Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

California Building Industry Association v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

May 11, 2015

CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the published opinion, filed on April 20, 2015, 235 Cal.App.4th 1430;___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ be modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:

1. Page 2, bottom paragraph, fourth line [235 Cal.App.4th 1438, advance report, 1st par., line 2]: Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act should be Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

2. Page 14, second paragraph, first and fourth lines [235 Cal.App.4th 1447, advance report, 2d full par., lines 1 and 5]: section 13620 should be section 13260.

3. Page 15, last paragraph, fourth line [235 Cal.App.4th 1448, advance report, 2d par., line 4]: section 3260 should be section 13260.

4. Page 16, first full paragraph, fourth sentence [235 Cal.App.4th 1448, advance report, 3d par., line 8] is deleted and replaced with: Section 13260 provides that some stormwater dischargers, those subject to a general industrial or construction stormwater permit under the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES), must be separately accounted for in the Fund and requires some of those funds to be spent within the same region where those dischargers are located “to carry out stormwater programs in the region.” (§ 13260, subd. (d)(2)(B)(ii); see id., subd. (d)(2)(B)(i).)

5. Page 16, first full paragraph, sixth line [235 Cal.App.4th 1449, advance report, 1st par., line 8] is deleted and replaced with: This provision requires special treatment of fees and funds for some storm water dischargers but there is no suggestion that the Board must balance the fee for the storm water program with the revenue from that program. (See § 13260, subd. (d)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).)

6. Page 16 [235 Cal.App.4th 1449, advance report, fn. 8, line 3], delete the last sentence in footnote 8: The complaint does not allege that CBIA or its members are participants in NPDES.

Page 529b

7. Page 20, first sentence of footnote 10 [235 Cal.App.4th 1452, advance report, fn. 10, line 2]: "retrospective” should be “retroactive.”

8. Water discharger or water discharge should be replaced with waste discharger or waste discharge, respectively, in the following instances:

a. Page 2, subheading before bottom paragraph [235 Cal.App.4th 1437, advance report, 1st subheading under Background]: "The Permit Fees for Water Dischargers” should be “The Permit Fees for Waste Dischargers.”

b. Page 14, second paragraph, fifth line [235 Cal.App.4th 1447, advance report, 2d full par., line 6]: "water dischargers” should be “waste dischargers.”

c. Page 14, bottom paragraph, first line [235 Cal.App.4th 1447, advance report, 3d full par., line 1]: "report of water discharge” should be “report of waste discharge.”

d. Page 16, first full paragraph, first and second lines [235 Cal.App.4th 1448, advance report, 3d par., line 2]: "discharge water program” should be “waste discharge program.”

e. Page 18, second full paragraph, third line [235 Cal.App.4th 1451, advance report, 1st par., line 1]: "water discharge” should be “waste discharge.”

f. Page 18, second full paragraph, fifth line [235 Cal.App.4th 1451, advance report, 1st par., line 2]: "water dischargers” should be “waste dischargers.”

g. Page 20, first paragraph, fifth line [235 Cal.App.4th 1452, advance report, 1st par., line 6]: "water discharge” should be “waste discharge.”

h. Page 20, footnote 11, third line [235 Cal.App.4th 1452, advance report, fn. 11, line 3]: "water discharge” should be “waste discharge.”

9. Dissenting opinion at page 2, footnote 2 [235 Cal.App.4th 1457, advance report, fn. 2, line 3]: "the Board’s defective motion for reconsideration” should be “the Association’s defective motion for reconsideration”

The petition for rehearing, filed on May 5, 2015, is denied. Richman, J. would grant the petition for rehearing.

There is no change in judgment.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.