely manner. The policy framework around enforcement influences the nature and frequency of how MMPs are issued.
Mandatory minimum penalties. Prior to the establishment of MMPs, the issuance of enforcement actions and penalties were at the discretion of the State Water Board and nine Regional Water Boards, which led to an uneven assessment of penalties for violations. SB 709 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 93, Statutes of 1999) and further amendments required MMPs of $3,000 to be assessed for serious or chronically repeated violations, as specified and under prescribed circumstances. MMPs can be assessed for effluent or reporting violations and the penalties are intended to bring the permitted facilities into compliance with their NPDES permits. From 2018-2024, the Regional Water Boards have issued over 20,000 MMPs to NPDES permittees leading to millions of dollars deposited in the Cleanup and Abatement Account.
The State and Regional Water Boards have the authority to divert all or a portion of the assessed MMPs to related projects that will be conducted by the violator. For any permitted discharger, a portion of the MMP can be allocated towards a supplemental environmental project (SEP) instead of being deposited in the Cleanup and Abatement Account. For POTWs, all or a portion of the MMP can be put towards the completion of a compliance project, but only if the POTW serves a small community with a financial hardship.
Compliance projects for communities with financial hardships. For a POTW that serves a small community and has a determined financial hardship, the State or Regional Water Boards are authorized to allow a POTW to put the MMP amount towards the completion of a project that will promote their compliance, instead of assessing the MMP to be deposited in the Cleanup and Abatement Account. This determination is made by the State and Regional Water Boards and depends on a few factors. The POTW must serve a population of 20,000 or fewer or a rural county, and satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
- The median household income must be less than 80% of the California median household income;
- The unemployment rate of the community must be 10% or greater; or,
- At least 20% of the population is below the poverty level.
Completed compliance projects would prevent subsequent violations and may be funded primarily through connection and monthly service fees paid for by the residents in the community. If the community suffers from a financial hardship, then ratepayers may be sensitive to rate increases that would support compliance projects or the POTW may receive insufficient funding if residential arrearages (unpaid bills) are high. This may make it difficult for POTWs to fund their compliance projects, and a continued assessment of MMPs may further inhibit a POTWs ability to comply. Hence, this allowance for MMPs to go towards compliance projects promotes POTWs’ compliance with their NPDES permits while mitigating the financial burdens on affected POTWs.
Even though the criteria used to determine financial hardship are clear, real-world circumstances that might impact the financial ability of a POTW to comply with its permit can be complex. For example, if the costs of water bills are extreme or the residential arrearage burden is high, the ability of a POTW to invest in its system could be impacted, regardless of whether the financial hardship criteria is met. A 2022 Drinking Water Assessment conducted by the State Water Board found that water systems serving communities with a median household income greater than 80% of the state’s median household income still experienced affordability challenges through indicators such as extreme water bills and high residential arrearages.5 In light of such considerations, POTWs can propose a local survey or alternative justification approved by the regional water board if they do not believe the U.S. Census data accurately represents the population they serve. But ultimately, the current statute is limited in its flexibility in determining whether a community faces a financial hardship, and POTWs that experience other forms of financial hardship may not be eligible for compliance projects.
Proposed Law:
This bill would expand the authorization for the State Water Resources Control Board (state board) or nine regional water quality control boards (regional board) to require funding of a compliance project in lieu of the otherwise mandatory penalty to apply to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) serving a population of 3,000 persons or fewer, with a financial hardship, determined by the state board, within the 10 years preceding the assessment of the penalty.
Related Legislation:
AB 355 (Chu, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2017) defined POTW serving a small community as a POTW serving a population of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, with a financial hardship.
AB 640 (Logue, 2011) would have expanded the eligibility for compliance projects to POTWs serving rural counties.
SB 2165 (Sher, Chapter 807, Statutes of 2000) prescribed circumstances under which MMPs would not apply and outlined the conditions for serious and chronically repeat violations in which an MMP would apply.
SB 709 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 93, Statutes of 1999) required mandatory minimum penalties of $3,000 to be assessed under prescribed circumstances.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Blakespear, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: SB 1081
Author: | Laird | ||
Version: | 2/13/2026 | Hearing Date: | 4/8/2026 |
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Taylor McKie | ||
SUBJECT: Waste discharge requirements: minimum penalties: exception: publicly owned treatment works
DIGEST: This bill expands the eligibility for publicly owned treatment works (POTW) to contribute assessed mandatory minimum penalties (MMP) towards compliance projects to POTWs that serve a community of 3,000 residents or fewer.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
- Establishes the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and to regulate quality standards for surface waters. (33 United States Code (USC) §1251 et seq.)
- Establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which requires the State Water Board and the nine Regional Water Boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements that, among other things, regulate the discharge of pollutants into stormwater, including municipal stormwater systems. (33 USC § 1342)
Existing state law:
- Establishes the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), which prohibits the discharge of pollutants to surface waters unless the discharger obtains a permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). (Water Code (WC) § 13000 et seq.)
- Specifies requirements subject to civil liability and administrative civil liability if violated, liability amounts under specified circumstances, and conditions under which violations must be treated. (WC § 13385)
- Requires a mandatory minimum penalty (MMP) of $3,000 be assessed for each serious violation, which includes a violation of effluent limitations as specified (WC § 13385(h))
- Requires an MMP to be assessed for specified chronic violations (four or more violations in a period of six consecutive months). (WC § 13385(i))
- Authorizes the State Water Board or a regional board to require a POTW serving a small community to spend an equivalent amount of their mandatory minimum penalties towards a compliance project in lieu of assessing the MMP. (WC § 13385(k))
- Provides that a POTW serving a small community means a POTW serving a population of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, with a financial hardship as determined by the State Water Board.
- Authorizes the State Water Board or a regional board to direct a portion of an MMP to be expended on a supplemental environmental project (SEP) in lieu of assessing the MMP. (WC § 13385(l))
This bill expands the definition of a “POTW serving a small community” to include a POTW serving a community of 3,000 residents or fewer, regardless of financial hardships.
Background
- Enforcing the Clean Water Act. The CWA prohibits any entity from discharging pollutants from a point source into a Water of the United States without a NPDES permit, which prescribes limits on what can be discharged, require monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies, and may impose best management practices.[1] POTWs are wastewater treatment facilities that treat domestic and/or industrial wastewater and hold NPDES permits.
If a permitted discharger, such as a POTW, violates a condition set in its permit, such as exceeding an effluent limitation or a failure to report, they are subject to civil and administrative liability and may face monetary penalties. For specified violations of an NPDES permit, an administrative civil liability for the mandatory minimum penalty (MMP) of $3,000 or more is required to be assessed by the State or Regional Water Boards. These types of penalties are deposited into the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.
The State and Regional Water Boards prioritize enforcement and strive to ensure that enforcement is firm, fair, and consistent across the state. Enforcement actions taken in response to violations are intended to be consistent amongst violations that are similar in nature and have similar water quality impacts. They are also meant to ensure a discharger returns to compliance in a timely manner.[2] The policy framework around enforcement influences the nature and frequency of how MMPs are issued.
- Mandatory minimum penalties. Prior to the establishment of MMPs, the issuance of enforcement actions and penalties were at the discretion of the State Water Board and nine Regional Water Boards, which led to an uneven assessment of penalties for violations.[3] SB 709 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 93, Statutes of 1999) and further amendments required MMPs of $3,000 to be assessed for serious or chronically repeated violations, as specified and under prescribed circumstances. MMPs can be assessed for effluent or reporting violations and the penalties are intended to bring the permitted facilities into compliance with their NPDES permits. From 2018-2024, the Regional Water Boards have issued over 20,000 MMPs to NPDES permittees leading to millions of dollars deposited in the Cleanup and Abatement Account.[4]
The State and Regional Water Boards have the authority to divert all or a portion of the assessed MMPs to related projects that will be conducted by the violator. For any permitted discharger, a portion of the MMP can be allocated towards a supplemental environmental project (SEP) instead of being deposited in the Cleanup and Abatement Account. For POTWs, all or a portion of the MMP can be put towards the completion of a compliance project, but only if the POTW serves a small community with a financial hardship.
- Compliance projects for communities with financial hardships. For a POTW that serves a small community and has a determined financial hardship, the State or Regional Water Boards are authorized to allow a POTW to put the MMP amount towards the completion of a project that will promote their compliance, instead of assessing the MMP to be deposited in the Cleanup and Abatement Account. This determination is made by the State and Regional Water Boards and depends on a few factors. The POTW must serve a population of 20,000 or fewer or a rural county, and satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
- The median household income must be less than 80% of the California median household income;
- The unemployment rate of the community must be 10% or greater; or,
- At least 20% of the population is below the poverty level.
Completed compliance projects would prevent subsequent violations and may be funded primarily through connection and monthly service fees paid for by the residents in the community. If the community suffers from a financial hardship, then ratepayers may be sensitive to rate increases that would support compliance projects or the POTW may receive insufficient funding if residential arrearages (unpaid bills) are high. This may make it difficult for POTWs to fund their compliance projects, and a continued assessment of MMPs may further inhibit a POTWs ability to comply. Hence, this allowance for MMPs to go towards compliance projects promotes POTWs’ compliance with their NPDES permits while mitigating the financial burdens on affected POTWs.
Even though the criteria used to determine financial hardship are clear, real-world circumstances that might impact the financial ability of a POTW to comply with its permit can be complex. For example, if the costs of water bills are extreme or the residential arrearage burden is high, the ability of a POTW to invest in its system could be impacted, regardless of whether the financial hardship criteria is met.[5] A 2022 Drinking Water Assessment conducted by the State Water Board found that water systems serving communities with a median household income greater than 80% of the state’s median household income still experienced affordability challenges through indicators such as extreme water bills and high residential arrearages.5 In light of such considerations, POTWs can propose a local survey or alternative justification approved by the regional water board if they do not believe the U.S. Census data accurately represents the population they serve. But ultimately, the current statute is limited in its flexibility in determining whether a community faces a financial hardship, and POTWs that experience other forms of financial hardship may not be eligible for compliance projects.
- The case for San Juan Bautista. The City of San Juan Bautista, the sponsor of this legislation, owns and operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and reclamation facility that discharges into a drainage channel that flows into a tributary of the San Benito River.[6] Since 2003, the City has been issued hundreds of MMPs by the Central Coast Regional Water Board for both effluent and reporting violations under its NPDES permit.
To address its wastewater quality issues, the City has partnered with regional entities to implement an infrastructure strategy that involves decommissioning its outdated wastewater treatment plant, transferring wastewater to the City of Hollister’s wastewater treatment plant, and constructing a sewer pipeline that will connect the City’s collection system to the City of Hollister’s plant.
Although many of the MMPs have been resolved over the years, either through various SEPs and compliance projects related to its infrastructure strategy or payments to the Cleanup and Abatement Account, to date, the City remains responsible for over $250,000 in MMPs and the penalties may continue to accrue. The City argues that many of the issued MMPs could have been avoided given actions they believe the Regional Water Board could have taken, such as updating their NPDES permit (as required by law) or adopting time schedule or cease and desist orders. While it is unclear to staff at this time why such actions were not taken by the Regional Water Board, it’s possible that updating the permit may not have changed some permit conditions such as effluent limitations and other enforcement orders, to their discretion, may not have been favorable.
For many years, the City qualified for compliance projects because it was considered to serve a community with a financial hardship, however, following the pandemic in 2020, the City received an influx of new, wealthier residents which increased the median income and eliminated their eligibility. As a result, the City will be required to pay the remaining MMPs to the Cleanup and Abatement Account or put a portion towards an SEP proposed by the Regional Water Board as opposed to their infrastructure strategy.
In an attempt to seek financial relief, this bill would make them eligible again by expanding eligibility for compliance projects to POTWs that serve communities with 3,000 residents or less, regardless of financial hardship.
Comments
- Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Senate Bill 1081 gives state and regional water boards increased flexibility when determining whether a ‘publicly owned treatment system serving a small community’ faces financial hardship. Current law allows small, financially vulnerable communities to invest mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) directly toward local compliance projects that often resolve the very violations that led to the penalties. However, the statute does not expressly recognize extremely small population size or ratepayer base as a qualifying consideration.
SB 1081 adds a qualifying factor, serving a community of 3,000 residents or less, to more accurately target communities who would benefit from penalty assistance. For example, the City of San Juan Bautista faces penalties totaling $258,000 affecting a small rate base of approximately 800 wastewater customers. With penalty assistance, these funds could be directed towards efforts to decommission the plant and transport wastewater for more advanced treatment and recycling.”
- Expanding eligibility. Allowing POTWs serving a community of 3,000 residents or less regardless of financial hardship to qualify for compliance projects would expand the pool of POTWs that can access this financial tool. This could lead to an abuse of this financial tool, as POTWs serving more affluent communities that could afford both capital improvements and assess any mandated penalties would be disincentivized from returning to compliance in a timely manner. Additionally, the amendment implies that POTWs that serve zero residents would also be eligible. Some POTWs that serve zero residents may include water reclamation facilities or other facilities treating industrial wastewater.
Further narrowing eligibility could prevent a few of these unintended consequences. Given that the City of San Juan Bautista more recently lost their eligibility by an influx of new residents that raised the median income, the provision could account for a time lag, as the income of new residents may not immediately reflect the rates at which ratepayers contribute to the financial capacity of the POTW. Furthermore, although the City received an influx of new residents, the number of ratepayers has remained similar, thus the revenue from rates has likely stayed the same. Therefore, increasing the median household income in this case possibly had no effect on the POTW’s financial ability to comply, rather its previous financial status may be more reflective of the POTW’s current reality. The author and committee may wish to consider expanding eligibility for compliance projects to POTWs that serve small communities with financial hardships, as defined, within the previous ten years of the assessed mandatory minimum penalty.
- Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee adopt the bolded amendment contained in comment 2 above.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 355 (Chu, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2017) defined POTW serving a small community as a POTW serving a population of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, with a financial hardship.
AB 640 (Logue, 2011) would have expanded the eligibility for compliance projects to POTWs serving rural counties.
SB 2165 (Sher, Chapter 807, Statutes of 2000) prescribed circumstances under which MMPs would not apply and outlined the conditions for serious and chronically repeat violations in which an MMP would apply.
SB 709 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 93, Statutes of 1999) required mandatory minimum penalties of $3,000 to be assessed under prescribed circumstances.
SOURCE:
City of San Juan Bautista
SUPPORT:
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
League of California Cities
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). NPDES Permit Basics. ↑
State Water Board. (2024). Water Quality Enforcement Policy. ↑
State Water Board. (2011). Water Code Violators Held Accountable Under Mandatory Minimum Penalty Law. ↑
State Water Board. (2025). California Water Boards’ Annual Performance Report. ↑
State Water Board. (2022). Drinking Water Needs Assessment: Affordability Assessment. ↑
California Regional Water Board Central Coast. (2009). Order No. R3-2009-0019. ↑
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):