Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Committee Hearing, Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. We're going to start as a Subcommitee. We do have one Senate author, and so we'll get ready to start there. Sergeants, please call the Members absent Members so that we could establish a quorum at some point.

Primary witnesses that will be providing testimony are limited to four minutes total for each side. All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, if they're present, and their position on the Bill. Also wanted to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. Website.

We will hear 13 measures today, three of which are on the consent calendar. And again, thank you for being here. We have a Member of committees here, so we'll start again as a Subcommitee. Senator Durazo, welcome.

Thank you. Mister Chair, may I get started? Thank you. Good afternoon, colleagues and Mister Chair. I want to thank the Committee very much for working with us on this Bill. I just want, first of all, to just lay out a little bit more about how this Bill today is the result of many, many extended policy discussions and research on the whole idea of a rate assistance program that we can apply and also including lessons from past efforts.

And again, we've engaged in many conversations with stakeholders over this year to get technical assistance and feedback both on the mechanics of this legislation. We made clear that we want to come to an agreement on a path to move forward by the time we got here and feel confident we're close to an agreement to remove a lot of the opposition to this Bill.

We've worked in good faith making numerous amendments and changes, and the issue that this Bill is trying to address is the most important than all the other mechanics of it, and that is that the need of this Bill is desperately needed for many, many people. We have to be able to make rate assistance program a reality. The need is too great by too many people. This Bill would require water suppliers get into specifics here now get into.

Would require water suppliers with over 3300 connections to provide low income ratepayer assistance to low income eligible ratepayers through a voluntary ratepayer contribution fund. It would also require the State Water Board to identify the cost of addressing affordability in systems that are smaller than 3300 connections.

Although ensuring access to clean and affordable water has been a focal point of several legislative initiatives, California is the epicenter of a water affordability and access crisis, something that you yourself, Mister Chair, reminded me when I first got here, the first year that I was here. And especially for guess who, communities of color. More than 1.6 million households have an average $500 water and or sewer utility debt.

More than 150,000 households have a dangerously high debt of $1,000 or more. Further exacerbating this water access gap for our most underserved is how efforts to address this access gap have been delayed. While AB 401 by Senator Dodd from 2015 required the state board to prepare a low income water rate assistance program, no program has been created to date. In 2022, water supply strategy Governor Newsom called on the water utilities sector to address the cost burdens on low income members of the community.

This Bill is taking the Governor's lead as well, establishing a water rate affordable program for Californians. Similar programs exist for energy and communications, but not for most water and wastewater systems. This Bill will require water suppliers, as I said, to provide assistance through a voluntary ratepayer contribution fund that will not require use of assessments or fees.

So we will remain consistent with Prop 218. This state based program will direct voluntary, collected funds to help qualified households, those with an annual household income that is no greater than 200% of the federal poverty guideline. With that, I'd like to ask Raquel Sanchez of the AGUA coalition, whose testimony will be in Spanish and translated by Abraham Mendoza from the Community Water Center. I also have Michael Claiborne, Directing Attorney for Leadership Council to also testify and answer questions. Thank you, Mister Chair.

If I could respectfully interrupt real quick so we can establish a quorum and then we will proceed with testimony. Please.

To establish quorum. [Roll Call].

Okay, let's do it. Okay. Adelante con el testimonio, please.

So I just talked to Miss Sanchez, and she'd prefer that I'd go first and then she'll go, and I'll try to be quick so that she has plenty of time. Exactly. So good afternoon to the Chair and the Committee. My name is Michael Claiborne. I'm a directing attorney at Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. I have two points to make in support of this important Bill. The first is just the urgent need for action in this area.

Water code 106.3 states that it is hereby declared to be the established policy the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. These are important words, but for far too many, they're only words. The reality is that water remains unaffordable for the majority of low income households throughout the state. The reality is that the cost of water rose 45% from 2007 to 2015 and that the State Water Board confirmed today in its annual needs assessment that the cost of water has continued to rise since then.

The reality is that in most water systems there is no social safety net to aid low income households struggling to afford this essential service. The reality is also that when a household fails to pay their water Bill, there are, at least in some water systems, most water systems at risk of having their water shut off and losing access altogether.

An aye vote today is a vote in favor of realizing the promise of the human right to water statute, which this Legislature adopted in 2012. My second and final point is how much we appreciate the opposition and the water sector and conversations on this Bill throughout the year. We reached out to CMUA back in March. CMUA quickly formed a workgroup. We met with that workgroup in excess of 10 times, I believe many times to try to refine the Bill before recent amends went into print so we could address some early feedback, and then since then we received dozens of requested amends from CMUA, AGUA, and others.

A number of these consensus amends went into print last week, and we're working through the remainder in order to reach consensus on as many points as we possibly can. I cannot overstate how much we appreciate the constructive engagement we've gotten from the water sector, and with that, I'll yield the rest of my time to Miss Sanchez. Thank you.

[Speaking in Spanish].

And I'll be translating from Miss Sanchez. She identified herself as a resident of Tulare County. She is also here behalf of the AGUA Coalition, a group of residents from across the San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast all united for working around water and water justice issues. She identified that her and her family, you know, her four children, they have had issues qualifying for different public assistance programs and identified that there are assistance programs for communication, for electricity, et cetera, but there is no current public assistance program for water. She also identified and urged the Committee Members that on behalf of those who are working in the fields and renters and other communities that need this type of assistance, that you vote to support this Bill and help advance this conversation forward.

Thank you for translating. {Speaking in Spanish]. Sacramento. At this time we will ask for those members of the audience who would like to come forward and speak in favor of this Bill. Please come forward. State your name, organization and your position, please.

Daniel Broad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

MJ Kushner on behalf of the Water Foundation in support.

Savannah Jorgensen on behalf of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy in strong Support.

Anallely Martin with the California Immigrant Policy center in support.

Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Cody Phillips with California Coast Keeper Alliance in support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support and also speaking in support of for Dream Alliance, a coalition of over 60 organization ... Thank you.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Celeste Wicks on behalf of Clean Earth 4 Kids, in support. Also supporting North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, NCCCA, Grandparents Acting Together ...

Asha Sharma with Leadership Council on behalf of Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, California Environmental Justice Alliance and Union of Concerned Scientists in support. Thank you.

Darryl Little with NRDC and support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, Jennifer Clary, on behalf of Clean Water Action, the Planning and Conservation League and California indivisible. Thank you.

Thank you. See no one else. We'll bring it back and ask if there's anyone that's going to be testifying in opposition to the Bill. Please come. You have four minutes total. Four minutes.

Thank you, Chair Garcia and Members. Cindy Tuck with the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA has an opposed unless amended position on the June 19 version of the bill. The low income rate assistance program that's proposed in the bill went into print on June 3. It has not been voted on or considered in the first house.

We appreciate the amendments that Senator Durazo and the sponsors have put into the new version of the bill June 19, but without further amendments, as ACWA has suggested, we think the program will not work. I'm just going to highlight a couple points to illustrate that.

So one major concern is that the bill proposes an opt out approach, and we are concerned that customers at the water agency would not see the notice, and then they would be billed the charge, which is supposed to be a voluntary contribution. And they could have a refund.

They could then opt out, get a refund, but that makes the funding more unstable. So a legal consideration for this bill is that the less voluntary the contributions are, the more you run into a problem under Prop 218, and that's something, obviously, that we take very seriously.

The second issue has to do with the reasonable administrative costs for the program. The bill says that once the money starts going out in 2027, the reasonable costs have to be at less than 10% of the money that's collected. And you may say, well, that sounds okay.

But then, if you think about it, we don't know how much money is going to be collected. And let's say a system that's implementing this creates just one position to implement it that's conservative. Say the salary's 70,000, the benefits 100,000. That means that what comes in is going to have to be over a million dollars.

That's very uncertain. So the system couldn't use other rate revenue from other customers to cover that. So what-- How is this going to work for nonprofit local governments who are implementing it? We want a program that works, but the way this is written right now, it doesn't work.

There's other issues in our mock up that haven't been addressed. Like I said, we're not against LIRA, but the way this is written, we urge a no vote respectfully today.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Danielle Blacet-Hyden with the California Municipal Utilities Association, representing over 60 agencies that provide water and wastewater to 75% of Californians. We also have an opposed unless amended position on the bill.

We do support an effective and implementable low income water rate assistance program, but we have three main concerns with the approach in SB 1255. The opt out provision that my colleague noted, the inclusion of wastewater in the cap on administrative costs.

As far as the opt out approach goes, we do have similar concerns as ACWA, but we would strongly urge the author to allow for the option. Whether a system wanted to choose opt in or opt out, they would be able to have that flexibility. The bill does currently include water and wastewater charges.

We understand amendments are in the works to address that concern, so that's fantastic. And then also related to the administrative cap-- or administrative cost cap, we understand the need to ensure there is a reasonable level of funding for this purpose, but we urge the author to engage with water systems on a more appropriate way to keep costs at a reasonable level so ineligible ratepayers aren't subsidizing eligible ones, which would create constitutional issues for water systems.

We are working collaboratively with the sponsors and the author's office on our concerns, and real progress has been made on several issues. We want to thank this whole side of the table for your work.

We appreciate the good faith efforts of the author and bill's proponents, and we look forward to working on our remaining issues and the other operational matters to ensure this is an effective program. At this time, we must continue to oppose the bill unless it is amended to address our concerns.

Thank you. I will ask those in the audience wishing to come forward and state their name, organization and position. This is position of opposition. Please.

Mister Chair and Members. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Cucamonga Valley Water District, we echo the concerns of our friends at the table, and opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Jaime Minor on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District. Also want to echo those concerns with an opposed unless amended position, and appreciate the progress made so far.

Good afternoon. Lou Bronstein, on behalf of Irvine Ranch Water District, opposed unless amended.

Raquel Ayala with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Desert Water Agency, with an opposite unless amended. Thank you.

Hello. Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robson and Smith on behalf of Rancho California Water District, opposed unless amended.

Hello, Mister Chair, Members. Kristin Olsen-Cate on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, we have a robust ratepayer assistance program currently, but we are opposed unless amended. And hopeful we can all get to a win-win. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of Mesa Water. We are opposed unless amended. Our biggest issue is the opt in versus opt out.

Cyrus Stevers with the Municipal Water District of Orange County, opposed unless amended.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, we'll bring the issue back to the dais. Any questions from the members of the Committee? Please.

Senator, just one. Curious if you're open to this kind of opt out, moving it to that, putting that amendment into the bill versus what is the way it's drafted currently.

Ask my colleagues to speak on this as well. I think what we want is-- what everybody wants is a reliable, you know, a reliable source, right? And nobody wants the up and down. And I think with notification to everyone. Real clear, not hiding it, not just dropping it on the ratepayers is--

It's going to be very clearly notifying everyone so that they know this is what it is and they very clearly make the decision to stay in. So I don't want to-- I don't want to say absolutely not. I just want to let you know what our goal is.

Just to add a few things. I'm sorry my back's to you. So we're fully in support of transparency in this bill and do have some provisions that act as guardrails to ensure that customers will be aware of the voluntary contribution and if they're not, that it can request a refund.

A couple of points on the refund issue. I think ACWA had raised concern about kind of the up and down of that approach. You might have to refund a certain amount of money to certain customers.

We do have a balancing account in the bill that is intended to address that point to allow for, if funds are collected that are either higher or lower than what's expected, there's that kind of balancing account to smooth things out. There's a requirement to provide notice to ratepayers three months before collection of voluntary contributions annually after that.

I think if there are suggestions on transparency, not to speak for the Senator, we'd be in support of those. And then just one thing on opt in versus opt out, we definitely considered the opt in approach. We did some research, looked and talked to the California State Bar, which collects annual dues from attorneys.

They have voluntary contributions that they collect on both an opt in and an opt out basis. The opt in programs have about 3% participation, which doesn't raise a lot of money. The opt out programs have 70% participation. That's the kind of participation we'd need for a program like this to work.

I appreciate that. I think one of the reasons I think an opt out program would have that level of participation is because potentially people are participating without maybe knowing that they're participating. So I think that would be my main concern with the current version of the bill.

I think if a lot of these transparency efforts instead went into maybe promoting the opt in option, maybe that would be a better use of resources. But no, I really appreciate the answer. Thank you.

All right, we apparently have another group of folks that didn't make their way to come state their position. And so I want to, in all fairness, allow them to come forward and state their name, organization and position before we go around and see if there are any other questions and then bring it back to the author, please.

Thank you, Chair and Members. And apologies, it's quite busy outside. But Ashley Walker with Nossaman on behalf of Olivenhain Municipal Water District, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kasha Hunt here with Nossaman, here with Padre Dam, opposition unless amended position.

Thank you. So we'll bring it back to dais. Any other questions from any Members? Look to my right. No one. On the left. Any other comments from either the witnesses in support? Any other comments in opposition? Author, anything else you'd like to add?

Well, obviously, this is a very critical issue for our whole state, for all Californians. We want to be fair. We want them-- We want everyone to know that they have the human right and access to water. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You've come up with a creative approach to this problem, and we know that the problem exists.

We also have witnessed today that there's kind of a good spirit of cooperation taking place and motivated by that, that perhaps there would be some additional conversations to try to land at a place based on the back and forth here and the questions where we can find the balance between the objective that you're trying to achieve and the mechanisms to get there, right, that are pragmatic in nature in terms of the public agencies being able to implement a program that is reflective of their capacities, and, again, that meets your objectives.

You do have a due pass recommendation. Does go to the utilities and energy Committee next? If it does get out, so I'll make the motion if another colleague is wanting to make a second, and then we'll put it up for a vote and see what happens there. So you have, again, a due pass recommendation. I'll make the motion.

Is there a second? Okay, we have a second. No other questions or comments. Thank you again. I'll ask for a roll call.

Item number nine, SB 1255 Durazo. The motion is due pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. [Roll call]

Okay, thank you. We'll leave that open for other Members add on. We'll start making phone calls, sending text messages as get other Members here to present bills.

All right, Senator. Come on in, Senator. Please come forward. I also understand you'll be doing double duty today. All right. Thank you. Okay, we'll start with your bills, bill 1066.

Okay. Well, thank you very much, chair and colleagues. It's my pleasure to be here today to share with you SB 1066. This is a common sense measure to ensure the safe disposal of pyrotechnic marine flares. And, chair, do you mind if I show you a photo?

These are marine flares that are on boats so you all have a sense of what they look like. The US Coast Guard requires vessels longer than 16ft operating on oceans to carry approved visual distress signals for use in emergencies. Most often, boaters carry three pyrotechnic flares that are approved for both day and nighttime use.

While there are several brands of battery powered alternatives, some boaters prefer flares due to their increased visibility during the day. Flares expire 42 months after manufacture, meaning they no longer satisfy Coast Guard requirements. Unused, expired marine flares cannot be disposed of in the regular trash or in the recycling.

They are explosives and must be taken to a facility permitted to accept explosives. Flares also contain chemicals that cause pollution and harm to human health. While the exact number can be debated, California's Division of Boating and Waterways estimates 174,000 flares expire in the state each year.

Conservatively, there are at least tens of thousands of flares in need of disposal each year, but nearly all household hazardous waste facilities refuse to accept them. In fact, Alameda County is the only county in California we have found that actively accepts flares, but even they lack the permits necessary to actually dispose of the flares.

As far as we know, there are only three facilities in the country that currently accept flares for disposal, and none are in California. Without viable options, voters have reported storing them on their boats, shooting them into the air or dumping them into the ocean. Stockpiled flares are a fire hazard.

Shooting a distress signal outside of an emergency is a federal felony. Dumping unused flares can leach toxic metals and other pollutants into the water. Expired flares can often end up in the trash or left in front of local government buildings like police or fire stations.

This results in high costs worn by local governments as they become responsible for arranging proper disposal. These costs are socialized onto local taxpayers instead of the voters who use them. We are actively collaborating with Orion signals. The primary producer of marine flares and the Recreational Boaters Association.

To ensure the costs are not so high that boaters stop curing these emergency safety devices. SB 1066 will put the responsibility for funding and operating a convenient take back system onto the producers, with oversight by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control.

SB 1066 is supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders, including local governments, park districts, teamsters, California Professional Firefighters and individual fire districts, waste haulers, harbor districts, and environmental and public health organizations.

With me today, I have Jordan Wells on behalf of National Stewardship Action Council, a co sponsor of this Bill, and Justin Millan on behalf of the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, who also happens to be an avid voter. Thank you both for being here.

Thank you Senator Blake Spear, chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council, a nonprofit that advocates for an equitable, circular economy. We are proud to co sponsor SB 1066 with zero waste Sonoma to finally address the lack of marine flare disposal options available for Californians.

Alameda is literally the only county in the state we are aware of with permanent marine flare collection due to installing the necessary but costly equipment to safely collect and store explosives.

Due to the lack of infrastructure, household hazardous waste facilities and fire departments across the state must turn away residents trying to do the right thing by bringing their unwanted flares.

Left with no solution, they resolved to dissolving them in buckets of water, then throwing them in the trash, setting them off on the 4 July, storing them on their boats or in their garages or dumping them into the environment. These are all true stories that we have documented.

Local jurisdictions have already held at least nine marine flare pilot collection events. Some have been funded by state grants and the data is publicly available and has been provided to the opposition through these projects. The lowest cost was $10.55 per flare in Alameda County. We have gathered enough data and we don't need more pilot projects.

In fact, we know Orion has participated in flare collections in Canada and funded approximately half of the cost and also participated in events in New Jersey.

A statewide program will result in greater efficiencies of scale and significantly reduce transportation costs that can't be realized with siloed events and programs, and we remain eager and willing to help the producers create the most cost effective system possible. SB 1066 will not restrict voters choices.

We are not banning flares and Orion has already sells the Coast Guard approved alternatives. Voters will still be able to purchase the flares.

However, the cost of disposal will no longer be socialized by all rate payers, whether they own a boat or not, it is time to right this ship and end the disposal distress for boaters and protect our workers in the environment. Thank you, Senator Blakespear, for your leadership. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Mister chair Members Justin Millan on behalf of two groups, actually, the boaters and the environment health administrators. The environmental health administrators run the Cooper program, the Hazmat program, the solid waste programs across the state. So we intimately involved in dealing with this material.

But I'm here as a sailor of 40 years, I'm a US Coast Guard Captain, and I want to share with you the reason why this is so important. For 40 years, I've actually struggled to get rid of these flares that expire so frequently, no matter what country I'm in.

And it's particularly bad here because the cost is so high to dispose of these flares safely, we cannot leave them on a boat. Even though you may hear from the opposition saying that people hold flares in their boat for years, that's not a great idea. They become unstable. It's not great to have these lying around.

I will not go to sea without valid flares with me because most flares will give you that protection you need out at sea. The lights, which I also have, the electronic flares, don't work during the day. So you need this product.

It's extremely difficult to get rid of it, and it's extremely expensive for local governments and other people to do that. So I don't want to reiterate what both the Senator and Jordan have said.

I just want to urge you to hear the support and ensure that we don't pile this unnecessary cost on to local government and government and let the producer pay their way.

Thank you, captain. We'll ask those who are going to be speaking in favor of the Bill. Please state your name, organization and position.

Good afternoon. Lindsey Gollhorn with capital advocacy on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California. In support.

Josh Guager on behalf of the County of Santa Barbara, in support.

John Moffat on behalf of waste management and the Orange County Fire Authority in support.

David Krieger for waste connections in support.

John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. In support.

Stephanie Morewell on behalf of Recology in support..

Tony Hackett from Community Water center. Sorry, Californian's is against waste in sipport

Courtney Scott with zero Waste Sonoma, the co sponsor of this Bill, in support. And along with five Gyres, Napa Recycling and waste services Boatsafe Northwest signal City of Thousand Oaks Marin Sanitary Service Center for Biological Diversity Environmental Working Group, Northern California Recycling Association, Sacramento Splash, Save our Shores, San Francisco Baykeeper,Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers Authority, Plastic Free furniture, Elders Climate Action of Northern California and Elders Climate Action of Southern California.

Keeley Morris on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities as well as the State Association of Counties in support.

Jason Schmeltzer here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, Western Placer Waste Management Authority, Alameda Stopwaste and the California chapters of Swana in strong support, thank you.

Hello. Kayla Robinson on behalf of Rethink waste in support, thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors in support, thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members Roman Vogelsang with the praying company on behalf of Republic Services in support, thank you.

Celeste Wicks with Clean Earth for kids and support also in support, North County equity and Justice Eco sustainability, NCCA Grandparents Acting Together in facts thank you.

All right. Sort of support if amended chair.

Okay, please.

Thank you. Jerry Desmond with recreational boaters in California, the nonprofit advocacy organization that represents tens of thousands of boaters here and nationally, been around for 50 years. And our group is in the supportive, amended position at this time.

When we look at the folks who are going to have to buy the flairs, dispose of the flares, handle the flares, we're worried that the one company that has a non competitive environment will be able to raise those costs exorbitantly.

So we think the effort of a test program that will enable us to get through the backlog of whatever they are.

170,000 flares without state costs funded by this organization, this company that has a monopoly will be able to be a transition to get us to the point that we need to be in a way that doesn't put a cost on boaters or on the state. So we have a support, if amended position on the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll ask now those who will be testifying in opposition if they want to come forward. You have four minutes total. You can split those up however you choose and then we'll go to others who will be stating their oppositon as well.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and Members. Jim Lights. On behalf of Orion safety products that manufactures and sells 95% of the recreational marine flares sold in California. Marine flares are not like mattresses. They are not ubiquitous. An EPR program for marine flares is not necessary, nor do we need a pro.

The company has shared their sales volumes in this state, which total a grand total of $450,000. 80% of that is cost of goods sold. They have a profit margin of $90,000. The DTSC estimate on this program is $1.0 million and that doesn't include collection, storage and transportation.

Your analysis suggests that the author should talk to the company to come up with an appropriate scale for this program as well as gain more data. We have offered to do exactly that to participate in collection events, take back our own product out of this waste stream and transport it out of California at our expense.

That has been rejected. So here we are with a program that costs more than 10 times the company's profit and we're trying to work with them. We've said this company has 118 employees nationwide. It's not a small. Excuse me, it's not a large operation.

If we end up enacting something that is so administratively top heavy, they don't think they can continue to sell in the California marketplace. When we talk to the sponsors about that, we were told that if they pull out of the California market, nobody cares.

Nobody cares if marine flares are not available at brick and mortar stores in California. I'm not sure they talk to boaters. I'm not sure that they talk to any of the retail establishments. They would care. And we think this Legislature should care as well. We ask for your no vote..

Chair Garcia and esteemed Members of the Committee. My name is Clay Crabtree and I'm Director of Government Relations for the National Marine Manufacturers Association. So NMMA is the trade Association for the north American recreational boating industry. So everything from boats engines to the makers of kayaks, electronics and safety equipment, that's our membership.

And so thank you for the opportunity to be here today to express our respectful opposition to SB 1066. As currently written in California, recreational boating and fishing drives a $17.3 billion impact and that supports over 48,000 jobs across our state and NMMA. We represent about 77 different businesses here in the great State of California.

With over 620,000 registered boats, California is the second largest boating state in the nation. NMMA is committed to the safety of states recreational boaters, which includes ensuring that boaters have access to the most effective day and nighttime distress signals, also known as marine flares.

Now, marine flares play a critical role in the maritime safety by providing a visible means of signaling distress, aiding in location and positioning, and ensuring that vessels comply with the US Coast Guard safety regulations.

Marine flares are also an essential component of any vessel safety equipment and can significantly increase the chances of a successful rescue operation in any emergency situation. SB 1066 creates the extended producer responsibility plan, and that includes smoke flares and hand flares as well.

And these types of flares are shown to be among the most highly visible distress signals, especially in daylight, when recreational boaters are most likely out on the water.

Across the country, 61% of all boat owners have a household income of $75,000 or less, and this Bill will inevitably increase the price of marine flares, impacting the choices that are going to be made by purchasing this required safety equipment.

Almost 500 letters have been sent to Assembly Members and Senators from California boaters voicing their concerns over this legislation, and so NMMA is committed to ensuring that all boaters have access to the most effective safety equipment on the market.

But we remain concerned with SB 1066 and that it will make these safety products less accessible to recreational boaters. It's for these reasons that NMMA must oppose SB 1066 as written, as it has ramifications for the safety of voters across our great state, I respectfully urge your no vote.

All right, we're going to ask others who want to state their position for the record. Please come forward. Name, organization and position. Okay. See, no one will bring it back. I'm going to ask our colleagues, see if they have any questions. Right. Please.

I guess I'd like to hear from the proponents of the Bill. What do you say to a company that, what was it 80-90% of the market share willing to do this work rather than we creating a bureaucracy to do it?

I mean, ultimately, this Bill is about, it's the systems level change that's needed when we're talking about an extended producer responsibility program. So something that is toxic to the environment and is sold by a company, and it's one way, and then who deals with it? It's our environment that deals with it.

It's local governments, it's individual boaters, as was described. People who store them on their boats create fire hazards. I mean, the reality of saying that we think that the responsibility for funding and operating a system on the back end for end of life should be borne by the companies that create the product.

To me, that does make sense when you're looking at the macro, how do we handle this problem? So having something at scale, so not having a one off type of event in one county, but having it operate at scale along our entire coastline, for all of the boats that we have along our coastline, that makes sense.

And it's something that we have been wrestling with multiple different types of industries. And this is a toxic product that is used along our coastline and is important that we have an end of life plan for it. I don't know if, do you want to say.

If I may, if the manufacturer is willing to do that already, I don't disagree with you. We got to find a way to dispose of them. That's, we'll stipulate to that part of it.

My question is, if you got somebody stepping up plate to do it, we got tough budgetary times. Why are we looking at gift horse in the mouth, if you will?

The product does expire every 42 years, and voters have to purchase, if they opt for this, they have already 42 months. And so they have to, if they opt for this safety device, which they have other alternatives, they have to buy three of them every 42 months.

So it's not just the flares that are out there right now that voters don't have access to disposal for, but we're going to keep seeing this generation of this waste every three years or every 3.5 years. I'm sorry.

Don't dispute it. But if I may, if you've got somebody stepping up plate to do it again, I don't think I'm hearing an answer to that question, which is, why are we creating a bureaucracy when we actually have a manufacturer that will do it? That doesn't happen very often.

You don't really see people coming forward and saying, we'll take this on and we'll take it on statewide, recognizing every three years, you've got to get some that work. They're the only kind you can use during the day.

We don't want to see them end up in the ocean or in landfills or just sitting around being obsolete on somebody's boat that's not safe either. I hear all of that. I'm just thinking about mechanics here, and how is it if we got somebody that mechanically is going to affect this for you?

And you know, Senator Blakespeare, it will go from your district all the way up to mine, all the way into some of the interior waterways. If they're willing to do that, why are we saying no? That's, I mean, Mister chair, I think.

I can answer that. Often legislation makes people true believers. It's when the Bill gets introduced, then all of a sudden, people are prepared to do this. I've had 38 years in California. I haven't been able to do it. I think I've been to one collection event in Richmond in 38 years of owning a boat.

So now you hear they will do it, but they haven't done it until this Bill popped up. And the Bill is actually quite simple. If you look at the EPR program, it gives a huge amount of latitude to the industry. It doesn't prescribe how they're going to do it. They can do their collection events.

They can do their reverse commerce. They can do almost anything they want as long as they effectively collect it and dispose of it. So, yes, of course, someone's going to step up and say, zero, we can do that without being forced to do it.

But there are a lot of laws that we do enact because people don't step up, and it's only when the laws are there that they offer to do it. So I'm not sure it's going to work with. Well, I appreciate that.

I appreciate that. The problem is it always costs the state money. And so when we were looking at, you know, $1.0 million for the state, how do I tell my constituents, well, we had somebody voluntarily willing to do it. We didn't really trust them. So let's go incur a Bill for a million bucks.

So I hear you. I hear you. Nobody stepped up before. So, Senator, go ahead, please.

Yes, thank you, assemblymember. So first of all, what's on offer is a limited number of events. So five of them along the coast, and then there's nothing on offer after 2026.

So part of her answer about the fact that these are expiring every three years is we need an ongoing responsibility and the state is not taking on the millions of dollars it's reimbursed by the companies. So that is part of.

Yeah, why not let them do it in the first place? But I didn't know it was only five. So it's not the whole gig, what their letter said.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's five events in 2024 and then the first six months of 2025, and we're already, and these events take time to plan.

And to, because they only expire after 42 months. If you turn in expired flares, you're not going to need to do so again for several years.

That's why we suggest gleaning the data from the collection events so that we can come up with a program that is appropriate in scale and not a 58 county24/7/12 months a year program when people may not need to dispose of flares in that manner. That's exactly what the analysis says.

It says that the data is inconclusive. The port of Los Angeles is holding their third collection eventually in a row for an annual event in October. Orange County just had one on Saturday. Why are we not looking at the data that's coming in so that we right size this proposal?

This is going to cost more than the company makes in this state in two and a half years. And so, no, it won't cost the state.

That Bill is going to go to the manufacturer and they don't make enough money to pay for what is envision, which is why we offered to take back the product through collection events and give DTSC the latitude to figure out how many collection events do we really need?

Do we need a box out on a dock all the time, or do we need to set this up in a way that is appropriate for the recycling timeframe of the product? There is a market for expired flares. The Coast Guard will purchase them for training. Some fire agencies purchase them to light backfires.

There are some components of an aerial flare that can be recycled into new flares. That's why they offered to take them back, because there is a market for those, they're not simply disposed of in all cases. And that has been rejected and there's been no effort to reduce the cost of what this Bill would incur.

Senator, would you like to respond?

Yes, just in brief. So this conversation is ongoing. It's not prescriptive. We don't say that it has to be picked up in 50 places or so. The conversation is ongoing about how best to handle this. And we just want to have a system in place that deals with the end of life.

And we're not trying to put any companies out of business, but we also do need a partner. And in order for there to be a partner, we need to have legislation for that. As the testimony indicated, there was an inability to get even a conversation going before the legislation.

So is it your anticipation if you got a yes vote today, that the DTSC is going to work with these folks to make it scalable so we don't put them out of business?

And I'd like that to be a goal of this Bill because you've got somebody who's got 80% of the market and you're turning your back on them economically. In my mind, I'm struggling a bit, as you can tell, but I recognize that sometimes our regulatory agencies can do that once we adopt something.

But maybe you might consider where's this Bill going after this?

Appropriations?

oh, just appropriations. Okay. Well, you might want to consider something that says this is to work with the key industry providers so that it's more manageable than we're going to over regulate the daylights out of you and you're going to pay dearly and we don't really care. We can go somewhat really far afield.

I'm sure you could recognize my plight. We go way far afield and then we end up doing ourselves in with somebody that's providing the product and pretty much the only person providing the product. Right. In any event, thank you for hearing me out.

Yes, thank you, Assembly Member. I appreciate your comments and I hear them and we are working on that. Senor, embrace.

In the analysis, it talks about 174,000 every year that expire. So I think that in the language it would be good to have something that the data that we're talking about, we should have close to 174,000 that are recouped every year. So I think having something like that now is that number accurate.

So their sales volumes in this state do not support that number. The analysis notes that and we have been talking to the Department of Boater Waterways. The analysis also notes that that number is 13 years old and it remains on their website. But our sales volumes are in the Low 40 thousands.

So we're not quite sure how 174,000 are expiring annually.

Well, that would be important, I would imagine. Do you mind? No, no, I don't.

Mister chair through you. I just wanted you to finish your question.

No, I do. I think he's going to.

I think one of the core essences of the extended producer responsibility program is firstly the flexibility and secondly the ability of the captured entities that are working in the program to determine how big this program is going to be. They the ones that determine.

So whatever the number is, if it's 30,000 or 300,000, they're the ones that are going to set up the program to collect that product. So the state is not dictating to them saying they have to have 500 collection facilities or they have to have every 58 state counted.

What the EPR program does, and it's a hybrid state program and producer responsibility, it's saying to them, you have to manage this product. You determine how you do it. If you want collection agency, if you want clean harbors, if you want DTSE to collect it, you make that determination. That's absent now.

You have got small marinas, ports, stuck with this hazardous material, paying a vast amount of money because the industry hasn't stepped up. So we need something to obligate them to step up. We don't have to dictate exactly what they have to do. It's a performance based thing. They just got to perform. And if they can do it inexpensively, that's their business.

So, Senator, then what you're envisioning then is putting together or having a plan put together the numbers, then the data as to exactly how many flares should be collected annually will come from industry with an agreement with the Department that's going to be handling this DTSC. And then that's the plan.

And I would imagine that then it'll be between them and the manufacturer. That's the end of it. And the cost of it is going to be paid by them. Yes. Okay.

And just one more point. If the numbers are almost two decades old, they're almost certainly an undercount because they're. Over the last two decades there have been more boats, not fewer. So I, you know, so we don't, we don't really know what the numbers are, but whatever they are is what would need to be managed.

Thank you.

All right. Question.

Yeah. Senator, I do remain a bit concerned about the cost of the program. So I guess I'm just curious what your response is to that aspect of it. If their current revenues are half a million a year and this program would potentially cost double that every single year, I guess, how do we balance that?

How do we expect this company to bear the responsibility of that?

I would just say, frankly, that there is frequently a crying wolf that happens around saying something is not possible for us to afford. We can't. Whatever the expectation is or the request, it's not possible for us to afford it. So we don't have. It's a private industry, right.

We don't have the ability to say, well, we wanna see all of your books and your operation, and that's not our role. So we're just really saying there's this product, it has this effect, it needs to be managed.

We want you to be a major partner in driving how it is managed on its end of life and have that be part of the total cost of it in the way all sorts of products really should be considered from their birth to their end of life as the total cost of that product.

Okay.

And if I may ask the opposition, I mean, as this Bill moved forwards, or if this Bill moves forward, which I know it made it through the Senate, but what are the things that you think you would need to see in the legislation to make it more manageable?

We would need to see the ability of DTSC. You know, there's talk here about there needs to be a Bill to make this industry step up. Well, there is a Bill and we're willing to step up within the Bill, but it needs to be flexible.

And to this point, what we've offered to take on the direct cost, not through the state, but will come and pick up the flares. They will send their employees from the East Coast, they will transport them themselves and take on that cost. And that is what has been rejected. The analysis suggests that that conversation take place.

It has taken place and we've been told no in favor of what is in the Bill today.

Thank you, Senator. Is that something you're still willing to look at as the Bill moves forward to appropriations or where do things stand on that in your mind?

Yes, we are still willing to negotiate over all of these things, but the reality of what we're not willing to do is say that we'll go with a, just trust us. So to say we'll take this on. Don't worry about it. Just walk away from your Bill.

I mean, the idea is to have some oversight, some accountability, some responsibility so that this is done in an ongoing way and isn't five collections, and then a year later or five years later, we're back here with legislation again. So the entire structure of the Bill is that it's driven by the producer to figure out what happens.

So we're not imposing the answer. We're saying, what do you think is the answer and how many of these sites and where and how frequently? And so we basically want the system that they want, but we just want oversight of it, too. We want the Department to be able to have oversight.

Okay. And I think the oversight piece makes sense. I think, you know, I do kind of share some of the concerns that my colleague raised about the bureaucracy and the cost. So I think oversight does make a lot of sense, and that's a reasonable request. I appreciate the responses. I do have some remaining concerns with that.

So we'd love to see those conversations continue. All right. We have questions.

Yeah, I mean, just to follow up on my colleagues remarks, it would be nice if you could see that in the Bill and have the oversight, because I'm looking at it from a fiscally sound point of view.

And if I got these guys at the corner of the market and they're willing to spend money, they don't make a whole lot in the state, but they're willing to step up and do this, I'd accept that. But I don't disagree with Assemblymember about having some oversight to it. But you got it kind of built in.

Rather than doing the DTSC dance and see what they come up with, these guys are willing to come to docs and see them on the box there and remove them or, you know, whatever it may be. So in any event, I will support the Bill today. But like my colleagues, you got something really good here.

So I would love to see it incorporated into the Bill because I think that's what people look for in government. You have an actor that wants to play, and we should take advantage of it. So thank you for hearing me out. Okay.

Thank you. We've had a really good conversation here. I think much reference has been made to the Committee analysis, and I want to recognize that there have been some really good points that have been raised there and acknowledge the work of the Committee consultant who put it together. So thank you for that.

We hope that the conversation continues to take place. What I'm hearing is a willingness to look at how we develop a system to put in place for a safe disposal of these materials that are essential to the industry. And the next Committee will take a look at the fiscal impacts of the state.

And if we don't have something more concrete in the policy, I think there will be some serious analysis that says, well, without having some very clear roadmap, the cost could just be way beyond what we can take on in the state. But that'll be their role.

What we're wanting to encourage here and give the opportunity for the industry and for the author of the Bill is for this conversation to continue. And the analysis gives some guidance on how this conversation could potentially be directed, and so appreciate the spirit of this discussion and where these conversations may lead.

So with that, we appreciate this robust debate, deliberation, whatever we want to call it, it's been a good one, and we do have a do pass recommendation to appropriations. I'll make the motion to get this Bill moving forward. If there is a second, then we'll call roll call second. All right, thank you very much.

And we'll call the roll.

Item number four, SB 1066. Blakespear. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]That has sufficient votes.

Okay, thank you. We'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on. And you're pinch hitting for another colleague. Senator.

Yes. I'd like to invite my next sponsor to come up. I'm presenting SB 1147 on behalf of Senator Portantino. So I will just invite Andy Hotala, Vice Chair of the Los Angeles chapter of the climate reality project, to come forward. Great. I'm the staffer for the Bill. Would you like me to join you in case? Oh, sure.

That would be great. Thank you. Thank you so much, chair. Let me know when you're ready. Okay. Today I present before you SB 1147 on behalf of Senator Anthony Portantino.

In 2018, Senator Portantino authored SB 1422, directing the State Water Resources Control Board to define microplastics and develop standards and methodologies to test for microplastics in our drinking water system. Microplastics have been identified in rain, drinking water, soil, air, and our bodies, including even the human placenta.

We know that when ingested by animals, microplastics have negative health effects, such as reduced food intake, suffocation, behavioral changes, and genetic alterations. What we don't know is the exact health impacts of microplastics on human health.

Therefore, it is crucial that we are proactive in this issue and prioritize the research of microplastics for the sake of public safety and public health. SB 1147 will direct the Office of Environmental Health hazards Assessment, or OEHA, to prioritize studying the health impacts of microplastics in both tap and bottled water.

This report will be published no later than December 312026. If the report indicates the need for further state action, OEHA will work with the State Water Board in developing a public health goal to address microplastics in our tap water.

Upon adoption of a public health goal by the State Water Board, the Department of Public Health will determine whether bottled water should also meet an equivalent standard for microplastics to ensure both tap and bottled water present no adverse effects on public health.

Finally, SB 1147, the Department of Public Health, will collect microplastics data from water bottling plants on an annual basis as part of the annual reporting from these plants Members, SB 1147 is a continued commitment to identifying microplastics and drinking water supply and protecting public health.

And here to testify and support is Andy Hitallah, Vice Chair of the Los Angeles chapter of the Climate Reality Project and chair of their water Committee. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you. Thank you everyone. Good afternoon Chairman Garcia and Members of the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. My name is Andy Atala. As you already heard, I reside in Culver City, California.

I'm the policy co lead for the Climate Reality Project's California Coalition as well, which encapsulates all local chapters within California and consists of over 6500 Members. The organization and I strongly support SB 1147. I'm here to express my concern about the unknowns associated with the continued unmonitored use of plastic.

I personally avoid utilizing single use plastics wherever possible because of the waste, climate, water and health implications which are not yet fully understood. I also regularly advocate for sustainable measures to increase overall water security and quality, which are impacted by the occurrence of plastics, particularly microplastics, in drinking water.

It is safe to say microplastics are ubiquitous, as you heard the Senator say, but it cannot be conclusively stated that their presence is safe. They have been detected in bodies of water, humans and animals throughout the world.

The rate continues to increase as the production, usage and consumption of plastic packaging, containers and other products have increased since first detected. Given this increase, studying, reporting, and regulating the presence of microplastics, particularly in water, is imperative.

Safe drinking water is essential to sustaining all life and so important that a significant number of California legislators are interested in enshrining a right to safe drinking water into the state's constitution. To be safe, drinking water must be free of contaminants toxins and hazardous materials.

Sadly, there remain concern and confusion over whether microplastics, plastic particles less than 5 mm or 15 of an inch long, meet these thresholds of what is unsafe. SB 1147 would establish this clarity, which is why we strongly need it.

This Bill would further the necessary research to determine current levels of plastic contamination, establish whether any amount of microplastics is safe, and inform our efforts to safely utilize plastic, all of which shed microplastics. In sum, if this legislation passes, the effect of microplastics will be understood and microplastics will be monitored and most importantly, regulated.

Thank you for your commitment to a sustainable and healthy future with pure and clean water for our state and its people.

I'm the staffer of the bill. I'm just here to provide support if necessary. Perfect.

Thank you. We'll ask to see if there's anyone else wanting to come forward. State your position, your name, organization and your position in support, please. Anyone wishing to come forward.

Good afternoon. Karen Emighon, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Thank you.

Hi, Fatih. Mike Bolzubair with California environmental orders and support.

Tony Hackett from Californians Against Waste in support.

Celeste Wicks from Clean Earth 4 Kids in support. Also in support, North County Equity and Justice, ECO Sustainability, NCCA, Grandparents Acting Together, FACTS, Yardsmart Marin and Moms Advocating for Sustainability. Thank you.

All right. That was good. Impressive. Anyone else? Okay, we'll ask to see if there are going to be any witnesses. Speaking in opposition, you have four minutes total.

Thank you. Mister Chairman and Members, Eloy Garcia for the International Bottled Water Association. Not in opposition. We have been expressing concerns with Senator Portantino and his staff over the last couple of months, and we very much appreciate the last set of amendments. We believe it goes a long way in addressing our concerns.

Ensuring additional studies necessary for effects on human health. We think more study is necessary, but we also appreciate the flexibility on the dates and the continued evaluation. We have presented additional technical amendments to both Senator Portantino staff and the Committee staff, and we would appreciate your consideration of that.

And ultimately, what we're looking for is complete parity and consistency between tap water and bottled water in the testing, reporting and the standards. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else?

Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Committee. Excuse me. I'm Doctor Tim Worley, policy advisor to the California Nevada's section of the American Waterworks Association, or AWWA. We are also not in opposition, but we have been working very closely with the Senator's office to reach a bill that we can support, and we are close.

We agree that the safety of bottled water should be on a par with tap water, and we strongly believe in following the established regulatory processes. We believe that the process has its basis in sound science, which we need a lot more of, and application of the best available technologies, which do not always follow legislative deadlines.

Several crucial factors show more work to be done to understand the toxicity of microplastics, the routes of exposure, and the proven, uniform techniques for analysis. Specific amendments we are recommending would omit a priority on microplastics that place it ahead of known announced regulatory priorities, including chemicals such as PFAS chemicals, arsenic, NDMA, and others.

It would maintain oversight of drinking water and bottled water by the appropriate regulatory authorities. It would promote the development of a single standard analytical method that can be used to obtain consistent, reliable results. And so we hope to see minor final amendments made in appropriations, if possible.

As I say, we have been working very closely with the Senator staff and your Committee staff. We appreciate their efforts to hear us and their openness to our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take now those who will be stating their name, position and organization.

Perfect. Hello. Rosie Thompson with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. We want to align our comments with what you just heard from California, Nevada, AWWA, and thank the author staff, as well as Committee staff for working with us.

All right, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll bring you back to dyess. Any questions, comments, concerns, please.

I know you may not be able to speak for the author, but wanted to. Is he open to continuing to work with opposition on those final tweaks? I didn't know if that was. Yeah.

Yes, he is.

Perfect. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. This Bill does have a recommended aye motion. The bill does go to appropriations. Next. Any final question? All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? 2nd. Okay, we already did that. All right. That's right. Would like to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for the double motion. Thank you.

All right. Please call the question.

Item number five, SB 1147. Portantino. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] That has sufficient votes.

Thank you. We're gonna take action. I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar. We have a second. No questions on that motion. A second. We'll ask for roll call there.

The consent calendar consists of item 11, SB 1176. Niello. The motion is due passed and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations consent. Item 12, SB 1252. Stern. The motion is due passed and rereferred to the Committee on Higher Education. Consent. And item 13, SJR 13. Newman. The motion is be adopted to Consent. [Roll Call]. It has sufficient votes.

Okay, so we'll ask the sergeants to start making some phone calls to get some Senators here. Yeah, let's do some add ons here. We'll stop at the top and we'll ask our interim clerical representative here today to do some add ons.

Item number nine, SB 1255 Durazo. The current vote is 4 to 0. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call].

Okay, looks like we're caught up there. We'll wait for some Senators to come by. We have a few more Bills and Ben Allen has like 10 Bills here with us, so we'll wait for him.

[Background]

Okay, we have. We have an author. All right, please. You have two Bills. We'll start with the first one. It's item file number six. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister. Make sure we're here. Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members, I want to thank the Committee staff for working with our office diligently on this Bill. It's my pleasure to present SB 1178, the California Water Quality and Public Health Protection Act. Many of you may or may not know the Tijuana River and the Tijuana River Watershed, located at the US Mexico border, was recently named as one of the 10 most polluted rivers in the United States.

Just this past January, storm surge caused 14.5 billion gallons of raw sewage and pollution to wash up on the banks of the river, as well as to overflow into nearby coastal wetlands and one of the few remaining such ecosystems left in Southern California. The existing sewage treatment facilities have been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of wastewater flowing into this river, a problem that has persisted for years, but is growing worse every year.

With quickly expanding economic activity in the binational region. Both the US and Mexican governments have failed to maintain and upgrade critical treatment facilities to address the increased flows and as a result, every day millions of gallons of untreated sewage washes ashore in my community. This is not just an environmental disaster, it is a public health crisis.

Meanwhile, these health concerns have forced communities like the City of Imperial Beach to have their entire coast and beach closed for more than two years. I can only briefly take an aside here and suggest what that kind of response that might elicit if that were happening in some other parts of the California coast.

According to the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the tens of thousands of gallons of raw sewage dumped every day into the river ends up in the ocean. And due to wave activity, this bacteria, we are now learning through cutting edge studies, becomes aerosolized in the air column and actually travels landward much farther than previously understood.

This public health crisis is making people sick. And if they are sick, they're being subjected to horrible stenches that lingers over homes, businesses, and schools alike. Just go ask any of these small businesses in my district who are struggling with the also economic impacts of this disaster. The pollution threatens the very water we drink and the very air that we breathe. Recent studies, also conducted by Scripps, indicate that they can now attribute over 34,000 illnesses in the year 2017 alone to water quality, bad water quality pollution in the City of Imperial beach. We cannot bear any more of this. Part of this solution.

Aside from the finger pointing, has been in action on both sides, and it's very infuriating. But the reality is we have multinational corporations licensed to sell products in this state that move across and outside and just outside the boundaries of the state in order to conduct operations that directly discharge into the waterways of California that exacerbate this problem. They've taken advantage of free trade agreements, cheap labor, and nearly non existent or much weaker environmental protections.

My Bill, SB 1178, builds off existing law in California, a longstanding water code statute in title four that was signed actually by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1969 that explicitly states that any California company that discharges waste outside California, and if I may quote the statute in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region, unquote, to report those discharges. Here in this Bill, companies without a waste discharge charge permit that fail to disclose these discharges are required to label their products sold in California, stating that the product production contributed to contamination of the waterways because of their production activities.

We are fed up in our region. We have a unique environmental and public health disaster that is not seen or replicated anywhere else in the State of California. It is time that we take every step, use every tool, explore every avenue for full disclosure of information, to provide an avenue for noncompliant entities to help us pay for mitigation and to address the problem. With me today, I have Cody Phillips with Coast Keeper and Jonathan Clay with the County of San Diego.

Okay, thank you. Please.

Chair Garcia, Members of the Committee, my name is Cody Phillips with California Coast Keeper Alliance. California Coast Keeper Alliance represents waterkeepers throughout the state in pursuit of swimmable, fishable and drinkable waters for all, including our San Diego Coast Keeper. The trans boundary polluted flows are the result of several factors which we heard, including major lack of sewage infrastructure in Tijuana, a lack of funding at the United States IBWC treatment plant, and international corporations which pollute these local waterways that feed into the watershed.

This is a multi pronged and complex issue issue and one that requires creative solutions, and this Bill focuses on an important but often overlooked component, which is the industrial waste. San Diego Coast Keepers review of the South Bay treatment plant discharges show that many toxic and hazardous chemicals are found in their wastewater, including PCBs, pesticides, DDT, and many other hazardous substances, all at levels thousands of times above the permit discharge limits.

The South Bay treatment plant is not designed to deal with these chemicals, so they just pass right on through. IVWC is even on record saying that they can only treat organic contaminants. So even if there is a whole bunch of funding and the plant complies with the standards for bacteria, it's unlikely to treat this industrial waste.

Many large corporations, US corporations, operate in Tijuana to avoid stricter environmental regulations and contribute to this industrial wastewater issue. And these corporations often have extensive connections with and conduct business in California, availing themselves of our marketplace, but avoiding the laws that protect our waterways.

For those companies that are connected to California and conducting business in California, not only should they be required to report what substances are in their discharges that affect California's waterways, but California buyers should be aware of the impacts of the products that they are buying. This Bill collects that important information on who is contributing to one of the most polluted areas in the state, shines a light on the parties who are responsible and on their products, and ensures that this information is available to everyone. So I urge your aye vote on this Bill.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Committee Members. Jonathan Clay here as a supporter on behalf of the County of San Diego, also on behalf of the Port of San Diego as well. In the last year, the governing bodies of both entities have declared public health emergencies in San Diego because of the pollution related to the Tijuana River, as so eloquently defined by both the author and my co testifier here.

There's a number of issues creating public health concerns within the Tijuana River, but I'll just kind of focus on what we're talking about here today on the industrial contaminant side of things. Recently, San Diego State, through their Public School of Health, has done a study trying to pull together all the relevant information. And as part of that, they really started to focus on the chemical contamination that has been occurring across the border, that then ends up back in our waterways.

With having identified over 392 organic chemical contaminants, 224 of which appear on regulatory lists, and 175 are part of us EPA's Toxic Substance Control Act list. So this is way beyond just dealing with sewage contamination that's coming from the lack of treatment of, you know, human waste from both sides of the border. And this is an issue I've worked on behalf for the County of San Diego for 26 years. I'm literally second generation. My mom worked on the original binational sewage treatment plant.

We keep kicking this can down the road, either pointing our fingers at the feds or relying on the state. And we still aren't addressing the problem. Having folks that are doing business on both sides of the border report what they're doing, and the contaminants they're releasing, at least helps us then identify what we have to deal with and then, you know, taking next steps from there. Many - talking about NAFTA.

NAFTA really did try and align the environmental regulations between the US and Mexico so that you weren't having this disparities between a business operating the US side in Mexico. Though enforcing some of those rules on the Mexican side is difficult at times, but it's not unheard of. And especially, as many of you have seen in recent articles about battery recycling operations that have taken batteries from US, California, take them to Mexico, and then don't do as good a job of the same level of requirements that we have on containing contaminants and things in Mexico. And, I mean, this goes back.

I've worked on some of these issues in the nineties when you had underground fires from US companies that had improperly disposed of batteries. So 1178 attempts to try and put some other tools in the toolbox so we know what's going on and then can make better informed public policy decisions on how we're going to address it. So we urge your aye support of this measure.

Thank you very much. I'll ask those who want to speak in support of the Bill, please state your name, organization and your position.

Good afternoon. Michelle Rubalcava with Nielsen Merksamer on behalf of the City of Chula Vista in strong support.

Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you.

Tomas Valadez with AZUL in support.

Celeste Wicks with Clean Earth 4 Kids in support. Also in support, North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability, NCCCA and Grandparents Acting Together, Activist San Diego, ... Thank you.

Thank you.

Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of the Community Water Center in support.

Okay, anyone else? Okay, is anyone going to be testifying in opposition? Please come forward. You have four minutes to provide your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I am Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce, and we are respectfully opposed to this Bill unless it is amended. As outlined in our letter, we agree that the pollution crisis in the Tijuana River is a problem that requires immediate and continued action, and that includes upgrading treatment facilities. And we have supported many efforts at the state and federal level on this in the past.

And currently, however, we disagree that the policy outlined in this Bill is the correct path. This is primarily due to the fact that California cannot dictate policy outside of its borders, especially its international borders. And I did just want to note the bacteria and pathogens that are leading to beach closures are due to human waste and not the industrial contamination that's been alleged. And I will also note that detections of chemicals doesn't necessarily mean that the levels are at such a point that they are dangerous.

So getting back to the issue at hand, the US constitution and the Foreign Commerce Clause and decades of Supreme Court precedent clearly state that the Federal Government, not states, are tasked with setting foreign policy and regulating commerce with other nations. State regulations are unconstitutional when they, number one, facially discriminate against foreign commerce. Number two, impede the ability for the Federal Government to speak with one voice as to other nations and three, attempt to regulate conduct beyond state borders. I believe, unfortunately, that this Bill violates all three of these premises.

As stated in the opening, one of the intentions of this Bill is to counteract current national foreign policy that is alleged to have accelerated pollution in the Tijuana River. So this, in conjunction with the labeling requirements that my colleague will speak to discriminate against foreign commerce. It also impedes the ability of national government to speak uniformly, since the very trade deals that the US has made are kind of the targets of the reporting and the labeling requirements in this Bill.

Finally, this Bill redirects state resources away from efforts to address water quality impacts within the state, something that should be the State Water Board's primary focus. But now they're going to have to spend staff, time and money setting standards, inspecting and permitting facilities that are not located within the state's boundaries. Even on the international border, the state currently only regulates facilities that are on the state side. So while a legacy provision may appear to grant the State Water Board authority to regulate out of state discharges, this provision has not so far been used and has not been proven constitutional. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We share a position with my colleague, oppose unless amended and appreciate the Committee's analysis. It really highlighted some of our concerns, but wanted to point some of those out. Some of the damaging impacts on our manufacturers through this state.

So this mainly references the most recent amendments introducing a new labeling requirement that will confuse both companies and while attempting to comply and confusing our consumers. So first, warning labels on products are aimed at what impacts use of this specific product may have on the specific consumer.

So the warning component in this Bill would stand alone as a moral warning rather than one aimed at protecting users. This may confuse or even mislead consumers as to the safety of the specific product. So there are also compliance concerns with regard to the labeling requirement. First, this Bill merely states that the submission of a report of waste discharge would trigger the warning label. But this does not consider whether the respective discharge actually negatively impacts water quality.

Indeed, even a fully treated effluent stream would be subject to the labeling requirement, despite the fact that no adverse water quality impact would result from the facility. It is also unclear which facilities are exempt and which are not, and this may lead to litigation. The three month deadline, also by which the labeling would be required, also creates practical issues for our manufacturers.

So finally, the labeling requirement is expressly discriminatory against out of state, especially out of United States commerce. As the intention of the Bill is, the facilities in California would not be subject to these requirements requirements. Thus, the labeling would have a significant chilling effect in foreign bay products, directly interfering with international commerce. For these reasons, we're opposed unless amended.

Thank you. I'll ask those who want to register their position of opposition please come forward. Your name, association, organization and your position.

Katie Little with the California League of Food Producers in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one. We'll bring it back. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Looking to my ...

I don't have a question per se, but I do have a comment, and that is in my limited time here, I have experienced the Water Board collecting penalties and not sending back from whence they came to actually do the cleanup. So I appreciate that you've set up a separate fund. I just ask that everybody be vigilant, because once those monies go there, they are rarely seen. So I'm delighted to see a separate fund.

All right, sure. Questions, comments. Please.

Yes, I would like to thank the author for this Bill. And just a question. Are there amendments? Are you still working with the opposition? Yes?

Mister Chairman. Assemblymember. Absolutely. We take note of some of the critiques that the opposition has put forward, particularly on hypothetically, shall we say, the regulatory requirement to provide labeling. There's sort of a short timeframe for that compliance. It may or may not actually be workable. That and other things. We're obviously going to continue working as we move forward.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, we do have a aye recommendation. The Bill would go to Appropriations if it gets out of this Committee. Senator, this matter is something that I'm very familiar with. As we share the border of the Mexicali-Calexico region of Imperial County, these transboundary pollution issues are very, very unfortunately common over the course of many decades. A problem that you mentioned in your opening statement. Folks just consistently are doing this. Whose problem is it? And everyone points in different directions. Right.

And we've seen the state in the last few years step into playing a role in trying to protect Californians from this environmental justice and public health crisis that's taking place on the border. And this is one additional way that I think we're seeking to intervene while the responsible parties who have the jurisdiction, the Federal Government and the Mexican government, figure out a way to collaboratively address the systemic problem. So appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. And, you know, the opposition raises some questions and some concerns.

It sounds like you will continue to work with them on to try to land at a place where we can achieve the end goal, which is to protect the well being and public health of Californians who are being impacted by this pollution. So again, this does have a due passed to Committee on Appropriations. I'll make the motion. There's a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Members, and take those comments to heart. And just to clarify on a couple of points, if I may, there is also a long history in the law of disclosure requirements to multinational corporations who are licensed or have obligations in the United States and by individuals, individual sub national entities like state governments. The statute that I referred to that this builds on title four, the Water Act, has been in existence since 1969.

The statute plainly requires the disclosure by entities licensed to do business in our state, who sell products in our state, but who may have operations outside the state boundary. I've also done some homework with the board and have opinion and have research that sees, seems to suggest that even an entity in that same situation that may be outside the United States boundaries here, immediately adjacent and south of the international border with Mexico, can comply. And there is no prohibition on that compliance.

And I would just say, again, this does not apply to small operators. The application here is to multinational corporations, 2500 employees or above. We also know that disclosures and such situated businesses have not always been found to meet the standards of foreign commerce. And the disclosure requirements have not been found to violate the commerce clause or to be interfering with the Federal Government's exclusive right to regulate foreign policy. That said, I think the old saying is sunlight's the best antiseptic.

This is a scenario that isn't just, as the Chair referenced, a very bad problem on the US Mexico border broadly, but in the southwest border. It is one that adds to an already existing set of other multiple factors, all converging in the same place at the same time. And that is unique, and that's why it's urgent. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Due passed to Appropriations. I'll ask that we do a roll call on the motion.

Item six, SB 1178. Padilla. The motion is due passed and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. That has sufficient votes.

Okay, thank you. We will leave the roll open for other Members to add on. And you have a second Bill here, file number seven, SB 2008. This is a Bill that does have amendments that have been presented, two amendments to be specific. Mister Padilla, please.

Thank you very much Mister Chairman and Members, I'm pleased to present SB 1208. And as you the Chair just referenced, we are accepting Committee amendments that will be processed in Assembly NR. And I appreciate you and the staff working diligently with us. This is another complex one and unique. It is a district Bill, but it is also unique and complex and urgent. As you are well aware, we have a confluence in the southwest border of the United States in my district that is unique to any other place in the State of California.

According to the California environmental screen, because of open burning of trash and refuge just immediately south of the international boundary, because of both biological transborder flows and biological contaminants, as well as industrial and commercial runoff, we have both a water quality disaster that produces toxic water such that the beaches for many miles of beach at the southern border have been closed now for over two years.

And we also have some of the worst air quality in the state that all converges in the same place. According to the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, other independent research by Scripps and American Rivers, the Tijuana River Watershed has been declared one of, if not the most distressed watershed in the continental United States of America.

Moreover, it directly impacts the health of communities that are historically underserved, underinvested communities of color. My Bill, SB 1208, would prohibit the siting of a class three landfill, any such landfill in the Tijuana River Watershed. Because, as I can elaborate further on if necessary, there is a mountain of evidence that shows that dumps - class three landfills, no matter the modern application of mitigating measures, will always have a detrimental impact just because of the nature of how they exist and how they are designed and certainly insensitive watersheds. That evidence is irrefutable.

15 years ago, the proponents of a landfill that wished to sited in the Tijuana River watershed put a misleading ballot measure before the voters of the County of San Diego when circumstances were very different and information - we did not have the information we have today. That ballot measure, heading and title and summary talked about the approval of a zoning change, not of a project to achieve a recycling facility. The problem with that is today, many years later, the confluence of circumstances in this place have grown even more acute and deadly and problematic.

And if you look at the application they have pending with the Army Corps of Engineers, it's a 340 acre site, 98% of which is for a dump, and only 1.8% of which is for an as yet undefined, as yet unapplied for, recycling something, some kind of a facility. Further, if you press those applicants, they will concede that there is no such design. There is no facility proposed, there is no investment partner to build such a facility. Their proposal is to build a dump, the second within a few miles of an already existing dump.

And at this area of the border, experiencing the environmental injustices and problems that I just described to you, based on the science. But I'll also take a second to address environmental justice. I grew up in southern San Diego County, in a community of color on the international border. This community has also been subject, over 100 years plus, to numerous environmental injustices.

For many years, the sighting of environmentally inappropriate and unwanted land uses have been placed and put on the southern portion of San Diego County. Rendering plants, wrecking yards, distill yards, gas powered power plants, diesel fired peaker plants, rendering plants, and on and on and on. And now, in the midst of one of the most unique environmental crises, we have the challenge of a possible additional contaminant.

That would further distress unnecessarily the Tijuana River Watershed. And on the question of necessity, I have to point out in your record you have a letter from Cal EPA secretary as well. If you would like to look at the County of San Diego's recent update to their regional solid waste plan. A landfill of this nature, using old technology, no matter what they claim to the contrary, is not at all necessary. The region has more than enough capacity for landfill through 2060 and beyond.

And every year, because of many of the efforts we've made here in the state Legislature, every year, incrementally, the demand for landfill repository extends and becomes less and less and less because of diversion, because of other recycling efforts. And so the reason for the Bill is to recognize some new facts. The science that says you don't put another straw on the camel's back in the most distressed watershed in North America.

You don't take the risk of adding more pollutants in the watershed that will then mix with other industrial runoff and biological contaminants and further poison an underinvested community of color that has historically not had economic and political power to fight back. You just don't do it. And so this Bill seeks to make that very difficult to do because of the public health and environmental justice issues at present. And so that is the Bill. And with me today, I'm very happy to welcome Stephanie Peck, founder of Protect Otay Foothills, and also Malik Bynum, Assistant Legislative Director for the United Domestic Workers.

Okay, thank you. Please. You have four minutes total.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Thank you, Chair Garcia and Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Peck. I am founder of Protect Otay Foothills. While I am here speaking in that capacity today, I'm also Chair of the Sierra Club San Diego Political Committee and actively involved in several other organizations in the region. Protect Otay Foothills is a broad coalition of elected officials, environmental groups, labor and community organizations extremely concerned about the potential impacts of citing a proposed landfill in the impaired Tijuana River Watershed and who support SB 1208.

That support includes Chair of the Board of Supervisors, Nora Vargas, President of the San Diego City Council, Sean Elo-Rivera, mayors and councils from the impacted cities, more than a dozen environmental groups, including Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, NRDC and others, environmental justice groups and labor organizations, and more than 1000 South San Diego residents impacted by the proposed landfill.

The proposed private landfill clearly would be located within the Tijuana River Watershed in the tributary system, with the river one and a half miles south of the site and a site that's a quarter of a mile from the border. Any surface and groundwater that leaves the site will flow by gravity into the river and ocean. Despite best efforts, we know that landfills pollute. We know that transboundary flows move pollutants downstream, and it's a risk we cannot afford here. The Tijuana River cannot withstand another major stressor. San Diego County does not need a new landfill, as Senator Padilla has shared.

The current five year state required report confirmed by Cal EPA Secretary Yana Garcia unequivocally shows San Diego County has capacity through 2053, at least. It is counter to state climate policy and to San Diego's County's Climate Action Plan to risk the impacts of a landfill that is not even needed. SB 1208 will not lead to the expansion of existing landfills in San Diego County. The known capacity is not impacted by this Bill. SB 1208 will not change any current and approved plans for closures or expansion of the existing landfills.

If developed, this landfill would be the only one in California sited in this manner able to circumvent the local conditional use process that the other landfills had been subject to. 1208 would not change what the voters enacted. That initiative, passed 14 years ago, granted local approval for a zoning change. 1208 addresses a state process.

The measure was presented to voters in a manner that deprived them of truly understanding what they were voting for. Cloaked in the urgency of imminently running out of landfill space, as Senator Padilla has described, much has changed since 2010. The Tijuana River crisis has only worsened, the environmental burdens on South San Diego counties communities has grown, and the pendulum has moved toward real climate action, organics diversion and zero waste, which has freed up landfill space.

We must adapt to these changing circumstances, and Legislative Council has determined SB 1208 is a legal pathway to be able to do that. The risks are real and very serious. The stakes are incredibly high. There is no reason to risk the environmental, ecological, environmental justice and public health impacts of a landfill that is not needed. I urge your support for this important and needed legislation, and thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today.

Thank you. I just want to note that your testimony did hit almost the four minute mark, and so I wanted to give your second witness an opportunity to speak and just in all fairness, give the other side the same time. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good afternoon. Malik Bynum with UDW/AFSCME Local 3930, on behalf of over 180,000 home care and child care providers across California. Rare appearance for us in this Committee, but we are proud to support SB 1208, which presents a step in the right direction for environmental justice in San Diego. UDW represents over 37,000 home care and family child care providers across San Diego County. Many of our Members and the recipients they serve live in historically underserved communities near the Tijuana River.

And in fact, these are amongst the most environmentally impacted areas in the entire state, and it's morally wrong to continue dumping more pollution here. This Bill is especially beneficial for our aging population, those living with disabilities and pre existing health conditions. Our state's youngest learners and our providers who are caring for these folks in these areas want to, of course, thank the author for his leadership on this Bill in this space, and respectfully urge your support on SB 1208. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. At this time, I'll ask if there will be witnesses testifying in opposition. You'll have four and a half minutes. I'm sorry. Additional support. My apologies. Additional support coming forward. Please state your name, organization and position. Thank you.

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

Darryl Little, with NRDC and on behalf of California Coastal Protection Network, in support. Thank you.

Cody Phillips, with California coast Keeper Alliance and with San Diego Coast Keeper, in support.

Tony Hackett, with Californians Against Waste, in support.

Celeste Wicks, with Clean Earth for Kids, in support. Also in support North County Equity Justice, Eco-Sustainability, NCCA, Grandparents Acting Together, Activist San Diego, and FACTS. Thank you.

Laura Walsh, with Surf Rider Foundation, in support.

Thank you very much. Now we'll ask that the witnesses for the opposition come forward. Two witnesses, you'll have four and a half minutes to provide your testimony. Again, two witnesses providing four and a half minutes minutes to your testimony.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Steve Cruz, on behalf of National Enterprises, who is the property owner and developer for the proposed Otay Mesa Recycling Landfill and project in San Diego.

I'm also joined by Jacob Russell, who is the environmental consultant for the project, and then David Wick, the CEO of National Enterprise, who's here for any questions. First, let me say we have a great deal of respect for Senator Padilla and the work he's doing on environmental issues and particularly the protection of the Tijuana River watershed.

However, we do disagree with the approach of SB 1208, which is currently written, would prohibit the Regional Water Quality Control Board from issuing a new permit for a landfill in the Tijuana river estuary or within a tributary that flows therein.

SB 1208 is based on the premise, and this is important, that the proposed project would pollute the river. However, we do not believe there is a basis for that claim.

In fact, the project must undergo thorough environmental review under CEQA, including rigorous review by the Regional Water Board, who must determine that the project must not have any negative impacts on the water quality, including within the Tijuana River watershed.

Taken from the Sanity Q analysis earlier this year, the stated that SB 1208 actually negates the existing decision making authority and expertise of the Regional Water Board, whose job it is to ensure that landfills comply with existing laws and procedures that protect water quality from the landfill operations.

So from our perspective, the bill undermines this project review process, the existing enforcement authorities, and the will of the voters. The voters approved on an 84% basis approval of the project, and I would just add that we did have printed copies of the description of the title and summary and I'll just read it, the proposition under questionnaire.

East Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill Ordinance shall this initiative be adopted for the purposes of citing a new recycling center and class three solid waste landfill in the Eso Timesa area of unincorporated San Diego County. So that was what was before the voters. And again, I think we've also heard it's called into question on the need for the recycling center and landfill.

And the report that we've cited was a report from San Diego County in 2022 where there was questions about the need and what the conclusion was there is that it may not be needed, but only if our diversion, waste and diversion and recycling goals are met, which, as you know, we're struggling to do, unfortunately, at the moment, and only if there was an expansion of the existing three landfills to accommodate the waste.

And so we would point out that the existing landfills are located in residential communities. And so there have been some issues with violations and just the general expansion with these landfills when there was hope and promises that they would be closed and again, the new landfill would provide that option.

So I also wanted to point out that the, we think together that all of these things demonstrate that there is a need. It's an opportunity for the state of the art facility to be built. The existing landfills were not built. They were pre-CEQA.

And so having said that, we do support, appreciate the work of the Chair and the Committee to look at other options outside of a prohibition. If there are additional conditions that put in place new reviews or enhanced reviews of Tijuana River by the Water Board, we think that would be appropriate, but not obviously kill the project.

There was one that I just wanted to point out in particular, for the EPA secretary to state, establish a finding that there would be clear and conclusively no detriment impact the river. I think would be okay with such an approach, but I think that's a high standard, obviously.

We also want to make sure that their review, that the EPA secretary's review be objective, science-based, so that it's consistent with the Water Board, which is obviously under the, their jurisdiction. So I think that was my only comment on the potential amendment. So I may, I don't know what my time is, Mr. Chair, but thank you for your time. And Jacob Russell.

Yeah, you hit the four and a half minute mark, and I'm happy to give your next witness another 30-40 seconds. It'd be just fair to hear kind of the rest of the conversation and allow the proponents to also add some time as well, please.

All right, thank you. Jacob Russell, as Steve mentioned, I've been the engineer, civil engineer, on this project since the beginning, got 26 years in solid waste permitting, design, and construction. And I do believe that we can and will design a facility here that is protective of groundwater.

And all the systems are in place and the procedures are in place and the agency's review is already in place to assure that that happens. I've worked with every agency that you could name all the way from the US EPA, Guam EPA, Cal EPA, all regions of the Water Board on developing existing facilities, working on the operations with the existing facilities, and developing new facilities.

And there's a big difference between an unlined historic landfill that was put in pre subtitle D and a brand new landfill with a complete intact liner system and all of the necessary collection and storm water and facilities and monitor facilities to go with that.

Thank you for your comments. I'm going to now ask if there are any other individuals in the audience that want to register their position of opposition. Name, organization, and their official position. Please come forward.

Chair and Members, Nick Romley, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in opposition.

All right, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, so I'm going to bring it up to dais and ask Members if there's any questions. Yes, Senator McKinnor.

Again, I'd like to thank the author for the bill. As we know, there's a lot of trash in California that needs to go out to the landfills. And so I'll just ask you, are you saying that they have other, you guys have enough landfills in San Diego to take care of us for a while, that we don't need this?

Mr. Chairman and Assemblymember, yes, if you look at the most recent update by the County of San Diego Solid Waste Regional Plan, that's pretty clear. And that was what was confirmed in the letter by the secretary of Cal EPA.

The fact of the matter is there is more than enough adequacy through mid century or beyond, and that that adequacy in terms of a trend is incrementally reducing year over year simply because of the factors that were discussed earlier.

And to the opponents. Are you guys doing recycling? Is this a full recycling plant? Are you guys planning on doing recycling on this landfill?

Yes. I mean, recycling collection facility, not a processing facility, but you, you would collect the recycling there for it to be exported to places that convert that into raw materials.

And is that already happening at the other sites as well?

Yeah, depending on the licensure and the location and the facilities on site, there are different modes of collection and or conversion and other things that are at various facilities around the County of San Diego.

Thank you.

Questions?

So thank you both for being here. I've spoken with both sides, communicated with Senator Padilla. So my concerns about this bill are procedural. We do have an entire process in place. And I guess I have concerns about why not let--CEQA process is pretty onerous and not necessarily easy to get through.

And so I guess my question is why are we here at the Legislature prohibiting a project from going through the rigors of that process? Let the chips fall where they may. And if you can prove that your liner is going to, excuse me, your liner is going to prevent all kinds of things, then so be it.

Or if you can't pass muster with that, then so be it. I happen to live and near a capped landfill. It is a park now. I go to that park regularly, and I'm here to tell you, and it runs right next to the San Francisco Bay. It is not cheap real estate and we're in great shape.

And it's been capped. It doesn't leak. It is checked regularly, all those good things. So I guess my, you know, I don't want to go on record that, gee, I wanted to go contaminate the Tijuana River more. That's really not my concern.

But my concern is there are rigors in place to do this and why not let it go through that? Or I guess you've talked about, I understand there's some amendments floating around that might have not, instead of CEQA, but in addition to CEQA, some additional review.

And I think you said there was a higher standard, but I can't remember what it was right this second. So you're going to entertain that? You guys okay with that? So you got not only CEQA, you got some more stuff, and let's let the chips fall where they may. So that's kind of where I'm coming from, Senator, if you could.

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, if I might. And thank you, Assemblymember. Great question and often asked. And so let me just add a little light on this. One of the things that you should also know that first of all the, and I'll come back to it in my close, if I may, but this does not supplant or replace a process.

One of the things that I didn't get to mention earlier when the voters of San Diego County nearly 15 years ago adopted a zoning change, the small fine print that wasn't called out so obviously was that they also, and I'm willing to bet, unwittingly adopted an alternative process unique to this landfill that no other landfill proposal in the state has ever been subjected to.

And that basically removed this county Board of Supervisors, the people's elected representatives, and all of the sunlight and openness that goes with the kinds of hearings that go with CEQA hearings and proceedings before an elected body. All elected bodies in the region, primarily the county board, were removed and excluded from the process.

And so the process is now, because of a quirk in existing California law, would be, technically, by the LEA, would be delegated to a subdivision of the Health Department at the County of San Diego who, and I'm not making this up, doesn't do CEQA lead work.

So what they got in exchange for a zoning change in the fine print was a process that completely, really eliminated a lot of the people's elected representatives who typically would sit in here. Now, to your point, it didn't completely eliminate that process, and it still would.

But it does prohibit the issuance of a discharge permit because of the unique circumstances, grievous circumstances in this watershed. And I will also point out this is not a new concept. California law already provides for qualifications to the issuance of a discharge permit by the Water Board.

We already have that in existing statute, and we do that for exigent circumstances. For example, in existing law, there are exigencies that deal with certain kinds of rock quarries and other kinds of things that we direct the Water Board. You will not issue a permit because of these exigencies. I can't think of any more important exigency.

Where we might want to add to statute is to prohibit the issuance of a permit in the most distressed, polluted and burdened watershed in probably the continent, and because of the public health impacts that flow therefrom. So we're not removing them from their ability to go through environmental review.

But I am pointing out, because of the ballot measure, it's a very different and unique kind of review that really would only apply to this potential project and not to any other landfill.

No other proposed landfill in the state has ever been put through this kind of a process that was achieved through the small print in the ballot measure. So we're not replacing review. And to your other question about increasing standards.

Yes, some of the amendment language requires findings by clear and convincing evidence, which, as you know, is a high evidentiary standard. It also requires other additional findings by the Water Board. And I would just respectfully submit to everyone, well, if there's a situation where we ought to crank up the standards, this is probably it. So I hope that that answered your question. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me answer.

Follow up?

So you're going to take the additional standards and then?

Yeah.

What you're explaining to me is that the CEQA is not--the review process of it is not what we find normally by elected officials.

No, Assemblymember, it's not.

Okay, I got you there. I got you there. And then you say there's some exigent circumstances sometimes that would prohibit a permit. I got you there. But I don't know that we should be legislating. So I'm not totally convinced there. So I, if you don't.

Gentlemen, please.

So if you don't like, and you feel that this area is, is too threatened for such a sort of watered down CEQA process, if you will, is there some amendments that you would take that has that clear and convincing standard that would allow that additional, see, I'm getting uncomfortable with us interceding and for all intents and purposes deciding here and now that's not really what the Legislature does to prevent this. But I'm down with doing some more rigorous review.

So I think I, Chairman, if I might, I think I can answer you directly. And just to clarify, if I wasn't clear earlier, Assemblymember, we are taking those very such amendments and one even that the opponents, Mr. Cruz, who I also have great respect for, referenced that they were comfortable with. So we are.

So it's sort of a confluence of the strange weakening of the normal process that was achieved in the fine print in the ballot measure with the bill proper and the amendments that the Chairman is recommending and the Committee is recommending that we have accepted.

I want to point to the Committee analysis on page six. There are sixe bullet points. It's the last two that we have put forward as the Committee. Amendments that you just heard have been accepted by the author. And so.

And the opposition says?

They like one. The opposition has said they accept one and have expressed concerns about another one in terms of positioning of, well, I don't want to speak for them, they can speak for themselves, but nonetheless, those are the amendments that are on the table and have been accepted.

Just briefly. Thank you for the question, Assemblywoman and Mr. Chair. Yes. So the fourth bullet, if you will, on the EPA, the formal written findings, and you pointed out some of the language in there.

If you make the threshold so high that it really just becomes like a unilateral veto of a project that's outside of, we think, the parameters of a permit, Regional Water Board permit, in terms of the scientific and the objective based review, I think that's our concern.

We'd like to try to harmonize the amendment number four with number five, to be honest, that was really our, and I know that's not going to happen here at the dais and so we would look forward to working.

But I think it's fair to say that the intent of that is to, that is kind of the person who will review all of the processes that will still be undertaken to ensure that things were all checked, double checked, given the sensitivity of the geographic location that is at question.

That is at the core of why we're having this conversation that I think we're very sensitive to. And so I appreciate the author accepting those amendments and that's the conversation that we're having at the moment.

Mr. Chairman.

Any other questions or comments? Please. We have a question from our colleague.

I also had the opportunity to meet with and discuss with both sides about this bill. I appreciate this bill and the prior bill having to do specifically with that geographic area, trying to find ways to protect it. The fact that, and I quote, it's the most distressed watershed in all of California.

And you talked about the United States and the continent. We have to take this seriously, recognizing that we want business to be able to thrive, to be able to use their land that they own, but making sure that we're not causing harm by the use of our property. I know there's been discussion about CEQA.

I can tell you from first hand experience, you can get a CEQA report that says there are all these problems and this is a harm to the community. It's a public health issue.

And the deciding body, the city council, the Board of Supervisors, can say we are going to override the CEQA findings because of the economic value of this project. And CEQA report goes out the window and in comes a project and the public health issues, the public health concerns, the public health harm remains in the community. We'll have to suffer with that for many years to come.

I do appreciate that there have been discussions and, Mr. Chair and Committee, I do appreciate that even when the analysis was first put out, the fact that you put all of these possibilities for options to make this a stronger bill for both sides, that allowed the parties then to look at what the options were and to try to figure out what they could agree on.

And I appreciate that there's been an agreement on some of these options. There has to be something done. I appreciate. And we're going to assume that there is enough landfill for the next decades, assuming that is accurate. And obviously that's going to be checked to, to confirm. But finding protections has to be key.

And I appreciate that the technology is different and there can be more protections now. Who is it that said trust but verify? And I think finding out ways that we can trust but absolutely verify because it's people's health that is, that will be affected. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? Yes, sir.

Just one final question for the opposition. It's been presented that this project is unnecessary. Can you maybe speak to why you believe it is necessary and kind of the other side of that?

Yeah. Thank you for your question. Thank you, Chair. I like what you just said there. The devil's in the details. Or trust but verify. Every document that Senator Padilla referenced, read it. Read our ballot measure. It's very clear. Read it. Don't take his word. Don't take mine. Just read it. Take that September 2022 report.

That's the five year study that talks about our landfill capacity. The County of San Diego does it every five years. They look 15 years out. Back in 1990, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego hired Dames and Moore to do a study of our landfill capacity.

And at that time, as the Senator said, they felt our capacity was reaching in the next 5-10 years. And so they picked this site as a potential solid waste facility. That's why we went to the voters and asked them, do you want a solid waste facility here in recycling? And they said, yes, 84 and a half percent.

And so that study in 2022 now says, well, because heights of existing landfills at Miramar, Sycamore, and Chula Vista are increasing, landfill trash in the landfill isn't decreasing. Look, read that report carefully. It shows it isn't decreasing. Diversion isn't being achieved. Our recycling landfill facility will help the county achieve its 50% diversion from the State of California.

Read the document. The only way they get to 2053 is by having those existing landfills increase in elevation. So indirectly, this bill, if approved, will cause those existing landfills to increase in elevation because you have to put the trash somewhere. Cause we're not going to zero waste anytime soon.

So in answer to your question, Assemblymember, is the current situation dire. Because even if you have landfill capacity till 2053, which I doubt you do, what do you do in 2054? I've been working on this project for 20 years. You don't develop a solid waste facility in a week.

And so if you send messages to developers like me, don't come to California because we don't believe in CEQA. We don't trust those agencies. We want to kill this project. Who else would do this? No one would. So you have to look beyond 2053.

At some point in time, you're going to need another solid waste facility designed state of the art with all the environmental rules followed and adhered to some day in the future. So we don't have unlimited capacity unless Earth is going to stop in 2054.

Follow up question.

I know it was Assemblymember Hoover's question, but something that I heard is that it was supposed to be a landfill and recycling. 98% is being used for landfill and less than one and a half percent is being used for recycling. Can you address that?

Sure. And that's a good question. I think Josh, who we sat with, had a little misunderstanding there because the misunderstanding. This facility, as the Senator says, is 340 acres. It's actually 450 and there's 110 acres of open space. So the actual facility is 340 acres. As you're developing and building this facility, you're not developing the entire 340 acres. In fact, the initial cell will probably be 10 acres.

So that cell could last 20 years again, depending on diversion going to recycling. So the rest of the site will be used as recycling. It's like a construction site. You have a staging area where.

I want to stop you for just a moment. My question is as to what you've already received your license for. You have two sites and they were supposed to be for landfill and recycling. And the information that was provided is that 98% is being used for landfill and less than 2% is being used for recycling.

That's the part that I want addressed. Not what you plan for the next one, because we don't know if it's going to be approved, only to what has already been, what you do have, which is the two facilities.

It's one facility.

Oh, okay. I thought it was two.

One facility of 450 acres. 110 is an open space. 340.

You're answering the question.

Correct. So 340 acres is developed. That 98% and 2%, someone did a math calculation of the acreage because there's a site plan and it shows the scales and the station and the trailer and the office trailer where the trucks come in. What it doesn't go into detail.

What that didn't see at this stage of our project description that we're still putting out because our CEQA report will be out in the next six months and that'll have all these issues addressed in that CEQA EIR report is within the 340 acres recycling will occur.

So whoever did that analysis of 98 and two, they simply looked at the staging area where the trucks come in and said, oh, that's only their recycling. And the last rest is the solid waste facility, which is incorrect.

How much would you say is recycling of your current facility?

Of the proposed?

No, of your current. You have one already.

No.

Mr.z Chairman, may I try to clarify? Thank you, Assemblymember, if I might. First, I want to be clear. There is no permitted facility. This facility has no permits.

The only thing that's been achieved so far is the adoption 15 years ago of a zoning change with the fine print in the same ballot measure, basically eliminating the people's elected representatives. Read their application. I can have it sent to each of your offices.

Their own application with the Army Corps of Engineers laying out the plan consistent with what they put before the voters and in their own. It's not somebody else doing math, due respect to Mr. Wick, but it's their application that says breaks down the acreage of the facility and it's a dump. It's 98% landfill.

And if you also press him further, he'll admit they don't have a design or a facility or an application for one collection facility or otherwise. Nor do they have an operator or an investor as part of their project. Yet there is no recycling facility. This is for a class three landfill. And the acreage and the percentages are in their own application in front of the Army Corps.

Thank you. I want to just say that these are all excellent questions based on the points that have been shared both in the presentation by the author of the bill and the opposition. But really, I think the issue at hand is the geographic location and the environmental sensitivity.

You are correct.

And so focusing on the merit of the policy at hand, the recommendations and the analysis is really what I think we should kind of be focused on. We've made some recommendations. I appreciate the author accepting them.

I appreciate the fact that the opposition has also embraced one, has some concerns about another, and they will be more clearly defined and accepted in the other Committee, and we will be following this issue very closely. There is a motion and a second. I will just conclude by saying that I am very sensitive to this issue.

Given what I mentioned in the last bill, the proximity to the problem down the street in Imperial County and the border river issues, that we have a role, and although it may not be the same role that some folks may think that we have in the conversation that took place in the prior bill, but we have a role, and that is to protect the public health and well being of Californians.

And I think we've done the right striking of a balance here, and I appreciate the cooperation of the author, the stakeholders. This conversation has been a good one. It does have an aye recommendation. It moves on to I think there's another Committee. The analysis does point out a couple of other questions.

It doesn't go to a third Committee. I'm not saying it should, but I am saying that there were some questions that fall within the parameters of potentially a Judiciary kind of scope. Nonetheless, we've done our part and, Mr. Senator Padilla, the floor is yours to close.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and for your hard work on this. And I know that we bring these complex multilayered bills and everybody's got 100 other bills and they're like, really, Padilla? And more headache. But thank you for your indulgence and I have respect for Mr. Wick.

And to be candid, if he were building a different type of facility here that could, you know, and they exist on the planet, by the way, and maybe that's another conversation we should have. I would be his number one proponent and I would be going to the wall to help him get it done.

I just think we have a sincere disagreement about what the right course is. And I just want to clarify in my close, if I may, first of all the evidence is overwhelming that even modern standards of mitigation would still lead to impacts in the watershed.

I want to clarify when it comes to the will of the voters and approval of the project. No project's been approved, just a zoning change. And I've already told you about the fine print. That's a little bit of a deceptive process. And one piece of information you don't have to maybe give you a little bit of background on the crazy politics in this region.

In 2011, a former Senator named Juan Vargas, who represented this area, and a former Assemblyman named Ben Huesso co-authored a bill, SB 833, that addressed an identical set of circumstances for a proposed landfill in North County called Gregory Canyon. Their bill said that there shouldn't be a discharge permit because it was adjacent to tribal lands.

This would be on tribal lands, because it impacted a sensitive watershed, and it forbade the Water Board from issuing a discharge permit. That bill moved through this Committee and it moved through the Legislature, and it was co-authored by Juan Vargas and Ben Huesso. I just want you to have that background.

The reason I bring it up is it's identical to this scenario except for one element. The environmental impacts and the situation on public health is exponentially worse in this location. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do pass recommendation. Please call the vote for this bill.

Item seven, SB 1208, Padilla. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

All right, we'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on. Mr. Laird is ready to go. I will pass the gavel on to Mr. Hoover. And probably good that you are here and not Mr. Allen because he's got like 10 bills before this Committee, so he's got three. He only has three.

You ready, Mister Chair? Mister interim Chair.

Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. I'm presenting Senate Bill 1188. Requires the Water Board to develop and adopt minimum standards related to technical, managerial and financial capacity of small water systems. The amendments have removed the last remaining opposition to neutral. There's no opposition, and I'll be happy to answer questions if there's more detailed interest in this. And with me in support of the Bill is Abraham Mendoza from the Community Water Center. Advised him that there's no opposition and you've been here a long time.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else in the room in support? Seeing none. Do we have anyone in the room in opposition? Obviously sounds like no. All right. Are there any questions from Committee Members? All right, well, that was easy. Yes.

Ditto to what the Member said.

Thanks for bringing an easy Bill to us.

Thank you. It was a long wait to do it.

I believe we have a motion and a second. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote and would happily chat about this sometime if anybody's interested.

Sounds good. We will call the roll.

Item eight, SB 1188, by Laird. The motion is due passed and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. That has sufficient votes.

Thank you. That Bill is out. Next we've got Senator Allen. Is he still here? No. Okay.

We're going to do some add-ons while we wait, if you'd like to Assemblymember. Okay, perfect. So we'll just start with number one, or, I'm sorry, number four.

First item number four, SB 1066. Blakespear. Their current vote is six to nothing. Assemblymember Ta.

Not Voting.

Item number five, SB 1147. By Portantino. The vote is six to nothing. Assemblymember Ta.

Not voting.

Item number six, SB 1178. The item, the current is five to one. Ta.

No.

Item number seven, SB 1208. The current vote is five to nothing. Hoover, you're currently not voting.

Not voting. Yeah.

Okay. And Ta also not voting. Still.

Not Voting.

And the last one is item number nine. The current vote is four to two. Ta.

No.

Ta no.

All right, perfect. Senator Allen, whenever you're ready.

Well, I appreciate the patience. You know, usually Senator Laird has a lot to say, so he was very quick. I thought it was safe to leave while he was presenting, but must be a first. So I want to thank the Members. We are working on a very interesting issue with this Bill. California is beginning to see piecemeal development of a market and infrastructure designed to capture the value of materials used to manufacture electric vehicle traction batteries.

Once that battery is removed from the vehicle. Recycling batteries reduces demand for raw materials, thereby avoiding the negative social and environmental impacts of mining, including in areas with rough human rights records, and also potentially catalyzing a domestic supply as demand for the critical materials needed to build batteries increases.

In fact, some of the best opportunities for this work happens to be in the same district that we were discussing on the Padilla Bill, in the Lithium Valley area. Now, in many instances, once a battery is removed from the vehicle, it can be repurposed for applications such as energy storage. But California lacks a policy framework for ensuring that batteries are reused or repurposed when possible and recycled when no longer useful.

So, back in 2018, Senator Dahle passed AB 2832 which called for an advisory group of experts to develop recommendations to the Legislature to ensure, quote, that close to 100% as possible of lithium ion batteries in the state are reused or recycled at end of life. This Bill seeks to take the policy options formulated by the group and create a comprehensive program that will ensure that all EV traction batteries are properly handled and eventually recycled at the end of their useful life.

So the Bill you see in print before you today is the result of many, many, many meetings with stakeholders up and down the EV battery supply chain. Since this version was put into print, we've continued to gather feedback and refine the measure. Now, that said, I think that the overall components are in place. These include, first and foremost, requiring all EV traction batteries in the state to be sent to a qualified recycler at the end of its useful life.

And then specifically, the Bill requires the following. EV or EV battery suppliers have to submit a battery management plan to Cal Recycle and to DTSC to ensure that the batteries that they get back are properly managed and recycled. This will be particularly important for batteries that are still under warranty. Any entity that removes the battery from a vehicle, such as an auto shop or dismantler, they are responsible for the proper management under the Bill.

That means that the battery can be sent back to the manufacturer, sold to a secondary user for battery storage, or sent to a battery recycler, but it has to go to a responsible, responsible next party. Entities that use EV batteries for storage or other purposes will then ensure that the battery is recycled at the end of its useful life, and then recycling facilities that want to handle these batteries have to get certified by a Cal Recycle in coordination with DTSC to ensure that the batteries are properly managed.

Lastly, entities handling batteries up and down the supply chain will have to report to a department created system to effectively track these batteries and ensure that the Bill's requirements are met. The Bill contains the standard enforcement provisions contained in other producer responsibility measures, and it provides flexibility as the market for used EV batteries grows.

This flexibility has been particularly important since, unlike other materials that we sought to manage at their end of life, EV batteries contain critical materials, these special minerals such as cobalt, lithium, which they make them very valuable in a growing and robust recycling market. I worked, as you know, on a big extended producer responsibility project, reloads to plastics. One of the challenges there is that the end value of the plastics are not very high, which makes the recycling system hard to make work.

And yet, in this case, we've got some very valuable minerals that are used in the batteries, which create an immediate market which will help to make this work. So we have a bit more work to do as we continue to get stakeholder feedback, I believe. But I do believe that the Bill that you see before you today is nearly there. We decided to take two years on this to really give at the time. This is not one of these massive Bills coming at you at the last minute. It's really been a lot of work, and I have with me here today to speak and support Megan Meckleberg, who's from Calstart, and then Daniel Barad from the University of Concerned Scientists.

Whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks chairn Members, my name is Megan Meckleberg on behalf of Calstart. Through their leadership in the US Electric Vehicle Battery Initiative, Calstart works to inform policies to sustainably and responsibly grow the US supply chain for EV batteries, to increase domestic investment in EV battery supply chain to meet climate and EV adoption goals, as well as ensure responsible handling of batteries at the end of their useful life.

EV batteries possess value through their lifecycle and requiring them to be repurposed, reused and ultimately recycled will help grow new industries in our state and domestically. SB 615 strives to balance environmental protection through clean recycling practices while also providing flexibility for innovation and ultimately ensuring producer responsibility when a battery reaches its end of life. Accomplishing that balance is no small feat. And so Senator Allen and his team have convened a large stakeholder group over the last 18 months.

Which continues to inform the creation of this Bill that the Senator described just a minute ago. Calstart is grateful to Senator Allen and his staff for partnering with Calstart and its Members and other stakeholders in order to continue the work on this Bill and strike an appropriate balance. We believe that we are also very close to achieving that collective goal and we are really proud to support SB 615 and look forward to continued conversations in the coming months.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Daniel Barad, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in support of SB 615. We have been advocating for the broad deployment of electric vehicles for years because of their clear climate and public health benefits. Now that we have policies in place that guarantee that these vehicles will continue to be deployed in mass, we need to make sure that the clean transportation future is also sustainable with Bills like SB 615. Over the next decade, EV battery retirements are estimated to increase by 450%. In California.

This wave of retirements will include batteries that are damaged, dispersed, and may contain fewer valuable minerals and therefore are less profitable to recycle. Without policy intervention, batteries might slip through the cracks and end up in hazardous waste landfills or abandoned. To avoid this fate and reduce the need for newly mined materials and decrease environmental impacts of EV batteries, we need to pass policies like SB 615. As the author in the Bill analysis stated, this Bill continues to be a work in progress, but there are three key pieces that will make this Bill extremely effective.

First is the producer responsibility that we've been talking about so that when the manufacturers put their vehicles or repurposed batteries out into the world, they have a plan for ensuring that they are responsibly managed when they retire. We have many producer responsibility policies in California, and this isn't a new concept for EV batteries either.

The European Union and New Jersey both pass policies to require producers to be responsible for their batteries. Second, we need tracking and reporting requirements so we can make sure that the batteries are not getting lost in the shuffle and if they do, provide the Legislature and state agencies with the information they need to identify and rectify any problems.

Finally, batteries should only be allowed to be sent to recycling facilities that are recovering high levels of minerals and have fewer environmental impacts on workers in nearby communities. SB 615 looks to prevent batteries from being sent to the most harmful and inefficient recycling technologies and ensure that the battery recycling industry is as safe and sustainable as possible. We're grateful to Senator Allen and his staff for their tireless efforts on this Bill, and we look forward to continued conversations. And we respectfully request your aye vote today.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room would like to indicate their support for this measure, please come forward. Thank you.

Hi. Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters. This is one of our top priority bills and we're in strong support.

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

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

Good afternoon. Kira Ross on behalf of the town of Truckee, in support.

Tony Hackett from Californians against waste in strong support.

Courtney Scott from Zero Waste Sonoma in support.

Thank you. Opposition do we have opposition in the room to testify? Please come forward. Thank you. Go ahead and go for it whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. John Moffatt, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We have an opposed unless amended position. We are the trade association for all the major automakers. I just want to reiterate some of the comments that have already been made. We have been at the table. We have been part of the discussions. And I'll just say, I think from our perspective, we've all kind of had to think about this and look at this a different way.

As the Senator said, I think this body and a lot of us who are involved in all the Bills that move through this body are used to dealing with pros and stewardship councils and take back programs for things that nobody wants at the end of its original useful life. And that's just not the case with zero emission vehicle building batteries. And I think you're going to hear that from my co witness here. And so we've kind of had to rethink a little bit how these systems look and how they work.

And it's especially true when it comes to vehicles in that, you know, vehicles have had a system for dealing with parts and pieces and things like that that are outside of the original manufacturer. And those systems have been around for 100 years. Used car sales folks, you've got dismantlers, you've got all these different parts of this economic system who have been dealing with used car parts for a long time.

And at the end of the day, a ZEV battery is kind of just another used car part, except that when it's out of the vehicle, it's also hazardous waste, which also comes along with its own regulatory scheme. And so we've had to think about, okay, how do we think about the things that DTSC does with hazardous waste and all these people who are already involved in this system and sort of meld into how are we addressing these batteries?

Keeping in mind that we've had ZEVs on the road in California for 14 years now, that number is going to continue to grow. It is our goal that they continue to grow. It's everyone's goal that they continue to grow. And so for the first time in the history of the automobile, as automakers we have stepped up as part of the process that Senator Allen outlined. Because of the task force that met and deliberated this issue from the Ting and Dahle Bill, we've stepped up and said, look, we'll take the car back. We'll take the battery back. As long as it's in the car, we will take it all back, and we will make sure it gets moved on to the next step in a responsible manner.

And so part of what we're figuring out is how to reflect that concept and language, how to do so in a way that doesn't disrupt the economics that already exist in this system that's out there, and how to do so in a way that recognizes the regulatory role that some entities have and the responsibilities that other entities have, and how do we mesh these things together to try and make it work. And so with that, again, I'll thank the author and his staff for the, and the sponsors and supporters for the ongoing conversation, and we look forward to continuing to work on this as the Bill moves forward.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alexis Georgeson, and I'm the Vice President of Government Relations and Communications at Redwood Materials. While we oppose the current version of 615, we are optimistic that our concerns will be addressed through the upcoming amendments that Senator Allen just referenced. And we appreciate your willingness to work with us on the last few drafts of this Bill. Founded by JB Straubel, Redwood Materials is creating a circular supply chain for lithium ion batteries.

So what we are doing is we are collecting, recovering end of life lithium ion batteries, then recycling them, and then manufacturing them. What JB recognized after founding Tesla was that the key to driving down electric vehicle costs and putting more EV's on the road, which is all of our goal, I hope, is to really attack the metals costs of these cars, and the opportunity to take end of life batteries and to recycle and recover those metals as affordably and sustainably as possible is the best way to attack the cost of EV's.

Today, Redwood is recycling nearly 20 gigawatt hours of lithium ion batteries annually, which is the equivalent of 250,000 EV's that through our door every single year. The vast majority of lithium ion batteries recycled in the US are handled by us, and we recover 98% of the critical minerals like lithium, nickel, cobalt and copper, and then return those back to US cell manufacturers.

Our recycling process is already cost competitive with mine material today, and a recent Stanford University study found that Redwood recycled materials reduces the environmental costs associated with EV's by as much as 80%. As an original Member of Cal EPAs Lithium Ion Battery Recycling Advisory Group, in 2022, we launched an industry first California pilot and collected about a million pounds of EV packs, nearly 3000 cars.

And through that pilot, we proved that we can also confidently identify the manufacturer of nearly any EV battery in any condition. We have direct recycling partnerships with most leading automakers, such as Toyota, Ford, VW Audi, and battery manufacturers such as Panasonic, to responsibly manage their batteries. Today, we happily pay those automakers, dismantlers and cell manufacturers for their scrap waste and for end of life batteries.

Just going to ask you to wrap up your comments.

Certainly. I'll just close by saying we caution against excessive oversight that could limit our country's ability to fully harness the immense potential of EV adoption. Lithium ion is a high value commodity, and we need to treat it as such. So we look forward to the continued work with Senator Allen. Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in the room would like to indicate their opposition to this measure.

Hi, Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of Tesla with an opposed and less amended position to the Bill in print, but really appreciate the ongoing conversations with the author's office and hoping to move to support after the next round of amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Want to bring it back to the Committee? Yes, Miss Reyes.

Sort of sounded like a love fest here. We've got a problem. We've got to address it. And thank you for all the work that you all are doing. Honestly, this is really what we look for, to find someone who's taking it on and doing it. I recognize the need for the oversight, making sure that whatever we say we're doing, we're doing. But the reputation of Redwood precedes you. We hear so much about what they are doing successfully. I also appreciated your comment that you're optimistic. You continue to talk with the Senator, and it sounds like you're all moving in the right direction. With that, I would move the Bill.

Got a motion. And a second. Any other questions from Committee? Wonderful. We can go ahead and call the roll. Actually, Senator, if you would like to close.

I do want to just thank the folks who've been working with us from the industry, and we really are anxious to get to a place where we can make this work for everybody. At the end of the day, it's their products. It's their industry. I think we all agree that we need to find a good way to make sure that we're getting all of these batteries collected and turned into the next generation.

And so it's just about making sure we tweak the details now. And I just want to personally thank the folks at this table and some of the others who've been working so hard on trying to make sure we get this right, and with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much.

Item one, SB 615. Allen. The motion is due passed and rereferred to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]. That has sufficient votes.

Okay, that measure is out. Miss. Senator Allen, would you like to move on to SB 1143? Thank you.

All right. With our extended producer responsibility theme, this is a similar but different topic. Household hazardous waste. You know, thousands of everyday household products are classified as household hazardous ways. It's a little scary when you start to learn about it. Most residents don't know what is actually considered hazardous and what's not.

That makes it hard for us to know how to manage a dangerous product at the end of life, even when, you know the product simply cannot be just thrown away. A lot of communities lack collection systems or drop off facilities.

And, of course, that's assuming that the consumer is aware of the fact that they're not supposed to just toss this item into the trash. We're starting to see, of course, collection and disposal costs increasing. Not a new topic to this Committee.

Cities and counties, of course, are having to raise the rates to cover the costs of having to handle all this new material. Or they're, of course, having to reduce services, which further reduces convenience for local residents. Now, we know Calorie Cycle offers limited grants to build facilities or expand existing ones, but funding has fallen way short of what's needed.

Just to give you one example, from Damon's neck of the woods cover cycle, they have a cap of $5 million a year, and the expected construction cost of the new facility in Sonoma is between 13 to 16 million. So there's just nowhere near the amount of money available to help all the local governments handle this challenge.

So we're trying to address this crushing set of costs and also the lack of convenient access to a proper disposal system. So this Bill, SB 1143, requires producers of the most toxic consumer products to form a producer responsibility organization, a pro, similar to the model that we created under SB 54, that will be tasked with enhancing accessibility and fully funding the safe collection, transportation, and disposal of this household hazardous waste.

This allows producers to cost effectively improve access to convenient waste disposal. They can either Fund an improved local system, or if they want to do it on their own, they can create an alternative. It puts the producers in the driver's seat to determine how to do it.

The Bill also requires robust education and outreach to ensure consumers know which products are toxic, how to handle them properly. It's like recycling the list. It's hard to know what's actually toxic, what's not. A lot of cleaning products that you think are really clean. Well, they're actually very dangerous to throw into the. Into the landfill.

Lastly, the Bill will encourage producers to invest in less toxic alternatives. So if a producer would prefer not to participate in the pro, they can reformulate their product to a non toxic alternative, and then they don't have to be part of the scheme at all.

Under our current system, the problem is that producers simply don't have any incentive to consider the end of life costs when formulating their products. And those costs don't appear on their balance sheets. They appear on our balance sheets. Right. It's ratepayers, it's local governments, it's residents, it's the environment.

And so with this Bill, the producers will finally have some skin in the game. And here's the thing. Household hazardous waste products are too widespread to tackle product by product.

We love one off bills here in the Legislature, part of why I'm not a big fan of one off bills, and I voted for some of your one off bills. But, you know, quite frankly, it's not my, it's not my.

I don't think it should be our preferred path, because in the end of the day, these are big, wide scale problems. It was just like the plastic straws. Okay, we felt good about banning plastic straws, but meanwhile, we got all this other plastic waste piling up.

And was it really about getting rid of plastic straws, or was it about trying to reduce plastic waste? Similar situation here. We need a more comprehensive approach to addressing the challenge of household hazardous waste. And that's what this Bill does. It addressed the most dangerous consumer products.

It shifts the burden of paying for their end of life management from our local cities and counties and our environment and our ratepayers to the producers and with me to testify and support the Bill today, I have Heidi Sanborn from the National Stewardship Action Council and John Kennedy with the rural counties speaking to support the Bill. Just brought all my constituents. Thank you. Yes, whenever you're ready. Just whatever pressure I can apply.

Thank you. Senator Allen, Vice Chair and Members, my name's Heidi Sanborn of the National Stewardship Action Council and we advocate for an equitable, circular economy and are the nation's leaders and extended producer responsibility. California statewide Commission on recycling markets and curbside recycling, which I chaired, developed 34 policy recommendations, passing with unanimous votes of 17 to zero.

And we had stakeholders, which included waste haulers, local governments, unions and environmental organizations. And many of our recommendations have become law. But the very first recommendation we adopted in 2020 was that we should have EPR for household hazardous waste, the stuff that's the most dangerous and has no market.

The Commission's final report stated swift legislative action is needed to clearly extend producer responsibilities for end of life management for products that are hazardous or have been implicated in causing fires. And this is four years later.

The costs local governments, and thereby ratepayers, must pay to manage household hazardous waste are exorbitant, with La County spending $9 million a year last year, and that's only for the portion that's left after passing mercury thermostats, paint and needles and medications.

Additionally, we know we still don't even collect, maybe at the best day, a quarter of what is out there. The remainder is improperly disposed of in the trash or recycling, where it adds costs and contaminates food grade materials, is dumped in the environment or stockpiled in residents homes, where it can be a fire and safety risk.

And, for example, we recently toured with the Vice Chair, actually the cow waste facility down in Galt, which is a material recovery facility that only sorts blue bins. And yet at the back of the lot, they had a hazardous waste area because they pulled 183,000 pounds of household hazardous waste out of clean, recyclable materials, many of which are going to go into the packaging and food grade materials out of just that one MRF in one year. And it cost them $150,000.

And they actually gave us a letter and supported this Bill. With that data, the Legislature has taken a product by product approach, as was mentioned. And so we can continue by either. We have three choices. We can continue with the product by product approach, which I can tell you that the haulers do not like.

They would like to see one pro for the rest of these products. They don't want to see them keep coming. And there's a lot of Administration. Or we can wait until the county start implementing EPR ordinances, which has already been approved, and several counties have given their approval to their staff to proceed.

And then we also could adopt a statewide solution which would harmonize, and we prefer the harmonized statewide approach. So we've been meeting with the opposition. I talked with Redwood materials yesterday. We think we have a solution to their issue. We move and we've offered even extending the dates by a year.

We know that there's a lot of EPR bills in front of these manufacturers, and that has also been discussed. So we look forward to continuing those discussions and we've invited the opposition to actually join us in Zoom meetings with the producer run organizations in Canada and Europe. So with that, I want to thank you and ask for your aye vote thank you.

And we got about 1 minute left.

All right, John. Sorry. John Kennedy with RCI. We're going to treat rural counties like that. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties. So the smallest, imperial, about 1100 residents. The largest, Sonoma, about 500,000. From Del Norte all the way. I'm sorry, smallest, alpine, from Del Norte all the way to Imperial.

We're here to support SB 1143 today. As the author said, local governments are responsible for solid waste management, recycling and disposal. We own and operate solid waste facilities, transfer stations, household hazardous waste collection facilities, and we also conduct temporary events.

We have no control over what ends up in our waste streams that we have to then manage at the end of those products useful lives. The costs are borne, as the author said, by local governments and residents. There's no incentive for manufacturers to design better products, design less toxic products, or facilitate recycling of those products.

Sometimes these products cost us more to manage at the end of the useful life than it costs the consumer at the point of sale. So we're supporting this Bill today because it helps us reduce those significant cost exposures we strive to provide at household hazardous waste collection facilities, convenient and safe disposal for HHW.

We try to keep costs Low free for many residents or most residents, because when we impose costs or gate fees, we know that stuff goes out into the environment and will get dumped illegally. We then have to go find that waste, pick up the waste, and then manage the waste.

So we're supporting 1143 again because it helps us implement convenience for collection of HHW, reduce costs for local government, encourages manufacturers to redesign their products, and fills gaps in other EPR programs. And I've also been asked to support the Bill on behalf of CSAC, the State Association of Counties, and the League of Cities as well.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Like to come forward whenever you're ready.

Mister Chair, Justin Malone on behalf of The Environmental Health Administrators. They're your coopers and your solid waste regulators. Thank you.

Hello. Kayla Robinson on behalf of Rethink Waste in support.

Thanks Mike Bolsebar with California Environmental Voters.

In support, Courtney Scott with Zero Waste Sonoma in strong support. And I also have the following entities in support. Napa recycling and waste services, tree hugger, Marin Sanitary Service, Sustainable Mill Valley, City of Thousand Oaks banned single-use plastics clean water action and five Gyres and Jordan Wells expressing support for Pesticide Action Network, D Spray Environmental Environmental Working Group, Northern California Recycling Association, Zero Waste Marin Joint Powers Authority, Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority, North American Hazardous Materials Management Association and the Elders Climate Action Northern and Southern California Chapters.

Thank you Dylan Elliott on behalf of the City of County of San Francisco, this County of San Joaquin, the California Product Stewardship Council, Stop Waste and the Western Placer Waste Management Authority all in support. Thank you, wonderful author and staff.

Good afternoon. Lindsey Golehorn with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support.

David Krieger for Waste Connections in support.

John Moffatt for Waste Management in support.

Roman Vogelsang with Republic Services here in support.

Thank you Tony Hackett, Californians Against Waste in support

Keeley Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robson and Smith on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Jeremy Jones from the American Coatings Association on behalf of the founder of the First Paint Stewardship Program here in California in support.

Celeste Wicks with Clean Earth for kids in support. Also in support North County equity and justice ecosustainability peeps NCCA grandparents acting together in facts thank you.

Josh Gaugar, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support and also on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors with a support and concept position. Thanks.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone in opposition? If you could please come forward.