BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 25|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 25
Author: Padilla (D)
Amended: 5/28/09
Vote: 21
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/27/09
AYES: Simitian, Corbett, Hancock, Lowenthal, Pavley
NOES: Runner, Ashburn
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-5, 5/28/09
AYES: Kehoe, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza,
Yee
NOES: Cox, Denham, Runner, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SUBJECT : Solid waste
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill increases the diversion rate mandate
on local jurisdictions for solid waste from 50 percent to
60 percent by 2015. This bill also makes a variety of
changes to existing laws relating to commercial recycling,
permit review, solid waste tipping fees, illegal dumping
and refuse service providers.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
2
1.Under Penal Code Section 374.3, prohibits any person
from dumping or causing to be dumped any waste water,
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 of
1989 (Act):
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
percent of solid waste from landfill disposal or
transformation by January 1, 1995, through source
reduction, recycling, and composting activities, and
must divert 50 percent of solid waste on and after
January 1, 2000.
B. Requires the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) to determine compliance
status for cities and counties in achieving and
maintaining the 50 percent diversion rate.
Jurisdictions are found to be in compliance by
meeting or exceeding the 50 percent 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 percent
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 handing that are of local
concern, such as frequency of collection, levels of
service, and fees.
SB 25
Page
3
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 CIWMB to concur in or object to a
solid waste facility permit within 60 days of receipt
of the permit.
F. Authorizes the CIWMB 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
CIWMB 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 that is not authorized for
the disposal of solid waste pursuant to this division or
regulations adopted by the CIWMB.
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
percent of solid waste on and after January 1, 2015.
3.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.
SB 25
Page
4
4.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 than 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:
(1) Requirements that ensure a business provides
for recycling of its waste.
(2) Educational, implementation, and enforcement
provisions.
(3) The existing right of a business to sell or
donate its recyclable materials.
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.
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.
5.Modifies the solid waste permit review process by:
A. Allowing the CIWMB to determine if a permit
SB 25
Page
5
submitted by a LEA is complete and correct as
specified.
B. Adding a requirement that the CIWMB must notify
the LEA within 15 days if it objects to a proposed
permit and provide the basis for the determination.
C. Allows the CIWMB an extra 30 days (from 60 to 90
days) if the CIWMB does not have the full 60 days to
review and act upon a permit because of the CIWMB's
public meeting schedule.
6.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.
7.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.
8.Authorizes the CIWMB to establish an Illegal Dumping
Prevention Program Development Grant and Loan Program to
provide grants and zero-interest loans to local agencies
to assist with reducing illegal dumping. Stipulates
that the CIWMB may provide the loans and grants only
after the fee increase contained in this bill is
effective and generating funds.
9. Establishes a Refuse Service Provider Model Ordinance
Program that:
A. Requires, by January 1, 2011, the CIWMB to adopt a
model ordinance that establishes an enforcement
program for 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.
D. Stipulates that the above model ordinance shall
only be adopted by the CIWMB after the fee increase
SB 25
Page
6
contained in this bill is effective and generating
funds.
10.Makes conforming changes to the Act.
11.Makes findings and declarations related to illegal
dumping.
Background
Division Rate Increase to 60 Percent in 2015 . This bill
increases the diversion rate mandate on local jurisdictions
from 50 percent to 60 percent 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 equated to diverting about
53.5 million tons of solid waste away from landfills and
into higher and better uses.
Every two years the CIWMB evaluates the progress of each
jurisdiction in California toward meeting the mandate of 50
percent waste diversion, and whether the jurisdiction is
adequately implementing water 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 CIWMB in December
2008.
While hundreds of communities have met or exceeded the 50
percent solid waste diversion goals established by the Act,
because these goals are calculated suing 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 percent increase in solid waste
disposal statewide since 1996 has actually outpaced the 17
percent increase in the state's population.
SB 25
Page
7
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 CIWMB,
about one-half the waste generated in the state is from
commercial sources.
Solid Waste Facility Permit Review . According to the
CIWMB, 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 required by regulation) to support the permit decision
is frequently incomplete. In these cases, the CIWMB 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.
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 per ton and CIWMB 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 CIWMB's core functions in managing solid waste.
It was noted by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee
that if the original tipping fee was adjusted for
inflation, the fee should be set at $2.13.
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 CIWMB revealed an annual cost of $34
million to local governments for cleanup of illegal dump
sites. The CIWMB 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.
SB 25
Page
8
Refuse Service Providers . According to the author's
office, 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 an
approved transfer station or 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
SB 25
Page
9
recognized by local illegal dumping enforcement agencies as
being a significant contributor to the statewide illegal
dumping problem.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Increased tipping fee
($25,000) Special*
revenue
New grant and loan
Unknown Special*
program
Developing model
$150 Special*
ordinance
*Integrated Waste Management Account
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/29/09)
Californians Against Waste
National Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/29/09)
BFI Waste Management Services
California Chamber of Commerce
California Refuse Recycling Council
Cities of Canyon Lake, Norwalk and San Diego
Lassen Regional Solid Waste Management Authority
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management
Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Republic Services Inc.
SB 25
Page
10
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Solid Waste Association of North America
Stop Hidden Taxes Coalition
Western Riverside Council of Governments
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
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-Assemblymember Byron Sher
authored AB 939 in 1989, he sought to address our landfill
crisis by establishing waste diversion goals of 25 percent
by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. At the time,
California was recycling just 10 percent of its waste.
Today, two-thirds of California municipalities have met or
exceeded the 50 percent goal. However, many local
jurisdictions remain well below 50 percent 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.
Californians Against Waste writes, in support of this bill,
the following:
"Under AB 939, California has led the nation in waste
reduction and recycling. We have developed an extensive
material collection and recycling infrastructure which has
helped divert materials from the landfill to recycling and
composting and added over 85,000 jobs to our economy.
Despite these achievements, however, the amount of solid
waste generated and disposed by Californians has increased
every year for the past decade. Disposing these recyclable
and compostable materials is a drag on California's
economy, a significant waste of energy, and contributes to
Global Warming.
"To build on the success of local diversion efforts over
the previous 20 years, the state must take on some of the
responsibility of reducing waste by targeting problem
materials, tackling untapped sectors, facilitating expanded
diversion capacity, and developing strong domestic markets
for secondary materials. California's businesses and
SB 25
Page
11
multi-family dwellings, for instance, recycle at a far
lower level than the rest of the state because local
efforts have focused on recycling in single family houses.
Similarly, the development of domestic recycling and
composting infrastructure would be assisted by a
coordinated regional and statewide approach.
"SB 25 would address this by establishing a new statewide
diversion goal of 75%, require businesses to participate in
a recycling program, raise the state tipping fee on
disposal from $1.40 to $2.13, and target illegal dumping."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of
Commerce (CalChamber) and its members state the following:
"The commercial recycling mandate contained in SB 25 will
create a situation where different local jurisdictions have
different rules that may not consider the many problems
that could result from a commercial recycling mandate. For
example:
"o Urban Environments - Crowded urban environments may
not have sufficient space for businesses to store and
collect recyclable materials.
"o Remote Locations - Businesses located in remote
locations may not have access to competitive markets
and would be forced to pay a higher amount to comply
with the provisions of the law.
"o Multifamily Dwellings - Multifamily dwellings may not
have sufficient space to allow for the location of
recycling materials.
"o Impact on Small Businesses - Mandated commercial
recycling would disproportionately impact small
businesses that do not have the ability to absorb the
added cost and negotiate beneficial contracts.
"o Inconsistency - Businesses that operate in more than
one local jurisdiction could be forced to deal with a
patchwork of constantly evolving local requirements
instead of a single statewide standard.
SB 25
Page
12
"o Increased cost - California businesses, which provide
employment and tax revenue that greatly benefit our
state, are facing unique economic conditions that
require prioritization. SB 25 monopolizes resources
that could be spent to employ Californians."
CalChamber believes that, "California should remain focused
on job creation and economic expansion so our member
companies can help bring the unemployed back to work and
increase tax revenues for state and local government. SB
25 (Padilla) will instead increase costs on businesses,
create new burdens on limited local government resources,
and act as an impediment to economic recovery."
TSM:cm 5/29/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****