BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1059
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AB 1059
(Eduardo Garcia) - As Introduced February 26, 2015
SUBJECT: California Communities Environmental Health Screening
SUMMARY: Requires the addition of border environmental health
data in the California Communities Environmental Health
Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 2.0) program. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Requires the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) to update its CalEnviroScreen 2.0 tool by
using any relevant environmental data relating to known
impacts of air pollution, water pollution, and toxic sites on
the environmental quality of the communities in the
California-Mexico border region.
2)Requires OEHHA to make a report to the Legislature at the
earlier of next update of the tool or by January 1, 2017 on
any barriers to accessing the data.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires the investment plan related to the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund (GHGR Fund) that is developed and submitted to
AB 1059
Page 2
the Legislature to allocate:
a) A minimum of 25% of the available moneys in the GHGR
Fund to projects that provide benefits to identified
disadvantaged communities; and,
b) A minimum of 10% of the available moneys in the GHGR
Fund to projects located within identified disadvantaged
communities.
2)Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) to develop a methodology that identifies priority
community areas for investment opportunities related to the
GHGR Fund. Requires that these "priority community investment
areas" be identified and updated at least every two years
based on specified geographic, socioeconomic, and
environmental hazard criteria. To meet this requirement OEHHA
has developed the CalEnviroScreen.
FISCAL EFFECT: Not Known.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill: According to the author, "The levels of air
pollution in the border region cannot be accurately assessed
without additional air quality monitoring in the area. This
current lack of reliable information may impact funding for
pollution reduction from carbon fees implemented in AB 32.
AB 1059
Page 3
Investing in priority community investments areas and most
impacted and disadvantaged communities: In 2012, SB 535 (De
Leon), Chapter 830 required CalEPA to identify disadvantaged
communities for investment opportunities using the GHGR Fund.
Pursuant to this requirement, OEHHA has developed the
CalEnviroScreen that will use existing environmental, health,
and socioeconomic data to determine the extent to which
communities across the state are burdened by and vulnerable to
pollution. Current law provides for the allocations for GHGR
Fund investments in projects within priority community
investment areas if certain investment levels related to those
communities are not met. A minimum of 10 percent of revenues
deposited into the GHGR Fund is required to be allocated to fund
programs or projects that reduce GHG emissions or mitigate
direct health impacts of climate change in the "most impacted
and disadvantaged communities" in California.
According to OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 2.0 is primarily designed to
assist CalEPA in carrying out its environmental justice mission
to conduct its activities in a manner that ensures the fair
treatment of all Californians, including minority and low-income
populations. The development of the tool was a step in the
implementation of the Agency's 2004 Environmental Justice Action
Plan, which called for the development of guidance to analyze
the impacts of multiple pollution sources in California
communities.
Factors that contribute to a community's pollution burden or
vulnerability are often referred to as stressors. A community
impact assessment from multiple pollution sources and stressors
is complex and difficult to approach with traditional risk
AB 1059
Page 4
assessment practices. Chemical-by-chemical, source-by-source,
route-by-route risk assessment approaches are not well suited to
the assessment of community-scale impacts, especially for
identifying the most impacted places across all of California.
Although traditional risk assessment may account for the
heightened sensitivities of some groups, such as children and
the elderly, it has not considered other community
characteristics that have been shown to affect vulnerability to
pollution, such as socioeconomic factors or underlying health
status.
CalEnviroScreen and border health concerns: Areas of concerns
or gaps in the data used by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 that may need to
be addressed include how pollution originating in Mexico
contributes to the pollution burden in census tracts along the
California-Mexico border. Some of the specific areas of concern
include:
1)Air monitoring data for ozone and PM2.5 from Mexico may be
needed to account for the air quality impacts on U.S. border
communities;
2)Diesel particulate matter impacts from idling trucks at the
border crossings;
3)Traffic density measurement from roads in Mexico in close
proximity to communities along the U.S.-Mexico border; and
4)Toxic releases and hazardous waste from Mexican facilities in
proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border and their potential for
adverse effects.
The California State Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety
and Toxic Materials (ESTM) hearings on cross border river water
quality: On March 19 and 20th, 2015, the ESTM Committee held a
two-part series of hearings in Southern California focusing on
California's role in managing binational river water quality
issues and on ensuring that border communities, especially
AB 1059
Page 5
disadvantaged communities, are not left behind in water quality
restoration efforts. The first hearing was held in Imperial
Beach and focused on the progress and challenges facing the
Tijuana River recovery strategy. The second hearing was held in
Calexico and focused on the New River restoration efforts.
Dozens of community members, local elected officials, members of
international bodies and officials from the states of Baja
California and California attended the hearings. Prioritization
of cross border water quality issues, dedicated funds for water
quality enhancement that can be used on both sides of the
border, and delineating an entity to coordinate and collaborate
on cross-border water quality issues were common themes of the
testimony presented at the New River hearing.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Community Food and Justice Coalition
Desert Protective Society
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
La Union Hace la Fuerza
Our Roots Multi-Cultural Center
Our Roots Multi-Cultural Center
Seeley Citizens United
The Family Treehouse
Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment
Valley Improvement Projects
Valley Improvement Projects
AB 1059
Page 6
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Bob Fredenburg / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965