BILL ANALYSIS
SB 44
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 44
AUTHOR: Denham
AMENDED: April 13, 2009
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 27, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll
Mortensen
SUBJECT : ELIMINATION OF THE INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT BOARD
SUMMARY :
Existing Law (including Governor's Reorganization Plans):
Under the California Environmental Protection Agency .
1)Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ,
(Division 30 of the Public Resources Code) establishes the
Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) within the
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and lays
out membership and duties of the board, including
implementation and enforcement of the Act. The IWMB's core
responsibilities are implementing the Act including:
a) Enforcing the mandate on local jurisdictions to
achieve and maintain a 50% diversion of their solid waste
going to landfills.
b) Providing technical assistance to local jurisdictions
to help them achieve the mandate.
c) Permitting and overseeing, in partnership with local
enforcement agencies, solid waste facilities, including
landfills that manage solid waste, and provide for the
safe disposal of the waste that can not be diverted.
d) Developing markets, in partnership with generators,
businesses, service providers and end-users, for waste
materials.
SB 44
Page 2
e) Developing partnerships with other state and federal
agencies, industry groups, environmental organizations,
environmental justice groups, and other stakeholders to
further the goals of the program within the Act.
f) Overseeing the state's Buy Recycled and State Agency
Recycling Campaign that assists state agencies with their
mandate of reducing their waste by 50% and purchasing
recycled products.
1)Also Pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989 , and pursuant to dozens of legislative mandates that
added to the original Act over the last twenty years,
programs that deal with a multitude of waste streams, not
all directly related to solid waste including, but not
limited to:
a) The Tire Recycling Act, a $40 million per year program
that deals with the safe management for waste tires,
including developing markets for products from waste
tires and providing grants and loans.
b) The Oil Recycling Enhancement Act, a $19 million
dollar a year program to encourage the safe management of
used motor oil by developing markets for products from
used oil and establishing and maintaining safe collection
opportunities as well as providing grants and other
assistance.
c) The Household Hazardous Waste Grant Program, a program
to provide technical assistance and grants to local
jurisdictions to manage household hazardous waste.
d) The Electronic Waste Management Act, a $120 million
program that manages computers and TVs and other
hazardous electronic wastes in partnership with the
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
e) The Cell Phone Recycling Act, a program to establish
and maintain collection sites for cell phones, a waste
that can not be disposed in a landfill.
SB 44
Page 3
f) The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act, a program to
establish and maintain collection sites for rechargeable
batteries, a waste that can not be disposed in a
landfill.
g) Waste Drug and Sharps Management Programs: Programs
to develop safe collection for medical wastes, such as
waste pharmaceuticals and syringes.
2)Establishes the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) with oversight over the management of hazardous waste
in California including programs to:
a) Regulate hazardous waste management activities.
b) Oversee and perform cleanup activities at sites
contaminated with hazardous substances.
c) Encourage pollution prevention and the development of
environmentally protective technologies.
d) Provide regulatory assistance and public education.
e) Implement the new "Green Chemistry" program.
Under The Natural Resources Agency .
1) Establishes the Department of Conservation (DOC) and grants
DOC oversight over a variety of resource conservation
programs including:
a) Geology and Mines: California Geological Survey/The
State Mining and Geology Board/Office of Mine
Reclamation . The California Geological Survey evaluates,
assesses and maps the State's geologic and seismologic
hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, tsunami and
volcanic eruption threats and hazardous minerals
exposures, in order to protect the public health and
safety and the natural environment and analyzes the
State's mineral assets and maps its mineral resources.
Information is used by Federal, State, and local
government agencies, industries and individual
businesses, and the public to make informed decisions
SB 44
Page 4
about land use, seismic safety, and mineral development.
The State Mining and Geology Board is granted certain
autonomous responsibilities and obligations under several
statutes. The board's general authority requires all
nine board members to "represent the general public
interest." The board serves as a regulatory, policy and
appeals body representing the state's interest in
geology, geologic and seismologic hazards, conservation
of mineral resources, and reclamation following surface
mining activities.
Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) was created in 1991 to
administer the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
(SMARA). Established to meet the Act's requirement, OMR
provides assistance to cities, counties, state agencies
and mine operators for reclamation planning and promotes
cost-effective reclamation. OMR strives to reclaim mined
lands to a beneficial end-use through the implementation
of SMARA, prevent or minimize the adverse environmental
effects of mining by providing assistance to lead
agencies and miners in the review of reclamation plans,
and minimize residual hazards to public health and safety
through the Abandoned Mine Lands program.
b) Division of Land Resource Protection . This program
protects agricultural farmland and open space through
various financial incentives. Under the Williamson Act,
landowners who agree to keep their property undeveloped
for at least ten years receive lower property tax
assessments. The California Farmland Conservancy Program
provides grants to local governments and nonprofit land
trusts for the acquisition of agricultural conservation
easements that permanently remove development rights, and
therefore development pressure, from agricultural lands.
The Farmland Mapping Program of the Land Resource
Protection program develops maps, statistics, and reports
relating to farmland conversion, farmland inventory and
land protection to assist in local land use decisions.
c) Oil, Gas & Geothermal . This program regulates the
drilling, operation, and abandonment of oil, natural gas,
and geothermal wells to protect the environment, prevent
SB 44
Page 5
pollution, and ensure public safety. The state is fully
reimbursed for program expenditures by annual assessments
and fees on the respective industries. Approximately 500
companies operate over 88,000 wells in California for the
production of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources.
d) Beverage Container Recycling . This program
administers the California Beverage Container Recycling
and Litter Reduction Act to achieve an 80 percent
recycling rate for glass, aluminum and plastic beverage
containers sold in California. To achieve this rate, the
Division of Recycling ensures that: (1) the California
Redemption Value (CRV) is paid by beverage distributors
for each beverage sold in California; (2) consumers are
refunded CRV for recycled beverage containers; (3)
recycling centers are conveniently located; (4) grants
are made to encourage recycling and development of
markets for recycled materials; (5) strong oversight and
enforcement programs are in place so that the integrity
of the Beverage Container Recycling Fund remains stable
and free of fraud; and (6) public outreach and private
partnerships are promoted.
This bill abolishes the IWMB and divides its duties between
DOC and the DTSC.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According the author, California's
pollution prevention efforts are fragmented among the IWMB,
DOC and DTSC. The lack of a consolidated program has
limited the effectiveness and efficiency of the state's
pollution prevention efforts. By consolidating fragmented
recycling and waste management efforts, a more efficient
and effective waste management program could save roughly
$2-$3 million per fiscal year. To this effect SB 44 aims
to consolidate waste and recycling functions by eliminating
the IWMB. The two programs of the IWMB would be
transferred to the DOC and the DTSC. The Legislative
Analyst, the Little Hoover Commission, the California
Performance Review and many others have recommended
abolishing the IWMB.
SB 44
Page 6
2) Not the First Time . As the author notes, this is just one
in a series of efforts over the last 15 years, starting
with the 1993/94 budget year, to consolidate
waste/recycling programs and/or eliminate the IWMB. There
have been various approaches at the impetus of Governors,
the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the Little Hoover
Commission, and legislators. Many approaches, including
making the IWMB a department (eliminating the board
structure); moving DOC to the IWMB; moving the IWMB to the
DOC; and dividing up the programs within the IWMB; as well
as other agencies and reorganizing them. The most common
theme however has been to combine the waste/recycling
programs under one organization. The approach in this
bill, released in January by the Governor in conjunction
with the budget as part of "The Governor's Roadmap for More
Efficient Government" does that by dividing the IWMB
roughly in half by current program responsibilities. The
programs that deal with recycling functions appear to be
destined for DOC, with the programs related to waste
oversight landing at DTSC. The Governor estimates
approximately $2-3 million in special fund savings from
board salary, staff, and travel expenses by eliminating the
IWMB board structure.
3) Flaws in the Proposed Approach . While consolidating all
waste-related programs has great merit, the approach in
this bill contains many flaws that could produce
undesirable outcomes that may well set the state back in
terms of environmental protection and resource
conservation.
a) No General Fund Savings . This proposal, as it deals
with programs funded by special funds, does not have any
realized general fund budgetary savings.
b) Loss of Expertise on the Leadership and Policy Level .
Eliminating the board and executive structure at the IWMB
and moving the recycling programs to DOC, under the
Natural Resources Agency (NRA), results in the loss of
decades of leadership and relationships built among the
hundreds of stakeholders that have been working on these
issues with the board members and policy leaders at IWMB
and California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
SB 44
Page 7
c) Diminished Effectiveness of Programs Established by
the Legislature . As mentioned under #2 in "Existing Law"
above, the Legislature has tasked the IWMB with dozens of
programs to implement, some of which are not all directly
related to solid waste and arguably could have been
placed with other state agencies. However, the
Legislature chose the IWMB for those programs based on a
long history of successful program implementation. One
of the key reasons is the IWMB's track record of
extensive stakeholder involvement. It includes extensive
open public review and comment processes and a
transparent committee and board structure with meetings
governed and overseen by open-meeting laws.
Also, the IWMB has the ability to bring disparate
interests together and build relationships and
partnerships that provide the basis for sound public
policy and a framework for continued program success.
d) Interagency Challenges/Public Participation . This
bill appears to split some related program
responsibilities (e.g., tires, market development)
between two different agencies, CalEPA and NRA. Others,
(e.g., the management of household hazardous waste, the
siting of solid waste facilities) are proposed to be
housed exclusively with either DOC or DTSC but are highly
interrelated. It is difficult to see how effective
coordination could be achieved. This raises serious
concerns regarding the success of those programs. As the
Legislature has experienced, achieving coordination of
entities, even within the same agency, can be difficult.
Coordination between Cabinet level agencies can be an
even greater challenge. Given that the Legislature has
struggled with coordination efforts between agencies on
such important policy areas as water, green house gas
emissions, and others, it is unlikely that this proposal
would offer an opportunity for existing programs with
proven success to continue to carry out responsibilities
effectively as they have under the current structures.
Also the public, as well as a majority of stakeholders
affected by this proposal, would be forced into dealing
SB 44
Page 8
with these cross-agency challenges as well. This would
require them to keep track and learn the processes and
procedures of the departments within two separate
agencies.
Moreover, since DOC and DTSC are both departments, they
do not have mandated public participation processes that
are inherent with the board structure. While both
departments do have established public input and
information gathering processes, the ultimate decisions
are make by a single department head. This lacks public
access and accountability.
4)Different Approach . A more effective and practical approach
might be to move the Beverage Container Recycling Program
(Bottle Bill Program) to the IWMB. This would provide for
more efficiency and less disruption to existing programs and
processes. Currently, approximately 96% of the solid waste
stream is the responsibility of the IWMB. The Bottle Bill
Program deals with only 4%. The industries and stakeholders
that deal with the Bottle Bill Program are also represented
through existing programs already at the IWMB.
a) Program Efficiencies Gained: Grants, Loans, Fee
Collection, and Administration . The IWMB already has
established successful programs for the distributions of
grants and loans to a wide variety of entities (more
often than not, the same entities, including local
governments, non-profit groups, waste processors,
end-users of recycled materials as DOC). The IWMB also
has expertise in the collection and management of fees.
The IWMB could easily absorb the Bottle Bill Programs.
Also, by combining those efforts, a great amount of
expertise and efficiency is realized that would result in
savings that would free special funds to be used for
programmatic activities rather than administration.
These savings would also far exceed the $2-3 million
projected just by abolishing the board structure at the
IWMB. Again, the shift from the single program at DOC to
the IWMB would be less problematic than moving bits and
pieces of the various programs from the IWMB to DTSC and
DOC.
SB 44
Page 9
b) Market Development Efforts Improved . One of the long
standing issues realized by the Legislature and
stakeholders alike is how to spur market development
efforts for waste material generated by the containers in
the bottle bill program as well as the other 96% of the
waste stream. Both the bottle bill and IWMB programs
contain market development efforts that often overlap,
duplicate and sometimes work at odds with each other.
Housing the programs within the IWMB would greatly
improve the coordination of efforts as well as
expenditures of the millions of dollars of bottle bill
and waste management funds.
5)Some Good Options Presented in SB 44 . While the split of
IWMB programs proposed in SB 44 would cause disruptions that
would hurt implementation and cause problems with likely
cross-agency conflicts, there could be value in exploring
some of the provisions that would move some programs and
elements of programs between the IWMB and DTSC (both under
CalEPA). This could achieve improved program effectiveness
as well as increased efficiencies and decreased costs.
6)Other Programs at DOC . It should be noted that transferring
the Bottle Bill Program to the IWMB raises issues regarding
the placement of the remaining programs at DOC. If the
Legislature decides to pursue this option, the remaining
programs at DOC could be transferred to other state
agencies. The LAO in its analysis of the 1993-94 Budget
Bill identified options available for transferring various
components of the DOC to other state agencies, should its
recycling functions be consolidated with those currently of
IWMB. This could be used as a starting point for
legislative consideration.
7)Opposition Concerns . Most groups in opposition to SB 44
discuss the efficiency and effectiveness of the board
process and the transparency and access that the board
provides. They stress the need for public accountability
and participation with the current structure.
8)Related Legislation .
AB 1150 (Gaines) is currently in the Assembly Natural
SB 44
Page 10
Resources Committee and is schedule for hearing on April
27, 2009. The approach in that measure appears to have
similar provisions as SB 44.
SB 25 (Padilla) to be heard by this committee on April
27, 2009. This measure makes various changes to the Act,
including increasing the solid waste diversion mandate to
60% by 2015.
SB 685 (Stickland) would prohibit members of some
boards, including the IWMB, from receiving salaries until
2014.
AB 579 (Huber) would make changes to the salaries and
raises of board and commission members, including those
appointed to the IWMB.
AB 283 (Chesbro) would establish an extended producer
responsibility framework that would be overseen and
implemented by the IWMB.
AB 994 (Fong) would enact the Smart Building
Educational and Career Training Center Act to be
implemented by the IWMB to encourage among other things
"green" buildings.
AB 1343 (Huffman) would establish an architectural
paint management program at the IWMB.
SOURCE : Senator Denham
SUPPORT : None on File
OPPOSITION : Californians Against Waste
California Association of Professional
Scientists
California Refuse Removal Council
Republic Services, Inc.
Safety-Kleen System, Inc.
Sierra Club California
Waste Mangement, Inc.