Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Good afternoon. I call this hearing of the Assembly Environmental, Safety and Toxic Materials Committee to order. So sergeants, please call the absent Members. In addition to being able to testify from inside the hearing room, we also have the option of testifying via phone line today. The call-in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1315444. Again, that 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 sound distortion. Please note that call-in 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 that if you are a primary witness calling in, you will remain on a live line and will need to mute yourself until you are ready to speak. All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, and if they represent one, if they represent one, and their position on the Bill. I also want to note that we're accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website.

Thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods to continue to serve the people of California, we will adopt our Committee rules today. Here are 10 bills, three of them which are on consent. Thank you. Since we do not have a quorum yet, we will begin as a Subcommittee. But I would just take this moment of privilege to say that it is honor to chair the ESTM Committee and as the First Committee that I am chairing.

And I wanted to allow for any of our new Members, including myself, as a new Member, if they have any words or comments they want to make in our first inaugural ESTM meeting. No? Pass on it. All right. That's all right. Well, we are waiting on Bill authors right now for presentation and for Members to show up for quorum. So if you're a Member of this Committee and nearby, please show up so we can establish quorum. Assembly Member Rubio, would you like to present your Bill?

There you go. First author up.

Luckily, I came early. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 279 this afternoon, which ensures the continued effectiveness of our local water quality authority. The complex watershed of the San Gabriel Mountains provides water for nearly a million residents of the San Gabriel Valley in my district. Unfortunately, the water quality of the basin is complicated by decades of poor environmental oversight during the 20th century. Organic compounds, PFAS, and numerous other volatile contaminations plagued the groundwater, which in turn designated our basin as a federal superfund site.

The task of organizing and providing funding to remedy the cleanup of the basin was delegated to the San Gabriel Valley Basin Water Quality Authority, established by AB 2173 in 1992. The WQA has overseen nearly half $1 billion in remediation efforts, accounting for nearly 50% of the total contaminants removed from the basin since 1979. Unfortunately, as the Committee is all too familiar with, the efforts to remediate groundwater pollutions are long-term and complicated by newly emerging contaminants.

As such, the W Quality Authority mission has been extended several times, most recently last year by my measure, AB 2163 which received unanimous bipartisan support in this Committee. With the Authority actively planning and procuring contracts up to its next proposed sunset of the year 2050, AB 279 provides stability for the authority by revising the pumping rights assessment cap from $10 to $20.

This allows the Water Quality Authority to leverage the breadth of funding streams available to the authority while keeping costs down for the basin's constituents that they rely on. The Water Quality Authority has consistently demonstrated effective and conservative budgeting to ensure that every dollar spent under their purview effectively addresses one of the largest Superfund sites in the U.S. Their work is invaluable to my district, the San Gabriel Basin, and actually the LA Basin as well.

And Water Quality Authority has set the standards in the cleanup efforts for the whole San Gabriel Valley. This measure has unanimous support from local and statewide water entities and no known opposition. Here today to testify... where's Randy? In support of AB 279. He's on the phone. Is Randy Schoellerman, Executive Director of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority if he can answer any questions. With that, I thank you for allowing me to present.

Thank you for your introduction, Assembly Rubio. We're going to pause real quick and take quorum now. So, Madam Secretary, if you could please call quorum.

This is the quorum call. Can we hear? Yeah, okay. [Roll call]. We have a quorum.

Great. Quorum established. Now we'll resume. Phone moderator, if you could please place the support witness for this Bill, AB 279 on the phone line to start their testimony?

Afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members, this is Randy Schoellerman, the Executive Director of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. The WQA was created in 1992 to fill a need in the San Gabriel Valley. It's a dedicated local agency to manage and facilitate the cleanup of contaminants in the main San Gabriel basin.

Randy, can you hold on for a minute? We can't barely hear you.

We're asking them to turn up the volume in the room, but if you could also speak up maybe a bit, it might be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

No problem. The WQA's mission is to plan, coordinate, and provide funding for the cleanup of the basin that is known as one of the largest superfund sites in the country. The groundwater is contaminated volatile organic compounds such as perchlorate, 1,4-Dioxaine, 1,2,3,-TCP, PFAS, and other contaminants as a result of poor chemical disposal practices.

Since its inception, the WQA has been instrumental in facilitating funding agreements with responsible parties to pay for the cleanup, accelerating the implementation of basin cleanup projects, and acquiring state and federal funding to further reduce the cleanup cost burden to local residents. The WQA also partners with state and federal regulatory agencies to expedite cleanup plans and to investigate sites that may continue to pose a threat to the groundwater basin.

Overall, the basin is a local drinking water source to over 1.4 million residents in the San Gabriel Valley, including over 400,000 residents living within the disadvantaged communities. The WQA is also tasked with addressing the impact of emerging contaminants of concern, such as PFAS compounds. Therefore, WQA is requesting an increase in the maximum assessment, allowable from $10 to $20 an acre-foot, of prescriptive pumping rights to address future needs of the basin cleanup in coordination with our local, regional, state, and federal partners.

Note that this Bill does not increase the actual assessment. If an actual increase is needed at some point in the future, the seven-member WQA board, consisting of water purveyors, City Council Members, and municipal water district board members, will follow well-established law that includes public notices and hearings prior to that action being considered. The WQA has broad support among the basin stakeholders and has established a good reputation for efficient use of its assessment.

I'd like to thank the Assemblywoman Rubio for authoring this Bill, and therefore, we'd also appreciate your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for that. You don't have any more witnesses, correct? Okay. Are there any Members of the public in the hearing room to testify in support right now? Please come up to the microphone.

Thank you. Chair Lee and Members Cindy Tech with the Association of California Water Agencies pleased to support the Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room right now to testify in opposition to the Bill? In opposition. All right. Seeing none. Phone moderator, do we have any witnesses on the phone in line in support or opposition to this Bill?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 39. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliot, on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further opposition or support in queue.

Great. Thank you. Now I'm going to turn over back to the Committee. Any questions from Committee Members? Mr. Zbur? Moved by. Mr. Zbur. Moved by Assembly Member Pacheco. Second by Assembly Member Pacheco. But any comments, questions at all? All right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, the motion is do pass to the Floor. Madam Secretary, please call the motion.

This is item number two, AB 279, Rubio. The motion is do pass to the Floor. [Roll call]. So that passes. With six votes. Yes.

With six vote that passes out.

Thank you.

All right, we are looking for more authors, so if you have a Bill to present today in ESTM, please come on down. That's right. So first, let's adopt the rules actually. So the first order of business, to adopt our Committee rules. Do we have a motion and a second to adopt the Committee rules? Motion? Pacheco motions. Seconded by Connolly. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

To adopt Committee rules. [Roll call[. Okay, our Committee rules have been adopted.

Thank you. And now let's vote on the consent calendar. We have three bills on the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? Moved by Mr. Hoover. And a second on the consent calendar? Seconded by Mckinnor. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

The consent calendar. On item eight, AB 343, Muratsuchi, and item 10, AB 541, Wood. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations, consent calendar. And item nine, AB 407, Chen. The motion is do pass to the Floor, consent calendar. [Roll call]. So that passes as well. Seven votes.

Great, thank you for that. And we are still waiting for bill authors, so if you are a bill author with a bill today in ESTN, please come on down.

Good afternoon. Next, Assembly Member Lee may present his Bill on domestic drinking water wells.

Thank you. Wow, they're moving name already? Thank you, Chair and Members, I want to begin by thanking the Committee and the sponsors for their hard work on AB 664. This bill would move California one step closer to making sure that all its residents, including the most vulnerable among us, have access to safe drinking water. The State Water Board has found that nearly a million Californians lack access to safe drinking water because their water contains dangerous levels of contaminants.

Disadvantaged low income communities are especially at risk because they are more likely to rely on domestic wells, which supply groundwater to individual residences. These wells can contain contaminants that cause gastrointestinal illness, cancer, development and reproductive effects, neurological effects, and organ damage. The State Water Board reports that a third of domestic wells in the state are located in disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged communities.

Of the wells in these communities, 43%, almost half, are at risk of containing high levels of contaminants such as nitrate, arsenic, chromium-6, and even uranium. This means that California's disadvantaged communities, which are already Low income, may be further deprived and harmed by their lack of access to safe drinking water. And when you layer on top of that the experience of being a renter who relies on a domestic well for drinking water, the situation can become even more challenging.

Because they don't usually own their wells, renters have essentially no control over the quality of the water coming out of their taps. Renters are also often the people who are least able to afford to test their water, install costly filters, or buy alternative water sources. In California, low income households are especially likely to be renters. But there are solutions out there that can help well owners address severe water contamination issues.

When water systems fail or at risk of failing, the Water Board can order an extension of service or water consolidation, which benefits disadvantaged communities by ensuring that the systems serving them have the capacity to provide safe drinking water. Through consolidation, the state can offer critical resources to domestic wellowners and disadvantaged communities. In fact, the state is required to provide technical assistance and pay for cost of consolidation or extension of service. However, the state does not require domestic well owners to participate in consolidation projects.

State law also does not require landlords to ensure their tenants have access to safe drinking water. As a result, renters who rely on wells can face the risk of continued exposure to contaminants with little recourse when well owners decline consolidation and do not hold themselves accountable for providing safe drinking water. AB 664 would apply only in this very specific situation where a well owner declines consolidation along with the technical assistance and funding that come along with it.

Specifically, when a well owner declines consolidation or extension, AB 664 required domestic well owners to ensure that the renters who rely on their wells have access to safe drinking water. The bill adds a layer of protection that doesn't currently exist in state law for renters and disadvantaged communities who may be drinking from contaminated wells. This is consistent with California's human right to water law, which states that it states it's the right of every human being to have access to safe drinking water.

And with that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses in support. First, I have Michael Claiborne, directing attorney at the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and Maricela Mares-Alatorre, a community organizer and community solutions advocate for the community water center.

Thank you.

Okay, we have two primary support witnesses. One is here in person and the other is calling in. You may have the floor.

Thank you and good afternoon to the Committee. My name is Michael Claiborne. I'm a directing attorney with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. As Chair Lee just mentioned, in 2012, California recognized that access to safe drinking water is a human right for all Californians. However, 10 years later, there's still a drinking water crisis in California. A significant portion of the crisis involves households served by domestic wells, which provide drinking water to over nearly 2 million Californians.

Progress has been spurred on by passage of several bills that granted and refined the State Board's authority to mandate drinking water consolidation and extension of service. AB 664 continues this progress by helping to ensure that renters reliant on contaminated or at risk domestic wells are not left behind. Tombstone Territory, a community that we work alongside, provides an example of the need for the bill.

Tombstone is a disadvantaged community in Fresno county with approximately 40 homes served by domestic wells that are failing due to groundwater over pumping. 1,2,3-TCP, nitrates, and bacteria contamination. During outreach for the drinking water project, we had a difficult time getting a hold of property owners who live outside of the community, and some of these property owners have still not agreed to connect to the drinking water project.

Property owners that have not consented are putting renters at risk of exposure to unsafe and unreliable drinking water. They are also putting the overall project at risk given that projects like this are subject to per connection caps that are harder to meet when fewer people agree to connect. AB 664 proposes an effective solution for protecting renters access to safe drinking water while preserving the well owner's ability to choose how to manage their property.

It also ensures that the requirement only applies after the well owner has been offered technical assistance and construction funding. To be clear, consent of well owners would still be required, and the state is required to provide funding for the infrastructure costs. We urge the Committee's support and thank you.

Phone moderator please place the support witness for AB 664 on the phone line.

Line should be open.

Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you, Chairwoman and Members. Good afternoon. My name is Maricela Mares-Alatorre. I'm with Community Water center, based in Tulare County and in the Central coast, and we're proud to sponsor this legislation with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. The Community Water center is an environmental justice nonprofit that advocates for safe, clean, affordable drinking water for all Californians.

Our offices in Visalia and Watsonville, California, where Members of the community solutions team, like myself, work to provide direct aid, technical assistance, and bilingual outreach on all the different resources available to drought impacted and groundwater dependent communities within our service territory. As my colleague Michael Claiborne with leadership council mentioned, the communities where community Water center and leadership council operate are disproportionately rural Latino agricultural workers, who are often charged two to three times their daily water needs.

First, they have to pay for contaminated tap water in their homes and second, for additional potable water that they're forced to obtain for their household's daily cooking, drinking water and sanitation needs. And having grown up in such a community, I know the choices one has to make on a daily basis, like do I boil my pasta in bottled water? No, because I'm going to throw out the water. Do I boil my beans in bottled water? Yes, because they're going to sit in the water.

So those are daily choices that a lot of people don't have to make because they're not in this situation. And in several instances in Tulare County, our outreach team has been unable to help tenants with securing available state funded resources for addressing a property owner's dry or contaminated wells. This is due to the existing requirement that property owners must one consent to receive these essential resources along with the state funded technical assistance to consolidate, test, or extend water services to tenants of their property or properties.

So I've been in situations where we go out and we talk to people, but they're very reluctant to access resources because they're not sure how the property owner will respond, if they'll respond. Sometimes it's a case of them being outside of the community. They're far away, they're hard to reach, and so they're being denied these services because they can't access them without the property owner's consent.

So this creates a burden for the communities we work with and forces tenants to pay more or to risk exposures to toxins like nitrates, 1,2,3-TCP, arsenic, uranium, or other common pesticides and fertilizers used in nearby agricultural production. These contaminants are not safe for human consumption, and they have been linked to diseases like cancer and blue baby syndrome. With prolonged exposure.

With safe water solutions available, there's really no reason that tenants relying on wells should continue to live with the stress of unsafe water in their homes. If property owners are unwilling to support, we need the Legislature to guarantee these resources to reach those that are most in need. On behalf of the Community Water Center, we'd like to thank the chair for this leadership on this issue and urge the Committee's aye vote to help. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room here to testify in support?

Hello. Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action in support.

Asha Sharma with Pesticide Action Network in support.

Jane Sellen, Californians for Pesticide Reform, in support.

Maria Sanchez. [Testimony in Spanish].

Maria, farm worker, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room to testify in opposition? Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition of AB 664?

Thank you. If you are in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. We will go to line 42. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 38. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Catherine Dodd from Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. We are in support.

Are you going to do your second Bill or do I?

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 45. Your line is open.

Hi, is this the Environmental Toxins Committee? I'm trying to speak about a Lee Bill regarding toxins in water. Am I in the right place?

Yes, you have the right number. State your name.

Oh, good. The phone can be a little confusing. Now you didn't seem to have a key witness in opposition. My understanding is that tends to be part of the process. I don't suppose I could have 30 seconds to speak.

You can state in opposition, you could state your name and your organization, and if your support or opposition.

Well, but you didn't have a primary witness in opposition. And so I'm sort of respectfully asking for 30 seconds to maybe just make a little bit more of a comment beyond just my name.

Yes, that's okay.

Okay. Well, I'm kind of just talking off the fly. I'm trying to get oriented to the Legislature. And this is an interesting bill because certainly, nobody wants any contaminants in drinking water.

But just as a layperson commenting, it seems to me that maybe there's an overall water issue going on in California, and if you could solve the actual water problem, you wouldn't have to get down in the weeds with this other stuff. Just sort of a layperson's comment and just sort of related to that.

I find it interesting that a lot of these lawmakers say they're concerned about cosmetics being, having certain toxic ingredients or water, but they don't seem concerned about force injecting poison into people by way of maybe certain vaccines and mRNA technology.

Phone moderator?

That's my 30 seconds. Thanks for the time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 46, your line is open.

Hello, this is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 47. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Michelle Pereira Ryan, and I'm with California nurses for environmental health and justice. And we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And we do have one more in queue. One moment for that number. And we'll go to line 51, your line is open. Line 51, your line is open. And, Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. Are there any questions from Committee Members? No questions. Do I have a motion and a second? Connolly motion.

I'll second, but I've had a comment.

You have a comment? Okay. Assembly Member Zbur.

So I just want to thank the author for bringing this important Bill. The fact that we've got 2 million Californians receiving their water from domestic water wells is something that is a really important issue to be raising. My mother's family and I grew up in a rural farm community south of Albuquerque, New Mexico, where my mom's entire family, we received our water from domestic drinking wells. And many of them were very, you know, this was a time when there was no testing that occurred.

And so the water aquifers were contaminated by pesticides, agricultural pesticides, leaking underground storage tanks, and septic systems. And two of my mother's brothers and one of her sisters died early deaths because of that contamination. So I think every step that we can take to make sure that drinking water is clean and focusing on these domestic wells and the fact that we've got 2 million people still relying on them, I think every step that we can take is an important one.

I just want to thank the author and I'll be supporting this strongly. Thank you.

Any more questions? The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. The motion from Connolly and second by Zbur. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item seven, AB 664, Lee. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. That has five votes. That passes.

All right, now, we will have AB 307 by Assemblymember Chen, who will be coming up to present. So whenever you are ready, Mr. Chen, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your time. And thank you, Members, for allowing me to present AB 307. I'm grateful for the chair and the Committee for taking up this piece of legislation, this bill would extend the sunset date for the critically important and structural fumigation enforcement program.

As a result of this increased oversight, we see greater protections for workers, occupants, and the environment. More than anything, this program is industry supported, holding high standards for the industry and positive health driven outcomes for the occupants. Here to testify, we have the Chair of the Legislative Committee for the Pest Control Operators of California, Mr. Darren Van Steenwyk. With that, I will defer to our witness for testimony. All right, go ahead.

First off, I want to thank the chair and the distinguished Members of this Committee for hearing our Structural Fumigation Enforcement Bill. My name is Darren Van Steenwyk, and I am the Director of Field Services at Clark Pest Control, a local pest control organization and the Legislative Chair for the Pest Control Operators California.

This is an industry sponsored program that has been in existence for over three decades, and it's for the purpose of protecting the public and ensuring that the laws and regulations for the structural fumigation industry are being followed. The program is based on an $8 fee per fumigation in the participating counties that the counties will use to help them perform inspections and then follow up with enforcement actions on an as needed basis. Each county is required to perform a minimum of kind of 2% to 4% fumigations.

2% to 4% of the total fumigations are to be inspected, and the enforcement actions are then taken from there based on what the findings of that inspection are. This program has been extended several times since it started in 1993, and this is just the latest five year extension for this sunset. To ensure that participating counties can continue to serving customers and ensuring the highest levels of oversight and discipline possible. I would ask for your yes vote on this bill. Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you. Do you have any other further witnesses, Mr. Chair? No. All right. Are there any Members of the public here to cite in support of the bill? Please come forward now.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And then are there any Members of public here to cite in opposition of the bill? Please come forward. All right. Seeing none.

Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone in support or opposition of AB 307?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero, and that is one and then zero for support or opposition of AB 307. And we will go to line 51. Your line is open.

This is Laura Rosenbreger Heider of Fresno. Please support this bill. Thanks.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. And next, we will go to line one moment here. Line 55, your line is open.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right, now, Committee Members, do you have any questions, comments?

I'll just second.

All right, the bill has been moved by Mr. Hoover, seconded by Mr. Zbur. Mr. Chen, if you'd like to close. Mr. Chair. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for a vote. Great. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. I am recommending an aye vote. Please call the roll, Madam Secretary.

This is item number three, AB 307, Chen. The motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Passes with eight votes. Congratulations to Chen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Next I see Assembly Member Friedman is here. Whenever she is ready, she can present AB 496.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank you and your Committee for all of their hard work on this bill over the past several weeks. Very much appreciated. Surprisingly enough, despite what people expect when they buy products in California, personal care products in California are largely unregulated. In fact, that's the case across the United States. Aside from California's recent prohibitions on 13 chemicals and the class of PFAS chemicals, few ingredients are restricted from use in these products and regulators have limited authority to ensure that cosmetics are safe.

And keep in mind that these are products that we put right on our bodies in intimate places, in places where we come into extreme contact with chemicals. AB 496 will prohibit the sale of any personal care products within California that contain any one of 26 highly toxic chemicals starting in 2027. I actually wish this was starting sooner.

I think that when people buy products in California and take them off a shelf right here in a drugstore or in a cosmetic store, they assume that these products are absolutely safe and that every ingredient has gone through the most rigorous testing. Unfortunately, that's not the case. As personal care products are applied directly to our body, the health risks that are posed by these chemicals can be significant. Since these chemicals are not essential for these products to be used and alternative products without them are available, people that are exposed to these chemicals are being done so for absolutely no reason.

The Committee analysis discusses the reasons for consistency with the European Union regulations. The EU, unlike the United States, has a rigorous scientific process to evaluate chemical ingredients and cosmetics, and it's helpful for the cosmetics industry to not have different standards in the international market.

I amended this bill to make 2027 the effective date of the ban for these 26 chemicals after discussions with the Personal Care Products Council. They are neutral on the bill, and when we worked on PFAS last year and on this bill this year, the first group we reached out to was industry to say: what do you need to make this realistic and workable? And that was what they asked for, and that's what we did. My office met with the small amount of opposition last week. Now, they're opposed to the inclusion of one chemical to be banned in the bill, known as lilial or lily adelide?

Aldehyde. Lilial is a fragrance compound used in some personal care products. The primary health harms linked to this chemical include impaired fertility and prenatal development. The EU banned it for being a reproductive--a reprotoxic substance in 2022. Should the bill get out of Committee today, I'll continue to work with the opposition regarding their concerns.

Aldehyde.

Testifying in support of AB 496 today in person is Scott Faber from the Environmental Working Group. He's their Senior VP of Government Affairs, and on the phone we have Homer Swei, Environmental Working Group's Director of Healthy Living. And I respectfully request your aye vote and thanks for your hearing the bill today.

Thank you. First witness may begin.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Scott Faber, and I'm the Senior Vice President for Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group and an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University Law Center. I'm joined today by my colleague, Homer Swei, who is EWG's Senior Vice President for Healthy Living. EWG is the sponsor of AB 496, which will prohibit the use of 26 chemicals in cosmetics.

Like other California cosmetics law, AB 496 will only ban chemicals that have been banned in the EU, are still used in cosmetics in the U.S. and California, and have been linked to documented health harms. As you heard, consumers expect that the chemicals in these everyday products have been reviewed for safety, but the unfortunate reality is that the FDA does not review the safety of chemicals in cosmetics and has only banned ten chemicals from cosmetics for safety reasons.

The coal tar colorants that would be banned by AB 496 are explicitly exempted from FDA action, even though they cause serious harm to consumers. While recent changes to federal law enacted by Congress give FDA some new ministerial powers, like ordering recalls when consumers are harmed, the new law merely codifies a longstanding system that relies on the cosmetic companies, not the FDA, to ensure the safety of their products.

The new federal law does not require the FDA to conduct pre-market or post-market safety assessments, and only gives the FDA very limited access to company safety records. By contrast, 80 other nations, including all of those in the European Union, have banned more than 1,600 chemicals from cosmetics.

The good news is that the new federal law expressly preserves the power of states like California to ban or restrict chemicals such as those listed in AB 496, including chemicals linked to reproductive harm, like lily aldehyde. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to testify. We would ask that the Committee support AB 496, and now I turn to my colleague, Homer Swei.

All right, Homer is joining us on the phone, correct? Yes?

That's right, sir.

Okay. You may begin.

I'm here. Yeah. Can you hear me okay? Just checking the mic.

Yep, we can hear you.

Yeah. My name is Homer Swei. I'm a chemical engineer who joined EWG after spending 30 years in the private sector with companies such as Johnson and Johnson and Dow Chemical. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Many of the chemicals used in cosmetics provide health benefits and are likely safe to use.

However, the chemicals identified in AB 496 pose personal and public health harms with long-lasting environmental impacts. While all of the AB 496 chemicals are problematic, EWG is especially concerned about well-documented impacts determined by governmental agencies for lily aldehyde, which is classified as a reprotoxic 1D substance by the--studies--

Phone Auditor, did we lose our witness?

Hello? Hello?

Yes, you're still there.

Hello?

Yes, we can still hear you.

We can hear you. Hello?

I'm terribly sorry. Let me just continue. Classified as a reprotoxic 1D substance by the European Union, such a classification means that animal studies, quote, 'provide clear evidence of an adverse effect on sexual function and fertility or on development,' unquote, in humans due to the risk of prenatal development toxicity and reduced male sperm count.

It should be of no surprise then that lily aldehyde is also a candidate chemical under DTSC's Safe Consumer Products Program and is subject to mandatory disclosure under the Department of Public Health Safe Cosmetics Program. Unfortunately, the California Safe Cosmetics database reports that California consumers are exposed to more than 1,800 products that use lily aldehyde. Even when consumers don't use products containing fragrance, total avoidance of lily aldehyde may not be possible as secondhand involuntary exposures to fragrances are widespread.

Safe alternatives exist for each of the chemicals prohibited by AB 496, including lily aldehyde. Many responsible U.S. brands have already reformulated out of lily aldehyde, and indeed, nearly identical products are offered for sale in the European Union and other nations without the chemicals listed in AB 496. We urge you to support AB 496 and we'd be happy to take your questions. Thank you all.

All right. Thank you so much. Before we go on to opposition, are there any witnesses in the room want to come and testify in support of this bill? Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room testify in support?

Hello. I'm Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action. We did not get in on time with the letter, but we do support this bill because all of these things go down the drain and into our water. So thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Laura Deehan with Environment California, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of CALPIRG, in support.

Thank you. All right. With the primary witnesses in opposition, please come forward to the desk. All right, welcome. You have four minutes between the two of you, however you want to split it.

Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nicole Quiñonez, here on behalf of the Fragrance Creators Association. Fragrance Creators Association is the principal trade association representing fragrance industry in the United States with over 60 member companies, and our companies represent the entire fragrance supply chain from fragrance or ingredient suppliers and fragrance formulators and final consumer product manufacturers.

While we certainly appreciate the author's goal to limit the use of ingredients here in California that are banned by the European Union in cosmetics that pose a risk to California consumers, we do oppose the ban of lily aldehyde primarily because the research or science done in the EU was not based on a risk assessment.

Rather, it was the outcome of an automatic ban of substances classified under the EU classification, labeling, and packaging regulation as presumed to be human reproductive toxicant based on animal studies. And we say presumed versus the likely, I think, is the higher standard there. This hazard-based action does not consider the existing safety assessments of the Research Institute of Fragrance Materials or the International Fragrance Association standards, which support the safe use of fragrance based on specific risk considerations.

Moreover, California's own regulatory systems, put in place to protect consumers and provide ingredient transparency, do not recognize lily aldehyde as an ingredient of concern. Lily aldehyde is not a Proposition 65 listed ingredient, nor is it found on any of the 22 authoritative lists of the Department of Toxic Substances Control Candidate Chemical List, which is used in the Safer Consumer Products Program. For over 50 years, RIFM has gathered and analyzed scientific data and engaged in testing and evaluation related to the use of fragrance ingredients.

All of RIFM's research is reviewed by an independent expert panel and an international group of dermatologists, pathologists, toxicologists, environmental and respiratory scientists that have no commercial ties to the fragrance industry. According to RIFM's assessment, lily aldehyde may be safely used in cosmetic products below certain specific concentration limits which are set in the IFRA standards. For these reasons, Fragrance Creators Association is opposing unless amended to AB 496, but we certainly appreciate the author's willingness to continue conversations. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Broad, here on behalf of the Fragrance Science and Advocacy Council. We are also respectfully opposed unless amended to AB 496 by Assembly Member Friedman. Just by way of background, FSAC is a trade association that advocates for fragrance houses and fragrance-adjacent businesses. I would like to largely echo the comments of Ms. Quiñonez and the Fragrance Creators. We would like to see the inclusion of lilial removed from the bill.

Although we don't love the precedent of reopening up statute to add ingredients based on what was done in the European Union, we would be willing to come off the bill if lilial is removed. As Ms. Quiñonez mentioned, the science is controverted with respect to lilial based on that distinction in that it was graded on potential hazard, opposed to risk.

I had the opportunity to talk with Assembly Member Friedman's staff last week and we're looking forward to meeting with her as well as her staff to provide the scientific data regarding the use of lilial, which we believe is safe. For now, though, we have to be here with our position on record. I would like to thank her for adding a delayed implementation of the bill. That does help alleviate some of our concerns with respect to 496. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Are there any members of the public in the room here to testify in opposition to this bill? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, Phone Operator, do we have any folks on the phone who are in support or opposition of AB 496?

Thank you. If you're in opposition or support, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we will go to line 42. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 37. Your line is open.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 45. Your line is open.

Hi. I'm calling on behalf of tens upon tens of millions of California parents against pharma fascist tyranny. Why don't you get your--

Thank you for your call.

Out of vaccines--

I knew that was coming.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 51. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Laura Rosenberger Haider. Please support this bill, AB 496.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 53. Your line is open.

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

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 38. Your line is open.

Hi. This is Catherine Dodd with Families Advocating for Toxic and Chemical Safety. We are in strong support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 47. Your line is open.

This is Mechelle Perea-Ryan, and I'm with California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 57. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Kathryn Mizuno, and I am calling from Watsonville on behalf of the Friends Committee for Legislation, and I am calling in support of AB 652. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 59. Your line is open. Do you have us on mute?

And we do have one more in queue. One moment while we get their line number. And one more. We'll go to 43. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Empress Diaz and I am from Greenfield, and I am with SAS. I am calling in support of AB 652.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no support or opposition in queue.

All right. Thank you so much, phone moderator. Do we have any questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Zbur?

So I want to thank the author for bringing this really important Bill. I've always been one who has advocated that we make our decisions based on science and looking at risks of products that we're using and comparing them to what the likely alternatives are going to be. I strongly support this Bill is written. I was sympathetic, I think, to some of the arguments that were raised by some of the folks in the fragrance industry.

But what that really points out to me is really the fact that we sort of lack, I think, a rigorous testing strategy here in California, and I think points to what we need to be doing as a next step. We shouldn't sort of have... we shouldn't be relying only on the European Union. One, because we're subject to what the European Union might do or not do. And so I think we need a strong oversight of all the chemicals that we're using in daily life.

I'm not quite sure how to do that, but would love the author's and others' advice and the Chair's advice about how to do that potentially next year. And I think if we did that, then we wouldn't have these issues coming up with having to rely on what was tested or not tested and whether it was only half done in the European Union or not. So I just want to say I'm glad that the author has pushed this off for a little bit.

I think my biggest issue with, the biggest question I've had is, if this is banned here, what is the alternative? And is the alternative something that's worse? This isn't the kind of thing, though, that is some kind of crucial product that we have to use. So I do think that we have to always err on the side of safety and safety for the public.

And so I'm glad that the author will continue to work with you all over the course of the next year and address those issues. And I have great respect and trust for the author in doing that. So thank you.

So I want to also thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I do have a couple of questions. You had mentioned there's some evidence that this is a harmful product for reproductive reasons. Do you have that information readily available?

Thank you for the question. So the E.U. has done animal studies on this chemical and this class of chemicals. I'd like to turn to my sponsors. I don't know whether Dr. Swei or you would rather answer.

That's a good question for Dr. Swei.

So we have, Dr. Swei is an expert in this, so if you don't mind, we can go to the phone lines and ask him.

Yes, I'm having issues with my phone. Can you respond? Sorry about that. Yeah.

We can still hear you, but there was a question posed to you. Ms. Pacheco, do you want to repeat your question for him?

So the question is, it's been said that there's evidence that lilial, am I saying it right? Is a harmful product. Do you have evidence of that that you can share?

Yes, we can. I mean, Lilial was originally identified as a strong sensitizer. So as part of the disclosed fragrance disclosure. Since then, it has been identified as a Repro 1B for reproductive toxicity. But there's also some environmental harms that are associated with as well. Yes, we can share that with you after the call. Happy to do that.

So I would like to see that information, and I'm sure the opposition would love to see that information. And the other question is, where specifically do we see this product or this specific thing, lilial? What product is it specifically being used for? Is it just fragrance that it's being used for? What specifically is it used for?

Yeah, it's primarily used as a fragrance component across just about every sector out there, personal care and others. It's in thousands of products that are in the market today.

So do we know what products?

Well, that is one of the challenges with this particular ingredient is that because of federal labeling laws, fragrance companies aren't yet required to put the word lilial or lily aldehyde on the label. The recent law gave FDA the power to require disclosure for fragrance allergens. So it may be, someday, consumers may be able to look at the package and avoid this chemical, but they cannot do that today. They have to use complicated online databases if they're determined enough to do so to try to avoid this.

So in addition to being a reproductive toxin, which has been linked to reduced sperm counts and reduced male organ weight in animal studies, it's also very hard to avoid. Unlike many of the other chemicals that AB 496 would ban, it's very hard for consumers to shop around this problem. They're really depending on legislatures to protect them.

And I will add, due to the California, what is it, the right flavors and fragrance law that was passed. We do have access to that in the database. That's where the 1,800 products comes from that I mentioned in my testimony. That is publicly available.

This is Matt Broad again for FSAC. I would just add one, I think, within the context of this Bill, we're talking about cosmetics for this specific Bill. To the issue that we're describing about grading on hazard versus risk, our concern is that anything in a high enough concentration can be hazardous. For example, too much exposure to oxygen could be hazardous versus what is the risk to consumer. I'm not a toxicologist. I don't even play one in Committee here today.

But I will say that my understanding is that the test in the European Union that we're discussing was based on the product in aggregate. So how much you would use in a variety of different products where it got to the point where it could potentially be hazardous. So I think to our point, and to Assembly Member Zbur's point, too, is that we would like to see it go through a regulatory process stateside.

And if we think we don't have that ability, then that's a whole nother issue. But it comes back to, with this specific Bill, we're talking about amending statute to add ingredients based on a regulatory function that we've essentially outsourced to the European Union, if that makes sense.

Can I just quickly respond to that? Because when the European Union did look at this question at the request of the fragrance industry, and looked in particular at the levels that were proposed for lily aldehyde by the fragrance industry, the European Union, on three separate occasions, their scientific experts, their regulatory science experts, found that the levels of lilial that industry wanted to include in these everyday products were not safe. And they didn't simply look at hazard. They looked at hazard and risk.

They incorporated the question of exposure into their decision about whether or not people would be exposed to too much lilial in a way that would cause them, in particular, to suffer from some of the reproductive harms I've talked about, reduction in sperm count, reduction in male organ weight. So there are both developmental fertility and reproductive harms. There are also prenatal developmental harms that have been identified through animal studies. The other thing I'll just quickly say is we agree.

We worked side by side with the Personal Care Products Council for eight years to try to give FDA the powers that, you sir, identified. We wanted FDA to have the power to look at all the data about hazard. What are the toxic components of these chemicals? To look at all the data about use. How are we exposed to these chemicals?

And Congress was simply unable to produce that law and instead did make some important improvements, but was unable to reform the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to give FDA that basic power that I think most of us assume FDA already has.

Is there a certain percentage of that would be of lilial that would be harmful? Is it exposure of a certain percentage? 20%, 30%? Do you know what that percentage is?

That's a good question for Dr. Swei. I don't have the amounts memorized from the fragrance industry that they proposed to the RAC and the SCCS. Homer, do you want to try to answer that?

Yeah. Scott, I think what you're referring is to the European Commission's SCCS, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. They have twice rejected the levels proposed by industry by IFRA. Twice reduced, twice rejected. So they still have not approved any of the levels. What they have said mean is given all the exposures from cosmetics products, they cannot approve. And they don't even know the levels outside of cosmetics products, which gives them quite high concern about the level.

So we still do not have a government authority saying, what levels are considered safe for lily aldehyde.

And then the other question is, it has nothing to do with this Bill, but for air fresheners, does that have lilial? Sorry.

Please go ahead. Go ahead. Finish, please.

The reason I ask is because I know we spray fragrances on us, on ourselves, but I feel like when you spray an air freshener, somehow our bodies still come in contact with it. Even though it might not be direct, we still may come in contact with it. I'm curious whether air fresheners also have lilial.

It's in virtually all fragrances out there, every category, lilial, lily aldehyde. And you're correct. Secondhand exposures, involuntary exposures are also a huge concern given the widespread uses of fragrance everywhere. You're absolutely correct.

And then that leads to another question. Is there an alternative to it?

These are great questions. Thank you. So, fortunately, the cosmetics industry has an enormous palette of chemicals. There are about 16,000 ingredients that are used by cosmetic manufacturers, hundreds that are used by the fragrance industry. IFReC maintains a list of all the ingredients that are used in cosmetics on their website. Not by product, but at least the entire palette for the public to see. So the good news is that there are literally thousands of chemicals available to produce cosmetics.

This Bill proposes to ban 26. And of the 1,600 chemicals that have been banned by the E.U. and that are showing up in Europe, these were the 26 that we could find where there was strong evidence of harm. So we're not asking you to ban 1,600 chemicals or 16,000 chemicals. We're simply asking you to ban the 26 chemicals that Europe has banned but are also still showing up in our products.

And where there's strong peer-reviewed evidence, typically animal studies of harm, including cancer, reproductive harm, neurological harm, or harm to the immune system. I'm not suggesting lily aldehyde causes all of those harms, but many of the other chemicals on this list have been linked to those harms.

Okay, thank you. And I'm hoping there could be more dialogue and conversations, maybe some information sharing on both sides. And hopefully, there's some kind of understanding because I know it's just one chemical that's being disputed here. So I want to thank again, the author for this Bill. And that actually concludes my questions.

All right, thank you. Any other Assembly Members besides Assembly Member Zbur have any questions? Would you mind if we let Vice Chair Hoover go?

I'll be brief. Thank you for bringing the Bill forward. I'm going to be laying off today, but I just wanted to encourage further negotiations and I look forward to seeing the Bill again. Thanks so much.

Mr. Zbur?

As I said, I'm going to support the Bill today. I just had one question and hopefully, we can maybe spend some time offline later. But to me this is about, I think, inadequacy of the overall regulatory system.

And I think the short question that I sort of pose today is do we have the capacity in California to substitute what the FDA is not doing? Because I don't have a lot of faith that folks in Congress are going to pass the kind of regulatory program that I think we'd all like. And I trust that the 26 compounds are the worst ones in that list.

But when I hear that there's 16 other compounds out there and we don't have a program that's actually looking at compounds we're banning and what is likely substitutes, that really just scares me. And so anyway, I don't know if you wanted to answer that briefly.

I'll just say I was very alarmed to find out that these chemicals that are used in these products and many other products are not routinely tested for safety before they're introduced into the environment and put on our own bodies and the bodies of our children. Just driving here this morning, I heard that the Federal Government for the first time is starting to take some steps towards dealing with the unbelievable amount of PFAS pollution in our water system across the country.

And they're basically putting in a lot of that on the water agencies through ratepayer money to try to clean up water supplies that they know are right now not safe for the public to drink. And that's because for many, many years, despite mounting evidence and an overwhelming amount of evidence, we allowed industry to keep saying this is absolutely essential. We have to keep using these products and now we have a poisoned water supply because of it. And so we really do things backwards in this nation.

And it's only recently under the Biden Administration that we even have the ability to do these kinds of bills and to preempt the Federal Governments in action. And I think it's a national scandal and it should be something everybody is asking. The role of governments to keep us safe and our government is failing to keep us safe.

And they're allowing industry to do whatever they want unfettered until there's a lawsuit, until people get really, really harmed to take any action and they do it better in other countries. And that's why we are unfortunately having to follow their lead. A few years ago when I realized this, when I came into the Legislature, I think in 2017, I learned about California's program which is called the Green Chemistry Council that's supposed to review these chemicals.

Now the State of Texas with their own internal policies have banned dozens and dozens of chemicals. That's Texas. California, I think less than 10 through Green Chemistry Council. So I did a Bill a few years ago to get rid of the Green Chemistry Council in California. Just ban it. It's not working. And every time we try to do a Bill about PFAS or chemicals or cosmetics, industry come forward and say, hey, we have our own process, let our own process work. We really have no process.

So I really appreciate your question and I think it's something that we should work on here in California. We have an under-resourced Department with Green Chemistry Council. They're not really doing their job. They're not doing much of anything as far as I can see. And meanwhile, we are letting other countries take the lead in terms of public safety and we seem to just know we're really struggling to catch up with that.

Any further questions from the Committee? No? Mr. Friedman, do you want to close?

The last thing I'll say is that when we went to the cosmetic industry and asked them about this Bill, take fragrance out of that equation, but the rest of the cosmetic industry said to us for this to work for industry, we want this ban to match the E.U. That was their request. They didn't want us to start piecemealing because they are making their products for the international marketplace, for the U.S. marketplace, and for the European marketplace.

That's what we heard from much of the rest of the industry. That's why they're not here today to oppose. So that's why we would like to keep our ban list in line with the worst chemicals that the E.U. has identified based on rigorous studies and animal studies and lots of a very long regulatory process in that country where they did take a deep dive into all of the evidence that was out there. With that, I would request an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Friedman, for bringing this Bill forward. I agree with you. I think we need more alignment with our European counterparts, especially when it comes to toxic materials and hazardous materials. We're the fourth largest economy in the world, and certainly we can learn from 27 economies that half of them, when they combine together, become the economy of California. But I really do trust the rigorous process of the international scene, of course, of the European Union as well.

And I think a lot of times we pride ourselves in leading the nation or setting the standards, but in recent years, in many different fields we're following, especially in the E.U. So we should learn from this. And I also want to applaud you for reaching out to industry very early on, trying to negotiate and compromise that.

And it is a big deal that most of industry is not here opposing us because you gave them that necessary 2027 timeline to have the R and D and have the rollout for products which they're also simultaneously having to do for the European market. And when we talk about fragrances and all, I'm sure a lot of us pride ourselves on having fragrances from France, and France is still one of these places that, of course, is abiding by these new laws.

So with that, I'm recommending an Aye vote and also like to ask to be a co-author moving forward to this. And the motion is do pass to the Floor. So, Madam Secretary. Oh, we need a motion, a second first. Would anyone like to? McKinnor and Zbur. Whichever you like to decide. All right, motion, and seconded. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

This is item number four, AB 496. Friedman. The motion is do pass to the Floor. [Roll call].

Thank you all. Thank you very much.

With six votes, that's out to the floor. Thank you. And Mr. Holden, I think I saw you there. Whenever you're ready, come up and you can present AB 249. You may begin when you're ready. Welcome, Mr. Holden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you and the members having me here today and giving me an opportunity to present Assembly Bill 249. Lead is a dangerous toxin and there is no safe amount of lead in a child's drinking water. Even Low levels of exposure can cause learning and behavioral problems for children and damage their organs and nervous system. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, as much as 20% of lead a child takes in comes from drinking water.

In 2018, I authored a bill that tasked the Department of Social Services, in consultation with the State Water Board, with developing regulations for regular testing of lead and drinking water for child daycare centers. Through those regulations, the lead testing standard for children's for childcare centers is set at five parts per billion.

AB 249 builds on that important work by requiring schools and community water systems to collaborate on comprehensive sampling plan to test for lead and drinking water and food preparation outlets using a five parts per billion threshold, a standard used in many other states, including Maryland, Montana and Washington. Faucets and outlets that test higher than the lead threshold are required to be shut down and either replaced or properly filtered.

Because transparency is an important part of this process, schools must notify parents if outlets at their child's school tests above the lead threshold, and the State Water Board is required to make all lead testing results publicly available by posting them on its website. From the lead and water data currently available through the limited testing conducted to comply with AB 746, we know that nearly one in five California schools have water outlets that are emitting lead amounts higher than five parts per billion.

Unfortunately, that testing round only required testing of one to five water outlets at each school. What's worse, some school districts were able to keep their lead emitting faucets operational by flushing, a technique whereby a faucet is left to run for 30 seconds and then reset.

A 2020 study by the Center for Disease Control on the implementation of AB 746 estimated that an action level of five parts per billion would have resulted in a ninefold increase in the amount of schools required to remediate their drinking water. From the data we have, we know there are many faucets leaching lead at schools our children are attending, and many of these schools are concentrated in low income areas predominantly attended by students of color.

As I'm sure you all agree, our students access to safe water shouldn't depend on income level or skin color. Testifying in support of AB 249 is Dr. Nguyen with the American Academy of Pediatrics and Kelly hardy with children. Now.

It's been moved in a second, so begin when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Kelly Hardy with Children Now. We're a statewide policy, research and advocacy organization. I'm usually in the Health Committee. I'm really pleased to be here today. We are proud to co sponsor AB 249 with environmental working group and in partnership with author Assemblymember Holden. This bill implements a comprehensive approach building on AB 2370 and AB 746, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC state there's no safe amount of lead in water.

A goal of 15 parts per billion is not enough. It's not safe enough for our kids. In addition to being a children's health issue, this is an environmental justice issue. As the Assemblymember mentioned, lead poisoning screening rates amongst our kids in medical are too low. 61% of kids in medical were screened for lead by their second birthday, and only 45% of our black kids in medical were screened. This means too many kids are falling through the prevention safety nets.

And I'm also concerned about our educators and school site staff. There's impacts on those folks as well. We know that a one size fits all approach does not work for our schools. So the flexible remediation approach is really important. We're not requiring schools to rip up their walls in order to fix lead issues. The problems can either be fixed at the faucet or with a filter. This is really important.

We know that schools need to have the support to be able to do this properly, but it needs to happen ASAP. 2029 or later is not good enough. And a 15 parts per billion standard is not good enough for our kids. On behalf of California's kids and families, I ask you to support this bill. We have been and are continuing to meet with EPA, education and environmental justice and children's health stakeholders, and the bill leverages federal funding from the bipartisan infrastructure law. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. And I understand your second witnesses on the phone, is that correct? Yes. Phone moderator if you could let them on.

Hello? Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. My name is Vi Thuy Nguyen. On behalf of AAP California I'm the chair of the expert Committee on Environmental Health and a pediatricians. I urge your Committee to vote yes on AB 249. My main job is actually in clinic. I'm a frontline pediatrician. I take care of about 2000 families.

Indeed, most of the membership of the AAP are that you're a community pediatricians who take care of our state children. I'm here to remind you that lead is a pediatric neurotoxin. It's an accumulative neurotoxin and it's stored in the bones and teeth and never leaves the body. Children are uniquely susceptible to even low levels of lead which can lower IQ and cause learning and behavioral problems and in turn, elevate costs in healthcare, education and criminal justice. The reason I'm here is very personal.

I see the effects of lead pollution in real life in my clinic. So I do increasing numbers of evaluations for children with ADHD and autism. I prescribe more and more stimulant medications and have more children than antipsychotics to address behavioral issues. And I try to help the families navigate the difficult world of special education and medical services like speech therapy, occupational therapy, ADA services. And my workday is filled with increasing demands of these children who need our help.

I can't help but remember that much of the chaos that's being caused in my workplace could have been averted if we had addressed this leaded drinking water problem earlier. So exposure to pregnant women to high levels of lead can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth and low birth weight. So it's an issue for our working moms that are at the schools as well. There are astronomical cost to do the negative impacts of lead to our whole society.

So for every dollar spent on controlling lead hazards it's well known that it's an estimated about $100 would be returned to our community in terms of health benefits, increased IQ, higher lifetime earnings, tax revenue reduced spending on special education and reduced criminal activity. So children at the highest risk for lead poisoning are they very young, including the developing fetus and the economically disadvantaged.

This is because undernourished children are more susceptible to lead because their bodies absorb more lead if they have other nutrient deficiencies like calcium or iron. So let's not wait to address the clear danger of leaded drinking water in our schools that threaten our state's future. It's just not fair to these children attending schools now and simply not fair as it's likely children in environmental justice communities that suffer more. Thank you so much, Dr. Nguyen from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

All right. Thank you so much. And do we have any members of the public in the hearing room testify in support of the bill? Anyone in the hearing room come up to the mic.

I'll just chime in and support Susan Little with Environmental Working Group. We're one of the co sponsors of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. And I'm Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action in support of the bill. I do want to mention one caveat, though. We are a little concerned about the language and the findings that say we should complement requirements established by the US EPA right now. The lead and copper rule that's on the table is actually from the Trump era. Okay. It may be improved, but we don't know where that's going to be. And we would hate to codify something that we can't do better than we have to follow federal law. But that's the floor, so that's the only problem we would just bring up to the Committee. Otherwise, we are definitely in support. And thank you.

Thank you for that.

Rebecca Marcus representing CALPIRG in support. Thanks.

Good afternoon. I'm Ara Eiger on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support of this bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any others in the room, if not with the primary witnesses in opposition, please come forward to the desk. And you've got four minutes between both you of however you want to split it. So go ahead when you're ready.

Hi there. Laura Deehan with Environment California in strong support of the bill.

Thank you. Chair Lee and Members Cindy Tuck with the Association of California Water Agencies. We represent public water agencies across the State of California. We have an opposed, unless amended position on AB 249. We have worked on prior lead bills that have been enacted, including the ones referenced that required testing for lead in schools and in daycare centers. Our concern with this bill is the timing.

We think it's premature, and we think it's premature because the Biden Administration, as we speak, is revising the prior version of the lead and copper rule that's in regulation at the federal level. So the Biden Administration, they say this is a priority for them to strengthen the existing federal rule. On the timing of this, which was raised in the other folks testimony, I have very current information.

On March 1, the head of the water program for US EPA, the assistant administrator Radhika Fox, spoke at our conference. She heads the Office of Water for EPA. And she said that EPA is on track to publish the draft of the federal lead and copper rule improvements by this fall and finalize the rule by October of 2024. She said it's a priority for the Biden Administration. So with that timing, our concern is that 249 is ahead of this.

So we could end up with two different programs, conflicting requirements possibly, but definitely different programs, duplicative requirements. So that's our fundamental concern. We think it makes sense to know what the federal rule is that we'll have next year and then have, in ACWA's view, have the State Water Board report to the legislature know, was this a good federal rule or do we need changes to state law? So that's why we have a pose, unless amended position, we would urge you to vote no or to abstain.

Thank you. My name is Danielle blasted with the California Municipal Utilities Association, representing water and wastewater agencies throughout the state. Well, we are respectfully opposed to AB 249. Our members' highest priority is delivering a safe and reliable water supply to their customers, including all of the children in their service areas and at schools. We want to highlight, it was talked a little bit about that's specific to schools.

Between 2017 and 2019, water systems completed a large scale school testing program based on AB 746 and also separate permit amendments that were issued to each water system. This testing measured down to five parts per billion, the action level that's now included in AB 249. So the state already has sufficient information to know some of the schools in need of lead remediation, meaning if a school has results above five parts per billion, no additional work is needed by water systems for the school to take action.

In addition, the Federal Government has already approved the lead and copper rule revisions and are slated to finalize the lead and copper rule improvements next year. As outlined by my colleague with ACWA, there are robust testing requirements in the LCR already that we will achieve the same outcomes as AB 249. We are concerned that should this bill pass, there will be two different testing regimes that must be complied with at the same time without any additional public health protection.

It's unclear how water systems would reconcile the differences, especially because there is no certainty that the state would be able to receive a waiver from the Federal Government because of specific requirements. We are supportive of an approach that would allocate federal funds to help schools should the state be able to use it for those purposes, including using the existing test results to get started tomorrow. While we appreciate the author's desire to ensure children are protected from lead and drinking water, a goal that we share. AB 249 is the wrong approach. We respectfully urge your no vote.

All right. Thank you. Do you have any Members of the public in the hearing room to testify in opposition? Come to the mic.

Mr. Chair. And Members Ian Padilla with the Coalition for adequate school housing. And I'm not here in opposition. We don't have an official letter yet. We have had a very good discussion with the sponsors as well as the author's staff about schools. Concerned about here. Right. We haven't heard about schools.

It's a big school bill. So I just basically wanted to say that and highlight what we're looking at is, of course, the inevitable increased cost. Right. And some of the complication associated with that. That's why we appreciate the discussion about funding. Frankly, last year there was a bill that was trying to achieve the same thing, and we weren't really even able to express our concerns. And we'll continue to work with the authors. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for doing that, we're going to keep it to name an organization.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association respectfully opposed and align my comments with Ms. Blacet-Hyden. Thank you.

Thank you. Now phone moderator. Do we have any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition to AB 249?

Thank you for your support or opposition. You may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we will go to line 42. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Erin Woolley. On behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 36. Your line is open.

This is Liv Butler. On behalf of Californians Against Waste, in support.

Thank you, next we'll go to line 65. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Santiago Rodriguez with California environmental voters in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 51. Your line is open.

I am Laura Rosenberger-Heider, secretary of Fresnans Against Fracking, and I support this bill. AB 249. Because oil spills contaminate water with lead. Drinking water with lead.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 38. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. This is Catherine Dodd with Families Advocating for Chemical & Toxic Safety. We strongly support this bill now.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 32. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Jill Buck from RBK's district, the Go Green Initiative. We are very much in support of this bill.

Next, we'll go to line 63. Your line is open.

My name is Megan Kaun. With Sonoma Safe Agriculture Safe Schools, and we are in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 40. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Sandra Poole with Western Center on Law and Poverty and support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 47. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Michelle Pereira Ryan, and I'm with California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right, great. We're going to move on to Committee Member questions first. Is Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. Any other questions, just let me know.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I really want to say thank you to Assemblymember Holden for bringing this bill back as an assemblymember, but also as a mom of three school age children. And what I wish the opposition were saying were, yes, of course, we should have done this yesterday, and we need your help to do it instead of don't do this, because every single year that goes by that our children are consuming neurotoxins is one year too many. And so you are absolutely right to be bringing this.

We should be moving this forward and we should be supporting the work in our schools. Our schools are strapped. There's no question about that. And our water districts, as I know, are strapped and we can help them. So that is a separate question. But this question here today, moving these timelines up, ensuring this happens as quickly as possible, is what our children need. So thank you.

I want to echo Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan's comments strongly support the five parts per million level. I think there's no amount of lead that's acceptable, frankly. Yeah, no amount of lead that's acceptable, frankly. And the one issue that I think I just have a question on relates to sort of some of the issues related to compliance, where the obligations to do the testing, which I support, are dedicated to the water districts. And I think the special districts letter raised a point that they may not have access to do the testing.

And so I'm just wondering if you thought about that or if there's some things in the bill that could be added to make sure that the water districts, we need to have this testing done, I think. But we can make sure that they're doing it if there's some enforcement obligations that extend to the schools and to some of the places where the testing needs to occur.

Yes, so the bill right now does contain language that requires the schools to allow the water districts to come on site and do the testing. And certainly, I know in the past, under the Gonzalez Bill, AB 746, the schools and the water districts did work together. Oftentimes, the schools help the water districts collect the sample. I know our organization would be supportive of looking more at language like that.

But would it also extend to the private schools, too? I think that was one of the points that was made in the letter, and I think that I support the testing. I think that there should be the obligation there. I just want to make sure that the water districts are able to do it.

I think our goal is to make sure that, to gain compliance, that we want to make sure that it's an easy flow, no pun intended, for those who are required to implement the program, and certainly private schools. I think I better double check just to make sure, but certainly want to make sure all of our kids are covered in this.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Hoover?

Appreciate you bringing the bill forward. Just a quick question for the opposition. Curious. If we pass a certain set of rules and the Federal Government comes forward with another set of rules, what are the potential cost implications of that, and who would bear those costs?

Well, it depends on the school or it depends on the water system. We had one water system, a fairly large one, that their testing under AB 746 was over $1.0 million. So it would ultimately be borne by the ratepayers. Except for if there is, and there is funding in the bill right now that would support water systems, we don't think it's sufficient funding. We don't know if the federal funding can be used in that manner.

But definitely it would be borne by the water systems, by the rate payers. And I have to say our members are committed to protecting all of our customers, including children in their service areas. And we're not opposed to doing school testing and doing additional testing. It's just, does it make sense with the fact that we have a pending federal rule?

Thank you, and I appreciate you saying that. I do absolutely agree with the goal of this bill. I'm actually going to be seeing it again in Education Committee, so I'm going to wait and see if we can work out any amendments in the meantime. But I appreciate you bringing this forward.

Thank you. I just say that the testing is very important. We just don't want to have two different programs right back to back. It'd be ideal to have one program.

Great. Any other questions, comments? If not, Mr. Holden, would you like to close respectfully?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Holden, for bringing this bill forward. And, yes, as mentioned, this bill will move out of this committee today, and I think it will, we'll go to the Assembly Education Committee, which I sit on as well, and I will be factoring in the education aspects of it. But today I am recommending an aye vote. Of course, there's a broad consensus that reducing lead in schools is a priority, so we can all agree on that.

But the question is not should we, but rather when and how. And as we consider these issues, I think it's important to note that health consequences of lead exposure are irreversible and that negative impacts for children and adults can be long lasting, even if the exposure is very, very brief, by establishing a stricter standard requiring testing in more outlets and moving on a faster timeline.

This bill does go beyond current federal requirements, but that is not an unusual position for California, whereas a state, we have often led the way on important issues and as times even form, the shaping of federal policy. So with that, I'm recommending an aye vote. We have been moved and seconded already. Right. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number one, AB 249, Holden. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call]

So we have seven votes with seven votes. That's out. Congratulations. Thank you. And next, we'll move on to Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan's bill. Whenever she is ready on AB 363. Thank you. All right, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I am proud to be representing AB 363, a bill that continues my efforts to save the bees.

Our devastating pollinator loss is primarily caused by pesticides, specifically a class known as neonictinoids. And through my years of work, I think I say that right. Loss of pollinators endangers upwards of $11 billion annually in state agricultural production, driving up food prices and threatening our breadbasket. Last year, I ran and this committee heard AB 2146 to limit neonictinoid use in nonagricultural settings for turf and ornamental plant applications.

You would be surprised to learn that we find these pesticides in the vast majority of stormwater runoff testing in our suburban communities, and it is killing our bees and harming the state. However, the Governor, despite the incredible support in the Legislature that got it to the governor's desk, the Governor vetoed the bill. And so our pollinators are still dying. And so we're back with more. And AB 363 ensures that, as the Governor said in his veto message, that the department takes on this issue.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation has done an incredible job with the agricultural use of these neonictinoids to ensure that they don't result in pollinator death. But they have left open the use in non agricultural settings. Having met with DPR and seeing that it hasn't started the process of focusing on these non agriculture and leonicinoid uses, we are bringing this Bill to ensure that the Administration does as they promised, to focus on these non AG uses to protect our bees, our pollinators, and the biodiversity of California.

And with me today on this bill is Laura Deehan, Director of Environment California. And on the phone we have Lucas Rhoads, a Staff Attorney with NRDC.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. Thanks for your leadership on this issue. Thank you. Also Chair Lee and committee members. So I'm Laura Deehan, the state director for Environment California.

And we're so pleased to be here in supporting and as co sponsors of AB 363 really, to provide greater protections to the little creatures that are so important in upholding the web of life. Bees we know play a very critical role in our natural world, pollinating the flowering plants that make up much of the food that we eat. However, since the widespread adoption of neonicotinoids, or neonics, bee populations have been in steep decline.

California beekeepers lost almost 42% of their colonies in 2021, which is one of the worst years on record. And now, one in four of our state's bee species is at risk of extinction. An outpouring of scientific evidence links the exposure of neonics to bee dioffs as one of the leading causes.

And we've also seen a really strong connection between neonic exposure and harm to butterflies, like the western monarch butterfly that is so endangered it used to number in the millions in the West Coast and has now dropped to just a tiny fraction of that. Recent scientific studies also link exposure to neonics to harms on birds. And today, our skies have 30% fewer birds than in just a few decades ago. And so, while these products are on the shelves, consumers are unwittingly turning gardens into pollinator.

They could be pollinator havens into death traps. And by passing AB 363, your committee, the California Legislature, can ensure that the Department of Pesticide Regulation acts swiftly and effectively to provide a lifeline to pollinators that is so needed, and in turn, to protect life for all of us who call earth home. So I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Let's move on to your other witness on the phone. Just so you have two more minutes, too.

Chair Lee and members of the committee, my name is Lucas Rhoads, and I'm testifying on behalf of NRDC, another proud sponsor of AB 363. As Laura's explained, neonics are a driving factor behind massive pollinator declines that threaten ecosystems and agriculture. DePR's reevaluation of neonics began in 2009, prompted by studies showing risks to bees from nonagricultural uses of neonics. Legislature required DPR to complete its reevaluation by 2018. But DPR has not proposed any mitigations for these nonagricultural uses. These pollinator protections are long overdue.

Since 2009, our understanding of the grave and widespread risks of neonic use has only grown. For example, it's increasingly clear that neonics threaten people in addition to ecosystems. Last year, a study of 171 pregnant women in California and four other states found neonics in over 95% of pregnant women's bodies. Other recent research shows that neonics known neurotoxins readily pass from pregnant women to developing fetuses.

We know that for other neurotoxins, like lead and mercury, as we've heard today with other bills, there is no safe level of exposure for fetuses and young children. And the same is likely true for neonics. For this reason, when completing its reevaluation of nonagracultural neonic uses, it is not enough for DPR to look solely at the risks that neonics pose to honeybees.

AB three and 163 ensures that DPR consider the full suite of harms associated with neonic use, from risks to honeybees and wild bees, to aquatic ecosystems, to children's developing brains. If California is to protect children and ecosystems from these neurotoxins, it must act quickly to rein in their most harmful and unnecessary uses. We urge the committee to begin that process today by advancing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And now, do we have any witnesses in support in the hearing room? Testify in support.

Please come forward to the microphone.

Susan Little with the Environmental Working Group, in support.

And Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action, in support.

Rebecca Marcus with CALPIRG, in support.

Mara Agar, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in support.

Asha Sharma with Pesticide Action Network, in support.

Jane Sellen with Californians for pesticide reform, in support.

Thank you. Now, would the primary witnesses in opposition please come forward to the desk if you're here. Hello. So you've got four minutes between the both of you. However, you would like to split it up.

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Taylor Roshan, representing several agricultural associations, along with Western Plant Health Association. We respectfully have an opposed, unless amended, position on the bill as it's currently drafted. The bill has three parts. First, it requires the department to make a determination that reevaluation is necessary. Second, it requires the department to conduct that reevaluation and then third, requires the department to promulgate regulations or control measures based on that reevaluation.

The concern we have is the lack of the rest of the connective tissue between those three steps. So, as an example, under the way the bill is currently drafted, the department may determine that a reevaluation is warranted, conduct one, but as a result of that reevaluation, determine that control measures aren't scientifically necessary. However, the bill would obligate them to do the control measures regardless, without that scientific justification for them.

So rather, we would suggest the language be added to the bill to codify this as an if then sequential process. The department determines if reevaluation is necessary by 2024. Once it's completed, it finds control measures are necessary. They're then implemented by 2026. This would more closely line the bill with the department's science based procedures, make any rule making, if it's required, legally defensible, while still obligating the department to move in a timely manner and ensuring accountability.

Thus far, we've had very successful conversations with the author's staff, and we look forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council. Let me first apologize to the author and the Committee. I thought I was on the coalition letter, but somehow I was not. So I apologize. I was a party foul on my part. Won't happen again.

I have to participate in some of the meetings with the author's office and just would reiterate that one point about the language in the bill that directs DPR to adopt control measures before their evaluation process is completed. We think that sort of predetermines an outcome and would support the language that Ms. Rocshen talked about earlier. So appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Do we have any members of the public in the hearing room testify in opposition to the bill? Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association also opposed unless amended for the reason stated.

Good afternoon. Nicole Kenyon is on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you. Chris Raiden with California Farm Bureau. Opposed, unless amended. Brenda bass with California Chamber of Commerce. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you. Dennis Albiani with the California Seed Association. Opposed, unless amended. Dean, tally with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you. All right.

Good afternoon. Nicole Kenyon is on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Chris Raiden with California Farm Bureau. Opposed, unless amended.

Brenda Bass with California Chamber of Commerce. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani with the California Seed Association. Opposed, unless amended.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you now. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone line? Support or opposition to AB 363.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. For support or opposition. We will go line 60. Your line is open.

Michael Jared, on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 65. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 42. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Erin Wooley. On behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 51. Your line is open.

Laura Rosenbreger-Heider support, AB 363. Thanks.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 63. Your line is open. Line 63. Please check your mute button.

Hi, this is Megan Town with Sonoma Safe Ag Safe Schools, and we are in support.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 38. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Catherine Dodd with families advocating for chemical and toxic safety, and we're in strong support.

Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition. In queue.

All right, bring it back to committee. Does any committee member have any questions or comments? Ms. Pacheco.

I'll keep my comments really brief this time.

I want to thank the author for this bill. I'm glad to see that conversations are being held on both sides. So I'm very hopeful that I think that there can be a resolution, and I'm looking forward to see the final bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other committee members? Hoover?

Yeah, I'll just echo those comments.

I won't be able to support the bill today, but definitely, I actually was curious what your thoughts are on that proposed amendment or suggested amendment, and if you think that's something that's reasonable?

Yeah. As the opposition, and I appreciate you talking about our conversations, it's always helpful for the opposition to acknowledge them as well. But yes, no, we've had productive conversations, and I think we got ahead of ourselves presupposing the outcome, because I said DPR has already done this for agriculture.

So a lot of the science and research has been done on the AG uses and so my guess is that they will use a lot of those scientific resources again, as hopefully good government means we don't redo everything twice, although sometimes that is what happens. But yes. No, that is the way that the department functions. So I think the conversations have been good and I think their ask is reasonable.

All right, any other questions or comments? All right. Moved by Zbur.

Okay, well, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. I will just say that on behalf of the bees, the butterflies and me, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Thank you for bringing forward this bill. I recommend I vote today. So let's get this bill buzzing on. All right, looking for a second. Looking for a second. There you go. All right, the bill has been moved in second. Let's. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number five, AB 363. Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That's out. And now I'm going to swap with a Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Awesome. We are hearing AB 652 when you're ready, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you, Chair and Members. I want to begin by thanking the sponsors and all our community members who have traveled here today to support this bill and on the phone. AB 652 requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation, DPR, to establish an environmental justice advisory committee to integrate environmental justice considerations into DPR's programs, policies, decision making, and activities.

This advisory committee will create a public, accessible, and institutionalized process so that people in communities of color and low income communities can meaningfully participate in decision making processes about pesticide use, which disproportionately burdens and harms them. Scientists have linked pesticides exposure to both acute and chronic human health impacts, including an increased risk of certain cancers, neurodevelopment toxicity, birth defects, respiratory illness, endocrine disruption, and reproductive harm.

Studies show that black, indigenous, and people of color, as well as people living in low income communities, are disproportionately exposed to pesticides. Yet these same people have historically not had and still don't have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the laws and policies regulating pesticides that directly impact them. While we have made some progress in addressing the needs of environmental justice communities, too often their concerns go unheard and unaddressed.

And there are a few formal processes for DPR to address the real needs of these communities. This bill takes an important step in rectifying the issue by establishing the EJ Advisory Committee, made up of environmental justice leaders, tribal representatives, farm worker representatives, socially disadvantaged farmers, and scientists to review DPR's activities and make recommendations consistent with the needs of these impacted communities. The bill then requires DPR to formally respond as to how they are incorporating the Committee's recommendations into their programs.

Ultimately, AB 652 will improve the environment and public health of the communities disproportionately burdened by the harms and risks of pesticides through formal processes created by the bill. With that, I'll introduce my two primary support witnesses. Here in the room, I have Asha Sharma, organizing Co-Director at Pesticide Action Network. And on the phone I have Yanali Martinez, community leader with the Monterey Bay based coalition Safe Ag Safe Schools and community member for the city of Greenfield.

Unfortunately, Yanali and other community members had to cancel their trip to the capitol today due to flooding and unsafe road conditions. But we're happy to have them join us by the phone. And I also a third person have with me is Angel Garcia, who traveled from Tulare County to provide technical support about the CARB EJ Advisory Committee, which he sits on. So he'll be here to answer questions if necessary as well. So with that, Asha, if you want to go first.

Sure. Thank you. Good afternoon.

Thank you. And just a reminder of four minutes with you and the gentleman on the phone.

Perfect. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Asha Sharma and I am the organizing Co-Director of Pesticide Action Network. I thank Chairman Lee for his leadership, for authoring AB 652, which is a critical first step in ensuring environmental justice at the Department of Pesticide Regulation. Given their inherent toxicity, pesticides carry many health risks for communities and children most exposed to them.

The data show that pesticide exposure and related health impacts disproportionately impact majority resident of color communities in California. There are multiple statistics to illustrate this point. For instance, a study from the American Journal of Public Health using Cal EPA data found that pesticides are one of the top two environmental hazards in California whose distribution was most correlated with race and ethnicity.

A BMC public health journal study found that over half of the glyphosate used in California, the fourth most used pesticide, was applied in the eight lowest income counties in California, where the majority of residents identified as Latinx. These higher exposure rates all translate into higher risks of acute poisoning and chronic diseases such as cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease, to name a few. While these statistics are extremely troubling, of equal concern is a lack of representation that environmental justice communities have in our pesticide policies.

There are only limited, ad hoc ways community members can currently voice their concerns. Establishing an environmental justice advisory committee would give communities a way to advocate for their concerns and provide recommendations on what they need to be protected from pesticides. Creating a formal, consistent, and public process is absolutely necessary to ensure accountability at DPR to the communities who bear the brunt from the harmful health effects of pesticides. Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. I urge your support for AB 652, and I will pass the testimony on to my colleague Yanelli Martinez.

Thank you. We have Ms. Martinez on the phone, I believe. Operator?

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Yanelli Martinez and I am a Greenfield City Council Member and the leading organizer of the Monterey Bays Coalition Safe Ag Safe Schools.

More importantly, I am here today as a mother of four and the mother of Victor, whose health was affected by pesticides exposure near his school causing him to suffer a severe asthma attack. I am lucky to have my son here with me today, but many other parents haven't been as lucky. I am also here today in the memory of a little girl named Sophia whose life was tragically cut short by a rare cancer at the age of three.

I am here today as a voice advocating against the use of pesticides in any form. But more importantly, I in communities of color like my hometown, Greenfield, the heart of the Salinas Valley, the salad bowl of the world. The Salinas Valley is also the place where the Chamacos research by UC Berkeley scientists have revealed through more than 100 published studies that when pregnant women are exposed to pesticides, their children are more likely to suffer from brain and lung harm, including ADHD, IQ loss, and asthma.

Yet we see a continued cruel pattern. Farm workers warn us that they and their children are harmed by pesticides. Then scientists confirm that farm workers were right. Then, many years later, sometimes decades, sometimes never, the state finally restricts pesticide uses. It is so hard to have our voices heard. The Monterey County Ag Commissioner's Office has refused to meet with me and my group for two and a half years, the last DPR environmental justice workshop in the Monterey Bay region in 2019.

Even at that meeting, DPR staff never uttered the phrase environmental justice. I live in this community and I am connected with the families who are directly harmed by the disproportionate impact of pesticides. Having this bill is an important first step to ensure communities like mine have a seat at the table. Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. I urge your support for AB 652.

Thank you. Do we have any more witnesses in support in the room?

Darryl Little with NRDC in support.

Abigail Alvarez, in support with the following organizations: West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, Cal Nurses in Environmental Health and Justice, Salinas LUIAC Council Number 2055, Volunteers for Outdoor California, and the United Farm Workers.

Melissa Sagun on behalf of the following organizations to express our support of AB 652: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Community Water Center, Safe Ag Safe Schools, California Environmental Justice Coalition, Dietrick Institute for Applied Insect Ecology, Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, Greenfield LUlAC Council Number 3298, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, David S. Gasman, Bay Area System Change, Not Climate Change. Thank you.

Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in support, as well as two of our members: the Central California Environmental Justice Network and the Sacramento Food Policy Council. Thank you.

Hi, Kelly Hardy with Children Now in support.

Amara Eger with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support of this bill.

Hello, my name is Lupita Sanchez. I am from working in Tulare County. I'm here in support of AB 652.

[Testimony in Spanish]

Hello, my name is Ignacio Pinela. I'm a farm worker from Tulare County and a member of CAPS, the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety, in support.

[Testimony in Spanish]

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Asusena Jimenez. I'm a farm worker from Tulare County, and a member of CAPS, here in support.

[Testimony in Spanish]

Hello, my name is Alfredo Alvarado. I am a farm worker, a member of CAPS, here in support.

[Testimony in Spanish]

Hello, my name is Rosalio Rodriguez. I'm a farm worker from Tulare County, here in support.

Hi, Jane Sellen, Co-Director with Angel Garcia of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform, co-sponsors of the bill in strong support, and thank you for your leadership, Assembly Member Lee.

Thank you. Seeing no one else here in the room, do we have anyone on the phone lines calling in in support? Moderator?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one then zero, that's one and then zero. And we will go to line 54. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is Christie Toronto with Salinas Safe Ag, Safe Schools. And I am calling in support of AB 652. Safety in our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 60. Your line is open. Line 60, your line is open. Please check your mute button.

Sorry. Michael Jared on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers and the California Institute for Biodiversity, in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 76. Your line is open.

Hello, Chair, Members. My name is Jessica Gonzalez with CCOF, California Certified Organic Farmers. I'm calling in support of AB 652. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 65. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 78. Your line is open.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 51.

Hi, Laura Heider, support AB 652. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 38. Your line is open.

Catherine Nad, representing Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. We're in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 75. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Grecia Orozco, Staff Attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment. I'm calling in to support AB 652. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 63. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Megan Kaun with Sonoma Safe Ag, Safe Schools, and we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 74, your line is open.

Hello, I'm Bill Allayaud, in support for Environmental Working Group and Clean Water Action. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 79. Your line is open.

Line 79, please check your mute.

Hello? I'm afraid I don't know my number.

That's you.

Okay. My name is Catherine Mizuno. I'm representing Grants Committee [unintelligable] for California, and I am calling in support of AB 52. Thank you.

Yes, that's you. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 72. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Victor Torres. High school student and SAS member and I am in support of this bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 67. Your line is open.

Hi, Karen Cameron, Safe Ag Safe Schools Salinas resident with Monterey County. I'm very much in support of this long overdue bill. We need environmental justice.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 43. Your line is open. Line 43, your line is open.

Is there a number that I have?

I'm sorry. My name is Janet Diaz. I'm a member of the Monterey County. I am in support of AB 652. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 73. Your line is open.

Buenas tardes. Good afternoon. I'm Karen Araujo in Salinas with the Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Faith in Action, Monterey Peninsula, in support of this. Thank you for the good work you're doing.

Next, we'll go to line 77. Your line is open. Line 77.

Can I take this number? My name is Sylvia She with Safe Ag Safe School. I'm calling in support of AB 652. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 42. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Erin Woolley. On behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Thank you and next, we'll go to line 47. Your line is open.

This is Michelle with California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses? In opposition? Come forward. Thank you, and the same rules apply. Four minutes for the both of you as you see fit.

Yes, ma'am. Well, good afternoon. My name is Chris Reardon. I'm here representing the California Farm Bureau Federation. We're here to respectfully ask for you to oppose AB 652 because the Department of Pesticide Regulation has been actively incorporating environmental justice into its program for a long time. My background allows - I spent 13 years at the department, the Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs, also, their chief deputy.

So it actually goes back to 2004 within secretary of CalEPA. Terry Tamminen received or required all of our boards and departments within CalEPA to incorporate into their programs environmental outreach publications, regular quarterly meetings, representation in the community events. And additionally, the department leadership met with the California Ag commissioners and environmental justice communities collectively together because DPR gives local enforcement monies to carry out the program statewide. So the issue has been going on a long time.

There's been active discussions, and I know that some years ago, I left in 2016, but they created an ag liaison position, environmental justice liaison position, and they also, my understanding, will be hiring an assistant director who oversee all environmental justice activities. So it's, my view is that, as I said, it's been around a long time, and the department has done a terrific job. They actively work with sort of a cross section of the stakeholder communities, particularly in the environmental justice communities all over the state.

Having been sort of from border to border myself, I think it's important folks to understand this isn't something new to the department. They've done a darn good job, too. So, I just wanted to share that with you. I think this is duplicative. I don't think we need a committee. I understand the concerns, but boy, we've made real progress in this arena. So that's why we oppose 652.

Good afternoon again, Madam Chair and members. Taylor Roschen, representing Western Plant Health Association and other agricultural associations. Unfortunately, we're also in an opposed position. I think we want to recognize that marginalized communities and their voices have historically not been given the right and space to share their thoughts and help guide the direction of the department. But I do agree with Mr. Reardon that the administration, especially the Department of Pest Regulation, has taken substantial steps in the last few years to rectify these wrongs.

That I think our letter has a list of nonexhaustive actions the department's taken. I think it's fair to say that the regulated community shares the frustration with environmental justice representatives that the department's not moving fast enough for us. It's on registering alternatives to products. And I think we agree that all agencies should be more accountable to service and those they service and to the public.

But with respect, adding bureaucracy to DPR at a significant cost when their budget cannot substantiate that cost, as we've seen with sister agencies, does not accomplish any of these goals from our perspective. We look forward to working with the author's office and the sponsors on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in opposition. Name, organization and position, please.

Yeah. Good afternoon. Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also opposed.

Tim Shetek, with the American Chemistry Council, also opposed. Thank you.

Brenda Bass, with California Chamber of Commerce, also opposed.

Dennis Albion, on behalf of the California Association of Wheat Growers, California Pear Growers, and California Seed Association, opposed. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no more opposition in the room, I just asked for support on the phone the first time. So, if anybody else is on the phone in opposition, now would be a great time. Moderator?

Thank you. That is one, and then zero for opposition. And we have no opposition in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. Bringing you back to the committee. Oh, yes, Mr. Ta.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate a good intention from the author that really want to improve the environment for all the community. However, I do have concerns about funding, about the fiscal impact, because I don't see that in the bill. So is that going to cost a lot of money? About the funding, and also, according to the bill, I don't see any guidance for the appointment process.

So I'll take that unless you have other feelings about it. But we, in this committee, actually uniquely are opposed to talking about the mill fee, which is one of the main funders of DPR. So we'll innately be following the budget process and, of course, the mill fee. And we're going to work to align this bill with a discussion of the budget outcomes. But also to note that a lot, of course, EJ activities are funded by the mill fee.

For example, DPR's worker health and safety division is funded 98% by the mil fee. And their new EJ director falls in this category. It's also funded 65% by the mill fee as well. And you're talking about the advisory committee, the membership, how it's selected. It's all in there to outline who's going to be on there, including small farmers as well. Did you have anything to add, Asha or Angel?

No, I would just add the bill also requires DPR to appoint committee members from nominations received from environmental justice organizations and community groups through an open and public process. So that language is also in the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Arambula.

Thank you. I just remind the committee, if I can, our focus here should be to remain focused on the policy and not to answer the budgetary questions that will be handled during the appropriation process. And so the policy that's before us is supportable, and I'm appreciative. I'll uplift if I can. A recent farm worker health study that occurred at UC Merced, what we heard firsthand from many farm workers up and down the San Joaquin Valley was concerns regarding pesticide exposure.

And so, while we're hearing about the progress that we're making, those who are on the front lines are still experiencing many of the harms, and I'm grateful for your leadership and look forward to supporting it today.

Thank you, Mr. Arambula. Mr. Connolly.

Thank you, and also really want to appreciate the author bringing this important bill forward. As you note, and as we well know, the use and harmful effects of pesticides are disproportionately impacting our most disadvantaged communities. Creating an Environmental Justice Committee, I believe, would help balance the scales. Again, I also acknowledge, as it was noted, that progress is being made. I see this as a measure to solidify that progress and bring voices into the process.

I'll be supporting the bill and, in fact, would like to co author this important measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Mr. Mckinnor.

Yes. Good afternoon. I appreciate the author for bringing this important bill to help defend marginalized communities, and I would love to be a co-author on the bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Pacheco.

So I appreciate the author for bringing this bill forward, and to all the witnesses who testified that they are farm workers; thank you also for being here. But I do have a question. I hope the question is, has there been dialogue between the two sides?

Yes, we have had conversations with Mr. Lee's staff, and we'll continue, at least on our part, as a commitment to continue those conversations.

So I do appreciate that. I look forward to seeing this bill in its final version. But again, I do appreciate you bringing this forward, but I do think it's important to continue that dialogue between the two sides to see if maybe there's some sort of compromise. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur.

I also want to thank the author, and if it's welcome, we'd also like to be a co-author on the bill. And I appreciate what folks from the ag industry are saying, obviously, in the sense that DPR has been working to improve conditions for folks that are in disadvantaged communities. But part of environmental justice isn't just about the outcomes. It's about having a seat at the table and actually having participation in the setting the agenda and actually putting on the table those suggestions.

That comes from lived experience. And so even though that may be happening, I think now, and either in an informal way, that doesn't necessarily guarantee that that'll happen forever. And this really systematizes that and part of environmental justice in itself is the participation. So that's why I'll be supporting the bill, and thank you for bringing it today.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur. Okay, I have a question. So, in your testimony in opposition, basically, what you said is we're already doing this. So, I guess I'm a little bit confused as to then why you're opposed to us continuing to do what is already the department's practice. So could you just explain that to me, please?

Sure. I think what we currently do at the department is - what the department has done, I've been gone a while now, but what they continue to do by an environmental justice liaison hired an environmental justice person, assistant director, to oversee, sort of, I think is important. Look, I think candidly, it is a process. It's been a work in progress. We've seen tremendous growth over the last almost 20 years.

2004 is when Secretary Tamminen required all boards and agencies or all boards and departments to actively engage, as I described in environmental justice. So I think we're proceeding in a way it makes a lot of sense. And I don't think you need a full committee to make these determinations. I think the department can already do that under its current requirements.

So the director and I don't know much about this director: is the director a former farm worker, do you know?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Yeah. So I think that's a really important thing to be holding up is that that's one person. So that one person can't be from the farms in Mr. Arambula's district and Mr. Connolly's district and throughout the state, that one person often isn't a woman. And all of those voices matter. And I just am really confused why anyone would be afraid to bring voices to the table. That's all that's being asked for here.

And when the affected community is showing up in support on a workday, that tells us that they want their voices heard, they want that seat at the table, and if it is already the practice of the department, I don't know why there would be any opposition. We're just expanding the table. We're bringing more chairs to the table. And that is really, really important because the way people are affected on rice farms might be different than almond farms, and all of those voices matter.

And so I really appreciate this. I think it's an important piece of legislation that expands the ability for those most affected by what the department does to be at the table having a say, and I really urge the opposition to look long and hard at opposing something they already say is the practice of the state. And with that, I will let you close, Mr. Chair.

I'm tempted to use the Chair's statement as my close, but I just want to just acknowledge that I do think DPR is doing a great job at now promoting environmental justice. They just hired their deputy, environmental justice deputy director, which I've met. They're nice, very nice person. And I think this advisory board will complementary, and I would also - would work very well complementary with the environmental justice deputy and the advisory committee are going to work really well hand in hand.

And it also not conflate outreach with any semblance of co-governance, which is what I think we're trying to achieve right here with equity. Being talked to and talking to someone are very two different concepts. So, while I appreciate DPR stepping up and reaching out to farm workers and disadvantaged communities, that's really important. They got to bring them to see at the table.

And I think small things like this, doing an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, an EJAC, is just making sure that DPR's practices, making sure that those harmed most by pesticides are not afterthoughts in policymaking. But they're first considerations and sometimes maybe we'll be lucked out, and the executive directors already have a passion. I think these cadre of wxecutive leadership have that, but we might not always have this institutionalized right. They might not always come from these backgrounds and lived experiences.

So it's important to have institutionalized feedback and recommendations, and that's why we're putting this simple ejac forward, and I really hope that we will pass this through and get it signed. So, thank you, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. And we do not have a motion. I'll move. Do we have a second? Second from Mr. Ambula, and let's call the roll.

This is item number six, AB 652, Lee. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And this concludes a hearing, or inaugural hearing, of the ESTM Committee. This hearing is now adjourned.