Existing law requires a public guardian to apply for appointment as a guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and estate, if there is an imminent threat to a persons health or safety or the persons estate, there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, as specified, the appointment would be in the best interests of the person, and the person is domiciled in the county. Existing law similarly requires a court to order a public guardian of a county to apply for appointment as a guardian or conservator if it appears that there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, that the appointment as guardian or conservator appears to be in the best interests of the person, and the person is domiciled in the county. Existing law requires the public guardian to begin an investigation within 2 business days of receiving a referral for conservatorship or guardianship.

This bill would require the public guardian to also acknowledge receipt of the referral within 2 business days and conclude the investigation within a reasonable period of time. For referrals for conservatorship, the bill would require the investigation to include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted and would require the public guardian to inform the referring party of the investigation status upon request. By imposing new duties on the public guardian, a county officer, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires a public guardian to apply for appointment as a guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and estate, if there is an imminent threat to a persons health or safety or the persons estate, there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, as specified, the appointment would be in the best interests of the person, and the person is domiciled in the county. Existing law similarly requires a court to order a public guardian of a county to apply for appointment as a guardian or conservator if it appears that there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, that the appointment as guardian or conservator appears to be in the best interests of the person, and the person is domiciled in the county. Existing law requires the public guardian to begin an investigation within 2 business days of receiving a referral for conservatorship or guardianship.

This bill would require the public guardian to also acknowledge receipt of the referral within 2 business days and conclude the investigation within a reasonable period of time. For referrals for conservatorship, the bill would require the investigation to include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted and would require the public guardian to inform the referring party of the investigation status upon request. By imposing new duties on the public guardian, a county officer, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires a public guardian to apply for appointment as a guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and estate, if there is an imminent threat to a persons health or safety or the persons estate, there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, as specified, the appointment would be in the best interests of the person, and the person is domiciled in the county. Existing law similarly requires a court to order a public guardian of a county to apply for appointment as a guardian or conservator if it appears that there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, that the appointment as guardian or conservator appears to be in the best interests of the person, and the person is domiciled in the county. Existing law requires the public guardian to begin an investigation within 2 business days of receiving a referral for conservatorship or guardianship.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Under existing law, as part of the hazardous waste control laws, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) generally regulates the management and handling of hazardous waste and hazardous materials. Except as specified, a violation of the hazardous waste control laws is a crime.

This bill would create a manufacturer responsibility program for the safe and proper management of emergency distress flares. The bill would define covered product to include certain pyrotechnic devices that meet the criteria for household hazardous waste, as specified. The bill would require a manufacturer of a covered product, individually or through a manufacturer responsibility organization, to develop and implement a manufacturer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products, as specified. The bill would establish a process and timeline for DTSC to review and approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a plan and for the implementation of an approved plan. The bill would require that an approved plan be published on DTSCs internet website, except for specified manufacturer data that would not be open to public inspection. The bill would require, on or before January 1, 2027, DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the act.

This bill would require a manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organization to prepare and submit to DTSC and make publicly available an annual report describing the activities carried out pursuant to the plan. The bill would require the annual report to include an application for renewal of the manufacturers responsibility plan. The bill would require all reports and records provided to DTSC pursuant to the act to be provided under the penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require a manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organization to pay DTSC all actual and reasonable regulatory costs for DTSC to implement and enforce the act, as provided. The bill would authorize DTSC to use funds appropriated for purposes that are consistent with this act to implement and enforce the act and would require DTSC to repay those funds, as specified below. The bill would establish the Marine Flare Recovery Fund in the State Treasury and would require the charges collected by DTSC to be deposited into that account for expenditure by DTSC, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to cover DTSCs cost to implement and enforce the act and to repay the use of specified funds, as described above.

This bill would prohibit a manufacturer, retailer, dealer, importer, or distributor from selling, distributing, offering for sale, or importing a covered product in or into the state that contains perchlorate.

By adding new requirements to the hazardous waste control laws, this bill would expand the scope of a crime and would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Under existing law, as part of the hazardous waste control laws, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) generally regulates the management and handling of hazardous waste and hazardous materials. Except as specified, a violation of the hazardous waste control laws is a crime.

This bill would create a manufacturer responsibility program for the safe and proper management of emergency distress flares. The bill would define covered product to include certain pyrotechnic devices that meet the criteria for household hazardous waste, as specified. The bill would require a manufacturer of a covered product, individually or through a manufacturer responsibility organization, to develop and implement a manufacturer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products, as specified. The bill would establish a process and timeline for DTSC to review and approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a plan and for the implementation of an approved plan. The bill would require that an approved plan be published on DTSCs internet website, except for specified manufacturer data that would not be open to public inspection. The bill would prohibit DTSC from adopting regulations to implement the act with an effective date earlier than July 1, 2029. require, on or before January 1, 2027, DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the act.

This bill would require a manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organization to prepare and submit to DTSC and make publicly available an annual report describing the activities carried out pursuant to the plan. The bill would require the annual report to include an application for renewal of the manufacturers responsibility plan. The bill would require all reports and records provided to DTSC pursuant to the act to be provided under the penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require a manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organization to pay DTSC all actual and reasonable regulatory costs for DTSC to implement and enforce the act, as provided. The bill would authorize DTSC to use funds appropriated for purposes that are consistent with this act to implement and enforce the act and would require DTSC to repay those funds, as specified below. The bill would establish the Marine Flare Recovery Fund in the State Treasury and would require the charges collected by DTSC to be deposited into that account for expenditure by DTSC, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to cover DTSCs cost to implement and enforce the act and to repay the use of specified funds, as described above.

This bill would prohibit a manufacturer, retailer, dealer, importer, or distributor from selling, distributing, offering for sale, or importing a covered product in or into the state that contains perchlorate.

By adding new requirements to the hazardous waste control laws, this bill would expand the scope of a crime and would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Under existing law, as part of the hazardous waste control laws, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) generally regulates the management and handling of hazardous waste and hazardous materials. Except as specified, a violation of the hazardous waste control laws is a crime.

This bill would create a manufacturer responsibility program for the safe and proper management of emergency distress flares. The bill would define covered product to include certain pyrotechnic devices that meet the criteria for household hazardous waste, as specified. The bill would require a manufacturer of a covered product, individually or through a manufacturer responsibility organization, to develop and implement a manufacturer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products, as specified. The bill would establish a process and timeline for DTSC to review and approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a plan and for the implementation of an approved plan. The bill would require that an approved plan be published on DTSCs internet website, except for specified manufacturer data that would not be open to public inspection. The bill would prohibit DTSC from adopting regulations to implement the act with an effective date earlier than July 1, 2029.

This bill would require a manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organization to prepare and submit to DTSC and make publicly available an annual report describing the activities carried out pursuant to the plan. The bill would require the annual report to include an application for renewal of the manufacturers responsibility plan. The bill would require all reports and records provided to DTSC pursuant to the act to be provided under the penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require a manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organization to pay DTSC all actual and reasonable regulatory costs for DTSC to implement and enforce the act, as provided. The bill would authorize DTSC to use funds appropriated for purposes that are consistent with this act to implement and enforce the act and would require DTSC to repay those funds, as specified below. The bill would establish the Marine Flare Recovery Fund in the State Treasury and would require the charges collected by DTSC to be deposited into that account for expenditure by DTSC, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to cover DTSCs cost to implement and enforce the act and to repay the use of specified funds, as described above.

This bill would prohibit a manufacturer, retailer, dealer, importer, or distributor from selling, distributing, offering for sale, or importing a covered product in or into the state that contains perchlorate.

By adding new requirements to the hazardous waste control laws, this bill would expand the scope of a crime and would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 561

Author: Blakespear (D), et al.

Amended: 7/2/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-0, 8/26/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Stern, Valladares, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/25/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Appointment of public guardians

SOURCE: California State Association of Psychiatrists

DIGEST:

This bill requires the public guardian of a county to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship, to complete their investigation within a reasonable period of time, and to provide status updates of the investigation to the referring party upon request.

Assembly Amendments

gutted and amended this bill to its current form.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes a court to appoint a conservator of the person or estate of an adult, or both, provided that the conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative necessary for the protection of the conservatee. (Probate (Prob.) Code, § 1800.3.)
2. Provides, subject to 1):
   1. A conservator of the person may be appointed for a person who is unable to provide properly for their personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter, except as specified.
   2. A conservator of the estate may be appointed for a person who is substantially unable to manage their own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence, except as specified.
   3. A conservator of the person and estate may be appointed if the person meets the criteria for both conservatorship types.
   4. A limited conservator of the person or of the estate, or both, may be appointed for a developmentally disabled adult; a limited conservatorship may be utilized only as necessary to promote and protect the wellbeing of the individual, shall be designed to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of the individual, and shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s proven mental and adaptive limitations.
   5. The standard of proof for the appointment of a conservator for any of the conservatorship types listed herein is clear and convincing evidence. (Prob. Code, § 1801.)
3. Provides for the establishment of a temporary conservatorship of the person, or the estate, or both, pending a decision on a petition for the appointment of a conservator. (Prob. Code, §§ 2250, 2250.2.)
4. Provides that, if any person domiciled in the county requires a guardian or conservator and there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act and whose appointment as guardian or conservator would be in the best interests of the person, either of the following applies:
   1. The public guardian shall apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or both, if there is an imminent threat to the person’s health or safety or the person’s estate.
   2. In all other cases, the public guardian may apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, estate, or both. (Prob. Code, § 2920(a).)
5. Requires the public guardian to apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, estate, or both, if the court so orders.
   1. The court may make such an order upon motion of an interested person or on the court’s own motion in a pending proceeding or in a proceeding commenced for that purpose.
   2. The court shall order the public guardian to apply for appointment as guardian or conservator on behalf of any person domiciled in the county who appears to require a guardian or conservator if it appears that there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, and if that appointment is in the best interests of the person; if, however, prior to the filing of the petition, it is discovered that there is someone else who is qualified and willing to serve, the public guardian shall be relieved of the duty under the court order.
   3. The court shall not make such an order except after notice to the public guardian, as specified, consideration of the alternatives, and a determination that the appointment is necessary. (Prob. Code, § 2920(b).)
6. Requires the public guardian to begin an investigation as to whether a guardianship or conservatorship is necessary within two business days of receiving a referral for conservatorship or guardianship. (Prob. Code, § 2920(c).)

This bill:

1. Requires the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of an investigation referral.
2. Requires the public guardian to conclude a referral investigation within a reasonable period of time.
3. Provides that, when the public guardian investigates a referral for a conservatorship, the investigation must include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted, and that the public guardian must inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

Comments

In California, if an adult is unable to manage their own personal or financial affairs, a court may appoint a conservator of the person, of the estate, or both, to assist the adult in managing those needs. When there is not a family member or other trusted adult to serve as the conservator, existing law authorizes the county office of the public guardian to do so. Currently, anybody may refer an individual to the public guardian for a conservatorship, at which point the public guardian must conduct an investigation to determine whether it is appropriate to petition the court for a conservatorship.

This bill is intended to improve the conservatorship referral and investigation process. First, this bill requires the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a conservatorship referral. Second, this bill requires the public guardian to complete its investigation within a reasonable period of time. Third, this bill requires the public guardian to include a determination of whether a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted. Fourth, this bill requires the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the conservatorship investigation upon request.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

Minor reimbursable state-mandated local costs to county public guardian offices to acknowledge receipt of referrals, make the specified determination as part of investigations, and respond to status requests from referring parties, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. These duties are administrative additions to the investigation existing law already requires, and any costs to an individual county are likely to be minor.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/26/26)^[1]

California State Association of Psychiatrists (source)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/26/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California State Association of Psychiatrists:

Under current law, a public guardian must begin an investigation within two business days of a referral, but there is no requirement that the investigation ever conclude, and no requirement to update the referring party. This can leave vulnerable adults like people with dementia, brain injury, or other cognitive impairments stuck in limbo for extended periods of time.

SB 561 would require the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral, begin the investigation within two business days as current law already requires, conclude that investigation within a reasonable time and reach a determination on whether conservatorship is warranted, and share status updates with the referring party upon request. These are common-sense safeguards that do not impose a rigid deadline or require disclosure of confidential records. Rather, they simply ensure cases get resolved and referring parties are not left in the dark.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/25/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: McKinnor

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/26/26 18:59:15

**** END ****

1. Organizations that submitted support or opposition to the bill before it was gutted and amended are not listed. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 561 (Author:Blakespear)

Version: July 2, 2026

Hearing Date: August 26, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

PURSUANT TO SENATE RULE 29.10(d)

SUBJECT

Appointment of public guardians

DIGEST

This bill requires the public guardian of a county to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship, to complete their investigation within a reasonable period of time, and to provide status updates of the investigation to the referring party upon request.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In California, if an adult is unable to manage their own personal or financial affairs, a court may appoint a conservator of the person, of the estate, or both, to assist the adult in managing those needs. When there is not a family member or other trusted adult to serve as the conservator, existing law authorizes the county office of the public guardian to do so. Currently, anybody may refer an individual to the public guardian for a conservatorship, at which point the public guardian must conduct an investigation to determine whether it is appropriate to petition the court for a conservatorship.

This bill is intended to improve the conservatorship referral and investigation process. First, the bill requires the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a conservatorship referral. Second, the bill requires the public guardian to complete its investigation within a reasonable period of time. Third, the bill requires the public guardian to include a determination of whether a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted. Fourth, the bill requires the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the conservatorship investigation upon request.

This bill is sponsored by the California State Association of Psychiatrists. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Authorizes a court to appoint a conservator of the person or estate of an adult, or both, provided that the conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative necessary for the protection of the conservatee. (Prob. Code, § 1800.3.)
2. Provides, subject to 1):
   1. A conservator of the person may be appointed for a person who is unable to provide properly for their personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter, except as specified.
   2. A conservator of the estate may be appointed for a person who is substantially unable to manage their own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence, except as specified.
   3. A conservator of the person and estate may be appointed if the person meets the criteria for both conservatorship types.
   4. A limited conservator of the person or of the estate, or both, may be appointed for a developmentally disabled adult; a limited conservatorship may be utilized only as necessary to promote and protect the wellbeing of the individual, shall be designed to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence of the individual, and shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s proven mental and adaptive limitations.
   5. The standard of proof for the appointment of a conservator for any of the conservatorship types listed herein is clear and convincing evidence. (Prob. Code, § 1801.)
3. Provides for the establishment of a temporary conservatorship of the person, or the estate, or both, pending a decision on a petition for the appointment of a conservator. (Prob. Code, §§ 2250, 2250.2.)
4. Provides that, if any person domiciled in the county requires a guardian or conservator and there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act and whose appointment as guardian or conservator would be in the best interests of the person, either of the following applies:
   1. The public guardian shall apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or both, if there is an imminent threat to the person’s health or safety or the person’s estate.
   2. In all other cases, the public guardian may apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, estate, or both. (Prob. Code, § 2920(a).)
5. Requires the public guardian to apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, estate, or both, if the court so orders.
   1. The court may make such an order upon motion of an interested person or on the court’s own motion in a pending proceeding or in a proceeding commenced for that purpose.
   2. The court shall order the public guardian to apply for appointment as guardian or conservator on behalf of any person domiciled in the county who appears to require a guardian or conservator if it appears that there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, and if that appointment is in the best interests of the person; if, however, prior to the filing of the petition, it is discovered that there is someone else who is qualified and willing to serve, the public guardian shall be relieved of the duty under the court order.
   3. The court shall not make such an order except after notice to the public guardian, as specified, consideration of the alternatives, and a determination that the appointment is necessary. (Prob. Code, § 2920(b).)
6. Requires the public guardian to begin an investigation as to whether a guardianship or conservatorship is necessary within two business days of receiving a referral for conservatorship or guardianship. (Prob. Code, § 2920(c).)

This bill:

1. Requires the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of an investigation referral.
2. Requires the public guardian to conclude a referral investigation within a reasonable period of time.
3. Provides that, when the public guardian investigates a referral for a conservatorship, the investigation must include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted, and that the public guardian must inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

Vulnerable adults with neurocognitive disorders like dementia may be referred to a public guardian when they need assistance with making important decisions and have no qualified family member or friend to act on their behalf. Public guardians are responsible for investigating these referrals and determining whether to petition the courts for a public conservatorship. Too often, these referrals are delayed without notice, leaving people in limbo without the support they need. A Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report documented one person with disabilities who died five months after being referred – but before the pre-petition investigation was completed. SB 561 helps keep people from falling through the cracks by requiring public guardians to acknowledge referrals, complete investigations within a reasonable period, and provide status updates to referring parties upon request.

2. This bill modifies the public guardian’s conservatorship referral and investigation process

In California, if an adult is unable to manage their own personal or financial affairs, a court may appoint a conservator of the person, of the estate, or both, to assist the adult in managing those needs.^[1] A conservatorship may be established only if it is the least restrictive alternative needed for the protection of the conservatee.^[2] A court may also establish a temporary conservatorship while a petition for a conservatorship is pending.

When there is not a family member or other trusted adult to serve as the conservator, existing law authorizes the county office of the public guardian to do so.^[3] Additionally, the public guardian must petition for a conservatorship upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a person is in substantial danger of abuse or neglect and needs a conservatorship for their own protection.^[4] Currently, anybody may refer an individual to the public guardian for a conservatorship, at which point the public guardian must conduct an investigation to determine whether it is appropriate to petition the court for a conservatorship.^[5] Current law does not, however, specify a timeline for the public guardian’s investigation or require that the public guardian provide any further information to the person who made the referral.

This bill is intended to improve the public guardian’s conservatorship referral and investigation process. First, the bill requires the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a conservatorship referral. Second, the bill requires the public guardian to complete its investigation within a reasonable period of time. Third, the bill requires the public guardian to include a determination of whether a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted. Fourth, the bill requires the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the conservatorship investigation upon request.

3. Arguments in support

According to the California State Association of Psychiatrists:

Under current law, a public guardian must begin an investigation within two business days of a referral, but there is no requirement that the investigation ever conclude, and no requirement to update the referring party. This can leave vulnerable adults like people with dementia, brain injury, or other cognitive impairments stuck in limbo for extended periods of time.

SB 561 would require the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral, begin the investigation within two business days as current law already requires, conclude that investigation within a reasonable time and reach a determination on whether conservatorship is warranted, and share status updates with the referring party upon request. These are common-sense safeguards that do not impose a rigid deadline or require disclosure of confidential records. Rather, they simply ensure cases get resolved and referring parties are not left in the dark.

SUPPORT

California State Association of Psychiatrists (sponsor)^[6]

OPPOSITION

None received^[7]

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation:

AB 2283 (Jeff Gonzalez, 2026) establishes the position of State Public Guardian to assist counties with performing their duties as a public guardian or public conservator. AB 2283 is pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Prior legislation:

AB 1663 (Maienschein, Ch. 894, Stats. 2022) implemented several reforms of the conservatorship system for adults unable to care for their own affairs and codified requirements for supported decisionmaking as a less restrictive alternative to a conservatorship.

AB 1194 (Low, Ch. 417, Stats. 2021) with respect to guardians and conservators, enhanced oversight and investigations, augmented remedies and penalties for misconduct, and imposed certain restrictions on fees and compensation, with some measures conditioned on an appropriation for the specific purpose. The bill also required the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2024, to conduct a study regarding conservatorship cases.

PRIOR VOTES

Assembly Floor (Not available at time of release)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

Senate Floor (Ayes 38, Noes 0)

Senate Appropriations Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

Senate Appropriations Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)

Senate Judiciary Committee (Ayes 13, Noes 0)

Senate Environmental Quality Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 0)

**************

1. Prob. Code, § 1800.3. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Id. , § 2920. ↑

4. Id., § 2910. ↑

5. Id., § 2920. ↑

6. Organizations that supported the bill before it was gutted and amended in the Assembly are not listed. ↑

7. Organizations that opposed the bill before it was gutted and amended in the Assembly are not listed. The organizations that opposed the bill after it was gutted and amended, but before it was amended by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, removed their opposition in light of the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s amendments. ↑

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 561

Author:(Blakespear)

As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship and to provide status updates of the investigation to the referring party upon request.

Major Provisions

1. Requires a public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship and requires an investigation to conclude within a reasonable period of time.
2. For referrals for conservatorships, requires an investigation by a public guardian to include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted. Requires the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

COMMENTS

In California, if an adult is unable to manage their medical and personal needs, a conservator of the person may be appointed to help manage those needs. Similarly, courts may appoint an adult that is typically not the parent to serve as a guardian of a minor, which allows the guardian to obtain custody of the child without terminating the legal parental relationship. The appointment process for both a conservatorship and guardianship generally requires an investigation by a court investigator and approval by the court. In cases where an adult who qualifies for a conservatorship or a minor in need of a guardianship does not have someone, whether a family member or other trusted individual, who can serve as the conservator or guardian, that person may be referred to the county offices of the Public Guardian (PG), which can also act as a public conservator (PC). This analysis will refer to a PG when referring to a Public Conservator, as the county offices are typically referred to as the office of the Public Guardian. Existing law authorizes these offices to take possession and control of property of a decedent, minor, or conservatee and record a certificate of authority acknowledging this power.

Seeking to bolster communication between PGs and referring parties, this bill amends Probate Code Section 2920 to require 1) the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral, 2) the investigation to conclude within a reasonable period of time and include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted, and 3) the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

It can be understandably frustrating when one has concerns about the wellbeing of a family, loved one, patient, or client that rise to the level of necessitating, in their judgment, a probate conservatorship, but that referral is followed by silence. To be sure, county PGs are overworked and underfunded across the state and managing incredibly sensitive interpersonal dynamics, so any perceived lack of communication is likely unintentional and a result of the nature of the work and lack of resources. Nevertheless, to the extent increased communication may help ease the anxieties of referring parties and ensure people get the support they need, expecting some degree of responsiveness seems reasonable.

According to the Author

SB 561 would prevent vulnerable adults from getting lost in the probate conservatorship referral process. Many people referred to county public guardians are unable to manage their finances, make care decisions, or secure safe placement in housing or healthcare facilities on their own, and they often have no family member, friend, or private fiduciary available to help. Current law requires a public guardian to begin an investigation within two business days, but it does not say when that investigation should be completed or require basic status updates to the person or agency that made the referral. SB 561 closes that gap by requiring the public guardian to acknowledge the referral, complete the investigation within a reasonable period of time, and provide investigation status information to referring parties upon request. This will promote accountability and ensure individuals referred for conservatorship consideration get access to the care they need on a timely basis.

Arguments in Support

This bill is sponsored by the California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP). In support of the measure they submit:

Under current law, a public guardian must begin an investigation within two business days of a referral, but there is no requirement that the investigation ever conclude, and no requirement to update the referring party. This can leave vulnerable adults like people with dementia, brain injury, or other cognitive impairments stuck in limbo for extended periods of time.

SB 561 would require the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral, begin the investigation within two business days as current law already requires, conclude that investigation within a reasonable time and reach a determination on whether conservatorship is warranted, and share status updates with the referring party upon request. These are common-sense safeguards that do not impose a rigid deadline or require disclosure of confidential records. Rather, they simply ensure cases get resolved and referring parties are not left in the dark.

Arguments in Opposition

This bill is opposed by the California Elder Justice Coalition, however it seems their concerns seem to reference provisions of a prior version of this measure that have since been amended out of the bill. They submit:

SB 561 imposes unrealistic timelines, creates unfunded mandates on counties, and fails to recognize the practical realities of conservatorship investigations. The requirement that investigations conclude within fifteen business days is inconsistent with the complexity of probate conservatorship investigations. Public Guardians must identify and locate relatives, investigate assets, assess potential alternatives to conservatorship, obtain medical information, and secure legally sufficient Capacity Declarations, which are often returned multiple times due to incomplete or inaccurate information. Ultimately, resolution of conservatorship cases is subject to court schedules and judicial availability. In many jurisdictions, it can take several months for a conservatorship petition to be heard by the probate court. Consequently, imposing a 15-business-day investigative deadline does not result in a faster conservatorship process and instead creates an arbitrary requirement that fails to account for realities within the court system.

The bill's requirement for the Public Guardian to refer a proposed conservatee for Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorship also falls outside the scope of the Public Guardian's role. The current system, in which a designated hospital or provider can pursue LPS designation and initiate the appropriate process, makes this additional requirement on the Public Guardian unnecessary.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, minor reimbursable state-mandated local costs to county public guardian offices to acknowledge receipt of referrals, make the specified determination as part of investigations, and respond to status requests from referring parties, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. These duties are administrative additions to the investigation existing law already requires, and any costs to an individual county are likely to be minor.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-2

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado, Reyes

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: July 2, 2026

CONSULTANT: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003333

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 561

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a county public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship, requires the public guardian’s investigation to conclude within a reasonable period of time, and requires the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship, and requires the investigation, which under existing law must begin within two business days of the referral, to conclude within a reasonable period of time.
2. Requires, for referrals for conservatorship, the investigation to include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted, and requires the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor reimbursable state-mandated local costs to county public guardian offices to acknowledge receipt of referrals, make the specified determination as part of investigations, and respond to status requests from referring parties, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. These duties are administrative additions to the investigation existing law already requires, and any costs to an individual county are likely to be minor.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Current law requires a public guardian to begin an investigation within two business days, but it does not say when that investigation should be completed or require basic status updates to the person or agency that made the referral. SB 561 closes that gap by requiring the public guardian to acknowledge the referral, complete the investigation within a reasonable period of time, and provide investigation status information to referring parties upon request.

1. Background. When an adult cannot manage their personal or financial affairs and no family member or other trusted person is qualified and willing to serve as conservator, or when a minor needs a guardian, the person may be referred to the county office of the Public Guardian, which is required to apply for appointment where there is an imminent threat to the person’s health, safety, or estate and no one else can serve. Existing law requires the public guardian to begin an investigation within two business days of receiving a referral, but sets no requirement that the investigation conclude or that the referring party receive any communication about the referral’s status.

In its prior form, this bill would have required investigations to conclude within 15 business days absent good cause and would have required cross-referrals between probate and Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act conservatorship investigations. County public guardians opposed those provisions as unworkable, contending that conservatorship investigations require locating relatives, investigating assets, assessing alternatives, and securing legally sufficient capacity declarations, and that public guardians are not among the entities authorized to refer matters for LPS conservatorship. The prior committee amendments struck the fixed timeline and cross-referral provisions in favor of the acknowledgment, reasonable-period, determination, and status-update requirements described above. It is unclear whether the bill still has opposition following these amendments.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 561

Author:(Blakespear) – As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026

As Proposed to be Amended

SENATE VOTE: NOT RELEVANT

SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC GUARDIANS

SYNOPSIS

In California, if an adult is unable to manage their medical and personal needs, a conservator of the person may be appointed to help manage those needs. Similarly, courts may appoint an adult that is typically not the parent to serve as guardian of a minor, which allows the guardian to obtain custody of the child without terminating the legal parental relationship. When there is not a family member or other trusted adult to serve in either role, existing law authorizes the county office of the Public Guardian (PG) to do so. Currently, anybody may refer an individual to the Public Guardian for a conservatorship or guardianship. Seeking to bolster transparency between referring parties and the PG, and overall efficacy in the conservatorship process, as currently in print this bill imposes strict timelines for completion of the statutorily mandated investigation. It also requires a public guardian who determines either a probate conservatorship or LPS conservatorship is inappropriate for the proposed conservatee to refer the matter for investigation pursuant to the other conservatorship form. The California Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators (CAPAPGPC), which represents the offices of county Public Guardians across the state, has raised concern that the measure’s proposed timelines are unworkable. Additionally, they point out that public guardians are currently not among the entities authorized to refer a matter for LPS conservatorship. Acknowledging the concerns of these stakeholders while also seeking to promote increased communications between referring parties and the PG, the author is proposing amendments to strike the bill’s current requirements and instead incorporate provisions to require the PG to acknowledge receipt of the referral for conservatorship or guardianship, require the PG’s investigation to include a determination whether a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted, and to require the PG to provide the referring party a status update upon request. These changes are incorporated into the SUMMARY and discussed in further detail in the COMMENTS sections of this analysis. Although they remain opposed, it seems these amendments should serve to assuage most if not all of CAPAPGPC’s concerns.

This bill is sponsored by the California State Association of Psychiatrists. It is opposed by the California Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators and the California Elder Justice Coalition (CEJC).

SUMMARY: Requires a public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship and to provide status updates of the investigation to the referring party upon request. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral for conservatorship or guardianship and requires an investigation to conclude within a reasonable period of time.
2. For referrals for conservatorships, requires an investigation by a public guardian to include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted. Requires the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Guardianship-Conservatorship Law under the Probate Code. Enumerates requirements and procedures for the establishment of a guardianship or conservatorship. (Probate Code Section 1400 et seq. All future statutory references are to the Probate Code unless otherwise specified.)
2. Authorizes a relative or other person on behalf of the minor, or the minor if they are at least 12 years of age, to petition for appointment of guardianship of the minor. (Section 1510 (a).)
3. Permits any interested person to petition the court for the appointment of a “conservator of the person” for a person who is unable to provide properly for their personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter, and permits the appointment of a “conservator of the estate” for a person who is unable to manage their financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence. Provides that no conservatorship of the person or of the estate may be granted by the court unless the court makes an express finding that the granting of the conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative needed for the protection of the conservatee. (Sections 1800.3, 1801.)
4. Permits a public guardian or public conservator [hereafter public guardian], where conditions above have been met, to take possession or control of real or personal property of the subject person if the property is subject to loss, injury, waste, or misappropriation. (Section 2900.)
5. Requires a county public guardian to apply for appointment as a guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and estate, if there is an imminent threat to a person’s health or safety or the person’s estate, there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, as specified, and the appointment would be in the best interests of the person. Authorizes a county public guardian to apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and estate in all other cases. (Section 2920 (a).)
6. Requires the public guardian to apply for appointment as guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and estate, if the court so orders. Authorizes the court to make an order on motion of an interested person or on the court’s own motion in a pending proceeding or in a proceeding commenced for that purpose. Requires the court to order the public guardian to apply of the person, the estate, or the person and estate, on behalf of any person domiciled in the county who appears to require a guardian or conservator, if it appears that there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act, and if that appointment as guardian or conservator appears to be in the best interests of the person. (Section 2920 (b).)
7. Requires the public guardian to begin an investigation within two business days of receiving a referral for conservatorship or guardianship. (Section 2920 (c).)
8. Establishes the LPS Act to end inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, developmentally disabled persons, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to provide prompt evaluation and treatment of those with mental health disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism. Defines, as a basis for involuntary commitment under the LPS Act, “grave disability” as a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder, or impairment by chronic alcoholism, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. (Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 5001 et seq.)
9. Requires an officer providing conservatorship investigation to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Requires the officer to render to the court a comprehensive written report containing all relevant aspects of the person’s medical, psychological, financial, family, vocational, and social condition, information concerning the person’s property, and information obtained from the person’s family members, close friends, social worker, or principal therapist. Requires the officer, if they recommend against conservatorship, to set forth all alternatives available. (WIC Section 5354 (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the author:

SB 561 would prevent vulnerable adults from getting lost in the probate conservatorship referral process. Many people referred to county public guardians are unable to manage their finances, make care decisions, or secure safe placement in housing or healthcare facilities on their own, and they often have no family member, friend, or private fiduciary available to help. Current law requires a public guardian to begin an investigation within two business days, but it does not say when that investigation should be completed or require basic status updates to the person or agency that made the referral. SB 561 closes that gap by requiring the public guardian to acknowledge the referral, complete the investigation within a reasonable period of time, and provide investigation status information to referring parties upon request. This will promote accountability and ensure individuals referred for conservatorship consideration get access to the care they need on a timely basis.

In California, if an adult is unable to manage their medical and personal needs, a conservator of the person may be appointed to help manage those needs. Similarly, courts may appoint an adult that is typically not the parent to serve as a guardian of a minor, which allows the guardian to obtain custody of the child without terminating the legal parental relationship. The appointment process for both a conservatorship and guardianship generally requires an investigation by a court investigator and approval by the court. In cases where an adult who qualifies for a conservatorship or a minor in need of a guardianship does not have someone, whether a family member or other trusted individual, who can serve as the conservator or guardian, that person may be referred to the county offices of the Public Guardian (PG), which can also act as a public conservator (PC). This analysis will refer to a PG when referring to a Public Conservator, as the county offices are typically referred to as the office of the Public Guardian. Existing law authorizes these offices to take possession and control of property of a decedent, minor, or conservatee and record a certificate of authority acknowledging this power.

Probate vs. LPS conservatorships, briefly. In a general probate conservatorship, if an adult is, based on clear and convincing evidence, unable to adequately provide for their personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter, a conservator of the person may be appointed by the court. (Probate Code Section 1801 (a).) If an adult who is, based on clear and convincing evidence, substantially unable to manage their own financial resources or is unable to resist fraud or undue influence, a conservator of the estate may be appointed by a court to manage the adult’s financial matters. (Section 1801 (b).) A conservatorship cannot be granted unless the court makes an express finding that the granting of the conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative needed for the protection of the conservatee. (Section 1800.3 (b).) The appointment process requires an investigation by a court investigator and approval by the court. Existing law also authorizes issuance of a temporary conservatorship which, if issued by the court, would remain in place until the underlying petition for a general probate conservatorship is adjudicated. (Section 2250.)

Probate conservatorships are distinct from conservatorships established under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in a few key ways. While probate conservatorships are established when an adult can no longer manage their own affairs typically due to common cognitive impairments such as dementia, LPS conservatorships are structured to allow someone to make decisions on behalf of adults who are determined to be “gravely disabled”. The Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5000 et seq. provides strict timelines and restrictions on how long a person potentially eligible for an LPS conservatorship may be held in a restrictive setting, timelines for relevant investigations, responsibilities of health care providers and proposed conservatees, LPS patients’ legal and civil rights, and unique standards of review. Perhaps most significantly an LPS conservator can commit a conservatee to a locked-health facility, while a probate conservator may not.

As currently in print this bill imposes strict timelines on public guardians’ investigations upon receipt of a referral for probate guardianship or conservatorship. The bill requires the PG to complete an investigation within 15 days of receipt of the referral. This timeline may be extended upon a showing of good cause. The PG is then required to notify the referring party of the determination made at the conclusion of the investigation or if the investigation has been extended.

If the PG determines that an LPS conservatorship is more appropriate for a proposed conservatee, the bill requires the PG to make a referral for the investigation pursuant to LPS. Inversely, if the PG’s LPS investigation determines a probate conservatorship would be more appropriate for the proposed conservatee, the public guardian is then required to make such a referral. In both circumstances, the initial investigations would remain open until the secondary investigation concludes.

The California Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators (CAPAPGPC), which represents the offices of county Public Guardians across the state, opposes the measure on a number of grounds. They contend that the bill “imposes unrealistic timelines, creates unfunded mandates on counties, and fails to recognize the practical realities of conservatorship investigations.” Specifically, they raise concern that the 15-day investigation timeline is unrealistic considering the complexity of conservatorship investigations: “Public Guardians must identify and locate relatives, investigate assets, assess potential alternatives to conservatorship, obtain medical information, and secure legally sufficient Capacity Declarations [which] are often returned multiple times due to incomplete or inaccurate information, creating unavoidable delays that are outside the control of Public Guardian staff.” Additionally, the Public Guardians point out that even if an investigation could be concluded within the 15-day time period, the conclusion of an investigation does not necessarily lead to a faster resolution to the underlying petition. The petition must ultimately be adjudicated by the probate court, which can take months to hear the matter, regardless of when the investigation is completed.

With regard to the referral between probate conservatorship and LPS conservatorship, CAPAPGPC points out that LPS conservatorships cannot be self-referred by a PG. Instead, existing law limits who may refer a person to the public guardian for a proposed LPS conservatorship to designated mental health treatment facilities, agencies, or a court. Although a PG would already have a referral for the proposed conservatee, that referral would be as to a probate, not LPS, conservatorship. The limitations on who may refer help ensure that only appropriately trained medical staff make referrals for LPS.

In conversation between Committee staff, the author, and sponsors, it seems the aim of this measure is largely to bolster communication between someone who makes a referral for conservatorship and the PG. It can be understandably frustrating when one has concerns about the wellbeing of a family, loved one, patient, or client that rise to the level of necessitating, in their judgment, a probate conservatorship, but that referral is followed by silence. To be sure, county PGs are overworked and underfunded across the state and managing incredibly sensitive interpersonal dynamics, so any perceived lack of communication is likely unintentional and a result of the nature of the work and lack of resources. Nevertheless, to the extent increased communication may help ease the anxieties of referring parties and ensure people get the support they need, expecting some degree of responsiveness seems reasonable. To balance the concerns raised by CAPAPGPC against the understandable desire for increased communication, the author proposes to strike the current requirements of the bill and instead amend Probate Code Section 2920 to require 1) the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral, 2) the investigation to conclude within a reasonable period of time and include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted, and 3) the public guardian to inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request. The text of the bill would read as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 2920 of the Probate Code is amended to read:

2920. (a) If any person domiciled in the county requires a guardian or conservator and there is no one else who is qualified and willing to act and whose appointment as guardian or conservator would be in the best interests of the person, then either of the following shall apply:

[…]

(c) (1) The public guardian shall acknowledge receipt of the referral and begin an investigation within two business days of receiving a referral for conservatorship or guardianship. The investigation shall conclude within a reasonable period of time.

(2) For referrals for conservatorship, the investigation shall conclude no more than 15 business days after receiving the referral, unless there is good cause for an extension. The public guardian shall notify the referring party of both of the following, as applicable: include a determination of whether or not a temporary or general conservatorship is warranted. The public guardian shall inform the referring party of the status of the investigation upon request.

(1) The determination made at the conclusion of the investigation:

(2) The extension of the investigation.

(d) (1) If, during the investigation pursuant to subdivision (c), the public guardian determines a conservatorship pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code) would be more appropriate for a proposed conservatee, the public guardian shall make a referral for investigation pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. The investigation opened pursuant to subdivision (c) shall remain open until the conclusion of the investigation pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.

(2) If, during an investigation pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the public guardian determines a conservatorship pursuant to subdivision (c) would be more appropriate for a proposed conservatee, the public guardian shall make a referral for investigation pursuant to subdivision (c). The investigation opened pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act shall remain open until the conclusion of the investigation pursuant to subdivision (c).

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP). In support of the measure they submit:

Under current law, a public guardian must begin an investigation within two business days of a referral, but there is no requirement that the investigation ever conclude, and no requirement to update the referring party. This can leave vulnerable adults like people with dementia, brain injury, or other cognitive impairments stuck in limbo for extended periods of time.

SB 561 would require the public guardian to acknowledge receipt of a referral, begin the investigation within two business days as current law already requires, conclude that investigation within a reasonable time and reach a determination on whether conservatorship is warranted, and share status updates with the referring party upon request. These are common-sense safeguards that do not impose a rigid deadline or require disclosure of confidential records. Rather, they simply ensure cases get resolved and referring parties are not left in the dark.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: This bill is opposed by the California Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators and the California Elder Justice Coalition (CEJC). CEJC submits:

While well-intended, SB 561 overlooks the basic fact that there is no state mandate for counties to have a Public Guardian (one county does not), no state funding supports the Public Guardian system, and Public Guardian caseloads are already 30 percent over recommended levels. This important system does warrant the Legislature’s attention and improvement, but through strengthening and solidifying the existing process in order to assure better care and management of existing caseloads.

SB 561 imposes unrealistic timelines, creates unfunded mandates on counties, and fails to recognize the practical realities of conservatorship investigations. The requirement that investigations conclude within fifteen business days is inconsistent with the complexity of probate conservatorship investigations. Public Guardians must identify and locate relatives, investigate assets, assess potential alternatives to conservatorship, obtain medical information, and secure legally sufficient Capacity Declarations, which are often returned multiple times due to incomplete or inaccurate information. Ultimately, resolution of conservatorship cases is subject to court schedules and judicial availability. In many jurisdictions, it can take several months for a conservatorship petition to be heard by the probate court. Consequently, imposing a 15-business-day investigative deadline does not result in a faster conservatorship process and instead creates an arbitrary requirement that fails to account for realities within the court system.

The bill’s requirement for the Public Guardian to refer a proposed conservatee for LPS conservatorship also falls outside the scope of the Public Guardian’s role. The current system, in which a designated hospital or provider can pursue LPS designation and initiate the appropriate process, makes this additional requirement on the Public Guardian unnecessary.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) (sponsor)

Opposition

California Elder Justice Coalition (CEJC)
California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators

Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 561

Author: Blakespear (D)

Amended: 4/7/25

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/2/25

AYES: Blakespear, Valladares, Dahle, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 4/22/25

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Hazardous waste: Emergency Distress Flare Safe Disposal Act

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

DIGEST: This bill creates an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program for marine flares that requires a Manufacturer Responsibility Organization to develop a plan for consumer education, collection, and safe end-of-life management of marine flares, and bans marine flares that contain perchlorate.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law, requires boats operating in coastal waters or bodies of water directly connected to coastal waters to be equipped with distress signals. Specifies boaters carry three in-service flares approved for daytime and nighttime use and that each signal is in serviceable condition and has not expired. (33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 175.1100 & 175.125)

Existing law:

1. Establishes the California Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), which generally regulates the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. The act establishes Extended Producer Responsibility programs for various products, including, carpet, mattresses, batteries, pharmaceutical and sharps waste, single-use plastic and packaging, and textiles (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 40000 et. seq.)
2. Establishes the hazardous waste control laws at the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which generally regulates the management and handling of hazardous waste and hazardous materials. Establishes procedures for managing hazardous waste as universal waste. (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 23)
3. Defines a "household hazardous waste (HHW)" as hazardous waste generated incidental to owning or maintaining a place of residence, but does not include waste generated in the course of operating a business at a residence. (HSC § 25218.1(e))
4. Requires counties and cities to ensure HHW is collected and requires the state to provide an expedited and streamlined regulatory structure directing the locals on how to dispose of the HHW. (HSC § 25218)
   

This bill:

1. Bans the manufacture or sale of marine flares containing perchlorate.

1. Creates a manufacturer responsibility program for marine flares.
2. Defines “covered product” to mean a pyrotechnic device that produces a brilliant light or a plume of colorful smoke as a visual distress signal on marine vessels to attract attention and pinpoint a boater’s location in an emergency.

1. Requires a manufacturer of a covered product to develop and implement a manufacturer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products, either as a single manufacturer or as part of a manufacturer responsibility organization.
2. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the act with an effective date no earlier than January 1, 2027.
3. Requires the manufacturers to develop and submit a plan to DTSC no later than January 1, 2028. DTSC shall approve, disprove, conditionally approve, request additional information, or set a timeline for a decision on approval or disapproval within 90 days of receiving the plan. The plan shall include, among other items:
   1. A detailed plan to meet performance standards with associated metrics.
   2. A plan for managing collection sites, and a schedule for annual collection events until January 1, 2029, on the coast and in each county bordering Lake Tahoe.
   3. An explanation of the process by which collected covered products will be handled and managed following collection.
   4. A description of a comprehensive statewide education and outreach program.
4. Tasks DTSC with developing performance standards for, at a minimum, collection of marine flares.
5. Requires a PRO to implement its plan within 90 days of approval. Specifies the plan to be fully funded in a manner that equitably distributes the plan’s costs among participant producers that reflects sales volumes and the cost to manage the covered products that a producer produces.
6. Requires the manufacturers to submit to DTSC and make publically available an annual report on the plan by March 1, 2028, and each year thereafter.
7. Requires the manufacturers to retain specified documents, annually audit their accounting books, and make documents available to DTSC for review, as specified. Requires all reports and records provided to DTSC pursuant to the act to be provided under the penalty of perjury.
8. Requires manufacturers to pay DTSC, on an unspecified schedule, an annual administrative charge, as determined by DTSC. Specifies the charge be set at an amount that is adequate to cover DTSC’s full costs of administering and enforcing the act.
9. Authorizes DTSC to impose administrative civil penalties upon any person who violates the act.
10. Establishes the Marine Flare Recovery Fund in the State Treasury and would require the administrative charges collected by DTSC to be deposited into that account for expenditure by DTSC, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to cover DTSC’s cost to implement and enforce the act.

Background

1. thtCalifornia’s waste goals and EPR. To advance California’s recycling goals, the Legislature has directed CalRecycle to establish several EPR programs. EPR is a strategy that places shared responsibility for end-of-life product management on producers and all entities involved in the product chain, instead of on the general public and local governments. EPR programs rely on industry, often via a product stewardship organization (PRO), to develop and implement approaches to create a circular economy with oversight and enforcement provided by the government. To be successful, every EPR program must contain some of the same basic elements. EPR programs must clearly delineate which products are included in the program. They must also set clear guidance on what criteria must be evaluated in the producer made stewardship plan, and can set “rates and dates” to achieve specific outcomes. EPR programs, which operate by utilizing industry expertise to develop plans for managing products, must also have a strong oversight and enforcement mechanism.
2. Universal waste and HHW. Many common household items contain hazardous materials that pose a threat to the health of humans, animals, and the environment if these products are incorrectly disposed of. These common items may be categorized as universal waste or HHW. Universal waste – such as batteries – can be handled, transported, and recycled following the simple requirements set forth in the universal waste regulations, while HHW – such as flammables, poisons, pesticides, and latex paint – are more hazardous and must be handled by specified local agencies. Neither universal waste nor HHW can simply be tossed out in the garbage bin.
3. What are marine flares? A marine flare is a type of pyrotechnic device that produces a brilliant light or a plume of colorful smoke as a visual distress signal to attract attention in an emergency, and to help pinpoint the boater’s exact location. Handheld flares (which operate on the ground) and rocket flares (which are fired into the air) are the two most-used visual distress signals because they can be used for daytime or nighttime. Marine flares at the end of their life are household hazardous waste.

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) requires vessels longer than 16 feet operating on coastal waters to carry approved visual distress signals, such as pyrotechnic flares. Boaters are required to carry three in-service flares approved for daytime and nighttime use. According to USCG regulations, the average shelf life for pyrotechnic flares is between 36 and 42 months from the manufacture date because the effectiveness of the chemicals can break down over time. This requires boaters to replace flares approximately every three years. Failure to have flares or having expired flares could result in a $1,100 fine. The US Coast Guard may inspect boaters on a random basis.

1. Why are marine flares hazardous? DTSC classifies pyrotechnic flares that will no longer be used for their intended purpose as hazardous waste because they are toxic, reactive, and ignitable as defined by state and federal hazardous waste regulations. According to the California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways (Division), common ingredients in various types of pyrotechnic flares include: strontium nitrate and strontium peroxide (listed on the EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act Inventory List); potassium perchlorate and potassium nitrate (known irritants), magnesium, and black powder (a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate). According to the Division, pyrotechnic flares contain toxic metals and pollutants such as perchlorate which is recognized as a water and health pollutant that can impact our waterways and can impair thyroid function.
2. Why are expired marine flares an issue in California? According to a study by the Division in 2014, an estimated 174,000 outdated flares are generated each year by recreational vessels in California. Expired marine flares must be transported as explosives and disposed of at a hazardous waste facility permitted by the U.S. EPA to manage explosives. Currently, there are no permitted facilities in California that can accept, treat and/or dispose of non-military explosives waste streams. There are only three permitted facilities in the U.S. that accept and treat/dispose of explosive wastes streams, like pyrotechnic marine flares (two facilities treat in incinerators (UT and LA), and the other does open burning (MO)). According to the Division, it costs approximately $7 to $50 per flare to be properly disposed of at an out-of-state permitted facility. Zero Waste Sonoma states that the cost of safe disposal of marine flares that they had collected over time (less than a year). Because a relatively small number of flares were taken for disposal and there were high fixed transportation costs for marine flares collected at the event, the cost of proper disposal was a staggering $185 per flare.

According to information provided by the author, less than five percent of HHW facilities in the state currently accept expired marine flares. This is likely due to the significant packaging, disposal, and transportation costs involved with safe disposal of these explosive waste streams and the need for special permits and equipment to handle explosives. While some counties have pursued grants from CalRecycle to conduct temporary marine flare collection events, safe disposal options for boaters are limited.

1. Alternatives to pyrotechnic marine flares. According to the best management practices recommended by the Division of Boating and Waterways, boaters can purchase approved electronic visual distress signals to replace old pyrotechnic flares. Electronic visual distress signals are reusable alternatives that do not release chemicals when used, do not expire, and are safe to use. The LED light flashes up to 60 hours, unlike traditional flares that last minutes or less, and is visible up to 10 nautical miles. These electric distress light is only accepted by the USCG for night use: they are not approved for day use. However, a large orange flag meeting certain conditions laid out in the code of Federal Regulations are approved for day time use^[1][2].
2. Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling opines on marine flares. The Legislature and Governor created California’s Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling (Commission) to provide advice to CalRecycle, the Legislature, and other State or Federal agencies regarding the state’s ambitious recycling and organic materials recovery goals from the perspective of professionals working in many aspects of this complicated industry. In its June 30, 2022 Policy Recommendations Report 4, the Commission stated that marine flares are “a 100-year-old technology, have polluted water, and are a chronic problem for boaters to dispose of safely and expire every 3 years and have no management plan. Now that less hazardous and more reliable electronic signals are an option…[we] recommend that California consider banning the sale of products that are toxic and unnecessary in that there are safer alternatives that are often less expensive.”

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Expired marine flares sound harmless but can be quite dangerous and damaging to the environment. Properly disposing of expired flares is extremely difficult. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies expired marine flares as hazardous waste that cannot be disposed of in waterways or the trash. They are explosive devices that require special handling and transportation and contain toxic metals and other pollutants that can contaminate water and impair thyroid function.

Only one county in California has the permits necessary to accept expired flares and there are no facilities in the state that can safely and legally dispose of them.

SB 561 will shift responsibility for disposing of expired flares from local governments to those who manufacture and use them. SB 561 would require manufacturers to create a plan for the collection, transportation, and safe and proper disposal of expired flares.”

1. Economies of scale and single-product EPR. There appears to be only one predominant manufacturer of marine flares in California, Orion Safety Products. According to Orion, the total sales of recreational flares in the California market are about $450,000 per year and 80% of this number is cost of goods sold, leaving $90,000 in annual profit.

In the scenario where the cost of starting up and operating the program will be significantly greater than the total revenue of sales for marine flares, the manufacturer may choose not to sell in California or may increase the costs of the marine flares. Since LED replacement products can only be used at night to be in compliance with Federal Law, consumers of marine flares are (relatively) a captive market. In this scenario, having an EPR program that targets a single product primarily manufactured by a single manufacturer introduces a problem of economies of scale and introduces problems by not having more market options for consumers to choose from.

1. EPR for Marine flares: a good end of life option. A lack of convenient disposal options has created a significant end-of-life management problem for expired marine flares. Most HHW facilities are unable to accept flares due both to not having the necessary permits or equipment to safely handle explosives and the significant costs to properly manage them. SB 651 establishes an EPR program for expired or unwanted marine flares operated by DTSC. This program requires manufacturers of marine flares to fund and operate a convenient collection system, with appropriate oversight from DTSC, to manage expired or unwanted flares. This could help ensure that these flares are disposed of in a manner that is protective of the environment and public health, while shifting the costs of managing this product from cities and counties to the producers/users.
2. Banning perchlorate flares. In addition to creating an EPR program for marine flares, SB 561 also bans a subset of flares that contain perchlorates. Considering the numerous alternatives to flares containing perchlorates, and the negative impacts of perchlorates on human health, it seems reasonable and beneficial to move away from this more toxic product to less toxic ones. In addition, including perchlorate marine flares in the EPR program will help ensure that any legacy perchlorate flares already sold to consumer are safely managed by manufacturers at the end of their life.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 501 (Allen, 2025) establishes an EPR program for a set of household hazardous waste products, including establishing a target to reach a 40% diversion rate for the covered products.

SB 1066 (Blakespear, 2024) would have created an EPR program for marine flares with oversight from DTSC and required DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this bill with an effective date no later than January 1, 2027. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

• The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) estimates ongoing costs of up to $1.1 million annually (Marine Flare Recovery Fund) and 5 positions for DTSC to develop and administer the marine flare program. Staff notes that SB 561 would require the manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organizations (MRO) to reimburse DTSC for all regulatory and enforcement costs. DTSC notes that this bill does not include a fund source for initial implementation, and that DTSC would need to procure a loan from another fund for initial implementation and regulatory tasks, and then reimburse that fund after sufficient revenues accumulate in the Marine Flare Recovery Fund that would be established by this bill.
• To the extent successful civil actions are brought at the request of DTSC under the authority granted in this bill, potential increases in state revenues of an unknown amount due to the collection of civil penalties.

SUPPORT: (Verified 05/22/25)

7th Generation Advisors
Atrium 916
Ban Sup (single Use Plastic)
California Association of Environmental Health Administrators
California Product Stewardship Council
California Professional Firefighters
California State Association of Counties
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Californians Against Waste
Center for Environmental Health
City and County of San Francisco
Cleanearth4kids.org
County of Humboldt
County of Mendocino
County of Santa Barbara
Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Mendocino County Department of Transportation
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
National Stewardship Action Council
Northern California Recycling Association
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Port of Los Angeles
Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Rural County Representatives of California
San Fernando Valley Chapter of The Climate Reality Project
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sierra Club California
Sirius Signal LLC
South Bayside Waste Management Authority (sbwma ) Dba Rethinkwaste
The Last Plastic Straw
Waste Management
Zero Waste Marin
Zero Waste Sonoma

OPPOSITION: (Verified 05/22/25)

National Marine Manufacturers Association

Standard Fusee Corporation Dba Orion Safety Products

Prepared by: Brynn Cook / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

5/25/25 18:15:54

**** END ****

1. 33 CFR 175.130 ↑

2. Visual Distress Signals : BoatUS Foundation ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 561 (Blakespear) - Hazardous waste: Emergency Distress Flare Safe Disposal Act

Bill Summary:

This bill would require producers of marine flares to establish an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for the collection, transportation, recycling, and safe and proper management of marine flares in California.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) estimates ongoing costs of up to $1.1 million annually (Marine Flare Recovery Fund) and 5 positions for DTSC to develop and administer the marine flare program. Staff notes that SB 561 would require the manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organizations (MRO) to reimburse DTSC for all regulatory and enforcement costs. DTSC notes that this bill does not include a fund source for initial implementation, and that DTSC would need to procure a loan from another fund for initial implementation and regulatory tasks, and then reimburse that fund after sufficient revenues accumulate in the Marine Flare Recovery Fund that would be established by this bill.
• To the extent successful civil actions are brought at the request of DTSC under the authority granted in this bill, potential increases in state revenues of an unknown amount due to the collection of civil penalties.

Background:

Extended producer responsibility (EPR). EPR refers to a waste management strategy that makes the manufacturer of a product responsible for the products’ entire life–cycle costs including its end–of–life costs associated with recycling or disposal. These costs have traditionally been borne by local governments (and ultimately tax payers) through municipal waste disposal programs. This traditional structure results in an “externality” or a situation where the costs of recycling or disposal are not paid by the buyer or seller of the product, but rather by a third party (such as tax payers). EPR shifts the costs of managing a product at its end of life from waste disposal programs to the manufacturer of the product. By requiring manufacturers to cover end–of–life costs, these costs are incorporated or “internalized” into the total cost of the product when it is sold. Therefore, the price that consumers pay reflects the entire cost of the product—its production and disposal. This means that the people making and using the product cover all of its costs, rather than local governments and taxpayers covering a share of disposal costs. Moreover, manufacturers have a financial incentive to design products that are inexpensive to recycle. In California, EPR is already used for carpet, mattresses, and paint.

Mixed results for California EPR programs. To date, the Legislature has enacted four EPR programs of which CalRecycle has enforcement authority – paint, carpet, mattresses, and pharmaceutical and sharps waste – showing varying degrees of success. While CalRecycle does not appear to have oversight issues with the paint stewardship program, CalRecycle was subject to an audit for its oversight of the mattress recycling program. The carpet recycling program has encountered the most challenges of the EPR programs with the enforcement history of the carpet stewardship organization being extensive and complicated. Only enacted in 2018, the pharmaceutical and sharps waste program is still in development.

Universal waste and HHW. Many common household items contain hazardous materials that pose a threat to the health of humans, animals, and the environment if these products are incorrectly disposed of. These common items may be categorized as universal waste or HHW. Universal waste – such as batteries – can be handled, transported, and recycled following the simple requirements set forth in the universal waste regulations, while HHW – such as flammables, poisons, pesticides, and latex paint – are more hazardous and must be handled by specified local agencies. Neither universal waste nor HHW can simply be tossed out in the garbage bin.

What are marine flares? A marine flare is a type of pyrotechnic device that produces a brilliant light or a plume of colorful smoke as a visual distress signal to attract attention in an emergency, and to help pinpoint the boater’s exact location. Handheld flares (which operate on the ground) and rocket flares (which are fired into the air) are the two most-used visual distress signals because they can be used for daytime or nighttime.

What type of boaters need to carry onboard marine flares? The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) requires vessels longer than 16 feet operating on coastal waters to carry approved visual distress signals, such as pyrotechnic flares. Boaters are required to carry three in-service flares approved for daytime and nighttime use. According to USCG regulations, the average shelf life for pyrotechnic flares is between 36 and 42 months from the manufacture date because the effectiveness of the chemicals can break down over time. This requires boaters to replace flares approximately every three years. Failure to have flares or having expired flares could result in a $1,100 fine. The US Coast Guard may inspect boaters on a random basis.

Why are marine flares hazardous? DTSC classifies pyrotechnic flares that will no longer be used for their intended purpose as hazardous waste because they are toxic, reactive, and ignitable as defined by state and federal hazardous waste regulations. According to the California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways (Division), common ingredients in various types of pyrotechnic flares include: strontium nitrate and strontium peroxide (listed on the EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act Inventory List); potassium perchlorate and potassium nitrate (known irritants), magnesium, and black powder (a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate).

According to the Division, pyrotechnic flares contain toxic metals and pollutants such as perchlorate which is recognized as a water and health pollutant that can impact our waterways and can impair thyroid’s function.

Why are expired marine flares an issue in our state? According to the Division, an estimated 174,000 outdated flares are generated each year by recreational vessels in California. Expired marine flares must be transported as explosives and disposed of at a hazardous waste facility permitted by the U.S. EPA to manage explosives. Currently there are no permitted facilities in California that can accept, treat and/or dispose of non-military explosives waste streams.

There are only three permitted facilities in the U.S. that accept and treat/dispose of explosive wastes streams, like pyrotechnic marine flares (two facilities treat in incinerators (UT and LA), the other does open burning (MO)). According to the Division, it costs approximately $7 to $50 per flare to be properly disposed of at an out-of-state permitted facility. However, Zero Waste Sonoma, in 2023, states it cost an estimated $185 to properly dispose of one unwanted marine flare, when partnering with nearby jurisdictions to help share the cost of transportation.

What are the current disposal options for expired marine flares? According to information provided by the author, less than five percent of HHW facility in the state currently accepts expired marine flares. This is likely due both to the significant packaging, disposal, and transportation costs involved with safe disposal of these explosive waste streams and the need for special permits and equipment to handle explosives. While some counties have pursued grants from CalRecycle to conduct temporary marine flare collection events, safe disposal options for boaters are extremely limited, resulting in some stockpiling or illegal disposal in trash or waterways, according to the author.

Best management practices recommended by the Division of Boating and Waterways include boaters purchasing approved electronic visual distress signals to replace old pyrotechnic flares. Electronic visual distress signal are reusable alternatives that do not release chemicals when used, do not expire, and are safe to use.

Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling opines on marine flares. The Legislature and Governor created California’s Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling (Commission) to provide advice to CalRecycle, the Legislature, and other State or Federal agencies regarding the state’s ambitious recycling and organic materials recovery goals from the perspective of professionals working in many aspects of this complicated industry. In its June 30, 2022 Policy Recommendations Report 4, the Commission stated that marine flares are “a 100-year-old technology, have polluted water, and are a chronic problem for boaters to dispose of safely and expire every 3 years and have no management plan. Now that less hazardous and more reliable electronic signals are an option…[we] recommend that California consider banning the sale of products that are toxic and unnecessary in that there are safer alternatives that are often less expensive.”

Proposed Law:

This bill would require producers of marine flares to establish an EPR program for the collection, transportation, recycling, and safe and proper management of marine flares in California. Specifically, it would:

1. Establish the Emergency Distress Flare Safe Disposal Act (Act), which would create an EPR program for a covered product (marine flare, as defined), and state that the purpose of this Act is to provide for the safe and proper management of pyrotechnic marine flares, which pose significant threats to health and safety and may cause significant and costly damage to the environment when managed improperly.
2. Require all manufacturers to register with a single manufacturer responsibility organization (MRO) to develop and implement a single manufacturer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products on behalf of all producers.
   1. DTSC must review the plan for compliance and approve, disprove, or conditionally approve the plan.
   2. Requires the MRO to retain specified documents, annually audit its accounting books, and make documents available to DTSC for review, as specified. Requires all reports and records provided to DTSC pursuant to the Act to be provided under the penalty of perjury.
   3. Requires a manufacturer or MRO to pay DTSC all actual and reasonable regulatory costs to implement and enforce this article, including the full personnel costs and reimbursement of the costs to DTSC to develop and adopt the regulations described in 4), below.
3. Require DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the Act on or before January 1, 2027.
4. Require, except as specified, a manufacturer that sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes a covered product in the state to submit to DTSC a manufacturer plan within one year of the adoption of the regulations described in 4), above.
5. Require an approved manufacturer responsibility plan to be a public record published on DTSC’s website. Specifies that financial, production, or sales data reported by the manufacturer to DTSC is not open to public inspection.
6. Require a manufacturer or MRO to submit an annual report to DTSC, under penalty of perjury, and requires DTSC to post online a list of manufacturers that are in compliance with the program requirements.
7. Prohibit a manufacturer, retailer, dealer, importer or distributor from selling, distributing, or importing covered products into the state that contains perchlorate.
8. Authorize DTSC to take various enforcement actions and impose administrative and civil penalties pursuant to authority granted to DTSC under existing provisions of law related to hazardous waste control.
9. Provide that a manufacturer or MRO is not subject to penalties for noncompliance with the Act before July 1, 2029.

Related Legislation:

SB 501 (Allen, 2025) establishes an EPR program for a set of household hazardous waste products, including establishing a target to reach a 40% diversion rate for the covered products.

SB 1066 (Blakespear, 2024) would have created an EPR program for marine flares with oversight from DTSC and required DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this bill with an effective date no later than January 1, 2027. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

Staff Comments:

This bill would grant DTSC the authority to enforce the Act and impose administrative and civil penalties pursuant to provisions in Article 8 (commencing with Section 25180) of the Health and Safety Code relating to hazardous waste enforcement. These provisions grant DTSC the authority to seek permanent or temporary injunctions, restraining orders, or other orders. (Health & Saf. Code § 25181.) Any civil action brought at the request of DTSC is to be brought by a city attorney, the county counsel, the district attorney, or the Attorney General in the name of the people of the State of California. (Health & Saf. Code § 25182.) These provisions provide various procedures related to hearings. (see e.g. Health & Saf. Code § 25187.)

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 561 (Author:Blakespear)

Version: April 7, 2025

Hearing Date: April 22, 2025

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Hazardous waste: Emergency Distress Flare Safe Disposal Act

DIGEST

This bill requires producers of marine flares to establish an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for the collection, transportation, recycling, and safe and proper management of marine flares in California.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Federal regulations require vessels longer than 16 feet operating on coastal waters to carry visual distress signals that are specifically approved for day use or night use, or for use during both day and night. (33 C.F.R. §§ 175.110 & 175.130.) Carrying three pyrotechnic flares that are not expired per the manufacturer meet the regulation requirements. (33 C.F.R. § 175.103.) The average shelf life of pyrotechnic flares is between 36 and 42 months as the chemicals in them can break down over time. Failure to meet these federal requirements can result in a fine and pose safety hazards for boaters. Once pyrotechnic flares can no longer be used as intended, they are classified as hazardous waste by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency due to the fact they are toxic, reactive, and ignitable.^[1] This bill seeks to enact an EPR program for the safe and proper management of marine flares in California within DTSC. The bill is sponsored by the National Stewardship Action Council and Zero Waste Sonoma. The bill is supported by numerous environmental organizations and associations representing California retailers, waste haulers, and environmental health administrators. The bill is opposed by Orion Safety Products, the leading manufacturer and distributor of marine flares. The bill passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on a vote of 8 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing federal law requires any boat operating in coastal waters or bodies of water directly connected to coastal waters to be equipped with distress signals, and specifies that three in-service flares approved for daytime and nighttime use must be carried and that each signal is in serviceable condition and has not expired. (33 C.F.R. § 175.110 & 175.125.)

Existing state law:

1. Regulates the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste under the California Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) of 1989, and establishes EPR programs for various products, including, carpet, mattresses, batteries, pharmaceutical and sharps waste, and single-use plastic and packaging. (Pub. Res. Code § 40000 et. seq.)
2. Regulates the management and handling of hazardous waste and hazardous materials by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC).
   1. Defines “household hazardous waste (HHW)" as hazardous waste generated incidental to owning or maintaining a place of residence, but does not include waste generated in the course of operating a business at a residence. (Health & Saf. Code § 25218.1(e))
   2. Establishes procedures for managing hazardous waste as universal waste. (Cal. Code of Reg. Tit. 22, Div. 4.5, Ch. 23)
3. Requires counties and cities to ensure HHW is collected and requires the state to provide an expedited and streamlined regulatory structure directing locals how to properly dispose of HHW. (Health & Saf. Code § 25218 et. seq.)

This bill:

1. Establishes the Emergency Distress Flare Safe Disposal Act (Act), which creates an EPR program for a covered product (marine flare), and states that the purpose of this Act is to provide for the safe and proper management of pyrotechnic marine flares, which pose significant threats to health and safety and may cause significant and costly damage to the environment when managed improperly.
2. Defines “covered product” to mean a product that meets all of the following:
   1. Is a pyrotechnic device that produces a brilliant light or a plume of colorful smoke as a visual distress signal, including, but not limited to, on marine vessels to attract attention and pinpoint a boater’s location in an emergency;
   2. At the time of disposal, meets the criteria for household hazardous waste; and
   3. Is either or both of the following:
      1. a flare used on a vessel that is manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented or chartered to another for the pleasure of that person, excluding passenger vessels, small passenger vessels, and vessels used for competition;
      2. a flare used for signaling location in a large unmodified or slightly modified area retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition.
   4. A marine flare that contains perchlorate.
3. Requires all manufacturers to register with a single manufacturer responsibility organization (MRO) to develop and implement a single manufacturer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products on behalf of all producers.
   1. DTSC must review the plan for compliance and approve, disprove, or conditionally approve the plan.
   2. Requires the MRO to retain specified documents, annually audit its accounting books, and make documents available to DTSC for review, as specified. Requires all reports and records provided to DTSC pursuant to the Act to be provided under the penalty of perjury.
   3. Requires a manufacturer or MRO to pay DTSC all actual and reasonable regulatory costs to implement and enforce this article, including the full personnel costs and reimbursement of the costs to DTSC to develop and adopt the regulations described in 4), below.
4. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the Act on or before January 1, 2027.
5. Requires, except as specified, a manufacturer that sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes a covered product in the state to submit to DTSC a manufacturer plan within one year of the adoption of the regulations described in 4), above.
6. Requires an approved manufacturer responsibility plan to be a public record published on DTSC’s website. Specifies that financial, production, or sales data reported by the manufacturer to DTSC is not open to public inspection.
7. Requires a manufacturer or MRO to submit an annual report to DTSC, under penalty of perjury, and requires DTSC to post online a list of manufacturers that are in compliance with the program requirements.
8. Prohibits a manufacturer, retailer, dealer, importer or distributor from selling, distributing, or importing covered products into the state that contains perchlorate.
9. Authorizes DTSC to take various enforcement actions and impose administrative and civil penalties pursuant to authority granted to DTSC under existing provisions of law related to hazardous waste control.
10. Provides that a manufacturer or MRO is not subject to penalties for noncompliance with the Act before July 1, 2029.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Expired marine flares sound harmless but can be quite dangerous and damaging to the environment. Properly disposing of expired flares is extremely difficult. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies expired marine flares as hazardous waste that cannot be disposed of in waterways or the trash. They are explosive devices that require special handling and transportation and contain toxic metals and other pollutants that can contaminate water and impair thyroid function.

Only one county in California has the permits necessary to accept expired flares and there are no facilities in the state that can safely and legally dispose of them. Boaters in coastal communities across California are frustrated by the lack of disposal options for flares, with some stockpiling them or illegally disposing of them in trash or waterways. Expired flares have also been abandoned in front of fire and police stations, placing the responsibility (and cost) for disposal on local governments that are not permitted to accept them.

For example, Zero Waste Sonoma does not have the equipment necessary to safely and legally accept pyrotechnic flares. However, flares have been found hidden at the bottom of a box with acceptable HHW and illegally dumped at the fire station. In less than one year, Zero Waste Sonoma had about 60 flares to dispose of. They partnered with neighboring jurisdictions to hire a contractor to transport the flares across the country to a permitted facility. Because a relatively small number of flares were taken for disposal, the high fixed transportation costs were $185 per flare, a cost that was ultimately passed on to taxpayers, many of whom do not have a boat.

SB 561 will shift responsibility for disposing of expired flares from local governments to those who manufacture and use them. SB 561 would require manufacturers to create a plan for the collection, transportation, and safe and proper disposal of expired flares. The plan requires a free and convenient collection program with temporary collection sites in coastal counties. A strategic collection program would significantly reduce the disposal costs per flare. In fact, a 2019 collection event saw costs of less than $13 per flare, roughly the price of a new flare. Therefore, the cost increase to pay for disposal is not significant and could easily be borne by consumers.

1. This bill establishes the Emergency Distress Flare Safe Disposal Act

This bill intends to address the difficulty and environmental health and safety hazards of disposing of marine flares in California. This bill is similar to SB 1066 (Blake spear, 2024), which passed this Committee on a vote of 11 to 0 but was vetoed by Governor Newsom. In the Governor’s veto message, he wrote:

While I support the author's goal to provide boaters with a safe and responsible method to dispose of their marine flares, this bill lacks a comprehensive program scope to effectively achieve the goal of protecting human and environmental health and would not cover implementation costs incurred by DTSC. Additionally, this bill falls short in providing DTSC with the appropriate enforcement authority to effectively ensure compliance.

The author has attempted to address the Governor’s veto message by, among other things:

• requiring an MRO to establish a method for fully funding its manufacturer responsibility plan;
• requiring an MRO to pay DTSC all actual and reasonable regulatory costs to implement and enforce the Act, including, but not limited to, full personnel costs and reimbursement of the costs to DTSC to develop and adopt the regulations; and
• providing authority to DTSC to audit an MRO and authority to impose administrative and civil penalties.

1. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs

EPR “is an environmental policy approach that holds producers responsible for product management through the product’s lifecycle. EPR supports recycling and materials management goals that contribute to a circular economy and can also encourage product design changes that minimize environmental impacts.”^[2] California currently has several statewide EPR programs overseen by CalRecycle, including for paint, carpet, mattresses, textiles, pharmaceutical and sharps waste, plastic packaging, and single-use plastic items.^[3]

1. Environmental and safety hazards of disposing of marine flares

According to the Division of Boating and Waterways of the California State Parks Department (Division), “a marine flare is a type of pyrotechnic device that produces a brilliant light or a plume of colorful smoke as a visual distress signal to attract attention in an emergency, and to help pinpoint the boater’s exact location. Handheld flares (which operate on the ground) and rocket flares (which are fired into the air) are the two most-used visual distress signals because they can be used for daytime or nighttime.” ^[4]

The Senate Environmental Quality Committee’s analysis of this bill explores the problem of disposing of marine flares, noting that DTSC classifies pyrotechnic flares that will no longer be used as hazardous waste because they are toxic, reactive, and ignitable as defined by state and federal hazardous waste regulations.^[5]

The analysis also states that according to the Division:

• common ingredients in various types of pyrotechnic flares include: strontium nitrate and strontium peroxide (listed on the EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act Inventory List); potassium perchlorate and potassium nitrate (known irritants), magnesium, and black powder (a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate);
• pyrotechnic flares contain toxic metals and pollutants such as perchlorate, which is recognized as a water and health pollutant that can impact our waterways and can impair thyroid function;
• an estimated 174,000 outdated flares are generated each year by recreational vessels in California;
• expired marine flares must be transported as explosives and disposed of at a hazardous waste facility permitted by the U.S. EPA to manage explosives, and that currently there are no permitted facilities in California that can accept, treat and/or dispose of non-military explosives waste streams;
• it costs approximately $7 to $50 per flare to be properly disposed of at an out-of-state permitted facility; however, Zero Waste Sonoma states it cost an estimated $185 to properly dispose of one unwanted marine flare in 2023, when partnering with nearby jurisdictions to help share the cost of transportation.^[6]

California’s Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling stated in its 2022 policy recommendations to the Legislature that marine flares are “a 100-year-old technology, have polluted water, and are a chronic problem for boaters to dispose of safely and expire every 3 years and have no management plan. Now that less hazardous and more reliable electronic signals are an option, these flares should be banned from sale.”^[7]

The Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis concluded that:

A lack of convenient disposal options has created a significant end-of-life management problem for expired marine flares. Most HHW facilities are unable to accept flares due both to not having the necessary permits or equipment to safely handle explosives and the significant costs to properly manage them. SB 651 establishes an EPR program for expired or unwanted marine flares operated by DTSC. This program requires manufacturers of marine flares to fund and operate a convenient collection system, with appropriate oversight from DTSC, to manage expired or unwanted flares. This could help ensure that these flares are disposed of in a manner that is protective of the environment and public health, while shifting the costs of managing this product from cities and counties to the producers/users.^[8]

1. The Dormant Commerce Clause

Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution grants the United States Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.^[9] The converse proposition—that states may not usurp Congress’s express power to regulate interstate commerce—is known as the Dormant Commerce Clause—“the [Commerce] Clause also contains a further, negative command, one effectively forbidding the enforcement of certain state economic regulations even when Congress has failed to legislate on the subject.”^[10] The United States Supreme Court recently affirmed that the dormant Commerce Clause generally does not prohibit a state from regulating commerce within its borders, even if the prohibition affects out-of-state sellers, unless the prohibition acts to discriminate against out-of-state interests for the benefit of in-state commerce.^[11] The Court has held that “[s]tate laws that ‘regulat[e] even-handedly [across all in-state and out-of-state businesses] to effectuate a legitimate local public interest…will be upheld unless the burden imposed upon such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’ ”^[12] The bill does not favor in-state businesses over out-of-state businesses at it applies equally to all manufacturers, distributors, and importers, regardless to whether they are in-state or out-of-state.

A statute may also violate the dormant Commerce Clause, even if it "regulates even handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental" and the burden imposed on commerce “is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits" or substantially burdens interstate commerce.^[13] (Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) 397 U.S. 137, 142.) As this bill’s provisions are intended to address the serious environmental and health concerns posed by covered products, this bill would likely not be found to substantially burden interstate commerce in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.

1. Access to public records

Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Cod § 7921.000.) In 2004, the right of public access was enshrined in the California Constitution with the passage of Proposition 59 (Nov. 3, 2004, statewide general election),^[14] which amended the California Constitution to specifically protect the right of the public to access and obtain government records: “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore . . . the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(1).) In 2014, voters approved Proposition 42 (Jun. 3, 2014, statewide direct primary election)^[15] to further increase public access to government records by requiring local agencies to comply with the CPRA and the Ralph M. Brown Act^[16], and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, as provided. (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 3 (b)(7).)

Under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection by the public at all times during the office hours of the agency, unless they are exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Cod § 7922.525.) A public record is defined as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code § 7920.530.) There are several general categories of documents or information that are permissively exempt from disclosure under the CPRA essentially due to the character of the information. The exempt information can be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information, but it also may be disclosed if it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information. (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, at 652.). Additionally, some records are prohibited from disclosure or are specifically stated to not be public records. (see Gov. Code § 7924.110(a).)

This bill expressly provides that an approved plan is a public record under the CPRA; however, it exempts from disclosure financial, production, or sales data reported to DTSC by the program operator. The bill authorizes DTSC to release this data in summary form only, so it cannot be attributable to a specific entity. Under the bill, an MRO is required to be audited annually by an independent public accountant, and DTSC is required to review the MRO’s annual audit and conduct its own audit. The MRO may request that DTSC withhold disclosure of confidential proprietary information to the extent allowed under Section 1040 of the Evidence Code and the CPRA. Section 1040 of the Evidence Code provides that a public entity has a privilege to refuse to disclose official information if: 1) disclosure is forbidden by a federal or state statute or the disclosure, or 2) disclosure is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice. “Official information” is defined as information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of their duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made.

As these provisions imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to public records, the bill provides the following justification for the limitation: “In order to ensure the effective hazardous waste management of, and viable markets for, marine flares, it is necessary to protect the proprietary information of producers, retailers, wholesalers, and solid waste enterprises by keeping confidential the financial, production, and sales data reported by those entities […]”

1. Penalties

The bill grants DTSC the authority to enforce the Act and impose administrative and civil penalties pursuant to provisions in Article 8 (commencing with Section 25180) of the Health and Safety Code relating to hazardous waste enforcement. These provisions grant DTSC the authority to seek permanent or temporary injunctions, restraining orders, or other orders. (Health & Saf. Code § 25181.) Any civil action brought at the request of DTSC is to be brought by a city attorney, the county counsel, the district attorney, or the Attorney General in the name of the people of the State of California. (Health & Saf. Code § 25182.) These provisions provide various procedures related to hearings. (see e.g. Health & Saf. Code § 25187.)

1. Statements in support

The National Stewardship Action Council and Zero Waste Sonoma, the sponsors of the bill, write in support, stating:

A almost complete lack of disposal options has created a significant EOL management problem, with all but one household hazardous waste (HHW) facilities unable to accept them. Managing HHW is one of the core responsibilities of Zero Waste Sonoma, which has one of the most comprehensive HHW programs in the country. Sonoma County is also home to 76 miles of coastline and has a large recreational boater population. Despite these facts, there are no disposal options in Sonoma County for expired marine flares. The HHW programs are not equipped to safely handle explosives. One marine flare can cost $11 to $185 to properly manage but can be purchased for approximately $13 each. Shifting the cost of managing boaters safety equipment to non-boaters does not seem equitable to us.

The sole producer currently selling into California, Orion, threatened to leave the state if Senator Blakespear’s first pyrotechnic distress flare Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) bill, SB 1066, was signed into law. SB 1066 was supported by a diverse group of stakeholders and received strong bipartisan support but was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom because it lacked a “comprehensive program scope”, “would not cover implementation costs incurred by DTSC” (Department of Toxic Substances Control), and did not provide DTSC with “the appropriate enforcement authority to effectively ensure compliance.”

Since the veto, we and the author’s office have been working with DTSC to reduce costs and ensure SB 561 addresses the concerns expressed by the Newsom Administration.

1. Statements in opposition

Orion Safety Products, the leading manufacturer and distributor of marine flares approved for use as a visual distress signal, writes in opposition to the bill stating:

We continue to struggle with the seemingly ongoing lack of understanding regarding the economics of the proposed EPR for recreational marine flares. As has previously been shared with the author, Orion's net profit from the sale of the covered goods in California is approximately $90,000. This number has remained relatively consistent for several years. Orion has repeatedly stated that it would devote a portion of this amount to address the need for more options for California boaters to dispose of unwanted marine flares. However, DTSC has indicated that its cost estimate to stand up and manage the EPR program would be approximately $500,000 per year. There has been no effort that we are aware of to price the costs associated with the rest of the EPR program, which would likely include the costs to hold collection events to which boat owners could bring their unwanted flares, aggregate and store the collected flares, package the flares for shipment, transportation to a final destination, and disposal costs for a final end-of-life scenario. These costs would likely be orders of magnitude greater than DTSC's cost estimate for the program. The math simply does not add up, which is the basis of our opinion that the proposed EPR program is unworkable.

Our proposal last year to join several already scheduled local government sponsored events to collect unwanted flares was rejected. We indicated that we could be able to learn more about the dynamics of the existing collection efforts if Orion was allowed to participate and take all of the Orion flares turned in at these collection events and return them to Orion's production facility in Peru, Indiana. We intended to repurpose the devices, as our research indicates we can. For example, Orion currently sells flares to the U.S. Forest Service as a tool for its firefighting efforts. The collected flares could be reused for this purpose.[…]

There still remain several items of frustrating inaccuracies and misinformation that we hope to correct. For example, the projected 174,009 units for return every year is from an 11-year-old study and does not comport with Orion's actual annual sale volume number that is approximately 54,000 units per year. Further, a recent California Product Stewardship Council press release provided numbers from marine flare collection events in eight jurisdictions in 2024. Only 8,596 flares total were collected at these events. These discrepancies beg the question, just how many annual returns will there likely be for this program? The answer to this question speaks to the need for proper sizing of any EPR program.[…]

Proponents of the SB 561 are actively promoting electronic beacons as a replacement for pyrotechnic flare, despite the well-known limitations of electronic beacons. The supporters of the bill fail to recognize or value boater safety, and the very real challenges presented in marine distress situations. To illuminate this concern, electronic beacons are not USCG approved for daytime use. The only other option for daytime emergency signal use other than a pyrotechnic flare is an orange flag. Even during nighttime use, electronic beacons are not equivalent to flares. Electronic beacons are less visible during both day and night, are dark (projecting no signal at all) 62.5% of their "signaling time", cannot reach significant altitudes to increase sighting area (unite aerial flares), are three times more expensive than handheld pyrotechnic signals and are often misunderstood as navigation or shore lights (a rhythmic blinking light does not communicate danger or distress like dynamic and well understood red distress flares). Further, electronic beacons are battery dependent, unlike flares which require no annual maintenance. It is undisputed that pyrotechnic flares outperform beacons in brightness and recognition, which can be the difference between a rescue or a casualty.[…]

SUPPORT

National Stewardship Action Council (sponsor)

Zero Waste Sonoma (sponsor)
7th Generation Advisors

Atrium 916 Creative Innovation Center for Sustainability

Ban SUP (Single Use Plastic)

California Association of Environmental Health Administrators

California Product Stewardship Council

California Professional Firefighters

California Resource Recovery Association

California State Association of Counties

Californians Against Waste

California Public Interest Research Group

Center for Environmental Health

Cleanearth4kids.org

Climate Reality Project San Fernando Valley Chapter

Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation

County of Mendocino

Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Heal the Bay

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Marin Sanitary Service

Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority

Northern California Recycling Association

Plastic Pollution Coalition

Republic Services

Resource Recovery Coalition of California

Rethink Waste

Rural County Representatives of California

Sacramento Splash

San Francisco Baykeeper

Sierra Club California

Sonoma County Fire District

Surfrider Foundation

Swana California Chapters Legislative Task Force

The Last Plastic Straw

Waste Management

Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers Authority

Zero Waste Strategies

OPPOSITION

Orion Safety Products

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: SB 501 (Allen, 2025) establishes an EPR program for the collection, transportation, recycling, and the safe and proper management of products containing household hazardous waste (HHW) in California, as provided. SB 501 is pending in this Committee on the same day as this bill.

Prior Legislation: SB 1066 (Blakespear, 2024) see Comment 2, above.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Environemntal Quality Committee (8 Ayes, 0 Noes)

**************

1. Disposal of Expired Marine Flares in California, Cal. State Parks, Div. of Boating and Waterways, https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=31166#:~:text=These%20flares%20must%20be%20in,can%20break%20down%20over%20time. ↑

2. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), CalRecycle, https://calrecycle.ca.gov/epr/. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Disposal of Expired Marine Flares in California, Div. Of Boating and Waterways, Cal. Parks Dept., https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=31166. ↑

5. Sen. Environmental Quality Comm. analysis of SB 561 (2025-26 reg. sess.) as introduced Feb. 20, 2025 at p. 5. ↑

6. Id. ↑

7. Policy Recommendations Report 4, Cal. Statewide Comm. on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling, (Jun. 30, 2022) at p. 46, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/121911. ↑

8. Sen. Environmental Quality Comm. analysis of SB 561 (2025-26 reg. sess.) as introduced Feb. 20, 2025 at p. 9. ↑

9. U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3. ↑

10. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023) 143 S.Ct. 1142, 1152 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). ↑

11. Id. at pp. 1152-1153. ↑

12. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) 138 S.Ct. 2080, 2091. ↑

13. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) 397 U.S. 137, 142; National Pork Producers Council supra at fn. 6 at pp. 1162-1163. ↑

14. Prop. 59 was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature. (SCA 1 (Burton, Ch. 1, Stats. 2004)) ↑

15. Prop. 42 was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of both houses of the Legislature. (SCA 3 (Leno, Ch. 123, Stats. 2013)) ↑

16. The Ralph M. Brown Act is the open meetings laws that applies to local agencies. (Gov. Code §§ 59450 et. seq.) ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 561

SUBJECT: Hazardous waste: Emergency Distress Flare Safe Disposal Act

DIGEST: This bill creates an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program for marine flares that requires a Manufacturer Responsibility Organization to develop a plan for consumer education, collection, and safe end-of-life management of marine flares, and bans marine flares that contain perchlorate.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), generally regulates the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. The act establishes Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs for various products, including, carpet, mattresses, batteries, pharmaceutical and sharps waste, single-use plastic and packaging, and textiles (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 40000 et. seq.)
2. As part of the hazardous waste control laws, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) generally regulates the management and handling of hazardous waste and hazardous materials. Establishes procedures for managing hazardous waste as universal waste. (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 23)
3. Defines a "household hazardous waste (HHW)" as hazardous waste generated incidental to owning or maintaining a place of residence, but does not include waste generated in the course of operating a business at a residence. (HSC § 25218.1(e))
4. Requires counties and cities to ensure HHW is collected and requires the state to provide an expedited and streamlined regulatory structure directing the locals on how to dispose of the HHW. (HSC § 25218)

Existing federal regulation:

1. Requires boats operating in coastal waters or bodies of water directly connected to coastal waters to be equipped with distress signals. Specifies boaters carry three in-service flares approved for daytime and nighttime use and that each signal is in serviceable condition and has not expired. (33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 175.1100 & 175.125)
   

This bill:

1. Bans the manufacture or sale of marine flares containing perchlorate.

1. Creates a manufacturer responsibility program for marine flares.
2. Defines “covered product” to mean a pyrotechnic device that produces a brilliant light or a plume of colorful smoke as a visual distress signal on marine vessels to attract attention and pinpoint a boater’s location in an emergency.

1. Requires a manufacturer of a covered product to develop and implement a manufacturer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, and the safe and proper management of covered products, either as a single manufacturer or as part of a manufacturer responsibility organization.
2. Requires DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the act with an effective date no earlier than January 1, 2029.
3. Requires the manufacturers to develop and submit a plan to DTSC January 1, 2027. DTSC shall approve, disprove, conditionally approve, request additional information, or set a timeline for a decision on approval or disapproval within 90 days of receiving the plan. The plan shall include, among other items:
   1. A detailed plan to meet performance standards with associated metrics.
   2. A plan for managing collection sites, and a schedule for annual collection events until January 1, 2029, on the coast and in each county bordering Lake Tahoe.
   3. An explanation of the process by which collected covered products will be handled and managed following collection.
   4. A description of a comprehensive statewide education and outreach program.
4. Tasks DTSC with developing performance standards for, at a minimum, collection of marine flares.
5. Requires a PRO to implement its plan within 90 days of approval. Specifies the plan to be fully funded in a manner that equitably distributes the plan’s costs among participant producers that reflects sales volumes and the cost to manage the covered products that a producer produces.
6. Requires the manufacturers to submit to DTSC and make publically available an annual report on the plan by March 1, 2028, and each year thereafter.
7. Requires the manufacturers to retain specified documents, annually audit their accounting books, and make documents available to DTSC for review, as specified. Requires all reports and records provided to DTSC pursuant to the act to be provided under the penalty of perjury.
8. Requires manufacturers to pay DTSC, on an unspecified schedule, an annual administrative charge, as determined by DTSC. Specifies the charge be set at an amount that is adequate to cover DTSC’s full costs of administering and enforcing the act.
9. Authorizes DTSC to impose administrative civil penalties upon any person who violates the act.
10. Establishes the Marine Flare Recovery Fund in the State Treasury and would require the administrative charges collected by DTSC to be deposited into that account for expenditure by DTSC, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to cover DTSC’s cost to implement and enforce the act.

Background

1. California’s waste goals and EPR. Under the IWMA, CalRecycle is tasked with reducing the amount of waste that gets landfilled in California. The IWMA establishes a goal that 75% of solid waste generated in the state be diverted from landfills through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. However, in 2022, the state’s recycling rate was just 41%, falling far short of the state’s goal^[1].

To advance California’s recycling goals, the Legislature has directed CalRecycle to establish several EPR programs. EPR is a strategy that places shared responsibility for end-of-life product management on producers and all entities involved in the product chain, instead of on the general public and local governments. EPR programs rely on industry, often via a product stewardship organization (PRO), to develop and implement approaches to create a circular economy with oversight and enforcement provided by the government. EPR programs have traditionally been used to improve the recapture and recycling rate for challenging-to-recycle materials that can pose a risk to the waste stream, like pharmaceuticals and sharps, paints, and batteries. The state also oversees EPR programs for high-volume products including mattresses, carpets, and packaging.

To be successful, every EPR program must contain some of the same basic elements. EPR programs must clearly delineate which products are included in the program. They must also set clear guidance on what criteria must be evaluated in the producer made stewardship plan, and can set “rates and dates” to achieve specific outcomes. EPR programs, which operate by utilizing industry expertise to develop plans for managing products, must also have a strong oversight and enforcement mechanism.

1. Universal waste and HHW. Many common household items contain hazardous materials that pose a threat to the health of humans, animals, and the environment if these products are incorrectly disposed of. These common items may be categorized as universal waste or HHW. Universal waste – such as batteries – can be handled, transported, and recycled following the simple requirements set forth in the universal waste regulations, while HHW – such as flammables, poisons, pesticides, and latex paint – are more hazardous and must be handled by specified local agencies. Neither universal waste nor HHW can simply be tossed out in the garbage bin.
2. What are marine flares? A marine flare is a type of pyrotechnic device that produces a brilliant light or a plume of colorful smoke as a visual distress signal to attract attention in an emergency, and to help pinpoint the boater’s exact location. Handheld flares (which operate on the ground) and rocket flares (which are fired into the air) are the two most-used visual distress signals because they can be used for daytime or nighttime. Marine flares at the end of their life are household hazardous waste.
3. What type of boaters need to carry onboard marine flares? The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) requires vessels longer than 16 feet operating on coastal waters to carry approved visual distress signals, such as pyrotechnic flares. Boaters are required to carry three in-service flares approved for daytime and nighttime use. According to USCG regulations, the average shelf life for pyrotechnic flares is between 36 and 42 months from the manufacture date because the effectiveness of the chemicals can break down over time. This requires boaters to replace flares approximately every three years. Failure to have flares or having expired flares could result in a $1,100 fine. The US Coast Guard may inspect boaters on a random basis.
4. Why are marine flares hazardous? DTSC classifies pyrotechnic flares that will no longer be used for their intended purpose as hazardous waste because they are toxic, reactive, and ignitable as defined by state and federal hazardous waste regulations. According to the California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways (Division), common ingredients in various types of pyrotechnic flares include: strontium nitrate and strontium peroxide (listed on the EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act Inventory List); potassium perchlorate and potassium nitrate (known irritants), magnesium, and black powder (a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate). According to the Division, pyrotechnic flares contain toxic metals and pollutants such as perchlorate which is recognized as a water and health pollutant that can impact our waterways and can impair thyroid function.

Perchlorate-containing marine flares are regulated by DTSC as part of the Perchlorate Contamination Prevention Act of 2003. This Act tasked DTSC to adopt best management practices for perchlorate materials. Those best management practices include requirements for businesses to inform purchasers of perchlorate materials or products about the item’s perchlorate content, and requires businesses that use more than 500 pounds of perchlorate-containing products must review the products and determine if a non-perchlorate-containing alternative is available. These businesses also need to review and implement pollution prevention measures to prevent releases of perchlorate.

1. Why are expired marine flares an issue in California? According to a study by the Division in 2014, an estimated 174,000 outdated flares are generated each year by recreational vessels in California. Expired marine flares must be transported as explosives and disposed of at a hazardous waste facility permitted by the U.S. EPA to manage explosives. Currently, there are no permitted facilities in California that can accept, treat and/or dispose of non-military explosives waste streams. There are only three permitted facilities in the U.S. that accept and treat/dispose of explosive wastes streams, like pyrotechnic marine flares (two facilities treat in incinerators (UT and LA), and the other does open burning (MO)). According to the Division, it costs approximately $7 to $50 per flare to be properly disposed of at an out-of-state permitted facility. Zero Waste Sonoma states that the cost of safe disposal of marine flares that they had collected over time (less than a year). Because a relatively small number of flares were taken for disposal and there were high fixed transportation costs for marine flares collected at the event, the cost of proper disposal was a staggering $185 per flare.

According to information provided by the author, less than five percent of HHW facilities in the state currently accept expired marine flares. This is likely due to the significant packaging, disposal, and transportation costs involved with safe disposal of these explosive waste streams and the need for special permits and equipment to handle explosives. While some counties have pursued grants from CalRecycle to conduct temporary marine flare collection events, safe disposal options for boaters are limited.

1. Alternatives to pyrotechnic marine flares. According to the best management practices recommended by the Division of Boating and Waterways, boaters can purchase approved electronic visual distress signals to replace old pyrotechnic flares. Electronic visual distress signals are reusable alternatives that do not release chemicals when used, do not expire, and are safe to use. The LED light flashes up to 60 hours, unlike traditional flares that last minutes or less, and is visible up to 10 nautical miles. These electric distress light is only accepted by the USCG for night use: they are not approved for day use. However, a large orange flag meeting certain condtions laid out in the code of Federal Regulations are are approved for day time use^[2][3].
2. Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling opines on marine flares. The Legislature and Governor created California’s Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling (Commission) to provide advice to CalRecycle, the Legislature, and other State or Federal agencies regarding the state’s ambitious recycling and organic materials recovery goals from the perspective of professionals working in many aspects of this complicated industry. In its June 30, 2022 Policy Recommendations Report 4, the Commission stated that marine flares are “a 100-year-old technology, have polluted water, and are a chronic problem for boaters to dispose of safely and expire every 3 years and have no management plan. Now that less hazardous and more reliable electronic signals are an option…[we] recommend that California consider banning the sale of products that are toxic and unnecessary in that there are safer alternatives that are often less expensive.”

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “Expired marine flares sound harmless but can be quite dangerous and damaging to the environment. Properly disposing of expired flares is extremely difficult. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies expired marine flares as hazardous waste that cannot be disposed of in waterways or the trash. They are explosive devices that require special handling and transportation and contain toxic metals and other pollutants that can contaminate water and impair thyroid function.

Only one county in California has the permits necessary to accept expired flares and there are no facilities in the state that can safely and legally dispose of them.

SB 561 will shift responsibility for disposing of expired flares from local governments to those who manufacture and use them. SB 561 would require manufacturers to create a plan for the collection, transportation, and safe and proper disposal of expired flares.”

1. Banning perchlorate flares. In addition to creating an EPR program for marine flares, SB 561 also bans a subset of flares that contain perchlorates. Since the time that DTSC developed its ‘best practices’ for managing perchlorate-containing products, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has tightened restriction on acceptable levels of perchlorate in drinking water (from 6ppb to 1ppb) in light of new research on the effects of perchlorate on infants. Considering the numerous alternatives to flares containing perchlorates, and the negative impacts of perchlorates on human health, it seems reasonable and beneficial to move away from this more toxic product to less toxic ones. In addition, including perchlorate marine flares in the EPR program will help ensure that any legacy perchlorate flares already sold to consumer are safely managed by manufacturers at the end of their life.

The author and committee may wish to specify that perchlorate marine flares, in addition to being banned, are also included in the EPR program.

1. Aligning Implementation Timelines. SB 561 currently requires DTSC to implement regulations for the marine flare EPR program no earlier than January 1, 2029. At the same time, the bill requires the manufacturer or manufacturer responsibility organization to submit a stewardship plan for marine flares to DTSC by January 1, 2027. Since the stewardship plans will need to be formulated to meet the criteria developed in regulations, and since DTSC will need to evaluate the plan to determine whether it is sufficient, the regulations will need to be in place before the stewardship plan is submitted.

The author and committee may wish to amend the timeline for developing regulations and the timeline for submitting the stewardship plan so that the regulations are implemented by January 1, 2027, and the stewardship plan is submitted no later than one year after the regulations are finalized.

1. Economies of scale and single-product EPR. There appears to be only one predominant manufacturer of marine flares in California, Orion Safety Products. According to Orion, the total sales of recreational flares in the California market are about $450,000 per year and 80% of this number is cost of goods sold, leaving $90,000 in annual profit. According to the Assembly Appropriations Analysis for a slightly different version of this EPR program introduced last year in SB 1066 (Blakespear, 2024), “DTSC estimates [the costs to operate a marine flare EPR program to be] $457,000 annually in fiscal years 2025-26 and 2026-27…increasing to $532,000 for fiscal year 2027-28 annually and ongoing”

This cost estimate will need to be updated to reflect changes between SB 1066 and this bill, but it provides some insight into the ballpark of costs to operate a marine flare EPR program.

In the scenario where the cost of starting up and operating the program will be significantly greater than the total revenue of sales for marine flares, the manufacturer may choose not to sell in California or may increase the costs of the marine flares. Since LED replacement products can only be used at night to be in compliance with Federal Law, consumers of marine flares are (relatively) a captive market. In this scenario, having an EPR program that targets a single product primarily manufactured by a single manufacturer introduces a problem of economies of scale and introduces problems by not having more market options for consumers to choose from.

As the bill moves through the legislative process, the author may wish to consider measures to add more guidance to DTSC and reduce the costs of starting up and operating the program, such as providing more guidance on “rates and dates” instead of requiring DTSC to develop those metrics, or ways to include more products in the program and share costs of operating the program across numerous different manufacturers.

In addition, while the bill is clear that the manufacturer, not DTSC, will pay for operating the program after the regulations are developed, it is not specific that the manufacturers will reimburse the department for actions it takes to advance the program before it is up and running. The author and committee may wish to clarify that DTSC shall be reimbursed by the PRO for actions taken to develop the program before it is implemented.

1. EPR for Marine flares: a good end of life option. A lack of convenient disposal options has created a significant end-of-life management problem for expired marine flares. Most HHW facilities are unable to accept flares due both to not having the necessary permits or equipment to safely handle explosives and the significant costs to properly manage them. SB 651 establishes an EPR program for expired or unwanted marine flares operated by DTSC. This program requires manufacturers of marine flares to fund and operate a convenient collection system, with appropriate oversight from DTSC, to manage expired or unwanted flares. This could help ensure that these flares are disposed of in a manner that is protective of the environment and public health, while shifting the costs of managing this product from cities and counties to the producers/users.
2. Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee adopt the bolded amendments contained in comments 2, 3, and 4 above.
   

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 501 (Allen, 2025) establishes an EPR program for a set of household hazardous waste products, including establishing a target to reach a 40% diversion rate for the covered products.

SB 1066 (Blakespear, 2024) would have created an EPR program for marine flares with oversight from DTSC and required DTSC to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this bill with an effective date no later than January 1, 2027. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

SOURCE: National Stewardship Action Counsel

SUPPORT:

7th Generation Advisors
Atrium 916
Ban Sup (single Use Plastic)
California Association of Environmental Health Administrators (CAEHA)
California Product Stewardship Council
California Professional Firefighters
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Californians Against Waste
Center for Environmental Health
Cleanearth4kids.org
Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Mendocino County Department of Transportation
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
National Stewardship Action Council
Northern California Recycling Association
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
San Fernando Valley Chapter of The Climate Reality Project
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sierra Club California
Sirius Signal LLC
South Bayside Waste Management Authority (sbwma ) Dba Rethinkwaste
The Last Plastic Straw
Waste Management
Zero Waste Marin
Zero Waste Sonoma

OPPOSITION

National Marine Manufacturers Association
Standard Fusee Corporation Dba Orion Safety Products

-- END --

1. State of Disposal and Recycling for CY 22_for pub (2).pdf ↑

2. 33 CFR 175.130 ↑

3. Visual Distress Signals : BoatUS Foundation ↑