Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

I will also note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. We will hear two measures today with two measures on the consent calendar. The first item is AB 2501 and, well, we don't have a quorum yet, so we'll proceed again as a Subcommitee. We have one Member who will be presenting their Bill. Mr. Alvarez, please begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Members. The Committee pleased to introduce AB Assembly Bill 2501 cutting the green tape. And with me today we have Amoria Top, who represents the City of San Diego with the sponsor of this Bill. I'd like to begin by thanking the chair for hearing the item today and for the staff for your work with my office on providing the analysis and the feedback.

AB 251 will authorize State Water Resources Control Board and the regional water Quality control boards to accept funds from public agencies for permitting and technical assistance work on projects that have a public benefit. The need for this Bill became more apparent in January this year. Many of you have probably heard about the news.

In San Diego, we were hit with atmospheric rivers that brought nearly three inches of rain in about 8 hours, making it the fourth wettest day in the City of San Diego's history since they began keeping records in 1850. Over 800 households were severely damaged by the flooding that reached nearly 5ft and in some instances, more than 5ft. I saw that myself across multiple neighborhoods in the communities of South Crest, Sheltown and Mountain View, primarily communities of color and lower income communities.

The cause of the flooding was in part due to the stormwater channels that had not been able to get maintained and updated to fit the new reality where climate change is having a greater impact on our weather. By allowing the Water Boards to receive additional funds from public agencies such as the City of San Diego, we can enhance the ability for them to review permit applications for projects that address climate change adaptation to help prevent future incidents like the one we witnessed in San Diego.

The authorization to accept funds from public agencies is not new, nor is it unprecedented. Several state agencies already, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Coastal Commission, among others, benefit from being able to accept funds like these from public agencies to facilitate the review of projects. As California experiences greater impacts from climate change, the demand to implement additional projects is growing rapidly and substantially, and cities like San Diego want to take action.

By law, Water Boards are required to participate in the planning and permitting process to ensure that the protection of water quality and of sensitive ecosystems occurs. AB 251 will allow public agencies to enter into agreements with the waterboards to provide funds specifically for permitting to meet that increased demand. The Bill does not remove or shift any of the waterboard's resources. It simply adds to their existing abilities and enhances their level of service.

It specifically requires that any funds accepted through this authorization can only go to projects of public benefit and any agreements that have to be approved at a public meeting which are subject to notice, requirements and public input. Water Boards will also utilize Executive Director reports to inform the public and provide long term transparency on agreements authorized by this Bill. AB 251 aligns the authority of the Water Boards with that of other state agencies and improves the state's ability to meet the demand of changes.

The Bill is also supported by the California Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to turn it over now to Ms. Maria Top, who will talk about how this Bill will benefit the City of San Diego specifically and other local agencies.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I am Moira Top, here on behalf of the City of San Diego, the sponsor of AB 251. The City of San Diego does maintain a very strong relationship with our San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, but we all know that it's imperative that the Water Board has the resources to effectively participate in the planning and permitting processes to ensure the protection of water quality and ecosystems.

In addition to the devastating floods that San Diego experienced in January, the city has several projects pending that will require four and 101 water quality certifications and other permits and approvals from our regional Water Board. Early coordination and acceptance of design approaches will be crucial for us to meet the construction deadlines set by the Federal Government in order for us to receive wifia funding.

Environmental permitting is the critical path for many of our projects, and we don't want to leave any money on the table because of permitting delays due to understaffing. As noted in your analysis and by the author, this authority builds on similar allowance provided in current law for other regulatory agencies. AB 25 One does not mandate that locals provide funding, but instead provides the authority for local agencies like the City of San Diego that wish to avail themselves of this alternative.

On behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd, Gloria and the City of San Diego respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I'm going to ask to see if there are any other Members of the public who'd like to speak in favor of this measure. Please come forward. State your name, organization, and your position for the record.

Hi, good afternoon. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you. Max Perry, on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, also in support.

Okay. Seeing no one else. Is there anyone wishing to come forward to speak in opposition to the measure? Okay, seeing no one. Any questions from the Members of the Committee? Okay, I think we can entertain a motion in a second, but we have no quorum, so we'll hold off until we do. Thank you, Mr. Alvarez.

Thank you.

And we'll bring up the item.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Second author here, Mr. Holden. All right. Okay. And I'm told that we now have a quorum, and so I'll ask the secretary here to please call the role. Establish.

Quorum. To establish. To establish quorum. Garcia.

Present.

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

All right. Before we proceed with the presentation, let me move. AB 1851. Can get a second. Okay, we have a second. And so, roll call on AB 1851, the Alvarez Bill. I'm sorry 2501. Correction. AB 251 motion and a second.

This is item two on the agenda. AB 251. Alvarez. The motion is due pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] So that measure pass, we will leave.

The roll open for other Members to add on and proceed with the first item. Sheldon.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1851, which would create a pilot program school site lead testing. 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as much as 20% of the lead a child takes in comes from their 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 the regular testing of lead and drinking water of child daycare centers. Through those regulations, the lead testing standard for childcare centers is set at five parts per billion. AB 1851 builds on that important work by requiring schools and community water systems to collaborate on comprehensive sampling plan to test for lead in 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 schools test above the lead threshold.

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 the five parts per billion. Unfortunately, that testing around only required testing of one to five water outlets at each school. What's worse, some school districts were able to keep their lead-leaching faucets operating by flushing, a technique whereby a faucet is left to run for 30 seconds, then tested.

A 2020 study by the Center of Disease Control on the implementation of AB 746 estimated that an actual 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 1851 is Associate Director of Children Now, Nora Lynn, and Senior Advocate for Environmental Working Group, Susan Little. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Nora Lynn and I am with Children Now. It's a statewide policy, research, and advocacy organization focused on improving kids' well-being. We are proud to co-sponsor AB 1851 along with Environmental Working Group. This Bill implements a comprehensive water testing and lead remediation pilot program for state schools built before 2010, building on work undertaken pursuant to Mr. Holden's AB 2370 and AB 746. Lead poisoning screening rates for children in Medi-Cal are low.

Less than 27% of eligible Medi-Cal children received both of the required tests, with only 45% of Black kids being screened. This means too many kids are falling through prevention safety nets. In addition to being a children's health issue, lead exposure is an environmental justice issue. A U.S. EPA analysis found that communities of color and low-income neighborhoods are at a disproportionate risk of lead exposure in drinking water. Educators and school employees are also at risk.

Lead exposure in adults is linked with an increase in mortality of 37% for all causes, 70% for cardiovascular, and 108% for heart disease. We know that one-size-fits-all doesn't work for our schools. The flexible remediation approach in AB 1851 allows for both faucet replacement and filter installation based on the school's needs and capacity. We have been and are continuing to meet with state and federal, EPA, education, environmental justice, and children's health stakeholders.

On behalf of California's childrens and families, I ask for your Aye vote on AB 1851. Thank you.

Thank you and good afternoon, Chair and Committee. My name is Susan Little and I work with the Environmental Working Group, one of the AB 18501's co-sponsors. Comprehensive and well-controlled lead testing in the drinking water of California's licensed childcare centers found that one in four centers, that is, 1,700 out of 6,500 centers evaluated had water lead levels above the five-part per billion limit, and many centers had levels far above this threshold.

259 centers up and down the state found lead levels between 50 and 1,000 parts per billion, 10 to 200 times the allowable amount. And nine centers found lead above 1000 parts per billion, with one center discovering levels over 11,000 parts per billion. In addition, early and very limited lead testing in school drinking water found elevated lead in the water of 18% of school campuses.

Keep in mind that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that there's no safe level of lead exposure for children, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that water children drink contain no more than one part per billion lead. Infants and toddlers are especially susceptible to lead's harm. Also concerning is information received from the public contractor that lead tested the water at almost a third of the childcare centers.

According to the contractor, replacement of faucets and fixtures did not bring lead levels below five parts per billion in 28% of the outlets remediated. So as we work to remove the lead and water that children drink, we're faced with not only solid data indicating that lead in children's water in California is an urgent problem, but also questions about how to remediate the lead as quickly and effectively as possible while being protective of children's health.

Unfortunately, pending federal regulations about lead and water will not provide states much guidance on how to reduce lead levels in schools. AB 1851 sets up a pilot project to address the urgent questions around lead in California school drinking water. The Bill also sets a health-protective goal of zero lead in water children drink at schools and childcare facilities. We'd ask that you support this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll ask other Members of the public if they want to come forward and speak in support of this measure. Name, organization and position, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy in support.

Mr. Chair and Members. Bryce Docherty on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, in strong support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jessica Moran with the California Dental Association in support.

Hello. Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you.

And I also have support. These organizations have asked us to list their support as Clean Water Action, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Clean Earth for Kids, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and the Friends Committee on Legislation on California.

Thank you very much. Do we have anyone wishing to register opposition to the Bill? Please come forward. Opposition to the Bill.

Elizabeth Escobel, California Association School Business Officials. We greatly appreciate the conversations that we've had with the author's office. And the most recent amendments have addressed our concerns. So we will be removing our opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Ian Padilla with the Coalition for Adequate School Housing. We don't currently have a position, but we've been working with the author and the sponsors since, I would say, December. And we worked with the author also on AB 249. We very much appreciate working with them and them taking our concerns seriously. So we'll continue to monitor the Bill and work with the author and the sponsors going forward. Thank you.

Not with a position either. Jerry Desmond with Plumbing Manufacturers International, PMI. Certainly support the objective of the legislation and have worked with the Member and co-sponsors on legislation in the past. And we've just recently put together some possible clarifying amendments that we're looking forward to the opportunity to talk about them as the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you bringing it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Okay, is there a motion to move the Bill? Motion. There's a second. Any closing comments?

It's an important issue that seems like it's in front of us every year, and we're just looking forward. I thank the sponsors for their long-standing and intense support for making sure that we are working hard to get lead out of drinking water around our kids. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. We do have a motion. Recommendation, do pass and refer to the Education Committee. We'll call the question.

This is item one, AB 1851 Holden. The motion is do pass. And re-refer to the Committee on Education. [Roll call]. Your motion passes. Perfect.

So now we'll make a motion for the consent calendar. I'll move it. Is there a second? Okay, we have a second. Motion to second. I'll call the question on the consent calendar.

The consent calendar consists of two bills, AB 20318 Papin and AB 2599. The Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. Both measures have the motion of do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to the consent calendar. [Roll Call] So the consent calendar is out.

All right. We will leave the roll open for 10 minutes for last Member to add on for 10 minutes.

Okay.

Good. We're good. Okay. We'll reconvene. We have a couple of items for a Member to add on. We'll start with the first item. AB 1851. Secretary.

Item AB 1851. The vote stands at 6 - 0. Rayes. Rayes. Aye. So that's out. Unanimously carries. Item two, AB 2501. Alvarez. The vote stands at 6 - 0. Reyes Reyes I again. That measures out. Unanimously carries. The consent calendar is at 60. Reyes Reyes. Aye. Again, 7 - 0.

All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And we will adjourn.

Thank you.