OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE HEARING
ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND
TOXIC MATERIALS. WE'RE GOING TO
START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. WE DO
HAVE ONE SENATE AUTHOR. AND SO
WE'LL GET READY TO START THERE,
SERGEANTS, PLEASE CALL THE
MEMBERS, ABSENT MEMBERS SO THAT
WE COULD, ESTABLISH A QUORUM AT
SOME POINT. PRIMARY WITNESSES,
THAT WILL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY
ARE LIMITED TO FOUR MINUTES
TOTAL FOR EACH SIDE. ALL
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WILL BE
LIMITED TO STATING THEIR NAME,
ORGANIZATION IF THEY'RE PRESENT,
AND THEIR POSITION ON THE BILL
ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT WE ARE
ACCEPTING WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THROUGH THE POSITION LETTER
PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE, WE WILL HEAR 13
MEASURES TODAY, THREE OF WHICH
ARE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. AND
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
WE HAVE A MEMBER OF, COMMITTEES
HERE. SO WE'LL START AGAIN AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. SENATOR RUSSELL,
WELCOME. TO COME IN HERE.
OKAY THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MAY I
GET STARTED? THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, COLLEAGUES. MR.
CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE VERY MUCH FOR WORKING
WITH US ON THIS BILL, I JUST
WANT, FIRST OF ALL, TO, JUST LAY
OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW
THIS BILL TODAY IS THE RESULT OF
MANY, MANY EXTENDED POLICY
DISCUSSIONS AND RESEARCH ON THE
WHOLE IDEA OF A RATE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM THAT WE CAN APPLY, AND
ALSO INCLUDING LESSONS FROM PAST
EFFORTS, AND AGAIN, WE'VE
ENGAGED IN MANY CONVERSATIONS
WITH STAKEHOLDERS OVER THIS YEAR
TO GET TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
FEEDBACK, BOTH ON THE MECHANICS
OF THIS LEGISLATION, WE MADE
CLEAR THAT WE WANT TO COME TO AN
AGREEMENT ON A PATH TO MOVE
FORWARD, BY THE TIME WE GOT HERE
AND FEEL CONFIDENT, WE'RE CLOSE
TO AN AGREEMENT TO REMOVE A LOT
OF THE OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL,
WE WORKED IN GOOD FAITH, MAKING
NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES,
AND THE ISSUE THAT THIS BILL IS
TRYING TO ADDRESS IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT, THEN ALL THE OTHER
MECHANICS OF IT AND THAT IS
THAT, THE NEED OF THIS BILL IS
DESPERATELY NEEDED. FOR MANY,
MANY PEOPLE, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE
TO MAKE RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
A REALITY. THE NEED IS TO GREAT
BY TOO MANY PEOPLE, THIS BILL
WOULD REQUIRE WATER SUPPLIERS
GET INTO SPECIFICS HERE AND NOW.
GET INTO, WOULD REQUIRE WATER
SUPPLIERS WITH OVER 3300
CONNECTIONS TO PROVIDE LOW
INCOME RATEPAYER ASSISTANCE TO
LOW INCOME, ELIGIBLE RATEPAYERS
THROUGH A VOLUNTARY RATEPAYER
CONTRIBUTION FUND. IT WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE THE STATE WATER BOARD TO
IDENTIFY THE COST OF ADDRESSING
AFFORDABILITY AND SYSTEMS THAT
ARE SMALLER THAN 3300
CONNECTIONS, ALTHOUGH ENSURING
ACCESS TO CLEAN AND AFFORDABLE
WATER HAS BEEN A FOCAL POINT OF
SEVERAL LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES.
CALIFORNIA IS THE EPICENTER OF A
WATER AFFORDABILITY AND ACCESS
CRISIS, SOMETHING THAT YOU
YOURSELF, MR. CHAIR, REMINDED ME
WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, THE FIRST
YEAR THAT I WAS HERE, AND
ESPECIALLY FOR GUESTS WHO
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR MORE THAN
1.6 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS HAVE AN
AVERAGE $500 WATER AND OR SEWER
UTILITY DEBT, MORE THAN 150,000
HOUSEHOLDS HAVE A DANGEROUSLY
HIGH DEBT OF $1,000 OR MORE,
FURTHER EXACERBATING THIS WATER
ACCESS GAP FOR OUR MOST
UNDERSERVED, IS ALSO IS HOW
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THIS ACCESS
GAP HAVE BEEN DELAYED. WHILE AB
401, BY SENATOR DODD, FROM 2015
REQUIRED THE STATE BOARD TO
PREPARE A LOW INCOME WATER RATE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, NO PROGRAM
HAS BEEN CREATED TO DATE. IN
2022, WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY.
GOVERNOR NEWSOM CALLED ON THE
WATER UTILITY SECTOR TO ADDRESS
THE COST BURDENS ON LOW INCOME
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THIS
BILL IS TAKING THE GOVERNOR'S
LEAD AS WELL, ESTABLISHING A
WATER RATE AFFORDABLE PROGRAM
FOR CALIFORNIANS SIMILAR
PROGRAMS EXIST FOR ENERGY AND
COMMUNICATIONS, BUT NOT FOR
MOST. WATER AND WASTEWATER
SYSTEMS. THIS BILL WILL REQUIRE
WATER SUPPLIERS. AS I SAID, TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE THROUGH A
VOLUNTARY RATEPAYER CONTRIBUTION
FUND THAT WILL NOT REQUIRE USE
OF ASSESSMENTS OR FEES. SO WE
WILL REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH PROP
218. THE STATE BASED PROGRAM
WILL DIRECTLY WILL DIRECT
VOLUNTARY COLLECTED FUNDS TO
HELP QUALIFIED HOUSEHOLDS, THOSE
WITH AN ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
THAT IS NO GREATER THAN 200% OF
THE FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINE.
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK,
RAQUEL SANCHEZ OF THE AGUA
COALITION, WHOSE TESTIMONY WILL
BE IN SPANISH AND TRANSLATED BY
ABRAHAM MENDOZA, FROM THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER. I ALSO
HAVE MICHAEL CLAIBORNE DIRECTING
ATTORNEY FOR LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
TO ALSO TESTIFY AND ANSWER
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
RESPECTFULLY INTERRUPT REAL
QUICK SO THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED
WITH THE TESTIMONY. PLEASE TO
ESTABLISH QUORUM. GARCIA.
PRESIDENT HOOVER HERE. CONNOLLY
MCKENNA. PAPPIN HERE. REYES TO.
OKAY, LET'S DO IT. OKAY.
ADELANTE. CON TESTIMONY, PLEASE.
SO I JUST TALKED TO MISS
SANCHEZ, AND SHE'D PREFER THAT I
GO FIRST, AND THEN SHE'LL GO.
AND I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK SO THAT
SHE HAS PLENTY OF TIME. EXACTLY.
SO GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
MICHAEL CLAIBORNE. I'M A
DIRECTING ATTORNEY AT LEADERSHIP
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. I HAVE TWO
POINTS TO MAKE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS IMPORTANT BILL. THE FIRST
IS JUST THE URGENT NEED FOR
ACTION IN THIS AREA. WATER CODE
106.3 STATES THAT IT IS HEREBY
DECLARED TO BE THE ESTABLISHED
POLICY OF THE STATE THAT EVERY
HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO
SAFE, CLEAN, AFFORDABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE WATER ADEQUATE FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION, COOKING, AND
SANITARY PURPOSES. THESE ARE
IMPORTANT WORDS, BUT FOR FAR TOO
MANY, THEY'RE ONLY WORDS. THE
REALITY IS THAT WATER REMAINS
UNAFFORDABLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE. THE REALITY IS THAT
THE COST OF WATER ROSE 45% FROM
2007 TO 2015, AND THAT THE STATE
WATER BOARD CONFIRMED TODAY IN
ITS ANNUAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT THAT
THE COST OF WATER HAS CONTINUED
TO RISE SINCE THEN. THE REALITY
IS THAT IN MOST WATER SYSTEMS,
THERE IS NO SOCIAL SAFETY NET TO
AID LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
STRUGGLING TO AFFORD THIS
ESSENTIAL SERVICE. THE REALITY
IS ALSO THAT WHEN A HOUSEHOLD
FAILS TO PAY THEIR WATER BILL,
THERE, AT LEAST IN SOME WATER
SYSTEMS, MOST WATER SYSTEMS ARE
AT RISK OF HAVING THEIR WATER
SHUT OFF AND LOSING ACCESS ALL
TOGETHER. AN I VOTE TODAY IS A
VOTE IN FAVOR OF REALIZING THE
PROMISE OF THE HUMAN RIGHT TO
WATER STATUTE, WHICH THIS
LEGISLATURE ADOPTED IN 2012. MY
SECOND AND FINAL POINT IS HOW
MUCH WE APPRECIATE THE
OPPOSITION AND THE WATER SECTOR
IN CONVERSATIONS ON THIS BILL
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. WE REACHED
OUT TO CMU WAY BACK IN MARCH
KI¾M WE QUICKLY FORMED A WORK
GROUP. WE MET WITH THAT WORK
GROUP IN EXCESS OF TEN TIMES. I
BELIEVE MANY TIMES TO TRY TO
REFINE THE BILL BEFORE RECENT
AMENDS WENT INTO PRINT SO WE
COULD ADDRESS SOME EARLY
FEEDBACK. AND THEN SINCE THEN,
WE'VE RECEIVED DOZENS OF
REQUESTS, REQUESTED AMENDS FROM
CMU AQUA AND OTHERS. A NUMBER OF
THESE CONSENSUS AMENDS WENT INTO
PRINT LAST WEEK, AND WE'RE
WORKING THROUGH THE REMAINDER.
AND IN ORDER TO REACH CONSENSUS
ON AS MANY POINTS AS WE POSSIBLY
CAN, I CANNOT OVERSTATE HOW MUCH
WE APPRECIATE THE CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE
WATER SECTOR. AND WITH THAT,
I'LL YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME
TO MISS SANCHEZ. THANK YOU.
BUENOS DIAS, ASAMBLEÍSTA GARCIA
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS RAQUEL
SANCHEZ. Y VIVO EN EL CONDADO DE
TULARE. SOY MADRE Y TAMBIÉN. SOY
MIEMBRO DE AGUA Y LA ASOCIACION
DE GENTE UNIDA POR EL AGUA.
SABEMOS C¯ A UNA CRISIS DE AGUA
ACESSIVEL EN EL ESTADO Y COMO
COALITION SUPPORT RAMOS ESTÁ POR
PUESTO AND ME COMUNIDAD HEMOS
TENIDO PROBLEMAS PAGANDO
NUESTRAS TARIFAS DE AGUA, COMO
TRABAJADORA DEL CAMPO Y FAMILIAS
DE BAJOS INGRESOS NØ SURGE. EL
PROPUESTO SE APOYADO Y A LA VEZ
BENEFICIA TAMBIÉN A LAS PERSONAS
LASTIMADAS Y A TODAS LAS
PERSONAS NECESITAS PARA PAGAR LA
FACTURA Y PODER SOBREVIVIR A LA
CRISIS. NO SURGE C¯ PASS EL SB
THOSE CINCO DE CINCO Y VARIOS
VECINOS EN SUFRIDO ESA CRISIS Y
YO TAMBIÉN Y MIS CUATRO HIJOS
POR EL HECHO DE NÓ SER ELEGIBLES
PARA LOS PROGRAMAS QUÊ HAY
PORQUE PIDEN DIFERENTES
DOCUMENTACION Y PARA LAS CUATRO
UTILIZADOS QUÊ EL SER HUMANO
NECESITA QUÊ ES AGUA LUZ, GAS Y
RENTA NO SURGE EL APOYO, POR
FAVOR. AND I'LL BE TRANSLATING
FOR MISS SANCHEZ, SHE IDENTIFIED
HERSELF AS A RESIDENT OF TULARE
COUNTY. SHE IS ALSO HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE AGUA COALITION, A
GROUP OF RESIDENTS FROM ACROSS
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AND
CENTRAL COAST, ALL UNITED FOR
WORKING AROUND WATER AND WATER
JUSTICE ISSUES, SHE IDENTIFIED
THAT HER AND HER FAMILY, YOU
KNOW, HER FOUR CHILDREN, THEY
HAVE HAD ISSUES QUALIFYING FOR
DIFFERENT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS AND IDENTIFIED THAT
THERE ARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
FOR, FOR COMMUNICATION, FOR
ELECTRICITY, ETC. BUT THERE IS
NO CURRENT PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM FOR WATER. SHE ALSO
IDENTIFIED AND URGED THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT ON BEHALF
OF THOSE WHO ARE WORKING IN THE
FIELDS AND RENTERS AND OTHER
COMMUNITIES THAT NEED THIS TYPE
OF ASSISTANCE, THAT YOU VOTE TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL AND HELP
ADVANCE THIS CONVERSATION
FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR
TRANSLATING. MUCHISIMAS. GRACIAS
POR SU TESTIMONY. GRACIAS POR
ESTAR AQUI AN SU CAPITOLIO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND
FOR BEING HERE IN YOUR CAPITAL.
HERE SACRAMENTO, AT THIS TIME,
WE WILL ASK, FOR THOSE, MEMBERS
OF THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THIS BILL, PLEASE, COME
FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION.
PLEASE DANIEL BRAUDE, ON BEHALF
OF UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND SUPPORT M.J. KUSHNER ON
BEHALF OF THE WATER FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT. SAVANNAH JORGENSEN,
ON BEHALF OF THE LUTHERAN OFFICE
OF PUBLIC POLICY AND STRONG
SUPPORT. NAYELI MARTIN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER IN SUPPORT. KELLY O'BRIEN
WITH THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW
AND POVERTY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
CODY PHILLIPS WITH CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT.
VIÆT MICHAEL ZUBIATE WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT. AND ALSO SPEAKING IN
SUPPORT OF FOR DREAM ALLIANCE, A
COALITION OF OVER 60
ORGANIZATIONS, IS ONE OF THEIR
PRIORITY GOALS. THANK YOU. AARON
WOOLLEY, ON BEHALF OF SIERRA
CLUB CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT
CELESTE WICKS ON BEHALF OF CLEAN
EARTH FOR KIDS IN SUPPORT ALSO
SUPPORTING NORTH COUNTY EQUITY
AND JUSTICE ECO SUSTAINABILITY
PEEPS AND CA GRANDPARENTS ACTING
TOGETHER AND FACTS ASHA SHARMA
WITH LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ON
BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE
FOR A NEW ECONOMY, CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
AND UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. DARRYL LITTLE WITH NRDC IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. HI, JENNIFER CLARY,
ON BEHALF OF CLEAN WATER ACTION,
THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION
LEAGUE AND CALIFORNIA
INDIVISIBLE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK AND ASK IF THERE'S
ANYONE THAT'S GOING TO BE
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU
HAVE FOUR MINUTES. TOTAL FOUR
MINUTES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR
GARCIA AND MEMBERS CINDY, TECH
WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES. AQUA
HAS AN OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION ON THE JUNE 19TH
VERSION OF THE BILL, THE LOW
INCOME RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
THAT'S PROPOSED IN THE BILL WENT
INTO PRINT ON JUNE THIRD. IT HAS
NOT BEEN VOTED ON OR CONSIDERED
IN THE FIRST HOUSE. WE
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
SENATOR GAROZZO AND THE SPONSORS
HAVE PUT INTO THE NEW VERSION OF
THE BILL, JUNE 19TH, BUT WITHOUT
FURTHER AMENDMENTS, AS AQUA HAS
SUGGESTED, WE THINK THE PROGRAM
WILL NOT WORK. I'M JUST GOING TO
HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE POINTS TO
ILLUSTRATE THAT. SO ONE MAJOR
CONCERN IS THAT THE BILL
PROPOSES AN OPT OUT APPROACH,
AND WE ARE CONCERNED THAT
CUSTOMERS AT THE WATER AGENCY
WOULD NOT SEE THE NOTICE, AND
THEN THEY WOULD BE BILLED THE
CHARGE, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE
A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION. AND
THEY COULD HAVE A REFUND, YOU
KNOW, THEY COULD THEN OPT OUT,
GET A REFUND. BUT THAT MAKES THE
FUNDING MORE UNSTABLE. SO A
LEGAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS
BILL IS THAT THE LESS VOLUNTARY
THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE, THE MORE
YOU RUN INTO A PROBLEM UNDER
PROP 218. AND THAT'S SOMETHING,
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WE TAKE VERY
SERIOUSLY. THE SECOND ISSUE HAS
TO DO WITH THE REASONABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE
PROGRAM. THE BILL SAYS THAT ONCE
THE MONEY STARTS GOING OUT IN
2027, THE REASONABLE COSTS HAVE
TO BE AT LESS THAN 10% OF THE
MONEY THAT'S COLLECTED. AND YOU
MAY SAY, WELL, THAT SOUNDS OKAY.
BUT THEN IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT,
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS
GOING TO BE COLLECTED. AND LET'S
SAY A SYSTEM THAT'S IMPLEMENTING
THIS CREATES JUST ONE POSITION
TO IMPLEMENT IT. THAT'S
CONSERVATIVE. SAY THE SALARY
70,000, THE BENEFITS 100,000.
THAT MEANS THAT WHAT COMES IN IS
GOING TO HAVE TO BE OVER $1
MILLION. THAT'S VERY UNCERTAIN.
SO THEY THE SYSTEM COULDN'T USE
OTHER RATE REVENUE FROM OTHER
CUSTOMERS TO COVER THAT. SO WHAT
HOW'S THIS GOING TO WORK FOR
NONPROFIT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO
ARE IMPLEMENTING IT? WE WANT A
PROGRAM THAT WORKS. BUT THE WAY
THIS IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT
DOESN'T WORK, THERE'S OTHER
ISSUES IN OUR MOCKUP THAT
HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED. LIKE I
SAID, WE'RE NOT AGAINST LARA,
BUT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, WE
URGE A NO VOTE RESPECTFULLY
TODAY, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DANIELLE
HAYDEN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING OVER 60 AGENCIES
THAT PROVIDE WATER AND
WASTEWATER TO 75% OF
CALIFORNIANS. WE ALSO HAVE AN
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED,
POSITION ON THE BILL. WE DO
SUPPORT AN EFFECTIVE AND
IMPLEMENTABLE LOW INCOME WATER
RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, BUT WE
HAVE THREE MAIN CONCERNS WITH
THE APPROACH. IN SB 1255, THE
OPT OUT PROVISION THAT MY
COLLEAGUE NOTED THE INCLUSION OF
WASTEWATER IN THE CAP ON
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS FAR AS
THE OPT OUT APPROACH GOES, WE DO
HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS AS AQUA,
BUT WE WOULD STRONGLY URGE THE
AUTHOR TO ALLOW FOR THE OPTION
WHETHER A SYSTEM WANTED TO
CHOOSE OPT IN OR OPT OUT, THEY
WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT
FLEXIBILITY. THE BILL DOES
CURRENTLY INCLUDE WATER AND
WASTEWATER CHARGES. WE
UNDERSTAND AMENDMENTS ARE IN THE
WORKS TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.
SO THAT'S FANTASTIC. AND THEN
ALSO RELATED TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CAP, WE DO OUR
ADMINISTRATIVE COST CAP. WE
UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO ENSURE
THERE IS A REASONABLE LEVEL OF
FUNDING FOR THIS PURPOSE. BUT WE
URGE THE AUTHOR TO ENGAGE WITH
WATER SYSTEMS ON A MORE
APPROPRIATE WAY TO KEEP COSTS AT
A REASONABLE LEVEL. SO
INELIGIBLE RATEPAYERS AREN'T
SUBSIDIZING ELIGIBLE ONES, WHICH
WOULD CREATE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES FOR WATER SYSTEMS. WE ARE
WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE
SPONSORS AND THE AUTHORS OFFICE
ON OUR CONCERNS, AND REAL
PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE ON
SEVERAL ISSUES. SO WE WANT TO
THANK, THIS WHOLE SIDE OF THE
TABLE FOR, FOR YOUR WORK. WE
APPRECIATE THE GOOD FAITH
EFFORTS OF THE AUTHOR AND BILLS
PROPONENTS, AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING ON OUR REMAINING
ISSUES. AND THE OTHER
OPERATIONAL MATTERS TO ENSURE
THIS IS AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM, AT
THIS TIME, WE MUST CONTINUE TO
OPPOSE THE BILL UNLESS IT IS
AMENDED TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS.
THANK YOU. I WILL ASK, THOSE IN
THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO COME
FORWARD AND, STATE THEIR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. THIS
IS, POSITION OF OPPOSITION.
PLEASE MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
BETH OLASO ON BEHALF OF INLAND
EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY AND
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT,
WE ECHO THE CONCERNS OF OUR
FRIENDS AT THE TABLE IN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU. JAMIE
MINOR, ON BEHALF OF EASTERN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, ALSO
WANT TO ECHO THOSE CONCERNS WITH
AN OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED
POSITION. APPRECIATE THE
PROGRESS MADE SO FAR. GOOD
AFTERNOON, LOU BRONSTEIN, ON
BEHALF OF IRVINE RANCH WATER
DISTRICT, OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED
. RAQUEL AYALA WITH REEB
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS ON BEHALF
OF DESERT WATER AGENCY, WITH AN
OPPOSING, LEAST AMENDED THANK
YOU. HELLO. KELLY MORRIS WITH
EDELSTEIN, GILBERT, ROBSON AND
SMITH ON BEHALF OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT,
OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED. HELLO,
MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. KRISTEN
OLSEN K, ON BEHALF OF ELSINORE
VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
WE HAVE A ROBUST RATEPAYER
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CURRENTLY,
BUT WE ARE OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED AND HOPEFUL, WE CAN ALL
GET TO A WIN WIN. THANK YOU.
DENNIS ALBIANI. ON BEHALF OF
MESA WATER, WE ARE OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. OUR BIGGEST
ISSUE IS THE OPT IN VERSUS OPT
OUT RECEIVERS FOR THE MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY.
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. SEEING NO ONE ELSE
WILL BRING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE
DAIS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, PLEASE
, SENATOR, JUST ONE, CURIOUS IF
YOU'RE OPEN TO THIS KIND OF OPT
OUT, MOVING IT TO THAT, SAU,
PUTTING THAT AMENDMENT INTO THE
BILL VERSUS WHAT IS THE WAY IT'S
DRAFTED CURRENTLY. WELL, I ASK
MY COLLEAGUES TO ASK MY
COLLEAGUES TO SPEAK ON THIS AS
WELL. I THINK WHAT WE WANT WAS
WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS IS A
RELIABLE, YOU KNOW, A RELIABLE
SOURCE, RIGHT? AND NOBODY WANTS
TO THE UP AND DOWN. AND I THINK
WITH NOTIFICATION TO EVERYONE
REAL CLEAR, NOT HIDING IT, NOT
JUST DROPPING IT ON THE ON THE
RATEPAYERS. IT'S GOING TO BE
VERY CLEARLY NOTIFYING EVERYONE
SO THAT THEY KNOW THIS IS WHAT
IT IS. AND THEY VERY CLEARLY
MAKE THE DECISION TO STAY IN. SO
I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO
SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT. I JUST JUST
WANT TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT OUR
OUR GOAL IS. SENATOR DAHLE Ó
JUST TO ADD A FEW THINGS AND I'M
SORRY MY BACK IS TO YOU. THAT'S
OKAY, SO WE'RE FULLY IN SUPPORT
OF TRANSPARENCY IN THIS BILL AND
DO HAVE SOME PROVISIONS THAT ACT
AS GUARDRAILS TO ENSURE THAT
CUSTOMERS WILL BE AWARE OF THE
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION, AND IF
THEY'RE NOT, THAT THEY CAN
REQUEST A REFUND. A COUPLE OF
POINTS, ON THE REFUND ISSUE, I
THINK AQUA HAD RAISED A CONCERN
ABOUT KIND OF THE UP AND DOWN OF
THAT, APPROACH. SHE MIGHT HAVE
TO REFUND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
MONEY TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS. WE
DO HAVE A BALANCING ACCOUNT IN
THE BILL THAT IS INTENDED TO
ADDRESS THAT POINT. TO ALLOW
FOR, IF KIND OF FUNDS ARE
COLLECTED THAT ARE EITHER HIGHER
OR LOWER THAN WHAT'S EXPECTED,
THERE'S THAT KIND OF BALANCING
ACCOUNT TO SMOOTH THINGS OUT,
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE
NOTICE TO RATEPAYERS THREE
MONTHS BEFORE COLLECTION OF
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
ANNUALLY. AFTER THAT, I THINK
THERE THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS ON
TRANSPARENCY NOT TO SPEAK FOR
THE SENATOR. WE'D BE IN SUPPORT
OF THOSE, AND THEN JUST ONE
THING ON OPT IN VERSUS OPT OUT.
WE DEFINITELY CONSIDERED THE OPT
IN APPROACH. WE DID SOME
RESEARCH, LOOKED AND TALKED TO
THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR, WHICH
COLLECTS ANNUAL DUES FROM
ATTORNEYS. THEY HAVE VOLUNTARY
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THEY COLLECT
ON BOTH AN OPT IN AND AN OPT OUT
BASIS. THE OPT IN PROGRAMS HAVE
ABOUT 3% PARTICIPATION, WHICH
DOESN'T RAISE A LOT OF MONEY.
THE OPT OUT PROGRAMS HAVE 70%
PARTICIPATION, THAT'S THE KIND
OF PARTICIPATION WE'D NEED FOR A
PROGRAM LIKE THIS TO WORK, I
APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK YOU
KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS I THINK
AN OPT OUT PROGRAM WOULD HAVE
THAT LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IS
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY
PEOPLE ARE, PARTICIPATING
WITHOUT MAYBE KNOWING THAT
THEY'RE PARTICIPATING. SO I
THINK THAT WOULD BE MY MAIN
CONCERN WITH THE CURRENT VERSION
OF THE BILL. I THINK IF A LOT OF
THESE TRANSPARENCY EFFORTS
INSTEAD WENT INTO MAYBE
PROMOTING THE OPT IN, YOU KNOW,
OPTION, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A
BETTER USE OF RESOURCES. BUT,
BUT NO, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
ANSWER. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE
APPARENTLY HAVE A ANOTHER GROUP
OF FOLKS THAT DIDN'T MAKE THEIR
WAY TO COME STATE THEIR
POSITION. AND SO I WANT TO IN
ALL FAIRNESS, ALLOW THEM TO COME
FORWARD AND STATE THEIR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION BEFORE
WE GO AROUND AND SEE IF THERE
ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND THEN
BRING IT BACK TO THE AUTHOR,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, CHAIR MEMBERS
AND APOLOGIES. IT'S QUITE BUSY
OUTSIDE, BUT ASHLEY WALKER WITH
NOSSAMAN ON BEHALF OF OLIVENHAIN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, KEISHA. KEISHA HUNT HERE WITH
NOSSAMAN, HERE WITH PADRE DAM IN
OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. THANK YOU. WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE DAIS. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FROM ANY MEMBERS? LOOK
TO MY RIGHT. NO ONE ON THE LEFT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM EITHER
THE WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ANY
OTHER COMMENTS, POSITION AUTHOR?
ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD?
WELL OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A VERY
CRITICAL ISSUE FOR OUR WHOLE
STATE, FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. WE
WANT TO BE FAIR. WE WANT THEM.
WE WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT
THEY HAVE THE HUMAN RIGHT AND
ACCESS TO WATER. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. YOU COME UP WITH A
CREATIVE APPROACH TO THIS
PROBLEM AND WE KNOW THAT THE
PROBLEM EXISTS. WE ALSO HAVE
WITNESSED TODAY THAT THERE'S
KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, GOOD SPIRIT
OF COOPERATION TAKING PLACE.
AND, MOTIVATED BY THAT, THAT
PERHAPS THERE WOULD BE SOME
ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS TO TRY
TO LAND AT A PLACE BASED ON, YOU
KNOW, THE BACK AND FORTH HERE
AND THE QUESTIONS WHERE WE CAN
FIND, THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE
OBJECTIVE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE AND THE MECHANISMS TO
GET THERE, RIGHT, THAT ARE
PRAGMATIC IN NATURE, IN TERMS OF
THE PUBLIC AGENCIES BEING ABLE
TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM THAT IS,
REFLECTIVE OF THEIR CAPACITIES,
AND AGAIN, THAT MEANS YOUR
OBJECTIVES, YOU DO HAVE A DUE
PASS RECOMMENDATION, AND THIS
DOES GO TO THE COMMUNITY.
UTILITIES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE
NEXT. IF IT DOES GET OUT. SO
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. IF ANOTHER
COLLEAGUE IS WANTING TO MAKE A
SECOND AND THEN WE'LL, PUT IT UP
FOR A VOTE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS
THERE. SO YOU HAVE, AGAIN, A Dð
PASS RECOMMENDATION. I'LL MAKE
THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?
SECOND? OKAY WE HAVE A SECOND.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU AGAIN. I'LL ASK FOR A
ROLL CALL. ITEM NUMBER NINE SB
1255. DURAZZO. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND
ENERGY. GARCIA, I HOOVER I
CONNOLLY. MCKENNA PAPIN, REYES
TO THE HAS SUFFICIENT VOTES.
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT OPEN FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO
ADD ON, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
WE'LL START MAKING PHONE CALLS,
SENDING TEXT MESSAGES, GET OTHER
MEMBERS HERE TO PRESENT BILLS
RIGHT. ARE YOU ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR? COME ON IN. SENATOR.
SENATOR I PLEASE COME FORWARD. I
ALSO UNDERSTAND YOU'LL BE DOING
DOUBLE DUTY TODAY. ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY.
WE'LL START WITH YOUR BILLS.
SENATE BILL 1066.
OKAY WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
CHAIR. AND COLLEAGUES. IT'S MY
PLEASURE TO BE HERE TODAY TO
SHARE WITH YOU SB 1066. THIS IS
A COMMON SENSE MEASURE TO ENSURE
THE SAFE DISPOSAL OF PYROTECHNIC
MARINE FLARES AND SHARE. DO YOU
MIND IF I SHOW YOU A PHOTO? THIS
IS. THESE ARE MARINE FLARES THAT
ARE ON BOATS. SO YOU ALL HAVE A
SENSE OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.
THE US COAST GUARD REQUIRES
VESSELS LONGER THAN 16FT
OPERATING ON OCEANS TO CARRY
APPROVED VISUAL DISTRESS SIGNALS
FOR USE IN EMERGENCIES. MOST
OFTEN, BOATERS CARRY THREE
PYROTECHNIC FLARES THAT ARE
APPROVED FOR BOTH DAY AND NIGHT
TIME USE. WHILE THERE ARE
SEVERAL BRANDS OF BATTERY
POWERED ALTERNATIVES, SOME
VOTERS PREFER FLARES DUE TO
THEIR INCREASED VISIBILITY
DURING THE DAY. FLARES EXPIRE 42
MONTHS AFTER MANUFACTURE,
MEANING THEY NO LONGER SATISFY
COAST GUARD REQUIREMENTS. UNUSED
EXPIRED MARINE FLARES CANNOT BE
DISPOSED OF IN THE REGULAR TRASH
OR IN THE RECYCLING. THEY ARE
EXPLOSIVES AND MUST BE TAKEN TO
A FACILITY PERMITTED TO ACCEPT
EXPLOSIVES. FLARES ALSO CONTAIN
CHEMICALS THAT CAUSE POLLUTION
AND HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH. WHILE
THE EXACT NUMBER CAN BE DEBATED,
CALIFORNIA'S DIVISION OF BOATING
AND WATERWAYS ESTIMATES 174,000
FLARES EXPIRE IN THE STATE EACH
YEAR. CONSERVATIVELY, THERE ARE
AT LEAST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
FLARES IN NEED OF DISPOSAL EACH
YEAR, BUT NEARLY ALL HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
REFUSE TO ACCEPT THEM. IN FACT,
ALAMEDA COUNTY IS THE ONLY
COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA WE HAVE
FOUND THAT ACTIVELY ACCEPTS
FLARES, BUT EVEN THEY LACK THE
PERMITS NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY
DISPOSE OF THE FLARES. AS FAR AS
WE KNOW, THERE ARE ONLY THREE
FACILITIES IN THE COUNTRY THAT
CURRENTLY ACCEPT FLARES FOR
DISPOSAL, AND NONE ARE IN
CALIFORNIA WITHOUT VIABLE
OPTIONS. VOTERS HAVE. VOTERS
HAVE REPORTED STORING THEM ON
THEIR BOATS, SHOOTING THEM INTO
THE AIR OR DUMPING THEM INTO THE
OCEAN. STOCKPILED FLARES ARE A
FIRE HAZARD. SHOOTING A DISTRESS
SIGNAL OUTSIDE OF AN EMERGENCY
IS A FEDERAL FEDERAL FELONY.
DUMPING UNUSED FLARES CAN LEACH
TOXIC METALS AND OTHER
POLLUTANTS INTO THE WATER.
EXPIRED FLARES CAN OFTEN END UP
IN THE TRASH OR LEFT IN FRONT OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, LIKE
POLICE OR FIRE STATIONS. THIS
RESULTS IN HIGH COSTS BORNE BY
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AS THEY
BECOME RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING
PROPER DISPOSAL. THESE COSTS ARE
SOCIALIZED ONTO LOCAL TAXPAYERS
INSTEAD OF THE BOATERS WHO USE
THEM. WE ARE ACTIVELY
COLLABORATING WITH ORION
SIGNALS, THE PRIMARY PRODUCER OF
MARINE FLARES AND THE
RECREATIONAL BOATERS
ASSOCIATION, TO ENSURE THE COSTS
ARE NOT SO HIGH THAT BOATERS
STOP CARRYING THESE EMERGENCY
SAFETY DEVICES. SB 1066 WILL PUT
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNDING
AND OPERATING A CONVENIENT TAKE
BACK SYSTEM ONTO THE PRODUCERS,
WITH OVERSIGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND CONTROL,
SB 1066 IS SUPPORTED BY A BROAD
COALITION OF STAKEHOLDERS,
INCLUDING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
PARK DISTRICTS, TEAMSTERS
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND INDIVIDUAL FIRE
DISTRICTS. WASTE HAULERS, HARBOR
DISTRICTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND
PUBLIC HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS.
WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE JORDAN
WELLS ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL, A
CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, AND
JUSTIN MILLAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ADMINISTRATORS, WHO ALSO HAPPENS
TO BE AN AVID BOATER. THANK YOU
BOTH FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU.
SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR, CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I AM JORDAN WELLS
WITH THE NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP
ACTION COUNCIL, A NONPROFIT THAT
ADVOCATES FOR AN EQUITABLE
CIRCULAR ECONOMY. WE ARE PROUD
TO CO-SPONSOR SB 1066 WITH ZERO
WASTE SONOMA TO FINALLY ADDRESS
THE LACK OF MARINE FLARE
DISPOSAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR
CALIFORNIANS. ALAMEDA IS
LITERALLY THE ONLY COUNTY IN THE
STATE WE ARE AWARE OF WITH
PERMANENT MARINE FLARE
COLLECTION DUE TO INSTALLING THE
NECESSARY BUT COSTLY EQUIPMENT
TO SAFELY COLLECT AND STORE
EXPLOSIVES. DUE TO THE LACK OF
INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES AND
FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE
STATE MUST TURN AWAY RESIDENTS
TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING BY
BRINGING THEIR THEIR UNWANTED
FLARES LEFT WITH NO SOLUTION,
THEY RESOLVED TO DISSOLVING THEM
IN BUCKETS OF WATER, THEN
THROWING THEM IN THE TRASH,
SETTING THEM OFF ON THE 4TH OF
JULY, STORING THEM ON THEIR
BOATS OR IN THEIR GARAGES, OR
DUMPING THEM INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT. THESE ARE ALL TRUE
STORIES THAT WE HAVE DOCUMENTED.
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS HAVE ALREADY
HELD AT LEAST NINE MARINE FLARE
PILOT COLLECTION EVENTS. SOME
HAVE BEEN FUNDED BY STATE
GRANTS, AND THE DATA IS PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE AND HAS BEEN PROVIDED
TO THE OPPOSITION THROUGH THESE
PROJECTS. THE LOWEST COST WAS
$10.55 PER FLARE. IN ALAMEDA
COUNTY, WE HAVE GATHERED ENOUGH
DATA AND WE DON'T NEED MORE
PILOT PROJECTS IN FACT, WE KNOW
ORION HAS PARTICIPATED IN FLARE
COLLECTIONS IN CANADA AND FUNDED
APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE COST
AND ALSO PARTICIPATED IN EVENTS
IN NEW JERSEY. A STATEWIDE
PROGRAM WILL RESULT IN GREATER
EFFICIENCIES OF SCALE AND
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE
TRANSPORTATION COSTS THAT CAN'T
BE REALIZED WITH SILOED EVENTS
AND PROGRAMS, AND WE REMAIN
EAGER AND WILLING TO HELP THE
PRODUCERS CREATE THE MOST COST
EFFECTIVE SYSTEM POSSIBLE. SB
1066 WILL NOT RESTRICT BOATERS
CHOICES. WE ARE NOT BANNING
FLARES, AND ORION HAS ALREADY
SELLS THE COAST GUARD APPROVED
ALTERNATIVES. VOTERS WILL STILL
BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THE FLARES,
HOWEVER, THE COST OF DISPOSAL
WILL NO LONGER BE SOCIALIZED BY
ALL RATEPAYERS, WHETHER THEY OWN
A BOAT OR NOT. IT IS TIME TO
RIGHT THIS SHIP AND END THE
DISPOSAL. DISTRESS FOR BOATERS
AND PROTECT OUR WORKERS IN THE
ENVIRONMENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR, FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS JUSTIN MALONEY, ON
BEHALF OF TWO GROUPS. ACTUALLY,
THE BOATERS AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ADMINISTRATORS, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ADMINISTRATORS RUN THE COOPER
PROGRAM, THE HAZMAT PROGRAM, THE
SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS ACROSS THE
STATE. SO WE INTIMATELY INVOLVED
IN DEALING WITH THIS MATERIAL.
BUT I'M HERE AS A SAILOR OF 40
YEARS. I'M A US COAST GUARD
CAPTAIN, AND I WANT TO SHARE
WITH YOU THE REASON WHY THIS IS
SO IMPORTANT. FOR 40 YEARS, I'VE
ACTUALLY STRUGGLED TO GET RID OF
THESE FLARES THAT EXPIRE SO
FREQUENTLY, NO MATTER WHAT
COUNTRY I'M IN. AND IT'S
PARTICULARLY BAD HERE BECAUSE
THE COST IS SO HIGH TO DISPOSE
OF THESE FLARES SAFELY. WE
CANNOT LEAVE THEM ON A BOAT.
EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY HEAR FROM
THE OPPOSITION SAYING THAT
PEOPLE HOLD FLARES ON THEIR BOAT
FOR YEARS, THAT'S NOT A GREAT
IDEA. THEY BECOME UNSTABLE. IT'S
NOT GREAT TO HAVE THESE LYING
AROUND. I WILL NOT GO TO SEA
WITHOUT VALID FLARES WITH ME,
BECAUSE MOST FLARES WILL GIVE
YOU THAT PROTECTION. YOU NEED
OUT AT SEA. THE LIGHTS, WHICH I
ALSO HAVE. THE ELECTRONIC FLARES
DON'T WORK DURING THE DAY. SO
YOU NEED THIS PRODUCT. IT'S
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO GET RID
OF IT AND IT'S EXTREMELY
EXPENSIVE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AND OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THAT. SO
I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE WHAT
BOTH THE SENATOR AND JORDAN HAVE
SAID. I JUST WANT TO URGE YOU TO
HEAR THE SUPPORT AND ENSURE THAT
WE DON'T PILE THIS UNNECESSARY
COST ONTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
GOVERNMENT, AND LET THE PRODUCER
PAY THEIR WAY. THANK YOU.
CAPTAIN, ALASKA, THOSE WHO ARE
GOING TO BE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF
THE BILL, PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, POSITION, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
LINDSEY GOULBOURNE WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
RESOURCE RECOVERY COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT JOHN
KENNEDY WITH THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT JOSH GAGER ON BEHALF
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
AND SUPPORT JOHN MOFFITT ON
BEHALF OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN
THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
IN SUPPORT DAVID KRIEGER FOR
WASTE CONNECTIONS AND SUPPORT.
STEPHANIE STEPHANIE MORRELL ON
BEHALF OF RECOLOGY, AND SUPPORT
TONY HACKETT FROM COMMUNITY
WATER CENTER. SORRY,
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE AND
SUPPORT KEELEY MORRIS ON BEHALF
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS IN SUPPORT COURTNEY
SCOTT WITH ZERO WASTE SONOMA,
THE CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL IN
SUPPORT AND ALONG WITH FIVE
GYRES, NAPA RECYCLING AND WASTE
SERVICES, BOAT SAFE NORTHWEST
SYRIA, SIGNAL, CITY OF THOUSAND
OAKS, MARIN SANITARY SERVICE,
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECYCLING
ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO SPLASH,
SAVE OUR SHORES, SAN FRANCISCO,
BAYKEEPER, ZERO WASTE, MARIN
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, PLASTIC
FREE FURNITURE, ELDERS, CLIMATE
ACTION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND ELDERS CLIMATE ACTION OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. MELISSA
SPARKS KRANZ WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES, AS WELL AS
THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES IN SUPPORT JASON
SCHMELTZER HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL, WESTERN PLACER WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, ALAMEDA
STOP WASTE, AND THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTERS OF SWANNA AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO, KAYLA
ROBINSON, ON BEHALF OF RETHINK
WASTE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
CLIFTON WILSON ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, AS WELL AS THE SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS ROMAN VOGELSANG WITH THE
PRAYING COMPANY ON BEHALF OF
REPUBLIC SERVICES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CELESTE WICKS WITH
CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS IN SUPPORT.
ALSO IN SUPPORT. NORTH COUNTY
EQUITY AND JUSTICE, ECO
SUSTAINABILITY AND GRANDPARENTS
ACTING TOGETHER IN FACTS. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. SORT OF A
SUPPORTIVE AMENDED CHAIR. OKAY,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, JERRY
DESMONDE WITH RECREATIONAL
BOATERS OF CALIFORNIA, THE
NONPROFIT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION
THAT REPRESENTS TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF BOATERS HERE IN
NATIONALLY, BEEN AROUND FOR 50
YEARS. AND OUR GROUP IS IN
SUPPORT OF AMENDED POSITION AT
THIS TIME. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE
FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
BUY THE FLARES, DISPOSE OF THE
FLARES, HANDLE THE FLARES, WE'RE
WORRIED THAT THE ONE COMPANY
THAT HAS A NONCOMPETITIVE
ENVIRONMENT WILL BE ABLE TO
RAISE THOSE COSTS EXORBITANTLY,
SO WE THINK THE EFFORT OF A TEST
PROGRAM THAT WILL ENABLE US TO
GET THROUGH THE BACKLOG OF
WHATEVER THEY ARE, 170,000
FLARES WITHOUT STATE COSTS
FUNDED BY THIS ORGANIZATION,
THIS COMPANY THAT HAS A MONOPOLY
WILL BE ABLE TO BE A TRANSITION
TO GET US TO THE POINT THAT WE
NEED TO BE IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T
PUT A COST ON BOATERS OR ON THE
STATE. SO WE HAVE A SUPPORT, IF
AMENDED POSITION ON THE BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'LL ASK
NOW THOSE WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING
IN OPPOSITION IF THEY WANT TO
COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE FOUR
MINUTES TOTAL, YOU CAN SPLIT
THOSE UP HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE, AND
THEN WE'LL GO TO OTHERS WHO WILL
BE STATING THEIR POSITION AS
WELL. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. JIM
LIGHTS, ON BEHALF OF ORION
SAFETY PRODUCTS THAT
MANUFACTURES AND SELLS 95% OF
THE RECREATIONAL MARINE FLARES
SOLD IN CALIFORNIA. MARINE
FLARES ARE NOT LIKE MATTRESSES.
THEY ARE NOT UBIQUITOUS. AN EPR
PROGRAM FOR MARINE FLARES IS NOT
NECESSARY, NOR DO WE NEED A PRO.
THE COMPANY HAS SHARED THEIR
SALES VOLUMES IN THIS STATE,
WHICH TOTAL A GRAND TOTAL OF
$450,000. 80% OF THAT IS COST OF
GOODS SOLD. THEY HAVE A PROFIT
MARGIN OF $90,000. THE DTSC
ESTIMATE ON THIS PROGRAM IS A
MILLION DOLLARS, AND THAT
DOESN'T INCLUDE COLLECTION,
STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION.
YOUR ANALYSIS SUGGESTS THAT THE
AUTHOR SHOULD TALK TO THE
COMPANY TO COME UP WITH AN
APPROPRIATE SCALE FOR THIS
PROGRAM, AS WELL AS GAIN MORE
DATA. WE HAVE OFFERED TO DO
EXACTLY THAT TO PARTICIPATE IN
COLLECTION EVENTS, TAKE BACK OUR
OWN PRODUCT OUT OF THIS WASTE
STREAM, AND TRANSPORT IT OUT OF
CALIFORNIA AT OUR EXPENSE. THAT
HAS BEEN REJECTED. SO HERE WE
ARE WITH A PROGRAM THAT COSTS
MORE THAN TEN TIMES THE
COMPANY'S PROFIT, AND WE'RE
TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM. WE'VE
SAID THIS COMPANY HAS 118
EMPLOYEES NATIONWIDE. IT'S NOT A
SMALL EXCUSE ME, IT'S NOT A
LARGE OPERATION. IF WE END UP
ENACTING SOMETHING THAT IS SO
ADMINISTRATIVELY TOP HEAVY, THEY
DON'T THINK THEY CAN CONTINUE TO
SELL IN THE CALIFORNIA
MARKETPLACE. WHEN WE TALK TO THE
SPONSORS AND ABOUT THAT, WE WERE
TOLD THAT IF THEY PULL OUT OF
THE CALIFORNIA MARKET, NOBODY
CARES. NOBODY CARES IF MARINE
FLARES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT
BRICK AND MORTAR STORES IN
CALIFORNIA. I'M NOT SURE THEY
TALK TO BOATERS. I'M NOT SURE
THAT THEY TALK TO ANY OF THE
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS. THEY
WOULD CARE, AND WE THINK THIS
LEGISLATURE SHOULD CARE AS WELL.
WE ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. CHAIR
GARCIA AND ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS CLAY
CRABTREE, AND I'M DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS FOR THE
NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION. SO NMA IS THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE NORTH
AMERICAN RECREATIONAL BOATING
INDUSTRY. SO EVERYTHING FROM
BOATS, ENGINES TO THE MAKERS OF
KAYAKS, ELECTRONICS AND SAFETY
EQUIPMENT, THAT'S OUR
MEMBERSHIP, AND SO THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY
TO EXPRESS OUR RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 1066 AS
CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN CALIFORNIA,
RECREATIONAL BOATING AND FISHING
DRIVES A $17.3 BILLION IMPACT,
AND THAT SUPPORTS OVER 48,000
JOBS ACROSS OUR STATE AND NMA.
WE REPRESENT ABOUT 77 DIFFERENT
BUSINESSES HERE IN THE GREAT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITH OVER
620,000 REGISTERED BOATS.
CALIFORNIA IS THE SECOND LARGEST
BOATING STATE IN THE NATION. NMA
IS COMMITTED TO THE SAFETY OF
STATES, RECREATIONAL BOATERS,
WHICH INCLUDES ENSURING THAT
BOATERS HAVE ACCESS TO THE MOST
EFFECTIVE DAY AND NIGHT TIME
DISTRESS SIGNALS, ALSO KNOWN AS
MARINE FLARES. NOW, MARINE
FLARES PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN
THE MARITIME SAFETY BY PROVIDING
A VISIBLE MEANS OF SIGNALING
DISTRESS, AIDING IN LOCATION AND
POSITIONING, AND ENSURING THAT
VESSELS COMPLY WITH THE US COAST
GUARD SAFETY REGULATIONS. MARINE
FLARES ARE ALSO AN ESSENTIAL
COMPONENT OF ANY VESSEL SAFETY
EQUIPMENT, AND CAN SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASE THE CHANCES OF A
SUCCESSFUL RESCUE OPERATION IN
ANY EMERGENCY SITUATION. SB 1066
CREATES THE EXTENDED PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY PLAN AND THAT
INCLUDES SMOKE FLARES AND HAND
FLARES AS WELL, AND THESE TYPES
OF FLARES ARE SHOWN TO BE AMONG
THE MOST HIGHLY VISIBLE DISTRESS
SIGNALS, ESPECIALLY IN DAYLIGHT
WHEN RECREATIONAL BOATERS ARE
MOST LIKELY OUT ON THE WATER.
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, 61% OF ALL
BOAT OWNERS HAVE A HOUSEHOLD
INCOME OF $75,000 OR LESS, AND
THIS BILL WILL INEVITABLY
INCREASE THE PRICE OF MARINE
FLARES, IMPACTING THE CHOICES
THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE BY
PURCHASING. THIS REQUIRED SAFETY
EQUIPMENT ALMOST 500 LETTERS
HAVE BEEN SENT TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS AND SENATORS FROM
CALIFORNIA. BOATERS VOICING
THEIR CONCERNS OVER THIS
LEGISLATION. AND SO ENEMA ENEMA
IS COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT
ALL BOATERS HAVE ACCESS TO THE
MOST EFFECTIVE SAFETY EQUIPMENT
ON THE MARKET. BUT WE REMAIN
CONCERNED WITH SB 1066 AND THAT
IT WILL MAKE THESE SAFETY
PRODUCTS LESS ACCESSIBLE TO
RECREATIONAL BOATERS. IT'S FOR
THESE REASONS THAT NMA MUST
OPPOSE SB 1066 AS WRITTEN AS IT
HAS RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE SAFETY
OF VOTERS ACROSS OUR GREAT
STATE. I RESPECTFULLY URGE A NO
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO
ASK OTHERS WHO WANT TO STATE
THEIR POSITION. FOR THE RECORD,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. OKAY.
SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL BRING IT
BACK. I'M GOING TO ASK OUR
COLLEAGUES, SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS TO THE RIGHT. PLEASE I
GUESS I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL. WHAT DO
YOU SAY TO A COMPANY THAT, WHAT
WAS IT, 80 OR 90% OF THE OF THE
MARKET SHARE WILLING TO DO THIS
WORK RATHER THAN WE CREATING A
BUREAUCRACY TO DO IT? I MEAN,
ULTIMATELY, THIS BILL IS ABOUT
IT'S THE SYSTEMS LEVEL CHANGE
THAT'S NEEDED WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT AN EXTENDED PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM. SO
SOMETHING THAT IS TOXIC TO THE
ENVIRONMENT AND IS SOLD BY A
COMPANY AND IT'S ONE WAY. AND
THEN WHO DEALS WITH IT? IT'S OUR
ENVIRONMENT THAT DEALS WITH IT.
IT'S LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IT'S
INDIVIDUAL BOATERS AS WAS
DESCRIBED. PEOPLE WHO STORE THEM
ON THEIR BOATS, CREATE FIRE
HAZARDS. I MEAN, THE REALITY OF
SAYING THAT WE THINK THAT THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNDING,
FUNDING AND OPERATING A SYSTEM
ON THE BACK END FOR END OF LIFE
SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE COMPANIES
THAT CREATE THE PRODUCT. TO ME,
THAT DOES MAKE SENSE WHEN YOU'RE
LOOKING AT THE MACRO, HOW DO WE
HANDLE THIS PROBLEM? SO, HAVING
SOMETHING AT SCALE SO NOT HAVING
A ONE OFF TYPE OF EVENT IN ONE
COUNTY, BUT HAVING IT OPERATE AT
SCALE ALONG OUR ENTIRE COASTLINE
FOR ALL OF THE BOATS THAT WE
HAVE ALONG OUR COASTLINE, THAT
MAKES SENSE. AND IT'S SOMETHING
THAT THAT WE HAVE BEEN WRESTLING
WITH, WITH MULTIPLE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF INDUSTRIES. AND THIS IS
A TOXIC PRODUCT THAT IS USED
ALONG OUR COASTLINE AND IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE AN END OF
LIFE PLAN FOR IT. I DON'T KNOW
IF DO YOU WANT TO IF I MAY, IF
THE MANUFACTURER IS WILLING TO
DO THAT ALREADY. I DON'T
DISAGREE WITH YOU. WE GOT TO
FIND A WAY TO DISPOSE OF THEM
THAT THAT'S WE'LL STIPULATE TO
THAT PART OF IT. MY QUESTION IS
IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY STEPPING
UP THE PLATE TO DO IT, WE'VE GOT
TOUGH BUDGETARY TIMES. WHY ARE
WE LOOKING AT GIFT HORSE IN THE
MOUTH, IF YOU WILL? SO I JUST
MENTION THAT THE PRODUCT DOES
EXPIRE EVERY 42 YEARS, AND
BOATERS HAVE TO PURCHASE IF THEY
OPT FOR THIS, THEY HAVE ALREADY
43, 42 MONTHS, AND SO THEY HAVE
TO IF THEY OPT FOR THIS SAFETY
DEVICE, WHICH THERE HAVE OTHER
ALTERNATIVES, THEY HAVE TO BUY
THREE OF THEM EVERY 42 MONTHS.
SO IT'S NOT JUST THE FLARES THAT
ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW THAT
BOATERS DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
DISPOSAL FOR. BUT WE'RE GOING TO
KEEP SEEING THIS GENERATION OF
THIS WASTE EVERY THREE YEARS OR
EVERY 3.5 YEARS. I'M SORRY.
DON'T DISPUTE IT. BUT IF I MAY,
IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY STEPPING
UP TO DO IT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK
I'M HEARING AN ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION, WHICH IS WHY ARE WE
CREATING A BUREAUCRACY WHEN WE
ACTUALLY HAVE A MANUFACTURER
THAT WILL DO IT? THAT DOESN'T
HAPPEN VERY OFTEN. YOU KNOW, YOU
DON'T REALLY SEE PEOPLE COMING
FORWARD AND SAYING, WE'LL TAKE
THIS ON AND WE'LL TAKE IT ON.
STATEWIDE, RECOGNIZING EVERY
THREE YEARS. YOU'VE GOT TO GET
SOME THAT WORK THERE. THE ONLY
KIND YOU CAN USE DURING THE DAY.
WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM END UP
IN THE OCEAN OR IN LANDFILLS, OR
JUST SITTING AROUND BEING
OBSOLETE ON SOMEBODY'S BOAT.
THAT'S NOT SAFE EITHER. I HEAR
ALL OF THAT. I'M JUST THINKING
ABOUT MECHANICS HERE. AND HOW IS
IT IF WE GOT SOMEBODY THAT
MECHANICALLY IS GOING TO AFFECT
THIS FOR YOU? AND, YOU KNOW,
SENATOR BLAKE, IT WILL GO FROM
YOUR DISTRICT ALL THE WAY UP TO
MINE, ALL THE WAY INTO SOME OF
THE INTERIOR WATERWAYS. IF
THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT, WHY
ARE WE SAYING NO? THAT'S I MEAN,
MR. CHAIR, I THINK I CAN ANSWER
THAT OFTEN LEGISLATION MAKES
PEOPLE TRUE BELIEVERS. YOU KNOW,
IT'S WHEN THE BILL GETS
INTRODUCED, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN
PEOPLE ARE PREPARED TO DO THIS.
I'VE HAD 38 YEARS IN CALIFORNIA.
I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO IT. I
THINK I'VE BEEN TO ONE
COLLECTION EVENT IN RICHMOND IN
38 YEARS OF OWNING A BOAT. SO
NOW YOU HEAR THEY WILL DO IT,
BUT THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT UNTIL
THIS BILL POPPED UP. AND THE
BILL IS ACTUALLY QUITE SIMPLE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE EPR PROGRAM,
IT GIVES A HUGE AMOUNT OF
LATITUDE TO THE INDUSTRY. IT
DOESN'T PRESCRIBE HOW THEY'RE
GOING TO DO IT. THEY CAN DO
THEIR COLLECTION EVENTS, THEY
CAN DO THEIR REVERSE COMMERCE,
THEY CAN DO ALMOST ANYTHING.
THEY WANT, AS LONG AS THEY
EFFECTIVELY COLLECT IT AND
DISPOSE OF IT. SO YES, OF
COURSE, SOMEONE'S GOING TO STEP
UP AND SAY, OH, WE CAN DO THAT
WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO DO IT.
BUT THEY'RE A HELL OF A LOT OF
LAWS THAT WE THAT WE DO ENACT
BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T STEP UP.
AND IT'S ONLY WHEN THE LAWS ARE
THERE THAT THEY OFFER TO DO IT.
SO I'M NOT SURE IT'S GOING TO
WORK WITH OUR LEGISLATION THAT
THE PROBLEM IS IT ALWAYS COSTS
THE STATE MONEY. AND SO WHEN WE
WERE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, $1
MILLION FOR THE STATE, HOW DO I
TELL MY, MY CONSTITUENTS? WELL,
WE HAD SOMEBODY VOLUNTARILY
WILLING TO DO IT. WE DIDN'T
REALLY TRUST THEM. SO LET'S GO
INCUR A BILL FOR A MILLION
BUCKS. SO I HEAR YOU, I HEAR
YOU. NOBODY STEPPED UP BEFORE.
SENATOR. GO AHEAD. PLEASE YES.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SO
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S ON OFFER IS
A LIMITED NUMBER OF EVENTS. SO
FIVE OF THEM ALONG THE COAST AND
THIS. AND THEN THERE'S NOTHING
ON OFFER AFTER 2026. SO PART OF
HER ANSWER ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THESE ARE EXPIRING EVERY THREE
YEARS, WE NEED AN ONGOING
RESPONSIBILITY. AND THE STATE IS
NOT TAKING ON THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IT'S REIMBURSED BY THE
COMPANIES. SO THAT THAT IS PART
OF. YEAH, WHY NOT LET THEM DO IT
IN THE FIRST PLACE? BUT I DIDN'T
KNOW IT WAS ONLY FIVE. SO IT'S
NOT THE WHOLE GIG. WHAT THEIR
LETTER SAID. IF I CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG, IT'S FIVE EVENTS IN
2024. AND THEN THE FIRST SIX
MONTHS OF 2025, AND WE'RE
ALREADY. AND THESE EVENTS TAKE
TIME TO PLAN AND TO PUT ON
BECAUSE THEY ONLY EXPIRE AFTER
42 MONTHS. IF YOU TURN IN
EXPIRED FLARES, YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO NEED TO DO SO AGAIN FOR
SEVERAL YEARS. THAT'S WHY WE
SUGGEST GLEANING THE DATA FROM
THE COLLECTION EVENTS SO THAT WE
CAN COME UP WITH A PROGRAM THAT
IS APPROPRIATE IN SCALE, AND NOT
A 58 COUNTY. 24, SEVEN, 12
MONTHS A YEAR PROGRAM. WHEN
PEOPLE MAY NOT NEED TO DISPOSE
OF FLARES IN THAT MANNER. THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT THE ANALYSIS SAYS.
IT SAYS THAT THE DATA IS
INCONCLUSIVE. THE PORT OF LOS
ANGELES IS HOLDING THEIR THIRD
COLLECTION EVENT, IN IN A ROW
FOR AN ANNUAL EVENT IN OCTOBER.
ORANGE COUNTY JUST HAD ONE ON
SATURDAY. WHY ARE WE NOT LOOKING
AT THE DATA THAT'S COMING IN SO
THAT WE RIGHT SIZE THIS PROPOSAL
? THIS IS GOING TO COST MORE
THAN THE COMPANY MAKES IN THIS
STATE IN TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
AND SO NO, IT WON'T COST THE
STATE. THAT BILL IS GOING TO GO
TO THE MANUFACTURER. AND THEY
DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY
FOR WHAT IS ENVISIONED, WHICH IS
WHY WE OFFERED TO TAKE BACK THE
PRODUCT THROUGH COLLECTION
EVENTS AND GIVE DTSC THE
LATITUDE TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY
COLLECTION EVENTS DO WE REALLY
NEED? DO WE NEED A BOX OUT ON A
DOCK ALL THE TIME, OR DO WE NEED
TO SET THIS UP IN A WAY THAT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE RECYCLING
TIME FRAME OF THE PRODUCT? THERE
IS A MARKET FOR EXPIRED FLARES.
THE COAST GUARD WILL PURCHASE
THEM FOR TRAINING. SOME FIRE
AGENCIES PURCHASE THEM TO LIGHT
BACKFIRES. THERE ARE SOME
COMPONENTS OF AN AERIAL FLARE
THAT CAN BE RECYCLED INTO NEW
FLARES. THAT'S WHY THEY OFFERED
TO TAKE THEM BACK, BECAUSE THERE
IS A MARKET FOR THOSE. THEY'RE
NOT SIMPLY DISPOSED OF IN ALL
CASES, AND THAT HAS BEEN
REJECTED. AND THERE'S BEEN NO
EFFORT TO REDUCE THE COST OF
WHAT THIS BILL WOULD INCUR.
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
RESPOND? YES. JUST JUST IN
BRIEF. SO THIS CONVERSATION IS
ONGOING. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT
PRESCRIPTIVE. WE DON'T SAY THAT
IT HAS TO BE PICKED UP IN 50
PLACES OR SO. THE CONVERSATION
IS ONGOING ABOUT HOW BEST TO
HANDLE THIS. AND WE JUST WANT TO
HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT
DEALS WITH THE END OF LIFE. AND
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT ANY
COMPANIES OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT
WE ALSO DO NEED A PARTNER. AND
IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A
PARTNER, WE NEED TO HAVE
LEGISLATION FOR THAT. AS THE
TESTIMONY INDICATED, THERE WAS
AN INABILITY TO GET EVEN A
CONVERSATION GOING BEFORE THE
LEGISLATION. ALL RIGHT. SO IS IT
YOUR ANTICIPATION IF YOU GOT A
YES VOTE TODAY THAT THE DTSC IS
GOING TO WORK WITH THESE FOLKS
TO MAKE IT SCALABLE SO WE DON'T
PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS? AND
I'D LIKE THAT TO BE A GOAL OF
THIS BILL, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT
SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT 80% OF THE
MARKET AND YOU'RE TURNING YOUR
BACK ON THEM. I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
ECONOMICALLY, IN MY MIND, I'M
I'M STRUGGLING A BIT, AS YOU CAN
TELL, BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT
SOMETIMES OUR REGULATORY
AGENCIES CAN DO THAT ONCE WE
ADOPT SOMETHING. BUT I, YOU KNOW
, MAYBE YOU MIGHT CONSIDER
WHERE'S THIS BILL GOING AFTER
THIS APPROPRIATIONS Þ JUST
APPROPRIATIONS. OKAY. WELL, YOU
MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER SOMETHING
THAT SAYS THIS IS TO WORK WITH
THE KEY INDUSTRY PROVIDERS. SO
THAT IT'S MORE MANAGEABLE THAN
WE'RE GOING TO OVERREGULATE THE
DAYLIGHTS OUT OF YOU, AND YOU'RE
GOING TO PAY DEARLY, AND WE
DON'T REALLY CARE. YOU KNOW, WE
CAN GO SOMEWHAT REALLY FAR
AFIELD. I'M SURE YOU COULD
RECOGNIZE MY PLIGHT. WE GO WAY
FAR AFIELD AND THEN WE END UP
DOING OURSELVES IN WITH SOMEBODY
THAT'S PROVIDING THE PRODUCT AND
PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY PERSON
PROVIDING THE PRODUCT. RIGHT. SO
IN ANY EVENT, THANK YOU FOR
HEARING ME OUT. I DO APPRECIATE
IT. YES THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. I APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENTS. AND I HEAR THEM AND I
AND WE ARE WORKING ON THAT.
SENATOR REYES, IN THE ANALYSIS,
IT TALKS ABOUT 174,000 EVERY
YEAR THAT EXPIRE. SO I THINK
THAT IN THE LANGUAGE IT WOULD BE
GOOD TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT THAT
THE DATA THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, WE SHOULD HAVE CLOSE TO
174,000 THAT ARE RECOUPED EVERY
YEAR, SO I THINK HAVING
SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS THAT
NUMBER ACCURATE? SO THEIR SALES
VOLUMES IN THIS STATE DO NOT
SUPPORT THAT NUMBER. THE
ANALYSIS NOTES THAT AND WE HAVE
BEEN TALKING TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF MOTOR WATERWAYS. THE ANALYSIS
ALSO NOTES THAT THAT NUMBER IS
13 YEARS OLD AND IT REMAINS ON
THEIR WEBSITE. BUT OUR SALES
VOLUMES ARE IN THE LOW 40,000.
SO WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE HOW
174,000 ARE EXPIRING ANNUALLY.
BUT THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. I
WOULD IMAGINE, IN, DO YOU MIND,
NO, NO, MR. CHAIR, THROUGH YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO HEAR YOU FINISH
YOUR QUESTION. NO, I DO, I THINK
HE'S GOING TO. OKAY, I THINK ONE
OF THE CORE ESSENCES OF THE
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
PROGRAM IS FIRSTLY, THE
FLEXIBILITY AND SECONDLY, THE
ABILITY OF THE CAPTURED,
ENTITIES THAT ARE WORKING IN THE
PROGRAM TO DETERMINE HOW BIG
THIS PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE.
THEY THE ONES THAT DETERMINE SO
WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, IF IT'S
30,000 OR 300,000, THEY'RE THE
ONES THEY'RE GOING TO SET UP THE
PROGRAM TO COLLECT THAT PRODUCT.
SO THE STATE IS NOT DICTATING TO
THEM SAYING THEY HAVE TO HAVE
500 COLLECTION FACILITIES OR
THEY HAVE TO HAVE EVERY 58 STATE
COUNTED WHAT THE EPR PROGRAM
DOES. AND IT'S A HYBRID STATE
PROGRAM. AND PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S SAYING TO
THEM, YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THIS
PRODUCT. YOU DETERMINE HOW YOU
DO IT. IF YOU WANT COLLECTION
AGENCY, IF YOU WANT CLEAN
HARBORS, IF YOU WANT DTSC TO
COLLECT IT, YOU MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION. THAT'S ABSENT.
NOW YOU HAVE GOT SMALL MARINAS,
PORTS STUCK WITH THIS HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL, PAYING A VAST AMOUNT
OF MONEY BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY
HASN'T STEPPED UP. SO WE NEED
SOMETHING TO OBLIGATE THEM TO
STEP UP. WE DON'T HAVE TO
DICTATE EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE
TO DO. IT'S A PERFORMANCE BASED
THING. THEY JUST GOT TO PERFORM.
AND IF THEY CAN DO IT
INEXPENSIVELY, THAT'S THEIR
THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS. SO,
SENATOR, THEN WHAT YOU'RE
ENVISIONING THEN IS PUTTING
TOGETHER OR HAVING A PLAN PUT
TOGETHER THE NUMBERS, THEN THE
DATA AS TO EXACTLY HOW MANY
FLARES SHOULD BE COLLECTED
ANNUALLY WILL COME FROM
INDUSTRY, WITH AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE DEPARTMENT THAT'S GOING TO
BE HANDLING THIS DTSC, AND THEN
THAT'S THE PLAN. AND I WOULD
IMAGINE THAT THEN IT'LL BE
BETWEEN THEM AND THE, THE
MANUFACTURER. THAT'S THE END OF
IT. AND THE COST OF IT IS GOING
TO BE PAID BY THEM. YES. YEAH.
OKAY AND WHAT, JUST ONE MORE
POINT. IF THE NUMBERS ARE ALMOST
TWO DECADES OLD, THEY'RE ALMOST
CERTAINLY AN UNDERCOUNT BECAUSE
THEY'RE OVER THE LAST TWO
DECADES THERE THERE HAVE BEEN
MORE BOATS, NOT FEWER. SO I, YOU
KNOW, SO WE DON'T WE DON'T
REALLY KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS
ARE, BUT WHATEVER THEY ARE, IS,
IS WHAT WOULD NEED TO BE
MANAGED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
QUESTION. YEAH, SENATOR, I AM I
DO REMAIN, A BIT CONCERNED ABOUT
THE COST OF THE PROGRAM. SO I
GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOUR
RESPONSE IS TO THAT ASPECT OF
IT. YOU KNOW, IF THEIR THEIR
CURRENT REVENUES ARE HALF A
MILLION A YEAR AND THIS PROGRAM
WOULD POTENTIALLY COST DOUBLE
THAT EVERY SINGLE YEAR, YOU
KNOW, HOW DO YOU, I GUESS HOW DO
WE BALANCE THAT? HOW DO WE
EXPECT, THIS COMPANY TO, TO BEAR
THE, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT?
I MEAN, I WOULD JUST SAY,
FRANKLY, THAT THERE IS
FREQUENTLY A CRYING WOLF THAT
HAPPENS AROUND SAYING SOMETHING
IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO
AFFORD. WE CAN'T WHATEVER THE
EXPECTATION IS OR THE REQUEST,
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO
AFFORD IT. SO, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T HAVE IT'S A PRIVATE
INDUSTRY, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE
THE ABILITY TO SAY, WELL, WE
WANT TO SEE YOUR ALL OF YOUR
BOOKS AND YOUR OPERATION, AND
THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE. SO WE'RE
JUST REALLY SAYING THERE'S THIS
PRODUCT. IT HAS THIS EFFECT. IT
NEEDS TO BE MANAGED. WE WANT YOU
TO BE A MAJOR PARTNER IN DRIVING
HOW IT IS MANAGED ON ITS END OF
LIFE, AND HAVE THAT BE PART OF
THE TOTAL COST OF IT IN THE WAY
ALL SORTS OF PRODUCTS REALLY
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FROM THEIR
BIRTH TO THEIR END OF LIFE, AS
THE TOTAL COST OF THAT PRODUCT.
OKAY. AND IF I MAY ASK THE
OPPOSITION, I MEAN, AS THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARDS, OR IF THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD, WHICH I KNOW IT
MADE IT THROUGH THE SENATE, BUT
WHAT WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT
YOU THINK YOU WOULD NEED TO SEE
IN THE LEGISLATION, TO MAKE IT
MORE MANAGEABLE, WE WOULD NEED
TO SEE THE ABILITY OF DTSC, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S TALK HERE ABOUT
THERE NEEDS TO BE A BILL TO MAKE
THIS INDUSTRY STEP UP. WELL,
THERE IS A BILL AND WE'RE
WILLING TO STEP UP WITHIN THE
BILL, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE
FLEXIBLE. AND TO THIS POINT,
WHAT WE'VE OFFERED TO TAKE ON
THE DIRECT COST, NOT THROUGH THE
STATE, BUT WILL COME AND PICK UP
THE FLARES. THEY WILL SEND THEIR
EMPLOYEES FROM THE EAST COAST.
THEY WILL TRANSPORT THEM
THEMSELVES AND TAKE ON THAT
COST. AND THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN
REJECTED. THE ANALYSIS SUGGESTS
THAT THAT CONVERSATION TAKE
PLACE. IT HAS TAKEN PLACE AND
WE'VE BEEN TOLD NO IN FAVOR OF
WHAT IS IN THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU. SENATOR, IS THAT SOMETHING
YOU'RE STILL WILLING TO LOOK AT
AS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD TO
APPROPRIATIONS? OR WHERE DO
THINGS STAND ON THAT IN YOUR IN
YOUR MIND? WE'RE YES, WE ARE
STILL WILLING TO NEGOTIATE OVER
ALL OF THESE THINGS, BUT THE
REALITY OF WHAT WE'RE NOT
WILLING TO DO IS SAY THAT WE'LL
GO WITH A JUST TRUST US. SO TO
SAY, WE'LL TAKE THIS ON, DON'T
WORRY ABOUT IT. JUST WALK AWAY
FROM YOUR BILL. I MEAN, THE IDEA
IS TO HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT, SOME
ACCOUNTABILITY, SOME
RESPONSIBILITY SO THAT THIS IS
DONE IN AN ONGOING WAY. AND
ISN'T FIVE COLLECTIONS. AND THEN
A YEAR LATER OR FIVE YEARS
LATER, WE'RE BACK HERE WITH
LEGISLATION AGAIN. SO WE THE
ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF THE BILL IS
THAT IT'S DRIVEN BY THE PRODUCER
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENS. SO
WE'RE NOT IMPOSING THE ANSWER.
WE'RE SAYING, WHAT DO YOU THINK
IS THE ANSWER? AND HOW MANY OF
THESE SITES AND WHERE AND HOW
FREQUENTLY. AND SO WE ARE WE
BASICALLY WANT THE SYSTEM THAT
THEY WANT, BUT WE JUST WANT
OVERSIGHT OF IT TOO. WE WANT THE
DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
OVERSIGHT. OKAY. AND I THINK THE
OVERSIGHT PIECE MAKES SENSE. I
THINK, YOU KNOW, I DO KIND OF
SHARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT
OUR, MY COLLEAGUE RAISED ABOUT
THE BUREAUCRACY AND THE COST. SO
I THINK OVERSIGHT DOES MAKE A
LOT OF SENSE. AND THAT'S A
REASONABLE REQUEST, I APPRECIATE
THE RESPONSES. I DO HAVE SOME
REMAINING CONCERNS WITH THAT. SO
WE'D LOVE TO SEE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE. ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MY
COLLEAGUE TO MY RIGHT. YEAH. I
MEAN, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON ON MY
COLLEAGUE'S, REMARKS, IT WOULD
BE NICE IF YOU COULD SEE THAT IN
THE BILL AND HAVE THE OVERSIGHT,
BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A
FISCALLY, YOU KNOW, SOUND POINT
OF VIEW. AND IF I GOT THESE GUYS
AT THE CORNER OF THE MARKET AND
THEY'RE WILLING TO SPEND MONEY,
THEY DON'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT IN
THE STATE, BUT THEY'RE WILLING
TO STEP UP AND DO THIS. I'D
ACCEPT THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN
BUT I DON'T I DON'T DISAGREE
WITH SOME OF HOOVER ABOUT THE,
HAVING SOME OVERSIGHT TO IT, BUT
YOU GOT TO KIND OF BUILT IN
RATHER THAN DOING THE DTSC DANCE
AND SEE WHAT THEY COME UP WITH.
I MEAN, THESE GUYS ARE WILLING
TO COME TO DOCS AND SEE HIM ON
THE ON THE BOX THERE AND REMOVAL
OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT MAY
BE. SO IN ANY EVENT, I WILL
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. BUT LIKE
MY COLLEAGUES, YOU GOT SOMETHING
REALLY GOOD HERE. SO I WOULD
LOVE TO SEE IT INCORPORATED INTO
THE BILL BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
WHAT PEOPLE LOOK FOR IN
GOVERNMENT. YOU HAVE AN ACTOR
THAT WANTS TO PLAY AND WE SHOULD
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. SO THANK
YOU FOR HEARING ME OUT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. WE'VE HAD A REALLY
GOOD CONVERSATION HERE. I THINK,
MUCH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, AND I
WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN SOME REALLY GOOD
POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
THERE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK
OF THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT, WHO
PUT IT TOGETHER. SO THANK YOU
FOR THAT, WE HOPE THAT THE
CONVERSATION CONTINUES TO TAKE
PLACE. WHAT I'M HEARING IS A
WILLINGNESS TO LOOK AT HOW WE
DEVELOP A SYSTEM TO PUT IN PLACE
FOR A SAFE DISPOSAL OF THESE,
MATERIALS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO
THE INDUSTRY. AND, THE NEXT
COMMITTEE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT
THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE STATE.
AND IF WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING
MORE CONCRETE IN THE POLICY, I
THINK THERE WILL BE SOME SERIOUS
ANALYSIS THAT SAYS, WELL,
WITHOUT HAVING SOME VERY CLEAR
ROADMAP, THE COST COULD JUST BE
WAY, BEYOND WHAT WE CAN TAKE ON
IN THE STATE. BUT THAT'LL BE
THEIR ROLE. WHAT WE'RE WANTING
TO ENCOURAGE HERE AND GIVE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INDUSTRY AND
FOR THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL, IS
FOR THIS CONVERSATION TO
CONTINUE. AND THE ANALYSIS GIVES
SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW THIS
CONVERSATION COULD POTENTIALLY
BE DIRECTED. AND SO I APPRECIATE
THE SPIRIT OF THIS DISCUSSION
AND WHERE THESE CONVERSATIONS
MAY LEAD. SO WITH THAT, WE
APPRECIATE, THIS ROBUST DEBATE,
DELIBERATION WHEREVER WE WANT TO
CALL IT. IT'S BEEN A GOOD, ONE.
AND WE DO HAVE A DUE PASS
RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROPRIATIONS. I'LL MAKE THE
MOTION TO GET THIS BILL MOVING
FORWARD. IF THERE IS A SECOND,
THEN WE'LL CALL A ROLL CALL
SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND, WE'LL CALL THE
ROLL ITEM NUMBER FOUR, SB 1066.
BLAKE SPEER. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA, I HOOVER I CONNELLY I
MCKENNA. I PAPAN REYES TO THE
HAS SUFFICIENT VOTES. OKAY.
THANK YOU. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. AND YOUR PINCHHITTING FOR
ANOTHER COLLEAGUE. SENATOR. YES.
I'D LIKE TO INVITE MY NEXT,
SPONSOR TO COME UP. I'M
PRESENTING SB 1147 ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR PORTANTINO. SO I WILL
JUST INVITE ANDY HATALA, VICE
CHAIR OF THE LOS ANGELES CHAPTER
OF THE CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT,
TO COME FORWARD. GREAT JOIN YOU.
OH, SURE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
CHAIR. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE
READY. OKAY. TODAY I PRESENT
BEFORE YOU SB 1147, ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR ANTHONY PORTANTINO. IN
2018, SENATOR PORTANTINO
AUTHORED SB 1422 DIRECTING THE
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD TO DEFINE MICROPLASTICS
AND TO DEVELOP STANDARDS AND
METHODOLOGIES TO TEST FOR
MICROPLASTICS IN OUR DRINKING
WATER SYSTEM. MICROPLASTICS HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED IN RAIN,
DRINKING WATER, SOIL, AIR AND
OUR BODIES, INCLUDING EVEN THE
HUMAN PLACENTA. WE KNOW THAT
WHEN INGESTED BY ANIMALS,
MICROPLASTICS HAVE NEGATIVE
HEALTH EFFECTS SUCH AS REDUCED
FOOD INTAKE, SUFFOCATION,
BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AND GENETIC
ALTERATIONS. WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
IS THE EXACT HEALTH IMPACTS OF
MICROPLASTICS ON HUMAN HEALTH.
THEREFORE, IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE
ARE PROACTIVE IN THIS ISSUE AND
PRIORITIZE THE RESEARCH OF
MICROPLASTICS FOR THE SAKE OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH.
SB 1147 WILL DIRECT THE OFFICE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS
ASSESSMENT, OR OHA, TO
PRIORITIZE STUDYING THE HEALTH
IMPACTS OF MICROPLASTICS IN BOTH
TAP AND BOTTLED WATER. THIS
REPORT WILL BE PUBLISHED NO
LATER THAN DECEMBER 31ST, 2026.
IF THE REPORT INDICATES THE NEED
FOR FURTHER STATE ACTION, OHA
WILL WORK WITH THE STATE WATER
BOARD IN DEVELOPING A PUBLIC
HEALTH GOAL TO ADDRESS
MICROPLASTICS IN OUR TAP WATER.
UPON ADOPTION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH
GOAL BY THE STATE WATER BOARD,
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
WILL DETERMINE WHETHER BOTTLED
WATER SHOULD ALSO MEET AN
EQUIVALENT STANDARD FOR
MICROPLASTICS TO ENSURE BOTH TAP
AND BOTTLED WATER PRESENT NO
ADVERSE EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH
. FINALLY, SB 1147, THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH WILL
COLLECT MICROPLASTICS DATA FROM
WATER BOTTLING PLANTS ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS AS PART OF THE
ANNUAL REPORTING FROM THESE
PLANTS MEMBERS, SB 1147 IS A
CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO
IDENTIFYING MICROPLASTICS IN
DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND
PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH. AND
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
ANDY HATALA, VICE CHAIR OF THE
LOS ANGELES CHAPTER OF THE
CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT AND
CHAIR OF THEIR WATER COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE, GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN GARCIA AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC
MATERIALS. MY NAME IS ANDY
ATALA. AS YOU ALREADY HEARD, I
RESIDE IN CULVER CITY,
CALIFORNIA. I'M THE POLICY
CO-LEAD FOR THE CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT'S CALIFORNIA COALITION
AS WELL, WHICH ENCAPSULATES ALL
LOCAL CHAPTERS WITHIN CALIFORNIA
AND CONSISTS OF OVER 6500
MEMBERS. THE ORGANIZATION AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 1147. I'M
HERE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT
THE UNKNOWNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONTINUED UNMONITORED USE OF
PLASTIC. I PERSONALLY AVOID
UTILIZING SORRY, UTILIZING
SINGLE USE PLASTICS WHEREVER
POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE WASTE,
CLIMATE, WATER AND HEALTH
IMPLICATIONS WHICH ARE NOT YET
FULLY UNDERSTOOD. I ALSO
REGULARLY ADVOCATE FOR
SUSTAINABLE MEASURES TO INCREASE
OVERALL WATER SECURITY AND
QUALITY, WHICH ARE IMPACTED BY
THE OCCURRENCE OF PLASTICS,
PARTICULARLY MICROPLASTICS IN
DRINKING WATER. IT IS SAFE TO
SAY MICROPLASTICS ARE
UBIQUITOUS. AS YOU HEARD THE
SENATOR SAY, BUT IT CANNOT BE
CONCLUSIVELY STATED THAT THEIR
PRESENCE IS SAFE. THEY HAVE BEEN
DETECTED IN BODIES OF WATER.
HUMANS AND ANIMALS THROUGHOUT
THE WORLD. THE RATE CONTINUES TO
INCREASE AS THE PRODUCTION,
USAGE AND CONSUMPTION OF PLASTIC
PACKAGING CONTAINERS AND OTHER
PRODUCTS HAVE INCREASED SINCE
FIRST DETECTED. GIVEN THE
INCREASE, SORRY. GIVEN THIS
INCREASE, STUDYING, REPORTING
AND REGULATING THE PRESENCE OF
MICROPLASTICS, PARTICULARLY IN
WATER, IS IMPERATIVE. SAFE
DRINKING WATER IS ESSENTIAL TO
SUSTAINING ALL LIFE, AND SO
IMPORTANT THAT A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS
ARE INTERESTED IN ENSHRINING A
RIGHT TO SAFE DRINKING WATER
INTO THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION.
TO BE SAFE, DRINKING WATER MUST
BE FREE OF CONTAMINANTS, TOXINS,
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. SADLY,
THERE REMAIN CONCERN AND
CONFUSION OVER WHETHER
MICROPLASTICS, PLASTIC PARTICLES
LESS THAN FIVE MILLIMETERS OR
ONE FIFTH OF AN INCH LONG MEET
THESE THRESHOLDS OF WHAT IS
UNSAFE. SB 1147 WOULD ESTABLISH
THIS CLARITY, WHICH IS WHY WE
STRONGLY NEED IT. THIS BILL
WOULD FURTHER THE NECESSARY
RESEARCH TO DETERMINE CURRENT
LEVELS OF PLASTIC CONTAMINATION,
ESTABLISH WHETHER ANY AMOUNT OF
MICROPLASTICS IS SAFE AND INFORM
OUR EFFORTS TO SAFELY UTILIZE
PLASTIC, ALL OF WHICH SHED
MICROPLASTICS IN SOME. IF THIS
LEGISLATION PASSES, THE EFFECT
OF MICROPLASTICS WILL BE
UNDERSTOOD AND MICROPLASTICS
WILL BE MONITORED. AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, REGULATED. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO A
SUSTAINABLE AND HEALTHY FUTURE
WITH PURE AND CLEAN WATER FOR
OUR STATE AND ITS PEOPLE. I'M
THE STAFFER OF THE BILL. I'M
JUST HERE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT. IF
NECESSARY. PERFECT. THANK YOU,
WE'LL ASK TO SEE IF THERE'S
ANYONE ELSE WANTING TO COME
FORWARD. STATE YOUR POSITION,
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND YOUR
POSITION IN SUPPORT. PLEASE
ANYONE WISHING TO COME FORWARD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, KAREN AMICONE ON
BEHALF OF A VOICE FOR CHOICE
ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
HI. VIÆT. MIKE ZUBIATE WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
AND SUPPORT. TONY HACKETT FROM
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE AND
SUPPORT CELESTE WICKS FROM CLEAN
EARTH FOR KIDS IN SUPPORT. ALSO
IN SUPPORT NORTH COUNTY EQUITY
AND JUSTICE ECO SUSTAINABILITY
AND CA GRANDPARENTS ACTING
TOGETHER FACTS YARD SMART MARIN
AND MOMS ADVOCATING FOR
SUSTAINABILITY. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT THAT WAS GOOD. ALL RIGHT.
IMPRESSIVE ANYONE ELSE? OKAY
WE'LL ASK TO SEE IF THERE ARE
GOING TO BE ANY WITNESSES
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION. YOU HAVE
FOUR MINUTES TOTAL. THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS. ELOY
GARCIA FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION. NOT
IN OPPOSITION. WE HAVE BEEN
EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH SENATOR
PORTANTINO AND HIS STAFF OVER
THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, AND
WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE LAST
SET OF AMENDMENTS. WE BELIEVE IT
GOES A LONG WAY IN ADDRESSING
OUR CONCERNS AND ENSURING
ADDITIONAL STUDIES NECESSARY FOR
EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH. WE
THINK MORE STUDY IS NECESSARY,
BUT WE ALSO APPRECIATE THE
FLEXIBILITY ON THE DATES AND THE
CONTINUED EVALUATION. WE HAVE
PRESENTED ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS TO BOTH SENATOR
PORTANTINO'S STAFF AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF, AND WE WOULD
APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
THAT. AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING FOR IS COMPLETE PARITY
AND CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TAP
WATER AND BOTTLED WATER IN THE
TESTING, REPORTING AND THE
STANDARDS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. EXCUSE ME, I'M DOCTOR
TIM WORLEY, POLICY ADVISOR TO
THE CALIFORNIA. NEVADA. SECTION
OF THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS
ASSOCIATION, OR AWA, WE ARE ALSO
NOT IN OPPOSITION, BUT WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH
THE SENATOR'S OFFICE TO REACH A
BILL THAT WE CAN SUPPORT, AND WE
ARE CLOSE. WE AGREE THAT THE
SAFETY OF BOTTLED WATER SHOULD
BE ON A PAR WITH TAP WATER. AND
WE STRONGLY BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING
THE ESTABLISHED REGULATORY
PROCESSES. WE BELIEVE, THAT THE
PROCESS HAS ITS BASIS IN SOUND
SCIENCE, WHICH WE NEED A LOT
MORE OF AND APPLICATION OF THE
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
WHICH DO NOT ALWAYS FOLLOW
LEGISLATIVE DEADLINES. SEVERAL
CRUCIAL FACTORS SHOW MORE WORK
TO BE DONE TO UNDERSTAND THE
TOXICITY OF MICROPLASTICS, THE
ROUTES OF EXPOSURE, AND THE
PROVEN UNIFORM TECHNIQUES FOR
ANALYSIS. SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING WOULD OMIT A
PRIORITY ON MICROPLASTICS THAT
PLACE IT AHEAD OF KNOWN,
ANNOUNCED REGULATORY PRIORITIES,
INCLUDING CHEMICALS SUCH AS PFAS
, CHEMICALS, ARSENIC, MDMA AND
OTHERS. IT WOULD MAINTAIN
OVERSIGHT OF DRINKING WATER AND
BOTTLED WATER BY THE APPROPRIATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES. IT WOULD
PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
SINGLE STANDARD ANALYTICAL
METHOD THAT CAN BE USED TO
OBTAIN CONSISTENT, RELIABLE
RESULTS. AND SO WE HOPE TO SEE
MINOR FINAL AMENDMENTS MADE IN
APPROPRIATIONS. IF POSSIBLE. AS
I SAY, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY
CLOSELY WITH THE SENATOR'S
STAFF. AND YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF.
WE APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS, TO
HEAR US AND THEIR OPENNESS TO
OUR CONCERNS, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL TAKE NOW,
THOSE WHO WILL BE STATING THEIR
NAME, POSITION AND ORGANIZATION.
PERFECT. HELLO. ROSIE THOMPSON
WITH METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE WANT
TO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH WHAT
YOU JUST HEARD FROM CALIFORNIA,
NEVADA, AQUA AND THANK THE
AUTHOR, STAFF, AS WELL AS
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
US. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE? OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO DÍAS. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS, CONCERNS, PLEASE. I
KNOW YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
SPEAK FOR THE AUTHOR, BUT WANTED
TO. IS HE OPEN TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH OPPOSITION ON THOSE
FINAL TWEAKS? I DIDN'T KNOW IF
THAT WAS. YEAH. YES, HE IS
PERFECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. THIS BILL DOES HAVE A
RECOMMENDATION. I, MOTION THE
BILL DOES GO TO APPROPRIATIONS
NEXT. ANY FINAL QUESTIONS? ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS
THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND.
OKAY, WE ALREADY DID THAT. ALL
RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. WE'D LIKE
TO CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR. I VOTE AND THANK YOU FOR
THE DOUBLE MOTION. THANK YOU TO
MOVE IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
PLEASE CALL THE QUESTION ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1147 PORTANTINO.
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND RE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA. HI
HOOVER. CONNELLY MCKENNA. I
PAPPIN REYES. HI TO THE HAS
SUFFICIENT VOTES. THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AN ACTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. WE HAVE A
SECOND, NO QUESTIONS ON THAT
MOTION. A SECOND, WE'LL ASK FOR
ROLL CALL. THERE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR CONSISTS OF ITEM 11, SB
1176 NEELO. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CONSENT ITEM 12 SB 1252. STERN.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AND RE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
HIGHER EDUCATION CONSENT AND
ITEM 13 SJ R 13 NEWMAN. THE
MOTION IS BE ADOPTED TO CONSENT.
GARCIA A, GARCIA I HOOVER.
HOOVER I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I
MCKENNA. I. MCINERNEY PAPPIN. I
PAPPIN. AYE. REYES REYES. AYE TO
HAS SUFFICIENT VOTES OKAY, SO
WE'LL ASK THE SERGEANT TO START
MAKING SOME PHONE CALLS TO GET
SOME SENATORS HERE. YEAH. LET'S
DO SOME ADD ONS HERE. WE'LL STOP
AT THE TOP AND WE'LL ASK, OUR,
INTERIM CLERICAL REPRESENTATIVE
HERE TODAY TO DO SOME, ADD ONS.
ITEM NUMBER NINE, SB 1255.
DURAZZO. THE CURRENT VOTE IS
FOUR ZERO. CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE REYES.
REYES. AYE TO OKAY.
OKAY. LOOKS LIKE WE'RE, CAUGHT
UP THERE. WE'LL WAIT FOR SOME
SENATORS COME BY. WE HAVE A FEW
MORE BILLS, AND, BEN ALLEN HAS,
LIKE, TEN BILLS HERE WITH US, SO
WE'LL WAIT FOR HIM. YEAH, THE
SECOND.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
NATURAL RESOURCES.
MR. CHAIR. MR.
AS YOU.
KNOW YOU. SO.
MICROPLASTICS. BUT NOW IT'S LIKE
.
I'M NOT SENATOR ALLEN. I JUST
LOOK LIKE. ME. OH, GOOD. OH
RESOURCES.
YEAH. LIKE, WHAT DO YOU DO? I'M
RIGHT HERE.
YEAH SO.
IT'S HERE.
YEAH. NICE OKAY. SO WHERE ARE
YOU?
MR.
I KNOW. YEAH YEAH.
OH MY GOD!
SHE'S THE ONE THAT.
JOSH. IS GOING.
OH, REALLY? NO OKAY. YEAH ALL
RIGHT. YES I'M SORRY.
YEAH. GOOD.
WELL, LIKE THEY DID. YOU HAD
OTHERS. I HAD ALREADY HAD SOME
STUFF. YES. HE IS MY
CONSTITUENT. I SHOULD GO. OH, IS
HE. OH MY GOD. WOW. ALTHOUGH NOW
HE'S. YEAH. I WANT TO SEE. HIM
REAL QUICK, BUT IT'S KIND OF.
WE JUST STARTED. BUT YEAH. OH
YEAH. YEAH.
THAT'S WEIRD. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW
.
YEAH. YEAH ONE. YEAH.
WHAT. YEAH. YEAH RIGHT. YEAH
YEAH.
YEAH. I JUST GOT IT. I GOT IT.
YEAH, YEAH, WE DID.
YEAH. THAT'S TRUE. I THINK. SIR.
OKAY. WE HAVE. WE HAVE AN
AUTHOR. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE
PLEASE, MR. PADILLA, YOU HAVE
TWO BILLS. WE'LL START WITH THE
FIRST ONE. IT'S ITEM FILE NUMBER
SIX, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU. MR, MAKE SURE WE'RE HERE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
OUR OFFICE DILIGENTLY ON THIS
BILL. IT'S MY PLEASURE TO
PRESENT SB 1178, THE CALIFORNIA
WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
PROTECTION ACT. MANY OF YOU MAY
OR MAY NOT KNOW THE TIJUANA
RIVER AND THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED, LOCATED AT THE US
MEXICO BORDER, WAS RECENTLY
NAMED AS ONE OF THE TEN MOST
POLLUTED RIVERS IN THE UNITED
STATES. JUST THIS PAST JANUARY,
STORM SURGE CAUSED 14.5 BILLION
GALLONS OF RAW SEWAGE AND
POLLUTION TO WASH UP ON THE
BANKS OF THE RIVER, AS WELL AS
TO FLOW INTO NEARBY COASTAL
WETLANDS. AND ONE OF THE FEW
REMAINING SUCH ECOSYSTEMS LEFT
IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE
EXISTING SEWAGE TREATMENT
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OVERWHELMED
BY THE SHEER VOLUME OF
WASTEWATER FLOWING INTO THIS
RIVER, A PROBLEM THAT HAS
PERSISTED FOR YEARS BUT IS
GROWING WORSE EVERY YEAR WITH
QUICKLY EXPANDING ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY IN THE BINATIONAL
REGION. BOTH THE US AND MEXICAN
GOVERNMENTS HAVE FAILED TO
MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE CRITICAL
TREATMENT FACILITIES TO ADDRESS
THE INCREASED FLOWS AND AS A
RESULT, EVERY DAY MILLIONS OF
GALLONS OF UNTREATED SEWAGE
WASHES ASHORE. IN MY COMMUNITY.
THIS IS NOT JUST AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER. IT IS A
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS. MEANWHILE,
THESE HEALTH CONCERNS HAVE
FORCED COMMUNITIES LIKE THE CITY
OF IMPERIAL BEACH TO HAVE THEIR
ENTIRE COAST AND BEACH CLOSED
FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS. I CAN
ONLY BRIEFLY TAKE AN ASIDE HERE
AND SUGGEST WHAT THAT KIND OF
RESPONSE THAT MIGHT ELICIT. IF
THAT WERE HAPPENING IN SOME
OTHER PARTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
COAST. ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPPS
INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY, THE
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF
RAW SEWAGE DUMPED EVERY DAY INTO
THE RIVER ENDS UP IN THE OCEAN,
AND DUE TO WAVE ACTIVITY, THIS
BACTERIA WE ARE NOW LEARNING
THROUGH CUTTING EDGE STUDIES
BECOMES AEROSOLIZED IN THE AIR
COLUMN AND ACTUALLY TRAVELS
LANDWARD MUCH FARTHER THAN
PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD. THIS
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS IS MAKING
PEOPLE SICK, AND IF THEY ARE
SICK, THEY'RE BEING SUBJECTED TO
HORRIBLE STENCHES THAT LINGERS
OVER HOMES, BUSINESSES AND
SCHOOLS ALIKE. JUST GO ASK ANY
OF THESE SMALL BUSINESSES IN MY
DISTRICT WHO ARE STRUGGLING WITH
THE ALSO ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
THIS DISASTER. THE POLLUTION
THREATENS THE VERY WATER WE
DRINK AND THE VERY AIR THAT WE
BREATHE. RECENT STUDIES, ALSO
CONDUCTED BY SCRIPPS, INDICATE
THAT THEY CAN NOW ATTRIBUTE OVER
34,000 ILLNESSES IN THE YEAR
2017 ALONE TO WATER QUALITY IN A
BAD WATER QUALITY. POLLUTION IN
THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH. WE
CANNOT BEAR ANY MORE OF THIS
PART OF THIS SOLUTION, ASIDE
FROM THE FINGER POINTING, HAS
BEEN INACTION ON BOTH SIDES, AND
IT'S VERY INFURIATING. BUT THE
REALITY IS WE HAVE MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS LICENSED TO SELL
PRODUCTS IN THIS STATE THAT MOVE
ACROSS AND OUTSIDE AND JUST
OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
STATE IN ORDER TO CONDUCT
OPERATIONS THAT DIRECTLY
DISCHARGE INTO THE WATERWAYS,
WATERWAYS OF CALIFORNIA THAT
EXACERBATE THIS PROBLEM. THEY'VE
TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF FREE TRADE
AGREEMENTS, CHEAP LABOR, AND
NEARLY NON-EXISTENT OR MUCH
WEAKER ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS. MY BILL, SB 1178,
BUILDS OFF EXISTING LAW IN
CALIFORNIA. A LONG STANDING
WATER CODE STATUTE IN TITLE FOUR
THAT WAS SIGNED ACTUALLY BY
GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN IN 1969
THAT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT ANY
CALIFORNIA COMPANY THAT
DISCHARGES WASTE OUTSIDE
CALIFORNIA, AND IF I MAY QUOTE
THE STATUTE IN A MANNER THAT
COULD AFFECT THE QUALITY OF THE
WATERS OF THE STATE WITHIN ANY
REGION, UNQUOTE, TO REPORT THOSE
DISCHARGES HERE IN THIS BILL,
COMPANIES WITHOUT A WASTAGE
CHARGE PERMIT THAT FAIL TO
DISCLOSE THESE DISCHARGES ARE
REQUIRED TO LABEL THEIR PRODUCTS
SOLD IN CALIFORNIA, STATING THAT
THE PRODUCT PRODUCTION
CONTRIBUTED TO CONTAMINATION OF
THE WATERWAYS BECAUSE OF THEIR
PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES. WE ARE
FED UP IN OUR REGION. WE HAVE A
UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC
HEALTH DISASTER THAT IS NOT SEEN
OR REPLICATED ANYWHERE ELSE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT IS
TIME THAT WE TAKE EVERY STEP,
USE EVERY TOOL, EXPLORE EVERY
AVENUE FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION, TO PROVIDE AN
AVENUE FOR NON-COMPLIANT
ENTITIES, TO HELP US PAY FOR
MITIGATION AND TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE
CODY PHILLIPS WITH COASTKEEPER
AND JONATHAN CLAY WITH THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. OKAY. THANK
YOU. PLEASE CHAIR GARCIA,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY
NAME IS CODY PHILLIPS WITH
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE.
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE
REPRESENTS WATER KEEPERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE IN PURSUIT
OF SWIMMABLE, FISHABLE AND
DRINKABLE WATERS FOR ALL,
INCLUDING OUR SAN DIEGO
COASTKEEPER. THE TRANS BOUNDARY
POLLUTED FLOWS ARE THE RESULT OF
SEVERAL FACTORS WHICH WE HEARD,
INCLUDING MAJOR LACK OF SEWAGE
INFRASTRUCTURE IN TIJUANA, A
LACK OF FUNDING AT THE UNITED
STATES, IBWC TREATMENT PLANTS
AND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS
WHICH POLLUTE THESE LOCAL
WATERWAYS THAT FEED INTO THE
WATERSHED. THIS IS A
MULTI-PRONGED AND COMPLEX ISSUE,
AND ONE THAT REQUIRES CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS, AND THIS BILL FOCUSES
ON AN IMPORTANT BUT OFTEN
OVERLOOKED COMPONENT, WHICH IS
THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE. SAN DIEGO
COASTKEEPER REVIEW OF THE SOUTH
BAY TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGES
SO THAT MANY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS
CHEMICALS ARE FOUND IN THEIR
WASTEWATER, INCLUDING PCBS,
PESTICIDES, DDT AND MANY OTHER
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, ALL AT
LEVELS THOUSANDS OF TIMES ABOVE
THE PERMIT DISCHARGE LIMITS. THE
SOUTH BAY TREATMENT PLANT IS NOT
DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH THESE
CHEMICALS, SO THEY JUST PASS
RIGHT ON THROUGH. IBWC IS EVEN
ON RECORD SAYING THAT THEY CAN
ONLY TREAT ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS.
SO EVEN IF THERE IS A WHOLE
BUNCH OF FUNDING AND THE PLANT
COMPLIES WITH THE STANDARDS FOR
BACTERIA, IT'S UNLIKELY TO TREAT
THIS INDUSTRIAL WASTE. MANY
LARGE CORPORATIONS US
CORPORATIONS OPERATE IN TIJUANA
TO AVOID STRICTER ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS AND CONTRIBUTE TO
THIS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
ISSUE, AND THESE CORPORATIONS
OFTEN HAVE EXTENSIVE CONNECTIONS
WITH AND CONDUCT BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA AVAILING THEMSELVES
OF OUR MARKETPLACE. BUT AVOIDING
THE LAWS THAT PROTECT OUR
WATERWAYS. FOR THOSE COMPANIES
THAT ARE CONNECTED TO CALIFORNIA
AND CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA, NOT ONLY SHOULD THEY
BE REQUIRED TO REPORT WHAT
SUBSTANCES ARE IN THEIR
DISCHARGES THAT AFFECT
CALIFORNIA'S WATERWAYS, BUT
CALIFORNIA BUYERS SHOULD BE
AWARE OF THE IMPACTS OF THE
PRODUCTS THAT THEY ARE BUYING.
THIS BILL COLLECTS THAT
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON WHO IS
CONTRIBUTING TO ONE OF THE MOST
POLLUTED AREAS IN THE STATE
SHINES A LIGHT ON THE PARTIES
WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE, AND ON
THEIR PRODUCTS, AND ENSURES THAT
THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO
EVERYONE. SO I URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE ON THIS BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS JONATHAN CLAY HERE AS A
SUPPORTER ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ALSO ON
BEHALF OF THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO,
AS WELL, IN THE LAST YEAR, THE
GOVERNING BODIES OF BOTH
ENTITIES HAVE DECLARED PUBLIC
HEALTH EMERGENCIES IN SAN DIEGO
BECAUSE OF THE POLLUTION RELATED
TO THE TIJUANA RIVER, AS SO
ELOQUENTLY DEFINED BY BOTH THE
AUTHOR AND MY CO TESTIFIER HERE,
THERE'S A NUMBER OF ISSUES
CREATING PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
WITHIN THE TIJUANA RIVER, BUT
I'LL JUST KIND OF FOCUS ON WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY
ON THE INDUSTRIAL, CONTAMINANT
SIDE OF THINGS. RECENTLY, SAN
DIEGO STATE, THROUGH THEIR
PUBLIC SCHOOL OF HEALTH, HAS
DONE A STUDY TRYING TO PULL
TOGETHER ALL THE RELEVANT
INFORMATION AND AS PART OF THAT,
THEY REALLY STARTED TO FOCUS ON
THE CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION THAT
HAS BEEN OCCURRING ACROSS THE
BORDER THAT THEN ENDS UP BACK IN
OUR WATERWAYS WITH HAVING
IDENTIFIED OVER 392 ORGANIC
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS, 224 WHICH
APPEAR ON REGULATORY LISTS, AND
175 ARE PART OF THE US EPA'S
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
LIST. SO THIS IS WAY BEYOND JUST
DEALING WITH, SEWAGE
CONTAMINATION THAT'S COMING FROM
THE LACK OF TREATMENT OF, YOU
KNOW, HUMAN WASTE FROM BOTH
SIDES OF THE BORDER. AND THIS IS
AN ISSUE I'VE WORKED ON BEHALF
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR
26 YEARS. I'M LITERALLY SECOND
GENERATION. MY MOM WORKED ON THE
ORIGINAL BINATIONAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT. WE KEEP KICKING
THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD, EITHER
POINTING OUR FINGERS AT THE FEDS
OR RELYING ON THE STATE, AND WE
STILL AREN'T ADDRESSING THE
PROBLEM. HAVING FOLKS THAT ARE
DOING BUSINESS ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE BORDER REPORT WHAT THEY'RE
DOING, AND THE CONTAMINANTS
THEY'RE RELEASING AT LEAST HELPS
US. THEN IDENTIFY WHAT WE HAVE
TO DEAL WITH. AND THEN, YOU KNOW
, TAKING NEXT STEPS FROM THERE.
MANY TALKING ABOUT NAFTA. NAFTA
REALLY DID TRY AND ALIGN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
BETWEEN THE US AND MEXICO SO
THAT YOU WEREN'T HAVING THIS
DISPARITIES BETWEEN A BUSINESS
OPERATING THE US SIDE AND
MEXICO, THOUGH ENFORCING SOME OF
THOSE RULES ON THE MEXICAN SIDE
IS DIFFICULT AT TIMES, BUT IT'S
NOT UNHEARD OF. AND ESPECIALLY
AS MANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN IN
RECENT ARTICLES ABOUT, BATTERY
RECYCLING OPERATIONS THAT HAVE
TAKEN BATTERIES FROM US,
CALIFORNIA, TAKE THEM TO MEXICO,
AND THEN DON'T DO AS GOOD A JOB
OF THE SAME LEVEL OF
REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE ON
CONTAINING CONTAMINANTS AND
THINGS IN MEXICO. AND, I MEAN,
THIS GOES BACK I WORKED ON SOME
OF THESE ISSUES IN THE 90S WHEN
YOU HAD UNDERGROUND FIRES FROM
US COMPANIES THAT HAD IMPROPERLY
DISPOSED OF BATTERIES. SO. 1178
ATTEMPTS TO TRY AND PUT SOME
OTHER TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX, SO
WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND THEN
CAN MAKE BETTER INFORMED PUBLIC
POLICY DECISIONS ON HOW WE'RE
GOING TO ADDRESS IT. SO WE URGE
YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK
THOSE WHO WANT TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND YOUR POSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MISS CHAU WITH
NIELSEN MERKSAMER, ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. VIÆT
MICHAEL XAVIER WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THOMAS. ALL IN
SUPPORT. CELESTE WICKS WITH
CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS IN SUPPORT.
ALSO IN SUPPORT NORTH COUNTY
EQUITY AND JUSTICE ECO
SUSTAINABILITY AND CCA
GRANDPARENTS ACTING TOGETHER
ACTIVIST SAN DIEGO AND FACTS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ABRAHAM
MENDOZA ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER IN
SUPPORT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY
ASK, IS ANYONE GOING TO BE
TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE FOUR
MINUTES TO PROVIDE YOUR
TESTIMONY.
Þ SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I AM BRENDA BASS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, AND WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO THIS
BILL UNLESS IT IS AMENDED AS
OUTLINED IN OUR LETTER, WE AGREE
THAT THE POLLUTION CRISIS IN THE
TIJUANA RIVER IS A PROBLEM THAT
REQUIRES IMMEDIATE AND CONTINUED
ACTION, AND THAT INCLUDES
UPGRADING TREATMENT FACILITIES.
AND WE HAVE SUPPORTED MANY
EFFORTS AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL
LEVEL, ON THIS IN THE PAST. AND
CURRENTLY, HOWEVER, WE DISAGREE
THAT THE POLICY OUTLINED IN THIS
BILL IS THE CORRECT PATH, THIS
IS PRIMARILY DUE TO THE FACT
THAT CALIFORNIA CANNOT DICTATE
POLICY OUTSIDE OF ITS BORDERS,
ESPECIALLY ITS INTERNATIONAL
BORDERS, AND I DID JUST WANT TO
NOTE, YOU KNOW, THE BACTERIA AND
PATHOGENS THAT ARE LEADING TO
BEACH CLOSURES, ARE DUE TO HUMAN
WASTE AND NOT THE INDUSTRIAL,
CONTAMINATION THAT'S BEEN
ALLEGED. AND I WILL ALSO NOTE
THAT DETECTIONS OF CHEMICALS,
DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT
THE LEVELS ARE AT SUCH A POINT
THAT THEY ARE DANGEROUS. SO,
GETTING BACK TO THE ISSUE AT
HAND, THE US CONSTITUTION AND
THE FOREIGN COMMERCE CLAUSE AND
DECADES OF SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENT CLEARLY STATE THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT STATES,
ARE TASKED WITH, SETTING FOREIGN
POLICY AND REGULATING COMMERCE
WITH OTHER NATIONS. STATE
REGULATIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
WHEN THEY, NUMBER ONE, FACIALLY
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST FOREIGN
COMMERCE. NUMBER TWO, IMPEDE THE
ABILITY FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO SPEAK WITH ONE
VOICE AS TO OTHER NATIONS, AND
THREE ATTEMPT TO REGULATE
CONDUCT BEYOND STATE BORDERS, I
BELIEVE, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT
THIS BILL VIOLATES ALL THREE OF
THESE PREMISES AS STATED IN THE
OPENING. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
INTENTIONS OF THIS BILL IS TO
COUNTERACT, CURRENT NATIONAL
FOREIGN POLICY THAT IS ALLEGED
TO HAVE ACCELERATED POLLUTION IN
THE TIJUANA RIVER. SO THIS, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE LABELING
REQUIREMENTS THAT MY COLLEAGUE
WILL SPEAK TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST FOREIGN COMMERCE, IT
ALSO IMPEDES THE ABILITY OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO SPEAK
UNIFORMLY, SINCE THE VERY TRADE
DEALS THAT THE US HAS MADE ARE
KIND OF THE TARGETS OF THE
REPORTING AND THE LABELING
REQUIREMENTS IN THIS BILL,
FINALLY, THIS BILL REDIRECTS
STATE RESOURCES AWAY FROM
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WATER QUALITY
IMPACTS WITHIN THE STATE,
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE THE
STATE WATER BOARD'S PRIMARY
FOCUS. BUT NOW THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO SPEND STAFF TIME AND
MONEY SETTING STANDARDS,
INSPECTING AND PERMITTING
FACILITIES THAT ARE NOT LOCATED
WITHIN THE STATE'S BOUNDARIES.
EVEN ON THE INTERNATIONAL
BORDER, THE STATE CURRENTLY ONLY
REGULATES FACILITIES THAT ARE ON
THE STATE SIDE. SO WHILE A
LEGACY PROVISION MAY APPEAR TO
GRANT THE STATE WATER BOARD
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OUT OF
STATE DISCHARGES, THIS PROVISION
HAS NOT SO FAR BEEN USED AND HAS
NOT BEEN PROVEN CONSTITUTIONAL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU MIKE. CHAIR
MEMBERS DEAN TALLY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION. WE SHARE
A POSITION WITH MY COLLEAGUE.
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED, AND
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
ANALYSIS. IT REALLY HIGHLIGHTED
SOME OF OUR CONCERNS, BUT WANTED
TO POINT SOME OF THOSE OUT. SOME
OF THE DAMAGING IMPACTS ON OUR
MANUFACTURERS THROUGH THE STATE,
SO THIS MAINLY REFERENCES THE
MOST RECENT AMENDMENTS,
INTRODUCING NEW LABELING
REQUIREMENT THAT WILL CONFUSE
BOTH COMPANIES AND, WELL,
ATTEMPTING TO COMPLY AND
CONFUSING OUR CONSUMERS. SO
FIRST WARNING LABELS ON PRODUCTS
ARE AIMED AT WHAT IMPACTS USE OF
THIS SPECIFIC PRODUCT MAY HAVE
ON THE SPECIFIC CONSUMER. SO THE
WARNING COMPONENT IN THIS BILL
WOULD STAND ALONE AS A MORAL
WARNING, RATHER THAN ONE AIMED
AT PROTECTING USERS. THIS MAY
CONFUSE OR EVEN MISLEAD
CONSUMERS AS TO THE SAFETY OF
THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT, SO THERE
ARE ALSO COMPLIANCE CONCERNS
WITH REGARD TO THE LABELING
REQUIREMENT. FIRST, THIS BILL
MERELY STATES THAT THE
SUBMISSION OF A REPORT OF WASTE
DISCHARGE WOULD TRIGGER THE
WARNING LABEL, BUT THIS DOES NOT
CONSIDER WHETHER THE RESPECTIVE
DISCHARGE ACTUALLY NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS WATER QUALITY. INDEED,
EVEN A FULLY TREATED EFFLUENT
STREAM WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
LABELING REQUIREMENT, DESPITE
THE FACT THAT NO ADVERSE WATER
QUALITY IMPACT WOULD RESULT FROM
THE FACILITY. IT IS ALSO UNCLEAR
WHICH FACILITIES ARE EXEMPT AND
WHICH ARE NOT, AND THIS MAY LEAD
TO LITIGATION. THE THREE MONTH
DEADLINE ALSO BY WHICH THE
LABELING WOULD BE REQUIRED, ALSO
CREATES PRACTICAL ISSUES FOR OUR
MANUFACTURERS. SO FINALLY, THE
LABELING REQUIREMENT IS
EXPRESSLY DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST
OUT OF STATE, ESPECIALLY THAT OF
UNITED STATES COMMERCE, AS THE
INTENTION OF THE BILL IS THAT
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA WOULD
NOT BE SUBJECT TO THESE
REQUIREMENTS. THUS THE LABELING
WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
CHILLING EFFECT ON FOREIGN MADE
PRODUCTS DIRECTLY INTERFERING
WITH INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE'RE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. ALASKA. THOSE WHO
WANT TO REGISTER THEIR POSITION
OF OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME
FORWARD, YOUR NAME, ASSOCIATION
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION,
KATIE LITTLE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE SEEING NO ONE? WE'LL BRING
IT BACK IN. QUESTIONS FROM
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE LOOKING
TO MY RIGHT, PLEASE. I DON'T I
DON'T HAVE A QUESTION PER SE,
BUT I DO HAVE A COMMENT. AND
THAT IS IN MY LIMITED TIME HERE.
I HAVE EXPERIENCED THE WATER
BOARD COLLECTING PENALTIES AND
NOT SENDING BACK FROM WHENCE
THEY CAME TO ACTUALLY DO THE
CLEANUP. SO I APPRECIATE THAT
YOU'VE SET UP A SEPARATE FUND. I
JUST ASK THAT EVERYBODY BE
VIGILANT, BECAUSE ONCE THOSE
MONIES GO THERE, THEY ARE RARELY
SEEN. SO I'M DELIGHTED TO SEE A
SEPARATE FUND VICE CHAIR
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, PLEASE.
WERE THERE. YES, I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THIS BILL.
AND JUST A QUESTION, ARE YOU ARE
THERE AMENDMENTS? ARE YOU STILL
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION?
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ABSOLUTELY. WE TAKE NOTE
OF SOME OF THE CRITIQUES THAT
THE OPPOSITION HAS PUT FORWARD,
PARTICULARLY ON, HYPOTHETICALLY,
SHALL WE SAY, THE REGULATORY
REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE LABELING.
THERE'S SORT OF A SHORT TIME
FRAME FOR THAT COMPLIANCE THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE
WORKABLE. THAT AND OTHER THINGS.
WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO
CONTINUE WORKING AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE DO HAVE A, I
RECOMMENDATION THE BILL WOULD GO
TO APPROPRIATIONS IF IT GETS OUT
OF THIS COMMITTEE, SENATOR,
THIS, MATTER IS SOMETHING THAT,
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH. AS WE
SHARE, THE BORDER OF, THE
MEXICALI, CALEXICO REGION OF
IMPERIAL COUNTY, THESE TRANS
BOUNDARY POLLUTION ISSUES ARE,
YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY
UNFORTUNATELY, COMMON, OVER THE
COURSE OF MANY DECADES, A
PROBLEM THAT, YOU MENTIONED IN
YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS, YOU
KNOW, FOLKS JUST CONSISTENTLY
ARE DOING THIS RIGHT. WHOSE
PROBLEM IS IT? AND EVERYONE
POINTS IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
RIGHT. AND WE'VE SEEN THE STATE
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS KIND OF
STEP INTO, PLAYING A ROLE, IN
TRYING TO PROTECT CALIFORNIANS
FROM THIS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
AND PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS. THAT'S
TAKING PLACE ON THE BORDER. AND
THIS IS ONE ADDITIONAL WAY THAT
I THINK WE'RE SEEKING TO
INTERVENE, WHILE THE RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES WHO HAVE THE
JURISDICTION, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE MEXICAN
GOVERNMENT, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO
COLLABORATIVELY ADDRESS THE
SYSTEMIC PROBLEM. SO I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. AND, YOU KNOW, THE
OPPOSITION RAISES SOME QUESTIONS
AND SOME CONCERNS THAT SOUNDS
LIKE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THEM ON, TO TRY TO LAND AT
A PLACE WHERE WE CAN ACHIEVE THE
END GOAL, WHICH IS TO PROTECT
THE WELL-BEING AND PUBLIC HEALTH
OF CALIFORNIANS, WHO ARE BEING
IMPACTED BY THIS POLLUTION. SO,
AGAIN, THIS DOES HAVE A Dð PASS
TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION, IF THERE'S
A SECOND, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, AND TAKE
THOSE COMMENTS TO HEART. AND
JUST TO JUST TO CLARIFY IN A
COUPLE OF POINTS, IF I MIGHT, I
MAY, THERE IS ALSO A LONG
HISTORY IN THE LAW OF DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS BY TO MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS WHO ARE LICENSED OR
HAVE OBLIGATIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES AND BY INDIVIDUAL
SUBNATIONAL ENTITIES LIKE STATE
GOVERNMENTS, THE STATUTE THAT I
REFERRED TO THAT THIS BUILDS ON
TITLE FOR THE WATER ACT, HAS
BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1969.
THE STATUTE PLAINLY REQUIRES THE
DISCLOSURE BY ENTITIES LICENSED
TO DO BUSINESS IN OUR STATE, WHO
SELL PRODUCTS IN OUR STATE, BUT
WHO MAY HAVE OPERATIONS OUTSIDE
THE STATE BOUNDARY. WE'VE ALSO
DONE SOME HOMEWORK WITH THE
BOARD AND HAVE OPINION AND HAVE
RESEARCH THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST
THAT EVEN AN ENTITY IN THAT SAME
SITUATION THAT MAY BE OUTSIDE
THE UNITED STATES BOUNDARIES
HERE, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND
SOUTH OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BORDER WITH MEXICO, CAN COMPLY.
AND THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON
THAT COMPLIANCE. AND I WOULD
JUST SAY, AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT
APPLY TO SMALL OPERATORS. THE
APPLICATION HERE IS TO
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, 2500
EMPLOYEES OR ABOVE, WE ALSO KNOW
THAT, DISCLOSURES AND SUCH
SITUATED BUSINESSES HAVE NOT
ALWAYS BEEN FOUND, TO MEET THE
STANDARDS OF, OF FOREIGN
COMMERCE AND THE DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND
TO VIOLATE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OR TO BE INTERFERING WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO REGULATE FOREIGN
POLICY. THAT SAID, I THINK THE
OLD SAYING IS A SUNLIGHT IS THE
BEST ANTISEPTIC, THIS IS A
SCENARIO THAT ISN'T JUST AS THE
CHAIR REFERENCED, A VERY BAD
PROBLEM ON THE US-MEXICO BORDER
BROADLY, BUT IN THE SOUTHWEST
BORDER, IT IS ONE THAT ADDS TO
AN ALREADY EXISTING SET OF OTHER
MULTIPLE FACTORS, ALL CONVERGING
IN THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME
TIME. AND THAT IS UNIQUE. AND
THAT'S WHY IT'S URGENT. AND WITH
THAT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY, A MOTION,
A SECOND DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. I'LL ASK THAT.
WE, DO A ROLL CALL ON THE,
MOTION ITEM SIX, SB 1178.
PADILLA. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS.
AND WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA. AYE.
GARCIA. AYE. HOOVER. NO HOOVER.
NO. CONNELLY. CONNOLLY. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE. PAPIN
PAPIN. AYE. REYES REYES. AYE TO.
THAT HAS SUFFICIENT VOTES. OKAY.
THANK YOU. BELIEVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON. AND
YOU HAVE A SECOND BILL HERE.
FILE NUMBER SEVEN, SB 2008, THIS
IS A BILL THAT DOES HAVE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO AMENDMENTS TO BE
SPECIFIC. MR. PADILLA, PLEASE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT SB 1208, AND
AS YOU THE CHAIR JUST
REFERENCED, WE ARE ACCEPTING,
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL
BE PROCESSED IN ASSEMBLY. AND,
AND I APPRECIATE YOU AND THE
STAFF WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH
US. THIS IS, ANOTHER COMPLEX ONE
AND UNIQUE. IT IS A DISTRICT
BILL, BUT IT IS ALSO UNIQUE AND
COMPLEX AND URGENT, AS YOU ARE
WELL AWARE, WE HAVE A CONFLUENCE
IN THE SOUTHWEST BORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES IN MY DISTRICT
THAT IS UNIQUE TO ANY OTHER
PLACE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
, ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREEN, BECAUSE OF
OPEN BURNING OF TRASH AND
REFUGE, JUST IMMEDIATELY SOUTH
OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY,
BECAUSE OF BOTH BIOLOGICAL TRANS
BORDER FLOWS AND BIOLOGICAL
CONTAMINANTS, AS WELL AS
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
RUNOFF, WE HAVE BOTH THE WATER
QUALITY, DISASTER THAT PRODUCES
TOXIC WATER SUCH THAT THE
BEACHES FOR MANY MILES OF BEACH
AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER BEEN
CLOSED NOW FOR OVER TWO YEARS.
AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME OF THE
WORST AIR QUALITY IN THE STATE
THAT ALL CONVERGES IN THE SAME
PLACE ACCORDING TO THE LOS
ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK
TIMES, OTHER INDEPENDENT
RESEARCH BY SCRIPPS AND AMERICAN
RIVERS. THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED HAS BEEN DECLARED ONE
OF, IF NOT THE MOST DISTRESSED
WATERSHED IN THE CONTINENTAL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
MOREOVER, IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS
THE HEALTH OF COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED
UNDER INVESTED COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR, MY BILL, SB 1208 WOULD
PROHIBIT THE SITING OF A CLASS
THREE LANDFILL ANY SUCH LANDFILL
IN THE TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED,
BECAUSE AS I CAN ELABORATE
FURTHER ON, IF NECESSARY, THERE
IS A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE THAT
SHOWS THAT DUMPS CLASS THREE
LANDFILLS. NO MATTER THE MODERN
APPLICATION OF MITIGATING
MEASURES, WILL ALWAYS HAVE A
DETRIMENTAL IMPACT JUST BECAUSE
OF THE NATURE OF HOW THEY EXIST
AND HOW THEY ARE DESIGNED AND
CERTAINLY IN SENSITIVE
WATERSHEDS. THAT EVIDENCE IS
IRREFUTABLE. 15 YEARS AGO, THE
PROPONENTS OF A LANDFILL THAT
WISH TO SITED IN THE TIJUANA
RIVER WATERSHED PUT A MISLEADING
BALLOT MEASURE BEFORE THE VOTERS
OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. WHEN
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE VERY
DIFFERENT AND INFORMATION. WE
DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION WE
HAVE TODAY THAT BALLOT MEASURE
HEADING AND TITLE AND SUMMARY
TALKED ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF A
ZONING CHANGE, NOT OF A PROJECT
TO ACHIEVE A RECYCLING FACILITY.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS TODAY,
MANY YEARS LATER, THE CONFLUENCE
OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS PLACE
HAVE GROWN EVEN MORE ACUTE AND
DEADLY AND PROBLEMATIC. AND IF
YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION THEY
HAVE PENDING WITH THE ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS, IT'S A 340 ACRE
SITE, 98% OF WHICH IS FOR A
DUMP, AND ONLY 1.8% OF WHICH IS
FOR AN AS YET UNDEFINED AS AS
YET UN APPLIED FOR, RECYCLING
SOMETHING SOME KIND OF A
FACILITY. FURTHER, IF YOU PRESS
THOSE APPLICANTS, THEY WILL
CONCEDE THERE IS NO SUCH DESIGN.
THERE IS NO FACILITY PROPOSED.
THERE IS NO INVESTMENT PARTNER
TO BUILD SUCH A FACILITY. THEIR
PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A DUMP. THE
SECOND WITHIN A FEW MILES OF AN
ALREADY EXISTING DUMP. AND IN
THIS AREA OF THE BORDER,
EXPERIENCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
INJUSTICES AND PROBLEMS THAT I
JUST DESCRIBED TO YOU BASED ON
THE SCIENCE. BUT I'LL ALSO TAKE
A SECOND TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. I GREW UP
IN SOUTHERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, IN
A COMMUNITY OF COLOR ON THE
INTERNATIONAL BORDER. THIS THIS
COMMUNITY HAS ALSO BEEN SUBJECT
OVER 100 YEARS PLUS TO NUMEROUS
ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES FOR
MANY YEARS, THE SITING OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY INAPPROPRIATE
AND UNWANTED LAND USES HAVE BEEN
PLACED AND PUT ON THE SOUTHERN
PORTION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
RENDERING PLANTS WRECKING YARDS,
DISTILL YARDS, GAS POWERED POWER
PLANTS, DIESEL FIRED PEAKER
PLANTS, RENDERING PLANTS, AND ON
AND ON AND ON. AND NOW, IN THE
MIDST OF ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE
ENVIRONMENTAL CRISES, WE HAVE
THE CHALLENGE OF A POSSIBLE
ADDITIONAL CONTAMINANT THAT
WOULD FURTHER DISTRESS
UNNECESSARILY THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED. AND ON THE QUESTION
OF NECESSITY, I HAVE TO POINT
OUT IN YOUR RECORD, YOU HAVE A
LETTER FROM CAL EPA SECRETARY AS
WELL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK
AT THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S
RECENT UPDATE TO THEIR REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE PLAN, A LANDFILL OF
THIS NATURE USING OLD
TECHNOLOGY, NO MATTER WHAT THEY
CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY, IS NOT AT
ALL NECESSARY. THE REGION HAS
MORE THAN ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR
LANDFILL THROUGH 2060 AND
BEYOND, AND EVERY YEAR, BECAUSE
OF MANY OF THE EFFORTS WE'VE
MADE HERE IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, EVERY YEAR,
INCREMENTALLY THE DEMAND FOR
LANDFILL REPOSITORY EXTENDS AND
BECOMES LESS AND LESS AND LESS
BECAUSE OF DIVERSION, BECAUSE OF
OTHER RECYCLING EFFORTS. AND SO
THE REASON FOR THE BILL IS TO
RECOGNIZE SOME NEW FACTS. THE
SCIENCE THAT SAYS YOU DON'T PUT
ANOTHER STRAW ON THE CAMEL'S
BACK. AND THE MOST DISTRESSED
WATERSHED IN NORTH AMERICA, YOU
DON'T TAKE THE RISK OF ADDING
MORE POLLUTANTS IN THE
WATERSHED. THAT WILL THEN MIX
WITH OTHER INDUSTRIAL RUNOFF AND
BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS, AND
FURTHER POISON AND UNDERINVESTED
COMMUNITY OF COLOR THAT HAS
HISTORICALLY NOT HAD ECONOMIC
AND POLITICAL POWER TO FIGHT
BACK. YOU JUST DON'T DO IT. AND
SO THIS BILL SEEKS TO MAKE THAT
VERY DIFFICULT TO DO BECAUSE OF
THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES AT
PRESENT. AND SO THAT IS THE
BILL. AND WITH ME TODAY, I'M
VERY HAPPY TO WELCOME STEPHANIE
PECK, FOUNDER OF PROTECT OTAY
FOOTHILLS, AND ALSO MALIK BYNUM,
ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
FOR THE UNITED DOMESTIC WORKERS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. PLEASE. YOU
HAVE FOUR MINUTES TOTAL. THANK
YOU. SENATOR PADILLA. THANK YOU,
CHAIR GARCIA. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE
PECK. I AM FOUNDER OF PROTECT
OTAY FOOTHILLS. WHILE I AM HERE
SPEAKING IN THAT CAPACITY TODAY,
I'M ALSO CHAIR OF THE SIERRA
CLUB SAN DIEGO POLITICAL
COMMITTEE AND ACTIVELY INVOLVED
IN SEVERAL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
IN THE REGION. PROTECT OUR
FOOTHILLS IS A BROAD COALITION
OF ELECTED OFFICIALS,
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, LABOR AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SITING A
PROPOSED LANDFILL IN THE
IMPAIRED TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED, AND WHO SUPPORT SB
1208. THAT SUPPORT INCLUDES
CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS NORA VARGAS,
PRESIDENT OF THE SAN DIEGO CITY
COUNCIL SEAN ELO RIVERA. MAYORS
AND COUNCILS FROM THE IMPACTED
CITIES. MORE THAN A DOZEN
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, INCLUDING
SIERRA CLUB, SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION, NRDC AND OTHERS.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GROUPS AND
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND MORE
THAN 1000 SOUTH SAN DIEGO
RESIDENTS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED LANDFILL. THE PROPOSED
PRIVATE LANDFILL CLEARLY WOULD
BE LOCATED WITHIN THE TIJUANA
RIVER WATERSHED IN THE TRIBUTARY
SYSTEM, WITH THE RIVER ONE AND A
HALF MILES SOUTH OF THE SITE AND
A SITE THAT'S A QUARTER OF A
MILE FROM THE BORDER. ANY
SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER THAT
LEAVES THE SITE WILL FLOW BY
GRAVITY INTO THE RIVER. NOTION.
DESPITE BEST EFFORTS, WE KNOW
THAT LANDFILLS POLLUTE. WE KNOW
THAT TRANS BOUNDARY FLOWS MOVE
POLLUTANTS DOWNSTREAM, AND IT'S
A RISK WE CANNOT AFFORD HERE.
THE TIJUANA RIVER CANNOT
WITHSTAND ANOTHER MAJOR
STRESSOR. SAN DIEGO COUNTY DOES
NOT NEED A NEW LANDFILL AS
SENATOR PADILLA HAS SHARED THE
CURRENT FIVE YEAR STATE REQUIRED
REPORT CONFIRMED BY CAL EPA
SECRETARY JANET GARCIA,
UNEQUIVOCALLY SHOWS SAN DIEGO
COUNTY HAS CAPACITY THROUGH
2053. AT LEAST IT IS COUNTER TO
STATE CLIMATE POLICY AND TO SAN
DIEGO COUNTY'S CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN TO RISK THE IMPACTS OF A
LANDFILL THAT IS NOT EVEN NEEDED
. SB 1208 WILL NOT LEAD TO THE
EXPANSION OF EXISTING LANDFILLS
IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. THE KNOWN
CAPACITY IS NOT IS NOT IMPACTED
BY THIS BILL. SB 1208 WILL NOT
CHANGE ANY CURRENT AND APPROVED
PLANS FOR CLOSURES OR EXPANSION
OF THE EXISTING LANDFILLS. IF
DEVELOPED, THIS LANDFILL WOULD
BE THE ONLY ONE IN CALIFORNIA
SITED IN THIS MANNER ABLE TO
CIRCUMVENT THE LOCAL CONDITIONAL
USE PROCESS THAT THE OTHER
LANDFILLS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO.
1208 WOULD NOT CHANGE WHAT THE
VOTERS ENACTED. THAT INITIATIVE,
PASSED 14 YEARS AGO, GRANTED
LOCAL APPROVAL FOR A ZONING
CHANGE. 1208 ADDRESSES A STATE
PROCESS. THE MEASURE WAS
PRESENTED TO VOTERS IN A MANNER
THAT DEPRIVED THEM OF TRULY
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY WERE
VOTING FOR, CLOAKED IN THE
URGENCY OF IMMINENTLY RUNNING
OUT OF LANDFILL SPACE. AS
SENATOR PADILLA HAS, HAS
DESCRIBED, MUCH HAS CHANGED
SINCE 2010. THE TIJUANA RIVER
CRISIS HAS ONLY WORSENED THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS ON SOUTH
SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S COMMUNITIES
HAS GROWN, AND THE PENDULUM HAS
MOVED TOWARD REAL CLIMATE
ACTION, ORGANICS DIVERSION AND
ZERO WASTE, WHICH HAS FREED UP
LANDFILL SPACE. WE MUST ADAPT TO
THESE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES AND
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HAS
DETERMINED SB 1208 IS A LEGAL
PATHWAY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
THE RISKS ARE REAL AND VERY
SERIOUS. THE STAKES ARE
INCREDIBLY HIGH. THERE IS NO
REASON TO RISK THE
ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC
HEALTH IMPACTS OF A LANDFILL
THAT IS NOT NEEDED. I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS IMPORTANT AND
NEEDED LEGISLATION, AND THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT YOUR TESTIMONY DID HIT
ALMOST THE FOUR MINUTE MARK. AND
SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOUR SECOND
WITNESS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
AND JUST IN ALL FAIRNESS, TO
GIVE THE OTHER SIDE THE SAME
TIME. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR, GOOD AFTERNOON, MALIK
BYNUM WITH UAW LOCAL 3930, ON
BEHALF OF OVER 180,000 HOME CARE
AND CHILD CARE PROVIDERS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. RARE APPEARANCE FOR
US IN THIS COMMITTEE, BUT WE ARE
PROUD TO SUPPORT SB 1208, WHICH
PRESENTS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE IN SAN DIEGO. UAW
REPRESENTS OVER 337 37,000 HOME
CARE AND FAMILY CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS ACROSS SAN DIEGO
COUNTY. MANY OF OUR MEMBERS AND
THE RECIPIENTS THEY SERVE LIVE
IN HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES NEAR THE TIJUANA
RIVER AND IN FACT, THESE ARE
AMONGST THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY
IMPACTED AREAS IN THE ENTIRE
STATE. AND IT'S MORALLY WRONG TO
CONTINUE DUMPING MORE POLLUTION
HERE. THIS BILL IS ESPECIALLY
BENEFICIAL FOR OUR AGING
POPULATION, THOSE LIVING WITH
DISABILITIES, AND PREEXISTING
HEALTH CONDITIONS, OUR STATE'S
YOUNGEST LEARNERS, AND OUR
PROVIDERS WHO ARE CARING FOR
THESE FOLKS IN THESE AREAS WANT
TO, OF COURSE, THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS BILL
IN THIS SPACE. AND WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT
ON SB 1208. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS
TIME, I'LL ASK IF THERE WILL BE
WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN
OPPOSITION. YOU'LL HAVE, 4.5
MINUTES. I'M SORRY. ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT. MY APOLOGIES.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT COMING
FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. THANK
YOU. MICHAEL ZUBIATE,
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. FOR AARON WOOLLEY, ON BEHALF
OF SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA, IN
SUPPORT. DARRELL LITTLE WITH
NRDC AND ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
COASTAL PROTECTION NETWORK IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CODY
PHILLIPS WITH CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE AND WITH
SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER IN SUPPORT
, TONY HACKETT WITH CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE IN SUPPORT,
CELESTE WICKS WITH CLEAN EARTH
FOR KIDS IN SUPPORT. ALSO IN
SUPPORT NORTH COUNTY EQUITY
JUSTICE ECO SUSTAINABILITY AND
CA GRANDPARENTS AND OTHER
ACTIVIST SAN DIEGO AND FACTS.
THANK YOU LAURA WALSH WITH
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE'LL
ASK THAT THE WITNESSES FOR THE
OPPOSITION COME FORWARD. TWO
WITNESSES. YOU'LL HAVE 4.5
MINUTES TO PROVIDE YOUR
TESTIMONY. AGAIN, TWO WITNESSES
PROVIDING 4.5 MINUTES TO, YOUR
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. YOU CAN
STAY. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, STEVE CRUZ,
ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL
ENTERPRISES, WHO IS THE PROPERTY
OWNER AND DEVELOPER FOR THE
PROPOSED OTAY MESA RECYCLING
LANDFILL IN PROJECT IN SAN
DIEGO. I'M ALSO JOINED BY JAKE
RUSSELL, WHO IS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT FOR THE
PROJECT, AND THEN DAVID WICK,
THE CEO OF NATIONAL ENTERPRISE,
WHO WAS HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS?
FIRST, LET ME SAY WE HAVE A
GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR
SENATOR PADILLA AND THE WORK
HE'S DOING ON ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES AND PARTICULARLY THE
PROTECTION OF THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED. HOWEVER, WE DO
DISAGREE WITH THE APPROACH OF SB
1208, WHICH IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN
WOULD PROHIBIT THE REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FROM
ISSUING A NEW PERMIT FOR A
LANDFILL IN THE TIJUANA RIVER
ESTUARY, OR WITHIN A TRIBUTARY
THAT FLOWS, THEREIN. SB 1208 IS
BASED ON THE PREMISE, AND THIS
IS IMPORTANT THAT THE PROPOSED
PROJECT WOULD POLLUTE THE RIVER.
HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE
IS A BASIS FOR THAT CLAIM. IN
FACT, THE PROJECT MUST UNDERGO
THOROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
UNDER CEQA, INCLUDING RIGOROUS
REVIEW BY THE REGIONAL WATER
BOARD, WHO MUST DETERMINE THAT
THE PROJECT MUST NOT HAVE ANY
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE WATER
QUALITY, INCLUDING WITHIN THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED. TAKEN
FROM THE SENATE-TV C¯ ANALYSIS.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE STATE
STATED THAT SB 1208 ACTUALLY
NEGATES THE EXISTING DECISION
MAKING AUTHORITY AND EXPERTISE
OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD,
WHOSE JOB IS WHOSE JOB IT IS TO
ENSURE THAT LANDFILLS COMPLY
WITH EXISTING LAWS AND
PROCEDURES THAT PROTECT WATER
QUALITY FROM THE LANDFILL
OPERATIONS. SO FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, THE BILL UNDERMINES
THIS PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS. THE
EXISTING ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
AND THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. THE
VOTERS APPROVED ON AN 84% BASIS.
APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. AND I
WOULD I WOULD JUST ADD THAT WE
DID HAVE, PRINTED COPIES OF THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE TITLE AND
SUMMARY AND I'LL JUST READ IT,
THE PROPOSITION, UNDER QUESTION
HERE, EAST OTAY MESA RECYCLING
COLLECTION CENTER AND LANDFILL
ORDINANCE, SHALL THIS INITIATIVE
BE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SITING A NEW RECYCLING CENTER
AND CLASS THREE SOLID WASTE
LANDFILL IN THE EAST OTAY MESA
AREA OF UNINCORPORATED SAN DIEGO
COUNTY? SO THAT WAS WHAT WAS
BEFORE THE VOTERS, AND, AGAIN, I
THINK WE'VE ALSO HEARD IT'S
CALLED INTO QUESTION ON THE NEED
FOR THE, THE RECYCLING CENTER.
AND LANDFILL. AND THE REPORT
THAT WE'VE CITED WAS A REPORT
FROM SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN 2022,
WHERE THERE WAS, QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE NEED AND, WHAT THE
CONCLUSION WAS THERE IS THAT IT
MAY NOT BE NEEDED, BUT ONLY IF
OUR DIVERSION WASTE AND
DIVERSION AND RECYCLING GOALS
ARE MET, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW,
WE'RE STRUGGLING TO DO
UNFORTUNATELY, AT THE MOMENT AND
ONLY IF THERE WAS AN EXPANSION
OF THE EXISTING THREE LANDFILLS
TO ACCOMMODATE, THE WASTE. AND
SO, WE WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE
EXISTING LANDFILLS ARE LOCATED
IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES. AND
SO THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUES,
WITH VIOLATIONS AND JUST THE
GENERAL EXPANSION WITH THESE
LANDFILLS WHEN THERE WAS HOPE
AND PROMISES THAT THEY WOULD BE
CLOSED. AND AGAIN, THE NEW
LANDFILL WOULD PROVIDE THAT
OPTION. SO, THE, I ALSO WANTED
TO POINT OUT THAT THE, WE THINK
TOGETHER THAT ALL OF THESE
THINGS DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS
A NEED. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE STATE OF THE ART FACILITY TO
BE BUILT, THE EXISTING LANDFILLS
WERE NOT BUILT. THEY WERE PRE
SEQUA, AND SO HAVING SAID THAT,
WE DO SUPPORT APPRECIATE THE
WORK OF THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT OTHER
OPTIONS OUTSIDE OF A PROHIBITION
IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS THAT PUT IN PLACE NEW
REVIEWS OR ENHANCED REVIEWS OF
TOÀN RIVER BY THE WATER BOARD,
WE THINK THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE, BUT NOT OBVIOUSLY
KILL THE PROJECT. THERE WAS ONE
THAT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT
IN PARTICULAR, FOR THE EPA
SECRETARY TO, STATE, ESTABLISH A
FINDING THAT THERE WOULD BE
CLEAR AND CONCLUSIVE LEAD, NO
DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO THE RIVER.
I THINK WOULD BE OKAY WITH SUCH
AN APPROACH, BUT I THINK THAT'S
A HIGH STANDARD. OBVIOUSLY, WE
ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
THEIR REVIEW, THAT THE EPA
SECRETARY'S REVIEW BE, OBJECTIVE
SCIENCE BASED. SO IT'S
CONSISTENT WITH THE WATER BOARD,
WHICH IS ULTIMATELY UNDER THEIR
JURISDICTION. SO I THINK THAT
WOULD BE MY ONLY COMMENT ON THE
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT. SO I MAY I
DON'T KNOW WHAT MY TIME IS, MR.
CHAIR, BUT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. AND, JAKE RUSSELL. YEAH.
YOU HIT THE 4.5 MINUTE MARK, AND
I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU THE YOUR
NEXT WITNESS, ANOTHER, YOU KNOW,
30 40S. AND BE JUST FAIR TO, YOU
KNOW, HEAR KIND OF THE REST OF
THE CONVERSATION AND ALLOW THE,
THE PROPONENTS, TO ALSO ADD SOME
TIME AS WELL. SO PLEASE. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, JACOB
RUSSELL AS STEVE MENTIONED, I'VE
BEEN THE ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER
ON THIS PROJECT SINCE THE
BEGINNING. GOT 26 YEARS IN SOLID
WASTE. PERMITTING DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION. AND I DO BELIEVE
THAT WE CAN AND WILL DESIGN A
FACILITY HERE THAT IS PROTECTIVE
OF GROUNDWATER AND ALL THE
SYSTEMS ARE IN PLACE, AND THE
PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE, AND THE
AGENCY'S REVIEW IS ALREADY IN
PLACE TO ASSURE THAT THAT
HAPPENS. I'VE WORKED WITH EVERY
AGENCY THAT YOU COULD NAME, ALL
THE WAY FROM THE US, EPA, GUAM,
EPA, CAL, EPA, ALL REGIONS OF
THE WATER BOARD ON DEVELOPING
EXISTING FACILITIES, WORKING ON
THE OPERATIONS WITH ALL OF WITH
THE EXISTING FACILITIES AND
DEVELOPING NEW FACILITIES. AND
THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
AN UNLINED HISTORIC LANDFILL
THAT WAS PUT IN PRE SUBTITLE D
AND A BRAND NEW LANDFILL WITH A
COMPLETE INTACT LINER SYSTEM AND
ALL OF THE NECESSARY COLLECTION
AND STORMWATER AND FACILITIES
AND MODERN FACILITIES TO GO WITH
THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. I'M GOING TO NOW ASK
IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER
INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
WANT TO REGISTER THEIR POSITION
OF OPPOSITION. NAME ORGANIZATION
AND THEIR OFFICIAL POSITION.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. CHAIRMAN
NICK MWENDWA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?
OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO BRING IT
UP TO DÍAS AND, ASK MEMBERS IF
THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. YES. SOME
MEMBER KINNEAR. AGAIN, I'D LIKE
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE
BILL. AS WE KNOW, THERE'S A LOT
OF, TRASH IN CALIFORNIA THAT
NEEDS TO GO OUT TO THE
LANDFILLS, AND SO I'LL JUST ASK
YOU, YOU ARE YOU SAYING THAT
THEY HAVE OTHER YOU GUYS HAVE
ENOUGH LANDFILLS IN SAN DIEGO TO
TAKE CARE OF US FOR A WHILE,
THAT WE DON'T NEED THIS? MR.
CHAIRMAN AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER?
YES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MOST
RECENT UPDATE BY THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, SOLID WASTE REGIONAL
PLAN, THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR. AND
THAT WAS WHAT WAS CONFIRMED IN
THE LETTER BY THE SECRETARY OF
CAL EPA. THE FACT OF THE MATTER
IS, THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH
ADEQUACY THROUGH MID-CENTURY OR
BEYOND. AND THAT THAT ADEQUACY
IN TERMS OF A TREND IS
INCREMENTALLY REDUCING YEAR OVER
YEAR SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE
FACTORS THAT WERE DISCUSSED
EARLIER AND TO THE OPPONENTS,
ARE YOU GUYS DOING RECYCLING? IS
THIS IS THIS A FULL RECYCLING
PLANT? IS THIS ARE YOU GUYS
PLANNING ON DOING RECYCLING ON
THIS LANDFILL? OH YES. I MEAN
RECYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY,
NOT A PROCESSING FACILITY, BUT
YOU WOULD COLLECT THE RECYCLING
THERE FOR IT TO BE EXPORTED TO
PLACES THAT, CONVERT THAT INTO
RAW MATERIALS AND IS THAT
ALREADY HAPPENING AT THE OTHER
SITES AS WELL? YEAH, DEPENDING
ON THE LICENSURE AND THE
LOCATION AND THE FACILITIES ON
SITE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT MODES
OF COLLECTION OR, AND, OR,
CONVERSION AND OTHER OTHER
THINGS THAT THAT ARE AT VARIOUS
FACILITIES AROUND THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS.
SO, THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING
HERE. I'VE SPOKEN WITH BOTH
SIDES, COMMUNICATED WITH SENATOR
PADILLA. SO MY CONCERNS ABOUT
THIS BILL ARE PROCEDURAL, WE DO
HAVE AN ENTIRE PROCESS IN PLACE.
AND I GUESS I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT WHY NOT LET SOME, YOU
KNOW, SEQUENCE CEQA PROCESS IS
PRETTY ONEROUS AND NOT
NECESSARILY EASY TO GET THROUGH.
AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS
WHY ARE WE HERE AT THE
LEGISLATURE, PROHIBITING A
PROJECT FROM GOING THROUGH THE
RIGORS OF THAT PROCESS? LET THE
CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY, AND
IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOUR LINER
IS GOING TO EXCUSE ME, YOUR
LINER IS GOING TO PREVENT ALL
KINDS OF THINGS, THEN SO BE IT.
OR IF YOU CAN'T PASS MUSTER WITH
THAT, THEN SO BE IT, I HAPPEN TO
LIVE AND, NEAR A CAPPED
LANDFILL, I IT IS A PARK NOW, I
YOU GO TO THAT PARK REGULARLY
AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU AND IT
RUNS RIGHT NEXT TO THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY. IT IS NOT CHEAP
REAL ESTATE, AND WE'RE IN GREAT
SHAPE. AND IT'S BEEN CAPPED. IT
DOESN'T LEAK. IT IS CHECKED
REGULARLY. ALL THOSE GOOD
THINGS, SO I GUESS MY, YOU KNOW,
I DON'T WANT TO GO ON RECORD
THAT, GEE, I WANTED TO GO
CONTAMINATE THE TIJUANA RIVER
MORE. THAT'S REALLY NOT MY
CONCERN. BUT MY CONCERN IS THERE
ARE RIGORS IN PLACE TO DO THIS.
AND WHY NOT LET IT GO THROUGH
THAT? OR I GUESS YOU'VE TALKED
ABOUT I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE
SOME AMENDMENTS FLOATING AROUND
THAT MIGHT HAVE NOT INSTEAD OF
SEQUA, BUT IN ADDITION TO SEQUA,
SOME ADDITIONAL REVIEW. AND I
THINK YOU SAID THERE WAS A
HIGHER STANDARD, BUT I CAN'T
REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS. RIGHT. THE
SECOND, SO YOU'RE GOING TO
ENTERTAIN THAT. YOU GUYS OKAY
WITH THAT? SO YOU GOT NOT ONLY
SEQUA, YOU GOT SOME MORE STUFF
AND LET'S LET THE CHIPS FALL
WHERE THEY MAY. SO THAT'S KIND
OF WHERE I'M COMING FROM.
SENATOR, IF YOU COULD.
ABSOLUTELY. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I
MIGHT. AND THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. GREAT QUESTION AND OFTEN
ASKED. AND SO LET ME, LET ME,
LET ME JUST ADD A LITTLE LIGHT
ON THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT, FIRST
OF ALL, THE, AND I'LL COME BACK
TO IT IN MY CLOSE, IF I MAY, BUT
THIS DOES NOT SUPPLANT OR
REPLACE A PROCESS. ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I DIDN'T GET TO
MENTION EARLIER, WHEN THE VOTERS
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NEARLY 15
YEARS AGO, ADOPTED A ZONING
CHANGE, THE SMALL FINE PRINT
THAT WASN'T CALLED OUT, SO
OBVIOUSLY WAS THAT THEY ALSO,
AND I'M WILLING TO BET,
UNWITTINGLY ADOPTED AN
ALTERNATIVE PROCESS UNIQUE TO
THIS LANDFILL THAT NO OTHER
LANDFILL PROPOSAL IN THE STATE
HAS EVER BEEN SUBJECT TO, AND
THAT BASICALLY REMOVED THE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE
PEOPLE'S ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALL OF THE
SUNLIGHT AND OPENNESS THAT GOES
WITH THE KINDS OF HEARINGS THAT
GO WITH CEQA HEARINGS AND
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AN ELECTED
BODY. ALL ELECTED BODIES IN THE
REGION MÐI, PRIMARILY THE COUNTY
BOARD, WERE REMOVED AND EXCLUDED
FROM THE PROCESS, AND SO THE
PROCESS IS NOW BECAUSE OF A
QUIRK IN EXISTING CALIFORNIA
LAW, WOULD BE TECHNICALLY BY THE
LÀ WOULD BE DELEGATED TO A
SUBDIVISION OF THE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AT THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, WHO AND I'M NOT MAKING
THIS UP, DOESN'T DO SKILL LEAD
WORK. SO WHAT THEY GOT IN
EXCHANGE FOR A ZONING CHANGE IN
THE FINE PRINT WAS A PROCESS
THAT COMPLETELY, REALLY
ELIMINATED A LOT OF THE PEOPLE'S
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, WHO
TYPICALLY WOULD SIT AND HERE.
NOW, TO YOUR POINT, IT DIDN'T
COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THAT
PROCESS. AND IT STILL WOULD, BUT
IT DOES PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF
A DISCHARGE PERMIT BECAUSE OF
THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.
GRIEVOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS
WATERSHED. AND I WILL ALSO POINT
OUT THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT
CALIFORNIA LAW ALREADY PROVIDES
FOR QUALIFICATIONS, TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A DISCHARGE PERMIT
BY THE WATER BOARD. WE DO. WE
ALREADY HAVE THAT IN EXISTING
STATUTE, AND WE DO THAT FOR
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN EXISTING LAW, THERE
ARE EXIGENCIES THAT DEAL WITH
CERTAIN KINDS OF ROCK QUARRIES
AND OTHER KINDS OF THINGS THAT
WE DIRECT THE WATER BOARD. YOU
WILL NOT ISSUE A PERMIT BECAUSE
OF THESE EXIGENCIES. I CAN'T
THINK OF ANY MORE IMPORTANT
EXIGENCY WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO
ADD TO STATUTE IS TO PROHIBIT
THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT IN THE
MOST DISTRESSED, POLLUTED AND
BURDENED WATERSHED IN PROBABLY
THE CONTINENT, AND BECAUSE OF
THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS THAT
FLOW THERE FROM. SO WE'RE NOT
REMOVING THEM FROM THEIR ABILITY
TO GO THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW. BUT I AM POINTING OUT
BECAUSE OF THE BALLOT MEASURE,
IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE
KIND OF REVIEW THAT REALLY WOULD
ONLY APPLY TO THIS POTENTIAL
PROJECT AND NOT TO ANY OTHER
LANDFILL. NO OTHER PROPOSED
LANDFILL IN THE STATE HAS EVER
BEEN PUT THROUGH THIS KIND OF A
PROCESS THAT WAS ACHIEVED
THROUGH THE SMALL PRINT IN THE
BALLOT MEASURE. SO WE'RE NOT
REPLACING REVIEW. AND TO YOUR
OTHER QUESTION ABOUT INCREASING
STANDARDS, YES, SOME OF THE
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE REQUIRES
FINDINGS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, IS
A HIGH EVIDENTIARY STANDARD, IT
ALSO REQUIRES OTHER ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS, BY THE WATER BOARD.
AND I WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY
SUBMIT TO EVERYONE. WELL, IF
THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE WE
OUGHT TO CRANK UP THE STANDARDS,
THIS IS PROBABLY IT. SO I HOPE
THAT THAT ANSWERED YOUR
QUESTION. AND THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, FOR LETTING ME ANSWER
FOLLOW UP. SO YOU'RE GOING TO
TAKE THE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
AND THEN. YEAH, BECAUSE YOU'RE
WHAT YOU'RE EXPLAINING TO ME IS
THAT THE CEQA IS NOT THE REVIEW
PROCESS OF IT IS NOT WHAT WE
FIND NORMALLY BY ELECTED
OFFICIALS. MR. CHAIRMAN, NO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. IT'S NOT OKAY.
I GOT YOU THERE. I GOT YOU
THERE. AND THEN YOU SAY THERE'S
SOME EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
SOMETIMES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT A
PERMIT. I GOT YOU THERE. YES.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD
BE LEGISLATING, SO I'M NOT
TOTALLY CONVINCED THERE, SO I IF
YOU DON'T. GENTLEMEN, PLEASE. SO
IF YOU DON'T LIKE. AND YOU FEEL
THAT THIS AREA IS, IS TOO
THREATENED FOR SUCH A SORT OF
WATERED DOWN CEQA PROCESS, IF
YOU WILL. IS THERE SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WOULD TAKE
THAT HAS THAT CLEAR AND
CONVINCING STANDARD THAT WOULD
ALLOW THAT ADDITIONAL SEE, I'M
GETTING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH US
INTERCEDING AND FOR ALL INTENTS
AND PURPOSES, DECIDING HERE AND
NOW. THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE DOES TO PREVENT THIS
, BUT I'M DOWN WITH DOING SOME
MORE RIGOROUS REVIEW. SO I THINK
I, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT, I
THINK I CAN ANSWER YOU DIRECTLY.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IF I WASN'T
CLEAR EARLIER, ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
WE ARE TAKING THOSE VERY SUCH
AMENDMENTS, AND ONE EVEN THAT
THE OPPONENTS, MR. CRUZ, WHO I
ALSO HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR,
REFERENCED THAT THEY WERE
COMFORTABLE WITH. SO WE ARE SO,
IT'S SORT OF A CONFLUENCE OF THE
STRANGE WEAKENING OF THE NORMAL
PROCESS THAT WAS ACHIEVED IN THE
FINE PRINT, IN THE BALLOT
MEASURE WITH THE BILL PROPER AND
THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN
IS RECOMMENDING IN THE
COMMITTEES RECOMMENDED THAT WE
HAVE ACCEPTED. I WANT TO POINT
TO THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ON
PAGE SIX. THERE ARE, ONE, TWO,
THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX BULLET
POINTS. IT'S THE LAST TWO THAT
WE HAVE PUT FORWARD AS THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU
JUST HEARD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY
THE AUTHOR. AND SO, AND THE
OPPOSITION SAYS THEY LIKE WHAT
THE OPPOSITION HAS SAID. THEY
ACCEPT ONE AND HAVE EXPRESSED
CONCERNS ABOUT ANOTHER ONE IN
TERMS OF POSITIONING OF, WELL, I
DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM. I
THINK I SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES,
BUT NONETHELESS, THOSE ARE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE
AND HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. YEAH,
JUST JUST BRIEFLY, THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. ASSEMBLYWOMAN AND
MR. CHAIR, YEAH. SO THE FOURTH
BULLET, IF YOU WILL, ON THE EPA,
THE FORMAL WRITTEN FINDINGS AND
YOU POINTED OUT THE SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE IN THERE IF YOU MAKE
THE THRESHOLD. SO HIGH THAT IT
REALLY JUST BECOMES LIKE A
UNILATERAL VETO OF A PROJECT
THAT'S OUTSIDE OF, WE THINK, THE
PARAMETERS OF A PERMIT,
REASONABLE WATERBOARD PERMIT, IN
TERMS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND THE
OBJECTIVE BASED REVIEW, I THINK
THAT'S OUR CONCERNS. WE'D LIKE
TO TRY TO HARMONIZE THE
AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR WITH
NUMBER FIVE. TO BE HONEST, THAT
WAS REALLY OUR AND I KNOW THAT'S
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE OR AT
THE DAIS. AND SO WE WOULD LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING. BUT I THINK
IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE INTENT
OF THAT IS THAT TO THAT IS KIND
OF THE PERSON WHO WILL REVIEW
ALL OF THE PROCESSES THAT WILL
STILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE
THAT THINGS WERE ALL CHECKED,
DOUBLE CHECKED, GIVEN THE
SENSITIVITY OF THE GEOGRAPHIC
LOCATION THAT IS AT QUESTION,
THAT IS AT THE CORE OF WHY WE'RE
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION THAT I
THINK WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO.
AND AND SO I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR ACCEPTING THOSE, THOSE
AMENDMENTS. AND THAT'S THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING
AT THE MOMENT. MR. CHAIRMAN, ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
PLEASE, THANK YOU TO THE
MEMBERS. WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM
OUR COLLEAGUE. I ALSO HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH AND
DISCUSS WITH BOTH SIDES ABOUT
THIS BILL. I APPRECIATE THE THIS
BILL AND THE PRIOR BILL HAVING
TO DO SPECIFICALLY WITH THAT
GEOGRAPHIC AREA, TRYING TO FIND
WAYS TO PROTECT IT. THE FACT
THAT, AND I QUOTE, IT'S THE MOST
DISTRESSED WATERSHED IN ALL OF
CALIFORNIA. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT
THE UNITED STATES AND THE
CONTINENT. WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS
SERIOUSLY, RECOGNIZING THAT WE
WANT BUSINESS TO BE ABLE TO
THRIVE, TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR
LAND THAT THEY OWN, BUT MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CAUSING HARM
BY, BY THE USE OF, OF OUR
PROPERTY. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN
DISCUSSION ABOUT SEQUA. I CAN
TELL YOU FROM FIRST HAND
EXPERIENCE, YOU CAN GET A CEQA
REPORT THAT SAYS THERE ARE ALL
THESE PROBLEMS AND THIS IS THE
HARM TO THE COMMUNITY. IT'S A
PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE AND THE
DECIDING BODY, THE CITY COUNCIL,
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CAN
SAY, WE ARE GOING TO OVERRIDE
THE CEQA FINDINGS BECAUSE OF THE
ECONOMIC VALUE OF THIS PROJECT
AND THE SEQUA REPORT GOES OUT
THE WINDOW AND IN COMES A
PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH
ISSUES, THE PUBLIC HEALTH
CONCERNS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH HARM
REMAINS IN THE COMMUNITY WILL
WILL HAVE TO SUFFER WITH THAT
FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. I DO
APPRECIATE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSIONS AND, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE, I DO APPRECIATE THAT
EVEN WHEN THE ANALYSIS WAS FIRST
PUT OUT, THE FACT THAT YOU PUT
ALL OF THESE POSSIBILITIES FOR
OPTIONS TO MAKE THIS A STRONGER
BILL FOR BOTH SIDES, THAT
ALLOWED THE PARTIES THEN TO LOOK
AT WHAT THE OPTIONS WERE AND TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT COULD WE
THEY COULD AGREE ON. AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S BEEN AN
AGREEMENT ON SOME OF THESE,
THESE OPTIONS. THERE HAS TO BE
SOMETHING DONE I APPRECIATE. AND
WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT THERE
IS ENOUGH LANDFILL FOR THE NEXT
DECADES, IT ASSUMING THAT IS
ACCURATE AND, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S
GOING TO BE CHECKED TO, TO
CONFIRM, BUT FINDING PROTECTIONS
AND, HAS TO BE KEY AND I
APPRECIATE THAT, THAT, THE
TECHNOLOGY IS DIFFERENT AND
THERE CAN BE MORE PROTECTIONS
NOW, I WHO IS IT THAT SAID TRUST
BUT VERIFY. AND I THINK FINDING
OUT WAYS THAT WE CAN TRUST. BUT
ABSOLUTELY VERIFY BECAUSE IT'S
PEOPLE'S HEALTH THAT IS THAT IS
ON ON THE THAT WILL BE AFFECTED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.
JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR THE
OPPOSITION, IT'S BEEN PRESENTED
THAT THIS PROJECT IS UNNECESSARY
. CAN YOU MAYBE SPEAK TO, YOU
KNOW, WHY YOU BELIEVE IT IS
NECESSARY AND KIND OF THE OTHER
SIDE OF THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU.
CHAIR, I LIKE WHAT YOU JUST SAID
THERE. THE DEVIL'S IN THE
DETAILS OR TRUST, BUT VERIFY
EVERY DOCUMENT THAT SENATOR
PADILLA REFERENCED. READ IT.
READ OUR BALLOT MEASURE. IT'S
VERY CLEAR. READ IT. DON'T TAKE
HIS WORD. DON'T TAKE MINE. JUST
READ IT. TAKE THAT. SEPTEMBER
2022 REPORT. THAT'S THE FIVE
YEAR STUDY THAT TALKS ABOUT OUR
LANDFILL CAPACITY. THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO DOES IT EVERY FIVE
YEARS. THEY LOOK 15 YEARS OUT.
BACK IN 1990, THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO HIRED DAMES AND MOORE TO
DO A STUDY OF OUR LANDFILL
CAPACITY AND AT THAT TIME, AS
THE SENATOR SAID, THEY FELT OUR
CAPACITY WAS REACHING IN THE
NEXT FIVE, TEN YEARS. AND SO
THEY PICKED THIS SITE AS A
POTENTIAL SOLID WASTE FACILITY.
THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO THE VOTERS
AND ASKED THEM, DO YOU WANT A
SOLID WASTE FACILITY HERE? AND
RECYCLING? AND THEY SAID, YES,
84.5. AND SO THAT STUDY IN 2022
NOW SAYS, WELL, BECAUSE HEIGHTS
OF EXISTING LANDFILLS AT MIRAMAR
, SYCAMORE AND CHULA VISTA ARE
INCREASING, LANDFILL TRASH ON
THE LANDFILL ISN'T DECREASING.
LOOK, READ THAT REPORT
CAREFULLY. IT SHOWS IT ISN'T
DECREASING. DIVERSION ISN'T
BEING ACHIEVED. OUR RECYCLING
LANDFILL FACILITY WILL HELP THE
COUNTY ACHIEVE ITS 50% DIVERSION
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
READ THE DOCUMENT. THE ONLY WAY
THEY GET TO 2053 IS BY HAVING
THOSE EXISTING LANDFILLS
INCREASE IN ELEVATION. SO
INDIRECTLY, THIS BILL, IF
APPROVED, WILL CAUSE THOSE
EXISTING LANDFILLS TO INCREASE
IN ELEVATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO
PUT THE TRASH SOMEWHERE BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT GOING TO ZERO WASTE
ANY TIME SOON. SO IN ANSWER TO
YOUR QUESTION, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
IS THE CURRENT SITUATION IS DIRE
BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU HAVE
LANDFILL CAPACITY TO 2053, WHICH
I DOUBT YOU DO, WHAT DO YOU DO
IN 2054? I'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS PROJECT FOR 20 YEARS. YOU
DON'T DEVELOP A SOLID WASTE
FACILITY IN A WEEK, AND SO IF
YOU SEND MESSAGES TO DEVELOPERS
LIKE ME, DON'T COME TO
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE WE DON'T
BELIEVE IN CEQA, WE DON'T TRUST
THOSE AGENCIES. WE WANT TO KILL
THIS PROJECT. WHO ELSE WOULD DO
THIS? NO ONE WOULD. SO YOU HAVE
TO LOOK BEYOND 2053. AT SOME
POINT IN TIME, YOU'RE GOING TO
NEED A ANOTHER SOLID WASTE
FACILITY DESIGNED STATE OF THE
ART WITH ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL
RULES FOLLOWED AND ADHERED TO
SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE. SO WE
DON'T HAVE UNLIMITED CAPACITY
UNLESS EARTH IS GOING TO STOP IN
2054. FOLLOW UP QUESTION I KNOW
IT WAS ASSEMBLY MEMBER WHO WAS
QUESTION, BUT I SOMETHING THAT I
HEARD IS THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO
BE A LANDFILL AND RECYCLING 98%
WAS IS BEING USED FOR LANDFILL,
AND LESS THAN 1.5% IS BEING USED
FOR RECYCLING. CAN YOU ADDRESS
THAT? SURE. AND THAT'S A GOOD
QUESTION. I THINK JOSH, WHO WE
SAT WITH, HAD A LITTLE
MISUNDERSTANDING THERE BECAUSE
THE COMMITTEE HOOVER WHAT THE
MISUNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WE HAVE
TWO JOSH'S. SORRY THIS FACILITY
AS THE SENATOR SAYS, IS 340
ACRES. IT'S ACTUALLY 450. AND
THERE'S 110 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE.
SO THE ACTUAL FACILITY IS 340
ACRES. AS YOU'RE DEVELOPING AND
BUILDING THIS FACILITY, YOU'RE
NOT DEVELOPING THE ENTIRE 340
ACRES. IN FACT, THE INITIAL CELL
WILL PROBABLY BE TEN ACRES. SO
THAT CELL COULD LAST 20 YEARS
AGAIN, DEPENDING ON DIVERSION,
GOING TO RECYCLING. SO THE REST
OF THE SITE WILL BE USED AS
RECYCLING. IT'S LIKE A
CONSTRUCTION SITE. YOU HAVE A
STAGING AREA WHERE I WANT TO
STOP YOU FOR JUST A MOMENT. MY
QUESTION IS ASKED TO WHAT YOU'VE
ALREADY RECEIVED YOUR LICENSE
FOR. YOU HAVE TWO, TWO SITES AND
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR
LANDFILL AND RECYCLING, AND THE
INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED IS
THAT 98% IS BEING USED FOR
LANDFILL AND LESS THAN 2% IS
BEING USED FOR RECYCLING. THAT'S
THE PART THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU PLAN FOR THE
NEXT ONE, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW
IF IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED
ONLY TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
WHAT YOU DO HAVE, WHICH IS THE
TWO FACILITIES. CORRECT. IT'S
ONE FACILITY. OH, OKAY. I
THOUGHT IT WAS TWO 101 FACILITY
OF 450 ACRES. 110 IS AN OPEN
SPACE, 340 FOR ANSWERING THE
QUESTION. CORRECT. SO 340 ACRES
IS DEVELOPED. WHAT THEY THAT 98%
AND 2. SOMEONE DID A MATH
CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE
BECAUSE THERE'S A SITE PLAN AND
IT SHOWS THE SCALES AND THE
STATION AND THE TRAILER AND THE
OFFICE TRAILER WHERE THE TRUCKS
COME IN, WHAT IT DOESN'T GO INTO
DETAIL WHAT THAT DIDN'T SEE AT
THIS STAGE OF OUR PROJECT
DESCRIPTION, THAT WE'RE STILL
PUTTING OUT, BECAUSE OUR SEQUEL
REPORT WILL BE OUT IN THE NEXT
SIX MONTHS, AND THAT WILL HAVE
ALL THESE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN
THAT CEQA EIR REPORT IS WITHIN
THE 340 ACRES RECYCLING WILL
OCCUR. SO WHOEVER DID THAT
ANALYSIS OF 98 AND TWO, THEY
SIMPLY LOOKED AT THE STAGING
AREA WHERE THE TRUCKS COME IN
AND SAID, OH, THAT'S ONLY THEIR
RECYCLING. AND THE LESS REST IS
THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY, WHICH
IS INCORRECT, YOU SAY IS
RECYCLING OF YOUR CURRENT
FACILITY OF THE PROPOSED
FACILITY OF YOUR CURRENT. YOU
HAVE ONE ALREADY? NO I CAN
CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. I TRY TO.
YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. IF I MIGHT, FIRST, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR. THERE IS NO
PERMITTED FACILITY. THIS
FACILITY HAS NO PERMITS. THE
ONLY THING THAT'S BEEN ACHIEVED.
SO FAR IS THE ADOPTION 15 YEARS
AGO OF A ZONING CHANGE. WITH THE
FINE PRINT IN THE SAME BALLOT
MEASURE, BASICALLY ELIMINATING
THE PEOPLE'S ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES READ THEIR
APPLICATION. I CAN HAVE IT SENT
TO EACH OF YOUR OFFICES, THEIR
OWN APPLICATION WITH THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAYING OUT
THE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
THEY PUT BEFORE, BEFORE THE
VOTERS, AND IN THEIR OWN. IT'S
NOT SOMEBODY ELSE DOING MATH DUE
RESPECT TO MR. WICK, BUT IT'S
THEIR APPLICATION THAT SAYS
BREAKS DOWN THE ACREAGE OF THE
FACILITY. AND IT'S A DUMP. IT'S
98% LANDFILL. AND IF YOU ALSO
PRESS HIM FURTHER, HE'LL ADMIT
THEY DON'T HAVE A DESIGN OR A
FACILITY OR AN APPLICATION FOR
ONE COLLECTION FACILITY OR
OTHERWISE, NOR DO THEY HAVE AN
OPERATOR, OR AN INVESTOR AS PART
OF THEIR PROJECT. YET THERE IS
THERE IS NO RECYCLING FACILITY.
THIS IS FOR A CLASS THREE
LANDFILL. AND THE ACREAGE AND
THE PERCENTAGES ARE IN THEIR OWN
APPLICATION IN FRONT OF THE ARMY
CORPS. THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO
JUST SAY THAT THESE ARE ALL
EXCELLENT QUESTIONS BASED ON
THE, POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN
SHARED, BOTH IN THE PRESENTATION
BY THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL AND
THE OPPOSITION. BUT REALLY, I
THINK THE ISSUE AT HAND IS THE
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. YOU
WERE CORRECT. AND SO FOCUSING ON
THE MERIT OF THE POLICY AT HAND,
THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
ANALYSIS IS REALLY WHAT I THINK
WE SHOULD KIND OF BE FOCUSED ON.
WE'VE MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
ACCEPTING THEM. I APPRECIATE THE
FACT THAT THE OPPOSITION IS
ALSO, EMBRACED. ONE HAS SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT ANOTHER, AND THEY
WILL BE, MORE CLEARLY DEFINED
AND ACCEPTED IN THE OTHER
COMMITTEE. AND WE WILL BE
FOLLOWING THIS ISSUE VERY
CLOSELY, THERE IS A MOTION AND A
SECOND I WILL JUST CONCLUDE BY
SAYING THAT I AM VERY SENSITIVE
TO THIS ISSUE, GIVEN THE WHAT I
MENTIONED IN THE LAST BILL, THE
PROXIMITY TO THE PROBLEM DOWN
THE STREET, IN IMPERIAL COUNTY
AND THE BORDER RIVER ISSUES,
THAT WE HAVE A ROLE, AND
ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE THE SAME
ROLE THAT SOME FOLKS MAY THINK
THAT WE HAVE IN THE CONVERSATION
THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE PRIOR,
BILL BUT BUT WE HAVE A ROLE AND
THAT IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF
CALIFORNIANS. AND, I THINK WE'VE
DONE, THE RIGHT STRIKING OF A
BALANCE HERE. AND I APPRECIATE
THE COOPERATION OF THE AUTHOR,
THE STAKEHOLDERS. THIS
CONVERSATION HAS BEEN A GOOD
ONE. IT DOES HAVE AN AI
RECOMMENDATION. IT MOVES ON TO I
THINK THERE'S ANOTHER COMMITTEE.
THE ANALYSIS DOES POINT OUT A
COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS, IT
DOESN'T GO TO A THIRD COMMITTEE.
I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD, BUT I
AM SAYING THAT THERE WERE SOME
QUESTIONS THAT FALL WITHIN THE
PARAMETERS OF POTENTIALLY A
JUDICIAL, JUDICIARY KIND OF
SCOPE, NONETHELESS, WE'VE DONE
OUR PART AND, MR, SENATOR
PADILLA, THE FLOOR IS YOURS TO
CLOSE. MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND FOR YOUR HARD
WORK ON THIS. AND I KNOW THAT WE
BRING THESE COMPLEX,
MULTI-LAYERED BILLS AND
EVERYBODY'S GOT 100 OTHER BILLS,
AND THEY'RE LIKE, REALLY?
PADILLA AND MORE HEADACHE. BUT
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INDULGENCE,
AND I, I HAVE RESPECT FOR MR.
WICK. AND TO BE CANDID, IF HE
WERE BUILDING A DIFFERENT TYPE
OF FACILITY HERE THAT COULD
COULD, YOU KNOW, AND THEY EXIST
IN THE PLANET, BY THE WAY, AND
MAYBE THAT'S ANOTHER
CONVERSATION WE SHOULD HAVE. I
WOULD BE HIS NUMBER ONE
PROPONENT, AND I WOULD BE GOING
TO THE WALL TO HELP HIM GET IT
DONE. I JUST THINK WE HAVE A
SINCERE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT
THE RIGHT COURSE IS. AND I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY, IN MY CLOTHES,
IF I MAY, FIRST OF ALL, THE
EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT
EVEN MODERN STANDARDS OF
MITIGATION WOULD STILL LEAD TO
IMPACTS IN THE WATERSHED. I WANT
TO CLARIFY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE
WILL OF THE VOTERS AND APPROVAL
OF THE PROJECT, NO PROJECT'S
BEEN APPROVED, JUST A ZONING
CHANGE. AND I'VE ALREADY TOLD
YOU ABOUT THE FINE PRINT, THAT'S
A LITTLE BIT OF A DECEPTIVE
PROCESS AND ONE PIECE OF
INFORMATION YOU DON'T HAVE TO
MAYBE GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND ON THE CRAZY POLITICS
IN THIS REGION. IN 2011, A
FORMER SENATOR NAMED JUAN
VARGAS, WHO REPRESENTED THIS
AREA AND A FORMER ASSEMBLYMAN
NAMED BEN HUESO, COAUTHORED A
BILL, SB 833, THAT ADDRESSED AN
IDENTICAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES
FOR A PROPOSED LANDFILL IN NORTH
COUNTY CALLED GREGORY CANYON.
THEIR BILL SAID THAT THERE
SHOULDN'T BE A DISCHARGE PERMIT
BECAUSE IT WAS ADJACENT TO
TRIBAL LANDS. THIS WOULD BE ON
TRIBAL LANDS BECAUSE IT IMPACTED
A SENSITIVE WATERSHED, AND IT
FORBADE THE WATER BOARD FROM
ISSUING A DISCHARGE PERMIT. THAT
BILL MOVED THROUGH THIS
COMMITTEE AND IT MOVED THROUGH
THE LEGISLATURE. AND IT WAS
COAUTHORED BY JUAN VARGAS AND
BEN HUESO. I JUST WANT YOU TO
HAVE THAT BACKGROUND. THE REASON
I BRING IT UP IS IT'S IDENTICAL
TO THIS SCENARIO, EXCEPT FOR ONE
ELEMENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS AND THE SITUATION ON
PUBLIC HEALTH IS EXPONENTIALLY
WORSE IN THIS LOCATION. AND WITH
THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND TO PASS,
RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE CALL THE
QUESTION FOR THIS BILL. ITEM
SEVEN SB 12 ZERO EIGHT. PADILLA
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AND
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES. GARCIA. HI.
GARCIA. I HOOVER, NOT VOTING.
HOOVER. NOT VOTING. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I MCKENNA I MCKENNA I
PAPIN. PAPIN. I REYES I REYES.
AYE. TO NOT VOTING TO NOT VOTING
. THAT HAS SUFFICIENT VOTES. ALL
RIGHT, WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR OTHER MEMBERS TO ADD ON. MR.
LAIRD, IS READY TO GO. I WILL
PASS THE GAVEL ON TO MR. HOOVER.
AND PROBABLY GOOD THAT YOU ARE
HERE AND NOT MR. ALLEN, BECAUSE
HE'S GOT LIKE TEN BILLS BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE, SO HE'S GOT
THREE. HE ONLY HAS THREE. THANKS
FOR BRINGING Ã. YOU READY, MR.
CHAIR? MR. INTERIM CHAIR.
SENATOR, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I'M
PRESENTING SENATE BILL 1188,
REQUIRES THE WATER BOARD TO
DEVELOP AND ADOPT MINIMUM
STANDARDS RELATED TO TECHNICAL,
MANAGERIAL AND FINANCIAL
CAPACITY OF SMALL WATER SYSTEMS.
THE AMENDMENTS HAVE REMOVED THE
LAST REMAINING OPPOSITION TO
NEUTRAL. THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.
AND I I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS IF THERE'S MORE
DETAILED INTEREST IN THIS. AND
WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
IS ABRAHAM MENDOZA FROM THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER. AND I'VE
ADVISED HIM THAT THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION. AND YOU'VE BEEN HERE
A LONG TIME. DITTO TO WHAT THE
MEMBER SAID. THANK YOU. SO MUCH,
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE
ROOM IN SUPPORT, SEEING NONE. DO
WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE ROOM IN
OPPOSITION? OBVIOUSLY. SOUNDS
LIKE NO. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT, WELL, THAT
WAS EASY. YES. THANKS FOR
BRINGING AN EASY BILL TO US.
THANK YOU. IT WAS A LONG WAIT TO
DO IT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, SENATOR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
AND WOULD HAPPILY CHAT ABOUT
THIS SOMETIME. IF ANYBODY'S
INTERESTED. SOUNDS GOOD. WE WILL
CALL THE ROLL ITEM EIGHT SB 1188
BY LAIRD. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS AND REFER TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. GARCIA
HOOVER, A HOOVER I CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I MCKENNA. PAPPIN
PAPPIN I REYES REYES. AYE TO
TODD. NO THAT HAS SUFFICIENT
VOTES. THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS
OUT. NEXT WE'VE GOT, SENATOR
ALLEN. IS HE STILL HERE? NO I'LL
LOOK FOR HIM. OKAY OR AT LEAST
DOES ANYONE ELSE. WISH.
TO CENTROLEGAL. WE'RE GOING TO
DO SOME ADD ONS WHILE WE WAIT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO. ASSEMBLYMEMBER
OKAY, PERFECT. SO WE'LL JUST
START WITH NUMBER ONE OR. I'M
SORRY. NUMBER FOUR. FIRST ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1066. BLAKE
SPEAR. THEIR CURRENT VOTE IS SIX
TO NOTHING. ASSEMBLYMEMBER TO
NOT VOTING. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SB
1147 BY PORTANTINO. THE VOTE IS
SIX TO NOTHING. ASSEMBLYMEMBER.
TO NOT VOTING. ITEM NUMBER SIX,
SB 1178. THE ITEM. THE CURRENT
IS 5 TO 1 TO.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB 1208. THE
CURRENT VOTE IS FIVE TO NOTHING.
HOOVER, YOU'RE CURRENTLY NOT
VOTING, NOT VOTING YET. OKAY AND
TO ALSO NOT VOTING STILL VOTING.
AND THE LAST ONE IS ITEM NUMBER
NINE. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 2
TO NO TO NO. ALL RIGHT. PERFECT
SENATOR ALLEN, WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE
PATIENCE. YOU KNOW, USUALLY
SENATOR LAIRD IS, HAS A LOT TO
SAY. SO HE WAS VERY QUICK. I
THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO LEAVE
WHILE HE WAS PRESENTING, BUT IT
MUST BE A FIRST. SO, I WANT TO
THANK THE MEMBERS, WE ARE
WORKING ON A VERY INTERESTING
ISSUE WITH THIS BILL, CALIFORNIA
IS BEGINNING TO SEE PIECEMEAL
DEVELOPMENT OF A MARKET. AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNED TO
CAPTURE THE VALUE OF MATERIALS
USED TO MANUFACTURE ELECTRIC
VEHICLE TRACTION BATTERIES. ONCE
THAT BATTERY IS REMOVED FROM THE
VEHICLE, RECYCLING BATTERIES
REDUCES DEMANDS, DEMAND FOR RAW
MATERIALS, THEREBY AVOIDING THE
NEGATIVE SOCIAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MINING,
INCLUDING IN AREAS WITH ROUGH
HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS, ALSO
POTENTIALLY CATALYZING A
DOMESTIC SUPPLY AS DEMAND FOR
THE CRITICAL MATERIALS NEEDED TO
BUILD BATTERIES INCREASES, IN
FACT, SOME OF THE BEST
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS WORK
HAPPENS TO BE IN THE SAME
DISTRICT THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING
ON THE PADILLA BILL, IN THE
LITHIUM VALLEY AREA. NOW, IN
MANY INSTANCES, ONCE A BATTERY
IS REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE, IT
CAN BE REPURPOSED FOR
APPLICATIONS SUCH AS ENERGY
STORAGE. BUT CALIFORNIA LACKS A
POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR ENSURING
THAT BATTERIES ARE REUSED OR
REPURPOSED WHEN POSSIBLE. AND
RECYCLED WHEN NO LONGER USEFUL.
SO BACK IN 2018, SENATOR DOLLY
PASSED AB 2832, WHICH CALLED FOR
AN ADVISORY GROUP OF EXPERTS TO
DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO ENSURE, QUOTE,
THAT THE CLOSE TO 100% AS
POSSIBLE OF LITHIUM ION
BATTERIES IN THE STATE ARE
REUSED OR RECYCLED AT END OF
LIFE. THIS BILL SEEKS TO TAKE
THE POLICY OPTIONS FORMULATED BY
THE GROUP AND CREATE A
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM THAT WILL
ENSURE THAT ALL EV TRACTION
BATTERIES ARE PROPERLY HANDLED
AND EVENTUALLY RECYCLED AT THE
END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE. SO THE
BILL YOU SEE IN PRINT BEFORE YOU
TODAY IS THE RESULT OF MANY,
MANY, MANY, MANY MEETINGS WITH
STAKEHOLDERS UP AND DOWN THE EV
BATTERY SUPPLY CHAIN, SINCE THIS
VERSION WAS PUT INTO PRINT,
WE'VE CONTINUED TO GATHER
FEEDBACK AND REFINE THE MEASURE.
NOW, THAT SAID, I THINK THAT THE
OVERALL COMPONENTS ARE IN PLACE.
THESE INCLUDE, FIRST AND
FOREMOST, REQUIRING ALL EV
TRACTION BATTERIES IN THE STATE
TO BE SENT TO A QUALIFIED
RECYCLER AT THE END OF ITS
USEFUL LIFE, AND THEN
SPECIFICALLY, THE BILL REQUIRES
THE FOLLOWING EV OR EV BATTERY
SUPPLIERS HAVE TO SUBMIT A
BATTERY MANAGEMENT PLAN TO
CALRECYCLE AND TO DTSC TO ENSURE
THAT THE BATTERIES THAT THEY GET
BACK ARE PROPERLY MANAGED AND
RECYCLED. THIS WILL BE
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR
BATTERIES THAT ARE STILL UNDER
WARRANTY. ANY ENTITY THAT
REMOVES THE BATTERY FROM A
VEHICLE SUCH AS AN AUTO SHOP OR
A DISMANTLER. THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER
MANAGEMENT UNDER THE BILL. THAT
MEANS THAT THE BATTERY CAN BE
SENT BACK TO THE MANUFACTURER,
SOLD TO A SECONDARY USER FOR
BATTERY STORAGE, OR SENT TO A
BATTERY RECYCLER, BUT IT HAS TO
GO TO A RESPONSIBLE, RESPONSIBLE
NEXT. NEXT PARTY. ENTITIES THAT
USE EV BATTERIES FOR STORAGE OR
OTHER PURPOSES WILL THEN ENSURE
THAT THE BATTERY IS RECYCLED AT
THE END OF ITS USEFUL LIFE, AND
THEN RECYCLING FACILITIES THAT
WANT TO HANDLE THESE BATTERIES
HAVE TO GET RECYCLED. THEY HAVE
TO GET CERTIFIED BY CALRECYCLE
IN COORDINATION WITH DTSC TO
ENSURE THAT THE BATTERIES ARE
PROPERLY MANAGED. LASTLY,
ENTITIES HANDLING BATTERIES UP
AND DOWN THE SUPPLY CHAIN WILL
HAVE TO REPORT TO A DEPARTMENT
CREATED SYSTEM TO EFFECTIVELY
TRACK THESE BATTERIES AND ENSURE
THAT THE BILL'S REQUIREMENTS ARE
MET. THE BILL CONTAINS THE
STANDARD ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
CONTAINED IN OTHER PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY MEASURES, AND IT
PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY AS THE
MARKET FOR USED EV BATTERIES
GROWS. THIS FLEXIBILITY HAS BEEN
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT SINCE,
UNLIKE OTHER MATERIALS THAT WE
SOUGHT TO MANAGE AT THEIR END OF
LIFE, EV BATTERIES CONTAIN
CRITICAL MATERIALS. THESE THESE
SPECIAL MINERALS SUCH AS COBALT
AND LITHIUM, WHICH THEY MAKE
THEM VERY VALUABLE IN A GROWING
AND ROBUST RECYCLING MARKET. YOU
KNOW, I WORKED AS YOU KNOW, ON A
BIG EXTENDED PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY PROJECT RELATED
TO PLASTICS. ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES THERE IS THAT THE END
VALUE OF THE PLASTICS ARE NOT
VERY HIGH, WHICH MAKES THE
RECYCLING SYSTEM HARD TO MAKE
WORK. AND YET IN THIS CASE,
WE'VE GOT SOME VERY VALUABLE
MINERALS THAT ARE USED IN THE
BATTERIES, WHICH CREATE AN
IMMEDIATE MARKET, WHICH WILL
HELP TO MAKE THIS WORK. SO WE
HAVE A BIT MORE WORK TO DO AS WE
CONTINUE TO GET STAKEHOLDER
FEEDBACK, I BELIEVE, BUT I DO
BELIEVE THAT THE BILL THAT YOU
SEE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS NEARLY
THERE. WE DECIDED TO TAKE TWO
YEARS ON THIS, YOU KNOW, TO, TO
REALLY GIVE IT THE TIME. THIS IS
NOT ONE OF THESE MASSIVE BILLS
COMING AT YOU AT THE LAST
MINUTE. IT'S REALLY BEEN A LOT
OF WORK, AND I HAVE WITH ME HERE
TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT,
MEGAN, MEGAN MICKELBERG, WHO'S
FROM CALSTART. AND THEN DANIEL
DANIEL BARRATT FROM THE UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, THANKS, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
MY NAME IS MEGAN MICKELBERG. ON
BEHALF OF CALSTART, THROUGH
THEIR LEADERSHIP IN THE US
ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY
INITIATIVE, CALSTART WORKS TO
INFORM POLICIES TO SUSTAINABLY
AND RESPONSIBLY GROW THE US
SUPPLY CHAIN FOR EV BATTERIES TO
INCREASE DOMESTIC INVESTMENT IN
EV BATTERY SUPPLY CHAIN TO MEET
CLIMATE AND EV ADOPTION GOALS,
AS WELL AS ENSURE RESPONSIBLE
HANDLING OF BATTERIES AT THE END
OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE. EV
BATTERIES POSSESS VALUE THROUGH
THEIR LIFE CYCLE AND REQUIRING
THEM TO BE REPURPOSED, REUSED
AND ULTIMATELY RECYCLED WILL
HELP GROW NEW INDUSTRIES IN OUR
STATE AND DOMESTICALLY. SB 615
STRIVES TO BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION THROUGH CLEAN
RECYCLING PRACTICES WHILE ALSO
PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY FOR
INNOVATION AND ULTIMATELY
ENSURING PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY. WHEN A BATTERY
REACHES ITS END OF LIFE.
ACCOMPLISHING THAT BALANCE IS NO
SMALL FEAT, AND SO SENATOR ALLEN
AND HIS TEAM HAVE CONVENED A
LARGE STAKEHOLDER GROUP OVER THE
LAST 18 MONTHS, WHICH CONTINUES
TO INFORM THE CREATION OF THIS
BILL THAT THE SENATOR DESCRIBED.
JUST A MINUTE AGO, CALSTART IS
GRATEFUL TO SENATOR ALLEN AND
HIS STAFF FOR PARTNERING WITH
CALSTART AND ITS MEMBERS AND
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN ORDER TO
CONTINUE THE WORK ON THIS BILL
AND STRIKE AN APPROPRIATE
BALANCE. WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE
ALSO VERY CLOSE TO ACHIEVING
THAT COLLECTIVE GOAL, AND WE ARE
REALLY PROUD TO SUPPORT SB 615
AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS IN THE COMING
MONTHS. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. DANIEL BROD, ON
BEHALF OF THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT IN
SUPPORT OF SB 615. WE HAVE BEEN
ADVOCATING FOR THE BROAD
DEPLOYMENT OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
FOR YEARS BECAUSE OF THEIR CLEAR
CLIMATE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
BENEFITS. NOW THAT WE HAVE
POLICIES IN PLACE THAT GUARANTEE
THAT THESE VEHICLES WILL
CONTINUE TO BE DEPLOYED IN MASS,
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
CLEAN TRANSPORTATION FUTURE IS
ALSO SUSTAINABLE WITH BILLS LIKE
SB 615 OVER THE NEXT DECADE, EV
BATTERY RETIREMENTS ARE
ESTIMATED TO INCREASE BY 450. IN
CALIFORNIA, THIS WAVE OF
RETIREMENTS WILL INCLUDE
BATTERIES THAT ARE DAMAGED,
DISPERSED, AND MAY CONTAIN FEWER
VALUABLE MINERALS AND THEREFORE
ARE LESS PROFITABLE TO RECYCLE
WITHOUT POLICY INTERVENTION,
BATTERIES MIGHT SLIP THROUGH THE
CRACKS AND END UP IN HAZARDOUS
WASTE LANDFILLS OR ABANDONED. TO
AVOID THIS FATE AND REDUCE THE
NEED FOR NEWLY MINED MATERIALS
AND DECREASE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF EV BATTERIES, WE NEED
TO PASS POLICIES LIKE SB 615. AS
THE AUTHOR AND THE BILL ANALYSIS
STATED, THIS BILL CONTINUES TO
BE A WORK IN PROGRESS, BUT THERE
ARE THREE KEY PIECES THAT WILL
MAKE THIS BILL EXTREMELY
EFFECTIVE. FIRST IS THE PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT SO THAT WHEN THE
MANUFACTURERS OR, PUT THEIR
VEHICLES OR REPURPOSE BATTERIES
OUT INTO THE WORLD, THEY HAVE A
PLAN FOR ENSURING THAT THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLY, RESPONSIBLY MANAGED
WHEN THEY RETIRE. WE HAVE MANY
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY POLICIES
IN CALIFORNIA, AND THIS ISN'T A
NEW CONCEPT FOR EV BATTERIES,
EITHER. THE EUROPEAN UNION AND
NEW JERSEY BOTH PASSED POLICIES
TO REQUIRE PRODUCERS TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR BATTERIES.
SECOND, WE NEED TRACKING AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS SO WE CAN
MAKE SURE THAT THE BATTERIES ARE
NOT GETTING LOST IN THE SHUFFLE.
AND IF THEY DO PROVIDE THE
LEGISLATURE AND STATE AGENCIES
WITH THE INFORMATION THEY NEED
TO IDENTIFY AND RECTIFY ANY
PROBLEMS. FINALLY, BATTERIES
SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO BE
SENT TO RECYCLING FACILITIES
THAT ARE RECOVERING HIGH LEVELS
OF MINERALS AND HAVE FEWER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON WORKERS
AND NEARBY COMMUNITIES. SB 615
LOOKS TO PREVENT BATTERIES FROM
BEING SENT TO THE MOST HARMFUL
AND INEFFICIENT RECYCLING
TECHNOLOGIES AND ENSURE THAT THE
BATTERY RECYCLING INDUSTRY IS AS
SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE AS POSSIBLE
. WE'RE GRATEFUL TO SENATOR
ALLEN AND HIS STAFF FOR THEIR
TIRELESS EFFORTS ON THIS BILL,
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS AND WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. ANY ONE
ELSE IN THE ROOM WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
MEASURE. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU. HI, I'M MIKE ZUBIATE
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS, THIS IS ONE OF OUR TOP
PRIORITY BILLS, AND WE'RE IN
STRONG SUPPORT. AARON WOOLLEY,
ON BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT JORDAN
WELLS ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL AND
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
SIERRA ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
TOWN OF TRUCKEE, IN SUPPORT TONY
HACKETT FROM CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
COURTNEY SCOTT FROM ZERO WASTE
SONOMA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OPPOSITION. DO WE HAVE
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM TO
TESTIFY? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU. OKAY GO AHEAD AND, GO
FOR IT WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, JOHN
MOFFAT, ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION. INNOVATION, WE HAVE
AN OPPOSING, LESS AMENDED
POSITION. WE ARE THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR ALL THE MAJOR
AUTOMAKERS. I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS
THAT HAVE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
MADE. WE HAVE BEEN AT THE TABLE.
WE HAVE BEEN PART OF THE
DISCUSSIONS, AND I'LL JUST SAY,
I THINK FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE,
WE'VE ALL KIND OF HAD TO THINK
ABOUT THIS AND LOOK AT THIS A
DIFFERENT WAY. AS THE SENATOR
SAID, I THINK THIS BODY AND A
LOT OF US WHO ARE INVOLVED IN
ALL THE BILLS THAT MOVE THROUGH
THIS BODY ARE USED TO DEALING
WITH PROS AND STEWARDSHIP
COUNCILS AND TAKE BACK PROGRAMS
FOR THINGS THAT NOBODY WANTS. AT
THE END OF ITS ORIGINAL, USEFUL
LIFE. AND THAT'S JUST NOT THE
CASE WITH ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE
BATTERIES. AND I THINK YOU'RE
GOING TO HEAR THAT FROM MY, MY,
MY CO WITNESS HERE, AND SO WE'VE
KIND OF HAD TO RETHINK A LITTLE
BIT HOW THESE SYSTEMS LOOK AND
HOW THEY WORK. AND AND IT'S
ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN IT COMES TO
VEHICLES IN THAT, YOU KNOW,
VEHICLES HAVE HAD A SYSTEM FOR
DEALING WITH PARTS AND PIECES
AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE
OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL
MANUFACTURER. AND THOSE SYSTEMS
HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR 100 YEARS.
YOU'VE GOT USED CAR SALES FOLKS,
YOU'VE GOT DISMANTLERS, YOU'VE
GOT ALL THESE DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THIS ECONOMIC SYSTEM. WHO HAVE
BEEN DEALING WITH USED CAR PARTS
FOR A LONG TIME. AND AT THE END
OF THE DAY, IS THAT BATTERY IS
KIND OF JUST ANOTHER USED CAR
PART, EXCEPT THAT WHEN IT'S OUT
OF THE VEHICLE, IT'S ALSO
HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHICH ALSO
COMES ALONG WITH ITS OWN
REGULATORY SCHEME. AND SO WE'VE
HAD TO THINK ABOUT, OKAY, HOW DO
WE THINK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT
DTSC DOES WITH HAZARDOUS WASTE
AND ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE
ALREADY INVOLVED IN THIS SYSTEM
AND SORT OF MELD INTO HOW ARE WE
ADDRESSING THESE BATTERIES,
KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE'VE HAD
ZEVS ON THE ROAD IN CALIFORNIA
FOR 14 YEARS NOW, THAT NUMBER IS
GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW. IT IS
OUR GOAL THAT THEY CONTINUE TO
GROW. IT'S EVERYONE'S GOAL THAT
THEY CONTINUE TO GROW. AND SO
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE
HISTORY OF THE AUTOMOBILE, AS
AUTOMAKERS, WE HAVE STEPPED UP
AS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT THAT
SENATOR ALLEN OUTLINED BECAUSE
OF THE TASK FORCE THAT MET AND
DELIBERATED THIS ISSUE FROM THE
TING AND DOLLY BILL, WE'VE
STEPPED UP AND SAID, LOOK, WE'LL
TAKE THE CAR BACK. WE'LL TAKE
THE BATTERY BACK AS LONG AS IT'S
IN THE CAR, WE WILL TAKE IT ALL
BACK AND WE WILL MAKE SURE IT
GETS MOVED ON TO THE NEXT STEP
IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER. AND SO
PART OF WHAT WE'RE FIGURING OUT
IS HOW TO REFLECT THAT CONCEPT.
AND LANGUAGE, HOW TO DO SO IN A
WAY THAT THAT DOESN'T DISRUPT
THE ECONOMICS THAT ALREADY EXIST
IN THIS SYSTEM THAT'S OUT THERE.
AND HOW TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT
RECOGNIZES THE REGULATORY ROLE
THAT SOME ENTITIES HAVE. AND THE
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT OTHER
ENTITIES HAVE. AND HOW DO WE
MESH THESE THINGS TOGETHER TO
TRY AND MAKE IT WORK? AND SO
WITH THAT, I AGAIN, I'LL THANK
THE AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF FOR THE
AND THE AND THE SPONSORS AND
SUPPORTERS FOR THE ONGOING
CONVERSATION. AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON
THIS AS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ALEXIS
JORDAN AND I'M THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS AT
REDWOOD MATERIALS. WHILE WE
OPPOSE THE CURRENT VERSION OF
615, WE ARE OPTIMISTIC THAT OUR
CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED
THROUGH THE UPCOMING AMENDMENTS
THAT SENATOR ALLEN JUST
REFERENCED. AND WE APPRECIATE
YOUR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK
WITH US ON THE LAST FEW DRAFTS
OF THIS BILL. FOUNDED BY JB
STRAUBEL, REDWOOD MATERIALS IS
CREATING A CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAIN
FOR LITHIUM ION BATTERIES. SO
WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE
COLLECTING RECOVERING END OF
LIFE LITHIUM ION BATTERIES, THEN
RECYCLING THEM AND THEN
REMANUFACTURING THEM. WHAT JB
RECOGNIZED AFTER FOUNDING TESLA
WAS THAT THE KEY TO DRIVING DOWN
ELECTRIC VEHICLE COSTS AND
PUTTING MORE EVS ON THE ROAD,
WHICH IS ALL OF OUR GOAL. I HOPE
, IS TO REALLY ATTACK THE METALS
COSTS OF THESE CARS AND THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE END OF LIFE
BATTERIES AND TO RECYCLE AND
RECOVER THOSE METALS AS
AFFORDABLY AND SUSTAINABLY AS
POSSIBLE IS THE BEST WAY TO
ATTACK THE COST OF EVS. TODAY,
REDWOOD IS RECYCLING NEARLY 20
GIGAWATT HOURS OF LITHIUM ION
BATTERIES ANNUALLY, WHICH IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF 250,000 EVS THAT
COME THROUGH OUR DOOR EVERY
SINGLE YEAR. THE VAST MAJORITY
OF LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ARE
RECYCLED IN THE US, ARE HANDLED
BY US, AND WE RECOVER 98% OF THE
CRITICAL MINERALS LIKE LITHIUM,
NICKEL, COBALT AND COPPER AND
THEN RETURN THOSE BACK TO US
CELL MANUFACTURES. OUR RECYCLING
PROCESS IS ALREADY COST
COMPETITIVE WITH MINE MATERIAL
TODAY, AND A RECENT STANFORD
UNIVERSITY STUDY FOUND THAT
REDWOOD RECYCLED MATERIALS
REDUCES THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH EVS BY AS MUCH
AS 80% AS AN ORIGINAL MEMBER OF
CALIFORNIA'S LITHIUM ION BATTERY
RECYCLING ADVISORY GROUP IN
2022, WE LAUNCHED AN INDUSTRY
FIRST CALIFORNIA PILOT AND
COLLECTED ABOUT A MILLION POUNDS
OF EV PACKS, NEARLY 3000 CARS.
AND THROUGH THAT PILOT, WE
PROVED THAT WE CAN ALSO
CONFIDENTLY IDENTIFY THE
MANUFACTURER OF NEARLY ANY EV
BATTERY IN ANY CONDITION. WE
HAVE DIRECT PARTNERING OR
RECYCLING PARTNERSHIPS WITH MOST
LEADING AUTOMAKERS SUCH AS
TOYOTA, FORD, VW, AUDI AND
BATTERY MANUFACTURERS SUCH AS
PANASONIC TO RESPONSIBLY MANAGE
THEIR BATTERIES. TODAY, WE
HAPPILY PAY THOSE AUTOMAKERS
DISMANTLERS AND CELL
MANUFACTURERS FOR THEIR SCRAP
WASTE AND FOR END OF LIFE
BATTERIES. CAN I ASK YOU TO WRAP
UP YOUR COMMENTS? CERTAINLY.
THANK YOU, I'LL JUST CLOSE BY
SAYING WE CAUTION AGAINST
EXCESSIVE OVERSIGHT THAT COULD
LIMIT OUR COUNTRY'S ABILITY TO
FULLY HARNESS THE IMMENSE
POTENTIAL OF EV ADOPTION.
LITHIUM ION IS A IS A HIGH
VALUE, COMMODITY. AND WE NEED TO
TREAT IT AS SUCH. SO WE LOOK
FORWARD TO THE CONTINUED WORK
WITH SENATOR ALLEN. AND THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO TESTIFY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN THE ROOM WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE THEIR OPPOSITION TO
THIS MEASURE? HI, LIZZIE KUTSUNA
HERE ON BEHALF OF TESLA WITH AN
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED POSITION
TO THE BILL IN PRINT. BUT REALLY
APPRECIATE THE ONGOING
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND HOPING TO MOVE TO
SUPPORT AFTER THE NEXT ROUND OF
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. I WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. YES, MR. REYES
SORT OF SOUNDED LIKE A LOVE FEST
HERE, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM. WE'VE
GOT TO ADDRESS IT. AND THANK YOU
FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THAT YOU
ALL ARE DOING. HONESTLY, THIS IS
THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE LOOK FOR,
TO FIND SOMEONE WHO'S TAKING IT
ON AND DOING IT. I RECOGNIZE THE
NEED FOR THE OVERSIGHT, MAKING
SURE THAT WHATEVER WE SAY WE'RE
DOING, WE'RE DOING, BUT THE
REPUTATION OF REDWOOD, PRECEDES
YOU, WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT
THEY ARE DOING SUCCESSFULLY, I
ALSO APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENT
THAT YOU'RE OPTIMISTIC, YOU
CONTINUE TO TALK WITH THE
SENATOR, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE
YOU'RE ALL MOVING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. WITH THAT, I WOULD
MOVE THE BILL, GOT A MOTION AND
A SECOND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE? WONDERFUL, WE
CAN GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.
ACTUALLY, SENATOR, IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO CLOSE, I DO WANT TO. I
DO WANT TO JUST THANK THE FOLKS
WHO'VE BEEN WORKING WITH US FROM
THE INDUSTRY, AND WE REALLY ARE
ANXIOUS TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE
WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK FOR
EVERYBODY. AT THE END OF THE
DAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S THEIR
PRODUCTS. IT'S THEIR INDUSTRY, I
THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED
TO FIND A GOOD WAY TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE GETTING ALL OF THESE
BATTERIES COLLECTED AND TURNED
INTO THE NEXT GENERATION, AND SO
IT'S JUST ABOUT MAKING SURE WE
TWEAK THE DETAILS NOW, AND I
JUST WANT TO PERSONALLY THANK
THE FOLKS AT THIS TABLE AND SOME
OF THE OTHERS WHO'VE BEEN
WORKING SO HARD ON TRYING TO
MAKE SURE WE GET THIS RIGHT.
AND, WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ITEM ONE SB 615 ALLEN. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS AND RE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL
RESOURCES. GARCIA HOOVER I
HOOVER I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. I PAPIN.
PAPIN. I REYES. I REYES. I TO
THANK YOU TO KNOW THE HAS
SUFFICIENT VOTES. OKAY. THAT
MEASURE IS OUT. MISS, SENATOR
ALLEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE ON
TO SB 1143? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT
. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY WITH OUR
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
THEME, THIS IS A SIMILAR BUT
DIFFERENT TOPIC. HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE. YOU KNOW,
THOUSANDS OF EVERYDAY HOUSEHOLD
PRODUCTS ARE CLASSIFIED AS
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. IT'S
A LITTLE SCARY WHEN YOU START TO
LEARN ABOUT IT, MOST RESIDENTS
DON'T KNOW WHAT IS ACTUALLY
CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS. AND WHAT'S
NOT. THAT MAKES IT HARD FOR US
TO KNOW HOW TO MANAGE A
DANGEROUS PRODUCT AT THE END OF
LIFE, EVEN WHEN YOU KNOW THE
PRODUCT SIMPLY CANNOT BE JUST
THROWN AWAY. A LOT OF
COMMUNITIES LACK COLLECTION
SYSTEMS OR DROP OFF FACILITIES.
AND OF COURSE, THAT'S ASSUMING
THAT THE CONSUMER IS AWARE OF
THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO JUST TOSS THIS ITEM
INTO THE TRASH. WE'RE STARTING
TO SEE, OF COURSE, COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL COSTS INCREASING.
NOT A NEW TOPIC TO THIS
COMMITTEE, CITIES AND COUNTIES,
OF COURSE, ARE HAVING TO RAISE
THE RATES TO COVER THE COSTS OF
HAVING, TO HANDLE ALL THIS NEW
MATERIAL, OR THEY'RE, OF COURSE,
HAVING TO REDUCE SERVICES WHICH
FURTHER REDUCES CONVENIENCE FOR
LOCAL RESIDENTS. NOW, WE KNOW
CALRECYCLE OFFERS LIMITED GRANTS
TO BUILD FACILITIES OR EXPAND
EXISTING ONES, BUT FUNDING HAS
FALLEN WAY SHORT OF WHAT'S
NEEDED. JUST TO GIVE YOU ONE
EXAMPLE FROM DAMON'S NECK OF THE
WOODS, CALRECYCLE HAD A THEY
HAVE A CAP OF $5 MILLION A YEAR,
AND THE EXPECTED CONSTRUCTION
COSTS OF THE NEW FACILITY IN
SONOMA IS BETWEEN 13 TO 16
MILLION. SO THERE'S JUST NOWHERE
NEAR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
AVAILABLE TO HELP, ALL THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HANDLE THIS
CHALLENGE. SO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING
TO ADDRESS THIS CRUSHING, SET OF
COSTS AND ALSO THE LACK OF
CONVENIENT ACCESS TO A PROPER
DISPOSAL SYSTEM. SO THIS BILL,
SB 1143, REQUIRES PRODUCERS OF
THE MOST TOXIC CONSUMER PRODUCTS
TO FORM A PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY ORGANIZATION, A
PRO SIMILAR TO THE MODEL THAT WE
CREATED UNDER SB 54 THAT WILL BE
TASKED WITH ENHANCING
ACCESSIBILITY AND FULLY FUNDING
THE SAFE COLLECTION,
TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF
THIS HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE.
THIS ALLOWS PRODUCERS TO COST
EFFECTIVELY IMPROVE ACCESS TO
CONVENIENT WASTE DISPOSAL. THEY
CAN EITHER FUND AND IMPROVE
LOCAL SYSTEM, OR IF THEY WANT TO
DO IT ON THEIR OWN, THEY CAN
CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE. IT PUTS
THE PRODUCERS IN THE DRIVER'S
SEAT TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO IT.
THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES ROBUST
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO ENSURE
CONSUMERS KNOW WHICH PRODUCTS
ARE TOXIC, HOW TO HANDLE THEM
PROPERLY. IT'S LIKE RECYCLING,
YOU KNOW, THE LIST. IT'S HARD TO
KNOW WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO WHAT'S
ACTUALLY TOXIC, WHAT'S NOT, A
LOT OF CLEANING PRODUCTS. YOU
THINK ARE REALLY CLEAN. WELL,
THEY'RE ACTUALLY VERY DANGEROUS
TO THROW INTO THE INTO THE
LANDFILL. LASTLY, THE BILL WILL
ENCOURAGE PRODUCERS TO INVEST IN
LESS TOXIC ALTERNATIVES. SO IF
PRODUCER WOULD PREFER NOT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PRO, THEY CAN
REFORMULATE THEIR PRODUCT TO A
NONTOXIC ALTERNATIVE AND THEN
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE PART OF
THE SCHEME AT ALL. UNDER OUR
CURRENT SYSTEM. THE PROBLEM IS
THE PRODUCERS SIMPLY DON'T HAVE
ANY INCENTIVE TO CONSIDER THE
END OF LIFE COSTS WHEN
FORMULATING THEIR PRODUCTS, AND
THOSE COSTS DON'T APPEAR ON
THEIR BALANCE SHEETS. THEY
APPEAR ON OUR BALANCE SHEETS.
IT'S OUR IT'S RATEPAYERS. IT'S
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. IT'S
RESIDENTS. IT'S THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND SO WITH THIS BILL, THE
PRODUCERS WILL FINALLY HAVE SOME
SKIN IN THE GAME, AND HERE'S THE
THING. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
PRODUCTS ARE TOO WIDESPREAD TO
TACKLE PRODUCT BY PRODUCT. WE
LOVE ONE OFF BILLS HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE. PART OF WHY I'M NOT
A BIG FAN OF ONE OFF BILLS. AND
I VOTED FOR SOME OF YOUR ONE OFF
BILLS. BUT BUT YOU KNOW, QUITE
FRANKLY, IT'S NOT MY IT'S NOT MY
I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE OUR
PREFERRED PATH BECAUSE IN THE
END OF THE DAY, THESE ARE BIG
WIDE SCALE PROBLEMS. IT WAS JUST
LIKE THE PLASTIC STRAWS. OKAY.
WE FELT GOOD ABOUT BANNING
PLASTIC STRAWS, BUT MEANWHILE,
WE GOT ALL THIS OTHER PLASTIC
WASTE PILING UP. AND WAS IT
REALLY ABOUT GETTING RID OF
PLASTIC STRAWS OR WAS ABOUT
TRYING TO REDUCE PLASTIC WASTE?
A SIMILAR SITUATION HERE, YOU
KNOW, WE NEED A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO
ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGE OF, OF
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES IT
ADDRESS THE MOST DANGEROUS
CONSUMER PRODUCTS. IT SHIFTS THE
BURDEN OF PAYING FOR THEIR END
OF LIFE MANAGEMENT FROM OUR
LOCAL CITIES AND COUNTIES AND
OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR
RATEPAYERS TO THE PRODUCERS AND
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL TODAY, I HAVE HEIDI
SANBORN FROM THE NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL AND
JOHN KENNEDY WITH THE RURAL
COUNTIES, SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL, JUST ABOUT ALL MY
CONSTITUENTS. THANK YOU. YES
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, JUST
WHATEVER PRESSURE I CAN APPLY.
THANK YOU. SENATOR ALLEN, VICE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
HEIDI SANBORN OF THE NATIONAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL, AND
WE ADVOCATE FOR AN EQUITABLE
CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND ARE THE
NATION'S LEADERS IN EXTENDED
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY.
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMISSION
ON RECYCLING MARKETS AND
CURBSIDE RECYCLING, WHICH I
CHAIRED, DEVELOPED 34 POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS, PASSING WITH
UNANIMOUS VOTES OF 17 TO 0. AND
WE HAD STAKEHOLDERS WHICH
INCLUDED WASTE HAULERS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, UNIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. AND
MANY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE
BECOME LAW. BUT THE VERY FIRST
RECOMMENDATION WE ADOPTED IN
2020 WAS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE EPR
FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE.
THE STUFF THAT'S THE MOST
DANGEROUS AND HAS NO MARKET. THE
COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT
STATED, QUOTE, SWIFT LEGISLATIVE
ACTION IS NEEDED TO CLEARLY
EXTEND PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR END OF LIFE MANAGEMENT FOR
PRODUCTS THAT ARE HAZARDOUS OR
HAVE BEEN IMPLICATED IN CAUSING
FIRES. AND THIS IS FOUR YEARS
LATER, THE COST LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AND THEREBY
RATEPAYERS MUST PAY TO MANAGE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ARE
EXORBITANT. WITH LA COUNTY
SPENDING $9 MILLION A YEAR LAST
YEAR. AND THAT'S ONLY FOR THE
PORTION THAT'S LEFT AFTER
PASSING MERCURY THERMOSTATS,
PAINT AND NEEDLES AND
MEDICATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, WE
KNOW WE STILL DON'T EVEN COLLECT
. MAYBE AT THE BEST DAY, A
QUARTER OF WHAT IS OUT THERE.
THE REMAINDER IS IMPROPERLY
DISPOSED OF IN THE TRASH OR
RECYCLING, WHERE IT ADDS COSTS
AND CONTAMINATES FOOD GRADE
MATERIALS, IS DUMPED IN THE
ENVIRONMENT OR STOCKPILED IN
RESIDENTS HOMES WHERE IT CAN BE
A FIRE AND SAFETY RISK. AND FOR
EXAMPLE, WE RECENTLY TOURED WITH
THE VICE CHAIR ACTUALLY THE CAL
WASTE FACILITY DOWN IN GALT,
WHICH IS A MATERIAL RECOVERY
FACILITY THAT ONLY SORTS BLUE
BINS. AND YET AT THE BACK OF THE
LOT, THEY HAD A HAZARDOUS WASTE
AREA BECAUSE THEY PULLED 183,000
POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE OUT OF CLEAN RECYCLABLES,
MANY OF WHICH ARE GOING TO GO
INTO THE PACKAGING AND FOOD
GRADE MATERIALS OUT OF JUST THAT
ONE MURF IN ONE YEAR, AND IT
COST THEM $150,000. AND THEY
ACTUALLY GAVE US A LETTER IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. WITH THAT
DATA, THE LEGISLATURE HAS TAKEN
A PRODUCT BY PRODUCT APPROACH,
AS WAS MENTIONED, AND SO WE CAN
CONTINUE BY EITHER WE HAVE THREE
CHOICES. WE CAN CONTINUE WITH
THE PRODUCT BY PRODUCT APPROACH,
WHICH I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE
HAULERS DO NOT LIKE. THEY WOULD
LIKE TO SEE ONE PRO FOR THE REST
OF THESE PRODUCTS. THEY DON'T
WANT TO SEE THEM KEEP COMING AND
THERE'S A LOT OF ADMINISTRATION
OR WE CAN WAIT UNTIL THE
COUNTIES START IMPLEMENTING EPR
ORDINANCES, WHICH HAS ALREADY
BEEN APPROVED IN SEVERAL
COUNTIES, HAVE GIVEN THEIR
APPROVAL TO THEIR STAFF TO
PROCEED. AND THEN WE ALSO COULD
ADOPT A STATEWIDE SOLUTION WHICH
WOULD HARMONIZE. AND WE PREFER
THE HARMONIZED STATEWIDE
APPROACH. SO WE'VE BEEN MEETING
WITH THE OPPOSITION. I TALKED
WITH REDWOOD MATERIALS
YESTERDAY. WE THINK WE HAVE A
SOLUTION TO THEIR ISSUE. WE MOVE
AND WE'VE OFFERED EVEN EXTENDING
THE DATES BY A YEAR. WE KNOW
THAT THERE'S A LOT OF EPR BILLS
IN FRONT OF THESE MANUFACTURERS.
AND THAT IS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
THOSE DISCUSSIONS. AND WE'VE
INVITED THE OPPOSITION TO
ACTUALLY JOIN US IN ZOOM
MEETINGS WITH THE PRODUCER RUN
ORGANIZATIONS IN CANADA. AND
EUROPE, SO WITH THAT, I WANT TO
THANK YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR AYE,
VOTE. THANK YOU. AND WE'VE GOT
ABOUT ONE MINUTE LEFT. ALL
RIGHT. JOHN, SO JOHN KENNEDY
WITH RC TREAT RURAL COUNTIES
LIKE THAT. WE REPRESENT 40 OF
THE STATE'S 58 COUNTIES. SO THE
SMALLEST IMPERIAL ABOUT 1100
RESIDENTS, THE LARGEST SONOMA,
ABOUT 500,000 FROM DEL NORTE ALL
THE WAY. I'M SORRY. SMALLEST
ALPINE FROM DEL NORTE. ALL THE
WAY TO IMPERIAL. WE'RE HERE TO
SUPPORT SB 1143 TODAY. AS THE
AUTHOR SAID, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT, RECYCLING AND
DISPOSAL. WE OWN AND OPERATE
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES, TRANSFER
STATIONS, HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE COLLECTION FACILITIES AND
WE ALSO CONDUCT TEMPORARY EVENTS
. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT
ENDS UP IN OUR WASTE STREAMS
THAT WE HAVE TO THEN MANAGE AT
THE END OF THOSE PRODUCTS,
USEFUL LIVES. THE COSTS ARE
BORNE, AS THE AUTHOR SAID, BY
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND RESIDENTS.
THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR
MANUFACTURERS TO DESIGN BETTER
PRODUCTS, DESIGN LESS TOXIC
PRODUCTS OR FACILITATE RECYCLING
OF THOSE PRODUCTS. SOMETIMES
THESE PRODUCTS COST US MORE TO
MANAGE AT THE END OF THE USEFUL
LIFE THAN IT COST THE CONSUMER
AT THE POINT OF SALE. SO WE'RE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL TODAY
BECAUSE IT HELPS US REDUCE THOSE
SIGNIFICANT COST EXPOSURES. WE
STRIVE TO PROVIDE AT HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
FACILITIES, CONVENIENT AND SAFE
DISPOSAL FOR HW. WE TRY TO KEEP
COSTS LOW, FREE FOR MANY
RESIDENTS OR MOST RESIDENTS,
BECAUSE WHEN WE IMPOSE COSTS OR
GATE FEES, WE KNOW THAT STUFF
GOES OUT INTO THE ENVIRONMENT
AND WILL GET DUMPED ILLEGALLY.
WE THEN HAVE TO GO FIND THAT
WASTE, PICK UP THE WASTE, AND
THEN MANAGE THE WASTE. SO WE'RE
SUPPORTING. 1143 AGAIN BECAUSE
IT HELPS US IMPLEMENT
CONVENIENCE FOR COLLECTION OF HW
, REDUCE COSTS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, ENCOURAGES
MANUFACTURERS TO REDESIGN THEIR
PRODUCTS AND FILLS GAPS IN OTHER
EPR PROGRAMS. AND I'VE ALSO BEEN
ASKED TO SUPPORT THE BILL ON
BEHALF OF CSAC, THE STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND THE
LEAGUE OF CITIES AS WELL. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT LIKE
TO COME FORWARD WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, MR. CHAIR. JUST MILAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH ADMINISTRATORS THERE,
YOUR COOPERS AND YOUR SOLID
WASTE REGULATORS. THANK YOU.
HELLO, KAYLA ROBINSON, ON BEHALF
OF RETHINK WASTE AND SUPPORT.
THANKS TO MIKE NAZARIAN WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT, COURTNEY SCOTT WITH
ZERO WASTE SONOMA IN STRONG
SUPPORT. AND I ALSO HAVE THE
FOLLOWING ENTITIES AND SUPPORT
NAPA RECYCLING AND WASTE
SERVICES TREEHUGGER MARIN
SANITARY SERVICE. SUSTAINABLE
MILL VALLEY CITY OF 1000 OAKS
BANNED SINGLE USE PLASTICS,
CLEAN WATER ACTION AND FIVE
GYRES. AND JORDAN WELLS
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR PESTICIDE
ACTION NETWORK D SPRAY.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA RECYCLING
ASSOCIATION, ZERO WASTE, MARIN
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, MOJAVE
DESERT AND MOUNTAIN RECYCLING
AUTHORITY, NORTH AMERICAN
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION, AND THE ELDERS
CLIMATE ACTION NORTHERN AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS.
YOU DILLONLIAM ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
THIS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL, STOP WASTE AND THE
WESTERN PLACER WASTE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. WONDERFUL AUTHOR AND STAFF.
GOOD AFTERNOON. LINDSAY GOLDEN
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT DAVID KRUEGER FOR WASTE
CONNECTIONS AND SUPPORT JOHN
MOFFAT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT. ROMAN VOGELSANG WITH
REPUBLIC SERVICES HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, TONY
HACKETT, CALIFORNIANS AGAINST
WASTE AND SUPPORT. KEELEY MORRIS
WITH EDELSTEIN, GILBERT,
ROBINSON AND SMITH ON BEHALF OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS IN SUPPORT. JEREMY
JONES FROM THE AMERICAN COATINGS
ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE
FOUNDER OF THE FIRST PAINT
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM HERE IN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT CELESTE
WICKS WITH CLEAN EARTH FOR KIDS
IN SUPPORT. ALSO IN SUPPORT
NORTH COUNTY EQUITY AND JUSTICE
ECO SUSTAINABILITY PEEPS NKA
GRANDPARENTS ACTING TOGETHER IN
FACTS. THANK YOU, JOSH GALLAGHER
ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN
SUPPORT, AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF
THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS WITH THE SUPPORT
AND CONCEPT POSITION. THANKS
THANK YOU SO MUCH, DO WE HAVE
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? IF YOU
COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD?
SHOULD I MOVE DOWN THE AISLE?
OKAY SORRY. DISPLAY. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING. I THINK OFFICIALLY,
YES, CHAIR MEMBERS NICOLE
QUINONEZ HERE, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION.
REGRETFULLY, IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1143, OUR MEMBER MEMBERS
MANUFACTURE MANY OF THE PRODUCTS
INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF THIS
BILL FROM PESTICIDES SUCH AS
DISINFECTANTS AND CLEANING
PRODUCTS THAT ARE USED TO
SANITIZE OUR HOSPITALS AND OUR
HOMES TO AEROSOL PRODUCTS AND
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS. FIRST, WE
WANT TO APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND SPONSORS FOR THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH US ON
THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC. WE DO HAVE
A HISTORY OF WORKING TOGETHER
COLLABORATIVELY ON TOUGH
POLICIES, AND WE ARE COMMITTED
TO DO THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE.
HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE ADDITIONAL
STUDY IS WARRANTED PRIOR TO
PASSING ANOTHER VERY LARGE EPR
PROGRAM. OUR COALITION DOES NOT
OBJECT TO THE EXPANSION OF THE
PAINTCARE PROGRAM, WHICH IS IN
THE BILL. HOWEVER IN LIEU OF
ESTABLISHING THE EPR PROGRAM FOR
THE OTHER HW, WE HAVE OFFERED TO
CONDUCT AN INDUSTRY FUNDED NEEDS
ASSESSMENT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
THE GAPS IN THE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION AND
MANAGEMENT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO
IMPROVE ITS COLLECTION. WHILE
EPR PROGRAMS DO MAKE SENSE,
SOMETIMES WE ARE VERY INTERESTED
IN UNDERSTANDING IF WE NEED THAT
TYPE OF, AGAIN, ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTION. WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE, HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE, PERHAPS THERE'S
OTHER MODELS. IF IT'S MORE OF A
RESOURCES ISSUE TO OUR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, WHICH HAVE ALREADY
SET UP COLLECTION, PROCESSES,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING WE WANT TO EXPLORE.
CURRENTLY THE BILL HAS THREE
ESSENTIALLY ADMINISTRATIVE
OVERSIGHT AGENCIES BETWEEN C
RECYCLE, THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC
SUBSTANCES CONTROL, AND THIS
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
ORGANIZATION. SO ALL OF THOSE
COSTS WOULD NEED TO BE COVERED
BY PRODUCERS BEFORE THEY HAVE
DONE ANYTHING TO INCREASE THE
COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. SO WE
BELIEVE THERE COULD BE A BETTER
USE OF THOSE RESOURCES.
ADDITIONALLY, DTSC IS UPDATING
THEIR HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN, WHICH IS DUE TO THE
LEGISLATURE IN MARCH OF NEXT
YEAR. AND WE SEE THIS REPORT AS
CRITICAL IN SETTING THE
FOUNDATION FOR WHAT IS
CONSIDERED HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE. MORE
BROADLY, CALIFORNIA HAS THE
STRICTEST CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN THE NATION, RESULTING
IN MANY MORE PRODUCTS BEING
MANAGED AS HAZARDOUS WASTE THAN
WOULD WOULD BE ANYWHERE ELSE IN
THE COUNTRY. THINGS LIKE
COSMETIC PRODUCTS USUALLY FAIL
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE CRITERIA,
WHICH IS WHY I THINK THEY'RE
EXEMPTED FROM THIS BILL TO BE
CLEAR, I DON'T THINK ANYONE
CONSIDERS THOSE THE MOST TOXIC,
PRODUCTS, BUT I THINK I JUST IT
DEMONSTRATES THE FOUNDATIONAL
NEED TO KIND OF LOOK AT THOSE
CRITERIA AND CREATE A BETTER,
PLAYING FIELD, I THINK, BEFORE
AGAIN ESTABLISHING THIS, THIS
LARGE PROGRAM. I THINK ONE
QUESTION WE HAVE IS IF THAT THIS
REPORT COMES OUT, THE CRITERIA
CHANGES. THIS PROGRAM IS ALREADY
IN PLACE. HOW DO THOSE
MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCERS WHO
HAVE NOW JOINED THIS PRO PAID IN
TO TRY TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING,
AND THERE ARE NO THERE PRODUCTS
ARE NO LONGER IN SCOPE. HOW DO
THEY THEN GET OUT OF THIS
PROGRAM. SO AGAIN, HAVING THE
TIME TO FIX THAT CRITERIA AT THE
FRONT END AND THEN FINALLY I
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE LEAVE SOME
TIME FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES, HE
TOLD ME TO TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS
I WANT. FINALLY, WE RECENTLY
ACTED SB 54 BY SENATOR ALLEN.
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE AND
RIGOROUS EPR PROGRAM IN THE
COUNTRY ON PACKAGING WASTE. AND
THE COMPANIES WITHIN SCOPE OF
THIS PROGRAM UNDER 1143 ARE ALSO
UNDER THE SCOPE OF SB 54, YOU
KNOW, SEPARATELY, BUT JUST FROM
A POINT OF VIEW OF RESOURCES
THAT IT'S TAKING TO COMPLY WITH
THAT, TO THEN ALSO LAYER THIS
PROGRAM ON TOP OF IT. ALSO,
RESOURCES AND STAFF TIME AT THE
STATE IS AN IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION. I THINK,
CONSIDERING THE TIMING OF IT
ALL. SO FOR THESE REASONS, WE
ARE OPPOSED. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS, GREG
HERNER, ON BEHALF OF THE CAN
MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, I WANT
TO SAY THAT FOR ONE THING,
ABSOLUTELY AGREE ON A COUPLE OF
THE COMMENTS THAT THE PROPONENTS
MADE ON THIS, THERE THERE'S A
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE HERE WITH WITH
PRODUCTS ENDING UP WHERE THEY'RE
NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. RIGHT. AND
THAT'S A CONSUMER EDUCATION
COMPONENT TO THIS. AND NOTHING
IN THIS BILL SOLVES THAT, THAT
IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE STRUGGLE
WITH UNDER ALL OF THESE EPR
PROGRAMS IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE CONSUMER DOES THE RIGHT
THING. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGE AND THAT COULD RELATE
TO LABELING. I RESENT METAL
PACKAGING, METAL PACKAGES.
PACKAGING IS AMAZING, RIGHT? SO
EASY TO RECYCLE UNLESS YOU'RE
GOVERNED BY THE SB 54 PROGRAM,
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WITH SOME
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION THAT'S GONE
THROUGH, CALRECYCLE HASN'T BEEN
ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT METAL
PACKAGING CAN USE THE RECYCLING
SYMBOL, EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE
PULLED OUT OF THE SYSTEM BY
MAGNETS. SO WE ARE STRUGGLING
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF
THESE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WERE
ALREADY DEALING WITH. AND THAT'S
WHY I'M EMPHASIZING THAT WE NEED
TIME. WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH
THIS NEEDS ASSESSMENT. WE NEED
TO LOOK AT WHAT PRODUCTS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED AND SHOULDN'T BE
INCLUDED. METAL PACKAGING CAN
ACTUALLY IF THERE'S CONTENTS
LEFT IN IT, IT MIGHT BE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE, BUT
IF IT'S EMPTY, IT COULD ACTUALLY
BE RECYCLED THROUGH THE REGULAR
PROCESS. WE NEED THAT MATERIAL
BACK. WE WANT THAT MATERIAL BACK
. METAL PACKAGING CAN BE 100%
RECYCLED TO COME BACK AS NEW
PRODUCTS AND AS LITTLE AS 60 TO
90 DAYS. SO THIS ISN'T A NO.
THIS IS. LET'S DO IT IN THE
RIGHT ORDER. LET'S NOT PUT THE
CART BEFORE THE HORSE. LET'S DO
THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT. LET'S
FIGURE OUT WHAT PRODUCTS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED. LET'S FIGURE OUT IF
THERE'S A CONSUMER EDUCATION
COMPONENT TO THIS AND WORK ON
THAT. WASTE MANAGEMENT WAS
ACTUALLY ONE OF THE FIRST
COMPANIES TO START DOING
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PICKUP
IN COMMUNITIES BY APPOINTMENT TO
TRY AND HELP WITH THAT CONSUMER
EDUCATION PIECE AND TRY TO MAKE
SURE THIS GOES TO THE RIGHT
LOCATIONS AND THOSE CONSUMERS
CAN HELP KEEP THE SYSTEM, HAVE
THE PRODUCTS GO WHERE THEY NEED
TO GO. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO SAY IS LET US LET US DO THAT
NEEDS ASSESSMENT. LET US LOOK AT
THAT AND LET'S SEE WHAT THE BEST
SYSTEM IS ON WHETHER, ON
PROVIDING THE SERVICE. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. ANY ONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU. DAWN KOEPKE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION AND CHEMICAL
INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA,
BOTH IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, RANDY PAUL, ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION, DAN CHAU,
ON BEHALF OF REDWOOD MATERIALS.
AS MISS SANBORN SAID, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO RENEWING OUR
OPPOSITION SOON. THANK YOU. ON
BEHALF OF WESTERN PLANT HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, CROPLIFE AMERICA
AND RISE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. WITH
THAT, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? MR. SKINNER? YES, I'D
LIKE AGAIN I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD, I HAVE SEEN I'VE ALSO
DONE A LITTLE TRAVEL AND BEEN
ABLE TO SEEN, SEE IN CANADA HOW
RECYCLING IS DONE, HOW OUR
MANUFACTURERS AND OUR END USERS
ARE WORKING TOGETHER. SO I THINK
THIS IS A PERFECT SOLUTION FOR
US TO GET TOGETHER AND WORK ON
THIS. AND IT GIVES IT GIVES THE
MANUFACTURER THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE A SAY IN WHAT'S GOING ON
AND TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR CLEAN
ENERGY, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WE
CAN SEE THAT THERE'S WE HAVE A
CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM. WE COULD
SEE THAT, OUR CITIES AND OUR
COUNTIES ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH
RECYCLING. I LIVE IN THE CITY OF
HAWTHORNE. WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF
TROUBLE WITH OUR RECYCLING, WITH
OUR COMPOSTING. WE, YOU KNOW,
KNOWING WHERE TO PUT THE
PLASTICS, KNOWING IF IT'S ANY
GOOD TO PUT IT IN THE RECYCLING
BIN. I MEAN, IT'S JUST A MESS.
AND I THINK THAT IF YOU GUYS CAN
ALL GET TOGETHER AND WORK ON
THIS, AND HAVING THE BEGINNING
USER TO TAKE SOME OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOLVING SOME
OF THIS PROBLEM IS HELPFUL. SO I
WILL BE VOTING. FOR THE MATTER
OF FACT, I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
HAVE A MOTION, IN A SECOND. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. WELL,
SENATOR, YOU ARE CORRECT. YOU
ALWAYS LOOK FOR A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH THAT
ENCOMPASSES EVERYTHING. AND I
THINK THAT IT'S GREAT THAT WE
LOOK TO DOING THAT RATHER THAN
DOING ONE BILL THAT TAKES CARE
OF ONE THING. AND ANOTHER AND
ANOTHER, ONE OF THE COMMENTS
THAT WAS MADE ABOUT PUTTING
TOGETHER A NEEDS ASSESSMENT IS
THAT PART OF THE BILL? YEAH, IT
IS, IT IS. AND OF COURSE,
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
IT'S GOING TO BE A CRITICAL PART
OF MAKING THIS WHOLE THING WORK.
AND IT'S OUR AND WE ACTUALLY
GAVE A LOT OF RUNWAY IN THE BILL
TO INCORPORATE THIS BIG
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
THAT WAS MENTIONED. IT'S PART OF
WHY WE PUSH IMPLEMENTATION BACK
TO 2027, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY I,
YOU KNOW, I THINK INDUSTRY I
THINK FOR, FOR YOU KNOW, REASONS
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WANT TO DO
THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FIRST AND
THEN HAVE US TALK ABOUT A PLAN.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY
EXPERIENCE THAT HAVING THE
MOTIVATION OF A OF A REAL
SOLUTIONS CREATES A SENSE OF
URGENCY AND REAL FOCUS ON THE
PART OF ALL THE ALL THE FOLKS
INVOLVED. AND THAT'S, I THINK,
WHERE OUR TENSION POINT IS, BUT,
YOU KNOW, IT'S BUT BUT IT'S
BECAUSE OF THIS THAT WE, WE, WE,
WE PURPOSELY GAVE SO MUCH TIME
FOR IMPLEMENTATION. AND I WOULD
IMAGINE THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO
ARE ALREADY WORKING ON, WHAT IS
IT CALLED? END OF LIFE,
RECYCLING ALREADY? AND IS THERE
SOMETHING IN THE BILL THAT NOT
SO MUCH REWARDS THEM, BUT
INCORPORATES WHAT THEY'RE
ALREADY DOING? IN THROUGH THIS
PROCESS? YEAH. I MEAN, THOSE ARE
THE FOLKS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE
THE MOST TO GAIN ULTIMATELY FROM
A BILL LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY'VE
GOT THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE ONES
THAT THE, THE PRODUCERS ARE
GOING TO GO TO, TO CONTRACT WITH
AND WORK WITH BECAUSE THEY'RE
NOW GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO, TO,
TO ENSURE, TRUE RECYCLABILITY TO
TRUE CIRCULARITY. AND THAT'S
WHAT WE FOUND WITH, WITH SB 54,
FOR EXAMPLE. AND WE CERTAINLY
FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT HAPPENING
HERE. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE ALL RIGHT. WELL, I
WILL JUST SAY, THAT I ABSOLUTELY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH THE
PROBLEM IDENTIFIED IN THIS BILL,
I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE STRAIN
THAT IT IS PUTTING ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IS A HUGE PROBLEM.
AND IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO
ADDRESS. I THINK MY ISSUE WITH
THE BILL IS PROBABLY THE TIMING.
I WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO SEE
THIS HAPPEN AFTER WE GET THAT
REPORT BACK NEXT YEAR. BUT
THAT'S CURRENTLY WHERE I AM AT
RIGHT NOW. BUT WITH THAT,
SENATOR, I WOULD OFFER YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE. YEAH,
APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. A
GREAT DEAL. AND THIS IS, YOU
KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF A
LOT OF WE HAD A GREAT MEETING IN
ONE OF THE CONFERENCE ROOMS NOT
TOO LONG AGO ABOUT THIS VERY
ISSUE. YOU KNOW, THE NEEDS
ASSESSMENT, YOU KNOW, UNLIKELY
TO BE ABLE TO BE COMPLETED IN A
YEAR. YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK
THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE IS THAT
THIS PROBLEM CONTINUES TO GROW.
WE KEEP HEARING FROM OUR, OUR
FRIENDS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOW
UNTENABLE IT'S BECOME. COSTS
CONTINUE TO RISE FOR THEM. THOSE
COSTS END UP GETTING PASSED ON
TO OUR CONSTITUENTS AND THIS IS
AN ATTEMPT TO, YOU KNOW,
BASICALLY REQUIRE THE FOLKS THAT
, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE MOST TOOLS
AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO DETERMINE
HOW THESE PRODUCTS ARE PRODUCED
AND HOW THEY END UP TO HAVE SOME
SKIN IN THE GAME. IN THIS
CONVERSATION, I TOTALLY
UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE FACT WE JUST
DID SB 54. A LOT OF THEM ARE
STILL REELING FROM ON
IMPLEMENTATION ON THAT, IT'S AS
I SAY, IT'S WHY WE STRUCTURED
THE BILL TO GIVE AMPLE TIME TO
BOTH THE PRODUCERS AND THE
DEPARTMENTS. IMPORTANT PART OF
THE STORY TO LEARN FROM SB 54
IMPLEMENTATION AND, YOU KNOW,
AND BUT, BUT BUT IT'S WE BELIEVE
STRONGLY THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
SET THIS WORK IN MOTION. THE
OTHER THING I WILL SAY, IF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE NOT KEPT
OUT OF THE RECYCLING STREAM,
IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT MUCH
HARDER FOR SOME OF THE VERY SAME
COMPANIES TO MEET THEIR SB 54
MANDATES, WHICH HAVE TOXICITY,
RULES AND REQUIREMENTS. IT'S
CERTAINLY GOING TO MAKE IT MORE
COSTLY. SO I CONTINUE TO, HOPE
AND BELIEVE THAT WE CAN WE CAN
YOU KNOW, GET EVERYONE CLOSER.
WE'RE GOING TO WORK HARD OVER
THE SUMMER, TO, TO TRY TO GET
EVERYONE TOGETHER ON THIS, BUT
THIS IS A VERY REAL PROBLEM.
IT'S REALLY IMPACTING LOCAL
FOLKS. AND REGULAR CONSTITUENTS
WHO ARE CONTINUING TO SEE THEIR
RATES RAISED, BECAUSE OUR CITIES
AND THE HAULERS AND ALL THE
PEOPLE IN THE WASTE INDUSTRY ARE
REALLY STRUGGLING TO MEET OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS WHILE
ALSO MANAGING THIS FLOOD OF
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. AND
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I
VOTE, AND I CONTINUE TO, TO
EXPRESS MY HOPE, DESIRE AND
COMMITMENT TO REALLY GOOD,
STRONG, ROBUST CONVERSATIONS AND
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE OPPOSITION
THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER
TO GET US AS CLOSE AS WE
POSSIBLY CAN. THANK YOU. WITH
THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL
THE ROLL. ITEM TWO SB 1143.
ALLEN, THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND
RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES. GARCIA HOOVER
. NØ. HOOVER NÓ CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I MCKENNA. I MCKENNA. I
PAPPIN. REYES I REYES. AYE TO.
TODD. NO. THAT WILL GO ON CALL.
AND WE'LL MOVE TO YOUR FINAL
BILL. MR. ALLEN THE SB 1234.
WONDERFUL NUMBER. YES. 1234.
THANK YOU. BY THE WAY, CAN I
JUST SAY IT'S KIND OF CIVILIZED
TO ONLY CALL THE VOTES OF THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY HERE. IS
THAT IS THAT A COMMITTEE RULE
THAT WE CAN ADOPT ELSEWHERE? I
MEAN, OR DID YOU ACTUALLY. OH,
YOU DID OKAY. I'M SORRY. I THINK
WE JUST THE SMALL COMMITTEE
FOCUSED ON THE PEOPLE. ALL
RIGHT. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. YOU
KNOW, I'M IN A BABY HAZE. I
THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU DID. I
THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE VERY
NOVEL. MAYBE WE COULD. NOT A BAD
IDEA. MAYBE WE COULD CONSIDER
IT. YOU AND YOU AND ME. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. YEAH. THERE YOU GO.
PARTIZAN EFFORT WHENEVER YOU ARE
READY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ANOTHER
ANOTHER INTERESTING, CHALLENGING
WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUE. LET ME
JUST START BY BY THANKING THE,
THE WORK DONE BY THIS COMMITTEE
TO HELP DEVELOP THIS MEASURE.
THIS IS HAVING TO DO WITH METAL
SHREDDING, AND ONCE AGAIN, I'M
CONTINUING REALLY COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING THE WORK WITH THIS
COMMITTEE. SHOULD THE BILL PASS
TODAY, AND LET ME JUST POINT OUT
THAT THE COMMON DENOMINATOR ON
ALL THESE VERY DIFFICULT AND
TRYING DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS IS
MY INCREDIBLE CHIEF OF STAFF,
TINA ANDOLINA, WHO, WHO JUST,
YOU KNOW, BIRD DOGS, EVERYTHING
SO EFFECTIVELY. AND I JUST WANT
TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT AND A VERY DEEP
APPRECIATION FOR HER, FOR ALL
HER HARD WORK, THAT'S REALLY
BEEN SO BEHIND ALL THESE
SUCCESSES, LOOK, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT METAL SHREDDING HERE. SO
THIS IS, METAL SHREDDERS,
RECYCLED MILLIONS OF END OF LIFE
VEHICLES, HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES,
OTHER METALLIC ITEMS THAT ARE
PRODUCED EVERY YEAR IN
CALIFORNIA, NOW, UNLESS THOSE
ARE RECYCLED, THESE MATERIALS
WOULD LITERALLY OVERWHELM OUR
AVAILABLE LANDFILL SPACE. THEY
WOULD POSE THREATS TO PUBLIC
SAFETY AND WELFARE. AND INSTEAD,
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE NICE THINGS
ABOUT METAL, AS WAS MENTIONED,
IS THAT IT'S OFTENTIMES VERY
HIGHLY RECYCLABLE. AND, UNLIKE A
LOT OF OTHER PRODUCTS THAT ARE
OUT THERE. AND IT CAN REALLY END
UP BEING IMPORTANT, VALUABLE
FEEDSTOCK FOR MANUFACTURING. SO,
YOU KNOW, NOW WE KNOW THAT THE
METAL SHREDDING FACILITIES POSE
CONCERNS TO SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES DUE TO THE POTENTIAL
RELEASE OF SHREDDED MATERIALS,
POTENTIAL FIRES, THE METAL DUST
THAT COMES OUT OF THE METAL
COLLECTION AND RECYCLING PROCESS
UNDER EXISTING LAW, BECAUSE
SCRAP METAL IS EXCLUDED FROM THE
DEFINITIONS OF WASTE AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE, THESE
FACILITIES ARE NOT PERMITTED BY
DTSC. INSTEAD, DTSC HAS BEEN
REGULATING THE INDUSTRY USING
EXISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON A
FACILITY BY FACILITY BASIS. ONCE
AGAIN, A ONE OFF SYSTEM THAT'S,
GETTING EXACERBATING. SO TO
ADDRESS THIS, OUR BILL
ESTABLISHES A NEW STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK ADMINISTERED AND
ENFORCED BY DTSC TO ENSURE THE
SAFE REGULATION OF METAL
SHREDDING FACILITIES IN THE
STATE. SO THE BILL ESTABLISHED,
ESTABLISHES A PROGRAM THAT
MIRRORS DTZ'S EXISTING REGIME,
ALL THESE, YOU KNOW, THESE
REGIMES THAT IT HAS FOR THESE
DIFFERENT FACILITIES. IT
INCLUDES CRITICAL COMPONENTS
THAT SERVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
AND THE ENVIRONMENT WHILE
OFFERING FACILITY OPERATORS
CERTAINTY. IT INCLUDES OPERATING
AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO
MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF
FIRES AND RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE FROM THE FACILITIES.
INBOUND SOURCE CONTROL POLICIES,
COMPLIANCE WITH INSPECTIONS,
INVENTORY MANAGEMENT,
HOUSEKEEPING, FIRE PREVENTION,
EMERGENCY RESPONSE, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE, FIRES I KEEP GETTING I
KEEP MENTIONING METAL IS A VERY
GOOD CONDUCTOR OF HEAT. AND SO
THAT'S WHY A LOT OF DANGER
ASSOCIATED WITH METAL
FACILITIES. THE BILL ALSO
SPECIFICALLY ESTABLISHES
DETAILED STANDARDS TO PREVENT
THE RELEASE OF CERTAIN
CONCERNING MATERIALS, SUCH AS
METAL SHREDDER, AGGREGATE AND
RESIDUE THAT MAY BE RELEASED
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, AND IT
WOULD REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO
DTSC AND THE PUBLIC IN CASES OF
SIGNIFICANT FIRE OR OTHER
INCIDENT. IT ALSO GIVES DTSC
ROBUST ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO
ENSURE THESE STANDARDS ARE MET,
INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY TO SHUT
DOWN A FACILITY THAT IS POSING
AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
ENDANGERMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT. AND, OF
COURSE, THE BILL AUTHORIZES THE
DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT FEES FROM
METAL SHREDDING FACILITIES TO
COVER ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT COSTS. THE GOAL,
ULTIMATELY, IS TO ENSURE A
COMPREHENSIVE OVERSIGHT AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE FACILITIES
UNDER THE DEPARTMENT'S
AUTHORITY, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM AND
THOSE THAT TREAT, STORE AND
DISPOSE OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE, AND ALSO RECOGNIZING THE
VALUE THAT THIS INDUSTRY
PROVIDES TO OUR ENVIRONMENT, WE
WILL CONTINUE ENGAGING
STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITY
GROUPS TO ENSURE THAT WE GET
THIS POLICY RIGHT. AS THE BILL
PROGRESSES. AND I HAVE WITH ME
HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT, TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, ROBERT
HOFFMAN WITH THE COALITION OF
METAL RECYCLERS, RECYCLERS AND
ALSO ALISON RAIMI, WHO
REPRESENTS THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF UTILITY EMPLOYEES,
PIPE TRADE AND SHEET METAL
WORKERS. SO GREAT ROBERT, THANK
YOU. MR. VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
FOR YOUR TENACITY AND PATIENCE
AND STILL BEING HERE, MY NAME IS
BOB HOFFMAN, AND I AM HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
METAL RECYCLERS COALITION. AND
WE'RE THE SPONSORS OF 1234. I'D
FIRST LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
SENATOR FOR HIS VISION AND HIS
UNDERSTANDING IN AUTHORING THIS
BILL. IT'S QUITE A CHALLENGE.
THIS BILL IS GOING TO SET A HIGH
BAR FOR METAL RECYCLERS IN
CALIFORNIA. IN FACT, IT'S GOING
TO SET A MODEL FOR THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY. CALIFORNIA WILL AGAIN
BE IN THE FOREFRONT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WHILE
FURTHERING OUR EFFORTS TO CREATE
AN EFFECTIVE CIRCULAR ECONOMY.
METAL RECYCLING VIA THE STATE'S
METAL RECYCLING SHREDDERS
CONSTITUTES THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
RECYCLING PROGRAM IN THE US
ECONOMY. OVER 70% OF NEW STEEL
PRODUCTS ARE FROM CANNED GOODS
TO AUTOMOBILES ARE MADE FROM
RECYCLED METAL DERIVED FROM
FACILITIES LIKE OUR SHREDDERS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL
WILL CREATE A PROGRAM THAT WILL
RESULT IN THE SAFE AND
PROTECTIVE SHREDDING OF METAL IN
CALIFORNIA, WHILE ALLOWING OUR
EXISTING METAL RECYCLING
FACILITIES TO MAINTAIN EFFICIENT
PRODUCTION OF RECYCLED METALS
AND TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY
COMPETE IN GLOBAL METALS
MARKETS. I ALSO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMMITTEE'S
STAFF, WHO RECOGNIZED THE NEED
FOR THIS BILL AND HAVE ENGAGED
THE INDUSTRY IN A VERY
CONSTRUCTIVE AND POSITIVE DIALOG
GOING FORWARD, WE INTEND TO WORK
WITH DTSC TO RECEIVE AND ADDRESS
THEIR INPUT AND TO ADDRESS THE
CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT FROM OTHER
INTERESTED PARTIES, AS WELL. IN
SUMMARY, THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION
FOR CALIFORNIA'S ENVIRONMENT AND
FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
HEALTH, AS WELL AS FOR THE METAL
RECYCLING INDUSTRY, WHOSE
IMPORTANCE TO OUR ECONOMY AND TO
THE STATE IN GENERAL WAS
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE SENATOR'S
OPENING REMARKS. SO WE URGE AN
AYE VOTE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. AND AFTER THE
NEXT SPEAKER TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS, THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ALLISON RAMEY
HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, PLUMBERS AND
PIPEFITTERS SHEET METAL WORKERS.
AND AS THE SENATOR MENTIONED,
THE CALIFORNIA COALITION OF
UTILITY EMPLOYEES HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1234, OUR MEMBERS
ARE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION
RELATED ACTIVITIES ACROSS THE
STATE THAT RESULTS IN PRODUCTION
OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF MATERIAL
THAT CONTAIN RECOVERABLE
MATERIALS, METALS. THESE
MATERIALS INCLUDE STEEL BEAMS,
SHEET METAL, GALVANIZED AND
COPPER PIPING. PLUMBING FENCING,
REBAR, ELECTRICAL CABLES, AND
MORE. THESE MATERIALS ARE
VALUABLE AND ACCORDING TO THE
STATE LAW, CANNOT BE DISPOSED OF
IN LANDFILLS IF THEY CONTAIN
METAL THAT CAN BE ECONOMICALLY
RECOVERED IN FACT, THE SALVAGE
VALUE OF METAL CONTAINED IN
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS OFTEN A SIGNIFICANT
COMPONENT OF THE REVENUE A
CONTRACTOR CAN MAKE ON A JOB BY
ANY REASONABLE ESTIMATE,
MILLIONS OF TONS OF SCRAP METAL
ARE GENERATED IN THE STATE EVERY
YEAR AND NEED A PLACE TO GO. THE
STATE'S METAL SHREDDING
FACILITIES PROVIDE THIS
NECESSARY AND CRITICAL RECYCLING
INFRASTRUCTURE. METAL AND
SHREDDING FACILITIES ALLOW THESE
VALUABLE METALS TO BE RECOVERED
AND REUSED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
NEW STEEL AND OTHER METAL
PRODUCTS, SAVING NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENERGY.
COLLECTIVELY, THE METAL
SHREDDING FACILITIES ALSO
PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
FOR MANY OF OUR MEMBERS AND
OTHER UNION SHOPS WITH GOOD
SALARIES, SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS,
VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND CAREER
ADVANCEMENT. PASSAGE OF SB 1234
WILL ENSURE THESE ESSENTIAL
FACILITIES REMAIN ECONOMICALLY
VIABLE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
OPERATING WITHIN THE REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK. SB 1234 REPRESENTS A
POSITIVE STEP FORWARD FOR METAL
RECYCLING INDUSTRY FOR
CALIFORNIA'S BUSINESSES IN THE
LOCAL COMMUNITIES WHERE METAL
SHREDDING FACILITIES ARE
LOCATED. IT'S FOR THESE REASONS
WE REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN THE ROOM LIKE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
JOHN MOFFATT, ON BEHALF OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT DAVID KRIEGER
FOR WASTE CONNECTIONS AND ALSO
ALSO THE NATIONAL ACTION
STEWARDSHIP ACTION COUNCIL.
THANK YOU. ROMAN VOGELSANG WITH
THE PREY AND COMPANY ON BEHALF
OF REPUBLIC SERVICES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MEG ROSE
FROM PILLSBURY WINTHROP ON
BEHALF OF RADIUS RECYCLING AND
SIMS METAL. GOOD EVENING,
STEPHANIE MORRELL ON BEHALF OF
RECOLOGY AND SUPPORT RYAN
FLANAGAN ON BEHALF OF THE
RECYCLED MATERIALS ASSOCIATION
WEST COAST CHAPTER IN SUPPORT,
GAVIN MCHUGH ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTO
DISMANTLERS ASSOCIATION, STRONG
SUPPORT TONY HACKETT ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
AND SUPPORT. THE CALIFORNIA
STATE COUNCIL OF LABORERS
COULDN'T BE HERE, BUT AS SAID, I
SHARE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL. THANK YOU. KENDALL DECKER
ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSAL
SERVICE RECYCLING AND STRONG
SUPPORT. CATHERINE BRANDENBURG,
ON BEHALF OF S¼ RECYCLING AND
SUPPORT. CHRISTINE OLSEN, KATE
ON BEHALF OF ECOLOGY RECYCLING
SERVICES IN SUPPORT. OKAY. DO WE
HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
WELCOME. GOOD OOPS, SORRY. GOOD
EVENING, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS.
SORRY TO HAVE MY BACK TO YOU,
MISS MCKENNA, CHRIS MICHELI
HERE, ON BEHALF OF THE OAKLAND
ATHLETICS, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. THE BILL
CAME IN TO PRINT ON ABOUT TWO
WEEKS AGO. AND OUR FOLKS HAVE
BEEN EVALUATING IT SINCE THEN. I
THINK PERHAPS THIS IS ONE OF
THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE
PROVERBIAL DEVIL'S IN THE
DETAILS. AS WE LOOK THROUGH THE
LANGUAGE, WE PUT IT IN CONTEXT
THAT WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES FOR
THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR SO. OUR
CURRENT HEADQUARTERS IN WEST
OAKLAND ARE CLOSE TO THE HOME OF
ONE OF THE LARGEST METAL
RECYCLING, METAL SHREDDING
FACILITIES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WE'VE ALSO BEEN
DEALING WITH BOTH STATE, FEDERAL
AND REGIONAL REGULATORS TO
EXPRESS A NUMBER OF CONCERNS
THAT WE HAVE REGARDING METAL
SHREDDING FACILITIES. WE ALSO
HAVE ONGOING LITIGATION THAT WE
HAVE HAD FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS
INVOLVING DTSC METAL SHREDDING
FACILITIES AND EVEN THE BAY
AREA. AQMD WE ARE CONCERNED OF
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL
REGARDING THAT LITIGATION AS THE
SENATOR INDICATED, A DESIRE TO
WORK TOGETHER. WE APPRECIATE
JUST YESTERDAY THE SPONSORS AND
SUPPORTERS AND MISS ANDOLINA
SPENT WELL OVER AN HOUR IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR FOLKS,
WALKING THROUGH SOME CONCERNS
JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW. AND WE
DID SUBMIT VERY LATE YESTERDAY A
LETTER, IN, OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED. POSITION ON THAT A FEW
HIGHLIGHTS. ONE IS WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT POTENTIAL
PREEMPTION OF LOCAL REGULATION
OF THESE FACILITIES. WE'RE NOT
SURE THAT ENFORCEMENT IS
SUFFICIENT IN THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. WE THINK THAT
THERE'S TOO MUCH RELIANCE UPON
SELF REGULATION. AND WE ALSO
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
CLASSIFICATION OF LFM OR LIGHT
FIBROUS MATERIALS BEING RELEASED
OFF SITE AND WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'LL BE CONSIDERED
NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER THE
LAW, WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE PROPONENTS AND,
OF COURSE, THE AUTHOR AND HIS
STAFF AS THIS BILL MAKES ITS WAY
THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. Ó I APOLOGIZE,
MR. CHAIR, SAN FRANCISCO
BAYKEEPER ALSO SUBMITTED A LATE
LETTER OF OPPOSITION. COULDN'T
BE HERE TODAY, BUT WANTED TO
EXPRESS THEIR ALSO RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
THANK YOU. PERFECT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION? DARRYL LID,
ON BEHALF OF NRDC, WE DON'T HAVE
AN OFFICIAL POSITION, BUT DO
HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE BILL. AND
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
SENATOR ALLEN AND STAFF. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, BRINGING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
YES SENATOR, WERE THERE OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION WITH WHOM YOU HAVE
NEGOTIATED, AMENDMENTS OR OR.
YEAH, WE'VE ONLY JUST BECOME
AWARE OF FOLKS WITH CONCERNS OF
LITERALLY OVER THE LAST FEW
DAYS, SO I GOT A LONG NOTE FROM
A FRIEND OF MINE AT THE A'S WHO
EXPRESSED SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT CHRIS BROUGHT UP. I MEAN,
QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK WE SHARE
THE SAME GOALS. SO IT'S GOING TO
BE A MATTER OF REALLY HEARING
OUT THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE,
EITHER GET THEM ADDRESSED OR
ANSWERED. MAYBE THERE'S SOME
MISUNDERSTANDINGS. MAYBE WE'RE
NOT CONSIDERING THINGS THAT WE
OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERING. SO IT'S
ALL COMING AT US RELATIVELY
LATE, BUT BUT THESE ARE ALL, YOU
KNOW, FRIENDS THAT WE CERTAINLY
WOULD WANT TO WORK WITH AND TRY
TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THEIR
ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE
ANALYSIS. THANK YOU FOR THAT, I
HAD HEARD FROM SOME WHO WERE
OPPOSED, THAT THERE WAS SOME
DISCUSSION TO TRY TO RESOLVE
SOME OF THE ISSUES AND DIDN'T
SEE THEM HERE, AND I THOUGHT
PERHAPS THE ISSUES HAD BEEN
RESOLVED, YEAH. THERE ARE
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS AT PLAY
RIGHT NOW. SO, AGAIN, IT'S I
REALLY I MEAN, THE LLTJ I L JT
IS, IS, THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY
BEEN OUT IN OPPOSITION FOR, FOR
SOME TIME, BUT BUT THESE OTHER
FOLKS THAT HAVE JUST COME UP,
ARE SO NEW THAT, WE REALLY
HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
KIND OF A REAL NEGOTIATION AS,
AS WAS MENTIONED, THERE WAS, I
THINK, AN HOUR LONG MEETING WITH
DÍAS YESTERDAY, SO IT WAS OUR
FIRST TIME HEARING FROM THEM
TALKING TO THEM, HEARING OUT
THEIR CONCERNS. I GUESS THEY'VE
BEEN INVOLVED WITH LITIGATION IN
WEST OAKLAND. OKAY, SO WE WANT
TO WE WANT TO GET MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT HOW WE CAN
RECONCILE. AND ON THE ANALYSIS
AT PAGE THREE, NUMBER 18 EXEMPTS
FROM SEQUA REQUIREMENTS THE
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
METAL SHREDDING FACILITY PERMIT.
YEAH, THAT'S AN AREA THAT'S
BEING FIXED. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN
THAT IF YOU WOULD. YEAH WE'RE
TAKING THAT OUT, THAT WAS A
YEAH, SO THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT FROM
SEQUA. YEAH. THEY WILL NOT BE.
YOU HAVE A 16 THE SAME THING. SO
THE, THE PROVISION THAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO LEDGE COUNCIL
REVERSED IT. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO
SAY THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY
SUBJECT TO SEQUA. SO WE'LL FIX
THAT GOING FORWARD. ALL RIGHT.
IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
RIGHT EXACTLY. WE THOUGHT MAYBE
WE MISSED SOMETHING. NO, I KNOW
IT WAS A. YEAH OKAY. IMPORTANT
TO READ YOUR BILLS WHEN THEY
COME BACK FROM LEDGE COUNCIL.
IT'S A GOOD LESSON. YEAH. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEAH THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS BILL. SO I
DO HAVE A METAL SHREDDING
FACILITY IN MY DISTRICT RIGHT
NEXT TO THE PORT OF REDWOOD
CITY. SO A LOT OF THE SCRAP
METAL IS, SHREDDED. AND THEN BY
CONVEYOR BELT GOES ON TO SHIPS,
AND IT'S IN A DEEP PART OF THE
BAY, NOT A DEEP PART OF THE BAY,
BUT THEY HAVE TRENCHED FOR A
SHIPPING LINE THAT COMES BACK
INTO THE BAY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
AND ANYWAY, I HAVE CONSULTED
WITH THEM AND THEY HAVE NO
OBJECTION, AT LEAST AT THIS
MOMENT IN TIME, TO THE BILL. SO
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON IT.
OKAY THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?
OKAY WITH THAT? WE CAN, SENATOR,
IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE. YEAH.
NO, I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION.
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO, REAL
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FOLKS WHO
HAVE EXPRESSED OPPOSITION OR
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL, BECAUSE
CERTAINLY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY OUR
OUR GOAL AND INTENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY STRONG BILL.
AND, WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
CALL THE ROLL. OH, I'M SORRY, WE
NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND. I
BELIEVE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES, SOME
MEMBER MCNAIR SECONDS. GO AHEAD
AND CALL THE ROLL. ITEM THREE,
SB 1234. ALLEN. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS. AND WE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA. HOOVER. I HOOVER, I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. I. PAPIN. PAPIN. I.
REYES I. REYES. EYE TO EYE TO I.
THAT HAS SUFFICIENT VOTES. THAT
IS OUT. I BELIEVE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER REYES IS GOING TO PRESENT
FOR SENATOR LIMÓN, WHILE WE
WHILE SHE COMES UP, WE ARE GOING
TO CALL ROLL IF POSSIBLE ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. YOU KNOW WHAT?
THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE SMALLEST
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE. I DON'T
KNOW, THAT'S IT'S A SENATE SIZE.
IT'S ONE OF THEM I LOVE IT.
YEAH. IT'S NICE AND, YOU KNOW,
INTIMATE, COZY. YEAH. IT WAS
GREAT BEING WITH YOU GUYS. I
APPRECIATE YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. WE. YEAH, WE GOT FOUR
MORE TOMORROW. WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE ABSENT MEMBERS ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. IF WE COULD.
YES. SHE IS. YEAH. SO SORRY.
JUST WHILE WE'RE TRANSITIONING
THE CONSENT CALENDAR, WHICH IS
ITEMS 11 ITEMS, 12 ITEMS 13, TO
CONSENT CALENDAR TO I THAT HAS
SEVEN VOTES. ALL RIGHT, THAT IS.
IT. YEAH. WE CAN RUN. SO WE'RE
GOING TO ALSO CALL ROLL FOR FILE
TWO. ITEM TWO SB 1143 ALLEN
PAPINE PAPINE. AYE. GARCIA
GARCIA. AYE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
REYES. WHEN YOU'RE READY, AND I
BELIEVE WE HAVE A SUPPORT,
SUPPORT? SO ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
MONIQUE LIMÓN, I PRESENT AB
1266, WHICH SEEKS TO PROHIBIT A
MANUFACTURER FROM SELLING
CHILDREN, FEEDING, SUCKING AND
TEETHING PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN
ANY FORM OF BISPHENOLS AT A
DETECTABLE LEVEL OF 0.1 PARTS
PER BILLION. IT STRENGTHENS THE
COMMITMENT TO PROTECT CHILDREN
FROM HARMFUL CHEMICALS AND
AUTHORIZES THE DEPARTMENT OF
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL TO
ENFORCE AND ESTABLISH STANDARDS,
PRIORITIZING THE HEALTH AND
WELLNESS OF OUR CHILDREN. THIS
IS THE SHORT VERSION, AND I HAVE
WITH ME TODAY IN SUPPORT KAYLA
ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF THE BREAST
CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS. GOOD
EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
KAYLA ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF
BREAST CANCER PREVENTION
PARTNERS. KNOWING THAT THERE'S
NO OPPOSITION AND THIS IS THE
LAST BILL, JUST RESPECTFULLY
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO MUCH. BROUGH
WHENEVER YOU'RE, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
WONDERFUL, ANY ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
KAREN AMIGONE, ON BEHALF OF A
VOICE FOR CHOICE ADVOCACY AND
SUPPORT, TONY HACKETT ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
AND STRONG SUPPORT DARYL LITTLE
WITH NRDC IN SUPPORT KEELEY
MORRIS WITH EDELSTEIN, GILBERT,
ROBESON, AND SMITH ON BEHALF OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS IN SUPPORT. CELESTE
WICKS, FOR CLEANER FOR KIDS IN
SUPPORT. ALSO SUPPORTING THE
BILL ARE NORTH COUNTY EQUITY AND
JUSTICE, ECO SUSTAINABILITY
PEEPS AND CA FACTS GRANDPARENTS
ACTING TOGETHER CALIFORNIA
NURSES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
SONOMA SAFE AG, SAFE SCHOOLS,
YARD SMART MARIN AND MOMS
ADVOCATING FOR SUSTAINABILITY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
ANY OPPOSITION SEEING NONE BRING
IT BACK TO MEMBERS. ANY COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE TO SAY
THAT I WANT TO JOIN THE
GRANDPARENTS FOR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. LOVE IT. ANYONE ELSE? ALL
RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CALL THE
ROLL ITEM TEN SB 1266 LIMÓN. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND REFER TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
GARCIA GARCIA I HOOVER. HOOVER.
I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I MCKENNA.
I MCKENNA. I PAPIN. PAPIN I
REYES. REYES. I TO I THAT HAS
SUFFICIENT VOTES. ITEM EIGHT. SB
1188. LAIRD. THE CURRENT VOTE IS
4 TO 1. GARCIA. GARCIA I
MCKENNA. MCKENNA. I ALL RIGHTY.
ITEM ONE SB 615. ALAN. THE
CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO 1. GARCIA
A, GARCIA. I. RIGHT. YEAH. I
NEED. ITEM THREE SB 1234. ALAN.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO 0.
GARCIA. GARCIA I THINK THAT'S
EVERYTHING.
IF IT WAS HIM. YEAH. USUALLY
DOES NOT DO THAT. THAT'S WHY WE
SOUNDED LIKE OVER HERE. IS THAT
OKAY? SO AT THIS TIME, WE WILL
ADJOURN. THANK YOU.