Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Costs wasting money that could be otherwise used on the landscape. Assembly Bill 442 removes the requirement that a harvest area be limited to a single watershed, allowing landowners to manage forests more comprehensively. I respectfully asked for your Aye vote.

And I'm joined today by by Matt Diaz representing California Forestry association and Alex Loomer representing the Pacific Forest Trust.

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Matt Diaz. I'm the President of the California Forestry Association. And I too just come to give you some technical detail on the working forest management plan. This particular permit type was developed in 2013.

And during 2013 much discussion occurred on the legislative record, if you will, the legislation that precipitated regulations were adopted. And since then, only one landowner in the state of California has been able to engage in a working forest management plan. And that is because there are some barriers to entry.

442 is addressing one of those barriers to entry so that landowners in the state of California that are non industrial in nature and wish to manage their forest land for the purposes of resiliency can do so more expediently. That is my very brief intro into it. I'll turn it to Alex for a moment.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair and honorable Members of the Committee. I'm Alex Loomer, here today on behalf of Pacific Forest Trust. Pacific Forest Trust is a nonprofit organization working to conserve and restore whole forest systems inclusive of trees, fish and wildlife, as well as the human communities that are intertwined with our natural resources.

As the author and Mr. Diaz described, this bill simply resolves a timber harvest limitation that doesn't serve any meaningful public purpose, but makes forest management harder. We're pleased to work with assemblymer Hadwick and Cal Forest to resolve this issue. And we urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? I thought there might be one. Mendocino Redwood companies in support of the bill. Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Any witnesses at all in opposition to this measure?

We will now turn it back to my colleagues on the daisy. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Seeing none. Ms. Hadwick, would you like to close?

I thank you for your time. Thank you for hearing the bill.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. When we have a quorum, we will take the appropriate action. But this bill does have a do pass recommendation from the Chair. I really enjoyed our tour up in your district last year and the passion that you bring to the work that you do.

Thank you for this measure. And we'll follow up soon.

Thank you. Thank you.

Assembly Member Dixon, would you like to present AB 623?

I'd be honored to. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Delighted to be here to talk about AB to present AB623. And first of all, I want to thank you and your staff, Committee staff for putting some great thoughts together that we could advance this bill. I'm fully in support of. Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair and Members. I'm happy to present AB623 to the Committee. Before I begin, I'd first like to thank the chair and the Committee for working with my staff and my team on amendments and myself. I'm pleased to accept the committee's amendments.

I believe that this is a bipartisan issue and importantly, that the amendments the Committee has provided create a bipartisan solution. On March 12025 Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency due to the ongoing fire risk in the state.

As part of this proclamation, both CEQA and the California Coastal act were suspended to allow forest and fuel management projects to be executed without burdensome red tape. However, due to a lack of data, we are unable to accurately determine how successful the suspension of both the Coastal Act and CEQA has been since the governor's proclamation.

AB623, as amended, not currently in bill form, but the amendments have been presented. Seeks to remedy this shortfall by requiring the Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Coastal Commission to each provide a report to the Legislature on or before January 312027.

These reports will include information on the total number of requests by entities for suspensions of CEQA and the Coastal Act, total acreage of fuel modification or reduction completed under the Coastal Development Permits, and detailed information on the types of projects undertaken.

This report will provide invaluable information to assess how successful the governor's emergency proclamation and subsequent suspension of CEQA and the CCA have been at encouraging fuel reduction and mitigation projects. Devastating wildfires are only becoming more common throughout the state. And any information that can assist us in reducing the risk of wildfire is of extreme value. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Dixon. Are there any Members in the hearing room in support of this measure? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody in opposition at all? Perfect. We'll now turn it back to the dice. Any questions? Comments, concerns? Mr. Ellis, you're gonna let two bills go by?

When we have a full Committee quorum established, we'll take action on this bill. But it has a du reco from the Do Pass Record from the chair.

Thank you. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.

Mr. Alvarez, come on down with AB35.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members, really appreciate the opportunity to be before you today here on Assembly Bill 35, which is the Proposition for Implementation Acceleration Act. At the outset, I want to be referring to. Really thankful to the committee's work.

I appreciate all of the feedback throughout this process, and we accept the committee's amendments. Thank you very much again for all that work and analysis. So what does AB35 do?

AB35 provides a targeted exemption from the Administrative procedures act, the APA, for programs that are funded by Proposition 4, the Climate Resilience and Natural Resources bond that was approved by voters back. Back in November of 2024. That was Proposition 4. That was a ballot measure that we put on the Legislature, put on through SB867.

And again, the voters overwhelmingly approved that proposition, signaling not only their strong support for immediate investment in wildfire prevention, safe drinking water, flood protection, climate adaptation and the protection of agricultural and natural resources. The bond was intentionally designed to address urgent and ongoing climate impacts already affecting many of our communities throughout California.

After the voters approved the bond and then the Legislature allocated the funds last fall, in September, summer actually, of last year, my office started to closely track the rollout of Proposition 4. And why would that be, you might ask? That's because one of the components of Proposition 4, it was very important for my district.

Proposition 4 included $43 million to address pollution in our rivers, particularly the Tijuana River.

Through this process, my staff and as we learned from state agencies, including State Water Resources Board, Wildlife Conservation Board, the Department of Food and Agriculture, they indicated that the APA required rulemaking, which this Bill seeks to exempt, would take about 12 to 18 months, delaying funds from reaching the communities that were intended to reach.

In the meantime, Prop $4, like I said, for water reuse, recycling, dam safety, forest health, wildfire mitigation, energy storage, grid support and others are effectively on hold.

According to staff and the research that we've done, if APA exemption was included in Proposition 4, as had been in every other bond prior to this, revolving funds and other existing programs would already have had these funds available for disbursement.

Bond measures like Proposition 4 are most effective when these funds are deployed quickly and strategically, as was written in the Bill that then became the proposition, and if they're invested before conditions worsen and most importantly, cost rise. And that's what we're hoping to do with AP35. The exemption is not new or unprecedented.

As I said in Proposition 84 back in 2006, Proposition 1 in 2014, Proposition 68, 2018 all of these included the same provision that we are seeking today. However, we also preserve transparency and accountability with this measure, so there will continue to be statutory guidelines that need to be followed.

Funds must be subject to audits, reporting requirements, public oversight, and agencies must act with clearly defined legislative parameters. So this exemption is narrow but also important. The urgency is especially real in my district, as I mentioned, where communities have endured years of sewage pollution in the Tijuana river.

When Proposition 4 was drafted back in 2024, I sent a memo to the author requesting cross border river pollution funding be included in a dedicated line item. Beaches in South San Diego, the areas that I represent, have been closed since December of 2021.

New research from Scripps Institution of Oceanography shows that sewage contamination is now affecting the air that my residents breathe. Voters approve Prop 4 with the expectation that projects would move quickly and effectively and AB35 ensures that that is the case. Now I'd like to turn it over to our two testimony.

Here we have Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, who is former mayor of Imperial beach, who has been a longtime advocate for our crisis that we have in San Diego with the Tijuana River. She's now leading this effort at the county of San Diego.

As supervisor she the county is a primary sponsor and I'd like to turn it over to Supervisor Aguirre.

Thank you Assembly Member and good afternoon Committee Members. My name is Paloma. I represent District 1, about 650,000 residents that border the actual U.S. mexico border. As the Assembly Member mentioned. My community has suffered from the impacts from Tijuana river pollution for decades.

But but it hasn't been until recently that we have now discovered because of empirical evidence that my constituents are falling ill not just after coming into contact with coastal waters, but simply by breathing. Scripps Institution of Oceanography has determined that at least 30,000 people have fallen ill in 2017.

That's just an example of how broad and vast these impacts are. People have the ability to say no to going into the water, but all of us need air to breathe and we have. I have community Members that are falling ill with gastrointestinal illnesses, with upper and lower respiratory illnesses, chronic migraines.

And it really impacts especially our vulnerable population which are seniors and children. There is an area in the Tiquanda River Valley that there is a hotspot where there is man made infrastructure that ironically it was intended to control flooding.

But the but now that is actually exacerbating the issue because it's causing the river to become more turbulent and shoot up into the air. Viruses, bacteria and parasites in addition to toxic gases such as hydrogen sulfide. Evidence has shown that hydrogen sulfide levels have been 166 times above state standards.

So the urgency of this Bill could not be overstated at the county we're putting skin in the game.

We we're putting funding towards a feasibility analysis so if and when this Bill is passed, we can have shovel a shovel ready project to begin removing that infrastructure and begin making a real difference for our constituents in their daily lives. So I appreciate your support and obviously the bill has my full support.

Thank you.

Thank you Madam Supervisor.

Hello Mr. Chair and Members. Kristin Olsen Kate and I'm here to represent the important perspective from rural and agricultural communities and how much they're relying on these Prop $4.

As I'm a lifelong resident of the Central Valley, I used to represent many rural and agricultural communities in elected office and now I advocate for several water agencies up and down the state of California who represent both ag and municipal customers.

While Prop 4 was moving through the Legislature, I also represented the Yurok Tribe's interests in that bond and they are of a very rural geography up in Northern California.

As I'm sure we all agree, it is so important that we do everything we can to get these dollars out of state bank account and into these important infrastructure projects as soon as we possibly can. Proposition 4 directs money toward protecting farmland and enhancing the health of farm and rangeland, particularly through sustainable water usage programs.

Prop 4 ensures more reliable water funding for rural communities, providing confidence to farmers to plan for long term projects. This is more important than ever as the next generation is often not taking over their parents parents farming operations.

But Prop 4 will help ensure that farming remains a viable business and will allow California to continue to be the state that feeds the world. By exempting Prop 4 from the APA, agencies will be able to move safe drinking water projects forward more quickly.

Prop 4 also has funding to support Sigma and the groundwater sustainability agencies that are ready to move forward with projects right now. Getting projects online now helps ensure that these groundwater basins reach their sustainability goals and do so in a way that protects water supply statewide.

Similarly, Prop 4 includes flood protection money which is sorely needed to ensure that we don't have communities devastated like the communities of Planada and Corcoran were back in 2023. Wildfire prevention is another area supported by Prop 4.

A full exemption would enable funds to be deployed more quickly and efficiently, ensuring that protracted administrative processes do not del urgent wildfire risk reduction, landscape health and community protection projects for the health and safety of our communities and to ensure reliable water supplies, sustainable agriculture, wildfire prevention and affordability of water rates.

I urge you to vote yes on Prop 35 or, excuse me, on AB35 by Senator Alvarez.

Thank you so much. Other persons here in this hearing room in support of this measure. Is there anybody in this hearing room? No, there's a. There's a. I'm messing with you. I'm sorry.

Stacy Heaton, Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Hi, good afternoon. Michael Chan with Audubon California and support.

Alex Loomer on behalf of Six Forest Trust and support. Thank you.

Matt Diaz, Cal Forest and support.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, Sonoma Land Trust and the Mojave Desert Land Trust in support.

Good afternoon. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy and on behalf of the Wildfire Solutions Coalition and support.

Good afternoon. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies and strong support.

Good afternoon. Cam Besdick with the Northern California Water Association in support, thank you.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network in support. Thank you.

Jack Wurson from Nassimon on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Padre Dam Municipal Water District in support.

Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Bay Area Council in support.

Janelle Silic on behalf of the American Canadian Community and Parks Foundation and Napa River Oncology Center in support.

Jessica Gauger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies in support.

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

Alex Torres with Golden Bear Strategies on behalf of Perimeter Solutions, Aurora Tech and the Thermalito Water and Sewer District in support.

I'm Mark Henley, California Waterfowl Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Minor on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association, Monterey One Water, Eastern Municipal Water District and Santa Margarita Water District in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tasha Newman on behalf of the California Council of Land Trusts, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, Peninsula Open Space Trust, Big Sur Land Trust and Bolsa Chica Land Trust in support.

Kasia Hunt with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you.

Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Reid Addis on behalf of the Clean Water Natural Resources and Parks Coalition, the Statewide Association of Local Conservation Corps, East Bay Regional Parks District and the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in strong support.

Griselda Chavez on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, Endangered Habitats League, Rails to Trust Conservancy and Save the Bay in support.

Good afternoon. Beth Olasso on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund and Water Reuse California in support. Thank you.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the Land Trust at Santa Cruz County, The Conservation Fund, Save the Redwoods League and Sempervirens Fund and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members, Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of Mission Springs Water District also in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs association and the Fire Districts association of California and support.

Good afternoon. Chair, Members, Doug Houston representing the Sierra Business Council and the Sierra Consortium, along with the California Park and Recreation Society, all in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members, Mark Fenstermaker for Sonoma Water Sustainable Conservation and the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support.

Good afternoon. Kyle Jones with the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and Community Alliance with Family Farmers and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelsey Hinton with Community Water Center for Community Water Center, Clean Water Action, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and Central California Environmental Justice Network in support.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Brenda Bass on behalf of Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair, Members, Brian Sanders of the City of Sacramento in support.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallace on behalf of the California Tahoe Alliance and support.

David Quintananda on behalf of the San Diego County Water Authority, Irvine Ranch Water District, East Valley Water District, Yuba Water Agency and Tree People in support.

Before we go to any potential opposition, it looks like a quorum is present. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We want to thank Assembly Member Macedo for filling in for Assembly Member Flora today. Thank you for joining us. Is there any opposition to this measure here in the hearing room? Seeing none. We'll now turn it back to the dais. Any questions, comments from colleagues? Assembly Member Pellerin?

Well, I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's a great bill and I'd be honored to be added as a co author.

Thank you, Mr. Zabur.

That's. It's not often that we actually see people from every quarter and every kind of interest group all supporting the same bill. So I just want to congratulate you and I think I was already added as author before this. So thank you for bringing this.

Mr. Ellis.

Quick question for the first of all. Senator, Member, thank you for this bill. Supervisor, have a question? What, what air district are you in? Are you in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District? Have they done an assessment?

Yes, I'm part of the board and we just invested a million dollars to expand our air purifier program from 10,000 to 30,000 air purifiers. It's at the point where people need a purifier to be able to breathe.

And you said it was 1,000 times more in hydrogen sulfide.166, which means it's about 16 parts per billion, 160 parts per billion.

It's span between 2,000 and 4,000 parts per billion.

We know that the air quality, what's it called, just the ambient air quality standard is 30, and also then that suggests there's anaerobic digestion from organic matter, is that correct? Absolutely.

So there's, there's biological, but there's also industrial chemical hazards. There's been over a thousand different chemical constituents that have been identified in the aerosolization of the air.

Okay, back to the author. Thank you. I'm all about due process and getting things done now, so good job. Thank you. Thank you.

We have a motion by Mr. Alanis, a second by Ms. Pellerin. Mr. Alvarez, would you like to close?

I will. Thank you. Mr. Chair, again, thank you for allowing us to have this conversation. Thanks again to the Committee staff for helping us get this to where it is at this point.

As you saw and was mentioned by our colleagues, we started with this problem in San Diego and quickly found out it was an issue to people literally in every corner of the state with all sorts of environmental concerns. And I think it's really timely that we move forward.

We have a very wide coalition and want to thank all the Members who are here, obviously our testimony and also really happy to have at the moment 31 co authors from this bill and respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And really great testimony. Madam Supervisor, thank you for joining us today. This bill has a motion, a second and a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll.

we will be adopting the urgency with the amendments. So the motion is that the urgency be adopted, amend and do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That is the first bill to exit the Committee of 2026. Thank you. Thank you.

While we wait for Ms. Wilson. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll on Item number three? Hadwick. zero, do we have a motion, Mr. Schultz? In a second by Macedo. Item three.

[Roll Call

That Bill is out. Do we have a motion on item four?

No motion.

We have a motion by Mr. Schultz. A second by Ms. Macedo. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

And just to clarify, that motion was do pass as amended to Appropriations. We have two authors left. One of them is sitting on the dais with us. Mr. Alanis. Vice Chair Alanis, would you like to present?

I will fill in.

All right, thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I present to you AB333. Let me start off by saying that we'll be accepting the Committee amendments and want to express my thanks to the chair and Committee staff for all the hard work you've put into this. Thank you very much.

The goal of AB333 is to divert over 100,000 tons of glass from landfills, putting it all into productive use by downstream industries that can meaningfully can meaningfully utilize this material.

The bill would establish a 5 million market development payment within the Beverage Container Recycling Fund, capped at $30 per ton to support end users of non container glass products. One way to achieve this is with a product called Ground Glass Pozzlen, which.

Mr. Ellis, you're probably going to know more about that than I will that when mixed with cement and concrete will lower the embedded carbon content of that hard to decarbonize but essential building material.

And interestingly enough, while this process may be new to some of us observing today and learning about it, I was reminded of the similarities of civilizations throughout history that created some of the strongest and longest lasting structures humans have ever seen through their use of natural Pozszlen. Close enough, close enough.

I hope one of these companies that specializes in this venture is Agroplex who is with me today and we'll ask or answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Agriplex strongly supports the shared goals across all stakeholders diverting more glass from landfills and increasing recovery in California. Where our perspectives differ is not on the objective, but on where the true system failures exist and how we can correct them.

The core challenge in California's glass recycling system is not competition amongst end markets. In fact, competition is both healthy and sustainable. As market demands shift between container, fiberglass and other applications, diversified outlets strengthen market resilience and reduce dependency on any single sector.

Rather, the primary systematic failure is upstream a specification and quality bottleneck at the MRF level that causes large volumes of otherwise recoverable glass, particularly CSP, which is ceramic stones, porcelain and mixed color fines, to be treated as disposal material rather than a usable commodity.

That is precisely the intent of AB333 to correct this upstream market failure by creating practical, economical, viable pathways to recover and to keep out of landfills the glass that the current system leaves behind. This is why AB333 is so important.

The bill not only increases glass recovery and diversion from MRFs and landfills, but also reduces disposal and transportation costs while expanding market based revenue opportunities, making California's glass recovery ecosystem more financially viable, scalable and resilient over the long term. AB333 does not divert glass away from bottle to bottle recycling.

It enables recovery of glass that is already being landfilled today, material that is not furnace ready, not acceptable for container or fiberglass manufacturers. Agroplex targets this unrecovered fraction, upgrades it to a supplementary cementitious material, displacing carbon intensive Portland cement while preserving container grade color from manufacturers.

One ton of Agroplex ground glass pozzolan product represents a 95% reduction in carbon emissions compared to a ton of cement produced.

For those reasons, Agroplex respectfully urges your support and asks for a yes vote for AB333 so we can recover Glass recollect, reduce landfill disposal and build a stronger, cleaner, more economically sustainable recycling system for California, one that can serve as a national model for other states and for strengthening recycled markets across all commodities.

Thank you very much. Just for all witnesses, we try to keep the testimony to about two minutes, but if you're with the vice chair, you get a courtesy extra 30 seconds. No worries.

Mr. Chair and Members, Bruce Mignani, on behalf of Mitsubishi Cement Corporation, and I'll be very brief. We are a hard to decarbonize industry and we are always looking for supplementary cementitious materials such as natural pozzlens, ground glass, pozzlen, slag and fly ash to meet the goals of SB 596, which is to be carbon neutral by 2045.

So with that, we ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition to this measure? Come on down.

Good afternoon. Mike Robeson here on behalf of the Glass Packaging Institute. And we're here in opposition and asking for your no vote on AB333. I'm going to try to keep my testimony very short, and to do so, I'll just say this. It is a beverage container recycling program, and it's supported by, through the Beverage Container Recycling Fund.

And this Bill takes, takes that public policy of recycling beverage containers and says, hey, there's some problems with, with, with, with glass.

And instead of fixing those problems and figuring out a way to better recycle and return glass to its rightful upstream, I mean, downstream end user, which is a glass manufacturing plant, which is our client, it says, it just concedes that glass is going to landfill.

And so rather than do something about that and fix the upstream problem as it was referenced, we're that we're just going to pay money to send it downstream to down cycle. So instead of being a recycling program, we become a downcycling program.

And the big problem from my client's perspective, is that our client, the glass manufacturers, they pay fees. They pay processing fees to support this program, which is supposed to make the infrastructure to return the glass back to a glass plant.

And this bill says, well, hey, you pay fees, we're going to take your fees and we're going to give it to those guys. And that's just public policy. And then it's just wrong. And so I'm happy to answer questions. I want to keep my testimony short and let somebody else testify. Thanks.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Kayla Robinson with California's against waste. We greatly appreciate the work by the Committee, the author and the sponsor for the accepted amendments.

We're very supportive of that new direction but we continue to have fiscal concerns and questions based on outdated and contradictory Fund statements released by the Department of Finance and Calacycle as cited in the analysis.

The most recent report from October 2024 on the status of the beverage container recycling Fund says the Fund is operating at a modest surplus whereas the recent governor's budget cites a deficit for 2024-2025.

So while we don't object to the bill moving forward out of policy Committee today we remain opposed unless amended until the Department provides a clearer and current state of the Fund report especially as it relates to CR in glass revenue and expenses. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition Afternoon chair Brian Members of Committee Mike Caprio with Republic Services.

We may remain respectfully opposed measure.

We do appreciate the author staff willingness to accept the amendments to try to continue to address our our concerns. Thank you. Thank you Mike.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair John Moffett on behalf of waste management similar position appreciate the amendments look forward to continuing to work on the Bill. But we have an opposed position on the Bill and print thank you so much.

Will now turn it back to Committee Members questions, comments, concerns. Mr. Ellis. Thank you Mr. I've missed you. Stan.

Are you telling me I'm long winded Assembly Member thank you. I have a question with the opposition.

I understand that recycling and glass is Silica and when you grind it up into a powder you use it as filler and cement and it cuts down all of the sand and agarate and you reduce CO2 emissions, et cetera, et cetera.

I understand the technical benefits of this and I think it's great but I don't follow the money. So when you buy a bottle at the grocery store, do you pay some kind of fee or is there some fee associated like 25 cents a bottle or something?

Walk me through the money because you say that it's coming out of a fund can.

Yes.

Okay. I'm sorry. So. So the. The fund. The fund is a big fund and consumers. Consumers you buy.

Where is this Fund? Is it.

It's at calorie cycle cal.

Recycle. So calorie recycle.

The state of California has this money in a fund from, from combination of of unredeemed deposits from consumers. So you buy a beer bottle and you pay a deposit on it. You pay 5 cent deposit. You're allowed to get that 5 cents back if you don't.

If you put it at the curb and you don't take the five cents, well, the waste hauler gets some fraction of that nickel back. And, and as a replacement for you, the consumer, there's still unredeemed money from that, still from that nickel that goes into the fund.

Also going into the fund are fees that the beverage container manufacturers and their suppliers are paying into the fund. So we, so there, there's.

How do they do that?

We, we pay called a processing fee, and it's a, it's a fee on every bottle sold in California.

When you, when, when you send a bottle to a recycler, do they then go to a. Someone that grinds it, physically grinds it? Are they are paid anything from this fee?

So the recycler. The recycler sends it to a glass processor and the glass processors. If it's col. If it's manufacturer ready, we'll send it back to our client. But they're. What, what, what this Bill highlights is a problem with basically curbside recycling and that. And that, that goes at the curve. Curbside people who.

The bins in front of your house, the, the single bin in front of your house, you throw all your recycled materials, you throw your cardboard, you throw all your recycled material in there. If you don't take it to a center to recycle it.

And so what happens with the glass that gets into that system is it's hard to recover it. And so this Bill acknowledges. It acknowledges that certain amount of glass is hard to recover and ends up at the landfill anyway. Well, we should fix that problem. That problem is what needs to be fixed here.

Rather than concede that there's a problem and try to figure out how to fix it, this Bill says, well, we're not going to fix that problem. Let's just pay somebody else to take it.

Who's somebody else? These guys. Are you paying them to take it?

No, no, no. That's what this Bill, this Bill is going to subsidize the pozzling industry to turn it into cement, which is outside the bottle Bill. So the bottle program is comprised of a whole bunch of stakeholders. That's not the cement industry. A question for the proponent.

Do you charge to take this ground glass?

Yeah, we. We charge for the product. Pozzlon.

You pay for it or you charge for. Charge for it? You charge for it. Okay, so if I can. One more just to close on my. On the question is that.

So, so the glass industry, you know, we pay a fee on the front end with the hope of getting the material back and then we pay again on the back end. So, you know, furnace ready cull it. We, we pay top dollar for that. And, and because we want it back in the fur. Same reasons.

It's like there's a greenhouse gas benefit for every, every ton of recycled glass that goes back into a glass furnace. You get a 6 ton reduction in carbon emissions. And, and, and there's not enough furnace ready cullet in California as it stands today.

And this is, you know, this may not lead to, lead to more, you know, more or less cull it, it just, it just, it just rewards the existing flaws there. There's glass plants in California that have to bring their, bring glass out of Oregon and Arizona to the plants here in California.

We sell a ton of, you know, wine bottles and beer bottles in California. I mean not a ton, I mean actually hundreds of thousands of tons and there's still not enough coming back to the furnace to have to bring it in from other states.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions, Mr. Ellis. Seriously. We, we appreciate you on the Committee. Any other questions, Mr. Zaber?

Yeah, I, I have sort of similar questions. So it seems like there's two sort of sets of issues. One is the fact that there's money. So the money that's in the Fund now, what is that being used for? I mean, what is it supposed to be used for?

I don't, I'm sorry, I don't. If it's to, to improve this, to, to round out the infrastructure, to make the infrastructure, the recycling infrastructure work. So there's a lot of unredeemed money and it supports a whole bunch of things that are all towards a circular economy for all containers, not just glass. But we're talking about glass here.

Yeah. So I guess, I mean, I have concerns about the Bill and I'm not quite sure if the concerns are well founded, but it sounds like what the Bill is doing is it's basically at some level is taking some of the money that is actually being funded by.

I recycled the material that is actually not being the deposits that are not being used by the consumer. Right. And so as part of that actually goes into the Fund. So stuff that's coming off of curbside recycle is going into the Fund. The glass manufacturers all start putting money into the Fund.

And the purpose of the Fund, from what I understand it, is that it's supposed to be recycling.

It's supposed to be supporting our recycling targets for glass recycling and all Recycling, but yes, in this situation for glass recycling.

And so if you're taking money out of the Fund, I think what your argument is, right, is that there's an equity issue and that you're taking money out of a Fund that's supposed to be supporting beverage container recycling and basically using it for what may be another good thing, but it's not part of the program.

Is that really the argument?

That really is the argument. It's the principle. It is a. We have a beverage container recycling program, and now we're going to say it's a beverage container down cycling program.

And then the second issue, if I understand it, is that when you're talking about beverage containers, we have recycled content requirements in the new containers, and there's already a shortage of glass is that of recycled glass. So if you have, I don't know, what's the percentage?

Does that be 50% recycled glass or some percentage for glass made in California?

Glass containers made In California, it's 33%.

So 33% has to be recycled glass. And the other part can be newly manufactured glass. And what I think I'm understanding is that the portion of the glass that needs to be recycled, that there's a shortage of that glass.

And so what we're doing is rather than using money that should be making sure that there's enough glass to be recycled as part of the beverage containers being used for something else. Is that basically your argument?

Yes.

Okay. I mean, I have concerns about the Bill in part because I think we want our glass, our recycling goals to be met. I don't think it's a bad thing. I think what the proponents want.

But I do have concerns if we actually have problems in our recycling program taking money that should be used to fix that and using it for something else, which may be good. And so that's. I have concerns about the Bill because of that.

It seems like there's both an equity issue as well as an issue about whether or not this threatens our recycling programs. So.

Thank you, Mrs. Burn. Any other questions from colleagues?

Just a comment, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Schultz, thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Just wanted to weigh in and say that I have a great deal of respect for the author, and so my inclination is to give you more time to continue working this out. But I did want to echo and partially respond to a question from Mr. Ellis and Mr. Zabur.

From my experience at California DOJ, some of these excess funds in the CRB Fund also go to program Administration. So that that includes paying for the investigative team and the prosecutors that actually go to detect fraud in the system.

So if I was sitting here today as Member of the Appropriations Committee, I do have some fiscal concerns about the proposal and I would perhaps vote differently as a matter of policy. I get that the intent of the Bill is to reduce waste.

I think that there were some, I'll just note for the authors some good suggestions that were in the letter from the Californians Against Waste, some of which was dealt with in the course of the Committee amendments. But I think there were still some things highlighted there that were not addressed in the Committee amendments.

And should this pass out a Committee today, I would strongly encourage the author to look at that. So I will just say for today's vote, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to move it forward as is, but I'm not committing to how I'll vote on the floor if it gets there.

I think this has been an incredibly thoughtful discussion. Any other questions or comments? Senator Pellerin?

So do we have your commitment to work with the opposition to see if there's a.

Well, I, I don't think I've never not worked with opposition or anything. I'm just and I think even the Committee is even going above and beyond with working on I think a lot of the issues and I'm sure we'll be talking about that later as we go down the road.

But I'm pretty sure Appropriations was also part of that. And as far as thinking ahead, thank you.

Seeing no other questions or comments, Mr. Freis Chair, would you like to close?

Yes. This went pretty deep. You know, I just want to bring up the issue that, you know, I heard all recycling, I heard hard to recover the glass. That's all true. I'm sure all of you today probably have a pickle jar that's in your fridge or in your pantry that's not going to get recycled.

It's going to go to a landfill. You have windshields that aren't going to go that are going to go to a landfill or you're going to have the windows that are on your house that are going to do it.

As those who may know me, I'm big on recycling and I'm also big on making sure that we do the right thing. If our recycling program has an excess amount of money that is supposed to be used for recycling, then let's really use it for some recycling.

Even if though they're not going to get that money back on that, on that back end that was brought up. I care about everything else. We, we have our California Goal for the net carbon neutrality by 2045. I think this would help do that.

And if we have to use our funding to work on that and maybe work on a little bit more down the road, then so be it. Let's do it. But I just, I'm happy that now we are taking wine bottles now that we're taking 100% juice bottles.

Now I recycle myself, I go down and I walk it down. Anybody who knows me, I take the bags down there. Anybody's in my office sees recycling bins in my office, I'm big on that. But it, there's still a lot more that we can do again with the jars.

I'm sure you have a glass vase that you had your flowers in that that maybe needs to, that is going to go, that's going to go to a landfill. The recycled glass that we were talking about right now that you're getting the 5 cents for, if it's smashed and it's in the garbage can, they can't use it.

It's been contaminated now. So these, these glass operators can't use that glass now. So what do we do with it? Do we just throw it in the landfill or do we work on another way to find it and make it. We can turn it into concrete.

I was bringing up earlier when I opened talking about civilizations that used this kind of concrete, the Romans, you still see their stuff standing today. So I think we can maybe use it towards that and maybe make our stuff actually last instead of it maybe having a five year shelf life.

Mr. Ellis, thank you for your input as well. He also mentored me a little bit on some of this as well. Just right here. And I still didn't figure out how to say the, did I say it right? Clips say, I'm listening to him say, I'm like I said it wrong again. Big names, big words.

So in closing, I think all of us here care about our futures, care about ways that we can find ways to encourage recycling as far as regular recycling as it goes.

I see people throw glass in the recycling or in the garbage can all the time because one, it's too heavy or it could break and I can get cut and stuff like that will come up. Aluminum cans and plastic bottles.

Yeah, I see that a lot getting recycled, but it's usually the glass that's usually neglected and that's what we have, tons and tons and tons, thousands of tons that just go into the landfill that we're trying to do with this Bill, with taking them out of the landfills. And putting them to good use.

With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Mr. Alanis. You didn't mention Roman coliseums in your opening. That might have changed the conversation here. I think, in General, you've brought up something worthy of a conversation.

Whenever there are funds, excess or otherwise, making sure that they're used the way that is in the best interest of California and the taxpayers of our state is, I think, what we're all interested in. I think Mr. Schultz brought up some important points. And I think, again, this is a conversation worth having.

I don't want to trip you up in the First Committee in the first House. And so this has a do pass recommendation from me. You have a motion by Ms. Macedo. I believe you have a second by Mr. Ellis. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is due. Pass. To Appropriations. Brian.

Aye.

I mean, do pass as amended. To Appropriations. Brian. Aye. Brian, I. Alanis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Connolly. Not voting. Ellis. Ellis. I. Garcia.

Aye.

Garcia, I. Haney. Any? Not voting. Hoover. Cholera. Cholera. I. Macedo. Merzucci. Pelerin.

Aye.

Pelerin. I. Schultz. Schultz. I. Wicks. Zbur.

Well, if every Republican was here, that Bill would be out. Yeah, where are they? But right now, we'll leave it on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? I move second, Ms. Pellerin. And a second by Mr. Schultz.

[Roll Call]

And I've been told Ms. Wilson. Senator Wilson is on her way. She was last seen sprinting from the from the Swing Space, so I imagine her arrival is imminent.

[Roll Call]

So they came. But I actually was like.

Already done. Easy. It's fun when you can do that. Miss Wilson.

Oh, does that count?

Look at that. Would you like to close out our hearing today with AB 643? Whenever you're ready.

I definitely would and I will show you all. I have lots of notes, but I'm going to abbreviate them all the way down to the most essential. And then if you ask a question, I'll give you more.

Okay, so I'm pleased to present AB 643, a Bill that contains a small number of technical and administrative changes in order to authorize a local jurisdiction to include divertic organic material used as a beneficial agricultural amendment towards its recovered organic waste. Procurement target with AB643.

It's narrow and it allows for an agricultural fertilizer product to be added to the two list of procurement options under SB 1333. Sorry, 1383. And there's two conditions that they must have. So I'd like to accept the Committee amendments and I thank the chair and the Committee for working with our office on these improvements.

I have two witnesses today who are going to speak on the importance of this Bill. That's Jason Daforn, the General Manager of Valley Sanitation District located in Indio and Steve Jepson with Clean Water SoCal.

Whenever you're ready. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan. Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present AB643. My name is Jason Dafforn, General Manager, Valley Sanitary District. We are wastewater district located in Indio, California and we serve a population of over 93,000. We provide wastewater collection treatment to residents and businesses within our service area.

AB643 would expand the eligible procurement products for organic diversion credit to utilize to include fertilizers licensed by the California Department of Food and AG.

In 2016, California passed the landmark Bill Senate Bill 1383 to reduce overall emissions and short lived climate pollutants to combat this issue, SB 1383 requires that certain businesses establish plans to divert landfill bound waste. Among organic waste that must be diverted is biosolids.

Agencies providing sanitary service across California are responsible for managing byproducts of sewage process including treatment of solids residuals known as biosolids. Currently, approximately 226,000 tons of biosolids still end up in our landfills across California as of January 1, 2025.

SB 1383 requires that each jurisdict shall procure a quantity of recovered organics waste products that meet or exceed 100% of the recovered organic waste product procurement target. To meet that goal, one pathway is to refine the waste into a nutrient rich and healthy or highly regulated fertilizer material that is licensed by CDFA.

Expanding the procurement eligibility to these these materials will benefit public agencies that choose seek this higher classification for their materials and would allow procurement entities more opportunities to meet their procurement targets by utilizing these locally sourced and sustainable resources.

If we are to successfully meet California's long term climate targets, I humbly request that you vote in support of AB643. Thank you.

Thank you sir.

Good afternoon Chair Bryan and Members of the Committee. My name is Steve Jepsen. I'm the Executive Director for Clean Water SoCal. Clean Water SoCal is a nonprofit organization representing 80 public wastewater and water agencies in Southern California serving around 20 million people in the counties of San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.

Our Members manage over 2 billion gallons of wastewater daily in an environmentally responsible and cost effective manner. Converting wastewater into resources like recycled water, renewable energy, organic residuals, including agricultural beneficial use products.

Expanding the procurement eligibility of organic residual materials will help the success of SB 1383 by providing more opportunities for agencies to meet statewide procurement targets consistent with Calorie Cycle's Zero waste plan. Public agencies need multiple reliable long term pathways for organic residual management. Beneficial uses such as a nutrient rich fertilizer is a priority.

The environment agencies and the public benefit from a closed loop circular economy that includes pathways for diverting organics from landfills for climate benefits, economic reliability of long term pathways for diverted organic products managed locally wherever possible as much as possible is optimum and has many benefits such as reducing energy fuel demands, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, offsetting the need for petroleum based fertilizers and importantly long term affordability for the public.

AB643 provides one more tool in the toolbox to support beneficial use of organic residuals by including procurement eligibility for a nutrient rich highly regulated Fertilizer licensed by CDFA Clean Water SoCal supports this legislation. We appreciate the opportunity to comment today and ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any persons here in support of this measure.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jessica Gauger with California Association of Sanitation Agencies.

Any persons in opposition. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thank you. First, I want to thank the author and her office for their diligent work on this Bill and for engaging with us over the past year. We truly appreciate the productive conversations and the willingness to collaborate with us and work on our several concerns.

Because of that collaboration and the Committee amendments, I think we're very close to reaching an agreement. But we do continue to have one remaining issue, and that is, you know I will agree that biosolids are considered organic waste and they are part of 1383 diversion goals. Our concern is not about diversion, but rather it's about procurement.

And AB643 proposes to allow 1383 procurement credit based on organic waste processed into fertilizer. As you heard the supporters mention, our remaining concern is about what feedstocks are allowed to count and are eligible to generate that credit. So under SB 1383 procurement policy credit is intended to drive demand for newly diverted materials.

This includes things like food scraps and green waste and to support the composting infrastructure that has been invested in across the state to manage those materials, biosolids. While they are organic waste. In contrast, they are not part of the solid waste stream for procurement purposes and have long standing programs, end markets and also infrastructure.

They're already widely composted and land applied across the state. And this is all independent of 1383 procurement requirements. As written, 643 would allow procurement credit to be generated from co-process materials without clearly limiting credit to newly diverted 1383 feedstocks. And that risks expanding procurement credit beyond its original intent and could undermine existing investments in this infrastructure.

These markets have seen nearly $2.3 billion in investment in private investment since 2020. We believe there is a path forward, one that allows for innovation and flexibility, something that we value and that we have supported in the past while preserving the integrity of 1383's procurement policy intent.

So while we have been having very productive conversations with the author's office and the sponsors, the issue remains unresolved and could have significant impact on existing composting investments. And for that reason we must respectfully ask for a no vote today at this time.

Thank you so much. Any other persons here in opposition?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, John Moffatt, on behalf of Waste Management, for similar reasons, we have an opposed position on the Bill. We're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in compost facilities throughout the state to keep that material from going from your home in the landfill.

The procurement targets were intended to be a market development requirement so that that compost, once it got done in our facility, had a place to go. To the extent that you start letting other things apply towards that procurement target that produces demand for compost that we are, that we are creating as mandated by the state.

And to be perfectly blunt, we've already got more than what we can sell even with the procurement targets.

We have a facility that I was just at a couple weeks ago where we're actually giving compost away and we're paying for the trucking to get it out of our facility. So for those reasons.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network. We have a similar position as California's Against Waste and just want to align our comments with those of the witness. And feel, you know, really appreciate the work the author's done and feel that we will be able to reach consensus through this the rest of this year. Thank you.

We'll now turn it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns, Ms. Pellerin.

So on the heels of that, you know, well, first of all, thanks the. Author for being here presenting your Bill. While you continue to work with this. Environmental coalition on limiting the credit to. The historically landfilled materials so that procurement can be aligned with the original tent intent of landfill.

So I will say that we have been in good faith discussion and we will continue to be in good faith discussion to get all the way to where opposition is. I don't know if we'll reach there. I think there is a compromise still yet to be had because biosolids have been historically disposed of in landfills.

It's usually called the alternative daily cover. So if that's the threshold that's already historically happening. And so we know that biosolids that are diverted to compost are currently eligible for the full credit. So this is about clarification. So I'm happy to continue those discussions, but I think a compromise is to be had.

But you had kind of used the words like accept and I'm not there yet. And so I just wanted to be clear on not accepting the full. I don't accept the full position of opposition, otherwise we be settled here today.

But I think there's conversations still to have and I still am open to moving closer to where they are. And I think there Is a compromise still yet to be had.

We spent the entire, you know, this was initially introduced with the thought of a two year Bill in the sense that we were trying to go the regulatory process first and wanted to exhaust that completely before the Bill. And then we did.

But I think that there's still information that we're waiting for from CalRecycle and some technical assistance that will provide greater insight on how far we need to go to where, you know, opposition is. But I want to be honest about.

Okay. I appreciate your continue to work with them. Thanks.

Absolutely.

Mr. Zbur.

I didn't, I didn't get the, the affiliation of the opposition witness. Are you, who are you representing?

I'm so sorry. Californians Against Waste.

Oh, great. Perfect. So, I mean, I have some concerns about that last issue. It sounds like a lot of the issues were that the opposition were worked out in the amendments, but the one that is left, it relates to procurement.

Do you sort of see a path forward given what Assemblymember Wilson said about sort of reaching a compromise on, on what's coming out of sort of the landfill as part of the procurement targets?

Because what I understand the concern is, is that is if you're adding other things to the procurement, you know, pot, obviously that you're basically taking away sort of the use for what's already coming out of the landfill. Isn't that right?

Feels weird to talk and not be able to look at you. So I apologize. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. No, I think there definitely is a compromise to be had.

I think our concern really is that, and I hear you on saying that, you know, the compost that comes out of that biosolids is contributing to gets the full procurement credit. I'm not sure that that's true. It's still something that myself and my team are into and I did talk to your staff a little bit about it.

Really, the concern comes down to making sure that we're maintaining procurement program intent. And you know, you heard from John Moffatt, from Waste Management, making sure that we're upholding our commitments to that composting infrastructure.

So while I think there is an agreement to be made, I think, you know, biosolids for a reason were not included in the procurement program explicitly. And I think there's something to speak to on that and making sure that we're upholding procurement's intent. Does that answer your question?

I think so. I think what you're basically saying is biosolids were not part of the whole procurement pot now, but there is a category of biosolids that are in the landfill that potentially could become part of the program that might be part of a compromise. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. I mean, yes, it's worth discussing. I'm just not sure what that compromise would look like. We just want to make sure that we're not undermining the current procurement program. I understand that some biosolids are landfilled, but there are also a lot of biosolids that are diverted already.

Procurement was designed specifically for food waste and green waste, all of the materials that have been historically landfilled. That's why biosolids were included in the conversation, but they were not included in procurement. So we are absolutely committed to working this out with you and your staff.

I just think maybe there's a little bit of a disagreement on the purpose of procurement and making sure that we're staying aligned on that.

And if you don't mind, through the chair and to my colleague, Zbur. And that's why we're waiting on the technical assistance from CalRecycle, which they've committed to giving and they've given that they've provided technical assistance the whole entire year.

Because like I said, we were originally working through the regulatory process as this affected something that was in my district. And then when we. When they said, no, no, no, this needs to be legislative, technical, then we started. We finished that route through this Bill.

And so we're trying to align with the original intent of the, you know, the current procurement policy. And so once we get that, that will guide where we'll go in terms of to deal with this final issue. But we are awaiting that and.

But wanting to progress the Bill with where we've gotten to agreement then with that final item. Figure that out before we. As we work through the rest of the legislative process. But you have my commitment, for sure.

Yeah, it sounds like that there's a need for additional discussion. And obviously, I think we all share the goal of making sure that the infrastructure investments that have been made are not undermined by the Bill and appreciate being honest about where you are, but also being willing to work with the opponents.

Absolutely. I think we're aligned on the intent just how as we're not there yet. And that's okay. Absolutely.

Assembly Member Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to express my gratitude towards the author for working with opposition.

It looks like there's been a lot of great work done, and it looks like everyone is in agreement that more work needs to be done, but also that everyone needs to kind of go back to their corners and kind of wait for some more data to determine where that compromise could be.

And so I certainly want to give you the opportunity to be able to do that. And so I'm happy to move the Bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Ellis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Assemblymember, I have a question. Biosolids is a very generic term. So working in the industry for 30 some years, there are biosolids from digesters in sewage treatment plants and in refineries in industry and dairy. Can you be more specific what you're calling biosolids?

Go ahead, go ahead. I'll give it over. I was going to pull out my little technical.

Sure. What we're referring to with biosolids are biosolids that are generated from human waste treatment plants.

So wastewater treatment plants was in the.

Sewage plants and generally they come in a few different types, depend on the level of treatment. There's class B, highest in nutrient, least treated class, a little lower in nutrient, more treated, class AEQ, a lower nutrient, even higher treated. And the level of treatment corresponds to the type of uses to maintain safety.

For humans, which is why we call it biosolids.

So on that note, you say there's three let three classes. And can you tell me like give me an example of a constituent that would make one a class A and one a class B.

It depends on their location, the size of the plant, challenges they have had or not had with management of the biosolids. Some agencies want to have it be very easy to truck away the biosolids and they might have extra energy or cheap energy based on where they're located.

So they will do more treatment, less water, lighter hauling, broader customer base. Typically the higher level of treatment, the broader application. You're talking mostly centrifuge solids. It could be belt press, centrifuge centerfrost, a number of treatment methods.

Back to the regulatory question. What regulatory process did you go through to try to get this changed?

It was through Cal Recycle, seeing if they could do it through their regulatory processes there. They do their own administrative review based on our legislation to implementation. And so we went through them to see if this, if this needed legislation. If we could just do it through their administrative review process as we navigated.

Because this started with an issue in my district with are there not exemptions. For recycle and for actually fertilizer beneficial reuse?

I don't know exemptions would apply. Do you want to introduce yourself to the. This is part of our witness.

Sorry. Jim Dunbar, General Manager for Lystek International. We're in Assembly Women's Wilson's district. So the question has. Restate the question, please.

Are there not exemptions for recycled reuse for these biosolids?

There are exemptions for use, but the procurement is not covered. And that's really what the intent of the Bill is, to broaden the procurement aspect so that entities, jurisdictions that do divert their material have more options to procure back products that are made from those diverted materials.

Are you guys addressing PFAS as well?

This Bill does not address that.

No

I guess back to my question. The ABC plant depends on the amount of contaminants, I would assume. No, it does not.

None of those treatment processes deal with PFAS.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

I could add one more piece of information.

Maybe it'll come up in this final question. Mr. Muratsuchi?

Actually, it probably won't, because I just want to say that. Ms. Wilson, I appreciate. I understand this is a district issue that you've been working on. I just want to align my concerns with the opposition, but I'll be voting aye today to make sure you have an opportunity to work with the opposition.

I think I heard commitments. You have to work with that. So I just want to make that clear. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion on this measure. Move the Bill, Mr. Zbur. And a second by Mr. Haney and a third by Mr. Kalra. Ms. Wilson, would you like to close?

I appreciate the conversation, the discussion, the witnesses who've been here to testify, and of course, the chair and the Committee for the Amendments. And you know, I will echo my sentiments that I will continue to work with opposition on figuring this out, and especially after getting the technical assistance from CalRecycle.

We appreciate you for taking the amendments, moving to dry weight, working with the opposition. I think you're going to find the landing spot here. And it has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, can we go back and call the roll for absent members? Perhaps we should start with Mr. Alanis's Bill. No, you can start from the top.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Muratsuchi. That Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill's out.

[Roll Call]

That concludes the first natural resource hearing of 2026. Adjourned.