Water quality: impaired waters.
The legislation has notable implications for state water law, particularly regarding the regulation of waste discharges into California's surface waters. It enhances existing regulations by prohibiting the reissuance of permits for discharges that do not meet stringent standards, thereby reinforcing compliance and active enforcement against entities contributing to pollution. It also establishes dedicated funding mechanisms, including the Waterway Attainment Recovery Account, to finance water quality improvement initiatives, which include restoration projects and research into best management practices. This financial structure encourages long-term commitment to water quality goals.
Assembly Bill 377 addresses water quality issues in California by establishing a framework to manage and restore impaired surface waters. The bill mandates that all California surface waters attain applicable beneficial uses by January 1, 2050. It requires the State Water Resources Control Board and regional boards to develop an Impaired Waterways Enforcement Program by January 1, 2023, aimed at identifying and addressing violations of water quality standards that contribute to degradation. Through this initiative, the state aims to create a comprehensive strategy to enhance overall water quality and public health.
The sentiment around AB 377 has generally been supportive among environmental advocacy groups who view it as a pivotal step toward improving California's water quality standards and addressing pollution issues. However, there are concerns from various stakeholder groups about the potential economic implications, including impacts on industries reliant on water discharges. The discussion among legislators has highlighted a desire for a balanced approach that addresses environmental priorities while considering economic realities in California.
Key points of contention surrounding AB 377 include debates over the feasibility of the 2050 deadline for achieving water quality objectives, and the appropriateness of the funding mechanisms established by the bill. Some industry representatives argue that the stringent requirements could impose significant costs without providing adequate time for compliance, which may favor larger entities while smaller operations could struggle. Additionally, questions regarding the prioritization of funds and the specific criteria for enforcement actions create disparities in how the law may be implemented across different regions.