PCL Insider: News from the Capitol

TOSSING THE TOXIC TRAIN: NEW LEGISLATION AIMS TO LIMIT HEALTH HAZARDS IN CALIFORNIA

Each morning we're immersed in a world of toxic chemicals. They're in the products we use, the buildings we inhabit, even the food we serve to our family and friends. We know many of these chemicals are linked to health problems and harm the natural environment, yet many people assume that we're stuck on this toxic train and there's no chance of slowing down.

Well we're as excited as a loose caboose to report that a profound shift is afoot to take California away from toxic chemicals and toward a "green chemistry" future.

Want proof?

This year, the state legislature is considering a dozen or so significant pieces of legislation which seek fundamentally to redefine California's relationship to toxic chemicals. We ain't kiddin'. Imagine if the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) reduced our exposure to toxics instead of simply trying to manage the disposal of toxic material. Think about replacing all the toxic baby toys with healthier varieties. We might be able to make it happen.

Here are two groundbreaking toxic bills that we think are not only compelling, but will likely need a bit of muscling to ensure that they don't get derailed by special interest:

The California Toxic Use Reduction Act, officially AB 558 (Feuer), would be the first comprehensive "Cap and Reduce" bill to tackle toxics in California. The measure combines toxic chemical policy with the type of good ol' fashioned "Direct Reduction" regulations typically used to reduce the amount of air pollution we breathe.

As its name suggests, AB 558 would roll back the use of the most toxic chemicals in California, requiring DTSC to identify the fifty most toxic chemicals in use today and ensure an overall reduction of toxic chemical use relative to a 2008 baseline level.  Industry will also play a key role. Companies that produce or use hazardous substances will be required to:

1)  Annually report their use of toxic chemicals;

2)  Biannually develop a toxics use reduction plan with the assistance of the (DTSC); and,

3)  Pay user fees if they use more toxic chemicals than allowed. These fees would help create and incentivize safe nontoxic alternatives.

AB 558 is based on similar legislation that was passed in Massachusetts in 1989 which has successfully reduced the in-state use of toxic products by 41% and toxic byproducts by 61%. With that sort of success, one can imagine that the chemical industry and the producers of toxic substances are pulling out all the stops to keep this important measure from being adopted here in California. Their lobbyists are crawling the halls of the Capitol, peddling their industry-funded studies. Their latest target is the Senate Appropriations Committee, where the bill will be heard before heading to the Senate floor. 

The Toxic Toys Bill, officially known as AB 1108 (Ma), would protect California's children from products that contain toxic chemicals known as "phthalates" which are currently used in teethers and other baby toys.  Phthalates are linked to cancer and reproductive damage and can slowly leach out of plastics, making them unacceptable in any item a toddler is likely to chew. In fact, phthalates are considered so dangerous that the European Union and fourteen other countries have already banned or are phasing out their use in children's products. That means manufacturers are selling safer products in other countries and shipping their toxic products to our children.

Sponsored by Environment California, AB 1108 resembles a similar measure from 2006, AB 319 (Chan). That bill died an untimely death when Leland Yee, a democrat from San Francisco, sided with the Republicans on the Assembly Appropriations committee who all voted to keep phthalates in children's toys. Now that Mr. Yee has moved up to the Senate, he'll be a key vote again when the bill is heard on the Senate floor later this year.

To get to the Governor's desk, both AB 558 and AB 1108 will need twenty-one senators to vote "yes" sometime in early September. If the ride gets bumpy, we'll be calling on you to urge your senator to support these common sense measures. Until then stay tuned for more Insider news from the Capitol corridors!

THE DRIVE FOR SUCCESS: UNDER THE HOOD OF AN EFFECTIVE FLOOD POLICY REFORM PACKAGE

Last week the PCL Insider reported that key flood bills (AB 5, AB 70, and AB 162) advanced through to Appropriations just before the policy committee deadline. 

The authors of all the various flood bills pending in the Legislature have committed to work together during negotiations this summer, to pass the best possible flood policy package.  Because several of the key flood bills have similar provisions, some legislative "vehicles" (lobbyist lingo for "bills") may be scrapped for parts and not make it through recess, requiring strong cooperation between the various authors.

In this week's installment of our Flood Policy series we'll take a look at the nuts and bolts of good flood policy.

Part III: The 2007 Flood Package: Flood Priorities Worth Fighting For

During the Governor's recent guest appearance on the MTV show "Pimp My Ride," he praised the show's crew for outfitting a '65 Chevy Impala with an 800 horsepower bio-diesel engine. 

With the set of remaining flood bills, the Legislature is primed to deliver an equally "pimped out" flood protection and control plan for California to the Governor this fall. But we're not talking about upholstery and paint colors. Here's what a successful flood management strategy for California must do:

Incorporate flood management into state and local land use decisions.  Landscape-scale flood control tools such as flood bypasses or flood easements can help take the pressure off of the state's aging levee system while also providing protection for wildlife habitat and agricultural lands.  Assemblymember Wolk's AB 5 and Senator Machado's SB 5 both call for increased use of innovative flood management options.

Ensure that new developments have adequate flood protection.  In order to protect lives and property from flood risk, land use planning should reasonably consider flood risk. AB 5 (Wolk) and AB 162 (Wolk) are bills which currently address this issue.

Clarify the roles and responsibilities of state and local agencies in flood protection.  Flood waters transcend political boundaries, and a successful statewide flood plan must clearly outline how different agencies share the responsibility for managing floods.  Senator Machado's SB 5 highlights this important need.

Reform the Reclamation Board.  The Reclamation Board is charged with protecting public safety.  Fulfilling this mandate requires members who are experienced, knowledgeable, responsible, and without conflicts of interest.  SB 17 (Florez) proposes these necessary reforms. 

Protect California taxpayers.  Land use decisions must be informed by risk.  Local governments making land use and planning decisions that may increase the risk of losses due to flooding should share in the liability resulting from those decisions.  Assemblymember Jones offers a balanced suggestion for shared liability in AB 70.

Set priorities for short-term and long-term flood safety improvements.  Current bond funds for flood protection must be spent wisely.  Short term priorities should be to minimize failures in heavily urbanized areas by funding projects such as levee maintenance and acquisition of flood easements.  An important longer term priority is to improve the capacity of the state flood infrastructure to direct flood flows away from urban areas, while also meeting other objectives such as preserving wetland and riparian habitats.  AB 1452 (Wolk) offers guidance for appropriate priorities.

Promote local flood safety and emergency planning.  Cities and counties must not assume that levee protection is assured protection, but rather should take an active part in flood safety by developing emergency plans and making sure that residents understand what to do in case of flooding.  In AB 156, Assemblymember Laird addresses this local responsibility.

Wish us luck as we head into the bodyshop?

Next Week:  Update on the negotiation timeline as the Legislature begins (probably...hopefully) Summer Recess.