California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB552

Introduced
2/14/17  
Introduced
2/14/17  
Refer
3/23/17  
Refer
3/23/17  
Report Pass
3/23/17  
Report Pass
3/23/17  
Refer
3/27/17  
Refer
3/27/17  
Report Pass
4/4/17  
Report Pass
4/4/17  
Refer
4/5/17  
Refer
4/5/17  
Report Pass
4/27/17  
Report Pass
4/27/17  
Refer
4/27/17  
Refer
4/27/17  
Report Pass
5/10/17  
Report Pass
5/10/17  
Engrossed
5/15/17  
Engrossed
5/15/17  
Refer
5/15/17  
Refer
5/15/17  
Refer
5/24/17  
Refer
5/24/17  
Refer
6/5/17  
Report Pass
7/17/17  
Refer
7/18/17  
Enrolled
9/5/17  
Enrolled
9/5/17  
Chaptered
9/26/17  
Chaptered
9/26/17  
Passed
9/26/17  

Caption

United Water Conservation District.

Impact

The legislation permits the United Water Conservation District to increase its administrative control by implementing groundwater charges and effectively managing delinquent fees. In instances where operators fail to meet their financial obligations related to groundwater charges, the bill allows the district to assess additional fees to recover collection costs. Furthermore, it empowers the district to take legal action against operators to ensure compliance and collection, which may include seeking injunctions against non-compliant operations or imposing fines for delinquency.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 552, also known as AB552, addresses various provisions related to the United Water Conservation District. This legislation is designed to enhance the district's oversight and management capabilities concerning water-producing facilities within its jurisdiction. It authorizes the district to conduct inspections of these facilities, granted either through the consent of the operator or via an inspection warrant, emphasizing regulatory compliance. The bill incorporates penalties for non-compliance, categorizing the willful refusal to allow an inspection as a misdemeanor, thereby bolstering enforcement mechanisms.

Sentiment

General sentiment around AB552 appears supportive among members who advocate for enhanced water management and conservation efforts. Proponents argue that the bill is crucial for sustainable water resource management, given the increasing pressures on California's water supply due to climate change and population growth. Conversely, there may be concerns from some operators regarding the additional regulatory burdens and potential penalties associated with financial or operational non-compliance.

Contention

Notable points of contention involve the implications of additional administrative fees and penalties on water-producing operators, particularly smaller businesses or farmers dependent on these resources. While the intent is to ensure accountability and effective management, critics may argue that it could disproportionately affect smaller operators who may struggle to comply with complex regulations or face financial strain due to increased charges. Overall, AB552 raises questions about the balance between regulatory oversight and the economic viability of local water producers.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB372

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

CA AB939

Santa Clara Valley Water District.

CA AB1044

Tulare Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Act.

CA SB786

County birth, death, and marriage records: blockchain.

TX HB3998

Relating to the transfer of the administration of surface water rights permitting from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to the Texas Water Development Board and the regulation of groundwater; authorizing fees; authorizing civil penalties.

CA AB1195

Limited Eligibility and Appointment Program: lists.

TX SB2489

Relating to the authority of the San Jacinto River Authority to implement a groundwater reduction plan for the conservation of groundwater and the reduction of groundwater withdrawals in Montgomery County, and to issue bonds of the authority; providing administrative penalties.

CA SB606

Water management planning.