Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

This includes muting your live stream broadcasts and your smart devices to reduce sound distortion. Please note that the call in testimony will be combined for both support and opposition and will be taken after the primary witnesses have testified. Primary witness testimony is limited to four minutes total 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 be mute yourself until you are called to speak.

All additional witnesses will be limited to start stating their name, organization, and, if they present one, their position on the Bill. I also note that we are accepting a 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, and today we'll be hearing four bills. Thank you, and let's establish a quorum while we have it. Madam Secretary, please call the role. To establish a quorum.

To establish a quorum. [Roll Call]. We have a quorum.

Fantastic. Quorum is present. We're going to start with file item number one, SB 3 by Senator Bill Dodd. But I am going to have to rush over to the Senate to present some bills, so I'm going to ask our Vice Chair Hoover to take over until I return. Thank you.

All right. Senator Dodd, how are you, sir?

Terrific.

Go ahead and start whenever you're ready.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, I'm presenting SB 3 pertaining to Water Shut Off Protection Act in 2018. I authored SB 998, the Water Shutoff Protection Act, which established protocols for water agencies to assist customers who fall behind on their water bills. SB 998 affects water agencies with 200 or more connections. As many as 500,000 households have their water shut off every year due to the inability to pay the water bill.

Most of these households are low-income, falling below 200% of the federal poverty level. Many of these households are served by smaller water systems. SB 3 is about water shutoff policies, notice, and working with customers to provide alternative payment plans. The opposition's concern about the technical ability of small water agencies to implement the bill's provisions was addressed in the Senate by requiring the Water Board to provide that training.

I'm also willing to work with the opposition to delay the implementation date to give smaller systems time to develop the necessary expertise for compliance if they think that will be helpful. Members, we all know that California law declares access to safe, affordable drinking water as a human right. SB 3 preserves that right for nearly 1 million Californians and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. So it looks like we have one primary witness in person here and one on the phone, so if you want to go the in person first, thanks so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon to the Vice Chair and the committee. My name is Michael Claiborne, a directing attorney with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. California declared access to drinking water a human right in 2012, but the reality is that access to tap water is not universal. A conservative estimate is that more than 500,000 Californians lost access to water in 2018 and again in 2019 due to water shutoffs after falling behind on water bills. Limiting water shutoffs is a racial justice issue.

Black families are twice as likely as white families to experience a water shutoff. The bill would help limit the use of water shutoffs in communities served by small water systems. We work closely with multiple small water systems that would be impacted by this bill, including Tooleville Mutual Nonprofit Water Wompany and others, and we thus share Cal Mutual's interest in ensuring that small water systems can successfully implement these provisions. The good news is that it is clear that the legislature shares the same interest.

As one example, the legislature passed the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund in 2019, providing an ongoing $130,000,000 continuous appropriation with flexibility to provide technical assistance to systems struggling with lack of technical and managerial capacity. As another example among many, the legislature recently appropriated $1 billion for water systems that had customer debt that accrued during the COVID-19 pandemic. We would love to work with CalMutuals to ensure that budgets continue to address this need.

On the other hand, the frustrating problem that we continue to see is that many small water systems, and particularly small mutuals and mobile home parks, don't take advantage of resources appropriated by the legislature. Going back to the $1 billion in COVID-19 arrearage funding, only about 12% of mutual water companies applied for that funding. The legislature can and should make sure that resources are available, but mutuals and mobile home parks need to be more willing to take advantage of funding when it is.

As one final point, small water systems are already complying with a requirement to offer notice and a payment plan prior to water shutoff for any arrearages that accrued during the COVID-19 pandemic. We thank Senator Dodd for his continued commitment to access to drinking water in small and rural communities, and we urge the committee's support. Thank you.

Thank you. Phone moderator if you could place the primary witness on the phone for SB 3.

Line should be open.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Karina Cervantes and I'm here calling on behalf of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies. I am sorry I couldn't be there in person today. I do appreciate very much the time.

I believe this is our opposed witness. I believe this is the opposed witness. Is there another support witness on the phone line? Thank you. You may proceed. Do we have the witness in support?

Their line should be open.

What's the name?

Do we have the name?

I believe Raquel.

Raquel.

I believe so, yeah.

Raquel.

Raquel. Raquel, are you there?

I do not see a Raquel on the phone lines.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you so much. With that, do we have any members of the public in the hearing room to testify in support? Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elise Fandrick from Tratton Price Consulting. We're here representing the California Environmental Justice Alliance as well as Water Foundation, both in support of the bill. Thanks.

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

Hello. Mikayla Elder, on behalf of the Central Coast Energy Services and San Francisco Peninsula Energy Services in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we're going to move to the witnesses in opposition. We have someone on the phone line for SB 3.

Yes. Thank you. Let me try this again. So, my name is Karina Cervantes and I'm calling on behalf of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies. Again, I apologize for not being there in person today. However, I very much appreciate the time that many of you have taken to listen to our concerns over the past few days. Our association proudly works with over 350 mutual water companies, many with 200 service connections or fewer.

We unfortunately remain opposed to the bill in its current form because of two primary concerns. The first is clearly identifying dedicated resources for small systems to implement these provisions successfully, and the second is identifying a source of funding to mitigate the financial impact resulting from the delayed collection of arrearages. Ensuring water affordability for all depends heavily on the availability of resources. Whether it's a small, medium, or large water system, funding from public and private sources is often necessary to meet water quality standards.

Such external funding sources are vital in shielding and stabilizing water costs. Recognizing the importance of having access to resources, we contacted the author's office at the beginning of the new year. One of our earliest goals was to bring attention to the challenges that small water systems in the state encounter and the need for additional resources to address them.

While this bill amends the code sections added by SD 998, which initially focused on larger systems, it is essential to acknowledge that the cost, burden, and implications differ for small systems that cannot absorb the cost of continuing unfunded mandates at the same rate as larger systems. Small systems often have more modest budgets and are often run by contract operators, part-time staff, or volunteers.

In order to comply with the requirements of this bill, small systems must rely on more than just the information generated by larger systems. They will need staff resources, also investments and technological tools to help prepare documents, provide notice, and make necessary changes to billing systems. This includes managing confidential medical and income information as required by this bill. Additionally, financial support is necessary for small systems that would encounter cash flow issues from carrying additional debt for extended periods due to the delayed collection of arrearages.

And I know that the arrearages program was brought up by the author and the co-sponsors of this bill. There was an arrearages program. The State Water Board identified that many small systems already had existing policies in place and didn't carry as much debt that would require them to apply for some of that arrear funding that was made available during the pandemic. We still have concerns about the proposed amendments made in May to offer additional state wide training to small water systems.

We don't believe additional training is the issue. Many small water systems, as I have mentioned, already work with families struggling to pay their water utility bill. We would just request that this language be more specific and more detailed about the support that would be provided. We recognize that the state wishes to establish a uniform policy regarding water shutoffs. However, an essential first step needed to be a part of the development of this proposal, evaluating existing policies and practices and identifying gaps in service.

A one size fits all approach may be ineffective since it can negate what is working in current processes without establishing justification or evidence of a widespread issue regarding customer due process issues. We respectfully ask your committee to consider amendments to this Bill that would make technical and financial assistance available to those small water systems unable to comply with the complex provisions of SB 3. Again, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. All right, is there any members of the public in the room today to testify in opposition to SB 3? Seeing none. Do we have any support or opposition remaining on the phone lines for SB 3?

Thank you for your support or opposition of SB 3. You may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero if you're in support of opposition. And we will go to line 24. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Clary. I am the California Director for Clean Water Action in strong support of SB 3 and also expressing support on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League and the Carbon Cycle Institute.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 22. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and members. This is Roger Dickinson. On behalf of Civic Well in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And one moment while we get one more in queue here. Again, we are in support or opposition. You may press one and then Zero on SB Three. We'll go to line 17.

Hello, my name is John Langman. I'm calling from Sunny Slope Water Company in Pasadena. We are calling to oppose SB 3 as currently written.

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

Wonderful. Thank you. Are there any questions from committee members? All right, Mr. Dodd, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice Chair. I wanted to just kind of quickly respond to some of the criticisms here. Complex provisions of this bill. This bill. When I first ran this bill in 2018, in this very room before COVID the opposition was out the door all the way down to the end of the hall. And we worked with all these thanks to the committee staff that's here.

If you were here at the time, we worked very hard with the opposition to modify this bill, and I think we do have a sweet spot here. The bottom line is these water companies are managing bad debts. And we heard the caller say many are already doing a great job. And we know that we don't have bills to try to control or regulate the ones that are doing a good job.

We run legislation because there are those that don't do a very good job and turn off the water for young families, for senior citizens, people with kids. And so it never mandates that they have to credit it off and just write it off. The people still owe the money. We're just asking for some basic provisions to give people a payment plan to give them a chance to get current so they can continue with their water. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you bringing this bill forward. Please keep the committee in the loop as this moves forward. I do share some of the concerns with the opposition, but would also note that the chair recommends an aye vote on this. Do we have a motion for SB 3 moved by Mr. Connolly, seconded by Ms. Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

On SB 3 Dodd. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] So that's 5-2.

Thank you, Senator.

Vice Chair. Thank you, Members.

Thank you, Senator Newman. He is, yeah, I was just in your committee the other day. Now the tables have turned.

Payback is a mother, as they say. I will keep that in mind. I have no idea what I said.

But I hope I didn't offend you. Well, thank you for joining us, Senator. When you're ready, you may present SB 568.

All right, thank you.

Motion and second.

This is going well. Mr. Vice Chair, Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 568, which will require that prior to exporting e-waste abroad, an individual or an entity in California must demonstrate that they have attempted to locate a licensed in-state e-waste recycling facility and that the waste could not be managed by an instate covered electronic waste recycler. Globally, less than 20% of e-waste is currently properly recycled, with the remaining 80% ending up either in landfills or improperly recycled.

Much of this improperly recycled e-waste ultimately ends up in developing countries, being processed by hand and exposing workers there to hazardous or carcinogenic substances such as mercury, lead, and cadmium. In addition to these adverse health and climate impacts, the improper management of e-waste also results in a significant loss of scarce and valuable raw materials, such as gold, platinum, cobalt, and other rare earth elements.

Experts estimate that fully as much as 7% of the world's gold may actually currently be contained in e-waste, with up to 100 times more gold to be found in a ton of e-waste than in a ton of mined gold ore. The federal and state governments have identified the securing of domestic supply chains for critical materials and precious metals as a high economic and national security priority, including the recycling and reprocessing of precious metals and rare earth minerals to augment increased domestic production.

California's e-waste recycling market, which is already among the largest in the world, is projected to grow by 15% or more by the year 2027. If we can effectively encourage and streamline the processing and recycling of e-waste materials, our state has a unique opportunity to become a global leader in the market for safely reclaiming the rare and valuable minerals contained in e-waste. California's e-waste recyclers are continually exploring new and innovative ways to responsibly and safely recycle e-waste material.

Before a decision made to export those materials abroad to locations with weaker environmental standards, they should be afforded access to these materials by requiring an entity to demonstrate that they've attempted to locate an in-state e-waste recycling facility prior to export. SB 568 will yield immense long-term economic benefits for the state, while also reducing the likelihood that potentially toxic e-waste materials will find their way to locations abroad with much weaker environmental standards than ours.

I want to thank the Committee consultant, Naomi Andresek, for working closely with my office and DTSC on recent amendments that clarify, simplify, and strengthen this Bill. With me to testify on behalf of this legislation today are Renee St. Dennis, Strategic Consultant with Camston Wrather, and Mark Murray, the Executive Director of California's Against Waste. I am respectfully asking for your Aye vote today.

Thank you. And the primary witnesses may begin. You have four minutes.

Thank you, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Renee St. Dennis. I service the Strategy Advisor to Camston Wrather, a world-leading electronics recycler based in Carlsbad. I'm here today to support the Member as well as to speak in support of SB 568, and I can only echo what he said. This piece of legislation will help tackle the growing problem of electronic waste, what we call e-waste.

Having led the global electronics recycling operations for over 30 years at Hewlett Packard and then at Apple, I have seen firsthand some of the disasters that mishandling this material can cause. E-waste is thought to be one of the fastest-growing waste streams globally. In 2021, it's estimated that 57 million tons, that's 114,000,000,000 pounds of e-waste, was generated and needed to be managed. California's share of that waste stream is significant, with estimates that it's probably around 1.5 billion pounds.

These numbers are hard to come by, as you can imagine, but lots of work has been put in by lots of different UN organizations and federal organizations to figure that out. Unfortunately, only a subset of the e-waste that was generated in the state last year was managed and recovered through safe recycling methods that protect the environment while capturing the commodities that these products were initially made from and then return those to the economy. That's where a company like Camston Wrather comes in.

Camston is a 10-year-old California-based science and technology company with an innovative approach to recycling circuit boards. And I can get into detail with you guys if you want, but it's not smelting, so you don't use heat, pressure, or chemicals to recover those precious metals. Electronics recyclers in general, generate recycled metals such as steel, aluminum, copper, circuit boards, and then plastics and other types of materials. The circuit boards contain the majority of the important metals that are found in e-waste.

Gold, silver, platinum, palladium, copper, and then the rare earth metals, which are so important to the US economy. Camston Wrather recovers these in a way that allows companies or users to reduce their carbon footprint because we do that without burning things. For manufacturers, it also helps them secure supply to protect their supply chains. It's estimated, as the Member said, that less than 20% of e-waste is properly recycled globally. And the rest ends up often in these primitive processes, domestically and internationally.

These processes expose workers, and I've seen this, to hazardous, carcinogenic substances.

Just want to make sure the other witness has time, too.

I'm almost done. I'm sorry.

No, you're fine.

No. So by recycling this stuff responsibly in the state, California can keep the global community safe and become a leader in the market for scarce minerals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members. Mark Murray with the environmental group California's Against Waste. Excellent analysis, excellent testimony, excellent statement by the author. I'm not sure there's much to add other than we are updating an existing restriction on the export. We're fortunate to have a company like Camston and others that are actually prepared to do real recycling, not just handling for recycling. Urge an Aye vote on the Bill.

Thank you. All right, do we have any members of the public in the hearing room to testify in support? Seeing none. Do we have any members of the public to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Let's see. Phone moderator, do we have any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition of SB 568?

Thank you. If you're in support of or opposition of SB 568, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. If in support or opposition, we will go to line 28. Your line is open.

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

Thank you. Next, we'll go line 23.

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

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

Thank you so much. Do we have any questions or comments from Committee Members? All right, you may close, Senator Newman.

Thank you, Members. So thank you to Mr. Murray and to Ms. St. Dennis. As they both mentioned, we have in Camston Wrather, and some other companies in California, new and innovative approaches that safely and responsibly reclaim some of these materials without posing a danger to the environment or the workers who do it. This is progress. So I am respectfully asking for your Aye vote today.

Thank you so much. I do appreciate the Bill and look forward to supporting it today. Chair Lee also recommends an Aye vote. Do we have a motion and a second on. Oh, we do. We already do, I think. Motion by Mr. Connolly. Who was it? Mr. Connolly? You got it. All right, motion is do pass to Natural Resources Committee, please call the roll.

Item two, SB 568, Newman. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]. We have enough votes.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, you are next.

Looks like we are going to start with SB 642. Please present when ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. I appreciate you allowing me to present SB 642 to you today. This Bill gives county councils the same authority to prosecute hazardous materials violations as city attorneys, district attorneys and the Attorney General. Authorizing additional public prosecutors to prosecute these violations can help protect our communities, particularly low-income communities and communities of color near hazardous waste facilities.

In 1993, the Legislature passed a Bill called AB 1934 to augment civil enforcement of hazardous waste violations, and that Bill amended the Hazardous Waste Control Law to authorize county councils to prosecute these violations and promote a level playing field for the regulated community. However, the Legislature did not make conforming changes to several related statutes, such as the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program and the Medical Waste Program. This incomplete authority limits County Council's ability to effectively prosecute polluters.

For example, the Above Ground Petroleum Storage Pct program requires certain petroleum storage facilities to develop and implement The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan. A violation of these requirements could lead to an oil spill, which can cause respiratory damage, liver damage, cancer risk, and reproductive damage, among other issues. SB 642 helps communities prosecute violations like these, helping to more completely enforce California's hazardous waste laws.

It does give certified, unified program agencies, otherwise known as CUPAs, the chance to refer these cases to a wider range of prosecutors. That's why the CUPAs support the Bill. The Bill also has the support of environmental organizations that can speak to the consequences of under-enforcement of hazardous materials laws. The Bill was recently amended to require notice to be provided to the DA or county council when their counterpart files an action following a referral from CUPA.

This was done in response to concerns raised by the California District Attorneys Association. I would also note that the Bill is supported by Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon, who is part of the Progressive Prosecutors Alliance. With us today to testify, we have Sonya Wills with the County of Santa Clara and John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. I would respectfully ask for your Aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, primary witnesses. You can begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Committee and to staff for your work on this Bill. Santa Clara County is pleased to co-sponsor SB 642 and grateful to Senator Cortese and his staff for bringing it forward. The Legislature has vested civil prosecutorial authority in county councils in numerous statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, Narcotics Abatement Act, Unlicensed Cannabis provisions, and the Public Nuisance Act. This Bill is a cleanup measure in multiple senses.

As noted in the analysis, the Legislature sought to give county councils hazardous waste enforcement authority in 1993 to promote a more level playing field for the regulated community. The Bill simply puts county councils on the same basic footing as their 482 city attorney counterparts. This will help fill any gaps in enforcement. There have been some questions about the use of outside counsel on a contingency fee basis.

While such practices are relatively rare and beyond the scope of this Bill, using outside counsel can be helpful when a jurisdiction lacks resources or is up against powerful interests, such as when Santa Clara County Council spearheaded landmark litigation against lead paint manufacturers. Courts have upheld this practice, including by district attorneys, subject to appropriate oversight by the publicly accountable prosecutor. An outside attorneys would not be in a position to drop their own business as the public prosecutor cannot initiate a case.

Cases can only be brought when the Department of Toxic Substances Control or the CUPA completes their investigation and makes a referral to the public prosecutor best suited to handle the case. But these issues are far afield of this Bill, which simply gives counties another tool in the toolbox. I urge your Aye vote and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC. We represent 40 of California's 58 counties, ranging in population from 1,100 in Alpine to about 500,000 residents. We're pleased to be here today to co-sponsor the Bill along with our colleagues. And we support the Bill because it provides another tool in the toolbox for locals to address safety-related violations of AST, underground storage tank, hazardous materials business plan, and medical waste management laws.

Violations of these laws could pose serious health, safety, and environmental risks, especially for first responders who have to know exactly the chemicals that are at a given facility so they can respond effectively and safely in the event of an emergency. We're not seeking to address any past problems, but merely to provide additional flexibility going forward. This flexibility is even more important for some of our smaller rural counties, including the 19 counties with fewer than 70,000 residents each.

If the issue at hand doesn't rise to the level of the AG bringing a case and the DA doesn't have capacity to bring the case, this Bill would allow us to step in as county councils and bring in action. This is important in rural areas where the DA may otherwise be occupied with environmental cases, illegal cannabis grows, or even other criminal cases like murder or other crimes. So we appreciate the author bringing this Bill forward. We strongly urge your support for the Bill.

It improves local flexibility and adds a tool, one that we hope we don't ever have to use, but that could be especially helpful when the need arises. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any Members of the public in the room in support?

Mr. Chair and Members Dan Felizatto, on behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Karen Lang, on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Ada Waelder, on behalf of California State Association of Counties, proud co-sponsor of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Espinoza, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. We are an Association of 14 county boards of supervisors with the highest population in the state. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, is there opposition in the room to testify? Please come forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in respectful opposition. We do agree that robust enforcement of environmental crimes is important, and we do appreciate the recent amendments to encourage cooperation and notice by both parties. We also appreciate the conversations we've had with the sponsors and with the author's office. The DAs did proffer some amendments that would get us to neutral. They have not been accepted, so we must remain in respectful opposition. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other members of the public to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Phone moderator do we have any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition of SB 642?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 642, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 23.

This is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters, in support.

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

Wonderful. Do we have any questions or comments from Committee Members? All right, got a motion and a second. Senator, would you like to close? I'm sorry. Yes.

If I missed the question part I apologize. It's okay. Moving fast. So I just wanted to ask. It's my understanding that when your county office or the DAs bring these actions and fines are paid, that those fines go back into enforcement. Is that right?

So each one of the different laws that are being amended have a specific provision that accounts for how the fines get reallocated. In the hazardous waste control law, there is a 10% finders fee that goes to a complainant that makes a complaint, that ends up in a civil litigation. There's also the remainder. 50% of it goes to the hazardous waste control account, and the other 50% is divided in half between the prosecutor as well as the local investigator. That would be the CUPA or any other law enforcement that assisted.

Yeah, so I know one of the things the DAs had brought to light was that smaller counties, perhaps, but some counties may have outside counsel doing this work on your behalf, which is standard in small counties and small cities, but that those attorneys may at times be on contingency fees, which we know can be extremely high. And I guess the concern that I had with that was if currently our laws are set up to reallocate those to enforcement. Right.

Be it the agency and then the agency or the prosecutors, having that go back to private attorneys didn't feel like quite what the laws had intended. And this opens up the opportunity for that. And I just wanted you to address that because that does seem somewhat concerning to.

I mean I can address as the author. Of course, respectfully, we're not going to have any fees unless we go after these cases and win number one. I know there's actually Members here who've had direct experience over the years with Santa Clara County's Office of County Council, which the year before I joined the Senate, was named the number one public law office in the entire country.

And to have them, in effect, sitting on their hands when they could be working on these cases, I think would be not good. Let's just say not good.

And the fact of the matter is, the bulk of these kinds of cases are going to be handled where there's large hazardous waste situations in big urban counties where they have the capacity to do a lot of in-house work like Santa Clara County does, where they have their own, in effect, their own strike team in the legal office, their own impact litigation office. So, sure.

I think in other cases where a rural county or somebody that doesn't have that capacity decides to team up with outside counsel on a contingent fee case, I mean, at least they're not going to be racking up hourly rates on behalf of the taxpayers. They're going to essentially say, if we can go get those penalties and get that judgment, then, of course, everybody deserves to be paid. And I think that's fair in these cases.

Did you want to.

Sure. I'll just say we do have several small counties that do not have in-house counsel. They retain outside counsel for their normal day-to-day operations. I'm not aware that any of them are operating under contingency fee agreements or would do so in the future. I suspect they all operate under contracts and would be performing the normal duties as outside county council rather than trying to get a specific contingency fee like we'd see with some of these other cases.

Got it. I appreciate that. I mean, I'm happy to support the Bill today. Because I do believe in robust enforcement, and I also appreciate the coordination piece because I think it works better for everybody when this is all coordinated.

But I do think it's critical that as we think about these fines and fees, I think the vision of the Legislature as defined in statute, was for them to return to the enforcement entities and not to be in the hands of private attorneys, although everyone does deserve to get paid. Contingency fee agreements can be extremely high in some of these cases. As we all know.

There can be hefty fines, as is appropriate for a large case, but it could lead to huge windfall for private attorneys, and I don't think that's the goal of the Legislature. So just wanted to flag that. And hopefully, I know this is not the only place where that would be relevant, but I think it's something for us to think about. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur/

So, Senator, thank you for bringing the Bill. I think it's a good one. And part of, I ended up having a number of discussions about this, including on some of the issues that my colleague just raised. One of the reasons why I came to support the bills was because of the rural counties and the fact that I became convinced that actually it's sort of needed in some of the rural counties where DAs may not be focusing enough.

And obviously, given as someone who supports environmental enforcement of environmental matters, I thought it was really important that this extend to the rural counties. So with that, I would be supporting, obviously.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? All right, Senator, you may close.

Again, thank you very much. I very much appreciate the conversation, and I think as we go forward, particularly if the Bill is enacted, we will all want to be monitoring actual outcomes here, but certainly, there's never been any intention to set up a competition with DAs. We've taken the amendments where we could to provide them notice and things that they've asked for, and we think the Bill is in good shape now and again.

We'll see how it actually works as we get out there and road-test it in the real world. But thank you very much. And with that, I would respectfully ask for Aye vote.

Thank you. I will be supporting the Bill today. It also carries a Aye recommendation from the Chair. We have a motion and a second. Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. Please call the roll.

Item three, SB 642, Cortese. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]. Your Bill has enough votes. It's out.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

All right, we will now move to SB 745, and whenever your folks are settled, you're welcome to present.

Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and Members. We very much appreciate the work that the Chair and Committee staff have done working with us on specific language here on the Bill. The Bill has been dubbed the Drought Resistant Buildings Act. I think it's an apt title to address projected water shortages in California due to global climate change.

SB 745 directs the California Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, and the California Building Standards Commission research, develop, adopt, approve, codify, and publish building standards to reduce potable water use. Potable water use in new nonresidential buildings. The Bill also requires both HCD and the Building Standards Commission to review and update the water efficiency and water reuse standards in the California Building Standards Code every three years. Hotter and drier weather conditions from climate change are projected to reduce California's water supplies by up to 10% by 2040.

Scientists project the average water supply from snowpack will decline to two thirds of historic levels, at least at current rates, by 2050 because buildings stay in use for 30 to 100 years before they're replaced. It's important here in this state that we prepare for the realities of climate change by reducing the designed potable water demand of new buildings, and that we start now.

Here to testify in support and answer technical questions, we have Mr. Scott Wetch and Mr. Thomas Enslow from the California State Pipe Trades Council, and with that, again, at the appropriate time, I would ask for your aye vote.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials who published the California Plumbing Code and set all plumbing standards for California. This is a very simple Bill. It just directs the Building Standards Commission to update building standards to reduce potable water use and maximize water efficiency and water reuse in new buildings.

Given the figures about the reduced water supplies that the Senator just outlined, we need an all hands on deck approach to this problem. I'd like to address the opposition. An opposition letter submitted by the Association of California Water Agencies inaccurately claims that SB 745 is inconsistent with AB 1668 Friedman and SB 606 Hertzberg, which passed this Committee, which require water agencies to set urban water use objectives.

The letter also claimed that SB 745 would interfere with their ability to meet conservation goals due to, quote, unpredictability in future water supplies resulting from onsite non-potable water use. How absurd is that? If you and the Building Standards Commission move to make buildings more water efficient, it's going to make water companies jobs more difficult to conserve water. Okay. Their overall goal and scope of SB 606 and AB 1668 was to address actual water use from existing buildings, landscaping, and other urban demands.

This scope fundamentally differs from the objectives of Senator Cortese's SB 7745, which focuses on improving the designed water efficiency of new buildings going forward, not on water usage by occupants after a building is constructed.

If we're ever going to get to a point in this state where we're effectively reusing water, both water from internal buildings as well as reclaimed water from outside of buildings, we have to start designing our buildings now so that the building stock 10 and 20 years down the road can accept and use that water. That's what the Bill is intended to do, and we would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tom Enslow, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council. So a couple of points I'd like to make. One, we use a lot of potable water for non potable uses in buildings that is not necessary to use potable water. Studies have shown that indoor potable water use can be reduced by 15% to 38% through implementation of onsite gray waters recycling or through the use of recycled water for those nonpotable uses.

A clarification I'd like to make on this Bill is that SB 745 does not in itself impose mandates on the installation of any particular type of water reuse system, but rather gives broad discretion to the adopting agencies to determine, through their normal code adoption process, which type of water use systems make sense to require, in what circumstances, what types of occupancies, what sort of exceptions you should have.

And it's important for us to go through that normal regulatory process because the California Standards Building law requires building standards to be adopted through a stakeholder process that provides for industry input, state agency input, including expressly consultation with the Department of Water Resources, multiple opportunities for public review and comment and review by Expert Industry Code Advisory Committee Members. And in addition, the Building Standards Code development process requires consideration of the cost and economic impacts of proposed code changes.

So all these concerns that people raise, this is going to be addressed through the regulatory process. We hear the concerns raised by the water utilities, but these are exactly the type of concerns that the regulatory process, it's a technical concern. This is what the regulatory process is designed to do. We're not asking you to make those determinations. We want this to go through the normal process.

Finally, this SB 745 doesn't conflict with the State Water Resources Control Board's current update to water treatment standards per SB 966. That SB 966 update is just an update to existing water reuse standards. These systems that we're talking about have been allowed in the building standards code in California for over a decade. And the code currently says if you don't have local water treatment standards, you treat to NSF 350, which is a national standard for treatment.

We're now going to have some state standard standards that will replace that once those get adopted. That's supposed to happen by the end of this year. It was supposed to happen by December. It's going to happen by the end of this year.

Tom, if I can ask you to wrap up your comments. You're a little overtime.

Okay, no problem. Just one last thing, is that the standards that will be adopted through this process, the earlier they'd go into effect, would be 2026, because it has to go through the normal adoption process. If we don't pass this Bill this year, we're going to miss a window and it'll be 2029 before we can adopt standards. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now, do we have any members of the public in the hearing room to testify in support? Please come forward to your mic, name, organization and position on the Bill.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mona Lake Committee in support. And as a person who staffed Senator Hertzberg on SB 606, I agree entirely with what Mr. Wetch had to say about the Bill.

Great, thank you.

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

Hello. Mikayla Elder, on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, we have primary opposition witnesses in the hearing room. Please come forward. Witnesses in opposition. Oh, you have a witness on the phone as well? No. Come forward. Yeah, there's two seats over there, and that's four minutes between the both of you. And you begin whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Water Reuse, California. First, we want to thank the Committee and the author for really listening to our concerns. We think the amendments have gone really far and we've gotten very close. I think where we differ and what we're looking for, as your proponents said, you're not trying to mandate anything, and that's where our concern is at the moment with the language in the Bill. We are very supportive of on-site reuse and potable reuse.

What we are looking for as an association, as a water community, every local community has invested in different types of water resources that work for them. Some are going to go heavy into potable reuse when those regulations are adopted. Some where it makes sense to do on-site reuse because they don't have purple pipe going down their streets, are going to go heavy into onsite reuse.

Where the Bill still says that you can require installation, that is where our only problem left with, real problem, is left with the Bill. We think that this process, that the standards should be set, the model ordinance should be available, and that local communities can decide what is the best way to use their ratepayer funds to hit those urban water use objective goals as a community, because they have already, some communities like Orange County have or- San Diego is going to be 40% potable reuse in the next few years.

That's a very expensive process, and those ratepayers have invested there, and if they're going to be having to, that could be a stranded asset. They're going to have to invest more in buildings. It's just a double use of ratepayer funds. So we think it should be up to local communities. And all we need is that word required to come out of the Bill, and we would be happy to move into a neutral position.

Hi. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, also with an Opposed Unless Amended position on the Bill. Would echo the concerns from Water Reuse on local control and wanted to offer actually more of a wastewater perspective on on site reuse.

Wastewater agencies are increasingly concerned about the reduction in flows due to increased conservation in the State of California, which is only going to further increase as the targets are implemented over the next several years and really trying to grapple with how to accommodate and mitigate those impacts from the lower flows in our systems. We are concerned that mandating on-site reuse in any jurisdiction could further exacerbate those impacts to our system.

So for those reasons, we would like to see any final references to requiring onsite systems come out of the Bill. That is our only request, and we do appreciate that the recent amendments have really improved the Bill quite a bit and gotten us almost there and just appreciate your consideration and the author for getting to where we are today.

All right, thank you so much. Now, do we have any Members of the public in the hearing room who wish testify in opposition to the Bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the Orange County Water District, we'd like to align our comments with Water Reuse, thank the Senator for his willingness to engage with us and work with us. We continue to look forward to working with them, but unfortunately are Opposed Unless Amended at this time. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and Members, Adam Quinonez, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, want to align our comments with Water Reuse and CASA. If I could just respond to the question about the letter that we submitted.

Just name and organization, please. Thank you.

It was just called out, so I just wanted to respond.

Thank you. All right. Phone Moderator, do we have any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition of SB 745?

If you're in support or opposition of SB 745, you may press 1 and then 0. We will go to line 23. Your line is open. Line 23, is your line muted?

This is Santiago with California Environmental Voters, in support.

Hi, Jamie Minor representing Monterey One Water. Want to align my comments with those of Water Reuse and CASA? Opposed Unless Amended, but appreciate the progress and looking forward to additional tweaks to the language.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 29. Your line is open.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 26. Your line is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully, with an Opposed Unless Amended position, and align my comments with those of CASA and Water Reuse. Thank the author for the work thus far. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 27, your line is open.

Philip Vander Klay with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, appreciate the work of the authors and Committee on the language. Like to align our comments with Water Reuse and CASA. We are opposed, but hope to remove that position. Thank you.

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

Thank you so much, phone operator. We're going to bring it back to dais. And first we'll have start with Assembly Members Zbur and then we'll go to Senator Tri Ta. And if there's any other questions or comments from Members, just signal to me. Thank you.

Senator, thank you for bringing this Bill. I think it's a good one. I wanted to ask Mr. Wetch if he had any response to some of the comments that the opponents made today.

Thank you, Assembly Member. The opposition is basically asking for an amendment that guts the Bill. We've seen with building standards time and time again, the Legislature saw fit to direct the Building Standards Commission and the Energy Commission to adopt a mandate for solar installations on new homes because they knew that if you didn't do it, we wouldn't meet our targets fast enough. For some reason, they view this as competition with municipal water conservation and reuse programs. It has nothing to do with that.

It has to do about making buildings more efficient at the front end when they're designed and when they're built. So unfortunately, as the sponsor, we certainly would never be able to accept that amendment because we're trying to move the ball here. And we think it's particularly short sighted because you can't retrofit buildings. If you look at the swing space.

If the swing space had been built with a water reuse onsite system, taking just the gray water from the sinks in the swing space and putting it back into the toilets and into the urinals, we would save millions of gallons a year from that one building. Down the road, when we do have purple pipe in Sacramento rolling through the streets, you can't just go connect to a building that hasn't been designed to accept it. So we have to get in front of this. This is a decade, two decades down the road. Thank you.

Senator Tri Ta.

Thank you. I have a question regarding the Bill. Orange County Water District, OCWD, who I represent, has taken an Opposed Unless Amended position on SB 745. And we are aware that OCWD is concerned that SB 745 will be building a standard that require building to be designed to capture gray water on site and that could reduce flow to OCWD.

And this would be a difficulty, considering that OCWD is one of the most advanced system in the state and already recycle 100% of the soluble indoor water back to the drinking water quality. So I have a question to the Senator that would you be willing to accept their proposed amendment to remove the work requiring from the Bill language in order to remove their opposition.

To the Chair? Thank you, Assemblymember for the question. I appreciate you asking it. I would just tell you that even though Mr. Wetch answered the last question, I'm in full alignment with him as the author of the Bill. It's something that if we didn't agree with, we would have to work out. But the idea with the Bill is to advance water conservation by the very language that you're suggesting come out.

In my own home Santa Clara County, sure there are existing and future massive plans to have water flow to the treatment site and then recycle it and then try to push it back out through purple pipe but there's no faster means to dealing with our water problems than on-site conservation. And I think this is a both/and Proposition. We need both-and, not one or the other. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members. Seeing none, I invite the Senator to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Cortese, for bringing this Bill forward. I recall when our local pub trades had been shopping this idea for a while, so I'm glad to see it be carried to fruition. I understand the recent, and I thank you and the sponsors for working with my Committee staff on the recent amendments. I know it doesn't address every single concern the opposition has, but I think it moves the needle on a lot of things, and I think the amendments are very reasonable.

Of course, there's more outstanding issues out there, but please do keep my ESTM staff in loop as you advance to the further committees. I recommend an aye vote for this Bill. And do I have a motion and a second for this Bill? Oh, we already did. Oh, okay. See, my Committee is so ahead of me. While I was gone, you did everything. All right, so the motion is due pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is Item four, SB 745 Cortese. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Housing and Community Development. [Roll call] That vote is 5-1. So it's out.

That's out on 51. Thank you, Senator. All right, now we're going to do add ons for all the bills that I missed. So if there's anyone else who is missing bills as well, we'll go through the list. Madam Secretary, please call the role on the add on bills.

To add on item one, SB 3, Dodd. The vote sits at 5-2. Lee, Lee aye. Arambula, Arambula aye. goes to seven to two. SB 562, Newman is item two. The vote sits at 6-0 with Ta not voting. Lee, Lee aye. Arambula, Arambula aye. That brings it to 8-0. Item number three, SB 642, Cortese. The vote stands at 6-0 with Ta not voting. Lee, Lee aye. Pacheco. Okay, so we'll wait for Pacheco, but that votes out. Item four, SB 745, Cortese. Okay, we'll wait for that. The Members are missing.

All right, we'll hold the roll open for a couple more minutes for absent Members to return at add ons. So wait for them, then.

To add on on item number 3, SB 642, Cortese. The vote stands at 7-0. Pacheco, Pacheco aye. Item number 4, SB 745, Cortese. The vote stands at 5-1. Bauer-Kahan. Pacheco, Pacheco aye. Brings it to 6-1. Thank you.

All right, this concludes our so far only ESTM hearing of the Senate bills for this session. So this concludes the hearing, and this hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. Good luck with everything. Thank you very much.