ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S CALL THE
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE HEARING TO ORDER. AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE, WE'RE GOING TO
START WITH THE ILLUSTRIOUS
SENATOR DOLLY, WHO'S COME DOWN
TO PRESENT ITEM SEVEN. OH, WELL,
UNLESS YOU WANT TO. OKAY. I
WOULD TELL ME WHAT SHE. IS THAT
OKAY? JUST BECAUSE SHE'S. OR
WHAT DO YOU PREFER? I JUST GOT
TO GET BACK OVER THERE TO VOTE,
AND I WANT TO WEIGH IN. I WANT
TO YOURS IS FAST. YES. OKAY,
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GREAT OKAY.
WE'LL DO ITEM 17. THIS IS SB.
JUST WE DON'T NEED IT. YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE YOU'RE GOOD, YOU'RE GOOD.
YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THIS. YOU'RE
A PRO. ALL RIGHT SB 1062. LET'S
GO. SENATOR DOLLY. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I WANT
TO START BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH ME ON
THIS BILL. AND I ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS TO SB 1062 REQUIRES
THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION,
IN CONSULTATION WITH VARIOUS
OTHER STATE AGENCIES, TO CREATE
A BIOMASS TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
PROGRAM TO FACILITATE THE
CONVERSION OF BIOMASS ENERGY
GENERATION FACILITIES TO NEWER,
ADVANCED BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES.
THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION TO
IDENTIFY BIOMASS FACILITIES THAT
INTEND TO CONVERT TO ADVANCED
BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES THAT
RESULT IN REDUCED EMISSIONS ONCE
THE FACILITY. ONCE THE
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED,
THE DEPARTMENT SHALL REQUEST
INFORMATION FROM THE RELEVANT
AIR DISTRICTS REGARDING THE BEST
AVAILABLE EMISSION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES FOR EACH FACILITY.
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF
TECHNOLOGIES IN THIS BILL
ADVANCED CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY
AND EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.
THE ADVANCED CONVERSION
TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED
DISTRIBUTED TO THE FACILITIES
THROUGH THE GRANT PROGRAM THAT
WILL ALLOW THE FACILITIES TO
CONTINUE USING BIOMASS AS A
VALUABLE FUEL SOURCE. THE
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
ARE THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT ENABLE
THE FACILITIES TO MEET THE AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS OF THEIR
SPECIFIC AIR DISTRICT'S
FACILITIES IN CLEAR AIR BASINS
WILL NEED TO MEET DIFFERENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS THAN
FACILITIES IN NON-ATTAINMENT
AREAS, SO THE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES MAY NEED THEY MAY
NEED WILL BE DIFFERENT IF THE
FACILITIES WERE TO RECEIVE ANY
APPLICABLE AIR PERMIT FOR THEIR
SPECIFIC AREAS, THEY MUST
UTILIZE THE BEST AVAILABLE
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR
SPECIFIC AIR BASINS, AS
DETERMINED BY THEIR AIR
DISTRICTS. THE FACILITIES THEN
SHALL DEVELOP BUSINESS PLANS TO
INCORPORATE ADVANCED BIOENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES ONCE THEY BECOME
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE AND
VIABLE. THESE BIOENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES ARE OFTEN EXPENSIVE
, SO THIS BILL WOULD FACILITATE
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GRANT
PROGRAM TO ASSIST THE FACILITIES
IN ACQUIRING THEM. THESE
TECHNOLOGIES WILL ALLOW THE
FACILITIES TO CONTINUE USING
WOODY BIOMASS AS FUEL SOURCE,
BUT IN A WAY THAT REDUCES
EMISSIONS AND CONSISTENT WITH
CALIFORNIA BIOMASS REGULATIONS,
THE EXCESS BUILDUP OF WOODY
BIOMASS IS A MAJOR CONCERN,
ESPECIALLY IN MY DISTRICT. OUR
FORESTS HAVE BECOME TINDERBOXES
AND INADEQUATE VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT HAS LED TO THE MOST
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES IN
CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY. IN
DECEMBER 2022, CARB PASSED A
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE 2022
CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN, IN
WHICH THE BOARD RESOLVED THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR NONCOMBUSTIBLE
BIOMASS SOLUTIONS NEED TO BE
PRIORITIZED. THIS BILL IS
CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA'S
GOAL OF PRIORITIZING ALTERNATIVE
BIOMASS ENERGY GENERATION
METHODS. SB 1062 WOULD HELP
PROTECT OUR FOREST AND RURAL
COMMUNITIES WHILE ALSO
CONTINUING THE USAGE OF BIOMASS
AS A VIABLE FUEL SOURCE. WITH ME
TODAY, I HAVE I DON'T KNOW IF
THEY'RE HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW
IF MY WITNESSES ARE HERE YET.
BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF
WITNESSES IF YOU WANT TO HEAR
FROM THEM. I'M HAPPY TO HEAR
WHOEVER'S HERE TO SPEAK IN
TESTIMONY. THIS DOES ENJOY A
SUPPORT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
CHAIR. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOICE
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE
WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE
BILL WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. VICE
CHAIR. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S NOW HEAR FROM SENATOR
BLAKE SPEER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. 906. NOT BAD, WE'LL
GET STARTED, WITH WE HAVE THREE
BILLS UP TO DATE. WE'LL. DO YOU
WANT TO START WITH SB 1045?
LET'S, LET'S START WITH 1426
1426. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
FANTASTIC. THAT'S ITEM FOR SB
1426. NICE TO SEE YOU, MADAM
TREASURER. GUESS WE HAVE OUR
MADAM TREASURER HERE. SO YES,
MANAGE OUR TIME EFFECTIVELY.
THANK YOU. SO YOU MAY PROCEED
WHEN READY. OKAY THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. I WANT TO
START BY THANKING THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE, AND ESPECIALLY
BRYNN, FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD
WORK ON THIS BILL. AND I GLADLY
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
IN THE UNITED STATES, WE PRODUCE
JUST OVER 292 MILLION TONS OF
WASTE A YEAR. HALF OF THAT 146
MILLION TONS ENDS UP IN
LANDFILLS. THIS IS AN AVERAGE OF
ROUGHLY 5 POUNDS OF TRASH PER
PERSON A DAY. OUR
OVERCONSUMPTION HAS CREATED A
WASTE STREAM THAT IS DIFFICULT
TO MANAGE AND OVERWHELMING OUR
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. SB 1426
IS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE UPON OUR
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND
PROVIDE CALIFORNIANS WHO WANT TO
WASTE LESS AND DIVERT MORE AWAY
FROM OUR LANDFILLS. THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. THE SIMPLE
REFORM WILL MAKE CALIFORNIA A
DESTINATION TO BUILD MORE
RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE, CREATE
NEW GREEN JOBS, SHIFT CONSUMER
BEHAVIOR, AND STIMULATE THE
GROWTH OF A TRULY CIRCULAR
ECONOMY WHERE PROFITABILITY IS
TIED TO DIVERSION OVER
LANDFILLS. SPECIFICALLY, SB 1426
CREATES A NEW PATHWAY FOR THIRD
PARTY SERVICES TO COLLECT
MATERIALS FOR DIVERSION. IF THE
MATERIAL BEALL AND THERE ARE
FOUR PARTS TO THIS, ONE CANNOT
BE EFFECTIVELY SORTED BY
EXISTING FACILITIES AS IS
CURRENTLY NOT BEING COLLECTED AT
FACILITIES FOR RECYCLING OR
COMPOSTING AS PART OF AN
EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT,
IT WILL BE RECYCLED AT A
RESPONSIBLE END MARKET AND IS
NOT COVERED UNDER SB 54. I PLAN
TO TAKE AMENDMENTS IN THE
ASSEMBLY THAT WILL REQUIRE THESE
ENTITIES TO REPORT DIRECTLY TO
CALRECYCLE TO ENSURE THAT THESE
MATERIALS DO HAVE THAT
RESPONSIBLE END MARKET WITH THIS
NEWER LANGUAGE ALLOWS FOR OUR
ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR
INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DIVERT
MATERIALS AWAY FROM LANDFILLS,
WHICH IS WHAT WE DESPERATELY
NEED. IF A LOCAL FACILITY IS
UNABLE TO SOURCE MATERIALS THAT
ARE ENDING UP IN A LANDFILL, SB
1426 WOULD ALLOW THAT THIRD
PARTY SERVICE TO COLLECT THEM.
FOR INSTANCE, TEXTILES CAN OFTEN
END UP IN LANDFILLS AND ARE
UNABLE TO BE SORTED AT
FACILITIES. UNDER THIS BILL, AN
ENTITY WILL BE ABLE TO COLLECT
THESE TEXTILES FROM A HOUSEHOLD
OR A BUSINESS AND BE RECYCLED
AND OR REUSED FOR OTHER
MATERIALS. WE HAVE STATE
MANDATES, SUCH AS A 75% ORGANIC
WASTE DIVERSION GOAL BY 2025.
THAT'S ONE YEAR FROM NOW.
CALRECYCLE ESTIMATES 18 MILLION
TONS OF ORGANIC WASTE WILL NEED
TO BE PROCESSED STATEWIDE, AND
OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CAN
ACCOMMODATE ROUGHLY 10 MILLION
TONS. THIS IS A GLARING PROBLEM,
AND IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THESE
TARGETS ARE OUT OF REACH WITH
OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. TO
EXACERBATE THIS ISSUE, THE
RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP REPORTED
AN ALARMING 79% OF RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS NATIONWIDE END UP IN
LANDFILLS. THIS LOW RECYCLING
RATE IS A CLEAR INDICATOR OF HOW
OUR EXISTING SYSTEM IS NOT
WORKING. MORE RECENTLY, A STUDY
PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL SCIENCE
LAST MONTH FOUND LANDFILLS ARE
EMITTING 40% MORE METHANE THAN
PREVIOUSLY ESTIMATED,
UNDERSCORING THE NEED FOR
ADDRESSING OUR LANDFILL ISSUE IN
ORDER TO MITIGATE OUR CLIMATE
CRISIS. AND THIS ISSUE IS
PREVALENT AT FACILITIES LIKE
CHIQUITA CANYON AND LA COUNTY,
WHICH HAS STRUGGLED TO CONTAIN
NOXIOUS FUMES AND CONTAMINATED
RUNOFF CAUSED BY AN UNDERGROUND
GARBAGE FIRE, RESULTING IN THE
RELOCATION OF NEARBY RESIDENTS.
WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS
NOT MERELY A LEGISLATIVE CHANGE,
IT'S AN EVOLUTION, AND IT'S AN
EVOLUTION TOWARD A MODERNIZED
AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR THE
WASTE AND RECYCLING INDUSTRY. I
RECOGNIZE THE VERY IMPORTANT
INVESTMENTS THAT WASTE HAULERS
HAVE MADE AND ARE MAKING, BUT
THE FACT IS THAT WE NEED TO BE
WORKING FASTER. WE NEED TO BE
ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL MARKETS
TO SUPPORT WASTE DIVERSION GOALS
. BY SUPPORTING THIS BILL, WE
ARE TAKING A DEFINITIVE STEP
TOWARD BUILDING A TRULY CIRCULAR
ECONOMY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CREATING NEW GREEN JOBS,
ATTRACTING PRIVATE INVESTMENT,
AND BUILDING THE DESPERATELY
NEEDED RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE.
WITH THAT, I'M VERY HONORED TO
HAVE THESE TWO ESTEEMED GUESTS
RIGHT NEXT TO ME, CALIFORNIA
STATE TREASURER FIONA MÀ AND
RACHEL OSTER, CO-FOUNDER OF THE
RECYCLE RIGHT COALITION. WITH 17
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WORKING IN
THE WASTE AND RECYCLING
INDUSTRY. AND I'LL TURN IT OVER
TO THEM. THANK YOU. IF THAT'S
OKAY. CHAIR. MY WITNESSES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. FIONA
MÀ, CALIFORNIA STATE TREASURER.
I'VE BEEN WORKING ON GARBAGE AND
RECYCLING ISSUES FOR THE PAST 20
YEARS, SINCE I WAS ON THE SAN
FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
FIRST OFF, I WANT TO THANK THE
MEN AND WOMEN WHO, MAGICALLY
MAKE OUR GARBAGE DISAPPEAR EACH
WEEK, I JUST GOT BACK FROM KOREA
YESTERDAY, AND ONE OF THE MOST
FAMOUS PLACES AND PARKS IS
CALLED SKY PARK. AND IT WAS A
LANDFILL FOR 15 YEARS, FROM 1978
TO 1993. IT HELD OVER 92 MILLION
TONS OF GARBAGE. AND IT IS ONE
OF THE HIGHEST PEAKS IN THAT
COUNTRY. IT IS 446FT TALL,
EQUIVALENT TO ABOUT 40 TO 50
STORIES OF A BUILDING THAT'S HOW
BIG THIS LANDFILL WAS. AND IT
GREW IN JUST THAT SHORT 15
YEARS. SO WE ALL KNOW THAT
LANDFILLS ARE FILLING UP, NO ONE
WANTS NEW ONES. IT TAKES AT
LEAST TEN YEARS TO EXPAND AN
EXISTING ONE. AND THESE MATERIAL
RECOVERY FACILITIES, THESE
MURPHS ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO
RECYCLE, REUSE AND, UPCYCLE.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN
COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS THAT
THEY CANNOT DO EFFECTIVELY,
RIGHT? MEATS AND SEAFOOD FOUND
AT SUPERMARKET COUNTERS EXPIRED
OR WILTING PRODUCTS PRODUCE LIKE
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, TEXTILES.
AS THIS SENATOR MENTIONED. AND
THERE ARE NEW COMPANIES,
INNOVATIVE COMPANIES THAT ARE
FINALLY COMING TO CALIFORNIA TO
HELP IN OUR RECYCLING AND
GARBAGE CRISIS. AND SO THIS BILL
IS INTENDED TO CLARIFY BOTH
LEGISLATIVELY AS WELL AS LEGALLY
MORE CERTAINTY TO THESE NEW
COUNTRIES COMPANIES, IT WILL
HELP THE MURPHS, BE ABLE TO KEEP
OUT LESS SOILED MATERIAL, IT
WILL REDUCE TOXIC METHANE AND
HAZARDOUS GASES. IT'S GOING TO
CREATE THOUSANDS OF GREEN JOBS
WITH OUR TEAMSTERS AND AVOID
THESE MASSIVE LANDFILL BUILD
UPS. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. GOOD MORNING. I'M
RACHEL OSTER, THE CO-FOUNDER OF
THE RECYCLE RIGHT COALITION. I
HAVE 17 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN
THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
INDUSTRY, SPENDING FIVE OF MY
YEARS DEEP IN OPERATIONS,
OVERSEEING COLLECTION CONTRACTS,
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
AND ALL TYPES OF SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLING FACILITIES, INCLUDING
TWO OF THE LARGEST COMPOST
FACILITIES IN THE STATE. IT'S A
PRIVILEGE TO STAND BEFORE YOU
TODAY TO DISCUSS A MATTER OF
CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE. SENATE
BILL 1426. THIS LEGISLATION IS A
PIVOTAL STEP TOWARD MEETING THE
STATEWIDE RECYCLING GOALS. WE
ARE CURRENTLY FAILING TO MEET BY
A HUGE MARGIN. OUR GOAL IS 75.
WE'RE AT 41, 75% BY 2020, IT'S
A, SB 1426 IS DESIGNED TO CLEAR
AWAY THE OUTDATED REGULATORY
BARRIERS THAT CURRENTLY HINDER
CALIFORNIA'S EFFORTS TO MAKE
PERSONAL CHOICES TO LEAD MORE
SUSTAINABLE LIVES. CURRENTLY
MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS
AND BUSINESSES ARE PROHIBITED
FROM SUBSCRIBING TO SERVICES
THAT REUSE AND RECYCLE MATERIALS
THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING
LANDFILLED. THIS BILL CORRECTS
THE AMBIGUITIES IN OUR CURRENT
WASTE MANAGEMENT LAWS THAT
UNFAIRLY PREVENT CALIFORNIANS
FROM PARTICIPATING IN THESE
DIVERSION EFFORTS THAT ARE NOT
ONLY POSSIBLE, BUT NECESSARY FOR
THE HEALTH OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.
SB 1426 ENSURES THAT
CALIFORNIANS WHO WISH TO REDUCE
THE AMOUNT OF REUSABLES AND
RECYCLABLES SENT TO LANDFILL ARE
NOT JUST ALLOWED, BUT ENCOURAGED
TO DO SO BY CLARIFYING THAT THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO BE
COMPENSATED FOR COLLECTING
MATERIAL DOESN'T HINDER OTHER
SERVICE PROVIDERS FROM OFFERING
A SERVICE THAT WOULD RESULT IN
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY BEING LANDFILLED TO BE
COLLECTED AND REUSED OR RECYCLED
. WE THINK THAT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
AS SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, YOU'RE
UNDOUBTEDLY HEARING TESTIMONY IN
THIS SESSION ABOUT HOW THERE'S
NOT ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE TO
MEET SB 1383, THE MANDATORY
ORGANICS RECYCLING GOALS. SB
1426 DIRECTLY SOLVES THOSE
CHALLENGES, GIVING PRIVATE
COMPANIES THAT ARE INVESTING
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO
CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESS
TO MATERIAL THAT IS GOING
UNRECYCLED IN OUR CURRENT
SYSTEM. NEW MODERN
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED
WITHOUT RELYING ON THE PUBLIC TO
PAY FOR IT THROUGH INCREASED
RATES AS THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES
, IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF
COMPANIES CALIFORNIA HOPES TO
ATTRACT WITH THEIR AGGRESSIVE
WASTE REDUCTION AND LANDFILL
DIVERSION POLICIES. BY
SUPPORTING 1426, YOU'RE
CHAMPIONING A POLICY THAT
ENABLES INNOVATION WE SIMPLY
DON'T SEE UNDER THE CURRENT
MONOPOLISTIC STRUCTURE OF OUR
WASTE AND RECYCLING SYSTEM. SB
1426 WILL HELP US BUILD THE
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RESPONSIBLE
END MARKETS NEEDED TO MANAGE OUR
RESOURCES TOWARD A TRULY LOCAL
CIRCULAR ECONOMY. SOME OF THE
OPPONENTS OF THIS BILL, AS
YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD IN OTHER
SESSIONS, WOULD RATHER SEND OUR
PRECIOUS RESOURCES OUT OF STATE
THAN COMMIT TO INVESTING IN
INFRASTRUCTURE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. AS WE FACE URGENT
CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND
BEGIN TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
TRUE IMPACT OF LANDFILLING OUR
RESOURCES. AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, 40% MORE METHANE THAN
PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT MEASURES LIKE
1426 OFFER A BEACON OF HOPE.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT EMPOWERING
CALIFORNIANS TO TAKE MEANINGFUL
ACTION TODAY FOR A BETTER
TOMORROW. WITH 1426. WE ENVISION
A FUTURE WHERE INNOVATIVE
SOLUTIONS FOR COLLECTING AND
RECYCLING OUR RESOURCES ARE
EMBRACED AND OPERATE
HARMONIOUSLY. WITH THE CURBSIDE
COLLECTION SYSTEM WE RELY ON FOR
MATERIALS THAT ARE EASILY
RECYCLED IN A SINGLE STREAM. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT AS
WE WORK TOGETHER TO TRANSFORM
OUR WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTO
MODELS OF CIRCULARITY,
SUSTAINABILITY AND INNOVATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. LET'S, ANYONE WHO
ALSO WANTS TO VOICE THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL, THEY CAN
COME UP AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES
HERE AT THE MICROPHONE. MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, KATHY VAN
AUSTIN, REPRESENTING IMPERIAL
WESTERN PRODUCTS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. LEE MARTIN WITH TC
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REPRESENTING A
DIVERT AND RED WELL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GIVE
OPPOSITION THE OPPORTUNITY TO
COME UP, WE'LL PROBABLY ASK THE
MAYBE THE AUTHOR TO MOVE TO THAT
CHAIR, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A
COUPLE WITNESSES IN THE FRONT.
DOES THAT WORK? OKAY. THANK YOU.
GREAT YOUR CALL. OKAY, I'LL GO
FIRST. MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS MATT
BROD HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
AFOREMENTIONED TEAMSTERS AND
STRONG OPPOSITION TO SB 1426,
YOU KNOW, I WANT TO BE CLEAR AND
START RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAVE
EMPLOYERS SORT OF ON BOTH SIDES
OF THIS FIGHT, THE TEAMSTERS
RECENTLY ORGANIZED WORKERS AT
RIDGEWELL IN SAN FRANCISCO. WE
HOPE TO SEE THEM GROW. WE JUST,
STRONGLY FEEL THAT A BILL THAT
UNDERMINES FRANCHISE EXCLUSIVITY
IS NOT THE WAY TO DO SO. AND SO
WE'RE HERE IN STRONG OPPOSITION
TODAY. I THINK THE ANALYSIS DID
A GOOD JOB OF, AT LEAST,
POINTING OUT WAYS THAT THE BILL
WOULD UNDERMINE SORT OF SB 54
AND AGREEMENTS WE'VE REACHED.
AND I THINK WE NEED MORE TIME TO
VET THIS THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER
PROCESS. AND THAT HASN'T BEEN
THE CASE SO FAR. SO WE WILL BE
OPPOSED TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU MA'AM. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS KELLY ASTER. I'M HERE TODAY
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
WASTE RECYCLING RECYCLING
ASSOCIATION. PARDON ME,
CALIFORNIA WASTE HAULERS COUNCIL
, I HEARD OTHER WITNESSES AT
THIS HEARING TALK ABOUT THEIR
EXPERIENCE. I'LL SHARE A LITTLE
BIT OF MINE THIS IS MY 40TH YEAR
REPRESENTING THE WASTE HAULING
INDUSTRY, BOTH AT THE LOCAL
FRANCHISE LEVEL. AND I'VE BEEN A
REGISTERED LOBBYIST FOR PROBABLY
30 YEARS OF THAT TIME. I KNOW
SOMETHING OF THE ISSUE, AND I'M
GRATEFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY ON IT, THE FIRST THING
I'D LIKE TO DO IS KIND OF SET
THE STAGE A LITTLE BIT.
RECYCLING COMES IN TWO FORMS. WE
RECYCLE SOLID WASTE. THAT'S
MATERIAL THAT'S BEEN DISCARDED,
AND WE RECYCLE MATERIAL THAT
NEVER ENTERS THE WASTE STREAM.
SO PLEASE BEAR THAT IN MIND.
MOST OF THE RECYCLING THAT
OCCURS TODAY HAS BEEN THROWN
AWAY. FIRST. SECONDLY, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAS HAD A VERY
TRADITIONAL AND PROFOUND AND
ACTIVE ROLE IN REGULATING THIS
ACTIVITY FOR SOME VERY OBVIOUS
HEALTH AND SAFETY REASONS.
THAT'S PARTICULARLY TRUE WITH
REGARD TO ORGANICS, WHICH, AS
YOU KNOW, IS MATERIAL THAT ROTS,
THAT'S GARBAGE AS OPPOSED TO
TRASH OR A INERT MATERIAL.
THERE'S A POTENTIAL HEALTH
THREAT OF GREAT MAGNITUDE. IF
THAT MATERIAL IS MISHANDLED, IT
HAS TO BE OVERSEEN, IT HAS TO BE
PROPERLY ADDRESSED, THE
COLLECTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE IS NOT A RIGHT GIVEN BY
STATUTE. NO HAULER HAS A RIGHT
ANYWHERE RIGHT NOW TO GO INTO
ANY CITY AND DECLARE HE'S GOING
TO HAUL. IF THAT CITY DECIDES
THAT IT WISHES TO REGULATE THE
ACTIVITY DIFFERENTLY. THIS BILL
IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE NORM. BY
CREATING A STATUTORY RIGHT TO
SUDDENLY ENTER A COMMUNITY AND
CHARGE FOR THIS PRIVILEGE. WHEN
EVEN HAULERS DON'T HAVE THAT
RIGHT. THE RIGHT THAT THEY HAVE
IS THE PRODUCT OF A CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY,
WHICH THEY EARNED THROUGH
NEGOTIATION AND OTHER, OFTEN
THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO WHAT I
JUST SAID IS A STATE LAW CALLED
THE FIVE YEAR LAW, WHICH HAS NO
APPLICATION HERE, BUT WHICH DOES
CONFER A SERVICES CONTINUATION
RIGHT TO CERTAIN HAULERS WHO ARE
THREATENED WITH DISPLACEMENT BY
A CITY OR COUNTY. AS I SAID,
THIS BILL REWRITES THE LAW TO
GIVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO ANY
PERSON TO HAUL MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE, INCLUDING AREAS GOVERNED
BY AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE. IT IS
UTTERLY SILENT AS TO THE
PRACTICAL IMPACTS ON EXISTING
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS
OR LOCAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
WHICH CONFER EXCLUSIVITY AND
LIMIT WHO MAY LEGALLY HAUL. THIS
BILL IS NO MERE CLARIFICATION OF
LAW. IT PROFOUNDLY CHANGES THE
RULES BY WHICH SOLID WASTE
ENTERPRISES AND THEIR HOST
JURISDICTIONS HAVE OPERATED FOR
GENERATIONS. AND IT IS ANYTHING
BUT CLEAR. HERE ARE SOME
EXAMPLES. WE ARE NOT TOLD WHO
WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT
MATERIAL IS OR IS NOT BEING
EFFECTIVELY SORTED, OR WHAT THAT
EVEN MEANS. WE ARE NOT TOLD
WHETHER THE MATERIAL MUST FIRST
BE SOURCED SEPARATED BY THE
GENERATOR, WHICH HAS LONG BEEN A
REQUIREMENT FOR NON-FRANCHISED
HAULING. THE NEW RIGHT IS NOT
LIMITED TO THE ORGANICS WASTE
STREAM. IT IS NOT LIMITED TO
COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATORS. LET
ME JUST PAUSE THERE.
MONOPOLIZATION IS SOME CALL IT
THE. THE IDEA OF AN EXCLUSIVE
FRANCHISE AROSE, PARTICULARLY IN
THE RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT, BECAUSE
OF THE POTENTIAL THREAT TO LARGE
SCALE TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT
OF THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. A
DIFFERENT HOURS OF THE DAY
SERVING DIFFERENT COMPANIES. SO
IT'S FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT AS
MUCH AS AN OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCY STANDPOINT THAT WE'VE
GONE MIGRATED TOWARD THE
EXCLUSIVE MODEL. THERE'S REASON
FOR IT. SB 1426 COMPLETELY
BYPASSES NOT ONLY THE FRANCHISE
SYSTEM, BUT ALSO THE IMPORTANT
PROTECTIONS GIVEN TO SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMS
UNDER SB 54, ENACTED JUST TWO
YEARS AGO, THESE PROTECTIONS
WERE THE PRODUCT OF THREE YEARS
OF NEGOTIATION AND THE
ASSURANCES THEY GAVE WERE
INSTRUMENTAL IN ENABLING THE
WASTE INDUSTRY TO MOVE TO A
POSITION OF UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
FOR SB 54. FRANCHISED HAULERS
INCUR COSTS THAT ARE RECOVERED
IN THE RATES THAT ARE AUTHORIZED
TO CHARGE BY THE LOCAL AGENCY.
MANY OF THESE COSTS RESULT FROM
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW,
BUT MANY MORE ARISE FROM THE
CONTRACT ITSELF AND THE
OBLIGATIONS THAT IMPOSES THE
PAYMENT OF A FRANCHISE FEE IS
JUST ONE EXAMPLE. THESE AND
OTHER FRANCHISE RELATED EXPENSES
WILL BE AVOIDED BY THIS NEW TIER
OF SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISES THAT
WE'RE CALLING THIRD PARTY
RECYCLERS, PLACING FRANCHISE
HAULERS AT A DISTINCT
COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. WHAT
ARE THE EFFECTS OF THAT? THE
VERY FOLKS THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE ARE THE ONES
RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE ON WHICH THIS
STATE NOW RELIES. IT DIDN'T
EXIST BEFORE THEM. IT WOULDN'T
HAVE AROSE WITHOUT THEM. AND
THEY ARE AS RESPONSIBLE AS
ANYONE FOR THIS STATE LEADING
THE NATION CURRENTLY IN SOLID
WASTE RECYCLING. CAN I ASK YOU
TO WRAP UP? OKAY. THANK YOU,
NONE OF THIS IS MEANT TO SUGGEST
THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS NOT
ABOVE IMPROVEMENT. HOWEVER, WE
SUBMIT THAT CHANGE ON THE SCALE
THAT THIS BILL CONTEMPLATES MUST
BE PRECEDED BY A LEVEL OF
EXCHANGE AND THOUGHTFUL STUDY
THAT WE HAVE NOT YET AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL. WHILE
THE AUTHOR HAS MADE HERSELF AND
HER STAFF AVAILABLE FOR
MEETINGS, MORE DISCUSSION IS
NEEDED. THE LATEST BILL TEXT WAS
ONLY SUPPLIED TO US YESTERDAY.
WE HAVE TIME. SB 54 HAS YET TO
BE IMPLEMENTED AND WON'T BE FOR
ANOTHER FEW YEARS. SB 1383 IS
NOW ONLY BEING IMPLEMENTED BY
SOME JURISDICTIONS, WHILE OTHERS
HAVE YET TO DO SO. THE BILL IS
PREMATURE WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
AND WE URGE YOUR YOUR NO VOTE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO EXPRESS
THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
YOU CAN COME TO THE MIC. THANK
YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ADA
WELDER WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. KAYLA
ROBINSON, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMPOST COALITION AND
SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. DAWN
KOEPKE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
BALANCE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION WITH CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE AND RESPECTFUL
POSITION. GOOD MORNING,
STEPHANIE MOREL, ON BEHALF OF
RECOLOGY IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, VERONICA PARDO WITH THE
RESOURCE RECOVERY COALITION. AND
I SIT ON THE SB 54 ADVISORY
BOARD, RESPECTFULLY. WE'RE IN
OPPOSITION TODAY. MR. CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MARK
OPREA, ON BEHALF OF REPUBLIC
SERVICES IN OPPOSITION, AND ALSO
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS
MEASURE RUNS CONTRARY TO THE
PRODUCER PAYS MODEL AND SB 54.
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS STEVE
CARLSON FOR ATHENS SERVICES, A
FAMILY OWNED WASTE AND RECYCLING
COMPANY IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA.
WE'RE OPPOSED, JOHN KENNEDY,
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA AND OPPOSITION, DAVID
KRIEGER FOR WASTE CONNECTIONS.
WE SERVE 51 LOCALITIES HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG OPPOSITION
. MELISSA SPARKS KRANZ WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES. WE
SUBMITTED A LETTER OF STRONG
CONCERN THAT IF THE LOCAL
PREEMPTION LANGUAGE IS NOT
AMENDED OUT OF THE BILL, WE WILL
MOVE TO A FULL OPPOSITION. JOHN
MOFFATT, ON BEHALF OF WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS ADAM
BEGLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS SOMEONE
WHO SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS ON
SB 54. WE BELIEVE THIS IS IN
DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO WHAT WAS
NEGOTIATED. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT, WE GOT EVERYBODY. ANYONE
ELSE? OKAY. ANOTHER, ANOTHER FUN
BLAKE SPEAR. BILL, I THOUGH THE
ONE THAT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY
AMENDED, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT
FOLKS HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO
GO OVER EVERYTHING. YOU KNOW, I
MEAN, I DO I THINK THAT THE BILL
, DOES SEEK TO ADDRESS A REALLY
IMPORTANT PROBLEM, WHICH IS THAT
A LOT OF MATERIAL THAT IS
COLLECTED CURBSIDE IS NOT BEING
RECYCLED OR COMPOSTED, YOU KNOW,
ONCE MATERIAL IS OUT AT
CURBSIDE, IT CAN GET
CONTAMINATED WITH LOTS OF OTHER
THINGS THAT GET THROWN IN THE
SAME BIN. A LOT OF THIS, OF
COURSE, HAS TO DO WITH CONSUMER
EDUCATION. THERE ARE PLACES FOR
US TO IMPROVE, TO MAKE CURBSIDE
CLEANER, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A
TRUTH IN LABELING BILL SB 343
THAT I THINK WILL WILL CERTAINLY
HELP BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH
STUFF THAT'S GETTING TOSSED INTO
THE BINS THAT HAVE THE RECYCLING
SYMBOL, THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY
RECYCLABLE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT
PART OF WHY I AM, I HAVE BEEN
OPEN TO ASPECTS OF THIS BILL IS
BECAUSE IT'S REALLY CLEAR TO ME
THAT, YOU KNOW, UNLESS OUR
CURBSIDE SYSTEMS REALLY IMPROVE
DRAMATICALLY, A LOT OF MATERIAL
THAT THAT GOES INTO CURBSIDE IS
JUST ENDING UP IN THE LANDFILLS,
EVEN IF IT COULD BE RECYCLED OR
COMPOSTED AND I THINK THAT'S
WHAT THE AUTHOR IS TRYING TO
ADDRESS HERE, WE'VE GOT
SUBSTANTIAL COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
THAT HELP TO CLARIFY THE
AUTHOR'S INTENT TO KEEP THIS
RECYCLABLE AND COMPOSTABLE
MATERIAL OUT OF LANDFILLS, WHILE
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT
INTERFERING WITH LOCAL CONTROL,
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT
DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH FOR FOLKS.
AND WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN IN THE COMMITTEE TODAY ON
THIS BILL, BUT OUR AMENDMENTS
SPECIFY THAT MATERIAL CAN BE
COLLECTED BY THIRD PARTY
RECYCLERS. IF THAT MATERIAL IS
NOT CURRENTLY BEING ACCEPTED BY,
BY FACILITIES FOR RECYCLING OR
COMPOSTING, EITHER FROM CURBSIDE
OR FROM SOME OTHER DIVERSION
SURFACE THAT'S ALREADY OFFERED
BY AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT. THE AMENDMENTS ALSO
ENSURE, THAT MATERIAL BROUGHT IN
BY THIRD PARTY RECYCLERS IS
ACTUALLY DIVERTED FROM LANDFILLS
AND GOES TO RESPONSIBLE END
MARKET. THAT'S THAT WAS
IMPORTANT FOR US. WE WANTED
SPECIFICITY THERE, AND THEN AND
THEN, YOU KNOW, MOST
SIGNIFICANTLY, ON THE 54TH
FRONT, WE, YOU KNOW, COVERED
MATERIALS UNDER SB 54 WILL NOT
BE AFFECTED BY THE BILL, AND
RECYCLERS WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH
THE PRO FOR COLLECTING SB 54
COVERED MATERIAL AND THAT OF
COURSE WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO
US. NOW IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE AUTHOR HAS AGREED TO
TAKE AMENDMENTS MOVING FORWARD
THAT WOULD ADD A REPORTING
REQUIREMENT. TO THE BILL WHERE
RECYCLERS COLLECTING MATERIAL
UNDER THE BILL WOULD REPORT TO
CALRECYCLE ON WHAT THEY'RE
COLLECTING, WHERE IT ENDS UP,
LIKEWISE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
THE AUTHOR PLANS TO AMEND THE
BILL TO AUTHORIZE CALRECYCLE TO
CONSIDER RESPONSIBLE END MARKETS
FOR MATERIALS DIVERTED FROM
LANDFILLS. IN THIS WAY. YOU
KNOW, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, SO
I, I, I'M NEVER QUITE ESPECIALLY
WHEN THERE'S, BACK AND FORTH ON
AMENDMENTS. I'M NEVER QUITE SURE
WHEN SOMETIMES THE OPPOSITION IS
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION CONCERNS
WERE MORE BASED ON THE ORIGINAL
VERSION OF THE BILL, BUT I DO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE, YOU KNOW,
SOME OF THE KEY PLAYERS HERE
HAVE REVIEWED THE AMENDMENTS
AND, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY DON'T
TAKE OPPOSITION OFF FROM THE
WASTE HAULERS AND SOME OTHERS,
AND I AND I DO WANT TO KIND OF,
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, REALLY
EMPHASIZE WHAT IMPORTANT
STAKEHOLDERS THE WASTE HAULERS
AND ALL THE FOLKS WHO'VE COME UP
AND SPOKEN TODAY, PLAY IN THIS
SPACE. YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ISSUE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK
ON MORE THOROUGHLY, I THINK, IS,
YOU KNOW, HOW TO HOW TO HOW DOES
THIS, HOW DOES THIS ULTIMATELY.
SUPPORT, RATHER THAN WORK
AGAINST ALL THE ONGOING EFFORTS
WITH REGARDS TO SB 1383, SO I
KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT
OF CONVERSATIONS ON THAT POLICY
MOVING FORWARD. SO I, YOU KNOW,
CERTAINLY, APPLAUD THE AUTHOR
FOR HER, FOR HER DEEP INTEREST
IN THIS SPACE, REALLY TRYING TO
TAKE ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, YOU
KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS
WITH THE BILL TODAY, YOU KNOW, I
DO THINK THAT OUR FRIENDS IN THE
HAULER INDUSTRY, I THINK THEY
RECOGNIZE THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW,
PART OF WHY BILLS LIKE THIS ARE
BUBBLING UP IS BECAUSE THERE'S
SO MUCH STUFF THAT'S NOT GETTING
RECYCLED OR COMPOSTED, UNDER THE
CURRENT SYSTEM. AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT THE SENATOR IS
TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE WITH THIS
BILL. AND SO WITH THAT, THOSE
ARE MY THOUGHTS, I APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO
CONTINUE TO BE A VERY, WILD AND
WOOLY DISCUSSION. SO LET ME LET
ME TURN TO THE VICE CHAIR AND
MAYBE, IF MAYBE WELL, I DON'T
KNOW IF WE WANT TO. OKAY, LET'S
LET'S, I WAS JUST THINKING IF
ONE OF THE LEAD WITNESSES FOR
THE SUPPORT WANTS TO COME UP,
AND JUST SO WE CAN HAVE BOTH
SIDES HERE REPRESENTED. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MATT, I
APPRECIATE THAT. LET'S GO TO THE
VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, FIRST I WANT TO JUST,
MAYBE GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY. I
WAS A COUNTY SUPERVISOR FOR 16
YEARS AND WORKED ON THESE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, AND
THEY'RE VERY COMPETITIVE AND
THERE'S A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. TO DO WHAT
WE NEED TO DO. NUMBER ONE, WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
GARBAGE GETS PICKED UP EVERY
TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY
OR WHATEVER DAY THAT IS, BECAUSE
WE CAN'T JUST LEAVE IT SITTING
THERE FOR HEALTH REASONS AND
FOR, JUST GOOD GOVERNMENT. SO,
AND I WANT TO JUST QUALIFY THAT
WE DID SB 54, A BILL THAT THE
CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
MANY OF US WORKED ON FOR A LONG
TIME TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE
WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT
. AND IT'S BEEN, YES, A FEW
YEARS NOW THAT WE'VE GOT SB 54
AND WE'RE PUSHING TO GET THESE
WASTE STREAMS. SO I HAVE SOME
DIRECT QUESTIONS ON. SO I KNOW
THERE'S BEEN SOME AMENDMENTS,
BUT THEY'RE REALLY NOT THAT
CLEAR ON EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN. SO I WANT TO ASK SOME
DIRECT DIRECT QUESTIONS ON THIS
BILL. SO WOULD THIS BILL REQUIRE
A REPORTS TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND CALRECYCLE AS TO
WHAT MATERIAL IS COLLECTED,
WHERE THE MATERIAL GOES, AND
WHAT ITS END OF LIFE IS? YES,
WITH THE WITH THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE PLAN TO TAKE ON THE
ASSEMBLY SIDE, THERE WILL BE A
REPORTING REQUIREMENT TO
CALRECYCLE AND THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ON WHERE MATERIAL IS
GOING AND THAT THE REQUIREMENT
IS THAT IT GOES TO RESPONSIBLE
END MARKETS. SO WHY IS THAT NOT
AN AMENDMENT TODAY? THIS BILL IS
WHAT. SO I MEAN WHY IS THAT NOT.
THIS IS THE THIS IS THE I THINK
ONE OF THE THAT'S MY FIRST
QUESTION. I HAVE LIKE FIVE
OTHERS. BUT BUT THIS IS THE
CRITICAL THING. LOOK YOU'RE WE
HAVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND WE
THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PICK UP
WHATEVER'S IN THAT CAN OUT
THERE. NOW WE HAVE 54 WHICH IS
GOING TO DO SOME DIFFERENT
THINGS, WHICH IS A WORK IN
PROGRESS. BUT YOUR THIS BILL
WILL ALLOW SOMEBODY ELSE TO COME
IN. AND WITHOUT A FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT AND BE ABLE TO TAKE
THIS, TAKE WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE
TO TAKE. AND SO AND THIS BILL
DOESN'T CLARIFY THAT THE END OF
LIFE OR IS CALRECYCLE WHAT IS IT
GOING TO HAPPEN? I MEAN, THAT
THAT TO ME IS, A VERY HUGE
PROBLEM NUMBER ONE. SO, YEAH, I
MEAN, TO THE QUESTION THAT
YOU'RE ASKING IS REALLY VERY
MUCH ON THE OPERATIONAL SIDE OF
HOW IS THIS EXACTLY GOING TO BE
IMPLEMENTED. AND IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE
WE'RE GETTING THE FRAMEWORK
HERE. LIKE EVEN THE EXCLUSION SB
54, THIS DOESN'T COVER SB 54
THINGS AT ALL. SO THAT'S THAT'S
A BIG CHANGE. AND SO WE THE
REASON WE'RE TAKING THEM LATER
IS BECAUSE THEY'VE JUST COME UP
AS THE AS ISSUES ABOUT HOW IT
WILL BE OPERATIONALIZED. BUT I
ALSO WANT TO LET THE CHAIR SAY
SOMETHING IF HE WANTS TO ON
THIS. DO YOU WANT TO SAY
ANYTHING ELSE? SURE. I'LL ALSO
POINT OUT THAT THE BILL IS
INTENDED TO COVER MATERIALS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY NOT BEING DIVERTED
BY THE CURBSIDE COLLECTION
PROGRAM, AND THAT THESE
MATERIALS ARE CONTAMINANTS IN
THE CURBSIDE BIN. ANYTHING
THAT'S NOT RECYCLED IN THE
CURBSIDE PROGRAM, BUT IT'S PUT
IN THE BLUE BIN, IS CONSIDERED
CONTAMINATION AND IT'S AN ADDED
COST. SO THESE THESE SERVICES
ARE MEANT TO OPERATE
HARMONIOUSLY WITH THE CURBSIDE
PROGRAM AND ACCEPT MATERIALS
THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY BEING
RECYCLED BY THE CURBSIDE
PROGRAM, WHICH SB 54 IS GOING TO
INCLUDE THOSE IN THE CURBSIDE
PICKUP. THERE ARE MANY MATERIALS
OUTSIDE OF 54 COVERED MATERIALS.
SO. SO LET ME JUST CLARIFY A
COUPLE TO TWO QUICK THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE WE HAVE
AND THIS WAS A WHOLE BACK AND
FORTH I MEAN ORIGINALLY AS
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, THIS COVERED
54 AND DID DID DISRUPT 54. WE
HAVE NOW EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED
COVERED MATERIAL FROM FROM THE
BILL WITH THE AMENDMENTS. THE
OTHER THING I SHOULD JUST SAY,
SO THE ISSUE HERE ON THE
COMMITMENT THAT YOU'RE MAKING,
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT WE
SPECIFY THAT CALRECYCLE, DO THE,
THE FIVE FACTOR, TEST. THE ISSUE
HERE IS THAT AND THIS IS FOR
EVERYONE HERE. WE ALSO, YOU
KNOW, PUT IN PLACE. WE TOOK WE
ADDRESSED THE LOCAL PREEMPTION
CONCERNS WITH AMENDMENTS AS
WELL. IT IS OUR HOPE AND BELIEF
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT WILL WAIVE
HEARING NOW THAT THOSE
AMENDMENTS ARE ARE BEING TAKEN.
WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN CONFIRMATION
FROM THEM YET. THE ISSUE HERE
IS, OF COURSE, THAT IF IT GOES
TO LOCAL GOV THAT SCREWS UP
GOING TO A PROCESS ON THIS SIDE,
IT'S MY HOPE AND BELIEF THAT
THEY WILL WAIVE HEARING, WHICH
THEN MEANS THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT,
THE AMENDS NOW AS OPPOSED TO THE
ASSEMBLY. SO AS TO HAVE IT GO TO
A PROCESS. NOW ON THE SENATE
SIDE, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF
HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK.
BUT WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN CONFIRMED
RECEIPT FROM LOCAL GOV YET. BUT
KELLY, THANK YOU, SENATOR, JUST
TO RESPOND TO TWO POINTS. NUMBER
ONE, THE FACT THAT THE EXPRESS
PREEMPTION PROVISION WAS
ELIMINATED DOESN'T ELIMINATE
PREEMPTION. OKAY. THE BILL STILL
SAYS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS YOU
CAN NO LONGER REGULATE HERE.
THAT'S A PREEMPTION, WHETHER
IT'S EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE
STATE CONSTITUTION OR NOT. SO
THE SUGGESTION THAT ELIMINATED
PREEMPTION, THIS IS DIÆN TESTING
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF ONE OF THE
ESSENTIAL TOOLS THAT'S RELIED ON
FOR 40 YEARS. NUMBER TWO, TO
SENATOR DONNELLY'S COMMENT, THIS
IS THE FOURTH VERSION OF
LANGUAGE WE'VE SEEN IN SIX
WEEKS. NONE OF THOSE FOUR
VERSIONS INCLUDED LOCAL
OVERSIGHT OR CONTROL. THE VERY
AGENCY CHARGED WITH OVERSEEING
AND SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC HEALTH
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IS NOT GIVEN
ANY TOOL SET. THEY'RE SIMPLY
TOLD WE HAVE TO ALLOW THESE
OTHERS TO COME IN IN UNLIMITED
NUMBERS, HAULING UNLIMITED
AMOUNTS OF UNLIMITED TYPES OF
MATERIAL. THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL
DOES. OKAY? YOU'RE AS I THINK
EVERYONE HERE KNOWS, WE HAVE A
LOT OF SMART PEOPLE ON THIS
TOPIC. THE LOCAL PREEMPTION
QUESTION IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO
BE DECIDED BY THE LOCAL GOV
FOLKS AS GOING THERE. THEY'RE
THEY'RE THEY'RE REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW AND MAKING
A DETERMINATION. YOU'RE YOU'RE
THERE IS THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO
BE MADE AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE
IT FORCEFULLY TO THEM THAT THIS
MESSES WITH THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS. THEY'RE GOING TO
MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE
EXPLICITLY FOCUSED ON ITEMS THAT
ARE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE
OF THE OF THE AGREEMENTS THAT
THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO
BE THE DEBATE OVER. THEY'RE
THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION. THIS
DETERMINATION WILL IMPACT, YOU
KNOW, ASSUMING IT GETS OUT
TODAY, OF COURSE. BUT THAT
DETERMINATION WILL IMPACT THE
PATH OF THE BILL. YES, SIR. SO I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE
WAS CLEAR ON ALL OF THOSE. THANK
YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. WELL, FIRST
I JUST WANT TO SAY I WANT TO
HAVE A DISCUSSION HERE TODAY.
I'M FULLY PREPARED TO DIG IN
BECAUSE I THINK THIS BILL REALLY
IS COMPLICATED AND I THINK I'M
VERY NERVOUS ABOUT SOME OF THE
THINGS WITH WITH CONCERNS TO
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. WE ALREADY
HAVE IN PLACE. I MEAN, SO WHERE
IS THE OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT
IN THIS BILL TO ENSURE THAT THE
MATERIAL GOES THE RESPONSIBLE
END MARKET THAT WE'VE DETERMINED
WE DON'T HAVE? WE'RE GOING TO
GET THAT SOMEWHERE IN A FUTURE
AMENDMENT AND THEN ARE WE? SO
AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE
THESE COMPANIES WORD FOR IT THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO COME AND TAKE
THE STUFF OFF THE STREET, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO GO DO GOOD
THINGS WITH IT. THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL SAYS, THE AMENDMENTS SAY
FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIAL, THE
MATERIAL WILL BE RECYCLED AT A
RESPONSIBLE END MARKET. AND WHAT
DOES THAT MEAN, RESPONSIBLE.
WHO'S GOING TO ENFORCE THAT IS
CALORIES. I ASKED THAT IN MY
EAR. IS CALRECYCLE GOING TO MAKE
SURE IT'S DONE? IS THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT GOING TO MAKE DONE,
OR IS THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
GOING TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE?
BECAUSE TODAY IN A FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT, YOU SAY TO THE WASTE
HAULER, THESE ARE YOUR
RESPONSIBILITIES AND WE HAVE
TEETH BECAUSE WE HAVE A
CONTRACT, WE HAVE A CONTRACT
WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY TO SAY
YOU'RE GOING TO DO CERTAIN
THINGS, AND IF YOU DON'T DO
THAT, YOU'RE IN BREACH OF YOUR
CONTRACT. THERE IS NO THERE IS
NO CONTRACT BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE
ARE ABLE TO COME IN AND JUST
TAKE THIS MATERIAL AND AN AREA
WHERE WE, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
HAS A CONTRACT. THIS IS VERY
UNCOOKED. AT LEAST THERE IS.
THERE WILL BE REQUIRED REPORTING
TO CALRECYCLE AND THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. AND MANY SOME OF THE
MATERIALS ARE ALREADY BEING
REPORTED BECAUSE ANY TIME YOU
HANDLE A CERTAIN MATERIAL, YOU
HAVE TO REPORT IT THROUGH THE
ADRS, IF YOU HAVE A RECYCLING
FACILITY THAT THAT COVERS
MATERIALS THAT ARE RECYCLABLE
COMMODITIES, YOU HAVE TO REPORT
TO THE, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL
REPORTING SYSTEM TO THE STATE.
SO MANY OF THESE ARE ALREADY
COVERED UNDER, CURRENT LAW THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE REPORTED
TO THE STATE SENATOR. DOLLY, IF
I MAY RESPOND AS WELL. IT'S NOT
JUST A REPORTING FUNCTION. WE'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF
TRACKING OF THE MATERIAL. THAT'S
ONE OF THE THINGS IS YOU HAVE A
PRESENCE IN UNLIMITED NUMBERS OF
NEW PEOPLE COMING IN, DOING NEW
THINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL
SECTOR, NOT TO MENTION THE
COMMERCIAL SECTOR. WHO'S
POLICING THAT? EXACTLY? WHERE IS
THE FUNDING TO SUPPORT THAT? DO
YOU KNOW THAT MOST OF THE
POLICING FUNCTION NOW IN TERMS
OF DEFENDING EXCLUSIVITY UNDER A
WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE, IS
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE WASTE
COLLECTOR HIMSELF, OR HERSELF?
WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS DON'T HAVE THE
FUNDING TO HAVE ENOUGH OR STAFF
PEOPLE GOING AROUND POLICING
THIS, THIS ACTIVITY IS GOING TO
TOUCH EVERY CITIZEN IN THE
COMMUNITY, AND NO ONE'S
WATCHING. AND TO SAY, WELL,
WE'RE GOING TO REPORT THE
RESULTS TO THE STATE DOESN'T
BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE UPSTREAM
PROBLEM. IF THEY WANT ACCESS TO
THIS MATERIAL, LET THEM GET IT
FROM US, NOT FROM OUR CUSTOMERS.
THAT WAY, THEY'RE SUPPLEMENTING
OUR EFFORTS. SO I'M GOING TO LET
ME GET THROUGH MY LIST HERE OF
OTHER CONCERNS THAT I HAVE WITH
THE COMPANIES NEED TO USE THE
SAME TRUCK TYPES, CLEAN AIR,
CLEAN TRUCKS THAT ARE REQUIRED
BY FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, CARB
RULES THAT WE'VE WE'VE FORCED ON
THESE WASTE HAULERS. ARE THEY
GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO THOSE
SAME TYPES OF LAWS, THEY THOSE
REQUIREMENTS ARE GRANTED UNDER A
LONG TERME EXCLUSIVITY AND
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT
GUARANTEES REVENUE FOR AND
THESE, THESE, THESE SERVICES
WILL BE ABIDING BY ALL LOCAL AND
STATE LAWS FOR, VEHICLES. AND
THEY WOULD IF THEY WERE GIVEN A
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR YOU
KNOW, 20 YEARS OF GUARANTEED
REVENUE, COMPLY TO THOSE RULES.
BUT WHAT ABOUT OKAY, LET ME JUST
SO BASICALLY YOU BECAUSE YOU
DON'T HAVE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS IS SO THAT WE CAN
MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO THE CARB
RULES. AND SO THE NEXT QUESTION
WOULD BE WHAT ABOUT PREVAILING
WAGE LABOR REQUIREMENTS? ARE
THEY ARE THESE COMPANIES GOING
TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
REQUIREMENTS, IF THEY'RE IF
THEY'RE OPERATING OUTSIDE OF THE
FRANCHISE? THEY ARE. YEAH AND
THE AND WHO HOLDS THEM
ACCOUNTABLE? THEN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE THESE
UNDER A PERMIT SYSTEM, SO NOW WE
WOULD BASICALLY YOU'RE SAYING
THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WOULD
HAVE TWO FRANCHISES, ONE WITH A
FRANCHISE HAULER AND ONE WITH
THE NEW COMPANY. NO, NO. THEN
WHO? IF THEY DON'T, THEN WHO
ENFORCES IT, WELL, THERE ARE
ALREADY LOCAL AND STATE LAWS
THAT COVER THIS THAT THEY WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH, AND,
AND WE, THE LOCAL JURISDICTION
HAS THE ABILITY TO COME IN AND
REGULATE THESE SERVICES IN ANY
WAY UNDER THEIR, UNDER THEIR
JURISDICTION AND POLICE POWER.
OKAY. WITH THE WITH THE WITH
THESE COMPANIES COORDINATE WITH
THE SOLID WASTE FRANCHISEE TO
ENSURE TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS AND
FRANCHISE, AREAS AREN'T MADE
WORSE. AGAIN, THE LOCAL
JURISDICTION CAN REQUIRE THEM TO
DO ANYTHING THEY WANT, WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO PREEMPT THE LOCALS
FROM GOVERNING THIS SECTOR OF
SERVICES AS. SO THE REASON WE
HAVE THIS BILL IS TO GIVE THEM
THE RIGHT TO COME IN AND
BASICALLY DISRUPT A SYSTEM THAT
WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE. MR. CHAIR,
I MEAN, I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH
THOSE, ARGUMENTS TO DO A BILL
RIGHT NOW WHEN WE HAVE SB 54, IS
THERE IS THERE SOME MATERIAL OUT
THERE THAT, IS MAYBE COULD WE DO
A BETTER JOB WITH. I THINK,
ABSOLUTELY. BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, WE DID TWO YEARS OF
GETTING SB 54 IN PLACE. I WANT
TO SAY THE REASON THAT THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT THERE.
YOU'RE SAYING, YES, THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CAN DO THAT. THEY'RE
STRAPPED. THEY DON'T HAVE THE
PEOPLE TO DO IT. I IF YOU'RE IN
A COUNTY, YOU'RE GOING TO NOW
TRY TO WITH THIS BILL PASSED,
YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIGURE
OUT WE'RE PUTTING THE BURDEN ON
THE ON THE COUNTIES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO GET IN THE MIDDLE
OF WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE AS A
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND THEN
JUST IT'S GOING TO DISRUPT THAT.
WE HAVE WE HAVE LABOR LAWS THAT
WE'VE HAD WE'VE HAD UNION
NEGOTIATIONS OVER THESE
CONTRACTS WITH LOCAL COUNTIES.
WE'VE HAD AIRBORNE, REGULATIONS
TO FORCE THE WASTE HAULERS TO
HAVE, NATURAL GAS TRUCKS.
THERE'S SO MANY REASONS THAT I
THINK THIS BILL IS DEFINITELY
NOT COOKED, AND I REALLY DON'T
THINK WE SHOULD GET IT OUT OF
THIS COMMITTEE. THIS IS THE
ENVIRONMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY. AND IF AND IF WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE AMENDMENTS, LET'S
PUT THE AMENDMENTS IN HERE
BEFORE WE HAVE TO SEND IT
SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO I THINK THAT
THIS I'M FRUSTRATED ABOUT THIS
BILL, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING
TO AT THE END OF THE DAY, REALLY
CAUSE CHAOS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL,
AND THERE'S REALLY NO THERE'S NO
TEETH IN IT. THERE'S NO TEETH IN
IT TO COME IN AND SAY, WE DO
HAVE TEETH WITH THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS. WE HAVE IT. WE CAN
GO TO THE WASTE HAULERS AND SAY,
HEY, THIS IS WHAT WHAT WE EXPECT
YOU TO DO. AND THOSE ARE
NEGOTIATED OVER TIME. THEY'RE
COMPETITIVE. THERE'S OTHER
COMPANIES THAT COME IN AND THE
COUNTIES AND CITIES PICK THE
RIGHT, CHOICE FOR THEIR
LOCALITIES. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, I, I, I WON'T BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY.
THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH
UNCERTAINTY AND NEGOTIATIONS
GOING ON. AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN
TELL BY THE OPPOSITION THAT
THERE'S PLENTY OF PROBLEMS HERE.
LET ME ESTABLISH A QUORUM. LET'S
DO THAT. SENATORS, SENATORS.
ALAN. HERE. ALAN. HERE. DALI
HERE. DALI HERE. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ. HERE HURTADO.
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. HERE NGUYEN.
NGUYEN. HERE. SKINNER. OKAY.
LET'S NOW, COULD I RESPOND TO
THIS LAST COMMENT? SO I JUST I
WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS AND
BUSINESSES ARE BEING TOLD THAT
MATERIALS THAT COULD BE DIVERTED
HAVE TO BE LANDFILLED FROM
OVERLY BROAD READINGS OF THE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. SO IF A
CITY WANTS THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT TO COVER ABSOLUTELY
EVERY POSSIBLE THING, AND THEY
DON'T WANT ANY OTHER DIVERSION
TO HAPPEN IN THEIR CITY, THEY
CAN THEY COULD ESTABLISH THAT. I
THINK WHAT WE SEE IS THAT
THERE'S A HUNGER FROM RESIDENTS
AND BUSINESSES TO DO BETTER, AND
WE HAVE THIRD PARTIES THAT WANT
TO HELP AND THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS ARE STOPPING IT. AND
SO THE BILL IS AIMED AT ALLOWING
FOR THE DIVERSION FROM THE
LANDFILL WHILE RESPECTING WHAT
THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS ARE
ACTUALLY DOING, THE THINGS THEY
ARE ACTUALLY DIVERTING FROM THE
LANDFILL. BUT RECOGNIZING THAT
WE ARE SO FAR AWAY FROM MEETING
OUR LANDFILL REDUCTION TARGETS
AND THERE IS NOT THERE IS
THERE'S NOT ANYTHING HAPPENING
WITHIN THE WASTE HAULER SPACE
THAT IS PROVIDING FOR THESE
THINGS, LIKE TEXTILES OR THE
ORGANICS THERE, THE ORGANICS
THAT ARE NOT BEING DIVERTED
WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THAT TYPE OF
WHEN THERE'S AN INVESTMENT IN
COMPOSTING OR, A DIGESTER TO
MANAGE THE ORGANICS IN THE CITY,
THEN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
WOULD COVER THAT SPACE. BUT
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THERE
THE INNOVATION THÀNH AND THE
RESIDENTS AND THE BUSINESSES ARE
BEING TOLD, YOU CAN'T DO THIS
BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THESE
EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS,
AND IT'S AN OVERLY BROAD
READING. SO THIS BILL IS MEANT
TO SAY THAT THERE IS THIS SPACE
WHERE WE CAN PROVIDE FOR BOTH
THE SUCCESS OF THE FRANCHISE OF
THE HAULERS, WHICH IS CRITICAL,
BUT ALSO TO ALLOW FOR SOME
INNOVATION AND ALSO, IMPORTANTLY
, BETTER RECYCLING AND DIVERSION
SO THAT WE'RE COMPOSTING OR SO
THAT WE'RE LANDFILLING LESS.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
METZGER. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
SENATOR BIXBY, WE QUICKLY
CHECKED IN LAST NIGHT ABOUT SOME
OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE, THEY'RE
VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE VICE
CHAIR HAS MENTIONED, I WAS IN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT DURING THE TIME
THAT THE CITY OF LA AND SO
FORTH, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY HAD
THEIR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH
PUBLIC SERVICES. AND I REMEMBER
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS WAS WHERE
CAN CONSUMERS, CUSTOMERS GO FOR
COMPLAINTS? AND WE WOULD SIT
DOWN AND STRATEGIZE ABOUT WHERE
IS THE CENTER, WHERE CAN THEY
CALL, AND SO FORTH, BECAUSE OF
ALL THE COMPLAINTS, IT'S A NEW
SYSTEM, RIGHT? WE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THEY WERE HEARD. MY CONCERN
IS HERE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE
NO SYSTEM, IN PLACE FOR ANYBODY
TO REACH OUT FOR XYZ COMPANY WHO
IS GOING TO COME IN. I DO HEAR A
COMMITMENT FOR OVERSIGHT. I DO
WANT TO SEE THAT CALRECYCLE
OVERSIGHT, JUST LIKE ALL THE
OTHER WASTE HAULERS HAVE THAT
OVERSIGHT. I DO ALSO WANT TO
ECHO THAT. I DO AGREE THEY
SHOULD BE TAKING IN THIS
COMMITTEE, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT
TO THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION HERE
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF IT IS
GOING TO GO TO LOCAL GOV OR XYZ,
ANOTHER THING THAT I WANT TO ASK
YOU, SENATOR, DIRECTLY, IS, IS
IT YOUR INTENT TO GIVE PRIVATE
COMPANIES A RIGHT TO COLLECT
UNRECYCLED WASTE WITHOUT REGARD
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT? IS THAT
YOUR INTENT OF THIS BILL? NOT
WITHOUT REGARD TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. THE LOCAL I ENVISION
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALL THE
OVERSIGHT HERE THAT THEY ACT AND
CAL RECYCLE, BUT THAT THEY ARE
DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THIS. I MEAN,
IN MY EXPERIENCE IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, WE HAD REQUESTS TO
DO THESE VARIOUS OTHER THINGS,
BUT OUR WASTE BUT BUT BASICALLY,
YOU GET INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT
WHAT IS THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
SAY, WHAT DOES IT COVER AND SO I
DON'T I DO NOT SEE THIS
HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. I
PROCESS THE CITY COMPLAINT
PROCESS THE ALL OF THE POLICE
POWERS THAT THE CITY HAS WOULD,
WOULD BE IN EFFECT HERE. AND ALL
OF THE LAWS COVERING LABOR
STANDARDS AND ALL OF THAT WOULD
THEY WOULD HAVE TO, OF COURSE,
COMPLY WITH THAT AS WELL. SO
YOU'RE LOOKING TO PRESERVE THE
EXISTING FRANCHISE CONTRACT.
EXACTLY, EXACTLY, AND THEN I
KNOW WE BRIEFLY TALKED GOT INTO
IT. WHO'S GOING TO DETERMINE
WHICH MATERIALS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
THIS OUTSIDE RECYCLE SYSTEM. DO
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, IT IS
WRITTEN OUT IN MOST FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS. WHAT IS, WHAT IS
INCLUDED FOR RECYCLING? SO IT'S
A VERY CLEAR LINE. WHAT IS
INCLUDED AND WHAT IS RECYCLED
THROUGH THE CURBSIDE PROGRAM AND
THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. SO
WE'RE LOOKING AT MATERIALS THAT,
IF HANDLED DIFFERENTLY BY THE
CONSUMER, COULD BE RECYCLED, BUT
ARE NOT GETTING THROUGH THE
SYSTEM AND BEING RECYCLED
THROUGH THAT SINGLE STREAM
CURBSIDE PROGRAM. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, KEYS, CHRISTMAS
LIGHTS, YOU KNOW, YARD SIGNS.
THESE ARE ALL CONTAMINANTS IN
THE WHEN THEY'RE PLACED IN THE
CURBSIDE BIN, BUT HANDLED
SEPARATELY BY THE RESIDENT OR A
BUSINESS. THESE ITEMS ARE
RECYCLABLE, IT'S A SERVICE,
REALLY, TO THE FRANCHISE HAULERS
THAT WE REMOVE THESE ITEMS FROM
THE SINGLE STREAM AND PUT THEM
TOWARD A HIGHER AND BETTER USE
THERE ANYTHING THAT GOES IN THE
BLUE BIN THAT IS NOT ACCEPTED BY
THE CURBSIDE PROGRAM IS
CONSIDERED A CONTAMINANT, AND
I'VE SEEN IT FIRSTHAND. I'VE
VISITED THOSE RECYCLING CENTERS,
AND I SAW EXACTLY HOW THEY GET
PULLED OUT. AND SO FORTH. I'VE
SEEN THAT PROCESS. IT'S
MARVELOUS, I'M WONDERING IF YOU
COULD RESPOND TO ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS THE OPPOSITION ASKED
WITNESS, HER, SENATOR, IS IF THE
GOAL IS HERE, TO BE ABLE TO
RECYCLE THE CONTAMINATED
MATERIALS, WHY CAN'T WE COLLECT
IT FROM THE WASTE HAULERS? ONCE
THEY PICK IT UP, THEY HAVE IT IN
THEIR IN THEIR RECYCLING
CENTERS. WHY CAN THESE OTHER
WASTE HAULERS THEN PICK IT UP
FROM THERE? I MEAN, I DO THINK
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND I
WOULD SAY THAT WASTE HAULERS
MAKE THEIR MONEY ON LANDFILLING.
I MEAN, THAT THERE IS A PROFIT
MOTIVE TO PUTTING THINGS IN THE
LANDFILL. SO THE IDEA THAT IT
WOULD THAT THAT THEY WOULD BE
INCENTIVIZED TO DO THAT, I THINK
IS JUST NOT PRACTICAL. I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO
IT TOO BEFORE YOU ANSWER. I ALSO
WANT TO SAY, BUT ISN'T LIKE
THEIR UNDER I WANT TO USE THAT
PHRASE, THEY HAVE INCENTIVE WITH
UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO MEET
CERTAIN GOALS RIGHT? SO WHAT?
ISN'T THAT INCENTIVE ENOUGH TO
ENSURE FOR? MAYBE YOU DON'T
AGREE. YEAH. THEY'RE FRANKLY
THEY'RE NOT MEETING THEM. WE'RE
WE HAVE A 75% DIVERSION
REQUIREMENT BY 2020. WE'RE AT
41. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK
AT THESE DIFFERENT AREAS. AND
YOU KNOW, YES. TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION, ANY OF THESE OPERATORS
WITH THIS BILL, ANY OF THESE
FRANCHISE HAULERS COULD SET UP A
SYSTEM TO COLLECT DOORSTEP
SERVICE, TO COLLECT AND PROVIDE
THESE. IN FACT, IN SOME AREAS OF
THE COUNTRY, THESE HAULERS ARE
PROVIDING THESE SERVICES AND THE
RATES ARE NOT GOING UP. AND THE
CHAOS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT
IS NOT HAPPENING, THESE ARE ARE
AGAIN, THESE ARE MATERIALS THAT
ARE OUTSIDE OF THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT, THEY ARE RECYCLABLE
IF HANDLED A CERTAIN WAY BY THE
CONSUMER, AND THEY ARE NOT
GETTING RECYCLED. SO IF THE
FRANCHISE HAULER WANTED TO START
A DOORSTEP SERVICE WHERE THEY
COULD PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR
RESIDENTS TO COLLECT THESE ITEMS
THAT ARE RECYCLABLE BUT NOT
GETTING RECYCLED, THEY COULD DO
THAT EASILY. AND ONE MORE THING
I JUST WANT TO ADD IS THAT SB
1383 PUTS THE OBLIGATION ON THE
CITY. IT DOESN'T PUT IT ON THE
WASTE HAULER. SO THE CITY IS
REQUIRED TO DIVERT ORGANICS. BUT
CITIES A LOT OF TIMES DON'T HAVE
THE CAPACITY OR INTEREST TO DIVE
DEEPLY INTO THAT. SO THEY LOOK
TO THEIR WASTE HAULERS. WHAT ARE
THE SOLUTIONS THAT YOU'RE
OFFERING? AND SO IF THERE AREN'T
ACTUAL FACILITIES FOR THE
DIVERSION, FOR THE ORGANICS TO
BE GOING TO THE COMPOSTING OR TO
THE DIGESTER, THEN IT DOES
CONTINUE TO GO TO THE LANDFILL.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW A CITY TO
MEET THE OBLIGATION AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHERE THAT
OBLIGATION SITS. SO THAT THIS
BILL IS AIMED TO GIVE CITIES
MORE, MORE ABILITY TO MEET THESE
GOALS THAT WE'VE SET FOR THEM.
SO YOU WOULD YOU'RE ASKING FOR
THE CITY IF THEY WANT TO, TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH OTHER
HAULERS. IS THAT WHAT YOUR
LANGUAGE IS? THEY'RE NOT IT'S
NOT OTHER HAULERS. YEAH. OUTSIDE
OF THE FRANCHISE CONTRACTS, THEY
CERTAINLY COULD. THEY CERTAINLY
COULD PULL THIS TYPE OF SERVICE
INTO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND
REQUIRE IT. IT'S JUST THAT THE
HAULERS HAVE NEVER OFFERED THIS
TYPE OF SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS
THAT DIRECT THEM TO SOURCE,
SEPARATE THESE MATERIAL. WE'VE
RELIED ON SINGLE STREAM AND IT'S
FAILING. WOULD UNDER YOUR BILL
WOULD WASTE HAULERS THE ONES
YOU'RE LOOKING TO BRING IN TO
ADDRESS THE UNCOLLECTIBLE OR
CONTAMINATED MATERIALS? WOULD
THEY BE REQUIRED TO US, BE IN A
CONTRACT WITH THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OR WOULD THEY COME IN
AND BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK
WITHOUT A CONTRACT OR APPROVAL?
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT
SPECIFIED YET. I'M OPEN TO THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TODAY OR
SUGGESTIONS ON THAT. BUT THE
SPECIFICS AROUND THAT ARE JUST
THEY'RE JUST NOT SPECIFIED YET.
AND MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO
DIRECT ONE OF MY LAST QUESTION
TO THE OPPOSITION, PLEASE, SIR,
I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE
QUESTION I ASKED WHERE WHY
WOULDN'T BE ABLE WHY WOULDN'T WE
BE ABLE TO DO THE SYSTEM WHERE
THESE WASTE HAULERS CAN COME TO
YOUR CENTERS AND PICK UP THE
CONTAMINATED MATERIALS? DO YOU
AGREE THAT YOU'RE NOT
INCENTIVIZED ENOUGH TO DO SUCH
WORK? WELL, THERE ARE SEVERAL
QUESTIONS THERE. LET ME SAY THAT
WE HAVE FOUGHT HARD, VERY LONG
TO PROTECT AND TO GROW OUR CORE
BUSINESS, WHICH IS THE BUSINESS
OF COLLECTION AND FIRST
PROCESSING. IF SOMEONE HAS A
BETTER MOUSETRAP RIGHT NOW, WE
SECONDARILY PROCESS SEND OUT TO
OTHERS RECYCLED GLASS AS AN
EXAMPLE. BÀN OFFICIATORS HANDLE
THAT. SO THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR
THIS NOW, BUT ANY DISRUPTION IN
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
CUSTOMER IS OF PRIMARY CONCERN
TO US, AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE UPGRADING EVEN
FURTHER THE MURF INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT WE HAVE NOW. WHEN SB 54
TAKES SHAPE AND SOME OF THE
FINANCING THAT IT CONTEMPLATES
BECOMES AVAILABLE TO DO FURTHER
UPGRADES. BUT WE'VE GOT THE
NATION'S STATE OF THE ART
RECYCLING SYSTEM HERE. NOW, I'M
HEARING A LOT OF CRITICISM OF
IT. IT CAN BE IMPROVED, BUT THE
IDEA THAT WE SHOULD TOSS IT
ASIDE AND DO THIS WHOLESALE
CHANGE, THEY CAN ACCESS THE
MATERIALS FROM US. IF WE DON'T
HAVE A COMPOST FACILITY OR OTHER
FACILITY OR FACILITY, WE'RE
ALREADY SUPPORTING. ABSOLUTELY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY ANY HAULER
WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE FURTHER
PROCESSING OCCUR WITH HER
MATERIAL, BECAUSE THE MORE
DIVERSION SHE ACHIEVES, THE
BETTER OFF SHE IS WITH HER CITY.
MY LAST REMARK IS, YOU KNOW,
SENATOR, I. I HAD COMMITTED TO
YOU, ALREADY AND A LOT OF THE
LAY CONCERNS, EVEN FROM MY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, CAME REALLY
LAST MINUTE, SO I'M NOT GOING TO
GO BACK ON MY WORD, BUT I DO
HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS IN THIS
BILL, IN MY THAT I WILL BE
VOTING NO ON THE FLOOR IF
THERE'S NO MOVEMENT, TO ENSURE
THAT WE ARE PROTECTING AND, NOT,
NOT IMPOSE OR JUST NOT GOING
AGAINST THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS
WE HAVE AND ENSURING THERE IS
LOCAL CONTROL OF THIS. SO I JUST
WANTED TO STATE THAT. OKAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS. YEAH. SENATOR
GONZALEZ, THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND I WANT TO FIRST
THANK THE AUTHOR. I KNOW THIS IS
A VALIANT EFFORT. WE CHATTED A
BIT AS WELL, AND THE REASONS, OF
COURSE, I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR
AS TO WHY I WON'T BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL TODAY. WILL BE LAYING
OFF, OF COURSE. GO IN ALIGNMENT
WITH WHAT? WHAT'S BEEN SAID. AND
I KNOW THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THIS BILL, WHETHER IT
GETS OUT OR NOT, I KNOW THAT
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK
MANY OF US ARE COMMITTED TO
DOING, BUT I DO SHARE THE
CONCERNS SIMILAR TO SENATOR
JOLLEY ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE BEING FROM
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WORKING ON
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AS A CITY
COUNCIL MEMBER FOR LONG BEACH,
ONE OF THE LARGEST CITIES IN IN
LOS ANGELES, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT
DOES SEEM TO UNDERMINE THAT
PROCESS. MÁS. SO IT'S HARD TO
SAY THAT MANY OF THE CONTRACTS
WILL BE THE SAME, BUT THEN, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVEN'T BAKED OUT THE
DETAILS IN TERMS OF THE THIRD
PARTY, YOU KNOW, JUST COMING IN.
SO LOTS OF CONCERNS. BUT THIS IS
NOT LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OBVIOUSLY,
THIS IS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
SO OVERSIGHT ON END USE, WHICH
HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT. AND OF
COURSE THE MECHANICS ON IT ALL
IS IT'S JUST VERY DIFFICULT FOR
ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WILL
ALL WORK, SO WITH THAT, WE'LL,
I'LL BE LAYING OFF. WOULD LOVE
TO KEEP WORKING WITH YOU ON
THIS. AND I KNOW YOU'RE YOU'RE
COMMITTED TO THAT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. YOU KNOW, I OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S A LOT OF CHALLENGES HERE
WITH THIS BILL, AND I THINK
THEY'VE BEEN, WELL AIRED. DO YOU
MIND IF SHE RESPONDS? YEAH,
SURE. YES I WELL, I JUST WANT TO
MAKE, MAYBE PROVIDE A FEW
EXAMPLES OF HOW THIS PLAYS OUT,
ONE OF THE, THE MEMBER COMPANIES
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL WAS
TRYING TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO
COLLECT REUSABLE AND DONATED
ITEMS. WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING
ABOUT RECYCLABLE. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT SETTING UP A SYSTEM WHERE
THERE'S A CONVENIENT OPTION FOR
RESIDENTS TO DONATE ITEMS, TO
LOCAL NONPROFITS. AND THAT'S A
REALLY A LOCAL CIRCULAR ECONOMY,
IN MY OPINION, AND WHAT IS BEING
DONE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IS THAT
THERE IS AN INFERENCE THAT SINCE
THE FRANCHISE HAULER PROVIDES A
ONCE A YEAR BULKY ITEM PICKUP
FOR FREE, THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN
PROVIDE ANY SERVICE THAT
COLLECTS AND REDISTRIBUTES
DONATED REUSABLE ITEMS IN THE
LOCAL JURISDICTION WHERE THAT
WOULD BE SENT TO THE LANDFILL.
THAT SEEMS, CRAZY. AND THEN,
ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE IN THE
CITY OF LA, WHERE, MULTI FAMILY
DWELLING APARTMENT OWNER WAS
BEING FINED, $800,000 A YEAR FOR
IMPROPERLY SORTING CONTAMINATION
FEES. DISTANCE FEES. AND THEY,
THEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH A THIRD PARTY TO HELP THEM
SORT THE MATERIALS AT THEIR
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING TO REDUCE
THE AMOUNT OF CONTAMINATION IN
THE BINS, AND, AND GET IT TO A
BETTER PLACE SO THAT THEY DIDN'T
HAVE TO FACE $800,000 A YEAR IN
FINES AND PENALTIES AND THEY
WERE TOLD THAT THEY HAVE THEY
THAT THE HAULER HAS THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO TOUCH THE
MATERIAL AT ALL. SO EVEN THAT
PROVIDER WAS UNABLE TO HELP AN
APARTMENT OWNER REDUCE THEIR
FEES. AND, AND BETTER SORT. SO
THIS IS A I MEAN, THEY'RE,
THEY'RE EXISTING PROGRAMS ON
YOUR ON YOUR PREVIOUS POINT
WHERE VETS CAN COME PICK UP
CLOTHES. BOY SCOUTS, YOU KNOW,
THOSE ALL EXIST. IT'S NOT AS
THOUGH YOU WANT TO CHARGE FOLKS
TO DO THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, AND
THERE'S AND THEN THERE'S SOME
PRODUCTS WHERE, WHERE THAT MIGHT
MAKE SENSE, BUT IT'S NOT AS
THOUGH THESE PICKUP PROGRAMS
DON'T EXIST RIGHT NOW OUTSIDE OF
THE HAULER SYSTEM, THAT'S TRUE,
HOWEVER, THAT RESIDENTS ARE
SEEKING CONVENIENT OPTIONS. THEY
WANT TO EMPLOY A MORE CONVENIENT
OPTION TO COME TO THEIR DOOR.
I'M, YOU KNOW, IN A IN, THE
YEARS TO COME AND THE
GENERATIONS THAT ARE COMING UP
BEHIND US ARE NOT DRIVING AROUND
IN THEIR CARS WITH BAGS OF
CLOTHES FOR DONATION IN THE
BACK, THEY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S
JUST NOT THE WORLD THAT WE'RE
LIVING IN. SO, WE BELIEVE THAT
THIS CONVENIENT SOLUTION IS WHAT
CAN GET MORE DONATED BOWLS AND
REUSABLES TO LOCAL NONPROFITS
THAT NEED THEM. GOTCHA. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. DID. YEAH. SENATOR
NGUYEN, I JUST SO YOU MENTIONED
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COLLECT
ALL SORTS OF I MEAN, SO E-WASTE,
SO ELECTRONICS, CHRISTMAS LIGHTS
, ARE YOU ABLE TO COLLECT THOSE
TO, YES, THERE ARE IF THOSE ARE
SOURCE SEPARATED AND HANDLED
DIFFERENTLY BY THE RESIDENT,
THEY COULD BE COLLECTED AND
RECYCLED AND, BUT THROWN INTO A
SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING BIN,
THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED A
CONTAMINANT. AND NOT ONLY IMPACT
THE ABILITY TO RECYCLE THAT, BUT
ALSO THE WHOLE, STREAM. THAT'S
IT'S CONTAMINATING. OKAY. YEAH.
I MEAN, WE'RE THE CHAIR IS
STATING IS THAT A LOT OF THESE
ITEMS CAN BE PICKED UP AND MY
BOYS ARE IN BASEBALL SCHOOLS.
THEY ALWAYS ASK FOR ITEMS FROM
US TO DONATE. AND THEN IT THE
MONEY GOES TO THAT BOY SCOUT
BOYS, YOU KNOW, THE SCHOOL,
WHATEVER GETS DONATED, THE MONEY
GETS DONATED TO THE SCHOOL
INSTEAD. AND SO I THINK THERE'S
OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE, AND SO
I AGREE WITH MOST OF THE
COMMENTS HERE IS I THINK IT'S
NOT COOKED, AND SO I DON'T
THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT BILL.
MAYBE AS IT MOVES FORWARD, IF IT
DOES, WE CAN ALL RELOOK AT IT.
BUT AS OF TODAY, I WON'T BE
SUPPORTING IT. OKAY, I
APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS. YOU
KNOW, A LOT'S BEEN SAID AND A
LOT OF SO, YOU'VE MADE A LOT OF
COMMITMENTS TO US. I'M I'M
WILLING TO GIVE YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP DOING THIS
WORK. I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA
WHERE THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE
IS. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT
WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS AND
COMMITMENTS THAT YOU'VE MADE,
THIS HAS GOT A LONG AND WINDING
PATH AHEAD. IF IT GETS OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY. IF SENATOR
MENGIBAR IS WILLING TO MOVE THE
BILL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE OF
THE VOTE, AND THEN WE'LL SEE
WHERE THIS GOES, WE'LL LET YOU
CLOSE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE AND, AND STAFF AND
ALSO, THOSE WHO CAME TODAY, THIS
IS OBVIOUSLY A REALLY IMPORTANT
ISSUE. I MEAN, THE BOTTOM LINE
IS THAT WE ARE LANDFILLING TOO
MUCH, AND WE COULD BE DIVERTING
MORE. OUR CURRENT SYSTEM IS NOT
SERVING US AS WELL AS IT SHOULD.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO FIND WAYS
TO DIVERT AND RECYCLE BETTER. SO
I'M I AM EAGER AND HAVE HAD MANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WASTE
HAULERS. I'M EAGER TO WORK
TOGETHER ON SOLUTIONS TO MAKE
THAT HAPPEN. I RECOGNIZE THE
WASTE HAULERS HAVE A CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT ROLE, AND I FEEL THAT
I'VE ALWAYS HAD A GREAT
RELATIONSHIP WITH WASTE HAULERS
AND STILL DO BECAUSE. BUT
THERE'S A REALITY HERE THAT WE
NEED TO BE PUSHING IF WE'RE
GOING TO SEE A DIFFERENT RESULT.
AND SO I THINK IT'S, IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE THINK ABOUT
AND CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS
TOGETHER. AND I INVITE THE WASTE
HAULERS TO WORK WITH ME AND
ANYBODY ELSE WHO'S LISTENING TO
THIS TODAY, WHO'S INTERESTED IN
THIS TOPIC AND FINDING A
SOLUTION AND A WAY FORWARD.
BECAUSE BECAUSE I DO SEE THIS AS
SOMETHING THAT NEEDS ATTENTION
AND THAT IT'S A CLEAR AREA WHERE
WE COULD CHANGE OUR REGULATIONS,
WHERE OTHER STATES ARE DOING
THIS BETTER, AND THEY ARE
ALLOWING FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY,
MORE INNOVATION, MORE RECYCLING,
AND THEY ARE SEEING A DIFFERENCE
COMPARED TO CALIFORNIA. SO WITH
THAT, I URGE YOUR I VOTE TODAY,
BUT I ALSO AM JUST I'M I'M, I'M
HEARTENED THAT THERE'S SO MUCH
ENGAGEMENT AND I HOPE THAT WE'RE
ABLE TO REALLY SUBSTANTIALLY
MAKE PROGRESS ON THIS TOPIC.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL FILE ITEM
FOR SB 1426. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED, AND RE REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SENATORS ALLEN I,
ALLEN I DALI NO. DALI. NO.
GONZALEZ HURTADO, MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NGUYEN NGUYEN NO.
SKINNER OKAY, WE'LL LEAVE THAT
OPEN. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR
YOUR PARTICIPATION. OH, YEAH. OF
COURSE. AND 100, THE CONSENT
ITEM. SO. WELL, LET'S LET THE
FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO HELP
PRESENT SB 1302 COME UP. SORRY,
1054 BUT LET'S ALSO WE HAVE A
MOTION FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SO MOVED, SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL, CONSENT CALENDAR.
ALLEN I ALLEN I DALLI. DALLI I
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I HURTADO
MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I NGUYEN
NGUYEN I SKINNER OKAY. AND THEN
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A MOTION
FROM SENATOR NGUYEN FOR SENATOR
DALI'S SB 1062, THE SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. OH, YEAH.
YEAH HE'S JUST HE'S A TOTAL TO
ME. HE'S A TOTAL OVERACHIEVER
TODAY. FILE ITEM 16, SB 62. THE
MOTION IS Dð. PASS AS AMENDED
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. SENATE ALLEN
I, ALLEN I DOLLY. DOLLY I,
GONZALEZ. HURTADO, MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NGUYEN NGUYEN I
SKINNER. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL
LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR OTHERS TO
PRESENT, FOR OTHERS TO ADD ON,
LET'S NOW GO TO ITEM TWO IN YOUR
AGENDA MEMBERS, THIS IS, THEY
WERE ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE
LAST BILL, BUT THEY'RE HERE
TOGETHER ON THIS ONE, NOT AS
HARD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SB 1045.
YEAH ARE WE ON ARE WE DOING 1032
OR DO YOU WANT DO. 1032 1045 YOU
WANT TO DO? 1302 CAN WE DO? 1302
SURE. OKAY. YOU JUST. YEAH. OKAY
SO WE'LL GO TO ITEM THREE.
THAT'S, SB 1302 OKAY. SO THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES, I
WANT TO START BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY OFFICE ON AMENDMENTS TO THIS
BILL. I GLADLY ACCEPT THEM. I'M
PLEASED TO AUTHOR SB 1302, WHICH
WILL CREATE A NEW PILOT PROGRAM
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA BOTTLE BILL
FOR RECYCLING MACHINES TO
ENCOURAGE RECYCLING OF BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS, CONSUMERS PAY A
CALIFORNIA REDEMPTION VALUE, OR
CRV FEE WHEN PURCHASING
BEVERAGES, AND THEY RECEIVE A
CRV REFUND IF THEY RETURN THEIR
EMPTY CONTAINERS TO A RECYCLING
CENTER BY TAKING BEVERAGE
CONTAINERS DIRECTLY TO A
RECYCLING CENTER, THERE'S LESS
CONTAMINATION AND THUS MORE
RECYCLABLE MATERIAL ACTUALLY
GETS RECYCLED. UNFORTUNATELY,
THE NUMBER OF RECYCLING CENTERS
THAT BUY BACK EMPTY CRV
CONTAINERS HAS DRAMATICALLY
DECREASED FROM 2013 TO 2022,
MORE THAN 1300 OF THE STATE'S
REDEMPTION CENTERS HAVE CLOSED,
LEAVING ONLY 1245 STATEWIDE. AS
A RESULT, CALIFORNIANS ARE
MISSING OUT ON ROUGHLY 600
MILLION ON NON REFUNDED DEPOSITS
. FURTHER, THE CRV REDEMPTION
RATE HAS FALLEN FROM 74% TO
58.5. NEW TECHNOLOGY CAN HELP US
ACHIEVE THE ORIGINAL GOALS OF
THE CALIFORNIA BOTTLE BILL. SB
1302 DOES THIS BY CREATING A NEW
PILOT PROGRAM FOR RECYCLING
MACHINES, AS DEFINED IN THE
BILL. RECYCLING MACHINES ACCEPT
CONTAINERS, CONTAINERS AND
REFUND CUSTOMERS. JUST LIKE
REVERSE VENDING MACHINES. THEY
ALSO RECOGNIZE, SORT, CLEAN,
CANCEL AND PROCESS EMPTY
CONTAINERS RECYCLING MACHINES
THAT CAN ACCURATELY IDENTIFY AND
SORT MATERIALS WILL REDUCE
CONTAMINATION AND LEAD TOWARD
CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING. WITH ME
TODAY I HAVE MIKE MURRAY ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS AGAINST
WASTE. WE'RE MARK MURRAY. EITHER
WAY, THEY'RE SIMILAR. SIMILAR IN
SPELLING. YEAH. MARK MURRAY WITH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE, THIS
IS REALLY A TECHNICAL MEASURE
THAT IS AIMED AT AUTHORIZING
CALRECYCLE TO BE ABLE TO CERTIFY
RECYCLING MACHINES THAT COUNT
BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AS OPPOSED
TO SIMPLY WEIGHING THEM. AND, AS
NOTED, TO SEPARATE, CLEAN AND
DENSIFY THOSE CONTAINERS. ALL IN
ONE MACHINE. RIGHT NOW, THE CRV
IS PAID ON A STATEWIDE, WEIGHT
BASED AVERAGE BASIS. AND A
SECONDARY ENTITY HAS TO DO THE
DENSIFYING AND CANCELING. WE
HAVE TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN DO
THOSE TWO THINGS. AND WITH THIS
PILOT OPTION, CALRECYCLE WILL
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY
THEM AND ALLOW THEM TO PLAY IN
THE CRV GAME. ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
OTHER FOLKS WHO WANT TO WEIGH IN
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. NO.
YEAH. OKAY. MR. KENNEDY, JOHN
KENNEDY WITH CRC, WE DON'T HAVE
AN OFFICIAL POSITION. WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU FOR THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS? I THINK THEY
ADDRESSED A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS
AND CONCERNS THAT WE WERE
HAVING. LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING A
LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND
HOPEFULLY BEING SUPPORTIVE,
BECAUSE THIS CAN FILL A BIG GAP
THAT WE HAVE. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU. JOHN, OPPOSITION
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL. FOLKS
WANT TO RAISE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S
GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS. COMMENTS THOUGHTS.
ALL RIGHT. MOVE BY SENATOR
GONZALEZ, THIS IS ITEM 13. OH
TWO. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
SENATOR, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR. AYE. VOTE OKAY, SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL PYLE. ITEM
THREE SB 1302. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED. AND RE REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS AS SENATORS
ALLEN. AYE ALLEN AYE. DALLEY.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE HURTADO.
MENJIVAR. MENJIVAR. AYE NGUYEN.
NGUYEN. AYE. SKINNER OKAY. FOUR
ZERO. WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR
OTHERS TO ADD ON. LET'S GO NOW
TO 1045. WE'VE NOW WE'VE BEEN
MOVING BACK IN TIME. WE'RE AT
ITEM TWO. SO WE'LL GO, WE'LL,
WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL TURN TO YOU,
SENATOR, FOR YOUR FINAL BILL
PRESENTATION. OKAY AND, IF NEIL
EDGAR. OKAY. HELLO. WELCOME.
GOOD MORNING. SO THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES, THIS IS SB
1045. I'M THANKFUL FOR YOUR WORK
AND GLADLY ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS IN A CRITICAL EFFORT
TO REDUCE METHANE AND OTHER
SHORT LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS
IN 2016, WE SET ORGANIC WASTE
DIVERSION TARGETS OF 75% BY
2025. THIS IS WITH THIS WAS THE
PASSAGE OF SB 1383. IN ORDER TO
MEET THESE TARGETS, CALRECYCLE
ESTIMATES THAT THE STATE NEEDS
APPROXIMATELY 50 TO 100 NEW OR
EXPANDED ORGANIC WASTE RECYCLING
FACILITIES. ONE OBSTACLE TO
GETTING THESE FACILITIES UP AND
RUNNING IS THE TIME CONSUMING
AND COMPLICATED PROCESS TO GET
THEM SITED, AND PERMITTED. TO
ADDRESS THIS, MY LEGISLATION
WOULD REQUIRE THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH TO DEVELOP
A TECHNICAL ADVISORY ON BEST
PRACTICES FOR FACILITATING THE
SITING OF COMPOST FACILITIES,
AND REQUIRE LOCALS TO CONSIDER
THE ADVISORY. IT'S IMPORTANT WE
PROVIDE NEEDED TOOLS TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO BE
SUCCESSFUL. AND WITH THAT, I'D
LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY SPONSOR,
NEIL EDGAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPOST
COALITION. HI THERE. MORNING.
CHAIR ALLEN AND MEMBERS, THIS IS
THE FUN SHAKESPEARE BILL YOU
WERE LOOKING FOR. YEAH, YEAH,
I'M NEIL EDGAR, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA COMPOST
COALITION. OUR MEMBERS ARE
PREDOMINANTLY SERVICE PROVIDERS
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA WHO PROCESS YARD
TRIMMINGS AND INCREASING,
INCREASINGLY, FOOD MATERIALS TO
MEET THE LOFTY CLIMATE GOALS OF
SB 1383. AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, CALRECYCLE IS
PREDICTED THE STATE NEEDS TO
DOUBLE OUR EXISTING COMPOSTING
CAPACITY, ADDING SOME 50 TO 100
FACILITIES SINCE SB 1383 HAS
PASSED IN 2016, WE'VE ADDED
ABOUT A DOZEN FACILITIES, ONLY
TWO OF WHICH ARE PERMITTED TO
ACCEPT FOOD MATERIALS, WHICH
REQUIRES A HIGHER BAR FOR
PERMITTING. IN MY DAY JOB, I
PERMIT AND DEVELOP COMPOSTING
FACILITIES, HAVING PERMITTED 44
FACILITIES IN 23 COUNTIES. I
KNOW FIRSTHAND THE CHALLENGES OF
GETTING THEM ON THE GROUND AND
OPERATING ACROSS THE STATE. THIS
BILL IS INTENDED TO RESOLVE SOME
OF THE HURDLES THAT WE ARE
FACING IN MOVING FORWARD WITH
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BY
PROVIDING MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE
LANGUAGE. WE APPRECIATE THE
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH THAT
CAPCO HAS TAKEN, AND LOOK AHEAD
TO WORKING WITH THEM ON CONCEPTS
THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR
THE AIR DISTRICTS TO PERMIT
THESE FACILITIES. LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE
TO PLAN FOR AND PERMIT ORGANIC
WASTE FACILITIES. IN THE
INTEREST OF MEETING SB 1383
REQUIREMENTS. I JUST DON'T
BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT
TOOLS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES THAT
DELAY NUMEROUS PROJECTS. THIS
BILL WOULD HELP TO PROVIDE SOME
OF THOSE TOOLS. AGROMAN. ONE OF
OUR MEMBERS SPENT 12 YEARS TO
COMPLETE TWO ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENTS IN VENTURA COUNTY TO
EXPAND AN EXISTING FACILITY,
LARGELY BECAUSE THE ZONING
ORDINANCE DID NOT EXPLICITLY
ALLOW COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING
OPERATIONS ON AGRICULTURALLY
ZONED LAND. CLOSING THE LOOP ON
ORGANICS WILL REQUIRE, IN PART,
THAT COMPOST BE RETURNED TO
AGRICULTURAL LAND. LOCAL
SOLUTIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO
LIMITING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS.
WE APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
STAFF WORKING ON THE AMENDMENTS
AND WANT TO THANK SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER FOR BRINGING SB 1045
FORWARD. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO
ANYONE WHO ALSO WANTS TO WEIGH
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. YOU CAN
COME TO THE MIC. NICK LAPIS WITH
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE AND
STRONG SUPPORT. MISTER CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MARK
OPREA, ON BEHALF OF REPUBLIC
SERVICES, WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
EVERYONE'S COMING TOGETHER ON
THIS ONE. YEAH. JOHN KENNEDY
WITH CRC. AGAIN, DON'T HAVE AN
OFFICIAL POSITION. WE WORKED
CLOSELY WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS EARLIER IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS THE LOCAL
CONCERNS AND MAKE SURE IT'S
PROVIDING US TOOLS WE CAN USE
WITH THIS COMMITTEE. IT LOOKS
LIKE A STRIKING SECTIONS THREE
AND FOUR FROM THE BILL DEALING
WITH AIR AND WATER, IT'S ONE I
THINK WE CAN FULLY SUPPORT. SO
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THOSE
AMENDS AND JOINING YOU IN
SUPPORT ON THE BILL. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OTHER. SO
OPPOSITION CONCERNS. SO WE
HAVEN'T BROUGHT EVERYONE
TOGETHER. YEAH. INEVITABLE YEAH
I'M HAPPY TO REPORT MR. CHAIR
BRENDAN TUG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. WE
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR WORKING
WITH US AND ALSO THE SPONSORS
AND WITH THE, AMENDMENTS
REMOVING AIR DISTRICTS FROM THE
BILL, WE WILL BE REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION. SO THANKS TO
EVERYONE'S WORK, WE APPRECIATE
IT. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE BACK
TOGETHER AGAIN. GOOD. OKAY,
OTHER OTHER CONCERNS OR
CHALLENGES? YEAH. RIGHT. THAT'S
RIGHT. SO LET'S BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR THOUGHTS.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT.
SO MOVED BY SENATOR GONZALEZ,
HEARING NO MORE. YOU MAY CLOSE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. MOVED BY
SENATOR GONZALEZ, LET'S, LET'S
CALL THE ROLL FILE ITEM TWO, SB
1045. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED, AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS ALLEN I, ALLEN I, DALI,
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ I, HURTADO.
MENJIVAR. MENJIVAR I NGUYEN.
NGUYEN NØ. SKINNER OKAY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR, I THINK
WE'RE WAITING FOR SENATOR
CABALLERO, WHO IS HERE, BUT SHE
LEFT. LET ME. I'LL TEXT HER.
YEAH.
ACROSS THE STREET. SO IT'S IN
BETWEEN THE SWING SPACE AND THE
CAMERA. AWESOME. OKAY I'LL MAKE
SURE NO ONE LOOKS. THERE YOU GO.
SORRY, SORRY. YES YEAH.
SO JUST WITH YOU IN THE CORNER.
YOU YOU'RE HIDING YOUR. YEAH.
THAT'S FINE. YOU KNOW. JUST JUST
FOR YOU. ARE OKAY. AND YEAH. AND
YOU CAN SWITCH
.
SORRY WE'RE GOING TO. WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS.
PIMCO'S FIRST, I THINK.
CABALLERO IS FIRST HERE TO
PRESENT ITEM FIVE. THIS IS SB
1140.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. CHAIRS AND MEMBERS, THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1140. FROM THE EARLY
1950S UNTIL THE STATE DISSOLVED
THEM IN 2011, CITY AND COUNTIES
REDEVELOPED AGENCIES, USED
PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
TO PAY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS IN BLIGHTED AND
DETERIORATING NEIGHBORHOODS.
AFTER RDA'S WERE ELIMINATED,
LOCAL OFFICIALS SOUGHT OTHER
METHODS TO RAISE THE CAPITAL
NEEDED TO FUND CRITICAL PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS. IN RESPONSE, A
LEGISLATURE ENACTED SB 628 TO
ALLOW LOCAL OFFICIALS TO CREATE
ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE
FINANCING DISTRICTS, OR IFDS.
IFDS CAN FINANCE PUBLIC CAPITAL
FACILITIES OR OTHER SPECIFIED
PROJECTS TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT
BENEFITS TO THE DISTRICT OR THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY THAT
RESULT IN A USEFUL LIFE OF 15
YEARS OR MORE. SIMILARLY, SB 852
USED THIS SAME MODEL TO CREATE
CLIMATE RESILIENCY DISTRICTS OR
CRDS, TO RAISE REVENUE PLAN
CLIMATE MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION
PROJECTS WITH A FUNDING
MECHANISM TO IMPLEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND BOTH
IFDS AND CRDS ARE VITAL TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING TOOLS TO
FUND AND FINANCE PUBLIC
FACILITIES OR PROJECTS OF
COMMUNITY WIDE. SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANCE. UNFORTUNATELY,
SOME CITIES AND COUNTIES HAVE
LIMITED STAFF AND RESOURCES, AND
FORMING THESE DISTRICTS REQUIRE
DUPLICATIVE PROCESSES AND ARE
CUMBERSOME TO INITIATE. SB 1140
WILL REFORM AIFD AND CRD LAW TO
STREAMLINE AND CREATE
EFFICIENCIES IN THE FORMATION
PROCESS AND EXPAND THE TYPES OF
PROJECTS THESE TOOLS CAN
FINANCE. SB 1140 WILL REDUCE THE
MANDATORY MEETINGS FROM 4 TO 2.
IT BROADENS THE ALTERNATIVE
MAILING AND NOTIFICATION METHODS
TO INCORPORATE ALL EAFD
FORMATION MEETINGS, ANNUAL
REPORTS, AND POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS, AND IT ELIMINATES
THE MANDATES FOR THE PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY TO PUBLISH
MEETING NOTICES IN NEWSPAPERS.
INSTEAD, IT ENABLES THE FORMING
AGENCY TO ELECTRONICALLY SUBMIT
ITS RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO
ESTABLISH THE DISTRICT TO OTHER
TAXING ENTITIES, ELIMINATING THE
NEED FOR MAILING. FURTHERMORE,
IT REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT TO
MAIL ANNUAL REPORT NOTICES VIA
FIRST CLASS MAIL SB Ô0 EXPANDS
THE TYPE OF PROJECTS THAT IDES
AND CRDS CAN FINANCE TO INCLUDE
PROJECTS THAT IMPROVE AIR
QUALITY. WITH ME TO TESTIFY AND
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IS ASHLEY
SWEARENGIN, CEO PRESIDENT OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION AND GEARBOX HOTA, ACE
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA ACADEMY
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF. MY NAME IS
GURBAX MEHTA, AND I'M THE
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THE
SENATOR DID A GREAT JOB
EXPLAINING THE DETAILS OF THE
BILL AND THE NEED FOR IT. WE
REPRESENT OVER 800 ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS THAT
ARE WORKING HARD TO CREATE
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR
CALIFORNIANS. EVERY DAY. AND
THAT INCLUDES NEARLY 300
JURISDICTIONS AS IFDS HAVE
BECOME MORE AND MORE POPULAR AS
A TOOL FOR CONSIDERATION TO FUND
INFRASTRUCTURE, IN PARTICULAR,
WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THE
FORMATION PROCESS IS BOTH
CUMBERSOME AND COMPLEX AND
COSTLY FOR THESE JURISDICTIONS,
AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE YOU
HAD SEVERAL PIECES OF LAW THAT
WERE BUNDLED TOGETHER TO CREATE
THAT FORMATION PROCESS EARLY ON,
WE'RE REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THE
SENATOR'S LEADERSHIP IN THIS
SPACE, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT
DOING THIS STREAMLINING WHILE
MAINTAINING A ROBUST
TRANSPARENCY PIECE TO IT AS
WELL, WILL ALLOW MORE
JURISDICTIONS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THIS TOOL AND
HOPEFULLY MOVE THEIR ECONOMY
FORWARD AS WELL. OKAY. THANK
YOU. LET'S GO TO ANYONE WHO
WANTS TO WIN IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. ANY SUPPORTERS? OKAY.
OPPOSITION THÀNH, OKAY. WE'RE
GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL. I
WILL TAKE A MOTION WHEN IT'S
WHEN IT'S, WHEN WE HAVE MORE
PEOPLE, BUT BUT I HAVE GREAT
CONFIDENCE THAT THIS BILL WILL
BE MOVING ALONG, SO THANK YOU,
SENATOR. I ASSUME YOU
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE?
YES, SIR. GREAT OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S NOW HEAR FROM
SENATOR LIMÓN. WHO'S HERE. OH.
OH, OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO DO A
QUICK. LARRY'S A REAL QUICK ONE.
IS YOURS QUICK? MINE SHOULD BE
QUICK. MINE IS NOT AS QUICK.
OKAY ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL DO
WE'LL DO YOU REAL QUICK, JOHN.
YOU GOT. LET'S YOU HAVE
DIFFERING OPINIONS. LET'S GO
REAL FAST. JOHN. IS THAT OKAY?
YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS A NO SUPPORT
OPPOSITION, A SENATE BILL 1440
REQUIRES THE WATER BOARD TO
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON
EFFORTS MADE TO REGULATE
STORMWATER, FORMER MAYOR ERIC
GARCIA THOUGHT STORMWATER WOULD
BE A GREAT WATER SOURCE FOR LOS
ANGELES. THERE'S FIRST FLUSH
THAT IS DONE TO LOOK AT THE
POLLUTION IN THE IN THE FIRST
RUNOFF AFTER RAINS. AND PEOPLE
ARE TOLD THAT THE SANTA MONICA
BAY AND OTHER PLACES NOT TO SWIM
WITHIN HUNDREDS OF FEET OF
OUTFALLS WHEN THIS HAPPENED. AND
THERE ARE PLACES PAINTED IN ALL
OUR COASTAL DISTRICTS THAT SAY,
FLOWS TO OCEAN SO PEOPLE WON'T
DUMP MOTOR OIL AND OTHER THINGS
IN IT. THERE ARE REPORTS
REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT
AND THEY HAVE FALLEN OFF,
GREATLY. THE PERCENT IS DOWN.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS REQUIRE
THE WATER BOARD AND OTHERS TO
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON THE
STATUS OF THIS REPORTS TO MAKE
THEM, ACTUALLY BE FILED. AND IT
DOES DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS AND IT
GIVES US THE PUBLIC POLICY TOOLS
TO DECIDE IF WE NEED TO TAKE
FURTHER ACTION. IT WOULD
ACTUALLY REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTS
TO THE LEGISLATURE AS A LEVERAGE
TO GET THESE REPORTS FILED.
THERE'S NO OPPOSITION. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANYONE WANTS TO COME TO THE MIC
EITHER SIDE, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION, WHEN WE HAVE MORE
MEMBERS HERE. WELL, I WOULD LIKE
TO CLOSE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO
CLOSE BY THANKING SENATOR LAMONE
TO LET ME GO IN FRONT OF HIM.
EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S NOW, ASK SENATOR LIMAN TO
COME UP AND PRESENT. SHE'S GOT
TWO BILLS, SB 1304 AND 1433. ALL
RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO START
WITH 1433, IF THAT'S OKAY. SURE
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. CHAIR. AND
SENATORS, THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION HAS PROJECTED WE WILL
NEED ABOUT 52,000MW OF ENERGY
STORAGE CAPACITY BY 2045 TO MEET
ELECTRICITY DEMAND TO REACH THIS
GOAL, WE WOULD NEED A VARIETY OF
TYPES OF ENERGY STORAGE. LARGE
AND SMALL, ACROSS THE STATE. THE
STATE ALSO HAS NEARLY 39,000
IDLE OIL WELLS. THIS BILL WOULD
CREATE A PILOT PROGRAM TO STUDY
THE USE OF GRAVITY WELLS, AND
HOW THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED.
CAN CAN USE IDLE WELLS TO CREATE
MORE ENERGY STORAGE. THIS BILL
WILL ALLOW THE PERMITTING OF
GRAVITY WELLS WITH APPROPRIATE
TESTING AND REPORTING AFTERWARDS
TO DETERMINE THE IMPACTS OF THIS
NEW TECHNOLOGY. WITH ME TODAY, I
HAVE PETE MONTGOMERY
REPRESENTING RENEWAL ENERGY AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE
WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. HI
THERE. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS PETE MONTGOMERY. I'M
HERE TODAY REPRESENTING RENEWAL
ENERGY. WE'RE THE SPONSOR OF SB
1433. THE ENACTMENT OF SB 1433
COULD FACILITATE A NEW
TECHNOLOGY CAPABLE OF HELPING
THE STATE WITH TWO CRITICAL
ISSUES OUR AMBITIOUS RENEWABLE
ENERGY GOALS NECESSITATE A
DRAMATIC INCREASE IN ENERGY
STORAGE CAPACITY, AND AT THE
SAME TIME, THE STATE HAS ONE OF
THE HIGHEST NUMBERS OF IDLE
WELLS IN THE COUNTRY. ALL 35,000
OF WHICH NEED TO BE REMEDIATED
IN ORDER TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT. UNFORTUNATE WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE
CURRENT IDLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
TODAY'S IDLE WELLS COULD BECOME
TOMORROW'S ORPHAN WELLS, WHICH
IS A SIGNIFICANT WORST REALITY.
CONVERSION OF AN IDLE WELL INTO
A GRAVITY BASED ENERGY STORAGE
WELL PROVIDES A 2 IN 1 SOLUTION.
BY REPURPOSING THE IDLE WELLS
INTO GRAVITY BASED ENERGY,
SEALING OFF WITH A 100 FOOT
CEMENT PLUG, THE HYDROCARBON
RESERVOIR AND CLEANING UP THE
WELL IN THE PROCESS. WHEN A
COMPANY LIKE RENEWAL TRANSFORMS
AN IDLE WELL, IT DOES SO WITH
UNPARALLELED ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS. EVERY WELL WE
CONVERT WILL FEATURE BEST IN
CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING,
WITH CONTINUOUS METHANE SENSORS
AND MECHANICAL INTEGRITY
MONITORING, WE'RE ABLE TO DETECT
SYSTEM ISSUES THAT MIGHT IMPACT
AIR OR WATER IN REAL TIME AND
LONG BEFORE A SCHEDULED PRESS OR
PRESSURE TEST. WE CAN ALSO DO
THIS WITH THE SAME HARDHAT
WEARING WORKFORCE THAT MAINTAINS
THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY TODAY,
INVITING THEM INTO THE CLEAN
ENERGY TRANSITION WITH ZERO
RETRAINING. THE PILOT PROGRAM,
ESTABLISHED IN SB 1433, GIVES
COMPANIES LIKE RENEWAL A CLEAR
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO
OPERATE. WITHOUT IT, THE
REGULATORY BARRIERS, BARRIERS TO
INNOVATE ARE TOO DIFFICULT TO
OVERCOME. THE PILOT PROGRAM ALSO
ALLOWS THE TECHNOLOGY TO PROVE
COMMERCIALLY, GET FEEDBACK FROM
STAKEHOLDERS AND ESTABLISH
PROPER CHANNELS FOR REPORTING.
WE APPRECIATE SENATOR LEHMANN'S
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US ON
THIS CONCEPT, AND FOR HER LONG
STANDING LEADERSHIP ON THE ISSUE
OF IDLE WELLS ON BEHALF OF
RENEWAL, I ASK THE COMMITTEE TO
SUPPORT SB 1433. THANK YOU. I
REITERATE YOUR, YOUR PRAISE FOR
THE SENATOR, FOR HER, FOR HER
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE, FOR
QUITE SOME TIME, OKAY. OTHER
FOLKS WHO WANT YOU CAN STAY. YOU
CAN STAY. IT'S NICE THERE.
RIGHT. ANY ANY ADDITIONAL FOLKS
WHO WANT TO WEIGH IN IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL OR RAISE ANYONE?
OPPOSITION? YEAH. OKAY. COME ON
UP. YOU KNOW WHAT? WHY DON'T YOU
MOVE TO THE MIDDLE SEAT AND THEN
HE CAN. HE CAN YOU CAN MOVE TO
THE MIDDLE SEAT. YEP. AND THEN.
PERFECT. GREAT AND WE CAN HAVE A
DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. HI THERE,
MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS, PAUL
DIRO, REPRESENTING THE WESTERN
STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE HAVE NO
OBJECTION TO THE PILOT PROGRAM
AT ALL AND BELIEVE IT NEEDS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. WE HAVE
SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH TWO
SECTIONS OF THE BILL, 3,106.1
AND SECTION 30, 200.5, WHICH WE
BELIEVE WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE
LIMITING THE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH
WITH OUR WELLS. OFTENTIMES WE
HAVE TEMPERATURE CONTROL. WELL,
WE'LL USE THEM AS TEMPERATURE
CONTROL WELLS, WATER WELLS, ETC.
STORING HYDROGEN, ETC, WE ARE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR ON THIS,
THIS, MISS DISAGREEMENT, WE ARE
MEETING WITH HER STAFF AND
COMMITTEE STAFF LATER TODAY, BUT
TODAY WE OPPOSE THE BILL BECAUSE
OF THOSE THE INCLUSION OF THOSE
TWO SECTIONS AND THOSE ARE
PRIMARILY NATURAL RESOURCES,
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. RIGHT.
PERHAPS. YES, WHICH YOU'RE
OBVIOUSLY IT'S ENTIRELY WITHIN
YOUR, YEAH, RESPONSIBILITY TO
OPPOSE HERE. SO I JUST I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE I CLARIFIED.
OKAY THANK YOU, THANK YOU, OKAY,
AND I WAS IN NATURAL RESOURCES.
I REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION.
THÀNH. I'M SURE IT WILL
CONTINUE. AS THE BILL MOVES
ALONG, BUT, BUT BUT DO
APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR INPUT. AND
ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO RAISE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL. OKAY
OKAY. I'M CERTAINLY GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING IT TODAY AS I DID
NATURAL RESOURCES. BUT I KNOW
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS AS THE BILL
PROCEEDS, AND, AND WOULD LOVE TO
GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE. THANKS. AND I JUST ALSO
WANT TO SAY THAT NRDC, EDF, AND
A NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE GROUPS ARE ALSO IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. OKAY, WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
NIVO. FANTASTIC FANTASTIC. ALL
RIGHT.
OKAY WE'LL ACCEPT A MOTION LATER
WHEN WE HAVE MORE FOLKS. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO ITEM
SEVEN. THIS IS, SB 13. OH FOUR.
SENATOR LIMÓN. ONE MINUTE. ALL
RIGHT. SORRY, I WAS LOOKING FOR,
MY, WITNESS IN SUPPORT, BUT I
WILL START WITH SB 1304, SB
1304, IS A BILL THAT IS COMING
FROM AN INCIDENT THAT OR, FROM A
NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HAVE
HAPPENED IN THE DISTRICT AND
WHERE WE HAVE SEEN THAT THERE
COULD BE USE OF EXPANDING AND
THINKING ABOUT, A PUBLIC PROCESS
FOR INPUT FOR WATER AQUIFERS AND
SO WATER AQUIFERS AND THIS IS A
BILL THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY
CREATE A NEW PROCESS OR PROGRAM,
BUT IT WOULD APPLY SEQUA TO THE
REVIEW PROCESS FOR SOME OF THE
OIL, WELL, SOME OF THE AQUIFERS
THAT ARE NEAR OIL WELLS THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY SOMEDAY BE
IMPACTED. SO WE'D LIKE TO CREATE
A PROGRAM, WE'D LIKE TO CREATE A
PROCESS, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE
ABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO GIVE
TESTIMONY AND WEIGH INTO THIS
ANY POTENTIAL PROJECTS OR
CONCERNS THAT THEY MAY HAVE. AND
I DON'T SEE MY WITNESS HERE IN
SUPPORT, BUT, YEAH. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR. ALL RIGHT. LET'S
LET, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME TO
THE MICROPHONE AND JUST KIND OF
EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL
. CODY PHILLIPS WITH CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. LUCIO MUNOZ, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS AND SUPPORT
GREAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, NOW, WE
HAD A LATE OPPOSITION LETTER
FROM WHISPER. RIGHT ON THIS. NO,
WE DIDN'T. I WANT TO FIRST AND
FOREMOST APOLOGIZE. WE THE WE
CROSS SIGNALS WITHIN OUR OFFICE,
AND THE COMMITTEE IS PROBABLY
OUR FAULT. WE DIDN'T GET A
LETTER IN. WE WERE IN THE
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. OKAY, SO, AND I'LL BE
RELATIVELY SHORT, THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS IS VERY GOOD. AND I'D
LIKE TO READ FROM IT BECAUSE IT
EXPLAINS WHAT AN AQUIFER
EXEMPTION ACTUALLY IS. THE, THE,
THE SUBSURFACE OF ANY GIVEN
LOCATION MAY BE COMPOSED OF
MULTIPLE LAYERS OF VARYING
GEOLOGY WITH DIFFERENT
PROPERTIES. WHILE SOME LAYERS
MAY BE CONDUCIVE TO GROUNDWATER
FLOW, OTHERS ARE NOT. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN SOME LOCATIONS NEAR
SURFACE LAYERS MAY CONTAIN A
DRINKING WATER AND DEEPER LAYER
ISOLATED IMPERMEABLE LAYERS FROM
FROM US DWT MAY BE HYDROCARBON
BEARINGS. WHAT AN AQUIFER
EXEMPTION IS. OFTENTIMES, THE
WELL WILL TRAVEL THROUGH A, A AN
AQUIFER WHERE THERE IS DRINKING
WATER. AND THAT'S ABOUT 300FT
FROM THE SURFACE. THE AQUIFER
EXEMPTION THAT WE'RE WE APPLY
FOR, WHICH IS APPROVED BY BOTH
CAL JAM THE WATER BOARD AND
FEDERAL EPA, THOSE THAT'S LIKE A
MILE DOWN WHERE THERE WHERE THE
AQUIFER IS HYDROCARBON BEARING.
SO WHAT WE DO WHEN WE BRING UP
THE OIL, WE ALSO BRING UP NINE,
NINE PARTS WATER. THAT'S BEEN
DOWN THERE FOR CENTURIES, WHICH,
WHICH IS NOT DRINKING WATER, IF
THE, THE PROCESS THAT CAL JAM
AND THE WATER BOARD AND EPA HAVE
IS A VERY DELIBERATE PROCESS AND
I, I, I, I WOULD SAY THAT THE,
THE HAVING EPA APPROVE THESE,
THESE AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS IS A
CLEAR, INDICATION THAT THERE IS
NO DRINKING WATER. WE HAVE
WORKED WITH THE WATER BOARD
SINCE THE AUDIT AT CAL JAM FOR
THE LAST TEN YEARS. THE WATER
BOARD WILL NOT EVEN ALLOW AN
AQUIFER EXEMPTION IF THERE'S
POTENTIALLY A BENEFICIAL USE.
WHICH IS? WHICH WHICH GOES A
LONG WAY. SO THE ONLY WHEN THE
PROPONENT AND THE AUTHOR SAY
THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR
MIGRATION OF FLUID, WHEN WE
INJECT THE FLUID INTO THE INTO
THE WELL, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE
A WELL FAILURE IN THE LAYER OF
WHERE THERE'S WHERE THERE'S AN
AQUIFER AND DRINKING WATER. AND
THAT IS EXTREMELY RARE. I'M
UNAWARE OF ANY TIMES THAT'S
HAPPENING. SO WE'RE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A, A, A, AN
AQUIFER WITHOUT DRINKING,
WITHOUT USABLE DRINKING WATER
THAT COMMINGLES WITH THE, THE
HYDROCARBONS THAT WE SEPARATE
OUT AT THE END OF THE PROCESS,
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A STEP A BIT
TOO FAR. WE BELIEVE THE EXISTING
PROCESS IS SUFFICIENT,
INADEQUATE, AND THEREFORE WE
OPPOSE THE BILL. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, OTHER FOLKS WHO WANT
TO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL
. ALL RIGHT. LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. SENATOR, WOULD YOU
SO, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO
RESPOND TO SOME OF THE. AND I
WILL HAVE OUR LEAD WITNESS HERE.
LINDA KRAFT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE CENTER TO JUST SPEAK ON
HIS POINTS. YEAH IF YOU IF YOU
COULD MAYBE GIVE US BECAUSE THE
ARGUMENT BEING THAT THIS IS A
THAT YOUR THIS IS NOT WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT DRINKING WATER
HERE. SO IS THIS AN ONEROUS OR
AN UNNECESSARY, NEW, NEW NEW
LAYER OF COMPLEXITY THAT WE'RE
ADDING ONTO THIS PROCESS? THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING. I'M
LINDA KROP, CHIEF COUNSEL WITH
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
CENTER, BASED IN SANTA BARBARA,
CALIFORNIA, AND WE HAVE DIRECT
EXPERIENCE WITH AQUIFER
EXEMPTIONS THROUGH THE CAT
CANYON PROPOSED AQUIFER
EXEMPTION IN NORTHERN SANTA
BARBARA COUNTY, SOUTHEAST OF
SANTA MARIA. WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT DRINKING WATER, CAT CANYON
IS PROPOSED FOR A MASSIVE
EXPANSION OF OIL DEVELOPMENT,
700 NEW WELLS, THAT REQUIRES AN
AQUIFER EXEMPTION FROM THE STATE
AND FROM EPA. THIS AQUIFER THAT
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
EXEMPTION PROVIDES DRINKING
WATER FOR 150,000 PEOPLE, MANY
OF WHICH DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER. THE
PARTICULAR THE COMMUNITIES OF
LOS ALAMOS AND SISQUOC. WHEN WE
WERE ADVISED BY THE STATE AGENCY
STAFF AT CAL JAM AND STATE WATER
BOARD THAT THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE
PATHWAY FOR MIGRATION, WHICH IS
A FINDING THAT HAS TO BE MADE BY
THE STATE. WE HIRED AN EXPERT
WHO REVIEWED USGS WELL DATA FOR
THAT AREA, AND BY EXAMINING THE
PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE LOGS,
IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL LEAKS, SOME
IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE
AQUIFER. WE PROVIDED THAT
INFORMATION TO THE US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
WE PROVIDED TO THE STATE
AGENCIES. THEY SAID THEY WOULD
REQUIRE A CONDUIT ANALYSIS AFTER
THE EXEMPTION WAS APPROVED AND
BEFORE ANY INDIVIDUAL WELLS WERE
PROPOSED. AND WE SAID, BUT YOU
HAVE TO DO THAT ANALYSIS NOW TO
MAKE THE FINDING THAT THERE ARE
NO CONDUITS. THAT'S REQUIRED BY
EXISTING STATE LAW. SO EPA
REQUIRED THE STATE TO CONDUCT
THIS CONDUIT ANALYSIS. AND OUT
OF 488 WELLS IN THE CAT CANYON
AREA, 291 OR 60% WERE IDENTIFIED
AS POTENTIAL CONDUITS. AND THAT
DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE ALL THE
WELLS THAT OUR EXPERT FOUND. SO
THIS IS A RISK. CURRENT STATE
LAW ALREADY REQUIRES PROTECTION
OF DRINKING WATER. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS AN
ADEQUATE ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION. THE FOLKS THAT
THOSE 150,000 PEOPLE, THEY DON'T
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE. THERE WAS A HEARING
A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT THERE'S NO
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING. THERE'S
NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER
EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. SO
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DRINKING
WATER. IF THE DRINKING WATER
GETS CONTAMINATED, YOU CAN'T
CLEAN IT UP. SO IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT. THAT'S WHY WE WANT
THE STATE WATER BOARD. THE
AGENCY THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR
ENSURING ADEQUATE AND SAFE
DRINKING WATER, TO MAKE THE
DECISION ABOUT WHETHER AN
EXEMPTION IS SAFE. AND WE WANT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WE WANT AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES AND CAT CANYON,
THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE ALREADY AT
RISK FOR DRINKING AND
GROUNDWATER. WE WANT THEM TO
HAVE A SAY. WE WANT A THOROUGH
ANALYSIS BEFORE THE STATE SENDS
AN EXEMPTION TO EPA. AND I DO
HAVE A SIGN ON LETTER HERE BY
ABOUT 30 GROUPS THAT I CAN
PROVIDE TO THE COMMITTEE. SO
THAT SEEMS TO BE IN DIRECT
CONTRADICTION. YEAH. AN AQUIFER
EXEMPTION APPROVED BY THE STATE
AND AN EPA WILL NEVER APPROVE AN
EXEMPTION EVEN WHERE THERE IS
POTABLE DRINKING WATER THAT HAS
A POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USE OR,
OR OR OR BENEFICIAL USE. I THINK
WHAT THE PROPONENTS MIGHT BE
REFERRING TO IS WHEN THE WELL
TRAVELS THROUGH THAT, THE, THE
DRINKING WATER AND IT'S, IT'S,
IT'S ENGINEERED WHERE THERE'S
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CASING TO
MAKE SURE THERE IS NO, LEAKAGE
OF ANYTHING. AND I CAN'T RECALL
THERE EVEN BEING ONE. PERHAPS
THAT'S THE POTENTIAL. WELL, PATH
TO CONTAMINATION, I DON'T IT'S I
DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I WILL
TELL YOU THE AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS
THAT ARE THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED
ARE BEING REVIEWED BY THE WATER
BOARD. NOW, THEY HAVE TO CONCUR.
CAL, JIM HAS TO DO THEIR
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS. EPA
ULTIMATELY HAS TO APPROVE IT.
AND THERE HAS BEEN NO AQUIFER
EXEMPTIONS APPROVED WHEN THERE'S
BEEN ANY DRINKING WATER OF ANY
POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USE. CAN I
JUST THROW THAT BACK TO YOU THEN
AND SAY, WELL, THEN WHAT'S THE
BIG DEAL WITH HAVING THE WATER
BOARD MAKE A MAKE A SUBMISSION
IF THEY ALREADY HAVING TO GO?
WELL, THEY'RE ALREADY HAVING
THEY'RE MAKING A SUBMISSION.
WHAT THIS BILL WOULD EFFECTIVELY
DO IS, IS BRING IN THE SEQUA
PROCESS WHICH WHICH CURRENTLY IS
NOT REQUIRED BY BY EXISTING LAW.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE AFTER
OUR CALCIUM WAS AUDITED BY
FEDERAL EPA TEN YEARS AGO, THEY
ESTABLISHED AN MOA WITH THE WITH
THE WATER BOARD, WATER BOARD
DOES IMMENSE AMOUNT OF
PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS. AND
AGAIN, THERE HAS BEEN NO WALKER
FOR EXEMPTIONS APPROVED IN ANY
LOCATION WHERE THERE IS DRINKING
WATER AT ALL. YEAH. SENATOR SO
ONE OF THE CONCERNS YOU MAY, THE
PROPONENT IS THAT YOU WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE SECOND TO
HAVE THIS EVALUATE TO, TO
INCLUDE THIS NEW EVALUATION, TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS
INCLUDED. WELL, WHAT I'M SEEING
HERE, THOUGH, IS UNDER EXISTING
LAW, CAL JAM, ONE OF THE ITEMS,
THE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO MAKE,
YOU KNOW, TO GRANT THIS
EXEMPTION HAS TO INCLUDE PUBLIC
CONSULTATION. SO CAL JAM MAY
ENGAGE IN PUBLIC CONSULTATION
PROCESSES TO GATHER INPUT FROM
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES, ENVIRONMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS, ETC. SO IS THAT
NOT ENOUGH? I MEAN, OR BECAUSE
IT SOUNDS LIKE EARLIER YOUR
COMMENT WAS LIKE THERE WASN'T
ANY AND THAT THE COMMUNITY IS
NOT INCLUDED. THE 150,000
PEOPLE, BUT ON THE COW JAM, COW
JAM, THEY DO DO THAT. THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, IN THIS CASE,
CAL JAM HELD A PUBLIC MEETING,
IT'S NOT A DECISION MAKING
HEARING LIKE WE'RE USED TO. THEY
HELD A PUBLIC MEETING WHEN THE
AQUIFER EXEMPTION WAS FIRST
PROPOSED. SO PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE
ANY INFORMATION EXCEPT FOR THE
PROPOSAL THAT WAS SEVERAL YEARS
AGO. SINCE THEN, THERE'S A LOT
MORE INFORMATION. THERE'S THIS
NEW CONDUIT ANALYSIS, AND
THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT. THE ONLY REASON
WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED AND HIRED AN
EXPERT IS BECAUSE WE'RE A PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW FIRM, AND WE HAPPEN
TO BE, YOU KNOW, PAYING
ATTENTION. BUT, YOU KNOW, MOST
COMMUNITIES DON'T NECESSARILY
HAVE THAT RESOURCE AND CERTAINLY
WOULDN'T HAVE THE NOTIFICATION.
SO WHAT? AND WE ACTUALLY DID
REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE
STATE WATER BOARD. AND WE WERE
DENIED BECAUSE CURRENT STATE LAW
DOESN'T REQUIRE IT. THAT'S WHAT
GAVE US THE IDEA, THAT WE NEEDED
TO IMPROVE UPON. THE LAW WAS
IMPROVED IN 2015. TÍNH. BUT THE
PROCESS STILL NEEDS TO BE
IMPROVED. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE
TO REMIND THE COMMITTEE THAT IN
OUR CASE, THE AGENCY
SPECIFICALLY SAID THERE WERE NO
POTENTIAL CONDUITS. THEY HAVE
FOUND 291 BECAUSE WE BROUGHT
THIS, YOU KNOW, TO EPA, AND WE
HAD TO HIRE OUR OWN EXPERT, AND
THAT 291 IS NOT EVEN COMPLETE AS
THE STATE WATER BOARD STAFF
SAYS, BECAUSE OF THE 488 WELLS
THAT THEY LOOKED AT, THOSE ARE
ONLY ONES WHERE THEY HAVE ACTIVE
OWNERS AND OPERATORS, BUT
THERE'S A LOT OF ABANDONED
WELLS. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS IT'S
NOT THE WELL THAT IS DRILLED TO
INJECT THE WASTE THAT WE'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT. IT'S YOU HAVE
THIS FORMATION THÀNH THAT THAT
WASTE GETS INJECTED INTO. ARE
THERE PATHWAYS ONCE THAT WASTE
IS IN THE FORMATION, ARE THERE
PATHWAYS FOR ANY CONTAMINANTS TO
LEAK INTO THE AQUIFER THAT'S
USED FOR DRINKING WATER? AND OUR
EXPERT SAID, YES, THE STATE
AGENCIES HAVE SAID YES. THEY
IDENTIFIED 291 POTENTIAL WELLS
THAT LEAK BECAUSE THEY'RE SO
OLD. THAT DOESN'T EVEN ACCOUNT
FOR FAULTS AND OTHER FRACTURES
IN THE FORMATION. SO WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TAKE A
PREVENTATIVE APPROACH. WE NEED
TO PROTECT DRINKING WATER. ALL
WE'RE ASKING FOR IS FOR A MORE
ROBUST PUBLIC PROCESS AND
PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER.
AND IF THERE'S NO PROBLEM, THEN
WE WILL ALL KNOW THAT WE. AND
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO US DOUBLE
LOOKING AND MAKING SURE THE
DRINKING WATERS ARE SAFE. MY
ONLY CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, I
THINK WE ALL CRUNCH UP IN THIS
BUILDING WHEN IT COMES TO SEQUA,
RIGHT? IF YOU GIVE SEQUEL MORE,
IT'S LIKE WE'RE JUST I MEAN,
NOTHING IS GETTING BUILT AND
NOTHING'S GETTING DONE IN
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF SEQUA. AND
SO DOING THIS ADDS ON. YOU KNOW
WHAT SCARES ME? IF YOU'RE ADDING
ON A NEW SECRET PROCESS, THEN
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY
DRINKING WATER. I MEAN, THAT
THAT'S MY CONCERN. IT'S JUST,
YOU KNOW, I THINK IF THE CONCERN
IS, IS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND
ETC, WE SHOULD THEN AS A
LEGISLATIVE BODY, MAYBE BRING IT
UP TO CODE JAM AND WORK WITH
THEM ON IT, BUT TO REQUIRE A
WHOLE NEW PROCESS THAT ALREADY
CALCIUM IS, IS THERE I MEAN,
THEY'RE THEY DON'T GIVE OUT
EXEMPTION UNLESS THEY'RE FULLY
CONFIDENT, AND SO IT'S JUST HOW
MANY MORE LAYERS DO WE NEED? SO
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO PART
OF THIS IS WHERE THE PUBLIC HAS
THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN, THROUGH
THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. SO THE
CURRENT PROCESS IS THE PUBLIC
HAS THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN WHEN
THEY SAY, WE WANT TO DO A
PROJECT, NOT WHEN THERE'S BEEN A
INVESTIGATION AND A STUDY THAT
SHOWS INFORMATION ON HOW TO
RESPOND. SO AS A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC, WE WOULD HAVE A VERY,
YOU KNOW, AS LEGISLATORS, WE
WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT,
INPUT OUT ON SOMETHING THAT WE
READ ABOUT IN THE PAPER VERSUS
IN THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
WHEN THERE'S LEGISLATIVE
ANALYSIS AND PROCESS. SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO FOR THE
PUBLIC, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T
EXIST. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
WHEN CALCIUM DOES IT IS AT THE
VERY BEGINNING, NOT WHEN THERE'S
BEEN A SERIES OF INFORMATION AND
ANALYSIS DONE THAT THEY ALLOW
FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN AS
THE AUTHOR WHO ACTUALLY CREATED
AND, YOU KNOW, AUTHORED THE BILL
FOR WHAT CALCIUM IS NOW, I CAN
TELL YOU VERY CONFIDENTLY THAT
THERE ARE TIMES THAT LEGISLATIVE
FIXES ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO GET
CALCIUM TO DO SOMETHING
DIFFERENTLY. SO I HAVE A LOT TO
SAY ABOUT THAT. AND I DO BELIEVE
THAT LEGISLATIVELY THAT IS A
BETTER PROCESS. THIS IS NOT
GOING TO STOP SAFE DRINKING
WATER. THIS IS GOING TO ENSURE
THAT CURRENT SAFE DRINKING WATER
, THIS IS NOT ABOUT CREATING NEW
WATER PROJECTS OR NEW SAFE
DRINKING WATER. THIS IS GOING TO
ENSURE THAT EXISTING EATING
DRINKING WATER ISN'T IMPACTED BY
THESE WELLS. AND SO I THINK AS
WHAT HAS BEEN STATED, IF
EVERYTHING IS GOING WELL AND
THERE'S FULL CONFIDENCE, BY THE
INDUSTRY THAT CALCIUM, IS, YOU
KNOW, THAT THE PROCESS THAT
CALCIUM HAS FULLY ASSURES IT,
THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM
BECAUSE THIS WILL BE ONE MORE
ASPECT. I THINK THE DISCREPANCY
WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT WE HAVE A
VERY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE WHERE FOR
THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS GIVEN
EARLY, THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
ANALYSIS TODAY. AND SO THAT IS
WHY WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD,
BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN A
DISCREPANCY BETWEEN, PROCESS,
YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS THAT
HAPPENED AND WHAT THE POSITION
WAS OF A STATE AGENCY TO WHAT IT
IS NOW. SO AND THAT'S WHAT'S
REFERRED TO THE 291 WELLS. SO
THIS IS WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT
FORWARD, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THE
PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY
TO WEIGH IN ONCE THE PROCESS IS
IN MOTION ONLY AT THE BEGINNING.
AND THAT IS A CHALLENGE AND A
FAULT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOESN'T
HAVE THE INFORMATION TO RESPOND
TO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. INTERESTING. I APPRECIATE
THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD, WE'LL
WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WHEN WE
HAVE MORE MEMBERS HERE. BUT I
APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S
PARTICIPATION FOR THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. YEAH ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR, WE'RE
WAITING FOR SENATOR PADILLA,
WHO'S APPARENTLY ON HIS WAY
.
SENATOR NGUYEN WANTS TO MOVE
ITEM TEN. THAT'S, SENATOR
LAIRD'S BILL, AND WE CAN. WE CAN
ALSO GO THROUGH VOTES. IF
STEPHANIE HASN'T VOTED.
STEPHANIE YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO,
SENATOR NGUYEN HAS MOVED ITEM
TEN. THAT'S SB 1440. LET'S CALL
THE ROLL. OKAY. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS. AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR ALLEN, I, ALAN I DALI
GONZALES, HURTADO MENGIBAR I
MENGIBAR I WIN, I WIN, I SKINNER
. OKAY LET'S, LIFT CALLS SO THAT
SENATOR MENGIBAR CAN ADD ON.
1040 OH, SHE DID, THAT ONE DID.
YOU WANT TO MOVE FIVE? I'LL MOVE
FIVE. OKAY. WE'LL ITEM. SO
SENATOR MENGIBAR MOVES ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1140. LET'S CALL
THE ROLL. MOTION IS DUE PASSED.
SENATORS ALLEN I, ALAN I DALI
GONZALEZ HURTADO MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NGUYEN SKINNER. OKAY
WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE TO. WE NEED
A MOTION FOR ITEM, FOR ITEM
SEVEN. THAT'S SB 1304 SEVEN.
THANK YOU, SENATOR MENGIBAR.
LET'S CALL THE ROLL ON THAT.
SENATORS. I'M SORRY, THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS. AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AS
SENATORS ALLEN ALAN I. DALI
GONZALEZ HURTADO, MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NGUYEN AND SKINNER.
OKAY. LET'S NUMBER NINE GO TO
ITEM NINE. I MOVE SB 1433. THANK
YOU. SENATOR, LET'S CALL THE
ROLL ON SB 1433. LIMÓN MOTION IS
DUE PASS. AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS ALLEN I, ALLEN I, DALI,
GONZALES LA HURTADO MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NGUYEN AND SKINNER,
OKAY. WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED?
THAT'S IT. VOTE ON. WE GOT THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. DO WE GOT THAT
ON THERE, TOO? YEAH. OKAY.
APPARENTLY SENATOR PADILLA IS ON
ROUTE. SHOULD BE JUST A COUPLE
MINUTES. YOU COULD RECESS
.
HE'S AT THE ABORTION PRESS
CONFERENCE. RIGHT NOW. THAT'S
THE ONLY ONE. YEAH.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO THIS. THANK
YOU. SENATOR, WE'RE HERE NOW ON
ITEM 11, SB 1165. SENATOR
PADILLA IS GOING TO. DO YOU WANT
TO YOU WANT TO START WITH, 1165
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
IT'S LIKE A COMMITTEE IN SEARCH
OF A PRESENTER. YES. IT'S BEEN A
COMMITTEE MEMBER. YEAH. AND OF
ITS COMMITTEE MEMBER. YEAH. JUST
A MOMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN. IF I
MIGHT. I MAY PROCEED WHEN READY.
THANK YOU, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT SB
1165. I WANT TO BEGIN BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE STAFF
WORKING FOR US, AND WE'LL BE
ACCEPTING COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY A
REINTRODUCTION OF 619, WHICH WE
RAN LAST YEAR WITH THE
ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION TO
SPECIFY THAT COST RECOVERY WOULD
APPLY IN THE CASE OF THIS
TRANSMISSION REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. AS YOU WELL KNOW, CAL
ISO INDICATES THAT WE NEED MORE
THAN 7000MW OF NEW TRANSMISSION
CAPACITY EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT
DECADE TO MEET OUR ENERGY
DEMANDS, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR
PERMITTING SYSTEM, WHICH IS
CURRENTLY EXCLUSIVELY VESTED
WITH THE CPUC, IS NOT KEEPING UP
WITH DEMAND. IN FACT, WE'RE
NOWHERE NEAR BEING ABLE TO GIVE
REGULATORY APPROVAL TO THE VAST
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED NOT
JUST TO SERVE, BUT TO MEET OUR
GHG REDUCTION GOALS. THE CURRENT
PERMITTING PROCESS, ON AVERAGE,
CAN TAKE OVER A DECADE WITH
RESPECT TO GENERAL TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS AND DELAYS HERE RESULT
IN NOT ONLY ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC IMPACTS
, BUT HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
THEY THREATEN, OF COURSE, OUR
CLIMATE GOALS, AS I INDICATED,
AND MAKE IT INCREASINGLY
DIFFICULT TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON
IN THE SUMMER IN CALIFORNIA, SB
1165 SEEKS TO EXPAND THE
AUTHORITY THAT WAS PUT FORTH IN
PRIOR LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
ALLOW, IOUS WHO ARE SEEKING TO
GET TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE
APPROVED TO OPT IN TO THE CEC
REVIEW PROCESS, WHERE THEY HAVE
A 200 DAY, 70 DAY CONSTRAINT ON
SQL REVIEW AND WOULD ACT AS THE
LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF THAT
APPLICATION. WE ALREADY HAVE
THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OPT IN
SYSTEM AT, THE CEC PROCESS FOR
INTERCONNECT PROJECTS AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CONNECT
PROJECTS. SPECIFICALLY. THE BILL
DOES NOT CHANGE THE SCOPE OF
SEQUA, NOR IS IT A SEQUA
STREAMLINING, ONE OF THE THINGS
THE ADMINISTRATION MADE A STRONG
COMMITMENT TO LAST YEAR WAS THAT
THEY WANTED TO WORK TO IMPROVE
TRANSMISSION, PERMITTING, WE'VE
HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION. WE'VE
HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE PUC AND FRANKLY, OTHER
THAN VERBAL ASSURANCES, ESTÁ
EXCUSE ME, THAT MEANS THAT'S
ABOUT ALL, AND THAT SHOULD BE
UNACCEPTABLE TO ALL OF US. SO
HERE WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
RUNNING THIS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION TO KEEP FOLKS FEET
TO THE FIRE. AND HERE WE ARE
SPECIFYING THAT COST RECOVERY IS
APPROPRIATE WITH ME TODAY. I
HAVE KATE BRANDENBURG WITH
SONOMA CLEAN POWER. HEY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, SENATOR
MENGIBAR, I'M MY NAME IS KATE
BRANDENBURG, AND I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF SONOMA CLEAN POWER. I
FIRST WANT TO START OFF BY
THANKING SENATOR PADILLA FOR
INTRODUCING THIS THOUGHTFUL
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, SONOMA
CLEAN POWER IS A COMMUNITY
CHOICE AGGREGATOR. THAT PROCESS,
EXCUSE ME, PROCURES ELECTRICITY
FOR THE RESIDENTS OF SONOMA AND
MENDOCINO COUNTIES. WE ARE PROUD
TO HAVE MADE SOME OF THE FASTEST
PROGRESS TOWARD CLEAN ENERGY OF
ANY LOAD SERVING ENTITY IN THE
NATION, A SEVERE LACK OF
TRANSMISSION CAPACITY IS OUR
NUMBER ONE BARRIER TO
CALIFORNIA, MAKING FURTHER
PROGRESS TOWARD ITS CLIMATE AND
RELIABILITY GOALS. SIX YEARS
AGO, EVERY POWER SUPPLY CONTRACT
WE SIGNED GOT CONNECTED TO THE
GRID. TODAY CAISO TELLS US. LESS
THAN 6% OF THE PROJECTS IN THEIR
PIPELINE ARE GETTING CONNECTED
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH
TRANSMISSION. SONOMA CLEAN POWER
IS AN OFF TAKER OF THE MAYACAMAS
GEOTHERMAL PROJECT AT THE
GEYSERS, WHICH WILL PROVIDE MANY
OF THE SAME RELIABILITY
ATTRIBUTES THAT WE CURRENTLY
RECEIVE FROM GAS PLANTS IN THE
LA BASIN. BUT USING CLEAN ENERGY
. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT HAS
BEEN CITED, PERMITTED, BEEN
THROUGH SEQUA EVERYTHING BUT IT
IS SITTING IDLE INDEFINITELY DUE
TO THE LACK OF TRANSMISSION.
WHILE WE CONTINUE TO USE NATURAL
GAS. WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE
TEXAS IS ADDING MORE CLEAN
ENERGY THAN CALIFORNIA. THIS IS
AN EMERGENCY AND WE NEED TO
START TREATING IT LIKE ONE. IF
WE DO NOT START EXPANDING OUR
IN-STATE INFRASTRUCTURE, WE'RE
PUTTING OUR CLIMATE GOALS AT
RISK AND THREATENING OUR GRID
RELIABILITY. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
ADDING MORE OPTIONS TO GET
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BUILT ON
TIME TO MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS,
AND THAT IS WHY WE SUPPORT SB
1165. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
WE ASK FOR YOUR I VÚI. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S HEAR
OTHERS WHO WANT TO WEIGH IN
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. COME TO
THE MIC AND IDENTIFY YOURSELVES.
ANY OPPOSITION OR FOLKS WHO WANT
TO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE,
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. AND ANY QUESTIONS?
THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? OKAY, WHEN APPROPRIATE,
SENATOR BENJAMIN MOVES. ANY ANY
FINAL COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS?
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS, I WOULD JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. OKAY, GREAT, SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MENGIBAR
MOVED SB 1165. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED AND RE REFER TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. DALI.
GONZALEZ HURTADO. MENGIBAR.
MENGIBAR AYE. NGUYEN AND SKINNER
. OKAY. TWO ZERO. WE WILL LEAVE
THAT OPEN. LET'S NOW GO TO ITEM
12. THAT'S 1178. YES, MR.
CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY
TO PRESENT, SB 1178 AND HAPPY TO
COMMIT ACCEPT COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND THANK YOUR STAFF
FOR THEIR WORK AS YOU MAY BE
SOMEWHAT AWARE, I REPRESENT SOME
OF THE STATE'S HIGHEST RATED,
AREAS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST
LEVELS OF POLLUTION BURDEN IN
SOME OF THE STATE'S WORST AIR
AND WATER QUALITY. THE TEHUANA
RIVER WATERSHED, LOCATED ALONG
THE US MEXICO BORDER, WAS
RECENTLY NAMED AS ONE OF THE TEN
MOST THREATENED AND POLLUTED
WATERWAYS IN THE UNITED STATES
BY AMERICAN RIVERS. JUST THIS
PAST JANUARY, STORM SURGE CAUSED
14.5 BILLION WITH A B GALLONS OF
RAW SEWAGE AND POLLUTION TO WASH
UP ON THE BANKS OF THE RIVER. AS
WELL AS TO OVERFLOW INTO THE
NEARBY COASTAL WETLANDS. ONE OF
THE FEW REMAINING SUCH
ECOSYSTEMS IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA. IN ADDITION, THAT
DYNAMIC ALSO INCREASES THE
SPREAD OF INDUSTRIAL
CONTAMINANTS AND OTHER MATERIALS
THAT ARE DEFINITELY ADVERSE TO
THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING. BOTH THE UNITED
STATES AND THE MEXICAN
GOVERNMENTS HAVE LARGELY,
FRANKLY, FAILED TO MAINTAIN AND
UPGRADE THE CRITICAL TREATMENT
FACILITIES NEEDED TO ADDRESS
INCREASED FLOWS. AND AS A
RESULT, EVERY DAY MILLIONS OF
GALLONS OF UNTREATED SEWAGE
WASHES ASHORE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND THEY ARE THEY ARE MAKING
SOME PROGRESS. BUT I WILL SAY IT
IS WAY, WAY BEHIND THE CURVE.
MANY HEALTH CONCERNS ARE CAUSED
BY SEWAGE, AND INDUSTRIAL RUNOFF
HAVE FORCED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, THE
SOUTHWESTERNMOST CITY IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND A FEW MILES
OF CALIFORNIA COASTLINE IN MY
DISTRICT TO BE CLOSED FOR OVER
TWO YEARS. I WOULD JUST ASK SOME
OF THE MEMBERS IN THE CHAIR TO
THINK ABOUT IMAGINING A COASTAL
BEACH CLOSURE OF THAT PERIOD OF
TIME ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE COAST
OF CALIFORNIA, TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF GALLONS OF RAW SEWAGE ARE
DUMPED EVERY DAY IN THE RIVER
ENDS UP IN THE OCEAN DUE TO WAVE
ACTIVITY, AND BACTERIA ACTUALLY
CAN BECOME AEROSOLIZED AND MOVE
INLAND IN THE AIR COLUMN. THIS
IS NOT JUST AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DISASTER, IT'S A PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS, IT THREATENS THE WATER
WE DRINK AND THE AIR WE BREATHE.
I WILL ADD ALSO TO ONE STUDY
CONDUCTED BY THE SCRIPPS
INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY. WE
ARE LEARNING MORE AND MORE EVERY
MONTH AND EVERY YEAR ABOUT THE
IMPACT OF THE STRESSORS ON THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED, THE
RIVER AND THE POLLUTION.
TRANSBORDER FLOWS. BASED ON ONE
OF THEIR STUDIES, THEY
ATTRIBUTED OVER 34,000 ILLNESSES
IN 2017 ALONE TO WATER QUALITY,
POLLUTION, AND RELATIVE ISSUES.
THERE'S CONSTANT FINGER POINTING
AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT,
BUT WHAT IS MORE GALLING HERE IS
THAT WE HAVE SOME MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS THAT ARE LICENSED
TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT ARE REGULATED BY
THIS STATE, THAT STILL PAY TAX
IN THIS STATE AND HAVE THOSE
OBLIGATIONS AND ARE LICENSED TO
SELL PRODUCTS IN OUR STATE.
WHO'S DELIBERATELY SET UP SHOP
JUST A FEW FEET SOUTH OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BORDER TO EVADE
STRINGENT ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS AND OTHER STANDARDS.
SB 1178 BUILDS OFF A LONG
STANDING WATER CODE THAT ALREADY
EXISTS IN STATUTE. ARTICLE FOUR,
DIVISION SEVEN OF THE WATER CODE
SIGNED BY BELIEVE IT OR NOT,
GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN IN 1969,
THAT BASICALLY SPECIFIES THAT,
ANY QUALIFIED ENTITY OF THE
STATE, WHICH INCLUDES ANY
CORPORATION, HAS AN OBLIGATION
TO REPORT DISCHARGES EVEN IF
THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT
THAT THEIR DISCHARGES IMPACT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS HAS
BEEN LONG STANDING LAW. THIS
WOULD, IN THIS CASE CREATE THE
OBLIGATION, FOR REPORTING, ON
THE PART OF COVERED ENTITIES,
AND WOULD SET ASIDE A FUND AND A
SERIES OF ASSESSMENTS, THAT
WOULD GO TO PAY FOR MITIGATING
THE IMPACTS OF THEIR DISCHARGES
AFFECTING CALIFORNIA WATERWAYS
IN THE EVENT THAT THEY DON'T
SELF-SELECT TO MITIGATE THAT ON
THEIR OWN. SO WE'LL BE
COLLECTING DATA FROM BUSINESSES
LICENSED HERE, WILL BE
QUANTIFYING THE COSTS OF THE
MITIGATION BASED ON THEIR
CONTRIBUTION TO THE ADVERSE
IMPACTS IN THE WATERWAYS, AND WE
WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASSESS,
PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE OF
THIS PROVISION. UP TO A MILLION,
AND REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTING
THEREAFTER. WITH ME TODAY, I
HAVE CODY PHILLIPS WITH
COASTKEEPER AND JONATHAN CLAY
WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
GOOD. GOOD MORNING, JOHN.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, CODY
PHILLIPS WITH CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE, CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE REPRESENTS
WATERKEEPERS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, IN PURSUIT OF SWIMMABLE,
FISHABLE AND DRINKABLE WATERS
FOR ALL, IT'S REALLY CLEAR THAT
TRANSBOUNDARY FLOWS FROM THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED ARE A
MAJOR WATER QUALITY ISSUE, WHICH
GREATLY IMPACTS BEACHES,
BUSINESSES, AND THE HEALTH OF
PEOPLE LIVING NEAR THE COAST.
AND THESE POLLUTED FLOWS ARE THE
RESULT OF SEVERAL FACTORS. JUST
TO BREAK IT DOWN A BIT, THERE'S,
LACK OF SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IN
TIJUANA, A LACK OF FUNDING AT
THE UNITED STATES IBWC SOUTH BAY
PLANTS AND ALSO INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATIONS WHICH POLLUTE LOCAL
WATERWAYS THAT FEED INTO THE
WATERSHED. THIS MULTI-PRONGED
AND COMPLEX ISSUE REALLY
REQUIRES CREATIVE SOLUTIONS, AND
THIS BILL FOCUSES ON ONE
IMPORTANT AND OFTEN OVERLOOKED
COMPONENT OF THIS POLLUTION
FIASCO, WHICH IS THE INDUSTRIAL
WASTE PIT, OUR SAN DIEGO,
COASTKEEPER REVIEWED THE SOUTH
BAY TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGES
AND FOUND THAT IT HAD MANY TOXIC
AND HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS FOUND IN
ITS WASTEWATER, INCLUDING PCBS,
PESTICIDES, DDT, TOXAPHENE, AND
MANY OTHER, ALL AT LEVELS
THOUSANDS OF TIMES ABOVE THE
PERMITTED DISCHARGE LIMITS. THE
SOUTH BAY TREATMENT PLANT IS NOT
DESIGNED TO TREAT OR REMOVE
THESE CHEMICALS FROM THE WASTE
STREAM. THEY JUST EVEN WHEN THEY
ARE DIVERTED TO THE PLANT, THEY
JUST PASS RIGHT THROUGH. IBWC IS
ON THE RECORD SAYING THEY CAN
ONLY TREAT ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS.
SO EVEN IF THE PLANT WERE TO
COMPLY WITH ALL OF ITS BACTERIA
DISCHARGES, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT
IT CAN TREAT THESE INDUSTRIAL
WASTE CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES IN TIJUANA ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO PRE TREAT THEIR
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PRIOR TO
DISCHARGING IT DIRECTLY INTO THE
SEWER SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHY THESE
CHEMICALS ARE SO PREVALENT. AND
AS NOTED, MANY LARGE US
CORPORATIONS IN TIJUANA AVOID
STRICTER ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS AND REALLY BENEFIT
FROM THIS WHOLE POLLUTION
FIASCO, BY JUST NOT DEALING WITH
THEIR WASTEWATER, THESE
COMPANIES REALLY SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO REPORT, AT MINIMUM,
WHAT SUBSTANCES ARE IN THEIR
DISCHARGE, AND REALLY SHOULD
INTERNALIZE THE COSTS OF THIS
POLLUTION, OF MITIGATING THIS
POLLUTION BEFORE IT ENTERS THE
TIJUANA WATERSHED, BEFORE IT
ENTERS THE UNITED STATES WATERS,
BEFORE IT CONTAMINATES THE
ENTIRE REGION, THIS SHOULD NOT
BE SOMETHING THAT IS JUST PASSED
ON THIS SHOULD BE A COST OF
DOING BUSINESS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MISTER CHAIR. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS JONATHAN CLAY HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO IN SUPPORT. ALSO NOTE MY
OTHER CLIENT, PORT OF SAN DIEGO,
IS A SUPPORTER OF THIS MEASURE
AS WELL, THESE TWO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, AS WELL AS MOST
EVERY LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, HAS SPENT DECADES
TRYING TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE.
I'M SPENT MY ENTIRE CAREER HERE
IN SACRAMENTO WORKING ON THIS.
I'M LITERALLY SECOND GENERATION
IN MY FAMILY TO WORK ON THIS
ISSUE, WITH MY MOM HAVING
ACTUALLY WORKED ON THE ORIGINAL
BINATIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANTS, LIKE KIND OF INDENTURED
SERVITUDE, OF DEALING WITH THIS
ISSUE. AND YET HERE WE ARE, 30
PLUS YEARS LATER, STILL DON'T
HAVE A SOLUTION. FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS FINALLY STEPPING
FORWARD WITH MONEY, BUT WE STILL
HAVE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF WASTE.
IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING THAT
COASTKEEPER IDENTIFIED, WE HAVE
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL THAT'S
SHOWING UP IN THIS, LIKELY FROM
BIO MEDICAL WASTE. SO TRYING TO
GET AT WHAT SENATOR PADILLA IS
TRYING TO DO HERE WITH THIS BILL
IN TERMS OF COLLECTING DATA,
BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND A LOT
OF THESE ARE US COMPANIES THAT
HAVE OPERATIONS HERE IN THE US,
SET UP FACILITIES. THE ONE
YOU'RE PROBABLY MOST FAMILIAR
WITH HAS BEEN THE LONG HISTORY
OF BATTERY RECYCLING FACILITIES
THAT YOU HAVE US COMPANIES THAT
COLLECT THE BATTERIES, THEY TAKE
THEM DOWN THERE, CAL MATTERS DID
A GREAT ARTICLE JUST IN END OF
2023 TALKING ABOUT THIS. WE'VE
HAD BATTERY FIRES AS RECENTLY AS
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. I STARTED
MY CAREER WORKING IN
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, WORKING
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL NONPROFIT
1991. A US COMPANY HAD TAKEN
BATTERIES RECYCLED FROM
CALIFORNIA TO MEXICO AND LEFT A
HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER DOWN
THERE. THE GROUND BURNED FOR
WEEKS AND WEEKS. IT WAS RIGHT
NEXT TO THE COMMUNITY'S DAIRY.
THESE ARE ALL WITHIN THE
WATERSHED OF THE TIJUANA RIVER
VALLEY. BUT ON THAT CASE, AND
THIS GOES BACK TO 1991, THEN,
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY
GIL GARCETTI SUCCESSFULLY SUED
AND WON A JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT
CALIFORNIA BASED COMPANY
UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF BOTH
CALIFORNIA LAW AND NAFTA TO BE
ABLE TO GET THAT SETTLEMENT. SO
THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR BEING
ABLE TO ENFORCE THESE THINGS.
IT'S JUST IT'S USUALLY VERY
EGREGIOUS CASES THAT COME
FORWARD THAT THEN GET THE
ATTENTION. BUT FROM THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO'S PERSPECTIVE,
HAVING THIS DATA, HAVING FUNDING
ONE OF THE OTHER BIG ISSUES,
EVEN THOUGH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, I'LL WRAP UP HERE,
PROVIDING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS, WE STILL WILL LIKELY
HAVE ONGOING COSTS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS FOR JUST ANNUAL O&M
FOR RUNNING THESE FACILITIES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT,
OTHER OTHER FOLKS WHO WANT TO
WEIGH IN SUPPORT FOR THE BILL OR
EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT. LUCIO
MUNOZ, ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OPPOSITION
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL. MAYBE
WE CAN GIVE ONE OF THESE SEATS
TO THE OPPOSITION WITNESS. MAYBE
YOU WANT TO MOVE IT TO THE
MIDDLE AND SHE CAN COME OVER TO
THE SIDE. HI, THERE. HI, GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
BRENDA BASS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND WE ARE
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION ON SB 1178. WE
SHARE THE AUTHOR'S INTEREST IN
ADDRESSING THE POLLUTION CRISIS
AT THE CALIFORNIA MEXICO BORDER
IN THE TIJUANA RIVER. AND WE'VE
SUPPORTED STATE AND FEDERAL
EFFORTS TO ADEQUATELY FUND
TREATMENT AND CLEAN UP OF THE
RIVER. IN THE PAST, WE
UNFORTUNATELY DISAGREE THAT THIS
BILL IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO
ADDRESS THIS CRISIS, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS. EVEN AS
AMENDED. WE REMAIN CONCERNED
THAT THE BILL FACES SERIOUS
LEGAL AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES,
AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE IMPROVEMENT
IN THESE CONDITIONS AND NOT JUST
CREATE A NET OF LITIGATION, OUR
FIRST CONCERN IS WITH THE
JURISDICTION AND
CONSTITUTIONALITY HERE. THIS
BILL GOES BEYOND REPORTING AND
INTO THE PHYSICAL, CONTROL OF
ACTIVITIES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF
BOTH THE STATE BORDER AND THE
INTERNATIONAL BORDER, AND IT
RELIES ON WHAT IS, IN MY
ESTIMATION, A LARGELY UNTESTED
LEGACY PROVISION. AND THE
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY
CONTROL ACT, WHICH I THINK WILL
INVITE A LOT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE,
ON THE PRACTICAL SIDE, THE STATE
AND REGIONAL WATER BOARD
PERMITTING DEPENDS ON EXTENSIVE
MONITORING AND MODELING TO
DETERMINE BOTH WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND APPROPRIATE
DISCHARGE AMOUNTS FOR PERMATEASE
, I'M WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE THE NECESSARY ACCESS
TO FACILITIES THAT ARE LOCATED
IN ANOTHER COUNTRY TO BE TO
ALLOW THEM TO DO THEIR JOB
PROPERLY, AND THEY ALSO HAVE
EXTENSIVE OTHER DUTIES,
INCLUDING UPDATING WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLANS, SETTING STANDARDS
FOR NEW CONSTITUENTS, WRITING
UPDATED PERMITS FOR EXISTING
PERMITTEES AND ENFORCEMENT OF
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, AND
PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE WHERE THEIR EFFORTS SHOULD
REALLY BE, FOCUSED. SO JUST TO
SUM IT UP, WE'D REALLY LIKE TO
SEE THE BILL FOCUS ON MEANINGFUL
WAYS TO IMPROVE THE WATER
QUALITY SITUATION IN THE TIJUANA
RIVER. THAT IS NOT GOING TO JUST
CREATE A LOT OF DISPUTE AND
UNCERTAINTY, IN IMPLEMENTATION.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, OTHER
FOLKS WHO WANT TO RAISE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BILL OR EXPRESS
OPPOSITION. MARGIE LEE SAMSON,
ADVISORS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED. ALL RIGHT. WELL,
WE'LL BRING YOU BACK TO
COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS
CERTAINLY A WORK IN PROGRESS.
THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES THAT
WERE RAISED BY THE ANALYSIS,
CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE
SENATOR IS TRYING TO ADDRESS
SOME, SOME VERY SERIOUS, CROSS
BORDER POLLUTION CHALLENGES THAT
, THAT I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW AS
WELL AS HE DOES, BUT I'VE GOTTEN
A CHANCE TO SEE MYSELF, I
APPRECIATE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
AMENDMENTS, THERE'S A COUPLE OF
KEY CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY
REVOLVING, YOU KNOW, DUPLICATIVE
REQUIREMENTS FOR IN-STATE
ENTITIES. AND SO THAT'S BEEN
ADDRESSED NOW WITH THE WITH THE
WITH THE COMMITTEE AMENDS. BUT I
KNOW, THIS HAS GOT A WAYS TO GO.
AND, YOU KNOW, SERIOUS WATER
BOARD COSTS ASSOCIATED. SO
THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF THE
WORK UNDERWAY, I THINK, BUT I'M
CERTAINLY, COMFORTABLE VOTING
FOR IT TODAY. BUT I KNOW
THERE'LL BE A LOT MORE WORK
UNDERWAY HERE, ANYWAY, QUESTIONS
OR OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS
FROM, SENATOR MENGIBAR. YEAH,
SENATOR, I'M NOT SURE IF I
MISSED THIS. I KNOW THE ANALYSIS
SPOKE ABOUT THE RUSSIAN OR ASKED
ABOUT THE RATIONALE FOR 2500 AND
GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF THAT, YOU
KNOW, SMALLER ENTITIES WITH LESS
EMPLOYEES SOMETIMES EMIT MORE.
SO CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THAT?
I THINK THAT GENERALLY, YOU
KNOW, FIRST WE HAVE A PROVISION
UNDER EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAW
THAT MAKES NO QUALIFICATION OR
ADDRESSES THE QUESTION OF
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES. SO
WE'RE STARTING FROM THE
ASSUMPTION THAT ANYBODY CAN
APPLY IF THEY'RE LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS HERE, REGARDLESS OF
WHERE THEY'RE SITED. THAT WOULD
INCLUDE MEXICO AS MUCH AS
ARIZONA, AND IN TERMS OF,
STARTING THERE, THE ASSUMPTION
IS THE EXAMPLE THAT'S OCCURRING
JUST SOUTH OF THE BORDER BY
CORPORATIONS ON THE PRODUCTION
SIDE TEND TO BE LARGER AND HAVE
LARGER MASS AND LARGER OUTPUT.
SO TO YOUR POINT, HOWEVER, AND
TO THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS POINT,
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE LOOKING AT AND WORKING
ON, IF THINGS MOVE FORWARD, TO
THINK ABOUT THE NET IMPACT, NOT
JUST THE, THE EMPLOYEE
WORKFORCE, BUT WE WANTED TO
START SOMEWHERE BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, AGAIN, TO BE FRANK AND TO
EXPAND BEYOND YOUR QUESTION,
SOME OF THESE AREAS ARE
UNTESTED, THERE'S A LOT OF LAW
AS THE CHAIRMAN WELL KNOWS,
ABOUT ADJACENT NUISANCES.
THERE'S EVEN SOME INTERNATIONAL
NATIONAL LAW AROUND THAT. IF
THERE IS A SITUATION IN
CALIFORNIA THAT DEMANDS WE TEST
THAT AND THAT WE TRY TO UTILIZE
EVERY POSSIBLE TOOL TO DEAL WITH
THE MULTITUDE OF IMPACTS IN THIS
REGION, THIS THIS SHOULD BE ONE
OF THEM. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
SUBMIT, BUT AGAIN, I HOPE I
ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION AS FAR AS
HOW WE STARTED OUT WITH THAT
ASSESSMENT. JUST SIMPLY, THAT A
LOT OF THOSE THAT ARE ACTIVE
THERE, AND I WANT TO BE CAREFUL
NOT TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO INTO
OTHER TERRITORIES THAT ARE
PREJUDICIAL TO SOME FOLKS OR
SOME MIGHT CLAIM IT BY NAMING
COMPANY NAMES. BUT I WILL TELL
YOU, IT'S NOT EASY. IT'S EASY TO
FIND, AND THEY TEND TO BE
LARGER, LARGER ENTITIES THAT
ARE, AT LEAST IN THE INSTANT
CASE, RIGHT ON SITE, RIGHT IN
THE REGION, AND LOCATED THERE
WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF
TRYING TO AVOID ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS THAT ARE IMPACTING THE
SAN DIEGO REGION AND CALIFORNIA
WATERWAYS. RIGHT. AND THEN HOW
DO YOU ANTICIPATE YOU'D BE ABLE
TO CONTROL. AND YOU YOU TALKED
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IMPACTING
CALIFORNIA FROM OUTSIDE, HOW
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CONTROL
THAT OR CAPTURE DATA ON THAT?
WELL, THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE
IF YOU'RE LICENSED, AND, YOU,
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO REPORTING
BASED ON THAT LICENSURE. YOU'RE
DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA,
BUT YOU'RE PRODUCING IMPACTS TEN
FEET SOUTH OF THE BORDER, BUT
YOU'RE STILL DOING BUSINESS HERE
AND HAVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW. YOU HAVE TO
REPORT WHAT YOUR DISCHARGE IS IN
THIS SCENARIO. THAT'S WHAT THE
BILL DOES. ARIZONA AND SO WOULD
NEVADA. NO, THIS IS SPECIFIC
HERE. IT TECHNICALLY YES. AND IT
WOULD. AND BUT THAT ALREADY
EXISTS BORDER RIGHT. THAT
ALREADY EXISTS. THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO THE BOARD ALREADY HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO COLLECT THAT DATA
AND TO ENFORCE REPORTING. AND
AGAIN I WOULD REFER YOU TO TITLE
TO ARTICLE FOUR UNDER TITLE
SEVEN OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER
CODE, WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW
BY GOVERNOR REAGAN IN 1969. SO
WE ALREADY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.
IS THE ANSWER YOU, MISTER CHAIR,
CAN I TURN TO THE. YOU SAID THAT
THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY THE CASE. I
SAW YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD. I DON'T
KNOW IF IT WAS TO THAT, OR I
WOULD GUESS I WOULD. I I'M NOT
SURE THAT THAT PROVISION THAT
ALLOWS YOU TO GO, ACCESS FOLKS
THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE,
HAS EVER BEEN USED. THAT'S WHAT
I'M SAYING. LIKE IT MAY IT'S ON
THE BOOKS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT
WE'VE EVER ACTUALLY USED IT. AND
I DO AGREE THIS IS NOT, LIMITED
TO THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER. IT
WOULD ALSO INCLUDE OTHER CROSS
BORDER RIVERS SUCH AS THE
KLAMATH RIVER AND, ALONG THE
OREGON BORDER. THE COLORADO
RIVER, WHICH GOES THROUGH MANY
STATES AND THEN INTO CALIFORNIA
AND THEN THE TAHOE BASIN. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THAT WAS
AN ISSUE WE SPENT SOME TIME ON,
TOO, ANYWAY, ANY OTHER FURTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DO YOU
WANT TO CLOSE, SENATOR, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD I
WOULD JUST END BY SAYING IT'S
PROBABLY HIGH TIME WE DID START
ENFORCING SOME OF THE STATUTES
WE'VE HAD ON THE BOOKS FOR THIS
LONG, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE'RE
DEALING WITH THE ACUTE IMPACTS
TO COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND
UNDERINVESTED COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE BEING, YOU KNOW, OVERWHELMED
WITH MULTIPLE IMPACTS TO THEIR
ECOSYSTEM, ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC HEALTH. SO IF WE HAVEN'T
ENFORCED IT BEFORE, MAYBE IT'S
HIGH TIME WE DID. AND WITH THAT,
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. OKAY WE CAN ACCEPT A
MOTION NOW, OR WE CAN WAIT TILL
OTHER FOLKS COME ON. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR MENGIBAR, MOVE THE BILL.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1178. THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS AS AMENDED, AND RE REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND
TAXATION. SENATORS ALLEN. ALLEN.
AYE DALI, GONZALEZ HURTADO.
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. AYE. NGUYEN.
SKINNER ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO
THAT BRINGS US NOW TO ITEM 13.
THAT'S SB 1208 12 ZERO EIGHT,
SENATOR PADILLA, YOU MAY PRESENT
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN. I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT
SB 1208, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY
PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF
ISSUANCE OF A WASTE DISCHARGE
PERMIT FOR NEW LANDFILLS LOCATED
IN THE TIJUANA RIVER NATIONAL
ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE, OR
IN ANY TRIBUTARIES THEREOF,
THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THIS IN
STATUTE ALREADY, WHERE THERE ARE
EXEMPTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON
THE ISSUANCE OF A DISCHARGE
PERMIT UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES. WHY SHOULD WE DO
THIS? WELL, YOU HEARD PART OF IT
IN MY PRESENTATION ON 1178 JUST
A FEW MINUTES AGO. BUT IF YOU'LL
INDULGE ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
MIGHT JUST RECITE SOME OF THIS.
THIS PART OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IN THE BINATIONAL
REGION IN THE MOST SOUTHERN
CORNER OF CALIFORNIA, IS HOME TO
SOME OF THE HIGHEST RATINGS AND
CONCENTRATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
BURDEN IN THE UNITED STATES. IT
HAS SOME OF THE WORST AIR
QUALITY BASED ON INDUSTRIAL
EMISSIONS AND THE CROSS-BOUNDARY
FLOWS OF BIOLOGICAL HAZARDS THAT
WE NOW UNDERSTAND ARE NOT JUST
PUTTING BACTERIUM INTO THE AIR
COLUMN THAT IS CARRIED FAR
FURTHER INLAND THAN WE EVER
KNEW, BASED ON SCRIPPS STUDIES,
BUT ALSO OTHER MATERIALS AND
PATHOGENS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. AS A RESULT OF
INDUSTRIAL USES, AMERICAN
RIVERS, AS I SAID EARLIER, JUST
DESIGNATED THIS AS ONE OF THE
MOST STRESSED AND POLLUTED, AND
WATERWAYS IN THE UNITED STATES,
THIS AREA OF CALIFORNIA IS
INTENSELY OVERBURDENED WITH
NUMEROUS ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
LAND USES THAT ARE DIRECTLY
IMPACTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, IT
HAS SOME OF THE POOREST AIR
QUALITY BECAUSE OF THE BURNING
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS JUST A
FEW MILES SOUTH OF THE BORDER.
IT HAS SOME OF THE LARGEST
INAPPROPRIATE CO-LOCATED LAND
USES FROM SHIPYARDS AND WRECKING
YARDS, THE NAVAL BASE IN PART,
THAT IS THERE, AS I INDICATED IN
MY EARLIER PRESENTATION, ANY
IMPACTS TO THE RIVER WATERSHED
ARE DIRECTLY LINKED. WE ARE
BECOMING MORE AND MORE AWARE OF
TO THE AIR QUALITY, WATER
QUALITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND
PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS THAT ARE
BEING EXPERIENCED, I CITED THE
STUDY BY SCRIPPS WITH REGARD TO
THE ILLNESSES LINKED DIRECTLY
JUST TO THE WATER, CROSS-BORDER
FLOWS IN IMPERIAL BEACH ALONE,
BEACHES IN IN THIS PART OF THE
STATE HAVE BEEN CLOSED FOR TWO
YEARS STRAIGHT, THERE IS A
UNIQUE CONFLUENCE OF SEVERE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT ARE
DIRECTLY RELATED TO POOR AIR
QUALITY, POOR HEALTH OUTCOMES,
POOR WATER QUALITY ON A SCALE
AND SCOPE UNSEEN IN ANY OTHER
PART OF THE STATE. IT IS UNIQUE
IN THE STATE. I WOULD ALSO ADD,
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE TO KNOW
THAT THERE IS A LONG AND
TROUBLING LEGACY OF ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL USES BEING DUMPED,
EXCUSE THE PUN ON MY DISTRICT
AND THIS COMMUNITY WHERE I GREW
UP, WHICH IS LARGELY A WORKING
CLASS WORKING POOR COMMUNITY OF
COLOR. THIS HAS BEEN DONE FOR
OVER A CENTURY. I'M TALKING
ABOUT RENDERING PLANTS, AUTO
WRECKING AND DISPOSAL YARDS, GAS
FIRED POWER PLANTS ON THE
BAYFRONT, DIESEL FUELED PEAKER
PLANTS, JUNKYARDS, THE EXISTENCE
OF A SEVERE A LARGE CAPACITY
LANDFILL, GUNPOWDER PRODUCTION
PLANTS ON THE WATERFRONT, AND SO
ON. THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL, AND
SEEKING A PROHIBITION ON THE
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT THAT WOULD
AFFECT THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED, IS BASED UPON THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES. THE RECORD IS
MORE THAN FILLED WITH STUDIES
AND STATISTICS AND FACTS THAT
SHOW THAT THIS PART OF THE
CALIFORNIA NHÀ IS INCREDIBLY AND
UNIQUELY OVERBURDENED BY THESE
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO
THE COMMUNITY. I ALSO WANT TO
ADDRESS A COUPLE THINGS. THERE
HAVE BEEN, ASSERTIONS IN THE
COURSE OF WORKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND OTHERS ON THIS
BILL ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF A
PROPOSED LANDFILL AND THE BORDER
REGION, BETWEEN THAT AND THE
TIJUANA RIVER BEING SOMETHING
LIKE 17 MILES AWAY FROM ANY USES
, BEING FAR FROM ANY SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY
INCORRECT. IT'S ONLY A MILE AND
A HALF NORTH OF THE ACTUAL
TIJUANA RIVER, SOUTH OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BORDER. IT IS
CLEARLY PROPOSED TO BE SITED IN
THE TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED. IT
IS ONLY A FEW MILES TO SOME OF
THE MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL AND OTHERWISE, AND
SCHOOLS AND OTHER PUBLIC PUBLIC
SPACES LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN
BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AND EVEN TO THE WEST IN
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO. I WILL
ALSO POINT, AND THE COMMITTEE
HAS A PACKET YOU SHOULD THAT WAS
HANDED OUT WITH RESPECT TO
ASSERTIONS THAT THIS BILL IS
UNNECESSARY AND IMPROPER,
BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE
QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW,
AND THAT THE REGIONAL WATER
BOARD COULD REVIEW THE IMPACTS
REQUIRED, THAT THEY BE MITIGATED
AND ALL WOULD BE WELL. THE
PROBLEM WITH THAT IS WITH
RESPECT TO A COUNTYWIDE BALLOT
MEASURE THAT WAS PUT BEFORE THE
VOTERS IN 2014, MEASURE A, AND
WHICH THIS COMMITTEE CONSIDERED
IN 2011, BY THE WAY. AND I'LL
GET BACK TO THAT IN MY CLOSE,
BASICALLY GUTTED AND
CIRCUMVENTED ANY PARTICIPATION
BY ANY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
AND BY THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO. SO WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR
A SUBSTANTIAL NEW LANDFILL. NOW,
IT WOULD BE TWO WITHIN MERE
MILES OF ONE ANOTHER WITH A
SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY TO EXTEND
THE THIS KIND OF A USE IN THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED FOR UP
TO A CENTURY THAT HAS BEEN
BROUGHT ABOUT BY VIRTUE OF A
ZONING AMENDMENT PUT BEFORE THE
VOTERS WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE
VOTING ON A RECYCLING PLANT. BUT
REALLY WERE VOTING ON A
LANDFILL. AND DIDN'T REALIZE
THAT THEY WERE BASICALLY
ELIMINATING ANY ROLE BY THE
PUBLICLY ELECTED COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OR ANY OF THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES. I WILL ALSO
NOTE THAT GIVEN THE MEASURE A,
AND GIVEN WHAT THE OPPONENTS OF
MY LEGISLATION THÀNH WILL
ASSERT, THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY
LANDFILL IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY
THAT WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN
PERMITTED UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND UNDER THIS
SCHEME, I DON'T THINK THAT
SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO ANYONE.
SO AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, THE REASON WE SHOULD
PROHIBIT A DISCHARGE PERMIT AND
TREAT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF
WHAT'S OCCURRING HERE, IS
BECAUSE OF THE VERY UNIQUE
NATURE AND THE EXTREME NATURE OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BEING
PLACED ON THIS COMMUNITY. THAT
WOULD BE TYPICALLY INTOLERABLE
IN ANY PART, ANY OTHER PART OF
THE STATE. AND SO WE JUSTIFY BY
DIRECTING THAT THE WATER BOARD
CAN'T ISSUE A DISCHARGE PERMIT
FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PRIOR LAND
USES, AND THE STATE HAS DONE SO
FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THERE
ARE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE ON THE
GROUND. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS
BILL PROPOSES TO DO, BECAUSE
THERE ARE MORE THAN EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE GROUND. AND
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IT'S WHOLLY
APPROPRIATE. ONE LAST NOTE, MR.
CHAIRMAN. I'M GOING TO COME BACK
TO IT IN MY CLOSE. I FIND IT
IRONIC. IN 2011, THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY CONSIDERED A BILL
IDENTICAL TO MINE EXCEPT IN ONE
RESPECT, IT CONCERNED THE
GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL IN A
WEALTHY, HOMOGENOUS PORTION OF
NORTHERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. IT
WAS PROPOSED BY FORMER SENATOR
JUAN VARGAS. IT WAS COAUTHORED
BY MY PREDECESSOR, SENATOR BEN
HUESO. THAT BILL SOUGHT TO
DISALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF A
DISCHARGE PERMIT FROM THE WATER
BOARD. IN THE CASE OF THAT
LANDFILL IN NORTH COUNTY,
BECAUSE IT WAS ADJACENT TO
TRIBAL LANDS AND BECAUSE IT
IMPACTED A SENSITIVE RIVER
WATERSHED. THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. THIS COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, AND I'LL QUOTE IN MY
CLOSE TOOK THAT PROCESS TO TASK
FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS I
JUST ARTICULATED TO YOU IN THIS
COMMITTEE ABOUT MEASURE A AND
THIS LANDFILL SITE. THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE, MR. CHAIRMAN, HERE
IS THAT THE LANDFILL PROPOSED IN
MY DISTRICT, IN THE
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY IN THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED, WOULD
HAVE GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, LONGER LASTING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND HAS A
CAPACITY EXPONENTIALLY GREATER
THAN THE LANDFILL IN NORTH
COUNTY. AND I THINK THAT'S
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THIS
COMMITTEE TO HAVE. IT IS
APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE,
BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN
MY COMMUNITY FOR ALMOST A
CENTURY, THAT THIS BILL BE
SUPPORTED AND MOVED FORWARD. AND
AT THE END OF MY CLOSE, I WILL
AGAIN RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. AND WITH ME TODAY, I
DO HAVE SOME WITNESSES. I HAVE
LISA ROSS, WHO'S THE CHAIR OF
SAN DIEGO SIERRA CLUB, AND
STEPHANIE PECK, FOUNDER OF
PROTECT OTAY FOOTHILLS. GOOD
MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
SB 1208 ON BEHALF OF SIERRA CLUB
, CALIFORNIA'S HALF MILLION
MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS. MY NAME
IS LISA ROSS. I'M CHAIR OF THE
SIERRA CLUB SAN DIEGO CHAPTER,
THE OLDEST AND LARGEST
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION IN
SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES.
AS HAS BEEN WELL PUBLICIZED AND
DOCUMENTED AND TALKED ABOUT THIS
MORNING HERE, INCLUDING RECENT
REPORTS BY THE NONPROFIT
AMERICAN RIVER, AMERICAN RIVERS
AND SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY.
THE POLLUTION IN THE TIJUANA
RIVER RIVER HAS HAD SIGNIFICANT
NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS ON
VULNERABLE GROUPS IN NEIGHBORING
COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAVE BEEN OF
GREAT CONCERN TO THE SIERRA
CLUB. A NEW LANDFILL PROPOSED BY
PRIVATE DEVELOPERS IN THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED ALONG
THE US MEXICAN BORDER WILL NOT
ONLY EXACERBATE AN INTOLERABLE
SITUATION FOR COMMUNITIES AND
ECOSYSTEMS ALREADY OVERBURDENED
WITH WATER, SOIL AND AIR
POLLUTION, A FURTHER CONCERN TO
US IS THAT THE SITE IS ON LAND
AT THE BASE OF OTAY MOUNTAIN,
AND WEST OF THE OTAY MOUNTAIN
WILDERNESS, HOME TO NUMEROUS
ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND
SENSITIVE SPECIES, INCLUDING THE
GOLDEN EAGLE THAT WILL BE
SEVERELY DISRUPTED BY GRADING
AND EXCAVATION THÀNH. WHEN
RESIDENTS CONSIDER THE PROPOSED
LANDFILL PROJECT OVER A DECADE
AGO, IT WAS BELIEVED THAT
LANDFILL CAPACITY WAS
DESPERATELY NEEDED. STUDIES NOW
SHOW THAT SAN DIEGO COUNTY HAS
MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF CAPACITY
REMAINING IN EXISTING LANDFILLS.
CONSTRUCTING A NEW LANDFILL ON
THIS SITE IS UNNECESSARY AND
WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL,
PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY
IMPACTS TO THE EAST OTAY MESA
REGION FOR THESE REASONS, WE AT
SIERRA CLUB SUPPORT SB 1208,
WHICH WILL PROHIBIT THE REGIONAL
WATER BOARD FROM ISSUING A WASTE
DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR A NEW
LANDFILL IN THE TIJUANA RIVER.
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH
RESERVE, OR WITHIN AN AREA THAT
IS TRIBUTARY TO THE TIJUANA
RIVER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AGAIN YES, MA'AM. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIRMAN ALLEN, AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
STEPHANIE PECK, AND I LAUNCHED
PROTECT OTAY FOOTHILLS, A BROAD
COALITION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS, AND RESIDENTS
EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SITING A
LANDFILL IN THE TIJUANA RIVER
WATERSHED. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
SB 1208, PROTECT OUR FOOTHILLS.
INCLUDES CHAIR OF THE SAN DIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NORA VARGAS
, PRESIDENT OF THE SAN DIEGO
CITY COUNCIL. SEAN RIVERA, MAYOR
OF IMPERIAL BEACH PALOMA AGUIRRE
MORE THAN TWO DOZEN
ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING SIERRA
CLUB, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, SAN
DIEGO, COASTKEEPER CLIMATE
ACTION CAMPAIGN, AMONG OTHER
ELECTED OFFICIALS, STAKEHOLDERS
AND RESIDENTS. THE PROPOSED
LANDFILL IS CLEARLY IN THE
TIJUANA RIVER WATERSHED AND
TRIBUTARY SYSTEM. A RIVER SYSTEM
EXPERIENCING AN UNPRECEDENTED
ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC HEALTH,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. CROSS
BORDER POLLUTION CRISIS. WE KNOW
THAT EVERYTHING IN A WATERSHED
FLOWS DOWNSTREAM, AND SURFACE
AND GROUNDWATER THAT LEAVES THE
LANDFILL SITE WILL FLOW INTO THE
RIVER SYSTEM AND END UP AT THE
OCEAN. DESPITE BEST EFFORTS, WE
KNOW THIS OCCURS, AND IT IS HOW
CONTAMINANTS, TOXINS AND
POLLUTANTS FLOW FROM UPPER
WATERSHED SOURCES AND ARE
CARRIED DOWNSTREAM. SAN DIEGO
COUNTY DOES NOT NEED A NEW
LANDFILL. THE COUNTY'S 2022 FIVE
YEAR REVIEW REPORT CLEARLY
DEMONSTRATES DISPOSAL CAPACITY
FOR THE REGION, INCLUDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS TO AT LEAST
2053. IT IS COUNTER TO STATE
CLIMATE ACTION POLICY TO RISK
THE HARMFUL IMPACTS OF A
LANDFILL IF AND WHEN IT IS NOT
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. THE WAY IN
WHICH THIS PRIVATE NON MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL WAS APPROVED 14 YEARS
AGO HAS CONSEQUENTIAL
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SEQUA
PROCESS FOR PROJECT REVIEW BY
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY
AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT. THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL
NOT BE REVIEWED AND CERTIFIED BY
AN ELECTED BODY. ADDITIONALLY,
WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR ELECTED
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REVIEW
THE PROJECT AND ISSUE CONDITIONS
, THE REQUIRED MAJOR USE PERMIT
FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT WAS
CIRCUMVENTED BY THE BALLOT
MEASURE. MUCH HAS CHANGED IN THE
14 YEARS SINCE THE BALLOT
MEASURE WAS VOTED ON. WE KNOW A
NEW LANDFILL IS NOT NEEDED. FOR
ALMOST THREE DECADES, AT LEAST
IN 2010, THE CROSS-BORDER
POLLUTION CRISIS IN THE TIJUANA
RIVER HADN'T REACHED THE CRISIS
LEVEL. IT HAS NOW. WE MUST BE
FLEXIBLE TO MEET CLIMATE ACTION
GOALS AND ADAPT TO THE CHANGING
CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED. I'LL
WRAP UP SB 1208 IS A LEGAL
PATHWAY TO EXERCISE THIS
FLEXIBILITY. THERE ARE NO
REASONS TO RISK THE
ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL AND
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF AN
UNNECESSARY, UNNECESSARY
LANDFILL IN THIS LOCATION. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. OTHER FOLKS WHO WANT
TO COME TO THE MIC AND EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. GOOD
MORNING. WITH CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE. JUST ONE
SENTENCE. LANDFILLS ARE ABOUT AS
IMPACTFUL AS LAND USE AS EXISTS,
AND IT'S TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE
FOR A BALLOT MEASURE TO TAKE
THAT AUTHORITY AWAY FROM THE
JURISDICTION THAT SHOULD BE
DECIDING LAND USE POLICY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, LET'S GO TO
OPPOSITION, SO WE'LL ASK THE TWO
WITNESSES TO TAKE A SEAT.
OPPOSITION HAS ASKED THE WANT TO
STICK WITHIN THE TOTAL TIME
FRAME, BUT THEY WANT TO HAVE
THREE SPEAKERS, WHICH IS FINE
WITH ME AS LONG AS YOU GUYS
STICK WITH THE TIME FRAME, SO WE
DID GIVE THE LAST FOLKS FIVE
MINUTES, SO. OKAY. YEAH.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE TO EXPRESS
MY SHOCK THAT IN THE FIRST TIME,
IN ALL MY YEARS HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE, I'VE NEVER REALLY
SEEN A BILL THAT SEEKS TO
OVERTURN A FAIR ELECTION AND TO
DENY THE VOTERS THEIR RIGHT TO
DECIDE HOW TO MANAGE RESOURCES
IN THEIR COUNTY. THAT IS A
FIRST. AND REALLY IN WHAT IN THE
CASE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR
COUNTRY RIGHT NOW WITH ELECTION
DENIAL AND ELECTION
INTERFERENCE, IT REALLY SHOCKS
ME TO SEE A BILL THAT IS TAKEN
UP AND THAT IS GIVEN CONCERN,
ADORATION THAT REALLY DOES THAT.
THIS BILL DOES ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO HELP THE TIJUANA
RIVER VALLEY. IT WILL SET SAN
DIEGO COUNTY BACK 30 YEARS IN
ITS EFFORT TO RECYCLE, DIVERT
AND PROCESS WASTE IN THE COUNTY
AND TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAWS.
AND THESE ARE LAWS THAT ARE
CREATED, THE STATE REQUIRING
COUNTIES TO PERFORM CERTAIN
DUTIES AND TO PROVIDE THESE
RESOURCES FOR THE PEOPLE OF
THEIR COUNTY. THE PROPONENTS OF
THIS BILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO
SCIENTIFIC, EMPIRICAL, OR
PRACTICAL EVIDENCE TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT, ESTÁN Tð WILL
CONTAMINATE THE, TIJUANA RIVER
VALLEY. THEY HAVE NOT AT ALL
REVIEWED THE EIR FOR THE
PROJECT, OR EVEN LOOKED INTO HOW
THE PROJECT WILL OPERATE. THEIR
ASSERTION THAT OTAY TWO WILL
HARM THE ENVIRONMENT IS 100% CON
GESTURE AND A RUSE. THIS BILL IS
ENTIRELY ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.
THE PROCESS TO SITE THIS
FACILITY BEGAN IN 1990, WITH A
STUDY BY THE COUNTY TO IDENTIFY
SUITABLE SITES. THIS SITE WAS
SELECTED AFTER 20 YEARS OF
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND
DISCUSSION. THERE WERE, VARIOUS
OTHER SITES THAT WERE PROPOSED
THAT WENT TO THE BALLOT THAT
WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE
VOTERS. THE SITE WAS ZONED IN
THE PROCESS. THERE'S SEVERAL
HUNDRED ACRES SET ASIDE AROUND
THE PROJECT, AND THIS PROJECT
WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT WHERE IT
RECEIVED 85% OF A COUNTY WIDE
VOTE. THE THREE LANDFILLS
CURRENTLY IN OPERATION IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY WERE SET TO CLOSE
DECADES AGO. THEY WERE SITE
THEIR SITES WERE WERE WERE SITED
PRESEKA. AND THIS IDEA THAT IT'S
BECAUSE IT'S A MILE AWAY FROM A
RIVER THAT IT COULD IMPACT THEM.
JUST CONSIDER THAT ALL THREE OF
THESE SITES ARE ADJACENT TO A
MAJOR RIVER. ONE SYCAMORE CANYON
IS RIGHT NEXT TO SAN DIEGO
RIVER, WHICH IS A CONSERVANCY
WHICH IS NEXT TO AN
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE, WITH WITH
NATIVE AMERICAN REMAINS. THERE'S
A AN OLD, ANCIENT DAM THAT IS AN
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE. IT'S NEXT TO
MISSION BAY PARK. THIS RIVER
DISCHARGES INTO MISSION BAY AND
SAN DIEGO BEACHES. MIRAMAR WAS
SET TO CLOSE ALSO. AND WHAT ENDS
UP HAPPENING? BECAUSE THERE'S NO
ALTERNATIVE SITE. THESE SITES
THAT HAVE NO LINER UNDERNEATH TO
STOP SEEPAGE INTO THE WATER
TABLE BECAUSE THAT TECHNOLOGY
DIDN'T EXIST WHEN THEY WERE
SITED. SO YOU HAVE THESE
LANDFILLS THAT WERE SITED IN THE
60S WITH THAT ARE ANTIQUATED
OVERBURDEN THAT HAVE BECOME
MOUNTAINS OF METHANE LEAKING IN,
YOU KNOW, PROBLEMS TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THEY WERE
INITIALLY SITED FAR, FAR AWAY
FROM RESIDENTIAL. ALL OF THEM
ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, NOT
A MILE AWAY, NOT TWO MILES AWAY,
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, AND IN
FACT, IN CHULA VISTA, WHICH THIS
SITE COULD, IF THIS SITE DOES
NOT PASS IT COULD ULTIMATELY
LEAD TO EXTENDING THOSE SITES TO
BECOME LARGER MOUNTAINS AND
LARGER IMPACTS TO THE SAN DIEGO
RIVER, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK AND
OTAY RIVER VALLEY. CHULA VISTA
IS LOCATED ON OTAY RIVER VALLEY,
WHICH IS A PARK, MY SENATOR,
SENATOR PADILLA, WHICH I RESPECT
VERY MUCH WHEN HE WAS ON THE
COUNCIL, APPROVED HOUSING AROUND
THAT LANDFILL. IF THOSE
LANDFILLS ARE SO HARMFUL, WHY
WOULD YOU BUILD SEVERAL THOUSAND
UNITS AROUND THOSE LANDFILLS?
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN
CHULA VISTA. NOW, THIS BILL WILL
IS FOR SOME REASON, THE SECOND
ISSUE, WHY WOULD YOU DENY A
PROJECT FROM EVEN GOING THROUGH
THE PERMITTING PROCESS? WHY
WOULD YOU DENY A PROJECT FROM
EVEN PRESENTING ITS SECRET
DOCUMENT? I UNDERSTAND
INTRODUCING A BILL THAT WILL
FURTHER REGULATE OR OR OR OR,
TAKE FURTHER STEPS TO PROTECT
THE TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY AND THE
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT
TO ACTUALLY, INTRODUCE A BILL
THAT WILL COMPLETELY, STOP A
PROJECT IS UNPRECEDENTED. I'VE
NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE IN STATE
HISTORY. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? IS
THIS ABOUT THE TIJUANA RIVER
VALLEY, OR IS THIS ABOUT KEEPING
THE EXISTING LANDFILLS IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY OPEN? THESE
COUNTIES WERE SET TO CLOSE.
THEY'RE LEAKING METHANE. THEY
ARE. THEY SHOULD HAVE CLOSED
DECADES AGO. THEY WERE NEVER
DESIGNED TO BE THIS FULL OF
TRASH. CURRENTLY, THE
PROJECTIONS THAT ESTIMATE THE
SAN DIEGO HAS 30 YEARS OF LAND
SPACE. SPACE AVAILABLE IS PURELY
SPECULATIVE. THE STATA AND SAN
DIEGO COUNTY HAVE FALLEN BEHIND
THEIR DIVERSION GOALS, AND
THOUSANDS OF NEW HOUSING UNITS
WILL CONTINUE TO BE DEVELOPED
YEAR AFTER YEAR, WHICH WILL
CHANGE THOSE ESTIMATES.
CURRENTLY THIS SITE IS THE ONLY
ALTERNATIVE SAN DIEGO HAS TO
MEET ITS FUTURE NEEDS. THIS
PROJECT THAT WILL BE BUILT, IT
WILL BE STATE OF THE ART. IT
WILL HAVE A WATER, A LINER TO
PREVENT SEEPAGE INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT. IT WILL HAVE,
CONTOURS THAT WILL PREVENT WATER
FROM GOING INTO THE WATERSHED.
IT WILL HAVE OF, IT WILL BE
ENGINEERED TO PREVENT METHANE
EMISSIONS. IT WILL BE A SITE
THAT WILL BE USED TO HANDLE
RECYCLING A PROCESS RECYCLING,
AND ACTUALLY CREATE AND HELP THE
STATE MEET ITS DIVERSION GOALS.
THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE SUCH A
HEAVY HANDED BILL THAT WILL
COMPLETELY, ANNIHILATE A
PROJECT. THERE IS NO REASON IF
THIS IS ABOUT THE TIJUANA RIVER
VALLEY, THERE ARE WAYS TO
PROTECT THE TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY
WITH WITH EVERY DEVELOPMENT. WHY
KILL IT? WHY WOULD YOU SET THE
COUNTY BACK 30 YEARS? WHY
WOULDN'T YOU ACCEPT THE HELP,
THE HELP THE COUNTY COMPLY WITH
STATE LAW? WHY WOULD YOU DENY
THE RESULTS OF AN ILLEGAL
ELECTION? WHY WOULD YOU VOTE TO
DELETE ONE THIRD OF THE COUNTY
THIS WATERSHED? YEAH. WE'RE
GOING TO ASK YOU TO WRAP UP.
OKAY. THIS WATERSHED EXTENDS
INTO ONE THIRD OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY. THAT CANNOT BE PART OF
THE SOLUTION. AND WHY WOULD YOU
EXPOSE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TO COSTLY LITIGATION THAT COULD
COST THE STATE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? WE HAVE,
YEAH. DAVID WICK REPRESENTING
NATIONAL. HE'S GOING TO BE.
YEAH. WHY DON'T YOU INTRODUCE
THE TWO? SO THEY'LL THEY'LL BE
HERE FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT
BECAUSE YOU'VE TAKEN UP ALL THE
TIME. BUT PLEASE DO INTRODUCE
THEM SO WE KNOW WHO'S HERE SO WE
CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THEM. DAVID
WICK IS WITH NATIONAL
ENTERPRISES, AND WE HAVE JACOB
JACOB RUSSELL. YEAH, THAT'S. AND
JACOB IS HERE. PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER AND HAVE BEEN WITH THE
PROJECT. SINCE ITS INCEPTION
REALLY FOR, DESIGNING THE, THE
LANDFILL. AND HE'S BEEN
PREPARING THE CEQA DOCUMENT,
HELPING TO PREPARE THIS. OKAY.
OKAY. GREAT. SO THAT'S WE'RE
HELPFUL TO HAVE YOU BOTH HERE
FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT. OTHER
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RAISE
OPPOSITION OR CONCERNS, JUST
JUST TO, TO ADD AFFILIATION
NAME. OKAY LET ME JUST, LOTS
GOING ON HERE, LET ME LET ME,
OBVIOUSLY TWO VERY DIFFERENT
VISIONS PRESENTED THIS MORNING,
SENATOR HUESO, YOU JUST WERE
TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS A AN
OVERTURNING OF, THE WILL OF THE
VOTERS. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE
OTHER SIDE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
FOLKS THAT IT WAS IT WAS FOLKS
WERE CONFUSED. IT WAS IT WAS A,
FOLKS WERE VOTING FOR IT BECAUSE
IT WAS BEING REPRESENTED AS A
PRO RECYCLING THING, AND THAT
THEY WEREN'T AWARE THAT THEY
WERE AUTHORIZING A LANDFILL, AS
PART OF THE MEASURE. SO THERE'S
THAT'S A THERE'S A VERY DEEP
CONFLICT ABOUT THE NATURE OF
THIS MEASURE. I'M NOT FROM SAN
DIEGO. I WASN'T THERE, BUT HOW
DO YOU ANSWER? I MEAN, YOU'RE
SAYING THIS IS OVERTURNING THE
WILL OF VOTERS, BUT YOU HEARD A
VERY CLEAR YOU HEARD A VERY
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION FROM
THE, SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE OF THAT, THEY CAN'T
PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT
VOTERS WERE EITHER MISLED OR
THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE
VOTING ON, THIS WAS, THIS
ELECTION CONFORMED WITH STATE
LAW. IT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE
COUNTY. EVERYONE HAD THE RIGHT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ARGUMENT
PROCESS. IT WAS DEFINITELY LOTS
OF EXCHANGE PUBLICLY ABOUT THIS
PROJECT, THERE WAS LOTS OF
HISTORY. THIS PROJECT HAD BEEN
IN REVIEW FOR YEARS PRIOR TO IT
GOING TO THE BALLOT. SO THERE
WAS, COMMUNITY OUTREACH AT THE
TIME. AND SO IT'S REALLY
DIFFICULT TO REALLY GO INTO THE
MINDS OF ALL THE VOTERS IN A
COUNTY OF 3 MILLION PEOPLE AND
TRY TO SECOND GUESS WHETHER THEY
KNEW HOW THEY WERE VOTING OR
NOT. BUT ONE THING I CAN TELL
YOU THAT THAT ELECTIONS PART OF
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, YOU
CAN ARGUE THAT THAT THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, NOT EVERY
MEMBER FULLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT
THEY'RE VOTING ON. RIGHT. AND
MAYBE THEY VOTE ON BILLS AND
WE'RE FULLY INFORMED, WHY DID
THEY DECIDE TO GO TO A BALLOT
MEASURE AS OPPOSED TO GO THROUGH
THE NORMAL DECISION MAKING
PROCESSES? WHY WAS THE BALLOT
MEASURE CHOSEN AS THE AS THE
MECHANISM HERE? SURE, I
PERSONALLY WENT, CHAIR, CHAIRMAN
, ALAN IS I PERSONALLY WENT TO
GROUPS AROUND SOUTH SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, ESPECIALLY AN EMPHASIS
ON SOUTH COUNTY, BECAUSE THIS
RECYCLING AND LANDFILL FACILITY
IS FOR SOUTH COUNTY. AND SO THIS
BALLOT MEASURE THAT WE, ELECTED
TO PUT ON THE BALLOT IS WE FELT
THAT WAS THE EASIEST WAY TO
INFORM THE PUBLIC AS TO THE
LANDFILL SITUATION IN THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO AT THAT TIME, AS
ONE OF THE WITNESSES. BUT YOU
COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN APPROVED
THROUGH THE THROUGH THE COUNTY.
RIGHT. WE COULD HAVE GONE THAT
ROUTE. YEAH BUT THESE ROUTES
WERE AVAILABLE TO US. WE GOT THE
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES TO PUT IT
ON THE BALLOT, AND WE WENT
AROUND TO ALL THE CONSTITUENTS
TO EDUCATE THEM. THE ONLY REASON
THAT THE LAY OF THE LAND HAS
CHANGED, AS THE PREVIOUS WITNESS
SAID, IS IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
IS THAT LANDFILL ELEVATIONS HAVE
INCREASED. THAT IS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MESS TO ALLOW
LANDFILLS TO BECOME MOUNTAINS OF
TRASH. SO LET'S ASSUME YOU'RE
CORRECT THAT YOU GET TO 2053.
THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
SO IT'S TAKEN US 20 PLUS YEARS
AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SOLID
WASTE PERMIT BECAUSE WE'RE STILL
GOING THROUGH THE SECRET
PROCESS. LET THE PROCESS FINISH.
LET THE SCIENCE WORK VERSUS
POLITICS. AND I LOVE TO HAVE OUR
ENGINEER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT WILL BE TECHNICAL IN NATURE
, BECAUSE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
RAISED TO ME LAST NIGHT AT THE
CITY COUNCIL IN CHULA VISTA WAS,
MR. WICK, HOW CAN YOU ASSURE
THAT THERE WILL BE NO LEAKAGE
FROM THIS LANDFILL INTO THE
TIJUANA WATERSHED? AND OUR
ENGINEER CAN ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. THEY CAN. I MEAN,
BECAUSE BECAUSE THAT IS A THAT'S
A THAT'S BEEN A CONSTANT,
CONCERN OF THE PROPONENTS IS,
YOU KNOW, WE JUST CAN'T SEE ANY
MORE DISCHARGE. I MEAN, THE, THE
SENATOR, I HAD A WHOLE
CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. SO, SO I
MEAN, YOU YOU FEEL I MEAN, WHERE
IS THE STATE OF TECHNOLOGY WITH
REGARDS TO, LIKE, A LEAK FREE,
DISCHARGE FREE LANDFILL? DO YOU.
YEAH. YEAH, SURE. WHY DON'T YOU
COME? YOU CAN COME TO THE
MICROPHONE UP HERE. YEAH. I'VE
BEEN. I'M 26 YEARS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAINMENT
DESIGN, BASICALLY, FOCUSING ON
COMPOSTING FACILITIES,
LANDFILLS, CLOSURES, THE
MAJORITY OF THE LANDFILLS IN
THIS STATE AND ACTUALLY THE
WORLD ARE ALL HISTORIC LANDFILLS
THAT WERE DONE PRE,
PRE-REGULATION. THEREFORE THEY
DON'T HAVE LINER SYSTEMS LIKE HE
WAS SAYING. SO, SO THOSE ARE THE
LANDFILLS. YOU HEAR THE HORSE
HORROR STORIES ABOUT BRAND NEW
LANDFILLS DON'T REALLY EXIST
VERY OFTEN. SO WE'VE, WE'VE
BASICALLY DEVELOPED A DESIGN
THAT HAS A REDUNDANT SYSTEMS,
ISN'T IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL, FEDERAL,
STATE, LOCAL REGULATIONS THAT
ASSURES THAT ALL OF THE, THE
CONTAMINANTS THAT WOULD BE
WITHIN THE WASTE THAT WOULD LEAD
YOU OUT OF THE WASTE WILL BE
COLLECTED AND THEN BE ABLE TO BE
TREATED. AND THAT APPLIES NOT
ONLY TO THE LANDFILL, BUT ALSO
TO THE FACILITY AROUND IT. THE
STORMWATER COLLECTION, THE
RECYCLING CENTER, THE COMPOSTING
FACILITIES, ALL OF THAT
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS WILL BE
CAPTURED AND THEN TREATED
APPROPRIATELY, 100, 100. AND
THERE'S A MONITORING. SO IN
ADDITION, THERE'S A MONITORING
SYSTEM THAT'S INSTALLED ALL THE
WAY AROUND THE FACILITY THAT
WOULD DETECT ANY, ANY KIND OF
ISSUES THAT COULD COME UP. AND
WHAT WHO HOW HOW ARE YOU HELD
ACCOUNTABLE IF THAT DOES NOT
PROVE TO BE THE CASE THAT COMES
THROUGH THE REGULATING AGENCIES.
RIGHT. AND THEN YOU GO INTO
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND THOSE
KIND OF ISSUES. SO YOU KNOW,
SENATOR HUESO, YOU WERE SO, SO
SENATOR, SENATOR PADILLA BROUGHT
UP A EARLIER BILL THAT, QUITE
FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, I WASN'T
AWARE OF I DON'T KNOW THAT, YOU
KNOW, IT WAS THIS COMMITTEE. OF
COURSE, IT WAS LONG BEFORE ANY
OF US WERE HERE, THOUGH. YOU
WERE HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU
COAUTHORED THIS BILL. CAN YOU
GIVE US A, LIKE WHAT CAN YOU
GIVE US, SORT OF SOME CONTEXT AS
TO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT,
THIS VARGAS BILL ON ANOTHER
NORTH COUNTY LANDFILL? YEAH.
FIRST OF ALL, THAT BILL DIDN'T
SEEK TO IT, SEEK TO FURTHER
REGULATE BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND
THAT THAT SITE WAS NEAR TO SOME
ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS NEARBY. VÌ
THAT IN WHICH THE TRIBE DID NOT,
OCCUR. AND MANY TRIBES IN
CALIFORNIA DO NOT WANT TO,
DISCLOSE THE SITE OF
ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS. THEY ARE
ON FILE ONLY WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE, NOT PUBLIC
BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID THAT
PEOPLE WILL, WILL WILL EXPLOIT
THEM AND DIG THEM UP AND LOOK
FOR ARTIFACTS, SO THAT THAT
FACILITY WAS NEXT TO SOME
ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS. AND THE
LAW THAT WAS ADDED WASN'T
INTENDED TO, KILL THE PROJECT,
SIMPLY PROVIDE FOR THE
REGULATION. THAT PROJECT
EVENTUALLY WENT ON THE BALLOT
AND THE VOTERS TURNED IT DOWN,
SO, SO, ONE THING IS, AND SINCE
THEN, THE LAW HAS CHANGED. NOW
THERE ARE LAWS THAT ARE HAVE
BEEN ADDED TO SEQUA THAT PROTECT
NATIVE AMERICAN ARCHEOLOGICAL
SITES AND, AND OTHER HISTORIC
STRUCTURES. THAT HAS CHANGED IN
THE TIME I'VE BEEN IN THE
LEGISLATURE, BUT THIS PROJECT,
HOWEVER, WAS PARTICULARLY CHOSEN
BECAUSE IT'S NOT NEAR TO ANY OF
THOSE, SITES. IT'S NOT NEAR TO A
HOUSING. IT'S NOT NEAR TO,
ANYTHING THAT COULD PROVIDE ANY,
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM TO PEOPLE
LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY. AND
UNLIKE THE CURRENT LANDFILLS IN
SAN DIEGO, SEVERAL HUNDRED ACRES
AROUND THE SITE HAVE BEEN SET
ASIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT, FOR
THERE IS NO FURTHER, DEVELOPMENT
OR, THE PEOPLE DON'T MOVE IN OR
THAT ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT ISN'T
APPROVED THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE
SITE. SO THE DIFFERENCE, IS THAT
THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST
ADVANCED FACILITIES IN OUR
COUNTIES AND STATE HISTORY, AND
IT WILL BE THE BEST WAY TO
HANDLE RECYCLING AND WASTE, FOR
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, WHILE WHILE WE
DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE TO,
EXPAND, PROJECTS THAT DON'T HAVE
A LINER THAT ARE ADJACENT TO
RIVERS, THAT ARE ADJACENT TO
WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND IT'S TIME
FOR, TO FOR SAN DIEGO TO
MODERNIZE. OKAY, I'VE GOT MORE
THINGS, BUT I TOOK UP TOO MUCH
TIME ALREADY. SO. SO WHY DON'T
WE GO TO. LET'S OPEN UP TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION. HOW
ABOUT. YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO PUSH BACK A
LITTLE BIT, SENATOR HUESO,
BECAUSE I THINK I DON'T IT'S
SAFE TO ASSUME THAT I DON'T
THINK ANY VOTER WOULD VOTE FOR A
LANDFILL. I THINK THAT'S SAFE TO
ASSUME, AND I. MR. CHAIR, I
DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANY
LANDFILLS IN YOUR DISTRICT. I
DON'T THINK SO. YOU ACTUALLY.
OKAY, MAYBE I HAVE LANDFILLS IN
MY DISTRICT THAT ARE ALSO ALWAYS
ARE ALWAYS CONTAMINATING THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. AND EVEN
WITH THE LINERS, THEY'RE UP TO
DATE. THEY'RE CONSTANTLY
CONTAMINATING THE COMMUNITIES.
AND IF WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS NO
IMPACT OF LANDFILLS, THEN WE
WOULDN'T HAVE WHAT WE CURRENTLY
HAVE IN THIS STATE WHERE THE
CONCENTRATION OF THEM IN OUR IN
COMMUNITIES THAT LOOK LIKE YOU
AND THEY LOOK LIKE ME, RIGHT?
THEY'RE ALWAYS CONCENTRATING
THERE BECAUSE WE KNOW FOR A FACT
THAT IF WE PUT IT IN, BEVERLY
HILLS, IT WON'T HAPPEN. OR WE
ATTEMPT TO PUT IN THERE, IT
WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE ARE
IMPACTS. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BE IMPACTS REGARDLESS
OF I MEAN, THERE IS DATA TO SHOW
THAT, SO I, I'VE BEEN TALKING TO
THE SENATOR ON THIS A LOT, AND
IT REMINDS ME A LOT OF MY
COMMUNITY, OF MY DISTRICT, SO
FOR, FOR THIS ISSUE, I'M VERY
PROTECTIVE TO ENSURE THAT NOT A
FURTHER OUNCE OF CONTAMINATION
IS BEING CONCENTRATED IN THIS
AREA. I DO HAVE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS TO THE AUTHOR OF THIS
THAT I HOPE HE WILL CONTINUE
WORKING ON THIS, BUT I DO AGREE
WITH HIM IN SAYING THAT WE
SHOULDN'T ADD ANYTHING. THAT'S
FURTHER GOING TO ADD
CONTAMINATION. I READ THE EPA
RESPONSE THAT THE AUTHOR SENT TO
US THAT THERE IS CAPACITY UNTIL
2053, THAT WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY
15 MORE YEARS TO LOOK AT. AND
BECAUSE OF ALL THE WORK WE'RE
DOING ON, DIVERTING WASTE TO
OTHER WAYS AND, AND COMPOST AND
COMPOSTING AS WELL, THAT MAYBE
THAT CAPACITY WILL EVEN LAST
LONGER BECAUSE IT'LL BE
DIMINISHED, I THINK I'M SADDENED
FOR THE PEOPLE OF IMPERIAL,
CITY. IMPERIAL CITY, VERO BEACH,
IMPERIAL BEACH, WHO DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO THE OCEAN BECAUSE FOR
THE PAST TWO YEARS, BECAUSE OF
THE CONTAMINATION, BECAUSE OF
HOW CLOSE, IT IS TO THE OR
BECAUSE OF THE RIVER GOES INTO
IT. I KNOW THIS IS WITHIN
APPROXIMATELY TEN MILES OF THE
TÊ RIVER, BUT WE CAN ASSUME THAT
IT WILL GO INTO THERE. SO THAT'S
MY COMMENTS ON THAT. NOW TO YOU,
SENATOR. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY,
THOUGH, TO THE OPPOSITION?
THAT'S SAYING THAT IF SYCAMORE
WERE TO EXPAND, IT WOULD FURTHER
CONCENTRATE THAT LANDFILL IN
THAT COMMUNITY AND FURTHER
DISENFRANCHIZE THAT COMMUNITY
POTENTIALLY. MR. CHAIRMAN AND
SENATOR RED HERRING ARGUMENT,
BECAUSE THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE PLAN LOOKS
AT OVERALL REGIONAL CAPACITY,
BUT IT ALSO LOOKS AT REGIONAL
DYNAMICS. WE KNOW BECAUSE OF
MANY OF THE THINGS YOU JUST
CITED THAT INCREMENTALLY, YEAR
BY YEAR, THE DEMAND FOR LANDFILL
SPACE IS GOING TO INCREMENTALLY
REDUCE EXTENDING THE USEFUL LIFE
OF EVEN SOME EXISTING CAPACITY.
IT'S WHY THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
SUBSTANTIAL AND THAT THEY HAVE
CHANGED. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU
FOR REFERENCING THE SECRETARY'S
LETTER, PART OF THE ARGUMENT
HERE, AND I FIND IT INTERESTING,
IS THAT THERE'S A CAPACITY
CRISIS, THAT THIS IS A RECYCLING
FACILITY. LET ME JUST CORRECT
THE RECORD, THE TITLE ON
SUMMARY, IF YOU READ IT, THAT
WERE BEFORE THE VOTERS AND WERE
ANALYZED BY COUNTY COUNCIL AT
THAT TIME, CLEARLY STATE AND
EMPHASIZED THAT THIS IS A
RECYCLING FACILITY WITH A LITTLE
BIT OF LANDFILL SPRINKLED IN.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE
APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE THE
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 95%
PLUS OF AN OVER 300 ACRE SITE IS
DEDICATED TO CLASS THREE WASTE
DISPOSAL LANDFILL WITH A LITTLE
BIT OF MAYBE SOME KIND OF
RECYCLE SOMETHING SPRINKLED IN.
AND I ALSO WANT TO CORRECT THE
RECORD, AND I'LL DO IT AGAIN. IN
MY CLOSE, THERE WAS NO APPROVAL
VOTE OR APPROVAL OR ENTITLEMENT
OF ANY PROJECT OR ANY LANDFILL.
LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. THE
ZONE CHANGE, BUT IT WAS JUST
SOLELY A ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW
THE POSSIBILITY. AND ALSO THE
LANGUAGE IN THE MEASURE THAT THE
VOTERS ADOPTED WAS VERY CLEAR
THAT ANY APPLICATION AFTER THE
FACT, AFTER THE ZONING CHANGE,
WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A
PROCESS, AN ABBREVIATED ONE,
ABBREVIATED ONE. AND I'LL COME
BACK TO THAT AND ANSWER THE
QUESTION AS TO WHY GO TO THE
BALLOT, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, SENATOR, THIS IS A
LACK OF THIS LANDFILL BEING,
GIVEN A DISCHARGE PERMIT BECAUSE
OF THE NUMEROUS ADVERSE AND
INAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS IT WOULD MAKE TO THE TO
THE WATERSHED HAS ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING TO DO WITH EXACERBATING
CAPACITIES OR CONCENTRATION
ELSEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM.
SECRETARY YANA GARCIA'S LETTER
TO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE
COMMITTEE, MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT
NOT ONLY DOES THE COUNTY'S
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE UPDATE AS
RECENT AS LAST YEAR, MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT
CAPACITY THROUGH 2053, BUT ALSO
MAYBE THROUGH 2060, THE
SECRETARY Kò OF EPA, IN THE
LETTER BEFORE YOU HAS CLARIFIED
THAT THAT IS IN FACT THE CASE
AND THAT INCREMENTAL, YOU KNOW,
EXTENSION OF THAT CAPACITY MAY
WELL HAPPEN BECAUSE OF MANY OF
THE GOOD POLICIES THAT WE'VE
INSTITUTED IN THIS STATE ABOUT
DIVERSION AND COMPOSTING AND
OTHER THINGS. AND THE GOAL
BEING, TO YOUR POINT, SENATOR,
TO ULTIMATELY REALLY REDUCE
COMPLETE DEMAND FOR THIS TYPE OF
LAND USE, BECAUSE WE KNOW NOW
THE TREMENDOUSLY NEGATIVE
IMPACTS THAT THEY HAVE ON
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AND
PUBLIC HEALTH AND AS, SENATOR
PADILLA, YOU SPOKE A LITTLE BIT
AS TO WHY POTENTIALLY YOU YOU
THINK THEY WENT TO THE TO THE
BALLOT. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THIS IS CORRECT IN HOW I READ
THIS. I READ THE ANALYSIS THAT
THIS COMMITTEE WROTE ON THIS
SIMILAR BILL ABOUT TEN, 15,
ALMOST 15 YEARS AGO, AND IT
SPOKE ON THIS ORDINANCE. AND IF
I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THAT YOU
KNOW, THIS COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
SAID THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WOULD DESIGNATE THE SITE AS A BY
RIGHT USE. THE DEVELOPERS WERE
THEREFORE NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE
COUNTY'S MAJOR USE PERMIT
PROCESS AND IT WOULD LIMIT THE
ABILITY TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS
RELATED TO INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL
MITIGATION AND OPERATION
PRACTICES. THAT'S WHAT THIS
COMMITTEE DEEMED WOULD BE THE
IMPACT OF THIS VERY ISSUE. AND
I, I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT MY
QUESTION TO YOU, SENATOR
PADILLA, IS WHY DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD IS
NOT CAPABLE OF VETTING THIS
PROJECT THOROUGHLY, AND IT'S
RELATED? MR. CHAIRMAN, SENATOR,
IT'S RELATED TO THE POINT YOU
JUST MADE THE ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION, WHY GO TO THE BALLOT
IS BECAUSE YOU CAN CIRCUMVENT
PUBLIC INPUT. YOU CAN CIRCUMVENT
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. YOU
CAN CIRCUMVENT MEANINGFUL AND
CONTEXTUAL EVALUATION OF THE
PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
AS THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS POINTS
OUT, THAT YOU JUST QUOTED THE
COMMITTEE, THIS COMMITTEE'S
CONSULTANT AT THE TIME CLEARLY
POINTED OUT THE PROBLEMS WITH
MEASURE A AND THIS PARTICULAR
LANDFILL PROCESS, BECAUSE IT
BASICALLY UNLIKE ANY OTHER
PROPOSED LANDFILL IN CALIFORNIA
HISTORY, IS COMPLETELY AND
TOTALLY SEGREGATES OUT THE
PEOPLE'S ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES. NOT ONE MEMBER
OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. YOU KNOW WHO THE
LEAD AGENCY PERSON WHO APPROVES
THE SEQUA REVIEW. UNDER THE
CURRENT SITUATION BECAUSE OF
MEASURE A IS IT'S THE DIRECTOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AT THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WHO, BY THE
WAY, DOESN'T DO SQL LEAD AGENCY
STUFF. AND IT'S NOT THE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND IT'S
NOT THE TYPICAL SEQUENCE. SO I
FIND IT RICH TO ARGUE OUT OF ONE
SIDE OF THE MOUTH THAT WE WANT
THE PROCESS TO GO FORWARD, AND
WE WANT REVIEW THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS. BUT MEANWHILE, WE TOOK
THE 2.0 MASTER PLAYBOOK APPROACH
THAT WE SAW IN NORTH COUNTY OVER
A DECADE AND A HALF AGO. WE'VE
SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE TO
BASICALLY SHORTEN AND UNDERMINE
THE QUALITY AND CONTEXT OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND TO
PRECLUDE ANY INVOLVEMENT BY THE
PEOPLE'S ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES. I FIND THAT
RICH. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH
WAYS. AND TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, THAT'S WHY THEY WENT
TO THE BALLOT, IS BECAUSE THEY
KNEW THAT WHEN THE PUBLIC BEGAN
TO CONTINUE TO UNDERSTAND THE
IMPACTS TO THE, THE, THE
COMMUNITY OF THIS AND THE FACT
THAT IT ISN'T NECESSARY AND
THERE ISN'T DEMAND AND THERE IS
SUFFICIENT CAPACITY, THERE'S NO
WAY IN HELL THEY WOULD SUPPORT
IT, AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY
ARGUMENT HERE AGAIN, GETS BACK
TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF
THE BILL. AND THAT IS THERE ARE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW WHERE WE SAY DON'T ISSUE A
DISCHARGE PERMIT BECAUSE THERE
ARE REALLY EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND, MR. CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS, IF THIS SITUATION
OCCURRING IN MY DISTRICT ON THE
BORDER IS NOT AN EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCE AND A POSTER CHILD
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK IS, BUT
WHY? WHY WOULD WE ADD EVEN ONE
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN
OR STRESS ON THIS WATERSHED?
SENATOR DARLING, SO BUT WHAT YOU
HAVE TODAY IS LANDFILLS THAT
AREN'T LINED NÓ THE LANDFILL HAS
BEEN CONSISTENTLY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NUMBER OF UPGRADES OVER
THE YEARS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO,
BY EXISTING LAW AND LET ME, LET
ME GO TO THE POINT THAT WAS MADE
EARLIER, ABOUT THE NONEXISTENCE
IMPACTS OF MODERN LANDFILLS. AND
LET ME JUST CITE A RECENT STUDY
FROM THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
BIOTECH INFORMATION, THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE,
AND THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
HEALTH, AS RECENTLY AS THE END
OF LAST YEAR, THAT SQUARELY
EVALUATED THE ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION AND HEALTH EFFECTS
ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE
LANDFILLING. AND I QUOTE, IT IS
REVEALED THAT LANDFILLING IS
ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
PROBLEMS, NAMELY UNDERGROUND
WATER POLLUTION DUE TO CONTAINED
IN THE WASTE AIR POLLUTION DUE
TO SUSPENSION OF PARTICLES,
ODOR, POLLUTION FROM THE
DEPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE AND EVEN MARINE POLLUTION
FROM ANY POTENTIAL RUNOFFS.
FURTHER HEALTH IMPACTS MAY OCCUR
THROUGH THE POLLUTION OF THE
UNDERGROUND WATER AND EMISSION
OF GASES, LEADING TO
CARCINOGENIC AND
NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS AND
EXPOSED POPULATIONS LIVING
WITHIN THE VICINITY. THIS
ADDRESSES FROM SOME OF THE BEST
IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THE
IMPACTS OF ANY LANDFILL. EVEN
WITH MODERN MITIGATION MEASURES.
AND THAT'S THE POINT OF THE
BILL, IS IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE
TO HAVE ANY MORE IMPACTS BURDEN
THIS WATERSHED. SO BACK TO MY
ORIGINAL QUESTION. SO THE
LANDFILLS YOU HAVE TODAY ARE NOT
THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T HAVE A
LINER. THEY DON'T HAVE A Ã.
THEY ARE LINED WITH CLAY OR
SOMETHING. THAT'S NOT VISQUEEN
OR SOME SORT OF I WORKED IN A
GOLD MINE IN CALIFORNIA, OPEN
PIT GOLD MINE THAT HAD LINERS
ZERO DISCHARGE BECAUSE WE USE
CYANIDE AND WE HAD ZERO
DISCHARGE AND WE GOT A PERMIT.
THEY THEY PERMITTED THE MINE AND
THEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA WATER
BOARD, WHICH IS WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. BUT, BUT
BUT MY QUESTION IS, I THINK IS
CRITICAL TO LOOK. YES. IS THERE
SOME IMPACTS. THERE'S ALWAYS
IMPACTS. BUT CAN THEY BE
MITIGATED. AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE
NOW VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
GET IN THE FUTURE. AND YOU KNOW
WE ALL TALK ABOUT NOT HAVING
LANDFILLS. AND WE TALKED ABOUT
IT REDUCTION 25 YEARS AGO. AND
WE STILL HAVE LANDFILLS. SO WHAT
YOU HAVE NOW IS AN UNLINED OR
ACTUALLY MORE THAN ONE I THINK.
RIGHT. UNLINED NEXT TO THE
TIJUANA RIVER, WHICH EVERYBODY
SEEMS TO TALK ABOUT, WHICH IS A
BORDER. AND IT ALSO HAS
POLLUTION COMING FROM THE OTHER
SIDE WHICH WE HAVE NO CONTROL
OVER, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE I'M CLEAR ON THE FACT THAT
THE FACILITY THAT WOULD BE BUILT
WOULD BE LINED WITH THE
DETECTION SYSTEM AND WOULD
PROBABLY HAVE ZERO ABILITY TO GO
IN THE GROUND, AND THEY CAN
CAPTURE IS THAT THAT'S THAT'S
CRITICAL, I THINK, TO THIS
CONVERSATION. GO AHEAD. WELL, I
IN RESPONSE AND I HAVE TO ADD
THIS BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
TO THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE. RIGHT AND WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S HEALTH,
TWO AND A HALF YEARS, THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, WHICH IS
ADJACENT TO THE CHULA VISTA
LANDFILL, PRODUCED OVER A
THOUSAND NEW HOUSING UNITS
AROUND THE LANDFILL. THIS
LANDFILL IN CHULA VISTA IS NOT
LINED. IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR
METHANE CAPTURE. BACK THEN. THEY
WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT METHANE
EMISSIONS OR METHANE CAPTURE.
THEY WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT
PUTTING A LINER. AND IF YOU KNOW
THAT WHEN YOU BUILD A HOME AND
YOU BUILD A CEMENT FOUNDATION,
IT HAS TO HAVE ENOUGH CEMENT AND
REBAR TO SUSTAIN THE STRUCTURE.
AND WHEN CLAY IS THE ONLY THING
SEPARATING ALL THIS TRASH FROM
THE WATER, AND YOU PUT AN
ENORMOUS YOU CAN LINE THE TOP IF
YOU WANT, BUT YOU CONTINUE TO
PUT WEIGHT ON THAT. YOU KNOW,
IT'S GOING TO EVENTUALLY BREAK
THROUGH THAT CLAY AND YOUR THIS
BILL IS PUTTING SAN DIEGO IN A
POSITION WHERE IT WILL HAVE NO
OTHER ALTERNATIVE TO SITE FUTURE
, WASTE PROCESSING FACILITIES
AND WE WILL STAY WITH WHAT WE
HAVE AND CONTINUE TO ADD TO THAT
AND PUT OUR WATERSHEDS, THE SAN
DIEGO RIVER, SAN CLEMENTE CREEK,
OTAY RIVER INTO JEOPARDY. AND
THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITED THERE
WHO WHO WERE ONCE PROMISED THAT
THESE LANDFILLS WERE CLOSED, ARE
GOING TO SEE FUTURE EXTENSIONS
BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE NO OTHER
ALTERNATIVE. THERE WILL BE NO
OTHER ALTERNATIVE. AND AGAIN, TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THIS
PROJECT IS SITED FAR FROM WHERE
ANYONE LIVES, SO IT'S NOT AN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUE.
NOBODY LIVES NEAR THERE. NOBODY
WILL EVER LIVE NEAR THERE AND IT
WILL BE LINED. IT WILL BE
DESIGNED FOR METHANE CAPTURE.
AND EVENTUALLY, IF SAN DIEGO
EVER GOES TO 100% RECYCLED
RECOVERY RATE, IT WILL BE A
PLACE WHERE THAT RECYCLING WILL
BE SUCCESSFULLY PROCESSED,
BECAUSE IT WILL BE DESIGNED TO
DO EXACTLY JUST THAT. MR.
CHAIRMAN, AS THE AUTHOR AND THE
SENATOR REPRESENTING THIS AREA
NOW, DISRESPECT TO MY OLD FRIEND
BEN, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
IT'S IRRELEVANT. WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, SENATOR DOLLY, BECAUSE
THE POINT IS NOT HOW CHAU NOT
MITIGATED THE OLD LANDFILL IS,
AND IT MAY HAVE A FEW YEARS LEFT
OR, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S THE
QUESTION IS, DO YOU BURDEN THE
SAME AREA WITH THE CONFLUENCE OF
IMPACTS THAT'S HAPPENING THERE
WITH ANOTHER LANDFILL THAT
BRINGS ANY IMPACTS AND MAY
EXTEND THAT LAND USE IN THE
WRONG LOCATION FOR A CENTURY?
THAT'S THE QUESTION. AND THAT'S
THE REASON FOR THE BILL. OKAY,
YOU KNOW, WELL, OKAY, I GUESS
PART OF SO FIRST OF ALL, ON THE
QUESTION OF, ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, THERE'S THERE IS A
ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT
THE WATER BOARD WOULD, ENGAGE IN
, ON THE QUESTION OF THE LOCAL
ENTITY. I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND
AND RESPECT THE FACT THAT THE
LOCAL SUPERVISOR IS SUPPORTIVE
OF YOUR BILL. BUT AND I WOULD
SAY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE IF THE
BOARD AS A COLLECTIVE WERE TO,
TAKE A POSITION ON THE BOARD,
THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE VERY
MEANINGFUL, TO ME, I GUESS THE
CHALLENGE I'M HAVING WITH THIS
BILL IS, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT
WE'RE THAT WE'RE SORT OF THAT
WE'RE THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD
HAS A JOB TO DO TO ASSESS AND
REQUIRE PROJECTS TO MITIGATE
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS, WHICH IS
ULTIMATELY AT THE HEART OF ALL
THE CLAIMS AND CROSS CLAIMS THAT
ARE BEING MADE TODAY. AND AND,
YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT THE
EXPERTISE AND AUTHORITY IN THIS
MATTER, NOT US, WE OFFERED TO I
MEAN, WELL, LET'S START BY
SAYING IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I
MEAN, I'VE READ A BIT ABOUT THIS
NOW THAT THEY'VE GO THROUGH THIS
VERY EXTENSIVE PROJECT SPECIFIC
PROCESS AT THE WATER BOARD
SPECIFYING CONSTRUCTION AND
CONTAINMENT LINERS, LEACH, YOU
KNOW, LEACHATE, YOU KNOW,
LEACHING COLLECTION, AND REMOVAL
, SUBSURFACE BARRIERS, DRAINAGE
CONTROLS. AND THEN, OF COURSE,
MOST IMPORTANTLY, WATER QUALITY
MONITORING. IT'S A NEARLY TWO
YEAR LONG PROCESS, I THINK,
FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM APPLICATION
TO APPROVAL. AND THEN OF COURSE,
THERE'S A SEQUA PROCESS ALSO
INVOLVING WHICH WHICH, AS WE
KNOW, INVOLVES A REALLY
EXTENSIVE, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT,
YOU KNOW, TOO MUCH, ACCORDING TO
YOU KNOW, SCOTT WIENER ON, YOU
KNOW, FOR, FOR DOWNTOWN SAN
FRANCISCO. SO SO, YOU KNOW, AND
THEN, OF COURSE, AFTER ALL OF
THAT, THE WATER BOARD CAN, CAN
VOTE TO DENY, YOU KNOW, WATER
DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS IF IT
DETERMINES THAT THEY'RE NOT
PROTECTIVE OF WATER QUALITY. SO
THAT'S A ROBUST PROCESS. AND I
GUESS YOU KNOW, WE SUBMITTED TO
THE AUTHOR, YOU KNOW, A AN OFFER
TO SAY, LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, HEIGHTENED STANDARDS FOR
REVIEW AT THE WATER BOARD,
THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT, WE'RE,
WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE GIVEN ALL OF
THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES OF THE
REGION. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY,
FOR THE RECORD, I MEAN, AS WE AS
WE OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS NOT
ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHOR, WHICH IS
ABSOLUTELY HIS RIGHT. AND WE'LL
SEE WHERE THIS ALL GOES. I DO
WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT,
IF YOU KNOW THAT I CONTINUE TO
BE OPEN AND WILLING TO WORK WITH
THE AUTHOR ON, NEGOTIATING WHAT
THE WHAT THOSE HEIGHTENED
STANDARDS MIGHT LOOK LIKE,
BECAUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
THIS REALLY COMES DOWN
ULTIMATELY TO, THE WATER BOARD
PROCESS. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD A
LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE UNIQUE
NATURE OF THIS WATERSHED AND THE
IMPACTS THAT, THAT, THAT IT
MIGHT, THAT WE MIGHT THAT A
PROJECT LIKE THIS MIGHT HAVE ON
THE WATERSHED. AND YET IT'S
ULTIMATELY THE WATER BOARD
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO THEY'VE GOT
THE EXPERTISE, THEY'VE GOT THE
SKILL SET TO REALLY GO THROUGH
THIS PROCESS. AND IF AND IF YOU
WANT TO TALK SHOP ABOUT
REQUIRING SOME ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS AS PART OF THE APPROVAL
PROCESS, I'M REALLY OPEN TO THAT
CONVERSATION. SO THAT'S THAT'S
WHERE I STAND. I MEAN, IT REALLY
KIND OF COMES DOWN ULTIMATELY TO
THE, YOU KNOW, FOR FROM, YOU
KNOW, AND IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE
THAT, THAT THE REST OF THE
COMMITTEE IS HAPPY TO MOVE
FORWARD WITHOUT THAT AMENDMENT
BEING TAKEN. I WILL SAY, IF YOU
KNOW, IF, IF THE WAY THAT WE
HAVE CRAFTED THE AMENDMENT, YOU
KNOW, WITH REGARDS TO THE, TO
THE FINDINGS OF THE WATER BOARD,
IF THE CONCERN IS WITH THAT, I
WANT TO JUST SAY, FOR THE RECORD
AND TO YOU THAT I'M HOPING I'M
HAPPY TO, TO ENGAGE IN MORE
NEGOTIATION ON THAT POINT. SO
THAT'S WHERE I AM. THAT'S WHERE
I AM. I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT. I
MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A
BIT TOO, BUT I WANT TO
REEMPHASIZE IT NOW. IT KIND OF
DEPENDING ON WHERE THIS ALL
GOES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M
ABLE TO CLOSE OR AT WHAT POINT
YOU WANT TO. SURE, ABSOLUTELY, I
THANK THE CHAIRMAN. I'M ALWAYS
HAPPY TO CONTINUE DIALOG. I
THINK, YOU KNOW, TO BE CLEAR,
FOR THE RECORD, TO CORRECT THE
RECORD, WE HAVE ACCEPTED SOME OF
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. YOU
HAVE THE QUARRY AND WE MADE THAT
CLEAR TO AT THE BEGINNING. SO
THANK YOU, SIR. I WILL ALSO SAY,
THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT PREPARED
THE WAY THAT WAS DRAFTED WAS TO
BASICALLY GIVE, YOU KNOW, A BACK
DOOR TO GETTING, YOU KNOW, PART
OF THE PROBLEM WITH THIS
PROCESS. AND AGAIN, I'LL REFER
YOU TO THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
FROM 2011, WHICH I THOUGHT
PRETTY MUCH HIT IT ON THE HEAD,
THAT COMMITTEE ANALYSIS WAS
CRITICAL OF THIS APPROACH ON
THIS SITE IN SOUTHERN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY ON MEASURE Ã. BUT IT
LOOKED AT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE GREGORY CANYON PROPOSAL,
WHICH WAS A FACILITY WITH 33.4
MILLION TON CAPACITY. AND HERE
WE ARE LOOKING AT FACILITY WITH
OVER 180 MILLION TON CAPACITY IN
SITU, IN A PLACE THAT HAS
EXPONENTIALLY MORE
ENVIRONMENTALLY ADVERSE DYNAMICS
HAPPENING IN IT AND TO IT THAN
THE SITE IN NORTH IN NORTH
COUNTY. AND THE POINT AGAIN IS
CALIFORNIA HAS, AS HAS STATUTE
THAT SAYS THE WATER BOARD SHALL
NOT ISSUE BECAUSE OF CERTAIN
CONDITIONS. AND THE POINT OF
THIS BILL IS THAT THESE
CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND, THE
EVIDENCE OF WHICH IS
MOUNTAINOUS, ABOUT THE UNIQUE
AND, CONVERGING AND MULTIPLE
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON
THIS COMMUNITY, A COMMUNITY OF
COLOR THAT HAS A HISTORY OF
HAVING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
LAND USES SHOVED DOWN ITS
THROAT. THIS IS A CASE IN MY IN
ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT THE STATE
SHOULD ADD TO THAT SET OF
EXEMPTIONS AND PROHIBIT THAT.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT TO BE MAYBE
I'M SHOWING MY AGE, BUT I DON'T
THINK WE'D NEED A WHOLE LOT MORE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT WE'RE
NOT GOING TO ADD ANOTHER STRAW
ON YOU KNOW, LOVE CANAL. I MEAN,
THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE ARE
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE OVERWHELMED
WITH ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL USES
THAT ARE NOT JUST UNJUST FROM A
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL
STANDPOINT, BUT ARE UNHEALTHY
AND ARE ALWAYS DIRECTED AT THE
PEOPLE WITH THE LEAST ECONOMIC
AND POLITICAL POWER TO FIGHT
BACK. AND I LIVE WITH IT MY
WHOLE LIFE, AND I LISTED THEM
OFF. WHY IN GOD'S NAME? IF YOU
HAVE A LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY
OF THE EPA IN THE COUNTY'S OWN
WASTE, SOLID WASTE PLAN SAYING
WE HAVE PLENTY OF CAPACITY,
RIGHT? THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.
AND THERE'S A MOUNTAIN OF
EVIDENCE ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF
EVEN MODERN LANDFILLS. WHY IN
GOD'S NAME WOULD WE FORCE THAT
ON A COMMUNITY UNDER THE FLAG OF
A OF A BALLOT MEASURE? THE
PEOPLE APPROVED IT. THE PEOPLE
APPROVED IT. BOLONEY LET ME
CORRECT THE RECORD. THE PEOPLE
DID NOT APPROVE A LANDFILL. THEY
DID NOT VOTE FOR APPROVING OR
ENTITLING A LANDFILL. THEY DID
NOT VOTE TO APPROVE A PROJECT.
THEY VOTED FOR A ZONING CHANGE
AND THE LANGUAGE IN WHAT THEY
VOTED ON MAKES IT VERY CLEAR
THAT THAT STILL HAS TO BE
SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY. BUT A NEW
KIND OF SCRUTINY, ONE THAT
DOESN'T INVOLVE ANYONE'S ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVE, IS ONE THAT
TOTALLY NEGATES THE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS, ONE THAT LEAVES
A WATER BOARD DETERMINATION TO
FACELESS, UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS
IN A BACK ROOM THAT UNLESS
YOU'RE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIVIST, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW
THE MEETINGS HAPPENING. AND IT
HAPPENS EVERY DAY TO COMMUNITIES
LIKE MINE. AND MY COMMUNITY'S
HAD ABOUT ENOUGH. AND I THINK
THAT THIS IS MORE THAN UNJUST.
THE EVIDENCE IS PILED HIGH, AND
THIS IS THERE'S A REASON THEY
WENT TO THE BALLOT. I UNDERSTAND
PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE MONEY OFF
THEIR LAND, AND I'M ALL FOR IT.
BUT THE COST TO MY COMMUNITY
HAVE BEEN HIGH AND THEY CONTINUE
TO BE HIGH. AND IT'S NOT JUST
AND IT'S NOT RIGHT. AND I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
, SO SENATOR MENGIBAR MOVE IT.
YEAH. OKAY. NOW, JUST TO CLARIFY
, THE AUTHOR HAS AGREED TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
AND COMMENT SIX, BUT NOT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT. AND COMMENT
FIVE AND CORRECT ON THE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS WITH REGARD
TO THE QUARRY, AND IF I MIGHT,
WITH YOUR INDULGENCE. MR.
CHAIRMAN, I THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW
JUST TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND
ADD SOME INFORMATION THEY MAY
NOT KNOW, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
SIGNIFICANT ORGANIZATIONAL
LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND A LOCAL
LEADERS AND ELECTED LETTERS OF
SUPPORT THAT WERE FILED TIMELY
WITH THE COMMITTEE. ONE WAS
FILED IN ERROR AS AN OPPOSITION
LETTER AND THEN IMMEDIATELY
CORRECTED WITHIN SECONDS, WITH
THE COMMITTEE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY
IN SUPPORT. BUT JUST FOR THE
RECORD, THEY DIDN'T MAKE ALL
MAKE IT IN TO THE ANALYSIS. AND
I WANT TO JUST PUT ON THE RECORD
THAT THE LETTERS AND
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SUPPORTED
THIS BILL WERE FROM THE NATIONAL
RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL, NRDC,
FROM SIERRA CLUB, CALIFORNIA,
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO
CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT, SEAN ELO
RIVERA, COUNCIL MEMBER JENNIFER
KENDALL, COUNCIL MEMBER MARNI
VON WILLMOTT, THE CHAIR OF THE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NORA
VARGAS, MAYOR PALOMA AGUIRRE OF
THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH.
MAYOR RON MORRISON FROM THE CITY
OF NATIONAL CITY, AND DEPUTY
MAYOR ALONSO GONZALEZ FROM THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA. I
APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING ME TO
READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. ALL
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS ARE IN, SENATOR
SKINNER HERE. APOLOGIES OFFERED.
I DID IN THE, YOU KNOW, WE GET
THESE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT AND WE
HAVE AN ADDITION TO THE
ANALYSIS. THERE'S A, TAB THAT WE
CAN HIT THAT LISTS SUPPORT
LETTERS THAT HAVE COME IN. AND
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE SIERRA CLUB,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL AND OTHERS THAT ARE IN
THE TAB THAT SHOW LETTERS OF
SUPPORT HAVE COME IN BUT AREN'T
REFERENCED IN THE ANALYSIS. AND
THE ONLY OTHER THING I WAS GOING
TO SAY IS THAT THE ANALYSIS DOES
LIST ORGANIZATIONS, BUT THEN IT
SAYS 129 INDIVIDUALS. SO IT
COULD LEAVE ONE TO THE
IMPRESSION THAT THOSE ARE THE
ONLY ORGANIZATIONS. AND SINCE
THE ANALYSIS IS OFTEN WHAT IS
USED WHEN SOMETHING GOES TO THE
FLOOR, WHEN WE GET A BILL, IF,
IF THIS WERE TO MOVE TO THE
FLOOR, I'D APPRECIATE IF THAT IF
THE ANALYSIS IS UPDATED TO
REFLECT THE ORGANIZATIONS. OH
YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A
THERE'S A, THERE'S A NOON
WEDNESDAY DEADLINE THAT, FOR THE
FOR THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. OKAY
AND THERE ARE TIME STAMPED THAT
BEING SAID, OF COURSE, ANYTHING
THAT'S COME IN SINCE THEN, YOU
KNOW, WE'LL BE ADDED TO WHATEVER
FUTURE ANALYSIS IS PRODUCED,
INCLUDING THE FLOOR ANALYSIS.
ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. I JUST WANTED
TO ENSURE THAT BECAUSE AS LONG
AS IT'S DONE BY THE FLOOR, I
FIRST SAW THIS AND THEN I HIT
THE OTHER TAB, THERE WERE A FEW
MORE. SO AS YOU KNOW, I MEAN,
EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN A CHAIR HERE
KNOWS THAT THIS IS A CONSTANT
CHALLENGE HERE WHERE WE'VE GOT
JUST APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH OKAY.
OKAY, SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. SB 1208, THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED. AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS ALLEN
AND DALLEY GONZALEZ HURTADO,
MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I NGUYEN AND
SKINNER I SKINNER I OKAY, WE'RE
GOING TO HOLD IT OPEN, FOR
FUTURE, YOU KNOW. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, BEND YOUR
KNEE AND LET'S SEE WHERE THE
VOTES GO. AND WE'LL DISCUSS
FURTHER. OKAY. LET'S GIVE,
SENATOR SKINNER THE OPPORTUNITY
TO, PRESENT SB 941. THIS IS ITEM
14.
ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU PROCEED
WHEN YOU'RE READY? GREAT THANK
YOU, MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS, I
WILL PRESENT, FILE ORDER 14, SB
941. IS THAT THE ORDER? YES
OKAY, GREAT. 941 IS THE FIRST
ONE. PERFECT. OKAY. WONDERFUL
941. DIRECTS OUR AIR RESOURCES
BOARD TO. IN THEIR NEXT
REGULARLY SCHEDULED UPDATE TO
THE SCOPING AB 32 SCOPING PLAN,
IT ASKS THEM TO INCLUDE
INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION,
DECARBONIZE ASIAN IN THAT
SCOPING PLAN. SO IT'S JUST THE
BILL IS REALLY JUST TO KIND OF
GIVE A LITTLE NUDGE TO ARB TO
MAKE SURE THEY GIVE ATTENTION
OAN TO INDUSTRIAL
DECARBONIZATION WHEN THEY DO
THAT UPDATE. AND THE REASON IS
THAT INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS
CURRENTLY REPRESENT ABOUT 22% OF
CALIFORNIA'S EMISSIONS. AND AS
WE ARE SUCCESSFULLY, DE REDUCING
THE EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORT AND
OTHER SECTORS THAT THE
INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS PORTION
WILL GROW JUST BECAUSE THERE IS,
NOT NECESSARILY SO MUCH LESS
THAT WE'VE DONE, BUT THERE'S A
LOT OF FACTORS THAT HAVE
AFFECTED INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS
THAT MAKE THAT SO FAR, THEY
HAVEN'T QUITE FALLEN UNDER MANY
OF THE TOOLS THAT WE'VE BEEN
USING TO DECARBONIZE, AND THERE
ARE GENUINE SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE
NOW TO MUCH OF OUR INDUSTRIAL
EMISSIONS THAT WEREN'T AVAILABLE
IN THE PAST. SO BEING ABLE TO
VET THOSE, HAVING CARB ANALYZE
THEM AND INCLUDE THEM IN THE
SCOPING PLAN WILL HELP US
ACHIEVE THAT. AND RIGHT NOW,
UNLESS WE DO SO, WE'LL HAVE AT A
VERY DIFFICULT TIME TO ACHIEVE
OUR GOAL OF CARBON NEUTRALITY BY
2045. SO BASICALLY, THE BILL
ALLOWS CARB WITHIN THAT
SCHEDULED SCOPING UPDATE,
IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE EXISTING
ZERO ZERO EMISSION ALTERNATIVES
TO INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES,
IDENTIFY EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
AND IDENTIFY THOSE INDUSTRIAL
PRACTICES FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ZERO
EMISSION ALTERNATIVES. AND WITH
THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN OVER TO
MY WITNESS, LAUREN KUBIAK FROM
THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
ALLEN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS LAUREN KUBIAK, AND I'M A
SENIOR SCIENTIST AT THE NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NRDC,
CALIFORNIA'S INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
IS MADE UP OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE
MANUFACTURERS, CEMENT AND GAS
PLANTS, AND MORE. IT IS THE
STATE'S SECOND LARGEST
CONTRIBUTOR TO CLIMATE CHANGE
AFTER TRANSPORTATION, MAKING UP
22% OF CALIFORNIA'S GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS. INDUSTRIAL
EMISSIONS COME FROM BURNING
FOSSIL FUELS TO GENERATE LOW AND
HIGH TEMPERATURE HEAT, AS WELL
AS CHEMICAL PROCESSES LIKE
CALCINATION. THIS SHARE OF
EMISSIONS IS LIKELY TO GO UP AS
EMISSIONS FROM OTHER SECTORS,
WITH MORE FOCUSED
DECARBONIZATION EFFORTS DECLINE.
LONG CONSIDERED HARD TO ABATE,
INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS HAVE BEEN
LARGELY IGNORED, BUT ADDRESSING
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR EMISSIONS IS
CRUCIAL TO ACHIEVING OUR NET
ZERO EMISSION TARGETS. THERE ARE
AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO NOW
THROUGH EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES,
INCLUDING HEAT PUMPS, ELECTRIC
HEATERS AND BOILERS, AS WELL AS
THERMAL STORAGE THAT CAN CHARGE
WITH RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY
DURING THE DAY AND DISCHARGE
CLEAN INDUSTRIAL HEAT ON AN AS
NEEDED, CONSISTENT BASIS. THE
AIR RESOURCES BOARD'S PREVIOUS
SCOPING PLANS HAVE INCLUDED
LIMITED INFORMATION ON
INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION
PATHWAYS, INCLUDING A MORE
ROBUST ASSESSMENT OF ZERO CARBON
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN
BE DEPLOYED TODAY, WHILE
DEVELOPING A PLAN ON HOW TO
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY EARLIER STAGE
TECHNOLOGIES IS CRUCIAL TO
ENSURING THAT CALIFORNIA'S
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR DECARBONIZES,
ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE
ECONOMY, SB NINE 4941 WOULD DO
JUST THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO
VOICE SUPPORT FOR THE BILL? THIS
IS SB 941. NO. OKAY. OPPOSITION
CONCERN THESE FOLKS WANT TO
MAKE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
COMMENTS. QUESTIONS. MOTION
MOVED BY SENATOR MENGIBAR. YOU
MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE YOUR I VOTE. ALL
RIGHT. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL SB 941. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS. AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS. ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE.
DALY GONZALEZ. HURTADO. MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR. AYE. NGUYEN. SKINNER
AYE. SKINNER. AYE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. LET'S NOW GO TO SB
1073. GREAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR
MEMBERS. IN OUR DISCUSSION OF
INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS, WHICH WE
JUST ONE OF THOSE Kò, INDUSTRIAL
EMISSIONS IS FROM CEMENT AND
CONCRETE PRODUCTION AND IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT TO DECARBONIZE
CEMENT AND CONCRETE BECAUSE NOT
ONLY DO YOU HAVE THE EMISSIONS
FROM THE POWER OR THE ENERGY
USED TO HEAT THE KILNS, YOU ALSO
HAVE JUST THE PROCESS, WHAT THEY
CALL PROCESS RELEASES, PROCESS
EMISSIONS. SO THERE'S EMISSIONS
JUST FROM THE, THE, THE
LIMESTONE AND REMOVE THE CALCIUM
YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE. I'M
GOING TO BLOW MY, CHEMICALS. BUT
ANYWAY, IT'S THE VERY PROCESS OF
HEATING THE LIMESTONE AND THE
EMISSIONS FROM THAT LIMESTONE
ARE, HIGH IN CARBON. SO WE'VE
DONE A LOT OF THINGS SO FAR.
WE'VE MOVED ON TRYING TO APPROVE
OR AT LEAST HAVE SOME PILOTS ON
ON DOING CARBON CAPTURE AT
CEMENT. WE'VE DONE A VARIETY OF
THINGS, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF COMPANIES AND
RESEARCHERS THAT ARE DEVELOPING
NEW LOW CARBON CONCRETES AND
CEMENTS. AND WHILE THERE'S
THEY'RE ONLY BEGINNING TO BE
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, IF WE
SEND THE RIGHT KIND OF MARKET
SIGNAL, THEN WE MAY ENCOURAGE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE
PRODUCTS AND THE FINANCE OF
THOSE PRODUCTS SO THAT THEY CAN
THEN BECOME ECONOMICALLY VIABLE
AND COMPETE WITH OTHER CONCRETE
AND CEMENT PRODUCTS. SO THAT'S
THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL. THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO ALLOW
OUR AGENCIES TO ENGAGE IN
ADVANCED PROCUREMENT AGREEMENTS,
TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE
FUTURE, PURCHASE OF LOW CARBON
CEMENT AND CONCRETE. NOW, THIS
IS DONE VERY COMMONLY ON THE
FEDERAL LEVEL, AND IT'S THE WAY
TO SEND A SIGNAL TO EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES. LOOK THERE'S A
MARKET FOR YOU. AND THIS IS THE
KIND OF STUFF WE WANT TO BUY. IF
IT'S COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE IN
THE FUTURE. ADVANCED PROCUREMENT
AGREEMENTS DO NOT REQUIRE FOR
THE STATE TO THEN PURCHASE THAT.
IF AT THE TIME COMES AND THE
PRODUCT DOES NOT MEET THE
SPECIFICATIONS THAT WE NEED, OR
IS THAT AT A COST THAT DOESN'T
COMPETE, THEN THE STATE DOES NOT
HAVE TO BUY IT, BUT BY DOING
THESE ADVANCED PROCUREMENT
AGREEMENTS, WE'RE SENDING THAT
SIGNAL THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE
AVAILABILITY OF LOW CARBON
CEMENT AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS.
NOW IT'S INTERESTING. WE DID A
VERY SIMILAR THING BACK IN 2010
WHEN WE PASSED THE BILL AROUND,
UTILITY GRADE BATTERY STORAGE AT
THE POINT THAT WE PASSED THAT
BILL, THERE WAS NO UTILITY GRADE
BATTERY STORAGE ONLINE ANYWHERE
IN CALIFORNIA, AND THERE WERE
VERY FEW PRODUCERS OF IT TODAY.
SINCE THAT BILL PASSED. AND
CALIFORNIA TOLD THE WORLD, WE
WANT UTILITY GRADE BATTERY
STORAGE, WE ARE NOW THE WORLD'S
LEADER IN IN, ONLINE BATTERY
STORAGE. AND WE ALREADY HAVE IN
CAPACITY IN TERMS OF THE BATTERY
STORAGE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
INSTALLED, IT IS EQUIVALENT TO
FOUR DIABLO POWER PLANTS. SO IN
THAT PERIOD OF TIME, IN THAT 14
YEARS, THAT'S WE'VE ACHIEVED. SO
THIS BILL IS TRYING TO DO A
SIMILAR THING. WE HOPE IT WORKS.
WE CAN'T GUARANTEE IT. THAT'S
WHY IT'S PERMISSIVE. AND WITH
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE,
LAUREN AGAIN TESTIFY FROM
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL. AND I HAVE CONNOR
WOODRICH FROM THE DECARBONIZED
CEMENT AND CONCRETE ALLIANCE.
HELLO AGAIN, CHAIR ALLEN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LAUREN KUBIAK. I'M A SENIOR
SCIENTIST AT NRDC, AND I'M
SPEAKING IN MY CAPACITY AS A
CO-SPONSOR OF SB 1073 AND A
STRONG SUPPORTER OF SB 1073,
AUTHORIZES STATE AGENCIES TO
ENTER FORWARD CONTRACTS TO
PURCHASE LOW CARBON CEMENT AND
CONCRETE PRODUCTS UP TO TEN
YEARS IN ADVANCE, CLARIFYING
SUCH AUTHORITY WILL REMOVE A KEY
BARRIER TO UNLOCKING DEEP
DECARBONIZATION OF CALIFORNIA'S
CEMENT SECTOR, WHICH IS CRITICAL
TO ACHIEVING CALIFORNIA'S NET
ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
TARGETS FOR ITS ECONOMY AND
CEMENT SECTOR. CEMENT, WHICH IS
THE BINDING INGREDIENT IN
CONCRETE, IS THE BUILDING BLOCK
OF MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE AND
ACCOUNTS FOR NEARLY 8% OF ALL
GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, CEMENT
PRODUCTION IS THE SECOND LARGEST
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE OF EMISSIONS,
AS CALIFORNIA HAS ENACTED
LEGISLATION INCLUDING SB 596,
REQUIRING ALL CEMENT USED IN
CALIFORNIA TO BE NET ZERO
EMISSION BY 2045. COMPLEMENTARY
POLICIES, INCLUDING ENSURING
THAT THE STATE CAN PURCHASE LOW
EMISSION CEMENT AND CONCRETE,
WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS
GOAL. THE US DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY AND ITS COMMERCIAL LIFT
OFF REPORT FOR CEMENT
DECARBONIZATION HAS IDENTIFIED
ADVANCED PROCUREMENT MODELS AS A
TOOL NECESSARY TO SCALE ULTRA
LOW EMISSIONS CEMENT AND
CONCRETE. SB 1073 CLARIFIES THAT
THIS IS A TOOL THAT CALIFORNIA
STATE AGENCIES CAN DEPLOY IN
ALIGNMENT WITH THE STATE'S
CEMENT DECARBONIZATION EFFORTS
AND CLIMATE TARGETS AT LARGE. WE
GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR AYE VOTE
ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. THANK
YOU. AND CAN I JUST CLARIFY YOU
HAVE YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS? MY
APOLOGIES. I SHOULD HAVE OPENED
WITH THAT. YES, I AM ABSOLUTELY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. IT'S RIGHT ON THE
TOP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
ABSOLUTELY AM ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO BROADEN
THE LIST OF POLICIES THAT COULD
BE FURTHERED THROUGH ADVANCED
PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS, AND I
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT. MY
APOLOGIES FOR NOT OPENING WITH
IT. APPRECIATE IT. LET'S HEAR
FROM YOUR NEXT WITNESS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIRMAN ALAN.
VICE CHAIR. DOLLY. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK THIS
MORNING IN SUPPORT OF SENATOR
SKINNER'S SB 1073. I SPEAK AS A
MEMBER OF DC2. THE DECARBONIZED
CEMENT AND CONCRETE ALLIANCE.
IT'S AN INFORMAL GROUP OF LIKE
MINDED COMPANIES SEEKING TO
PROVIDE LOW CARBON SOLUTIONS FOR
THE BUILDING MATERIALS INDUSTRY.
MY NAME IS KEITH KRUG. I'M PROUD
TO SERVE AS THE CHIEF
MANUFACTURING OFFICER FOR
FORTERRA. IT'S BASED IN SAN JOSE
, CALIFORNIA. OUR TECHNOLOGY
USES THE KILN EXHAUST FROM
EXISTING CEMENT FACILITIES TO
MINERALIZE CARBON, AND BY THAT,
BY DOING THAT, WE CREATE A
CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL WITH
PERFORMANCE SIMILAR TO
TRADITIONAL CEMENTS, BUT WITH
70% FEWER CARBON EMISSIONS.
FORTERRA IS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF
DC2, A GROUP COMPOSED OF 11
COMPANIES WITH TECHNOLOGIES
CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING CARBON AND
OTHER AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH CEMENT AND
CONCRETE PRODUCTION. SEVERAL OF
OUR MEMBERS ARE HEADQUARTERED
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. OWING OUR
SHARED SUCCESS TO THE STRONG
GROUNDWORK CREATED AND SUSTAINED
BY THIS LEGISLATURE, CALIFORNIA
HAS LONG BEEN A GLOBAL LEADER IN
POLICY THAT TACKLES THE GROWING
THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. SB
1073 CONTINUES THIS CRITICAL
WORK AND OFFERS CALIFORNIA
ANOTHER TOOL TO MEET OUR
NECESSARY AND AGGRESSIVE LIVE
CARBON REDUCTION GOALS. STATE
AND LOCAL AGENCIES ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR AROUND 40% OF
CEMENT AND CONCRETE PROCUREMENT
MATERIALS THAT UNDERPIN AND
SUSTAIN OUR MODERN LIVES.
HOWEVER, THEIR PRODUCTION IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR AROUND 8% OF
GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS. IN FACT
, IF YOU RANK THE INDUSTRY'S
EMISSIONS AS IF IT WERE A
COUNTRY, IT WOULD BE THE THIRD
LARGEST IN THE WORLD, BEHIND
CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES. SB
1073 WOULD CLARIFY THE
DISCRETION OF CALIFORNIA STATE
AGENCIES TO SECURE SOURCES OF
THESE ESSENTIAL MATERIALS YEARS
IN ADVANCE, SIMILAR TO THE
ELECTRICAL POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENTS USED TO DEVELOP NEW
SOURCES OF CLEAN ENERGY, STATE
AGENCIES COULD USE FORWARD
CONTRACTS TO ESTABLISH A
PIPELINE OF THE LOW CARBON
MATERIALS THEY WILL NEED TO
ACHIEVE STATE CLIMATE TARGETS.
AND CRITICALLY, THESE
COMMITMENTS WOULD ALSO UNLOCK
FINANCING FOR EMERGING
SUPPLIERS, ALLOWING THEM TO
SCALE THEIR PROCESSES SOONER AND
BRING TRANSFER. NATIONAL LOW
CARBON CEMENT AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS TO THE MARKET. I
GREATLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU
TODAY. WE'D LIKE TO THANK
SENATOR SKINNER FOR HER
LEADERSHIP IN INTRODUCING THIS
CRITICAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE
ELSE WHO WANTS TO VOICE SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL? RYAN MCCARTHY, ON
BEHALF OF BRIMSTONE AND STRONG
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. HELLO. JACOB
EVANS WITH SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE OPPOSITION WANT TO RAISE
OPPOSITION? MAYBE WE COULD GIVE
THEM ONE OF THE SEATS HERE. THE
TABLE. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS BRETT
BARROW. I REPRESENT THE UNITED
CONTRACTORS, THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE
PLUMBING, HEATING AND PIPING
INDUSTRY IN THE WESTERN LINE
CONSTRUCTORS. AND WE'RE HERE
TODAY IN OPPOSITION, BECAUSE WE
FEEL AN IMPORTANT QUESTION HAS
BEEN LEFT OUT OF THIS BILL. AND
THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE
CONTRACTOR IF THESE FORWARD
PROCUREMENT AGREEMENTS ARE PUT
INTO PLACE BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE
REALIZE IT'S VOLUNTARY BY THE
DEPARTMENT TO DO SO. BUT
CONTRACTORS ARE THE ONES WHILE
THE STATE CONTRACTORS AND
PURCHASES THE CONCRETE, IT'S THE
CONTRACTOR WHO HAS TO PROCURE
THAT FOR THE JOB SITE AND
CONCRETE IS PARTICULARLY COMPLEX
AND THAT IT DOESN'T TRAVEL FAR,
AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE AREA AND
THE TYPE OF PROJECT, INCLUDING
COLOR MAKEUP. COMPOSITION, ETC.
AND SO, WE JUST WANT TO SEE THE
LIABILITIES ADDRESSED TO THE
CONTRACTOR SO THEY AREN'T
SUBJECT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.
IF THERE'S TIME DELAYS, IF
THERE'S SINGLE SOURCE ONLY
PROCUREMENT, ENTITIES, WE DON'T
HAVE MULTIPLE SOURCES. WE WANT
THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT
ADDRESSED AS WELL AS AS, THE
TIMING AND THE COST. IF THE COST
CHANGE, THE CONTRACTORS BID ON
COST AND IF THOSE COSTS GO OUT,
BEYOND THE SCOPE, THEN THE
CONTRACTOR HAS TO FACE THAT. AND
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, CHANGE
ORDERS ADDRESSED, ETC, IN THIS,
IN THIS BILL. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE'RE CURRENTLY OPPOSED
TO THE BILL. THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU. OTHER FOLKS WANT TO
RAISE CONCERNS. OKAY. BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS, MR. VICE CHAIR, WELL,
COULD YOU ADDRESS THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS, IF YOU
MAY? CERTAINLY, THE AS I
MENTIONED IN MY OPENING, THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO, HELP
ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THESE PRODUCTS. AND WITH THAT
TEN YEAR WINDOW WE'VE ALREADY
HEARD FROM ONE REPRESENTATIVE.
WELL, ACTUALLY, TWO, THERE WAS A
ME TO TWO COMPANIES THAT ARE
ENGAGED IN THOSE PRODUCTION NOW
AND ARE BASED IN CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE HOPING THAT THERE WILL BE
MORE. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE AND
ENTITIES LIKE CALTRANS FEEL THAT
THOSE PRODUCTS NOT FEEL
DETERMINED, DON'T EVEN FEEL
DETERMINED THAT THE PRODUCTS
MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT IS
NEEDED FOR WHATEVER IT IS
THEY'RE BIDDING ON, THAT IT
WILL. WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT
THE CONTRACTORS WILL YES HAVE TO
IF THEY PURSUE IT, THE STATE
AGENCIES, THEY WILL HAVE TO
PURCHASE THAT TYPE OF PRODUCT.
HOWEVER, THE AGENCIES WILL HAVE
DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE TO KNOW
THAT THE PRODUCT MEETS THE
SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT IT'S
AVAILABLE AND THAT IT'S COST
COMPETITIVE BECAUSE THE STATE
DOESN'T SET IN ITS PROCUREMENT.
IT IT THE STATE ITSELF HAS GOT
TO BE, VERY PAYING ATTENTION TO
COST COMPETITIVE. SO I
APPRECIATE THEIR CONCERNS, BUT I
FEEL THAT THE HORIZON ON AGAIN,
BOTH THE HORIZON AND THE FACT
THAT THE BILL IS PERMISSIVE. BUT
I'M CERTAINLY IN OTHER WORDS,
THE STATE AGENCIES DO NOT HAVE
TO ACT ON THOSE ADVANCED
PROCUREMENT AGREEMENTS IF THAT
PRODUCT IS NOT COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE, DOES NOT MEET THE
SPECIFICATIONS AND IS NOT
ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. BUT I'M
HAPPY TO WORK WITH THEM TO SEE
WHETHER THERE'S ANY TYPE OF
LANGUAGE THAT CAN HELP ADDRESS
FURTHER. SO IF I MAY, WE HAVE
OBVIOUSLY, YOUR BILL DOESN'T
MANDATE THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE
THAT. I GET THAT, BUT DOWN THE
ROAD. SO WE HAD THE CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD, WE HAD AB
32 AND WE HAD A BILL I THINK IT
WAS IN THIS COMMITTEE OR. YEAH
WAS IN THIS COMMITTEE. SORRY
ABOUT THE COUNTY'S ARE HAVING TO
BUY ELECTRIC TRUCKS. AND THERE
AND I SAID DON'T LET THE GOOD
GET IN THE WAY OF THE, THE
PERFECT GET IN THE WAY OF THE
GOOD AND THE ENGINEER WAS HERE
AND HE TALKED ABOUT HIS TRUCK
WASN'T HE COULDN'T PUT THE
COULDN'T MOVE THE, THE CONCRETE
PLAN OR WHATEVER. IT WOULDN'T GO
ON HIS TRUCK. AND THERE WAS NO
RETROFIT. AND THE CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD SAID, WE DON'T
CARE. THERE'S NO EXEMPTION FOR
YOU. SO THAT'S I THINK THE
CONCERN THAT I'M WOULD BE
WORRIED ABOUT IN THE FUTURE IS
THAT, YES, TODAY IT SOUNDS GOOD,
BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO FOR THE
PERFECT BECAUSE WE JUST GOT TO
SAVE THE WORLD AND CALIFORNIA'S
GOING TO DO IT. BUT THERE'S NO,
THERE'S NO. AND THEN IT PUTS
THOSE PEOPLE IN A BOX WHERE THEY
HAVE TO BUY THE COUNTIES AND THE
CITIES THAT ARE BUILDING THESE
PROJECTS. AND CALTRANS HAVE TO
BUY IT. AND THEN WE ARE IN A
CATCH 22 WHERE WE HEY, IT'S NOW
IT'S A LONG WAYS AWAY OR IT'S
ONLY ONE GUY MAKES IT. AND WE
GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE
COST IS REALLY HIGH. BUT YOU
KNOW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT
IS REALLY GOOD AT JUST SHOVING
IT DOWN AND MAKING IT HAPPEN. SO
THAT'S MY CONCERN THAT WE START
OUT DOING, TRYING TO DO THE
RIGHT THING AND GET INTO A
SITUATION WHERE THE AGENT, THE
COUNTIES WHO ARE FORCED, THEY'RE
NOT LIKE ME. I DON'T HAVE TO DO
IT BECAUSE I'M A PRIVATE GUY. I
DIDN'T HAVE TO. I DON'T HAVE TO
DO THAT. BUT THEY HAVE TO
BECAUSE THE LAWS ARE CHANGED
THAT WAY. SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT IN YOUR BILL. WOULD BE NICE
TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT
SAYS, YOU KNOW, IF TECHNOLOGY OR
IF DISTANCE OR SOMETHING IS IN
THERE, IT DOESN'T FORCE THEM TO
HAVE TO USE THE PRODUCT IN THE
FUTURE, I DEFINITELY WILL HAVE
MY STAFF AND I LOOK AT WHAT ELSE
WE MIGHT PUT IN THE BILL TO
ADDRESS THOSE, BUT AND I DO
APPRECIATE YOUR ANALOGY, AND I'M
SURE YOU'RE AWARE I DO CARRY
BILLS AT TIMES THAT ARE
MANDATES, BUT IN THIS CASE,
BECAUSE, BUT IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE THESE PRODUCTS ARE NOT
YET FULLY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
AND ARE NOT YET FULLY
ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE, I FELT
THAT THIS WAS THE APPROPRIATE
WAY TO SEND THE KIND OF SIGNAL.
SO, I DO TRY TO DESIGN THINGS IN
A WAY THAT DOES RESPECT THOSE SO
THAT PERFECT DOES NOT BECOME THE
ENEMY OF THE GOOD. OKAY, LET'S.
SO SENATOR MENGIBAR HAS MOVED
THE BILL. WE'LL LET YOU CLOSE.
THANK YOU. I ASK FOR YOUR. I
VOTE. OKAY, SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. SB 1073, THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED.
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS AS SENATORS
ALLEN, ALLEN I, DOLLY I DALI I
GONZALEZ HURTADO, MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NGUYEN NGUYEN I AND
SKINNER. SKINNER I ALL RIGHT,
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S LIST
SOME CALLS, WE'LL GO BACK TO
ITEM ONE, SORRY. SO LET'S START
WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. OKAY. THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, HURTADO.
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE OKAY.
LET'S GO NOW. SENATOR BLAKE
SPEARS, SB 1045. OKAY. SB 1045,
MOTION IS DUE PASSED AS AMENDED.
AND RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS AS CHAIR VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR, NOT VOTING.
HURTADO. SKINNER SKINNER. AYE I
DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE HERE I
DIDN'T. OH, OKAY. OH, I TAKE
THAT BACK I APOLOGIZE. OKAY, NO.
DOLLY. NO. OKAY. DOLLY. NO. GOT
IT. LET'S GO. NEXT TO ITEM
THREE. SB 1302. OKAY THE MOTION
IS Dð PASS AS AMENDED. AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
DOLLY Ã. DOLLY. AYE. HURTADO.
SKINNER 1426. IT'S 1302. OKAY.
SKINNER AYE. ITEM FOUR SB 1426
BLAKE SPEAR. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS AS AMENDED AND RE REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. GONZALEZ
HURTADO. SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE
OKAY. WE'LL GO TO NUMBER FIVE.
SB 1140. CABALLERO. THE MOTION
IS Dð. PASS. CHAIR VOTING. AYE.
DOLLY. NO. DOLLY. NO. GONZALES
HURTADO. NGUYEN. NGUYEN NO.
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE OKAY.
WE'LL GO NOW TO ITEM SIX, SORRY.
ITEM SEVEN. LIMON'S. SB 1304,
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING.
AYE. DOLLY. DOLLY NØ GONZALEZ
HURTADO. NGUYEN. NGUYEN. NO.
SKINNER SKINNER. AYE. ALL RIGHT,
NEXT WE'LL GO TO ITEM NINE, SB
1433. LIMÓN MOTION IS Dð PASS.
AND WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
DOLLY GONZALEZ HURTADO NGUYEN.
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE ALL RIGHT.
NEXT, SENATOR LAIRD'S SB 1440,
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
DOLLY A DOLLY. AYE. GONZALEZ
HURTADO. SKINNER. SKINNER AYE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO SENATOR
PADILLA'S, SB 1165. THE MOTION
IS Dð PASS AS AMENDED. AND RE RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
DOLLY DOLLY NOT VOTING. GONZALEZ
HURTADO NGUYEN SKINNER. SKINNER.
AYE. ALL RIGHT. NEXT PADILLA IS
1178. ITEM 12. THE MOTION IS Dð.
PASS AS AMENDED. AND RE REFER TO
THE COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND
TAXATION. CHAIR VOTING. AYE.
DOLLY NÓ. DOLLY. NØ GONZALEZ
HURTADO. NGUYEN NGUYEN. NÓ.
SKINNER. SKINNER. AYE ALL RIGHT.
I THINK THE REST, THE, SENATOR.
OH. I'M SORRY. YEAH. WE'LL GO TO
SENATOR PADILLA'S SB 1208 AS,
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED AS
AMENDED, AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR NOT VOTING. VICE CHAIR,
NOT VOTING. GONZALEZ HURTADO.
NGUYEN OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN
FINALLY, SENATOR SKINNER'S, SB
941, DID YOU. YEAH. WE NEED TO
GET NGUYEN, THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING. AYE. VICE CHAIR
NOT VOTING. GONZALEZ HURTADO.
NGUYEN OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE A RECESS. TH¤U.
1062 1062. OH, I'M SO SORRY. I'M
SO SORRY, BRIAN. DOLLY'S LITTLE
SLEEPER AT THE END, ITEM 17.
THANK YOU. SORRY. ITEM 17, SB
1062. THE MOTION IS Dð. PASS AS
AMENDED AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AS
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. HURTADO. SKINNER
OKAY. SKINNER. ALL RIGHT. GREAT.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A RECESS
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO LIFT
CALLS. LET'S DO THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. FIRST CONSENT CALENDAR
. HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE. THAT'S
DONE. ALL RIGHT, THAT'S SEVEN.
OH, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE
ROLL ON THAT BLAKE SPEAR SB
1045. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED. AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING NO. HURTADO HI. HURTADO.
AYE THAT BILLS OUT 5 TO 2. ALL
RIGHT. THAT'S 5 TO 2. THAT BILL
IS OUT, OKAY, NEXT, WE'RE ON TO
BLAKE'S BERTH. SB 13. OH TWO.
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED, AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. HURTADO HURTADO.
AYE. 770. THAT BILL IS OUT.
WE'LL NEXT GO TO BLAKE SPEAR.
1420 SB 1426. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED AND RE REFER TO
THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. GONZALEZ
HURTADO. OKAY. THAT BILL FAILS.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, NEXT GO TO.
YEAH. 3 TO 2. THAT BILL FAILS.
LET'S GO. WELL THREE EYES TWO.
TWO NOES TWO ABSTENTIONS OKAY.
WELL LET'S GO TO ITEM FIVE, SB
1140. THE MOTION IS Dð. PASS.
SENATORS. I'M SORRY. CHAIR
VOTING. AYE VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE.
HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S 5 TO 2. THAT BILL PASSES.
WE'LL CLOSE THE ROLL NEXT. LET'S
GO TO NILA, SORRY. LIMÓN SB
1304. THE MOTION IS DO PASS AND
RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO HURTADO.
NO. OKAY. THAT'S A 4 TO 3 THAT
PASSES OUT. NEXT. LET'S GO TO
ITEM NUMBER NINE. LEMONS. 1433
SB 1433. THE MOTION IS TO PASS.
AND WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR NOT VOTING. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO. HURTADO
AYE. THAT'S OUT. ALL RIGHT. THAT
IS OUT WITH A 5 TO 0 VOTE. NEXT.
LET'S GO TO LAIRD'S SB 1440.
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND WE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. GONZALEZ
OH, DID I SAY VICE CHAIR I OKAY,
I APOLOGIZE, LET ME GO BACK ON
THE ROLL CALL ON THAT. SO THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS AND RE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS SB 1440 CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE.
HURTADO HURTADO. AYE. THAT'S
SEVEN ZERO. WE WILL CLOSE THE
ROLL ON THAT NEXT, SENATOR
PADILLA'S SB 1165. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS, AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR NOT
VOTING. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ AYE.
HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE. OKAY.
THAT IS, 4 TO 0, WE'RE GOING TO
CLOSE THE FIVE. SORRY. FIVE,
FIVE ZERO. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE
THE ROLL ON THAT SB. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT WE HAVE PADILLA IS SB 1178.
MOTION IS DUE PASS. AND AS
AMENDED. AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND
TAXATION. CHAIR VOTING. AYE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO. HURTADO.
AYE ALL RIGHT. THAT IS 5 TO 2.
WE'LL CLOSE THE ROLL ON THAT
ITEM. NEXT WE HAVE SENATOR
PADILLA'S, SB 1208, ITEM 13. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS AS AMENDED AND
RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR, NOT VOTING
. VICE CHAIR NOT VOTING.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO.
HURTADO AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT.
OKAY. THAT'S OUT. THAT'S 4 TO 0.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS, SENATOR
SKINNER'S SB 941. A MOTION IS TO
PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR NOT
VOTING. GONZALEZ HI. GONZALEZ.
AYE. HURTADO HURTADO. AYE. OKAY.
5 TO 0. CLOSE THE ROLL ON THAT.
SKINNER. SB 1073, ITEM 15. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS AS AMENDED AND
RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. HURTADO.
HURTADO. AYE. ALL RIGHT, SEVEN
ZERO. WE'LL CLOSE THE ROLL. AND
THEN FINALLY, SENATOR DALI'S SB
1062, THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED. AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ HURTADO.
HURTADO. AYE ALL RIGHT. THAT'S,
6 TO 0. GONZALEZ IS OFF. NÓ YES.
OKAY, SO THAT'S A GOOD CHECK
THERE. AND WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE
THE HEARING. I THOUGHT YOU