AB 1102 directs state regulators to identify which contaminated sites are vulnerable to climate-driven sea level and groundwater rise and creates a new permitting requirement for some new development proposals near those sites. The bill aims to put climate-driven contamination risks on the permitting table so land-use decisions account for the interaction of rising water and legacy pollution.
The measure links state mapping and developer disclosure: it asks agencies to assemble vulnerability information, and it requires proponents of new development in designated risk zones to submit a targeted risk assessment with their applications. The obligation is informational rather than prescriptive, but it creates a new compliance step for projects near identified contaminated properties and a new planning dataset for regulators and communities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board to produce a report listing contaminated sites vulnerable to sea level and groundwater rise and specifying when vulnerability assessments will be completed. It also amends the Government Code to require a proponent of new development to submit a sea level rise and groundwater rise risk assessment as part of a permit application when the project is within 1,000 feet of an identified contaminated site and located in an area vulnerable to sea level or groundwater rise defined as five feet of rise.
Who It Affects
State regulators (DTSC and SWRCB) must assemble and report vulnerability data; local permitting agencies must accept and process the new assessment in development applications; and developers proposing projects near identified contaminated sites must prepare the assessments. Environmental consultants, planners, and local communities that review project filings are secondary audiences.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a publicly available inventory that links legacy contamination to climate exposure and embeds contamination risk into the land-use review process. That combination raises the visibility of a technical, cross-agency problem and adds an administrative step that could influence project design, disclosure, and risk management in coastal and low-lying areas.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1102 sets up two complementary interventions. First, it directs two state regulatory agencies to compile and deliver to the Legislature a list of contaminated sites that are vulnerable to inundation from sea level rise or to impacts from rising groundwater.
The statute expressly contemplates a vulnerability assessment schedule, so the report should identify which sites are already assessed and which will be assessed in the near term. The bill also ties the report to existing public-reporting requirements under the Government Code.
Second, the bill inserts a new requirement into development permitting: any proponent of a new development whose site lies near an identified contaminated property and inside an area mapped as vulnerable to sea level or groundwater rise must include a tailored risk assessment with their permit application. The bill defines the vulnerability threshold as five feet of sea level or groundwater rise and lists acceptable authoritative sources for that determination (federal and state science agencies, the Ocean Protection Council, the University of California, or a local coastal hazards assessment).
That design lets applicants and agencies use established sea-level- and groundwater-rise science while leaving room for locally produced assessments.The risk assessment is expressly 'for informational purposes only'—the bill does not tie the assessment to an automatic permitting denial or to mandatory remedial work. In practice, however, providing a documented assessment will introduce a new data point for planners and may influence environmental review, conditions of approval, insurance underwriting, and community scrutiny.
The statute also contains sunset language for the reporting requirement and a constitutional reimbursement clause stating no state reimbursement is required because local agencies can fund the mandate through fees or assessments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board must submit a report to the Legislature listing contaminated sites vulnerable to sea level or groundwater rise and indicating when each vulnerability assessment will be, or was, completed.
The bill requires a development applicant to submit a sea level rise and groundwater rise risk assessment when a proposed project is within 1,000 feet of an identified contaminated site and located in an area vulnerable to sea level or groundwater rise.
The statute defines 'sea level rise' and 'groundwater rise' using a five-foot threshold and permits determinations from NOAA, the Ocean Protection Council, USGS, the University of California, or a local coastal hazards vulnerability assessment.
The required risk assessment is explicitly 'for informational purposes only'—the bill does not create an express enforcement penalty or automatic project prohibition based on the assessment's findings.
The reporting provision is time-limited: the statute is written to be repealed on January 1, 2031, and the initial report must be provided to the Legislature by January 1, 2027.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
State report on contaminated sites vulnerable to rising water
This subsection obligates the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board to create and deliver a catalog of contaminated sites that are vulnerable to sea level or groundwater rise, and to indicate the timing for vulnerability assessments. Practically, this centralizes climate-exposure information about contaminated properties and creates a reference dataset that legislators, regulators, local governments, and the public can consult.
Reporting mechanics and sunset
The bill requires the report to comply with Government Code reporting rules (Section 9795) and includes a statutory repeal date for the reporting requirement on January 1, 2031. The sunset language signals a temporary, pilot-like posture for the inventory rather than a permanent statutory program, which may affect resource planning and long-term data stewardship.
Trigger: when a development must include a risk assessment
This provision creates the practical permit-side obligation: a new development application must include a sea level rise and groundwater rise risk assessment if the project falls within 1,000 feet of a contaminated site identified by state or local authorities and is located in an area deemed vulnerable. The 1,000-foot buffer is a bright-line trigger intended to capture projects that could interact with contaminant plumes or mobilized pollution due to inundation.
Definitions of vulnerability and acceptable data sources
The law defines 'sea level rise' and 'groundwater rise' as five feet of rise and lists accepted authorities for making that determination, including NOAA, the Ocean Protection Council, USGS, the University of California, or a local government's coastal hazards assessment. By enumerating sources, the bill narrows disputes about which projections apply but also allows local assessments to be used where appropriate.
Assessment purpose and fiscal note
Subsection (c) states that the risk assessment is for informational purposes only, not a binding remedial requirement. The bill also includes a constitutional reimbursement clause asserting no state reimbursement to local agencies is required because they can fund the added workload via fees or assessments. That shifts the expected fiscal burden to applicants and local permitting systems rather than to direct state appropriations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Coastal and low-lying communities — gain a centralized, public inventory that clarifies where legacy contamination may interact with rising water, improving community awareness and facilitating local planning and emergency preparedness.
- State and local regulators (DTSC, SWRCB, local environmental health departments) — receive a structured dataset tying contamination to climate exposure that supports prioritization of assessments and upgrades to monitoring and cleanup plans.
- Environmental consultants and coastal planners — see increased demand for specialized vulnerability and contamination interaction assessments, creating new workstreams for firms with hydrogeology and coastal hazards expertise.
Who Bears the Cost
- Development proponents — must pay for and submit a sea level rise and groundwater rise risk assessment with affected permit applications, adding preconstruction consulting costs and potential timeline impacts.
- Local permitting agencies — take on intake, review, and recordkeeping duties for the new assessments without allocated state reimbursement, relying on local fees or staffing to absorb the workload.
- DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board — must compile the initial inventory and schedule of vulnerability assessments, which requires staff time, data integration, and cross-agency coordination.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize broad public disclosure of climate-driven contamination risk (which favors transparency and community planning) or to avoid imposing new procedural and economic burdens on projects and local governments (which favors development flexibility and reduces administrative costs). The bill chooses disclosure and informational assessment but stops short of mandatory remediation or funding, creating a trade-off between visibility and enforceable protection.
The statute creates useful visibility but leaves open several practical questions. First, the bill's reliance on an array of acceptable scientific sources produces flexibility but also the potential for inconsistent coverage: a county using a local vulnerability assessment could map different exposures than a statewide NOAA-derived dataset, complicating determinations about whether an applicant falls within a vulnerable area.
Second, defining vulnerability at a five-foot rise is a clear threshold, but it is a coarse metric; groundwater and contaminant plume behavior can be highly local and non-linear, so a five-foot standard may under- or over-state risk in particular parcels.
Another tension is that the risk assessment is 'informational only.' That reduces the bill's immediate regulatory teeth but creates new disclosure—and potentially liability—risks. An informational assessment can influence discretionary review, insurance decisions, lender requirements, and public opposition without guaranteeing any remedial funding or mandatory project conditions.
Finally, the fiscal approach shifts costs to local agencies and applicants; without explicit funding, under-resourced jurisdictions may process assessments slowly or inconsistently, undermining the goal of producing timely, usable data for planning and protection.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.