Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Okay, we're going to start as a Subcommitee. And so, thank you, Members, and we will start with file number three. That is Assemblymember Phil Ting, AB 2244 please.

Thank you, Mister chair. First, let me just say thank you for your and your Committee's assistance. The Bill. We are happy to take the amendments clarifying that unavoidable trace quantities of bispenols are not a violation of this bill's provisions. Quite simply, AB 2244 would prohibit the use of bisphenol A, BPA, otherwise known as BPA, in paper receipts, by January 1, 2025 and all other bisphenol chemicals in paper receipts by January 1, 2026.

Most people have no idea that the receipts that we get every single day when we're buying something, they actually contain toxic material. And the way that that toxicity is transmitted is not by breathing it or by, you know, by doing something with it, actually just touching it is how that toxicity gets transferred. So it's actually every day we are coming into contact with this cancer causing chemical.

So we want to make sure that we are taking every, you know, every step to ban it from paper receipts, especially since we are all coming into contact with it every single day. And it's absolutely critical that we send the signal to paper manufacturers who are producing these receipts that we no longer want BPA or any bisphenol chemicals in those receipts. With that, I'm honored to have Nancy Beaumier with breast cancer prevention to be my primary witness.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Chair and Members of the Committee, Nancy Buermeyer, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, thank you for the opportunity to testify. And thank you, assemblymember Ting, for your continued leadership on this important issue. AB 2244 is an important Bill with real life implications for our health. BCPP is a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing our exposure to chemicals linked to the disease.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, has long been a chemical that we are deeply concerned about, given its link to breast cancer and numerous other health harms. BCPP worked with our allies to remove BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups many years ago, and today you will see BPA free stickers on numerous products. Unfortunately, all too often, BPA was replaced with an Alphabet soup of Bisphenols, Bps, BPF, BPAF, and so on.

While these substitutes are often less well studied, the more we learn, the better we understand that the entire class has implications for our health, including increased risk of asthma and hyperactivity in children and cardiovascular disease, fertility problems, obesity, diabetes, and an increased risk of breast and other cancers in adults. BPA and bps are listed on California's Prop 65 list as reproductive toxicants. The State of Washington has designated BPA, bps, and BPF as chemicals of high concern for children. Our exposures to bisphenols is ubiquitous and continuous.

According to CDC biomonitoring data, over 90% of us have BPA and bps in our bodies and over 65% of us have BPF. They disrupt our sensitive balance of hormones and have profound negative effects at very Low levels and early life exposures are particularly concerning because this developmental period is when these chemicals have their biggest and longest lasting impacts. Bisphenols are absorbed through the skin when handling thermal receipt papers. This exposure is concerning for all consumers.

However, the greatest risk is for cashiers, 70% of whom are women. Occupational studies have confirmed that BPA and BPS levels are significantly higher in cashiers. Connecticut, Illinois and the EU have already banned BPA from thermal paper. However, a 2023 report shows that BPA has largely been replaced with bps. Another case of regrettable substitution. Of the over 350 receipts tested, a whopping 79% contained bps while less than 1% contained BPA.

The very good news is that 20% of those receipts were free of any of these toxic bisphenols. Clearly, alternatives are currently available and in use. It's time to remove all bisphenols from thermal paper by passing AB 2244. I urge your. I vote.

Thank you very much. Before we proceed, we're going to establish a quorum. Officially established quorum. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. I don't see another problem. Primary witness. So we'll ask for those who are in the hearing room, please come forward if you wish to indicate your support for this measure, please state your name. Organization. And again, your position.

Good afternoon. Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste in support. I want to commend the author for his five years of work on this issue. Thank you.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group in support. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Committee. Lea Jones, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy in full support. And thank you, Mister. Sorry, Assembly Member Ting, for all the work you do.

Emily Garcia with NRDC and support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else come forward, we will ask for those who wish to speak in opposition to AB 2244.

Julie Wedge. Rethink Disposable in support for Clean Water Action.

Thank you, Chair Members RJ Cervantes here. On behalf of the American Forest and Paper Association. First of all, I just want to say thank you to the author and to the Committee staff for all their work in drafting the amendments under consideration. We are still reviewing those. So unfortunately I can't change my position today. But do want to thank and recognize the efforts have been made there and we'll follow up here shortly. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, we'll bring the issue back. Any questions from the Committee Members? All right. Left seeing none .

Respectfully ask for an aye vote

Okay. Thank you for bringing this measure forward, for accepting the amendments. To address the concern from manufacturers, it's important to protect health of Californians and restrict sources of exposure. Thank you again. I'll move the Bill. It is recommended. There's a second and to do past recommendation. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open. We'll move on to file number four, AB 2408, Mr. Haney, firefighter personal protective equipment. This does have an aye recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 2408 will protect our firefighters from cancer by ensuring that their gear are free of cancer causing chemicals. Firefighter gear has been found to contain significant levels of PFAS. PFAS are man-made chemicals that have been largely found to be harmful to both human health and the environment because they are considered forever chemicals, meaning they stay in both the body and nature for a lifetime. Additionally, research has established that PFAS are a known carcinogen, indicating the potential to cause cancer.

20 years ago, heart disease was the biggest threat to firefighter health. Today, cancer has replaced heart disease as the biggest killer of firefighters, with the International Association of Firefighters attributing 66% of deaths between 2002 and 2019 to cancer. While firefighting is an inherently dangerous profession, it is critical for the health and safety of California's firefighters that all unnecessary cancer exposures are eliminated. The National Fire Protection Association currently sets the safety and quality standards for firefighter gear, and PFAS Inclusion in firefighter gear hinges solely on the Association's UV light test.

The test is currently being evaluated at the federal level, and it's pending removal obligates California to be ready to immediately ban PFAS in firefighter gear after a decision is made. Firefighters put their lives at risk every day on the front lines, saving lives, responding to emergencies, and taking care of the vulnerable, and we have an obligation to them to protect them.

This bill will direct the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to revise its regulations to meet the latest testing safety standard within a year after it has been updated. With me today in support of the bill is Adam Wood, a firefighter from San Francisco, on behalf of Local 798, and Meagan Subers, representing the California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members of the Committee. Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, and we are proud to sponsor this bill. I would like to thank Mr. Haney for bringing it forward today. Many of you are aware that CPF has been focusing on cancer in the fire service for many years, trying to reduce any exposures that our members are faced with on the job. We've worked in this Legislature on issues to remove toxic chemicals, toxic flame retardants, from furniture.

We've worked most recently on removing PFAS from firefighting foams in a bill by Senator Allen in 2020, and we feel like this is the appropriate next step on that venture. And I would like to defer the rest of my time to my member from San Francisco to speak to you about his experience. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Meagan. Thank you, Assembly Member Haney, Chair Garcia, and Committee Members. Good afternoon. My name is Adam Wood. I've been a San Francisco firefighter for over 28 years and currently serve as the Secretary for the Firefighters Union in San Francisco and Vice President of our Cancer Prevention Foundation. And I'm here to speak to you today about the elevated risk for cancer faced by California's firefighters and this important step that you can take to help us reduce that risk.

We've known for some time that we face an elevated risk for occupational cancer versus the general population. And that's been confirmed last year by the International Association for Research on Cancer, which classified firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogen. For most of the time we've been aware of this problem, we've believed that the primary source of our exposure to carcinogens has been on the fire ground, in the smoky chemical soup we crawl into every time we go into a fire building or into a wildfire.

But what we've learned recently is some of the chemicals that are most dangerous to our health are being carried into the fire by us in the very gear that's designed to protect us. And these are the PFAS chemicals. These are the per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that permeate the material that's used to make our protective gear, which we call turnouts, and in the wear and tear of a fire, migrate from that material into our bodies, where they take up residence forever, and are linked to a number of cancers, including cancers of the liver and cancer of the pancreas.

This understanding about the presence of these PFAS chemicals in our protective gear may go a long way to explaining what's been one of the most frustrating and tragic mysteries in the world of cancer prevention and firefighting, which is, despite the fact that we have an entire generation of firefighters who have come into the profession now with a full understanding of the risk of cancer and committed to making changes to both the practice and the culture of the fire service to reduce that risk, we have not been able to move the number on our cancer caseloads at all.

Just in San Francisco alone, over the past six years, so this is not going into ancient history, just the past six years, we've had 62 active members and 141 retired members diagnosed with cancer. This is a department of 1500 members, and I assure you, you will find comparable numbers in every department in the state.

We've been missing key pieces of the puzzle on the issue of cancer and firefighting, and we're convinced that the presence of these PFAS chemicals in our protective gear is one of those missing pieces. And unlike any of the other risks we face on the fire ground, this risk is completely unnecessary. Right now, in San Francisco and five other major American cities, we've been wear testing turnout gear that is PFAS-free.

And so far, the results, in terms of determining whether they can still perform the job they're designed to do, protect us from fire without these toxic chemicals, have been extremely promising. I was actually just in a warehouse fire two days ago on Sunday wearing a set of these PFAS-free turnouts, and their performance and the way they held up compared favorably to any set of protective gear I've had throughout my entire career.

So we're right on the cusp of technological and regulatory change that should make these PFAS-free turnouts available at scale to every department in California. That's why we're asking you to support AB 2408. The bill creates a reasonable period of time to get us to that point, to get to the point where the turnouts are available, they've been tested, they've been approved, and when we get to that point, removes any excuse anyone could make for continuing to poison firefighters.

So I am hopeful that, if we can take this step together, it'll get us closer to a place where we as firefighters can go back to focusing on what we do best, saving other people's lives, rather than having to come to you and ask you for help to save ours. And I want to thank you for your time and consideration for this issue.

Thank you for your testimony and your service. Thank you. Motion and a second. That will be the end of our two key witnesses. We'll ask for others who want to come forward, and state your name and affiliation and support, please. Name, affiliation, and support.

Nancy Buermeyer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in support, and particularly in support of the firefighter women with breast cancer.

Lea Jones on behalf of a Voice for Choice Advocacy in full support. Thank you.

Emily Garcia with NRDC in support.

Julie Wedge, ReThink Disposable, in support for Clean Water Action.

Bianca Lopez with Valley Improvement Projects for Social and Environmental Justice in support of this bill. Thank you for all you do.

Elmer Lizardi on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group. Did not get a letter in time, but will be supporting this good bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB 2408? Please come forward. Anyone in opposition? If so, please come forward. Seeing no one, we'll bring this discussion back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, concerns? We do have a motion and a second. This does have a do pass recommendation. This would go to the Labor and Employment Committee. Would you like to close?

Yes. Just want to thank Mr. Wood and all of our firefighters. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number four, AB 2408, Haney. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Labor and Employment. [Roll Call] We have the votes. We have five.

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on. The next bill we'll hear is file number six, AB 2552. It's Friedman.

I have a second.

Oh, we have another bill. I'm sorry. Please proceed.

Item 13.

Gotcha.

Great. Thank you, Chair and members. AB 3073, the Sewage Water Drug Testing Act, empowers the State Department of Public Health to work with local water agencies who volunteer to participate in a life-saving program to collect and test wastewater samples for drugs like cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine, xylazine, methadone, buprenorphine, and naloxone. Successfully used in Europe for over a decade, wastewater-based drug testing allows local governments to pinpoint down to the neighborhood level dangerous spikes in the use of illicit drugs.

Wastewater testing also allows local public health departments to accurately allocate resources to tackle the rise of illegal drugs, allowing communities to be safer. The surge in illicit drug use has intensified California's struggle with its overdose epidemic, driven by the proliferation of fentanyl and tranq. Overdose-related deaths in San Francisco peaked to more than 750 people in 2023, nearly three times as many lives as COVID-19 in its peak in 2021. Nationally, an estimated 109,680 overdose deaths were recorded in 2022 alone.

This is a devastating 300 lives lost a day. Wastewater-based drug testing is a proven technique where wastewater samples are taken from the sewer system and tested for specific targets. In the COVID-19 pandemic, this technology was used to effectively produce community-level data that helped limit the spread of COVID-19. AB 3073 represents a significant advancement in our ability to monitor and respond to drug misuse patterns effectively.

By adopting this bill, we not only leverage proven technology but affirm our commitment to public health, safety, and the well-being of all Californians. It will make this data publicly accessible, ensuring transparency while safeguarding individual privacy, and empowers communities with the knowledge and supports to inform our response and prevention. It has received broad support and here to testify in support of the bill today, Doctor Hannah, an epidemiologist from the County of Marin, and Doctor Keith Humphreys from Stanford University.

Chairperson Garcia and distinguished Assembly members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm an epidemiologist with the County of Marin Department of Health and Human Services, and I'll speak from my experience managing a pilot exploring how wastewater monitoring of overdose-involved drugs could be used for public health action. Overdoses are the leading cause of death for Marin residents under 55 years, making it a major public health priority.

Current tools we use to track overdoses often alert us to an issue after it's already passed, when it's too late to warn residents. As a 2021 study out of British Columbia showed, people often modify their drug use behavior after an overdose alert. Knowing about increased risk sooner would thus allow us to alert the community in time to prevent fatal overdoses from happening. In 2023, Marin County conducted a pilot monitoring wastewater for fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, xylazine, and their metabolites.

After a period of data validation, we found that increased levels of norfentanyl, a metabolite used as a marker of fentanyl use, may be associated with increases in nonfatal and fatal overdoses. We issued two public health advisories based on information learned from wastewater, one notifying the community about local wastewater detection of trank, which was contaminating the illegal drug supply in places like San Francisco, but was otherwise an unknown on whether it was in our community, and a second one, notifying the community about an acute increase in overdose risk when a spike in norfentanyl and wastewater was followed by an increase in 911 calls for opioid overdoses.

The pilot also raised our level of awareness about higher-than-anticipated methamphetamine use in our community, which acted as a catalyst for increasing outreach to people who use stimulants through community partners. Marin County's pilot is just one example of what other jurisdictions may have the opportunity to learn if this bill is passed. In 2021, we lost more than 30 people a day to overdose in California. I hope you will support this and other innovative efforts that improve our state's capacity to respond effectively to the overdose crisis. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Garcia, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak with you today. My name is Keith Humphreys. I'm a professor at Stanford University, and I've studied addiction and drug policy for 35 years. And I'm here to say why I think AB 3073 is a great step forward for our state. We don't really have good information on what drugs Californians use. Drugs like xylazine, fentanyl, methamphetamine. People who use drugs don't answer government surveys.

Obviously, drug traffickers don't file corporate reports and tell us what they're doing. So we find out what drugs are out there in the worst possible way. We find out from autopsies. That's not the way we want to learn about it. Most other developed countries, as Assemblymember Haney mentioned, surmount this problem by analyzing water samples from sewerage systems. Human beings excrete drugs and metabolites of the drugs they use.

Those can be detected and measured in wastewater in a fashion very similar to how we measure the prevalence of COVID If we had this kind of test in California, we could do two very important things we can't do now. First, when a new drug entered a town or a city or a county, public health officials could detect its presence almost immediately and respond accordingly. For example, with increased drug checking, public education, improved overdose protocols, whatever is sensible.

Second, we'd be better able to determine what is the impact of the very large investments we make in prevention, treatment, harm reduction in law enforcement. We don't know what they're doing in population drug consumption if we knew that, we could make smarter investments in the future. So I therefore hope you'll support this innovative effort to improve our state's capacity to respond effectively to our drug crisis. And I'm happy to answer questions if that.

Thank you very much to both of you. I'll ask if there's anyone else in the room wanting to express their support of the bill. Your name, organization and your position.

Mr. Chair and members, Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies representing the public wastewater community in the state, in support. Want to thank the author for working with us on the latest amendments that removed all of our concerns with the bill. And also happy to answer any questions about how this works on sort of the wastewater side of the equation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Want to echo Miss Gauger's comments. Appreciate the author and his staff working with us. Happy to be here in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Jolie Onodera with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. here in support. And would also like to echo the thanks to the author's office and sponsor.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Betsy Armstrong, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association, representing California's local health departments, in strong support. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no one else, I'll ask if there's anyone wishing to express their opposition to AB 3073. Anyone wishing to come forward in opposition? Seeing no one, I'll bring the conversation up to the dais. Any questions? Any comments? This does have a do pass recommendation. It would go to appropriations. I will move the item. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do pass recognition. Appropriations, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that open for the members to add on. We'll ask file number six, AB 2552. Assemblymember Friedman, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I want to thank you and your Committee staff for all of your hard work on this bill. Despite the passing and implementation of bills, such as AB 1788 and AB 1322, recent evidence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests there is still widespread exposure and deaths to wildlife from FGARs and other anticoagulant rodenticides.

Just so you all know, these are the rat poison that poisoned P-22 and if you see coyotes and mountain lions and bobcats walking around with what look like mange, that's typically poisoning from this class of drugs, and it often kills these animals. It also kills our apex predators like hawks and owls. The exposure to these anticoagulants can result in lethal and sublethal effects on non-target wildlife, including the severe skin diseases I mentioned and decreased immune system responses.

Rodenticides is also ironically counterproductive to rodent control because it poisons and kills the natural predators that would help regulate rodent populations throughout California. AB 2552 adds the two remaining first generation anticoagulant rodenticides, we call them FGARs, chlorophacinone and warfarin, to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect our wildlife from unintentional rodenticide poisoning while maintaining exemptions for its use to protect public health, water supplies, and agriculture.

The bill also expands the definition of wildlife habitat area to include open space land and prohibits the illegal use of anticoagulant rodenticides within 2500 ft of a wildlife habitat area. It also requires that the Department of Pesticide Regulation enact stronger permanent restrictions on FGARs to limit unintended wildlife poisonings while making chlorophacinone and warfarin a restricted material so that your average Joe isn't buying this product at their local Home Depot.

Anticoagulant rodenticides continue to result in an unreasonable number of public health incidents, with over 3000 human poisonings in 2021 and at least 2300 of those involving children under six years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. Unfortunately, limited resources bar County AG commissioners and DPR from effectively preventing unintended poisonings for both humans and wildlife.

That is why AB 2552 further allows community members to bring legal action against the illegal use or sale of anticoagulant rodenticides to reduce enforcement costs on state and local officials. Our laws don't matter if we can't enforce them, and this will help enforce laws that are already on the books. I took author amendments that reduce the range of the buffer zone, and we clarified exemptions under the definition of "open space land" to avoid confusion of application to address concerns by the opposition.

But I would like to take a moment to highlight other concerns that we have heard about AB 2552. To be clear, the vast majority of agriculture remains exempt from our bill. The bill would only affect agricultural areas that are within 2500 ft of a wildlife habitat area. We made this decision because the science shows that wildlife such as raptors routinely forage in agricultural areas adjacent to wildlife habitat and they are continuing to experience unacceptable high rates of poisonings due to this toxic poison.

When it comes to effective alternatives, fertility projects such as ContraPest and Evolve are readily available in the state and are categorized as a minimum risk pesticide that poses little or no risk to people, pets, and predators. We are not advocating for other poisons, and we do have data on the impacts of these chemicals on many wildlife species from the United States and worldwide. It's also fair to predict the use of the remaining FGARs will increase following AB 1322, which will continue to harm wildlife.

Lastly, numerous state and federal environmental and civil rights laws already contain citizen supervisions such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, California Consumer Privacy Act, among others. The citizen supervision in AB 2552 was modeled after these existing laws and other similar laws which have not overloaded the courts with frivolous litigation. I also want to emphasize that a person cannot even bring an action under the citizen supervision unless they, number one, notify the Department of Pesticide regulations.

And two, after 60 days, neither the Department nor any local officials have started addressing the violation. So if they move, if we start to enforce, you cannot bring the suit forward, which I think is very reasonable. So this is only intended to apply to instances in which the state and local officials lack the capacity to enforce.

That said, we have had discussions with stakeholders about potentially narrowing the citizens sued provision and are very open to future amendments in the next two committees to establish more safeguards to ensure this provision does not lead to frivolous litigation or unnecessary burdens on small businesses. There are a wide range of safer, more sustainable, and cost effective alternatives to these very dangerous rodenticides available today that don't threaten California's wildlife, our families and our pets.

Testifying in support this afternoon is Dr. Rebecca Gooley, a Smith fellow and postdoc at UC Davis, and Lisa Owens Viani, Director of Raptors Are The Solution. And with that, I would request an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair Garcia and Committee Members. My name is Lisa Viani and I am here on behalf of Raptors Are The Solution, in support of 2552 I founded this nonprofit with a raptor biologist in 2011 when birds of prey began bleeding to death on the street in my Bay Area neighborhood having eaten rodents that had been poisoned with toxic anticoagulants. We had the bodies tested at UC Davis, and they all came back positive for numerous anticoagulants.

We have been educating the public about the dangers of these poisons ever since and about better ways to control rodents than poison. Anticoagulants have a unique mode of toxicity that makes them particularly lethal to other animals in the food web. They bioaccumulate and they infiltrate the entire food web, from earthworms to eagles. In 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife published a summary of the poisoned wildlife they studied in 2022. Over 88% of birds of prey tested positive for anticoagulants.

Over 80% of large game mammals, animals that people eat, over 80% of bobcats and 90% of mountain lions and gray foxes all tested positive. AB 2552 reduces this harm to wildlife by adding the remaining anticoagulants into the moratoriums of 1788 and 1322 while the state restudies these problems products. As our state pivots to more sustainable and less inherently flawed products, more humane and strategic pest control can work in concert with our wildlife predators, not against them.

A pilot study my organization performed in Seattle in 2022 reduced rat numbers by over 90% in just three months. Fertility controlled products do not bioaccumulate and they do not harm wildlife predators. We received numerous reports from citizens who see broken push in bait boxes with bait, spilling out animals breaking into them or boxes using chemicals that are now illegal.

The private right to action will help supplement enforcement by the AG commissioners, reducing costs to the state and giving violators a reasonable 60 days to fix the problem. Many pest control companies have now found a better business model controlling rodents with exclusion and sanitation, finding out where rodents are, getting into a property, and using safer, non toxic methods to prevent them. These companies are proving they can do a thriving business without poison.

And I just want to give a shout out to one near where I live called Rat Exclusion Service in Petaluma. It's a mom and pop company. They didn't use any poison, and they fixed a problem in the well house where I live very efficiently and successfully. So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on 2552.

Good afternoon, Chair Garcia and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Rebecca Gooley. I am a conservation scientist investigating the impact of rodenticide in California wildlife. Over 50% of deceased mountain lions that were screened by CDFW in 2021 tested positive for chlorophacinone or warfarin. Even when these poisons don't directly kill the individual, they can make them sick and weak.

Sub-lethal doses of chlorophacinone and warfarin have been associated with thermoregulatory dysfunction, increased parasite and pathogen loads, reduced egg hatching, lowered fledgling success, and reduced body weight of offspring. All of these impact survival. Wildlife have a right to not be poisoned. Providing protected buffer zones around natural habitat is a well established and scientifically backed management practice, and one that in this case allows California wildlife habitat and home ranges that are free from harm and poison.

Improved sanitation and exclusion practices remain the most effective long term solution for rodent management. While concern has been raised that several of the remaining rodenticides have no antidotes, we would like to firmly state no rodenticide, anticoagulant or otherwise, should be used near children or pets, and that for wildlife poisoned with anticoagulants, it's often difficult or too late to save them. Even with an antidote.

Lethal population control of rodents has remained unsuccessful due to the ecology of the ratio, and a more sophisticated and humane addition to existing management is rodent fertility control. A single breeding pair of rats can produce over 1200 descendants in a single year and rat fertility control targets this, showing significant results at reducing already established populations in agricultural, natural and rural settings.

A pilot study was conducted from 2019 to 2021 at an animal production facility here in California, and they showed that rat activity was successfully reduced by 94%. While some proposed alternatives may take a more upfront investment, they offer more sustainable and cost effective solutions over time. With this bill, California will continue to move towards a more biodiverse and compassionate future. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, I did pass some photos of the effects of these poisons onto the dais that perhaps can be circulated with Members.

We will take a look at those. We'll ask other members of the audience if they want to come forward and state their position of support. Name, organization and again position.

Abby Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform, in support.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, in support. Thank you.

Elise Fandrich on behalf of EnviroVoters, in support and thanks the author.

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

Kitty Jones with Jelly's Place Animal Rescue, in full support.

Hello. Lea Jones, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, in full support.

Christopher Kroll with California Urban Streams Partnership, in strong support. Thank you, Assemblymember Friedman.

Maggie Rufo, on behalf of my 23 years as a volunteer at Wild Care Wildlife Hospital, along with Raptors Are The Solution and Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue and also on behalf of nature which needs our voices, please support. Thank you.

Martha Kudlacik, on behalf of Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue, support.

JP Rose, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and its thousands of members in California, in full support. Thank you.

Bianca Lopez with Valley Improvement Projects for social and environmental justice, in support of this bill.

Ariel Ryan, in full support of this bill.

Jema Rudy from Hamilton Raptor Center in Penn Valley, in full support.

Tim Rudy, I'm in support of my wife.

Alex Loomer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California and the Mojave Desert Land Trust, in support.

Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange, also in support of Jim's wife, but also The Humane Society of the United States, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Sosan Madanat at W Strategies here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, a proud co-sponsor of this measure, as well as social compassion and legislation, in strong support. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, in support.

Thank you very much. At this time, I'll ask anyone wishing to come forward and register their opposition to the bill. AB 2552. You have four minutes, or-- Okay, well, we'll let you provide four minutes of opposition and then me-toos.

So Taylor Roschen on representing a coalition of agricultural associations in the rodenticide task force. Unfortunately, we do have someone from a local pest control company that's here to testify on behalf of the urban impacts. But I'd like to add some of the issues that we see with this bill that we believe-- Oh, I'm sorry.

Should we ask them to come forward and split your time with them?

Yeah, let's have them come up and we'll split your time with them. Two minutes at a time. Okay, please proceed. And then we'll give you your two minutes and two minutes.

So, unfortunately, we believe that AB 2552 is an abridgment of the process that's currently in place governing pesticides in California. The bill immediately bans the use of two rodenticides and then provides the permissive authority for the Department, if it chooses to, to move forward with allowing for use, but only after those products have met near impossible standards and we believe that the science should dictate the decision making in that process.

It's also worth noting that at any point in time, the sponsors, academia, NGO's, a public member can provide information to the Department of Pesticide Regulation about the data that they have about impacts to existing species. And the Department is duty bound, if the data is legitimate, to restrict use, to impose new mitigations, or to ban products altogether. We believe that our scientific agencies are well appointed and resourced to make this decision.

And I know later in the next few weeks we'll be hearing a conversation about fully resourcing DPR to do things just like this. AB 2552 ignores this process and dramatically expands the area prohibited for use in California to also include open space. I know the sponsors alluded to that. For context, open space as defined in the bill includes high fire severity zones and earthquake fault zones.

We believe that this expansive application, in addition to requiring a half mile buffer around these existing areas, is in effect prohibition on rodenticides in entire counties in California. This also has a significant effect not only in urban and suburban pest management, which Ms. Smith will go over, but certainly for agricultural applications.

When the second generation restriction was negotiated with the Legislature, the Legislature saw it fit that keeping our farms, packing houses and food processing facilities free from rodents, pests and diseases and the droppings is essential for public health and manages food security risks. That's why the bill at that time provided a very clear exemption for agriculture that was carefully negotiated.

This bill erodes that exemption and would prohibit use within any of these mile wide connecting buffer zones in California. Our farms and ranches are more often than not adjacent to open space. And with the advent of SGMA and 30x30 biodiversity initiative the state has, these areas will grow and they will rebut agriculture with respect. Suggestions of road infertility techniques is not a realistic solution for our farms and ranches in these situations.

To that end, we believe that the bill limits tools that are essential for protecting ourselves, our environment, our community and our farms. And for that reasons, we oppose. Thank you.

Two minutes please.

Thank you Chair and Members for allowing me to present on this very important topic today. My name is Blair Smith and I'm the Director of technical and quality assurance for Clark Pest Control and we are an association member of the Pest Control Operators of California, or PCOC. Now, PCOC represents around 80% of the state's total volume of pest control business, and our members are committed to protecting communities, schools, homes and businesses, all while stewarding our products and stewarding the environment.

This bill today, AB 2552, builds upon the restrictions of two previous bills that limit our access to these tools. Chlorophacinone and warfarin are tools for protecting public health, and taking these products will mean removing them from the hands of licensed professionals that use them. These tools have readily available and widely known antidotes, and with their removal, professionals may turn to alternative products, and that cannot be said for some of those materials.

Also deeply concerning is the fact that this bill permits a private right of action for violations. Now, this is truly unprecedented and could be potentially devastating to pest control professionals who may be innocent. Litigation costs for parties to defend a civil case are extremely high, and it's important to note that a majority of PCOC members are small businesses with five or fewer employees, and if they're forced to settle a frivolous lawsuit, maintain their own representation, that could be financially ruinous for that business.

In addition to this, once insurance companies are aware of this new liability, we could expect those rates to increase, which would be then passed on to end users of our services. So there are a number of other concerning aspects of the bill, but I respectfully urge a no vote.

Thank you very much. We'll open it up now for others to register their opposition to the bill. Your name, your organization or affiliation and your position, please.

Mr. Chair, Members. Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau, in opposition of 2552.

Good afternoon. Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition.

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

Jake Plevelich, Rentokil Terminix, in opposition.

Jim Stead with Neighborly Pest Management and Pest Control Operators of California, in opposition.

Margie Lie, Samson Advisors, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in respectful opposition.

Paul Poyster with Nutrien Ag Solutions, respectfully in opposition.

Dennis Albiani, with California Grain and Feed, California Seed Association, several other AG associations, in opposition. Thank you.

Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer with the Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Erin Norbert, on behalf of the Allman Alliance, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Okay, seeing no one else. I'll bring back the item to the dais. Any questions? Any comments? The item does have a due pass recommendation. The bill would go to Water, Parks and Wildlife, and then if given the opportunity to move forward. I think it has another Committee to go to. It's a triple referred bill that will see again another policy Committee to address some of these issues.

I'd like to give the Member or the author opportunity, maybe address some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition.

Sure, we are more than happy to continue to sit down with the opposition to try to narrow the bill in places where it needs to be narrowed to address concerns. We all like to eat. We understand the issues. But I will tell you that something that I hear constantly from people in my community is distress overseeing these poisoned animals. And we unfortunately still see way too many of them.

The coyotes with the obvious poisoning when P-22 was necropsied and found this extensive poisoning in his system, it broke the heart of the people of Los Angeles. I myself have seen numerous dead owls in my neighborhood. So we have to find that balance because nature is struggling. It needs all the help it can get.

And this is something that puts things out of balance and ironically creates the pest to actually be able to thrive in a lot of our areas when they don't have those apex predators. So with that, I would respectfully request an aye vote so we can continue through our multiple of Committee hearings ahead. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And we appreciate you accepting the amendments that at least make an effort to try to narrow this down a bit further. But it sounds like there's some more work to be done. And again, there's two other committees where this will be happening. I do have a due pass recommendation. I will second the bill. The motion, I'll ask the secretary to call the question.

Item six, AB 2552 Friedman. The motion is due pass. And re-refer to the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife. [Roll call]

Thank you.

We'll leave the roll open for other members to add on. Move on to file number seven, AB 20614. Mister Ramos, welcome. The Bill does enjoy a do pass recommendation. Please.

Thank you Mister Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting AB 2614 a Bill that would add tribal cultural uses of water to the existing state beneficial use of water statue. California tribes, since time immemorial have been stewards of their environment. Waste, waterways and bodies of water have been an important cultural aspect and must be protected in existing state statute. Beneficial uses of water have been protected and required to be protected by local water authorities.

This Bill would simply add the requirement for tribal cultural uses to be protected in the same manner. In making this addition, the state can build partnership with California tribes and tribes can fully protect the cultural resources that are important to their survival. Water is life and must be treated as such in the State of California.

With me to testify on the Bill today is Vice Chair Melissa Tayaba of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the sponsors of the Bill, and Sherri Norris, Executive Director of the California Indian Environmental alliance.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Garcia and Committee Members. My name is Melissa Tayaba and I am the Vice Chair and Director of traditional ecological knowledge for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. We are the sponsor of AB 2614 which would establish tribal beneficial uses of water. In statute, my tribe is compromised of Nisenan and Miwok ancestry. Our ancestral homeland spans seven counties, including Sacramento.

We have major village sites located not too far from here near the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers, the Sacramento and feather rivers, with various significant locations within and beyond the Sacramento delta. Our people have relied upon these waterways and the cultural landscapes connected to them since long before European colonization. In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned about the degraded conditions in our rivers, which impact the ability of our people to maintain culture, tradition, and food sovereignty.

We have also heard similar concerns from other tribes and determined that current state efforts to protect tribal water issues are insufficient, which is why we are pursuing legislation. AB 2614 would place tribal water uses on equal footing with other statewide beneficial uses of water, such as recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. A statutory designation would ensure that state regulators understand and protect the water uses of all California tribes.

Additionally, the Bill would create improved frameworks for state agencies to consult with tribes and benefit from their knowledge when setting water quality standards. Furthermore, it would allow the Legislature to track progress on implementation of tribal beneficial uses and evaluate whether regulations conform to statutory policy directives. This Bill contains key elements that are intended to support tribes, including consistent and expedited implementation timelines.

The Bill would set timelines for the State Water Board and all nine regional Water Boards to include tribal water uses and water quality control plans and begin setting water quality standards to protect our water uses. It has been a decade since the state board first committed to developing tribal beneficial uses, and some regional boards are still telling us that it will take another decade to adopt and implement them. This is not acceptable.

The current regulatory development framework divides tribal water uses into different categories, cultural uses and substance uses. As a result, the Water Boards are staggering their development, leading to the unacceptably long timelines. We need improved consultation and evaluation. Water management is complex and continuous, and too often tribes have been left out.

The bill's consultation provisions would hold state agencies accountable for robust and constructive consultation and engagement with tribes on water infrastructure projects and operation plans, the state has made some improvements in respecting tribal sovereignty and addressing centuries of impacts from colonization to the present. However, tribes still face structural disadvantages and equalities when it comes to water. Many tribes are still not being heard and valued. All tribes deserve state action to help maintain our ways of life.

This Bill represents an important step towards protecting all tribal water uses for all California tribes. Thank you for your consideration and I respectfully ask for your support.

Hello. Thank you Chairman Garcia and Committee Members. I appreciate this opportunity to be here today. My name is Sherri Norris. I'm with the California Indian Environmental Alliance and we were formed in 2006 to support California tribes and tribal communities in restoring and protecting water quality objectives for continued tribal subsistence and cultural uses tribes and organization worked closely with the State Water Board staff, including legal counsel, to ensure tribal beneficial use language was appropriately distinct from commercial and sports, fishing, and rec one which is swimming and wadable.

Those two beneficial uses were identified as tribes as not being protective of those most at risk in tribal communities, notably frequent cultural users and those of childbearing you age babies in utero and infants. In 2017, the Water Board adopted a provision of the water quality control plan for inland surface waters, enclosed bays and estuary of California, often called ISWEBE, in recognition that tribal beneficial uses were the first uses of water in California.

It's now been 18 years since California tribes first requested tribal beneficial uses to be included in basin plans at the regional board level and seven years since the adoption of the ISWEBE resolution.

While state agencies expedite water projects in general, regional boards continue to move TBU slowly, which disallows tribes tribal users to be considered before new projects are implemented, and also that makes it so that the tribes have to continually ask for the opportunities for regional boards to balance tribal uses of their watersheds and each region is moving at a different pace and each of them are looking for some support so that they can all be moving and have some consensus among them, and tribes are asking for that.

Today, CIEA supports the intention of the Bill and are working on technical clarifying amendments that do not change the nature of the Bill. In particular, we're extremely supportive of how this Bill strengthens The Porter-Cologne water quality control act to clearly include tribal water uses as waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation and that this amends section 13050 of the Water Code to protect tribal culturally sensitive information from public disclosure by preventing such information providing such information.

I'm sorry, to state and regional Water Boards through consultation, numerous federal and state agencies do have policies in place to protect tribal information from those who may misuse that or the resources or attempt to cause tribal communities harm. We also are in support in the Bill of including tribal communities that this state board will consult with and carefully evaluate the recommendations of concerned federal and local agencies that this would include in talking with California tribes as well.

And this is in keeping with the intent of Executive Order B1011 and Executive Order 13175. And then lastly, we are in support of the portions of the Bill that includes California tribal communities as participants in the monitoring council. To this end, we are in support of the Natural Resource Agency to amend their MOA to include these elements. So thank you very much for your time today, and we're here for questions if you have them.

Thank you.

Imma ask see if anyone in the room wants to register their support for this measure. Name, organization and position, please.

Abby Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network, in support.

Alex Loomer, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and California Trout in support.

Julie Wedge, rethink disposable for clean water action, in support.

Cody Phillips, on behalf of California Coast Keeper Alliance, in support.

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

Betsy Reifsnider with the Mono Lake Committee in support. Thank you.

Bill Alio, Environmental Working Group, in support.

Pete Ramirez, Tribal Council Member for California Valley Miwok Tribe, assistant cultural resource specialist and we are in full support.

Bianca Lopez, Valley Improvement Projects for Social and Environmental Justice Vida we are in support.

Good afternoon. Artie Valencia with Restore the Delta, and we are in support.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Members of the Committee. Frank Molina, on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, in strong support.

Victor Torres with Future Leaders of Change, in strong support.

Santiago Torres, a student at the Greenfield High School, here in support.

Thank you very much. We have anyone wishing to register their opposition? Do we have any key witnesses that will be testifying in opposition? Please come forward. Okay. All right. You have four minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members.

You don't have to use all four minutes. You can use--you have four minutes.

Thank you. I appreciate that. My name is Bob Reeb, and I'm with Reeb Government Relations. I'm representing the Valley Ag Water Coalition, which is about 40 agricultural water suppliers in San Joaquin Valley. I'd like to take some of my four minutes to acknowledge on behalf of our client that they recognize the importance to the culture, the religion, and the sustenance for the Native American peoples of California of clean water and abundant water. My client also recognizes the atrocities that were visited upon the native peoples when California started developing and settling and the subsequent marginalization and displacement.

So there's a lot of elements in this bill that we indicated in our opposed unless amended letter that we think are acceptable. Certainly adding tribal water uses to the Water Code as an example of a beneficial use, we have no objection to. The critical part of this bill, however, is that it upends 50 years of water quality control law in California. While it's true that state and regional boards, in establishing water quality objectives, in their judgment, they have to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses.

But there's a second part of Section 13241, and it recognizes that it might be possible for the quality of water to be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. Now, why this is important is because water quality control plans have to include implementation actions to achieve those water quality objectives, and that's where we get into water rights. Water quality control plans will inevitably--including the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan--include water rights permit license terms and conditions.

And in the water rights arena, the Board is challenged--is charged with balancing the competing uses of water. It goes without saying that California today is a lot different than it was in the 1800s. We've got 40 million people, cities of seven million people; I mean, nothing that anyone could imagine back in 1800.

And so if your Assembly Districts are in, you know, the Bay Area, South Bay Area, Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley, Coachella Valley, you rely on the State Water Project and deliveries of water through the Bay-Delta Water Quality Watershed. And this bill, we fear, will establish the reasonable protection without the balancing commitment that is included in the Water Code.

So we think we can get to a good place with a lot of provisions in this bill, but we can't accept placing one beneficial use of water over all other competing beneficial uses, and for that reason, we oppose the bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll ask if there are any other people in the audience wishing to register their opposition on the bill, please come forward at this time. Name, organization, position. Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the dais and ask if there's any questions from any of the colleagues on the Committee. Please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The last comment made by the opposition, how is that being addressed? The balancing of the competing interests of water?

Well, tribes are asking for the opportunity for their beneficial uses to be recognized as part of the balance of developing water quality objectives. For example, when water quality objectives are created, or TMDLs are created to create a numeric or a narrative objective, all of the beneficial uses for that water body that's being considered are put before the Regional Boards and all stakeholders uses are there to be balanced out and then those realistic objectives are developed. It's not that tribal uses would be above, it would be part of the conversation of all the uses that need to be balanced out to create that, that objective.

Thank you. And one more question, Mr. Chair. In the analysis, it wasn't brought up by the opposition, but in the analysis, the issue of CEQA, that the legislation would require CEQA review of any project or program subject to approval by the state to describe how the project will impact tribal water uses, but it allows tribal community not to publicly disclose its tribal water uses due to confidentiality. How will that be determined then?

So that is one of the pieces that the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards are working with tribes throughout the state. We're having conversations about that at this time.

There are other agencies, as I mentioned in my piece, that some of the agents--the other departments have been able to have some publicly facing information and then go into closed door consultation so that some of the sacred sites and then resources that might be used or over-harvested by--we've seen, for example, seaweed. You have some folks that will go out and scrape the rocks and take that and sell that, and that's a misuse use of the resource.

And so unfortunately, there's some protections that need to be in place. What tribes are trying to do is to expand out those resources so that they're available for more people in California, and we're not there yet with everything, but that's something that we are all working on together. So when it comes to the CEQA review, that piece is--can take place in some cases publicly, in some cases privately, but it's been a barrier to this moving forward.

And what we've heard is that it doesn't necessarily need to be there, and I'm not sure if any of my other colleagues or any of our support staff might want to provide more information.

I would like to refer to one of my staff members.

Hi. So as we're talking about CEQA and specifically the exemption that we've built in, that is just to help move along the designation of tribal beneficial uses. It doesn't mean that CEQA is exempt from when we start going in and establishing water quality standards and throughout that whole entire process that Sheri talked about. So I don't know if that answers your question.

I think it does for now.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes.

I thank the author for bringing this bill forward, and I think I'm a co-author because I believe that water is--clean water is a human right, and that the TBUs would ensure that all the California tribes can benefit from water quality management. You know, you guys can't--you can't have a good life without access to clean water from rivers and lake, so I move the bill.

Okay. Would you like to close, Mr. Ramos?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for your questions and thank you for the willingness to co-author this important piece of legislation and bill moving forward. The year 1800 was brought up, but what happened in 1800, the Indians people's voices weren't there, as they are now at this dais and being moved forward in the debate and the dialogue moving forward.

Cultural sensitivity is another area that tribes have been working with administration here in the State of California, working through some of those tough avenues as far as identifying cultural resources and protection and preservation of cultural resources. That's why it dives into that, why it warrants more discussion. So this is a step in the right direction to ensure that the voices of California's first people are at the table during this discussion moving forward.

There is reporting mechanisms in the bill that would bring this information back to this Legislature as this bill moves forward. This is an important bill that starts to pave the way for California's first people to have a seat at the table and to have their voices be heard, as well as protecting and preserving cultural resources that are out there, and so those are areas that we're still working on here in the year 2024.

And thank you for bringing this bill forward and for your motion and your second, and for the 'I recko' from the Chair. This is something that's important to California's first people as we request your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. This does have a do pass. It will go to Water, Parks and Wildlife. I'm confident that you'll work with the water community to work on those concerns that were raised. I find it both ironic, but also important, right, that we're asking to be at the table, right?

The bill is, 'hey, we want to be at the table,' and the water community is saying, 'well, we want to be at the table now' to be part of the, you know, a conversation where we can figure out how not to create greater complexities to what is already a very complex system when it comes to water policy in California.

And so I think we find ourselves at a good place then, given that we are trying to both be at a place where we can share what is a vision of responsibly taking care of this precious resource that we have that ultimately will help us thrive in the state that depends on it so heavily.

And the tribes--and you're absolutely correct, right--the tribes now have a strong voice, a seat at the table, literally and figuratively, to be able to help manage this resource for generations to come. So we will call a question, and thank you for bringing this bill forward. Madam Secretary.

Item Seven: AB 2614: Ramos: the motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife.' [Roll Call]. Your item passes.

We will keep the roll open for other Members to add on.

Roll open for other Members to add on. The next Bill is file number eight. It is AB 2686. Grayson.

Assembly Member Grayson, you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't mean to run the Committee Chair off. I didn't think I was that scary, but here we are. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and Members. I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for their excellent work on this Bill and by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments that are outlined in the analysis. AB 2686 is a necessary Bill that would help prevent significant cost increases for housing developers who remediate contaminated soil and return land to productive use in 2021.

The Legislator passed SB 158. It was a budget Trailer Bill with the intent of stabilizing the structural deficit of the Department of Toxic Substance Control, or, as we know it DTSC. In order to achieve this, SB 158 made changes to one of the major fees that are paid to DTSC when remediating a site previously a tiered model, the quote unquote generation and handling fee was instead set at a rate of $49.25 per ton.

This fee is paid to DTSC for the purpose of monitoring and certifying a site as the developer is conducting and paying for the remediation work. The new fee structure applied to all projects that were in development at the time of passage of SB 158, as well as projects that recently completed the development process. The revised fee structure had a significant detrimental impact on many projects, including essential housing projects and projects that helped provide essential community services.

This fee significantly increased the cost of remediating contaminated soil in urban infill sites or in situations where developers encountered naturally occurring toxic materials. The increased fee has made several projects infeasible at a time where California is already struggling with rising costs. So to help provide greater certainty for affected projects, AB 2686 would provide an alternative fee for housing and nonprofit developments that were deemed complete by December 31, 2021.

This alternative fee would be set at $5.72 per ton of hazardous waste, mirroring a similar fee that was set in a subsequent Budget Trailer Bill last year. The state should not penalize builders for opening up land for productive use, especially when they are the very ones cleaning up the pollution instead of creating it.

And at a time where many in California are facing increased development costs, we must do what we can to help create a more favorable environment that allows us to build housing that is affordable. So while I am very aware of the important need to keep DTSC fiscally stable, it is also equally important that we do not do it solely on the backs of those who create essential housing and provide vital community services. I do have some witnesses with me through the chair they will self introduce.

All right, it's four minutes between the two of you, first witness.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michael Wirkkala and I am the Chief Operating Officer for the San Francisco Marin Food Bank. Thank you, assemblymember Grayson, for your leadership on this Bill. Our mission is to end hunger in San Francisco and Marin, where one in five people are facing hunger every day. Prior to the pandemic, we were serving 32,000 households each week.

That number soared to over 60,000 households during the height of the pandemic, and even today, we are still serving nearly 50,000 households each and every week, providing them with fresh produce, protein, and grain. This year, we will provide those households in need with roughly 65 million pounds of food, we are a vital lifeline to people in need. We are a non profit and we are dedicated to ending hunger. We are not a developer and not a waste generator.

In fact, one of the things we do is rescue and divert good food that would otherwise go to the waste stream and get it to people that need support.

Today, I'm here to share the impacts of efforts to change the fee developers and other organizations like ours pay when excavating and removing contaminated soil from construction sites, which will be addressed by AB 2686 in 2021, the food bank began an expansion project of our San Francisco warehouse facility to better meet the growing need in the community. With our one time expansion project, we expanded our warehouse facility by over 50%. Our site was not a former factory. It wasn't a toxic waste dump.

It had been our home since 1987. However, as part of the expansion, we removed 4,402 tons of serpentine rock from the site to make way for our expanded warehouse. Before excavation, we tested the rock and found that it contained naturally occurring asbestos, as serpentine rock typically does. Because of this, we removed the serpentine rock from the site using strict waste removal protocols and paid all fees required at the time by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the DTSC.

This fee compensates the DTSC to certify remediation has been done. No work is done on site by the DTSC. For our project, these fees totaled nearly $175,000 and they have been paid to comply with a law that was in effect at the time of the soil removal. We're here today because a lot changed in the middle of our project.

In 2022, the Legislature passed AB 158, a budget trailer Bill that made changes to the DTSC and the fee paid in response to excavating contaminated soil from a development site. Specifically, the new fee changed the payment calculation from a tiered model to a price per ton model. In addition, this new fee structure applied to projects like ours that were already in development as well as projects that were recently completed.

In effect, SB 158 duplicated the waste removal fees required of entities like the San Francisco Marin Food Bank. Under the new fee structure, the food bank is faced with an additional $175,000 in unanticipated fees for the same material off haul for which fees had already been paid. To be clear, this is on top of the $175,000 already paid. Simply said, our payment of additional fees imposed by SB 158 will result in increased revenue to the DTSC, but in our case, less support to families facing hunger.

We understand the state's budget situation this year. But we do not believe departmental budget shortfalls should be made up by taking food out of the mouths of hungry people. This is why we strongly support passage of AB 2686 which will allow us to avoid doubling of fees already paid, and allow the food bank to utilize those dollars to fulfill our mission and support the people we serve.

Can I ask you to wrap it up so we can give her at least 30 seconds? We're already at four minutes.

Yes. I'm done. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable Committee Members. My name is Rhiannon Bailard, and I'm the Chief Operating Officer at UC Law San Francisco, formerly known as UC Hastings. And in short, we opened 650 housing units in August of 2023, we did 2,400 tons of soil off hall. In 2021, we ended up paying $105,000 for that first time. In 2021, we ended up paying 117,000 for 2022.

Plus, we had fees and penalties of $22,000 while we were trying to protest what we understood was a duplicative Bill. So I hope you will consider that as a public University trying to build housing in one of the most expensive real estate markets in San Francisco, along with everybody else who forged ahead with construction, that you will consider this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. There's the motion to move the Bill by Miss Papan. Second Miss McKinner.

Thank you. Do we have anyone to speak in opposition of AB 2686? If so, please come forward. Seeing none. Anybody from the audience who would like to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Let's bring it back to the Committee.

Hi, Kathryn Charles, on behalf of Housing Action Coalition, is a proud sponsor.

Anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this, please give your name, your organization, and your position.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Fan on behalf of Strada Investment Group in support. Thank you.

Comments, questions from the Committee? Seeing that, I would like to thank you for taking some of the amendments that were offered to focus the Bill on affordable housing. I think it's important and it warrants some special treatment when it comes to hazardous waste fees. The Chair does recommend an aye vote. We have a motion and a second do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for a aye vote.

Roll Call

Thank you. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Mister Hart, thank you for allowing us to take an item out of order. Assemblymember Bonta on item number 11.

Thank you. Please take roll

AB 2851. You may begin when you are ready.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Chair and Committee staff for working with my office on this bill. AB 2851 is an important bill for my community, and it's personal. My district is home to a metal shredding facility. Shredder waste from vehicles and large appliances contains heavy metal like lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, and other hazardous chemicals. For decades, such operations have resulted in many toxic fires polluting our local communities.

Even though prior legislation has called on DTSC to place strong regulatory standards on metal shredders, there has still been numerous incidents that have jeopardized the health and safety of Californians and their environment. In my district, since 2018, the local air district has issued 13 notices of violations to the metal shredder. This metal shredding facility has also been the subject of investigations for violating emissions rules.

Located within a mile of these metal shredding facilities are 18 daycare centers, 10 parks, eight schools, four senior centers, and two hospitals. While motivated to work on this issue from the experiences in my own backyard, this isn't just a problem in my district. Similar to refineries, metal shredding facilities are disproportionately located in our most vulnerable and underserved communities already suffering from a disproportionate amount of pollution exposure known to cause negative health impacts. AB 2851 is an essential first step in accountability.

AB 2851 requires DTSC to develop and implement facility-wide fenceline air quality monitoring at metal shredding facilities. If the monitoring indicates a potential adverse impact on air quality on public health, the local public health department will issue a crucial community notification. AB 2851 will push forward the state's commitment to advancing environmental justice and equity for those who are impacted the most by toxic emissions. With me to speak more on this bill, I have Mrs. Margaret Gordon from the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project and Alan Abbs from Bay Area Quality Management District.

I'm sorry, you have a total of four minutes between the two of you. You may begin, Mrs. Gordon.

Thank you. It's Ms., not Mrs.

Ms. Gordon.

Mr. Gordon is dead.

Sorry. Thank you for correcting me on that.

My name is Ms. Margaret Gordon. I'm a resident of West Oakland for the past 30 years, and, in my 30 years, I have been an activist around environmental justice for this one neighborhood. We do research and data collection as part of our advocacy for all campaigns. And my story about Schnitzer Steel is in my backyard with 11 other recyclers all in one neighborhood. All right, so the day of the fire, we had no real notice. They don't have a siren on their building.

They didn't have no one driving the streets to say stay in. And this business has no business in an urban area. Schnitzer Steel has no business in an urban area. We already cumulative impact by the three freeways, trucks running 24/7, the Post Office Distribution Center, the Port of Oakland 24/7. They got to go. Schnitzer Steel gots to go. They have broke all permit violate permitting citations over the past 30 years. They have no business in West Oakland.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abbs. I'm the Legislative Officer with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, doing my best to follow in the footsteps of Ms. Margaret. The District Board hasn't had the opportunity to take an official position on this bill yet due to our schedule, but our staff has been working with the Member from the beginning before this bill was introduced to get to an end result that accomplishes what we all want.

And what we all want is to have metal shredders in California operate better. We want them to not allow light fibrous material and associated toxic particulates past the facility boundary. We don't want them to catch on fire, and we want them to have a notification procedure that informs the community when those standards aren't being met. As the Committee analysis notes, there is a legislative history associated with trying to improve metal shredder operations.

But despite making progress, there's still recent instances demonstrating that there's more to be done, specifically with ensuring that particulate matter and toxic emissions are stopped at the facility boundary and don't harm the public. If no one knows when emissions cross the boundary, then the public can't be appropriately informed, and the facility has no incentive to operate better.

As the analysis also notes, DTSC, with the assistance of the Air District, has conducted air monitoring studies in the past and collected light fibrous material outside the Schnitzer facility boundary for a multi-year period ending in 2023. The analysis also notes that the facility in Redwood City, near several hospitals, parks, and schools, received an order to clean up off site toxic pollution over concerns of negative health impacts.

And so what AB 2851 attempts to do is protect people living, working, and going to school near metal shredding facilities, and if needed, inform them of any adverse health impacts and is consistent with actions taken in the past only after elevated concerns from the public. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic. We look forward to continue working with the Member and DTSC to further refine the bill, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any others who would like to speak in favor of AB 2851?

Bianca Lopez with Valley Improvement Projects for Social and Environmental Justice in support of Ms. Margaret and this bill.

Thank you.

Any others?

Yes. Hi. Scott Andrews, West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, also here in support of the Bill. And Miss Margaret and Allison. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition to AB 2851? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, let's bring it to the Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Yes, Miss Papan?

Well, seeing as how I represent Redwood City, I can't help but not speak. So we are home to Sims Metal Shredding that has undergone a fire or two in the past that has certainly not been good to its neighbors.

So I would be happy to move the Bill and I thank the author for her work in this regard.

Thank you.

Motion by Miss Papan. Second Miss McKinner. Other comments? Questions? Very good. I appreciate your efforts with this Bill. As the Bill moves through the process, Committee Chair is asking that you keep the Committee informed of any potential changes. And our Committee Chair also recommends an aye vote. We have a motion and a second. Please take the roll.

Can I close?

Would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Because Miss Margaret is somebody that I think we need to just make sure to highlight.

She came a long way to be able to speak for two minutes and represents a community, West Oakland in particular in our district, that has had to wake up on many a morning with fires and orange skies and not being able to breathe a clean breath of air while they are on their way to school and work and can't even play because the air quality is so bad.

I want to thank Miss Margaret and the advocates in West Oakland who have worked with us and certainly Director Abs who has been a champion as well on the inside of helping to craft this Bill. As well as my district Director, Rowena Brown, who worked tirelessly to make sure that we could bring this forward. I want to be clear that this is a very first step towards accountability. A lot of the legislation that has passed before has been evaluation, understanding, planning, feedback.

This is our first opportunity to lay the groundwork to make sure that there is accountability so that these metal shredders can be treated as the hazardous waste sites that they are and so that our communities can breathe clean air. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Please take roll.

Roll Call

Thank you. Measures out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Mr. Hart, you allowed Ms. Bonta to take her bill first, so I'm going to go back to you on AB 2761, dealing with product safety and plastic packaging. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2761, a bill to reduce toxics in packaging. In 2021, the US Plastics Pact, a coalition of over 100... Why microphone? Closer? Sure. That's probably better. There we go. Okay, good. Thank you. In 2021, the US Plastics Pact, a coalition of over 100 industry leaders and key stakeholders, identified numerous unnecessary plastic packaging materials and additives. These included substances such as PFAS, PVC, and PVDC.

Industry stakeholders have also voluntarily pledged to eliminate these harmful materials from their products by 2025. Despite this goal, the use of PFAS, PVC, and PVDC in packaging is still prevalent in California. With your permission, Madam Chair, I just use a couple of audio visual aids. Thank you.

Without objection.

This is an example of PVC packaging, and this is an example of PET packaging. They look identical. They're both irritating to open up, as we all know. But the differences in the chemical composition of these products is profoundly different. PVC packaging is made with polyvinyl chloride, asbestos, and phthalates. These are toxic compounds that have been linked to cancer and neurological damage. PET, on the other hand, is a safer, less toxic, and recyclable alternative.

If you'd like, I can pass them around, but you can imagine what they feel like. I also have two plastic or two paper plates. One is coated with PFAS and the other without. While these products appear to be identical to the average consumer, the underlying health implications associated with each is vastly different. As the Committee is well aware, PFAS has been linked to developmental issues in children, various forms of cancer, immune system suppression, and other detrimental health effects.

AB 2761 will reduce exposure to toxic chemicals by banning the sale of PFAS, PVC, and PVDC in packaging starting in 2026. The measure will require the use of safer alternatives and encourage the adoption of packaging practices that better protect public health and the environment. Speaking in support today are Nancy Buermeyer, representing the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and Roman Vogelsang, representing Republic Services.

All right, we have a total of four minutes between the two of you. First witness, please begin.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, Assembly Member Hart, for your leadership on this issue. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners is a science-based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals linked to the disease. One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. That means approximately 32,000 Californians will be diagnosed and 4,600 Californians will die each year of this devastating disease.

Science has shown that Polyvinyl Chloride, or PVC, and the class of PFAS chemicals are linked to numerous health harms, including breast cancer. PVC has a variety of packaging uses, including blister packs, clam shells, and plastic wraps. No plastic creates more harmful exposure for workers, communities, consumers, and the planet than the lifecycle of PVC. As a result, many of the world's most iconic companies, Walmart, Coca-Cola, Target, have signed on to a pact identifying PVC in packaging as unnecessary and problematic.

PVC production uses numerous highly toxic chemicals, including deadly chlorine gas and the carcinogen vinyl chloride. PVC often includes chemical additives such as hormone disrupting phthalates or bisphenols, which leach out of the packaging into products, food, and the environment, exposing consumers. Burning PVC, whether in incinerators or landfill fires, releases highly toxic and carcinogenic dioxins. Disposing of PVC in landfills also releases toxic chemicals into air and water. Given these harms, we should reduce PVC use wherever possible, including in packaging.

AB 2761 would also ban PFAS from all packaging. This Committee has heard for years about the toxicity of PFAS and has acted to ban it from numerous product categories. AB 2761 will continue to reduce exposures. You will hear from opposition that we should leave plastics to SB 54. But SB 54 is about recycling, not health, and won't fully remove these highly toxic substances from packaging. Only by passing 2761 will consumers get the protection they need and deserve. I urge your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Roman Vogelsang on behalf of Republic Services. First, we want to take a second to thank Assembly Member Hart for being a champion on this issue. As stated by the author, Assembly Bill 2761 takes an essential step forward in the state's effort to eliminate two particularly harmful types of plastic packaging, those containing PFAS, PVC, and PVDC. The manufacturing and disposal of these toxic plastics represents a substantial threat to both human and environmental health.

By removing these toxic chemicals and packaging, the bill will require the use of safer alternatives and encourage the adoption of packaging practices that better protect public health and the environment. These problematic plastics are either hazardous to human health, make plastic packaging hard to recycle, or both. PFAS, PVC, PVDC, carbon black, and microplastics that result from the breakdown of plastics pose threats to human health throughout their lifecycle, from production to disposal.

In recent years, the state has moved to eliminate PFAS from multiple product categories, including clothing, textiles, paper based food packaging, firefighting foam, and children's products because of the health concerns associated with these toxic forever chemicals. Republic Services has long supported such efforts to keep PFAS out of the solid waste stream, and we do so again with our support of AB 2761. AB 2761 phases out a subset of materials that are the most toxic or pose the greatest challenges to recycling. Let's keep this toxic material out of the waste stream. We respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2761. Thank you.

Pinch hitting. It's Diane Papan. Do we have anyone from the public that would like to come forward in support of the bill?

Bianca Lopez, Valley Improvement Projects for Social and Environmental Justice, home of the last incinerator where this plastic comes to die and kills.

Julie Wedge, California Clean Water, ReThink Director. Clean Water is a proud sponsor, a co-sponsor of this bill, and we urge your support.

Krystal Raynes registering support for both Californians Against Waste and NRDC. Both are proud co-sponsors.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Lea Jones on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy in full support. Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council and the Solid Waste Association of North America Legislative Task Force, California chapters, in support.

Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association. We're actually neutral on this bill, but I wanted to express our thanks to the author for taking amendments that address some of the concerns we had raised relative to potential conflicts with FDA and USDA regulation. So thank you.

Rebecca Marcus representing CALPIRG in support.

Justin Malan for Heal the Bay in support.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group, in support

Kayla Robinson on behalf of ReThink Waste in support. Thank you.

She's coming.

Okay. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Dawn Koepke with McHugh Koepke Padron on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition to AB 2761. As you all know, CMTA and a number of our colleague organizations, including representatives from the NGO community, waste and recycling community, local governments, what have you, participated in a process to pass one of the groundbreaking, most landmark single-use packaging and plastics and single use food serviceware laws in the country under SB 54.

That law certainly covers the field here, and, as part of those negotiations, the issues subject of this bill, including PVC, PVDC, and PFAS, were discussed as part of a broader Plastics Pact discussion and consideration of banning those materials within SB 54.

However, as part of that negotiation that was entered into in good faith by all stakeholders, it was decided that the process, which is a very robust process, would be able to address those concerns to the extent that they were not addressed via meeting various recycling rates, dates, what have you.

It should also be noted that, while SB 54 is certainly first and foremost focused on recycling and composting of these types of materials, it is also paired with Senate Bill 343, another Senator Allen bill that does address the toxicity related issues associated with this type of packaging. So it is not necessarily from CMTA and our colleagues' perspective that these issues are not sufficiently addressed within SB 54.

Should also be noted that while you know there are concerns about, from the proponents perspective, toxicity, it should be noted that there are a number of exemptions included within the bill recognizing essential uses. And so our concern as it relates to this, it is undoing the negotiated agreement, interfering with implementation of SB 54 that is in rulemaking now, not to mention doesn't sufficiently account for a variety of essential uses.

I would also just note, while additional language has been included as recent amendments that suggest not conflicting with FDA and USDA regulations and laws, to be clear, FDA and USDA do not typically specify the exact materials that can be used. Rather, they review those materials for safety, for food safety, safety ensuring that it's not contaminating those products, and approves those applications, but does not specify actual materials.

So in that regard, while we appreciate the avoidance of conflicts, we do not believe that serves as an exemption for some of these essential uses, such as blister packs, for over the counter drugs, for food like meats, what have you, for shelf life, food safety, what have you. So, unfortunately, we do find ourselves opposed and urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Dennis Albiani with the Consumer Brands Association. I think we want to focus on one of the materials that would be banned by this is PVDC, Polyvinylidene chloride. It is different than PVC, and so it has different properties. It is an excellent product for packaging of food cause it does not allow for penetration of oxygen. So we talked a little bit earlier about health. Well, this is for food safety. It's used primarily in meats, cheeses, and also medical products to keep them sanitary.

So this is a flexible product, which PVC is not. And so it has different chemical properties. It also does not leach into the food. So it keeps the food safe from this product. So again, this is a very broad based bill, and I think we need to be very careful, especially when we talk about banning, which products you're listing and how they're going to be handled. Also with the aforementioned legislation that require EPR and stewardship.

The folks that put those into the chain of commerce will have to bring those back as these bills are being implemented, which by the way are just being implemented right now. The very first comments on the regulations are due right now. So we need to figure out how that's going to play out. We are going to be responsible for those products. And really when you look at PVDC, the only alternative that's available is glass right now.

Glass has its own regrettable substitution elements in that it's very heavy, it has much higher carbon outputs per use. And so I think we need to be very careful and look at some of the aspects of the properties that this is banning. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I will ask if there are others in the room that would like to register their opposition. Name, affiliation, and their position, please.

Good afternoon, Chair. Adam Regele with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Dan Chia for the Personal Care Products Council in opposition.

Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully oppose and identify with the comments by Mr. Albiani.

Good afternoon. Norlyn Asprec with Axiom Advisors representing the Vinyl Institute, in opposition.

Marjorie Lee, Samson Advisors, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Members. Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council, also in opposition. Thank you.

Kelly Larew on behalf of the American Forest and Paper Association in opposition.

Thank you. Lauren Aguilar with the Flexible Packaging Association and the American AMERIPEN, also in opposition.

Kris Quigley, Plastics Industry Association, respectful opposition.

Taylor Roschen on behalf of the California Grocers in opposition.

Chair and Members, RJ Cervantes on behalf of the American Cleaning Institute in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Bring the matter back to the dais. Questions, comments, Colleagues? I'll ask the author, his witnesses, would you like to respond to any of the comments made by the opposition?

No, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

You do have an aye recommendation. This would go to Judiciary Committee. And is there a motion at the moment?

Motion.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Final comments? You closed. All right, we'll call the question. Thank you.

Item 10, AB 2761, Hart. Motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call] You have five votes.

Okay, we'll leave that open for other Members to add on. We'll go to file number nine, AB 2699, Assembly Member Carrillo.

Thank you Mister Chair and Members. I am proud to present present AB 2699 which will offer regulatory clarity in the California Accidental Release program, or Cal ARP, while also raising the penalties on those who endanger communities when they violate the law. The California Accidental Release program began in the late 1990s and is intended to keep surrounding communities safe from the release of hazardous materials from facilities that handle, use, store or manufacture them in large quantities.

The program requires that these facilities have a risk management plan in the event of a release, and that in the event of a release, they also inform the state and the unified program agency officials at the local fire Department immediately so that appropriate measures can be taken and needed information can be given to the public. However, the maximum daily fine for non compliance with the California Accidental Release program is only $5,000 for these larger facilities.

As a result, our fire officials report that there has been multiple instances where bad actors have decided that the cost of the fine is simply low enough that they're able to pay it versus being responsible to the public, and there has been no need for a publicly for a public report or release that could threaten the health and safety of nearby communities. This bill will set a new maximum daily fine of $20,000 or $30,000 if a violation is committed knowingly.

In line with federal and other unified program agency imposed fines. This bill will also make it easier for covered entities to remain in compliance by clarifying thresholds of when state and local officials need to be notified of an accidental release, as the state was directed to do so, and pass legislation. To be clear, this bill isn't about assessing fines for a release itself. It's about ensuring that the proper steps are followed to protect the public when, when one occurs.

Here to talk more about the need for the bill and answer any additional questions the Committee may have is Justin Malan with the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators. Royce Long with the risk management and prevention manager with LA City Fire. I'll let introduce themselves.

Mr. Chair, Justin Malan for the environmental health administrators. Thanks again to the author for being a champion on this. She's really been taking care of her community and we appreciate that. I want to yield most of my time to the two experts here, but I just wanted to stress that we're trying to do three things really quickly. We're trying to get some regulations passed after 10 years.

OES has not done it in 10 years, and that's going to help both the regulated community and ourselves to make sure they know what they have to release. So that's been in the works since 2014 when we co sponsored legislation. So that's the most urgent thing about here. The next thing is we would like to transfer the responsibility of this part of the CUPA program to Cal EPA because they've got their head on the ball. They know that this has to be done.

I think that's going to relieve us of those issues. And then to bring up to speed, to echo federal and other state laws, bring up these woefully inadequate penalties. So I defer to the other two to explain why we need to do this and why it's so urgent to have the enhanced penalties. Thank you.

Honorable Chair Garcia and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Fred Chun with the CUPA Forum, representing local health, environmental, and fire agencies.

The Hazmat Disclosure Program has been around, excuse me, since its inception of AB 2185 of 1985, has been a pillar of the fire service in getting critical information, including maps and hazardous material data, to our first responders. Additionally, release reporting has been a core function of the civilization so that businesses report spills and releases so when they have a problem at their facility.

This bill will assist both businesses and regulators in completing release reporting regulations and provide additional enforcement when reporting is not completed, which could be a detriment to our communities. We are committed to working with all of our stakeholders on this bill. We request for your support for AB 2699.

Honorable Committee Members, my name is Royce Long. I am privileged to address you today as a representative of the CUPA Forum Board, standing in staunch support of AB 2699.

This critical legislation is a pivotal step towards ensuring the safety and protection of our communities. By strengthening the oversight and regulation of hazardous materials facilities, the bill holds vital significance as it addresses several key areas that demand our attention. Firstly, it significantly increases penalties for failure to report releases of hazardous materials. Furthermore, it also raises penalties for violations within the California Accidental Release Prevention program.

This program is vital for minimizing the risk of a release involving the most dangerous hazardous materials, and by increasing penalties, we are reinforcing the significance of compliance with its regulations. Unfortunately, the current penalties in both programs do not serve as a deterrent to larger facilities, thereby making enforcement ineffective and potentially exposing our communities to hazardous substances. Equally important, the bill transfers the regulatory oversight of released reporting from the California Office of Emergency Services to the California Environmental Protection Agency.

This shift ensures that the oversight of hazardous material releases is under the purview of an agency with a specialised knowledge and expertise to support unified program agencies. By entrusting Cal EPA with this responsibility, we can be confident that our communities will be safeguarded with a comprehensive, robust and most importantly, supported regulatory framework. Lastly, AB 2699 provides a much needed mechanism to encourage the promulgation of amended regulations for spill reporting.

By facilitating the development of regulations in statute, we can strengthen our response capabilities and be responsive to industry concerns. I was just made aware this morning that United firefighters of Alle City are in support of this bill. And in closing, on behalf of the CUPA Forum board, I implore each of you to lend your unwavering support of AB 2699 and together let us reinforce the importance of public safety and the protection of our environment. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll ask if there are any other members in the audience wishing to register their support for the measure, please come forward.

Thank you Mister Chair and Members. Dawn Koepke with Mchugh Koepke Padrone, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. While CEEB doesn't have an official support yet position as of yet, we do want to convey very strong support support for the provisions looking to advance these release reporting regulations to being finalized. As was mentioned by Mister Malan, RC Members, regulated community is also very frustrated about the significant delay in having those pushed across the finish line.

So we look forward to working with the author and the sponsors further on some additional refinements. Thank you.

Anyone else? I'll ask if is there anyone going to register opposition? Anyone testifying in opposition to the bill? See no one. Okay, bring the matter back to the dais. Any questions, please?

I was at a press conference this morning with the Attorney General and they've talked about how some of these fines that are imposed on businesses that are bad actors, businesses just think it's part of business. It doesn't mean anything to them. And I think it is extremely important that the penalty means something and that it, whatever the violation is, depending on what it is and the harm that's caused by the violation, I think that needs to be considered.

So I appreciate that you are bringing this forward. With that, I would move the bill.

I will second the bill. There is a motion and a second does have a do pass recommendation to judiciary. Any other questions or comments? No one would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair. This bill is about ensuring the release of hazardous materials that could require first responders and the public to take precautions and are communicated to state and local officials as soon as possible.

I am heartily and feel really good about the potential support and glad to be bringing folks that traditionally may not see eye to eye, really to really think about the well being and safety of our first responders, when bad actors put it on their bottom line that a $5,000 fee is worth the fee, they're doing so on the livelihoods and on the backs of the men and women who respond to a call.

And at the end of the day, no fee is of the same value as a human life. And so I just want to thank our first responders, our fire departments, and especially to our LA City Fire Department for their letter of support for this policy. And with that, I respectfully request and aye vote. Thank you.

Please call a question.

Item nine, AB 2699. Carrillo. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]. We have four measures out.

Okay, we'll leave that open for the Members to add on file number 12, AB 3004. Member Fong. Okay.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. First, I would like to thank your chief consultant for all his time sharing his expertise and knowledge on the issue. The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement act, also known as Proposition 65, was approved by voters in 1986 to make consumers aware of potential exposure to harmful chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Businesses comply by posting signs, distributing notices, or labeling a product.

I'm sure we've all seen stickers of Proposition 65 inside a yellow triangle on products, whether in the grocery store or Department store. Violations may result in a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per day per violation. The Attorney General, public prosecutors, and private enforcers acting in the public interest may enforce Proposition 65 through a civil action. Assembly Bill 3004 makes a few minor changes to the process for notification of an alleged violation.

First, requires a lab report submitted as documentation of the presence of a chemical to indicate the brand name of the product tested. Second, requires a lab test to have been conducted within a year of the notice. And third, requires the Attorney General, when commenting on a settlement agreement, to share the comment with all parties. This Bill will help to ensure that Prop 65 is used as intended. Here to testify and support is Tim Scher, representing the Asian Free Trade Association. Hello. Good afternoon.

My name is Timothy Sher, and as most immigrant families, we didn't come here for the American dream, but to escape war, poverty, or persecution. However, through hard work, we built a home here, our family, and also our small business. But this American dream is being torn apart. Today, we plead for your support about AB 3004. As a representative of Asian food trade, we distribute to tens and thousands of small other businesses around the United States and also California. However, we don't just import and distribute food.

We also purchase from American producers and manufacturers. We feed the same community that you serve. Prop 65 was created to protect the consumers to the right to know about chemicals in water and produce. But as a few lawyers, bad actors are preying upon this small business and demanding crazy amounts of fees. However, we believe that with AB 3004, defendants will have the right to lab results and deserve the information we need to review to compare against our own FDA tested products.

So we plead for you, as I stated earlier, about the American dream. Please do not allow a few lawyers to continually abuse Prop 65 and steal away the American dreams that we built here as a family, a home, and our small business. Our small businesses here in California. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other witnesses or any other people from the public in want to express support? It's been a long day.

It's in between Bill Allio, environmental working group. I've been working with other people, NGO's and the staff of Mr. Fong. We appreciate the cooperation. The bill's been amended and so we're all staying neutral for the time being. Thank you.

Okay, any witnesses to testify against the Bill? No. Members of the public want to come forward. Okay, great. Bring it back to the Committee. Any comments, questions and I'll second. And with that, would you like to close Assembly Member Fong?

Thank you so much colleagues. And Madam Chair, I respect for your. I vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you so much.

All right, now we're going to go back to item number one. AB 1798. Assemblymember Papan, you may begin.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I am here to present what we call the SALMON Act. Saving Aquatic Life From Manufactured Oxidized Nanochemicals, otherwise known as the SALMON Act.

So this bill would require the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a strategy to eliminate a toxic additive that is found in vehicle tires, known as 6PPD, from stormwater flowing into salmon bearing surface waters. 6PPD-q has been measured in California streams at concentrations above those shown to kill at least half of the salmon populations in laboratory experiments. Loss of coho salmon in California has a major ecological and economic impact on this state.

Native salmon species represent the foundation for California's $500 million fishing industry and thousands of fisheries rely on salmon for their income and livelihoods. Fortunately, biofiltration and bioretention systems, which are readily available stormwater management practices, effectively treat the runoff of 6PPD in terms of both toxic chemical exposure and salmon spawner survival. AB 1798 does essentially two things. One, it'll map out where salmon and steelhead bearing waters cross roadways.

The other thing it will do is it will test the or study the feasibility and cost effectiveness of installing biofiltration and bio retention systems through a pilot program in five different counties. To build a strong, safe, and sustainable future for California, we must take action to preserve the health and safety of our aquatic ecosystems. So with me to testify today in support of the bill is mister Cody Phillips with the California Coastkeeper Alliance. Take it away, Cody.

Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Cody Phillips with California Coastkeeper Alliance. As Assemblymember Papan noted, 6PPD is used in every motor vehicle tire on the road. And it and its transformation products, six PPD-Q, are lethal to salmon. It works by penetrating the blood brain barrier and killing them pretty swiftly. And microplastic tire particles are everywhere. They're the most common form of microplastic pollution in the San Francisco Bay. This is a real issue.

And as Assemblymember Papan noted, luckily, biofiltration, this readily available green infrastructure, is a really effective way of dealing with not just 6PPD, but a whole host of other pollutants that CalTrans is already responsible for dealing with that come off of cars like heavy metals, oils, greases, and biofiltration is kind of simple. Think just sand, clay, biochar. It's just a filtration system where you direct the stormwater into and clean water comes out.

This bill really tries to accomplish three things, which are the where, how, and when of implementing these biofiltration systems. So the where is it asks CalTrans and state waterboard to identify the intersections of where the salmon are, where vehicle miles traveled are, and where their stormwater discharges are. Where do we need to focus these efforts? The how is to do these regional programs to figure out not that biofiltration works, but what's the most cost effective way of making this biofiltration work.

And then the when is to develop a strategy over time to eventually incorporate this into the existing clean water framework that not just CalTrans, but local governments are already responsible for managing. This information is also trying to help the State Water Board incorporate this into their CalTrans stormwater permit, a permit that CalTrans already has to abide by. But this data will help the State Water Board really require more specific things to deal with this pollutant.

Finally, to zoom out on a larger issue, 6PPD is a really pressing concern for the state's salmon population. And California has taken massive strides recently. To try to mitigate the impact that we have. But, you know, salmon are in dire conditions. Last year, the salmon season closed. This year, it's looking like it's going to close again. And recently, California appropriated about $50 million for projects to help salmon. But even in the Governor Newsom salmon strategy, 6PPD wasn't mentioned at all.

It's kind of flying under the radar. And if we don't address it now, it has a serious chance to undermine all the investments and efforts. We've already made. In trying to bring salmon back from the brink of extinction. So, in closing, this bill provides a systematic way of incorporating 6PPD mitigation. Into the state's existing clean water framework and does so in a way that provides a host of other clean water co benefits. And I urge your aye vote on AB 1798, the SALMON Act. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others, please line up. Give us your name, your organization, and your position.

Thank you. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, in support.

Josh Malone, in support, Heal the Bay. Thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange, on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments. We were pleased to support the severe last year. And again, back in support. Thank you.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District, in support. Thank you.

Alex Leumer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Trout and the Planning Conservation League in strong support.

- cleanairsforcase.org support

Erin William with Sierra Club California and also on behalf of Enviro Voters in support.

Julie Wedge California Rethink Director, Clean Water Actions in support.

Do we have anyone in opposition of AB 1798? If so, please come forward. Seeing no one, Mister Connolly moves second by Miss McKinnor. Let's bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Questions? Well, on behalf of the committee, thank you for bringing this bill forward. And for taking into consideration the impacts that these contaminants have on Native American tribes that value these fish for their food and cultural significance. The chair recommends an aye vote. We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill fires on all cylinders in so many ways. It deals with CalTrans. It's going to have to put in biofiltration systems of some sort anyway. And yet it cleans up water for our salmon. Helps, as you mentioned, native tribes and their dependence on salmon, as well as many, many fisheries and a $500 million industry. So I respectfully request an aye vote.

Wonderful. Thank you. Would you take roll? Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee.

Item one, AB 1798 Papan. The motion is do pass and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

All right, Miss Papan, you have a second bill, item number five, AB 20515.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this bill. And welcome, my witnesses. I'm here today to present a bill that is of personal importance to me. AB 20515. Known as the Tampon Act.

This bill will require the immediate removal of intentionally added PFAs from menstrual products and set a threshold of 10 parts per million for unintentionally added PFAs. We've seen multiple bills come through the Legislature, and even some here today, that address pfas in various products, and for good reason. And as we've heard many times, even today, these are forever chemicals. They're ubiquitous, and they cause severe health problems, including hormone and immune system disruption, kidney and liver damage, and, of course, cancer.

However, I'm here to make the case that this bill, as it pertains to pfas and menstral products, is different. These products are used in the most intimate way possible and in an area of the body that is delicate and highly vascular. Because of the nature of these products, any human that has a uterus, which is pretty much 51% of the population, must use these products for three to seven days out of every month for about 40 years of their lives.

Imagine the damage that can be done for such an intimate use and repeated exposure. AB 2515 is a reintroduction of a similar bill I carried last year, which was AB 246. It made to the. Made it to the governor's desk. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why it was vetoed. But nonetheless, I read the veto message, and we've tried to address the governor's concerns, and that is the amendments taken into account. The amendments that are. That is. Excuse me.

We read the veto message, and it is that it asks that we work with the Department of Toxic Substance Control. So that's what our bill has done so that it has a defined regulatory agency to enforce any violations of the bill or the ultimate law amendments that went into print on April 1, which we worked on with Committee staff. Thank you very much.

And the Department of Toxic Substance Control better aligned the bill with what the Department does and its existing regulatory framework so that they can take it on in ways that they, or methods within which they normally act. So I also want you to know that I've been working with the opposition to address their concerns. We've had good conversations. I have presented amendments to the opposition, and it's my understanding that those are in the midst of being reviewed by the opposition.

So we'll make the bill even better than it is today. So with me today, I have two wonderful witnesses. First, I'll turn it over to Meagan Subers, representing the Professional Firefighters Association. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Meagan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, pleased to be in support today. Just this afternoon you were able to hear from one of my members about his repeated exposure to PFAs in his turnouts that he has to wear on the job.

And we believe that this, this bill, while also aiming to protect women's health, will have wide sweeping impacts on the population just because of the repeated exposure that individuals who use menstrual products will be limited should this bill go through and be signed. We know that repeated exposure to PFAS is linked to things like cancer, liver disease, reproductive health issues for men and women. And so we are in full support of this bill and ask for your support today. Thank you.

And my next witness, if you'll allow me to introduce you. And thank you for being here. This is Doctor Ryan Spencer, who is with the American College of Obstetricians. Ob Gyn. I'm well aware and familiar with this word obstetrics and gynecology.

Although I'm not a physician, I just play one friend of you guys. Ryan Spencer, behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG and sport of AB 20515. ACOG has long expressed concerns about the effects of exposure to environmental chemicals, including PFAs, the forever chemical to women and birthing individuals. The presence of these substance and products used in such close proximity to highly absorbent vaginal tissue like menstrual products is concerning.

Researchers linked PFAs exposure to several health issues, including cancer, endocrine disruption, immune system harm, and reproductive difficulties. The direct and prolonged contact, as the author mentioned, of menstrual products with the body raises significant concerns about the potential for increased exposure to these harmful chemicals. The vaginal mucosa is highly permeable and substances that come into contact with it can be absorbed into the bloodstream at higher rate than other routes of exposure. This unique aspect of menstrual products use exasperates the potential health risk associated with PFAs.

Moreover, the environmental impact of PFAs due to their persistence in the environment, accumulation of the human body warrants urgent action. By restricting PFAs in minstrel products, we can reduce environmental burden of these chemicals and protect public health. Thank you for attention. Ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wanting to express their opinion, please name, organization and position.

Abby Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network

Bianca Lopez with Valley Improvement Projects in support

Kayla Robinson, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support,

Michelle Taran Wolfark with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in strong support.

Alex Loomer, just as a woman with a uterus and strong support

Leah Jones, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy in full support. Thank you.

Erin Woolley with Sierra Club California and also on behalf of Enviro Voters in support.

Meihe Internet colliners four case support and also supporting dispute affects North County equity and justice interface, Coalition for Environmental justice and CCA, grandparency Action and Momas.

Julie Wedge, I'm still with Rethink Disposable and Clean Water Action support supports this bill.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition? Please step forward. All right, four minutes. Please proceed. Thank you.

Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in regretful opposition to the current version of the bill. Certainly, as the author has indicated, she has provided us some amendments. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to work on the bill. We are reviewing those currently. In the meantime, in terms of the current version of the bill, CMTA and its members do find themselves regrettably opposed.

All that said, to be very clear, CMTA's members do not intentionally add PFAs chemicals to menstrual products whatsoever for any purpose. Any situation where there may be PFAs in these products is a result of trace contamination that may occur along the supply chain, whether that's in sourcing the raw materials, perhaps picking up some of it through the manufacturing and packaging process, much less through distribution and into retail sale.

So, to be clear, as an overarching matter, CMTA and its members do not oppose the overarching goal and premise of the bill. The concerns that we have really ultimately rely in the current version of the bill related to private right of action and punitive damages. As well as a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes the scope of a violation. So when we're talking about private right of action and punitive damages. Which is certainly something that's been a key part of the conversations with the author.

To the extent that those were removed and we were able to work through some of the scope of violation details to better understand if a box of tampons, one tampon perhaps spikes at 11 ppm of unintentionally added trace contamination. Is that a violation just with that one? Is it the entire box? Is it all tampons in that supply chain? What have you. Just looking for clarity on that.

All that said, you know we do appreciate the ongoing opportunity to work with the author and certainly our hope for that we will be able to remove our opposition in due time with the removal of private right of action, punitive damages and addressing the scope of violation issue. Thank you.

We are the trade Association that represents the absorbent hygiene products value chain in the United States. And we support the safety and sustainability of menstrual products, baby diapers and adult incontinence products. Our Members represent over 85% of the market for personal absorbent hygiene products in North America. And provide more than 10,000 direct jobs in absorbent hygiene manufacturing. Unfortunately, today we are also testifying in opposition to AB 20515. But have been having lots of conversations with the author's office.

Thank you chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Lauren Aguilar and today I'm representing BAHP which is the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products.

We fully agree with and support the intent of the bill as our members do not intentionally add PFAs to their menstrual products. Setting such a Low threshold for unintentionally added PFAs is concerning. Given the pervasiveness of pfas in the environment. And the potential for contamination throughout the supply chain. Including the distribution of the final product to a retailer's shelf. The challenge of an unintentional PFAs contaminations is that it may extend beyond what a manufacturer can control.

The safety of consumers using menstrual products is our top priority. So all of our members menstrual products undergo a thorough safety assessment. BAHP's manufacturers carefully select the raw materials based on quality. And a safety evaluation is conducted before they are used in menstrual products. Our manufacturing facilities undergo rigorous inspections. All of which are in line with FDA standards and the good manufacturing practice guidelines to ensure the quality and safety of both the raw input materials and the finished consumer product. We look forward to continuing our conversations with the author's office and stakeholders to continue to protect the safe use of menstrual products. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses or any other members of the public who would like to voice their opinion against this?

Adam Wrigley with the California Chamber of Commerce want to thank the author. We're aware of amendments. Our opposition, like the opposition testimony, was only on the enforcement, not the intent of the bill. Our members do not add pfas to these products. We look forward to working the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others saying? None. Let's bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion by Mister Connolly. Yes.

Sorry, just one comment. Just want to thank the author for bringing the bill. Certainly want to support this, I believe I supported a version of this last year, but you know, hoping that we can address the concerns of the opposition prior to that. Thanks.

If I may respond just as it relates to the unintentional, which is part of the opposition you heard today, the enforcement stuff we've provided language on, but let me just address that, if I may. The unintentional we have provided in the bill that it does not kick in until 2027. So it gives manufacturers some time to be able to deal with their supply chain and try to find out where strains could be coming from.

And then the second part of that is going as low as 10 parts per million. And the reason why we chose 10 parts per million is because that is as low as you can go and still have reliable test results. It is also that it mirrors levels that were implemented in the European Union, 10 parts per million. And finally, I would add that the federal EPA has determined that the acceptable level of PFAs and water, drinking water is 0.02 parts per trillion.

So that gives you an idea of how small it must be and still be toxic. Notwithstanding that, because it may be unintentional and difficult to trace, we did include it to be 10 parts per million. We think that's a reasonable level. Plus given the phase in to 2027, we also thought that was reasonable. But with respect to the enforcement, we have provided amending language, and we think we'll probably get there. At least I'm optimistic we'll get there. Thank you.

We have a motion by Mister Connolly. I will second. Any other comments? Questions? All right, so we have a motion. We have a second. Would you like to close?

I just thank you for your time. Respectively request an aye vote on this very important bill involving a very intimate use of PFAs.

Thank you. And the Chair does ask that he says thank you for bringing it forward and to please keep the Committee and himself informed as the bill moves through the legislative process. There's a recommendation from the chair of an aye vote. Please take the role.

Item five, AB 20515. Papan. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]. Okay, we'll leave the roll open. Thank you.

Thank you. Our last bill is going to be. Let's see. Is it 1864? Yeah. AB 1864, Connolly. Welcome. You're already here, but welcome.

Appreciate it. Did we already do Friedman? Okay.

I believe so. I think this is it. And whenever you're ready.

Thank you chair and members, would like to begin by thanking the committee and staff for their work and input on the bill. Children attending public schools and daycares in California are intended to be protected by a regulation that restricts the most drip prone agricultural pesticide applications during the school day from 06:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. In practice, this regulation is often unenforceable. While notice of intent, we'll call those NOIs, must be submitted to county agricultural commissioners, CACs, that's the last acronym, before using pesticides that are classified as restricted materials and must include the method of application. Often, the information provided isn't specific enough to determine whether or not the method triggered school regulation. For example, if the application method listed on the NOI is ground, it's unclear whether that means a ground rig sprayer, which has a distance restriction, or a hand pump sprayer, which does not.

Further, the exact location of applications cannot be verified under current reporting requirements, and exact start and end times are often inaccurately reported. To address these barriers, AB 1864 would require CACs to require an NOI for all applications, restricted or unrestricted, that are within a quarter mile of school sites and that use an application method restricted by school regulations. Of the more than 1000 pesticide active ingredients registered for use in California, just 52 are classified as restricted materials. That doesn't mean the others are safe.

Among the unrestricted pesticides are many that Department of Pesticide Regulation has classified as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. The bill would also require permits, NOIs and pesticide use reports to include the exact method of application with the same degree of specificity as a regulation that is not just air, ground, or fumigation. Additionally, the bill would change permitting and reporting requirements to require growers to demarcate and report separately any portion of a field inside that quarter mile buffer zone.

Crucially, the bill extends the protections offered by the current Department of Pesticide Regulation to include private schools with six or more children. The dangers of pesticide exposure are well documented and alarming. A 2021 Nature public health emergency collection analysis of studies from the past 10 years found the types of cancer reported most frequently linked to pesticides were multiple myeloma, bladder cancer, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, prostate cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. We must protect our most vulnerable populations from the dangers of pesticide exposure.

AB 1864 accomplishes this with common sense fix-it changes to reporting requirements to enable confirmation of compliance with the school's regulation and extends the protection to private school students. I will now pass it off to my witnesses, Bianca Lopez, representing Valley Improvement Projects and Victor Torres, representing Future Leaders of Change. Welcome.

Good afternoon members, committee members and chair. My name is Bianca Lopez. I am with Valley. I'm co founder of Valley Improvement Projects. I thank Assemblymember Connolly for his leadership in authoring AB 1864 with a critical step toward ensuring that all California children are protected from agricultural pesticide exposure at school. Given their inherent toxicity, pesticides carry many health risks for communities most exposed to them and especially for the growing bodies and brains of children.

The data show that pesticide exposure and related health impacts disproportionately impact communities of color in California. In 2014, the California Department of Public Health released a report detailing the extent of agricultural pesticide use in close proximity to schools in California and the marked racial disparity for students attending the most impacted schools.

As a result, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation developed a regulation restricting drift prone pesticide applications within a quarter mile of public schools and daycares during the school day in the six years since the regulation was implemented, ground truthing by our coalition, the Californians for Pesticide Reform, has revealed some serious issues with enforceability of the regulation, which can be addressed by reporting changes.

This would ensure that compliance with existing regulations can be verified by lining pesticide use reporting requirements with the provisions of the regulation and requiring separate reporting for any segment of a field that falls within the quarter mile buffer zone. The bill would also extend the existing protections to students attending private schools who are currently excluded.

Finally, the bill would require growers to submit a notice of intent for all pesticide applications within a quarter mile of school sites that employ a drift prone application method and would be subject to the provisions of the school regulation. The provisions would improve the ability of agricultural commissioners to ensure that applications are in compliance with the regulation before they happen. Notices of intent or NOIs are currently provided before application of any pesticide classified as restricted material for which a permit is required.

State law also permits agricultural commissioners to require nois for unrestricted pesticides if their use under local condition presents an undue hazard. Thank you chair and members of the committee. I will pass on testimony to my colleague Victor Torres.

Thank you.

Good afternoon chairs and committee. I would first of all like to thank Mr. Connolly here for his role in authoring this bill. My name is Victor Torres and I am 17 years old and currently a senior at Greenfield High School in my hometown in the heart of the Salinas Valley. I am a volunteer with Future Leaders of Change based in Greenfield and Watsonville. I am here today to bring awareness about the danger of pesticide application near our schools.

I myself was a victim of pesticide drift at the age of 10 at my local middle school. No child should have to worry about their health in a place of learning. No child should have to be rushed to the emergency room for something out of their control. We need better protections around schools, both public and private.

It is important for us to know the exact location of the pesticide application and how the pesticides are applied and more importantly, that every notice of intent or NOI brought to the commissioners is examined thoroughly before approval. This would in fact guarantee that no other 10 year old has to experience the consequences of having such dangerous chemicals applied near their schools. As my colleague Bianca Lopez noted, there are many hazardous pesticides that are not classified as restricted materials and so currently no NOI is required.

When I was a victim of pesticide drift, there were eight different pesticides involved and not one of them was restricted, even though four of the eight are known to trigger asthma. Another of the eight also unrestricted was dacthal, otherwise known as DCPA. The US EPA now says allowable levels of DCPA are 1500 times more harmful to developing brains, then is considered safe. Half of all DCPA use in California is in my county, Monterey County.

There are 29 growers who plan to apply DCPA within a quarter mile of 65 schools in Monterey County in this current school year. We are the future leaders of change in the community and I ask you all to provide an opportunity for us to not only learn, meet with peers, but to also enjoy our childhood in a safe environment. Thank you chair and members of the committee.

Thank you. Do we have any remaining members of the public in the hearing room who wish to indicate their support?

Abby Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform. Proud cosponsors with over 70 organizations in support.

Crystal Reynaez as a part of Californians Against Waste in support of this measure.

Kayla Robinson on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus representing CALPIRG and the Center for Food Safety

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

Lea Jones on behalf of a Voice for Choice Advocacy and full support. Thank you.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in strong support.

Anne Katten with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Erin Woolley with Sierra Club California. Also on behalf of Enviro Voters in support.

Julie Wedge, California ReThink director, disposable director and Clean Water Actions in support.

Santiago Torres, co founder of the Future Leaders of Change and full support.

Mi nombre es Luis Torres. Soy papa de estudiantes de Greenfield High School. [He is a parent of impacted student also in support.]

- intern at cleanearth4kids in support and also supporting this bill affects North County Equity & Justice Interface Coalition for Environmental Justice and CCCA Grandparents in Action.

Bill Allayaud Environmental Working Group. Thank you.

Yanelli Martinez with Aafe AG, Safe Schools in full support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition? If so, please come forward. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Mister chair and members, my name is Chris Reardon. I'm the government affairs Director for the California Farm Bureau. Thank you for your time today. I wanted to first note that this gentleman to my left, I was disappointed to hear that he had to experience that application some years ago, and that shouldn't happen in the state. It just shouldn't happen.

Let me first also acknowledge to Assembly Member Connolly, we spent some time with him last week, had a robust discussion on this issue of notices of intent for non restricted use materials. And our concern, mister chair and members, is that, look, there hasn't been one documented, any evidence, one documented incident of pesticide drift on a school site that I'm aware of or that DPR is aware of, either that I've actually seen. Okay, the department scene on a school site.

So I think the system in California works, but we understand that we can do better. And I have an Ag Commission with me to talk a little bit about sort of the system that they currently comprise. But I think there's another way of doing this too, instead of this legislation. And we've talked about this briefly, the whole issue about the Department of Pestilential Regulation works with the California ED commissioners. They have to provide an annual work plan every year. Okay.

The work plan describes sort of their priorities, key things that they work with the department and the commissioners work together on. And we think it might be a good vehicle to work out sort of some of these discussions as it relates to the use around schools, particularly as it reports on issues related to non restricted use materials. Because honestly, our concern with that is that they could just overwhelm the reporting, the pesticide reporting system at the local level.

If in fact we look at every application within a quarter mile of a school site. And so the question for us is going to be, by way, there's a certain amount of inspections on those applications. Does that mean we're going to increase inspections? What kind of money the commissioner is going to need to do that and what sort of delay, okay.

When we apply that and notice of intent will apply to the growers and members in those areas, if, in fact, we sort of broaden that, that universe of notices of intent. So it's not quite as simple as just sort of, , we want to, it makes a lot of sense. We do. Okay. Priority around schools is a priority for all of us, okay. Particularly for our members who live and work around schools. But also, what's this going to look like? Okay.

That's why I think working through, and we committed to work with Assemblymember Connolly in the coming days and weeks about this whole issue of non restricted materials and how this might work and how we could work cooperatively with both him and my friends in the AG Commission community to make this really work.

Thank you. Next witness. Yeah.

Good afternoon. My name is Josh Huntzinger. I'm the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner and here on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association. The county agricultural commissioners work in close partnership and have a statutory mandate to implement our pesticide use enforcement program for this express purpose of protecting human health and safety and the environment. And we take that job very seriously. And human health is our number one priority in what we do.

That program is based on a robust field enforcement presence and along with permitting, licensing, and working daily with the agricultural industry, as well as the structural pest control industry, pesticide dealers, etcetera.

And we are in opposition to this bill primarily because the unfunded mandate issue. The concept of adding non restricted materials and requiring a notice of intent for every non restricted material represents a massive new paperwork workload for the agricultural commissioners, and I think is counter to the intent of the bill, which is to increase safety for school kids.

What it does, in essence, is because there's no funding attached to it, it takes my staff out of the field because they'll be reviewing notices of intent and so reducing that very field presence, field enforcement presence, which is the core of our program, it's in essence, a zero sum game with funding at this point. And if we're performing this new requirement, we're not doing some other part of our existing program, and so therefore, we're in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition would like to state their opposition? Come forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roschen in oppose unless amended position on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers, California Ag Aircraft Association, California Association Pest Control Advisors, the Apple, Blueberry Walnut, Strawberry, Avocado Walnut Commissions, California Blueberry Association, California Cotton Growers and Generators Association, Western Agricultural Process Association and Western Plant Health Association. Thank you.

Good afternoon chair and members, Adam Regley with the California Chamber of Commerce with a respectful oppose unless amended and look forward to working with your office. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Seed Association, pear growers and several other agricultural associations opposed less amended. Thank you.

Tricia Geringer, Agricultural Council of California respectfully opposed unless amended. And appreciate the author meeting with us and continue to work with him. Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Moffitt, on behalf of the Milk Producers Council oppose unless amended.

Paul Poyster with New Dream Act Solutions. Respectfully in opposition.

Margie Lee Sampson on behalf of the California League of Food Producers opposed unless amended.

Thank you bringing it back to the committee. Any questions?

Yes, thank you mister chair. Now as I understand the bill, it will require notice of intent be submitted before a person applies pesticide within one quarter mile of a school site using an application method that is restricted. Is that correct?

It is. And in effect that's current law. What this would do would actually require more specificity around the types of application to make it actually more meaningful. And I actually don't think there's opposition to that aspect of the pro and then there's two other things it would do.

And it's clear that everybody's in agreement that we need to protect the children. So with your expansion it's the drift.

It's the private school and we're going to continue to work. I think issues have been raised with that in terms of those subjects to the regulation knowing adequately where private schools are. We can work through that issue. And I think again there's agreement on that. The third issue you're hearing more about I think today and we'll continue to discussions is between restricted and unrestricted pesticides.

Very good. And I think that your witness talked about the fact that the pesticides he was exposed to were unrestricted and yet it caused a trip to the hospital.

Yeah. Due to those pesticides that are restricted materials. But without an NOI, I was rushed to the ER due to suffering an asthma attack as a result of exposure to those pesticides.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. With that I would move the bill.

All right motion. Is there a second? The bill does have an aye recommendation. Second okay. And the bill will be going to the education committee. So there will be another opportunity to have a conversation with the stakeholders and try to refine some of the language that's been raised as a concern. I appreciate the young man who has provided some testimony. Kind of takes me back to, you know, the district that I represent.

For those who are listening and watching, I attended Coachella Valley High School in Thermal. The high school is surrounded by nothing but agricultural fields. In the 1990s, you know, we were students watching the crop duster kind of flying nearby the school and kind of not unknowing to us. And that was before a lot of some of these regulations were actually in place that we have today.

You know, we've seen the crop duster flying around, thinking what a cool deal that the planes are flying around really low and doing its thing. Annoying to us that it was actually doing its work and spraying pesticides. And, of course, things have changed significantly. But there seems to be some work still pending to be done to protect the public health of young people and the educators that are there.

So we appreciate the work of our I commissioners working in collaboration with our farmers and, of course, the educators there. So with that, thank you. Would you like to close?

Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you.

This is item two, AB 1864 Connolly. The motion is do pass, and rerefer to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call]

You will go to the top of the file and call all of the members who maybe are still absent. We'll ask our secretary here to go down the list and let's get all these members added on.

[Roll Call]

The Committee will now adjourn.