BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 833 SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman 2011-2012 Regular Session BILL NO: SB 833 AUTHOR: Vargas AMENDED: April 25, 2011 FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: May 2, 2011 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll Mortensen SUBJECT : SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES: SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUMMARY : Existing law : 1) Prohibits the deposition of solid waste at a solid waste facility without a solid waste facility permit. (Public Resources Code §44000.5). 2) Prohibits a person from operating a solid waste facility without a solid waste facilities permit if that facility is required. Requires the local enforcement agency to immediately issue a cease and desist order to immediately cease all activities for which a solid waste facilities permit is required and desist from those activities until the person obtains a valid solid waste facilities permit. (§44002). 3) Requires that any area or areas identified for the location of a new solid waste transformation or disposal facility shall be located in, coextensive with, or adjacent to, a land use area authorized for a solid waste transformation or disposal facility in the applicable city or county general plan. (§41704). 4) Requires that if a county determines that existing capacity will be exhausted within 15 years or additional capacity is desired and that there is no area available for the location of a new solid waste transformation or disposal facility or the expansion of an existing solid waste SB 833 Page 2 transformation or disposal facility which is consistent with any applicable city or county general plan, the siting element shall include a specific strategy for the transformation or disposal of solid waste in excess of remaining capacity. (§41703). 5) Establishes The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the state's "trustee agency" for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources, sacred sites on public land and Native American burial sites. NAHC facilitates consultation between California tribal governments, Indian organizations and tribal elders with local, state, and federal agencies. (§5097.1 et seq.). 6) Requires local governments to conduct meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the NAHC prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county general plan for the purpose of protecting cultural places on lands affected by the proposal. (Government Code §§65352.3 to 65352.4). This bill prohibits a person from constructing or operating a solid waste landfill disposal facility in San Diego County if that facility meets both of the following conditions: a) Any portion of the disposal facility is located on or within 1,000 feet of the San Luis Rey River or an aquifer that is hydrologically connected to that river, and b) The disposal facility is located on or within 1,000 feet of a site that is considered sacred or of spiritual or cultural importance to a tribe, as defined, and that is listed in the California Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Inventory. COMMENTS : 1) Purpose of Bill . According the author, this bill would protect drinking water sources and sacred Native American sites in northern San Diego County by prohibiting the SB 833 Page 3 construction or operation of a solid waste landfill on or within 1,000 feet of these sources. Proponents of the landfill bypassed local control of the landfill permitting process through a ballot initiative(s) which amended the county general plan and zoning ordinance to allow construction of the facility. Proponents of the landfill bypassed local control of the landfill permitting process through a ballot initiative. The County Board of Supervisors never approved Gregory Canyon as a landfill site, and the County repeatedly rejected it as inappropriate during its landfill site-selection process in the late '80s and early '90s. To avoid the need for County approval, Gregory Canyon Landfill (GCL) proponents sponsored a county-wide ballot initiative (Proposition C) in 1994, which amended the county general plan and zoning ordinance to allow the construction of a "recycling collection center" and landfill on the site if the project obtained all required regulatory approvals. Although described on the ballot measure as a recycling measure, the facility would provide limited recycling. The ballot initiative also placed limits on local elected officials' role in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. By approving the site for a landfill through Proposition C rather than through the County's regular land use permitting procedures, GCL's proponents crafted an approval process where no locally elected officials can make a decision as to whether the project site is an appropriate location for a landfill. 2) Landfill Permitting . The siting, construction, and operation of a solid waste landfill is a complex process. The solid waste facility permit is just one of potentially a dozen or more local, state, and federal permits required to construct and operate a landfill. Generally, basic requirements include compliance with CEQA and local operation, land use and siting rules, including conformance with the General Plan. Permits must also be obtained from the state and regional water quality board and local air district. Federal permits are often required by the Clean Water Act for water quality and US Fish and Wildlife Service. A solid waste facility permit issued by the SB 833 Page 4 Department of Resource Recovery and Recycling (DRRR) is the focus of SB 833, but is just one of many permits and processes that must be complied with before construction and operation can commence. No single approval by itself is enough to allow the project to go forward. Denial of a required permit or approval would prevent the project from going forward as currently proposed, unless there was a successful litigation challenge to the denial, or unless the project was modified and approved in a modified form. 3) Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) . DRRR's permit program reviews solid waste facility permits submitted by local enforcement agencies (LEA) and recommends for or against concurrence in the permit to DRRR. Permits include design, operational, financial, and closure/postclosure requirements to safely construct, operate and close the facility. The SWFP is developed by the LEAs and must meet minimum state standards, but often include many more conditions to the operations of the facility. DRRR cannot add additional conditions to a permit. 4) Gregory Canyon Landfill Project . The proposed site, owned by Gregory Canyon, Ltd., is located within an approximately 1,770 acre parcel located in northern San Diego County north and south of State Route 76, approximately three miles east of Interstate 15 and two miles southwest of the community of Pala. The site is crossed by the San Luis Rey River. The 183-acre landfill footprint would be in the largest canyon on the site, south of State Route 76, along the western slope of Gregory Mountain. The entire project development comprises approximately 308 acres. No less than 1,313 acres of the remaining area on the landfill property will become permanent open space. 5) Local Propositions . In November 1994, the voters approved Proposition C, the Gregory Canyon Landfill and Recycling Collection Center Ordinance, by a vote of 68-32%. By amending the County's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow a landfill without a County major use permit, Proposition C streamlined the project approval process. Ten years later, in 2004, landfill opponents drafted and sponsored a second voter initiative, Proposition B, seeking to invalidate the 1994 initiative. Proposition B was not SB 833 Page 5 approved by the voters, by a vote of 64-36%. Because of Proposition C, the County Board of Supervisors is not involved in decisions about the proposed landfill. 6) Applicable permits for Gregory Canyon . In addition to a SWFP from DRRR, the project proponents are obtaining the following permits: County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego County Air Pollution Control District California Department of Fish and Game United States Army Corps of Engineers (including consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife Service) 1) San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) . DEH has been designated as the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for all of San Diego County except the City of San Diego. As the LEA, DEH is responsible for processing the project's Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) application package, and for writing a proposed permit for the construction, operation, closure, and post-closure care of the landfill. The LEA is also the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project, as required under CEQA. The EIR is prepared to disclose to the public and other state and local agencies the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Although Proposition C amended the County's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, compliance with CEQA is required for the project to be approved. The LEA is a program within DEH, and DEH is a Department within the County of San Diego. But it is DEH and not the County of San Diego that is designated by the state as the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for this site. The decisionmaker for LEA-issued permits is the DEH Director. In addition, because of Proposition C, the LEA is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The decisionmaker for the LEA under CEQA is the DEH Director. Because of SB 833 Page 6 Proposition C, the County Board of Supervisors is not involved in the CEQA process or in land use permitting decisions for the proposed landfill. 2) Gregory Canyon SWFP . The landfill operator is required to obtain a SWFP from the San Diego DEH. The SWFP specifies the person(s) authorized to operate the facility and the boundaries of the facility. It contains the conditions necessary to specify a design and operation for which the applicant has demonstrated the ability to control the adverse effects of the facility. In terms of the SWFP, the facility's "design" includes: " the number and types of fixed structures; " the total volumetric capacity of the disposal site; " vehicle traffic flow and patterns within the facility; " proposed contouring; and " other factors that may be considered a part of the facility's physical configuration. 1) Permit Timeline . The Gregory Canyon Landfill was permitted previously by the LEA and DRRR in December 2004; however a modified permit application was received by the LEA on July 27, 2007. On August 27, 2007, the LEA determined the GCL solid waste facility permit application package to be complete and correct. On September 26, 2007, in accordance with the Public Resources Code §44008, the applicant waived the LEA statutory timeline. This waiver of statutory timeline granted the LEA an additional 30 days in its determination of whether the permit is to be processed as modified or as a revision. On October 15, 2007, the LEA determined that the permit application package would be processed as a permit modification. Since this time, the applicant provided additional waivers of the statutory timeline on the following dates: October 25, 2007; December 21, 2007; January 17, 2008; March 20, 2008; SB 833 Page 7 April 28, 2008; June 9, 2008; August 8, 2008; October 30, 2008; January 12, 2009; February 19, 2009; May 18, 2009; September 1, 2009; November 23, 2009; and, February 1, 2010. On January 26, 2009, a lawsuit was filed against the County of San Diego and Gregory Canyon Ltd. (Case No. 37-2009-00050584-CU-MC-NC). The plaintiffs (Riverwatch and the Pala Band of Mission Indians) asserted that the SWFP for the landfill had been rescinded and therefore could not be modified. The case was heard in a bench trial on May 27, 2010. On June 14, 2010, the Superior Court issued a decision. The court stated that the County could not treat the permit as valid and existing, and could not modify or revise SWFP No. 37-AA-0032 without first reconsidering the issuance of the permit. The court further stated that it would issue a final judgment and injunction in the case. In response to this decision, the applicant has withdrawn its application for a modification of SWFP permit No. 37-AA-0032. The LEA will not treat this permit as valid for purposes of any approvals the LEA could issue under the permit, or any enforcement action that would be based on the permit. On July 6, 2010, the final judgment was issued. On June 25, 2010, a solid waste permit application package for a new permit was received by the LEA. The LEA was required by regulation to review the application package for completeness within 30 days of receipt. The LEA determined that the application package was complete on July 23, 2010. On August 5, 2010, the LEA rescinded its completeness determination on the permit application package including the Preliminary Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plans. Also, on August 5, 2010 a request was submitted by Gregory Canyon Ltd. to accept the June 25, 2010, application package as incomplete. The LEA accepted the package as incomplete. The applicant had until February 1, 2011, to conform the application to the requirements. Revisions were submitted by the applicant. On February 1, 2011, the LEA determined that the application SB 833 Page 8 package was complete and correct. A public informational meeting was held February 23, 2011, in the Community Room at the Fallbrook Public Library. On March 18, 2011, the applicant waived the statutory timeline for the LEA to make a decision to issue or not issue a new SWFP for the GCL. On April 26, 2011, they again waived the statutory timeline for the LEA to make a decision to issue or not issue a new SWFP. The extended deadline for this decision is May 13, 2011. If the SWFP and application package is submitted to DRRR, DRRR will have 60 days to review and decide whether to concur or object to the proposed SWFP. All comments received before the SWFP and application package is sent to DRRR will be included in the package. All written comments received after the package has been submitted will also be provided to DRRR for consideration. 2) Hearing Panel Request . On March 3, 2011, the Pala Band of Mission Indians filed a petition for a hearing before the Solid Waste Hearing Panel on whether the LEA's determination that the solid waste facility application package was "complete and correct" was contrary to law. The Hearing Panel has three members, and needs all three members present to have a legal quorum. One of the hearing panel members notified the County on Tuesday, March 29, 2011, that he had a conflict- of-interest and would not attend the hearing on March 30, 2011. Without a quorum, the hearing had to be cancelled. Because the Hearing Panel will not make a decision, the Pala Band has the right to petition DRRR, for a hearing on this issue. DRRR would have 30 days to decide whether to hear the matter, and another 30 days to actually hold a hearing. A petition to DRRR would not extend the current deadline for the LEA to decide whether to submit a proposed permit to DRRR. 3) CEQA-Related Actions . The Director of the LEA is the decisionmaker for the lead agency. On February 6, 2003, the Director of the LEA, certified that a final EIR prepared for this project had been completed in compliance SB 833 Page 9 with the CEQA. That certification and certain related actions were challenged in a Superior Court action entitled Riverwatch et al. v. County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health et al., case number GIN038227. On January 20, 2006, a Preemptory Writ of Mandate was issued directing the County of San Diego to set aside the February 6, 2003, certification and certain related actions. The Court further directed the County to correct three identified deficiencies in the 2003 Final EIR, related to traffic, water supply, and biological mitigation. In response, additional analysis of these issues was performed, additional mitigation was identified, and a Revised Partial Draft EIR (RPDEIR)was prepared and made available for public comment. LEA staff evaluated and responded to all comments received, and a Revised Final EIR was prepared. The Revised Final EIR consists of the 2003 DEIR; the March 2007 RPDEIR Comments and Recommendations on the July 2006 RPDEIR circulated for comment in July and August of 2006; and LEA responses to significant environmental points raised in those comments and recommendations. On April 30, 2007, a Staff Report and the completed RPEIR, was submitted to the Director of LEA, for his review. As required by CEQA the LEA responses to comments were mailed (April 30, 2007) to the public agencies that had provided comments on the 2006 RPDEIR. On May 31, 2007, the Director made his Decision on the Revised Final EIR for the Gregory Canyon Landfill that the RPDEIR for the Gregory Canyon Landfill with associated comments and responses to comments had met the direction of the court. On February 11, 2008, the San Diego Superior Court issued a decision in Riverwatch v. County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. This decision upheld the additional environmental analysis included in the Revised Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill related to traffic and biological mitigation. The environmental analysis for the water supply (related to the use of reclaimed water) was found to be incomplete. The decision will require additional environmental analysis for the use of reclaimed water. SB 833 Page 10 In response to the Court's order, the LEA staff did additional analysis. Baseline recycled water supply and use conditions were determined, and scenarios that added the Gregory Canyon Landfill to that baseline were defined and quantified. The impacts from recycled water deliveries to the landfill site on other Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) recycled water customers were then determined as required by the Court's order. The results of this analysis can be found in the Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (Recycled Water Addendum). The Recycled Water Addendum concludes that there is adequate recycled water to meet the demands of OMWD's existing customers or existing uses of recycled water after including deliveries to the landfill site, and that the OMWD is able to provide 193 acre feet per year (AFY) of recycled water to the landfill site without causing a significant impact to its existing customers or existing uses of recycled water. Based on this information presented in the Recycled Water Addendum, no significant environmental impacts that were not identified in the 2003 FEIR or the Revised FEIR would result, and no previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more severe in light of this analysis. On August 8, 2008, the Director of the San Diego County Local Enforcement Agency issued a Decision which adopted the Recycled Water Addendum. On November 20, 2008, the Superior Court dissolved the Preemptory Writ. Based on its review of the environmental documentation provided and the arguments of the litigants, the Court concluded that the County of San Diego LEA had met its obligations under CEQA. Riverwatch et al. v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District et al.: On January 9, 2009, the 4th District Court of Appeals in Riverwatch et al. v. Olivenhain Municipal Water District et al. (Case No. D052237) issued an order affecting a proposed water supply for landfill construction and operation. The County and the LEA are not parties to this SB 833 Page 11 lawsuit. The appeals court directed the trial court to issue a writ, ordering the Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) to set aside its approval and execution of a water supply agreement for the landfill and to reconsider that approval after consideration of a legally adequate EIR for the Landfill project. On May 13, 2009, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District board voted to not supply recycled water to Gregory Canyon. The operator therefore had to identify another source or sources of water, and the County had to complete additional CEQA analysis concerning those sources. Proposed changes to the project were described in a recent submission to the County of San Diego's LEA. Those changes included measures to reduce water use at the landfill site, greater use of on-site water sources that was proposed in the RFEIR, project design features to ensure that on-site water is used in a manner consistent with applicable California water law, and new arrangements for trucking recycled tertiary-treated effluent to the landfill site as necessary. Additional environmental review was conducted to identify the potential environmental effects of those project changes. This analysis addressed the potential impacts of extracting on-site water as well as potential impacts from the transport of recycled water from the SGVWC facility in South El Monte to the landfill site. Potential impacts from the construction and operation of additional wells and the use of a soil sealant were also evaluated. The results of this analysis can be found in the 2009 Water Supply Addendum. The Addendum and all the Appendixes can be reviewed at Complete 2009 Water Supply Addendum. The 2009 Water Supply Addendum concludes that the use of on-site water would not result in significant hydrogeological impacts and that the construction and operation of additional wells would not result in significant air quality impacts, health risk impacts, noise impacts, or significant impacts to water resources or biological resources. Furthermore, the use of a soil sealant would not result in significant impacts to water SB 833 Page 12 quality or biological resources. Finally, the transport of recycled water from South El Monte to the landfill site would not result in any new or substantially different traffic, air quality, health risk or noise impacts not discussed in the 2003 Draft EIR or RFEIR. The 2009 Water Supply Addendum concludes that with the combination of riparian underflow, percolating groundwater, trucked recycled water and on-site storage, the landfill has demonstrated a likelihood of adequate water supplies being available for construction and operation. On January 7, 2010, the Director of the LEA issued a Decision which adopted the 2009 Water Supply Addendum. The analysis of impacts to biological resources in the 2003 Draft EIR and RFEIR included a discussion of waters on the landfill site subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) as well as other state agencies, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Those documents stated acreage figures for jurisdictional waters, based on agency determination where those had been made and on assessment conducted for CEQA purposes. The LEA's understanding of the water that other agencies were likely to consider jurisdictional has evolved in minor ways over time, as a result of new regulations, policies and agency practices. However, these changes were not quantitatively significant, and were not based on official agency positions. On January 13, 2010, the ACOE issued a revised jurisdictional determination, stating for the first time that it considered much of the drainage in the main stem of Gregory Canyon to be waters of the United States. The 2010 Addendum was prepared to respond to these events by providing the most up-to-date information available on the scope of federal and state jurisdiction over waters on the landfill site, and to analyze any impacts arising from the updated information. The 2010 Addendum was prepared with consideration of the 2003 Draft EIR, the RFEIR, 2008 Addendum, and the 2009 Water Supply Addendum. The additional analysis performed as part of the 2010 Addendum showed that no significant impacts would result, which SB 833 Page 13 means a supplemental or subsequent EIR cannot be required. CEQA does not require that addendums to certified EIRs be circulated for public comment. On May 7, 2010, the Director of the San Diego County LEA issued a Decision which adopted the 2010 Addendum. Trial court rulings discharging the writs issued in CEQA litigation were appealed. In both cases the trial court's actions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with the final such ruling issued on March 30, 2010. Petitions for review by the Supreme Court of California were filed, but denied. 4) Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In most cases where both a CEQA EIR and a federal EIS are needed for the same project, the EIS is completed first in a manner that can be used for CEQA purposes, or both studies are done at the same time. In this case however the need for an EIS arose only recently, when the Army Corps changed its jurisdictional determination. The CEQA EIR was certified before the NEPA process was underway, making preparation of a joint EIR/EIS infeasible. If federal agencies decide not to issue permits and approvals for the landfill project based on their environmental review and legal mandates, the project may not go forward even if state and local permits have been issued. If the project proponent is required to redesign the landfill project because of federal agency permitting decisions based on the federal EIS, any state or local agencies required to make a further discretionary decision concerning the project will need to determine whether further environmental study is needed. 5) Groundwater . Groundwater protection at the proposed landfill involves the liner design (including a leachate collection system), a subdrain system, and groundwater monitoring and extraction wells. A multiple-layer liner and a leachate collection system would be installed by the applicant to a design approved by the RWQCB. The liner SB 833 Page 14 system to be installed at the proposed landfill exceeds the prescriptive design standards required by RWQCB regulations. If leachate were to penetrate the top soil layer, it would be collected in the upper leachate collection and removal system. If leachate were to penetrate further, through the three-layer membrane and clay barrier beneath the leachate collection system, there is another 9 inch thick zone with gravel and drainage pipes to collect liquid, with a membrane and clay barrier beneath that. The facility also will have groundwater monitoring and water production wells which are designed to detect contamination and to intercept any contaminated groundwater and treat it in a dedicated water treatment plant before it can reach the San Luis Rey River. These wells will be regularly monitored for contamination. The Joint Technical Document (JTD) discusses and evaluates various scenarios for releases and associated mitigation. The mitigation of potential releases is included in the closure cost estimates and covered by the financial assurance mechanisms as required by regulation. In addition to the financial assurance requirements provided in the regulations, the applicant has agreed with the San Luis Rey Municipal Water District to supply replacement water and obtain a $100,000,000 environmental impact liability insurance policy in the event of off-site pollution impacts. 6) Landfill Capacity . In general, California is not facing a shortage of landfill capacity for many decades. Regionally this may differ as jurisdictions evaluate their long-term waste management plans. Jurisdictions make decisions based on a variety of factors when planning for their disposal needs. It is not uncommon for waste to be shipped outside the jurisdiction for reasons of capacity, cost, or proximity to disposal. Statewide disposal in 2009 was 31.1 million tons, a drop of 4.4 million tons from 2008. While ongoing waste diversion efforts contributed to these declines, several additional factors including large drops in personal income and consumption, construction activity, and employment suggest the recession is the primary driver SB 833 Page 15 of these decreases in overall disposal rates. In 2009, 99 % of California's 31.1 million tons of disposal were landfilled in state and approximately 1 percent was exported to landfills out of state. Statewide capacity for existing facilities (not including planned expansions or permitted, but not operating, facilities) is approximately 1.48 billion tons. For San Diego County it is estimated that there is approximately 78 million tons of capacity remaining. Currently the County is generating approximately 3 million tons per year. However, this is a reduction of approximately 25% in the past few years that can mostly be attributed to the decline in the economy. This is in spite of population growth which speaks to the strong waste reduction and recycling programs being implemented by San Diego County and its cities. In 2009 San Diego County did not report any exports of waste out of state. It should be noted that Sycamore Canyon Landfill is currently pursuing an expansion to its facility that would in increase capacity by approximately 100 million tons. 7) San Diego County Proposition A . As part of San Diego County's Election on June 2010 voters approved Proposition A titled "East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill Ordinance." This countywide proposition proposes to develop an unincorporated 450 acre site in eastern Otay Mesa into a privately owned and operated recycling collection center and solid waste disposal site. The proposal would amend the County General Plan, County Zoning Ordinance, and San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan to change the designation of the 450 acre site to a Solid Waste Facility; 340 acres would be used to develop the facility, while the remaining 110 acres would remain undeveloped. The project would be required to comply with all local, state, and federal regulations regarding development practices and environmental mitigation. On November 4, 2009, the County presented an impact report regarding the proposed development. Findings of the report included that a full assessment of the County's solid waste disposal needs has not been conducted since 2005. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the SB 833 Page 16 full extent of Sandy Eggo County's need for increased disposal capacity. Also, amending the General Plan allows the developer to avoid an approval process through which the County would evaluate the merit of the project based on General Plan goals and policies, as well as surrounding infrastructure and land uses of adjacent property. Further, the proposed amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance would designate the site as a "by right" use. The developers would therefore not be subject to the County's Major Use Permit process. This would limit the County's ability to impose requirements related to infrastructure improvements, environmental mitigation, and operation practices. According to the proponent's preliminary estimates, the 340 acre site would provide a physical solid waste disposal capacity of 180 million tons. However, the 308 acre Gregory Canyon recycling center and landfill site is projected to provide a physical capacity of only 33.4 million tons. 8) Support and Opposition Arguments . Supporters of SB 833 generally contend that the GCL project threatens the region's ground and surface water supplies. They also site the destruction of a pristine, undeveloped canyon and destroying acres of critical habitat for several endangered species. Also, the significant adverse impacts and damage to Native American sacred sites are of paramount concerns to supporters of the bill. They cite the cultural importance of Gregory Canyon and Medicine Rock that are near the landfill site. Groups in opposition generally point to the fact that the citizens of San Diego twice supported this landfill project. They also contend that the site provides needed landfill space for northern San Diego County. Further, they state that the existing permitting processes with extensive review and public comment provides for full protection of resources. Additionally, some contend that this bill will set a precedent by overriding exiting law and regulations and place statutory limits on permits. Also, the San Diego County Water Authority indicates that they have concerns about the impact of the landfill on its ability to safely and reliably provide necessary regional water supplies. SB 833 Page 17 9) Previous Legislation . a) AB 1196 (Thompson) of 1999 prohibited the permitting of a landfill situated adjacent to, contiguous with, or within one mile of any portion of the exterior boundary of a federal Indian reservation and one of the following applies: (1) The reservation has on it a sacred or spiritual site of religious and cultural importance to a local Indian tribe. (2) A sacred or spiritual site of religious and cultural importance to a local Indian tribe is located within the facility or landfill boundary (Failed passed in Senate Environmental Quality Committee). b) AB 2752 (Cardoza) of 2000 prohibited the California Integrated Waste Management Board(now DRRR) from concurring in a permit for a proposed solid waste landfill for which a petition has been received by the board from an Indian Tribe. (Vetoed by the Governor). c) SB 1828 (Burton) of 2002 amended the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and CEQA to subject projects that could affect a Native American tribe's sacred site to additional conditions and approval. (Vetoed by the Governor). 10)Related Legislation . AB 1178 (Ma) of 2011 prohibits a local government from restricting or limiting in any way the importation of solid waste based on the place of origin. This bill was approved by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on April 25, 2011 (5-3). SOURCE : Pala Band of Mission Indians SUPPORT : Barona Band of Mission Indians California American Heritage Commission California Tribal Business Alliance Endangered Habitats Leauge Environmental Health Coalition SB 833 Page 18 Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwuk Indians Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Natural Resources Defense Council City of Oceanside Pam Slater-Price, Supervisor San Diego County Board of Third District Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Ramona Band of Chauilla Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians RiverWatch San Diego Coastkeeper San Manuel Band of Mission Indians San Pasqual Band of Dieguneo Mission Indians Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians Sierra Club San Diego Chapter Surfrider Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians OPPOSITION : Associated General Contractors Gregory Canyon, Ltd. Regional Council of Rural Counties San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Taxpayers Association Solid Waste Association of North America Waste Management