BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1016|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFISINSHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1016
Author: Wiggins (D)
Amended: 8/14/08
Vote: 21
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 8/20/08
AYES: Simitian, Runner, Aanestad, Corbett, Florez, Kuehl,
Lowenthal
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 37-0, 5/17/07
AYES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin,
Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham, Ducheny,
Dutton, Florez, Harman, Kehoe, Kuehl, Lowenthal, Machado,
Maldonado, Margett, McClintock, Migden, Negrete McLeod,
Padilla, Perata, Ridley-Thomas, Romero, Runner, Scott,
Simitian, Steinberg, Torlakson, Vincent, Wiggins, Wyland,
Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cogdill, Hollingsworth, Oropeza
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/18/08 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Solid waste reporting
SOURCE : California Integrated Waste Management Board
DIGEST : This bill shifts the focus, from 50 percent
diversion to 50 percent disposal reduction, of the current
requirement that a local jurisdiction reduce its solid
CONTINUED
SB 1016
Page
2
waste disposal over what it would have been given local
growth factors.
Assembly Amendments modify factors used by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to determine a
local jurisdiction's compliance with requirements to reduce
their rate of solid waste disposal and reduce the frequency
by which the CIWMB must review a local jurisdiction's
annual report to the board on its waste management program.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, under the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989:
1.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.
2.Requires each city, county, or regional agency to
annually submit a report to the CIWMB summarizing its
progress in reducing solid waste, and requires the
report to contain certain information (e.g.,
calculations of annual disposal reduction, information
on changes in waste generated or disposed, progress in
diverting construction and demolition waste material).
This bill:
1.Requires that on and after January 1, 2009, CIWMB will
determine compliance with the diversion goals
established by the Act by comparing each jurisdiction's
"per capita disposal rate" with the jurisdiction's "50
percent equivalent" per capital disposal rate on January
1, 2007.
2.Specifies that CIWMB consider the per capita disposal
rate when determining compliance with the Act, but that
the rate is not the only factor in determining
compliance. Also requires CIWMB to evaluate the need
for a review of a jurisdiction's program implementation
should the rate exceed the 50 percent equivalent.
SB 1016
Page
3
3.Specifies how CIWMB determines the per capita disposal
rate (total annual disposal divided by population).
4.Authorizes CIWMB to use an alternative per capita factor
for developing the per capita disposal rate if a
representative rate cannot be determined using the
specified factors.
5.Specifies how CIWMB determines the 50 percent equivalent
disposal rate using years 2003-2007 waste generation
information.
6.Retains CIWMB's authority to establish an alternative
per capita disposal rate for rural jurisdictions.
7.Revises the 10 percent diversion "credit" for
transformation to reflect the per capita disposal rate.
8.Clarifies and consolidates the information required for
the annual report submitted by jurisdictions to CIWMB,
including:
A. An update of the jurisdiction's source reduction
and recycling element (SRRE) and household
hazardous waste element (HHWE) to include any new
or expanded programs.
B. An update of the jurisdiction's non-disposal
facility element to reflect any new or expanded
non-disposal facilities.
C. Disposal characterization studies or other
studies showing the effectiveness of program
implementation.
D. Any information describing the jurisdiction's
good faith efforts to comply with the requirements
of the Act.
9.Specifies that CIWMB is not required to complete a full
review of the annual reports annually, but may use the
information included to assist CIWMB in providing
technical assistance and informally reviewing a
SB 1016
Page
4
jurisdiction's diversion program implementation.
10.Exempts the annual report from the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act, which will allow CIWMB to require
electronic submission of the annual reports.
11.Requires CIWMB staff to visit each jurisdiction at least
annually to monitor the jurisdiction's implementation
and maintenance of diversion programs.
12.Revises the requirements relating to CIWMB review of
each jurisdiction as follows:
A. For jurisdictions meeting the 50 percent
equivalent per capita disposal rate, permits CIWMB
to complete a review of the jurisdiction not less
than every four years, beginning January 1, 2012,
rather than every two years, as required by
existing law.
B. For jurisdictions failing to meet the 50 percent
equivalent per capita disposal rate or failing to
make a "good faith effort" to do so, permits CIWMB
to complete a review of the jurisdiction not less
than every two years, beginning January 1, 2010.
C. Establishes a sunset for this provision on
January 1, 2018.
13.Moves the requirements relating to "good faith effort"
from the penalties provision of the Act (Section 41850)
to the review requirements of the Act (Section 41825) to
allow CIWMB to consider good faith efforts prior to
issuing compliance order.
14.Makes conforming changes to the provisions requiring
state agencies and large state facilities to divert 50
percent of all solid waste.
15.Makes an unrelated amendment to the use of revenues
collected by community college districts from the sale
of recyclable materials. Specifically, this provision
requires community college districts to offset costs of
recycling programs.
SB 1016
Page
5
Comments
According to the CIWMB, "California diverted more than 46
million tons of solid waste away from landfills into
recycling, composting and transformation programs in 2005,
for an estimated statewide diversion rate of 52 percent.
Diversion has increased nine-fold since the Integrated
Waste Management Act was passed in 1989." The CIWMB notes
that almost 70 percent of jurisdictions have received
approval for their diversion rates while about 30 percent
have either been granted a time extension or are on
compliance orders.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/19/08)
California Integrated Waste Management Board (source)
Allied Waste Services, Inc.
California State Association of Counties
Californians Against Waste
City of Azusa
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
League of California Cities
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Sierra Club California
Solid Waste Association of North America
Waste Management
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill is intended to "focus on disposal reduction and
enhanced program implementation efforts." According to
CIWMB, the benefits of moving to a disposal-based system
include: increases timeliness and accuracy; streamlines
review by allowing jurisdictions that are in compliance to
be reviewed every four years instead of every two; and,
maintains allowances for rural jurisdictions.
This bill includes an unrelated provision relating to
community college recycling revenues. According to CIWMB,
this change is needed to address a claim by community
SB 1016
Page
6
colleges to the Commission on State Mandates for
reimbursement for complying with the state's diversion
mandate.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Arambula, Beall,
Benoit, Berg, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Brownley, Caballero,
Charles Calderon, Carter, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre,
De Leon, DeSaulnier, DeVore, Duvall, Dymally, Emmerson,
Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines,
Galgiani, Garcia, Garrick, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Horton, Houston, Huff, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Karnette, Keene, Krekorian, La Malfa, Laird, Leno,
Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Ma, Maze, Mendoza, Mullin,
Nakanishi, Nava, Niello, Nunez, Parra, Plescia,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Smyth,
Solorio, Spitzer, Strickland, Swanson, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Walters, Wolk, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Sharon Runner, Soto
TSM:DLW:do 8/20/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****