BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 833
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 17, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    SB 833 (Vargas) - As Amended:  April 25, 2011 

          Policy Committee:                             Natural 
          ResourcesVote:8-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill prohibits the construction and operation of Gregory 
          Canyon Landfill, in San Diego County.  Specifically, this bill 
          prohibits a person from constructing or operating a solid waste 
          landfill in the County of San Diego that is both:

          1)Partially or wholly located within 1,000 feet of the San Luis 
            Rey River or an aquifer connected to the river.

          2)On or within 1,000 feet of a site that is considered sacred or 
            of spiritual or cultural importance to a listed California 
            Native American tribe.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Negligible state costs, if any.

          2)Onetime loss of $1 million in revenue to the Department of 
            Transportation (Caltrans).

            According to Caltrans, project developers committed $1 million 
            to fund improvements to State Route 76 to address preexisting 
            safety issues on that roadway.  According to Caltrans, and 
            consistent with the findings of the final environmental impact 
            report for the project, the safety improvements will address a 
            particularly dangerous section of the exiting road, the 
            perilousness of which would not be affected by the development 
            of the landfill or its operation.  In other words, State Route 
            76 will need at least $1 million in safety improvement whether 
            or not the landfill is in operation, improvements Caltrans 
            will undertake as its budget permits.  Therefore, cancellation 








                                                                  SB 833
                                                                  Page  2

            of the Gregory Canyon Landfill project will result in no 
            savings to Caltrans; but it will result in a $1 million loss 
            to the department. 

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  .  Proponents contend the site of the proposed 
            Gregory Canyon Landfill is inappropriate for such a facility 
            because (a) it abuts the San Luis Rey River and sits atop an 
            aquifer used by the City of Oceanside for drinking water and 
            (b) it is adjacent to Gregory Mountain, which proponents 
            describe as a significant sacred site for the area's Native 
            American tribes.  Proponents argue it is appropriate for the 
            state to dictate this local land use decision because project 
            developers bypassed local elected officials by placing the 
            issue directly before San Diego voters.

           2)Background  .  The Gregory Canyon Landfill is the only project 
            that meets the criteria specified by this bill.  The project 
            has been disputed for decades.  

                 County officials in the 1980s and 1990s rejected the 
               project. 

                 In 1994, project proponents sponsored county Proposition 
               C, which permitted the landfill provided it receive all 
               necessary permitting.  The measure received support from 
               68% of voters.  The measure also prevented locally elected 
               officials from deciding whether the project site is 
               appropriate for a landfill.  

                 In 2000, Assembly Member Cardoza introduced AB 2752, 
               which would have prohibited the California Integrated Waste 
               Management Board from concurring in a permit for a proposed 
               solid waste landfill for which a petition has been received 
               by the board from an Indian tribe.  The bill was vetoed by 
               Governor Davis, who called the issue one of local, and 
               local voter, control over land use decisions.

                 Opponents have filed numerous lawsuits challenging the 
               permitting process, including the adequacy of the 
               assessment of the project's effect on water quality.

                 In 2004, opponents of the landfill sponsored county 
               Proposition B, which sought to repeal 1994's Proposition C. 








                                                                  SB 833
                                                                  Page  3

                The measure was rejected by 64% of voters.  
                
            The San Diego County Board of Supervisor has never voted to 
            approve Gregory Canyon Landfill.

           1)Support.   This bill is supported by opponents of the Gregory 
            Canyon Landfill, including the Natural Resources Defense 
            Council, the City of Oceanside and numerous bands of 
            California Native American tribes, who contend the project 
            will endanger drinking water supplies and the San Luis Rey 
            River and desecrate a site sacred to many of the area's 
            tribes.  Bill proponents also describe the process by which 
            the landfill has been permitted as inappropriately 
            sidestepping local elected officials.   

          2)Opposition.   This bill is opposed by project supporters, 
            including the San Diego County Board of Supervisors (though at 
            least one board member supports the bill and opposes the 
            project), the California State Association of Counties, the 
            Regional Council of Rural Counties and numerous industry  
            groups, who argue the bill inappropriately supersedes local 
            control of land use decision making, will prevent the creation 
            of jobs needed to develop, construct and operate the landfill, 
            and will cost the state money as solid waste is shipped over 
            greater distances, with associated harm to roadways, and 
            possibly out of state, where the state will not collect 
            tipping fees.   
                
            Bill opponents note the landfill will only be developed if it 
            receives all necessary environmental and operating permits.  
           
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081