Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee advances bill to restore protections to waterways lost after Sackett decision
Loading...
Summary
SB601 would define a category of "nexus waters" to bring state permitting and protections closer to pre‑Sackett Clean Water Act standards; the Assembly committee voted to advance the bill while stakeholders asked for narrower definitions and more time to resolve technical and economic concerns.
The Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee voted to advance SB601, authored by Senator Richard Allen, a bill designed to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision by establishing a state statutory category of “nexus waters” and applying stronger Clean Water Act‑style protections to those waters.
Allen told the committee the Supreme Court decision narrowed federal Clean Water Act protections and left many California streams, wetlands and ephemeral waters without federal safeguards. He said the bill’s Nexus Waters category is “designed to capture surface waters that are not currently federally regulated” but that historically had received federal protection. The bill removes a private right of action and replaces it with public prosecutors while specifying that public prosecutors would not bring actions if the regional board, state board or attorney general were already diligently prosecuting a violation.
Environmental groups testified in support. Sean Bothwell of California Coastkeeper Alliance said the Sackett decision eliminated protections for seasonal and ephemeral streams and wetlands and estimated large portions of state waterways had lost federal protection; he urged the committee to “put California back to protecting the waterways that have always been protected.” Kim Delfino of Defenders of Wildlife said the bill keeps, “the standards in terms of the federal Clean Water Act permits in place” for nexus waters.
Business, agriculture and local government groups urged further refinement. Chris Anderson of the California Chamber of Commerce said the statutory definition of nexus waters raises uncertainty because the federal definition of waters of the United States has changed over decades; he suggested directing the State Water Resources Control Board to develop a regulatory definition instead of fixing a long list in statute. Noel Kramers of Wine Institute expressed concern about removing the requirement that the state board consider economic impacts and warned the current draft could sweep agricultural drainage ditches into permitting requirements.
Committee members focused on the bill’s scope and the definition of nexus waters. Senator Allen said he has narrowed the definition with amendments and removed the citizen‑suit provision; he urged continued stakeholder work to limit unintended consequences. The committee recommended passing SB601 and referring it to Appropriations; the committee recorded the measure as passing with a 5–2 vote.
