Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

All right. Good afternoon everyone. I call this hearing of the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee to order. Sergeants, please call the absent Members. In addition to being able to testify from inside the hearing room today, witnesses have the option of testifying via phone line. The call number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1315444. Again, the phone number is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1315444.

You can also find this number on the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee website as well as on your screen. If you're calling in, please eliminate all background noise. This includes muting your live stream broadcast and your smart devices to reduce the sound distortion. Please note that call and testimony will be combined for both support and opposition and will be taken after all primary witnesses have testified. Primary witness testimony is limited to four minutes total for each side.

Also, please be advised if you're a primary witness calling in, you will remain on a live line and will need to mute yourself until you are called on to speak. All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, and if they represent one, their position on the Bill.

I also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter on the letter portal on the Committee's website and thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods continue to serve the people of California. Today we have 15 bills, five of which are in consent. We will start as a Subcommitee since we do not have quorum at the moment, but let's start off with Assembly Member Connolly's AB 99 today, so you may begin when you are ready.

Good afternoon chairs, Members honored to be able to present on AB 99. AB 99 would require the California Department of Transportation, otherwise known as Caltrans, to develop and adopt a statewide policy that uses integrated pest management in counties that have restricted pesticide use locally. This Bill also requires Caltrans to include in its statewide policy a restriction to use pesticides except in specified circumstances such as wildfire risk or to control invasive pests.

Finally, AB 99 also requires Caltrans to make publicly available their pesticide use, as well as notification of when they intend to spray pesticides 24 hours in advance. Members, the goal of this Bill, simply put, is to rein in pesticide use by Caltrans. Pesticides, which is an umbrella term that includes herbicides and insecticides, are substances that are meant to control pests but are quite harmful to human health and the environment.

Numerous studies have found pesticides to contaminate groundwater and cause harm to both humans and wildlife in light of the harms of pesticides. Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt and numerous other counties have adopted IPM and restricted the use of pesticides locally. In some counties, there is a complete ban. For example, on glyphosate. Even though local government has taken such actions, they have no authority over Caltrans, who have jurisdiction over the management of state highways.

This Bill would bring Caltrans vegetation management operations in line with local action in counties that have already taken action to either ban or restrict pesticide use locally. I should note that Caltrans technically have a policy in place to use IPM that prioritizes the least harmful methods, but it does not appear to have resulted in any meaningful reduction in pesticide use. As a matter of fact, on Caltrans's website, glyphosate is indicated as the primary tool used for roadside vegetation management as we speak.

This Bill would add additional guidance to Caltrans on when the use of pesticides is permissible. And with me today to testify in support of this Bill, I have Megan Kaun with Healthy Highways Coalition and Sonoma Safe AG, Safe Schools, and Patty Clary with Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. Again, thank you for your time. And are we going to start with you?

Thank you so much, Colin. Right before, very quickly, before your witnesses begin, I'd like to capture this moment and let's establish quorum. So, Madam Secretary, if you could please read or establish quorum.

To establish quorum. Lee?

Here.

Lee. Here. Hoover?

Here.

Hoover. Here. Arambula? Arambula. Here. Bauer-Kahan? Connolly?

Here.

Connolly. Here. Mckinnor? Pacheco? Ta?

Here.

Ta here. Zbur?

Here.

Zbur here.

Thank you so much. You may begin.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. My name is Megan Kaun and I represent the Healthy Highways Coalition. AB 99 is very personal for members of my community and dozens of others throughout the state that have, in some cases, spent decades trying to move the dial on Caltrans reliance on pesticides for nonemergency maintenance. Local jurisdictions are finding ways to reduce pesticides, but Caltrans has failed to follow suit. The impacts that I've seen have been drastic.

I work with community members who live along state highways and have through the roof levels of glyphosate in their bodies, community members who are scared to open their windows in the spring because the chemicals Caltrans uses contributes to their kids asthma and rashes. Something as simple as a notification before spring, as is included in this Bill would be very important to my community in Sonoma County. Caltrans uses 30 times more pesticides per road mile than our county government.

Think of the unnecessary risk this poses not only to the state employees who drive spray trucks, but the people walking, riding their bikes, waiting at bus stops, or our homeless neighbors who live along state highways. Caltrans has the tools to decrease reliance on this outdated technology that also contributes to pesticide resistant invasive species. If we can stop doing this and step forward, our roads have the potential to become assets rather than liabilities. Imagine roadsides functioning as habitat corridors.

For example, pollinator highways have been shown by the Florida Department of Transportation to crowd out and kill invasive plants and insect species, clean air and water stop erosion, which clogs culverts and leads to expensive repairs, combat climate change and decrease maintenance costs by 30% while increasing ecosystem services by over $500 million annually. These ecosystem services are mostly crop pollination, which could be a boon for California nut and fruit farmers.

There's a better approach to road maintenance that would benefit everyone, Caltrans, farmers and communities altogether if we could just see past this chemical status quo. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

My name is Patty Clary. I'm Executive Director of Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, also known as CATS. Our members throughout the Northern California region are concerned about the risks involved with releasing toxic materials into the environment. From our founding in 1980, we are opposed to use of herbicides on road and highway rights of way. In 1989, Caltrans stopped using herbicides in District one, including Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Lake counties, when CATS threatened to sue the agency for ignoring sequel analysis of its herbicide program.

The boards of supervisors of Humboldt and Mendocino counties asked in 1997 for a continuation of vegetation management without herbicides, and Caltrans agreed. District one then convened a district roadside vegetation management alternatives Committee, of which I was a Member, for its duration of 21 years. Success was achieved for some of the alternatives that were studied, but other promising ones were dismissed by Caltrans without further effort to explore their viability, and these remain available for a closer look, according to the chair of Humboldt County's Board of Supervisors,

Quote "To our knowledge, there have been no reports of safety violations, vehicle accidents, roadside fire, ignition, spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, or other problems caused by the cessation of herbicides and vegetation control on rights of way."

Both the county and Caltrans vegetation management teams apparently have perfected their roadside maintenance operations in more than three decades of practice by using a variety of options, the essence of IPM as described in AB 99, both counties have areas determined by state authorities as among the highest risk for wildfire and have within the multiple lane freeways and winding two lane highways that support freight traffic from interstate freeways.

Caltrans herbicide program EIR contained an extensive description of what is as yet an unfulfilled plan for a policy of integrated pest management, or IPM, to reduce herbicide use 80% by 2012 from its 1992 benchmark of 400,000 pounds. Caltrans failed to achieve that goal by 2012, and currently they admit to using close to 421,000 pounds of herbicide formulations last year. I've learned that the agency has at long last convened an internal vegetation management oversight committee

Also promised long ago in the 1992 EIR. Caltrans has begun to collaborate with others to clear its right of ways for fire resilience. A recent CAL FIRE grant to a fire safe council was provided to remove brush along Highway 35. And a 200 acre controlled burn with Caltrans in collaboration with Fire Safe Council and others, including a tribe, is planned for Highway 101 and Mendocino County.

To CATS, these are interesting mini steps, but we are deeply concerned about Caltrans continued and even increase of herbicide use and failure to develop a statewide IPM program it had promised. The Legislature's involvement by passage of AB 99 will provide the needed incentive to get Caltrans moving in the right direction for its 130,000 acres of roadside under its care and the associated affected environment it impacts. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you so much. Do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify in support? Please come to the Mic, name and organization.

Sean Bothwell, on behalf of California Coastkeeper alliance, in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler. On behalf of Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Melissa Sagun, on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform, in support. Thank you.

Noah Whitley, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners are in support.

Quintin Levesque, on behalf of California Health Coalition Advocacy in support.

Clara Vaziex, on behalf of California Against Waste, in support.

All right, thank you. And now if the primary witnesses in opposition could please come forward to desk. All right, so four minutes. However, you'd like to split that amongst the two of you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of Western Plant Health Association and various agricultural associations. Unfortunately, we're here with an opposed position on AB 99 and we think the author's efforts and the sponsors to reiterate that IPM is the de facto pest management strategy for the State of California and by Caltrans is important, and I do want to acknowledge the Bill has made significant strides as of late and we do appreciate that.

Where we still have some heartburn is really around how the Bill specifies that IPM is the state policy for vegetation management in one section and then contradicts that IPM policy in another by being overly prescriptive about what's in that policy. The point of IPM as a UC defined term is to require a systems approach. It's not just use what you have available or use what's easiest. And I want to be clear, IPM does not mean pesticide free.

It requires the practitioner to consider the landscape, the pest pressure, the environmental and public health impact, the severity of the pest problem, and use the lowest risk approach for pest management first, along with a combination of tools that are appropriate for that particular location. Where we see some deviation is in the narrow exemptions in the Bill. So, for example, pesticides, both conventional and organic, would be prohibited from managing fuel loads until a wildfire emergency has been declared.

Unfortunately, as many of you may know, a declaration often follows when a wildfire has already precipitated and there is an emergency event in place. In this circumstances, Caltrans would be prohibited from taking what would be an IPM approach, which is to dictate that public safety and managing those fuel loads is an overriding consideration and they have to use whatever tool is most available, most effective, and with a low risk population or low risk process through doing that.

I believe our coalition and the author want the same thing. We want a safe and Healthy California and the judicious use of any pest management tool that's available to manage those issues. And we've had very positive conversations with the author's office and we look forward to continuing those. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council. I too want to recognize the ongoing dialogue with the author's office and Committee staff before today's hearing and certainly appreciate the latest set of amendments March 21, including the recognized UC definition of IPM as conveyed by my colleague Ms. Roschen. We continue to have some of the similar concerns associated with the implementation steps that are dictated in the Bill.

We have proposed some amendments to address those concerns, including directing the Department of Transportation to adopt the statewide IPM policy as well as to conform to any relevant local ordinances as appropriate, and require the Department to annually report to the Legislature with evidence demonstrating compliance with the IPM policy. So again, we do appreciate the ongoing dialogue. Look forward to working with the proponents to find a way to make this Bill workable. So appreciate the time today. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Alright, thank you. And now, do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify in opposition? Please comment to the microphone. Okay. Seeing none, we're going to go to the phone lines. Phone moderator. Do we have any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition for AB 99?

Thank you. And if so, please press 1-0. At this time, we can first go to line number 40. Please go ahead. Your line is open. 40. You took yourself out.

Yeah. There we go.

There we go. Hello, my name is Patty Mayall. I'm from Protect Our Watershed San Mateo county. We strongly support AB 99.

Thank you. And next, we'll go to line 45. Please go ahead.

Hello, Sakura Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Next we've got line 34.

Hi, Karen Obeyed with Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety in support of AB 99. Thank you.

Next, we've got line 50.

Yes, this is Piper with nontoxic schools, Marin County, strongly supporting AB 99.

Next we have line 36.

This is Catherine Dodd from Growing Solutions, strongly supporting AB 99.

Next, we'll line 33.

Good afternoon. Chair and Committee Members Doug Johnson from the nonprofit California Invasive Plant Council. And we are neither in support or opposition at this point. Our mission is to protect the state from the environmental and economic impacts of invasive species and working to steward our biodiversity and natural resources. So we've been in conversation with the author about some of the details of the Bill that we have concern about.

We look forward to continuing that discussion, and we also look forward to potentially integrating this topic into the state sustainable pest management process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

And next we have line 25.

Hi, my name is Barbara Hooper and I'm from La Honda indivisible, and I'm in support of AB 99.

Next we have line 26.

Hello, this is Kian Schulman, Director of poison Free Malibu. We highly support AB 99. There are alternatives such as hot water spray machine with no chemicals.

Next we have line 29.

Hello, this is Jennifer Height from Fogs Breath Farms in San Mateo County. I strongly support AB 99. Thank you.

Next we have line 24.

Hi, my name is Kathleen Downing. I'm from La honda, San Mateo county, and I strongly support AB 99.

And we'll go to line 32.

Hi, this is Bettina Rosmarino from Palm Springs Wildlife Advocates. I support AB 99.

And next, go to line 38.

Hi, my name is Karen Odad from Sea Hugger, and we support AB 99.

And line 42.

Hi, this is Deborah Dalen from La Honda, a concerned citizen, and I support AB 99.

And next, we've got line 43. Please go ahead.

And we have no further cues at this time.

My name is Sue Brenton and I support AB 99 as a consumer of San Mateo County farmers markets. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much moderator. Okay, we're turning it back to the Committee. We had one motion for Mr. Arambula, but any questions or comments?

I do have comments.

Go ahead.

So, first of all, thank you for bringing this Bill. I think it's a really important know our government agencies have missions that they have to achieve, but often there are important public interests that are not their primary one. That requires us to sort of push them to do the things that are right, and especially when we're understanding more and more how harmful both pesticides and herbicides can be. I just think this is a really important Bill. I also want to thank the opponents of the Bill.

Doesn't look to me like there's very much daylight between the two of you. And I wanted to just thank you for working with the author on this. The only comment that I have is it sounds to me, I was looking at the language related to the emergency, and it sounds like there might be some ability to. I mean, it seems to me like there could be circumstances that are

Sounds.

Where you actually have high fuel maintenance, where fire risk is high, where you may not have time to do non pesticide related or herbicide related things. And so I would just encourage the author to continue working with folks on that one piece. But I think this is a great Bill. I think it's flexible. It doesn't prescribe things specifically. It allows Caltrans to utilize his expertise in developing the plan. And so I just think it's a really terrific Bill and plan on supporting it.

Thank you.

Any other questions or remarks? Mr. Hoover.

Just want to thank the author. I won't be able to support today, but as you continue to work with the opposition, I certainly open to changing that in the future. But I really appreciate you continuing to work on those concerns. Thank you.

All right, seeing no further comments, Mr. Connolly, would you like to close?

Yeah, no, and I really appreciate the breadth of support and the thoughtful comments today. If I can just quickly respond to a couple things. I think, as one of the opponents ended up acknowledging, the IPM definition is now completely in line with the UC IPM definition. Secondly, the emergency exception is but one exception. So it was surprising to me to have it sound like that was the sole exception.

In fact, there are broader circumstances including where no alternative vegetation management method has been proven effective, and in the case of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, if the use of non chemical methods for prevention and management, such as physical, mechanical, cultural and biological controls are infeasible. So by way of acknowledging we have anticipated some of these issues, obviously welcome further factual conversations around what the Bill is trying to do. With that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Well, I thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I believe it's important to reduce exposures to pesticide whenever possible. And I do realize that Caltrans has a challenge of having to balance its worker safety and reducing exposure to pesticides throughout the community. However, I trust that the author and the stakeholders will continue a dialogue with the Administration to see how we can improve our maintenance of state roads that both protects workers and reduce pesticide use.

And also want to thank your witnesses for coming braving a stormy day all the way over here to testify. So I appreciate that. I recommend an aye vote and we already have a motion in a second. So the motion is do pass to the Transportation Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number one, AB 99. Connolly. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Transportation. Lee?

Lee aye. Hoover? Hoover no. Arambula? Arambula aye. Bauer-Kahan? Connolly?

Aye.

Aye.

Connolly aye. Mckinnor? Pacheco? Ta? Ta no. Zbur? Zbur aye. So we'll put that on call.

That's on call. Thank you. All right, next we have Assembly Member Chris Ward, we've got two bills before us. Do you want to take up AB 2 first? All right, whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Well, thank you Mr. Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for all their work on this Bill.

As you know, solar photovoltaic deployment has fortunately grown at unprecedented rates since the early 2000's. In the last decade alone, solar has experienced an average annual growth rate of 33%. As the PV panel market increases, so will the volume of decommissioned PV panels. Given an average useful panel lifetime of 20 to 30 years, we can begin to see large amounts of annual waste anticipated by the early 2030's and then growing thereafter.

Sectors like PV panelling recycling will be essential in the state's transition to a sustainable, economically viable and increasingly renewable energy future. AB 2 establishes the foundation for a convenient, safe and environmentally sustainable system for the end of life management of solar panels by requiring manufacturers to develop and implement an end of life management plan. For parcels sold in California. With the right conditions in place, end of life industries for PV panels can thrive as an important pillar of a sustainable solar industry in California.

For witnesses and support, I have Professor Dustin Mulvaney with the San Jose State University and Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of California Product Stewardship Council and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Greetings. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about these two complementary and important pieces of legislation AB 2.

As the nation's leader in Solar electricity generation is critical for California to ensure that there is a plan to manage end of life waste from solar PV panels, which can be perhaps 10 to 20% of the total ewaste flows generated in the state by 2050. AB 2 moves the state closer to bringing principles of product stewardship to the solar industry to ensure proper collection, recycling, reuse and disposal of solar panels.

Effective end of life management will facilitate highest and best use of used solar panels and encourage a circular economy in critical metals and materials. In Europe, where PV panels have been recovered, have been covered by an extended producer responsibility law for almost a decade, 90% are collected recycled compared to less than 10% in the US today. Absent public policy takeback and collection recycling will not happen on its own as the materials contained in end of life PV are not that valuable.

About half of the value is in a small amount of silver and the aluminum frame. Effective end of life Solar PV panel management will help us realize the full value and sustainable use of metals and materials. In fact, Europe's comprehensive takeback and collection program has induced a second use market in solar PV panels. The most valuable thing we could do with a used solar panel is find a second life for it to produce electricity.

It is critical for industry and policymakers to get ahead of this issue before it becomes a problem because it will eventually burden local government budgets as waste recovery and recycling facilities increasingly receive these devices. Furthermore, improper disposal presents a reputational risk to the solar industry and could impact public support for more solar deployment, which is necessary to ensure the state meets its climate action goals. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.

Good afternoon Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, who is a network of local governments, non government organizations, business and individual supporting policies and projects where producers share their responsibility for managing problems for their end of life. We're proud to be technical assistants on AB 2 to ensure that there's an end of life management plan for these solar panels.

While we traditionally have supported and advocated for extended producer responsibility and consumer responsibility, we understand that the industry has concerns, and we look forward to continue working with them on a program that ultimately meets the goal of this measure, which is ensuring that there's an end of life management program for these panels. We would like to see that there's funding provided for a successful program, but know that we have to work with the industry on that.

Currently, the estimated cost for these per panel for processing is 20 for non hazardous and 40 for hazardous types. Currently, some household hazardous waste facilities that accept these panels, which are local governments, have to bear these costs, but if they're not taken to an HHW facility, they're often illegally disposed of, sent out of state, or even stockpiled because cities and counties cannot afford to ship them.

So if this program eventually has a funding component, it would equate to a dollar a year or $2 per panel for non hazardous and hazardous, so, respectively, over 20 year lifespan. We thank the Assembly Member Ward for his leadership on this, and we hope to continue conversations with the solar industry and find a solution for the end of life management for these panels.

Great. Thank you. Now, if there are any Members of the public who wish to add their name in support, please come up to the microphone now.

Hello. Clara Vazeix with California Against Waste. We strongly support the intent of the author, and we look forward to working with him and his staff as the detail of the bills get flushed out. Thank you.

Nick Romo on behalf of the League of California Cities supportive and concept, our mayors and council Members are getting calls about where to take these panels. We need a solution. Thank you.

It's Izzy Swindler on behalf of the Solid Waste Association of North American Legislative Task Force, in support of the concept. Thank you.

John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California. Support in concept. Also, we operate a lot of these HHW collection facilities, and so ensuring the free and convenient disposal is absolutely required to get these managed appropriately. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Supporting in concept, that's a new category for me, but still good. Do we have any witnesses in opposition who are here to testify? Any witnesses in opposition?

Chairman Members Delaney Hunter, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association. We actually don't have a formal position of support opposition. We do have concerns about a full blown EPR program. We don't think that it's particularly well suited, kind of, given the unique nature of solar in California and around the world.

However, we do believe that we should be maximizing the reuse and recycling of PV panels and are dedicated to working with Mr. Ward and his team to try to find a workable solution I think we all share the same goal. It's just trying to find the right path to get there. Thank you for your time. Especially thank you to Mr. Tucker for all his help in guiding us on how to develop this situation.

We really do look forward to trying to finding a really good solution because I think we again, all share the same goal. Thank you.

Next, we can go to line 24. Please go ahead. And 24, you're open. You may have your mute on and not getting a response from line 24. It.

Hi, Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Great. Thank you. Any other tweeners or opposition?

Ben Davis with the California Solar and Storage Association, similar to the comments of my colleague who just spoke, we appreciate the intent of the Bill and we look forward to continuing working with the author's office. We have some serious concerns, but we hope we can work through them. Thank you.

I appreciate of the concept. All right. Phone moderator, do we have any witnesses on the phone line? Support or opposition to AB 2?

Thank you. Please press 1-0. If so, again, it's 10 on the phone lines. And I'll go first here to line 45. Please. Go ahead. Looks like they took one. We'll try this again here. Line 45, your line is open.

No further party is in queue.

All right. Thank you. Now bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? I see. Mr. Ta and then Mr. Hoover.

I really appreciate the good intention from the author, and I think that this is a really good view. However, I really share the same concerns from the panel manufacturer about the call cost. I really worry that the manufacturer have to carry more costs and that will go back to the consumer. So that is one of my concerns. But I really appreciate the good intention from the author.

Vice-Chair Hoover.

Yeah, thank you for the bill. I just curious how you feel those conversations. I don't know if you want an opportunity to address kind of some of the concerns that were raised. I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on that, actually.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And then Mr. Ta's comment as well. I do share these concerns, it is right now prohibitively expensive to recycle and much of the recycling capacity is out of state. We're going to talk about this as well in my next bill because I think the next bill will also be able to help alternative pathways to be able to reduce some of those costs. We want to make sure that this is as absorbable as possible for both the manufacturers and the consumers. And I would note that there is a cost to inaction as well that the international. Let me get this right, IRENA, I know the acronym. Thank you.

The International Renewable Energy Agency notes by 2030, we expect to have about a million tons of PV panel waste in the United States grow into about 10 million tons by 2050. So otherwise, this is just going to be consuming our landfills. We can work this out, but I do believe with CalRecycle's help and working with industry on some of their points of opposition, should this bill move forward, we'll be able to have a workable plan that's negligible in cost.

Yeah. So thank you for that. I appreciate what the bill is trying to do. I appreciate the concept. I don't know if that's, but I think one of the witnesses said it right. As you mentioned, Mr. Ward, we have a lot of panels coming to their end of their life cycle. This is going to just continue to grow as we continue to see these systems reach their lifespan.

But really, for solar in general, we need to figure this out, because I think it could be damaging for the implementation of solar in general if we don't figure out the best way to dispose of these. And so I appreciated that a lot. I do encourage you to keep working with the folks that have concerns. But I will be supporting the bill today. Of course.

Thank you,

Mrs. Zurr.

So I will be supporting the bill as well. I mean, I think really applaud the author for sort of really thinking about sort of the life cycle plans and the life cycle of what we need to do to move to a clean energy future. I look at the language and it looks like a lot is dedicated to CalRecycle that it's thoughtful, it's not that rigid.

I mean it really is basically saying have a plan to dispose of these things at the end of the life cycle and has some criterion and really delegates that. I encourage folks that had concerns to continue working with the author. But I think that this is an important thing that we need to get ahead of. I mean, without this, there's no plan for even how these things are going to disposed of where any of that. And so at least this requires that process to take place. So I'll go ahead and move the bill.

Great. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments? Mr. Arambula? No. Okay, very well. I would invite Mr. Ward to close if you so wish.

Thank you. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. I recommend an aye vote. And I know you have another bill right after this, so I'll save my comments for that one. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number two, AB 2, Ward.

The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll call]

That bill passes. But we'll leave the roll open for more Members. Would you like to present your second bill now?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Assembly Bill 1238. And I again want to thank you and your Committee staff for the work on this bill. I think you all know in 2006, California launched the Million Solar Roofs Initiative to incentivize consumers and businesses to invest in solar. And as of 2022 last year, we had the largest solar market in the United States, supplying over 20% of our electricity. Now, we just talked about how panels have a 20 to 30 year lifespan, and many of those are beginning to reach the end of their life cycle.

While most panels contain up to 80% easily recyclable materials, our restrictive hazardous waste regulations make it prohibitively expensive to do business in the state. As a result, recyclers that serve California market often end up setting up facilities in neighboring states where regulations are far less intensive. So this Bill, AB 1238, directs the Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop alternate management standards for recycling photovoltaic modules that would better balance the need for widespread recycling of modules and protecting human and environmental safety.

I'll note that this is exactly the same process that we have successfully been able to do for treated lumber. These new standards will greatly reduce the financial burden linked to existing hazardous waste regulations, incentivize panels to be recycled in California, and keep valued, potentially toxic materials from ending up in landfills again. For our witnesses, we have Professor Dustin Mulvaney with the San Jose State University and Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of California Product Stewardship Council. And when time comes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Dustin Mulvaney, San Jose State University. Much like California is a leader in solar electricity generation, California should lead the nation in solar panel recycling. The industry is projected to grow by over 10% a year over the next decade and expected to be a $2 billion industry by 2031. I roughly estimated about 30 gigawatts already installed in California, and that represents somewhere between 1.3 and 2.3 million metric tons of installed solar panels today. That should be viewed as a resource to grow other businesses in the future.

There are many entrepreneurs and innovators who understand these market and waste trends and are looking to increase the value of recovered materials in end-of-life discarded solar panels such as glass and silicon. One challenge is glass, which makes up most of the weight of a PV module but cannot be recovered and recycled into high quality glass products because of contamination issues. These issues will be resolved with improved recycling techniques to improve the quality of glass cullit.

Similarly, there is a great unrealized energy value in the silicon and end of life solar PV modules. One study by Sunicon found that using recycled silicon instead of raw virgin polysilicon made from quartz can cut the carbon footprint of a solar panel in half. But the same issues of contamination and materials processing are here, too. Overcoming these technical challenges requires innovation and investment, and absent clear rules of resolving some of the uncertainty around handling end-of-life solar panels, this will not happen in California.

We see companies setting up shop to recycle solar panels in neighboring states where rules are less restrictive. The largest recycling facilities in the world are in Europe because of comprehensive extended producer responsibility and clear rules on handling end-of-life solar waste. AB 1238 is a step in the right direction because it balances the interest of encouraging innovation and recycling of solar panels without undermining the state's hazardous waste or occupational safety rules. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

And Priscilla Quiroz here with the California Product Stewardship Council. We're proud to be technical assistance on this bill as well. Processing of the panels require specific methods to allow the cleanest output of recycled material, feedstock, glaze or film applied to protective glass on panels require heat or chemical processing to allow for clean glass output rather than dirty glass. Glass makes up approximately 60% of the panel weight. Clean glass has a viable market.

Dirty glass has little to no market and is typically landfilled. Processing the panels must occur within California if panels were added to the existing e-waste program and funded by that program. For example, most panels currently are handled out of state and mostly landfilled due to the processing restrictions under current regulations. The allowance for the chemical, heat or water processing could allow for this specific product, thereby not open the door to other products such as plastics.

There is a current need to have an alternative management standard that allows for these types of treatment for these materials to be cleaned so they do have a market. We thank the Assembly Member for his leadership on this issue and look forward to continue working on this measure. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to add their support? Please come up to the microphone.

Ben Davis, California Solar and Storage Association, in support if amended. Right now, you decommission a panel. If a company sprays it with water to clean it, they can get hit with a hefty fine. So this bill would hopefully direct the DTSC to fix that. We have a support if amended position for some issues we've been working out with your consultant. Thank you so much. We have those worked out in concept. Remove the reuse language. That's not the issue. Just focus on the recycling and a couple other things. But this is a much needed bill. So thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Delaney Hunter, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, also with a support if amended. We're very, very close and thanks to your team again for helping guide us through this plan, and we look forward to going to full support shortly.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in support. Thank you.

Clara Vazeix with Californians Against Waste. We haven't really taken a position on the bill yet. We strongly support the Assemblymember's intention on the bill and his willingness to promote solar panel recycling. But however, we do have two concerns with the current language. First of all, not all recycling is created equal, and we would like to see the scope of the bill being limited to mechanical recycling that doesn't involve incineration or smelting. So we don't repeat a situation like the one at X site.

Second of all, we also want to say that the most recent amendments that explicitly asked DTSC to allow the landfilling of solar panels that don't have reuse or recycling option is also a concern for us.

Thank you. I've been kind of generous about it, but please do keep the add-ons as your name and organization. I understand there's a lot of interests in these bills, but please do keep it to your name and organization, please. Thank you.

Nick Romo, League of California Cities, supportive in concept.

And John Kennedy, RCRC don't have an official letter, but support in concept. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. And do we have any official witnesses in opposition to this bill? Okay, seeing none. Any members of the public want to voice their opposition as well with the mic? Seeing none, let's go to the phones. Phone moderator are there any witnesses in support or opposition to AB 1238?

Please press 1-0 on your telephone keypad. Again, it's 1-0. And currently nobody in queue.

All right, bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Ta?

I really appreciate the leadership and the dedication of author review. I strongly, strongly support. This is a really good regulation and clear vision. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Ward, would you like to close?

I'll just note, very proud to work on this Bill. We'll continue to work with the concerns. It sounds like our technical details are solvable. Really proud to work on a bill that is reducing a regulation and thereby reducing costs. And respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assemblymember, thank you for bringing these bills forward and bringing sunlight to this issue. I think it's really important, especially as two districts as ours that embrace. Okay, embrace solar. Embrace solar as much as our districts do.

So I think it's very forward thinking and not reacting situation in which we could find ourselves with a lot of, sorry not EV, with solar waste. And we could do that. We're also dealing with EVs as well. But please do keep my Committee staff in the loop as you work with stakeholders, I'm sure going to reach a really great place with a lot of the stakeholders. But we're happy to help, so just keep us in loop.

And I am recommending an aye vote. I already have a motion and a second, so, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number three, AB 1238 Ward. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] So we have seven, that passes.

Congratulations, Mr. Ward. All right, let's hear from Assemblymember Papan if she's ready.

Thank you, Chair. I got a few folks joining me. Can you hear me? This first bill is about bringing money back from whence it came. I hope you'll agree with me of its importance. So AB 753 will reform the State Water Board's cleanup and abatement account and ensure that fines paid by water quality violators are sent directly back to the community that was impacted. To be clear, this legislation will not create or increase any fines or fees. It will simply guarantee that existing money is spent in the most effective way possible. When a violation of water quality standards occurs, the violator has two options.

She's ready. You have two bills ahead of us and I believe you're going to do 753 first. Is that correct? Okay, so whenever you're ready.

A, either to conduct a supplemental environmental project to restore the waterway or pay into the State Water Board's cleanup and abatement account. Most violators choose the latter option. The way this was originally envisioned is that the money in the cleanup abatement account would then be sent back to the cleanup and affected waterways. Unfortunately, in recent years, the State Water Board has diverted more and more of this money to a few specific projects, leaving many disadvantaged communities without the funding necessary to clean up their water.

AB 753 will simply ensure that a significant portion of the money from the cleanup and abatement account is invested back into the affected communities, and creates several new ways communities can spend that money in addition to cleaning up polluted sites, including capacity building and ongoing water quality monitoring. Essentially, the bill will allow that 50% of what's collected to be sent back to each regional Water Board on a pro rata basis based on the fines that were collected from that area. I have with me Mr. Sean Bothwell, who is with California Coastkeepers Alliance to lend a little bit to the discussion.

Thanks, Assemblymember. Chair and committee members, my name is Sean Bothwell, the executive director for California Coastkeeper Alliance. When someone brings a torts claim or does an environmental enforcement, the idea is really to make that person, the individual, or the community whole again for the damages caused by the violation in the first place.

So as you heard, when the waterboards bring enforcement, the violator has two options. Pay into a community project or pay into the cleanup and abatement account. And they always, almost always choose the pay into the cleanup and abatement account because they don't want the liability associated with having to build the project. They'd rather just write the check and get it off their books immediately.

For years, the Water Board would send that money back to the regions to do restoration projects, special studies, whatever that region, whatever that community felt was the most important use of that money. And in recent years, that stopped. And as you've heard, it's gone to just a few discrete projects. And so this bill, really, the intent of it, is to send that money back to the community that was originally harmed, to make them whole again for the damages that were caused in the first place.

The bill is set up so that 50% goes back to the regions on a pro rata basis so that not one region is getting all the money, but it's being divided equally based on the money that was sent there in the first place. But we keep 50% in the clean and put abatement account so the State Water Board has the ability and the flexibility to spend that money on emergencies or whatever they see as timely for them on a statewide basis. So with that, I'll ask for your aye vote, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

You've got a motion and a second already. All right. Any members of the public wishing to add their voice in support, please come forward to the microphone.

Cody Phillips, on behalf of Los Angeles Waterkeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper, and Surfrider, in support. Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters, in support.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Now, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. All right. And you have four minutes if you need all four minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of El Dorado Irrigation District today. We would just stipulate this. This is a laudable approach to trying to deal with issues around the state. But our principal concern is that this will remove a great deal of discretion by the state for the State Water Resources Control Board to deal with essential cleanup and abatement and drinking water projects throughout the state. Each year, California seems to get hit with one disaster after another. This account was used exclusively after the 2017 wildfires to deal with impacts to drinking water systems because of those wildfires. In a lot of those cases, we've had VOC contamination and benzene contamination in the public drinking water system.

That required cleanup and replacement to provide safe drinking water to folks. So we view this bill as reducing that ability for the state board to address issues as they come up, no matter where they may be in the state. And just one final note and it's not really addressed, particularly this bill, but to the committee and to the author and to the state board.

California, as everyone knows, has a large undocumented population and they tend to reside in underserved and disadvantaged communities that I think the author and the sponsor of this bill are targeting through the water quality monitoring program. But we have the term citizen in the title of the program, and I think we should take a look at that. And it does have a connotation. It may be a disincentive for people to participate, and I would just bring that to the committee's attention. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Now, are there any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to voice their opposition, please come up to the mic. Seeing none. Let's go to the phone lines for support and opposition to AB 753.

Thank you, and again, please press one zero at this time. Again, it's one zero. We do have one in queue here. We'll go to line 45.

Hi, Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Hang me just a moment. We have a second one queuing up here. Again, it's one zero, and we'll go to line 69.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. Justin Malan here on behalf of Heal the Bay, the environmental group in Santa Monica, in support. Thank you.

And none further in queue at this time.

All right, let's bring back the Committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author for bringing this bill back-ish. We saw a similar bill to this last year. And my concern at the time was, what's the water board doing with the money now if we're going to reallocate it? I wanted to make sure it wasn't being spent in really wonderful ways that then we were messing with. And in that research that my office did, we discovered they just weren't spending it. It just was sitting there, not cleaning up any of our waterways. So maybe it's all going to El Dorado since they're here in opposition.

But my learning last year was that literally they're collecting these funds and they're holding onto them in hopes that one day something will come to clean our water. When we know that right now in California there are an incredible number of Californians, more than there should be without access to clean drinking water. And so I think this money going into the actual cleanup as it was intended to, is important. Two questions.

One is, I think, the Proposition that you supposed, which was because these funds are collected from enforcement actions related to, as I believe from the analysis, often pollution, that if we sent it back pro rata, it would go to where it was most needed. But I just wanted clarification on that. I want to make sure that our communities that do not have access to clean water right now are seeing this return to them.

Well, I'm going to separate it out, if I may. It is that clean drinking water, especially in the cases of emergencies like was mentioned, is actually a lot of the money for that is coming from the greenhouse gas reduction fund, just so you know. And so funding from the cleanup and abatement account isn't really needed in the cases of emergency for clean water, which is what was mentioned. But perhaps Sean could lend perhaps a little bit more light.

So you're absolutely correct that from our research, we haven't seen it being spent in the last recent years. As the opposition did mention, after 2017, there was money diverted for bottled water in the Central Valley and for some wildfire issues, but because of the state, for a program that we now have at the State Water Board, that's not necessary. And we would have never ran this bill if that program wasn't in place because we wouldn't want to divert that funding from that drinking water.

But we have that program in place now. To answer your question about is it going back to the community, we are trying to kind of thread the needle of give the regional boards the flexibility to decide where the money should go based. So every regional board should have what's called a supplemental environmental projects. It's a list of community projects.

So the idea would be the regional board would choose from those the bill language says, to try to get as close to the community that was impacted as possible. But we're not trying to be as prescriptive of this exact neighborhood, because we need to provide some flexibility for the regional board. So we try to nuance that and get kind of both while still providing regional board flexibility.

Got it. Thank you. And I appreciate that in order to move the bill and probably get the Governor to sign off on it, 50% makes sense, leaving 50% under the jurisdiction of the State Board and so happy to support it. But I do think we should keep our eyes on that other 50%. I mean, this money should not be sitting at the state level, not doing what it is intended to do.

And that's what we've seen to date, at least since we passed the safer funds, which are additional, as you said, good water funds to help with clean water. So for now, I think 50% is a good start. But I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure that that other 50% is spent as well.

Congratulations. That bill's out. And now, would you like to present your second bill?

Any other questions or comments from the committee? We already have a motion and a second. Would invite the author, if you like, to close.

Respectfully request an aye vote.

All right, short and sweet. Thank you for bringing the bill forward, and I am recommending an aye vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, whenever you are ready, you may begin.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

With AB 1115.

1115, dealing with Underground Storage Tank fund. So I'm going to refer to it as UST. The UST fund is a critical financial mechanism for tank owners and operators to cover environmental cleanup costs. As self insuring is a massive burden on small operators, California is among many other states that provide a UST Fund as an option for operators to meet their financial responsibility.

Without this fund, many owners would have very few, if any, options to secure any other financial insurance mechanism. Furthermore, as California transitions to green infrastructure, it will be burdened with an increasing amount of what we call orphan tanks. So we must ensure that there are resources available to address this issue. AB 1115 is a common sense measure that assists small business owners and supports the state's goals for a cleaner California.

With me today in support is Mr. John Wenger on behalf of California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, and Glenn Morelli with Sonoma County Public Infrastructure, and Sue Garner as a technical support witness. Welcome.

Welcome. Begin. When you are ready, begin.

Is it all right if Glenn goes first?

Sure. On the phone? Sure.

Oh, okay. He's on the phone. Thank you.

So we're going to split it four minutes, though. Whenever you're ready, Glenn, if you're on the line.

I am. Honorable Chair Lee and members of the Committee, my name is Glenn Morelli. I am the Integrated Waste Operations Manager for Sonoma County Public Infrastructure. I'm also a licensed geologist and hydrogeologist with eight years of experience as a regulator, having served as the licensed signatory for the petroleum cleanup sites in Sonoma county former local oversight program.

I'm here today to speak in support of Assembly Bill 1115, sponsored by Assembly Member Papan to extend the Underground Storage Tank fund until January 1, 2036. The Cleanup Trust Fund act of '89 was established, of course, to provide financial assistance for cleaning up underground storage tanks, and the fund has been instrumental in addressing thousands of leaking sites across the state. For Sonoma county and the municipalities within it, this is important for several reasons.

The county and the municipalities have a history of operating underground storage tanks that service municipal fleets for public purposes. When a leak has occurred, the fund has helped to cover those costs, addressing contamination and cleanup. Without the fund, the county and its municipalities would have to use general funds to deal with such incidents, which would affect their ability to provide other essential services.

As you may know, Sonoma county has faced a series of local disasters since 2017, including fires, floods and the pandemic, which has strained local resources and budget. I can't stress how badly these funds are needed today. Sonoma county and many of the northern counties, in fact, rely on groundwater as a source of water supply. There are an estimated 9000 wells in the groundwater basins and three basins in Sonoma county serving domestic, agricultural and public uses.

Sonoma Valley alone has more than 2000 wells that draw water from the groundwater basin. It is estimated that groundwater accounts for nearly 60% of the valley's water supply. The fund provides resources where many times there are none for responsible parties to clean up and protect groundwater. So groundwater levels have been declining in some areas of the county, making it even more critical to prevent further degradation.

Now, the fund is not only vital for protecting groundwater quality from petroleum contamination, but also for safeguarding public health from exposure to harmful vapors or contaminated drinking water. Now, I've seen firsthand as a prior regulator, how these cleanup sites are owned and operated by small businesses that face financial hardship or even bankruptcy. If they have to pay for the cleanup costs, they are forced to choose between their livelihood and water quality. Without the fund, a release could have devastating consequences for these owners.

Moreover, because of their limited resources, they often delay or prolong the cleanup efforts, which worsens the impacts of a potential release. So AB 1115 is a reasonable and effective measure to maintain a program that benefits all Californias. It would prevent further environmental damage and liability from leaking underground storage tanks, while also saving money for local governments.

Thank you so much, Mr. Morelli. I'm going to interrupt you just so I can give Mr. Wenger a chance.

Yep, I'm done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. John Wenger here on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance. A majority of our gas station owners are small businesses, small mom and pop businesses. This is a very important fund to ensure that they have the financial assurance mechanism in place in order to clean up and remediate sites when leaks do occur. So very important environmental safety bill for us and urge your support.

All right. Thank you so much. Are there any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to testify in support? Name and organization, please?

Sue has a list of, or has some 'me-too's. Just me-toos.

Okay, let's go for Sue first. I'm sorry about that.

Okay. I'm Sue Garner. I'm the President of EquoLogic Group and I'm here in support of my clients, the City of Santa Barbara, the County of Sonoma Roads and Transportations, Crescent Truck Lines, Goleta West Sanitary District, Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District and Grossmont Unified School District.

Thank you about that. Thank you. Sorry about that. All right. If there are members of the public in the hearing room which testify in support, please name and organization.

Mr. Chair and Members. Ian Padilla with the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, in strong support. It's also been a very important resource for schools going forward. There is actually a school district account that is particularly for that, and it's been very helpful. We're in strong support.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Michael Rattigan, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County, in support.

John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none, are there any members of the public in the hearing room who wish to oppose the bill? Name, organization? Seeing none. Let's go to the phone lines. Phone moderator, are there any support or opposition comments for AB 1115?

Thank you. And please press 1-0 at this time if so. And we've got line 69. Please go ahead.

Mr. Chair, Members. Justin Malone here on behalf of the Local Environmental Health Administrators. We administer the local oversight program, the regulators for the cleanup and we're in strong support.

And currently none further in queue at this time.

All right, let's bring back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Assembymember Bauer-Kahan?

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I think this is incredibly important and I just wanted to raise, we have spent the last day, at least, if not longer, talking about the cost of gasoline.

And one of the things that I think we need to be really clear eyed about here in California is that less than or 50% of gas stations are independently owned. It's the lowest rate in the nation of independently owned gas stations. And this is part of the reason, we have really strong environmental regulations, which I support. But it's really, really hard for small owners to comply because this stuff is expensive.

And so this is a step of us saying we're going to help support companies to stay in business and we're going to do the right thing for the environment. And I think that is what California needs to be doing more of. And as we look at how to drive gas prices down, part of our solution has to be enabling small businesses into the market to increase competition.

And it's got to be us putting our money where our mouth is and saying we're going to support the small businesses, drive the cost of regulation down, and we're also going to do the right thing for the environment, because those two things can go hand in hand, but only when we invest. And we are creative in these ways. And so this is really important, but we need to be doing more of this.

Can I make a comment about this fee being related?

I'm going to let Mr. Zbur make his comment first.

My comment is what she said.

Or if you want to, Mr. Zbur, allow the witnesses to say what's on their mind.

I would love to hear what the witnesses would like to add.

Thank you, Chair Lee. So it is a misconception that the 0.02 cent fee, which is a fee on actually storage of gasoline, is connected to the price of gasoline. It is not in the .51 cent gas tax.

And we did an analysis of the price of gas in the State of California to the fee, which has varied from roughly $0.014 per gallon to $0.02 cent per gallon, and which is what it is right now. And we find no correlation. In fact, at one point in the mid 2000s, the storage tank fee went up and the price of gasoline went down. And so we'd be happy to provide that information to you if it would be helpful. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Assemblymember Papan, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you especially, Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. I concur that this is a way of keeping things actually more competitive and doing right by the environment doesn't get any better. I respectfully request an aye vote.

It's been moved and seconded. Assemblymember Papan, thank you for bringing this bill forward and both your bills forward today.

Okay, great. Congratulations. Next, let's have Assemblymember Hart with AB 1045, deals with public notices for cleanup sites.

I think this is an important conversation with a larger conversation we've had about the oil petroleum market and of course the marketplace of competitors, too. So seconding everything that our colleague has already said. But I do think we need to do more to help our small businesses meet the goals that we set for folks. And of course, we always recognize the disparities in the large corporations possess different abilities to do things than smaller actors out there. So, happily recommending an aye vote today. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item five, AB 1115 Papan. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] That has five votes. That's out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Lee and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 1045 to the Committee today. Thank you to your staff for working with my team on this bill. AB 1045 will bolster community engagement in matters regarding hazardous waste facilities and toxic materials. Currently, the public is notified through a print newspaper ad when there are efforts to expand hazardous waste facilities or cleanup contaminated sites.

AB 1045 will require additional public notification through community bulletin boards, mobile applications, or online platforms. The alternate notification methods should be decided based on researching the information needs of the affected community. This measure ensures nonenglish speakers, individuals with specific access needs, and people who rely on online news are informed about decisions that could impact their health and safety regarding toxic materials. We're also working with the rural counties to address their concerns as the bill moves to the next Committee.

Speaking in support of AB 1045 with me today is Grecia Orozco on behalf of The Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment.

Thank you. Again, my name is Grecia Orozco with The Center on Race, Poverty and Environment, an environmental justice organization uplifting disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Hart, for introducing this bill to strengthen notice requirements for hazardous waste permitting and remediation actions.

At CRPE, we work closely with a lot of low income communities and often we have seen that hazardous waste facilities like to be targeted as a new home for their premises in their neighborhoods. And unfortunately, the public notice requirements are inadequate, which means that these community members are unable to be informed and they can't keep track of everything that is being proposed, whether it be a hazardous waste facility or remediation effort.

As such, these hazardous waste facilities stay in their neighborhoods without community awareness, without community input, and the state often selects remediation activities without that community input as well. As the assembly member mentioned, currently, the notice requirements is for a print newspaper. When in reality a lot of communities would greatly benefit from receiving notice on websites or their local government websites, and this is currently not required by current law.

On the other end, there are many communities who lack digital access, so public notice would greater benefit them if it's on a community bulletin board or even on public transit. And the key thing to note here is that effective public notice differs from community to community. Not all communities are the same, and they shouldn't be treated as such. Adequate public notice requires that notice is tailored to each of those communities.

When AB 1045 really greatly benefits the communities in this respect, as it allows them to be notified either by bulletin boards, online websites, or even on apps tailored to directly notify the specific residents that are going to be impacted. Additionally, it allows more flexibility for community members to receive that notice, as lead agencies will be required to do that research to see how they can better reach the target audience.

It's important for adequate public notice to be transparent as 1045 makes it to be, and in this way, we get more meaningful community engagement. As such, CRPE strongly urges us to pass AB 1045 to allow communities to provide, to be informed and provide meaningful public input. We urge you all to vote aye today on 1045 as well, so that environmental justice communities can get that adequate public notice needed. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Now, are there any Members of the public in the hearing room that wish to add their support?

Hi, John Kennedy, again with RCRC. Supported the author's previous version of the Bill. Have a few concerns with the drafting of the current language, but appreciate working with the Committee and the author's office to address those concerns so we can support the bill going forward. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition in the room? Seeing none. Let's go to the phone lines for support and opposition. For AB 1045, phone lines.

Please press 1-0 at this time, if so. And currently nobody in queue.

All right, let's turn it back to the Committee then. Any questions or comments? No, we already got a motion. A second. I thank the author of bringing this bill forward.

I agree it's a good idea to update the requirements for these agencies to not only provide notices online, but more importantly, to reach out to the communities who live near these contaminated sites and would like to invite you to close if you so wish.

I respectfully request an I vote. Thank you.

There we go. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item six, AB 1045, Hart. The motion is due pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Hoover aye. Arambula. Arambula aye. Bauer-Kahan. Bauer-Kahan aye Connolly. Connolly aye. McKinnor. Mckinnor aye. Pacheco. Ta aye. Zbur. Zbur aye. Wow. Eight votes. That's out.

Congratulations. Your bill's out. All right. Assemblymer Friedman, your Bill, AB 1322. It deals with rodenticides. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank you and your Committee staff for all of your work on the Bill. I'm committed to continuing to work on the technical considerations that were raised in the Committee analysis regarding the reevaluation of difasinin and future restrictions should this Bill pass. Committee those of us who live in areas that have wildlife, I live in Los Angeles, and we have quite a lot of wildlife in the parts of Los Angeles that, particularly that abut our hillsides and our parks, are pretty used to seeing animals with poisoning from anticoagulant roto tenocides. Not everybody recognizes what that poison looks like.

It generally looks like the animal has some kind of mange. The reason the animal is presenting that way is because they're bleeding out from the inside because of these chemicals that are given to rats, and the rats stumble out of wherever they're existing, and they stumble into the street and they get eaten by mountain lions, coyotes, and our raptors like owls and hawks. And this happens all the time. And these animals are constantly poisoned and die in our neighborhoods because of this really toxic chemical.

Now, in 2020, we passed AB 1788 to minimize this unintentional poisonings from one subset of particularly dangerous rodenticides, second generation anticoagulant rodenicides, called escars. Escars, by placing a moratorium on certain uses until we developed more comprehensive restrictions. Despite the implementation of that Bill in 2021, recent evidence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests that there's still widespread exposure and deaths to wildlife from esgars and other rodenicides.

Another subset of rodenticides, the first generation anticoagulant rodenticides, the Fgars, include disastopinone, which is the most frequently detected fGAR in nontarget wildlife. Exposure to this chemical can result in both lethal and sublethal effects in wildlife, including the severe skin diseases I mentioned, and decrease immune system responses. AB 1322 Addis disastinone to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect our beloved wildlife from this unintentional poisoning while still maintaining exceptions for its use to protect public health, water supplies, and agriculture.

It also requires that the Department of Pesticide Regulation enact stronger, permanent restrictions on second generation anticoagulant rodenticides and disastrophone to limit unintended wildlife poisonings. These anticoagulant rodenticides continue to result in an unreasonable number of public health incidents, with over 3000 human poisonings in 2021 and at least 2300 of these involving children under six years of age, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

AB 1322 will place greater restrictions on some of the most dangerous rodenticides while maintaining short and long term exceptions to protect public health, agriculture and the environment. Members, there is a wide range of safer and more sustainable and cost effective alternatives to these most dangerous rodenticides available to you today that don't threaten our wildlife and our own families. Testifying in support this afternoon is Jonathan Evans with the Center for Biological Diversity and Lisa Owens Viani with raptors are the solution.

Currently, we have no registered opposition, and I would request an I vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Lee and Committee Members. My name is Lisa Owens Viani, and I'm here on behalf of raptors are the solution. In support of AB 1322, I cofounded this organization with a raptor biologist in 2011 after hawks died of rodenticide poisoning in my Bay Area neighborhood. We have been educating the public about the dangers of anticoagulant rat poisons in the food web ever since.

Outside of the second generation anticoagulants covered by the California Ecosystems Protection act of 2020, difastinone is the most commonly found rodenticide in California wildlife, including mountain lions, bobcats, great horned owls, bears and many other species. A 2021 national study of 133 dead bald eagles, our national bird and Golden Eagles, found that 80% had anticoagulants in their systems, including diphacenone. When these poisons do not directly kill the animals, they can make them sick and weak and more susceptible to diseases like the parasitic skin infection. Mange.

A 16 year study of bobcats by Dr. Laurel Sirius of UC Santa Cruz found that difacinone was the most common anticoagulant poison in 195 blood samples and the most commonly used rat poison in four Southern California counties, where a bobcat population was almost wiped out. She also found that exposure to difacinone increased the odds an animal would die from mange, and in a 2018 study, found that diphasanone alone was linked with physiological effects on immune system and organ function.

Last September, the National Park Service announced that P 54, an adult female mountain lion who was struck and killed by a car, had been pregnant with four kittens. She and her unborn kittens all tested positive for multiple anticoagulants, including diphacenone, so we know that difacenone exposure can occur during fetal development. Last September, the first district Court of Appeal found that the Department of Pesticide Regulation had not adequately evaluated the cumulative impacts of difacinone on nontarget wildlife.

Despite the court ruling, DPR has not committed to reevaluating, defacenone or taking any other restrictive action, which is why the Legislature needs to enact the greater restrictions in AB 1322. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair Lee and Members of the Committee. My name is Jonathan Evans. I'm the environmental health legal Director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

The rat poisons covered by the California Ecosystems Protection act of 2023 are some of the most scientifically studied and widespread wildlife poisons. The most recent and comprehensive 2022 statewide study by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife showed that anticoagulant rodenticides are found in 70% of wildlife tested, an overwhelming amount. The rodenticides covered by this Bill threaten some of California's most imperiled wildlife.

Rodenticides contribute to an extinction vortex for the California mountain lions and have also killed San Joaquin kit fox, Pacific fisher, and the spotted owl. AB 1322 relies upon the precautionary principle that once a product is shown to be hazardous in the environment, as rodenticides clearly have, that the burden is on industry and regulators to demonstrate they're safe. The burden shouldn't be on the public to continually document deaths and poisonings of wildlife and children. That burden belongs on the pesticide industry and manufacturers making these poisons.

Importantly, we don't need these dangerous adenicides. Safer, cost effective alternatives are readily available and necessary. There are safer tools in the toolbox. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources are a necessary first step. Lethal rodent control strategies involve snap traps, electric traps, and sterilization techniques that can then be implemented. And there are a wide range of rodenticides available that don't pose as great of a threat for California ecosystems.

As of 2019, there were over 120 different types of rodenticides that aren't covered by this Bill that are approved for use in California. We don't need these dangerous rodenticides that are poisoning wildlife and children. And I request an aye vote today.

Thank you. Do we have any other Members of the public here to testify in support?

Hello, my name is Nickolaus Sackett, representing social compassion in legislation. In support.

Chair Members Austin Webster with w strategies on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in support.

Fatima Mike Balzabier, California environmental voters in support.

Hi, Samantha Samuelson for Audubon California in support.

Janet Carvosa, in support.

Hi, my name is Dr. Rebecca Goalie. I'm a conservation scientist at UC Davis and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Anyone here to testify in opposition? Any Members of the public to testify in opposition.

Thank you. Chair Members Max Perry, on behalf of the pest control operators of California do not have an official position today or a letter in.

But we do have some concerns specifically related to the public health issues, the potential impact to the industry, and the cost to our customers that could come of this Bill. We're still trying to analyze the entire impact and the breadth of the impact on the aforementioned concerns.

But we have spoke with the author's office and with the staff, and I do want to appreciate the fact that they've been willing to work with us and work with us moving forward on the Bill in the coming days and weeks, and we certainly look forward to continuing that dialogue with them in the coming weeks. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else? I'll go to the phone lines. Anyone in support or opposition on the phones?

Thank you. And again, it's 10 at this time. We've got line 71. Please go ahead.

Hi, Joel Schulman, poison free Malibu. Thank you, Laura Friedman. There is no excuse for a poison bait box. We strongly support AB 1322.

Next, we can go to line 76. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is Allison Hermance with wildcare, the Wildlife Hospital and wildlife advocacy organization located in San Rafael in Marin County, and we are very much in support.

And next, we have line 65. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Wendy Gladstone, President of the Santa Susanna Mountain Park Association. We strongly support AB 1322. Thank you.

And we can go to line 74, please. Go ahead. 74, your line is open. You might have your mute on, by chance.

This is Bettina Rosmarino with Palm Springs wildlife advocates. We're strongly in support. Thank you.

Thanks. And next, we can go to line 75.

Hi, this is Lori Camille. I'm on the HOA board of directors in Thousand Oaks for community that backs up to protected open space. And I support this Bill.

And we go to line 79. Hi, this is Gainer Lambang, and I am in strong support of AB 1322. Thank you.

Next, we've got line 81.

My name is Judy Neuhauser, President of Morocco Audubon Society in San Luis Obispo. We strongly support AB 1322.

Hi, there. Hello.

Next we have line 37.

We can hear you.

Your line is open.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi. My name is Daniela Castillo. I'm a licensed veterinarian in California. I have a master's in wildlife conservation, and I strongly support AB 1322.

And next we have line 46. 46, you're open. You may have your mute on 46. Can you hear me? Barely. Yeah.

Sorry about that. I can't see my line number. This is Katie Nolan calling on behalf of in defense of animals. And we're in support.

Thank you. Line 73, please go ahead. 73, are you muted? And we can go to line 77.

Hi, this is Tony Tucci on behalf of Citizens for Los Angeles wildlife, also known as Claw, in full support.

Next we have line 78.

Hi there. This is Erin Hauge with Project Coyote in strong support of AB 1322. Thank you.

And last we have line 80.

Hi, this is Judie Mancuso calling as the Vice Chair of the Laguna Beach Environmental Sustainability Committee, where the city already banned rodenticides on city property. And we strongly urge you to pass this today. And thank you, Assembly Member Friedman.

And we'll go back here to line 73. Please go ahead. We're not getting any response from line 73. Thank you. You're welcome. And none further in queue.

All right, thanks so much. And we'll bring it back to Members of the Committee. Would anyone? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. So the analysis is baffling, and I really had to raise my mic because DPR is going to come to us this year, as they did in past years, asking for us to increase the mill fees. They want more money from us. But I think that when somebody, an agency comes to us asking for us to support them, we need to look at the job they're doing. We started having this conversation in 2011. According to the analysis, it continued in 2014. They commenced a reevaluation in 2019.

We're in 2023. That was four years ago, and animals are dying. So I don't know what they've been doing for four years, but they surely haven't been making any decisions. So that's baffling to me. And I think it is really critical that this Committee and the Legislature take seriously our role in oversight, and that when we are asked to increase the funds to a certain Department, we have these conversations.

And I think this is a perfect example of where DPR is not doing the job as swiftly as we need them to when tasked with a role. It shouldn't take four years to get to where we are today, which is nowhere. They haven't done anything with the reevaluation that commenced in 2019, as I understand it. So I really appreciate you bringing this. I appreciate your commitment to work on the technical details.

I know you're heading to water Parks and Wildlife next, so I know the conversation will continue, but I think this is really important. Last year, I had a Bill vetoed by the Governor that tried to force DPR to do something that they didn't want to do. And have failed to do to protect bees. And the issue of biodiversity and the animals in California that are dying as a result of these pesticides and overuse and use of the wrong ones is a real one.

And we need to be taking real and clear action to make sure that the Department of Pestile regulation is taking action in every way necessary to protect our wildlife and also provide for the health concerns that we heard from the not opposition, potentially opposition that came forward because there are often substitutes, as you mentioned, that can be used that are much better for the environment and that will get us where we need to be. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Yeah, has anyone moved the Bill yet? I'll move the Bill. I want to thank the author for bringing this. I think it's really important.

I think, as you and I have spoken, one of the things I'm disappointed, I think, in sort of following the comments of my colleague, I think it's really disappointing that in California we don't have a robust regulatory process that basically looks at science based risk analysis of chemical use in not only pesticides and herbicides, but rodenticides and consumer products, and looks at sort of what the alternatives are. And it's part of a comprehensive look.

Thank you. Anyone else? We have a motion and a second, actually, one question.

And I think sort of our regulatory program is broken, which requires us to deal with chemicals one by one through the legislative process, which is not the best way of doing it, but when our regulatory system is breaking down, it's necessary. So I think this is far too long that this has been in use. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill. Strongly support it, and thank you.

I had, pardon my ignorance on this issue. Are there substitutes in this space that you're aware of that are effective? I think, I'm curious to know that. Thank you. And we can certainly ask more of the experts, but there are dozens of substitutes that are available that are safer.

In addition, I saw a study that was done, I believe, in Ventura County in agricultural land, where they compared using a variety of chemical solutions to putting raptor nests up and allowing owls and hawks to do the patrolling. And maybe not surprising to some, but the owls and hawks did a much better job at controlling rats because the pesticides, not only do the animals become immune to them over time, but it kills then the hawks and the owls.

So you're not only knocking out the balance that nature itself has instituted, but you're using these chemicals. Know, New York City is a good example at how quickly the animals adapt and become immune to the chemicals. So I think that what the groups like the raptor boosters are trying to do with bringing nature back in as a partial solution is something that I would certainly highly recommend that people that are looking at open space areas consider. The short answer was yes, but I'll, yeah, thank you.

And I think the Committee analysis is a pretty thorough evaluation of that, actually talking about how anticoagulant sites can actually be associated with decreases in effectiveness for rodent control. And I think that's important because if you don't take the first steps of sealing off buildings, keeping these rodents from coming in and limiting food sources, they're going to be back. You can poison them, but they're going to reproduce and come back. So those are important steps. Thank you for that.

I think it's unfortunate because I don't feel like I fully understand the opposition's concerns. I look forward to hearing more about that. But I appreciate answering those questions today. And I will give this back to the chair to call the role.

Can I just close?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead and close. While we're switching seats.

I actually just wanted to take a moment to, first of all, thank my colleagues for their comments. A couple of years ago, I introduced a Bill to basically ban the Green Chemistry council for this reason because that was another group that's supposed to be doing this evaluations of classes of chemicals that really has done pretty much nothing. I agree with you. I think our regulatory system is completely broken, not just in California but nationally. I mean, our EPA should be doing this nationwide.

This shouldn't even be up to every state to stand up their own system of regulation when we have an EPA that's very well funded to do this kind of work. I would also like to just give a quick call out to the advocacy groups that called in. They're the ones on the ground that have been calling attention to this for years and years and years and saying we do not want to see poison wildlife in our neighborhoods. Not that we don't want to see it.

We want to know it's not happening because we want to be good neighbors to all of our neighbors, including the wild ones. So I just want to give a special shout out to all of the advocates out there that have worked on this for years and years and years. With that, I would request an I vote. Thank you. Thank you so much, Selmier Friedman, for bringing this Bill forward. I understand as we move to the Next Committee, you'll be fine tuning it more.

Item seven, AB 1322. Friedman, the motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Water Parks and Wildlife. Lee. Lee, aye. Hoover. Hoover not voting. Arambula. Arambula aye. Bauer-Kahan. Bauer-Kahan aye. Connolly. Connolly aye. Mckinnor. Mckinnor aye. Pacheco. Ta. Not voting. Zbur. Zbur aye. Six votes, that's out.

So please do keep the ESCM staff apprise, and we're happy to help. Aye'm recommending an aye vote today, and we already have a motion and a second, so, madam sector, please call the roll.

Six votes. That's out. Congratulations. Next, we'll have Assemblymember Arambula present his bill, which is AB 805.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present on AB 805. Today, AB 805 protects disadvantaged communities from failing and poorly managed infrastructure by streamlining wastewater consolidation projects. Failing sanitation systems can leak contaminants into underground aquifers that residents rely on to replenish their wells. These contaminants cause adverse health effects such as gastrointestinal illness, nervous system or reproductive effects, and chronic diseases such as cancer.

Despite these health and environmental impacts, the state has not clearly defined what constitutes a failing sanitation system. In addition, the state currently lacks the authority to facilitate sanitation infrastructure updates in the same way that it does for drinking water infrastructure. This bill closes the gap to ensure that those living with contaminated groundwater and failing infrastructure are no longer forced to endure conditions that most of us would not accept.

Testifying in support of AB 805 are Abraham Mendoza, senior policy advocate with Community Water Centers, and Carlos Sanchez, a board member of the East Orosi Community Services District.

Thank you, Dr. Arambula, and thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Abraham Mendoza. I'm with the Community Water Center, and we are proud to sponsor this legislation. CWC is an environmental justice nonprofit that advocates for safe, clean, affordable drinking water for all Californians.

Our offices are located in Visalia, Watsonville, and Sacramento, California, where our team work directly with rural, low-income populations to provide direct aid and technical assistance for communities that lack access to safe and clean drinking water. One such community, as we mentioned before, is East Orosi, California, where residents have been forced to deal with the public health impacts of both contaminated tap water and sewage issues. These issues overwhelmingly stem from failing, underfunded infrastructure and years of mismanagement by the town's joint drinking and wastewater system administrator.

Under existing law, the State Water Board can order the consolidation of two or more drinking water systems and appoint a temporary administrator. However, this creates a burden for communities with failing or at-risk drinking water and wastewater systems that are administered by the same entity. This can also add complex procedural burdens, delaying consolidations for multiple years. This bill expands the board's authority to jointly order consolidations and appoint an administrator if both systems provide drinking water and wastewater services.

There's no reason that communities like East Orosi should continue to suffer from mismanagement and the public health impacts of a broken sewer system. And we need the legislature to guarantee a timely solution to this crisis and address the problems that created it. On behalf of the Community Water Center, we'd like to urge the committee's aye vote, and I'd like to pass the mic to Carlos Sanchez, a community leader and board member of the East Orosi Community Services District.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm a little nervous this first time speaking in a group of people. I'm a community member and also a member of the board of the Sorosi community. This has been going on for over 20 years, and we don't have healthy drinking water. Our sewer system is lacking in the summer; it smells so bad, gases come into the homes, and we have to open our windows to be able to breathe. And yet, it's been taking 20 years to finally think that we have solved the problem.

But we're still in the same situation. Our drinking water has affected our lives immensely. As one of the members that live in this community, I've lost both of my parents to cancer. My father died from three types of cancer and my mother died from cancer. My neighbors have died from cancer. My sister has had cancer. I wake up every morning wondering when am I going to go to the doctor and I'm going to find out I have cancer.

My health has deteriorated since I moved to this community. But because I'm poor, I can't afford to move. I can't sell my home because where am I going to go? So I have no choice but to fight and to ask for help because where am I going to go? But I still have to shower with this water that is contaminated. My skin burns. I still have to brush my teeth. My teeth bleed.

I still have to use the water to irrigate my crops or the food that I eat. Because I am low-income, I can't afford to buy pesticide-free groceries. So, I grow what I produce. But since I can irrigate it with contaminated water, I'm eating this contamination. The whole community is. So I have nausea. I throw up when the smell is so bad. It's pretty bad.

So in 2022, I joined the board to see if I could fix the problem that I finally, after 20 years, we could finally find a solution. But it seems like the people who are in my same group to try to help me fix the problem are the people that are against us. One of the administrators finds ways to sabotage everything that we try to do.

And not only does she sabotage everything, but she is rude and belligerent and treats every single community member as she has a right to treat us with disrespect. She threatens us with calling immigration. She's threatened me with calling, with legal action if I go against her. But somebody has to stand up for this community. Most of us speak Spanish and don't understand, and they don't defend themselves. So somebody has to stand up for them. And so that's why I decided to join the board. Sorry.

I support AB 805, and I hope that you guys give in a vote and help us fix this problem that's been going on for over 20 something years. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Now I'm going to ask if there's any members of the public in the hearing room who would like to come forward, add their name and support.

Ms. Fatima Iqbal-Zubair from California Environmental Voters in support.

Sean Bothwell, on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance in support.

Hello, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Melissa Sagun. On behalf of our colleagues at Community Water Center, proud sponsor and support, also noting the following organizations in support as well as Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action, Leadership Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Physicians for Social Responsibility - LA, thank you.

Jamie Bauker, I'm a law student and I support this bill.

Emma Syftestad, a law student, and I support this bill.

Erica Cabrera, a law student, and I support this bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Here today with a work with author position. We recognize the need, appreciate the policy considerations that were raised in the analysis. They're consistent with our initial feedback to the proposal. And we look forward to working with you and appreciate you being willing to work with us as this bill moves forward.

Thank you. All right, thank you, everyone. Now, do we have any members of the public wishing to testify in opposition to this bill? Opposition?

All right, seeing none. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone in line support or opposition to AB 805?

Thank you. And if so, please press 1-0 at this time. Again, it's 1-0, and currently nobody in queue.

Bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second, but are there any questions or comments for any committee members? All right. Seeing none, I'd invite Mr. Arambula to close.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

I'd like to uplift the comments of Mr. Sanchez if I can. It's important that we advocate and we stand up for our communities. And what you did here today is going to allow us to be the people's house and to stand up for all of our communities. I appreciate that your testimony has allowed this committee to hear the concerns from our communities. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much.

I do, of course, want to thank the witnesses as well for painting a very descriptive and vivid and why we need to do measures like this to protect the people. I also want to thank the author for elevating this conversation and pushing on this issue. I know there's a lot of complications with it, but yet I still appreciate that you are pushing on it and ensuring that our most vulnerable communities have access to both clean drinking water and adequate sanitation.

And unlike water consolidation, drinking water consolidation, we don't currently have a set of laws that spell out the process for consolidating sewer systems. So I commend you, the author and stakeholders are planning to continue to engage on this critical and complex issue. And I just ask that you keep myself and our ECM staff in the loop as your bill moves through the process. And I am recommending an aye vote. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item eight, AB 805: Arambula.

The motion is do pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] So we have eight votes.

Eight votes that bills out. Congratulations. Next, we'll go to AB 838. Item nine by Assemblymember Connolly, which deals with the information that the public water systems must report to the State Water Board. There has been a motion and a second bipartisan.

Bipartisan motion second once again.

Thank you. Chair and Members appreciate the opportunity to present AB 838. Expecting a couple of witnesses as well, coming up. Thank you. This is the California Water Affordability and Infrastructure Transparency Act, or the Can't Wait Act. Clean drinking water crises across the nation have highlighted the critical need for improvements in water infrastructure and the vulnerability of many of our underserved communities.

More than two thirds of failing water systems in California are located in low-income communities. It wasn't until 2021 that the State Water Board conducted its first ever drinking water needs assessment, which gave us a look at just how close hundreds of water systems are to failing. Most troubled systems serve fewer than 500 customers and are located in rural, underserved communities. The COVID-19 pandemic forced thousands of Californians into unemployment and many struggled and are still struggling to keep up with their water bills.

The Legislature has provided millions of dollars of support to eliminate the debt of thousands of ratepayers. Even though the pandemic has lessened, ratepayers are still struggling to afford to have clean drinking water. The State Water Resources Control Board estimated that 21% of water systems in California have unaffordable water rates, even for basic needs. Proper analysis of this issue is delayed due to a systemic lack of adequate data regarding water bills paid by customers. Instead, hypothetical amounts are calculated based on estimated water consumption.

The public has a right to know how well water suppliers are maintaining the infrastructure in their communities and how their water bills compare to those in other communities. Transparency regarding water affordability and infrastructure not only helps to keep the public informed but also provides valuable data for state decision-makers. AB 838 would require, at the discretion of the Water Board, a public water system to include information related to the average water bill paid by their customers in their state reporting.

The bill would also require data related to the water system's completed and planned efforts to replace aging infrastructure. AB 838 is a common sense solution to improve accountability for our ratepayers and state agencies. With me to testify today is Jennifer Capitolo with the California Water Association, and we may have Justin Skarb with the California Water Service on the phone. Okay, great. You want to kick us off?

Yeah. Good morning. Or good afternoon, I should say. Jennifer Capitolo, I'm the Executive Director of the California Water Association.

We're a trade industry association representing all of the water utilities that are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. 94 Members, about 15% of the drinking water in the State of California. Thank you to the chair and your staff for working with us on this bill and our discussions, and the analysis. AB 838 is about making sure that the decision-makers have the information that they need to make decisions. And I just want to highlight a couple of examples of those decision-makers.

First, we always think about the customer. The customer has to decide on a daily basis," Is this water safe to drink?" And they're making those decisions. Then we have our regulators who are saying, are we investing enough in our water system? Are we charging the right amount to make sure that the water coming out the top is safe and reliable for their customers?

And then, of course, you, the legislators, you need information to be able to decide the future of water service delivery in the state of California. And I'll just talk a little bit more about a decision that I think you all will have to make in the very near future. And that's the future of a statewide low-income rate assistance program. The Legislature has been talking about it with Senator Dodd, the Governor, the State Water Resources Control Board for four or five years now.

And it's really important that we get this one figured out, that we figure out a path forward for making sure that everyone has affordable access to drinking water. And you all can't do that. You can't debate this very important policy unless you have access to information. And as the Assemblyman said, right now, the Water Board collects more theoretical data. They collect a rate, and they collect an estimated usage, and then they guess at what that rate is and look at affordability from an estimated number.

What we're proposing to do is not estimate what someone's paying for their water Bill, but really understand what the median bill is because people pay those bills. That's the money that's going out the door. We're making decisions about what is affordable. We should be using actual numbers. I'm not going to talk right now about the investment piece. I'm going to let Justin talk a little bit about that. But it is tied. You need to have affordable water; you need to make investments.

And so that's why both components of that are here in the bill. So thank you again and hope to have your support today.

Thank you. Let's go to your witness on the phone if they're there. Moderator do we have, oh, there we go.

Pardon me. Sorry again, it is 1-0. We do have one party in queue here. Let me go to line 45, please. Go ahead.

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support, thank you.

Phone moderator, do we have Justin Skarb on the phone line right now to testify?

Justin, if you're there, maybe hit zero star. One moment. I've got him here. Let me open his line here quick.

Thank you.

Welcome.

All right, Justin, you're all set here.

All right. Thank you for that. And I apologize for not being there in person. After outrunning Covid for three years, it finally caught up to me this weekend. At any rate, my name is Justin Skarb. I'm the Vice President of Government and Community Affairs at California Water Service. We're the second largest water utility in the state, serving 2 million Californians, from Chico in the north down to Palos Verdes Peninsula in the south.

I want to echo what Jennifer said with our thanks to the Assembly Member, the Chair, and obviously the Committee staff for working with us in analyzing the bill. At the heart of this question is it's about transparency and good government. And in addition to assisting with discussions regarding affordability, as Jennifer mentioned, AB 838 really will arm decision makers with the information they need to guide water infrastructure policy.

While not the only indicator, main replacement rates, which is one of the items that's asked for in the legislation, are a very good barometer for how proactive utilities are being at maintaining and upgrading their infrastructure. And the need for transparency in this area and accountability in this area couldn't be more stark. Just asked the folks that were testifying on the prior bill from Easter OSI about their infrastructure and the investment rates that are going on there and the need for transparency in this area.

And that's really an issue that we've seen across the country, most recently in Jackson, Mississippi, last year, where you had an entire community of people that were out of drinking water for months on end, and that was after years and decades of underinvestment and lack of investment in the water system, where transparency and making sure that the residents knew what was going on, the state knew what was going on, potentially could have been a good canary in the coal mine of what was to come, and steps could have been taken to prevent that disaster.

Assembly Bill 838 will buttress existing data sources, create an early warning system of sorts that makes disasters like these less likely in California. And for that reason alone, we respectfully request your aye vote today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you all might have. And again, I apologize for not being there in person.

All right, thank you so much. Do we have any folks in the room that would like to add their voice in support of AB 838?

Hello. Good afternoon. Kaitlyn Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California American Water in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, seeing no others, can I ask the primary witnesses in opposition to come forward? No, I think just yourself I guess. You've got all four minutes to yourself once again, sir.

Again, I'll try to resist the full four minutes, although it's a rare opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of El Dorado Irrigation District. So I hate to sit here next to my good colleague, Ms. Capitolo, who we often work very closely together. Unfortunately, this bill is not going to do anything with respect to providing assistance to low income households that have challenges paying their water bills. The transparency and the accountability that we provide as public water systems and as local elected officials.

All of our meetings are open and transparent. We have to adopt our rates based on cost of service studies that are publicly available and discussed in public meetings. We have to follow a Proposition 218 process to secure approval through a protest process by our ratepayers. And we also prepare and adopt five year capital improvement plans that are available on our websites. So this bill would ask for the median rate that's charged by these public water systems as well as the infrastructure that's being replaced.

The median price is not going to help anyone in California. Our systems are very different. For example, El Dorado Irrigation District on a per capita basis or per mile basis per customer, their distribution system is massive because it's a broad service area. It's not like downtown Sacramento, where you have 50 or 60 houses that are served by one block of distribution pipe. So to compare the system here in Sacramento on a median rate basis and El Dorado Irrigation District doesn't really give you any meaningful information.

Our capital improvement plans cover a lot more than just replacing infrastructure. We upgrade existing facilities based on drinking water regulations or Clean Water Act requirements. So data is good when it provides something of meaning to the customers, the public, and the regulators, and the Legislature. But this bill will not provide anything of meaning for anyone, and it will result in additional costs for water systems to provide this information, which places upward pressure on water rates. So without much meeting, we're going to oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, are there any folks in the room who like to come forward and express their opposition? Seeing none. Let's go properly to the phone moderator this time for any phone comments in support opposition to AB 838.

Thank you. And if so, please press 1-0 at this time. We do have one. Just give me a moment. Here's, we'll go to line 47. Please go ahead.

Municipal Utilities Association in opposition.

And currently none further in queue.

All right, let's turn back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? Ms. McKinnor.

Yes, I would like to thank the author for bringing this bill up. I love data, so anytime you could give me data on an issue so that I can make an intelligent decision, I welcome that. And something as important as clean, affordable drinking water, if you can get us some more data so we can make decisions, I appreciate that. So I'd like to thank the author.

All right. Thank you so much. Can I take that as a motion?

Yes.

All right. Can I get a second? Oh, we have a motion and second already. Okay. Oh, that was so quick in the beginning. I would like to invite the author to close if they wish.

Yeah. And appreciate the discussion. This is a common sense bill. It is going to help us and water consumers in the state better understand rates and the status of our infrastructure and making sure that our needs are being met. Thank you again, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And thank you so much for bringing the bill forward. I'm recommending an aye vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item nine, AB 838, Connolly. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Six votes. That's out.

Six votes, that's out. Congratulations. Next we're going to go to Assembly Member McKinnor's bill. But in the meantime, I've forgotten that we did not do the Consent Calendar. So can I get a motion in a second for the Consent Calendar? Moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, when you are ready, can we call the roll on the Consent Calendar?

The Consent Calendar consists of the following bills. AB 682, Mathis, AB 777, Cervantes, AB 1211, Mathis, and AB 1627. Those bills have the motion do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations, Consent Calendar. We have AB 565, Lee. The motion is do pass to the floor, Consent Calendar. [Roll Call] We have seven votes.

Thank you.

Consent Calendar's out.

Consent Calendar's out. And if Committee Members can make their way back, we are working now on the last bill, but not least bill, from Assembly McKinnor. So if you can come down, we can get all your votes and we can finish in a timely manner. So, Assembly Member McKinnor, whenever you're ready, begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I want to start by saying I accept the Committee's proposed amendments. California is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis with plastic waste of all size, from milk jugs to microplastics. In many cases, microfibers shed from clothing during household and commercial laundry escape wastewater treatment plants, WWTPs, and flow with discharge into aquatic and marine environments.

If microfibers are captured by WWTPs, these fragments can be reintroduced to the natural environment through the spread of sewage sludge as fertilizer. Through these pathways, microfibers end up in California's agricultural fields where they can persist for decades and compromise our food production, posing potential health risks to consumers and farming communities. Recent research even suggests that microfibers may have the same negative impact on soil and food production as a drought.

The volume of microfiber pollution has swiftly increased over the past five years, even with fairly effective WWTPs filtration. In 2019 alone, as many as 2200 metric tons of microfibers or 7.3 quadrillion, that's a lot, quadrillion, Individual fibers were released into California's lands and water. With global production of synthetic textiles expected to triple by 2050, this problem will only continue to grow. Currently, California relies on wastewater treatment plant filtration as the primary microfiber capture point.

Unfortunately, when microfiber emissions are spared from water systems only to be shifted to agricultural lands, the benefits of WWTP's microfiber filtration are lost. In order to effectively address microfiber pollution, we must look to upstream solutions. This is why AB 1628 will require all new washing machines in California, new washing machines in California, to have a microfiber filter. This is a solution that is cost and energy efficient and has the potential to dramatically reduce the volume of microfibers entering the environment.

An effective washing machine filter captures microfibers at the source before they reach WWTPs and enable consumers to dispose of microfibers in controlled landfilled environments, thereby preventing the spread of microfibers to California's agricultural lands. Built in filters are now readily available in washing machine in number of geographics, including Japan and the EU, and can be brought to scale in the US as well. The witnesses that I have here are Alexis Jackson with the Nature Conservancy and Britta Baechler with the Ocean Conservancy. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Committee. My name is Dr. Alexis Jackson with the Nature Conservancy, testifying in support of AB 1628. Last year, California took really bold action to address the threat of some of the most visible plastics that are littering our beaches and our communities. And this could be the year that we begin to address these invisible plastics, microplastics, for which there really aren't any options for cleanup once they're out in the environment. And these seeming microplastics are really having a macro problem.

They're ending up everywhere, from the waters of Lake Tahoe to the San Francisco Bay. They're in our seafood. They're even in the blood that's coursing through our veins. And a compelling body of evidence has been growing that suggests exposure to these microplastics and to the additives that are in them can result in cancer, pulmonary diseases, and can even impact cardiovascular health.

So while there are a host of different microplastics, from tires and bottles to cigarettes, we do know that microplastics that are generated from the washing and wearing of these synthetic textiles, so think your nylons and polyesters, are the most prevalent in the environment. And these microfibers, as was mentioned by Assembly Member McKinnor, they're working their way through wastewater treatment facilities. They're scooped out in biosolids, only to be reapplied on land. And so we know that here in California, that's as big as problem as any.

4.85 million tons of these are ending up in California's lands and water every year. And the problem is only growing worse as that global textile production number is anticipated to increase. So, acknowledging the many benefits of biosolids, from water savings to soil amendments, we also know that we have to avoid any further harm that's being done to these lower income rural communities that are receiving these microfibers. The good news though, is that shovel ready solutions exist.

Countless scientific studies have been put out that have demonstrated filters of 100 micrometers can be effective at removing up to 90% of fibers. And they also don't compromise the progress that we're making towards water savings or energy savings as well. Plus, they're already available on the market in other geographies. And this is a solution that's feasible and is in line with policy guidance that we're already seeing through the Statewide Microfiber Strategy.

So, in closing, this bill has really broad support from the environmental community, from academics, and even some of the fashion industry that recognizes that complementary actions need to be happening in the redesign of our clothing, all the way down to capture of washing machines, so everyone can play a role. We really want to thank Assembly Member McKinnor for her leadership on this topic. And today we ask you for your aye vote on this.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Britta Baechler. I'm here today representing the Ocean Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit working to achieve a healthier ocean supported by a more just world. We're joined by more than 40 environmental, environmental health, and justice nonprofits, as well as nearly 30 scientists, in strong support of AB 1628. As Dr. Jackson said, microplastics are a major threat to the health of our environment and wildlife.

They're especially dangerous due to their small size and ability to move in the air and water. About 1500 species across environments from land to ocean ingest plastics. Microplastics have also been discovered in the human body, in our organs and blood, in mother's breast milk and placentas. Microplastics are in the food and drinks we consume and the air we breathe. Scientists estimate that our greatest exposure to microplastics is microfibers, which are the focus of this bill. I have studied plastic pollution for about seven years now.

During my PhD, I led research on microplastics in shellfish in Oregon and Washington. I studied sites up and down the coasts of both states and found microplastics in the clams and oysters I collected in every single site. Over 99% of the microplastics I found in these animals were microfibers. These findings are unfortunately not unique to the Pacific Northwest or my study species. Microfibers are the most common type of microplastic found in habitats and wildlife around the world, including in California.

Here in California, microfibers have been found in marine sediment, surface water, snow in the Sierras, and in many of species of wildlife, like anchovies and Murres, which are a seabird. Up to 18 million microfibers are released from a single load of our synthetic laundry. Fortunately, washing machine filter technology is a proven solution to capturing these fibers before they are released into wastewater, and ultimately, to the environment. Laboratory studies have found that microfiber filters can capture up to 90% of microfibers.

This technology is already available in washing machines from major brands. Research has also shown that, on a community level, installing washing machine filters in just 10% of households can lead to a significant reduction in microfibers at the wastewater treatment plant. If we were to scale that study's microfiber capture results up to every household in the City of Los Angeles, with about 3.3 million households, we could prevent up to 468 trillion microfibers from entering wastewater every single year.

That's the weight of over five and a half million t-shirts. We need near term solutions to effectively capture microfibers before they exit our homes. We simply cannot continue to generate microfiber pollution at the current rate. Our health, our children's health, and the health of our environment are at risk. There are other steps that need to be taken.

Thank you. I'd like to ask you to wrap up.

Thank you. There are steps that need to be taken to reduce microplastics in the environment, including upstream design. But this bill is a critical first step to reducing irreversible microfiber pollution here in California. We thank you, Assemblywoman McKinnor.

Thank you so much. Is there any folks in the room who wish to register their support for the bill? Thank you. Yeah. Racing to the mic. All right, go ahead.

Hi, Dr. Lisa Erdle from 5 Gyres. We're a co-sponsor on this bill. A lot of our studies have been cited in the bill analysis as well as the opposition letter. So I'm happy to be a resource for the science if any Assembly Members had any questions about the science. Thank you.

Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Fearing. I'm pleased to be working with the sponsoring organizations and also want to convey the support of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Thank you.

Sean Bothwell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Noah Whitley and I'm speaking on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition. We are in support.

Hi. Samantha Samuelsen for Audubon California in support.

Hi. Clara Vazeix with Californians Against Waste in support.

Nicholas Sackett, Social Compassion in Legislation in support.

Thank you. Now, are there witnesses in opposition? Please come forward to the desk, please. All right, well, you will have all four minutes to yourself then, it seems.

Thank you. I'm Kevin Messner. I'm the Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. I'll try to be brief. We've got a lot to say, but I'll try to, just want to stick to kind of the facts and give the whole picture of what's going on here. So first off, I think it's an indisputable fact that plastic, there's been an explosion of plastic over 50 years, and the plastic waste problem is a massive problem, and microfibers are a massive problem.

I've heard a lot of great statistics about that. The appliance industry, clothes washer manufacturers would like and want to be part of the solution. They have been trying for years to engineer a solution and to try to find something that would work. But there's two things that we need to keep in mind here. One is obviously the protection of the environment, but the other is consumer protection. So I just want to touch on those two.

On the environmental protection, there are no test procedures or standard methodologies that exist today to test claims of how effective these filters are. We did our own test through the national NSF, they're called NSF now, found that they are about 25% effective, and that's an unbiased expert. NSF facility. In Europe, France did pass a law, and there are no clothes washers that will be available for sale in France.

They amended their law to try to make it more flexible, and they still don't have the ability to have clothes washers for sale in France. They are working, first, on a test procedure to try to figure out how effective a filter would be to address this. So filters, in order to work on the consumer protection side, they will have bypasses, so you don't have a flooding in your laundry room. Filters, by their very nature, it's engineering.

You have a drain line that has a flow of water. Putting 100 micron filter on that, if you've ever tried to put an orange juice through a strainer, it'll clog quickly and it's very difficult to get that flow rate through. And they will clog quickly and have potential flooding issues. That's what the engineering struggles are here. So there's a lot of talk about, there's filters that exist on the market. Those are external filters that were generally originally designed for septic use that are remarketed for microfibers.

We do have a couple members that are also looking at to try to find a solution. Those are mounted on a wall, so there's ADA issues. If you're wheelchair bound, you cannot address those. If you have a stacked washer, there's no place to put them. These are not a solution that are going to work in every home. And they will, again, have a bypass, and they won't be effective. So I just wanted to touch on a couple other things here.

To be clear, EPA does mention microfiber filters, but let me read what exactly, give you the whole picture of what they say. They recommend an external filter or catching laundry balls or bags. These are all external aftermarket filters that people can buy today. And you can go on Amazon and read consumer reviews, and they will show there's standing water, there's mold, there's dripping. They have slimy, mucky filters that are changing. We can't get consumers generally to change a lint trap filter with fluffy light lint and a dryer. Energy star...

If you could please wrap up.

Yep, Energy Star did consider this. Energy Star is a voluntary program. I have a lot of quotes here from the interagency marine debris that did a report on the federal level that I can clarify. Talk about the studies that have been out there and how they didn't use detergent. They used commercial weight, commercial washers. Like I said, I can go on forever. I will stop there. I'm out of time. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. Do we have any folks in the Committee room right now that would like to register opposition? Seeing none. Let's go to the phone lines for support and opposition for AB 1628.

Thank you. And it is 1-0 at this time. We'll go first to line number 45.

Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California, in strong support. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 69.

Justin Malan on behalf of Heal the Bay, in strong support.

And again, it's 1-0. Currently, none further in queue. Oh, you have one. Give me just a moment here.

Is the queue clear, Phone Moderator?

We have one with an operator. I apologize. We're getting their line number here. All right. We'll go to line 87.

Hi there. Can you hear me all right? Hi. My name is Eliseo Juarez, and I am a resident of Santa Cruz, California. And I'm calling in in support of the microfiber filtration bill, AB number 1628, to protect our natural waterways, soil, and health from an ever growing concern and contamination that is plastic pollution. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much.

And none further in queue.

Thank you so much. Let's turn it back to Committee. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you so much. I just wanted to clarify one thing with the author. It's my understanding the bill will not go into effect for over five years. Is that right? Yeah. So that's a lot of time to innovate. So I think that, I think Dr. Arambula may have been on the Committee at the time, but we had a hearing a few years ago on microplastics chaired by our former Chair, Mr. Quirk.

It was one of the best hearings I think this Committee has done in my time on it, which is my entire time in the Legislature. And it really focused on this problem of microfibers in our ocean specifically, although it was interesting to hear about the agricultural impacts you spoke of which is an additional impact. But it is real. I mean, it is affecting our environment in incredible ways. And although we've worked on, I have an upstream bill, right.

I have a bill that removes microplastics from certain products. But we do need these filters. It was very clear in that hearing that this was one of the easiest things we could do to actually make a dent in this problem. And by putting the implementation of this out five plus years, I think we are sending a signal to the market that the fourth largest economy in the world is going to demand these things. And guess what? I bet someone will be able to create one.

And it was interesting to hear that there were no studies because then you cited a study. So apparently we can do studies on the effectiveness of them. And I also know that most of us will be here in four years. And if at that time the innovation hasn't gotten to where we want it to be, where we have sent the signal to the market to go, we will be able to amend the requirements to ensure we can sell washing machines in California.

But in the meantime, I think this is incredibly important to tell the market where California wants them to go, because in almost every case that we do that with an economy of our magnitude, the market follows. And the environment needs us to send that signal right now. And that's what you're doing. And I think it's going to make an incredible impact on our ecosystems, on our wildlife, and on our health, because as was mentioned, it is having negative impacts on our health as well. So I want to thank you for this, and I would love to be a co-author.

Could I just respond?

Mr. Zbur.

Yeah, I feel like it's sort of like what she said over again.

I'll let you go first next time.

Mean, I look at the effective date and it is like almost six years out. I mean, these are washing machines and a filter. I mean, this isn't like a lot of the technical challenges that we've actually had to make in vehicles and a whole host of other technologies to meet environmental goals. And it just sort of seems like, when I look at this and when I look at your letter, I just don't want to be bothered to do this.

And so I just think that it's an important thing that we need to do to protect our environment and protect our oceans and protect our planet. And I'm just hoping that you all step up and figure it out, because it doesn't seem like, to me like it's that difficult a thing. It's about some filters and a mesh on a washing machine, and you should be able to figure out how to do that and make sure that it doesn't leak all over the floor in a utility.

Could I just respond briefly?

Assembly Member, were you asking for a response?

Sure, if you'd like to.

Just a response. So I hear you. France did their law in 2019 and said the same thing and had an effective date of 2025. And manufacturers have been trying to come up with a solution. They haven't been sitting around doing nothing. The whole country, France did that and Europe's looking at. We have not come up with a solution and they amended their law and there's not going to be any clothes washers.

So I'm just letting you know, France and a whole other country has already gone down that path, and engineers have not been able to come up with a solution. It's very difficult to have the flow rate and have the microns filters, they'll clog, and they'll go bypass. So it's just reality.

Thank you. Assembly Member McKinnor, would you like to close?

Yes. In closing, I would like to let you know Samsung has announced that their new washing machines will have microplastic filters on them. And Arçelik, Arçelik, has already incorporated microfibers into their washing machines. The technology here is here and we need to push the industry to move forward by reducing microfibers. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for bringing the bill forward, Assembly Member McKinnor. I believe that this is consistent with what we did in the Legislature in 2018, prior to my time, which the Legislature required the development of Statewide Microplastics Strategy that would help us identify science based methods for reducing microplastic pollution. And as your witnesses identified, microplastics is a pervasive problem that is in our blood, that is in our environment, and our food, and we have to combat it as quickly as possible. Recommending an aye vote. Do we have a motion. Oh, we still need a second. Second from Mr. Zbur. So, Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Item 10, AB 1628, McKinnor. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] 6-2. So it's out.

6-2. That bill's out. Congratulations.

All right, we are going to do add ons to bills now.

Thank you.

Let's start with AB 99 by Assembly Member Connolly, that's four to two.

And that's item one, AB 99. Connolly is on call. The vote stands at 4-2. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Congratulations. Okay, I'm going to hand the gavel over to Vice Chair Hoover to finish doing add ons.

We'll do add ons now. Item two, AB two, Ward. The vote stands at 6-0. [Roll Call] Any other missing votes?

That's everybody? All right. Thank you. We're adjourned.