Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome. We are calling this hearing of the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee to order. Sergeants, please call the absent Members. Noting the absence of a quorum right now, but we will get underway as a Subcommitee. Our Committee's policies for testimony in today's hearing are as follows.

Primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the Committee. Primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the Committee as well. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic.

When called upon to simply state name, affiliation and position. Each primary witness will have two minutes to give their testimony. Also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website.

We will hear, I believe now, three measures today and noting that Senator Padilla has pulled his item from today's hearing, SB 594. We'll hear the remaining three items and then we have five additional measures on consent. So thank you again. Why don't we go ahead and get started?

We'll defer consideration of consent till we have a quorum, noting that Senator Grayson is present. File item number one, if you could come forward. Present SB328, and this deals with hazardous waste fees. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee. Good afternoon. And beginning with SB 328, I would consider a necessary bill that would help prevent significant cost increases for housing developers who have remediated contaminated soil and returned the land back to productive use.

In 2022, the legislature passed SB 158, a budget trailer bill that had the goal of stabilizing the budget for the Department of Toxic Substance Control, we know as DTSC. In order to achieve this, SB 158 made changes to one of the major fees that are paid to DTSC when remediating a site.

Before SB 158, DTSC used a tiered model with a fee that ranged depending on the project. The fees were also capped at $100,000 for most housing projects. However, this model was replaced with a fixed price per ton model of $46.20 per ton.

These changes to the hazardous waste generator fee have had a significant impact on development and have increased costs for several essential housing projects and projects that provide community development. This fee significantly increased the cost of remediating contaminated soil in urban infill sites or in situations where developers encountered naturally occurring toxic materials.

For instance, a housing project in San Francisco saw their fees rise from $100,000 to $800,000. The increased fee was made several has made several projects infeasible at a time where California is already struggling with rising costs.

So to help provide relief and reduce costs for those or at least for these important and essential housing projects, SB 328 would establish a cap on hazardous waste generator fee at $100,000 per project per year for infill projects and 250,000 per project per year for master development projects.

This bill would also place timelines on DTSC for responding to development related actions to help prevent delays in the development process. Now, at a time when California is facing increased development costs, we must do whatever we can do to create a more favorable environment that allows us to build housing that's affordable.

Builders who are repurposing and, again, builders who are repurposing land for productive use should not be penalized, especially those remediating pollution rather than actually causing it. SB 328 would provide much needed relief at a time where costs are constantly increasing. And with that, I through the chair will have witnesses self introduce.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members. My name is Louis Morante. I'm here on behalf of the Bay Area Council, one of the bill's supporters and sponsors. The Bay Area Council represents about 350 of the region's largest employers, including many of the developers who are doing these types of important infill development projects.

This bill would help us meet our infill housing goals. It would lead to cleaning up more pollution by capping the generation and handling fee charged by DTSC for residential infill housing and master development projects.

In 2021, the legislature removed the cap on this fee which resulted in unexpectedly large fees for many of my members, stopping some of their projects in their tracks. To be clear, these projects have in the past and will in the future paid for the actual remediation of the soil. That's a question.

This fee is for DTSC to monitor and verify that that cleanup is being done. We worry that an uncapped fee will push housing away from our urban areas and cause less soil remediation to occur, leaving our communities continually polluted.

This bill also applies key principles from the state's Permit Streamlining Act to the clean to excuse me, to the cleanup review process. For example, the bill would require DTSC to review and provide initial response to cleanup plans within 60 days or 120 days, depending on the size of the project.

DTSC would include in this response their request for additional information and other relevant timelines that the project will be expected to meet. We believe that these changes strike the right balance between allowing DTSC to cover the cost of their important work while allowing important housing projects to move forward with with certainty and at a reasonable cost.

I urge your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Ali Sapirman and I'm the Advocacy and Policy Manager for the Housing Action Coalition, or HAC for short. HAC is a member supported statewide organization that advocates for building more infill homes at all income levels.

I'm here today as a proud co sponsor of SB 328, a bill that would provide certainty to housing projects on the amount of fees they are required to pay to the Department of Toxic Substances Control when cleaning up contaminated development sites.

Since the previous witness covered the history and intent of the bill, I'm here to provide some practical examples from our members of the impact the fee has had on projects. In August of 2023, UC Law SF, formerly known as UC Hastings, which is a public independent law school, opened a mixed use building that provides 656 housing units for students.

Site preparation for the project resulted in the disposal of hazardous waste, approximately 89 tons in winter of 2020 and 2,400 tons in 2021. In 2021, UC Law paid a $104,932 fee to verify the remediation.

In 2022, they received what was first believed to be an erroneous double billing but ended up being additional fees for the same waste already assessed and paid for this time. Under the new 2022 structure, the additional fee totaling 117,445 was coupled with a $21,814 fee in penalties and interest for a grand total of over $240,000.

The new fee was passed weeks before UC Law ceased generating. There was no way they could have planned for it when underwriting the housing project. While the project itself was privately financed, most of the student body receives aid and every resident rent, meaning some of these costs are borne by the taxpayer dollars.

We surveyed our members and paying an additional additional $600,000 in fees was reported to be a regular occurrence. The issue is not simply the fee, but it's the unanticipated increase of fees without a fee cap. We appreciate the vital role that the department plays and we understand the challenges the the state is facing.

However, the imposition of the increased fee to make up for the budget shortfalls has placed an unreasonable burden on California builders working to address our housing shortage. We believe that SB 328 can provide a win win for the state by ensuring contaminated soil is cleaned up while also allowing for important projects to move forward. I respectfully request your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, do we have any remaining members of the public who wish to appear in support? Yes.

Mr. Chairman and members. Mike Belote on behalf of the aforementioned UC Law San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership in support.

Mr. Chair, members. Kobe Pizzati on behalf of the City of Vernon in support.

Lauren Rebrovich with Housing California and here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in support.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members, Jason Schmelzer on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to the measure?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance in respectful opposition. We certainly understand what the author and proponents are seeking to do here and don't discount the very significant fees charged by DTSD as part of the generation handling fee.

Our members as well across many different sectors also are subject to these fees as generators of hazardous waste. Our concern is not with the focus on these projects, but rather just the outcome of that.

Should there be a cap, the remaining funding that would not be paid would ultimately be spread across CEB members and kind of their, you know, ultimately what they are having to pay as part of these generation and handling fees ultimately resulting in our members subsidizing the gap between what is not paid and what DTSD needs for their operations.

And so again, just really want to be very clear. We certainly respect and understand the goals of the bill and the really significant challenges associated with these fees on these types of projects.

But do urge the committee and certainly the proponents, and we've had conversations about this as well to perhaps reconvene this fall as part of work with DTSD ongoing as well as the Board of Environmental Safety to look at fee setting, what changes may be warranted now that we're a few years into this new fee structure because certainly I know our members are very concerned about the sustainability of this approach, especially with a number of different sectors looking for similar carve outs, caps from these fees.

So with that respectful opposition. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to members for questions, discussion? Not seeing any. Yeah, quick if you can comment on that center a little bit.

And also, yeah, just I totally also get kind of the perspective you're coming at this with and the importance at the same time, it seems as if as we lower fees on housing developers, are we increasing fees on other entities, schools, hospitals, large and small businesses, et cetera.

So kind of a follow up to the opposition as well.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank opposition as well. I think that's one of the kindest oppositions I've ever had. And it was very relevant.

And the observation of opposition in the fact that it very well may be that that would be a consequence of this bill is something that is real and I think is something that also is the impetus for why we need to have a in depth conversation on fee reform for DTSC that goes across the board.

And the reason, the reason for that is, first of all, we have a housing issue, we have infill issues and we have contaminated soil if the fees are not in a place that can be affordable and it becomes a disincentive to develop that land.

Now you have contaminated soil in perpetuity in the middle of an urban setting where that infill is never going to be developed. But if we make this move, it's an actual double win. You get contaminated soil cleaned up and then you get housing on top of that.

Now, we should do this and move forward with this, but not turn a blind eye to what the consequence might be. And I am fully committed.

Hopefully you don't think there's anything wrong with me up here, but excited to be able to come back in the interim and have conversations about a fee structure that helps fund the good work that DTSC does.

We actually need them to do what they're doing, but at the same time doesn't become a disincentive for schools or for other, for anybody that would want to do any kind of work on contaminated soil. So with that, I think we need to strive and work very hard to find that landing spot for everybody.

This is the beginning of that. And this can prove to be what helps us have better discussions and conversations. With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Appreciate that. And appreciate, you know, your willingness to continue to work with stakeholders. I will note the presence of a quorum. Why don't we strike while the iron's hot, establish that, and then we'll get a vote on your measure.

All right. For the purposes of establishing a quorum.

[roll call]

Great. Yes. Senate member, this is file item one. So go ahead.

Thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chair. And thank you, senator. So I think.

I mean, I think what you're trying to do here, which by the way, I know has been a long effort on your part to try to figure out how to reduce the fees to make housing more affordable, which I think is a critically important piece of the puzzle and one you've spent an immense amount of time researching and really thinking about.

So I want to give kudos to that. I guess my one concern here is that the way this is structured, I think the people paying for it are not the right entities. Right. So nothing in this bill ensures that we as a government are paying for it, for example.

Instead, it just shifts that burden to other people in the system. And that feels, especially in the context of a school or a hospital or anybody else, like the wrong mechanism. And so I'll be supporting the bill because I think we align in our goals.

But I'm really hopeful that, as you said in your close, we can work harder on how we fund this, because I think shifting the cost is not the answer.

Yep. Would you like to close?

Not to talk myself out of that I vote that was just committed, but I do think that is why we need to have further conversation, because I'm not quite sure. We are supposing that because we're relieving here, that it's going to increase over here.

I think there needs to be an in depth study on fees, an in depth study on actual cost of the agency itself, DTSC, and how their structure works internally, and figure out exactly what are those costs as fees and not taxes. In other words, it's a cost recovery mechanism and it needs to remain that way.

So I think a better, deeper study would be good for us in the interim, along with conversations. But I do think it's prudent that we act now on housing and contaminated soil in urban settings.

Okay. This has an I reco from the chair, Madam Secretary. All right. I need a motion. And second. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, this is.

And we. We raised similar questions earlier. Yeah.

All right. This is file item 1, SB 328, authored by Senator Grayson. The action is do pass to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation.

[roll call]

We'll keep that on hold.

Thank you so very much, chair,

I want to take up the consent calendar real quick. Second on the consent. Great.

All right. For adoption of the consent calendar. Connolly. Excuse me. Sorry. I'm going to read quickly.

Okay. On the proposed consent calendar are item number 5 AJR 16, authored by Senator Alvarez. The motion is do pass to the assembly floor. Item number six, SB 31, authored by Senator McNerney. Due pass to appropriations. Item number seven, SB 234, authored by Senator Niello. Do pass to appropriations. Item number eight, SB 236, authored by Senator Weber Pierson.

Do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Item number nine, SB 317, authored by Senator Hurtado. The motion is do pass to appropriation. All right.

[roll call]

Great. We'll keep that on hold. Did we see Senator Caballero?

We did.

Okay, let's go. We will pass on that momentarily. And I see Senator Durazo here. Come on up. File item 4, SB 754.

Does that mean I don't have to say anything? May I proceed, Mr. Chair?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. And good afternoon, colleagues. I'm presenting this bill, SB 754, which improves transparency and products, protects public health by requiring manufacturers of disposable menstrual products to disclose the concentrations of potentially harmful contaminants in their products.

Millions of Californians use pads and tampons every month, often starting as early as 10 years old and continuing for decades. Current law requires disclosure of intentionally added ingredients, a very good, excellent step in ensuring the safety of these products. But it does not cover harmful, unintentional contaminants that may appear as byproducts of the manufacturing process.

Recent science makes clear this gap is dangerous. A peer reviewed study published last year found toxic metals in every tampon tested, including lead, which has no safe level of exposure. On average, tampons contained lead levels eight times higher than the federal limit for lead in drinking water. These risks are magnified because vaginal tissue is highly permeable.

Chemicals absorbed this way enter the bloodstream more directly than through exposure through the mouth, creating a higher potential for harm. This bill creates transparency in these products by requiring manufacturers to test for four metals in disposable menstrual products. Lead, arsenic, cadmium, and zinc.

The Department of Toxic Substance Control is then able to conduct independent testing to verify those results and publish the results of any testing along with their own analysis. We've done a lot of good work on increasing accessibility to menstrual products, which have been available in all California public schools for the last three years.

Now let's take the next step towards ensuring that these products are safe. We've worked on amendments that make clear which testing methods will be acceptable for determining these concentrations of chemicals and are committed to continue to sharpen the bill. Today I have with me Justine Chueh-Griffith on behalf of the California Association of Student Councils.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. My name is Justine Chueh-Griffith, serving with the California Association of Student Councils. I am here today in strong support of SB 754. The California Association of Student Councils is a student run nonprofit and we have been working since 1947 to uplift the voices of students across California.

Over the past few years, we have been dedicated to improving the state of menstrual care within California schools.

In 2021, we helped pass AB 367, the Menstrual Equity for All Act, which mandates all California public schools serving students in grades 6 through 12 supply free menstrual products in every female and all gender restroom and at least one male restroom.

Access to free, safe, and reliable menstrual products is a necessity to care for the health and well being of all students. And although AB 367 was a step in the right direction, further action must be taken to ensure that the products students are using are truly safe and non toxic.

SB 754 takes an initial step in that direction by providing more transparency, critically ensuring that manufacturers track concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals and report that information to the Department of Toxic Substances Control. This data would allow California to monitor chemical levels in menstrual products, empowering us with further information.

As new research is being done in this area, ensuring that California students have access to menstrual products is not enough. Rather, we must continue to fight for equitable menstrual care for our young people by ensuring that these products are safe.

SB 754 allows us to be proactive in our monitoring of potentially dangerous and toxic chemicals, protecting the health of millions of California consumers and students who use menstrual products regularly for decades of their lives. We highly appreciate the work that Senator Durazo and her office have done and we respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you, Ms. Snell. Oh, sorry.

Today I'm testifying on behalf of Dr. Jenny Shearston, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Colorado Boulder who wrote this testimony in collaboration with Dr. Catherine Schilling, Dr. Baizan Yan, Dr. Kristen Upson, and Dr. Marianthi Anna Kioumourtzoglou, environmental health scientists at Columbia University, Michigan State University, and Brown University, respectively.

Each is in support on their own behalf as scientists and public health experts not representing their universities. In July of last year, Dr. Shearston and these collaborators led a peer reviewed study finding toxic metals and tampons. Of the 16 metals tested, 12 were present in every tampon, including lead.

Finding chemicals present in menstrual products that are known to be toxic to multiple organ systems such as lead is concerning for several reasons. One, people who menstruate use menstrual products on a consistent long term basis. Over the course of about 40 years of menstruation, people who menstruate will use about 15 products every month.

This adds up to more than 10,000 menstrual products over a lifetime. Two, given this consistent long term use of menstrual products, the exposure potential to harmful chemicals through menstrual products is very high. Three, chemicals absorbed by the vagina directly enter systemic circulation, meaning these chemicals are not detoxified by the liver before being circulated through the body.

For example, when propranolol, a medication for heart problems, is administered vaginally, the maximum concentration reaching the bloodstream is twice as high compared to when the same amount is administered orally. Regardless of where these chemicals come from, whether they're intentional or unintentional contaminants, it's important to understand the breadth of concentrations present in the products people use.

Systematically collecting data on chemicals present in menstrual products and making these data available to the public fills an essential public health need, increases transparency for consumers, and facilitates scientific evaluation by providing critical data as we conduct further research to evaluate potential impacts to human health and the environment. Thank you.

Thank you to you both. Do we have any remaining members of the public in support? Come on up.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Symphoni Barbee, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Thank you.

Hello. Keely Morris, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Do we have anyone in opposition to SB 754?

Just to be. Just to be clear, our. Our position is opposed unless amended position, but Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We very much appreciate the Legislature's goal of protecting public health and promoting transparency.

Manufacturers also also share that commitment and already, as mentioned in the analysis, operate under FDA regulations that treat menstrual products as medical devices. We also very much appreciate the conversations with other staff and the Committee staff. However, we continue to have concerns and have a continued opposed unless amended position.

The Bill does introduce new, several new and vague regulatory requirements without clear timelines or scientific thresholds that would be more difficult to implement responsibly. It authorizes the Department of Toxics and Substance Control to expand the list of chemicals of concern without specifying how decisions will be made, creating uncertainty and the risk of arbitrary compliance burdens.

We are also concerned about the duplicative and costly testing, even if a manufacturer has already conducted rigorous analysis. The Bill allows DTSC to retest and require manufacturers to pay for it in advance without dispute or appeal. That's not reasonable, nor is it aligned with existing product safety frameworks.

Importantly, DTSC is already evaluating the menstrual products under its current work plan. We believe in a more coordinated approach using existing regulatory pathways like the Safer Consumer Products Program. We believe that would be better to ensure transparency without layering unpredictable costs and mandates on manufacturers.

We continue to express our requested amendments to clarify how DTSC will determine chemicals of concern, specify relevant and valid dated testing protocols, and strike the advanced testing cost and mandatory public disclosure language. With these changes, we believe the Bill can balance health protections with regulatory certainty and scientific rigor. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any additional opposition, come on up.

Thank you, Chair Connolly and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to provide testimony today. My name's Edwin Borbon. I'm here on behalf of the Center for Baby and Adult Hygiene Products, BAHP for short, with an opposed unless amended position on Senate Bill 754 as currently drafted.

BAHP represents manufacturers of absorbent hygiene products in North America, such as menstrual products, diapers and incontinence garments and pads, and companies that supply materials for those products. Our members represent over 85% of the market for absorbent personal hygiene products in North America.

We want to be clear that BAHP Members take the safety of consumers as their utmost priority. The commitment to safety goes down to the level of chemicals that are present in our products. However, to ensure that manufacturers can comply with the letter of the law, we're highlighting concerning aspects that remain in Senate Bill 754.

While we appreciate the recent amendments adopted by the author and the continued dialogue with her office, BAHP remains opposed unless amendments are adopted to address concerns with duplicative testing costs under this Bill, as well as publicly posting analytical results on DTSC's website that could be misinterpreted and lead to unnecessary public concern.

The FDA currently regulates and approves menstrual products for the market as medical devices for safety and effectiveness. In January of this year, the FDA conducted an independent review which concluded that there are no safety concerns associated with tampon use and contaminant exposure.

The FDA continues to recommend FDA clear tampons as a safe option for use as a menstrual product. Additionally, the California Department of Public Health's Food and Drug Branch licenses and inspects menstrual products as medical devices under the Sherman act, ensuring that these consumer goods are properly manufactured, labeled and are not falsely advertised.

No violations or enforcement actions have been taken by the Food and Drug Branch on menstrual products. In 2020, the state enacted the Menstrual Products Right to Know act, requiring manufacturers to list all intentionally added ingredients contained in menstrual products.

And just last session in 2024, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 2515, which bans PFAS substances for menstrual products with oversight and enforcement mechanisms through DTSC, which BAHP Members are currently working to comply with.

This Bill would add another layer of compliance to manufacturers having to cover the cost of additional testing as mandated under SB754, imposing unpredictable financial burdens especially for smaller manufacturers.

As previously mentioned, the Safer Consumer Products Program is researching chemicals of concern in menstrual products to provide a public document on their findings, and we feel that the goals of this legislation could be accomplished through that program under DTSC's existing budget.

Lastly, we do share the concern of publishing analytical results on DTSC's website without any regard to levels of exposure, variability in lab practices or capacity of testing laboratories. This provision was taken out of AB 2515 last year due to the complexity of conveying this information without creating unnecessary public concern.

Product safety is the top priority for BAHP and our Members and we support preventing exposure to dangerous chemicals. While we understand the goals of this legislation, the remaining issues I just outlined must be addressed for companies to be able to effectively comply with this law.

For those reasons, we remain opposed unless amended and will continue engaging with the author's office. Thank you for your time.

Thank you Seeing no additional opposition. We'll bring it back to members for questions, discussion. Vice Chair

Thank you Mr. Chair. Senator, thank you. I certainly respect where you're going here. I have a couple questions for any of you. You mentioned four medals of concerns. I think zinc. I can't see... whatever the four were. Why did you not mention the other metals of concern?

I'm sorry. The main reason is because these had the highest, the highest concentrations that were found.

Okay. Yeah. And then do you know if that's in parts per billion or parts per million?

I have per billion, I'm pretty sure.

And then do you, and then I'll ask, I'll go ahead and add on why you're looking for that. Do you know if these metals of concerns, what compound or what formulation they are in?

And I'll give you an example, zinc, for example, when you have a cold you have zinc glutenate, zinc, zinc acetate and then in some other industrial uses that are non soluble, that have like I think 100,000 year leach life. In chemical leaching you have some oxides.

So I guess my question is these metals of concerns that you talk about, do you know what form they're in or what compound they're in?

I don't know if I can. Mr. If I can answer. Okay, thank you. The recent testing that we found at Columbia University was that some tampon products contain zinc at an average concentration of 52,000 nanograms per gram. So this is roughly 10 times higher than the level shown to cause harm to human cells in laboratory studies.

It's an essential nutrient, but in high amounts it becomes toxic.

Do you know what compound though, is my question? Because is it leachable or non leachable, Insoluble or non soluble?

I don't believe

I'm sorry, that's a technical question. Without belaboring that point, I was just wanting to make the point that in all of these metals there are several compounds that are soluble and those that are not.

And my concern is that it can be detected, but are the detection is it soluble or non soluble? So I just, I just wanted to make that point. So thank you very much for putting this forward.

Thank you. Thank you.

Other questions?

I just want to thank the Senator for this Bill. I, as a consumer of these products, it wasn't until I was actually on this Committee that I understood the number of things that could be in these products that I could be exposed to to on a monthly basis for days.

I mean if you think about how most women are using these menstrual products continuously for five to seven days every single month in their bodies. That is significant exposure. And so I started to try to research on my own which were safe and which were not.

And it is incredibly hard as a consumer, even if you're knowledgeable, to figure it out. And so I just want to say, I hope you don't take out the part where they have to publicly disclose it, because I think that it is important that consumers have the right to know.

And I think what that will do is it will push industry. We will pick the safe products, and so somebody will figure out how to do it, and they will win. And that's how when a market functions best. And so, you know, you're not banning anything here.

You are merely saying that consumers have a right to know if they're putting carcinogens into their body five to seven days a month continuously. That's a lot of time. And so I think this is critically important.

You know, there was some opposition commentary about how there isn't enough specificity, although I will note that the letters that came in don't actually provide you with any input about how you could be more specific in any of those ways.

Obviously, I think the author, knowing her and her many years of service, we've been here together, that to the extent that she can be provide clarification, I know that she would absolutely be happy to.

But to the extent that you're trying to hide this information from consumers, I think that that defeats the goal of the Bill and one that's incredibly important for the women of California. With that, I'm happy to support.

Great. And I think you did move the Bill. This is a support recommendation. Appreciate your work on this. Would you like to close?

Thank you.

Well, and I appreciate all of all of your comments. So just to clarify, this is a Bill about transparency, and that's really important. We're not asking to ban or do anything. We want transparency. And there's just very little research done on this so far.

And that's why the information is so important, and especially, as you said, to make it public. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Appreciate it, and happy to second the motion. With that, why don't we call the roll?

This is File item number four, SB754, authored by Senator Durazzo. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources. Are you sure? Yes. My apologies. It's do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

we'll keep that on hold. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you, colleagues.

Let's do it. All right. We will move to file item 2 and ask Senator Caballero to come on up. This is on SB 466. Welcome.

I like that. Thank you very much. So I have this says good morning, but obviously it's not morning, it's afternoon. Stall a little bit. Good afternoon. Mr.

Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present SB 466 which will provide narrow legal legal protections against against costly third party lawsuits for water providers who are in full compliance with an Approved or pending chromium 6 maximum containment level or MCL compliance plan. Chromium is a naturally occurring metal found in the Earth's crust.

Under certain conditions, chromium 3 can oxidize to chromium 6. While chromium 6 is most dangerous when inhaled, it is also toxic when ingested in high concentrations over a long period of time. The exact health risks of low level drinking water exposure remain a subject of ongoing scientific investigation and dispute.

In 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a chromium 6 MCL at 10 parts per billion in drinking water, an amount five times lower than California's standard and 10 times lower than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard for total chromium allowed.

The new regulation, effective 2024, provides public water systems with a limited compliance period to meet the new Chrome 6 standard of 10 ppb, depending on the number of connections.

Public water systems must comply with this new standard as soon as October 1, 2026 to October 1, 2028 and it depends on the size of your system achieving compliance within this timeframe and is simply not feasible for many water systems due to the need for significant infrastructure upgrades and the financing required to comply.

Water systems engineering feasibility studies indicate that the realistic time required to plan, design, permit and construct new treatment systems to comply is best case between four to six years. Let me be very clear.

Water providers do not seek relief from enforcement by the State Water Board, nor are they requesting additional time to comply with the Chromium 6 MCL. Water providers do, however, have great concern about potential third party litigation, particularly after the water systems provide a public notice of exceedance of the MCL as is required by state law.

Any litigation must be defended at great cost and expense to water providers, regardless of their implementation of State Water Board approved compliance plan and best efforts toward compliance. These are costs that will be paid by the ratepayers.

In other words, the litigation SB 466 protects public water systems from civil lawsuits so long as the water system is implementing and in compliance with the State Board approved chromium 6 MCL compliance plan and also meet the total standards for chromium in California.

Recent amendments clarify the timeline for the immunity by specifying that the protections under the bill only applies through the compliance plan schedule approved by the Water Board.

Clarify that if the plan is rejected by the Water Board, the protections of the bill shall not apply Clarify that the bill does not affect the authority of the Attorney General to enforce any applicable law or regulation related to chromium 6 and clarify that the enforcement authority of the Water Board and the Attorney General include enforcement of chromium 6 MCL compliance plan.

The bill does not permanently shield a water provider from harm caused and does not affect in any way the State Water Board or the Attorney General's Robust Enforcement Authority.

SB 466 is a reasonable and temporary measure to protect water providers from unnecessary litigation and to allow them to stay focused on providing safe and affordable drinking water in the communities they serve.

Before I turn it over to witness, I'd like to say that I'm committed to exploring the proposal outlined on page six of the Committee analysis and would like to thank the Committee for their Attention to this effort.

It may make sense to go in that direction, but I think there's more conversations that need to be had in order to get there. So with me today to testify is Michael Amabile, Mayor of the City of Los Banos, and Scott Burritt, Director of Public affairs and Customer Experience, Coachella Valley Water District.

And Mary Lynn Coffee with nosomen representing the City of Los Banos, is also here to answer any technical legal questions should you require.

Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair and Members like was said. I'm Michael Amabile. I am the Mayor of Los Banos. I'm pleased to be here before you as a co sponsor of SB 466, a Bill that is critical and crucial to the importance to small cities like mine.

Like many other small communities in our region, we are facing a unique challenge. Our water supply contains Natural occurring chromium M6 not because of any intentional or neglect action, but due to the geology of our groundwater basin. Las Banas serves a population of 50,000 and is considered a disadvantaged community.

The new maximum contaminant level of chromium 6 is now set at 10 parts per billion, which is much stricter than previous federal or state standards. Currently, each one of our municipal wells exceed the new threshold.

It's important to mention that the State Water Board has previously stated that chromium 6 levels below the former 50 parts per billion do not create an acute health hazard. Still, Los banos is fully committed to protecting the health of our residents and meeting this new standard. However, compliance will require substantial investment.

New treatment plants, infrastructure that we estimate being over $65 million for our small community. For a community like ours, the expense would be enormous. That is why SB466 is so vital. It will protect cities like loss management, costly and often unjustified third party lawsuits. These lawsuits can drain resources away from planning and building our water system.

For treating this need. SB 466 is narrowly focused. It will provide legal protection for agencies that are actively implementing and following State Water Board approved compliance plans. On behalf of the City of Las Venus, I want to thank Senator Caballero for her leadership.

I would like to thank you for your service and I respectfully asked to urge you to vote yes on SB 466.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and Members of the Committee. My name is Scott Burritt, Director of Public affairs and customer experience with the Coachella Valley Water District. I'd like to thank Senator Caballero for authoring this important legislation and for Josh Tooker for writing an excellent Committee analysis. Appreciate that.

CVWD's goal and the goal of every public water agency is to provide clean, safe and affordable drinking water to the communities we serve. CVWD has always been in compliance with drinking water standards. Because chromium 6 is naturally occurring in the Coachella Valley region.

The cost to comply will be borne completely by our ratepayers, the customers, which will challenge affordability in our area. There are many retirees that live in the Coachella Valley and much of the Coachella Valley is in disadvantaged communities.

This Bill is needed to enable water providers to stay focused on Chromium 6 compliance and not divert resources to expensive litigation. CVWD anticipates spending $400 million upfront to comply with Chromium 6 compliance. This will include financing, drilling new wells, constructing pipelines and building water treatment facilities. Domestic water rates are expected to double just for chromium 6 compliance.

This legislation improves the accountability of water providers to ensure we're adhering to State Water Board compliance plan, which will include completion dates. This legislation does not limit the ability of the State Water Board or the Attorney General to take action against non compliant water agencies.

The public would continue to have the ability to bring legal action, civil action against an entity responsible for discharging chromium 6 into the water supplies, such as industrial pollution and previous high profile cases involving chromium 6 have been industrial pollution that hasn't been naturally occurring in the communities we serve.

CVWD is committed to serving our customers with high quality, affordable, clean drinking water. And we urge your support of SB466. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public in support? Come on up.

Nicole Wortleman on behalf of San Bernardino, county, in support.

Gonzalez, on behalf of the Community Water Systems alliance and the City of Coachella, in support.

Sonja Eschenberg with the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition and Mission Springs Water District, both in support. Thank you.

Vivian Zirkel with Valley Water, in support.

Good afternoon. Adam Quinones, California Advocates, on behalf of Mesa Water District in support.

Brian Sanders at the City of Sacramento, in support.

Mark Smith on behalf of the Grassland Water District, in support.

Cyrus Davis for the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, in support.

Thanks. Anyone in opposition to the bill? Not seeing anyone coming forward. Bringing it back to the Committee. Do we have any questions?

Yes. I want to thank the Senator for highlighting this issue and you bringing your folks up here. I just want to ask a couple questions. Is there any current litigation in any water districts on this matter?

Right now, I know, of course, in 20, the State Water Board sets the maximum contamination level to be 0.010 milligrams per liter for contamination of Chrome 6. But has there been any since then? Any litigation or threat of litigation that would necessitate legislation like this?

So we might want to have Mary Lynn Coffee speak to that. Okay. There has been litigation. Oh, there has. Okay. Yeah.

Well, there was litigation. Historically, the Chrome 6 MCL takes effect. In other words, you can be in violation of it for exceeding it, which would then lead to a third party citizen suit in October of 2026. So at this time, such a lawsuit would be premature. Okay.

Oh, right. Okay. So it takes effect in October 2026 and has yet to manifest in a. Sort of.

Correct. Right now we're reporting exceedances, but the MCL is not. You would not be in violation. You just report the exceedance. So everybody knows today whose water wells exceed. But under the rule, the maximum contaminant. Level rule, then you don't have a. Violation that's actionable until October of 2026.

Which is why we're before you now, hoping to prevent those citizen suits before the Violations become actionable.

Okay. Correct. And I know, I understand the logic of the bill and I know, Senator, you were literally walking and talking about all the amendments and things you're working on through this Committee and the Next Committee in the judiciary.

But it does, it does concern me a bit that we're doing a blanket exemption than even what we're just talking about saying is when action is violation. I know there has been some opposition language changing and morphing some of the language which is still in the same intent about that.

Have, have you talked about, I don't know if I missed the Committee, about changing the language to be, instead of a blank exemption to be about not to be found in violation language.

I'm not sure exactly what language you would refer to. What we're trying to do is we have very narrowly crafted the bill so that once the.

Because it's our belief that once the public gets a notice in the mail, which is required by the State Water Board that says your water system exceeds the MCL level for chromium 6, that has been determined to be a certain, a certain number. Right. 10 parts per billion.

That, that, that, that is what stirs litigation against water agencies because people are on notice. And all we're trying to do is to say not only have they been advised, have the water agencies been advised that the chromium level has dropped from 50 to 10 parts per billion.

And now you must come up with a plan to fix it.

And you have to file that plan with the, with the Department, the State Water Board, and then you have to start and that plan has to have a timeline that says, here's what we're going to do, here's how we're going to do it, here's how we're going to pay for it, and here's the timeline for it.

They, that all that has to be then approved by the Water Board as a valid plan. And between the time that that plan is approved and the time that they finish doing the upgrade, you can't be sued for the reduction, for not meeting the level, because it's impossible to meet the level like that.

You have to build, you have to redo, you have to re-pipe. It costs millions of dollars that during that time the focus will be on fix, on coming up to compliance, as opposed to going into court and defending it. And that's all. It's that time period.

And in addition, if it ends up that someone believes that they have been injured because of the chromium, they can still sue. Now, I draw a blank. You can still sue, but you have to. Those were part of the amendments and I'm drawing a blank on it right now. You have to.

So there was after the Senate Committee hearings, there was a provision. It was amended. The Bill was amended to include a provision that says this section only applies to public water systems that meet the total chromium MCL enforceable standard for drinking water. So that was the amendment after the last Committee hearing.

And I believe that's what the right.

And I would just say is that I definitely want our water suppliers to be in compliance. And I understand the aspect of when you're in the process of compliance, you're worried about that litigation that is happening.

I just find some concern about it, about a blanket exemption even during that period, because these periods of coming to compliance do take some time, could be four or six years even.

And I don't want people who do feel actively aggrieved or harmed by chromium cyst, which is an active heavy metal carcinogen, that they wouldn't have any recourse of it if there was some actor in there out there doing something deliberately unsavory out there and hurting people. That's why I just point that aspect out.

I know, Senator, you're continuing to work on a lot of amendments and things that's going to.

Actually that is the amendment that we took in the Senate is that if there is someone who can allege an injury that the Attorney General can bring lawsuit as a lawsuit. But you have to have been. The whole idea is you have to be a good actor.

You have to have met the 50 and then you have to have a compliance plan and everything has to be approved. But the AG can still file a lawsuit if there is an injury.

Okay. Right. And I was just going to say is I'm leaving a lot of these comments here on the diasporas. Unlike some of my colleagues, I'm not in judiciary, so I won't have a second bit. Every example. Some of these things I wanted to highlight my concern and I appreciate your.

Comments because they were reflected in some of the issues raised in the Senate as well. And we did take an amendment in regards to that.

Absolutely. Then in addition, I think they're also reflected in what the Senator mentioned in her opening remarks before you were able to join. If you look at page six of the analysis, there is kind of an alternative framework akin to what was SB 385 back in the day.

So it would not be so much a blanket exemption from civil liability, but more something akin to the public water system. And we all get the challenges, but shall not be deemed in violation of the primary drinking water standard while implementing an approved compliance plan. But you've committed to kind of continuing discussion with that.

Do you have a follow up or Assembly Member okay, great.

I just wanted to know what was the timeline for the exemption? Is there a timeline like is it two years, is it three years, is it four years?

It's during the time that they're working on the plan and that the plan is complete. And so the plan has to be approved by the Water Board. And the Water Board will decide whether it's a two year, a four year or a five year plan.

And it's during that pendency, but they have to meet the milestones in order to be able to still be compliant. Thank you for that question, Senator.

Member thank you, Senator. And I think I appreciate the effort that it seems like has really gone into this bill to balance protecting communities with ensuring water systems can do what they their job is, which is to provide clean drinking water.

One question was you said that if there is an injury, in fact, maybe this is a better question for judiciary. And I am on judiciary, but just since it came up, I wanted to address it.

If there is an injury, in fact, then the AG can bring an action, but the individual doesn't have a right to bring a civil action. No, it's through the AG's office. So if the AG brings that action, usually damages by a public prosecutor do not include real damages for medical bills and other things.

So I guess that would be my concern.

Yeah, no, I don't think that's what's anticipated. Okay. We can take a look at it in judiciary, but I'm not. This is already state law.

And we're not changing the ability the AG to bring lawsuits on behalf of water on behalf of California.

Okay.

Right. And maybe I just need to look further into it, but that would be my question and I guess I can raise it again.

Judiciary, which is just ensuring that if there is an actual injury, which I think is your goal, that not only is the AG able to bring an action to punish, but that also an individual who's harmed can get those medical bills paid and their pain and suffering and all the things they deserve as well.

But it sounds like that's the goal, so hopefully we can just ensure it's being achieved.

Vice Chair Yes. Senator, thank you. I really like this. I want to first make a comment to the Members that going from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion is Extraordinarily expensive and also especially from naturally occurring sources such as wells and the rocks and the minerals.

But I'd also like to say that, you know, a lot of this years ago was generated by chrome plating and from poly, you know, from PCBs in transformer fluids. And there were a lot of lots of chromium 6, but a lot of that's gone away. So it's. We're back to natural sources.

So I guess my question to the gentleman from Los Banos. I'd like to know, you're treating to 50 ppb now, correct? Yes. And so then you're going to go to 10 ppb. And what does that cost again?

The early estimate's about $65 million. But there's still a lot of questions on how we get to that point, you know, through the Water Board being it approved and everything. But our wells in the wintertime are around 15 to 20 parts per billion. In the summertime they go up a little bit, maybe another 10.

So we have been in compliant since day one with federal and the earlier states limits. But now with this new one, every well is not a complaint.

Is that an average where you're talking about an average if you're 60B? Yeah.

It's taken over time.

Okay. It gets an average and then mask the technology are using resin. Are you using what it's like a sand filter and.

But it only takes out, as my understanding is arsenic and the chromium 6.

So it's not really going to make our water that much better in total, total solids, dissolved solids, but it will take those two things out.

Okay.

I appreciate you and Senator, good job. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Additional questions or discussion? Okay, well, appreciate it, Senator. So it sounds like. And I'm also on Judish as well. So we'll have some ongoing discussions. Appreciate you being open to that. This does have an eye recommendation today from the chair. Would you like to close?

Yes. In regards to the conversation on maybe changing the methodology for achieving the same goal. Yes.

I would appreciate it if we could have a discussion with the chair of Judish about that so that we're prepared to look at that when it gets to that Committee, which is I think like next week or the week after, something very, very quick. But I really appreciate the discussion.

Again, we're not trying to say they don't want to comply. We're not asking that the parts per billion reduction change in any way where the water agencies are all going to comply. They just need time and they need an opportunity to be able to be free from litigation that is based.

Just based on the fact that they're not immediately in compliance as opposed to public safety during the interim. And respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll. We actually have a motion. We need a second. All right, great.

All right, this is File item number two, SB466, authored by Senator Caballero. The action is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Connolly.

[Roll Call]

Great. We'll leave that open for absent Members. You do have. Yeah, why don't we just add on? Yeah, why don't we go? Yeah.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. I'm just waiting for.

The text.

No, I just mean, like.

I just texted Tony. If you want. Yeah. He'S on his way.

[Roll Call]

When we go ahead and kind of indicate the final results.

So for the consent calendar, 0. 7 to 0.

Yep, that's out.

For file item 1. 7 to 0.

That's and say what the Bill number is. My apologies.

File item 1, SP328, 7 to 0.

Correct.

File item 2, SB 4667 to 0.

That's out.

File item 4, SB 754. 5 to 2. Not voting.

And that matter is also out. So that concludes our hearing. Thank you, everyone, for adjourning.