On Sunday, the California Legislature wrapped up the 2007-2008 legislative session. In the final weeks and days of the session, both houses acted on hundreds of bills, many of which directly impact our environment. However, since Governor Schwarzenegger has promised to veto all bills sent to him before passage of a state budget, these bills will remain in the Legislature until there is an indication that he will review them on their merits or a budget is approved. Until then, the jury is out on whether or not this session can be called a success.
Here’s a quick summary of the top environmental bills that PCL was working on and following that were approved by the Legislature and are waiting to be sent to the Governor’s desk.
SB 68 (Kuehl) – Provides increased clarity during CEQA litigation by specifying that the parties that must be named in a lawsuit are limited to those who received an approval for the project and are listed by the public agency in its notice of determination or notice of exemption. The current uncertainty as to who must be named forces petitioners to cast a wide net and name all the parties they believe might have received an approval, resulting in unnecessary parties being included in a lawsuit.
AB 2222 (Caballero) – Directs the State Water Resources Control Board to recommend investments and policies necessary to assist regions throughout California in protecting and cleaning up vital groundwater resources.
AB 2970 (Eng) – Requires the Department of Water Resources to develop a Delivery Reliability Report for the State Water Project. This legislation advances accurate water planning by ensuring that water agencies base forecasts of water supply on reliable and scientifically valid information.
SB 974 (Lowenthal) – Establishes a fee of $30 per shipping container (20-foot equivalent) that passes through the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, with fee revenues used equally to improve infrastructure and reduce traffic congestion in port corridors and to reduce air pollution from the ports.
SBX2 1 (Perata) – Directs existing bond funds to programs and projects that will help stabilize the Bay Delta Estuary and increase water supply reliability throughout the state.
AB 2522 (Arambula) – Authorizes the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to increase the existing vehicle registration fee from $6 to up to $30 for incentive-based programs to achieve state and federal air quality standards and requires at least $10 million of the revenues to be used to mitigate air pollution in disproportionately impacted communities in the San Joaquin Valley.
AB 2447 (Jones) – Requires a city or county to make a finding that a new subdivision has adequate fire protection prior to approving the project. Also requires that the project have at least two escape routes and that the design allows all necessary safety improvements, such as turnarounds, defensible space, and emergency water systems.
AB 31 (de Leon) – A comprehensive measure that allocates $400 million from Proposition 84 to address the need for neighborhood parks in the most park-poor communities throughout California, consistent with Proposition 84 criteria. Creates a competitive grant program for distributing funds through eligible public agencies and non-profit organizations to ensure California’s park-starved communities receive the health, economic and environmental benefits that local parks provide.
AB 2356 (Arambula) – Helps small disadvantaged communities avoid a cash-flow crisis by giving the State Water Resources Control Board the authority to disburse up to twenty-five percent of a wastewater infrastructure grant to a disadvantaged community in advance of costs incurred. Currently, grants are disbursed on a reimbursement basis and can take up to two months to process, making it difficult for disadvantaged communities to pay their contractors.
SB 375 (Steinberg) – Requires regional transportation agencies to adopt a sustainable communities strategy within its existing regional transportation plan that will provide adequate housing for all economic segments of a region and meet regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board, taking into consideration the impacts of development of important resources lands and farmland. Provides CEQA incentives for development projects within a local jurisdiction whose general plan is consistent with the sustainable communities strategy.
AB 1879 (Feuer) – Enacts chemical policy reform by requiring the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt regulations to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern in consumer products, evaluate the hazard traits of chemicals and their alternatives, and establish a range of regulatory actions to protect public health and the environment.
SB 509 (Simitian) – Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to establish a web-based Toxics Information Clearinghouse containing data on the hazard traits of chemicals and, with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, to identify human health and environmental hazards posed by chemicals used in consumer products, based on available data.
SB 775 (Ridley-Thomas) – Establishes a program that will increase screenings of California children for risk of lead poisoning through the use of the immunization program, improve reporting of information by laboratories to better track cases of lead poisoning, require the Department of Public Health to provide annual reports regarding screening and lead poisoning rates in California, and make information about lead available to pregnant women.
SB 1113 (Migden) – Allows a court, upon motion, to award attorney’s fees and other costs, including expert witness fees, to a successful party in any action that has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.
SB 1313 (Corbett) – Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any food contact substance that contains perfluorinated compounds in any concentration exceeding ten parts per billion. Requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternatives when replacing perfluorochemicals or their precursors. Prohibits manufacturers from replacing perfluorinated compounds with certain carcinogens and reproductive toxins.
When it comes to protecting our air, water, and natural resources, California can not afford to have an unproductive year. We hope the budget showdown is resolved soon and in a manner that protects California’s environment and quality of life and that the Governor then promptly signs the critical environmental measures that will be sent to him.
LOST OPPORTUNITIES: SEVERAL TOP PRIORITY ENVIRONMENTAL BILLS LEFT IN THE LEGISLATURE
While the Legislature racked up an impressive list of accomplishments, several key bills did not make it across the finish line. These include:
SB 1500 (Kehoe) – Would haveprovided additional guidance to local governments regarding fire safety in the General Plan, and allow the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(CalFire) to comment on the adequacy of fire protection in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and very high fire hazard severity zones. If the city or county approves new development in an area lacking adequate fire protection, the Director of CalFire could have recovered state costs of providing fire suppression.
SB 1617 (Kehoe) – Would have assessed a $50 fee on homes within State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) to fund proactive fire prevention and mitigation measures related to structures in the SRA. Eligible activities would have included local assistance grants, support for non-profits, Fire Safe Councils, and the California Conservation Corp, defensible space inspections, fire hazard and severity mapping, and public education.
AB 2175 (Laird/Feuer) – Would have accelerated water use efficiency and reduced associated energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by requiring a twenty percent reduction in statewide urban per capita water use by 2020. The target was reduced for urban water agencies that have already implemented specific water conservation best management practices or that already have a low per capita water use. The bill would have required agricultural water suppliers to implement water conservation best management practices and adopt water management plans.
AB 2558 (Feuer) – Would have authorized the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission to impose, subject to voter approval, a greenhouse gas mitigation fee on either fuels or vehicles to be used to reduce climate change impacts from vehicles. In Los Angeles, the revenues would have been used specifically for public transit and congestion management. The Bay Area would have developed an expenditure list to present to the voters.
AB 1530 (Lieber) – Would haverequired a laboratory that tests for the presence of cholinesterase (from pesticide exposure) in blood to electronically report results to the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and for DPR to share the data with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Department of Public Health. It would have also required DPR and the county agricultural commissioner to investigate cholinesterase-related illnesses.
SB 1713 (Migden) – Would haveenacted the Toxic-Free Toddlers and Babies Act. The Act would have prohibited the sale or manufacture of children’s food containers or, beginning in 2010, children’s foods and beverages in containers that contain more than 0.1 percent of the synthetic chemical bisphenol (BPA), which has neural and behavioral effects on fetuses and infants. It also would have required BPA to be replaced with least toxic alternatives that do not cause cancer or birth defects.
Hopefully the Legislature will be more ambitious in tackling these topics next year.
Traci Sheehan is the Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, a statewide, nonprofit lobbying organization. For more than thirty years, PCL has fought to develop a body of environmental laws in California that is the best in the United States. PCL staff review virtually every environmental bill that comes before the California Legislature each year. It has testified in support or opposition of thousands of bills to strengthen California’s environmental laws and fight off rollbacks of environmental protections.
