BILL ANALYSIS
SB 25
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 25
AUTHOR: Padilla
AMENDED: April 13, 2009
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 27, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll
Mortensen
SUBJECT : SOLID WASTE
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1)Under Penal Code Section 374.3, prohibits any person from
dumping or causing to be dumped any waste matter, including
rocks or dirt, in or upon any public or private highway or
road, without the consent of the owner, or in or upon any
public park or other public property, without the consent of
the state or local agency having jurisdiction over the
highway, road, or property and provides for fines and
penalties.
2)Under Vehicle Code Section 23112.7, authorizes the
impoundment and, in specific instances, civil forfeiture of
a motor vehicle when the registered owner has multiple
convictions for misdemeanor illegal dumping of waste.
3)Under the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Act)
of 1989 :
a) Requires each city or county source reduction and
recycling element to include an implementation schedule
that shows a city or county must divert 25% of solid
waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January
1, 1995, through source reduction, recycling, and
composting activities, and must divert 50% of solid waste
on and after January 1, 2000.
b) Requires the Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB)
SB 25
Page 2
to determine compliance status for cities and counties in
achieving and maintaining the 50% diversion rate.
Jurisdictions are found to be in compliance by meeting or
exceeding the 50% diversion rate and implementing the
programs described in their plans or by making a good
faith effort to implement their programs but not
achieving the 50% diversion rate. Jurisdictions who do
not meet the above are placed on compliance orders and
are subject to fines.
c) Authorizes a local government agency to determine
aspects of solid waste handling that are of local
concern, such as frequency of collection, levels of
service, and fees.
d) Prohibits a local agency from issuing a building
permit for a development project unless the project
provides for adequate space for collecting and loading
recyclable materials.
e) Requires the IWMB to concur in or object to a solid
waste facility permit within 60 days of receipt of the
permit.
f) Authorizes the IWMB to designate and certify local
enforcement agencies (LEAs) to carry out local permitting
and enforcement of solid waste facilities.
g) Requires an operator of a solid waste facility to pay
a quarterly fee (tipping fee) to the Board of
Equalization (BOE) in an amount established by the IWMB
sufficient to generate revenues equivalent to the
approved budget for that fiscal year, including a prudent
reserve. The fee cannot exceed $1.40 per ton. Revenue
from the fees must be deposited in the Integrated Waste
Management Account.
This bill :
1) Defines "illegal dumping" as the act of disposing of solid
waste at a location that is not a permitted solid waste
disposal facility or than it not otherwise authorized for
the disposal of solid waste pursuant to this division or
SB 25
Page 3
regulations adopted by the Integrated Waste Management
Board.
2) Requires each city or county source reduction and recycling
element to include an implementation schedule that shows a
city or county must divert through source reduction,
recycling, and composting activities, 60% of solid waste on
and after January 1, 2015.
3) Sets a waste diversion target for California of 75% on or
after January 1, 2020.
4) Requires the IWMB to consider, for purposes of determining
"good faith effort" for compliance with the diversion
requirements, a jurisdiction's efforts to divert organic
material from disposal.
5) Requires the owner or operator of a business that contracts
for waste services and generates more than four cubic yards
of total waste and recyclable materials per week, shall
arrange for recycling services applicable to the extent
that these services are offered and reasonably available
from a local service provider.
6) Establishes commercial recycling requirements that:
a) Require, by January 1, 2012, each city, county, solid
waste authority, or other joint powers authority located
within a county with a population of greater that
200,000 or more shall adopt a commercial recycling
ordinance that is consistent with carrying out #5 above.
The ordinance at a minimum must include:
i) Requirements that ensure a business provides
for recycling of its waste.
ii) Educational, implementation, and enforcement
provisions.
b) Define a "business" as a commercial entity operated
by a firm, partnership, proprietorship, joint stock
company, corporation, or association that is organized
for profit or nonprofit, and multifamily housing.
SB 25
Page 4
c) Specify that this bill does not limit the authority
of a local agency to adopt, implement, or enforce a
local commercial recycling ordinance that is more
stringent or comprehensive than the requirements of this
section or limit the authority of a local agency in a
county with a population of less than 200,000 to require
commercial recycling.
d) Specify that this bill does not affect in any manner
a franchise granted or extended by a city, county, or
other local government agency or contract, license, or
permit to collect solid waste previously granted or
extended by a city, county, or other local government
agency in effect immediately preceding January 1, 2011.
7) Modifies the solid waste permit review process by:
a) Allowing the IWMB to determine if a permit submitted
by an LEA is complete and correct as specified.
b) Adding a requirement that the IWMB must notify the
LEA within 15 days if it objects to a proposed permit
and provide the basis for the determination.
c) Allows the IWMB an extra 30 days (from 60 to 90 days)
if the IWMB does not have the full 60 days to review and
act upon a permit because of the IWMB's public meeting
schedule.
8) Increases the state tipping fee, beginning January 1, 2012
from $1.40 to $2.13 per ton of solid waste disposed of in a
solid waste facility in California.
9) Provides for an adjustment for the tipping fee to be
applied every two years to factor in increases or decreases
in the cost of living as described.
10)Authorizes the IWMB to establish an Illegal Dumping
Prevention Program Development Grant and Loan Program to
provide grants and zero-interest loans to public agencies
to assist with reducing illegal dumping.
11)Establishes a Refuse Service Provider Model Ordinance
SB 25
Page 5
Program that:
a) Requires, by January 1, 2011, the IWMB to adopt a
model ordinance that establishes an enforcement program
for residential refuse service providers as defined.
b) Specifies that the model ordinance may include such
things as registration requirements, enforcement
provisions, and funding mechanisms.
c) States that a local government may adopt the model
ordinance.
12)Makes conforming changes to the Act.
13)Makes findings and declarations related to market
development and illegal dumping.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, this bill seeks
to reduce California's dependence on landfills, reduce
greenhouse gases and preserve our natural resources by
expanding efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle our solid
waste. When then-Assembly Member Byron Sher authored AB
939 in 1989, he sought to address our landfill crisis by
establishing waste diversion goals of 25% by 1995 and 50%
by the year 2000. At the time, California was recycling
just 10% of its waste. Today, two thirds of California
municipalities have met or exceeded the 50% goal. However,
many local jurisdictions remain well below 50% and the
overall waste stream continues to grow. If we fail to
vigorously expand our efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle,
we will be unable to keep pace with a growing population's
growing waste stream.
2) Diversion Rate Increase to 60% in 2015 . This bill
increases the diversion rate mandate on local jurisdictions
from 50% to 60% by 2015. The statewide solid waste
diversion rate for 2007, which was calculated and announced
at the end of 2008, rose from 54 percent in 2006 to 58
percent in 2007. This equates to diverting about 53.5
million tons of solid waste away from landfills and into
SB 25
Page 6
higher and better uses.
Every two years the IWMB evaluates the progress of each
jurisdiction in California toward meeting the mandate of 50
percent waste diversion, and whether the jurisdiction is
adequately implementing waste reduction. During 2008, a
total of 340 jurisdictions were deemed to have met these
goals. There were 61 other jurisdictions that were below
the 50 percent waste-diversion goal. These jurisdictions
went through a process to determine if they were making a
good-faith effort to implement their programs. Ultimately,
55 of those 61 jurisdictions were recommended for a
good-faith effort finding approved by the IWMB in December
2008.
While hundreds of communities have met or exceeded the 50%
solid waste diversion goals established by the Act, because
these goals are calculated using factors that reflect
population growth and other growth measures, actual
disposal of solid waste statewide has increased
substantially since 1990. Solid waste disposed and subject
to the state tipping fee amounted to 40.1 million tons in
1990, dropped consistently to 32.9 million tons in 1996,
but has consistently increased to a projected 43 million
tons in 2008. This 31% increase solid waste disposal
statewide since 1996 has actually outpaced the 17% increase
in the state's population.
3) Commercial Recycling . Currently there is not a state
mandate on commercial entities to recycle. The mandate
falls solely on local jurisdictions. Many have programs in
place to work with commercial entities to reduce the amount
of waste disposed. Others have adopted ordinances to
require them to recycle. Most solid waste service
providers have programs designed for commercial customers
that offer recycling services. According to the IWMB about
one-half the waste generated in the state is from
commercial sources.
4) Solid Waste Facility Permit Review . According to the IWMB,
the public hearing noticing and meeting schedule often does
not allow a full 60 days to act on a proposed permit as
provided by statute. Also, information submitted (as
SB 25
Page 7
required by regulation) to support the permit decision is
frequently incomplete. In these cases the IWMB is faced
with making a decision on a permit without benefit of all
the required information and without adequate time to
request and review the information.
5) Solid Waste Tipping Fee . In addition to any local fees,
there is a state tipping fee of $1.40 per ton imposed on
waste disposed of in California. The original tipping fee
was set in statute at $1.34 ton and IWMB was given the
authority to increase that fee to $1.40. The $1.40 per ton
fee will generate an estimated $58 million in 2008-09 to
support the IWMB's core functions in managing solid waste.
Staff notes that if the original tipping fee was adjusted
for inflation the fee should be set at $2.13.
6) Illegal Dumping . Illegal dumping is a significant
statewide problem, with significant social, environmental,
and economic impacts. A 2006 survey of 80 California
cities and counties by IWMB revealed an annual cost of $34
million to local governments for cleanup of illegal dump
sites. The IWMB has established a high-level state and
local illegal dumping task force to assess the extent of
the illegal dumping problem and develop recommendations to
the CIWMB to enhance the effectiveness of local and state
responses to the problem. This bill contains several of
the recommendations of the task force.
7) Refuse Service Providers . According to the author, in most
cities and counties, local government agencies administer
franchise agreements with residential and commercial waste
hauling businesses. These franchise agreements provide the
refuse hauler with exclusive, geographically based
operational authority to collect, transport, and dispose of
solid waste generated by the residents of the dwelling
units and businesses. In turn, the franchisee has the
obligation to provide the refuse removal service on a
scheduled routine basis, often to provide containers for
the waste (these often include separate containers and
services for green wastes and recyclable wastes), to
maintain the refuse hauling equipment in an acceptable
manner, to transport the refuse in covered units, and to
dispose of the materials at a approved transfer station or
SB 25
Page 8
sanitary landfill.
In contrast, the refuse hauler service provider industry,
operates outside of the exclusive franchise agreements
because they provide the service on an as-requested basis,
usually physically remove the waste materials from the
subject property and place it in their own vehicles for
transport and disposal, and collect the removal and
disposal fee directly from the individual requesting the
service. Refuse hauler service providers include the
private entrepreneur with the pickup and sideboards,
commercial gardeners that remove the yard waste as part of
their service, and special districts that haul their own
landscape wastes. The refuse hauler service provider will
sometimes increase their profit margin by disposing of the
waste they collect along a road or on a vacant lot and
retain the disposal fee they charged the customers.
Some counties and cities, including Sacramento and
Monterey, maintain a list of refuse hauler service
providers that have registered with the local agency and
encourage the public to only employ individuals or firms on
the list. At least one county, Contra Costa, has an
ordinance in place requiring the annual permitting of the
haulers, but it does not apply to the cities within the
county or to haulers operating from outside of the county.
Thus, effective regulation of the refuse hauler service
provider industry is absent, yet the operators are
recognized by local illegal dumping enforcement agencies as
being a significant contributor to the statewide illegal
dumping problem.
8) Current Market and Economic Issues . With the current state
of the economy coupled with the downturn in markets for
recyclables due to decreases in demand in domestic and
foreign markets, concerns have been raised as to the
ability of local governments and businesses to implement
the requirements in this bill.
9) Related Legislation . SB 44 (Denham) will be heard in this
committee on April 27, 2009. This bill proposes to
eliminate the IWMB and divide its duties between the
Department of Conservation and the Department of Toxic
SB 25
Page 9
Substances Control.
10)Amendments Needed . Amendments are needed to streamline and
clarify this bill, specifically:
a) Delete (c) in the "findings" section of the bill
related to market development as this is not relevant to
the provisions of this bill.
b) Clarify that the effective date of the commercial
recycling requirement for businesses is on or before
January 1, 2012 unless a local ordinance adopted
pursuant to this bill provides for a different date on
or before January 1, 2012.
Also the author should consider redrafting the new chapters
on Illegal Dumping and Refuse Service Provider for clarity
and consistency with other similar programs outlined in the
Act.
SOURCE : Senator Padilla
SUPPORT : Californians Against Waste
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : California Taxpayers' Association
City of Norwalk
Lassen Regional Solid Waste Management Authority
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated
Waste Management Task Force
Orange County Board of Supervisors
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Solid Waste Association of North America
Western Riverside Council of Governments