BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 845|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 845
Author: Ma (D)
Amended: 8/14/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not relevant
NOTE: Senate Floor Amendments of 8/14/12 place
substantial provisions of AB 1178 (Ma).
The Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved
AB 1178 (4-3) on July 6, 2011. AB 1178 was amended
August 24, 2011, and re-referred to the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee pursuant to Senate
Rule 29.10. AB 1178 was held in committee because
the author wanted to continue working with various
interests and a bill re-referred to committee
pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 cannot be amended.
SUBJECT : Solid waste: place of origin
SOURCE : California Refuse Recycling Council
DIGEST : This bill prohibits an ordinance enacted by a
city or county, including an ordinance enacted by
initiative by the voters of a city or county, from
otherwise restricting or limiting the importation of solid
waste into a privately owned solid waste facility in that
city or county based on place of origin. This bill
provides that this prohibition does not require a privately
CONTINUED
AB 845
Page
2
owned or operated solid waste facility to accept certain
waste, does not allow a privately owned solid waste
facility to abrogate certain agreements, does not prohibit
a city, county, or regional agency from requiring a
privately owned solid waste facility to guarantee permitted
capacity to a host jurisdiction, and does not otherwise
supersede or affect the land use authority of a city or
county.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/14/12 delete the prior version
of the bill covering high-speed rail, and add the above
language which is substantially similar to AB 1178 (Ma)
which was sent back to the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee on a Senate Rule 29.10.
ANALYSIS : The existing California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 allows each county, city, or
district to determine aspects of solid waste handling that
are of local concern and the means by which the services
are to be provided.
Waste management is a state and regional issue . Prior to
1989, the state did not have a coherent policy to ensure
that its solid waste was managed in an effective and
environmentally sound manner. Over 90 percent of the
state's solid waste was disposed into landfills, some of
which posed a threat to groundwater, air quality, and
public health. In 1989, the Legislature passed the
California Integrated Waste Management Act (Act)
acknowledging that there was an urgent need for state and
local agencies to enact and implement an aggressive new
integrated waste management program.
As part of the Act, the Legislature declared that "it is in
the public interest for the state?�to] require local
agencies to make adequate provisions for solid waste
handling, both within their respective jurisdictions and in
response to regional needs" (emphasis added).
Measure E and Potrero Hills . This bill is in response to
Measure E, a 1984 Solano County initiative that "limit�s]
the amount of solid waste imported into Solano County to a
maximum of 95,000 tons per year." At the time of this
initiative, Solano County was importing approximately
AB 845
Page
3
500,000 tons of solid waste annually from San Francisco.
In 1992, the Legislative Counsel of California and the
County Counsel of Solano County opined that Measure E
violated the commerce clause of the United States
Constitution because it discriminates against interstate
commerce. In light of these opinions, the Solano County
Board of Supervisors (Board) announced that it would not
enforce Measure E. Without Measure E, Solano County has
been able to import large amounts of solid waste from other
areas of the state for disposal at facilities like the
Potrero Hills Landfill.
The Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County currently
receives approximately 900,000 tons of solid waste
annually, including 600,000 tons originating from outside
of the county. The landfill is expected to reach capacity
by 2016. There are plans to expand the Potrero Hills
Landfill from 320 acres to 580 acres and to increase the
maximum height from 220 feet to 345 feet, which will extend
the life of the landfill for another 35 years. The project
contains habitat mitigation that includes preserving and
enhancing approximately 994 acres of grassland, wetland,
and water features. The cost of the project is
approximately $110 million.
On June 9, 2009, the Board voted in favor of certifying a
final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Potrero
Hills Landfill Expansion project-due to legal challenges,
this was the third time in four years that the Board
certified the final EIR. On October 21, 2010, the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
approved a permit for the project with a few additional
conditions.
On June 10, 2009, the day after the Board certified the
final EIR, the opponents of the project filed a lawsuit in
the Solano County Superior Court to enforce Measure E.
On May 12, 2010, the court issued an opinion acknowledging
that Measure E as drafted raises valid commerce clause
concerns because it would limit the importation of waste
from out of state. However, the court invoked a rarely
used judicial authority to actually rewrite Measure E to
AB 845
Page
4
make it constitutional. The court explained that "Measure
E, if rewritten to apply only to waste generated within
other counties in California, would not offend the commerce
clause." The court ruling has been appealed to the
California Court of Appeal.
If the ultimate outcome of the case is in support of
Measure E, the Potrero Hills Landfill's current waste load
would be cut by as much as 85 percent, and could be even
lower depending on how much of the 95,000-ton quota imposed
by Measure E would be allocated to the facility. Counties
in the Bay Area and other parts of Northern California rely
on the Potrero Hills Landfill for its solid waste
management. These counties would have to find alternative
ways to manage their solid waste that would otherwise go to
the Potrero Hills Landfill.
This bill will essentially nullify Measure E and the Solano
County Superior Court ruling by prohibiting a local
government from restricting or limiting the importation of
solid waste based on the place of origin.
Anti-Trust issues . Beginning in 2008, then-California
Attorney General Jerry Brown and the United States
Department of Justice investigated the merger of two of the
three largest waste-hauling companies in the country,
Republic Services, Inc. (Republic) and Allied Waste
Industries, Inc. (Allied), for antitrust-law implications.
The investigation found that before the merger Republic's
Potrero Hills Landfill, Allied's Keller Canyon facility in
Contra Costa County, and Republic's Vasco Road site in
Alameda County were the primary competitors in the waste
disposal industry in the San Francisco Bay Area. Moreover,
the Attorney General determined that competition between
these three landfills kept the price charged for disposal
(i.e., tipping fees) to competitive levels. To address the
loss of competition that would occur if one company
controlled all three landfills, the Attorney General
entered into a consent decree that allowed Allied and
Republic to merge, but required the divestiture of the
Potrero Hills Landfill. The Potrero Hills Landfill is now
owned by Waste Connections, Inc.
Attorney General Brown filed an amicus brief in the Measure
AB 845
Page
5
E litigation explaining that if Measure E was enforced, the
Potrero Hills Landfill would only be able to accept a very
limited amount of out-of-county waste and the competitive
benefits of the divesture required by the Attorney General
and the U.S. Department of Justice will be lost.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/24/11)(per AB 1178 Senate Floor
Analyses analysis)
California Refuse Recycling Council (source)
Atlas Disposal Industries
Blue Line Transfer, Inc.
Bridgeport Sales and Service
Burrtec Waste Industries
Calasian Chamber of Commerce
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Teamsters
City of Fairfield
City of Vacaville
Commercial Fleet Services, Inc.
Consolidated Fabricators Corp.
County of Sacramento Board of Supervisors
Davis Waste Removal
Desert Valley Disposal
East Bay Sanitation Company
EDCO Waste and Recycling Services
Elk Grove Waste Management
Freeman and Williams, LLP.
Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station
Garaventa Enterprises
Garden City Sanitation, Inc.
Gilton Solid Waste Management, Inc.
Heffernan Insurance Brokers
John R. Knight, El Dorado County Supervisor
Livermore Sanitation, Inc.
Marin Resource Recovery
Marin Sanitary Service
Napa Recycling and Waste Services, LLC.
National Solid Waste Management Association
Olympic Wire and Equipment, Inc.
Palm Springs Disposal Services
AB 845
Page
6
Palo Verde Valley Disposal Service
Recology Waste Zero
Recology, Inc.
Rehig Pacific Company
Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Station
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority
San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management
Authority
Soft-Pak
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Solid Waste Insurance Managers
South Lake Refuse and Recycling
South San Francisco Scavenger Co.
Southern California Disposal and Recycling Co., Inc.
SSI Schaefer Systems International
Stockton Tri Industries, Inc.
Truck Lubrication Co., Inc.
Turlock Scavenger Company
Upper Valley Disposal and Recycling
Vacaville Chamber of Commerce
Varner and Sons, Inc.
Varner Bros., Inc.
Vence Consulting
Waste Connections, Inc.
Westhoff, Cone and Holmstedt
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/24/11)(per AB 1178 Senate Floor
Analyses analysis)
Alameda County
Barbara Kondylis, Solano County Supervisor
California League of Conservation Voters
California Resource Recovery Association
Californians Against Waste
Center of Biological Diversity
City of Glendale
Kern County Board of Supervisors
League of California Cities
Linda Seifert, Solano County Supervisor
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (5 members)
Los Angeles County Solid Management Authority
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
Natural Resources Defense Council
North Valley Coalition
AB 845
Page
7
Northern California Recycling Association
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Riverside County Waste Management Department
Sierra Club California
Solano County Orderly Growth Commission
Solid Waste Association of North America
Stopwaste.org
Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense
Fund
Western Placer Waste Management Authority
Yuba Group Against Garbage
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters generally contend that
limiting importation and exportation of waste conflict with
the goals of the Act and obstruct the flow of waste
throughout the state. They contend that many local
jurisdictions depend on state-of-the art regional
facilities for their recycling needs and flow restrictions
prevent effective and environmentally sound facilities from
being utilized. Supporters state that this bill preserves
local authority to site, permit, and oversee waste
activities while preserving the regional waste system
established by the Act. Also, they note that in the past
10 years over 100 landfills have closed while no new
landfills have opened.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state that this bill
interferes with judicial matters, usurps local authority
and hinders local jurisdictions' solid waste planning
activities. They also contend that this bill will have
unintended consequences by eliminating local jurisdictions'
flexibility to manage their long-term community needs.
Opponents from the area around the Potrero Hills Landfill
state that Measure E should be enforced to limit
out-of-jurisdiction waste. They state that expansion of
Potrero Hills is not needed as there is adequate regional,
as well as statewide, capacity.
DLW:k 8/15/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
AB 845
Page
8