PERSON.
SOON AS WE ARE GET ONE MORE
PERSON WILL HAVE A QUORUM AND
WE'LL GET STARTED
[inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
SO FAR WELCOME TO THE HEARING OF
THE ASSEMBLY -- COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC
MATERIALS.
WE'LL BE HEARING SIX BILLS TODAY
ONE OF WHICH IS ON CONSENT.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL TO ESTABLISH QUORUM
[inaudible]
QUIRK.
HERE IS HERE MELENDEZ.
ARAMBULA.
ARAMBULA HERE OUR QUE HAN.
CRISTINA GARCIA CRISTINA GARCIA
HERE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN HERE MATHIS.
MATHIS HERE WHAT A TO G.
MURATSUCHI HERE.
SO WE HAVE A QUORUM SIX MEMBERS
[inaudible]
GREAT.
THANK YOU WE SO WE NOW HAVE A
QUORUM I'D LIKE TO ASK THE
PRESIDENT PRO TEM OF THE SENATE
TONI ATKINS TO COME UP. TO
PRESENT SB.
ONE BOB I'M GOING TO START BY
SAYING THAT.
THIS IS A VERY ALL ENCOMPASSING
BILL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN --
PROBABLY REFERRED TO SIX
DIFFERENT COMMITTEES IT'S BUT
THEY ARE REFERRING YOU TO THREE
SO WE HAVE TO MOVE IT ON TODAY
QUICKLY -- THIS BILL AS A SAID
IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN V..
IN THAT IT'S TRYING TO PREVENT
ROLL BACKS OF ENVIRONMENTAL --
RULES -- BASED UPON SOMETHING
THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED IN DC
WITHOUT USE OF THE BEST SCIENCE.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THIS
BILL IS THE BEST SCIENCE BE USED
TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?
AND I THINK THE OPPOSITION IS
ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS
WITH THAT THEY'RE ALSO WANT --
TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT.
THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT ISSUES
THAT THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
WHICH HAVE TO DO WITH --
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND SO WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS ASK
THAT THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM
PRESENT.
ON THE OVER ALL ASPECTS OF THE
BILL -- WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO WITH
THE OPPOSITE THAT THEN THEN WILL
ASK FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE IN FAVOR
THE BAIL?
I TO COME UP I'D LIKE TO THEN
ASK THE OPPOSITION TO COME UP
AND ASK PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION BUT
I WANT TO SAVE THE MAIN.
PART OF THE TIME FOR TESTIMONY.
TO THE QUESTION PERIOD.
AND IN THE QUESTION PERIOD WHAT
I'D LIKE TO DO IS BRING UP THE
THREE ISSUES THAT THE OPPOSITION
HAS BROUGHT UP TO ME.
HAVING TO DO.
WITH THE TIME -- THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIES ARE
PROTECTIONS HAVING TO DO WITH --
REGULATIONS ON TROPHIES HAVING
TO DO WITH SOME.
LABOR ISSUES AND CONFINED SO
THAT THE OF THE PROPONENTS CAN
ANSWER THE CONCERNS OF THE UP ON
ITS.
AS THEY'RE BROUGHT UP SAID THAT
THE OPPONENTS WITH FIRST ADDRESS
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT
PROPONENTS WOULD ADDRESS IT.
AT CETERA AND THEN WE FINISH
THAT PART OF THE QUESTION PERIOD --
WE WOULD GO ON TO GENERAL
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS.
SO I'M TRYING TO ORGANIZE THIS
SO THAT WE THAT WE COME UP WITH
WHAT I WOULD SAY THE OPPOSITION
IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THE WE
HAVE THE CONCERN AND THEN THE
ANSWER.
OR SO THAT WE HAVE THAT ALL AT
ONE TIME IN ONE PLACE RATHER
THAN DIVIDING IT UP. FOR YOU TO
TRY AND ANSWER THEIR CONCERNS
BEFORE THEY'RE RAISED FOR
EXAMPLE WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT
IF WE CAN HELP IT WILL LET THEM
RAISE THEIR CONCERNS AND THEN
YOU HAVE THE ANSWER RIGHT THERE.
AND MOVE FROM TOPIC TO TOPIC SO
THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO.
MADAM PRESIDENT PRO TEM PLEASE
PROCEED.
MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK YOU SO
MUCH COLLEAGUES THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME YOU COULD PUT IT ON
CONSENT NAME WE WOULD JUST MOVE
ON YEAH.
BUT I'VE HUMOR IS ALWAYS A GOOD
THING BEFORE WE START A LONG
DISCUSSION I'M SURE.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS COLLEAGUES I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB ONE
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC HEALTH WORKERS DEFENSE
ACTIVE.
TWENTY NINETEEN I BELIEVE SB
WANTED SENSIBLE AND NECESSARY
LEGISLATION IT MAKES FEDERAL
BASELINE STANDARDS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL.
AND WORKER PROTECTION
ENFORCEABLE UNDER STATE LAW FOR
THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION ROLES
THEM BACK IN IN DC.
SINCE THIS ADMINISTRATION TOOK
OFFICE IT IS SYSTEMATICALLY
UNDERMINED DECADES OF REGULATORY
PROGRESS.
DOZENS OF VITAL CLEAN AIR CLEAN
WATER AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
STANDARDS HAVE BEEN WEAKENED OR
ELIMINATED.
THE AGENCIES CHARGED WITH
SAFEGUARDING OUR HEALTH WORKER
SAFETY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
HAVE BEEN CAPTURED BY THE
INDUSTRY'S THEY'RE MEANT TO
REGULATE.
A COAL LOBBYIST NOW RUNS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND OIL LOBBYIST IS IN CHARGE OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR.
THEY ARE SYSTEMATICALLY UNDER
ENFORCING THE LAWS THAT ARE
STILL ON THE BOOKS.
IN ADDITION THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS PROPOSED A BUDGET BLUEPRINT
THAT WOULD REDUCE THE FUNDING OF
THE U. S. EPA TO A POINT WHERE
THE AGENCY WOULD NO LONGER BE
ABLE TO MEANINGFULLY.
AND FORCE CLEAN AND CLEAN AIR
AND CLEAN WATER LAWS.
THE LIST GOES ON IT'S NOT JUST
ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT -- WORKERS
ARE ALSO BEING PUT AT RISK.
OSHA ENFORCEMENT IS DOWN SINCE
TWENTY SIXTEEN AND THE NUMBER OF
pOSHA INSPECTOR SUCH HAS REACHED
A HISTORIC LOW.
THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS SLASH
THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS REDUCED
OVERSIGHT OF WORKPLACE HAZARDS
INSPECTIONS ON WORKPLACE HE
CONDITIONS HAVE FALLEN 50% IN
TWO YEARS.
AND INSPECTION OF DANGEROUS
CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES HAVE
FALLEN BY TWO THIRDS.
MEANWHILE THERE'S STRONG
EVIDENCE THAT WORKPLACE
INCIDENTS IN FATALITIES HAVE
INCREASED.
IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN MORE THAN
FIVE THOUSAND WORKERS WERE
KILLED ON THE JOB MORE THAN
THREE MILLION WORKERS SUFFERED
SERIOUS INJURY OR ILLNESS.
THE NUMBER OF WORKPLACE INJURY
AND FATALITY INVESTIGATIONS
TRIGGERED WHEN AN INJURY OR
DEATH HAPPENS ON THE JOB.
ROSE DRAMATICALLY IN.
TWENTY EIGHTEEN SB ONE WOULD
INSULATE CALIFORNIA FROM THIS
HARMFUL BACKSLIDING IT SIMPLY
PROVIDES THAT WHATEVER ACTIONS
THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION MAY
TAKE.
CALIFORNIA WILL CONTINUE TO
ENFORCE THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL
AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS
THAT HAD BEEN IN EFFECT FOR
YEARS AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW.
THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR CLEAN
WATER SAFE DRINKING WATER
ENDANGERED SPECIES AND WORKER
PROTECTION ACTS WERE ALL ADOPTED
ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS IN THE
NINETEEN SEVENTIES OVER FORTY
YEARS AGO.
THIS BILL INSURERS WE KEEP THOSE
COMMONSENSE PROTECTIONS.
I HAVE BEEN WORKING SINCE DAY
ONE WITH THE OPPOSITION FROM THE
BEGINNING TO ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS.
RECENT AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF
THOSE CONVERSATIONS TAKEN IN THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
CLARIFY THAT ALL AGENCIES MUST
PROVIDE A THIRTY DAY PUBLIC
NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIOD.
PRIOR TO ADOPTING ANY FEDERAL
BASELINE STANDARD.
THE AMENDMENTS FURTHER MAKE IT
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT IF AN
AGENCY ADOPTS ANYTHING OTHER
THAN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
STANDARD.
AS THE FEDERAL BASELINE STANDARD
THE AGENCY MUST GO THROUGH THE
FULL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT PROCESS SOMETHING THAT WE
DISCUSSED AT LENGTH -- IN THE
SENATE AND WE'VE RESPONDED WE
ESTABLISHED A MORE OBJECTIVE
HEALTH AND SCIENCE BASED
STANDARD WE CLARIFIED THAT THE
BILL DOES NOT AFFECT VOLUNTARY
WATER AGREEMENTS NEGOTIATED BY
THE STATE WATER BOARD THAT WAS.
A KEY WHEN.
WE ADDRESS TROPHY HUNTING
CONCERNS THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS
LATER AND WE NARROW THE
PROVISION THE LABOR PROVISIONS
TO APPLY ONLY TO WORKER HEALTH
AND SAFETY.
WHILE THESE AMENDMENTS DON'T
REMOVE ALL OF THE OPPOSITION
THERE A SIGNIFICANT STEP AND I
THINK CHAU MY GOOD FAITH EFFORT
TO REALLY TRY TO GET TO
SOMETHING.
THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE VALUES
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE WORK THAT
WE HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST FOUR
DECADES SO I WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK TO TRY TO ADDRESS THESE
CONCERNS AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD.
I WOULD SAY THAT SB ONE IS
SUPPORTED BY A BROAD CROSS
SECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH WORKER
SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT I'D
LOOK FORWARD TO THE QUESTIONS IN
THE COMMENTS AND MISTER CHAIRMAN
I DON'T KNOW.
HOW MUCH TIME YOU GIVE TO EACH
PERSON I'LL LET YOU DICTATE THAT
BEFORE WE START [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
HERE -- BURKE WITNESSES WISH TO
TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL ASPECTS
OF THE BILL.
OKAY CAN DOWN BUT I STACEY KLEIN.
QUESTION.
WITH BOLDNESS -- CONCERN FOR THE
OPPOSITION.
SO.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADDRESS.
NOW DO SO OTHERWISE WE'LL MAKE
SURE WE GET.
YOUR FULL EIGHT MINUTES
[inaudible]
THANK.
I'M SO JUST PROBABLY HI I'M GOOD
MORNING AND AFTERNOON RATHER
TURN MEMBERS NIKITA CRIED WITH
THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL.
I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS ENERGY
STRONG SUPPORT AND URGE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR SB ONE WHICH IS
DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN
CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING
ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH.
AND WE'RE DESPITE INCREASINGLY
FREQUENT UNPRECEDENTED DISASTERS
THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUES TO PUSH AN ANTI AND
CONFINEMENT JENDA THAT BENEFITS
POLLUTERS AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR
NATION'S MOST IMPORTANT ASSETS
OUR PEOPLE AND OUR NATURAL
RESOURCES.
SB ONE SIMPLY SET UP THE PROCESS
FOR SPECIFIED AGENCIES TO
REGULARLY ASSESSED CHANGES TO
FEDERAL STANDARDS AND CONSIDER
ADOPTING INTO STATE LAW EXISTING
BASELINE FEDERAL PROTECTIONS FOR
CLEAN AIR CLEAN WATER ENDANGERED
SPECIES WORKER SAFETY AND SAFE
DRINKING WATER.
CALIFORNIA HAS AN OPPORTUNITY
HERE TO BUILD OUT ITS
ENVIRONMENT LEADERSHIP AND PUT
IN PLACE AN EVEN STRONGER
FIREWALL AGAINST THE SHORT
SIGHTED.
ATTACKS OF THE HOSTILE FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION THANK YOU AND I
ARE DRIVE OUT.
RIGHT THANK YOU -- CAM DELFINO
WITH DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE -- I
AM GOING TO ACTUALLY SAVE MY
TIME FOR WHEN THE QUESTIONS
ARISE BUT OF COURSE WE'RE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE
AND WHAT.
MR CHEN MEMBERS CAITLIN VEGA FOR
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF SB.
ONE AND WE HAVE SEEN UNDER THIS
ADMINISTRATION A STEADY EROSION
OF WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY
PROTECTIONS BOTH IN TERMS OF
ENFORCEMENT AND THE RESOURCES TO
THE AGENCY BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF
THE STANDARDS THEMSELVES.
THERE WERE MANY REGULATIONS PUT
INTO PLACE -- THAT SOME OF OUR
UNION SPENT DECADES LITERALLY
FORTY YEARS FIGHTING TO GET
WHETHER IT'S PROTECTIONS AGAINST
SELA CLOSEST EXPOSURE --
REQUIREMENTS THAT EMPLOYERS
MAINTAIN RECORDS OF WORKER
INJURIES I REQUIREMENTS THAT
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS DISCLOSE HOW
MANY INJURIES THEY HAVE ON THE
JOB.
THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS
SYSTEMATICALLY GONE THROUGH.
WORKER PROTECTION AFTER WORKER
PROTECTION REPEAL THEM WITHDRAWN
THEM UNDERMINE THEM AND SO FOR
US.
WELL STATE LAWS OFTEN STRONGER.
WELL STATE LAWS OFTEN STRONGER
THAN THAN THE FEDERAL LAW IT IS
A PATCHWORK AND SO WHEN THE
FEDERAL LAW IS -- WITHDRAWN ALL
OF A SUDDEN THERE IS A GAP AND
WORKERS ARE UNPROTECTED AND
THAT'S WHY WE THINK THIS
APPROACH IS SO IMPORTANT THANK
YOU THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT COULD WE HAVE OTHERS
IN SUPPORT. ONE OF THE MADONNA
WITHOUT ABOUT CALIFORNIANS
STRONG SUPPORT ALSO ON BEHALF OF
LATINO OUTDOORS A SUIT.
OUR ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
AND CAL CALIFORNIA RELIEF IN ALL
IN SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON JENNIFER FEARING
ON BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR FOOD
SAFETY AND THE MOUNTAIN LION
FOUNDATION IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THIS IS YOUR MEMBERS AS ARE THE
OTHER BEHALF THE STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
ALSO HAS TRANSPORT.
JOHN BOTTLED CALIFORNIA BECAUSE
KEEPER ALLIANCE IN STRONG
SUPPORT.
BILL ALLEY -- ENVIRONMENT
WORKING GROUP IN SUPPORT.
CAN YOU MAY POSSIBLY HAVE A
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN SUPPORT.
ANDREA OF INTER WITH CLEAN WATER
ACTION IN SUPPORT.
THERESA BURKE VERGE ON BEHALF OF
THE CLEAN SEIZE LOBBYING
COALITION IN SUPPORT AND I'VE
ALSO BEEN ASKED TO REGISTER
SUPPORT FOR CALIFORNIANS AGAINST
WASTE.
MELISSA ROMERO WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF
CONSERVATION VOTERS AND SUPPORT.
SEVERE AFRICA -- WITH THE
PLANNING CONSERVATION THEY CAN
SUPPORT.
LAUREN COMMISSARY CLUB
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
RIVER NOW WITH THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH IN CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
EVAN MAINTAIN WITH VOICES FOR
PROGRESS IN STRONG SUPPORT.
CARE TO SO ON BEHALF OF HEAL THE
BAY IN SUPPORT.
JUST NONE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH DIRECTORS AND UP IN
AUGUST TO USE REGIS TO SUPPORT
FOR THE HEALTH OFFICER'S
ASSOCIATION AS WELL THANK YOU.
WE COME MUSTARD AND NOT A WITH
THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND IN
SUPPORT AND I WANT TO THANK THE
PRO TEMPORE KAREN'S.
I'M DAN JACOBSON WITH
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA ALSO WITH
FOSSEL FREE CALIFORNIA AND
SILICON VALLEY THREE FIFTY THANK
YOU.
LUCAS FOR X. ON BEHALF THE
NATURE CONSERVANCY IN SUPPORT.
HI AM I C. MCCABE WITH ANIMAL
DEFENDANTS INTERNATIONAL I AM WE
AND OUT THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIA --
SUPPORTERS ARE IN SUPPORT AND WE
THANK THE SPONSOR FOR HER
LEADERSHIP IN THIS MATTER THANKS.
JIM LIMBURG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
OF CALIFORNIANS STRONG SUPPORT.
THREE THREE CELLS OF THREE FIFTY
SACRAMENTO IN SUPPORT.
NO OPPENHEIM WITH THE PACIFIC
COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS IN STRONG SUPPORT.
TYLER TRITON ON BEHALF NEXT GEN
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
NATALIE NEXT ON BEHALF OF CAL
START A BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS OCEAN CONSERVANCY
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL
CONSERVATION CORPS IN MID
PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
STRICT WITH DISTRICT IN SUPPORT.
VERY GOOD.
NOT TO FIGHT DO WE HAVE EVERYONE
IN SUPPORT.
WE HAVE ANYONE IN BETWEEN.
THE LET'S SEE HERE FROM THE
OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME UP -- SO IF YOU
COULD SPEAK GENERALLY AND THEN
WE'LL HAVE THE QUESTION PERIOD
TO GET INTO THE DETAILS ON THE
SAID THE ISSUES.
ARE CAN YOU PERHAPS GIVE A ONE
OR TWO MINUTES.
OPENING AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO
THE DETAILS LATER WITH THAT THE
YEAH SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TAKE MOST
OF THAT TIME IN THE QUESTION
PERIOD BECAUSE WHAT I'D LIKE TO
DO IS DEAL WITH THE SPECIFIC
TECHNICAL ISSUES? FOR EXAMPLE
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND
HOW THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT.
ARE INTERFERE WITH -- THE AMOUNT
OF WATER THAT YOU GET OUT OF THE
DELTA.
SO IT AND WHAT.
WHAT I'VE DONE WITH THE
PROPONENTS WHO SAY THEY'VE TAKEN
ABOUT TWO MINUTES TO TALK
GENERALLY ABOUT THE BELL?
AND THEN.
AS SOON AS ARM IN THE QUESTION
PERIOD WE CAN GET INTO THE
DETAILS.
AND HAVE A PROPONENTS SPEAK ON
THE TOPIC EXCUSE ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THE
TOPIC THE PROFOUND ANSWER
QUESTIONS FROM FOLKS HERE AND
THEN DEAL WITH THE NEXT TOPIC.
BECAUSE THESE ARE.
WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO I'M
TRYING TO GET ALL OF THAT
TESTIMONY AND IN ONE PLACE AND
ONE TIME.
THAT BE -- BY STILL THAT.
I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO ALTHOUGH I
THINK THAT'S A DEPARTURE FROM
HOW WE NORMALLY OPERATE THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR -- AND I'M NOT
CERTAIN YOU'RE NOT PLANNING ON
TIMING.
THE RESPONSE WILL MAKE SURE
EVERYBODY GETS ENOUGH TIME I
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THOSE WHO
ARE IN SUPPORT AND IN OPPOSITION
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY
LAID OUT THERE CASE.
IN THEIR INITIAL -- COMMENTS
BEFORE WE START DIGGING INTO --
YEAH WELL BUT AGAIN ORDINARILY
NOW ABOUT TWO MINUTES TO SIDE
THEY'RE WELCOME TO TAKE TWO
MINUTES NOW BUT I'D LIKE TO TAKE
MORE OF THE TIME.
IN THE QUESTION PERIOD WE CAN
ALL CONCENTRATE ON ONE ISSUE AT
A TIME.
BUT THE V. EIGHT THEY'LL BE AT
LEAST EIGHT MINUTES TOTAL FOR
BOTH SIDES AND IF.
AND IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE
OR TWO NOW. TO STATE YOUR
GENERAL CASE AND THEN WE'LL GET
INTO THE DETAILS.
IN THE QUESTION PERIOD.
OKAY OUT I THINK WE'RE CLEAR ON
THE FORMAT SO I WILL JUST
PRESENTED GENERAL ONE TO TWO
MINUTES AND RESERVE THE SICK
RIGHT MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS THEM.
YEAH OKAY.
I WANT TO BEGIN BY STATING THAT
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER.
I'M SORRY IT'S ADAM RIGHT IN
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE IN HERE REGRETTABLY
UNFORTUNATELY IN OPPOSITION TO
SB -- ONE AND I WANNA BE CLEAR
AND NOT BECAUSE WE DISAGREE OR
OPPOSE THE INTENT OF THE AUTHOR.
TO PRESERVE CALIFORNIA'S
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABOR
LEADERSHIP AND STANDARDS FROM
FEDERAL ROLL BACKS EVERYTHING
THE AUTHOR STATE IN TERMS OF THE
INTENT WE AGREE WITH AND
ACTUALLY YOU WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE
AND WE'VE.
PROVIDED AMENDMENTS WHICH WE
BELIEVE PRESERVE ALL OF THOSE
STATED GOALS WHILE REMOVING
EVERY SINGLE -- SIGNED
OPPOSITION FROM INDUSTRY FROM
THE STATE WATER CONTRACTORS FROM
AGRICULTURAL FROM THE THE SIX OR
SEVEN A CENTRAL VALLEY COUNTIES
OUT OF ALSO OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED.
UNFORTUNATE WE'RE HERE TODAY
BECAUSE WE DO OPPOSE SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL WHICH WE
BELIEVE HAVE SIGNIFICANT.
POSSIBLY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
TO THE REGULATED COMMUNITY THAT
ARMAMENTS ADDRESS AND AGAIN
PRESERVE ALL OF SB ONE STATED
INTENT -- WE I'D LIKE TO JUST
HIGHLIGHT THE THREE MAIN ISSUES
ONE WE WE DO RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE THAT THERE IS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
NOTICE AND COMMENT IN THE BILL
FOR THE PROPAGATION OF RULE
MAKING.
TITLE ONE HUNDRED CHANGES
WITHOUT REGULATORY AFFECT ARE
MEANT FOR CHANGES SUCH AS
PERIODS COMMAS DELETIONS IT DOES
NOT PROVIDE A FULLY PA PROCESS
WE PROPOSED A VERY MODERN
POSITION OF EMERGENCY RULE
MAKING WHICH IS A FIVE DAY
NOTICE AND COMMENT.
WITH A TEN DAY -- L. REVIEW
PERIOD THAT'S CURRENTLY.
NOT IN THE BILL AS THEY WAVES --
OIL REVIEW.
SECOND WE HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH
THE STUDENTS WHO PROVISIONS
HOWEVER I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT
PROGRESS.
ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENS
WHO PROVISIONS OF SB ONE WITH
THE PROPONENTS.
HOWEVER THIS BILL EXPANDS
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE
LABOR STANDARDS SUCH THAT --
TRIAL ATTORNEYS CAN BRING UP --
A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ON
BEHALF OF THEPUBLIC INTEREST TO
ENFORCE WAIT AN HOUR LAWS.
THAT IS AN EXPANSION NOT A
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STATUS
QUO UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.
AND FOR THAT I BROUGHT BEN AT
BEING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON
THE LABOR VERSIONS AND LASTLY --
THE STATE WATER PROJECT
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND THE
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT ARE
DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY SB ONE AND
WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
ACROSS THE ENTIRE COALITION ON
THAT PROVISION SPECIFICALLY.
OKAY RESERVE TIME THAT'S GREAT
AND THEN I WILL GET INTO EACH
ONE OF THOSE SEPARATELY IN THE
QUESTION PERIOD -- SO IF WE CAN
HAVE OTHERS.
IF PEOPLE CAN ANNOUNCE WHO THEY
ARE AND MISSION.
NO WELL KRAMER'S OF THE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION WE'RE OPPOSE THE ONE
OTHER POINT THAT YOU MENTIONED
IN.
YOUR INTRODUCTION WAS SECTION
ONE OF THE BILL WITH THE TROPHY
HUNTING PROVISION THAT I'M WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER ABOUT WHEN
WE GET INTO QUESTIONS GREAT.
I'M JENNIFER PAIR THE STATE
WATER CONTRACTORS WERE OPPOSE
PRIMARILY RELATED TO THE ESSAY
PROVISIONS THAT WOULD LOCK IN
THE ENVIRONMENT.
CHECK IT ON THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT PROVISIONS THAT
WOULD LOCK IN CURRENT ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT.
PERMIT TERMS THAT -- WOULD NOT
ALLOW FOR SCIENCE TO ACTUALLY BE
USED TO UPDATE OVER TIME
INCLUDING RIGHT NOW.
ANYONE ELSE.
ALL RIGHT.
MISTER MANNING MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS AT MANNING WITH KP
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF MY
HOBBY WATER AGENCY AND LESSONS
WATER DISTRICT.
IN OPPOSITION BASE FUNDING IN
DAVID SPECIES THAT PROVISIONS
AND THE IMPACT ON WATER SUPPLIES
IN CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE LARA
KNOWING HE TOOK ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL
CALIFORNIA CONGENERS AND GROWERS
ASSOCIATION AMERICAN STASHED
YEAR GROWERS WESTERN I PROCESSES
ASSOCIATION AND VARIOUS OTHER AG
INTERESTS -- IN OPPOSITION FOR
THE BILL FOR THE REASONS THAT.
WE'LL GET INTO DURING THE
QUESTIONS THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR QUIRK
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE I'M
CATHY VIA TELEWORK METROPOLITAN
WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA REGRETTABLY OUR BOARD
TOOK A POSITION OF OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED FOR THE REASONS THAT
HAVE BEEN STATED HERE TODAY WE
DO SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE BILL
AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK.
WITH THE AUTHORS OFFICE TO
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS THANK YOU.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS DAY BUTLER
ON BEHALF OF UNITED CHAMBER
ADVOCACY NETWORK A COALITION OF
LOCAL CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE IN
THE SACRAMENT MARKET PLACE IN
OPPOSITION.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS PAUL YODER
SHUTTERING INTO IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTIES OF SAN JOAQUIN
STANISLAUS MERCED MADERA FRESNO
AND TULARE KERN COUNTY BOARDS
WHO RISES TO TAKE A POSITION.
ON JUNE TWENTY FIFTH APPRECIATE
EVERYTHING THE PRO TEM IS DONE
THE TO CHANGE THE BILL SO FAR --
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER
RELATED -- IMPACTS OF THE BILL
SO THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHRIS ANDERSON ON
BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES IN
OPPOSITION BUT WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE PRO DOWN FOR
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH US TO
ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS THANK YOU.
YES SIR THANK CAL CHAMBER I'VE
BEEN ASKED REGISTER OPPOSITION
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
REALTORS ASSOCIATION.
ABOUT THE LOSS ON BEHALF OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION IN THE CALIFORNIA
POULTRY FEDERATION AND OPPOSE
LAST MINUTE THANK YOU.
DENNIS I'LL BE ON A ON BEHALF OF
THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
AGENCY AS WELL AS SAN GABRIEL
VALLEY -- METRIC M. WD WE ALSO --
AGRICULTURAL ENTITIES SUCH AS
THE ALLMAN ALLIANCE COVERED
GRAIN FEED COVER SINICIZATION
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SPENCER SACKS FROM THE WALL
GROUP -- FOR THE COUNTY WATER
AGENCY SAN MARINO VALLEY MINUTES
WATER AGENCY MODESTO YOUR
ADDITION DISTRICTS THE KINGS
RIVER INTEREST AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF ONE
GREAT GROUP.
WHY BRING GROWERS IN OPPOSITION
THANK YOU?
RAQUEL I YELLOW WITH READ
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS ON BEHALF
OF ALL OF THIS OUR WATER AGENCY
OLDER OTTERY REGRESSION DISTRICT.
PALMDALE WATER DISTRICT WILLING
WATER DISTRICT VALLEY COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT.
VALLEY ATWATER COALITION AND
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WITH UNOPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION ON THE BILL THANK YOU.
KILL BILL HAND WITH WESTERN
GROWERS -- ASSOCIATION WE
APPRECIATE THE BILL TODAY WE DO
HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT WILL
HOPEFULLY BE WASHED OUT IN THIS
CONVERSATION IN THE COMMITTEE
AND AS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON ADAM ROBIN WITH
THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER
ASSOCIATION WE APPRECIATE THE
GOALS THE BILL WE APPRECIATE THE
INTENT OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WOULD INSULATE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS -- BUT WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER SUPPLY
IMPLICATIONS OF OF THIS BILL
THANK YOU.
OKAY THIS IS ABOUT I APOLOGIZE
JUST GOT TEXAS FROM ANOTHER --
LOBBYIST.
ON BEHALF OF THE THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WHO
POSE Là CEMENT THANK YOU MR
ROBBIE ANI WE'RE ALWAYS GLAD TO
HEAR FROM.
ALL RIGHT -- SO.
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE CONCERNS
FROM WATER AGENCIES AND THAT HAS
TO DO WITH THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE
TO DO IS BRING UP BUT TECHNICAL
EXPERT.
FROM THE PROPONENTS AND THE
TECHNICAL EXPERT FROM THE UPPER
LIMITS ON THIS ISSUE.
AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSED.
AND A IF.
THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM -- ANYTIME
YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ARE
YOUR PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
WE TWO WOULD YOU TELL MY
SENATORS THAT.
I WILL I WILL DEFER TO THE
EXPERTS AN AD IN AS I FEEL
NECESSARY THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN CHIRLA MISS DELFINO.
IS EARLIER IS THAT WHO YOU WOULD
LIKE TO START YES ON TO LOOSELY
SO WHERE LA FOR THE OPPONENT
WHAT THEIR CONCERN IS IN DETAIL.
AND THEN GET A D. CAL RESPONSE
SURE THANK YOU -- I DID FORGET
TO MENTION WE ALSO ARE IN
SUPPORT OF THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL I WE WE HAVE MADE OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
INVESTMENTS -- FIND JUST
REINTRODUCE YOURSELF I'M
JENNIFER PAIR OF THE STATE WATER
CONTRACTORS SWITCHES THAT
ORGANIZATION OF TWENTY SEVEN
PUBLIC WATER AGENCIES THROUGHOUT
THE STATE.
THAT RECEIVE WATER FROM THE
STATE WATER PROJECT.
AGAIN WE DO SUPPORT THE INTENT
OF THIS BILL -- OUTSIDE THIS
BILL WE MAKE TENS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF INVESTMENTS IN
SCIENCE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW
TO MANAGE THE DELTA AND ITS
RESOURCES.
A BRIEF HISTORY TO UNDERSTAND
OUR OPPOSITION TO THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT PORTION IS IN TWO
THOUSAND AND TWO THOUSAND NINE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED
BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS UNDER THE
FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY BEING RE
CONSULTED ON NOW IN TWO THOUSAND
SIXTEEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
SAID THERE'S A LOT OF UPDATES TO
MAKE WE NEED TO RE ENTER THEIR
TEN YEARS OLD.
WE'RE GONNA START THAT PROCESS
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETED IN
THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS.
AT THE SAME TIME THE STATE
GOVERNMENT D. W. R. IN
DEPARTMENT OF FISH WILDLIFE
OPTED TO PURSUE A PERMIT THAT IS
A STANDALONE STATE PERMIT FOR
THE STATE WATER PROJECT
OPERATIONS.
THAT PROCESS IS ALSO UNDER WAY
THAT WILL -- ALLOW THE STATE TO
BOTH INDEPENDENTLY MAKE.
DECISIONS ABOUT STATE LISTED AB
ENDANGERED SPECIES AS WELL AS
IMPLEMENTED AFTER MANAGEMENT AND
THIS IS REALLY KEY BECAUSE WE
SENT THE LAST BIOLOGICAL
OPINIONS WE'VE.
BEEN RESEARCHING AT THE TUNE OF
OVER FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS
ANNUALLY FOR RESEARCH TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
IN THE DELTA TO MEET THE CO
EQUAL GOALS.
THE WHOLE WATER SYSTEM IS MOVING
TOWARDS A STRUCTURED DECISION
MAKING SCIENCE BASED DECISION
MAKING PROCESS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO WITHIN OUR PERMITS
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
IN THE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.
THE LINKAGE TO THE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT TO THIS BILL IS TO THE
EXTENT THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT
ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY AND SAYS
WHAT WAS GOING ON ON JANUARY IN
TWENTY SEVENTEEN WILL STAY IN
PLACE ON THE STATE SIDE.
MEANS THAT THERE'S NO
FLEXIBILITY OFFERED TO THE STATE
WATER PROJECT WITHIN THE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.
THE STATE WATER PROJECT
CONTRIBUTES TO THE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT IN THREE WAYS WE PLACE
A SURCHARGE ON OURDIVERSIONS
FOR SCIENCE AND HABITAT.
WE PLACE A SURCHARGE ON OUR
DIVERSIONS TO PURCHASE WATER.
FROM A WILLING FOLLOWING
LANDOWNERS AND WE PROVIDE -- FOR
WATER IS PART OF A PART OF THE
PACKAGE IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY TO EITHER.
IMPLEMENT A SCIENCE BASED
DECISION PROCESS OR OUR OUR
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA SO
CONSTRAIN THAT WE CAN'T OFFER
THAT VOLUNTARY WATER THE STATE
WATER PROJECT CANNOT PARTICIPATE
IN A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.
I'M NOT SURE THE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE
SUSTAINED WITHOUT STATE WATER
PROJECT PARTICIPATION.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
AUTHORS -- STAFF AND PROPONENTS
WE THINK THERE ARE SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE WE
THE REST OF THE BILL IS REALLY
FOCUSED ON THE REGULATION AND
STATUTES SECTION WHERE THIS ONE
PORTION OF THE BILL FOCUSES ON
THE PERMIT LEVEL THE ACTUAL
CRITERIA AND AN EXISTING PERMIT.
THAT IS REALLY THE PRIMARY BASIS
OF THE CONCERN WE HAVE AS IT
RELATES TO BOTH.
ONGOING STATE WATER PROJECT
OPERATIONS AND THE ABILITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT.
IF WE WERE ABLE TO AMEND THAT
PORTION WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION.
IT SEEMS SO NOW I WANT TO HEAR
ON THAT TOPIC FROM THE
PROPONENTS AND THEN HAVE
QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR
TOPIC SO THIS IS I WON UP.
ALL YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ON
THIS TOPIC OKAY JUST TRIED TO
MAKE IT SHORT SO ALSO INCLUDED
IN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
SECTION IS SUBSECTION G. WHICH
IS AN ATTEMPT.
TO APPLY CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT RULES TO THE
OPERATION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY
PROJECT A FEDERAL PROJECT.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD
HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS OF
THE MOVEMENT OF WATER FOR THOSE
IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
WHICH IS TWO POINT FIVE MILLION
CALIFORNIANS AND THOUSANDS OF
FARMS.
ANDSO THAT SUBSECTION IS ALSO
PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THE THE
CALIPERS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
APPLY ITS RULES TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SO THAT'S AN
ADDITIONAL CONCERN TO THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES SECTION.
EXCELLENT THANK YOU CHAIR QUIRK.
I HAVE ADDITIONAL BY ON THE SAME
ALL RIGHT AND I HAD.
WE APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS
THAT ADD LANGUAGE ABOUT
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS BUT IT
TALKS ABOUT THE PROCESS OF
VOLUNTEER AGREEMENTS WITH WHICH
MISS UNDERSTANDS OUR OPPOSITION
WE'VE NEVER.
ARGUE THAT SB ONE AFFECTS THE
PROCESS TO ENTER INTO A
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT ESSENTIALLY FREEZING THE
INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ON AN
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTS SUCH
THAT.
YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ADAPT
YOUR VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS WILL
INFORM THE STATE WATER PROJECT
SO WE JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT THE LANGUAGE WHICH WE
APPRECIATE DOES NOT ADDRESS OUR
CONCERNS AT ALL.
AND JUST WHEN THE FLAG THAT
BEFORE WE ENTER INTO THE OKAY
THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- MADAM
EXPERTS HAVE ANY INTRODUCE
YOURSELF IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE.
SO OUR MINUTES YEAH OKAY I'LL
TRY TO DO THIS AND FOUR MINUTES
NUTS SO MY NAME IS THAT CAN
DELFINO AND I'M WITH DEFENDERS
OF WILDLIFE AND JUST AS A LITTLE
OF BACKGROUND.
MY ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN
INVOLVED IN THE VOLUNTARY
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS
SINCE TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
IN FACT WE WERE JUST IN A NICE
LONG MEETING WITH THE TWO
SECRETARIES -- DISCUSSING POLICY
ISSUES A AS A PERTAINS THE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT SO AS A AS A
JUST A THRESHOLD MATTER -- IT
WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO WRITE A
BILL IN A WAY THAT WOULD
UNDERMINE A SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION OF A VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT PROCESS BECAUSE WE
BELIEVE STRONGLY.
THAT A COLLABORATIVE CONSENSUS
BASED OUTCOME AS A PERTAINS TO
THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
THE BAY DELTA WOULD BE THE IDEAL
SOLUTION RATHER THAN JUST GOING
BACK INTO OUR OLD KANSEN
LITIGATING WHICH FRANKLY DOES
NOT GET US ANYWHERE.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID I JUST
WANT TO TAKE ONE MINUTE TO
EXPLAIN GENERALLY SPEAKING WHAT
THE ES A SECTION OF THIS BILL
DOES -- YES SAY ENDANGERED
SPECIES ARI.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL DOES --
SO WHEN THIS BILL WAS WRITTEN.
I ACTUALLY WAS THE PRECURSOR WAS
SB FORTY NINE AND NOW IT'S SB
ONE WE WERE FACING A NEW FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION WHO HAD RETTY
MUCH DECLARED THAT THEY DID NOT
BELIEVE IN THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT THEY WERE STARTING.
LISTING DE DE LISTINGS ARE
REMOVALS OF SPECIES FROM
PROTECTIONS OF THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES.
LIST AND WE WERE WORRIED THAT WE
WERE GOING TO BE FACING AN
ONSLAUGHT SO THE PROVISION WAS
WRITTEN SO THAT IF IN THE EVENT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGES A
RULE OR REGULATION.
UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
IT WOULD TRIGGER REVIEW BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
IN THE FISHING GAME COMMISSION
TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT
WOULD THEN.
WARRANT THEM PLACING THE ENDING
OF THAT SPECIES THAT QUESTION ON
THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY STATE
LISTED ON THE STATE ENDANGERED
SPECIES LIST.
IT ALSO ENCOMPASS BIOLOGICAL
OPINIONS AND INCIDENTAL STATE
BEEN CELL TAKE STATEMENTS ARE
PERMITS WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM
THE OTHER TWO PROVISIONS
REGARDING AIR AND WATER.
BECAUSE UNLIKE THE OTHER TWO
PROVISIONS REGARDING PORTER
COLOGNE AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT
WHEN CLEAN WATER ACT IS THERE'S
FEDERAL DELEGATION TO THE STATE
ON IMPLEMENTING THOSE PARTICULAR.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS BUT WE OF
PARALLEL PROGRAMS UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES WORLD.
SO IN ORDER TO ENCOMPASS ALL OF
THE PROTECTIONS ACCORDED TO SEE
IT.
LISTED FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
WE BELIEVED IT WAS IMPORTANT TO
INCORPORATE CHANGES TO
UNDERLYING BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS
AND INTERNAL TAKE STATEMENTS.
AND AND IF THERE'S A CHANGE TO
AN A BIOLOGICAL OPINION OR
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE.
I HAS DECIDED IS SUBSTANTIAL
ENOUGH THAT IT IS A WEAKENING OF
THE UNDERLYING FEDERAL STANDARD
THEY THEN WOULD TAKE ACTION TO
OTHER HAVE THE COMMISSION EITHER
MAKE THAT SPECIES.
Là THAT'S LISTED UNDER THE
FEDERAL ACT BUT NOT THE STATE
ACT PLACED UNDER STATE.
PROTECTION OR PUT IN PLACE IN A
IN A PERMIT THAT WOULD PROVIDE
ADDITION THAT THAT BACKSTOP THAT
INCREMENTAL BACKSTOP THAT WAS
FORMALLY LOST WITH THE CHANGE IN
THE BIOLOGICAL OPINION.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH
RESPECT TO WATER -- AND THE
CHANGES THAT ARE HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED BY THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION TO THE BIOLOGICAL
OPINIONS THAT GOVERN THE RULES --
THAT'S THE WAY THE FEDERAL WATER
PROJECT IS -- OF RUN.
IS A IT THE THE WHAT THE
BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS THAT ARE
GOING TO BE ISSUED.
OF ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT
THAN THE PREVIOUS BIOLOGICAL
OPINIONS AND IT WILL BE UP AND
IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW.
IT WOULD BE UP TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND WILDLIFE TO DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT -- THOSE OPINIONS
ARE LESS PROTECTIVE THEN THE PRE
EXIST THE PREVIOUS TWENTY EIGHT
TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
OPINIONS.
I WILL SAY IT WAS NEVER OUR
INTENT IN WRITING THIS BILL TO
FREEZE IN TIME SCIENTIFIC
STANDARDS.
OR REQUIREMENTS IN TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN AND IGNORE ANY KIND OF
NEW AND UPDATED SCIENCE -- THAT
WAS NEVER OUR INTENTION IN FACT
WE AMENDED THE BILL BASED ON
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO INCLUDE A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHILE I HAVE
TO LOOK AT BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE.
NOW I THINK THAT THIS IS AN AREA
THAT WE COULD PROBABLY CONTINUE
TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON AND IN
FACT WE WILL HAVE A CONTINUED IF
IF THE BILL COMES OUT OF
COMMITTEE.
WE WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE
DISCUSSIONS TO CLARIFY THAT
FURTHER -- AND IN FACT I WOULD
ALSO NOTE THAT -- UNDER THE TWO
THOUSAND AND EIGHT BIOLOGICAL
OPINION THERE HAVE BEEN
SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN HOW THEY
CALCULATE TAKE FOR SAY DELTA
SMELT SO EVEN THOSE OPINIONS
HAVEN'T BEEN FROZEN IN TIME --
HAD HAVE CHANGED -- AM UP SINCE
TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT AND PRIOR
TO THE RENEGOTIATION OF
CONSULTATION IN THESE NEW
BIOLOGICAL OPINION SO.
AGAIN IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENT TO
FREEZE SCIENCE IN TIME THAT
WOULD BE FRANKLY ANTITHETICAL TO
WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMUNITIES BEEN SAYING ABOUT
THIS BILL.
WITH RESPECT TO THE VOLUNTARY
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS I WOULD
JUST SIMPLY STATE THAT AGAIN IT
WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO AFFECT THE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS.
AND TO BE CEAR RIGHT NOW WE ARE
ONLY IN A PROCESS WITH RESPECT
TO THE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS --
WE ARE -- IN THE INVOLVED IN
NEGOTIATIONS OVER A SET OF
PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT
FORWARD BY THE TRIP BY SOME OF
THE TRIBUTARIES.
ON THIS IS NOT A PROCESS THOUGH
THAT IS PROCEEDING UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
SO WHEN WE WROTE OUR LANGUAGE
REGARDING NOT INTERFERING WITH
THE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS WE PUT IT INTO THE
CLEAN WATER PROVISION.
BECAUSE THE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS ARE ABOUT HOW WE
IMPLEMENT THE PORTER COLOGNE ACT
AND ACHIEVE WATER QUALITY
OBJECTIVES RELATIVE TO SALMON
DOUBLING.
AND THE VIABILITY OF NATIVE FISH
AND IT'S A MUCH BROADER SET OF
SPECIES AND IT'S A MUCH BROADER
SET OF OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES
THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ACHIEVE
THROUGH THOSE UP THROUGH THAT
PROCESS.
AGAIN WITH THAT BEING SAID WE
WOULD VERY MUCH WANT TO CONTINUE
TO DISCUSS WITH THE OPPOSITION --
WAYS OF CLARIFYING HOW YOU ARE
NOT TRYING TO FREEZE IN TIME
STANDARDS AND ALSO THE WHAT I
HAD.
THOUGHT WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF
DISCRETION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE.
ABOUT HOW THEY INTERPRET WHAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS DOING
OKAY.
SO REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE I IT
DIDN'T GET TAKEN NO WELLS POINT
I'M VERY ALL RIGHT BUT THEY DID
ASK A LOT -- SO WITH RESPECT TO
KNOW WELLS POINT ON THE
APPLICATION OF SEIZE THE TO THE
TO THE USER I'M SORRY THIS
CALIFORNIAN INTERNET SPECIES ACT
I APOLOGIZE -- THE CALIFORNIA
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT TO THE
STEP TO THE FEDERAL PROJECT I
WOULD NOTE.
THAT.
ALREADY WE BELIEVE THAT THE
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT APPLIES TO THE FEDERAL WATER
PROJECT AND IN FACT THERE IS
LONG STANDING LAW.
UNDER CALIFORNIA V. US IN WHICH
IT INTERPRETED -- SECTION EIGHT
OF THE RECLAMATION ACT WHICH
TALKS ABOUT HOW THE STATE MAY
IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE CONTROL
APPROPRIATION USE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF WATER THROUGH
RECLAMATION PROJECTS.
AND SO WE BELIEVE ACTUALLY THAT
IT IS -- CLARIFYING ED THAT C.
SO PLY I'M SORRY CALIFORNIA
DANGER SPECIES ACT APPLY BUT
WOULD ALSO POINT TO THE FACT
THAT THERE IS -- CORRESPONDENCE --
FROM TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT FROM
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE'S STATING THAT WHILE
LONG FIN SMELLED ARE NOT A
FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES.
THAT THEY WOULD ABIDE BY THE
STATE RULES UNDER THE
CALIFORNIAN ARE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT WITH RESPECT TO HOW
THEY OPERATE THE FEDERAL PROJECT.
SO IT IS I THINK -- MAYBE THE
OPPOSITION WOULD LIKE IT -- IF
THE UNIQUE IT WAS LESS CLEAR
ABOUT THE LETS ME THANK ABOUT
BUT THEY RIGHT ALL RIGHT BUT I'M
JUST SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT --
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT -- AT THAT
THE FEDERAL PROJECT CURRENTLY
AND HAS UNDER A SORT OF A LONG
STANDING PRACTICE OF DIFFERENCE
TO STATE LAW.
HAS HAS ABIDED BY STATE RULES
WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF
THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT SO
WHAT IS PUT INTO THIS BILL IS
NOT.
SOME GROUND BREAKING PROPOSITION
SO I JUST ONE POINT THAT OUT
OKAY THANK YOU -- WELL.
YEAH THAT WAS IN THAT IT'S IT'S
ALL RIGHT IT LOOK I WOULD HAVE
INTERRUPTED YOU IF I HAD THOUGHT
THAT THIS WAS GOING -- BEYOND
THE SCOPE BUT YEAH I FRANKLY
EVERY MINUTE WAS NEEDED FOR WHAT
YOU WERE DOING.
ALL RIGHT -- YOU HAVE A GOOD AND
JUST A SECOND.
MISTER MANNING ARE YOU STANDING
THERE FOR A REASON.
HI I'M GONNA LET YOU SPEAK
BECAUSE MISTER CHAIRMAN I'M THE
ONLY ONE HERE I THINK
REPRESENTING CVP CONTRACTOR SO
AT THE PROPER TIME I'D BE HAPPY
TO ADDRESS THESE HE IS THE
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT -- IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIAN
DANGER SPECIES OUT TO THE
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WHICH WAS
JUST ADDRESS OKAY WHEN YOU'RE
WHEN I'M NOT SURE I WILL HAVE
TIME BUT WE'LL SEE OKAY WELL I
JUST LIKE TO CORRECT THE RECORD
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY.
SO ALL RIGHT THANK FINE OKAY
FINE -- AT THIS POINT WE'VE
HEARD A LOT LET'S HEAR FROM THE
PRESIDENT PRO TEM AND THEN LET'S
GET TO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO
SAY.
AND THEN WE'LL GET TO QUESTIONS
ON THIS PARTICULAR AREA MISTER
CHAIRMAN THANK YOU AND
COLLEAGUES YOU CAN SEE THE
NATURE OF OUR ONGOING
CONVERSATIONS THROUGH. THREE
COMMITTEES IN THE ASSEMBLY I
WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE CONVERSATIONS
BECAUSE AS YOU'VE HEARD WALL
MANY OF YOU MAY NOT BE IS IT
ENGROSSED WITH SOME OF THE
DETAILS.
IT'S IMPORTANT I AND WE HAVE
TRIED VERY HARD NOT TO MISS SOME
OF THE IMPORTANT PIECES.
OF WHAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING HERE --
BUT I HOPE IT UNDERSCORES THE
FACT THAT WE ARE TAKING THESE
ISSUES VERY SERIOUSLY WE ARE
INCLUDING THINGS IN THE
LEGISLATION. TO GET TO A NUMBER
OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED AS QUESTIONS AND WE'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
BUT OUT WE WANT THE ABILITY TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON ALL OF THESE
ISSUES WHETHER WE'RE TALKING THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT -- THE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS WE HAVE NOW
ENGAGE THE ADMINISTRATION.
ARE BECAUSE THIS IS FAR REACHING
BEYOND JUST A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT WE CAN BANTER
BACK AND FORTH WITH ATTORNEYS I
MIGHT ADD -- YOU CITY.
I GIVE YOU A LOT OF CREDIT.
I'VE LEARNED A LOT THROUGH THIS
PROCESS BUT I DO THINK WHAT'S
VERY IMPORTANT IS THAT WE ARE
ENGAGING ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS
THE IN THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOW
ENGAGED SO THAT WE'RE NOT
MISSING ANYTHING.
AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
WORK IN THIS IN THIS WAY AS YOU
CAN SEE WHAT IT'S IT'S BEEN LIKE
IN WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ON EVERY
ISSUE.
THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST THESE
TWO ISSUES THAT WE'VE TAKEN
AMENDMENTS ON AND WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS RIGHT AND AND I'LL
ADD THAT -- THE INTENT HERE IS
THAT ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
BE TAKEN IN THE THIRD COMMITTEE
WHICH WILL BE A JUDICIARY -- AND
WE'RE NOT ASKING WE AS E. S. T.
M. ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY
AMENDMENTS.
AT THIS TIME.
WE THINK THE BILL'S FINE.
BUT WE ALSO REALIZE THERE'S
CONCERN HERE AND WE WANT TO GET
THEM -- WE WANT TO GET THEM
RESOLVED SO QUESTIONS.
I THINK IT.
THIS.
IS IT A MISTER HOLDEN.
MY MIND WAS MORE OF A COMMENT I
THINK THAT -- AND I DO
APPRECIATE -- SORT OF
REORGANIZING THE PRESENTATION SO
THAT WE CAN HAVE SORT OF THE
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BACK AND
FORTH RESPONSES SO WHAT I HEARD.
WAS THAT FROM THE PROPONENTS
POSITION THAT THIS ISSUE OF THE
AND YES YES A IS STILL OPEN.
FOR DISCUSSION AND THAT THE THE
TIME FRAME.
THERE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE BILL.
WAS NOT DESIGNED -- TO PRECLUDE
FROM THERE BEING SOME
FLEXIBILITY -- TO BE ADDRESSED
AND I GUESS.
HOW THAT ULTIMATELY IS ADDRESSES
THE WORK IN PROGRESS BUT?
THERE'S STILL SOME OPENNESS.
TO THE THE ISSUE THAT WAS
BROUGHT FORTH THAT'S HER I'M
JUST I WILL BE IN THE LAST
COMMITTEE AND JUDICIARY SO I MY
MY I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ON
TRACKING.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND WHERE THE
EXPECTATION AND?
OF WHERE THE BILL WAS DESIGNED
TO GO.
AND HOW IT'S BEST.
CARILLO IN THE THE CONCERNS IS
THE SUPPORT.
BY.
YES AND I KNOW THAT THE
PROPONENTS DO NOT WISH TO FREE
SCIENCE AND THAT SEEMS TO BE
YOUR MAJOR CONCERN JUST SO I
SUMMARIZED THE LAST -- A TWELVE
MINUTES IN ABOUT ONE SENTENCE
WE'RE NOT GOING TO FREE SCIENCE --
I KNOW THAT THAT'S TRUE ON BOTH
SIDES AND YOU.
YOU REALLY NEED TO COME TO SOME.
I HOPE YOU CAN COME TO SOME
AGREEMENT ON IT -- ARE THERE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YES.
MISC -- ASSEMBLY MEMBER GARCIA
THANK YOU -- THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS ISSUE. FOR FOR A LONG TIME
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT.
THAT THE THAT WE DO HAVE AN END
PRODUCT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT --
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
OPPOSITION IS WORKING TO GET TO
A CONSENSUS THAT MAKES FAIR AND
IS MOVING.
OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONE I
WOULD SAY THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE
WITH OUR PRO TEM THAT SHE COMES
AT THIS FROM A PRAGMATIC
APPROACH AND TRIES TO FIND
COMPROMISE AND TRACES OF GET TO
THE BEST PLACE IN THAT IN THAT
RESPECT I'M COMFORTABLE THAT THE
NEGOTIATIONS.
WILL CONTINUE.
THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN HAS BEEN
AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THESE
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AS WE'RE
LOOKING AT THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT -- THAT WE WE
RESPECT WHERE WERE AT AT THE
BEGINNING OF TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN THAT THAT WE ALLOW
THAT FLEXIBILITY.
MOVING FORWARD I IN THERE AND SO
I JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT -- IT
SOUNDS LIKE THE PROPONENTS ARE
OPEN TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS TO
CONTINUE THERE ARE OTHER
SECTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE
DISCUSSED -- AND PROBLEMS IN
THIS BILL BUT I'VE SEEN THIS
ENOUGH THAT THAT'S MY ONLY
CONCERN ALSO I ALSO WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT -- WHILE YOU'RE
NEGOTIATING ON OTHER STUFF A LOT
OF WHAT YOU'RE NEGOTIATIONS THAT
THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED NOW.
FOR OVER A YEAR THAT IS NOT THE
FIRST TIME THAT THAT WERE HERE
AND SO I DON'T WANT TO RE OPEN
OUR TAKES US OUT OPPORTUNITY TO
REOPEN STUFF THAT WE HAVE CUT
INTO AGREEMENT IN THE PAST AND I
HOPE THAT.
THAT WE ARE ALL -- DISCIPLINE
THAT WAY AS WE MOVE FORWARD
FORWARD WITH IT BUT THIS BILL.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
POWER QUE HAN THANK YOU THERE --
I WANT TO START BY THINKING
APPROACH HIM FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL I THINK.
WHAT WE NEED TO GET BACK TO IS
REMEMBERING THAT AT THE END OF
THE DAY THIS PROTECTS OUR AIR
OUR WATER AND OUR ENDANGERED
SPECIES AND THAT'S?
AS A STATE THERE'S NO QUESTION
THAT THOSE ARE VALUES THAT THIS
BILL GOES A LONG WAY IN MAKING
SURE THAT THOSE RESOURCES WHICH
HAVE LONG BEEN PROTECTED REMAIN
PROTECTED DESPITE.
OTHERS USE THAT THE ENVIRONMENT
DOESN'T NEED.
EMERGENCY REGULATIONS THAT WHICH
I I DO.
AND YOU KNOW THERE'S BEEN
COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THE LACK OF
NOTICE AND COMMENT I FIND THAT.
LITTLE SURPRISING GIVEN THAT THE
BILL VERY CLEARLY REQUIRES IN
AND THAT THERE'S AT LEAST THIRTY
DAYS.
OF NOTICING COMMENTS BEFORE A
VOTE IS TAKEN AGAIN.
JUST ON REGULATIONS THAT ARE AS
PROTECTIVE AS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SO I I SEE THIS AS
CONTAINING THE NECESSARY NOTICE
AND COMMENT THAT WAS REQUIRED
UNDER LAW BUT I ALSO.
THERE'S NO QUESTION I THINK WE
NEED TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT AS WE HAVE AND SO --
WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS --
BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF
RESOURCES HERE THEY NEED TO BE
PROTECTED AND WATER IS ONE OF
THEM -- WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE
NECESSARY CLEAN WATER IN OUR
STATE AND THE NEED TO PROTECT IT
AND THIS GOES A LONG WAY IN
DOING THAT AND IN SO DOING
PROTECTS THE SPECIES THAT LIVE
IN IT WHICH ARE EQUALLY AS
VALUABLE SO.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT
[inaudible]
GOOD.
ARE OUT I'LL GET TO YOU IN A
MINUTE -- MR MURATSUCHI.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR ARAMBULA.
AT A PRO TEM I FULLY SUPPORT.
YOUR INTENT WITH HIS BILL AND
AND SO OBVIOUSLY -- BUT
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SOME.
ISSUES THAT ARE BEING RAISED A
FIRST AND FOREMOST IN MY MY
CONCERN IS THE YOU KNOW WHY.
I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK
WITH THE METROPOLITAN WATER
WATER DISTRICT BUT I I KNOW THAT.
TO THAT -- SO MANY PEOPLE AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RELY ON AND
THE P. D. FOR OUR WATER AND SO --
I AS TO WHY YES -- AND SO I
TRUST THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO
RESOLVE THOSE -- THOSE CONCERNS --
IN TERMS OF THE EXPANDING THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION TO
ENFORCE WHICH IN OUR LAW.
DE DO YOU EIGHT MET AS CHARGE
THEIR I I THINK THAT IS ONE OF
THE ISSUES WE ARE RECENTLY
WORKING ON IT MAY COME.
TO SOME AGREEMENT ON IT WE
HAVEN'T COME TO SUMMER WELL
WE'RE WORKING ON IT I KNOW THAT
BECAUSE I JUST HAD A CUT WELL.
OKAY.
OKAY -- I A I I REMAIN COMMITTED
TO WORKING ON ANY AND ALL OF
THESE ISSUES WE MAY AT THE END
OF THE DAY COME TO A
DISAGREEMENT OR A OR A I AGREE
TO DISAGREE ON CERTAIN PIECES.
BUT I AM COMMITTED -- IT I'M
SURE THIS WILL COME UP AGAIN
DURING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE I
WE WILL BE ACTIVELY STILL TRYING
TO GET TO SOME.
AGREEMENT ARE CLOSER -- BETWEEN
NOW AND THEN.
DEATH BUT WHAT BUT WE HAVE WE
HAVE MADE SOME GROUND ON PIECES
OF THE CONCERNED AND IN THAT
AREA OKAY AND AS YOU'RE
RESPONDING YEARS YOU'RE
REMINDING ME THAT THAT MAY BE
BEYOND THE THE THE THE PURVIEW
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND BUT BUT
BUT IT WILL COME IT WOULD.
THERE WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR US TO ADDRESS THAT AGAIN
UNDERSTAND IN THAT IT IS ALSO
YOUR CONCERN OKAY.
AND THEN I I HEARD FROM THE
OPPONENTS THAT -- THAT -- THE
THERE SEEMS TO BE A A BASIC
DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS THIRTY
DAY NOTICE PERIOD AND AND AND
FOR THE OPPONENTS WILL LET YOU --
GET INTO THAT DETAIL FIRST BUT
LET'S FINISH WITH QUESTION AND
THEN YOU CAN.
THEN WE CAN HAVE BOTH SIDES
RESPOND WELL I I WE HEARD FROM
THE THE OPPOSITION AND SO I
WANTED TO HEAR FROM.
WE'LL GET TO THAT.
OKAY WE HAVEN'T FULLY HEARD FROM
THE OPPOSITION WILL FULLY HEAR
FROM THEM AS TO WHY THEY DON'T
THINK IT'S ADEQUATE AND AND
WE'LL HEAR FROM -- THE
PROPONENTS -- ABOUT WHERE THEY
WHERE THEY THINK THAT'S GOING
OKAY ALL RIGHT I THREE CONCERNS
ALL RIGHT WE'LL GET TO THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
RIGHT NOW -- I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT
MOSTLY ABOUT THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES.
IF -- BUT WE WILL BE GETTING TO
THE OTHER TOPICS.
OKAY SO.
LET'S GET TO THE NOTIFICATION.
ABOUT THE THIRTY DAYS IN THE
FIVE DAYS AND WELL I'M SORRY --
DOCTOR ARAMBULA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND YOU
KNOW I'M WANTING TO GET INTO THE
WEEDS A LITTLE BIT ON THE POLICY
SPECIFICALLY REGARDING
INCIDENTAL TAKES.
YOU KNOW YOUR INITIAL COMMENT
WAS TO INSULATE US FROM GOING
BACKWARDS AND I APPRECIATE THAT
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE ONE OF
OUR ENDED UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES AS WE CAN'T ADVANCE
WITH THE BEST SCIENCE WE HAVE.
AND SO I JUST HAVE CONCERNS AS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THE FACT.
OF WHAT I THINK IS A FREEZE.
NOW WE MADE TALK ABOUT AND
DISAGREE ABOUT THAT BUT IT.
SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE NOT TAKEN
BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS GOING
FORWARD THAT WE'VE FROZEN IN
TIME.
SCIENCE AND THE FALL MIDWATER
TRAWLS THAT OCCURS REGARDING
DELTA SMELT -- THERE ARE SOME
NEWER TECHNOLOGIES THAT I THINK
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE A
TURBIDITY BRIDGE THAT.
MAY DEAL MORE WITH TIMING THAN
IT DOES WITH ALL OR NONE.
AND WHY AND BRING IN ALL OF THIS
UP IS WATER MATTERS FOR
COMMUNITIES AND HOW WE GROW AND
HOW WE ENSURE WE HAVE ACCESS. TO
CLEAN DRINKING WATER BUT THERE
CO EQUAL GOALS.
AND AS WERE HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION.
IT SOUNDS AS IF YOUR INTENT WAS
NOT TO DISRUPT THE STATE WATER
PROJECT.
BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU DIRECTLY.
WHAT A CURSE?
IF THE BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS ARE
DIFFERENT.
WILL THERE BE A DISRUPTION TO
THE STATE WATER PROJECT.
WELL A I WILL ASK HIM MAYBE TO
RESPOND BUT NOT IN NOT IN TERMS
OF THE INTENT OF THIS BILL WHICH
IS WHY WE ADDED.
THE PIECES ABOUT ACCORDING TO
THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE.
ARE THE IN TERMS OF THE
VOLUNTARY WATER AGREEMENTS AND
THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE
RIGHT NOW.
I I I THINK IT IS DIFFICULT AT
BEST THE CONVERSATIONS IN
NEGOTIATIONS I'M GLAD TO HEAR.
ANA THAT SOME OF THESE
CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING WELL IN
TERMS OF THE DIRECTION WE'RE
TRYING TO GO -- BUT NOT.
DUE TO THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION
WE ARE IT TRYING TO INCLUDE TO
LEAVE THE FLEXIBILITY OUT
WHETHER IT'S RELATED TO THE THE
SCIENCE.
OR AS ITS ROUTE RELATES TO THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OUT WE
WANT THE FLEXIBILITY WE DON'T
WANT TO CUT OFF THE ABILITY TO
HAVE BETTER STANDARDS OR ARE.
BETTER AT TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE
TO US WE JUST WHAT WE ARE
OPERATING FROM A BASS.
AND AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
WILL GET TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW PROCESS I KNOW.
BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT -- AT
WERE SETTING RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
AND TRYING TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY
SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUE
TO HAVE THESE NEGOTIATIONS AS IT
RELATES TO FULLY IMPLEMENTING.
OUR WHAT WE HAVEN'T YET BEEN
ABLE TO DO WERE STILL IN
CONVERSATIONS ON MANY OF THESE
VOLUNTARY.
AGREEMENTS WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN
THERE WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE
CONTINUING TO HAVE MEETING SO
WE'VE TRIED TO PUT IN HERE AND
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.
OR A BIOLOGIST I AM A LAY PERSON
THAT IS LOOKING A COMMON SENSE
TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE ARE
NOT PRECLUDING I'VE BEEN ENGAGED
IN THESE CONVERSATIONS SINCE WE
DID THE WATER BOND.
TOGETHER AT WITH ALL OF THE
PARTIES TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE KEEPING OUR OPTIONS OPEN
AND NOT FOR CLOSING OUR LOSING
ANY OPPORTUNITIES WHEN IT IS
ABOUT HOW WE ARE.
TRYING TO GET MORE WATER ALL
ACROSS OUR STATE AND THE BAY
DELTA PLAN AND THE ISSUES ARE
THERE.
YOU KNOW WE'VE HAVE LONG
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA THE BAY AREA AND
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GET THIS
BILL TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL
OF THOSE LONG TERM DISCUSSIONS.
WE ARE JUST SETTING BASELINE
STANDARDS TO PROTECT WHAT WE
HAVE IN PLACE.
AND ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY AND
THE BEST SCIENCE AND A REVIEW
PROCESS THAT DOESN'T START OVER.
I WITH A YOU KNOW AND CREATE
SOMETHING NEW FROM BASELINE
STANDARDS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
SET.
AND I DO WANT TO GET A RESPONSE
FROM YOU IF I CANBECAUSE THERE
REALLY IS THIS ISSUE BETWEEN
STATE AND FEDERAL PROJECTS.
RIGHT UNTIL VALLEY PROJECT IN
THE STATE WATER PROJECT AND WHAT
WE PASSED HERE DOESN'T APPLY TO
THEM AND FRANKLY WHAT HAPPENS.
TO THE WATER AT THE END OF THE
DAY BECAUSE THE VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS.
DON'T TAKE INTO A THIS BILL.
AND IF PEOPLE.
ENTER INTO A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT
AND WE'RE SAYING THAT FEDERAL
POLICY.
THERE ARE BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS
DON'T APPLY.
AT SOME POINT WERE PUTTING THOSE
TWO SYSTEMS IN CONFLICT.
AND I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT.
TO UNDERSTAND HOW.
TO METER CO EQUAL GOALS AT THE
SAME TIME.
KIM THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM IS ASK
YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT OKAY SO --
SO WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW BE
RESPECTIVE OF SENATE BILL ONE IS
THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS IS
GOING TO BE SHORTLY ISSUING NEW
BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS -- FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL WATER
PROJECT -- THE STATE PREVIOUSLY
HAS ISSUED WHAT THEY CALL A
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION OF
UNDER THE STATE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT WHICH MEANS THE
GENERALLY SPEAKING THE WAY THAT
IN THE PAST.
THEY'VE PRECEDED IS TOGETHER --
WHERE WHAT THE SPECIAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUES IS THEIR
BIOLOGICAL OPINION WE WILL NOW
APPLY THE STATE WILL LOOK AT AND
SAY WE BELIEVE THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH STATE?
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT THOUGH
AND THEN THE AND THE PROJECTS
WILL OPERATE UNDER.
BASICALLY A JOINT SET OF RULES.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY NOW THERE'S ON
WHAT'S HAPPENED IS WITH THE NEW
BIOLOGICAL PAINS COMING OUT AND
THERE BEING SOME UNCERTAINTY.
ABOUT.
WELL I MEAN.
I CAN'T PUT MY WORDS IN THE
MOUTH OF D. W. R. DFW I DON'T
KNOW EXACTLY THE REASON BUT D.
W. R. HAS CHOSEN. TO NOT SEEK A
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION OF SU
NOT ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO LOOK
AT THE BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS AND
SAY YES THEY ARE INDEED
CONSISTENT WITH STATE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT AND INSTEAD.
THEY DECIDED TO ASK THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
TO ISSUE ITS OWN STANDALONE
OPINION -- BUT WHICH PARCHMENT
DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHILE NO NO
FEDERALIST DAY THIS I'M SORRY SO
WHEN I SAY DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL
WHILE I'VE I MEAN THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.
WHEN IS THE US FISH WILDLIFE
SERVICE I MEAN A FEDERAL AGENCY
SORRY -- SO -- SO THAT'S WHAT'S
HAPPENING NOW -- IF SB ONE WERE
ENACTED.
THE STATE SPECIES DIPPED THE
DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS WE WOULD
CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD WITH ITS
PERMITTING PROCESS UNDER STATE
LAW AND THE ONLY QUESTION WILL
BE WHAT HAPPENS.
WITH THOSE.
THREE SPECIES THAT ARE FEDERALLY
LISTED BUT NOT STATE LISTED
WHICH ARE SOUTHERN RESIDENT ORCA
NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON
AND CENTRAL VALLEY STILL HEAD.
AND THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NEED TO
LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS PREVIOUS
STANDARDS THAT WERE UNDER THE
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT OPINION AND
THEY WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WELL
OR THOSE RULES GOOD EACH I MAKE
CHANGES TO A WHAT IS THE SCIENCE
SAY.
NOT THAT'S HOW I'M INTERPRETING
THE BILL THAT IS NOT HOW.
THE CONTRACTORS ARE INTERPRETING
THE BILL AND SO THERE IN LIES
THE DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO
HAVE AND I WOULD KNOW NIGHT IT
HAS BEEN REFERENCED.
THE SECRETARY CROWFOOT HAS --
ACTUALLY TODAY PULLED JENNIFER
AND I ASIDE AND SAID THAT HE
WOULD LIKE -- THE TO CONVENE THE
WATER CONTRACTORS AND PROPONENTS
OF SB ONE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
TO UNPACK THE VARIOUS ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE QUESTIONS
YOU'RE RAISING.
AND THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED
HERE TODAY AND AGAIN AS PERTAINS.
TO YOUR QUESTIONS THE QUESTIONS
ON THE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT THE APPLICATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA DANGER SPECIES ACT TO
THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND
THOSE ARE DISCUSSION THAT WE
WILL BE HAVING AND WE ARE OPEN
TO TRY.
TO FIGURE A WAY FORWARD BECAUSE
AS I STATED BEFORE OUR INTENT IS
NOT TO FREEZE.
THIS IS A SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU
POINTED TO THE FALL MIDWATER
TRAWLS ISSUE AND THE THAT HAS
BEEN CHANGED SINCE THE TWO
THOUSAND EIGHT BIOLOGICAL
OPINION OKAY I THINK WE'VE
GOTTEN INTO THE WAY SORRY.
NO IT WILL NOW GET OUT OF WE ALL
RIGHT CHAIRMAN IF THERE WERE NO
BILL THIS WOULD STILL BE AN
ISSUE YEP.
JUST RIGHT ABSOLUTELY ALL RIGHT
I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN ABOUT AS
FAR AS WE CAN IF YOU WANT TO
TAKE ONE MINUTE TO SUMMARIZE
OPPOSITION.
YES WHERE DOES REMAIN REALLY
CONCERNED WE WE THINK THERE'S
ALREADY A STATE LOTTO DRESS
STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES IF
THERE'S ISSUES WITH THE FEDERAL
PERMIT IT'S NOT REMOVING THE
SPECIES FROM LISTING IT JUST MAY
BE CHANGING THE CRITERIA.
BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE
IT'S BEEN TEN YEARS -- AND AND
WE REMAIN OPPOSED UNTIL WE CAN
ADDRESS THE ISSUE WHERE THIS
BILL FILLED VERY TARGETED TO THE
STATE WATER PROJECT SPECIFICALLY.
ALL THIS AT ONE POINT THE THE
BILL CREATES A STARED THAT SAYS.
WHETHER THE TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS ARE MORE OR
LESS PROTECTIVE IT'S AN
UNDEFINED TERMS TO THE AGENCIES
MAY USE THE BEST AVAILABLE
SCIENCE BUT THE BILL GIVES
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SUCH
THAT.
CITIZENS CAN FORCE WHETHER THEY
AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH WHAT'S
MORE LESS PROTECTIVE AND THE
ISSUE IS.
THE AGENCIES WILL BE AT RISK OF
BEING SUED EITHER WAY BECAUSE
THIS BILL CREATES A NEW STANDARD
AND FORCED BY CITIZENS AND
THAT'S THE ISSUE IT DOESN'T STAY
IN THE BILL IT FREEZES THAT.
IT CREATES A LEGAL STANDARD
WHICH BECAUSE YOUR PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION FORCE MEANT.
WILL ALLOW ME MAY NOT BE AN RTC
OR MAY NOT BE YOU KNOW ANYONE
HERE THE TABLE BUT IT ALLOWS
ANYBODY ANY CITIZEN TO ENFORCE.
WHAT THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH
WHAT'S MORE LESS PROTECTIVE AND
THAT'S THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE?
ALL RIGHT I I THINK WE'VE WE'VE
HEARD ENOUGH.
DO YOU HAVE A FINAL STATEMENT ON
THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND THEN
WE'LL.
WE'LL TRY AND GET THE NOW OKAY
FINE I THINK WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH.
THIS CLEARLY ARE GOES BEYOND --
WELL.
LET'S HOPE THE SECRETARY CAN GET
YOU BOTH TOGETHER.
ALL RIGHT -- FROM AN
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC
MATERIALS POINT OF VIEW THIS
BILL IS GREAT -- I DO ONE HERE
ON THE NOTICE QUESTIONS SO IF
YOU COULD TAKE ONE MINUTE TO SAY
WHY YOU WANT THE FIVE DAYS
RATHER THAN THIRTY DAYS.
AND THEN WE CAN GET TO ANY FINAL
QUESTIONS SURE JUST TO CLARIFY
THE RECORD THE BILL STRUCTURED
SUCH THAT.
THE AGENCIES ARE REVIEWING ON A
QUARTERLY BASIS IF THERE'S A
FEDERAL ROLE BACK IN THEIR
DETERMINATION THEY PROMULGATE A
LIST AND IT JUST SAYS THIS
STANDARD IS MORE THEY BELIEVE
IT'S MORE OR LESS PROTECTIVE.
THE ACTUAL PROMULGATION OF RULE
MAKING WHERE THEY FOLD IN
COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABOR
STANDARDS.
STATUTES AND GUIDELINES INTO
CALIFORNIA LAW THE ACTUAL FORMAL
RULE MAKING PROCESS.
IS UNDER TITLE ONE HUNDRED
CHANGE WITHOUT REGULATORY AFFECT
UNDER THIS BILL AND IT IS
EXPRESSLY WAIVES UNDER DIVISION --
TO OR CHAPTER TWO SKEWS ME -- L.
REVIEW ALL WE PROPOSED IS
EMERGENCY ROOM MAKING FOR THE
ACTUAL PROMULGATION OF THE RULE
MAKING THE UPPER DOWN LIST OF
WHETHER IT'S MORE LESS
PROTECTIVE.
IS NOT THE MEAT AND BONES OF
WHAT THE AGENCIES WILL BE DOING
THAT'S JUST WE THINK THIS IS
MORE OR LESS PROTECTIVE.
THE ACTUAL FOLDING OF THAT
FEDERAL LAW INTO CALIFORNIA LAW
IS DONE COMPLETELY IN THE DARK
OR ASKING FOR EMERGENCY RULE
MAKING UNDER A PA IT'S FIVE DAYS
NOTICE AND COMMENT TEN A. O. L.
REVIEWED JUST TO BE CLEAR.
THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE BILL.
ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU WANT TO MAKE COMMENT ON
THAT -- OR HAVE ONE OF YOUR
EXPERTS HI I WILL ASK MR LOOK
FOR A FEW WILL COMMENT ON THAT
BECAUSE THIS IS BEEN.
A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION OKAY
GO AHEAD MISS MILLER CHAIRMAN
KIBLER PER THE PRO TEM'S OFFICE
OUT TWO THINGS ONE IS I WANT TO
REMIND THE COMMITTEE.
THIS BILL IS.
BLOCKING ARE PUTTING IN PLACE
THE EXISTING FEDERAL BASELINE
STANDARDS THAT HAVE EXISTED IN
MANY CASES FOR DECADES AND BEEN
THROUGH NOT JUST EXTENSIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS.
BUT ALSO LITIGATION AND SO THE
PREMISE OF THE BILLS TO SAY
WHERE THE AGENCY IS ADOPTING
ESSENTIALLY THAT SAME STANDARD
THAT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED
SIGNIFICANTLY.
AND IF YOU LOOK FOR EXAMPLE ON
PAGE SEVEN LINES TWENTY FIVE
THREE TWENTY SEVEN WHERE IT SAYS.
IF THE FEDERAL BASELINE STANDARD
AS ADOPTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL
MODIFICATION THAN IT IS TRUE YOU
GET A THIRTY DAY NOTICE AND YOU
CAN COMMENT.
THE I THINK THE OPPONENTS ARE --
CONFLATING THAT WITH A FULL
BLOWN RULE MAKING IN OTHER WORDS
AN AGENCY THAT IS INVENTING OR
STARTING.
IMPLEMENT A LAW AND SO THE IDEA
HERE IS IF IT'S JUST SIMPLY
PUTTING INTO REGULATION AN
EXISTING FEDERAL BASELINE
STANDARD THAT HAS EXISTED FOR A
LONG TIME.
THERE SHOULD BE A SHORTER
PROCESS OTHERWISE YOU SET UP
LITIGATION YOU SET UP DELAYS AS
WE ALL KNOW THE RULE MAKING
PROCESS CAN TAKE TIME.
IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
HOWEVER THIS BILL PROVIDES THAT
YOU WOULD GO THROUGH THE FULL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PROCESS
THAT'S THE DISTINCTION HERE.
OKAY THANK YOU -- PERHAPS WE
COULD HAVE ONE MINUTE ON THE
TROPHY QUESTION.
AND THEN NOW A RESPONSE AND THEN
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET TO A VOTE
ON THE BILL.
AT WITH ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS
MADAM VICE CHAIR.
NOW.
ARE YOU DO.
ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES PART
OR I'M JUST HAVING TROUBLE
FALLING.
THE OBJECT HERE IS WORKING.
WHEN THEY'RE DONE I WILL?
FIND MY QUESTION [inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR NOEL
CREAMERS OF CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU.
SO SECTION ONE OF THE BILL.
WAS ADDED IN ITS TREATED
DIFFERENTLY THAN THE REST OF THE
BILL AND THAT IT DOESN'T SUNSET
SO THIS IS A PERMANENT PROVISION.
THAT.
WAS DESCRIBED AS A WAY TO GET AT
THE CONCERN ABOUT THE ROLE BACK
AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL FOR THE
IMPORTATION OF TROPHY HUNTED
WILDLIFE.
AND BRINGING SO AN ELEPHANT THAT
SKILLED IN AFRICA BACK INTO --
CALIFORNIA.
THE ISSUE WITH THE LANGUAGE
THOUGH IS THAT IT GIVES.
THE AUTHORITY ESSENTIALLY TO
EVERY OTHER STATE AND FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL ACTIONS IN
CALIFORNIA.
BY SAYING THAT IT IS PERHAPS IT
TO TRANSPORT CELL RECEIVE
ACQUIRE OR PURCHASE ANY FISH
WILDLIFE OR PLANT TAKEN POSSESS
TRANSPORTED OR SOLD IN VIOLATION
OF ANY LAW OR REGULATION OF ANY
OTHER STATE.
OR FOREIGN LAW.
SO THAT COULD MEAN THAT BECAUSE
MASSACHUSETTS PROHIBITS.
THE BRINGING OF FIRE WOOD INTO
STATE PARKS THAT CALIFORNIA THEN
YOU WOULD BE TRANSPORTING.
BASED ON THE WAY SECTION ONE IS
DESCRIBED IS THAT IT'S DEALING
WITH.
THE PREVENTION OF TROPHY HUNTING.
WE BELIEVE THAT THAT SECTION
NEEDS TO BE FOCUSED ON THE LAW
THAT DEALS WITH TROPHY HUNTING
AND SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO HAVE
THAT.
RATHER THAN HAVING THESE BROADLY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
RESTRICTING ACTIVITIES IN
CALIFORNIA JUST BECAUSE ANOTHER
STATE HAS SET A DIFFERENT RULE
OR A DIFFERENT STANDARD AND WE
HAVE AN EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED
THAT UNDER STATE LAW.
ALL RIGHT AND THEN KIM.
AND TRY TO MAKE IT TO MY WILL
YES I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF.
SO -- SECTION A OF SECTION.
ONE DOES DO WHAT.
IT IS SPECIFIC TO THE
IMPORTATION OF WILDLIFE AND IT
IS FOR THE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED
AT THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE FACING
RIGHT NOW WHICH IS THIS CURRENT
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION ROLLED
BACK RULES.
THAT WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED THE
IMPORTATION OF NOT JUST ELEPHANT
PARTS BUT ALSO LINE PARTS.
ON THAT IS THAT WOULD THAT WHAT
WERE PREVIOUSLY PROHIBITED UNDER
THE FOR THE PAST FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION.
THE SECOND SECTION SECTION BE
WAS WRITTEN -- SIMILARLY WITH A
SIMILAR INTENT BECAUSE IT'S
REFERRING TO BOTH STATE AND
INTERNET AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
SO IT'S THE WAY THE PROVISION
WAS WRITTEN SO VERY SIMILAR TO
THE FEDERAL LACEY ACT.
WHICH ALL THAT BILL ALL THAT
SECTION DOES IS IT'S TO ACQUIRE
A CORD A RESPECT FOR THE LAWS OF
OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN NATIONS.
AND THAT YOU CANNOT ILLEGALLY
BRING IN ILLEGALLY SOURCED
PRODUCTS THAT SO THAT'S WHAT IT
IS IT DOES IT'S NOT INTENDED AND
AND IT TO SAY THAT MASSACHUSETTS
LAW CERTAINLY APPLIES TO
CALIFORNIA IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT.
IF SOMETHING IS SOURCED IN
MASSACHUSETTS ILLEGALLY UNDER
MASS ILLEGALLY UNDER
MASSACHUSETTS LAW YOU CANNOT
BRING IT IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT HERE.
TO UP WE KNOW OF PROMOTE
VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
THAT'S THAT IS HOW IT'S BEEN
READ UNDER THE FEDERAL LACEY ACT
FOR YEARS AND DECADES AND
DECADES WE ARE HAPPY TO MAKE
WHATEVER CHANGES WE NEED TO TO
THIS PROVISION TO MAKE THAT
CLEAR.
ON THAT IT IS A SOURCING ISSUE
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA VERSUS
SOMEHOW DICTATING IN CHANGING
CALIFORNIA LAW AND WE'VE
ACTUALLY ASKED THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE'S GENERAL
COUNSEL'S OFFICE. TO PROVIDE US
WITH SOME LANGUAGE TO MAKE THAT
CLEAR AND NOW THAT THEY FINALLY
BEEN GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT TO
PROVIDE US WITH MORE THAN JUST
TECHNICAL AN INFORMAL COMMENTS
WE WILL BE MAKING THOSE CHANGES.
THANK YOU.
RIGHT TO THE PROTESTS OF COURSE.
OF COURSE OF CUT MADAM.
VICE CHAIR.
YOU CAN ASK ANY QUESTION YOU
WANT.
I THINK YOU MADE AND CHAIRMAN.
LET ME START OFF BY SAYING THAT --
HI.
I THINK MISTER CHAIRMAN WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS KEEP THE
KEEP THE HEARING FOR THIS BILL
WHICH IS VERY COMPLICATED
ORGANIZED AND KEEP EVERYBODY ON
TASK AND I APPRECIATE THAT IT
JUST.
DEFINITELY THREW ME OFF WITH
THAT WHERE WE WERE GOING TO MAKE
THAT IS -- CERTAINLY.
YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DO SO AND I
I FOLLOWED ALONG AS BEST I COULD --
THERE A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS
HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED AND
ANSWERED -- SO.
I JUST.
I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION AT THIS
POINT IS.
HOW MANY -- AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN
TAKEN TO THIS POINT SINCE IT'S
BEEN GREAT THANK. THREE THREE
TWO EIGHT FOUR IF YOU CAN
APPROPRIATIONS ON THE SENATE
SIDE.
SO HOW MANY AMENDMENTS SO FAR
HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
HERE'S A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
YEAH OVER TWENTY TWENTY OKAY AND
WE TAKE IN.
TRYING TO SEE BY.
SO TWENTY AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN
TAKEN BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE
STOLEN OFF A LOT OF OPPOSITION --
ARE YOU HOPEFUL THAT.
YOU ARE GOING TO COME TO SOME
SORT OF AGREEMENT WHERE EVERYONE
IS SATISFIED OR AT LEAST SOME.
LEVEL OF COMFORT IS ACHIEVED ON
BOTH SIDES BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG
ISSUE -- AND ENNIS AND BEFORE
YOU ANSWER THAT LET ME JUST SAY
THAT -- YOU KNOW I THINK
TYPICALLY -- PERHAPS THOSE ON
YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE DON'T
FEEL THAT -- THOSE ON MY SIDE OF
THE AISLE ARE NECESSARILY --
PERHAPS WE COULD.
THIS IS NOT WHAT WHAT WHAT WE
ALL RESPECT TO HONEST.
WE DO.
ON THIS IS NOT NO I KNOW
APPRECIATE THAT IS A NOTHING TO
DO WITH RESPECT I'M OLD I'M JUST
TRYING TO POINT OUT SOME.
SOME DIFFERENCES THAT I THINK
ARE OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE THIS
IT'S NOT A COMBATIVE OKAY
CONVERSATION SO -- I THINK THAT
WE HAVE GROWN USED -- TO HAVING
VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT
ISSUES LIKE THIS BUT WHEN IN
FACT WE ARE -- A LOT OF TIMES IN
ALIGNMENT WITH ONE ANOTHER AND
ON MANY OF THESE ISSUES
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES -- TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN
CALIFORNIA SINCE WE ARE.
WERE OWN ANIMAL HERE RIGHT IN
THIS IN THIS COUNTRY BUT I HAVE
GREAT CONCERN.
THE AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION THAT
STILL EXISTS GIVEN THAT THERE'S
BEEN TWENTY AMENDMENTS AND GIVEN
THAT THERE'S BEEN FOR COMMITTEE
HAS I JUST WANTED TO HEAR FROM
YOU.
DIRECTLY -- WHAT KIND YOUR
OUTLOOK IS FOR THIS AS IT GOES
THROUGH AT LEAST TWO MORE
HEARINGS M. IN THE ASSEMBLY?
THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR -- AT
YOU KNOW I I KNEW WHEN I TOOK ON
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT
IT WAS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.
BECAUSE IT INCLUDES A NUMBER OF
IT DISTINCT ISSUES CLEAN AIR
CLEAN WATER.
AS YOU SAW EVIDENCE HERE TODAY --
WE'RE WE'RE STILL HAVING ISSUES
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL WATER
PROJECT AND STATE WATER PRICE WE
HAVE HAVE ALWAYS HAD THOSE
ISSUES SO.
THIS BILL IS NOT INTENDED TO
ADDRESS THE EXISTING DIALOGUE
THAT HAS GONE ON FOR THE WHOLE
TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN THE
LEGISLATURE AND EVEN BEFORE --
THAT YOU KNOW I HAVE TO TRUST MY
ANA.
REPUTATION RECORD OF TRYING TO
BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER I THINK
THE REASON YOU HAVE --
INDIVIDUALS GETTING INTO THE
WEEDS HERE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE
SPENT A LOT OF TIME DOING THAT
AND WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT ON A
NUMBER OF THINGS.
BUT WE HAVE MOVED ON QUITE A LOT
OF THINGS.
I THINK THAT PART OF THE AND TO
BE COMPLETELY HONEST AS I KNOW
YOU ALWAYS ARE.
A LOT OF THE ISSUES HERE -- STEM
ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE
PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THESE THINGS ROLLED BACK BECAUSE
IT IS THE IT YOU KNOW IT TOOK A
LOT TO GET THESE OUT LAWS AND
REGULATIONS INTO PLACE TO BEGIN
WITH.
AND TO FRANKLY HAVEN'T AN
ADMINISTRATION IN WASHINGTON
THAT IS SEEKING TO UNDO SOME OF
THOSE THINGS THAT IS THE CRUX.
OF IT AND I WANT TO AVOID ALL OF
THAT I'M I DON'T CALL THIS
INSURANCE SOME PEOPLE DO.
I CALL THIS A PRESERVATION OF
WHAT CALIFORNIANS HAVE SUPPORTED
AND PUT INTO PLACE AND THAT'S
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IN
PLACE.
I ALLOWING.
FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE SCIENCE
ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT
FOR CLOSING OPPORTUNITIES.
I UNDERSTAND HOW IT FEELS TO BE
HERE AND HAVE THESE DISTINCT.
OF POSITIONS -- BUT I WILL JUST
HAVE TO GO ON THE THE BELIEF
THAT I HAVE THAT WE CAN GET AS
CLOSE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN WE WILL
NOT TAKE ALL THE OPPOSITION OFF.
I HEAR THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF OUR AGENCIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS HERE THAT ARE
MOSTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER.
PIECES ARE I WOULD EXPECT NO
LESS GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HAD TO
DEAL WITH IN THE STATE.
FROM NORTH TO SOUTH EAST TO WEST
CENTRAL SO I WILL DO MY VERY
BEST VICE CHAIRMAN.
VICE CHAIRWOMAN BUT I WE MAY NOT
GET THERE BUT IT WON'T BE FOR
LACK OF TRYING.
CAN I TAKE THAT ISSUE CLOTHES
YES -- GOOD -- WAIT I'M SORRY MR
MATHIS.
EVEN AS OF TOMORROW AT APPROACH
AND THAT IS A GREAT CLOSE.
OF MY CONCERNS ARE JUST.
WITH THE BROAD SWEEPING
[inaudible]
APPROACH.
WITH EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES AND
EVERYTHING ELSE I MEAN THIS IS
CALIFORNIA WE'VE NEVER BEEN SHY
ABOUT PASSING LAWS.
SO WHY TAKE THE BROADER APPROACH
WAYNE IF THE ADMINISTRATION WAS
TO DO SOMETHING OR IF.
THEIR BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS CHANGE
THEN WE COULD ACT WITH URGENCY.
VERSUS DOING SUCH A BROAD.
BASED APPROACH IN RAISING ALL
THE CONCERNS AND ALL THE RED
FLAGS AND OF HAPPENED.
I I AND I KNOW WE'VE DONE
SEVERALTHINGS BEFORE WHERE WE
CAN DO AN URGENCY BILL.
AND GET IT THROUGH VERY QUICKLY
IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.
AND I UNDERSTAND TRYING TO GET
AHEAD OF IT.
BLOOD I MEAN THAT'S JUST KIND OF
MY CONCERN ON ON WHY YOU'RE
TAKING ON SUCH A TASK WHEN WE
HAVE THE ABILITY -- AND ARE
LEGISLATIVE BODY HERE'S NEVER
BEEN SHY ABOUT IT.
I I WOULD SAY IT IS A BROAD BILL
BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH
MULTIPLE ISSUES.
CLEAN AIR CLEAN WATER AND I HIT
WORKER PROTECTIONS -- IT IS NOT
BROAD IN TERMS OF OF US TRYING
TO BROADEN THE LAW SPECIFICALLY
WE ARE TRYING.
TO OF THAT TO BASICALLY CODIFIED
THE BASELINE AND ALLOW FOR
FLEXIBILITY SO THAT WE ARE NOT
HEMMING OURSELVES IN.
AND AND BASICALLY BOX IN
OURSELVES INTO A CORNER I IN
THIS IS A BIG BILL BECAUSE OF
THE NUMBER OF ITEMS -- AREAS
WITHIN IT BUT AS IT RELATES --
TO EACH SPECIFIC ONE IT ISN'T
BROAD WERE BASICALLY JUST TRYING
TO SET.
AND CODIFIED IN STATUTE THE
BASELINE PROTECTIONS THAT WE
WORK FOR DECADES TO PUT INTO
PLACE.
DID I MISS THAT IS TO LOOK AT MY
EXPERTS OF SORRY HOW ABOUT THAT
ISSUE CLOSE.
I'M HAPPY TO GO AYE I KNOW YOU
HAVE OTHER BILLS.
MISTER CHAIRMAN.
AND I'M SORRY SHAPE THE TIME
FROM YOU THE VICE CHAIRWOMAN AND
MEDIA.
I'M SO MY INTENT HERE WHICH TO
JUST GET ALL OF THIS ON THE
PUBLIC RECORD.
IN MY OPINION -- PEOPLE ARE
BEING SINCERE AND I THINK THAT
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.
SAYS USE THE BEST SCIENCE GIVES
ADEQUATE NOTICE.
CLEARLY OPPOSITION DOESN'T FEEL
THAT WAY I HOPE WE CAN AND THAT
CERTAINLY THE INTENDED PRESIDENT
PRO TEM.
SO GIVEN THAT THAT'S HER INTENT
AND THAT'S YOUR CONCERN.
I HONESTLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD
BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH
SOMETHING BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN
IT HITS ITS LAST COMMITTEE SO
THAT'S VERY MUCH MY HOPE.
I OF COURSE AM ASKING FOR AN AYE
VOTE I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT
EVERYONE WAS HERE TODAY -- WE
HAVE OF COURSE THIS WAS RECORDED
FOR TV OUR OTHER EXPERTS IN THE
BUILDING BEYOND THE EXPERTISE
HERE WILL BE LISTENING TO THIS.
AND HOPEFULLY BRINGING --
SUGGESTIONS WE'VE TALKED.
TO COMMITTEE STAFF SPEAKER STAFF
AND THEY'LL ALL BE I'M I'M SURE
BRINGING US OUR SUGGESTIONS AND
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER ONE SB ONE
ATKINS THE MOTION IS TO PASS AND
RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES QUIRK AYE
QUIRK AYE MELENDEZ.
MULLIN DOES NOT VOTING PART Là.
ARAMBULA HI BARRICADE HAND HI
OUR QUE HAN HI CRISTINA GARCIA.
CRISTINA GARCIA HI HOLDEN.
HOLDEN HI MATHIS.
NO MATHIS NO SEE AN WITHOUT
SWITCHING WHAT I TO CHEAT HI.
SIX TWO ONE THAT BILL IS OUT
OKAY THE BILL IS OUT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
ALL RIGHT I WILL GO TO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR.
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS.
IS SB SIXTY EIGHT GALGIANI
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATED WOOD
WASTE.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
THIS IS THE CONSENT CALENDAR IT
CONSISTS OF ITEM NUMBER TWO SB
SIXTY EIGHT GALGIANI THE MOTION
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS WITH
RECOMMENDATION CONSENT.
DOCTOR QUIRK AYE.
QUIRK AYE MELENDEZ.
MELENDEZ AYE ARAMBULA.
ARAMBULA I OUR QUE HAN.
ERA CAN I CRISTINA GARCIA.
CRISTINA GARCIA I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I MATHIS.
MATHIS I WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE
WHEN I TO GI.
SO THAT'S A UNANIMOUS A
UNANIMOUS THANK YOU ALL RIGHT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR ALLOCATING YOUR TIME
HERE.
WE'LL GET ON TO THE OTHER BILLS
AS SOON AS WE GET TO AN AUTHOR
[inaudible]
YEAH -- MEMBERS.
TO AND MAKE UP DAY YEAH
[inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
THE YEAH [inaudible]
WHICH ALSO -- YEAH -- BUT ALSO
THE
SENATE MITCHELL PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
MOVE THE BILL [inaudible]
THE MOTION -- I WAS WATCHING YOU
ON TV I TELL MYSELF.
THERE VOTED ON CONSENT RESIDENT
SOMEBODY IN FRONT OF ME BUT
LET'S RUN DOWN.
YEAH AND I THINK WORK VERY MUCH
FOR BEING HERE WORK WORK.
ALL RIGHT SECOND YEAH AFTER WHAT
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS I CAN
IMAGINE.
BUT I THINK I WAS VERY HELPFUL.
ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT THERE WE'VE HAD A
MOTION AND A SECOND -- WILL
ALLOW.
ALL RIGHT MOTION IS SECOND.
WE'RE ALL SAID [inaudible]
SENATE MITCHELL -- WHAT THIS IS
SB SIX FOUR SEVEN YES IT IS?
I GOT DIDN'T COLLEAGUES I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT SENATE BILL SIX
FOUR SEVEN THE SAFE YOU'LL REACT.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE --
FOR THEIR COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS
PLUS THE VISUAL AIDS THAT WAS
VERY IMPRESSIVE.
I WAS A COMMITTEE CONSULTANT SO
MANY YEARS AGO WOULD HALF ON
CAMERA SO IT NEVER OCCURRED TO
ME TO PUT PICTURES AN ANALYSIS
SO I TIP MY HAT TO YOU.
ALL AND I ACCEPT THE MEMBERS
PROPOSED ON PAGE -- TEN SB SIX
FOUR SEVEN UPDATES CALIFORNIA'S
METAL CONTAINING YOU'LL RELY TO
BETTER REFLECT THE CURRENT AND
WIDELY ACCEPTED SCIENCE ON THE
TOXICITY.
OF LEAD AND CADMIUM IN JEWELRY.
THE BILL DOES THE FOLLOWING FOUR
THINGS THAT ADOPTS THE FEDERAL
STANDARD FOR LEAD IN CHILDREN'S
JEWELRY WHICH IS ONE HUNDRED
PARTS PER MILLION.
ESTABLISHES THE CADMIUM STAND
FOR CHILDREN YOUR PURSUANT TO
THE A. S. T. M. INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD WHICH IS LESS THAN
SEVENTY FIVE PARTS PER MILLION.
AND AMEND THE DEFINITION OF THE
CHILDREN OF CHILDREN'S JEWELRY
TO CONFORM WITH CANADA'S
DEFINITION WHICH IS FIFTEEN
YEARS OF AGE AND YOUNGER.
AND LASTLY APPLIES THE EUROPEAN
UNION LEGIBLY STANDARD OF LESS
THAN FIVE HUNDRED PARTS PER
MILLION TO ADULT YORI.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT UPDATE THE
CALIFORNIA'S METAL CONTAINING
JEWELLERY LAW IN ORDER TO
PROTECT CHILDREN AND WOMEN FROM
THE HARMFUL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH
LEAD IN CADMIUM.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME OPPOSITION I
WILL -- HOLD ON TO MY REBUTTAL
TO OPPOSITION I THINK THAT WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND
JUST SAY THAT WITH ME TODAY
REPRESENTING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE WHO THE SPONSOR
OF THE BILL IS MORRELL --
DIBERNARDO AND SUSAN LITTLE WITH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME'S
MARIO DE BERNARDO HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HABIA
Và SERRA WHO'S PROUD TO SPONSOR
THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE.
IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT
CHILDREN LIKE PLAYING AND
WEARING JEWELRY DOESN'T MATTER
IF IT'S CHILDREN'S JEWELRY OR
DAHLE JEWELERY -- AND WE KNOW
THAT LEAD EXPOSURE TO BOTH
CHILDREN AND ADULTS BUT
ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN -- HAVE
SOME SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES AND
AND THEY'RE WELL DOCUMENTED IN
SCIENCE.
THIS IS WHY -- CALIFORNIA
INITIALLY ESTABLISH ITS
CHILDREN'S AND DAHLE JEWELRY
STANDARDS BACK -- DECK OVER A
DECADE AGO AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOLLOWED SUIT SEVERAL
OTHER STATES HAVE CANADA.
AND THE EUROPEAN UNION.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT
CODIFIES MANY OF THE STANDARDS
THAT ARE STRICTER THAN
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS THAT WERE
ADOPTED SUBSEQUENTLY BY E. YOU
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND
CANADA?
AND AS WE'VE SEEN THOSE HAVE
BEEN IN EFFECT FOR SEVERAL YEARS
IN THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN ABLE TO
ADAPT TO THEM SO WE BELIEVE THAT
THE THESE ARE REASONABLE
STANDARDS.
SO WITH THAT WE WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AND WE
WANT TO THANK THE THE WORK
DILIGENT WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
THANK YOU I'M SUSAN LITTLE ON
WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING
GROUP ONE OF THE CO SPONSORS OF
THE BILL.
AND I JUST WANTED -- TO
REITERATE AGAIN THAT AS WE ALL
KNOW THE LEGISLATURE'S DONE A
LOT OF WORK OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS AND REDUCING
CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO LEAD.
AND TRYING TO IDENTIFY CHILDREN
WHO BEEN LET EXPOSED -- THIS
CONCERN HAS BEEN PRIMARY HAS
BEEN IN LARGE PART FUELED BY THE
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL'S
ASSERTION.
THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF
LEAD IN CHILDREN'S BLOOD.
AND WE OF COURSE KNOW WITHOUT
GETTING TO ADD INTO ALL THE
DETAILS ABOUT LEAD EXPOSURE
WHICH WERE VERY FAMILIAR WITH AT
THIS POINT.
JUST TO REMIND FOLKS THAT --
LEAD CAN AFFECT NEARLY EVERY
SYSTEM IN THE BODY AND EVEN JUST
A LITTLE BIT OF LEAD CAN AFFECT
A CHILD'S AUG I Q..
AND FRIENDS FOR INSTANCE THE CAT
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
ATTRIBUTES ONE IN FIVE CASES OF
CHILDHOOD ADHD. TO LEAD EXPOSURE
AND WE DO KNOW THAT LEADS DAMAGE
IS IRREVERSIBLE.
CADMIUM OF COURSE TO HAVE A HOST
OF HEALTH EFFECTS AND CAN DAMAGE
MANY ORGANS IN THE BODY SO IT'S
NOT A SURPRISE.
THAT DPH CONTINUES TO WARN
PARENTS AGAINST -- LETTING
CHILDREN HAVE ACCESS TO JEWELRY
BECAUSE IT IS A SOURCE OF LEAD
EXPOSURE.
AND ALSO IT INSTRUCTS DOCTORS TO
USE ACCESS TO JEWELRY AS A RISK
FACTOR WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER
OR NOT TO TEST CHILDREN. FOR TO
BLOOD TEST CHILDREN FOR LEAD
EXPOSURE -- ALONG THESE LINES
JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT.
WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARDS
OF THIS BILL ARE.
REASONABLE THAT CAN BE CUT THAT
THEY CAN BE THE INDUSTRY CAN
COMPLY WITH THEM BECAUSE RECENT
TESTS BY THE OTHER CO SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL THE CENTERS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF JEWELRY PIECES SOLD
IN CALIFORNIA AT LEAST OF THE OF
THE HUNDREDS THAT WERE TESTED.
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS BILL -- AND SO AGAIN WE
JUST LIKE.
TO ASK FOR THE COMMITTEES
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL AND ON A
LOT BECAUSE THIS IS ONE ONE OF
THEM THIS WILL PROVIDE A CRUCIAL
STEP TOWARD ELIMINATING LEAD IN
THE HOME.
THANK YOU.
THANKS VERY MUCH OTHERS IN
SUPPORT.
CHEN MEMBERS NIKITA CRIED WITH
THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL HERE IN SUPPORT THANK
YOU.
HELLO ANDREA MENTOR WITH CLEAN
WATER ACTION IN SUPPORT.
NATALIE NEXT BREAST CANCER
PREVENTION PARTNERS IN SUPPORT.
LAUREN COMMERCE HERE CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
JUST MONTHLY ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH ADMINISTRATORS IN SUPPORT.
JIM WOOD BURKE WITH THE FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION TO
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
OF THE OPPOSITION -- SHOULD COME
UP.
NO NO ONE'S HERE FROM OPPOSITION
OKAY.
OF WE LET'S SEE.
YES MISTER MURATSUCHI AT SO
WE'LL GO TO QUESTIONS NOW.
LISTINGS YUJI THANK YOU SIR FOR
A BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD I
ACTUALLY.
WANTED TO DO THIS BILL AS A
FATHER OF A TEN YEAR OLD
DAUGHTER -- AND I'VE BEEN
FOLLOWING GO ALL THE NEWS ABOUT
LEADING CADMIUM IN.
IN -- ESPECIALLY CHILDREN'S
CHAUDHRY OVER THE YEARS AND SO --
I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU CAN
ADD ME AS A CO AUTHOR I'LL BE
HAPPY.
SO I CAN NOW TELL MY DAUGHTER
DID SOMETHING WORTHWHILE
ABSOLUTE -- NOW IN THAT SHE'S
ABOUT THE INTER HER TWEENER
STATE I DON'T KNOW THIS WILL BE
ENOUGH TO CONVINCE HER BUT A LOT
OF THAT FILM POP MY BUBBLE --
BUT IT I I WANT TO ASK A MS
LITTLE YOU KNOW -- I MEAN
CLEARLY THIS BILL HAS.
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND IT IT
SHOWS THAT THE THAT THE GREEN
CHEMISTRY PROGRAM IS
INSUFFICIENT. TO TO ADDRESS --
YOU KNOW THINGS LIKE A LEAD IN
JEWELRY YOU KNOW YOU WE WE WOULD
THINK THAT -- MAYBE -- WE SHOULD
BE BANNING LEAD AND COSMETICS
ALSO BUT COULD YOU TALK ABOUT --
OUT WHY THE GREEN CHEMISTRY A
PROGRAM IS INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS
THE THE CONCERNS AND AND NOW IN
JEWELRY IN THIS CASE.
SURE WELL I THINK AT THIS POINT --
THE THE GREEN CHEMISTRY PROGRAM
OFFERS A LOT OF BENEFITS TO
CALIFORNIA IN THAT IT ALLOWS.
ESTABLISH THE PROGRAM WHERE WE
PRODUCTS CAN BE TAKEN UP AND
REVIEWED AND AND HAZARDOUS
INGREDIENTS IDENTIFIED WITHIN
THEM.
HOWEVER WE KNOW THAT THERE IS
JUST A SLEW OF HAZARDOUS
INGREDIENTS IN MANY MANY
DIFFERENT CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
AND LEAD IS ONE EXAMPLE OF AN
INGREDIENT THAT.
THERE'S UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN
CONSENSUS CONSENSUS THAT.
IT'S HARMFUL.
IT'S THE IT'S A FAX TO REFUTE
HERBAL.
AND SO -- AND AND YET.
OUR ABILITY TO TACKLE THAT IS IS
IS LIMITED -- GIVEN THAT THERE
ARE THERE IS SO MUCH WORK FOR
THAT DEPARTMENT TO DO WHEN THIS
IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF
LEGISLATION THE LEGISLATURE
CANDY WAS STEPPING FORWARD.
AND LIMITING THOSE TOXIC
INGREDIENTS AND PRODUCTS WHERE
THERE IS CONSENSUS AROUND THEIR
HARMFUL AFFECTS ALL RIGHT THANK
YOU THANK YOU.
YES IT'LL SAY VERY MUCH AGREE
WITH YOUR COMMENT THEY'RE NEVER
GONNA LOOK AT LEADING GREEN
CHEMISTRY.
JUST NOT NECESSARY SO WHEN
THERE'S A CONSENSUS THERE'S A
CONSENSUS MR MATHIS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR IT'S NOT
TOO OFTEN I ALIGN MY COMMENTS
WITH THE MY COLLEAGUE.
MISTER MURATSUCHI -- BUT AS A
PROUD FATHER OF A FOUR YEAR OLD
LITTLE GIRL -- I WOULD ACTUALLY
LOVE TO ONE OF MR MURATSUCHI AND
I'D LOVE TO BE A PRINCIPAL
COOPER HAVE.
AND INCLUDED THE BIPARTISANSHIP.
WELL SENATOR HAPPY TO HAVE YOU
JOIN ON THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR INTEREST HAPPY [inaudible]
TO YES THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER
K. HIM.
WELL I APPRECIATE THAT MY
COLLEAGUES ARE PAYING ATTENTION.
TO MY DAUGHTER PUTS HER
NECKLACES AND HER MOUTH ALL THE
TIME AND EVERY TIME I THINK
DON'T DO THAT DON'T DO THAT SO I
REALLY APPRECIATE THIS BILL
BECAUSE I SEE EVERYDAY THAT GOD
KNOWS WHAT'S IN THEM AT ALL.
SO BUT I AM AND IT'S IT'S
INCREDIBLY CRAFTED BILL AS WELL
I THINK THAT I'M ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT IT DOES IS REALLY
BRING US IN LINE WITH OTHER --
JURISDICTIONS AND SO THERE'S NO
REASON THAT INDUSTRY CAN'T DO
THAT THEY'RE DOING IT ELSEWHERE
SO LET'S HAVE THEM DO IT HERE SO
THANK YOU FOR DOING SUCH A GREAT
JOB OF WRITING THE BELL AND
MAYBE A SHASTA JONT AUTHORED
ONE UP MISTER MATHIS.
RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT THAT'S RIGHT SO --
CONCLUSION IS THIS IS A POPULAR
BILL CLEARLY MADAM SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SIX SB SIX
FORTY SEVEN MITCHELL.
DO PASSAGE AND HIT -- RE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS IT'S OKAY QUIRK
AYE QUIRK AYE.
MELENDEZ MELENDEZ AYE.
ARAMBULA.
BAUER QUE HAN HI POWER QUE HAN
HI.
CRISTINA GARCIA.
HOLDEN. FIVE HOLDEN I HATE.
MATHIS.
MATHIS I MOTOR TO GI MODES TO
CHEAT HI SO THAT WAS. SIX ONE
ZERO SO THAT I THOUGHT I HEARD.
SEVEN ONE TWO WELL THERE ARE
SEVEN THE EDITOR PLEASE FORGIVE
ME.
MR.
MEMBERS I CLEARLY BEEN VOTE INTO
MANY COMMITTEES TODAY.
THANKS.
MY NAME AND AND AND BECAUSE
WE'RE ACCEPTING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS I HOPE THAT THE
COMMITTEE WILL ALLOW US TO ADD
THE COOP THESE TO THESE.
DO THESE AMENDMENTS ABSOLUTE
EXCELLENT JUST LET US KNOW WHICH
ONE IS PRINCIPLE.
I'LL WAIT TO HAVE THE FINAL VOTE
BEFORE WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
US SENATOR CABALLERO PLEASE COME
UP [inaudible]
THE BILL [inaudible]
SECOND [inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR CAFIERO IS PRESENTING SB
THREE ONE SEVEN HAZARDOUS WASTE
WASTE FACILITIES PROHIBITED
CHEMICALS.
AND I'VE LEARNED A LOT FINDING
OUT ABOUT THIS BILL PLEASE
PROCEED THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS -- THANKS FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENT SB THREE
SEVENTEEN WHICH WOULD BAN THE
SALE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS USED IN
RV WASTE WATER TANKS THIS ISSUE
CAME. TO MY ATTENTION -- AT A
NUMBER OF US HAD -- LOCAL RV
PARKS IN IN OUR DISTRICT AND ONE
OF THEM WAS CITED BY THE WATER
BOARD -- FOR FOR THE THE FACT
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEIR
TANKS TESTED HIGH FOR
FORMALDEHYDE IN THE TANK AND
WHAT WE DISCOVERED IS PART OF
THE RESEARCH IS THAT -- RV'S USE
THIS CHEMICAL COMPONENT IN THERE
ARE V. TANKS SO THAT THAT THEY
THE SO THAT THEY DON'T SMELL.
AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT BREAKS UP
THE THAT THE CHEMICAL
DECOMPOSITION OF THE WASTE WATER
AND SO WHEN THEY DUMP THEM INTO
THE RV PARKS -- WHO ARE ALL ON
SEPTIC TANKS -- THERE THIS
CHEMICAL STOPS THE CHEMICAL.
IN THE R. V. TANKS IT'S USED TO
BREAK DOWN THAT THAT THE SEWAGE
AND TO BE ABLE TO TO PULL THE
WATER OUT IN THE END LEAVE THIS
LIFE BEHIND SO -- BUT WHAT WE
DISCOVERED IS IT THE SAME
COMPANIES THAT MAKE THIS TOXIC
CHEMICAL ALSO MAKE A GREEN.
PRODUCT AS WELL WHICH WOULD
SOLVE THE WHOLE PROBLEM AND SO --
THIS BILL WOULD BAN THE USE OF
THESE TOXIC CHEMICALS IN OUR V.
TANKS WHICH WOULD THEN SAVE US.
FROM THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE
WATER BOARD WILL COME IN AND
SITE OUR RV PARK OWNERS THAT ARE
ALL SMALL BUSINESSES THAT REALLY
DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH MONEY --
AND SAVE THEM FROM THE NECESSITY
OF HAVING TO FIX THEIR THAT.
THEIR TANKS WHICH BECOME.
CONTAMINATED BY THESE TOXIC
PRODUCTS SO -- WITH THAT I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS CHASE AND I COULD WITH
THAT'LL STEAM GILBERT ROPES AND
SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF RV
PARKS AND CAMPGROUNDS.
WE ARE THE PROUD SPONSORS OF SB
THREE SEVENTEEN WANT TO THANK
THE SENATOR FOR CARRYING IT AND
THANK YOURSELF AND YOUR STAFF
FOR FOR ALL THE TIME THEY PUT
INTO THIS BILL -- IT GIVEN THE
ENTHUSIASTIC MOTION WE HAVE AND
I KNOW THAT YOU HAD A A REALLY
LONG LONG DISCUSSION ON SB ONE
SO I'M GONNA I'M TRYING TO MAKE
IT VERY QUICK.
SO IN SHORT THIS IS A BILL THAT
WILL ADDRESS A MULTI DECADE
ISSUE FOR THE PRIVATELY OWNED RV
PARK AND CAMPGROUND INDUSTRY AS
THE SENATOR SAID.
THESE ARE MOSTLY SMALL
BUSINESSES THE PRODUCTS THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BANNING IN
THIS BILL ARE BY -- SITES THAT
ARE OFTEN USING TOXIC CHEMICALS.
TO KILL BACTERIA AS THE SENATOR
SAID THEY DO THE SAME THING IN
OUR SEPTIC TANKS.
IT CREATES A THREAT TO PUBLIC
HEALTH AND THE GROUND WATER AND
TO THE ENVIRONMENT -- SO WE
BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT APPROACH
IS TO BAN THESE PRODUCTS THAT'S
CONSISTENT WITH ADVISERS FROM
THE US EPA THE UNIVERSITY OF
ARIZONA -- STUDIES FROM HARVARD --
AND AT ADVISORY FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SINCE
ABSENCES CONTROL SO VERY HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TRAVEL
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
FOREIGN COMMISSAIRE CLUB
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT ANY OPPOSITION
[inaudible]
THAT'S NICE -- ALL RIGHT
QUESTIONS.
IT'S A GOOD BILL I HEARD THAT
AND IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
IS THERE IT THIS ANY NO NO
QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT I THINK WE CAN PROCEED
WITH CALLING THE ROLL MADAM
SECRETARY.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB
THREE SEVENTEEN GUY YET ALL.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS QUIRK.
AYE QUIRK AYE MELENDEZ.
MELENDEZ AYE ARAMBULA.
ARAMBULA HI POWER QUE HAN.
ERA CAN I CRISTINA GARCIA.
HOLDEN.
HOLDEN I MATHIS.
MATHIS I WANNA TO GI WITH A TO
GI.
SO THAT SEVEN ZERO SETS OUT
[inaudible]
GRADUATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU
SET SENATOR.
ALL RIGHT -- WE'RE WAITING FOR
MR HERTZBERG MISTER ALAN
[inaudible]
RESEARCH.
THIS IS ON SB SIX FORTY SEVEN
THE VOTE STANDS AT SIX ZERO
ARAMBULA.
ARAMBULA BRINGS IT TO SEVEN ZERO
THANK YOU
[inaudible]
THAT MEANS [inaudible]
AND
YEAH [inaudible] ONE THIS.
ONE YES
SENATOR HERTZBERG VERY
NICE TO SEE YOU.
SO SENATOR HERTZBERG IS GOING TO
PRESENT ON S. B. TWO OH FIVE
BUSINESS LICENSES STORM WATER
DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE.
PROCEED WHEN READY.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS WE DON'T. ONE OF THE
ISSUES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DEALING
WITH OF LATE.
LAST THIRTY YEARS AND SO.
HAS BUSINESS THIS CHARGE OF
MOVEMENTS.
OF THE MANY POINTS SOURCING
GUIDE STATES -- INTO OUR
NATIONAL WATER.
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAME
UP WITH THE PROCESS HIGH CALLED
THE NPDES PERMIT UNDER THE
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE.
ELIMINATION SYSTEM.
THAT SYSTEM IS REYES IS
INTEGRATED INTO OUR STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD WILL WE
REQUIRE WHAT'S CALLED INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL PERMIT.
AND WE HAVE BEEN FACING THIS IN
WHERE I COME FROM IN LOS ANGELES%
COUNTY WE JUST PASSED A MULTI
BILLION DOLLAR.
A PARTIAL TAX TO BE ABLE TO
RELIEVE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS OF
THEIR LIABILITY FOR DISH CHARGE.
ON THE CITY'S -- AND LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS ARE LIABLE AND SO
WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH THIS
BILL IS A PRETTY ELEGANT
SOLUTION IN MY JUDGMENT.
AND WE'RE GET LITTLE BIT A BELLY
ACHING WHICH YOU ALWAYS GET WHEN
YOU GOT A GOOD IDEA IN MY ARIENS.
IS IS INNOCENCE THE WAY THIS LAW
WORKS IS IT PENALIZES PEOPLE WHO
COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
IF YOU OF A HUNDRED ENTITIES
THAT ARE POLLUTING IN
DISCHARGING AND ONLY FIFTY OF
THEM IN.
IN IN MAINE IN THE IN THE CITY
ARE ACTUALLY HAVE PERMITS THE
BURDEN FALLS ON THE REMAINING ON
THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE PERMITS
TO DO THE CLEAN UP.
SO YOU'RE YOU'RE TAKEN PEOPLE
WHO ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LAW
AND PUTTING IN AN ORDINANCE
BURDEN ON THEM FOR POLLUTERS
THAT DON'T COMPLY.
AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THIS
EXTRAORDINARY BURDEN ON CITIES
THAT GAVE THEM INDIGESTION
BECAUSE THERE'S THIS THIS CHARGE
OF WATER INTO THE SYSTEM.
THAT DOESN'T MEET THOSE THE
STANDARDS AND THEY'RE SUBJECT TO
EXTRAORDINARY A LIABILITY THAT'S
WHY THEY PUSHED SO HARD FOR THIS
PARTIAL TAX MEASURE W. IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY.
AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IN
THIS BILL IS WE HAVE.
GONE TO THE CITIES AND SAID LOOK
WHEN YOU GET IT WHEN YOU GET IT
A BUSINESS LICENSE YOU JUST GOT.
TO PUT YOUR NUMBER DO YOU HAVE A
PERMIT OR NOT IF YOU DO PUT THE
NUMBER IN.
AND THE CITY'S YOU'RE GONNA HEAR
HIM COMPLAIN BECAUSE THAT WE'RE
REQUIRING THEM TO CHECK IT OUT.
OKAY WERE REQUIRED TO CHECK IT
OUT BUT IF WHEN THEY DON'T DO
WHAT THEY'RE DOING ONE THING
THEY'RE TREATING THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LAW IN A
HORRIBLE WAY IN THEIR CITIES.
AND SECONDLY THERE EXPOSING
THEIR TAXPAYERS TO UNBELIEVABLE
FINES FOR THEIR FAILURE TO DO
THAT SO YES IS A LITTLE BIT OF
BURDEN FOR THEM TO GO AND LOOK
UP ON THE WEBSITE. TO SEE
WHETHER THESE PEOPLE HAVE A
PERMIT OR NOT IS THAT SIMPLE
ENOUGH YEAH DO YOU WANT YOU KNOW
IT'S LIKE OH GOD IT'S ANOTHER
REQUIREMENT.
BUT I WOULD SUGGEST ON LIKE
OTHER AREAS OF THE LAW THAT WE
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IN MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS IS AN AREA OF THE LAW WHERE
THE ASK IS SO SMALL.
AND THE BENEFIT TO PEOPLE WHO
ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LAWS AND
ALSO THE BENEFIT TO TAXPAYERS IS
SO HUGE.
YOU KNOW IN THE MY DAD USED TO
SAY IN THE OLD DAYS IN LATIN
DIMINISH NOT CURE AT LEX THE LAW
DOES NOT DEAL WITH TRIFLES AND
THAT THIS IS OPPOSITION IS A
TRIFLE I THINK IT'S A REALLY.
ELEGANT SOLUTION THAT CAME TO ME
BY THE SPONSORS AND THAT'S WHY I
TOOK IT UP AND ASK YOUR RIVAL.
GO AHEAD.
AGOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MY NAME SEAN BUFFALO I'M
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR A
CALIFORNIA COAST KEY POINTS.
OF THE SENATOR SAID EVERYTHING
GREAT SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A FEW
CLARIFICATIONS GIVE A LITTLE
DETAIL ABOUT HOW THIS BILL
REALLY DOES HELP MUNICIPALITIES.
OF AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO
THE REGULATED COMMUNITY TO GIVE
THEIR THEIR TESTIMONY -- TWO
CLARIFICATIONS ONE THERE WAS A
CONFUSION WHEN THIS BILL WAS
VERY FIRST INTRODUCED THAT THE
MUNICIPALITIES WERE REQUIRED TO
DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ACTUAL PERMIT ITSELF SO THE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WITH IN
THE PERMIT.
THE PERMIT TERMS THAT IS NOT THE
INTENT OF THE BILL THAT'S NOT
WHAT THE BILL SAYS TO DO.
THE THE INTENT OF THE BILL IS TO
SIMPLY INSURE THAT THE
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES THAT ARE
SEEKING A BUSINESS LICENSE ARE
IN ROLLED UNDER THE PERMIT
THAT'S IT.
AND AS THE SENATOR SAID ALL THAT
ENTAILS IN THE WAY WE DESCRIBED
TO BE TAKEN SEVERAL AMENDMENTS
TO A CLARIFY BUT BE ALSO
STREAMLINED THE PROCESS.
IS TO TAKE A FOUR DIGIT AS I SEE
CODE THAT I WON THOSE THAT'S ON
THE APPLICATION AND COMPARE IT --
TO THE STATE WATER BOARDS WEBS
WEB PAGE THAT THEY ACTUALLY
CREATED JUST FOR THIS BILL -- SO
THAT'S THAT'S THE INTENT OF IT
SECOND -- UNDER MUNICIPAL STORM
WATER PERMITS TO NOT THE
INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER PERMIT BUT
THE MUNICIPAL ONE THAT -- CITIES
AND COUNTIES ARE UNDER THEIR
ALREADY OBLIGATED TO DO THIS IS
ACTUALLY NOT AS PRESCRIPTIVE IS
THROUGH THE BUSINESS LICENSE
EVEN THOUGH THAT'S GIVEN AS AN
EXAMPLE -- BUT THEY ARE REQUIRED
TO IDENTIFY AND INSPECT
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IN THEIR
THEIR REGION BECAUSE THOSE
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ARE
LEADING TO THEIR WATER QUALITY
IMPAIRMENTS.
SO LASTLY HOW DOES THIS HELP
MUNICIPALITIES CITIES AND
COUNTIES SO THE SENATOR SAID
WELL I'M GONNA GET JUST AN
EXAMPLE I TAKE THE LA RIVER --
IS IMPAIRED FOR NUMEROUS THINGS
SO -- ELLIE METALS LET'S JUST
USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE PUTTING
TOO MUCH MALES INTO THE RIVER
BECAUSE THE RIVER TO BE TOXIC SO
WITH THEREGIONAL BOARD DOES
WHEN THEY DETERMINE THAT IT IS
TO TOXIC IS THEY THEY DETERMINE
HOW MUCH.
OF METALS THE RIVER CAN --
ASSEMBLY HOW MUCH CAN THEY TAKE
WITH THE CAPACITY THE DIVIDED
AMONG ALL THE PERMIT TO USE THAT
OUR DISK AGING IN THE ARE OF
METALS INTO THE RIVER.
WELL WE'RE FINDING THAT A IT
IT'S UP TO FOUR OUT OF FIVE
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ARE NOT
UNDER THIS INDUSTRIAL PERMITS.
SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THAT
WAY 80% OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE
DISCHARGING METALS INTO THE
RIVER DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE AND
ARE NOT UNDER THE PERMIT.
THAN THOSE MUNICIPALITIES THAT
ARE PAYING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
THEIR CHAIR THE PIE THAT
LIABILITY DOESN'T GO AWAY UNTIL
THE TEAM DEAL WITH THE THE
IMPAIRMENT IS GONE.
BUT 80% OF PEOPLE ARE STILL THIS
CHARGING THAT THE IMPAIRMENTS
NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY SO THIS
DOES HELP MUNICIPALITIES --
LIABILITY AND WITH THAT I ASK
YOU FOR YOUR AYE VOTE THANK YOU
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE A MAN AND A HALF.
THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AND MEMBERS LAURIE CAMERON
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
METALS COALITION -- WE REPRESENT
THE EMPLOYERS CALIFORNIA IS HOME
TO ABOUT FOUR THOUSAND METAL
MANUFACTURERS -- IN CALIFORNIA
WHO IMP EMPLOY APPROXIMATELY --
THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
WORKERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA -- WE LOOK AT THIS
BILL AS PUTTING THOSE WHO HAVE
PERMITS TO THOSE WHO ARE FILERS --
AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.
AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE
THEIR PERMITS SO -- I THINK THAT
THAT SENATOR HAS HAS STATED
EVERYTHING VERY WELL AND MY
COLLEAGUE SEAN -- HAS HAD ALL
THE HYPE HI PARTS -- WE THINK
THIS IS A VERY GOOD BELTS BRING
IT BRINGING BUSINESS TOGETHER
WITH -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
AND WE HAVE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL HERE IN SUPPORT THANK
YOU.
THERESA BURKE WHICH I'VE BEEN
ASKED TO REGISTER SUPPORT FOR
SURFRIDER.
GAVIN MCCUE ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I TO
DISMANTLE RECESSES AGENTS OF
VERY GOOD BILL FOR BOTH
REGULATED AND LICENSED
BUSINESSES ND THE ENVIRONMENT
THANK YOU.
BRIAN FLANAGAN ON BEHALF OF THE
WEST COAST CHAPTER OF THE
INSTITUTE SCRAP RECYCLING
INDUSTRIES IN SUPPORT.
YOUR TOO SO ON BEHALF OF HEAL
THE BAY IN SUPPORT.
NATALIE KNOCKS ON BEHALF OF
FRIENDS OF THE LA RIVER IN
SUPPORT.
VERY GOOD OUR OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRED MEMBERS
THERE DAHLE HIM HAVE LEGAL
CALIFORNIA CITIES WE DO WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHORED APPRECIATE
THE INTENT OF THIS BILL HOWEVER
WE DO HAVE AN OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION ON IT.
CURRENTLY AS WE DO HAVE FACE
SOME IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
WITH THE BILL -- FIRST OF ALL I
DO WANT TO SAY THAT SOME -- NOT
EVERY JURISDICTION ISSUES
BUSINESS LICENSES SO NOT ALL
CITIES ISSUE BUSINESS LICENSES
AND THAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL
ISSUE WITH THIS BILL AS IT'S
UNCLEAR TO US IF -- THAT WOULD
MEAN THAT CITIES WOULD NEED TO
ISSUE A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR THE
ARE IT ALREADY CURRENTLY DOING
IT IN THE BILL SECONDLY WE DO
WANT TO SAY THAT CITIES ISSUE
BUSINESS LICENSES IN DIFFERENT
WAYS. FOR EXAMPLE A LOT OF
CITIES ISSUE BUSINESS LICENSES
IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OVER THE
COUNTER FASHION WHERE -- THE
BUSINESS LICENSE WILL SUBMIT
APPLICATION WHICH IS REALLY A
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND
THE BUSINESS IN ORDER TO HAVE A
TAX AGREEMENT SO THEY'LL SUBMIT
THAT TO THE CITY AND THEN THE
CITY SUBMITS THE BUSINESS
LICENSE -- IF IMPLEMENTED MANY
CITIES MAY NEED TO CHANGE THE
WAY THAT THEY ADMINISTER THE
BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESS.
IN ORDER COMPLY THE BILL AND
WHERE WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT MAY
DELAYED ISSUING A BUSINESS
LICENSES -- THIRD THIS BILL
COULD BE COSTLY AS THE CENTER
HAS POINTED OUT IT COULD BE -- A
DIFFICULT FOR CITIES TO
IMPLEMENT AS WE HAVE TO CHANGE
THOSE PROCESSES AND HIRE NEW
STAFF IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
THE BILL -- BUT WE DO WANT TO
SAY THAT MANY CITIES DO YOU
CURRENTLY WORK IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE WATER BOARD'S BOTH
STATE AND REGIONAL IN ORDER --
TO COMPLY WITH THE MS FOUR CUP
OF PERMITS AS WELL AS THE I. G.
P. THE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PERMIT --
PLANS AND WE DO WANT TO SAY THAT
WEAPPRECIATE THE OVERALL INTENT
OF THE BILL WOULD LOVE TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR
IN THE SPONSORS TO GET TO A
PLACE.
THAT'S MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL SO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
VERY GOOD VERY GOOD OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION.
UP MISTER MATHIS.
SENATOR I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE.
TRYING TO GO HERE I'M JUST
TRYING.
TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS
FULLY AS TO WHAT THE COST ON THE
BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE KIDS.
BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY IT'S
BASICALLY THE CITY'S JUST GOING
TO VERIFY THAT THEY'VE GOT A
BUSINESS LICENSE AND ARE GOOD TO
GO WITH THE WATER BOARD IS THAT
CORRECT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE AN
ADDITIONAL COST ON OUR
BUSINESSES.
YEAH THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COSTS
IN THE BUSINESSES IN FACT IT'S
GOING TO BE THE ARGUMENT THAT
THE ONLY OPPOSITION THAT WE'VE
HEARD SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT IS
THAT THE CITIES.
ARE SAYING IT WILL BE AN
ADDITIONAL COST AND THEN WE
DON'T WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY
AND ADDRESS THAT MY CLOSE. TO
HAVE TO VERIFY THIS AND ALL IS
GOING TO WEBSITE LOOKING IN
MAKING SURE THAT THAT CODE
APPLIES.
IT A AND IT'S NOT ANY ADDITIONAL
COST IN THE BUSINESS THERE'S NO
ADDITIONAL FEE TO THE TO THE
BUSINESS IS THAT WHEN YOU APPLY
FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE AND
JURISDICTIONS THAT REQUIRE THEM --
THAT YOU -- THAT INCLUDES THIS
PROCESS WHICH YOU WHICH TO HAVE
BOTH HELP THE BUSINESS AND HELPS
A EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IN TOWN
THAT ARE THE LAW BINDERS.
BOB BITERS **** SO SINCE LEADERS
ASKING THAT SOMEBODY DOWN AT
CITY HALL GONNA CLICK OPEN A
WEBSITE VERIFY THAT THEY'RE ON
REGISTERED.
THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S RIGHT AND I WOULD SUGGEST
YET DURING BEGINS AT ONE THING
THE BUSY UNDER THE LAW CURRENTLY
MUNICIPALITIES ARE REQUIRED TO
FIND AND INSPECT INDUSTRIAL
BUSINESSES SO.
YOU'RE YOU HAVE 80% THAT ARE ON
REGISTERED 20% OF THE LAW BITERS
THEY GET STUCK WITH THE TAB
BASED UPON HOW MUCH POLLUTION
THERE IS IN THE WATER WAY.
AND IN ESSENCE WHAT IT SAYS IN
IN IN HERE'S THE PERMIT YOU
SHALL MAINTAIN AN INVENTORY OF
ALL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL
FACILITIES.
AND SOURCES WITHIN THE PERMITTED
THE CITY'S JURISDICTION.
REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP BUT
COULD DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS TO
STORM WATER TO THE MP FOUR AS
AND IT GOES ON TO SAY.
THE PERMIT THE SHALL DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT PROCEDURES TO
PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY ILLICIT
DISH CHARGES ORIGINATING FROM
PRIORITY AREAS CENTER I'VE GOT
THE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME AS
WE DO OKAY I'M JUST TRYING TO
GET MULLIN.
LINE TERMS FOR ANYBODY WATCHING
THAT'S RIGHT.
SO THE PROBLEM OKAY THANK YOU.
MADAM VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN I'M SO
SENATOR -- FOR THE CITY THE
OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP SOME
POINTS AND I SAW SOME DISCUSSION
START TO TAKE PLACE.
COMMENTS I WONDER IF YOU WANTED
TO ADDRESS -- THE COMMENTS THAT
HE MADE [inaudible]
NHà.
SO WHAT I MEAN I'M JUST DON'T TO
ME TO BE INAPPROPRIATE BUT WE
ALWAYS GET THE THE CITY'S I
CHAIRED THE COMMITTEES BEFORE
AND BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS FOR
MANY YEARS.
AND EVERY SINGLE TIME THE THE
ARGUMENTS ARE ALL WAS YOU KNOW
THIS IS GOING TO COST US MONEY
RIGHT AND THAT'S ALWAYS THE
ARGUMENT AND I WOULD SAY IN MANY
INSTANCES THERE RIGHT.
AND THE QUESTION IS SHOULD
GOVERNMENT STATE GOVERNMENT
IMPOSED THOSE OBLIGATIONS ON
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT MAY BE TO
DO THINGS.
THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY DOING.
FAIR OBSERVATION.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE THE
WORRY REQUIRED UNDER FEDERAL AND
STATE LAW TO DO IT WE'RE JUST
PROVIDING A PROCESS TO GET THERE.
AND AND YOU KNOW WHAT BUT I'VE
FOUND IN MY EXPERIENCE FOR THE
DAYS OF WORK OF FOUR YEARS OF
WORKING ON A LIVE CALL LAWS AND
ALL THE VARIOUS ASPECTS AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURING THE
SENATE COMMITTEE.
OVERSEEING THIS IS THESE ARE THE
STANDARD KINDS OF OBJECTIONS
THAT YOU GET.
AND ARE TO ME THIS ONE SURPRISES
ME QUITE FRANKLY IN MY
EXPERIENCE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE
DOING THE MATURE GAINING FAVOR
BY VIRTUE OF HELPING.
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS IS YOUR IN
YOUR COMMUNITIES WHO ARE
COMPLYING.
AND SAYING WE'RE JUST LIKE WITH
THE TESTIMONY WAS WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE NON
COMPLIANCE ARE CAUGHT.
AND TO WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE
THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE PROTECTED
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT TAXPAYERS
ARE GOING TO GET SUBJECT TO HUGE
FINES.
IF THESE LOCAL CITIES ARE
POLLUTING AND ALL WE'RE DOING IS
FINDING AN ELEGANT MECHANISM IN
MY JUDGMENT THAT REQUIRES THEM
TO HAVE A A LINE ITEM ON A FORM.
IT HAS TO BE FILLED OUT AND THEN
THEY GO TO THE COMPUTER THEY HIT
THE BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE AND
THEY LOOK AT IT.
AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S NEEDED TO
BE DONE AND THAT WILL GO A LONG
WAY IN MAKING SURE THE LOS
COMPLIED WITH.
AND THAT BUSINESSES ARE
PROTECTED AND TAXPAYERS ARE
PROTECTED THAT'S THE REASON WHY
I FIND THIS ONE KIND OF ODD BUT
OKAY NEW TO ME SO THEN IF IT'S
SOMETHING OUT THROUGH THE CHAIR
I GUESS.
NO NO ABSOLUTE AT THE HEAD IF
IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS
ESSENTIALLY A FAVOR TO THE
CITY'S -- WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
THE CITIES THEN WHY HAVEN'T THE
CITY'S IMPLEMENTED THIS ON THEIR
OWN SOME HAVE.
SOME ALREADY HAVE SOME HAVE SOME
HAVE IN THIS IS BASICALLY TO
MAKE SURE THAT.
A AND I IT'S QUITE FRANKLY I I
THINK HONESTLY MY OWN PERSONAL
OPINION IS SOME JIM THOUGHT OF
IT AT SOME POINT BUT WE KNOW
THAT SOME HAVE.
AND ARE DOING THIS STUFF THIS
JUST REQUIRES ACROSS THE STATE
TO MAKE SURE THAT.
OF BOTH I THOUGHT THE ELEGANT
COMMENT THAT WAS MADE I THINK IS%
MISTER FLANAGAN MADE ABOUT BOTH
THE REGULATORY SIDE IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CITED HOW UNIQUE
THAT IS AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT
THIS IS A PRETTY ELEGANT
SOLUTION.
OKAY SO THEN AS IT JUST A FINAL
THOUGHT -- THE REQUIREMENT WOULD
NOT COME WITH ANY FUNDS
FOLLOWING THAT TO HELP CITIES
IMPLEMENT THIS I KNOW YOU SAID
THAT IT'S JUST A MATTER OF
LOOKING ON THE WEBSITE AND ALL
THAT BUT AS YOU KNOW CITIES.
ON THEIR BUDGETS ARE SHRINKING
AND THEY HAVE THEIR MORE AND
MORE STRAIN WITH WHAT THEY HAVE
TO PAY FOR SO IT IS ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES THEY WOULD MEAN VERY
LIKELY.
THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO RAISE THE
COST OF CERTAIN FEES FOR
PERMITTING IN THEIR CITY.
TO COVER THE COST ASSOCIATED
WITH DOING THIS SO IS THERE ANY
STATE FUNDING THAT WILL FOLLOW
THIS TYPE OF REGULATION OR I
GUESS -- YOU KNOW IMPOSING THIS
TYPE A BURDEN ON CITIES.
WHAT A BOOK I I I JUST THE
ANSWER THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY
TO BE DIRECTORS NOW OKAY BUT?
THE THE AYE AYE I JUST ARE THE
ONLY I DISAGREE IS THIS IS NOT A
BURDEN IT'S A HELP THAT THEY
DON'T OTHERWISE KNOWLEDGE HELP
THEIR BUSINESSES AND TO HELP
THEIR TAXPAYERS.
AND IN FACT IT'S THAT IT'S A
CHEAP INEXPENSIVE WAY TO AVOID
LIABILITY AND IT'S A PRETTY
NIFTY WAY I THINK -- THAT WAS
THAT WAS BROUGHT TO ME AND
THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING IT BUT
I DON'T THINK IT ALL A BIRD
WE'VE WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF LOS
THAT WE'VE HAD A TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE BURDENS.
AND THIS CERTAINLY ISN'T ONE OF
THEM.
THANK YOU THANK YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
CHAU -- BILLS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED -- I HAVE A QUESTION
SURE AND THAT IS IT.
APPARENTLY SOME CITIES DON'T
ISSUE BUSINESS PERMITS I HEARD
THAT FROM THE OPPOSITION I DID
TOO WE DON'T REQUIRE IF IT'S
ONLY IF.
WE DON'T WOULD REQUIRE THEM SO
IF THEY DON'T THEN THEY'RE NOT
REQUIRED THEN THEY'RE NOT
RESERVE ACCOUNT THESE DON'T WE
HAVE A LIST OF THE WAS IN THE
OTHER.
THE A COUPLE TIMES AGO I DIDN'T
READ IT BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING
WHERE CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS
DON'T DO THAT IT EATS AT IF YOU
HAVE A PERMIT.
THEN YOU HAVE TO DO THIS IF YOU
DON'T HAVE A PERMIT THAT YOU'RE
NOT REQUIRED.
SOME SMALLER COMMUNITIES IS FOR
AN EIGHTY TWO CITIES IN
CALIFORNIA FIFTY EIGHT COUNTY
SOME DON'T AND SO IN THOSE
INSTANCES YOU NOT RECORD.
OKAY WELL THAT CERTAINLY TAKES
CARE ONE OF THE OBJECTION THAT'S
RIGHT.
AND I WOULD AGREE.
LOOKING ON THE WEBSITE IN THIS
DAY AND AGE YOU SHOULD NOT BE A
BIG BURDEN.
UP WHITE SIR WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE SENATOR I THINK I AND
THAT'S THE REASON THE FURTHER
QUESTIONS I THINK I JUST OVER
THE IT WAS ON MY MIND AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME AND I
APOLOGIZE. FOR THE DELAY IN
GETTING HERE.
IT'S MUCH RELIABLE ALL RIGHT.
MADAM SECRETARY.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER THREE SB TWO
OH FIVE HERTZBERG THE MOTION IS
TO PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
QUIRK.
AYE QUIRK AYE MELENDEZ
[inaudible]
ARAMBULA.
OUR QUE HAN.
OUR CAN I CRISTINA GARCIA.
HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE.
MATHIS ARE.
MATHIS HI MURATSUCHI.
SO WE HAVE -- FOR RIGHT OKAY SO --
THEY LACK THE REST OF THE
COMMITTEE WILL GET HEARING TO
CARSON THANK YOU VERY MUCH
MEMBERS MISTER CHAIRMAN PUSH AT
THE TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH SENATOR.
ALL RIGHT WE HAVE SENATOR ALAN.
WHO IS NOT HERE YET [inaudible]
AS RIGHT
.
ALRIGHT CENTER ALLEN.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO HEAR YOUR
BILL SB THREE NINE TWO HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
IN CHEMISTRY CONSUMER PRODUCTS
AND OF COURSE THE IDEA HERE IS
TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS.
ALL RIGHT THAT WAS SPEEDED UP.
WITH A YEAH THANK YOU MISTER
MEMBERS I I HI I THINK WHAT
YOU'RE HEARING IS A REFLECTION
OF OF BOTH THE VALUE AND
IMPORTANCE OF THIS BILL IN TERMS
OF PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM
HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IN OUR DAILY
LIVES WHAT WITH THE COMMISSION
WITH THE HARD WORK OF OUR STAFF.
AND AND AND STAKEHOLDERS WHO
HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
INDUSTRY'S WHO ARE IMPACTED BY
THIS LEGISLATION AND WE
COMMITTED TO AMENDMENTS THAT
WILL ADDRESS MANY THEIR CONCERNS
WHILE STILL IMPROVING EXISTING
PROGRAM AND I THINK YOU'LL HEAR
THAT.
THEY'VE COME OFF OPPOSITION
THAT'S A FANTASTIC THING SO I'M
HAPPY TO GO INTO MORE DETAILS I
KNOW THAT THE HOURS LATE IN THIS
COMMITTEE -- BUT BUT I'M I'M
PERSONALLY VERY GRATEFUL TO I
THIS COMMITTEE AND AND MY STAFF
HI ERIC AND AND OTHERS WHO WORK
REALLY HARD TO GET US TO A PLACE
WHERE WE'RE WE'RE REALLY ARE
GOING TO MAKE.
HIS GREEN CHEMISTRY PROGRAM
SOMETHING IT'S REAL IT'S PAST
TEN YEARS AGO REPORTS COME OUT
SHOWING THAT VERY LITTLE HAS
HAPPENED UNDER THE PROGRAM. TO
ACTUALLY PROTECT CONSUMERS WE'VE
GOT TO MAKE GIVE IT SOME.
WE GOT TO MAKE A REAL AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS O DO AND
WITH ME HERE WE TODAY WE HAVE A
CAR FROM THAT'S A RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL IN UNDER EVAN
TURNER FROM.
CLEAN WATER ACTION TESTIFIED
SUPPORT THANK YOU [inaudible]
GO AHEAD.
I'M GONNA BE BRIEFED BECAUSE OF
WHAT WAS JUST SAID YOU KNOW I
JUST WANT TO GIVE US A LITTLE
DOSE OF REALITY HERE THAT THIS
IS ABOUT REAL WORLD THINGS THIS
IS NOT JUST A A LEGAL EXERCISE
TO HAVE THIS LAWN PLACE.
METHYLENE CHLORIDE HAS KILLED
SIXTY FOUR PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW
OF ACROSS THE COUNTRY INCLUDING
A CALIFORNIAN IN HUNTINGTON PARK.
DID YOU SEE HAS RESPONDED TO
THAT THROUGH THIS PROGRAM FLAME
RETARDANTS THE SAME THING LINKED
TO SERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS.
PARTICULARLY IN CHILDREN.
THAT IS WHY WE NEED THIS PROGRAM
TO WORK BECAUSE WE NEED TO
PROTECT WE NEED TO WORK WITH
BUSINESS TO PROTECT THE THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC.
AS YOU HEARD IT IS NOT MOVING
FAST ENOUGH THE INDEPENDENT
REPORT THAT CAME OUT THIS YEAR
HAS.
CONFIRMED THAT THAT IS WHY WE CO
SPONSORING THIS BILL BECAUSE WE
WANT TO MAKE THE FIXES THAT ARE
NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS REALLY
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM WORK FOR BOTH
BUSINESS.
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND FOR
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE THANK YOU
AND WE DO HOPE THAT THIS BILL
WILL MOVE FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT MY NAME IS AVINASH CAR --
THE DIRECTOR FOR STATE HEALTH
POLICY WITH THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL WE'RE
GOING SPONSORS OF THE BILL AND
STRONG SUPPORT THIS BILL
IMPROVED.
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
BY SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS -- ON
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF AN
INDEPENDENT REPORT IT GOT
ENSURES GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY
PROVIDES FOR BETTER DATA
COLLECTION AND IS STREAMLINED
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES TO HELP
INSURE THE PROGRAM MOVES FORWARD
MORE QUICKLY -- WE HAVE BEEN IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH -- INDUSTRY
ON THIS ISSUE AND WE REALLY
APPRECIATE DURING GET GAUGE MEN
AND THANK THEM FOR THEIR EFFORTS.
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO REACH
AGREEMENT ON KEY -- PORTIONS OF
THIS BILL AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE TO MOVE THE BOOK BILL
FORWARD -- GOING FORWARD WILL BE
IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT THE
PROGRAM HAS A STABLE AND SECURE
SOURCE OF FUNDING -- TO TO HELP
KEEP ITS MISSION MOVING FORWARD
AND BUILD ON IMPROVEMENTS IN
THIS BILL -- BUT THAT WE ASK FOR
AYE VOTE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
I'M BILL ALLEY -- FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP WITH
THE THIRD CO SPONSORED THE BILL
AND SO OBVIOUSLY STRONGLY IN
SUPPORT URGE ITS PASSAGE.
I'M ALSO HERE ON BEHALF OF
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY SAN FRANCISCO AND
THE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY NAIL
SALON COLLABORATIVE THANK YOU
GREAT.
JANUARY TERRACE ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT.
THERESA BROKERAGE ON BEHALF OF
THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IN SUPPORT.
CARE TO SO ON BEHALF OF THE
CLEAN SEIZE LOBBYING COALITION
IN SUPPORT.
MELISSA ROMERO WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF
CONSERVATION VOTERS AND SUPPORT.
LAUREN COMMISSAIRE CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
SO -- YES PLEASE COME UP FOR THE
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE TEN JUST
LIKE WITH THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL I FIRST WANT TO US
THANKS AND AROUND HIS STAFF --
SCORE ANY OTHER OF THE SPONSORS
THE BILL FOR WORKING WITH US
OVER THE PAST A COUPLE WEEKS AND
JUST AS LATE AS YESTERDAY.
A WORK TRYING TO FINE TUNE SOME
OF THE AMENDMENTS WE HAD RAISE
SOME ISSUES ABOUT -- THE NEED
FOR CONTINUED STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS OF
CREATION OF THIS TWO STEP
PROCESS -- FOR FOR STAKEHOLDERS
TO ENGAGE DGSE AND HOW THEY
UTILIZE SOME OF THE PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE INFORMATION -- WAS
IMPORT TO US AS IS THE NEED --
FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE SOME
SUBSTANTIAL TIME. TO RESPOND TO
ANY SORT OF TTC DGSE DATA
REQUEST IN CALLING INFORMATION I
THINK WE HAVE -- CERTAINLY
CONCEPT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE
OTHER DAY -- IF THEY HAVE COME
TO A POINT WHERE WHERE WE CANNOT
REMOVE OPPOSITE TO THIS BILL
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WITH
HAS GONE INTO IT.
SO IN CONCEPT YOU CAN.
YOU YOU'VE GOT WERE I I THINK
WHERE THEY'RE AT WE'RE JUST WERE.
WE'LL WE'LL GET THE LANGUAGE BUT
AS OF THIS POINT -- WERE WILL NO
LONGER LOS THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
WHAT WILL BE?
ALL RIGHT OTHER GOOD AFTERNOON
OF COOKING UNITS ON BEHALF OF
THE HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION THE
FRAGRANCE CREATORS ASSOCIATION
AND I WAS ASKED TO REGISTER A
NEUTRAL POSITION FOR ON THE
AMERICAN CUTTINGS ASSOCIATION SO
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO WORKED
ON THIS ISSUE.
THANK YOU.
CAPTION CHAIR MEMBERS AT A
REGULAR BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ONE ECHO THE
SAME COMMENTS WE APPRECIATE
WORKING WITH THE PROPONENTS AND
THE AUTHOR.
AND WE ARE MOVING TO A NEUTRAL
POSITION THANK YOU.
TOM JACOB ON BEHALF OF THE
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL
CALIFORNIA.
LIKEWISE -- APPRECIATE VERY MUCH
THE ENCOURAGEMENT FROM YOU
SENATOR.
TO GET US TOGETHER AND WE FOUND
IT VERY SATISFYING -- IT'S NOT
THE BILL WE WOULD -- PUT OUT
THERE -- IT DOESN'T ADDRESS
EVERYTHING THAT IS A CHALLENGE
WITH RESPECT TO MOVING THE SEP
PROGRAM FORWARD.
BUT WE APPRECIATE WHERE WE ENDED
UP THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT WELL THAT'S WONDERFUL
I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR
MAKING OUR JOB EASIER -- A
QUESTIONS MISTER MURATSUCHI.
THANK YOU A SERVER I KNOW THAT --
YOU ALWAYS WORK HARD TO TRY TO
MAKE OUR JOBS EASIER AND I I
APPRECIATE THAT BUT YOU KNOW I
OBVIOUSLY I I SUPPORT -- TO THE
THE THE INTENT IN THE GOAL IF
YOUR BILL MY CONCERN IS.
IS THAT -- IN THIS TO BE THE
SECOND TIME I RAISES CONCERN
TODAY AND NOT NECESSARILY ON
YOUR BILL BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE
BEEN IT.
ATTEMPTS. TO TO MAKE THE
ARGUMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT
THAT SOMETIMES A GREEN CHEMISTRY
PROGRAM IS INADEQUATE.
YOU KNOW WHAT WHEN WHEN.
THE THE THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR AND
AND AND ONE OTHER OTHER
COUNTRIES HAVE ADOPTED STANDARDS --
THAT THAT WE WE WE YOU KNOW MAKE
THE ARGUMENT -- TO TO BANNED
CERTAIN CHEMICALS FROM CONSUMER
PRODUCTS THAT OFTEN THE THE
RESPONSE AS WELL WE HAVE THE
GREEN CHEMISTRY PROGRAM AND AND
THAT -- AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT
BE.
TAKEN APPROACH OF OF OF BANNING
WHEN THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR IN
OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DOING THIS
BECAUSE WE SHOULD FALL THE GREEN
CHEMISTRY PROGRAM.
CONSUMERS ARE ADDRESS MY CONCERN
THAT YOU KNOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE
THAT REMOVE THEIR OPPOSITION ARE
NOW NEUTRAL ARE GONNA BE COMING
BACK -- TO MY BILL NEXT YEAR
SAYING WELL WE HAVE THE GREEN
CHEMISTRY PROGRAM.
YEAH I THINK THE PROBLEM IS AND
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THIS
COMMITTEE WORK -- WITH OUR
COMMITTEE ON THE SENATE SIDE TO
PRESENT THE FINDINGS OF THE
SCREEN CHEMISTRY AT TEN YEARS
REPORT THAT I'M I KNOW THAT MANY
OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH AND THE
FACT IS IS THAT -- IN TEN YEARS
NOT A SINGLE CHEMICAL HAS HAD AN
ALTERNATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED
UNDER THE CIVIL CONSUMER
PRODUCTS PROGRAM NOT.
A SINGLE REGULATION HAS RESULTED.
AND SO.
WE DID HAVE THE PROGRAM ON PAPER
NOW WE WANT TO GIVE IT SOME.
RETURNING A REALITY TO BELIEVE
SOMETHING THAT THAT IS THAT THAT
THAT MEETS THE GOALS OF WHAT WAS
IT ORIGINALLY PUT FORWARD -- YOU
KNOW PART OF WHAT THE BILL DOES
IS IS IS MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN
WE CAN -- USE AVAILABLE
INFORMATION THAT'S OUT THERE --
WE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
HIGH QUALITY EVIDENCE THAT WAS
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED BY THE OPPOSITION IN THAT
THE KIND OF THE CALIBER OF THE
EVIDENCE.
THAT WE MIGHT BE USED -- TO TO
IMPACT A PARTICULAR CHEMICAL --
YOU KNOW THERE ALSO WAS WAS WAS
LANGUAGE THAT WAS TAKEN TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE DATA CALLING
AUTHORITY OF THE TNC WOULD BE
EXERCISED RESPONSIBLY
TRANSPARENTLY THAT'S ONE OF THE
BIG ISSUES THAT EXISTED THAT
THAT.
WE WE THE OF OUR DEPARTMENT DID
NOT HAVE ENOUGH AUTHORITY UNDER
THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM TO GET THE
SORT OF INFORMATION THAT NEED
THE DATA NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO
MAKE WISE DECISIONS AND SO.
I THINK WHAT THE OPPOSITION
WANTED WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT --
THAT THE YEAH THE THE THE THE
THAT THAT THAT THAT AUTHORITY
WOULD BE EXERCISED IN A IN A
RESPONSIBLE TRANSPARENT WAY --
BUT BUT BUT ANY OF THE DAY
[inaudible]
I WE WILL.
IF IF IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE
REASON TO TO BAN A CHEMICAL AND
AND THAT IS OUT THERE IN THE
YEAH AND THERE'S THERE'S THERE'S
AMPLE EVIDENCE -- IT WILL BE A
IF IF IF IF THE IF THE IF THE IF
THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.
IT WILL GET WILL GET ADDRESS AND
IN THIS PROGRAM -- YOU KNOW AND
LET LET'S HAVE A CONVERSATION IF
IF THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH A
PARTICULAR CHEMICAL THAT YOU
KNOW THAT THE YOU REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT -- BUT IN THE
END OF THE DAY THIS IS GOING TO
ENSURE THAT -- THAT THAT ARE
REGULARS WILL HAVE THE BOTH THE
THE DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION
THAT THEY NEED AND ALSO THE
TOOLS THAT THEY NEED. TO BE ABLE
TO TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC -- BUT
BUT DO SO IN A WAY I I THINK
THAT THAT THAT MET SOME OF THE
THE RIGOROUS STANDARDS IN SOME
OF THE DUE PROCESS STANDARDS
THAT ARE.
THE FOLKS INDUSTRY WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO
HOW THE BILL WAS ORIGINALLY
WRITTEN.
YEAH THE CENTER AYE AYE.
AYE SIR TO START OFF BY SAYING
THAT I WILL BE VOTING IN SUPPORT
OF YOUR BILL AND THE OTHER YOU
KNOW -- THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT.
THAT DAD THIS IS A A WORTHWHILE
EFFORT BUT I'M I'M JUST
REFERRING A TO A THIS COMMITTEES
ANALYSIS ON YOUR COLLEAGUES --
THE TALKING YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T
READ THIS BUT ON ON SERRA
CABALLERO IS BILL EARLIER
THERE'S A PASSAGE IN HEARING
GETTING.
THAT IT IS LONG BEING RECOGNIZE
THAT THE TSC DOES NOT HAVE THE
RESOURCE OKAY -- TO THE THIS IS
FOR SB THREE SEVENTEEN ON PAGE
FIVE YEAH.
YOU KNOW IT IS JUST MAKING THE
POINT THAT.
TO NOT ONLY DOES THE S. C. P.
THAT THE SAFE CONSUMER.
PRODUCTS PROGRAM LACK A
DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE THE FUN
DTS HE'S WORKED WITH DTS USE
CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER A
STRUCTURAL DEFICIT LEAVING FOR
THE CONSTRAINED RESOURCES -- DTC
HAS HAD HISTORIC HIT CHALLENGES
DO SIR DID RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS
AND SO I KNOW YOUR BILL CALLS --
FOR ADEQUATE FUNDING BUT I I
JUST WITH A AGAIN I I JUST WANNA
MAKE SURE THAT -- THAT -- THIS
PROGRAM IS NOT USE I SHARE THAT
CONCERN LET'S WORK TOGETHER ON
ON SOME BUDGET -- PLAY FOR IN
THAT DIRECTION I KNOW THE MY
WITNESSES WANTED TO RESPOND TO
THIS IS WELL IF IF THROUGH THE
CHAIR IF IF AT ALL -- OKAY BUT
BRIEFLY.
IT IS VERY LONG DAY I JUST REYES
YES IT HAS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU KNOW YOU
WERE ELECTED OFFICIALS IF THERE
IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE ABOUT
SOMETHING AND IT'S VERY EVIDENT
FROM ANOTHER GOVERNMENT OR
WHATEVER AND AND THE LEGISLATURE
CHOOSES TO ACT.
THE BILL WHEN IT WAS FIRST
CONCEIVED NEVER TOOK THAT AWAY
FROM YOU.
ARE AND SO.
YOU WILL -- YOU KNOW YOU WOULD
ALWAYS HAVE THAT OPTION AS A
LEGISLATIVE BODY THIS IS OF
COURSE AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM
BECAUSE THOSE THOSE SOLUTIONS OF
WHAT TO DO ABOUT TOXIC CHEMICALS
ARE NOT ALWAYS EVIDENT.
AND THIS CAMERA THIS PROGRAM
PROVIDES THE SCIENTIFIC
BACKGROUND TO AVOID REGRETTABLE
SUBSTITUTIONS AND MAKE SURE
WE'RE GOING FORWARD IN A IN A
SAFE.
AND REASONABLE WAY SO I THAT I
THINK THAT'S THE RESPONSE THAT I
WOULD.
PROVIDE TO THAT QUESTION AND I
WOULD AGREE A 100% AND I THINK
THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT.
IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
THAT WE HAVE A FULL PROCESS IN
MANY CASES NOW JUST BANNING LEAD
IN JEWELRY WHICH WE JUST DID.
THAT WAS EASY.
AND WE DIDN'T NEED TO GO TO
GREEN CHEMISTRY RENO LEADS A
PROBLEM AND THERE'S NO REASON TO
HAVE A JEWELRY AND THERE'S NOT
GOING TO BE A SUBSTITUTE.
CABINET WE ALSO DID THE SAME --
IN DAHLE NOT BANNING LEAD BUT
MAKING IT A VERY SMALL AMONT
THE SAME FOR CADMIUM.
AND AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT
WHEN THERE'S A CONSENSUS AND
WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A
VIABLE.
ALTERNATIVE -- BUT THIS IS KIND
OF BEYOND THE CURRENT SCOPE OF
WHAT WE'RE DOING.
ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTS GO AHEAD MADAM VICE
CHAIR THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
MISTER ALLEN SO.
OKAY -- THE GREEN INITIATIVE.
PROGRAM.
HAS BEYOND HOW MANY CHEMICALS
SINCE IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE NOT
A SINGLE ONE NOT YEAH OKAY AND
THEY'VE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR
LIKE TEN YEARS RIGHT.
OKAY SO HERE'S WHAT I'M
STRUGGLING WITH WHY.
YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN THIS BILL.
FINDS PRETTY.
PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL FINES SEVENTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS PER VIOLATION
OR PER DAY.
WHICH ALLOWED HE TSC TO IMPOSE
IF THEY REQUESTED CHEMICAL
INGREDIENT PRODUCT INFORMATION
IS NOT PROVIDED SEVENTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS TODAY.
BUT THERE IS NO.
SIMILAR BURDENSOME IMPOSITION
PLACED ON DTS SEE FOR NOT.
DOING THEIR JOB WHICH IS I MEAN.
SO DID YOU SEE HAS COME UP --
THE GREEN INITIATIVE IS COME UP
WITH GREEN CHEMISTRY SORRY HAS
COME UP WITH THIS LIST.
SO FAR THAT'S ALL I KNOW THAT
THEY'VE DONE OF CHEMICAL SAID
YOU KNOW CAN BE AN ISSUE AND
THEY'VE GONE NO NO FURTHER THAN
THAT.
SO I'M JUST I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE EVEN.
PERPETUATING THE EXISTENCE OF
THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM BECAUSE
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE DOING
ANYTHING WITH THAT SAID SO SO.
WHAT WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE
ADDRESSING THE VERY ISSUE THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT SO SO
SO THAT VERY QUESTION AS ASKED
BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE
THAT?
PRESENT THIS REPORT WHY IS IT
THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE.
TO DO ANYTHING YOU KNOW IS IT
BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO
FIND PEOPLE THAT THAT YEAR SORRY
THAT WAY THE FIGHT BY THE WAY
THE FINES FOR FOR FOR YOUR
PERMISSION IT HAS COME DOWN IN
IT AS PART OF OUR NEGOTIATED.
A DEAL SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE --
SEVENTY THOUSAND BUT BUT WHAT
I'LL SAY IS WHAT THEY FOUND WAS
THAT THE TEACHERS HE DID NOT
HAVE ADEQUATE CALL IN FORTY FOR
TO THE DATA THEY WE WEREN'T
GETTING THE SORT OF INFORMATION
THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
GOOD DECISIONS.
EFFECTIVELY AND QUICKLY IN
ADDITION THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO
ACCESS ALL SORTS OF REALLY GOOD
PEER REVIEWED INFORMATION OUT IN
THE PUBLIC THEY HAD TO DO THEIR
OWN.
INTERNAL NOW SEES UNDER THE
GREEN CHEMISTRY INITIATIVE AS AS
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN OKAY IF I MAY
JUST INTERJECT THAT WASN'T THE
WHOLE POINT OF THE GREEN
CHEMISTRY INITIATIVE IS THAT YOU
HAD.
DETAILS HE HAD AT ITS DISPOSAL
ITS OWN SCIENTISTS TO TO DO THIS
TYPE OF RESEARCH IS NOT THE
POINT.
PART OF PART OF THE POINT I MEAN
WE DO OKAY BECAUSE THAT THE
ARGUMENT NOW IS THAT THEY DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION --
OR THERE IS ENOUGH PEER REVIEWED
INFORMATION THAT THAT IS
AVAILABLE TO THEM -- NO THERE'S
TONS OF GOOD PEER REVIEWED
INFORMATION THE PROBLEM IS THAT
THE THE THE INITIATIVE -- THE TO
NOT THEY WEREN'T THEY WEREN'T
ABLE TO ACCESS THE WAY WILL USE
IT FOR DECISION MAKING UNDER THE
OLD STRUCTURE.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING UNDER THIS
STRUCTURE IS ALLOWING THEM TO
USE HIGH QUALITY CARD REVIEWED
INFORMATION.
OKAY THAT'S AND IT'S OUT THERE
OKAY SO I GET THAT BUT AGAIN
GOING BACK TO THE WHOLE POINT OF
PUTTING THIS GROUP TOGETHER IN
THE FIRST PLACE WAS TO HAVE.
SCIENTISTS AT OUR DISPOSAL TO DO
SOME OF THIS WORK WHICH THEY
HAVE NOT DONE.
SO I JUST I MEAN THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE THEM THE
TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK
RIGHT THAT BECAUSE BECAUSE THE
THE DATE -- THEY THEY DO HAVE A
SMALL STAFF THEY ARE UNDER
RESOURCE.
I THEY'VE GOT LIMITED.
CAPABILITY BOTH BOTH FROM A FROM
A FROM A FROM INFRASTRUCTURE
PERSPECTIVE BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF
THE WAY THE RULES ARE WRITTEN.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS IS
ALLOWING THEM TO BOTH HAVE MORE
AUTHORITY TO GET THE INFORMATION
THEY NEED TO MAKE THE DECISION
THAT YOU TO MAKE.
AND BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY ACCESS
AND UTILIZE HIGH QUALITY PEER
REVIEWED INFORMATION -- THAT
THAT THAT'S OUT THERE -- IN IN
THE SCIENCE YOU KNOW IT IT IT IT
IT'S BEING USED BY OTHER
REGULATORY AGENCIES AROUND THE
WORLD WHY WOULD THEY NOT BE
ALLOWED TO USE IT NOW IT WAS THE
WAY IT WAS STRUCTURED.
WHEN THE BILL WAS WRITTEN TO TRY
TO YEAH SO I'VE RIGHT NOW THE
WAY THE PROCESS IS STRUCTURED --
ONCE A PRODUCT CHEMICAL
COMBINATION IS IDENTIFIED.
INDUSTRY -- MANUFACTURERS GET TO
DO THEIR OWN ANALYSES EACH
PRODUCT IN THIS SCENARIO WHERE
AND STUDIES AND EXISTING
SCIENTISTS STRONG ENOUGH THE
AGENCY CAN AVOID HAVING TO DO
INDIVIDUAL AS ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSES PROPHECIES.
AND INSTEAD ENGAGE IN A ONE STEP
ALTERNATES ANALYSIS PROCESS
PROCESS CONDUCTED BY AGENCY
SCIENTISTS GET NOTICE AND
COMMENT.
AND THEREFORE REDUCE THE AMOUNT
OF TIME SPENT IN THE PROCESS
[inaudible]
PLEASE [inaudible]
OKAY.
OKAY SO -- IT ALLOWS THEM TO
REALIGN PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE
OTHER GOVERNMENTS OR CREDIBLE
INSTITUTIONS IS THAT.
THE LANGUAGE -- OUTLINED
ACTUALLY -- THE STAIN JING.
TALKING TO MY I'M SORRY MY
APOLOGIES -- YES THE LANGUAGE IS
CHANGING THOUGH THE LANGUAGE
UNDER DISCUSSION IS TO REFER --
TO THE REGULATIONS ALREADY BEEN
A ALREADY PROMULGATED BY THE
AGENCY AND THEY HAVE A
DEFINITION OF RELIABLE
INFORMATION THAT RECALL --
REFERS TO PEER REVIEWED
LITERATURE AND OTHER SOURCES OF
INFORMATION THAT ARE CONSIDERED
RELIABLE AND THE BILL WILL POINT
DIRECTLY TO THAT DEFINITION THE
REGULATIONS.
INTO THE CHAIR THERE'S ALSO IN
THERE'S ALSO -- LANGUAGE ABOUT
ABOUT -- DIGITS IS FIVE YOUR
WORK PLANS.
SHAPING SO AS TO REALLY MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'RE DOING THIS
WORK.
SO THE DRESSER VERY CAN
[inaudible]
YEAH.
THANK YOU FOR THIS CLARIFYING
QUESTIONS [inaudible]
UP.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER CAM.
THANK YOU CHAIR -- I JUST WANT
TO YOU KNOW SAY THAT I THINK.
CLEARLY AS THE CHAIRMAN CHEN
THEIR SITUATIONS LIKE LEADING
CHILDREN'S STORY THAT ARE BLACK
AND WHITE BUT WE SAW WOULD BE P.
A. B. PS THAT WHEN WE BàN
SOMETHING WE CAN HAVE
REGRETTABLE SUBSTITUTES AND I
THINK THAT.
THIS PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED IN A
WAY THAT WAS SMART RIGHT THAT WE
LOOK AT THE SCIENCE THAT WE
DON'T MAKE REGRETTABLE DECISIONS
THAT DOWN THE ROAD CREATE MORE
TOXIC OUTCOMES FOR OUR
CONSTITUENTS THAN WE HAD BEFORE.
AND SO I WANT TO THANK SENATOR
ALLEN FOR BRINGING THIS IN FOR
LOOKING LONG AND HARD AT HOW WE
CAN MAKE THIS PROGRAM WORK
BECAUSE IN ITS DESIGN.
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO WHICH
IS USE GOOD SCIENCE TO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS THE BEST
THING FOR THE CONSTITUENTS OF
CALIFORNIA AND SO WE NEED TO GET
IT WORKING DESIGN WASN'T ENOUGH
RIGHT WHEN IT FUNCTIONING AND I
HOPE THAT THIS WILL -- WORK I
DON'T THINK IT HAS A SUNSET BUT
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN AS
REVISITING THIS IS HOME POINT
BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT.
THIS HAS MOVE THE BALL WE NEED
TO AS WE FIND THIS PROGRAM WE
NEED TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE
THAT -- WE'RE SEEING THEM REALLY
DO THE WORK WE NEED THEM TO OUR
CONSTITUENTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
WHAT'S IN THEIR PRODUCTS AND SO
THEY HAVE TO ACT.
YES AND LET ME SUGGEST -- OR
TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE
HAVE A REVIEW I DON'T THINK NEXT
YEAR BUT HOW ABOUT THE YEAR
AFTER.
AND JUST.
HAVE THE COMMITTEE COME BEFORE
US AND WE CAN DO JOINTLY.
WITH SANITY Q. WITH THE CENTER
ALLEN.
AND JUST TO REVIEW AND FIND OUT.
HOW THEY'RE DOING IN?
AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO AND I
THINK THE VICE CHAIRS RAISED A
REAL CONCERN.
AND SO I WOULD SAY.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT
TERM HOPEFULLY WE'LL ALL BE HERE.
THAT'S THE HOPE [inaudible]
GOOD.
AND THE AND WE SHOULD WE SHOULD
WORK ON THAT SO LET'S PUT THAT
IN OUR WORK PLAN.
FOR TWENTY THE TO BE.
TWENTY TWENTY ONE LET'S DO IT.
INTO GOOD SUGGESTION NOW THANK
YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER -- OUR QUE HAN
[inaudible]
VERY GOOD.
ARE YOU MAY CLOSE WELL MEMBERS I
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE
ROBUST DISCUSSION I DO THINK
WHERE WE ARE WE ARE GETTING THE
VERY ISSUES THAT -- SOMEWHERE
MELENDEZ REYES ADDRESSED HERE
AND THAT ARE THAT ARE THE
OUTLINED IN THIS REPORT -- I
WANT TO GIVE MY DEEP THANKS BOTH
TO ARTS SPONSORS INTO THE
OPPOSITION WHO JUST WORKED
REALLY HARD I I I KNOW THESE
THINGS ARE NOT EASY.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF A VERY
CONCERNS BUT I REALLY THINK
WE'RE ABLE TO MEET.
THE CORE CONCERNS OF THE
OPPOSITION -- WHILE MAINTAINING
THE INTEGRITY THE BILL WHICH
REALLY ULTIMATELY IS ALL ABOUT
MAKING SURE THAT WE WE WE DO
FILL THE PROMISE OF THE GREEN
CHEMISTRY INITIATIVE AND MAKE
SURE THAT'S PROTECTING
CALIFORNIANS -- WELL NOT AT THE
SAME TIME I RAISING.
THE SPECTER OF REGRETTABLE
TORNADOES THAT COULD CAUSE
DAMAGE ELSEWHERE -- AND WITH
THAT I I WANT TO A LOSS OF JUST
ONE F THAT GIVE A SPECIAL
THANKS TO IT TO ERIC WALTERS IS
A FANTASTIC SCIENCE FELLOW AND
AND IS NOT.
AN EXAMPLE OF THAT THE STRENGTH
IN THE THE EPORTS OF THIS GREAT
PROGRAM FOR CAPITAL.
I WILL SECOND THAT THANK YOUNG
TO WORK SO WITH THAT -- VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK OF
THE COMMITTEE ON THIS AS WELL
AND AND AND THAT'S WHEN I GO.
THANK YOU -- GREAT BILL --
RECOMMEND THAT WE YEAH PASS FAIL
[inaudible]
MADAM SECRETARY.
THIS IS ITEM FIVE SB THREE
NINETY TWO ALAN THE MOTION IS DO
PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY QUIRK.
AYE QUIRK AYE MELENDEZ --
MELENDEZ NO -ARAMBULA.
ARAMBULA I POWER QUE HAN.
OUR QUE HAN I CRISTINA GARCIA.
HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE [inaudible]
MATHIS [inaudible]
MURATSUCHI HI.
RED SWEETIE HI. THREE FOUR FIVE
FIVE TWO ONE THAT WAS OUT OKAY
WHAT IS THERE ANY BILLS WE
HAVEN'T PASSED YET [inaudible]
YES. TWO OH FIVE YES THANK YOU.
OKAY -- THAT -- OKAY SO LET'S
GET A RATE TO HERTZBERG TO ALL.
FIVE STORM WATER DISCHARGE
COMPLIANCE MADAM SECRETARY.
OKAY THIS IS I'M THE VOTE ON SB
TWO OH FIVE IS [inaudible]
FOUR ZERO MELENDEZ.
MELENDEZ NOT VOTING ARAMBULA.
ARAMBULA I CRISTINA GARCIA.
WHAT AT SWITCHING HI MURATSUCHI
I CELEBRITIES THE VOTE? TO SIX
ZERO THAT ONE'S OUT. TO ALL THE
BILLS ARE OUT WE STILL -- WILL
WAIT.
FOR CRISTINA GARCIA AND DEVON
MATHIS FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MATHIS ISN'T COMING BACK SO WE
pGARCIA HERE.
AND I'LL WAIT AND FOR FIVE
MINUTES WHICH BY MY WATCH WOULD
BE.
IT'S FOUR OH SEVEN AND A HALF SO.
FORTY FORTY FOUR FIFTEEN BY MY
WATCH.
GIVE ZERO EIGHT MINUTES.
I HAVE YOU WRITTEN DOWN.
THAT MEANS THAT MAKES FOR
SOMEBODY GET.
YEAH LET'S DO THE REST OF THE
BALANCE.
DOCTOR AT ALL [inaudible]
OKAY.
MISTER MURATSUCHI I THINK I'M
COVERED.
HE'S ON ALL OF THEM.
OKAY SO WE JUST HAVE TO WAIT FOR
MS GARCIA [inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
RIGHT [inaudible]
OKAY.
OKAY DANNY YEAH.
TAKE MY PROBIOTICS.
THANKS FOR YOUR GOOD QUESTION
[inaudible]
VEHICLE.
SO YES NEVER THE SAME DIDN'T
HAVE -- STAY.
FOR ALLEN'S DAILY BECAUSE WITH
THE CONSENSUS.
HE WAS WARY ABOUT.
WELL I DON'T KNOW IF.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE I MEAN I HOW
I THOUGHT HE WAS NOT GOING TO
VOTE.
YEAH NO NO NO HE WAS NOT GOING
TO THAT.
YEAH THAT'S WHAT YEAH.
YEAH I THINK THAT WAS THE PLAN
[inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
YES [inaudible]
GREAT.
HE'S PRESENTING THE SENATE
HOUSING [inaudible]
YEAH -- OKAY SUBCOMMITTEE BUT
SHE'S.
OUR MISSION IS AMERICA
.
OKAY -- MADAM SECRETARY.
SO WE'RE ADDING ON TO ITEM THREE
SB TWO ZERO FIVE THE VOTE STANDS
AT SIX ZERO WITH THE CHAIR
VOTING I GARCIA AS CRISTINA
GARCIA.
CRISTINA GARCIA ICE THAT BRINGS
THE VOTE FINAL VOTE.
SEVEN ZERO NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER
FOUR IT'S SB THREE SEVENTEEN THE
VOTE IS AT SEVEN ZERO CAN'T BE
AT SEVEN ZERO THEN.
GO IF YOU VOTED ALREADY.
NOW OKAY FINE.
A CRISTINA GARCIA.
CRISTINA CI LEADS FINAL VOTE IS
EIGHT ZERO GREAT.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB THREE NINETY
TWO THE VOTE IS FIVE ONE
CURRENTLY.
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING I CRISTINA
GARCIA.
CRISTINA GARCIA I THAT BRINGS
THE VOTE.
TWO SIX ONE ITEM NUMBER SIX SB.
SIX FORTY SEVEN THE VOTE IS AT
SEVEN ZERO CRISTINA GARCIA.
HIS SENIOR CI.
FINAL VOTE.
EIGHT ZERO THANK YOU VERY.
THANK YOU -- MEETING IS OVER