Surface mining: determinations: appeals.
Summary
Existing law, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, prohibits, with certain exceptions, a person from conducting a surface mining operation unless, among other things, a reclamation plan has been submitted to and approved by the lead agency, as defined, for the operation. The act requires the owner or operator of a mining operation to submit an annual report containing information regarding the operation. For purposes of compliance with specified provisions of the Public Contract Code, the act requires the Department of Conservation to, at a minimum, quarterly publish in the California Regulatory Notice Register, or otherwise make available, upon request, to the Department of General Services or any other state or local agency, a list identifying surface mining operations that have submitted the annual report and it indicates compliance with specified standards, guidelines, and requirements or that there is a pending appeal. This bill would require the department to give notice by personal service or certified mail to a surface mining operation that it determines shall not be included in the above-described list or shall be removed from the above-described list. The bill would specify that the surface mining operation shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of service within which to file an appeal of the department's determination with the State Board of Mining and Geology. The bill would require that an appeal be scheduled and heard at a public hearing within 60 days from the date the appeal is filed, or a longer time if mutually agreed upon by the board and the appellant. The bill would require that when a timely appeal is filed on behalf of a surface mining operation pursuant to the provisions of the bill, the operation shall remain on the list pending the final outcome of the appeal, if the appeal has not been pending for more than 180 days. The bill would require the board to deny a request for an appeal of a notice issued pursuant to those provisions if either (1) the notice alleges one or more violations of the act that the board determines to be ministerial in nature and not constituting a substantial violation, in which case the appellant would have 30 days to correct the violation and achieve compliance, or (2) the specific claims asserted in the notice have been adjudicated, or are pending adjudication before the board or a lead agency in a separate action authorized by the act. The bill would prescribe requirements for the review of information and evidence pertaining to the appeal, as specified. The bill would authorize the board, by regulation, to establish procedures for declining to hear appeals that it determines raise only ministerial issues.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Jun 2012
Assembly Passage
May 2012
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 7, 2012
Last action Jun 26, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly May 30, 2012
How they voted
70–0
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 72
May 30, 2012
D
Democratic45
100% Yea
I
Independent1
0% Nay
R
Republican26
96% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
16
Key actions
6
Committee
7
Amendments
2
Jun 26, 2012
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 21, 2012
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 14, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on N.R. & W.
upper
May 30, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (70-0-2)
assembly
May 25, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 25).
lower
May 9, 2012
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 26, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 24, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 16).
lower
Feb 17, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
lower
Feb 8, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 9.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Ricardo Lara
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1609
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1609. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline