CIWMP Enforcement Policy

Commonly Asked Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers

1. When is our Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report due?

The Five-Year Review CIWMP or RAIWMP Report is due five years from the date the Board approved the CIWMP or the RAIWMP (for regional agencies to which all of the jurisdictions in the county(s) belong). If you need assistance determining your CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report due date, please contact your Local assistance staff representative at (916) 341-6199.

2. Is the next CIWMP or RAIWMP Five-Year Review Report due five years from the date the first report is approved by the Board?

No, the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report due date is calculated every five years from the Board-approval date of the CIWMP or RAIWMP. So, as mentioned above, the first Five-Year Review CIWMP or RAIWMP Report is due five years from the date Board approved the CIWMP or the RAIWMP. The second Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report is due five years from the date of the first report due date (or 10 years from Board approval date of the CIWMP or RAIWMP) and so forth.

3. What is the Difference Between a Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report and a Five-Year Revision?

The Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review is a county's or regional agency’s evaluation of all the planning documents included in its CIWMP or RAIWMP and a vehicle for notifying the Board whether one or more of its planning documents needs to be revised. The Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report is the document that is due on the anniversary dates referenced above, not a revised planning document. If the county or regional agency determines that a revision to one or more individual planning documents is necessary, a revision schedule for the planning document(s) must be included in the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report.

4. Can you clarify when a county has to prepare the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report as opposed to a regional agency?

The county is responsible for preparing the Five-Year CIWMP Review Report for the entire county, including any regional agencies. For example, a county includes two regional agencies, one to which the unincorporated county area belongs, and three other cities. The county will prepare the Five-Year CIWMP Review for the whole county (i.e., the two regional agencies and the three cities). The Five-Year CIWMP Review Report is due five years from the date the county's CIWMP was approved by the Board.

A regional agency would only need to complete a Five-Year RAIWMP Review Report if it includes as member agencies all the jurisdictions in the county, including the unincorporated county area. The Five-Year RAIWMP Review Report is also due five years from the date the county's CIWMP was approved except in the instance in which a regional agency prepared its planning documents as a regional agency (opposed to as separate cities). In such a case, the Five-Year RAIWMP Review Report due date is calculated 5 years from the date the RAIWMP was approved by the Board.

5. So, what happens when the CIWMP is approved for a county and then all the jurisdictions in the county, including the unincorporated county area, form a regional agency? Is the Five-Year RAIWMP Review Report due date based on the date of the CIWMP or RAIWMP approval?

If the planning documents were not altered in the formation of the regional agency (e.g., they did not prepare new planning documents for the new regional agency, but rather incorporated them by reference), the due date is still based on the CIWMP approval date. If, however, the regional agency prepared regionwide or multijurisdictional planning documents, which were approved as their RAIWMP, then the Five-Year RAIWMP Review Report due date is calculated based on the date of the RAIWMP approval.

6. Our county no longer has a Local Task Force (LTF), but does have a "Solid Waste Committee" that addresses and votes on solid waste issues. The Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review process requires a LTF to provide written comments to the county or regional agency, and the Board, on areas of the CIWMP or RAIWMP that need revision, if any. In the case where the task force no longer exists, can another entity (e.g., Solid Waste Committee or regional agency) act as the LTF for the purpose of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review? If not, are there options for reconstituting the LTF that do not involve the approval process that was required previously (e.g., membership determined by the county and by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the County)?

PRC, section 40950 references convening a LTF every 5 years, presumably for the purpose of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review. With respect to determining membership, the statute is clear regarding these requirements. There is however, no provision for "disbanding" the LTF, so the original one, with the original members, still exists even though it may not have met in years. So, the original LTF can resume meeting (for example, send notices of the next meeting) and to the extent that vacancies need to be filled, include that as an agenda item for the next meeting. At the present time, statute does not authorize the use of a different body instead of the LTF.

7. What is the appropriate level of LTF involvement in the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review (i.e., what exactly does the LTF need to do)?

Regulations (Title 14, CCR section 18788) require a county’s LTF to provide written comments to the county or regional agency and to the Board, on areas of the CIWMP or RAIWMP that need revision, if any, prior to the five year anniversary date of Board approval of the CIWMP or RAIWMP, but no later than 45 days prior to the anniversary date.

Since the exact level of LTF involvement is not specified in the statute or regulations, it is recommended that this decision be addressed/negotiated by the county and the LTF. As the regulations are written, the LTF essentially serves as a vehicle for getting the individual jurisdictions' comments on the continuing adequacy of their original SRREs, HHWEs, and NDFEs to the county (and the Board). The county is responsible for making the final determination regarding any need for a plan revision in the Five–Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report. In part or its making this determination, the county will most likely rely heavily on the information provided by the LTF as a part of its review regarding each jurisdiction’s individual planning documents. So, it is recommended that the County and the LTF discuss the data needed for the analysis and review and develop a plan regarding how the LTF will collect and prepare the information. How much effort each member of the LTF contributes to the project, however, is a local matter.

Please remember that your Local assistance staff representative is an excellent resource to you during this process. For example, you can request a report of the Electronic Annual Report information relating to each jurisdiction’s planning document adequacy to help prepare the LTF comments as well as the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report.

8. Where exactly does it say that it is the county’s responsibility to review all of the cities’ planning documents?

Title 14, CCR section 18788 provides that the county or regional agency is responsible for determining if a revision is necessary and notifying the LTF and the Board of its findings in a Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report. This same section, however, also provides that the LTF is first required to complete a review of the CIWMP or RAIWMP to assure that the county's and RA’s waste management practices remain consistent with the hierarchy of waste management practices defined in statute. The LTF is also required to submit written comments on areas of the CIWMP or RAIWMP which require revision, if any, to the county or RA and the Board. The county’s determination should be based, at least in part, on the LTF’s comments.

9. Who (as in a jurisdiction) would be responsible before the Board if a jurisdiction fails to conduct a planning document review and/or provide review comments to the County for the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review (e.g., a jurisdiction does not participate in the required LTF review and input)?

PRC section 41822 provides that each city, county, or regional agency shall review its SRRE or the CIWMP at least once every five years to correct any deficiencies in the element or plan. Additionally, Title 14, CCR section 18788 requires a county’s LTF to provide written comments to the county or RA, and the Board, on areas of the CIWMP or RAIWMP that need revision, if any.

Since the exact level of LTF involvement is not specified in the statute or regulations, the specific expectations for each member of the LTF in conducting the review and preparing comments is considered a local matter. As a result, it is recommended that this decision be addressed/negotiated between the county and the LTF (e.g., at a LTF meeting). If the county requests information from a jurisdiction regarding its Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review and none is forthcoming, it is recommended that the county document this fact in its Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report and indicate that, as a result, the county cannot determine whether a revision of the jurisdiction’s planning documents is necessary.

There is no explicit penalty provided in statute or regulations for noncompliance with the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review requirements (e.g., planning document review, LTF comment process, reporting). Noncompliance could, however, be taken into account during the applicable Biennial Review.

10. What is the difference between an update to the planning documents and a revision?

Updates include reporting technical changes or modifications that have already been undertaken by jurisdictions to fulfill the requirements of AB939 (program implementation information in Annual Reports, corrected or new SWGS, Time Extension, Alternative Diversion Requirement, etc.). A revision to a planning document is needed if significant changes to the overall plan are proposed that should involve the formal local public input process.

11. What level of analysis is the Board looking for with respect to demographic and waste stream changes in determining whether a SRRE revision is needed?

The Five-Year Review CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report template provides a number of tables to document demographic and waste stream changes. Additionally, the analysis needs to address whether, in light of these changes, the SRRE is still adequate (e.g., does not contain any deficiencies). If not, can the deficiencies be addressed via program updates or is a revision necessary?

12. Do counties or regional agencies have to include statewide per capita generation and disposal tonnage in their Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report?

No, such statistics are not required by either statute or regulation and therefore, are not necessary to include in the report. You should keep in mind that what is required for the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review is an analysis of how things have changed in the county (or regional agency) since the planning documents were written, and whether a revision to one or more of the planning documents is necessary.

13. Would rural reductions (or other programmatic changes related to Time Extensions or Alternative Diversion Requirements) cause a significant enough change as to require SRRE revision?

Generally, a revision would only be recommended when there are changes to the overall structure of how the jurisdiction planned to achieve the diversion goals, in which case there should be local formal public input for policy-making decisions through the formal SRRE revision process. Otherwise, jurisdictions can use their Annual Reports to the Board to update diversion program information, e.g., selected, implemented, alternative, planned programs, where it has been determined that a revision is not necessary. Additionally, if a jurisdiction is on compliance or has a Time Extension or Alternative Diversion Rate, the compliance order or plan of correction, respectively, can serve as updates to the SRRE or HHWE in terms of program implementation. Corrections to or approved new base years also update the Solid Waste Generation Study component of the SRRE.

14. PRC 41736  indicates that “At the time of the Five-Year revision of the source reduction and recycling element, each city, county, and city and county shall incorporate the nondisposal facility element and any amendments thereto into the revised source reduction and recycling element.” Does the NDFE have to be incorporated into the SRRE at time of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review?

According to PRC 41730, “the nondisposal facility element and any amendments to the element may be appended to the city's source reduction and recycling element when that element is included in the countywide integrated waste management plan, prepared pursuant to section 41750.” This language was changed to provide that incorporating the NDFE into the SRRE is not mandatory and Board regulations were modified accordingly.

15. PRC 41770 (a) indicates that the city, county, or regional agency shall conduct waste disposal characterization studies, as prescribed by the board, if it fails to meet the diversion requirements of section 41780, at the time of the Five-Year revision of the SRRE. So, if at the time of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review the jurisdiction has not met the diversion requirements, will it have to conduct a waste characterization study?

PRC 41770 does reference a waste characterization study, but it is linked to the Board being authorized, but not required, to order one when a jurisdiction is not in compliance with the mandates. (…the city, county, or regional agency shall conduct waste disposal characterization studies, as prescribed by the board, if it fails to meet the diversion requirements of section 41780…). Any Board action or direction associated with failing to meet the diversion requirements of PRC section 41780 is addressed via the Biennial Review process.

If at the time of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review a jurisdiction is not achieving the diversion requirements, the respective county will, however, have to address in the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report whether that jurisdiction’s SRRE, as updated, is still meeting the jurisdiction’s planning needs. Specifically, the county should address whether the jurisdiction’s SRRE should be revised or has been sufficiently updated with respect to program implementation in the jurisdiction’s Annual Reports, corrected or new SWGS, Time Extension, Alternative Diversion Rate, compliance order, etc. In analyzing the jurisdiction’s current waste stream and whether the current or planned programs are addressing the largest waste generators and types, the Board’s waste characterization data, Planning Annual Report Information System (PARIS) and Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion Progress Report are recommended resources.

16. With the passage of Senate Bill 20 (Sher, Chapter 526, Statutes of 2003) on hazardous electronic waste, do jurisdictions need to revise their HHWE by January 1, 2004 to identify those actions the city, county, or regional agency is taking to promote the collection, consolidation, recovery, and recycling of covered electronic waste?

No, this requirement only applies if, after January 1, 2004, as a result of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review, a jurisdiction or the Board determines that a revision to the HHWE is necessary. For example, if as a result of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review, the county or regional agency determines that a revision to one of the jurisdiction’s HHWE is necessary to address significant funding and/or administrative changes, the revision must also identify those actions the city, county, or regional agency is taking to promote the collection, consolidation, recovery, and recycling of covered electronic waste. If however, the county or regional agency determines no revision to the jurisdictions’ planning documents are necessary, no revision to applicable jurisdictions’ HHWE is necessary as a result of this bill. Similarly, if the county or regional agency determines that a revision to one or more of the other planning document (but not one of the jurisdiction’s HHWEs) is necessary, still no revision to the HHWE is required as a result of this bill.

However, when reviewing each jurisdiction’s planning documents for adequacy during the Five-Year Review, please keep in mind that e-waste program implementation should be updated in the Annual Report (e.g., 9000 program code series - for the 2003 Annual Report, e-waste will have its own program code). This allows jurisdictions to update their planning documents relating to e-waste programs when a revision is not necessary.

17. If we have a new nondisposal facility in our jurisdiction, do we need to revise our NDFE?

Statute requires a revision (i.e., an amended NDFE) if a nondisposal facility is being used (or planned to be used) in your jurisdiction that is not already identified in the NDFE.

18. There have been changes to the nondisposal facilities used outside of our jurisdiction (e.g., we have changed haulers and now use a different MRF). Do we need to revise our NDFE, as a result of such changes?

If your jurisdiction has started using a nondisposal facility that is not identified in your NDFE and you are not the “host” jurisdiction (i.e., the nondisposal facility is not sited or planned to be sited in your jurisdiction) you do not have to amend your NDFE at the time of the Five-Year Review (of course, you may if you want to), but you should provide an update as follows:

19. Does each jurisdiction included in a multi-jurisdictional NDFE have to adopt an amendment(s) made by another jurisdiction(s)? For example, if one of the jurisdictions amends the NDFE to site a new composting facility, do all of the other jurisdictions included multi-jurisdictional NDFE also have to adopt the amended NDFE?

Although the multi-jurisdictional NDFE includes nondisposal facility information for multiple of jurisdictions, each jurisdiction locally adopted it as their own planning document. As a result, each jurisdiction would only need to revise its NDFE to reflect changes in nondisposal facilities sited or planned to be sited within its jurisdiction (A jurisdiction may wish to update its NDFE at the time of the Five-Year Review to reflect current conditions, but it is not required). The exception to this would be a Board-approved regional agency with a multi-jurisdictional NDFE, in which case each member jurisdiction would need to locally adopt any amendments to the NDFE unless one of the member jurisdictions is specifically appointed to do so for the regional agency and its member jurisdictions.

20. If the NDFE and/or SE are amended, is there a requirement that the entire CIWMP be revised?

The NDFE and the SE can be amended without having to revise the entire CIWMP. Depending on the nature of the change, however, these amendments may require a revision to the Summary Plan at the time of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review. So, in the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report, the county should address these changes and whether they affect the adequacy of the Summary Plan to the extent that a revision is necessary. The Five-Year Review CIWMP or RAIWMP Report template is designed to assist you in analyzing and reporting the need for revising each element and plan comprising the CIWMP or RAIWMP.

21. What type of “proof” or documentation is necessary to demonstrate 15 years disposal capacity?

The Countywide Siting Element (SE) will need to be revised if the County has less than 15 years disposal capacity and the SE does not include an adequate strategy for obtaining 15 years disposal capacity. With respect to documenting 15-year disposal capacity, Title 14, CCR section 18755.3 Disposal Capacity Requirements, requires the following for the preparation of the SE:

In terms of “proof” of 15-year disposal capacity, the county should have available the method and sources of data for determining these estimates for Board staff review. For a discussion of the statutory, regulatory and content adequacy requirements of a SE, see the CIWMP Enforcement Part 1: Plan Adequacy. The section on Countywide Siting Element Adequacy contains information regarding what staff focused on during the review of a SE to determine and define adequacy.

22. A city has newly incorporated since the preparation and approval of the county’s planning documents and is still determining whether to join the regional agency to which the county is a member. If the city does not join the regional agency, the city will need to prepare its own planning documents. How should this change be addressed in the Five-Year CIWMP Review Report? Should the county wait to see what the city decides even if that delays the submittal of the Five-Year RAIWMP Review Report past the due date?

The county should not wait for the city to decide whether to join the regional agency to submit the Five-Year CIWMP Review Report. The county should include the details of the incorporation in its report, including the possibility that the city’s planning elements may be added to the CIWMP (i.e., if the city does not join the regional agency and prepares its own planning documents).

Additionally, the county should include an analysis regarding how the withdrawal of the newly incorporated city (and any other changes) affect the county’s waste stream, demographics, program implementation, etc; and whether this change is so significant that the county’s existing planning documents become less than adequate to meet and maintain the diversion requirements. In other words, does this change alter what the county reported it would do in terms of program implementation, funding, etc. in its SRRE and HHWE, and does this change affect the facilities and information provided in the NDFE, SE and SP? If so, are these changes addressed via updates to these documents or is a revision necessary? If the county determines that a revision is necessary, it will need to include in its Five-Year CIWMP Review Report a timeline showing when the revision(s) will be completed (provided that the city does not join the regional agency).

23. Title 14 CCR, section 18788 provides that the county or regional agency shall determine if a revision is necessary, and notify the LTF and the Board of its findings in a CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report, but it is not clear who in the county makes this determination nor how the determination is made. Does the county need a resolution from the county board of supervisors or can the recycling coordinator make the determination?

The internal process by which each county responds to the requirements of the Board may vary. In some cases, the county board of supervisors makes such determinations based on the recommendations of county staff; in other cases, the AB 939 coordinator (or other such personnel) may be authorized to make such determinations (depending on the level of authority the county has given its AB 939 coordinator). With respect to the submittal of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report, the Board will need whatever is considered an official determination from your county.

Many county boards of supervisors will want to hear the county’s findings and determination prior to submittal of the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report to the Board, with or without action (e.g., adopting or approving the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report). In such cases, a copy of the meeting agenda and/or minutes or resolution would be an appropriate reference/appendix to the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report. In other cases, the AB 939 Coordinator may be authorized to make this determination and to author and submit the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report. Ultimately, it will depend on the county’s internal procedures.

It is recommended that you check with your department head regarding what the county’s internal process is for such reports and whether it is something that should go before your county board of supervisors. You should also include any approval documentation in the Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report and/or have it available for Board staff review.

24. A letter regarding the Five-Year revision process went out on July 21, 2000 to city and county contacts. The letter had a copy of CCR 14 section 18788 attached. (4) (b) of section 18788 (CIWMP or RAIWMP Revision) states that "if a revision is necessary the county or regional agency shall submit a CIWMP or RAIWMP revision schedule to the Board." How much time does the county or regional agency have to submit this revision schedule?

The revision schedule must be included in the county’s or regional agency’s Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report to the Board. The revision schedule should outline the steps and time frames necessary to prepare, review, approve and submit the applicable revised documents to the Board. There is no guidance in statute or regulations, however, on how much time a jurisdiction has to actually revise and submit the revised planning documents to the Board. Part of Local assistance staff’s review of any revision schedule(s) included in a Five-Year CIWMP or RAIWMP Review Report will be an evaluation regarding the reasonableness of time frames included in the revision schedule.

CIWMP Enforcement Home | Letters from Local Assistance

Last updated: December 28, 2007