AB 2446

Bill Subjects

Abstract

(1) Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, within 30 days of any action or failure to act by a California regional water quality control board under specified law, authorizes an aggrieved person to petition the State Water Resources Control Board to review that action or failure to act. Existing law authorizes the state board, in the case of such a review, upon notice and hearing, if a hearing is requested, to stay in whole or in part the effect of the decision and order of a regional board or of the state board. This bill would expand that provision to authorize the state board to issue a stay in the case of review by the state board of a decision or order issued under authority delegated to an officer or employee of the state board where the state board by regulation has authorized a petition for reconsideration by the state board. The bill would generally require the state board to issue or deny the stay within 90 days of receipt of a request for stay, as specified, and would deem the request for stay denied if the state board fails to issue or deny the stay within the prescribed applicable period. The bill would authorize any aggrieved party, within 30 days of any order of the state board issuing or denying a stay or within 30 days of a stay being deemed denied, to file with the superior court a petition for writ of mandate and would specify the law that governs those proceedings. The act authorizes an aggrieved party to file with the superior court a petition for writ of mandate for review of a decision or order issued by the state board or a regional board, and requires those proceedings to be governed by specified law. Existing law, except as specified, requires the court to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence in cases involving the judicial review of a decision or order of the state board, or a decision or order of a regional board for which the state board denies review under the act. This bill would require the state board to order or deny reconsideration on a petition not later than 90 days from the date the state board adopts the decision or order. The bill, except as specified, would prohibit any legal or equitable process from issuing in any proceeding in any court against the state board, a regional board, or any officer or employee of the state board or a regional board to review, prevent, or enjoin any adjudicative proceeding under the act, or a decision or order by the state board, a regional board, or any officer or employee of the state board or a regional board before a decision or order is issued and the procedures for administrative review of that decision or order have been exhausted. (2) Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the state board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health. The state board's duties include, but are not limited to, conducting research, studies, and demonstration programs relating to the provision of a dependable, safe supply of drinking water, enforcing the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and adopting and enforcing regulations. Existing law requires the state board to appoint a deputy director to oversee the issuance and enforcement of public water system permits and delegates certain authorities of the state board to the deputy director. The act authorizes the deputy director to issue an order directing certain actions whenever the deputy director determines that a person has violated or is violating the act, or any permit, regulation, or standard issued or adopted pursuant to the act. The act authorizes an aggrieved party 30 days after service of a copy of the order or decision to file with the superior court a petition for a writ of mandate for review of the order or decision. The act requires that the evidence before the court consist of all relevant evidence that, in the judgment of the court, should be considered to effectuate and implement the act and requires, in every case, the court to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence. The act prohibits a failure to file an action from precluding a party from challenging the reasonableness and validity of the decision or order in specified judicial proceedings. This bill would provide that a decision or order of the state board is not subject to review by any court if no aggrieved party petitions for a writ of mandate within 30 days after service of a copy of an order or decision issued by the state board. The bill would eliminate the requirement that the evidence before the court consist of all relevant evidence that, in the judgment of the court, should be considered to effectuate and implement the act.