Store Research
ASSEMBLY BILL 378 (CALDERON – 2001)
CHAPTER 332, STATUTES OF 2001 AB 378
Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-530-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available. Please Note: Governor files did not exist prior to 1943.
As enacted, Assembly Bill 378 amended Water Code section 13304 and added section 13304.1 to the Water Code. (See Exhibit #1f) Assembly member Thomas Calderon introduced the bill on February 20, 2001 at the request of the California Water Association. (See Exhibits #1a and #12, page 1)
Assembly Bill 378 was assigned to the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality where policy issues raised by the bill were considered. (See Exhibits #2, #3 and #8) The fiscal ramifications of the bill were considered by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations. (See Exhibits #2 and #5) Subsequent to legislative approval, Governor Gray Davis signed the bill on September 24, 2001, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on the following day as Chapter 332 of the Statutes of 2001. (See Exhibits #1f and #2)
Four amendments were made to Assembly Bill 378 before it was enacted into law. (See Exhibits #1b through #1e and #2) A full understanding of legislative intent may be dependent upon knowing about the various proposals as introduced into the bill and then as amended throughout the bill’s consideration by the Assembly and
the Senate Committees reviewing this measure. (See Exhibit #1) This can be particularly helpful where your focus is on specific language; by contrasting that enacted with the prior proposals in the bill one can gain insight as to the intended meaning or the apparent controversy generated by the language of interest. (Id.)
The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses provided the following digest of Assembly Bill 378 as it was last amended on July 17, 2001:
This bill (1) makes it a specific requirement of the Porter-Cologne Act that groundwater cleanup systems must, in cleaning up polluted groundwater, meet all the requirements of the water quality laws, (2) ensures that drinking water agencies and interests are consulted when a groundwater aquifer that affects them is being cleaned up, and (3) enables local and regional water agencies, under supervision of the regional boards, to carry out investigations of groundwater pollution when the regional boards do not have the time, resources or personnel to do the investigations themselves.(See Exhibit #11, page 1)
Background information regarding the need for Assembly Bill 378 was found in the analysis of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials as follows:
The author argues that the state continues to face substantial threats to groundwater from various contaminants. In various basins, groundwater cannot be used for drinking water without significant remediation. In some instances, local authorities have approved groundwater cleanup plans which have allowed the responsible parties to remove some, but not all, of the pollutants from the water. These still contaminated waters are allowed to replenish groundwater basins. Such an arrangement places an unnecessary burden on water suppliers and ratepayers.
The author contends that the problem of groundwater contamination could be avoided if additional consultation occurred among the affected parties prior to proceeding with cleanup plans. The regional boards, because they possess insufficient staff are unable to execute timely and complete cleanup orders.
(See Exhibit #3, page 2)