Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, Tuesday, April 14, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Thank you. Good afternoon, chairman Holleney and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of a b seventeen ninety five, the smoke damage recovery act, a measure I'm proud to sponsor. I wanna thank council member Gibson for authoring this important consumer protection bill. As you know, California's wildfire reality is now year round.
Fires are larger, faster, and more destructive than ever. The Eaton fire in El Tadina and the Palisades Fire in Pass in Palisades alone destroyed or damaged more than 16,000 homes. These two fires fundamentally were different from what California has historically experienced. These are more these weren't remote, forest fires. They were two of the largest, most destructive urban interfaced fires in our state's history.
They burned directly through dense neighborhoods, exposing thousands of homes to unprecedented levels of smoke, soot, ash, and toxic combustion byproducts. We never in the department have seen smoke damage of this magnitude in an urban setting. And as you recall, mister chair, many of the survivors have told me they'd much rather have had a total loss than have to have dealt with the smoke damages. That is unfortunately still going on today. The scale and the proximity of these fires created indoor contamination that survivors, insurers, and even environmental health experts have struggled to assess because no statewide standards exist today, as our author was saying.
Today, California has no enforceable statewide standards for testing or remediation of smoke damage. As a result, survivors face inconsistent claims handling, denials, and disputes over what must be tested, what levels are safe, and when a home is inhabitable is habitable. My department has received more than 2,000 smoke related complaints and recovered over 250,000,000 for policyholders to date. But without standards, we are operating in a patchwork. To address this, I convened the smoke claims and remediation task force last summer.
Again, I wanna remind remind the committee, this is a health and safety issue. This is not an insurance issue for us. We at the department are not the experts here. This is why we convened this task force, bringing together consumer advocates, industrial hygienists, restoration experts, public health experts, and insurers. The task force identified significant gaps in science, testing protocols, and claims practices, And AB seventeen ninety five directly addresses those gaps by placing responsibility with the appropriate state agencies.
It creates the first statewide science based sampling and test standards for smoke damaged homes nationwide by requiring CalEPA in coordination with other agencies to issue guidance by 06/30/2027. Until statewide standards are issued, a b seventeen ninety seven ensures that today's survivors are not left waiting. This is very important. If a local agency issues guidance with specific sampling, testing, or screening standards for a wildfire, that guidance applies immediately to any open, pending, or disputed claim. I cannot emphasize this enough.
This is one of the most important components of this bill. Survivors have been very clear with me. They cannot wait years for statewide standards while their homes remain contaminated and their claims remain stalled. They want to know what happens in the meantime and what happens when the next fire occurs. AB seventeen ninety five gives them that answers.
It empowers local public health and environmental agencies to act right away using their expertise to establish enforceable protections while the state develops a comprehensive statewide approach. This ensures that survivors have real science based standards governing their claims now, not someday, not years from now. The bill also ensures that wildfire specific public health and environmental guidance applies to all smoke claims from that event, ending insurer by insurer discretion. It also protects families from being forced back into unsafe homes by prohibiting insurers from terminating a consumer's additional living expense until a home is cleared for ab abitation under the established guidance and establishes a thirty day inspection requirement to prevent delays that families are in limbo among other provisions. It further requires insurers to pay actual cash value within thirty days of inspection with interest if thirty after thirty days to pay any undisputed claim amounts within fifteen days of the insured signing a remediation contract with interest after fifteen days.
Finally, the other unique aspect of this bill, it's finally gonna require appropriate agencies to develop training and certification programs for adjusters, public adjusters, industrial hygienists, restoration contractors, and laboratories ensuring qualified professionals are making decisions for the about the safety of California's homes. In closing, a b seventeen ninety five is about restoring certainty and safety for families who have been already endure endured the trauma of wildfire. When thousands of Californians are displaced by small contaminated homes, they should not be left navigating inconsistent insurer practices or paying out of pocket just to provide just to prove their homes are are, unsafe. The bill replaces confusion with enforceable standards, replaces delay with clear timelines, and replaces inconsistent claim handlings with science based requirements that every insurer must follow. The bill ensures that when disaster strikes, Californians can rely on a fair process, a safe path home.
I respectfully ask for your I vote. I have, deputy commissioner Tony Sigmarale to answer any technical questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, commissioner. Do we have any other members of the audience in support of the bill? Come on up to the microphone.
Speaker 49
Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of the city of Los Angeles, mayor Karen Bass in support.
Speaker 35
Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee, commissioner, assembly member. I'm Allison Adey here on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California in respectful opposition to 1795. Smoke claims have become a difficult issue over the past few years as the impacts of climate change caused larger and more urban adjacent fires, particularly the LA fires in 2025. As the commissioner mentioned, given the complexity of smoke within insurance claims, CDI convened a smoke claims task force in the 2025. The question posed to the group was how to establish what is covered by an insurance policy for smoke damage following a wildfire, what should be tested, who should do the testing, and what safe levels should be.
Speaker 6
The various experts that presented to this task force had diverse opinions on the right way to address this complicated issue. While we agree this is an area that desperately needs greater guidance, clarity, and predictability to provide peace of mind to homeowners and adequate notice of expectations for insurers, this bill has not yet struck the balance. We are working with the author and with the department on this bill to find a place that provides real and sufficient consumer protections but does not exacerbate an already struggling market. Availability and affordability have been used as mantras over years in efforts to bring the insurance market back to a healthy place. Many homeowners have stated that they understand prices are going to go up but just want to be able to access admitted carriers.
However, increasing costs must be pragmatic to ensure that the market recovers and there is such access. The approach this bill takes creates broad geographic zones to apply presumptions of harm that are not supported by the existing professional and technical guides for industrial hygienists. It also uses terms that do not align with the existing insurer obligations and contract language. Some insurers reviewing these proposed changes and the implied obligations that they carry have anticipated that in urban environments, this could mean billions of additional exposure dollars per carrier. If this issue remains unaddressed, the increased exposure risk will increase individual policyholders' expenses across the state and may cause some carriers to reevaluate returning to the market at all.
We're committed to continuing to work with the author and the department on finding a productive landing spot that addresses heightened consumer protections without harming insurance affordability and accessibility. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chair and members, and good afternoon, assembly member and commissioner. My name is Yveka Remezumder. I'm an organizer with LA Voice. I'm also, part of Eaton Fire Residence United, but today, I'm here as a fire survivor. My parents are in their seventies, and they live in West Altadena.
They bought their home just fifteen months before the Eaton Fire after years of renting in Altadena. Half the homes on their street burned down that night. We returned to find that theirs was somehow still standing, but the moment we stepped inside, we knew something was wrong. My dad, who has a heart condition, started coughing and struggling to breathe. That was the first sign.
Just because the soot was invisible didn't mean the toxins weren't there. Since then, every interaction with their insurance company has been a battle. When the remediation crew arrived, they asked my parents, where would you like us to clean? As if my parents were supposed to be the experts. It quickly became clear that the crew didn't know what chemicals they were cleaning for and didn't have the right tools to do so.
We learned this the hard way. After the first cleaning, insurance cut off my parents' alternative living expenses, which forced them back into their home. Immediately after moving back in, they started getting sick. My dad's heart symptoms worsened, and our beloved dog developed cancer. My brother reviewed the test results and discovered that what we had all feared, the home had been cleared even though lead levels remained far above safe limits established by experts.
Yet my parents' insurance company refused to cover further remediation, insisting the house was clean, likely relying on IICRC guidelines based on sight and smell rather than the chemical results that proved otherwise. My parents can't afford to pay for more remediation out of pocket. My brother called and told my parents that as long as the house still tested positive for toxins, he would never feel comfortable bringing his two year old son, their grandson, back inside. After everything they endured since the fire, that was the call that finally broke them. That home is the heartbeat of our family.
Speaker 12
It was supposed to be the last place my parents ever lived, the place where they got to watch their grandchildren grow up in this final chapter of their lives. And this Thanksgiving, for the first time, we didn't have anywhere safe to go as a family. Now my parents are trapped in a home too toxic to live in and too toxic to sell. All the money is also trapped in the house, and I'm terrified my dad's never going to be able to retire because they're draining their savings just trying to make the home safe. I have a deep fear of further entrenching an economic divide and recovery where the ability to return home safely becomes a matter of personal wealth rather than a matter of right.
Speaker 7
I implore you to listen to the voices of those directly impacted. My family is not the exception. We're the rule. Seniors, people of color, immigrants, families with young children are living this every day. On behalf of my family and hundreds of other families in the same position, we urge the committee to amend seventeen ninety five accordingly.
EFRU has a set of amendments, and we urge you to to amend a a b seventeen ninety five accordingly. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, and very sorry to hear about that. Further opposition in the room to this bill? Come on up.
Speaker 3
Mark Segner with American Property Casualty Insurance Association. I wanna associate my comments with those of my colleague from the Personal Insurance Federation. California APCIA also served on the task force. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Hi. Dawn Fanning with Eat and Fire Residents United. On behalf of my organization, 300 residents, over 15 other organizations, we oppose unless amended. And you have our our letter. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Nicole McCalla. I'm the director of assessment and evaluation at Kaiser School of Medicine. I'm also, the director of of research for Eaton five Residence United, and, we oppose unless amended.
Speaker 1
You. Seeing no one else, we're gonna bring it back to committee members for questions, comments. Not seeing any?
Speaker 12
And maybe you addressed it. I I'm was trying to follow along. Who determined how the zones were gonna work? That was after the task force. Did I have that right?
Or because there's some question that maybe it should have been Cal EPA that does that determine. Where they taken into account. I know you're gonna have some regs after the fact but thank you for answering.
Speaker 29
Yeah. Thank you. Tony Sigirli, deputy commissioner of consumer services for Department of Insurance. To answer your question, there's two potential ways in which the zones are created. Ideally, the preference would be for Cal EPA or Cal Fire you know, an entity with authority to go in, do random testing, develop an, smoke exposure zone, which is what's called in the in the bill, for each of these large fires.
Speaker 13
However, this bill provides those agencies the ability to do that. It doesn't require it. That would be something that if it needs to be required, that'd be something going forward we'd have to look at. So in the alternative was to initially create default zones in the event that these wildfire specific, zones aren't created by Cal EPA or Cal Fire. And those zones were created in their default zones were created in a in a way starting off with the AIHA per parameters which is six miles from the burn zone, etcetera, etcetera.
But they only have that that guide only has two in in essence, two zones that that handle things differently and the and the second zone was six miles to, you know, infinity and we didn't feel you know, the commissioner and us and others didn't feel that two zones was sufficient. So, that's why three zones were created. One similar to the initial zone that this that's technically in the guide but then six miles out to the moderate zone and then six miles beyond that beyond that would be the the low impact zone and so that's why they were created to not require Cal EPA to do it in every instance, but if they do do it, that would supersede the default zones that are described in the bill.
Speaker 12
Just a follow-up question. So how, I guess, how does CalEPA determine whether it's gonna step in? If you have permissive language in the bill, like, why not make it mandatory? Seems to be some confusion there.
Speaker 3
Well, the the thing is we're trying to create some sort of parameter to so that we can allow CalEPA to in their judgment, if they create what come up with a different completely system, that they're allowed to do that, but still, in the bill, allow for some permissible language to allow them to create some sort of some sort of framework there in place to try to create some sort of guardrails so that it isn't just open ended, so that we can create some sort of boundaries for for these potential, you know, fires that that may continue. Or if they But but ultimately, CAL FIRE will have you know? Again, it's giving CAL FIRE the the wherewithal to be able to come up with with whatever they feel just.
Speaker 12
Mhmm. One more question. So would the benefits of not mandating Cali PA to do it mean that people that need immediate relief, they'll have these regs that they can fall back
Speaker 12
is I'm just sending you the softball, but I'm assuming that's what I'm thinking.
Speaker 3
Well, the important thing is to also and and the key component of this bill is because we've heard I have heard directly from the the the survivors is, look, we want a bill that's gonna take a that's gonna be able to give the local governments some sort of authority to act now so that they don't have to wait another year or until these statewide standards are created. And so we're trying to come up with some sort of, you know, some sort of aid for them now and and give give the local authorities some sort of guidelines as well to be able to come up with something and not leave it open ended so that then we we don't run into the issue where you have folks, you know, soliciting folks, you know, miles out. Right? And so we're trying to create some sort of pair some sort of guidelines, but, ultimately, Cal EPA will be the ones that come up with the statewide standards.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And I also, wanted to thank you, assembly member, for taking on this issue. I think your testimony really went to the heart of it, and that is the urgent need for health based, standards to make sure people can safely return to their home. I think that's underscoring this. As we can see from the discussion today, it's a complex issue with a deeply human and personal foundation to it as well.
I think it's good we have many voices at the table. Appreciate your willingness to continue to engage with stakeholders. I know we're early in the process. I imagine there will be some intensive discussions. I think the department has indicated a willingness to do that as well as the bill moves forward.
Does enjoy an eye recommendation today from me and would invite you to close.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, mister chairman. I appreciate your comments and appreciate the robust conversation. I wanna thank those who came out and spoke whether in opposition or whatever. I think this is healthy as this this policy continues to move through. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting and speaking with survivors, just this week who I who I was invited to come and and actually, go to a home who suffered smoke damage.
And their people's homes and their lives have been turned upside down. Los Angeles, which I am a native of Los Angeles, in Los Angeles County, which I still live, We all rest we all went there and as policymakers to support our colleagues who represent those particular areas. I have a family member who live in Alameda, 20 Grammy award winner, Maxine Waters, not congresswoman Maxine Waters, but the the vocalist Maxine Waters. There's more than one Maxine Waters. She's she's with Barbara Streis you know, sung backup of Barbara Streisand, Michael Jackson, etcetera.
She lost everything. So this is no respective person. We understand exactly because we've walked it. We lived it. We with with people.
We went to churches with people who've lost everything. We heard testimonies. And so this is a way to, one, to not remain silent on the things that matter, as doctor King said. And this is our way of stepping up. We wanna thank our insurance commissioner for one, being, one, Johnny on the spot, to being a very proactive policymaker in this space.
And to you and your testimony, I'm sorry that you cannot be at the place, in your home for Thanksgiving and for holidays, but let me assure you, that's the reason why we have this this policy in this in this bill right now, to have unqualified individuals asking you where should they clean. In this bill, they won't have to ask where they clean because they know what they know exactly where to clean, what to do. So to leave any questions to anyone's mind, we wanna make sure this time next year, something were to happen to jump off, that we have the most professional people because we will have standards and guidelines and protocols in place so that it won't leave anyone questioning or any doubt in anyone's mind because there will be a uniform standard in place so that when people walk into their home, that they will walk in their home knowing that their health won't be placed at risk. And that's the reason why seventeen ninety five exists. And we welcome stakeholders.
We welcome anyone, to have suggestions, to contact my office. We don't have a closed door. We open our our eyes and our our ears. And for those who have already spoken to me, what you've spoken, is not lost on me. We wanna make sure we get it right this time because the world is watching us.
Other states are watching us, and we're glad that we're leading the way. And we wanna make sure that we we have a standard that we can, model. The rest of the nation can follow California. I respectfully ask when I vote appropriate time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Before we take a motion and second and by the way, we will be doing it on urgency and then the bill. Let's do a quorum.
Speaker 14
Connolly, here. Ellis? Here. Ellis, here. Bauer Cahan?
Here. Bauer Cahan, here. Castillo, Lee, McKinnon? Here. McKinnon, here.
Pappin? Here. Pappin, here. We have
Speaker 1
Oh, we can do it concurrently? Okay. Let's do it concurrently. I know. I was being old school.
Yeah. And urgency on the bill. Yep. Okay. We have a motion and second.
Please take the roll.
Speaker 14
Alright. This is file item number one, a b seventeen ninety five, authored by Assembly Member Gibson. The motion is due pass as amended to the insurance committee with urgency. Connolly?
Speaker 14
Bauerkehan? Aye. Bauerkehan, aye. Castillo Lee McKinnon? Aye.
McKinnon, aye. Pappin? Aye.
Speaker 1
K. You guys. Which is actually We pretty can add. Sorry. We can That's fine.
Okay. Good.
Speaker 1
but it's fine. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Alanis, come on up.
It's file item 3AB1612. Welcome. Thank you. It's got a motion right out of the box. How about a second?
Speaker 1
We'll wait and hear about it. Yeah. Let's see. Alright. Okay.
Whenever you're ready.
Speaker 21
Well, thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the committee members and, obviously, the committee staff. Thank you very much. AB sixteen twelve was introduced to address a growing and urgent issue facing law enforcement agencies. The increasing volume of dangerous controlled substances like fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin being seized across the state. There is a broad consensus that these substances pose serious risk and must be handled and disposed of safely, securely, and effectively.
Speaker 19
However, following the closure of California's last in state incineration facility in 2024 in my district, agencies have been left without a clear or uniform pathway for disposal. As a result, law enforcement has been forced into a patchwork of inadequate alternatives, including prolonged storage that exposes officers to potential lethal substances, costly and risky risky out of state transport, and disposal methods that are less secure and more harmful to the environment. Simply put, there has been no consistent guidance or statewide support for handling these hazardous materials once they are no longer needed as evidence. AB sixteen twelve addresses this gap by establishing a coordinated centralized process authorizing law enforcement officers to transfer controlled substance to the Department of Justice, which can then oversee their proper disposal. This approach helps protect officers, evidence staff, maintains the integrity of chain of custody, and provides a practical responsible solution to a growing public safety challenge.
I ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Technical. Okay. Great. Anyone else in support of the bill? Seeing none, how about opposition?
Great. With that, why don't we bring it back for any questions, comments? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for bringing the bill forward. We agree it's important to ensure that these controlled substances are managed safely, particularly given the timing of the amendments last week.
There will likely be further conversations on the bill, So just please keep the committee and staff in the loop. With that, would you like to close?
Speaker 19
I just wanna thank you, mister chair, and your staff. Obviously, not many people knew this problem was a problem, and and everybody's doing what they can to help. So I really appreciate that, and I asked for an I vote.
Speaker 1
And this does have an I recommendation. Do we have a motion and second on 1612? Motion you did? Okay. Second by the vice chair.
Let's call the roll.
Speaker 14
Alright. This is file item three, a b sixteen twelve, authored by assembly member Alanis. The motion is due passed to assembly public safety committee. Connolly?
Speaker 12
Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm pleased to present a b 22 twenty three twenty two. So a b twenty three twenty two creates a new definition for commercial, industrial, or in or institutional site to clarify which facilities are subject to municipal storm water permits. Under the federal clean water act, local governments have been delegated the responsibility to to collect and treat storm water runoff. The storm water board and nine regional water boards, they issue municipal separate storm sewer permits or MS four permits to govern how cities and counties can reduce their storm water pollution.
Storm water carries contaminants that are often the result of parking lots that have lingered heavy lingering heavy metals, trash, microplastics on their surface, which can seriously harm local water quality. To reduce stormwater pollution from large facilities, m s four permits include post construction requirements. That means that for each new or redeveloped commercial, industrial, or institutional called CII sites, the municipality is required to construct stormwater capture infrastructure. Think like Costco and BioSwells where you park, things like that. However, California lacks clarity around what is counted as c I as a CII site.
Speaker 51
These facilities are defined differently across 12 distant different municipal separate stormwater sewer systems, creating a patchwork of enforcement that doesn't capture all the worst polluters. AB twenty three twenty two helps standardize the definition of CII sites in three ways. First, the bill specifies that only privately owned parcels are included within the definition. Second, the bill bases the definition of commercial, industrial, and institutional, on county land, excuse me, county assessor land use codes. And the third thing it does is the bill excludes all residential facilities, including those that are located on parcels that are assigned as mixed use.
Speaker 12
So by clearly defining CII sites, we can ensure that existing MS four permits are applied accurately and fairly across California and hopefully effectively as well. So with me to testify on behalf of the bill is Sean Bothwell from the California Coastkeeper Alliance.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, chair, committee members. Sean Bothwell, on behalf of California Coastkeeper. As the assembly member said, we have 12 municipal stormwater permits in California. All of those permits require municipalities, to require post construction requirements. So, as was said, think about a a new development parking lot where you engineer the parking lot so that you're capturing storm water because of the new impervious surface that's been put in place.
It also requires municipalities to do inspections of CAI facilities and to enforce against illicit discharges. The only problem is there are 12 of them across the state, and each of these permits describe CAI as something different, under each permit. There's not one consistent, definition throughout the state. So this not only creates inconsistency from region to region. So if you have multiple businesses in different regions, you might be you might be part of CI and sometimes you might not.
But it also creates a gray area within the region itself. Because the term CII can be vague, different municipalities can interpret that differently, and so they may be inspecting some sites that they're either not supposed to be or are supposed to be and they're not aware. Things like a small gas station, for example, falls into this gray area. Mixed mixed development, residential, public versus private. Those are some of the issues that have came up in these permits in the past, and this is a fair fairly straightforward, simple fix just to provide consistency.
It doesn't expand any of the post construction requirements. It just makes the definition consistent across the state. That, ask for your vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any audience members in support of the bill? Seeing none, how about opposition? Also seeing none, it looks like there was none on file.
Speaker 21
opposition. You know, appreciate continued conversations with the author. On the on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association, you know, while we we understand the intent of the bill to create consistency, sometimes those, you know, local regional permit conditions that are specific to the region actually, you know, do provide you know, again, they they probably cover for the specifics within that region, they're necessary to provide that flexibility. So we want to continue, you know, working with the intent of the author. There's a lot going on right now with permits, you know, we're at the table on that conversation.
So look forward to continuing those conversations, but at at this point, just wanted to to share that one concern. Thank you.
Speaker 45
And Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities. We just wanted to register that. We've been reached out to you by the author's office, and we're very appreciative of that to continue to work with the author and the sponsors on this bill, as existing MS four permit holders. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1
yes. There is a committee member. No. That's right. I didn't have any vice chair.
Speaker 16
I just I just kinda wanted to mimic what the the person in opposition said that my concern is that we have 12 different districts. And logistically and and scientifically, there are so many different areas that each stormwater, these basins, they're set up to handle each of the the the components that come from these different districts. And I just wanted to know how that would be addressed by one size fits all.
Speaker 12
Well, I don't think the remedy is what we're proposing. We're actually just proposing who would be subject to some sort of remedy. But I'll defer to my capable witness.
Speaker 20
Yeah. I I think the regional boards have all the discretion in the world to take local watershed factors into place. I would argue a small gas station in one region is probably creating just as much pollution as a small gas station in another area. And so to keep that consistent so that they've had the same requirements for, like, illicit discharges. No one's allowed to give illicit discharges, and so to make sure that that's just consistent across the board.
Speaker 23
I'll also say that the definition that we've came up with is tied into the local land use codes. And so no one knows those local land use codes better than the the municipalities that are liable under this permit for doing those permit conditions. And so rather than take vague permit terms, tie it to the land use code so that we're just we just know who who needs to be inspected and who doesn't. But as for the the discretion of the water boards to take into account everything from water standards to monitoring, that type of stuff, that's all still within the discretion of the regional board.
Speaker 1
Alright. How about a second? Motion and second. If we can call the roll. This
Speaker 14
is file item nine a b two three two two authored by assembly member Pappin. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 14
Connolly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo, Lee, McKinnar? Aye. McKinnar, aye.
And Pappan? Aye. Pappan, aye. Four votes aye. Aye.
Wonderful.
Speaker 1
That matter is out. We'll keep the roll open. Perfect timing. Senate member Rodriguez, come on up. Yeah.
Speaker 26
Thank you, mister chairman and members, for the opportunity to present AB twenty two forty five. I also want to thank the committee and staff and stakeholders who have worked with us on this bill. We will be accepting the committee amendments. AB 2,245 establishes a responsible framework to improve the collection and recycling of vehicle lubricant products and their containers that are currently not captured under existing programs. The bill creates a producer a producer's responsibility program that builds on California's existing recycling infrastructure and aligns with the framework already established in SB 54.
By leveraging certified collection centers, household hazardous waste facilities, and existing used oil haulers, the bill strengthens our ability to safely collect and recycle those these materials while minimizing new costs and bureaucracy. AB twenty two forty five also ensures producers help fund and manage a system while supporting local governments that play a key role in in collection and recycling. Here with me to testify.
Speaker 26
Tristan Stitchin with NLCRC and the sponsor of the bill and Heidi Sandborn with National Action Stewardship Council. And then also in the audience is David Laws, the operator of Canada's used oil EPR program, who is available for any technical questions on how the program operates in British Columbia.
Speaker 50
Thank you, chair Connolly and members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Tristan Steichen. I'm the executive director of the National Lubricant Container Recycling Coalition. We're the sponsors of the bill. The NLCRC is a technical coalition of value chain companies committed to developing a national program for collection and recycling of lubricant packaging.
Speaker 28
Our solution is modeled after, the British Columbia program, interchange recycling, an independent solution for lubricants. As of 2024, their accessibility rate is 99%, and the container collection rate is 89%. So best in class. We're talking with you today because we're seeking a legislative pathway to allow a program like interchange to be executed in California. We need a separate solution because the packaging is considered hard to recycle.
It cannot be commingled with other curbside collections due to the contamination issues with the other products covered by SB 54. Since last year, we've been working diligently with other stakeholders to accommodate amendments. And some of the key areas we focused on are narrowing the scope of covered products to ensure no overlap with other programs such as SB 54, the used oil recycling program, ensuring that the program covers collection, utilizing the existing, infrastructure that's already there, including HHW facilities, certified collection centers, and businesses. And finally, creating a a a pro reconciliation process between the different pros to address confusion around reporting or misreporting and other issues. We still remain committed to the ongoing negotiations and discussions with the stakeholders to address any remaining concerns.
But given the progress that we've made over the past year, I respectfully ask for your eye and vote on 2245 today. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 29
Thank you. My name is, chair Connelly and members. My name is Heidi Sanborn. I was the adviser to the chair of the old waste management board. I've been talking trash basically for thirty five years.
And I was past chair of the California Recycling Commission, from 2020 to 2022, and I'm the current director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council. So bottom line is I've been doing this for a very long time, this policy of extended producer responsibility. I truly believe in it. And for, those who don't know me, again, I'm called the godmother of EPR. I passed the first CPR bill here in California with Ira Reskin in the assembly in 2008.
I believe Josh was part of that a long time ago. And many more bills have come, mattresses, carpet, paint, so many more. So we've learned a lot. But today, I'm really delighted to be here in support of a bill that is not sponsored by us. It's actually sponsored by the industry itself.
And as chair of the recycling commission in 2020, our very first policy recommendation to the legislature was to implement EPR framework for household hazardous waste and the toxic products. This bill moves us closer to that goal and getting some of those hazardous products dealt with. Not every product needs an EPR solution, but lubricants in their packaging do. As one of the negotiators of SB 54, my goal was to exclude packaging for household hazardous waste products from being included with food grade packaging. We don't want those commingling in the recycling system.
Speaker 14
But, unfortunately, the references in SB 54 did not separate the two and left packaging for lubricants as a covered product. AB two two forty five resolves that conflict for the lubricants and packaging, and I'm grateful to the industry that they're willing to actually offer to manage their products and their packaging. Again, the bill creates a producer responsibility program that builds on our existing system of household hazardous waste programs, used oil collection, and aligns with the framework established in SB 54, including the recycling rates. This is the most cost effective and affordable way to do this program. I've been to BC Canada many times over the twenty five years and have seen their used oil program work very well for the public.
Speaker 29
It's convenient. Their recycling rate now as of, in their 2024 annual report was 89%. It's higher than any other program we have in California. The bill sponsors have been collaborative and have been holding regularly scheduled meetings and listening to all the stakeholders to resolve outstanding issues. I believe we can pass a great bill this year, and I hope you will support this bill to allow us to continue to refine it and get another product category and its packaging out of the waste stream and out of the food grain packaging system so we can keep the hazardous material separate.
With that, I urge your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you, mister chair and members. Dawn Kapke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, pleased to be in support.
Speaker 10
Hello. Keely Morris on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.
Speaker 31
Okay. Hi. Forgive my voice. My four and a half year old keeps getting me sick over and over and over again. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Sarah Polo Mu with the California Retailers Association. First, I wanna thank the author and sponsors for their stakeholder engagement. Unfortunately, there's has been a lot of confusion from multiple drafts and red lines on the bill during this process. In the last year, this bill has changed from the creation of a new EPR fully replacing California's oil recycling enhancement or CORE Act to a packaging bill for hazardous waste materials to now an EPR program for household hazardous waste and hazardous waste packaging. The covered product definitions have changed dramatically, which has made our commitment to commonality difficult.
We agree with this committee's analysis that a b two two four five creates a very complex program, especially for those that will be implementing the bill. The bill seems to provide a solution for legislation that has not been implemented yet, is California's s b 54. Among other things, a b two two four five removes packaging from s b 50 four's requirements. At this point, we don't know how or if the pro is unable to account for these products. To ensure we're providing effective policy for Californians, we must understand real world real world implications.
Unfortunately, given the ever changing legislation and lack of clarity for current EPR programs, we're unable to find a path forward in this quick turnaround at this time. While a b two two four five has made significant strides, there are still areas that are concerning and might have unintended consequences. One of the reasons CORE is successful is that retailers provide free collection of used oil, but retailers cannot take on this program too. Will the pro recommend a similar strategy with collection sites that could be confirmed will not include retail? Many retailers are space limited and becoming collection centers for new products is not possible.
Additionally, the definition of covered liquids includes references that cause confusion. This confusion will complicate day to day operations with our customers, employees, and increased risk of litigation, eventually leading to increased cost and products at a time where affordability should be the most important thing. Retailers remain committed to sustainability, and we are leaning into EPR. But we feel it is essential that policymakers focus on helping existing EPR frameworks work before piling on new regulatory schemes, and so we remain opposed to two two four five at this time.
Speaker 32
Thank you, chair and members, the committee. My name is Ryan Perini. I'm I'm here on behalf of the California Automotive Wholesale Association, as well as Auto Care Association. Collectively, we represent automotive part manufacturers, jobbers, warehouse distributors, retailers, and program groups, an industry that supports over 229,000 jobs in the state and generates more than 49,000,000,000 in annual economic activity. Our members are deeply committed to responsible environmental stewardship and have a long track record of supporting and participating in California's use used oil recycling infrastructure.
We wanna begin, like CRA, thanking the author, her staff, and the bill sponsors for facilitating a very robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and we'll remain engaged throughout this bill's life cycle. Lastly, we wanna acknowledge and thank the committee for a thorough analysis and for highlighting some of the challenges we have with this bill. Unfortunately, at this time, we must respectfully register our opposition to a b twenty two forty five as currently drafted. Our concerns really center on three main issues, duplicative regulatory obligations, lack of fee and transparency and cost controls, and significant administrative and compliance burdens. First, as CRA highlighted, while the bill attempts to exclude products already covered under the used oil recycle program, the boundary between the two programs remains far from clear in practice.
Until those lines are explicitly drawn, our members face the real prospect of noncompliance with one or both programs. Second, the division of responsibility between CalRecycle and a new pro is not sufficiently defined. Many products listed in the bills such as engine oil, transmission fluid, and two cycle oil are already regulate regulated at end of life. The beer the bill appears to regulate those same products earlier in their life cycle, including their packaging. That overlap creates confusion about which framework applies and which entity producers and retailers must report to.
Speaker 54
Until clarified, the risk of inadvertent noncompliance remains high. Additionally, the treatment of primary and secondary packaging for covered products is not clearly defined, Leaving the specifics of the reconciliation of reporting data for products where primary packaging obligations would differ from secondary and tertiary obligations to the pro plan gives producers no opportunity for, to plan for those reporting obligations. Finally, the bill lacks sufficient account accountability for the pro, particular particularly around fee setting. The absence of clear methodologies, transparency, and an appeals process creates the risk of unpredictable and potentially significant costs. Producers need certainty, including defined fee structures, advanced notice, and meaningful opportunity to challenge assessments.
Speaker 32
For those reasons, we respectfully oppose a b twenty two forty five. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
Speaker 38
Good afternoon. Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste. While we aren't an officially opposed position, we do have concerns with the bill, and they haven't been resolved over the last year. However, we are super grateful to the author's office and the sponsors for working with us, and we hope to be able to thread that needle in the coming weeks. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thanks. Bringing it back, committee members, questions, comments? Assembly member McKinnon.
Speaker 25
Yes. Thank the author for bringing the bill. I I'm I'm just thinking about affordability too. Will this actually bring the prices up on consumers? I know that I think now, currently, the low local government and taxpayers are paying for the disposal, and what this bill will do is make the producers pay.
And but will they carry the prices on to the consumers?
Speaker 29
Well, just to be clear, somebody always has to pay for these programs. So the question is who's gonna pay? And it's more efficient to have one statewide system that's run by the producer group who actually distributes it, knows exactly what it is, and knows how to get it back cost effectively than every single city and county trying to figure it out for themselves. And that's what we have today with the waste management system. That's why everything has gotten so unaffordable and so expensive and inefficient.
So this is actually a way to and the way the bill is written, it's gonna actually build off the existing infrastructure.
Speaker 29
Oh, yeah. And it's there's no mandate for retail take back. So it it's using the existing household hazardous waste and oil collection program right now. Like in Los Angeles, they collect a lot of oil for the state, but all those containers are going into big bags into the landfill. We could grab all of those and recycle them today, but we can't without this bill.
Speaker 25
Because right now I'm sorry, Leslie. Because right now, it's county by county or city by city.
Speaker 32
it. Well, I was just gonna say, I mean, this is a new obligation for companies to comply with a new pro, which is very complicated, very time consuming. The attorneys need to be hired. There needs to be training. There's auditing associated with this.
So there's a cost, at least to my members, our members. How those costs are dispersed and accounted for as, you know, cost to businesses grow, that usually trickles down to the consumer. But, again, we don't know what those costs are. And, you know, I I guess, you know, we'll see. But I just wanna make sure, like, there is gonna be costs associated with
Speaker 25
But when you say the producers, not the re not the people who are selling it. Let me get it straight because I know what Yeah. Producer mean. We're talking about the people who produce the actual item. Right?
They're paying for it.
Speaker 29
They will pay into the producer run organization who will manage the program. And that's way more efficient than and it's also if you buy the product and you do it's in the product price, it's not being socialized cost onto all your neighbors. It's the price that you paid for your product. You use it. You benefited from it.
Right now, we've socialized all the costs, and it's like a big black box. Nobody knows what they're paying for. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Just real quick. I appreciate the question very much because affordability is definitely a top concern. You know my boss, Rachel Mission, we've been leaning into all of it, trying to make these programs work. We want these programs to work. But, respectfully, retailers are already under 14 programs.
Speaker 25
We have 14 EPR and product stewardship programs in the state, and now we're layering another one on before two novel EPR programs, s b seven zero seven textiles EPR, and s b 54 have even gotten off the ground. So we're concerned about policies that just keep piling on top of each other before we even know how the existing ones are going to work. So that's a big concern of ours. The other big concern of ours is the issue with liquids coming into our retail stores and customers or employees potentially not knowing what program those liquids fall under, realize that we should only be collecting under core, but this could potentially open us up for a whistleblower complaint, private right of action, litigation, and that drives consumer costs up on products. So those are our concerns.
Speaker 31
That being said, Tristan and I have had many conversations, and we will continue to do so.
Speaker 24
I just wanna thank everyone here today for expressing their input and concerns. We've been working on this bill for the past year, and we know that there is no there is more work to be done. We will continue working with stakeholders and state agencies to address implementation details and ensure the program operates safely and effectively. Thank thank thank you, and I can directly ask for your vote.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you for bringing the bill forward. We know how important these EPR programs are, but I think we also heard they're complex. Right? So great to hear, and my understanding will be ongoing conversations as the bill moves through the process, and I think we have your commitment to that. I have recommended an aye vote on this.
Do we have a motion and second on 2245?
Speaker 1
a motion and second. Please call the roll. And this is to do pass to Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Speaker 14
This is file item number seven, a B2245 authored by assembly member Michelle Rodriguez. The motion is do pass to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Connolly?
Speaker 14
Connolly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Cahan, Castillo, Lee, McKinnar?
McKinnar, aye. Happen? Happen, aye. Three ayes, one o.
Speaker 1
I see a number of authors here. Thank you, everyone. We're gonna go in file order, starting with item two, a b 16 o three, assembly member Schultz.
Speaker 34
Thank you, mister chair. With your permission, mister chair, I'm ready to start. Go ahead. Alright. I think my witnesses are making their way up here.
Colleagues, I'm pleased to present a b 16 o three today,
Speaker 1
and I'd to keep it down, everyone, or take the conversation to the outside. Thank you.
Speaker 34
So that's how it feels. Okay. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work on the bill, and I sincerely mean that. Just on a very high level, PFAS are a large class of chemicals that are used in many consumer products and industries because they are long lasting and because they're waterproof. However, they are also associated with numerous serious human health effects and buildup in our water, soil, and our bodies.
Simply put, they don't go away. Because of PFAS's very problematic properties, the California legislature has acted in recent years to prohibit their use in many consumer products, including tech textiles, food packaging, and cosmetics. And state officials have limited PFAS use in carpets and upholstery and are about to regulate PFAS in cleaners. However, I was shocked to learn that the state was not doing anything about PFAS containing pesticides that are regularly used on California's crops. And I was even more shocked to learn that PFAS pesticides are present on the fruits and vegetables that we feed our families.
Speaker 27
For example, strawberries, are a stock commodity in our household, I go through them, every single week, consider my kids. Those are a fruit, known for heavy pest pesticide use and can contain the residue of 10 different PFAS pesticides. According to a recent environmental working group analysis, California allows 53 PFAS pesticides to be used on California grown crops, and more than 2,500,000 pounds of this PFAS is deposited on California agriculture and urban lands every year. In addition, nearly 40% of state tested produce samples contain one or more PFAS pesticides. These PFAS pesticides are not on, fruits and vegetables because of some accidental contamination.
Speaker 34
They are there because they are do sprayed directly onto our crops and onto our fields. In my view, California is not doing enough to address this use of PFAS. In fact, farmers are not told that they're applying PFAS chemicals, which could be contaminating their own soil and the groundwater there upon for a long time. A v 16 o three would phase out the use of p PFAS pesticides once and for all by doing the following. First, it would prohibit state approvals of new pesticides containing PFAS starting in January 2027.
Second, beginning in 2030, it would prohibit the use, sale, and manufacture of 23 PFAS pesticides already banned by the European Union. Third, beginning in 2035, it would prohibit the use, sale, and manufacture of all remaining registered PFAS pesticides. And lastly, the bill would designate all piece of PFAS pesticides as restricted materials and require use of those pesticides to be publicly disclosed and permitted by county agricultural commissioners starting 07/01/2028. To sum up, mister chair, why is it necessary for the state to act? Because neither the state nor the United States EPA approaches are comprehensive when it comes to the assessment of PFAS pesticides.
Most pesticides have not been evaluated for their immunotoxic effects or for their environmental effects when they break down into smaller PFAS like TFA. Also, neither the EPA nor DPR assess the effects of pesticide cumulative exposure on people over time. Furthermore, regulatory requirements mandate extensive monitoring, public reporting, and treatment of PFAS in drinking water. These obligations will continue to increase cost for customers if new sources of contamination are not controlled. Preventing PFAS from entering water supplies is, in the first place, is one of the most effective ways that we can protect public health and avoid unnecessary rate increases.
That is why a v sixteen o three is supported by the California Water Association, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. With me today to speak in support of AB sixteen o three is David Andrews, Environmental Working Group's chief science officer. And I apologize if I say this wrong. Is it Sakurai Mascal?
Speaker 34
Sakura Mascal. Mascal, I get that one right? 50%. The policy and advocacy lead for the pesticide action and agroecological network. Thank you both for being here.
I'll turn it over to them.
Speaker 36
Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is David Andrews. I'm from Environmental Working Group.
I hold a PhD in chemistry from Northwestern University, and I have coauthored 10 peer reviewed publications on PFAS, including a 2024 paper that identified EPA approved PFAS pesticides and concerns with their use. PFAS, often called forever chemicals, post serious, well documented health harms. The Department of Toxic Substances Control here has stated that all PFAS share the core hazard trait of extreme environmental persistence. And what may surprise you is that our food is a major, if not primary source of exposure, and it's under regulated. PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.
The EPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's evaluation of PFAS pesticides have not adequately evaluated the potential for immune system or really the breakdown pathways that these take in the environment in the formation of these small PFAS, such as TFA. Levels of these shorter PFAS are increasing in our water, our food, our environment, and in people, and exposure to them is linked to reproductive harm as well as immune toxicity. Other state groundwater testing has found TFA in nearly all samples, and we expect the same here when results are out. And that that this PFAS pesticide use is leading to hundreds of thousands of pounds of TFA each year going into the environment. This is gonna be incredibly expensive to remove from water systems, already trying to trying to take action to remove these from our water.
We found nearly 40% of California grown produce had at least one of these PFAS pesticides. Peaches, plums, and nectarines, the numbers are much higher. Fortunately, farmers have options that are not PFAS. There are nearly a thousand active pesticide ingredients approved for use in California. Thank you.
Speaker 35
you. Hi. My name is Sakira Mascal, and I'm the policy and advocacy lead with Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network. Californians and people across the nation are deeply concerned about PFAS, which accumulate in the environment and are found in the blood of ninety nine percent of Americans, including newborns. PFAS pesticides contribute to health harming TFA, contaminating our water, land, and produce, and disproportionately impact Latino farm working communities in regions like Fresno, Kern, and San Joaquin Counties.
Each year, they add 37 to 59,000,000,000 to national health care expenditures, and there are PFAS lawsuits in Fresno and all over the country. Yet the California Department of Pesticide Regulation is failing to protect the public from PFAS pesticides. DPR does not characterize PFAS pesticides as PFAS in their pesticide evaluation process. DPR does not evaluate cumulative health impacts, and the pace at which DPR reevaluates pesticides requiring at least one pesticide reevaluation per year under AB twenty one thirteen is too slow to effectively mitigate PFAS harms. Other state agencies are working to remove PFAS pesticides from our wastewater and water supply, trying to mitigate further impacts to ratepayers.
And there are numerous economically viable alternatives to PFAS pesticides supported by organizations helping growers transition to sustainable methods. In fact, research indicates that adopting soil health practices reduces pest pressures with ninety six percent of farmer case studies reporting a positive return on investment. In fact, the state is taking steps towards moving away from priority pesticides by 2050 as shown in DPR's sustainable pest management road map. While these steps are commendable, we cannot afford to wait. We must tackle the PFAS pesticide crisis now.
Given the amount of evidence of harm that PFAS pesticides pose, we urge you to support a b 16 o three. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. Alex Lumer on behalf of Earth Justice, the Environmental Protection Information Center, and with permission Sierra Club California, Central California Memorial Justice Network. That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Tony Hackett on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Nurses Association California, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, and the Lymphoma Foundation of America.
Speaker 41
Hi. Susan Little with Environmental Working Group, also here on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Green Science Policy Institute, Beyond Pesticides, CalPERG, and Center for Food Safety and Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture as well as the Center for Environmental Health, another cosponsor. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good afternoon. Nancy Vieremeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support of the legislation.
Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action. We are in strong support, and I have a few to read as well in support. The Community Water Center, California Housekeeper Alliance, Integrated Resources Management, Holy h two o, Friends Committee for California Legislation, and the Erin Brockovich Foundation.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. Nora Angela is with Children Now. We're in support. And there are several other organizations that ask to be listed. Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, clean earth for kids, go green initiative, parents against SSFL, Sonoma County youth environmental action committee, and encampment for citizenship.
Thank you.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon. Brian Ronnholm with Consumer Reports in support of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.
Speaker 19
Mark Weller on behalf of the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council and the Valley Improvement Projects in support.
Speaker 37
Good afternoon. Myra Sanchez on behalf of tell Tulare County Coalition advocating for pesticide safety and the Central California Environmental Justice Network in support.
Speaker 10
Hello. Keelie Morris on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.
Speaker 41
Emma Vega on behalf of the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety eight zero five and Santa Barbara Coalition for Pesticide Reform in support.
Speaker 42
Sarah Aired on behalf of the Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment, and also the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety five five nine, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Jessica Gogger with the California Association of Sanitation Agencies in support.
Speaker 4
Camila Torres, eighth grader from Vista Verde Middle School in Greenfield on behalf of future leaders of change and in full support of AB sixteen zero three.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon, members of the committee. Yaneli Martinez, former councilwoman for the city of Greenfield and also SAS organizer with SafeAct Safe Schools, also in full support and also on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, which is the largest Latino organization, specifically the Greenfield LULAC thirty two ninety eight and Selena's Council twenty fifty five in full support.
Speaker 2
Afternoon. Anne Catton with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon, chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of California environmental voters. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Marquise King Mason with NRDC registering support for Sierra Club, California Earth Justice and Center for Biologic Diversity. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have folks in opposition to sixteen oh three? Come on up.
Speaker 18
Yeah. Hi, everyone. My name is Jeff Dawson. I'm here on behalf of CropLife America, which is an industry trade group in respectful opposition to a b 16 o three. A little bit about me.
I just retired from a forty year career as an environmental scientist, twenty seven years of which were spent at the EPA as a senior science adviser and manager. Most of that time was spent in the pesticide regulation program, but I also spent a lot of time working on PFAS, especially under the Biden administration where I was on the PFAS council and was one of the principal authors of the National PFAS Testing Strategy and, also, developed a number of actions under the pesticide and industrial chemicals law. I think given the conversation today, it'd be good to provide some context about pesticide regulation at the federal level and so you're aware of all the detailed information that goes into it and how much investment really happens. So it takes about twelve years to develop a novel pesticide and with an investment on the industry part of about $300,000,000 plus a hefty investment on the part of the regulatory agencies to review all this information and develop credible risk assessments. Part of the federal statute requirements is to ask registrants or license holders to develop a cadre of information that gathers information on all manner of toxicity, variety of environmental fate and effects, exposure, potential residues, and commodities that are food commodities and so forth.
And then this is done under good laboratory practices requirements, which are ensure the surety of the information. It's a very public process. Many of the protocols and such that are used are internationally harmonized. And there's also credible credibility supported by a lot of mandated independent scientific review that's governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. One comment earlier was the lack of information around
Speaker 18
Okay. So just a little bit of about the fluorinated carbon issue. There are 52 active ingredients which would impact about 1,150 products, which could if you lost them, would have a big impact on agriculture. These fluorinated chemicals are very purpose built. There's a fluorine integrated into the molecule to enhance performance or stability.
And, you know, there's four a fluorinated components in a pesticide would be added for very intentional purposes. All the data I just talked about, the, you know, some of the things that you hear about PFAS chemicals, they're persistent in environment in the environment. There's potential residues in food. The bioaccumulation potential and a range of toxicological effects are routinely screened for in the pesticide data. So, anyway, thank you, and I appreciate the time.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Taylor Trifo on behalf of a variety of agricultural association and other commercial users of pesticides. I wanna make sure your fruits and vegetables are safe. Check that they're California grown because of the system that mister Dawson described at both US EPA and DPR. I wanna talk about a practical reality of taking 1,100 products off of the market.
That means we are gonna be relying on broader spectrum, less precision based products in order to attract or to manage the same pests and diseases that previously we had softer, safer chemistries for. That's the reality of what happens when we have cancellation, and we'll continue to rely on imports from countries where fruits and vegetables are not regulated to the effect that they are in California. So, unfortunately, with the time, we request and oppose. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. Matthew Allen, Western Growers also opposed.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon, chair and members. Paul Poister with Nutrient Ag Solutions respectfully opposed.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon. Nicole Quinones on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. They represent the nonag pesticide manufacturers as well as Cal Chamber. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Matt Roman, on behalf of the Animal Health Institute, wanna thank the or post less than minute, wanna thank the author for his meetings with us on this issue, and we're continuing to work with him.
Speaker 34
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Tim Shestick on behalf of the American Chemistry Council.
Speaker 46
Dennis Albioni, behalf of the California Seed Association, California Para Growers, a few other agricultural associations in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Max Perry on behalf of the California Pest Management Association also in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Isabella Quinones with the California Farm Bureau also in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Dawn Kepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Chemical Industry Council of California, Bothell. So in
Speaker 1
Thank you. Bringing it back, looking to committee members for questions, comments. Senate member Pappen.
Speaker 12
So just a quick question. Because I look at this bill and I say, okay. Well, it's got some time for industry to catch up and to phase out these these forever chemicals. So I guess my question though, and when you say, oh, 1,100 products are gonna come off the market, tragedy strikes. But, is it such that, there are alternatives out there that are non PFAS or maybe lower you know, whatever.
You take your pick that can still do the same thing or things in the works because this isn't tomorrow. You know, I I really do feel like, I look at the bill, like, oh, that seems reasonably tailored to me, and that's what I usually look for. So talk to me about whether there are alternatives out there, and are we is tragedy gonna strike tomorrow as it relates to
Speaker 45
Absolutely. And the answer is it depends. So in according to the bill in 2028, all PFAS based pesticides, so those a 100 those 1,100 products would become restricted use. That means in a nonagricultural setting, they are not allowed for use. So commercial, home use, industrial, they would be banned by 2028.
Moving forward in the agricultural sector side, absolutely, there are products that we can use, but I wanna once again hit on right now the products that we're talking about and those that are in this list are targeted and precise. They're for one particular pest on one particular commodity, and they're uniquely designed to be as soft as possible. And so what we're we would do realistically, if there was another product on the market, it's broader spectrum. So we apply more of that product because we don't have the capacity to provide a precision application to deal with the product that we have now. So the reality is we are gonna use broader spectrum products.
Speaker 18
There are many products that are on this list that are alternatives to products that have been canceled in California. And so if those are then secondarily canceled, there are situations where ligus in cotton, mealybug in in tree nuts will not will have nothing to be able to manage them. And that's where you hear concern about agriculture. In California, after a twelve year timeline that mister Dawson described about getting a product available to be registered by USCPA, it's been an eight year process at USCPA, and then it's more than eight years at the Department of Pesticide Regulation to register that product. So, collectively, we're talking about twenty years to get a new product pesticide registered in California, especially if it's unique, overlay endangered species act and other obligations, which we're proud to be able to honor those.
Speaker 45
It does put us past that 2035 deadline in the bill. So that's why you hear this level of concern from the agricultural community.
Speaker 12
and then we'll go ahead go ahead. We see, the feds have really restricted down and down and down what what types of PFAS will be allowed in the water, and then you still have this runoff. As we've mentioned, it does cause me come some consternation. And, I mean, for god's sakes, we've got AI. I'm sure it can be produced faster than it used to be, but that's my comment.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.
Speaker 16
I appreciate the author's work here and your intent. I I'm kind of excited because I get to talk to a couple of chemists and technical guys today. So I'll make a comment, and then I have a couple specific questions. You know, we have 15,000 supposedly PFAS chemicals. There are some that are that don't bioaccumulate, some that are not, necessarily hazardous to your health.
Speaker 22
And then I see a list of 23 PFAS chemicals that are are included with with pesticides, I e, some pesticides might use a PFAS chemical for as a surfactant to help spread spread the material or some other benefits, physical benefits. Can you explain to me, out of these 23 chemicals, why you want to regulate them or make them go away by by 2030. Have they here's the question. Have they specifically been, differentiated from the nonhazardous PFAS chemicals?
Speaker 32
Well, thank you for the question, and and and I think it's an important question. And in terms of well, one is is part part of this is a question of differentiation, but part of this is also a question of you mentioned the bioaccumulation, some of the toxicity and hazard traits respect with with respect to these compounds. And I think one thing that stands out and was mentioned is that part of the reason they have this fluorination is because it leads to increased stability, which also leads to increased persistence. And some of these compounds, while they're not bioaccumulating, we're exposed to them regularly. And so part of so so so and and, actually, we see in biomonitoring that many of the small PFAS that formulate from this, such as TFA, are making up a significant portion of the total PFAS in the body in people.
Speaker 36
But to to your question in terms of the the differentiation, I think part of this is a is a practical move towards, including a subset that have been, differentially regulated elsewhere, from the marketplace.
Speaker 16
My my my question is not whether they're differentiated from another marketplace. My differentiate my differentiation is what is the science behind eliminating PFAS from these particular pesticides? And I'd like to address that to you, sir.
Speaker 18
So the actual just for clarity, the actual active ingredient itself is the fluorinated material. So that molecule, there's not really additional inerts or anything in the products that are PFAS chemicals. So I wanna do that for clarity. Can you repeat the question again?
Speaker 16
My well, my question was why why are we we're generalizing about PFAS here. What is the differentiation in these 23 are are are the fluorine compounds in these 23, PFAS chemicals
Speaker 18
So all I can say is with regard to the federal approach for regulating pesticides, these chemicals were put through the same exact process as any other pesticide chemical, have the same data, same types of data based on all the criteria that I mentioned. And, you know, when they went through the process and the labels were constructed, they met the federal statutes for, safety findings, which are very clearly outlined, have been gone through extensive peer review, all the other, public comment and so forth. So it's a very open process that talks about how the safety criteria are established and the rationales behind those safety criteria.
Speaker 16
Would anybody know who the biggest user of these 23 pesticides are? Could it be Caltrans?
Speaker 34
Happy to look into it, assembly member Ellis. I don't know the answer offhand.
Speaker 34
What I what I can, though, sir, if you'll indulge me, you would ask a question about why these 23 were banned. I'd be happy to provide you some information offline. But as I understand it, when the European Union looked at these 23 specific PFAS pesticides, it was the way that those particular ones broke down over time and the impacts on both human health and soil contamination. So it was that's at least my understanding of it. Happy to get you some more information on it.
Speaker 18
So, also, keep in mind that the way EPA does its business is that they look at potential breakdown products, and that's all part of the risk assessment process. So if there are major degradates of concern, there those are identified and included in the risk evaluation. So that's all part of the process. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 45
I would just like to add the 23 active ingredients that are listed if they were banned by the EU were not banned because of their PFAS presence alone. So I wanna make that clear. Registrants, in some circumstances, have removed the registration, and in that respect, would show that they're no longer eligible for use in the EU, not because of their PFAS presence.
Speaker 16
Assembly member Schultz, I think that's kind of my dilemma here with this is that that scientifically scientifically has not been established. And and then furthermore, to her statement, it's not been established. And then I concerned about the end user. I do like the fact that we do have till 2030. There's some good things here, but thank you very much for this conversation, and thank you guys.
Yes, sir. I'm just gonna add
Speaker 18
one more thing. You know, the other thing to think about here is I think you mentioned that there's 15,000 or so PFAS chemicals. There's and I did a lot of Tosca work as well, which is industrial chemicals. So there's, like, 800 chemicals that are on the Tosca inventory that are, you know, active in commerce. When you look at the available data for those chemistries versus the data for there's virtually none.
Some chemicals have zero, and they're sold by millions of pounds per year for a whole bunch of different industrial uses while pesticides are highly studied. And there's a lot of information about, you know, the toxicity and the breakdown products. So you have to be careful about generalizations such as, you know, the contribution and body burdens and the population and things like that because there's so many other potential sources that that could come into play and have common metabolites. So, like, I think you mentioned TFA, for example. So that's all part of the calculus.
Speaker 16
If I may add to bifenthrin is bifenthrin is prohibited in the EU, and it was actually banned due to adverse health effects. In fact, I have a a quote from one of their regulatory documents that says, as regards to ecotoxicology, the risk to aquatic vertebrates has not shown to generate acceptable uses. While there is a remaining uncertainty as regards to the effects of the experienced bioaccumulation in fish of the active substance, furthermore, high risks have been identified for mammals, earthworms, and nontarget arthropods. So that's just one example, and then just wanna add to the fact that most PFAS pesticides break down into TFA, and we're seeing that that's associated with immunotoxicity and liver damage as well as other adverse health effects. And those are building up in our water supply.
Speaker 35
So it's a very serious thing that those PFAS pesticides are breaking down into that metabolite.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Thank you for the thoughtful conversation. I'll just add a couple of comments starting with thank you for bringing the bill forward. As you know, one of my priorities has been to reduce the use of very harmful pesticides as well as chemicals in California. In this case, and I think that this came through through the questioning, We're dealing with both harmful pesticides and additional harmful chemicals, and particularly applied your work to reduce what our committee is very familiar with now, PFAS, in our environment and our food.
That said, I am concerned about the issue of regrettable substitutions. As we have seen, sometimes prohibiting chemicals and products results in alternatives that are more harmful than the original. We absolutely need to reduce the use of PFAS and harmful pesticides, and we need to make sure their replacements are safe. So I would encourage you, and I know you're committed to this as the bill moves forward, continue the conversations about how we can move towards safer alternatives to PFAS pesticides in our state. So please keep me and the committee apprised.
Our staff would love to stay in the loop as this bill moves forward. It does have an eye recommendation from me today. And with that, I would invite you to close.
Speaker 34
Well, thank you very much, mister chair. I'll be brief. First of all, to your your question and your comment, absolutely. I pride myself on being a collaborative author. So we may not agree on everything, but always welcome to engage in those conversations and find common ground.
And I'm a big proponent of being the ever student and learning more about the industry and and and trying to safeguard against those risks. By the way, congratulations on your retirement, sir. The three briefest of points I would just mention is that in addition to the European Union, Maine and Minnesota have already taken the initial step. And as the world's fourth largest economy, the breadbasket of the world, California needs to lead the way and join this conversation. And that's what I'm really asking for all of you to do today is to vote aye so that it can go out of committee, and we can at least continue what is an awfully important conversation.
The second thing I'll briefly touch on is not in their testimony today, but in the course of comment letters. It has been suggested why can't CDPR simply reevaluate the pesticides on the market? They're only reevaluating between one and eight pesticides per year. This is extraordinary effort that we need to take now to ensure that we have the safest possible products on, the shelves of every grocery store across the state. And the last thing that I would say is, I really appreciated the testimony about the EPA regulatory process and all that goes into it, but I would just, respectfully suggest that that analysis does not adequately and comprehensively evaluate for immunotoxic effects.
It does not look at the totality of the environmental effects when it breaks down breaks down at the TFA. That's why this legislation is so important, and I respectfully ask for your I vote today.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do I have a motion for approval? And I will second it. With that, can you call the roll?
Speaker 14
File item two, a b 16 o three, authored by Assembly Member Schulz. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 14
Connolly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Cahan, Castillo, Lee, McKinnon?
Aye. Happen, aye.
Speaker 20
We'll keep that bill on hold. File item five, assembly member Addis. This is AB twenty thirty four dealing with food safety. I'll just note, I know you met with Assembly Health last week. You committed to refining the scope of the bill.
Speaker 1
I understand you've shared author's amendments with this committee ahead of hearing, today's hearing. And with that, feel free to dive right in whenever you
Speaker 46
you, mister chair. And I promised my colleague behind me that I would keep it as brief as possible, and I have two expert witnesses here. So the gist is that I'm here to present AB twenty thirty four, the Food Additive Safety and Transparency Act that will strengthen California's consumer protections, around health and dangerous food additives. And 2034 does complement existing law. As the chair mentioned, I am taking author's amendments that we're working on that will address the concerns from Department of Public Health around implementation and feasibility, and that will narrow the scope of the bill.
Speaker 49
I guess the gist on this is that the FDA at the federal level is supposed to regulate food additives. There's a loophole called the generally recognized as safe loophole, and companies can self certify that their chemicals are generally recognized as safe, and then those chemicals go into the foods that we eat. There's also a situation where companies are able to just not notify the FDA at all that they have done this. And so while this was set up to recognize things like baking soda or black pepper is generally recognized as safe and not have to go through such an arduous process. Companies have begun to utilize this loophole, and we're getting dangerous chemicals in our food that can that are linked to heart and brain defects, infant leukemia, suppression of estrogen in liver and kidney and intestinal toxicity.
So we have a pretty narrow and targeted bill that would create more transparency, give the state, an ability to add some regulation that is desperately needed in the face of lack of federal action. And with me today are Thomas Galligan, principal scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Nancy Burameyer, the director of program and policy for the breast cancer prevention partners, and they will tell you more.
Speaker 50
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Thomas Galligan, principal scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest or CSPi, proud sponsor of Assembly Bill twenty thirty four. I have a PhD in biomedical sciences with a focus on toxicology. CSPi is a national nonprofit that's been at the forefront of food safety, nutrition, and health for fifty five years.
We take no donations from government or industry. This bill targets loopholes in federal laws that have created a situation in which the only parties who know what is in our food, whether those ingredients are truly safe, are the companies profiting from selling them. AB twenty thirty four will fix that by creating a public database of chemicals and food that bypass FDA premarket safety evaluations. The database will also identify the chemicals that are that companies are hiding behind vague terms like natural flavor, spices, artificial flavor, and artificial color. This will increase Californians' confidence in the safety of their food, and it will empower them to make more informed decisions protect their health and the health of their children and families.
This bill does not duplicate existing federal programs. Although FDA has recently expressed its intent to revise its approach to grass, initial indications indicate that the proposal would not go far enough to sufficiently protect consumers. Further, the food industry has threatened to challenge FDA's proposed rule at the same time that they are opposing this bill here in California. So do not be fooled. The FDA does is not on top of this issue.
Speaker 47
Californians remain at risk from unsafe and poorly tested food chemicals. And despite what the opposition has said, there should be little to no impact on the cost of food in California. And that's because under federal law, food manufacturers have an ongoing obligation to ensure that their products are safe. Even if companies choose to use grass ingredients without notifying the FDA, they are still required to prove that those chemicals are safe using publicly available information. AB twenty thirty four will simply re re require companies who skip the FDA process to share that information with the state instead.
Speaker 39
Good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and thank you, assembly member Addis, for your leadership on AB 2,034 to make our food safer. I'm here on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to harmful chemicals. Nothing is more visceral to the public than the safety of the food we eat and especially what we feed our children. A February poll by the Pew Research Center found that nearly eighty percent of US adults are concerned about harmful chemicals in food, and almost half are very concerned.
Americans depend on the FDA to safeguard our food system. Unfortunately, it is failing us. Under the grass loophole, companies can add company can add chemicals to food and food packaging without meaningful independent review or even telling the FDA. Some examples include methyl and propyl parabens, both are hormone disruptors, and propyl paraben has been shown to accelerate the growth of breast cancer cells. Flavor chemicals linked to cancer deemed GRAS by industry groups, partially hydrogenated oils or trans fat, and butylated hydroxyanisole or BHA, a prop 65 listed carcinogen.
Speaker 3
The FDA has removed the GRAS designation for some of these chemicals, but only after years of advocacy, and they should never have been allowed in the first place. A v 2034 also brings much needed transparency to chemicals hidden under terms like natural flavors and spices. In 2020, this legislature passed s b three twelve requiring disclosure of chemicals in fragrance and flavors in personal care products. Today, Californians know more have more transparency about what's in their shampoo than what's in their food even though many of the same chemicals are used in both. It's time to fix that inequity.
Speaker 39
In the face of federal inaction, California must once again lead to protect public health. I respectfully ask your I vote.
Speaker 5
Good afternoon. Lizzie Guanzona here with CSPi, the sponsor of the bill. He asked to read support for a number of organizations, including Alpha Gal, Alliance Action Fund, Bay Area Community Resources, CalPERC, Center for Environmental Health, cleanearthforkids.org, Clean Water Action, Courage California, Elijah, Lavie Foundation, FPIES Foundation, Healthy Food America, National Consumers League, Rising Communities, SF Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders, and United Parents and Students. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good afternoon. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon. Brian Ronholm with Consumer Reports in support of the bill.
Speaker 22
Chair Connolly and members of the committee, I'm Erin Radin here on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association. We represent the consumer packaged goods industry, which in California supports over 300,000 direct jobs, powers the economy with $22,000,000,000 in wages, and injects $48,000,000,000 into California's economy. From facts up front to digital disclosures like smart label, CPG companies lead the way in delivering consumers the information they need in a format they want. We appreciate the author's attempts to focus a b twenty thirty four, but we still believe the efforts can be more narrowly tailored to avoid creating a duplicative regulatory system, adding unnecessary costs and bureaucracy to the state of California, food manufacturers, California and California consumers. For those reasons, we must respectfully oppose.
It is simply unnecessary and premature for the state of California to enact a b twenty thirty four at this time. Given the federal f y 2027 budget and the pending grass rulemaking, a b twenty thirty four may lead to consumer confusion, undermine federal efforts to enhance food safety, and impotent impose needless costs on manufacturers who may be forced as a practical matter to deal with a two tier system, federal and the state of California, that will result in higher prices for consumers or fewer food options, which in turn could lead to food insecurity. In large part, this is because California specific regulatory scheme does not recognize self certified GRAS, which may force companies to reformulate and relabel, thereby incurring potentially significant costs which may have to be passed on to consumers. The FY 2027 federal budget provides 50,000,000 across FDA programs to support reevaluation and possible removal of ingredients or additives from food supply and the removal of the sulfur from grass pathway. Further, FDA intends to publish in late spring or early summer a proposed regulation to require the submission to FDA of grass notices.
Speaker 52
Finally, cost to California taxpayers is still a concern. Estimated implementation costs for the state for the original bill was $34,000,000 in its first three years. And while some of these costs will be reduced due to the proposed amendments, many of them, such as $10,000,000 in database database development, persist. Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, chair and members. Marjilio Sampson Advisors here on behalf of our client, the California League of Food Producers, in respectful opposition to this bill. CLFP represents a wide variety of food processors and beverage producers who handle fruit, vegetables, olives, dairy products, grain rice products, bakeries, and more. Many of their members process food right here in California, and safety is their number one priority. They're still reviewing the proposed amendment to the bill, and while appreciative of the direction, still unfortunately have some outstanding concerns with the bill.
Speaker 51
We echo our colleagues at CBA. They're fundamentally opposed to and concerned about establishing a separate, possibly duplicate duplicative California specific regulatory structure around a federal baseline that's actively changing. They're also additionally concerned with the ingredient disclosure provisions, which could expose proprietary formulations. While the bill allows CDPH to redact trade secrets from the public database, the data needed to establish safety cannot be redacted, and this creates some uncertainty about confidential business information that would be disclosed publicly. So in sum, while CLFP supports safe and transparent regulation, we believe that the right answer is science based nationally consistent framework, not a patchwork that includes the California specific regime.
So for these reasons, we respectfully are opposed to this bill.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon. Molly Mala with Edelstein Gilbert Ripsman Smith on behalf of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Good afternoon, chair and members. Jason Bryant on behalf of the National Confectioners Association. Unfortunately, we're opposed to the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Elise Landon on behalf of Dairy Institute of California, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 34
Good afternoon, mister chair members. Tim Shestek on behalf of the American Chemistry Council also in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Dennis Albioni on behalf of the, American Beverage Association, the California Grain and Feed Association, California Seed Association. We oppose. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon, mister chairman members. Taylor Roshan Taylor Triffer on behalf of the Grocers Association in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 49
Good afternoon. Annalie Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, also in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon. Nicole Quinones on behalf of Cal Chamber and the Food Ingredient Safety Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 30
Dawn Kepke on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Chemical Industry Council of California also in post.
Speaker 1
Thanks. Looking to committee members, questions, comments? Seeing none, would invite you to close.
Speaker 1
Great. And we appreciate your work on this for championing this issue for the continued work you're doing on refining the bills. I appreciated the amendments. It sounds like there's more conversation happening to address some of the implementation concerns. I think on a basic level, though, the public deserves to know what they're eating and that the chemicals in their food are safe.
So I am recommending an I vote on this. With that, we will take a roll call vote.
Speaker 14
This is file item number five, AB 2,034 offered by Assemblyman of Congress.
Speaker 14
apologies. File item number five, a b 2034, authored by assembly member Addis. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 14
Connolly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Cahan?
Castillo? Lee? McKinnon? Kappan? Kappan, aye.
Speaker 14
My apologies. I misspoke earlier. It's due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations.
Speaker 1
Duly noted. File item six, we're gonna move to Assembly Member Kalra who has to run to be the chair of a committee. So appreciate everyone's patience on that. And welcome. This is on AB twenty two eighteen.
Speaker 17
have here. Alright. Well, thank you so much, mister chair and members. First, I would like to thank the chair and his staff for working with me as well as the chair of water parks and wildlife and that committee staff to develop develop amendment language for this bill. I'm accepting these amendments, and it's not lost on me that it's not the norm to have a bill heard in the morning in one committee, in the afternoon, another that was only made possible because of both of the chairs being so gracious and giving us time and opportunity to come to agreement on amendments.
Since time immemorial, indigenous communities have lived and grown in the region we now call California. As the original stewards of the land, they had developed a deep and comprehensive understanding of its complex ecological systems, including its vital watersheds. Unfortunately, Western colonization led to widespread land seizures that deprived tribes of the traditional water resources and watershed management practices. It also laid the groundwork for a water rights system that continues to exclude tribes to this day. Although state agencies have worked to engage tribes on water issues, the impact has been limited by a lack of statutory authority to respond to water related inequities.
Speaker 1
Furthermore, there is no codified policy instructing agencies to recognize and address these inequities. This means that work being done now can easily be reversed in the future. AB twenty two eighteen will address both of these problems by establishing a state policy of recognizing and addressing water related inequities perpetrated against tries by state sanctioned actions. This bill will also require a specific set of state agencies, including CNRA, the state water board, and the regional water quality control boards to consider and implement this policy when they revise, adopt, or establish policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria to address inequities. By ensuring that agencies have the statutory backing respectfully and effectively address long standing harms indigenous communities, AB twenty two eighteen will foster a more collaborative relationship between the state and sovereign tribes, empowering them to work together to protect the water that gives us all life.
Speaker 17
With me to revise super supporting testimony is Crystal Moreno, TEK program manager with with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok, and Frankie Myers, Fix the World Consulting with the Yurok tribe.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, chair members. Chris Moreno with the Shingle Springs Band here on behalf of vice chair Melissa Tayaba who was pulled away on tribal council business. Just a brief history of the tribe. We're located in Shingle Springs about forty, forty five miles east of here, but the tribe's ancestral territory actually spans seven California counties. Sacramento being a major county, major village sites here.
Speaker 53
One of the tribe's matriarchs was born at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers at the village of Peshunay. The river systems here, the waterways, the watershed, something that the tribe is connected to. We hold ceremony. It's part of our identity and our culture. And for those reasons, we're happy to cosponsor this piece of legislation.
I'm gonna yield the rest of my time to Frankie Myers. Thank you.
Speaker 54
That is so important for our tribal nations. I think I do think about our unratified treaties that our tribal nations negotiated with the federal government. And I think about the role that this legislature played in ensuring that they were not ratified. I think about this legislature and the passage of laws that excluded tribal nations from participating in water rate systems in California. And I think about where we could have been, where we should have been, what our tribal nations could have looked like if our treaties were ratified, if California did recognize our nations and their role in protecting our lands and our waters.
Where would we be at today? What would California look like? What would our society look like? Would we be needing to fight every single day to protect our water? Would we be needing to fight every single day to protect our food resources?
Would we needing to fight every day against catastrophic wildfires if we had listened to the TEK of those who had lived here since time immemorial? Where would we be today? I think every tribe in California appreciated the governor's apology. After over a hundred years, we got an apology for the genocide and the massacre and the removal of our people from our places and our sacred waters that we had enjoyed for tens of thousands of years that we had protected, that we had watched over, and that we had managed. We had managed to create such a wealth in this state, that we had managed to create such an abundance in this state.
This state that now enjoys the fourth largest economy in the world based on those resources that were managed and created by tribal nations. AB twenty two eighteen simply acknowledges what we all know to be true, what we have already understood. It creates a space at the table for the future. It doesn't ask for justice. It doesn't ask to right the wrongs of the past.
That's a much larger bill, and that bill comes with a lot more pain. This bill asks for a seat at the table, And we understand that this is an uncomfortable discussion. We understand that we need to try to be as specific as we can about what we're talking about so that we could limit the harm that could potentially happen to those communities that are thriving today. And I feel like we've done that. I feel like we have worked very, very hard to think about our community as a whole, all of us, including our tribes, including the entire state.
We wanna continue that work. We wanna continue to be a part of the conversation, and we would like to be a part of the decision making for the next hundred years. Welcome.
Speaker 1
Additional testimony? Okay. Members of the audience in support. Thank you, chairman, members of the committee. Frank Molina on behalf of Yahav Yatam of Sam and Wall Nation, and he said in his ban, the Chumash Indians and Swamp support.
Thank you.
Speaker 55
Hi. Good afternoon. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon, California support. Also, Voxin's voice in support for the Watershed Research and Training Center and the Monolith Committee. Thank you so much.
Speaker 56
Akashdeep Singh with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Happy to, ask for support.
Speaker 27
Marquis Mason with NRDC. Thank you to the author and the sponsors. Strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Water Foundation and California Environmental Voters. Thank you.
Speaker 54
Good afternoon. Kyle Jones, registering support on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Center for Environmental Health, and Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Hi. Pamela Lopez with K Street Consulting on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokuts tribe in support.
Speaker 44
Hi. I'm Craig Tucker, a consultant for the Karuk tribe who's proud to cosponsor this bill and also express support for Save California Salmon, the Klamath Indigenous Land Trust, Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group, California Rural Indian Health Board, Friends of the Ile River, and the Mid Klamath Watershed Council. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Good afternoon. Alex Lumer on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, California, Defenders of Wildlife, Golden State Salmon Association, Trust for Public Land, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, the Environmental Law Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Information Center are all in support. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Sean Bothwell, on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance and our 10 California waterkeepers, That includes San Diego coastkeeper, Inland Empire waterkeeper, Orange County coastkeeper, LA waterkeeper, Santa Barbara channelkeeper, Russian riverkeeper, Monterey waterkeeper, Humboldt waterkeeper, Shasta waterkeeper, and Yuba waterkeeper.
Speaker 11
Andrea Ventura for just clean water action, but in strong support. You.
Speaker 41
Lynn Rovey, on behalf of humble progressive democrats in strong support.
Speaker 36
Chair, Scott Webb speaking in support for the Woodamu Wintu tribe, the California Sports Fishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River, California Water Impact Network, Planning and Conservation Leave, BayQuest, Baykeeper, and Save the Bay. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Andrea Virgil with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CNUA represents over 86 public agencies that provide water, wastewater, gas, and electric service in California. Our members have meaningful engagement with tribes in their service territories, and CMUA values the author's intent in shining a light on California's history of mistreatment of tribes. While CMUA appreciates the author's willingness to accept the committee amendments from this morning, we remain respectfully opposed to a b twenty two eighteen.
Speaker 59
We recognize that this bill is intended to give tribes a seat at the table, and we agree with that notion. We want tribes to be part of the decision making process. However, a b twenty two eighteen does more than that, more than give tribes a seat at the table. It calls into question water supply reliability for our members. The changes to section one zero six point two would still put water supply reliability at risk.
The committee amendments strike out the word rights from subsection b, but the reference to permits is retained. Appropriate of rights are permitted rights and would be subject to interpretation of the bill's vague concepts for implementing this policy, and we're unsure how this bill will impact future appropriative right applications or projects like the Bay Delta Plan or the Delta Conveyance Project. Additionally, protection of tribal water uses may imply that use is higher than any other beneficial use, further threatening water reliability. Our members heavily rely on water rights to ensure water is delivered to their customers. There is a huge question still as to what impact this bill will have on existing water rights, relied upon in many of your legislative districts, which could impact water supply reliability.
The changes to section ten fifty one of the water code are vague and need to be defined to understand their functionality. There are terms that are ambiguous. And in our position letter, we made the point that terms of the bill were vague and needed to be defined. That remains true. As amended, this bill is still vague.
The definitions or descriptions would certainly help to, understand the certainty as to implementation of the policy. We hope the bill continues to be refined to address our concerns. However, given the uncertain impact on water supply, we believe it essential that we get this right before moving forward. And for these reasons, we must ask for your no vote today.
Speaker 28
Good afternoon, chairs and members. My name is Amber Rosso, and I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. We have an oppose unless amended position on the bill. We recognize the intent behind the bill to acknowledge the historic injustices experienced by California Native American tribes, and we appreciate the efforts to refine the language and clarify certain ambiguities such as listing specifically the state agencies responsible for addressing these historical inequities. However, we need time to review the proposed language.
Speaker 41
We do want to continue to emphasize our concern about the lack of detail needed to fully understand the bill's scope and statewide implications, including how each of these state agencies will be tasked to address access and control over water coupled with the lack of the definitional guardrails necessary for consistent implementation across state agencies. Water agencies operate under a host of regulations and policies and are continuously working toward
Speaker 41
ensuring compliance. This is in addition to the state level efforts underway to address drought and climate resilience. Addressing inequities through incorporating incorporating remedies in every state water management action makes it difficult to plan accordingly and plan for the future of water deliverability. We understand that it is not the author's intent to disrupt these efforts. Additionally, as water agencies, it is difficult to understand where the gaps currently exist as the state works to strengthen tribal partnerships.
There are various efforts underway by the state to improve collaboration of California Native American tribes and to build those lasting tribal partnerships. We look forward to continued dialogue to better understand those existing gaps and align our and align the language with those existing efforts. For these reasons, we we respectfully request a no vote today. Thank you.
Speaker 54
Good afternoon. Eric Will on behalf of rural county representatives of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 55
Good afternoon. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We have an oppose unless amended position. We'll be reviewing the amendments and be in touch with
Speaker 23
Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, respectfully oppose unless amended, and looking forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties oppose unless amended, also reviewing the amendments.
Speaker 1
Ben Turner with Accident Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Britney Barsahi on behalf of the California Special Districts Association. Look forward to reviewing the amendments opposed unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. Alex Biren, California Farm Bureau, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 41
of San Luis Deltiv and DOTA water authority, oppose unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon. Beth Alasso on behalf of the water blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Bringing it back to, committee members. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Okay.
Speaker 24
But share why not? Alright. Hi. Hi. Well, this is we heard a bill earlier today in your committee that was about making right some of the wrongs that have been done to California's first people, and I think this is a really important piece of that puzzle.
Speaker 53
You know, I think as we talk about the water rights system, which is sacrosanct in the state and almost impossible to touch, we don't acknowledge the fact that when those rights became real, native people were not considered people such that they could have water rights despite the fact that the water was originally the native people's water. And honestly, they probably managed it better than any of us have ever. And so, you know, I think that this really gets at the question of how do we, you know, make that right. And during some of my learning around that, I learned that we actually of course, most Native people had, when they were living on the lands, lived near water because, duh, you need water. And then when we you know, after the genocide and all that went wrong, we moved native people far away from water, and many of California's tribes do not have access to water anymore, and that is a catastrophe.
Speaker 24
And so I think that this is a really important step in making right some of the wrongs of our history. We can never, we can never fully rectify what happened to California's first people, but we can take some important steps, and I think this is one. So I thank you for that. And with that, I'll move the bill.
Speaker 1
We have a motion. I wanted to amplify that. It's so well stated, and I think it's important to acknowledge the historic mistreatment that we're talking about of Native Americans. It also sounds like we do have amendments that were agreed to in Assembly Parks and Wildlife. The plan is to adopt those amendments in this committee, so that's in process.
I have recommended an I vote. And with that, we have a motion. Do I have a second?
Speaker 14
This is file item number six a b two two one eight authored by assembly member Kullra. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 1
We'll hold that open. Thanks. Yeah. Assembly member Ransom, come on up. This file item for a b twenty thirty two.
Dealing with a very interesting subject, the golden muscle.
Speaker 1
It's learning about here. Yeah. We did not like the vape pen show and tell. That's right. Whenever you're ready.
Speaker 52
afternoon, chair and members. I wanna start by thanking your committee for the work on this bill. I have accepted both the committee water parks and wildlife committee's amendments just for awareness. I'm here to present assembly bill twenty thirty two, which is a critical bill that will allow local water agencies to quickly and effectively respond to the invasive golden mussel species. My community in San Joaquin County and the San Joaquin and the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta have been ground zero for golden mussel infestation, seeing the impacts firsthand.
First detected in October 24 in the Delta, the golden muscle has rapidly spread across the Delta and all along our state water project, now reaching as far south as San Diego. The golden muscles form dense colonies on critical water infrastructure, clogging and degrading our water delivery system across our state. This directly threatens our water systems that provide water to millions of Californians and millions of acres of farmland. With the chairs with the chairs, permission, chair Connolly, I would love to show a picture. Is that okay?
Speaker 52
Okay. Awesome. So this is a cluster of golden mussels, and this is what it looks like when they get into the water infrastructure. And so right now, the golden mussels are in a spawning season. Each golden mussel can produce 1,000,000 golden mussels.
And so a b 32 would help combat the spread of golden mussels by equipping our local water agencies with the necessary tools to expedite their response to prevent, mitigate, control, and hopefully eradicate golden mussels. This bill will ensure that water agencies can perform simple operational and maintenance work without delay. It would also allow water agencies with the guidance from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to perform necessary research studies to create more robust and effective control plans. Lastly, this bill will require our relevant agencies including the Department of Pest icide Regulation and the state water board to identify existing tools that enable a streamline or faster administrative process for responding to the golden mussels. Without urgent action, California families will bear the cost through higher water rates and increased food prices.
AB twenty thirty two ensures that we can act quickly to mitigate the ongoing golden muscle crisis. I will respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes. And with me today, I have Kristen Olsen representing the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, Ernie Abula, who is the Contra Costa Water District Board President, and lastly, doctor Cindy Meyer, can answer any technical questions. I'm gonna turn it over to my witnesses. Thank you.
Speaker 42
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and members. My name is Kristen Olson, and I'm here on behalf of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority in support of AB twenty thirty two and a proud cosponsor with the Contra Costa Water District. I'd like to start by thanking assembly member Ransom for her attention to this critically important issue along with assembly member Pappin who's been working hard on it as well. The authority's mission focuses on operation and maintenance of the Jones and O'Neil pumping plants, which deliver water through the Central Valley to communities, agriculture, and wildlife habitat.
Speaker 10
The invasive golden mussels pose an immediate and potentially catastrophic threat to our water conveyance system and a long term risk to the health of the Bay Delta ecosystem. A coordinated rapid response to the golden mussel invasion is essential to mitigate the impacts and protect our ability to convey water. Despite the coordination between the state and local water agencies, the response has not been rapid enough to control the spread of the impacts of golden mussels. AB twenty thirty two provides critical approaches to address this problem. It enables rapid response by streamlining regulatory pathways, expediting permitting for effective treatments, and allowing essential maintenance to proceed to protect critical infrastructure while implementing best management practices and environmental protection measures.
Speaker 42
It also improves coordination between the state and water agencies, identification of infested water bodies, and enables research for effective mitigation. California needs to recognize the seriousness of this threat and not inhibit rapid response efforts. AB twenty thirty two ensures agencies can respond quickly to protect California's food and water supplies. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your I vote. And as assembly member Ransom indicated, we do have doctor Cindy Meyer here of the water authority who can answer any technical questions.
Thank you.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon, chair Connolly and committee members. I'm Ernie Avila, the president of the board for Contra Costa Water District, here in support as cosponsor of a b twenty thirty two. Contra Costa Water is an urban water provider serving 550,000 customers in Central And Eastern Contra Costa County. We are wholly dependent on the delta for our water supply with over ninety years of experience operating in the delta. Contra Costa Water has adopted has adapted to changing conditions and presence of golden mussels poses an immediate threat to our infrastructure and the infrastructure throughout the delta as well as the health of the delta ecosystem.
Speaker 60
Contra Costa Water first detected golden mussels at our intakes when the state detected golden mussels elsewhere in the Delta, and we took action using every tool possible knowing the severity of the situation. We proactively applied for and secured a permit to use a promising copper based treatment knowing that there was a lengthy permitting review process involved. Contrast Water has environmental permitting experts on staff, and it still took five months to secure the permit through one chemical application. We're working with local, state, and federal agencies, academic researchers, and industry to identify successful treatment and control options. AB twenty thirty two would streamline the permitting process, which will help water agencies respond with the urgency that this situation requires.
AP twenty thirty two also provides a path to obtaining the clear guidance needed from experts and making the permitting process more efficient. It will save staff resources for water agencies and resource agencies as well. The improved infestation mapping included in AP twenty thirty two will provide key data points needed as agencies statewide work collaboratively for long term solutions. Based on CCWD's experience, a b twenty thirty two provides practical tools needed to navigate the immediate and urgent response warranted to address the threat that golden mussels pose to water systems and the Delta ecosystem. Therefore, we urge an I vote.
Speaker 55
Good afternoon. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.
Speaker 59
Andrea Aberjal with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.
Speaker 45
Sophie Marine with the Association of California Water Agencies in support.
Speaker 46
Good afternoon. Dennis Albioni on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and San Gabriel MWD we support. Thank you.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon. Taylor Trifo on a variety of agricultural associations. We don't have an official position, but we appreciate the author's effort, and we look forward to taking a position with the Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Is there opposition of the bill? Seeing none. Why don't we bring it back to the committee?
Speaker 12
I already spoke on this bill this morning, but I gotta I gotta say, I I I gotta repeat my comments because it it really is true. I love this bill because it's about two things, governmental efficiency and solving a very serious problem. And so as I said, I I admire the author's fortitude in bringing this, and, I look forward to getting it done. So thank you.
Speaker 1
And vice chair second. And also, did hear this bill as well on natural resources. I appreciate the great work and the coalition you're putting together on it. With that, would you like to close?
Speaker 52
Of course. Thank you, mister chairman, for the kind words regarding this bill. I wanna appreciate our our sponsors as well as my witnesses for coming forth today to make the case for why we need to quickly move to eradicate golden muscles. There is a term in government that I hate, which is the wheels of government turn slow. We cannot afford to allow that to be the mantra when it comes to golden muscles as they are currently impacting the infrastructure right now.
And so AB twenty thirty two is about urgently responding to the crisis and protecting California's families and farmers' access to affordable water. And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
And if I'm correct, not only is it an urgent issue, it's an urgency measure. Right?
Speaker 1
Okay. So we should probably clarify with the motion and second. This is both on urgency and the bill. With that understanding, we will go ahead and do a roll call vote.
Speaker 14
Thank you. This is file item number four a b 2032 authored by assembly member Ransom. The action is due or motion is due pass as amended with urgency to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 1
We are going to move to mister Zabur, file item 11, a b twenty five forty nine. Actually, can we real quickly also do the consent calendar while I have everyone? Move. And second. Let's do a roll call.
Speaker 13
The proposed consent calendar is item number 12 a b two four seven seven, seven authored by assembly member Chen. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. File item number 13 a b five seven seven authored by assembly member Connolly. The motion is due passed to the committee on judiciary. File item number 14, a b two seven seven six, and item file item number 15, a b two seven seven seven, both committee bills with the motions due passed to the committee on appropriations.
Speaker 14
Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Ellis? Aye.
Ellis, aye. Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo, Lee?
Speaker 61
Morning, mister chair, members. Today, I'm proud to present a b twenty five forty nine, which will provide necessary compliance improvements to the state's covered battery embedded product or CBEP program. In 2022, California expanded the definition of covered electronic devices under the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 to include covered battery embedded products. The purpose of this being to ensure the state was planning underway aimed at, the safe collection and recycling of battery embedded products. A covered battery embedded products are those, of that contain a battery that is not designed to be easily removed by the user with no more than commonly used household tool tools.
The new definition in that bill, covered electronic devices, was subsequently ruled on by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Cal Recycle, in a recent rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, among new re the new regulations, a number of compliance issues emerged specifically regarding the manufacturer notification project process to reset CalRecycle. These complications have since created significant compliance ambiguities and liability exposure for retailers increasing cost of products that fall under the scope of CDEP and hindering the success of the program. Without clear compliance obligations and program standardization for the regulated entities involved, implementation of this critical program will result in California falling behind its recycling and environmental goals as well as drive up costs for consumers. AB twenty five forty nine aims to address this by adding critical statutory clarifications and fixes.
Specifically, it standardizes the use of UPC universal product codes and template notice designs in the manufacturer notices as so this will streamline the identification of reported products that are in the scope and create critical uniformity among notices. It requires manufacturer notifications to go directly to Cal Recycle, making the department a central repository for all manufacturing notices and ensuring that there's one unified database for all products falling within the scope of the bill. It exempts thrift stores from the requirements of the CBEP program as these establishments receive secondhand or even fourthhand goods, leaving them unable to be certain of where their products originated from. And lastly, it provides some amount of delayed implementation for discount stores to onboard onto the CBE program one year as these stores often have outdated point of sale systems and can benefit from the extra time for compliance and to avoid liability concerns. AB twenty five forty nine will strengthen the management and recycling of battery embedded products in order to advance California's environmental goals.
This bill is essential for ensuring regulatory compliance while also achieving the critical cost savings to consumers, businesses, and the state and making sure that our recycling programs are working. I want to thank your staff for their work on the bill. I know they raised two minor technical issues, which we're committed to working with you on to continue to address as the bill moves forward. We also have been working with Californians against ways to raise a couple concerns, and we're gonna continue working with them to address those concerns as well. With that, I'd like to with me today in support of the bill is Sarah Polamu the California Retailers Association.
Speaker 31
Thank you, assembly member. Hello again, chair and committee members, and wanna thank assembly member Zabar for introducing this fix it bill for the California battery embedded product program. We're several issues have surfaced during the rule making process for s b twelve fifteen, which CRA worked throughout last year with CalRecycle to identify. These issues include inefficiencies and lack of standards in the manufacturer notification process that has created significant compliance burdens and liability exposures for retailers, driving up the cost for products that fall under the scope of CBEP without achieving program objectives. These program deficiencies require several statutory fixes to ensure program meets environmental goals while preserving consumer affordability, which I'm just gonna briefly reiterate.
CRA worked with Cal Recycle to identify many of these fixes throughout the year last year. First, requiring universal product code and manufacturer notices. Current statute lacks UPC requirements, forcing retailers to chase model numbers with model numbers varying by year. The next fix requires manufacturer notices to only go to Cal Recycle and to no longer go to retailers. Right now, the manufacturer notices are very hard to chase down.
They're going to random stores and whoever, manufacturers contacts whatever contacts they have, and it's not always the right contacts. A third fix in a b twenty five forty nine is to standardize the template and file format. Right now, we are getting data dumps in incompatible formats from manufacturers. Sometimes we get Excel spreadsheets. Sometimes we get screenshots.
Sometimes we get CBS. Sometimes we get Word files. Standardized templates will streamline the point of sale system coding and compliance verification and reduce administrative burden and error rates significantly. We're hoping to build off of the great website and database CalRecycle already has and just implement a simple upload form with a link where manufacturers would click on the link, upload their notices, and those would go directly onto the website, of course, redacting proprietary information. A b twenty five forty nine also seeks to strengthen CalRecycle as a single source of truth for CBEP product scope, alleviating the current issue retailers face with uncertainty and significant litigation risk under the program as it stands now.
We also update the five day turnaround time for programming point of sale systems to sixty days as large point of sale systems have a wide variety of times that it takes to program, and it's a lot more than five days. And finally, a b twenty five forty nine proposes exempting thrift stores from the program. Thrift stores oftentimes get products from second, third, and fourth hand and have no idea or possibility of figuring out where the products came from. And lastly, as, assembly member Zuber mentioned on the discount stores, these are for true discount stores only. We worked, with the assembly ESTM committee on the definition, and this would be to delay implementation so that they can update their very old legacy point of sale systems.
CRA is grateful to the member for carrying this important legislation, and we look forward to implementing these fixes and making the CBEP program work for everyone, including the environment, consumers, the economy. And I just wanna add, we've had many conversations with the California Product Stewardship Council, Californians Against Waste. I'm working on talking with rural county representatives in Rethink Waste. Those four entities submitted a concerns letter, and we are working on language to resolve those concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Okay. Do we have any remaining members in the public that would indicate the support? Anyone in support? Okay. Do we have anybody in opposition?
Speaker 26
Not here in official opposition. Kayla Robinson, from Californians Against Waste. Here with the concerns as was alluded to by the author and sponsor, I I first just wanna say thank you so much for introducing this important measure. I think for the majority of the bill, we think it actually eases implementation. It's really important all of the issues that you've raised and just appreciate all of your work with CalRecycle to kind of identify some of these challenges.
Speaker 62
So starting with the positive side of things, I think our one outstanding concern is around enforcement and just making sure that this bill doesn't undermine enforcement, but look forward to working with you, both of you on this bill and hope to find, threading the needle on this issue. So thank you so much.
Speaker 35
Mandy Strela on behalf of Rethink Waste. Just echoing the comments of CAW and wanna thank you for continuing the conversation. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We'll bring it back to the dais. Committee members, questions or comments? Got a motion?
Speaker 24
I just wanna say thanks for protecting the thrift stores. Yeah. California's thrift stores are wonderful. It's one of my daughters' my favorite activities, and I think the move here is really important.
Speaker 1
put. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. I understand there will be continued conversations to work through some of the issues. We know you're committed to that. Our committee staff, as always, is here to help.
Keep us in the loop. With that, would you like to close?
Speaker 61
You know, this bill is about making this recycling program work and work in ways that, you know, does not harm the ultimate goals of the program. And so I just wanna thank the bill sponsor, California Retailers Association, and thank members of the committee, and thank your staff for working with us on the bill. And with that, I request an aye vote.
Speaker 1
And this does have an aye reco. We have a motion and second. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 14
File item number 11, AB2549 offered by assembly members of Burr. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 14
Connolly, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo, Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
McKinnar? Aye. McKinnar, aye. And Pappin? Pappin, aye.
Speaker 1
That matter carries, and we will leave it open for absentee members. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
we were gonna have mister Lee do Celeste Rodriguez. And then you're best for last. And me.
Speaker 6
Thank thank you, chair and members of the committee. On behalf of assembly member Celeste Rodriguez, I'm proud to present a b twenty three zero two. The author accepts the committee amendments, and thanks, Commissat, for their work. I think it's a fitting bill that I'm presenting for Celeste Rodriguez while she is celebrating the her newborn baby here because AB twenty three zero two addresses a critical gap in California law by requiring branded infant formula manufacturers to test for toxic elements, including lead and arsenic, and to make their results publicly available on their websites. This legislation builds on California's leadership just as we previously acted to hold baby food manufacturers accountable when federal protections have fallen short.
Speaker 47
Our constituents want information and seek out safety information about the products they eat, use, and wear every day. AB twenty three zero two empowers parents and caregivers by ensuring that they are given the necessary information to make healthy choices for their children. With me today, I have Brian Runholm, director of food policy at consumer reports and from Carl and Carly and from Carly Clemens, senior policy associate at Children Now in support of a b twenty three zero two.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon, mister chairman and committee members. I'm Brian Ronholm. I'm director of food policy for Consumer Reports. We're a 90 year old independent nonprofit that does frequent testing, and we work for a fair and just marketplace. I appreciate the opportunity today to testify on behalf of AB twenty three zero two.
Consumer Reports recently conducted two testing projects of contaminants in infant formula. Our study last year in March 2025 found nearly half of the samples tested have potentially harmful levels of at least one contaminant, including the toxic elements listed in a b twenty three zero two. A follow-up study that we conducted earlier this year produced similar results with concerning levels detected in 26 of 49 formulas we tested. However, there was some good news from these studies. First, our results show that there are many safe, inexpensive formula options on the market for parents today, and we can't emphasize that enough.
And manufacturers can already make formulas without concerning levels of contaminants. Second, many formula manufacturers explained to Consumer Reports that they already perform this kind of testing on their products on a regular basis for their own information. So it'd be no additional burden to them. The concept of toxic elements being an infant formula can be scary. It's more troubling when parents can't access this information to evaluate risk.
Speaker 17
A recent national poll commissioned by Consumer Reports found that 90% of respondents indicated that infant formula manufacturers should be required to test for toxic elements and report the results. An identical transparency requirement in California law is already working for baby food products. A separate study conducted by Consumer Reports and another nonprofit, Unleaded Kids, found that while some companies need to improve the way results are disclosed, a number of manufacturers are providing test results in straightforward ways that consumers can understand. There's zero confusion among consumers. They understand that the lower number is best.
Speaker 40
AB twenty three zero two would empower parents and caregivers with the information they need to feel confident about the infant formula they feed their babies, and I ask for your support for the bill. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
Speaker 63
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Carly Clemens. I specialize in children's environmental health at Children Now. We are proud to sponsor AB twenty three zero two by assembly member Celeste Rodriguez. The American Academy of Pediatrics is clear that there is no safe level of lead for children, and even very low levels have been shown to impact children's health and development.
Lead poisons the brain, and it makes it hard for children to learn, pay attention, and behave. Arsenic, cadmium, and mercury are also linked to neurodevelopmental problems, and early life exposures are especially dangerous. Exposures to toxic elements accumulate over time and compound harms. We have heard from pediatricians who specialize in environmental toxicology and who are in support of this bill that removing sources of exposure is the best way to keep kids safe. We also see that babies are getting sick or even dying from issues with formula despite industry claims that infant formula is the most heavily regulated food on the market.
The US Food and Drug Administration regulates some aspects of infant formula, like nutritional content and testing for bacteria, but the FDA has not even set safety levels for environmental contaminants in infant formula. It's not clear when the FDA will set safety standards, and California's babies can't wait. We hear that formula manufacturers do their own testing for toxic elements, but they do not make these results available to consumers, to pediatricians, or to state WIC agencies. There are three infant formula manufacturers that make up 80% of The US market. California's attorney general recently settled lawsuits with two of those three after concerning levels of lead were found in their products.
Speaker 8
Those manufacturers are required to test their products to make sure that lead does not exceed an established level and to report the results. AB twenty three zero two would level the playing field by requiring all formula manufacturers to test their products for toxic elements in addition to lead and to report test results. As we've seen with baby food and AB eight nine nine, which was approved by this committee in 2023, transparent information bolsters consumer confidence rather than scaring people away. All babies deserve to be safe from environmental toxins and formula, and all caregivers deserve access to transparent information about what they feed their babies. I respectfully ask for your support for a B twenty three zero two.
Speaker 42
Nora Angela's with Children Now. The following organizations ask that we note their support. California WIC Association, Center for Environmental Health, California League of United Latin American Citizens, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety, Our Green Challenge, GMO Science, and Recolt Energy. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support.
Speaker 39
Nancy Buehermeyer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support. Thanks.
Speaker 48
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Missy Johnson here on behalf of the Infant Nutrition Coalition of America, otherwise known as INCA. INCA represents leading domestic manufacturers of infant formula, and infant formula is the most highly regulated food in The US food supply, and our members take the commitment to to deliver safe formulas to the most vulnerable population very seriously. Simply put, safety and quality are the priority. As was already mentioned, our industry already tests for heavy metals as a part of our long standing commitment to provide safe, high quality infant formula products.
As the results of those tests show, our products comply with heavy metal standards established by the European Food Safety Authority, the European Commission, the joint FAO WHO expert committee on food additives and codex. It's important to note that buried in the consumer reports article is a statement that all the formulas tested were, below the EU limits for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Simply put, the article says the products are safe. Requiring infant formula, infant formula manufacturers to post qualitative testing results before the FDA has announced any action levels for formula is more likely to cause unwarranted, confusion or alarm than to provide helpful information. Absent FDA guidance, a number like one part per billion cadmium would not communicate anything meaningful to parents about the formula's safety or compliance with FDA regs.
Speaker 30
Adding infant formula could conceivably lead parents and caregivers to resort to alternative feeding options such as homemade formulas or worse yet buying the formula on social media. It's available. There is a resell market for breast milk on social media that do not do not meet FDA safety and quality standards for complete nutrition and lack the nutrients necessary for growth and development, which are very dangerous to infants' health and well-being. In addition to testing to international standards, there are current FDA regulations that guard against high levels of heavy heavy metals in infant formula. As a part of these obligations, manufacturers identify potential risk for heavy metals and monitor heavy metals across raw raw materials and finished product batches.
Speaker 48
While we appreciate the intent of twenty three zero two, it overlooks important differences in infant formula and the baby foods currently covered by, the heavy metal legislation here and in other states. There have been no congressional reports asserting elevated levels of heavy metals and infant formulas as there have been for baby foods. And according to both FDA and industry testing, heavy metals are present in infant formula at trace levels that are far lower than those have been reported in baby foods. And indeed, the FDA stated in March that its recent testing did not indicate that heavy metals are present in infant formulas at levels that would trigger a public health concern. And for those reasons, we're opposed.
Speaker 9
Thank you. My name is Craig Fellner. I'm the government affairs director for the Infant Nutrition Council of America. Missy touched on the unique requirements placed on infant formula manufacturers to test for ingredients once it enters enters the facility and that our industry already tests for heavy metals under limits established by the European Union. Heavy metals in trace amounts have existed in our environment and on the in in the water and on our land and in the animals that we eat.
They're in vegetables, meats, even organically grown plants and animals, and even in breast milk. I wanted to talk a little bit about the consumer reports piece and then touch on one other issue that we have with the bill, and then we'd we'd be happy to answer any questions. We are concerned that including infant formula in a b twenty three zero two would be required to bear a statement about, quote, toxic element testing, unquote. The word toxic is not only inaccurate as it relates to trace levels of heavy metals in infant formula, but potentially alarming to parents. Again, the FDA has stated that heavy metals in infant formula do not, quote, do not indicate, quote, a public health concern, unquote.
Absent such a demonstrated concern require requiring formulas to bear the word toxic might be misleading to parents and caregivers and mislead them into thinking that these products are unsafe and or jeopardizing infant health with alternatives that are truly are unsafe. We do not recommend any actions that might unjustly erode confidence in the The US inform US infant formula product system, inadvertently threatened products that meet all FDA regulatory requirements. This council's in favor of keeping the testing and reporting to only baby food, which mirrors the approach taken by Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois. And I just wanted to touch briefly on the consumer reports piece as I mentioned. In 2025, I'm reading from the report.
The article says in 2025 tests, none of the formulas were tested were above our level of concern for lead. We use California's maximum daily limit as our reference, but several infinite several formulas landed between half of that level and just below that level. And, again, to echo what Missy said, none of the infant formulas in the last two years tested below EU limits. Furthermore, in 2026, let me quote from the Consumer Reports piece as well. While the FDA doesn't set limits on arsenic in infant formula, the European Union does.
Speaker 43
And all the formulas in our tests fall below the EU limits 20 parts per billion inorganic arsenic for powdered formula and 10 parts per billion for liquid formula. The levels of heavy metals in the consumer reports detected in for that consumer reports detected in, formulas are very low, just a few parts per billion. To put that in perspective, a single parts per billion equals a single grain of sand and 730 pounds of sand. FDA is still in the process of determining action levels for heavy metals and infant formulas, unlike non formula baby foods for which certain action levels are already have already been established. For example, the FDA has already proposed or finalized actions for lead and non pharmacophagus.
Speaker 9
Thanks. Income members look forward to working with the FDA to establish action levels for heavy metals and infant formula and to enhance public awareness about the protective measures already in place. Thank you for your time. We look forward to questions.
Speaker 22
Aaron Raiden on behalf of Consumer Brands Association in respectful opposition.
Speaker 1
K. We're gonna bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Vice chair?
Speaker 16
a comment. You know, back to your point in parts per billion. When you're in the science world, PPB is basically nondetect, especially at the levels you just quoted. And then and then one one of the things that has always concerned me when I talk we talk about these baby formulas, you know, we we need we talk about lead, mercury, cadmium, vanadium. There's there's basically, like, 13 heavy metals, but some are good for you.
We need some zinc in our body. You know, it's like aspirin too. It'll you, 12 will hurt you. So so we need to find that bal balance. But when you talk about mercury and lead and arsenic, there are different valence states of arsenic that are insoluble.
So I would think at those levels, it's really, really insoluble. And if we could I I would be curious if we could could really do soluble leaching characteristics on some of these baby formulas. But at those levels, I'm telling you, it's it's nondetect. It's basically nothing. So I'm I'm gonna oppose this bill today for the simple reason.
I don't think the technical the science is there to justify it. It's it's it's already being done. Thank you guys very much.
Speaker 24
think this bill I'm just gonna take my moment because this bill highlights the failures of the green chemistry, at DTSC, which frankly should have been who dealt with this, and they don't. And so here we are. And again and again, they need to get their act together and do more than one product every ten years. So, just a shout out for DTSC to do better. And, I will say, I thought your point was well taken about advertising these as toxic, but then I looked at the bill.
And the bill does define toxic element, as you noted, and it defines five things as toxic element, aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. But then it requires the manufacturers to test the toxic elements and then list the health fact, it's a list, the amount of each toxic element. It never says you have to call it a toxic element. So you can say this much mercury, this much cadmium, this much arsenic. So I actually would venture to guess that your manufacturers won't call it toxic.
And I don't think you have to. And if somebody disagrees with my reading of the language, I think it's something we could look at. But, I mean, my clear reading of the language says, never here does it say you have to list the word toxic element. You have to give the amounts of each of the elements as defined in legislation, and zero new parents are gonna look at this piece of legislation. I can promise you that.
And so I'm not worried at the language here. I'd be worried of what was public facing. And so I think that I just wanted to make that point because it was one of the most resonant with me until I looked at the language.
Speaker 1
If there's a question, otherwise, no. But we'll go ahead very quickly then.
Speaker 9
Okay. Very quickly. The bill, actually, there's just quotation marks around. So the bill does two things. It has requirements, for a manufacturer before a federal standard is set and the requirements for a manufacturer once a federal standard is set.
And so once a federal standard is set, there's a requirement to put a QR code on there with the the the letters or with with the words toxic you know, for more information on this toxic toxic elements, click here. So so it will bill
Speaker 24
requires an exact wording? Yeah. I don't see that word used to that language.
Speaker 9
I can get it to you following this, but it's in it's in quotation marks. And that's that's what we're trying to avoid. There's a situation here where when you talk about
Speaker 1
Actually, we're gonna move on at this point. Yeah. Sorry about that. No problem. But we we can follow-up.
Speaker 24
I would appreciate that because I don't see that in the language from what I'm looking at, although I looked at it very quickly because it wasn't something that was highlighted to me prior. But I don't think that's the intent of the author. I think the intent of the author and she's not here, but I will speak for her a little bit because I think I know what's going on here as a former mama or current mama. The former. So
Speaker 24
Some they're teenagers, so some days. But they you know, I I I think that, you know, we were sort of chatting a little bit about how most busy parents, frankly, won't look at this. Like, I I think that reality is true. But for those that do want to do this research, they should have a right to, and they should be able to know. And and, honestly, I think that the effect of this is that it will drive competition, and that is really powerful.
And so, you know, the ability for the public to know this, I think, is powerful in giving that information. It's similar to the struggles I have around sunscreen where people say things in sunscreen are evil, and yet sunscreen critical. You don't wanna get skin cancer. And so you know? But the ability to compare products and decide which one has the elements that I'm concerned about and which don't makes me make choices, and I still put sunscreen on my children.
So I think people will still feed their children baby formula, but the consumers will have a choice. And so if there are is the language in here that will scare parents specifically? I think that is something the author should work on, and I don't think that's her intent. I think her intent is to cons give consumers choice, and I think I see her staff nodding in the background, so I appreciate that. So she's well represented here if she's watching.
And, you know, I'm happy to support it today, I think this effort's really important. But I think we can get to a place where we're not scaring parents and we are giving information.
Speaker 48
Mister chair, if I could, I found the language. It says a statement that reads, for information about toxic element testing on this product, scan the QR code. So it is here. Oh, it is here.
Speaker 24
Okay. Well, so I do think that that is something that hopefully the author will look at, specifically that language.
Speaker 1
maybe Okay. So we're gonna we're gonna we get the point. We're gonna follow-up on that, and we're gonna go to assembly member McKinnon.
Speaker 25
Hello. Good afternoon. I'm I'm currently a baby mama, but I just have to say I have babies. But I'm a grandmama. Same.
And so, the FDA is now, setting regulation Operation Stork Speed. Right?
Speaker 25
And so for me, I'm not a scientist, you guys. All of this, I would love it to be in one place in the federal government where they're telling us if our stuff is safe or not, even though we're not always trusting the federal government right now. But it's just a this is a glitch in time. It won't always be like this. The the world will get back to the right side.
And so if they're if they're setting, regulations now and they're going back and looking at why are we now trying to set regulation, that's kinda I'm curious on that.
Speaker 40
Yeah. So the FDA has been very effective in outlining their attention on these issues. However, they haven't been able to follow through on any meaningful regulatory action when it comes to store speed or closer to zero, anything related to heavy metals, they haven't been able to move forward with any meaningful regulatory active activity on it. What's been happening is they've they've called a lot of attention to it. They've used their bully pulpit to call attention to this issue, and they've been very effective with that.
So we certainly commend them for that. But actually following through with actual regulatory enforcement, that's been lacking, and that's not gonna be forthcoming, anytime soon.
Speaker 25
And and how long have they been working on this? I'm sorry. Just really
Speaker 40
year? In addition that was in response to our test results on infant formula.
Speaker 25
That's one year. You wait until you watch us do something. Right. It'll take two years.
Speaker 9
Yeah. The just to add to that, the FDA has finalized, closer to zero, heavy metal levels for, baby food, in some baby foods. So, they're getting they're moving their way towards it. They did announce in March 2025 with operations torque speed that they're gonna set heavy metal limits. Secretary Kennedy said about a month or so ago that in ape 2026, he's gonna, release a report, which is precursor to setting those limits for infant formula.
And so, that's kind of the status of it. But they have they have done, limits for baby food, and they have a report coming out on infant formula.
Speaker 63
And if I may add to that quickly, they have done limits for some of these elements in baby food. They are forthcoming for cadmium. There is no limit for cadmium. They have been working
Speaker 63
for years. The baby food bill passed in 2023. There is a lead limit, but they are being done at an element by element basis, so it is taking some time. And since Operation came up, I would love to just share a quote from the expert panel that was convened this summer. A main takeaway from that expert panel convened by the FDA to inform Operation Stork Speed was that increased transparency from the US FDA regarding most recent contaminant levels is critical for rebuilding consumer trust and the safety of United States formulas.
So to Brian's point, they're using their pulpit to make us all aware of this concern, but the actual limits are not established yet for babies.
Speaker 48
Yes. Say this is that poor mothers that are uneducated and poor are not gonna read this. And so if this bill is just to do a list of what's in it, it's not going to help poor mothers because poor mothers who are uneducated, they're just not going to read this and they're going to go forward. I would think that this is for more affluent mothers will be reading the the even though consumers should have it, but you really have to look at it. It's more affluent mothers that are gonna read these ingredients.
Speaker 63
Absolutely. And no one should have to take the time to do this research if it's Yeah.
Speaker 63
We will say, though, that we have spoken with many pediatricians who do make recommendations to their patients. And they do do this research, they do look at these studies and these results. And equipping them with the capacity to do those comparisons
Speaker 63
Apologize. The pediatricians will, and they can share those results during a well child visit.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Good discussion. I wanted to thank, both the author, she's listening, and staff is here, assembly member Lee for presenting. Good job. Just a couple of quick thoughts.
The bill complements prior legislation, now law, that requires the same kind of public transparency for baby food and prenatal vitamins. Altogether, I think these bills help protect our youngest children across the spectrum of development from heavy metals. I appreciate the author's willingness to continue engaging with stakeholders as this moves forward. I think that was again underscored today. To ensure parents can make the best choices for their children, we obviously remain available here at the committee.
With that, I'll ask for a motion. Oh, I and, also, are you accepting amendments on behalf of the other? I thought you said that earlier. Correct. We've got a motion.
Second. And second.
Speaker 47
Yes. Just very just very quickly, you know, again, I'm very happy to present this bill on behalf of our colleagues, Leslie Rodriguez, is celebrating our newborn, and this is very top of mind for many newborn parents. They wanna be able to feed their children not toxic materials, not toxic food. Right? And I think, again, as the chair said, this is very consistent with what this committee and legislature has been doing, especially when it comes to baby food.
And in an ideal world, yes, we want the FDA, the federal government to be setting high world class standards, but we don't live in that period right now. Perhaps there will be good standards that come out of, new federal regulations. But for the time being, you know, newborn mothers can't we, especially poor mothers who don't have the time to do a lot of research. So it's equipping people with as much information as out there as possible so they can understand this. I also wanna remind folks, as we say in this committee a lot, there's no absolute safe level of lead ever in anything given to any human beings.
And so while they could be very low and acceptable by EU standards, that's great, but we also wanna make sure that information is really accessible to people. Absent that, people have no idea. People have no idea whether they are accessing companies are responsible and doing their due diligence to make sure their baby products aren't full of toxic materials, or they could be doing something with full of toxic materials. So I think this is really about empowering parents, giving them as much information as possible, and then, of course, empowering pediatricians to to inform those parents. I know the author worked really hard continually on this bill, and can you work on amendments and folks?
I would like to ask to be added as a coauthor to this measure. I I don't know if I'm asking myself or asking. Yeah. I'm not at this point, but I'd like to add as a coauthor You got it. And or so fast your iPhone.
Speaker 14
File item number eight eighty two three zero two authored by, assembly member Celeste Rodriguez. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Connolly.
Speaker 14
Connolly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo, Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
McKinnon?
Speaker 1
Absolutely. Item 10, assembly bill twenty four forty seven, Bauer Cahan.
Speaker 24
They're the they're supposed to do this job. They just don't do it. That's what I was talking about. No. And it's been this committee.
I mean, I'm this committee's been working on that for seven years I've been here. And I know the chair is working on it. Are. Diligently. I'm on mic probably.
Sorry. DTSC is probably listening.
Speaker 24
Okay. Thank you, mister chair and members of the committee. I'm proud to present a b twenty four forty seven, the Nitrogen Pollution Reduction Act, and I wanna thank the committee staff for their engagement and their work on the bill. Simply put, a b twenty four forty seven ensures that California protects clean water for people and ecosystems by reducing the nitrogen fertilizer pollution. California officials have been aware of this problem since the nineteen sixties, and more than two decades ago, the state water board created the irrigated lands regulatory program to address the overapplication of these fertilizers.
The program is not working, and wells continue to test above safe drinking water thresholds, and and upwards of 600,000 predominantly low income families currently lack access to safe drinking water. Those statistics in and of themselves should be staggering. But as are the impacts of this type of pollution on human health and the environment, nitrate contaminated drinking water has been linked to blue baby syndrome, higher rates of leukemia, lymphoma, and childhood brain cancer. The same polluted runoff goes into our lakes and our rivers fueling harmful algal blooms that sicken children and animals and threaten important species and the environment. The bill simply directs the state officials to establish clear limits on how much nitrogen fertilizer can be applied and encourages the adoption of sustainable farming practices that reduce this pollution.
Other countries have shown that these limits can be implemented. Denmark, for example, put in place policies to limit over application and saw, as a result, a 30 to 50% reduction in nitrate pollution. It's important to be clear that a b twenty four forty seven doesn't seek to prevent the use of these fertilizers, which is an important part of the growing process. It's merely about figuring out how much is appropriate. The bill seeks to set reasonable limits on its application and prevent the adverse effects caused by overapplication.
I I understand that there are issues with the timelines as I'm sure you will hear from the opposition, and we're committed to working with the opposition and the stakeholders to find a path forward that has timelines that work but allow us to get to a clean water future in California. AB twenty four forty seven is sponsored by NRDC and the Union of Concerned Scientists. And here with me to testify in support of the bill are Arohi Sharma, senior policy analyst at NRDC, and Akash Singh. I didn't wanna mispronounce your name. Everyone mispronounces my name.
Western States policy advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Good afternoon, although maybe closer to good evening. Chair Connolly and members of the committee, my name is Arahi Sharma. I'm a senior policy analyst with NRDC. So nitrogen pollution has been quietly poisoning air and water across California since the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 9
When excess nitrogen fertilizer leaches from fields, it becomes nitrate, a harmful contaminant linked to preterm births, colorectal and other cancers, and blue baby syndrome. Nitrogen runoff also fuels toxic algal blooms and contributes to climate change, and it's time to stop this pollution at the source. AB two four four seven adds accountability to California's existing nitrogen management program by setting clear goals, adding deadlines, and requiring regulators to set limits. Incentives, technical assistance, and data reporting, they're all valuable parts of the existing program, but alone, these efforts don't protect clean water. The Central Coast Regional Water Board reached the same conclusion, which is why it developed numeric limits in 2021.
Speaker 10
Numeric limits drive behavior change and results as demonstrated by countries across the European Union and New Zealand. Now contrary to what you may hear, limits are feasible. Many farmers in the Central Coast and in the Central Valley are already meeting limits that are protective of drinking water quality. According to the Central Valley's own data, a minority of fields are responsible for a majority of the pollution. We hear concerns about timelines and feasibility, and we're committed to working with stakeholders to reach a workable accountability framework that puts California on a clear path of achieving clean water for all.
We're committed to ensuring that the bill rewards farmers for using sustainable farming practices while ensuring communities and ecosystems are protected from super polluters. Now the exciting thing is California has an opportunity here to lead the country in showing that clean water and healthy farming economies can go hand in hand. We respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 56
Good afternoon. My name is Akashdeep Singh, and I'm a policy advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak in favor of two four four seven. Nitrogen pollution from excess nitrogen fertilizer contaminates drinking water sources with nitrates, a harmful contaminant linked to blue baby blue baby syndrome, preterm births, birth defects, childhood brain, ovarian, thyroid, kidney, and colorectal cancers, cases of which are rising at an alarming rate for adults 50. Nitrogen pollution also makes it more difficult for Californians to make ends meet in a difficult economy.
Health care visits, illnesses, hospitalizations, lost productivity, and premature deaths. As a chronically ill person, I can tell you these all add up. And as someone who's partially raised in the Central Valley, I've seen firsthand the costs, of of health, pressures, in farming communities. Economic losses to recreation, tourism, and commercial fisheries from algal blooms, millions. Cost from ag nitrogen pollution to the national economy, sixty to three hundred and thirty billion per annum.
Speaker 11
From airborne nitrous oxide pollution, 12,000,000,000. And California spent $83,000,000 on bottled water from 2019 to 2025 for communities that don't have access to clean drinking water. The status quo of nitrogen pollution in California is unacceptable. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of nitrate contamination leaches into our groundwater and waterways each year and pollutes our air through nitrous oxide. Every year of delay adds decades to clean up timelines at enormous financial and fiscal cost to California families and farmers.
Speaker 56
California can and should grow food without poisoning its communities and those whose hard labor puts food on our tables in the first place. I urge you to vote aye on 2447. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any, additional testimony in support of the bill? Please come forward.
Speaker 37
Alex Lumer on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Environmental Law Foundation, and with permission, the Yosemite Rivers Alliance, Santa Barbara Channel Keeper, and San Diego three fifty. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation in support.
Speaker 45
Good evening. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting registering support on California environmental voters. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good afternoon. JP Rose on behalf of NRDC in support and also voicing support for Wildlands Network, Center for Environmental Health, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, the Salvador e Albers Institute for Nonviolence, California League of United Latin American Citizens, American Nurses Association California, and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.
Speaker 12
Ruth McDonald, retired pediatrician in support on behalf of Climate Action California.
Speaker 52
Thank you. Thank you, chair Connolly, vice chair Ellis, and committee members. My name is Theresa Dunham. I'm a water quality attorney at Consores and Conway here in Sacramento. With me today is Charles Delgado.
He's a legislative advocate with California state association of counties, He's available to answer questions about how this bill may impact municipalities as part of committee discussion. I'm here today as the primary witness in opposition to twenty four forty seven because of my direct involvement in the state's irrigated lands regulatory program or ILRP and at the request to many agricultural entities that have registered their opposition to twenty four forty seven. To summarize, the ILRP is a comprehensive iterative program directed by the state water board and implemented through discharge permits issued by the nine regional water boards. These permits contain numerous discharge requirements and reporting obligations on farming operations to protect ground and surface waters from all pollutants, including nitrates associated with nitrogen based fertilizers. These permits already include limits like those in a b twenty four forty seven.
Under these permits, commercial irrigated agricultural lands are prohibited from causing or contributing to exceedances of the nitrate drinking water standard or surface water TMDLs. The primary difference is the water boards based on their expertise and in-depth knowledge have included reasonable time frames for when this limit must be met and certainly not four years from today. These permits also include milestones and targets set at various intervals designed to ensure ongoing movement towards meeting these limits. If milestones are not met, the water boards can impose additional restrictions or hasten the time for meeting these limits. This approach is perfect purposely designed to lead to compliance with limits while recognizing current challenges and limitations associated with meeting them.
This process is informed by cooperative stakeholder efforts that include agriculture, municipalities, environmental, and environmental justice groups. Most California crops cannot meet the standard imposed by 2447 today or in four years from now. This includes crops such as vegetables, fruits, almonds, pistachios, tomatoes, table grapes, and many more. Because of these real challenges, the water board's approach is informed by experts in the field and robust public engagement. Today, the state board has impaneled two expert panels to help guide the development of this rigorous but reasonably achievable program.
The second statewide expert panel is just now wrapping up their recommendations, which will be delivered to the state water board within the next several months. This expert panel
Speaker 52
I say, I'm I know I timed it. Apologies. This expert panel of academics and cooperative extension specialists acknowledge outright that meeting limits like the ones directed by a v twenty four forty seven would be challenging for farmers to achieve using current best management practices. In short, this bill sets forth an impostable standard that cannot be achieved. Further, this bill is not necessary because the state board and the regional boards are doing their jobs.
Farmers are already being regulated throughout California to protect groundwater from nitrate impacts. Finally, to protect public health for those most at risk, farmers along with other dischargers of nitrate are implementing programs to test domestic wells, provide alternative drinking water to residents, install home based treatment devices, seeking long term solutions, and doing all of this free of charge. For these reasons and on behalf of our diverse coalition, we request a no vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And just to note, if all members can stay here, this is our last bill. We're gonna we're gonna add on, and then this room needs to be taken over by another committee right after. With that, any additional opposition?
Speaker 44
Hi. I'm Gail Dellehan with Western Growers Association, and we are strongly opposed to the bill. We were disappointed that we were not able to meet with the author. She canceled the appointment that we had with her this morning. We hope that we can have another appointment with you.
Speaker 54
Eric Will on behalf of rural county representatives of California in respect of opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Dennis Alvy on behalf of the agricultural, several agricultural groups such as California Grading Feed, Seed, Pear Growers, and others. Thank you.
Speaker 55
Chris Anderson, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon. Taylor Trifo. I've been asked to register opposition on behalf of California Farm Bureau, African American farmers of California, American Pistachio Growers, California Ag Aircraft Association, California Association of Pest Control Advisors, California Citrus Mutual, California Cotton Genders and Growers, California Dairy Inc, California Fresh Fruit Association, California Pear Growers, California Tomato Growers, California Apple, avocado, blueberry, date, rice, strawberry, walnut, and olive oil commissions, East San Joaquin, Water Quality Coalition, Grower Shipper Association of Central California, Kern Water Collaborative, Nisei Farmers League, Olive Oil Growers Council of California, United Ag, Western Plant Health, Western Treatment Association, and Valley Water Collaborative. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Hard to follow that one. Cam Bestek with the Northern California Water Association in respect for opposition. Thank you. Good
Speaker 34
afternoon. Jamie Miner on behalf of Coelho Water District in opposition.
Speaker 38
Good evening. Anna Ferreira on behalf of Wine Institute, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chair members. Danny Merkley with the Guaco Group on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, opposed. Sorry. I can't be as long as Taylor.
Speaker 45
Good afternoon. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 27
Chair members, Paul Poister with Nutrient Ag Solutions, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 1
Thank you, everyone. Looking for any questions or comments from the committee. Second. We've got a motion and second. Senator Member Pappin.
Speaker 12
Okay. So, thank you for bringing the bill, and nobody likes, all these toxic things in when they're eating their food. So but, what do you say because I I had a whole lot of folks on the opposition come visit me, and they're very up in arms. And what do you say about this idea that, there are processes in place? We have a state water board of procedure that everybody all these stakeholders have been participating in to see what they can live with.
They sound very alarmed that they cannot meet this deadline and still produce food in a way that is safe and, you know, whatnot. So what what am I gonna do with this?
Speaker 24
Yeah. So I appreciate the question. And the bill is drafted intentionally to work within the process, which you you may note from looking at it. And the idea really is that it has been a decade of waiting, and the expert report did come out two weeks ago, I believe it was. And so things are starting to move.
But the point here is that this is really an urgent problem, and so we're putting a little bit of accountability on the agency. And this is not intended to replace the agency. Obviously, they're the ones who will set these limits. It is intended to create accountability and deadlines that will allow us get to a place where we are moving towards nitrate free water. And so I see it as, you know, it is definitely putting more pressure on them timelines.
And as I noted in my opening remarks, you know, we are open to conversations around the timelines that they think are, concerning, and we will continue to work with them. And I do apologize for canceling that meeting this morning. I am on my tenth bill presentation of the day. I was presenting bills during that meeting, so I can't as much as I've tried in my seven years to be able to be in two places at once, I haven't figured out how to do it, but we are rescheduling the meeting. And so we will continue to work with them.
But the idea really is to take the current processes and bump them up to make this possible.
Speaker 12
So maybe I'm misunderstanding. So you you are saying that this bill is saying complete the process within those years or to actually get certain limits set in place within the five years? I I I think I have some confusion.
Speaker 10
Yeah. Sure thing. So, yes, the assembly member is correct that it's the latter by setting, renewing brace discharge requirements before 2028, and updating those requirements to include limits that are regionally appropriate. Regionally appropriate. Correct.
Speaker 10
The regional boards get to figure that out. It's written in the in the legislation right now, and it's been, upheld and bolstered by the recommendations from the expert panel that the regional boards know their local climates and soil types best.
Speaker 12
Okay. So so to make sure I understand, so it is that you want them to set certain limits, but those could play out over time if the regional board so decided? Like, they could do it in tranches. I mean, one of the conversations I had was, like, it might take thirty five years, but they they might do things in tranches. Is that still something that you could anticipate or or no?
Speaker 10
Right. And so like the assembly members said, we're happy to work with opposition on figuring out what those timelines are.
Speaker 10
Yeah. So the way that the current legislation is written is that the regional boards and the state board must renew their waste discharge requirements with those numeric limits by 2028. And by 2030, ideally, we should be meeting those water quality limits of protecting drinking water quality and achieving all of the TMDLs in applicable basin plans. But like the assembly member mentioned, we're we understand that those timelines are, aggressive, but they are aggressive intentionally because communities have been dealing with this pollution for decades.
Speaker 12
But it's aggressive to come up with a plan more than aggressive to say, by 2028, you have to have x amount of discharge.
Speaker 12
Okay. Thank you. I I wonder just really drill down on that. Appreciate I appreciate you. You're having such a heartburn.
That didn't seem so unreasonable, but enlightened me.
Speaker 52
Well, I think she the second point that she said was, however, the bill says that you then have to comply with those limits in 2030. So you would have a two year time period as the bill is currently drafted to meet this numeric limit that no longer causes or contributes. So it is actually a two year limit of time under the current language of the bill as to when we would have to show compliance with the limit they would like imposed.
Speaker 12
I thought that I heard that there could be some in phases. In 2028, you decided to do some things in phases.
Speaker 52
Not the way the bill is currently drafted. The bill, as it currently is drafted, mandates compliance with limits by 2030 that no longer cause or contribute. She said now the regional boards may determine what that cause or contribute limit is, but she has but the bill as it currently is drafted mandates compliance with limits by 2030. There is no flexibility in the current language of the bill that the regional boards could change that.
Speaker 10
Right. I that's not the way that the language is written. The language says by 2028, regional boards must renew and update their waste discharge requirements to meet some of the provisions that are outlined in the bill. And then, yes, by 2030, that those regional boards the waste should no longer cause or contribute the nitrogen discharges should no longer cause or contribute to exceedances of the safe drinking water threshold for nitrate and other applicable TMDLs in basin plans. We acknowledge that the regional boards have the expertise, their own soil microclimates, their own water hydrologies.
We understand that. What we're saying is that the regional boards figure that out by 2028 and renew their waste discharge requirements by 2028, and then it start achieving the results and delivering results for communities and for California ecosystems by 2030. But if I may have something
Speaker 24
Go ahead, please. So I think here, I mean, what I'm hearing, and maybe it's what you're
Speaker 24
a different reading of the language, and that that happens. And we're in committee one. So
Speaker 24
So it goes from here to appropriations, I believe. But I will say that, you know, one of the things that we have said and, again, apology that I missed the committee this morning when I was put the meeting this morning when I was presenting is we have not you know? I mean, if there is an idea like you proposed here today of the tranches or something, we're open to those conversations. We have not been given that idea, for example. Or I have not, I guess I should say.
And so we will continue those conversations and look at how we achieve these goals. Obviously, the goal is clean water by a certain date certain.
Speaker 52
Okay. The only thing I would add is that's already in the permits. It's already been done. The water boards are already doing
Speaker 12
quite as long. And in some of my meetings with some of the opposition, they did say some of them are already achieving these things much faster, and which is great news, obviously. But, well, I I'm gonna vote for the bill today just so you know. I remember. But and I know you've been at this you know you know that these guys have to talk.
We gotta get to some place that works because I'm hearing this alarm like we food production is gonna be interfered with. Now, you know, there might be some hyperbole in that, might not. But, nonetheless, I am sympathetic to it because I like to eat, you know, or whatever. You know? But I don't wanna eat food that's got all this bad stuff in it.
So for whatever that's worth, I know. I think we can get there, but it's we're not there now. And so I would have trouble after this if we're still you know, both parties are way out here, and and twenty thirty is the alarm sound. That that might be very difficult. And I I'm I'm hearing you.
So that's where I am today.
Speaker 16
I know that we're crunched here for time, but, I wanna tell you that, I'm a farmer, and I add nitrogen to my crops. And if it wasn't for nitrogen, we might be lucky to get a quarter of the crop. So this is about economics across about the state of California, and and I'm not deminimizing the problem with nitrates at all. But this is a huge economical problem. When my crop agronomist says you need to add x amount of nitrogen, guess what?
We don't produce. We don't produce. That's a huge economical affordability issue. We talk about affordability. Okay.
Then I'll I'll get off that kick. Then I'd like to tell you about, nitrogen as it drops into the groundwater. The reason we have a lot of regional water quality control boards and they set their limits, just for informational purposes, are that the geological structures in these farming areas are a lot different. Some have clay where the nitrogen can permeate. Some other, areas have a lot of sand.
It'll drop right into the groundwater. If you if you take groundwater, if you take water analysis from the wells that are in sandy areas, you're gonna see more nitrates. In others, you're not. So that's why we have different. But but the water agencies are already working on this.
So I'm gonna close with a broad statement. We've talked about baby formulas here today. We've talked about PFAS contamination in water. We've talked about nitrogen. We have to be real careful to find a balance, and I don't know what that balance is in this case, but I'm gonna vote no because I don't feel comfortable with this bill.
But I do have a question for you. Sorry that took so long.
Speaker 16
You mentioned irrigated irrigated lands programs in the state water board. Is this a regulatory program, or what are some of the requirement participants?
Speaker 52
It is a regulatory program. Failure to participate can end up in enforcement and have. There are a number of different requirements related to not just nitrogen, but as well as pesticides. They're required to implement best management practices, report as to what those practices are that are being implemented. They are required to report how much nitrogen fertilizer they actually apply.
They are required to then report their yield to their coalition or, in some cases, to the water board, where that yield is then used to determine what is the amount of nitrogen that could potentially be available to leach groundwater. So we are reporting at a very high level, very detailed information with respect to nitrogen usage. There are also requirements related to gosh. There are so many. I don't even know where we got.
Irrigation and nutrient management plans, which means they have to have a plan that talks about specifically how they will irrigate and manage nutrients. Many of them also have to have certified nutrient management plans from agronomists to make sure that they do not overapply. So it is all heavily regulated, followed very carefully, and there is absolutely enforcement that the water boards bring if people fail to do as they are required under these existing permits.
Speaker 24
Yes. Thank you. I think, these bills are complicated. That's for sure. And, you know, we have incredible experts at the table, which I really appreciate, including our own committee staff.
And so, you know, as I said in my opening, and I'll say in my closing, we are absolutely committed to continuing to work on this to get it right. But clean water in California is should be a human right, and it shouldn't be that we have communities without it. And so let's work to do better, and that's what the bill attempts to do. That, respectfully ask for Ivo.
Speaker 1
Appreciate you bringing it forward. We know the importance of this issue, reducing nitrogen pollution to our overall health, to the human, right to water. I think the message we all, landed on is it'll be good to continue engaging in discussions about the bill's timeline. Yep. And I know you're very committed to that.
Speaker 1
mister and I reco. Do I have a motion and second on the bill? We already did. Okay. Great.
Let's have a roll call.
Speaker 14
This is file item number 10, a b two four four seven authored by assembly member Bauer Cahan. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 14
Connolly, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Bauer khan?
Aye. Bauer khan, aye. Castillo? No. Castillo, no.
Lee? McKinnar? Aye. McKinnar, aye. Pappin?
Aye. Pappin, aye. Your ayes. Thank you.
Speaker 14
So we're gonna start with some add ons. File item number one, chair voting aye, Castillo. We're gonna start from a file item one.
Speaker 14
Do pass as amended with urgency to the committee on insurance. Castillo? Castillo, no. File item two, a b 16 o three, authored by assembly member Schultz. Motion is due passed the committee on appropriations.
Custillo? Custillo, no. Lee McKinnon? Aye. McKinnon, aye.
One Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. I'm sorry. Okay.
So it's four ayes
Speaker 14
File item number three, a b, one six one two authored by assembly member Alanis. The motion is due passed to assembly public safety committee. Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye.
Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Lee? I.
McKinnon? Aye. McKinnon, aye. Six. File item number four, a b two zero three two.
Motion is due passed as amended with urgency to the committee on appropriations. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. McKinnon?
Speaker 14
McKinnon, aye. File item number five, a b 2034, authored by assembly member Eddie Addis. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Bauer Cahan?
Speaker 14
That's Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo? No. Castillo, no. Lee and McKinnon?
No.
Speaker 14
So we still so it's still on file. Okay. Can I'm getting confused with my paperwork. We k. File item number 6, AB2218.
I'm good. The motion is due passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Castillo?
Speaker 14
File item number seven a b two two four five authored by, assembly member Michelle Rodriguez. The motion is due passed to the assembly natural resources committee. Barakahan? Barakahan, aye. Castillo?
Pavodi?
Speaker 14
File item number eight, a a b two three zero two, authored by Celeste Rodriguez, do pass as amended to appropriations. Castillo?
Speaker 14
File item number nine, a b two three two two. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Castillo? No. Castillo, no.
Lee? Highlight item number 10, a b two four four seven, authored by Bauercan, do pass to the committee on appropriations.
Speaker 14
Lee, aye. File item number eleven, two five four nine, authorized Zabur. The motion is due passed to the committee on natural resources. Chair voting aye. Castillo?
Aye. Castillo, aye. Okay. Which one? What bill what file item is it?
Speaker 14
Okay. Opening the consent, vote as well. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye.
McKinnar?
Speaker 14
McKinnar, aye. That's seven zero. Adopted. File item 1AB1795 do pass as amended with urgency to the committee on insurance.
Speaker 14
Lee, aye. Bye. Bye. Can you wait? I think did you vote on everything?
Yeah. Sure. Okay. Never mind. Sorry.
Sorry. Sorry. I was just making sure.
Speaker 14
Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Everybody hold.
Sorry. But she voted.
Speaker 14
Lee, aye. Aye. File item number 3AB1612, do pass to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Lee?
Speaker 14
Lee, aye. Oh, thank you. File item four, a b two zero three two, do pass as amended with urgency to the committee on appropriations. Voted. Never mind.
A b number five, or file item number five, a B2034, do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Lee.
Speaker 14
Lee, aye. File item six, a b two two one eight, do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye.
File item number 72245, do pass the assembly natural resources committee. Lee?
Speaker 14
Lee, aye. File item number eight, a b two three zero two. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Yeah. That one's out.
Highlight item number 92322. Do pass the committee on appropriations. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.