AB 2672 directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study that surveys the state’s enforcement agencies to quantify revenue derived from fines and penalties tied to air, water, toxics, solid waste, and hazardous waste laws, and to identify how those funds are used. The study must explicitly review the degree to which those receipts support the operations of state, regional, and local agencies.
The requirement is limited to producing information — the bill does not itself reallocate money or create new spending rules — but the data it generates could expose operational dependencies on enforcement revenue, highlight earmarking or transfers, and inform later legislative or regulatory changes. For compliance officers and budget analysts, the study will surface where enforcement intersects with agency financing and which entities will face reporting obligations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Health and Safety Code Section 57002 to require CalEPA to survey agencies that implement environmental laws and determine how much revenue comes from fines and penalties and to what purposes that revenue is directed. It adds a specific instruction to review how much of those funds support agency operations.
Who It Affects
State boards and departments (for example, regional air districts and the State Water Resources Control Board), local and regional enforcement agencies, and CalEPA’s central office are directly affected; compliance officers and finance teams at those agencies will likely handle data collection. Legislators and oversight staff will be secondary consumers of the study’s findings.
Why It Matters
The study creates a first-order dataset linking enforcement actions to fiscal flows — information that can reveal whether agencies rely on enforcement revenue for basic operations, how funds are earmarked or redirected, and where potential conflicts of interest or perverse incentives may exist.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2672 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to carry out a survey-based study that tallies revenue derived from fines and penalties imposed under laws and regulations covering air quality, water quality, toxics, solid waste, and hazardous waste. The survey must reach the agencies that carry out those laws at the state, regional, and local levels and then map how the collected receipts are spent.
The bill expressly asks the agency to evaluate the extent to which those receipts are used to support agency operations.
The statute’s instruction is narrowly procedural: CalEPA must gather and analyze fiscal data about enforcement receipts and their destinations. The text does not prescribe a particular methodology, define key terms such as “fines” versus “penalties,” or set a timetable or delivery recipient for the resulting study.
That means CalEPA will decide the sample frame, data fields, and reporting format unless the agency seeks further legislative direction.In practice, the study will need to reconcile different accounting practices across jurisdictions. Some penalties are deposited into statutorily designated special funds, some go to local general funds, and some may be used for remediation or specific programs; different agencies also classify civil vs. criminal penalties differently.
Responding agencies will need to extract transaction-level data or rely on summarized accounting — a nontrivial task for smaller agencies without centralized finance systems.Although AB 2672 does not change enforcement authorities or allocate money, its outputs can trigger policy responses. Legislators or regulators could use the findings to propose earmarks, tighten restrictions on using enforcement revenue for operations, or alter fee structures.
Conversely, the study could show that enforcement revenue is an essential part of agency budgets, complicating any effort to curb reliance on those receipts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Health and Safety Code Section 57002 to require CalEPA to survey agencies enforcing air, water, toxics, solid waste, and hazardous waste laws and quantify revenue derived from fines and penalties.
CalEPA must map not only the amounts collected but also the purposes to which that revenue is directed, including an explicit review of whether funds are used to support agency operations.
The statutory text lists the covered respondents as “state, local, regional, and local state agencies,” a drafting anomaly that creates ambiguity about which entities fall within the survey frame.
AB 2672 sets no deadline, reporting schedule, required methodology, enforcement mechanism, or appropriation for the study — leaving those implementation details to CalEPA or future legislative guidance.
The bill creates informational leverage only; it does not alter how fines or penalties are administered, earmarked, or spent — but the study’s findings could prompt future statutory or budgetary changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
CalEPA must survey enforcement agencies about fines and penalties revenue
This provision tasks the California Environmental Protection Agency with carrying out a study by surveying agencies charged with implementing environmental laws. Practically, CalEPA must decide which state boards, regional districts, and local departments to include, how to solicit and collect data, and what timeframe to cover. Because the bill does not appoint an external auditor or require a peer review, CalEPA controls the study’s methodological choices and judgment calls about data granularity.
Scope limited to five program areas: air, water, toxics, solid waste, hazardous waste
The statute confines the survey to agencies enforcing the listed program areas, which covers a broad set of authorities — from regional air districts to local public works departments and the State Water Resources Control Board. That program-based scope deliberately excludes non-environmental penalty streams, but it also raises practical questions about cross-program receipts (for example, penalties tied to cleanup orders that touch both hazardous waste and water programs) and how to attribute revenue when enforcement actions intersect multiple programs.
Require mapping of revenue destinations and evaluation of operational support
The bill requires CalEPA to determine both how much revenue agencies derive from fines and penalties and to what purposes those funds are directed, explicitly including whether they support agency operations. That pushes the study beyond headline collections into fund flows and uses — an accounting exercise that will need to reconcile statutory earmarks, internal transfers, intergovernmental reimbursements, and in-kind uses. The operational-support clause spotlights potential dependencies that could influence enforcement behavior or agency budgets.
Textual duplication and key procedural gaps (timeline, definitions, funding)
The amendment repeats and muddles the list of respondent entities (e.g., “local” and “local state” agencies), creating ambiguity CalEPA must resolve when scoping the survey. The statute also omits crucial implementation details: it contains no deadline for completion, no required report recipient (e.g., Legislature or public posting), no minimum data fields, and no appropriation to fund data collection. Those omissions give CalEPA flexibility but risk undermining comparability and the study’s usability.
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
- Legislative oversight committees — the study supplies empirical fiscal data legislators need to evaluate whether enforcement revenue is driving agency behavior or should be subject to new restrictions.
- Environmental and community advocacy groups — greater transparency about enforcement funding can support campaigns for enforcement equity, remediation funding, or changes in fee structure.
- CalEPA and system-level planners — the agency gains a consolidated picture of enforcement-related fiscal flows, which can inform budget planning and cross-agency coordination.
- Communities affected by pollution — the mapping of where penalty funds are spent could reveal whether local remediation and community benefit projects are receiving enforcement-derived support.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local and regional enforcement agencies — they will need staff time and accounting effort to pull transaction-level data, standardize it, and respond to the survey, potentially diverting resources from operations.
- CalEPA — the agency will absorb the administrative burden of designing the survey, aggregating data, and producing the study unless the Legislature provides funding.
- Smaller agencies with limited finance systems — these entities may incur higher relative costs to locate and report historical penalty flows compared with larger agencies that have centralized records.
- Regulated entities and permittees — while the bill creates no immediate financial change, its findings could lead to policy shifts (new earmarks, fee increases, or limits on operational use of fines) that affect regulated parties.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is transparency versus fiscal reliance: the bill seeks to illuminate how enforcement revenue flows, but those revelations could force a choice between (a) restricting the use of fines to remove perceived perverse incentives or (b) preserving those revenues to keep enforcement and remediation programs staffed — a trade-off that has no simple, cost-free resolution.
The study’s value depends on data comparability and definitional clarity. Agencies record penalties, civil assessments, and related receipts according to different accounting rules and statutory earmarks; absent standardized definitions and required data fields, CalEPA may face substantial reconciliation work or produce a study that is difficult to compare across jurisdictions.
Smaller agencies are especially likely to have incomplete digital records, which biases results toward better-resourced entities.
There is also a policy tension between transparency and operational stability. If the study reveals that agencies rely on enforcement revenue for core staffing, legislators may propose limits on using fines for operations — but doing so could reduce enforcement capacity unless alternative funding is provided.
Conversely, exposing heavy operational reliance could prompt calls to curb aggressive enforcement practices that generate revenue, creating a potential feedback loop that affects programmatic effectiveness. Finally, because the bill provides no funding or timeline, CalEPA’s choice about scope and depth will shape whether the study is actionable or merely descriptive.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.