Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

I turn on my mic and the other mics. Welcome to the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. If sergeants can please call the absent members? We're gonna be hearing 11 measures today. Four of those measures are in consent.

Our first file item, AB 1795, Assembly Member Gipson, is a Special Order of Business. Real briefly, 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 also registered with the committee as well. Primary witness testimony is limited to two witnesses in support, two in opposition.

Each witness will have two minutes to give their testimony. And we ask that all additional witnesses limit-- come up to the mic at the right time, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. I'll also note that we are accepting written testimony through the Position Letter Portal on the committee's website. So thank you. It looks like we don't have a quorum at this point.

We will serve as a subcommittee in the meantime. And with that, why don't we move to File Item One? As previously indicated, this is a Special Order of Business. Welcome, Assembly Member, if you wanna come up. And this will be for AB 1795. I'll also note that we're joined today by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Welcome. Whenever you're ready.

Wanna say, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you for allowing me to present this very important measure, Assembly Bill 1795. I wanna start off by thanking the chairman and also his committee staff for working with my team to making this bill that's before you better. Assembly Bill 1795 established a uniform statewide standard for inspections, testing, and remediation, residential property damage by smoke exposure for wildfire.

California has experienced record-breaking wildfire, including devastating Eaton and Palisades Fire, which has destroyed thousands of homes and left many contaminated by smoke and other hazardous substance.

Smoke damage is a crisis for thousands of wildfire survivors who are afraid--who are afraid--to go home because of toxic contaminations. Right now, there are no consistent or enforceable standards for how smoke damage is to be tested or cleaned. As a result, many survivors see themselves-- see their selves' insurance claims delayed, reduced, or denied altogether.

After wildfire recoveries should not depend on homeowners' ability to navigate through complex insurance disputes while their lives are already turned upside down. Insurance companies are required to restore homes to their pre-loss conditions, but without clean rules--clear rules, excuse me--that process is inconceivable and often unfair.

Today, there are no minimum requirements. No minimum requirements: homeowners, how homes are inspected, how smoke contamination is tested, when homes is to be considered safe, or who are qualified to do the work. With absence, these standards, inconsistent insurers practices, homeowners, and tenants face uncertainties about whether their homes are even safe to reenter.

This bill would create a comprehensive statewide framework to ensure consistent science-based handling of smoke damage claims by establishing--watch this--a science-based health-driven standards for inspections, testing for restoration of smoke-damaged homes, creating a uniform insurance claims handling practices and required restoration protocols, developing a health-based guidelines to determine when a home is safe for families to return to a place they call home, designating the appropriate state and local agencies to implement enforcing enforcement to these standards, provide implements to provide immediate relief by allowing survivors to rely on local public health standards for smoke testing and restore statewide standards while this is being finalized.

California would be the first state to create a standard base in public health and science, serving as a nation's model if Assembly Bill 1795 is passed. 1795 established a clear standard and rules so homeowners are protected and survivors can safely move back into their home that they're-- that is restored, going back to their home so they won't have to be faced with health risk in their place they call home. I am happy to introduce the Honorable Ricardo Lara, who served as our state Insurance Commissioner, who will speak in support of this measure.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Connolly and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of AB 1795, the Smoke Damage Recovery Act, a measure I'm proud to sponsor. I wanna thank Assembly Member Gipson for authoring this important consumer protection bill. As you know, California's wildfire reality is now year-round.

Fires are larger, faster, and more destructive than ever. The Eaton Fire in Altadena and the Palisades Fire in Palisades alone destroyed or damaged more than 16,000 homes. These two fires fundamentally were different from what California has historically experienced. These are more-- these weren't remote forest fires. They were two of the largest, most destructive urban interface fires in our state's history.

They burned directly through dense neighborhoods, exposing thousands of homes to unprecedented levels of smoke, soot, ash, and toxic combustion byproducts. We never in the department have seen smoke damage of this magnitude in an urban setting. And as you recall, Mr. Chair, many of the survivors have told me they'd much rather have had a total loss than have to have dealt with the smoke damages. That is unfortunately still going on today.

The scale and the proximity of these fires created indoor contamination that survivors, insurers, and even environmental health experts have struggled to assess because no statewide standards exist today, as our author was saying.

Today, California has no enforceable statewide standards for testing or remediation of smoke damage. As a result, survivors face inconsistent claims handling, denials, and disputes over what must be tested, what levels are safe, and when a home is habitable. My department has received more than 2,000 smoke-related complaints and recovered over 250 million for policyholders to date, but without standards, we are operating in a patchwork. To address this, I convened the Smoke Claims and Remediation Task Force last summer.

Again, I wanna remind the committee, this is a health and safety issue. This is not an insurance issue for us. We at the department are not the experts here. This is why we convened this task force. Bringing together consumer advocates, industrial hygienists, restoration experts, public health experts, and insurers, the task force identified significant gaps in science, testing protocols, and claims practices, and AB 1795 directly addresses those gaps by placing responsibility with the appropriate state agencies.

It creates the first statewide science-based sampling and test standards for smoke-damaged homes nationwide by requiring CalEPA, in coordination with other agencies, to issue guidance by June 30th, 2027. Until statewide standards are issued, AB 1797 ensures that today's survivors are not left waiting. This is very important. If a local agency issues guidance with specific sampling, testing, or screening standards for a wildfire, that guidance applies immediately to any open, pending, or disputed claim. I cannot emphasis this enough.

This is one of the most important components of this bill. Survivors have been very clear with me. They cannot wait years for statewide standards while their homes remain contaminated and their claims remain stalled. They want to know what happens in the meantime and what happens when the next fire occurs. AB 1795 gives them that answers.

It empowers local public health and environmental agencies to act right away, using their expertise to establish enforceable protections while the state develops a comprehensive statewide approach. This ensures that survivors have real science-based standards governing their claims now, not someday, not years from now. The bill also ensures that wildfire-specific public health and environmental guidance applies to all small claims from that event, ending insurer-by-insurer discretion.

It also protects families from being forced back into unsafe homes by prohibiting insurers from terminating a consumer's additional living expense until a home is cleared for habitation under the established guidance and establishes a 30-day inspection requirement to prevent delays that families are in limbo among other provisions.

It further requires insurers to pay actual cash value within 30 days of inspection with interest if 30-- after 30 days, to pay any undisputed claim amounts within 15 days of the insured, signing a remediation contract with interest after 15 days.

Finally--the other unique aspect of this bill--it's finally gonna require appropriate agencies to develop training and certification programs for adjusters, public adjusters, industrial hygienists, restoration contractors, and laboratories, ensuring qualified professionals are making decisions about the safety of California's homes. In closing, AB 1795 is about restoring certainty and safety for families who have been already endured the trauma of wildfire.

When thousands of Californians are displaced by small contaminated homes, they should not be left navigating inconsistent insurer practices or paying out of pocket just to provide-- just to prove their homes are unsafe. The bill replaces confusion with enforceable standards, replaces delay with clear timelines, and replaces inconsistent claim handlings with science-based requirements that every insurer must follow.

The bill ensures that when disaster strikes, Californians can rely on a fair process, a safe path home. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I have Deputy Commissioner Tony Signorelli to answer any technical questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have any other members of the audience in support of the bill? Come on up to the microphone.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guansona, here on behalf of the City of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, in support.

Great. Do we have any opposition? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee, Commissioner, Assembly Member. I'm Allison Adey, here on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, in respectful opposition to 1795. Smoke claims have become a difficult issue over the past few years as the impacts of climate change cause larger and more urban adjacent fires, particularly the LA fires in 2025. As the Commissioner mentioned, given the complexity of smoke within insurance claims, CDI convened a smoke claims task force in the summer of 2025.

The question posed to the group was how to establish what is covered by an insurance policy for smoke damage following a wildfire, what should be tested, who should do the testing, and what safe level should be.

The various experts that presented to this task force had diverse opinions on the right way to address this complicated issue. While we agree this is an area that desperately needs greater guidance, clarity, and predictability to provide peace of mind to homeowners and adequate notice of expectations for insurers, this bill has not yet struck the balance. We are working with the author and with the department on this bill to find a place that provides real and sufficient consumer protections but does not exacerbate an already struggling market.

Availability and affordability have been used as mantras over years in efforts to bring the insurance market back to a healthy place. Many homeowners have stated that they understand prices are going to go up but just want to be able to access admitted carriers.

However, increasing costs must be pragmatic to ensure that the market recovers and there is such access. The approach this bill takes creates broad geographic zones to apply presumptions of harm that are not supported by the existing professional and technical guides for industrial hygienists. It also uses terms that do not align with the existing insurer obligations and contract language. Some insurers reviewing these proposed changes and the implied obligations that they carry have anticipated that in urban environments, this could mean billions of additional exposure dollars per carrier.

If this issue remains unaddressed, the increased exposure risk will increase individual policyholders' expenses across the state and may cause some carriers to reevaluate returning to the market at all. We're committed to continuing to work with the author and the department on finding a productive landing spot that addresses heightened consumer protections without harming insurance affordability and accessibility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, and good afternoon, Assembly Member and Commissioner. My name is Viveka Ray-Mazumder. I'm an organizer with LA Voice. I'm also part of Eaton Fire Residents United, but today, I'm here as a fire survivor. My parents are in their seventies and they live in West Altadena.

They bought their home just 15 months before the Eaton Fire, after years of renting in Altadena. Half the homes on their street burned down that night. We returned to find that theirs was somehow still standing, but the moment we stepped inside, we knew something was wrong. My dad, who has a heart condition, started coughing and struggling to breathe. That was the first sign.

Just because the soot was invisible didn't mean the toxins weren't there. Since then, every interaction with their insurance company has been a battle. When the remediation crew arrived, they asked my parents, where would you like us to clean? As if my parents were supposed to be the experts. It quickly became clear that the crew didn't know what chemicals they were cleaning for and didn't have the right tools to do so.

We learned this the hard way. After the first cleaning, insurance cut off my parents' alternative living expenses, which forced them back into their home. Immediately after moving back in, they started getting sick. My dad's heart symptoms worsen and our beloved dog developed cancer. My brother reviewed the test results and discovered that what we had all feared. The home had been cleared, even though lead levels remained far above safe limits established by experts.

Yet my parents' insurance company refused to cover further remediation, insisting the house was clean, likely relying on IICRC guidelines based on sight and smell rather than the chemical results that proved otherwise. My parents can't afford to pay for more remediation out of pocket. My brother called and told my parents that as long as the house still tested positive for toxins, he would never feel comfortable bringing his two-year-old son, their grandson, back inside.

After everything they endured since the fire, that was the call that finally broke them. That home is the heartbeat of our family. It was supposed to be the last place my parents ever lived, the place where they got to watch their grandchildren grow up in this final chapter of their lives, and this Thanksgiving, for the first time, we didn't have anywhere safe to go as a family. Now my parents are trapped in a home too toxic to live in and too toxic to sell.

All their money is also trapped in the house and I'm terrified my dad's never going to be able to retire because they're draining their savings just trying to make the home safe. I have a deep fear of further entrenching an economic divide and recovery where the ability to return home safely becomes a matter of personal wealth rather than a matter of right.

I implore you to listen to the voices of those directly impacted. My family is not the exception or the rule. Seniors, people of color, immigrants, families with young children are living this every day. On behalf of my family and hundreds of other families in the same position, we urge the committee to amend 1795 accordingly. EFRU has the set of amendments, and we urge you to amend AB 1795 accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you, and very sorry to hear about that. Further opposition in the room to this bill, come on up.

Mark Sektnan with American Property Casualty Insurance Association. I wanna associate my comments with those of my colleague from the Personal Insurance Federation. California APCIA; also served on the task force. Thank you.

Hi. Dawn Fanning with Eaton Fire Residents United. On behalf of my organization, 300 residents, over 15 other organizations, we oppose unless amended. And you have our letter. Thank you.

Thanks.

Nicole Maccalla. I'm the Director of Assessment and Evaluation at Kaiser School of Medicine. I'm also the Director of Research for Eaton Fire Residents United and we oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, we're gonna bring it back to committee members for questions, comments. Not seeing any.

Well, I just had one quick question, and maybe you addressed it. I'm just trying to follow along. Who determined how the zones were gonna work? That was after the task force? Did I have that right or-- because there's some question that maybe it should have been CalEPA that does that-- determine-- were they taken into account? I know you're gonna have some regs after the fact, but thank you for answering.

Yeah. Thank you. Tony Cignarale, Deputy Commissioner, Consumer Services for Department of Insurance. To answer your question, there's two potential ways in which the zones are created. Ideally, the preference would be for CalEPA or CAL FIRE-- you know, an entity with authority to go in, do random testing, develop a smoke exposure zone, which is what's called in the bill, for each of these large fires.

However, this bill provides those agencies the ability to do that. It doesn't require it. That would be something that-- if it needs to be required, that'd be something going forward we'd have to look at. So in the alternative was to initially create default zones in the event that these wildfire-specific zones aren't created by CalEPA or CAL FIRE.

And those zones were created in-- their default zones were created in a way starting off with the AIHA parameters, which is six miles from the burn zone, et cetera, et cetera, but they only have-- that guide only has two in in essence, two zones that handle things differently, and the second zone was six miles to, you know, infinity. And we didn't feel-- you know, the Commissioner and us and others didn't feel that two zones was sufficient.

So that's why three zones were created, one similar to the initial zone that's technically in the guide, but then six miles out to the moderate zone, and then six miles beyond that would be the low-impact zone. And so that's why they were created to not require CalEPA to do it in every instance, but if they do do it, that would supersede the default zones that are described in the bill.

Just a follow-up question? So how-- I guess, how does CalEPA determine whether it's gonna step in? If you have permissive language in the bill, like, why not make it mandatory? Seems to be some confusion there.

Well, the thing is, we're trying to create some sort of parameter so that we can allow CalEPA to-- in their judgment, if they create with-- come up with a different completely system, that they're allowed to do that, but still in the bill allow for some permissible language to allow them to create some sort of framework there in place to try to create some sort of guardrails so that it isn't just open-ended, so that we can create some sort of boundaries for these potential, you know, fires that may continue.

Or if they--

But ultimately, CAL FIRE will have-- you know, again, it's giving CAL FIRE the wherewithal to be able to come up with whatever they feel just.

One more question. So would the benefits of not mandating CalEPA to do it mean that people that need immediate relief, they'll have these regs that they can fall back on?

I'm just sending you the softball, but I'm assuming that's what people are thinking.

Correct, which is--

Well, the important thing is to also-- and the key component of this bill is because we've heard-- I've heard directly from the survivors is, look, we want a bill that's gonna take up-- that's gonna be able to give the local governments some sort of authority to act now so that they don't have to wait another year or until the statewide standards are created.

And so we're trying to come up with some sort of-- you know, some sort of aid for them now and give the local authorities some sort of guidelines as well to be able to come up with something and not leave it open-ended so that then we don't run into the issue where you have folks, you know, soliciting folks, you know, miles out, right? And so we're trying to create some sort of pair-- some sort of guidelines, but ultimately, CalEPA will be the ones that come up with the statewide standards.

Thank you. And I also wanted to thank you, Assembly Member, for taking on this issue. I think your testimony really went to the heart of it, and that is the urgent need for health-based standards to make sure people can safely return to their home. I think that's underscoring this. As we can see from the discussion today, it's a complex issue with a deeply human and personal foundation to it as well.

I think it's good we have many voices at the table. Appreciate your willingness to continue to engage with stakeholders. I know we're early in the process. I imagine there will be some intensive discussions. I think the department has indicated a willingness to do that as well as the bill moves forward. It does enjoy an aye recommendation today from me, and would invite you to close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comments and appreciate the robust conversation. I wanna thank those who came out and spoke, whether in opposition or whatever. I think this is healthy as this policy continues to move through. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting and speaking with survivors just this week who I was invited to come and and actually go to a home who suffered smoke damage.

And their-- people's homes and their lives have been turned upside down. Los Angeles--which, I am a native of Los Angeles, in Los Angeles County, which I still live--we all rest-- we all went there, and as policymakers, to support our colleagues who represent those particular areas. I have a family member who live in Altadena: 20 Grammy Award winner Maxine Waters--not Congresswoman Maxine Waters, but the vocalist Maxine Waters. There's more than one Maxine Waters.

She's with Barbra Streisand-- you know, sung backup for Barbra Streisand, Michael Jackson, et cetera. She lost everything. So this is no respective person. We understand exactly because we've walked it, we lived it, we-- with people. We went to churches with people who've lost everything. We heard testimonies. And so this is a way to want to not remain silent on the things that matter, as Dr. King said, and this is our way of stepping up.

We wanna thank our Insurance Commissioner for one-- being, one, Johnny-on-the-spot to being a very proactive policymaker in this space. And to you and your testimony, I'm sorry that you cannot be at the place in your home for Thanksgiving and for holidays, but let me assure you, that's the reason why we have this policy in this bill right now.

To have unqualified individuals asking you where should they clean, in this bill, they won't have to ask where they clean because they know exactly where to clean, what to do.

So to leave any questions to anyone's mind, we wanna make sure this time next year, if something was to happen, to jump off, that we have the most professional people, because we will have standards and guidelines and protocols in place so that it won't leave anyone questioning or any doubt in anyone's mind because there will be a uniform standard in place so that when people walk into their home, that they will walk in their home knowing that their health won't be placed at risk.

And that's the reason why 1795 exists. And we welcome stakeholders. We welcome anyone to have suggestions to contact my office. We don't have a closed door. We open our our eyes and our ears.

And for those who have already spoken to me, what you've spoken, it's not lost on me. We wanna make sure we get it right this time because the world is watching us. Other states are watching us, and we're glad that we're leading the way, and we wanna make sure that when we have a standard that we can model, the rest of the nation can follow California. I respectfully ask an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Before we take a motion and second-- and by the way, we will be doing it on urgency and then the bill. Let's do a quorum.

For the purposes of establishing a quorum, [roll call]. We have quorum.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on urgency?

Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, we can do it concurrently? Okay. Let's do it concurrently. I know. I was being old school.

And motion for the bill itself.

Yeah. And urgency on the bill. Yep. Okay. We have a motion and second. Please take the roll.

All right. This is File Item Number One: AB 1795, authored by Assembly Member Gipson. The motion is do pass as amended to the Insurance Committee with urgency. [Roll call]. We have four on urgency and four on the bill.

The bill is out. We'll keep the roll open.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That's fine. Okay. Good.

Yeah. Okay. Mister Alanis, come on up. It's file item three, AB1612. Welcome.

Thank you.

It's got a motion right out of the box. Oh. How about a second? Thank you. We'll wait and hear about it.

Yeah. Let's see. Alright. Okay. Whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to the committee members and, obviously, the committee staff. Thank you very much. AB 1612 was introduced to address a growing and urgent issue facing law enforcement agencies. The increasing volume of dangerous controlled substances like fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin being seized across the state. There is a broad consensus that these substances pose serious risk and must be handled and disposed of safely, securely, and effectively.

However, following the closure of California's last in state incineration facility in 2024 in my district, agencies have been left without a clear or uniform pathway for disposal. As a result, law enforcement has been forced into a patchwork of inadequate alternatives, including prolonged storage that exposes officers to potential lethal substances, costly and risky risky out of state transport, and disposal methods that are less secure and more harmful to the environment.

Simply put, there has been no consistent guidance or statewide support for handling these hazardous materials once they are no longer needed as evidence. AB1612 addresses this gap by establishing a coordinated, centralized process authorizing law enforcement officers to transfer controlled substance to the Department of Justice, which can then oversee their proper disposal. This approach helps protect officers, evidence staff, maintains the integrity of chain of custody, and provides a practical, responsible solution to a growing public safety challenge.

I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

And it looks like you have a witness.

I have technical questions here.

Technical. Okay. Great. Anyone else in support of the bill? Seeing none, how about opposition?

Great. With that, why don't we bring it back for any questions, comments? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for bringing the bill forward. We agree it's important to ensure that these controlled substances are managed safely, particularly, given the timing of the amendments last week.

There will likely be further conversations on the bill. So just please keep the committee and staff in the loop. With that, would you like to close?

I just wanna thank you, Mister Chair and your staff. Obviously, not many people knew this problem was a problem, and and everybody's doing what they can to help. So I really appreciate that, and I ask for an aye vote.

And this does have an eye recommendation. Do we have a motion and second on 1612? Motion you did? Okay. Second by the vice chair.

Let's call the roll.

Alright. This is file item three, AB1612, authored by Assemblymember Alanis. The motion is do passed to assembly public safety committee. Connelly?

[Roll call]

We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Thanks. You wanna present? Yeah.

Absolutely. Let's do it.

I know he's just out in the forest.

Take your time.

I'll get cozy and Right. Terrific.

File item nine, AB2322. Assemblymember Papan.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB2322C. So AB2322 creates a new definition for commercial, industrial, or in or institutional site to clarify which facilities are subject to municipal stormwater permits. Under the federal clean water act, local governments have been delegated the responsibility to collect and treat stormwater runoff.

The stormwater board and nine regional water boards, they issue municipal separate storm sewer permits or MS four permits to govern how cities and counties can reduce their stormwater pollution.

Stormwater carries contaminants that are often the result of parking lots that have lingered heavy lingering heavy metals, trash, microplastics on their surface, which can seriously harm local water quality. To reduce stormwater pollution from large facilities, m s four permits include post construction requirements. That means that for each new or redeveloped commercial, industrial, or institutional, called CII sites, the municipalities required to construct stormwater capture infrastructure. Think like Costco and bio swells where you park, things like that.

However, California lacks clarity around what is counted as CI as a CII site.

These facilities are defined differently across 12 different municipal separate stormwater sewer systems, creating a patchwork of enforcement that doesn't capture all the worst polluters. AB 2322 helps standardize the definition of CII sites in three ways. First, the bill specifies that only privately owned parcels are included within the definition. Second, the bill bases the definition of commercial, industrial, and institutional, on county land, excuse me, county assessor land use codes.

And the third thing it does is the bill excludes all residential facilities, including those that are located on parcels that are assigned as mixed use.

So by clearly defining CII sites, we can ensure that existing MS four permits are applied accurately and fairly across California and, hopefully, effectively as well. So with me to testify on behalf of the bill is Sean Bothwell from the California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Good afternoon, Chair,Ccommittee Members. Sean Bothwell, on behalf of California Coastkeeper. As the assembly member said, we have 12 municipal stormwater permits in California. All of those permits require municipalities, to require post construction requirements. So, as was said, think about a a new development parking lot, where you engineer the parking lot so that you're capturing stormwater because of the new impervious surface that's been put in place.

It also requires municipalities to do inspections of CII facilities and to enforce against illicit discharges. The only problem is there are 12 of them across the state, and each of these permits describe CII as something different, under each permit. There's not one consistent, definition throughout the state. So this not only creates inconsistency from region to region. So if you have multiple businesses in different regions, you might be, you might be part of CI, and sometimes you might not.

But it also creates, a gray area within the region itself. Because the term CI can be vague, different municipalities can interpret that differently. And so they may be inspecting some sites that they're either not supposed to be or are supposed to be and they're not aware. Things like a small gas station, for example, falls into this gray area. Mixed mixed development, residential, public versus private.

Those are some of the issues that have came up in these permits in the past, and this is a fair fairly straightforward, simple fix, just to provide consistency. It doesn't expand any of the post construction requirements. It just makes, the definition consistent across the state. That I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any audience members in support of the bill? Seeing none. How about opposition? Also seeing none, it looks like there was none on file.

Yeah. Just just a bit of a two year ago. Not opposition. You know, appreciate continued conversations with the author. On the on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association, you know, while we we understand the intent of the bill to create consistency, sometimes those, you know, local regional permit conditions that are specific to the region actually, you know, do provide, you know again, they they probably cover for the specifics within that region, and they're necessary to provide that flexibility.

So we wanna continue, you know, working with the attend of the author. There's a lot going on right now with permits, and, you know, we're at the table on that conversation. So, look forward to continuing those conversations. But, at at this point, just wanted to to share that one concern. Thank you.

And Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities. We just wanted to register that. We've been reached out to by the author's office, and we're very appreciative of that to continue to work with the author and the sponsors on this bill as existing MS4 permit holders. So thank you so much.

Great. Seeing none others, would you like to close?

Oh, just respect for the question. I know

Yes. There is a committee member out there. That's right. I didn't have any Vice chair.

I just, I just kinda wanted to mimic what the the person in opposition said that my concern is that we have 12 different districts. And logistically and and scientifically, there's so many different areas that each storm water in these basins, they're set up to handle each of the the the components that come from these different districts. And I just wanted to know how that would be addressed by one size fits all.

Well, I don't think the remedy is what we're proposing. We're actually just proposing who would be subject to some sort of remedy. But I'll defer to my capable witness.

Yeah. I I think the regional boards have all the discretion in the world to take local watershed factors into place. I would argue a small gas station in one region is probably creating just as much pollution as a small gas station in another area. And so to keep that consistent so that they've had the same requirements for, like, illicit discharges. No one's allowed to give illicit discharges, and so to make sure that that's just consistent across the board.

I'll also say that the definition that we've came up with is tied into the local land use codes. And so no one knows those local land use codes better than the the municipalities that are liable under this permit for doing those permit conditions. And so rather than take vague permit terms, tie it to the land use code so that we're just we just know who who needs to be inspected and who doesn't.

But as for the the discretion of the water boards to take into account everything from water standards to monitoring, that type of stuff, that's all still within the discretion of the regional board. Thank you.

We're on AB2322. Do you

Oh, man. I'm sorry.

Any no questions?

You have my permission.

No. I have no time.

Okay. Great. Why don't we go ahead and close that?

I respectfully reqest an aye vote.

Thank you. Great. At this time, do we have a motion?

I need the motion.

Okay. I wasn't I just thought

it wasn't what you're asking for. So

Alright. How about a second?

Second.

Motion and second. If we can call the roll.

This is file item nine AB2322 offered by assembly member Papan. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. [Roll call]

That matter is out. We'll keep the roll open. Perfect timing. Assemblymember Rodriguez, come on up.

Yeah. Yeah. I have

So be File Item Seven: AB 2245.

Ready?

Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for the opportunity to present AB 2245. I also wanted to thank the committee and staff and stakeholders who have worked with us on this bill. We will be accepting the committee amendments. AB 2245 establishes a responsible framework to improve the collection and recycling of vehicle lubricant products and their containers that are currently not captured under existing programs.

The bill creates a producer's responsibility program that builds on California's existing recycling infrastructure and aligns with the framework already established in SB 54.

By leveraging certified collection centers, household hazardous waste facilities, and existing used oil haulers, the bill strengthens our ability to safely collect and recycle these materials while minimizing new costs and bureaucracy. AB 2245 also ensures producers help fund and manage a system while supporting local governments that play a key role in collection and recycling. Here with me to testify--

Oh, wait. They're coming up. Jammed up in the elevator.

Take your time. We'll--

Okay. Yeah. I'm just waiting for them--

We'll wait till you have a couple witnesses. Okay. Great.

It'll be Tristan Steichen with NLCRC and the sponsor of the bill, and Heidi Sanborn with National Action Stewardship Council. And then also in the audience is David Lawes, the operator of Canada's Used Oil EPR program, who is available for any technical questions on how the program operates in British Columbia.

Fantastic.

Welcome.

Welcome. Thank you, Chair Connolly and members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Tristan Steichen. I'm the Executive Director of the National Lubricant Container Recycling Coalition. We're the sponsors of the bill.

The NLCRC is a technical coalition of value chain companies committed to developing a national program for collection and recycling of lubricant packaging. Our solution is modeled after the British Columbia program, Interchange Recycling, an independent solution for lubricants. As of 2024, their accessibility rate is 99%, and the container collection rate is 89%. So best in class. We're talking with you today because we're seeking a legislative pathway to allow a program like Interchange to be executed in California.

We need a separate solution because the packaging is considered hard to recycle. It cannot be commingled with other curbside collections due to the contamination issues with the other products covered by SB 54.

Since last year, we've been working diligently with other stakeholders to accommodate amendments, and some of the key areas we focused on are narrowing the scope of covered products to ensure no overlap with other programs, such as SB 54, the Used Oil Recycling Program, ensuring that the program covers collection, utilizing the existing infrastructure that's already there, including HHW facilities, certified collection centers, and businesses, and finally, creating a PRO reconciliation process between the different PROs to address confusion around reporting or misreporting and other issues.

We still remain committed to the ongoing negotiations and discussions with the stakeholders to address any remaining concerns, but given the progress that we've made over the past year, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on 2245 today. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. My name is--Chair Connolly and members--my name is Heidi Sanborn. I was the adviser to the chair of the Old Waste Management Board. I've been talking trash basically for 35 years, and I was a past chair of the California Recycling Commission from 2020 to 2022, and I'm the current director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council.

So bottom line is I've been doing this for a very long time, this policy of extended producer responsibility. I truly believe in it. And for those who don't know me, again, I'm called the Godmother of EPR. I passed the first EPR bill here in California with Ira Ruskin in the Assembly in 2008.

I believe Josh was part of that a long time ago. And many more bills have come--mattresses, carpet, paint, so many more. So we've learned a lot. But today, I'm really delighted to be here in support of a bill that is not sponsored by us. It's actually sponsored by the industry itself.

And as chair of the Recycling Commission in 2020, our very first policy recommendation to the Legislature was to implement EPR framework for household hazardous waste and the toxic products. This bill moves us closer to that goal in getting some of those hazardous products dealt with. Not every product needs an EPR solution, but lubricants and their packaging do. As one of the negotiators of SB 54, my goal was to exclude packaging for household hazardous waste products from being included with food-grade packaging.

We don't want those commingling in the recycling system. But unfortunately, the references in SB 54 did not separate the two and left packaging for lubricants as a covered product. AB 2245 resolves that conflict for the lubricants and packaging, and I'm grateful to the industry that they're willing to actually offer to manage their products and their packaging.

Again, the bill creates a producer responsibility program that builds on our existing system of household hazardous waste programs, used oil collection, and aligns with the framework established in SB 54, including the recycling rates. This is the most cost-effective and affordable way to do this program. I've been to BC Canada many times over the last 25 years and have seen their used oil program work very well for the public.

It's convenient. Their recycling rate now as of-- in their 2024 annual report was 89%. It's higher than any other program we have in California. The bill sponsors have been collaborative and have been holding regularly scheduled meetings and listening to all the stakeholders to resolve outstanding issues.

I believe we can pass a great bill this year, and I hope you will support this bill to allow us to continue to refine it and get another product category and its packaging out of the waste stream and out of the food-grade packaging system so we can keep the hazardous materials separate. With that, I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any audience members in support? Come on up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, pleased to be in support.

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

Do I have opposition to the bill?

Hi. Forgive my voice. My four-and-a-half year old keeps getting me sick over and over and over again. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association. First, I wanna thank the author and sponsors for their stakeholder engagement. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of confusion from multiple drafts and red lines on the bill during this process.

In the last year, this bill has changed from the creation of a new EPR fully replacing California's Oil Recycling Enhancement, or CORE Act, to a packaging bill for hazardous waste materials to now an EPR program for household hazardous waste and hazardous waste packaging. The covered product definitions have changed dramatically, which has made our commitment to commonality difficult. We agree with this committee's analysis that AB 2245 creates a very complex program, especially for those that will be implementing the bill.

The bill seems to provide a solution for legislation that has not been implemented yet, which is California's SB 54. Among other things, AB 2245 removes packaging from SB 54's requirements.

At this point, we don't know how or if the pro is unable to account for these products. To ensure we're providing effective policy for Californians, we must understand real-world implications. Unfortunately, given the ever-changing legislation and lack of clarity for current EPR programs, we're unable to find a path forward in this quick turnaround at this time. While AB 2245 has made significant strides, there are still areas that are concerning and might have unintended consequences.

One of the reasons CORE is successful is that retailers provide free collection of used oil, but retailers cannot take on this program too. Will the PRO recommend a similar strategy with collection sites that could be confirmed will not include retail? Many retailers are space-limited, and becoming collection centers for new products is not possible.

Additionally, the definition of covered liquids includes references that cause confusion. This confusion will complicate day-to-day operations with our customers, employees, and increased risk of litigation, eventually leading to increased cost and products at a time where affordability should be the most important thing.

Retailers remain committed to sustainability, and we are leaning into EPR, but we feel it is essential that policymakers focus on helping existing EPR frameworks work before piling on new regulatory schemes, and so we remain opposed to 2245 at this time.

Thank you, Chair and members, the committee. My name is Ryan Pierini. I'm here on behalf of the California Automotive Wholesalers' Association, as well as Auto Care Association. Collectively, we represent automotive part manufacturers, jobbers, warehouse distributors, retailers, and program groups, an industry that supports over 229,000 jobs in the state and generates more than 49 billion in annual economic activity.

Our members are deeply committed to responsible environmental stewardship and have a long track record of supporting and participating in California's used oil recycling infrastructure.

We wanna begin, like CRA, thanking the author, her staff, and the bill sponsors for facilitating a very robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and will remain engaged throughout this bill's life cycle. Lastly, we wanna acknowledge and thank the committee for a thorough analysis and for highlighting some of the challenges we have with this bill. Unfortunately, at this time, we must respectfully register our opposition to AB 2245 as currently drafted.

Our concerns really center on three main issues: duplicative regulatory obligations, lack of fee and transparency and cost controls, and significant administrative and compliance burdens. First, SCRA highlighted, while the bill attempts to exclude products already covered under the Used Oil Recycle Program, the boundary between the two programs remains far from clear in practice.

Until those lines are explicitly drawn, our members face the real prospect of noncompliance with one or both programs. Second, the division of responsibility between CalRecycle and a new PRO is not sufficiently defined. Many products listed in the bill, such as engine oil, transmission fluid, and two-cycle oil, are already regulated at end of life. The bill appears to regulate those same products earlier in their life cycle, including their packaging.

That overlap creates confusion about which framework applies and which entity producers and retailers must report to. Until clarified, the risk of inadvertent noncompliance remains high. Additionally, the treatment of primary and secondary packaging for covered products is not clearly defined. Leaving the specifics of the reconciliation of reporting data for products where primary packaging obligations would differ from secondary tertiary obligations to the PRO plan gives producers no opportunity to plan for those reporting obligations.

Finally, the bill lacks sufficient accountability for the PRO, particularly around fee setting. The absence of clear methodologies, transparency, and an appeals process creates the risk of unpredictable and potentially significant costs. Producers need certainty, including defined speech structures, advanced notice, and meaningful opportunity to challenge assessments. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 2245. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.

Thank you. Additional opposition on the bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste. While we aren't an officially opposed position, we do have concerns with the bill, and they haven't been resolved over the last year. However, we are super grateful to the author's office and the sponsors for working with us, and we hope to be able to thread that needle in the coming weeks. Thank you.

Thanks. Bringing it back. Committee members, questions? Comments? Assembly Member McKinnor.

Yes. Thank the author for bringing the bill. I'm just thinking about affordability, too. Will this actually bring the prices up on consumers? I know that-- let me-- I think now, currently, the local government and taxpayers are paying for the disposal, and what this bill will do is make the producers pay. And-- but will they carry the prices on to the consumers?

Well, just to be clear, somebody always has to pay for these programs, so the question is, who's gonna pay? And it's more efficient to have one statewide system that's run by the producer group who actually distributes it, knows exactly what it is, and knows how to get it back cost-effectively than every single city and county trying to figure it out themselves. And that's what we have today with the waste management system, and that's why everything has gotten so unaffordable and so expensive and inefficient. So this is actually a way to-- and the way the bill is written, it's gonna actually build off the existing infrastructure.

Yeah. So we already have infrastructure. So that's good.

Oh, yeah. And it's-- there's no mandate for retail take-back. So it's using the existing household hazardous waste and-- oil collection program right now, like in Los Angeles, they collect a lot of oil for the state, but all those containers are going into big bags into the landfill. We could grab all of those and recycle them today, but we can't without this bill.

Because right now-- I'm sorry. Because right now, it's county by county. Or city by city.

City by city.

Got it.

Well, I was just gonna say, I mean, this is a new obligation for companies to comply with a new PRO, which is very complicated, very time-consuming. Attorneys need to be hired. There needs to be training. There's auditing associated with this. So there's a cost at least to my members, our members.

How those costs are dispersed and accounted for--as you know, cost to businesses grow--that usually trickles down to the consumer. But, again, we don't know what those costs are. And, you know, I guess-- you know, we'll see, but I just wanna make sure, like, there is gonna be cost associated with the bill.

But when you say the producers, not the people who are selling it-- let me get it straight because I know what producer mean. We're talking about the people who produce the actual item, right? They're paying for it?

They will pay into the producer-run organization who will manage the program. And that's way more efficient than-- and it's also, if you buy the product and you do-- it's in the product price, it's not being socialized cost onto all your neighbors. It's the price that you paid for your product. You use it. You benefited from it. Right now, we've socialized all the costs, and it's like a big black box. Nobody knows what they're paying for.

Thank you.

Just real quick. I appreciate the question very much because affordability is definitely a top concern. You know, my boss, Rachel Michelin, we've been leaning into all of it, trying to make these programs work. We want these programs to work.

But respectfully, retailers are already under 14 programs. We have 14 EPR and product stewardship programs in the state and now we're layering another one on before two novel EPR programs, SB 707, textiles EPR, and SB 54, have even gotten off the ground. So we're concerned about policies that just keep piling on top of each other before we even know how the existing ones are going to work. So that's a big concern of ours.

The other big concern of ours is the issue with liquids coming into our retail stores and customers or employees potentially not knowing what program those liquids fall under. Realize that we should only be collecting under core, but this could potentially open us up for a whistleblower complaint, private right of action, litigation, and that drives consumer costs up on products. So those are our concerns. That being said, Tristan and I have had many conversations, and we will continue to do so.

So the author will continue to work with the stakeholders? Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions, would you like to close?

I just wanna thank everyone here today for expressing their input and concerns. We've been working on this bill for the past year, and we know that there is no-- there is more work to be done. We will continue working with stakeholders and state agencies to address implementation details and ensure the program operates safely and effectively. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you for bringing the bill forward. We know how important these EPR programs are, but I think we also heard they're complex, right? So great to hear, and my understanding will be ongoing conversations as the bill moves through the process, and I think we have your commitment to that. I have recommended an aye vote on this. Do we have a motion and second on 2245?

Absolutely.

Have a motion and second. Please call the roll. And this is to do pass to Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

This is File Item Number Seven: AB 2245, authored by Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. [Roll call]. We have three ayes going on.

We'll keep that on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

I see a number of authors here. Thank you, everyone. We're gonna go in file order, starting with item two, AB 1603, assembly member Schultz.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'm ready to start.

I think my mootnesses are making their way up here. Colleagues, I'm pleased to present AB 1603 today, and I think

Go ahead. Alright.

And if we can keep it down everyone or take the conversation to the outside. Thank you.

So that's how it feels. Okay. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work on the bill, and I sincerely mean that. Just at a very high level, PFOS are a large class of chemicals that are used in many consumer products and industries because they are long lasting and because they're waterproof. However, they are also associated with numerous serious human health effects and build up in our water, soil, and our bodies.

Simply put, they don't go away. Because of PFAS's very problematic properties, the California legislature has acted in recent years to prohibit their use in many consumer products, including textiles, food packaging, and cosmetics. And state officials have limited PFAS use in carpets and upholstery and are about to regulate PFAS in cleaners. However, I was shocked to learn that the state was not doing anything about PFAS containing pesticides that are regularly used on California's crops.

And I was even more shocked to learn that PFAS pesticides are present on the fruits and vegetables that we feed our families.

For example, strawberries, which are a stock commodity in our household, I go through them, every single week, consider my kids. Those are a fruit, known for heavy pest pesticide use and can contain the residue of 10 different PFAS pesticides. According to a recent environmental working group analysis, California allows 53 PFAS pesticides to be used on California grown crops. And more than 2,500,000 pounds of this PFAS is deposited on California agriculture and urban lands every year.

In addition, nearly 40% of state tested produce samples contain one or more PFAS pesticides.

These PFAS pesticides are not on fruits and vegetables because of some accidental contamination. They are there because they are sprayed directly onto our crops and onto our fields. In my view, California is not doing enough to address this use of PFAS. In fact, farmers are not told that they're applying PFAS chemicals, which could be contaminating their own soil and the groundwater they're upon for a long time.

AB 1603 would phase out the use of PFAS pesticides once and for all by doing the following.

First, it would prohibit state approvals of new pesticides containing PFAS starting in January 2027. Second, beginning in 2030, it would prohibit the use, sale, and manufacture of 23 PFAS pesticides already banned by the European Union. Third, beginning in 2035, it would prohibit the use, sale, and manufacture of all remaining registered PFAS pesticides. And lastly, the bill would designate all PFAS pesticides as restricted materials and require use of those pesticides to be publicly disclosed and permitted by county agricultural commissioners starting 07/01/2028.

To sum up, mister chair, why is it necessary for the state to act?

Because neither the state nor the United States EPA approaches are comprehensive when it comes to the assessment of PFAS pesticides. Most pesticides have not been evaluated for their immunotoxic effects or for their environmental effects when they break down into smaller PFAS like TFA. Also, neither the EPA nor DPR assess the effects of pesticide cumulative exposure on people over time. Furthermore, regulatory requirements mandate extensive monitoring, public reporting, and treatment of PFAS in drinking water.

These obligations will continue to increase cost for customers if new sources of contamination are not controlled.

Preventing PFAS from entering water supplies is in the first place, is one of the most effective ways that we can protect public health and avoid unnecessary rate increases. That is why AB 1603 is supported by the California Water Association, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. With me today to speak in support of AB 1603 is David Andrews, Environmental Working Group's chief science officer, and I apologize if I say this wrong.

Is it Sakurai Mescal? Sakira.

It's like Shakira without the h.

Sakira Mescal. Mescal, I get that one right? 50%. The policy and advocacy lead for the Pesticide Action and Agroecological Network. Thank you both for being here.

I'll turn it over to them.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is David Andrews. I'm from Environmental Working Group.

I hold a PhD in chemistry from Northwestern University, and I've coauthored, 10 peer reviewed publications on PFAS, including a twenty twenty four paper that identified EPA approved PFAS pesticides and concerns with their use. PFAS, often called forever chemicals, post serious well documented health harms. The Department of Toxic Substances Control here has stated that all PFAS share the core hazard trait of extreme environmental persistence. And what may surprise you is that our food is a major, if not primary source of exposure, and it's under regulated.

PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.

The EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's evaluation of PFAS pesticides have not adequately evaluated the potential for immune system harm or really the breakdown pathways that these take in the environment in the formation of these small PFAS, such as TFA. Levels of these shorter PFAS are increasing in our water, our food, our environment, and in people, and exposure to them is linked to reproductive harm as well as immune toxicity.

Other state groundwater testing has found TFA in nearly all samples, and we expect the same here when results are out. And that that this PFAS pesticide use is leading to hundreds of thousands of pounds of TFA each year going into the environment. This is gonna be incredibly expensive to remove from water systems already trying to trying to take action to remove these from our water.

We found nearly 40% of California grown produce had at least one of these PFAS pesticides. Peaches, plums, and nectarines, the numbers are much higher. Fortunately, farmers have options that are not PFAS. There are nearly a thousand active pesticide ingredients approved for use in California. Thank you.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Hi. My name is Sakira Mescal, and I'm the policy and advocacy lead with Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network. Californians and people across the nation are deeply concerned about PFAS, which accumulate in the environment and are found in the blood of ninety nine percent of Americans, including newborns. PFAS pesticides contribute to health harming TFA, contaminating our water, land, and produce, and disproportionately impact Latino farm working communities in regions like Fresno, Kern, and San Joaquin Counties.

Each year, they add 37 to 59,000,000,000 to national health care expenditures, and there are PFAS lawsuits in Fresno and all over the country. Yet the California Department of Pesticide Regulation is failing to protect the public from PFAS pesticides. DPR does not characterize PFAS pesticides as PFAS in their pesticide evaluation process. DPR does not evaluate cumulative health impacts, and the pace at which DPR reevaluates pesticides requiring at least one pesticide reevaluation per year under AB 2113 is too slow to effectively mitigate PFAS harms.

Other state agencies are working to remove PFAS pesticides from our wastewater and water supply, trying to mitigate further impacts to rate payers.

And there are numerous economically viable alternatives to PFAS pesticides supported by organizations helping growers transition to sustainable methods. In fact, research indicates that adopting soil health practices reduces pest pressures with ninety six percent of farmer case studies reporting a positive return on investment. In fact, the state is taking steps towards moving away from priority pesticides by 2050 as shown in DPR's sustainable pest management roadmap. While these steps are commendable, we cannot afford to wait. We must tackle the PFAS pesticide crisis now.

Given the amount of evidence of harm that PFAS pesticides pose, we urge you to support AB 1603. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have audience members in support?

Good afternoon. Alex Loomer on behalf of Earth Justice, the Environmental Protection Information Center, and with permission, Sierra Club California Central California Mineral Justice Network. That's it. Thank you.

Tony Hackett on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Nurses Association California, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and the Lymphoma Foundation of America.

Hi. Susan Little with Environmental Working Group. Also here on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Green Science Policy Institute, Beyond Pesticides, CalPurg, and Center for Food Safety, and Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, as well as the Center for Environmental Health, another co sponsor. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nancy Biermeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support of the legislation.

Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action. We're in strong support, and I have a few to read as well in support. The Community Water Center, California Coast keeper Alliance, Integrated Resources Management, Holy h two o, Friends Committee for California Legislation, and the Erin Brockovich Foundation.

Good afternoon. Nora Angeles with Children Now. We're in support, and there are several other organizations that ASPE listed. Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Clean Earth for Kids, Go Green Initiative, Parents Against SSFL, Sonoma County Youth Environmental Action Committee, and Encampment for Citizenship. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brian Ronholm with Consumer Reports in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.

Mark Weller on behalf of the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council and the Valley Improvement Projects in support.

Good afternoon. Myra Sanchez on behalf of tell Tulare County Coalition advocating for pesticide safety and the Central California Environmental Justice Network in support.

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

Emma Vega on behalf of the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety eight zero five and Santa Barbara Coalition for Pest Set Reform in support.

Sarah Ayard on behalf of the Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment and also the coalition advocating for pesticide safety five five nine in support. Thank you.

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

Camila Torres, from Vista Verde Middle School in Greenfield on behalf of Future Leaders of Change and in full support of AB1603.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. Yanely Martinez, former council woman for the city of Greenfield and also SAS organizer with Safe Act, Safe Schools, also in full support and also on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, which is the largest Latino organization, specifically the Greenfield LULAC thirty two ninety eight and Salinas Council twenty fifty five in full support.

Afternoon. Anne Catton with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of California Environmental Voters. Registering support on behalf of California Environmental Voters. Thank you.

Marquise King Mason with NRDC, registering support for Sierra Club California, Earth Justice and Center for Biological Diversity. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Do we have folks in opposition to 1603? Come on up.

Yeah. Hi, everyone. My name is Jeff Dawson. I'm here on behalf of CropLife America, which is an industry trade group, in respectful opposition to AB 1603. A little bit about me, I just retired from a forty year career as an environmental scientist, twenty seven years of which were spent at the EPA as a senior science adviser and manager.

Most of that time was spent in the pesticide regulation program, but I also spent a lot of time working on PFAS, especially under the Biden administration, where I was on the PFAS, council and was one of the principal authors of the national PFAS testing strategy and, also, developed a number of actions under the pesticide and industrial chemicals law.

I think given the conversation today, it'd be good to provide some context about pesticide regulation at the federal level and so you're aware of all the detailed information that goes into it and how much investment really happens. So it takes about twelve years to develop a novel pesticide and with an investment on the industry part of about $300,000,000 plus a hefty investment on the part of the regulatory agencies to review all this information and develop credible risk assessments.

Part of the federal statute, requirements is to ask, registrants or license holders develop a cadre of information that gathers information on all manner of toxicity, variety of environmental fate and effects, exposure, potential residues, and, commodities that are food commodities and so forth. And then this is done under good laboratory practices requirements, which are ensure the surety of the information.

It's a very public process. Many of the protocols and such that are used are internationally harmonized. And there's also credible credibility supported by a lot of mandated independent scientific review that's governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. One comment earlier was the lack of information around

And if you can wrap up.

Okay. So just a little bit of about the fluorinated carbon issue. There are 52 active ingredients which would impact about 1,150 products, which could if you lost them, would have a big impact on agriculture. These fluorinated chemicals are very purpose built. There's a flooring integrated into the molecule to enhance performance or stability.

And, you know, there's four of fluorinated components in a pesticide would be added for very intentional purposes. All the data I just talked about, the, you know, some of the things that you hear about PFAS chemicals, they're persistent in environment in the environment. There's potential residues in food. The bioaccumulation potential and a range of toxicological effects are routinely screened for in the pesticide data. So anyway, thank you, and I appreciate the time

You're here. That was three minutes So

Oh, come on.

Keep it short.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Taylor Trifo on behalf of Variety of Agricultural Association, other commercial users of pesticides. I wanna make sure your fruits and vegetables are safe. Check that they're California grown because of the system that mister Dawson described at both US EPA and DPR. I wanna talk about a practical reality of taking 1,100 products off of the market.

That means we are gonna be relying on broader spectrum, less precision based products in order to attract or to manage the same pests and diseases that previously we had softer, safer chemistries for. That's the reality of what happens when we have cancellation, and we'll continue to rely on imports from countries where fruits and vegetables are not regulated to the effect that they are in California. So, unfortunately, with the time we request and oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Members of the audience in opposition?

Good afternoon, mister chair. Members of the committee, Matthew Allen, Western Growers also opposed.

Good afternoon, Chair, members. Paul Poister with Nutrient Ag Solutions, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the household and commercial products association. They represent the non ag pesticide manufacturers as well as Cal Chamber. Thank you.

Matt Roman, on behalf of the Animal Health Institute, wanna thank the we're, post less than minute. Wanna thank the author for his, meetings with us on this issue, and we're continuing to work with him.

Afternoon, mister chair, members. Tim Schestic, on behalf of the American Chemistry Council.

Dennis Alviani on behalf of the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers, few other agricultural associations in opposition. Thank you.

Max Perra on behalf of the California Pest Management Association, also in opposition. Thank you.

Isabella Quinones with the California Farm Bureau, also in opposition. Thank you.

Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Chemical Industry Council of California, both all. So in opposition.

Good afternoon. Erin Nord on behalf of the Almanoliance, also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Bringing it back, looking to committee members for questions, comments. Assembly member Pappen.

So just a quick question. So I look at this bill and I say, okay. Well, it's got some time for industry to catch up and to phase out these these forever chemicals. So I guess my question though, and when you say, oh, 1,100 products are gonna come off the market, tragedy strikes, but is it such that there are alternatives out there that are non PFAS or maybe lower level you know, whatever.

You take your pick that can still do the same thing or things in the works because this isn't tomorrow.

Sure. Absolutely. And the answer is it depends. So in according to the bill in 2028, all PFAS based pesticides, so those a 100 those 1,100 products would become restricted use. That means in a non agricultural setting, they are not allowed for use. So commercial, home use, industrial, they would be banned by 2028.

You know, that I really do feel like, I look at the bill like, oh, it seems reasonably tailored to me, and that's what I usually look for. So talk to me about whether there are alternatives out there, and are we is tragedy gonna strike tomorrow as it relates to

Moving forward in the agricultural sector side, absolutely, there are products that we can use, but I wanna once again hit on right now, the products that we're talking about and those that are in this list are targeted and precise. Therefore, one particular pest on one particular commodity, and they're uniquely designed to be as soft as possible. And so what we're we would do realistically, if there was another product on the market, it's broader spectrum.

So we apply more of that product because we don't have the capacity to provide a precision application to deal with the product that we have now. So the reality is we are gonna use broader spectrum products.

There are many products that are on this list that are alternatives to products that have been canceled in California. And so if those are then secondarily canceled, there are situations where ligus and cotton, Mealybug and and tree nuts will not will have nothing to be able to manage them. And that's where you hear concern about agriculture. In California, after a twelve year timeline that mister Dawson described about getting a product available to be registered by US EPA.

It's been an eight year process at US EPA, and then it's more than eight years at the Department of Pesticide Regulation to register that product.

So, collectively, we're talking about twenty years to get a new product pesticide registered in California, especially if it's unique, overlay, endangered species act, and other obligations, which we're proud to be able to honor those, it does put us past that 2035 deadline in the bill. So that's why you hear this level of concern from the agricultural community.

Vice one more? You Yeah. Absolutely. No.

I just have a comment more than

I can. Steve, that You know, as

as we see the feds have really restricted down and down and down, what what types of PFAS will be allowed in the water, and then you still have this runoff. As we've mentioned, it does cause me come some consternation. And, I mean, for God's sakes, we've got AI. I'm sure it could be pretty faster than it used to be, but that's my comment. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Vice chair.

I appreciate the author's work here and your intent. I I'm kind of excited because I get to talk to a couple of chemists and technical guys today. So I'll make a comment, and then I have a couple specific questions. You know, we have 15,000 supposedly PFAS chemicals. There are some that are that don't bioaccumulate, some that are not necessarily hazardous to your health.

And then I see a list of 23 PFAS chemicals that are are included with with pesticides, I e. Some pesticides might use a PFAS chemical for as a surfactant to help spread the material or some other benefits physical benefits. Can you explain to me out of these 23 chemicals, why you want to regulate them or make them go away by by 2030? Have they here's the question. Have they specifically been differentiated from the nonhazardous PFAS chemicals?

Yes.

Would you like

Sure. Well, thank you for the question. And and and I think it's an important question. And in terms of well, one is is it part part of this is a question of differentiation, but part of this is also a question of you mentioned the bioaccumulation, some of the toxicity and hazard traits respect with with respect to these compounds.

And I think one thing that stands out and was mentioned is that part of the reason they have this fluorination is because it leads to increased stability, which also leads to increased persistence.

In some of these compounds, while they're not bioaccumulating, we're exposed to them regularly. And so part of so so so and and actually, we see in biomonitoring that many of the small PFAS that formulate from this, such as TFA, are making up a significant portion of the total PFAS in the body in people. Okay. But to to to your question Yes.

In terms of the the differentiation, I think part of this is a is a practical move towards, including a subset that have been differentially regulated elsewhere from the marketplace.

My my my question is not whether they're differentiated from another marketplace. My differentiate my differentiation is what is the science behind eliminating PFAS from these particular pesticides? And I'd like to address that to you, sir.

So the actual just for clarity, the actual active ingredient itself is the fluoridated material. So that molecule, there's not really additional inerts or anything in the products that are PFAS chemicals. So I wanna do that for clarity. Can you repeat the question again?

My well, my question was why why are we we're generalizing about PFAS here. What is the differentiation in these 23 are are the are the fluorine compounds in these 23, PFAS chemicals hazardous to your health?

So all I can say is with regard to the federal approach for regulating pesticides, these chemicals were put through the same exact process as any other pesticide chemical have the same data, same types of data based on all the criteria that I mentioned. And, you know, when they went through the process and the labels were constructed, they met the federal statutes for, safety findings, which are very clearly outlined, have been gone through extensive peer review, all the other, public comment and so forth.

So it's a very open process that talks about how the safety criteria are established and the rationales behind those safety criteria.

Would anybody know who the biggest user of these 23, pesticides are? Could it be Caltrans?

Happy to look into it, Assemblymember Ellis. I don't know the answer offhand.

What I what I can though, sir, if you'll indulge me, you would ask the question about why these 23 were banned. I'd be happy to provide you some information offline. But as I understand it, when the European Union looked at these 23 specific, PFAS pesticides, it was the way that those particular ones broke down over time and the impacts on both human health and soil contamination. So it was that's at least my understanding of it. Happy to get you some more information on it.

Okay.

Sir, could you elaborate on that?

So also keep in mind that the way EPA does its business is that they look at potential breakdown products, and that's all part of the risk assessment process. So if there are major degradates of concern, there those are identified and included in the risk evaluation. So that's all part of the process.

Yes, ma'am.

I would just like to add the 23 active ingredients that are listed if they were banned by the EU were not banned because of their PFAS presence alone. So I wanna make that clear. Registrants, in some circumstances, have removed the registration, and in that respect, would show that they're no longer eligible for use in the EU, not because of their PFAS proceeds.

Assemblymember Schulz, I think that's kind of my dilemma here with this is that that scientifically scientifically has not been established. And and then furthermore, to her statement, it's not been established. And then I concerned about the end user. I do like the fact that we do have to twenty thirty. There's some good things here.

But thank you very much for this conversation, and thank you guys. Yes, sir.

I'm just gonna add one more thing.

You know, the other thing to think about here is I think you mentioned that there's 15,000 or so PFAS chemicals. There's and I did a lot of Tasca work as well, which is industrial chemicals. So there's, like, 800 chemicals that are on the Tasca inventory that are, you know, active in commerce. When you look at the available data for those chemistries versus the data for there's virtually none.

Some chemicals have zero, and they're sold by millions of pounds per year for a whole bunch of different industrial uses while pesticides are highly studied.

And there's a lot of information about, you know, the toxicity and the breakdown products. So you have to be careful about generalizations such as, you know, the contribution and body burdens and the population and things like that because there's so many other potential sources that that could come into play and have common metabolites. So, like, I think you mentioned TFA, for example. So that's all part of the calculus.

If I may add to bifenthrin is bifenthrin is prohibited in the EU and is actually banned due to adverse health effects. In fact, I have a a quote from one of their regulatory documents that says, as regards to ecotoxicology, the risk to aquatic vertebrates has not shown to generate acceptable uses. While there is a remaining uncertainty as regards to the effects of the experienced bioaccumulation in fish of the active substance. Furthermore, high risks have been identified for mammals, earthworms, and non target arthropods.

So that's just one example, and I just wanna add to the fact that most PFAS pesticides break down into t TFA and we're seeing that that's associated with immunotoxicity and liver damage as well as well as other adverse health effects and those are building up in our water supply.

So it's a very serious thing that those PFAS pesticides are breaking down into that metabolite. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you for the thoughtful conversation. I'll just add a couple of, comments starting with thank you for bringing the bill forward. As you know, one of my priorities has been to reduce the use of very harmful pesticides as well as chemicals in California.

In this case, and I think that this came through through the questioning, we're dealing with both harmful pesticides and additional harmful chemicals, and particularly applied your work to reduce what our committee is very familiar with now, PFAS, in our environment and our food.

That said, I am concerned about the issue of regrettable substitutions. As we have seen, sometimes prohibiting chemicals and products results in alternatives, that are more harmful than the original. We absolutely need to reduce the use of PFAS and harmful pesticides, and we need to make sure their replacements are safe. So, I would encourage you, and I know you're committed to this as the bill moves forward. Continue the conversations about how we can move towards safer alternatives to PFAS, pesticides in our state.

So please keep me and the committee apprised. Our staff would love to stay in the loop as this bill moves forward. It does have an eye recommendation from me today. And with that, I would invite you to close.

Well, thank you very much, mister chair. I'll be brief. First of all, to your your question and your comment, absolutely. I pride myself on being a collaborative author. So we may not agree on everything, but always welcome to engage in those conversations and find common ground.

And I'm a big proponent of being the ever student and learning more about the industry and and and trying to safeguard against those risks. By the way, congratulations on your retirement, sir. The three briefest of points I would just mention is that in addition to the European Union, Maine and Minnesota have already taken the initial step. And as the world's fourth largest economy, the breadbasket of the world, California needs to lead the way and join this conversation.

And that's what I'm really asking for all of you to do today is to vote aye so that it can go out of committee and we can at least continue what is an awfully important conversation.

The second thing I'll briefly touch on is not in their testimony today, but in the course of comment letters. It has been suggested, why can't CBPR simply reevaluate the pesticides on the market? They're only reevaluating between one and eight pesticides per year. This is extraordinary effort that we need to take now to ensure that we have the safest possible products on, the shelves of every grocery store across the state.

And the last thing that I would say is, I really appreciated the testimony about the EPA regulatory process and all that goes into it.

But I would just, respectfully suggest that that analysis does not adequately and comprehensively evaluate for immunotoxic effects. It does not look at the totality of the environmental effects when it breaks down breaks down at the TFA. That's why this legislation is so important, and I respectfully ask for your eye vote today.

Thank you. Do I have a motion for approval? And I will second it. With that, can you call the roll?

File item two, AB 163, authored by assembly member Schultz. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Connelly?

Connelly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer, Kehan, Castillo, Lee, McKenna, Capen.

Aye.

We'll keep that bill on hold. File item five, Assembly member Addis. This is AB 2034 dealing with food safety. I'll just note, I know you met with Assembly Health last week. You committed to refining the scope of the bill.

I understand you've shared author's amendments with this committee ahead of hearing, today's hearing. And with that, feel free to dive right in whenever you Thank thank you. For writing.

Thank you Mister chair. And I have promised my colleague behind me that I would keep it as brief as possible, and I have two expert witnesses here. So the gist is that I'm here to present AB 2034, the Food Additive Safety and Transparency Act that will strengthen California's consumer protections, around health and dangerous food additives, and 2034 does complement existing law.

As the chair mentioned, I am taking author's amendments that we're working on that will address the concerns from Department of Public Health around implementation and feasibility, and that will narrow the scope of the bill. I guess the gist on this is that the FDA at the federal level is supposed to regulate food additives.

There's a loophole called the generally recognized as safe loophole, and companies can self certify that their chemicals are generally recognized as safe, and then those chemicals go into the foods that we eat. There's also a situation where companies are able to just not notify the FDA at all that they have done this. And so while this was set up to recognize things like baking soda or black pepper is generally recognized as safe and not have to go through such an arduous process.

Companies have begun to utilize this loophole, and we're getting dangerous chemicals in our food that can that are linked to heart and brain defects, infant leukemia, suppression of estrogen and liver and kidney and intestinal toxicity. So we have a pretty narrow and targeted bill that would create more transparency, give the state, an ability to add some regulation that is desperately needed in the face of lack of federal action.

And with me today are Thomas Galligan, principal scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Nancy Buremeyer, the director of program and policy for the breast cancer prevention partners, and they will tell you more.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Thomas Galligan, principal scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest or CSPI, proud sponsor of Assembly Bill twenty thirty four. I have a PhD in biomedical sciences with a focus on toxicology. CSPI is a national nonprofit that's been at the forefront of food safety, nutrition, and health for fifty five years. We take no donations from government or industry.

This bill targets loopholes in federal laws that have created a situation in which the only parties who know what is in our food and whether those ingredients are truly safe are the companies profiting from selling them. AB 2034 will fix that by creating a public database of chemicals and food that bypass FDA premarket safety evaluations. The database will also identify the chemicals that are that companies are hiding behind vague terms like natural flavor, spices, artificial flavor, and artificial color.

This will increase Californians confidence in the safety of their food, and it will empower them to make more informed decisions to protect their health and the health of their children and families. This bill does not duplicate existing federal programs.

Although FDA has recently expressed its intent to revise its approach to grass, initial indications indicate that the proposal would not go far enough to sufficiently protect consumers. Further, the food industry has threatened to challenge FDA's proposed rule at the same time that they are opposing this bill here in California. So do not be fooled. The FDA does is not on top of this issue. Californians remain at risk from unsafe and poorly tested food chemicals.

And despite what the opposition has said, there should be little to no impact on the cost of food in California. And that's because under federal law, food manufacturers have an ongoing obligation to ensure that their products are safe. Even if companies choose to use grass ingredients without notifying the FDA, they are still required to prove that those chemicals are safe using publicly available information. AB 2034 will simply require companies who skip the FDA process to share that information with the state instead.

I ask for your aye vote respectfully.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you Assembly member Addis for your leadership on AB 2034 to make our food safer. I'm here on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to harmful chemicals. Nothing is more visceral to the public than the safety of the food we eat, and especially what we feed our children.

A February poll by the Pew Research Center found that nearly eighty percent of US adults are concerned about harmful chemicals in food, and almost half are very concerned. Americans depend on the FDA to safeguard our food system.

Unfortunately, it is failing us. Under the grass loophole, companies can add company can add chemicals to food and food packaging without meaningful independent review or even telling the FDA. Some examples include methyl and propylparabens, both are hormone disruptors, and propylparaben has been shown to accelerate the growth of breast cancer cells. Flavor chemicals linked to cancer deemed grass by industry groups. Partially hydrogenated oils or trans fat, and butylated hydroxy anosol or BHA, a prop 65 listed carcinogen.

The FDA has removed the GRAS designation for some of these chemicals, but only after years of advocacy, and they should never have been allowed in the first place. AB 2,034 also brings much needed transparency to chemicals hidden under terms like natural flavors and spices. In 2020, this legislature passed SB 312 requiring disclosure of chemicals in fragrance and flavors in personal care products.

Today, Californians know more have more transparency about what's in their shampoo than what's in their food, even though many of the same chemicals are used in both. It's time to fix that inequity.

In the face of federal inaction, California must once again lead to protect public health. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have audience members in support?

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guansona here with CSPI, the sponsor of the bill, asked to read support for a number of organizations, including Alpha Gal Alliance Action Fund, Bay Area Community Resources, CalPERSG, Center for Environmental Health, cleanearthforkids.org, Clean Water Action, COURAGE California, Elijah, Lavi Foundation, FPIES Foundation, Healthy Food America, National Consumers League, Rising Communities, SF Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Strategic Training Initiative for the Friendship of Eating Disorders, and United Parents and Students. Thank you.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy and Support.

Good afternoon. Brian Ronholm with Consumer Reports in support of the bill.

Is there opposition to the bill? Come on.

Chair Connolly and members of the committee, I'm Erin Radin here on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association. We represent the consumer packaged goods industry, which in California supports over 300,000 direct jobs, powers the economy with $22,000,000,000 in wages, and injects $48,000,000,000 into California's economy. From facts upfront to digital disclosures like smart label, CPG companies lead the way in delivering consumers the information they need in a format they want.

We appreciate the author's attempts to focus AB 2034, but we still believe the efforts can be more narrowly tailored to avoid creating a duplicative regulatory system, adding unnecessary costs and bureaucracy to the state of California, food manufacturers, California and California consumers. For those reasons, we must respectfully oppose.

It is simply unnecessary and premature for the state of California to enact AB 2034 at this time.

Given the federal FY 2027 budget and the pending GRAS rulemaking, AB 2034 may lead to consumer confusion, undermine federal efforts to enhance food safety, and impose needless costs on manufacturers who may be forced as a practical matter to deal with a two tier system, federal and the state of California, that will result in higher prices for consumers or fewer food options, which in turn could lead to food insecurity.

In large part, this is because California specific regulatory scheme does not recognize self certified GRAS, which may force companies to reformulate and relabel, thereby incurring potentially significant costs, which may have to be passed on to consumers. The f y twenty twenty seven federal budget provides 50,000,000 across FDA programs to support reevaluation and possible removal of ingredients or additives from the food supply and the removal of the self affirmed GRAS pathway.

Further, FDA intends to publish in late spring or early summer a proposed regulation to require the submission to FDA of GRAS notices.

Finally, cost to California taxpayers is still a concern. Estimated implementation cost for the state for the original bill was $34,000,000 in its first three years. And while some of these costs will be reduced due to the proposed amendments, many of them, such as $10,000,000 in database database development persist. Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Marjoleo with Samson Advisors here on behalf of our client, the California League of Food Producers, in respectful opposition to this bill. CLFP represents a wide variety of food processors and beverage producers who handle fruit, vegetables, olives, dairy products, grain rice products, bakeries, and more. Many of their members process food right here in California, and safety is their number one priority.

They're still reviewing the proposed amendments to the bill, and while appreciative of the direction, still unfortunately have some outstanding concerns with the bill.

We echo our colleagues at CBA, they're fundamentally opposed to a concern about establishing a separate, possibly duplicate duplicative California specific regulatory structure around a federal baseline that's actively changing. And they're also additionally concerned with the ingredient disclosure provisions, which could expose proprietary formulations. While the bill allows CDPH to redact trade secrets in the public database, the data needed to establish safety cannot be redacted, and this is to create some uncertainty about confidential business information that would be disclosed publicly.

So in some, while CFP supports safe and transparent regulation, we believe that the right answer is science based nationally consistent framework, not a patchwork that includes the California specific regime. So for these reasons, we respectfully are opposed to this bill.

Thank you. Further opposition to the bill?

Good afternoon. Molly Malo with Adleston Gilbert Ripsman Smith on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Jason Bryan on behalf of the National Confectioners Association. Unfortunately, we're opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Sarah Polamu, California Retailers Association, respectfully opposed.

Elise Landon on behalf of Dairy Institute of California, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon, mister chair members. Tim Shestek on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, also in opposition. Thank you.

Vanessa Albiane on behalf of the American Beverage Association, the California Grain and Feed Association, California Seed Association, we oppose. Thank you.

Good afternoon, assembly chair members. Taylor Rochin Taylor Trifo on behalf of the Grocers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, also in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nicole Quinones on behalf of Cal Chamber and the Food Ingredient Safety Coalition in opposition.

Don Koepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Chemical Industry Council of California also imposed.

Thanks. Looking at committee members, questions, comments? Seeing none, would invite you to close.

Thank you, mister chair. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. And we appreciate your work on this, for championing this issue, for the continued work you're doing on refining the bill. So appreciated the amendments. It sounds like there's more conversation happening, to address some of the implementation concerns. I think on a basic level though, the public deserves to know what they're eating and that the chemicals in their food are safe.

So I am recommending an aye vote on this. With that, we will take a roll call vote.

This is file item number five, AB 2034 offered by assemblyman of

first, I need a motion. And I will second. Now a roll call vote.

Oh, and

Excuse me. My apologies. File item number five, AB 2034, authored by assembly member Addis. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Connelly?

Aye.

Connelly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Kehan, Castillo, Lee, McKenna, Capen.

Capen, aye.

Sorry to interrupt you, sir. My apologies. I misspoke earlier. It's do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations.

That bill is on call. We're gonna move to,

Duly noted. File item six, we're gonna move to assembly member, Carl, who has to run to be a the chair of a committee. So appreciate everyone's patience on that. And welcome. This is on AB 2218.

What the hell? Look who we have here. Alright. Well, thank you, so much, mister chair and members. First, I would like to thank the chair, and the staff for working with me as well as the chair of water, parks, and wildlife and, that committee staff to develop develop amendment language for this bill.

I'm accepting these amendments, and it's not lost on me that it's not the norm to have a bill heard in the morning in one committee in the afternoon another. That was only made possible because of both of the chairs being so gracious and giving us time and opportunity to come to agreement on amendments. Since time immemorial, indigenous indigenous communities have lived and grown in the region we now call California.

As the original stewards of the land, they had developed a deep and comprehensive understanding of its complex ecological systems, including its vital watersheds. Unfortunately, western colonization led to widespread land seizures that deprived tribes of the traditional water resources and watershed management practices.

It also laid the groundwork for a water rights system that continues to exclude tribes to this day. Although state agencies have worked to engage tribes on water issues, the impact's been limited by a lack of statutory authority to respond to water related inequities. Furthermore, there is no codified policy instructing agencies to recognize and address these inequities. This means that work being done now can easily be reversed in the future.

AB 2218 will address both these problems by establishing a state policy of recognizing and addressing water related inequities perpetrated against tries by state sanctioned actions.

This bill will also require a specific set of state agencies, including CNRA, the State Water Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to consider and implement this policy when they revise, adopt, or establish policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria to address inequities.

By ensuring that agencies have the statutory backing respectfully and effectively address long standing harms against indigenous communities, AB 2218 will foster a more collaborative relationship between the state and sovereign tribes, empowering them to work together to protect the water that gives us all life. With me to provide super supporting testimony is Crystal Moreno, TEK program manager with with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok, and Frankie Myers, Fix the World Consulting with the Yurok Tribe.

Good afternoon, chair members. Crystal Murano with the Shingle Springs Band here on behalf of vice chair Melissa Tayaba who was pulled away on tribal council business. Just a brief history of the tribe. We're located in Shingle Springs about forty, forty five miles east of here, but the tribes on central territory actually spans seven California counties. Sacramento being a major county, major village sites here.

One of the tribes' matriarchs was born at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers at the village of Pashune. The river systems here, the waterways, the watershed, something that the tribe is connected to. We hold ceremony. It's part of our identity and our culture. And for those reasons, we're happy to cosponsor this piece of legislation.

I'm gonna yield the rest of my time to Frankie Myers. Thank you.

Frankie Myers, Mitch, Chair Connolly, I appreciate the time today to talk about this critical bill that is so important for our tribal nations. I think I do think about our unratified treaties that our tribal nations negotiated with the Federal Government. And I think about the role that this legislature played in ensuring that they were not ratified. I think about this legislature and the passage of laws that excluded tribal nations from participating in water rate systems in California.

And I think about where we could have been, where we should have been, what our tribal nations could have looked like if our treaties were ratified, if California did recognize our nations and their role in protecting our lands and our waters.

Where would we be at today? What would California look like? What would our society look like? Would we be needing to fight every single day to protect our water? Would we be needing to fight every single day to protect our food resources?

Would we needing to fight every day against catastrophic wildfires if we had listened to the TEK of those who had lived here since time immemorial? Where would we be today? I think every tribe in California appreciated the governor's apology.

After over a hundred years, we got an apology for the genocide and the massacre and the removal of our people from our places and our sacred waters that we had enjoyed for tens of thousands of years that we had protected, that we had watched over, and that we had managed. We had managed to create such a wealth in this state that we had managed to create such an abundance in this state.

This state that now enjoys the fourth largest economy in the world based on those resources that were managed and created by tribal nations. AB 2218 simply acknowledges what we all know to be true, what we have already understood. It creates a space at the table for the future. It doesn't ask for justice. It doesn't ask to right the wrongs of the past.

That's a much larger bill, and that bill comes with a lot more pain. This bill asked for a seat at the table, And we understand that this is an uncomfortable discussion. We understand that we need to try to be as specific as we can about what we're talking about so that we could limit the harm that could potentially happen to those communities that are thriving today. And I feel like we've done that.

I feel like we have worked very, very hard to think about our community as a whole, all of us, including our tribes, including the entire state.

We wanna continue that work. We wanna continue to be a part of the conversation, and we would like to be a part of the decision making for the next hundred years. Welcome.

Additional testimony? Okay. Members of the audience in support.

Thank you, chairman, members of the committee. Frank Molina on behalf of Yohavi Tom of San Manuel Nation, and the San and I's band of Shumash Indians and strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon California support. Also, Voci's voice and support for the Watershed Research and Training Center and the Monolith Committee. Thank you so much.

Akashdeep Singh with the unit of concerned scientists. Happy to, ask for support.

Marquis Mason with NRDC. Thank you to the author and the sponsors and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Water Foundation and California Environmental Voters. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kyle Jones registering support on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Center for Environmental Health, and Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment. Thank you.

Hi. Pamela Lopez with K Street Consulting on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokuts Tribe in support.

Hi. I'm Craig Tucker, a consultant for the Karuk Tribe, who's proud to cosponsor this bill and also express support for Save California Salmon, the Klamath Indigenous Land Trust, Ridges to Riffle's Indigenous Conservation Group, California Rural Indian Health Board, Friends of the Eel River, and the Mid Klamath Watershed Council. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Bloomer on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, California, Defenders of Wildlife, Golden State Salmon Association, Trust for Public Land, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, the Environmental Law Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Information Center, all in support. Thank you.

Sean Bothwell on behalf of California Coast keeper Alliance and our 10 California Waterkeepers. That includes San Diego Coast keeper, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Orange County Coast keeper, LA Waterkeeper, Santa Barbara Channel keeper, Russian Riverkeeper, Monterey Waterkeeper, Humboldt Waterkeeper, Shasta Waterkeeper, and Yuba Waterkeeper. Thank you.

Andrea Ventura for just clean water action, but in strong support.

Alain Rivier, on behalf of Humble Progressive Democrats, some strong support.

Vanessa Buenrostro from Minister Delta and fully support. Chair

Scott Webb speaking in support for the The Winnemem Wintu, the California Sports Fishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River, California Water Impact Network, Planning and Conservation Leave, Bay Quest, Baykeeper, and Save the Bay. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA represents over 86 public agencies that provide water, wastewater, gas, and electric service in California. Our members have meaningful engagement with tribes in their service territories, and CMUA values the author's intent in shining a light on California's history of mistreatment of tribes. While CMUA appreciates the author's willingness to accept the committee amendments from this morning, we remain respectfully opposed to AB 2218.

We recognize that this bill is intended to give tribes a seat at the table, and we agree with that notion. We want tribes to be part of the decision making process. However, AB 2218 does more than that. More than give tribes a seat at the table, it calls into question water supply reliability for our members. The changes to section 106.2 would still put water supply reliability at risk.

The committee amendments strike out the word rights from Sub Section B, but the reference to permits is retained. Appropriative rights are permitted rights and would be subject to interpretation of the bill's big concepts for implementing this policy, and we're unsure how this bill will impact future appropriate of right applications or projects like the Bay Delta Plan or the Delta Conveyance Project. Additionally, protection of tribal water uses may imply that use is higher than any other beneficial use, further threatening water reliability.

Our members heavily rely on water rights to ensure water is delivered to their customers. There is a huge question still as to what impact this bill will have on existing water rights, relied upon in many of your legislative districts, which could impact water supply reliability.

The changes to section ten fifty one under water code are vague and need to be defined to understand their functionality. There are terms that are ambiguous. And in our position letter, we made the point that terms of the bill were vague and needed to be defined. That remains true. As amended, this bill is still vague.

The definitions or descriptions would certainly help to, understand the certainty as to implementation of the policy. We hope the bill continues to be refined to address our concerns. However, given the uncertain impact on water supply, we believe it is essential that we get this right before moving forward. And for these reasons, we must ask for your no vote today.

Good afternoon, chairs and members. My name is Amber Rossow, and I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. We recognize the intent behind the bill to acknowledge the historic injustices experienced by California Native American tribes, and we appreciate the efforts to refine the language and clarify certain ambiguities such as listing specifically the state agencies responsible for addressing these historical inequities. However, we need time to review the proposed language.

We do want to continue to emphasize our concern about the lack of detail needed to fully understand the bill's scope and statewide implications, including how each of these state agencies will be tasked to address access and control over water, coupled with the lack of the definitional guardrails necessary for consistent implementation across state agencies. Water agencies operate under a host of regulations and policies and are continuously working toward

Can you get the microphone closer maybe? Thanks.

Absolutely. Sorry. Water agencies operate under a host of regulations and policies and are continuously working toward meeting and ensuring compliance. This is in addition to the state level efforts underway to address drought and climate resilience. Addressing inequities through incorporating remedies in every state water management action makes it difficult to plan accordingly and plan for the future of water deliverability.

We understand that it is not the author's intent to disrupt these efforts. Additionally, as water agencies, it is difficult to understand where the gaps currently exist as the state works to strengthen tribal partnerships. There are various efforts underway by the state to improve collaboration of California Native American tribes and to build those lasting tribal partnerships. We look forward to continued dialogue to better understand those existing gaps and align our and align the language with those existing efforts.

For these reasons, we were we respectfully request your no vote today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there further opposition to the bill? Come on up.

Good afternoon. Eric Will on behalf of Rural County representatives of California and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We have an oppose unless amended position. We'll be reviewing the amendments and be in touch with the author's office. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities. Respectfully oppose unless amended and looking forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties oppose unless amended. We're also reviewing the amendments.

Ben Turner with Exium Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Britney Barsai on behalf of the California Special Districts Association. Look forward to reviewing the amendments opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Berrien, California Farm Bureau, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lily McKay on behalf of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Beth Olaso on behalf of the water blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Bringing it back to, Committee members. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Okay.

Sure. Why not? Alright.

Hi. Well, this is we heard a bill earlier today in your committee that was about making rights, some of the wrongs that have been done to California's first people. And I think this is a really important, piece of that puzzle.

You know, I think as we talk about the water right system, which is sacrosanct in the state and almost impossible to touch, we don't acknowledge the fact that when those rights became real, native people were not considered people such that they could have water rights despite the fact that the water was originally the native people's water. And honestly, they probably managed it better than any of us have. Ever.

And so, you know, I think that this really gets at the question of how do we, you know, make that right. And during some of my learning around that, I learned that we actually, of course, most native people had, when they were living on the lands, lived near water because, duh, you need water. And then when we, you know, after the genocide and all that went wrong, we moved native people far away from water.

And many of California's tribes do not have access to water anymore, and that is a catastrophe. And so I think that this is a really important step in making right some of the wrongs of our history.

We can never, we can never fully rectify what happened to California's First People, but we can take some important steps, and I think this is one. So I thank you for that. And with that, I'll move the bill.

Cool. We have a motion. I wanted to amplify that, and it's so well stated and think it's important to acknowledge the historic mistreatment that we're talking about of of Native Americans. It also sounds like, we do have amendments that were agreed to in Assembly Parks and Wildlife. The plan is to adopt those amendments in this committee, so that's in process.

I have recommended an aye vote. And with that, we have a motion. Do I have a second? Great.

And we'll have a roll call.

This is file item number six, AB 2218, authored by Assemblymember Kalra. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Ellis?

Not voting.

Bauer- Kahan?

Papan, aye.

Bauer- Kahan, aye. Castillo? Lee? Mckinnor? Papan?

Aye.

Aye.

We'll hold that open. Thanks. Yeah. Send me a member ransom. Come on up.

This is file item four, AB 2032, dealing with a very interesting subject, the golden muscle.

Would would you like me to-

That we're all learning about here. Yeah. We did not like the vape and show and tell. That's right. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Alright. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I wanna start by thanking, your committee for the work on this bill. I have accepted both, the committee, Water Parks and Wildlife Committee's amendments just for awareness.

I'm here to present assembly bill 2032, which is a critical bill that will allow local water agencies to quickly and effectively respond to the invasive golden mussel species. My community in San Joaquin County and the San Joaquin and the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta have been ground zero for golden mussel infestation, seeing the impacts firsthand.

First detected in October 24 in the Delta, the golden mussel has rapidly spread across the Delta and all along our state water project, now reaching as far south as San Diego. The golden mussels form dense colonies on critical water infrastructure, clogging and degrading our water delivery system across our state. This directly threatens our water systems that provide water to millions of Californians and millions of acres of Farmland.

With the chairs with the chairs, permission, Chair Connolly, I would love to show a picture. Is that okay?

Okay. Awesome. So this is a cluster of golden mussels, and this is what it looks like when they get into the water infrastructure. And so right now, the golden mussels are in a spawning season. Each golden mussel can produce 1,000,000 golden mussels.

Yes.

And so AB 2032 would help combat the spread of golden mussels by equipping our local water agencies with the necessary tools to expedite their response to prevent, mitigate, control, and hopefully eradicate golden mussels. This bill will ensure that water agencies can perform simple operational and maintenance work without delay. It would also allow water agencies with the guidance from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to perform necessary research studies to create more robust and effective control plans. Lastly, this bill will require our relevant agencies, including the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State

Lastly, this bill will require our relevant agencies, including the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Board to identify existing tools that enable a streamline or faster administrative process for responding to the golden mussels. Without urgent action, California families will bear the cost through higher water rates and increased food prices. AB 2032 ensures that we can act quickly to mitigate the ongoing golden muscle crisis. I will respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

And with me today, I have Kristin Olson representing the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, Ernie Avila, who is a Contra Costa Water District Board President, and lastly, Doctor Cindy Meyer, who can answer any technical questions.

I'm gonna turn it over to my witnesses. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and members. My name is Kristin Olson, and I'm here on behalf of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority in support of AB 2032 and a proud cosponsor with the Contra Costa Water District. I'd like to start by thanking Assemblymember Ransom for her attention to this critically important issue along with assembly member Papan who's been working hard on it as well.

The authority's mission focuses on operation and maintenance of the Jones and O'Neil pumping plants, which deliver water through the Central Valley to communities, agriculture, and wildlife habitat.

The invasive golden mussels pose an immediate and potentially catastrophic threat to our water conveyance system and a long term risk to the health of the Bay Delta ecosystem. A coordinated rapid response to the golden mussel invasion is essential to mitigate the impacts and protect our ability to convey water. Despite the coordination between the state and local water agencies, the response has not been rapid enough to control the spread of the impacts of golden mussels. AB 2032 provides critical approaches to address this problem.

It enables rapid response by streamlining regulatory pathways, expediting permitting for effective treatments, and allowing essential maintenance to proceed to protect critical infrastructure, while implementing best management practices and environmental protection measures.

It also improves coordination between the state and water agencies, identification of infested water bodies, and enables research for effective mitigation. California needs to recognize the seriousness of this threat and not inhibit rapid response efforts. AB 2032 ensures agencies can respond quickly to protect California's food and water supplies. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote. And as Assemblymember Ransom indicated, we do have Doctor Cindy Meyer here of the Water Authority who can answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Good Afternoon, Chair Connolly and committee members, I'm Ernie Avila, Board President of the Contra Costa Water District, here in support and co sponsor of AB 2032. Contra Costa Water is an urban water provider serving 550,000 customers in Central And Eastern Contra Costa County. We are wholly dependent on the Delta for our water supply with over ninety years of experience operating in the Delta. Contra Costa Water has adopted as adapted to changing conditions and presence of Golden Mussels poses an immediate threat to our infrastructure and the infrastructure throughout the Delta as well as the health of the Delta ecosystem.

Contra Costa Water first detected Golden Mussels at our intakes when the state detected golden mussels elsewhere in the Delta, and we took action using every tool possible knowing the severity of the situation.