This measure codifies civil liability and mandatory minimum penalties for violations of California’s water quality law and specified federal Clean Water Act requirements. It authorizes both superior-court (civil) and administrative penalty streams, creates per-day and per-gallon add-on exposure for unremediated discharges, and preserves other civil and criminal remedies.
The statute also defines exceptions (natural disaster, third‑party acts, startup testing, and limited operational upset relief), gives regional and state boards tools to direct penalty dollars into compliance projects or supplemental environmental projects, and requires public reporting and specific deposit rules for collected funds. For utilities, industrial dischargers, counsel, and regulators, the section raises enforcement exposure, sets predictable minimums, and creates procedural hooks for mitigation and funding of cleanups.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates dual enforcement paths: superior-court civil liability and administrative penalties by the state or regional boards, with daily fines and additional per-gallon penalties for unrecovered discharges. It also mandates minimum penalties for serious or repeat violations, allows certain exceptions and alternatives, and directs where penalty revenues must be held and reported.
Who It Affects
Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), municipal and industrial dischargers, permits holders and pretreatment program participants, regional and state water boards, and the Attorney General for collection actions.
Why It Matters
The provision standardizes monetary exposure for water quality breaches, limits some legal duplication, and gives regulators both punitive and remedial options (penalties, compliance projects, SEPs). It materially changes risk profiles for operators and shapes enforcement priorities through reporting and fund-use rules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 13385 makes a broad set of water-quality violations subject to civil liability. It ties liability to violations of specific California Water Code sections, waste discharge requirements and permits, water quality certifications, and select federal Clean Water Act duties.
Liability can be sought in superior court at the request of a regional or the state board (with the Attorney General petitioning to enforce), or administratively by the state or regional boards under the board’s enforcement authority.
The statute structures monetary exposure in two layers. For court actions the statute authorizes daily penalties and an additional per-gallon add-on for any discharge that remains uncleaned and exceeds a 1,000‑gallon threshold; the state/regional boards can impose lower maximums administratively.
When calculating penalties, decision‑makers must weigh standard factors—gravity, cleanup feasibility, toxicity, culpability, prior violations, economic benefit, and ability to pay—and must at minimum recoup any economic benefit gained from noncompliance. Remedies under this provision are additive to other civil or criminal remedies but preclude duplicative penalty recovery under certain enumerated statutes.To ensure deterrence the section establishes mandatory minimum penalties in two scenarios: (1) a defined “serious violation” (based on percent exceedances for Group I and II pollutants), and (2) when the same person commits four or more enumerated violations within any rolling six‑month window (with the first three violations exempted from mandatory minima).
The statute also builds in narrowly drawn exceptions and procedural safe harbors—for acts of war, exceptional natural disasters, third‑party intentional acts, and controlled startup or testing periods for new or reconstructed treatment units—and it creates a conditional operational-upset rule that can treat multiple parameter exceedances resulting from a single upset as a single violation if stringent showing and time limits are met.Where strict penalties would impose disproportionate burdens, the statute gives regulators flexibility. Regional or state boards may accept payment directed to a compliance project in lieu of some or all mandatory minimum penalties for qualifying small-community POTWs, subject to findings about project design, financing, and five‑year completion goals.
The boards can also, with concurrence of the discharger, redirect part of a penalty into a supplemental environmental project with statutory limits on the portion of a penalty that may be so directed. Finally, collected funds are assigned to specific state accounts depending on the violation type, the statute requires continuous online reporting and an annual public enforcement report, and the Attorney General is authorized to seek collection and add interest, attorney fees, and nonpayment penalties for delinquent amounts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute authorizes two enforcement tracks: superior-court civil liability (sought by the AG on board request) and administrative liability by the state or regional board.
Unremediated discharges that exceed a 1,000‑gallon threshold trigger an additional per‑gallon penalty component calculated on the volume not cleaned up.
Mandatory minimum penalties of $3,000 apply to each ‘‘serious violation’’ (defined by percent exceedances for Group I or Group II pollutants) and to the fourth and subsequent enumerated violations within any 180‑day period.
Regional or state boards may require qualifying small‑community POTWs to spend an equivalent amount on an approved compliance project instead of paying mandatory minimum penalties, subject to financing and five‑year completion requirements.
Collected penalties must be deposited into designated state funds (generally the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account, with certain 401/certification penalty moneys directed to the Waste Discharge Permit Fund) and are subject to annual public reporting.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Scope—what violations trigger liability
Lists the specific statutory and regulatory duties that expose a person to liability: violations of key Water Code sections, waste discharge requirements and permits, water quality certifications, orders and prohibitions where activity is regulated by the chapter, certain federal Clean Water Act requirements, and pretreatment program obligations. Practically, this is a broad scope that captures municipal and industrial permit noncompliance, unauthorized discharges, and failures in pretreatment programs.
Dual penalty ceilings—court versus administrative
Subdivision (b) authorizes the superior court to impose civil liability up to two components (a daily amount plus an additional per‑gallon add‑on for unrecovered discharges). Subdivision (c) creates an administrative parallel under the state or regional boards with lower maximums. The Attorney General acts as the collection mechanism for court judgments upon board request, while boards use their Article 2.5 authority for administrative orders—so regulated parties face both judicial and administrative pathways depending on the enforcement route selected.
Definitions and penalty calculus
Defines “discharge” broadly to include discharges to navigable waters, introductions to POTWs, and sewage sludge use/disposal. When setting penalty amounts, boards and courts must account for the violation’s gravity, cleanup feasibility, toxicity, culpability, economic benefit from noncompliance, prior history, voluntary cleanup efforts, and the violator’s ability to pay. The statute mandates at minimum that economic benefit from wrongdoing be recovered, anchoring penalties to both deterrence and disgorgement.
Operational-upset rule and mandatory minimum penalties
Provides a conditional safe harbor: a single operational upset that causes simultaneous parameter exceedances is generally treated as a single violation, but a stricter rule applies to biological-treatment upsets with a 30‑day cap and required demonstrations (no operator error, no negligence, prompt mitigation, and pretreatment program compliance where required). The section also prescribes mandatory minimum penalties—$3,000—for ‘‘serious violations’’ (percent exceedances for Group I/II pollutants) and for the fourth or greater occurrence of specified violations within any six‑month window, with the first three occurrences exempt from the mandatory minima.
Exemptions, time‑schedules, and penalty alternatives
Enumerates exemptions to mandatory minimums—acts of war, exceptional natural disasters, third‑party intentional acts, and defined startup or testing periods for new or reconstructed treatment units (with advance notice, an operations plan, and regional board non‑objection). The statute allows compliance schedules and pollution prevention plans to delay or modify mandatory minimums under narrow conditions and provides two alternatives to penalties: spending an equivalent amount on an approved compliance project for small‑community POTWs and directing portions of penalties to supplemental environmental projects with statutory caps and board approval.
Collections, fund use, and public reporting
Gives the Attorney General authority to collect unpaid liabilities, and mandates additional charges for nonpayment (interest, attorney’s fees, collection costs, and a quarterly 20% nonpayment penalty). Collected funds generally go to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account, but certain water quality certification and Section 401 violations are routed to the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and separately accounted for; those moneys must be appropriated for cleanup assistance or specified purposes. The state board must continuously publish enforcement information online and issue an annual report by December 31 listing violations, enforcement actions, and an analysis of enforcement effectiveness.
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
- Regional and state water boards — the statute gives boards clear administrative penalty authority, alternatives to monetary penalties (compliance projects and SEPs), and statutory guidance on factors to consider when setting penalties, strengthening enforcement flexibility.
- Downstream communities and the environment — the per‑gallon add‑on for unrecovered discharges, mandatory minima for serious breaches, and directed fund-use rules increase resources and incentives for cleanup and abatement.
- Small communities served by qualifying POTWs — the statute allows boards to require equivalent spending on approved compliance projects instead of imposing mandatory minimum penalties, providing a pathway that prioritizes facility upgrades and local affordability over cash penalties.
Who Bears the Cost
- Municipal and industrial dischargers — face heightened financial exposure (daily fines, per‑gallon add‑ons, mandatory minima for serious or repeat violations) and stricter recordkeeping and operational requirements to avoid exceptions.
- Publicly owned treatment works with limited finances — even with compliance‑project alternatives, many small utilities will need to identify financing and meet timeframes, potentially straining rates, budgets, or capital plans.
- State and regional boards and the Attorney General — increased enforcement activity, mandatory public reporting, and new collection responsibilities create workload and may require resourcing to implement consistent penalty calculations, oversee compliance projects, and manage funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing deterrence and remediation: the statute raises penalties to deter violations and recoup economic benefits, while also offering pathways (compliance projects, SEPs, time schedules, and narrow operational‑upset relief) intended to avoid bankrupting small utilities or penalizing events beyond a discharger’s control—forcing regulators to choose between strict monetary punishment and pragmatic, project‑based remedies that may better protect water quality over time.
The statute tightens monetary exposure but builds in many discretionary pathways that shift how enforcement plays out in practice. Mandatory minimum penalties and per‑gallon add‑ons increase predictability of worst‑case exposure, yet numerous exceptions, time schedules, and alternatives mean final liability often depends on granular factual showings (operator fault, timing, pretreatment compliance, financing plans).
That combination creates both a credible deterrent and substantial administrative discretion—boards will need to document why they applied or waived mandatory minima, and regulated parties must assemble contemporaneous evidence to qualify for operational‑upset or startup testing relief.
Implementation raises operational questions. The per‑gallon liability requires accurate volume measurement and a determination of what volume “is not susceptible to cleanup or is not cleaned up,” which can be contested and technically complex.
The small‑community compliance‑project option shifts the focus from punishment to remediation, but it depends on board approval and credible financing plans; if projects are underfunded or delayed, environmental protection could be uneven. Finally, routing of certain penalty dollars to different accounts and an annual effectiveness analysis creates transparency but also administrative overhead and potential delays between penalty collection and on‑the‑ground cleanup spending.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.