<h1>SENATE THIRD READING</h1><h1>STR Bill Id:SB 1208</h1> Author:(Padilla)As Amended Ver:July 3, 2024Majority vote<h2>SUMMARY</h2>Prohibits a Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste, if the new landfill is to be located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, or within an area that is a tributary of the Tijuana River. <h3>Major Provisions</h3><ol><li>Provides that the prohibition of a waste discharge permit for a new solid waste landfill applies if both of the following conditions are satisfied:</li></ol>a)	The Secretary for the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) makes written findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, and posts on CalEPA's internet website, that the construction, operation, and closure or postclosure of a new nonhazardous solid waste landfill within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River will not harm or otherwise adversely affect the Tijuana River or areas tributary to the Tijuana River; and,b)	A Regional Water Board makes a finding that the waste discharge requirements for the landfill protect water quality, meet water quality objectives, and protect beneficial uses.<h2>COMMENTS</h2>Cross-border pollution: Several waterbodies straddle the international border between the U.S. and Mexico. Among those, the Tijuana River and the New River are recognized polluted rivers that affect both sides of the border and have required state resources to help mitigate the harm to environmental and public health. Tijuana River watershed: The Tijuana River watershed is a large binational watershed of approximately 1,750 square miles that lies across the California-Mexico border. A large portion of the watershed (approximately 75%) is within Mexico and encompasses the densely urbanized city of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. The watershed drains into the Tijuana River Estuary in the U.S. and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean in the City of Imperial Beach. Tijuana River Estuary: The Tijuana Estuary is the largest coastal wetland in Southern California and it is located on the international border between the U.S. and Mexico. The estuary is primarily a shallow water habitat, though it is often termed an &quot;intermittent estuary,&quot; as it undergoes extreme changes in streamflow at different times of the year. The Tijuana River Estuary is one of the few salt marshes remaining in Southern California. The site is an essential breeding, feeding, and nesting ground and key stopover point on the Pacific Flyway for over 370 species of migratory and native birds, including six endangered species. Tijuana River pollution: In the past 30 years, the city of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, has experienced tremendous population and industrial growth, along with rapid urbanization. According to census data presented by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, an agency of the Mexican Government, the City of Tijuana had a population of 1,922,523 in 2020, representing a 23.3% growth in population compared to 2010 census data. The population in the City of Tijuana has nearly tripled compared to census data from 1990. This rapid growth has put a strain on aging Mexican sewage infrastructure causing serious pollution problems on both sides of the border. A concerning number of homes in the City of Tijuana do not have connections to any wastewater or solid waste collection system. These infrastructure problems result in massive flows of untreated sewage that affect the Tijuana River Estuary and adjacent beach coastal waters. The pollution in the Tijuana River has impacted beaches and businesses and is a major public health threat in San Diego County. The San Diego Department of Environmental Health and Quality's Beach and Bay Water Quality Program currently lists five shorelines closed to the public in South San Diego County due to bacteria levels exceeding health standards. These closures date back to December 2021. Local news stations, such as NBC 7 San Diego, have visited numerous businesses in the city of Imperial Beach that stated concerns over revenue loss and the future of their small businesses, since beach closures have caused a decrease in tourism in the area. While beach closures deter the public from entering contaminated waters and prevent illnesses from direct contact, a recent study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography suggests that bacteria from the raw, untreated sewage can be airborne and affect people living in close proximity to coastal waters. Data analyses have demonstrated that up to 76% of the bacteria people breathe in the City of Imperial Beach comes from the aerosolization of raw sewage from the Tijuana River, suggesting that pollution in the Tijuana River may have farther-reaching health consequences than previously thought. Further studies are needed to understand the impacts on human health and how climate change may contribute to this crisis.The East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill: On June 8, 2010, a county-wide initiative, Proposition A, amended San Diego County's general plan to allow for the construction and operation of a new landfill and recycling center. The question before the voters of San Diego County was: &quot;Shall this Initiative be adopted for the purpose of siting a new recycling center and class III solid waste landfill in East Otay Mesa area of unincorporated San Diego County?&quot;In 2011, the developer of this proposed landfill began the regulatory process by initiating the environmental review process (under state law) for a class III solid waste landfill occupying approximately 340 acres. The proposed project site would be located approximately one and one-half miles from the City of San Diego, two and one-half miles from the City of Chula Vista, and one-quarter mile from the U.S./Mexico border. According to the website of the County of San Diego Department of Health and Quality, there were two environmental documents submitted (an Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation) on September 12, 2011. There are no additional environmental documents posted since 2011. However, since that time, the project proponent has indicated they are in the process of applying for a solid waste facility permit and are preparing the environmental documents to be submitted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). During conversations about this bill, the proponents of the landfill are confident that there will not be any negative impacts on the Tijuana River associated with the landfill. While voters approved a zoning change to allow for the recycling center and class III landfill, the project still needs to obtain the approval of various local, state, and federal agencies and those regulatory approvals cannot be guaranteed in advance. This includes the requirements under CEQA which include evaluating potential impacts on Native American cultural sites.CalEnviroScreen: In order to address the cumulative effects of both pollution burden and certain population characteristics, and to identify which communities might be in need of particular policy, investment, or programmatic interventions, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed and now maintains and updates the CalEnviroScreen tool. The tool applies a framework for assessing cumulative impacts such as exposures and public health or environmental effects from all sources of pollution in a geographic area. Cumulative impacts also take into account groups of people that are especially sensitive to the effects of pollution and socioeconomic factors. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Otay Mesa, the site of the proposed landfill, has a score in the 90-100% (which is the most burdened percentile). Therefore, citing a solid waste landfill in this area could increase the pollution burden this community already is faced with.This bill: SB 1208 would prohibit the San Diego Regional Water Board from issuing a waste discharge permit for the proposed landfill in Otay Mesa unless the Secretary for CalEPA makes a specified finding that the landfill will not harm the Tijuana River, and a Regional Water Board makes a finding that the waste discharge permit requirements protect water quality, meet water quality objectives, and protect beneficial uses. <h3>According to the Author</h3>&quot;Border communities already face some of California's most pressing environmental hazards in the form of dangerously polluted air and water that has created a public health crisis. The Tijuana River is already one of the most polluted watersheds in the nation. Allowing developers to build an unnecessary landfill in that watershed would further impact local communities that are already enduring ecological disasters. SB 1208 will protect vulnerable Californians by prohibiting a landfill that would further pollute the waters of the Tijuana River and threaten local residents.&quot;<h3>Arguments in Support</h3>According to a coalition in support of the bill, &quot;The project could impair water and air quality throughout the Tijuana River Watershed, including the Tijuana River Valley and Estuary, contributing to harmful health impacts to downstream communities in a region already burdened by the cross border pollution crisis, one of the worst ongoing public health and environmental justice crises in the country. There is no need for a new landfill in San Diego County, as the county has more than adequate assured disposal capacity for the next 30 years as documented in San Diego County's 2022 detailed analysis of the region's landfill capacity. We applaud Senator Padilla's recognition that &quot;we all live downstream&quot;, and, pointedly, that an unnecessary landfill developed in the watershed of the already impaired Tijuana River could adversely affect water and air quality in the lower watershed and exacerbate the ongoing pollution issues from which our border cities and communities have suffered for decades.&quot;<h3>Arguments in Opposition</h3>According to National Enterprises, Inc., &quot;SB 1208 adds significant, unbudgeted state costs for redundant enforcement and review of federal, state, and local environmental protection functions. In addition, the measure introduces an unprecedented and costly project review by the CalEPA Secretary that will undoubtedly be replicated in future legislation to halt housing and other development projects. It is important to note that the permitting and environmental documents being prepared are for both the recycling center and landfill components in a single application.SB 1208 undermines San Diego voters' approval and property rights. In 2010, County of San Diego voters approved Proposition A, by 84.49% to allow for the construction and operation of a recycling collection center and class III solid waste landfill on the East Otay Mesa project site. SB 1208 flagrantly defies the voters and provides them with no viable alternative.&quot;<h2>FISCAL COMMENTS</h2>According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of, and compliance with, this bill could cost CalEPA approximately $225,000 annually and the State Water Board approximately $900,000 annually. <h2>VOTES</h2>SENATE FLOOR: 28-6-6YES: Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Cortese, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, WienerNO: Dahle, Grove, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, SeyartoABS, ABST OR NV: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Caballero, Min, Ochoa Bogh, WilkASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 5-0-2YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Papan, ReyesABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, TaASM NATURAL RESOURCES: 9-1-2YES: Bryan, Bauer-Kahan, Connolly, Friedman, Kalra, Muratsuchi, Pellerin, Wicks, WoodNO: FloraABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, LackeyASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, VillapuduaABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta<h2>UPDATED</h2>VERSION: July 3, 2024CONSULTANT: Josh Tooker / E.S. &amp; T.M. / (916) 319-3965	 FN: 0003922

Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024<h1>ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS</h1>Buffy Wicks, Chair<h1>SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1208 </h1> Author:(Padilla) – As Amended Ver:July 3, 2024<table><tr><td>Policy Committee:</td><td>Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials </td><td>Vote:</td><td>5 - 0</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Natural Resources </td><td></td><td>9 - 1</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> </td><td></td><td> </td></tr></table>Urgency: No	State Mandated Local Program: No	Reimbursable: NoSUMMARY:This bill prohibits a regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill for disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the landfill is to be located within the Tijuana River area in San Diego, unless the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) secretary and regional water board make specified findings to protect against negative impact.Specifically, this bill: <ol><li>Prohibits a regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the landfill is to be located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (Reserve) or an area that is a tributary to the Tijuana River. </li><li>Provides this prohibition does not apply if two conditions are met:<ol><li>The Secretary of CalEPA makes formal written findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, and posts on the agency’s internet website, that the construction, operation, and closure/post-closure of a new nonhazardous solid waste landfill within the Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River will not harm or otherwise adversely affect the Tijuana River or areas tributary to the Tijuana River.</li><li>A regional water board makes a finding that the waste discharge requirements protect water quality, meet water quality objectives, and protect beneficial uses.</li></ol></li><li>Specifies this prohibition does not apply to a public agency restoration and beneficial reuse project for abandoned sand and gravel mining quarries located within the Reserve or within an area that is a tributary to the Tijuana River. </li><li>Makes legislative findings that the use of areas within the Tijuana River watershed for landfill disposal and related activities create the potential for pollution and other hazardous conditions that can adversely affect human health and the environment. </li></ol>FISCAL EFFECT:CalEPA reports General Fund costs estimated at $225,000 annually, potentially ongoing, for the Secretary to make the written findings under the clear and convincing evidence standard required by this bill, with technical support from agency departments.The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) reports costs estimated at $900,000 annual ongoing from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund to address unintended consequences resulting from this bill, with costs primarily associated with enforcement actions, involving minor, moderate, and major violations of water quality statutes and regulations, depending on the number, type, and severity of the violations that occur. SWRCB describes these unintended consequences as deriving from illegal dumping if a proposed landfill does not become operative. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. COMMENTS:<ol><li>Purpose. According to the author:</li></ol>Border communities already face some of California’s most pressing environmental hazards in the form of dangerously polluted air and water that has created a public health crisis. The Tijuana River is already one of the most polluted watersheds in the nation. Allowing developers to build an unnecessary landfill in that watershed would further impact local communities that are already enduring ecological disasters. SB 1208 will protect vulnerable Californians by prohibiting a landfill that would further pollute the waters of the Tijuana River and threaten local residents.<ol><li>Background. This bill sets a new standard for approval of a landfill proposed for siting in the Tijuana River watershed in San Diego with the goal of protecting against more adverse health and environmental impacts in an area already considered one of the most polluted in the nation. In 2010, about 84% of voters approved a local ballot measure to site a proposed 340-acre class III (nonhazardous) solid waste landfill and recycling center in the unincorporated area of south San Diego County, one and one-half miles from the City of San Diego, two and one-half miles from the City of Chula Vista, and one-quarter mile from the United States/Mexico border. Initial environmental impact documents were filed in 2011 but, as of June 2024, environmental review is still underway. The project is known as the East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill, but current plans under review appear to not include the recycling center. California has enacted several significant recycling laws in the last decade, which likely increased costs of the proposed project. Moreover, dramatically increased water and air pollution in the project area in recent years has heightened concerns about whether the landfill project presents risk of even more public health hazards. The landfill developer, however, claims that the landfill will have no negative impacts on the Tijuana River watershed. </li></ol>The developer still faces several regulatory hurdles to build the proposed landfill, including obtaining a waste discharge permit from the regional water control board. This bill imposes new requirements for obtaining that permit. The findings by the CalEPA Secretary and regional water board that this bill requires are intended to verify the developer’s claims that there will be no negative impacts and to protect the residents and community from more health and environmental hazards.<ol><li>Prior legislation. AB 2601 (Eduardo Garcia), of the 2021-22 Legislative Session, would have prohibited a regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, if the land is located within three miles of the United States’ border with Mexico. AB 2601 was held in this committee. </li></ol>Analysis Prepared by:	Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2024<h1>ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES</h1>Isaac G. Bryan, Chair<h1>SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1208</h1> Author:(Padilla) – As Amended Ver:April 29, 2024SENATE VOTE: 28-6SUBJECT: Waste discharge permits: landfillsSUMMARY: Prohibits a Regional Water Quality Control Board (regional water board) from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land is located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (Reserve) or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River, except as specified.EXISTING LAW: <ol><li>Establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional water boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements (WDRs) which, among other things, regulate the discharge of pollutants in stormwater, including municipal stormwater systems. (33 United States Code 1342 and Water Code (WC) 13377)</li><li>Prohibits, pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the discharge of pollutants to surface waters unless the discharger obtains a permit from SWRCB or a regional water board. (WC 13000, et seq.)</li><li>Prohibits a regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill, or lateral expansion of an existing landfill, which is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste, if the land has been primarily used at any time for the mining or excavation of gravel or sand, except as specified. (Public Resources Code (PRC) 40060 (a))</li></ol>THIS BILL:<ol><li>Prohibits a regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the new landfill is to be located within the Reserve or within an area that is a tributary to the Tijuana River. </li><li>Specifies that this prohibition does not apply to a public agency restoration and beneficial reuse project for abandoned sand and gravel mining quarries located within the Reserve or within an area that is a tributary to the Tijuana River. </li><li>Expands the definition of “landfill used for the disposal for nonhazardous solid waste” to include Class II landfills. </li><li>States that the Legislature finds and declares that the use of areas within the Tijuana River watershed for landfill disposal and related activities create the potential for pollution and other hazardous conditions that can adversely affect human health and the environment. </li></ol>FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, SWRCB estimates ongoing costs of approximately $900,000 annually (Waste Discharge Permit Fund) to address unintended consequences that SWRCB anticipates resulting from this bill’s provisions. The costs would be primarily associated with enforcement actions, involving minor, moderate, and major violations of water quality statutes and regulations, and would depend on the number, type, and severity of the violations that occur.COMMENTS: <ol><li>Tijuana River and Estuary. The Tijuana River flows north from Tijuana into the Tijuana River and Estuary (TJRE) in the United States, emptying into the Pacific Ocean at Imperial Beach. The TJRE is severely contaminated by untreated sewage, industrial waste, and urban run-off due to inadequate infrastructure and urbanization. The watershed is classified as an impaired water body according to the federal Clean Water Act. This contamination is a persistent environmental and public health threat with substantial economic, legal, social, and health implications for the nearby communities, such as San Ysidro and Imperial Beach. </li><li>The East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill. In 2011, there was a proposal submitted for a class III (nonhazardous) solid waste landfill occupying approximately 340 acres. The proposed project would have been located in the unincorporated area of south San Diego County, approximately two miles east of the Siempre Viva Road exit from Interstate 905, one-quarter mile from Loop Road/Paseo De La Fuente and east of planned State Route 11. The site is approximately one and one-half miles from the City of San Diego, two and one-half miles from the City of Chula Vista, and one-quarter mile from the United States/Mexico border. On June 8, 2010, a San Diego County initiative, Proposition A, which asked voters “shall this initiative be adopted for the purpose of siting a new recycling center and class III solid waste landfill in East Otay Mesa area of unincorporated San Diego County?” The measure was approved by 84.49% to revise the county's general plan to allow for the construction and operation of a recycling center and a landfill on the site. According to the County of San Diego Department of Health and Quality, there were two environmental documents submitted (an Initial Study and a Notice of Preparation) on September 12, 2011. The San Diego Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency notes that as of June 14, 2024, the applicant is actively working on the environmental review process; however, the current plans don’t appear to include a recycling facility. </li><li>Pollution burden. In order to address the cumulative effects of pollution burden and socioeconomic factors and identify which communities might be in need of policy, investment, or programmatic interventions, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) maintains the CalEnviroScreen tool on behalf of the California Environmental Protection Agency. The tool applies a framework, developed by OEHHA in 2010, for assessing cumulative environmental and socioeconomic impacts. According to OEHHA cumulative impacts refer to exposures and public health or environmental effects from all sources of pollution in a geographic area. Cumulative impacts also take into account groups of people that are especially sensitive to the effects of pollution and socioeconomic factors. The CalEnviroScreen tool's framework is based in large part on input from a statewide working group on environmental justice that pointed out the unmet need to assess cumulative burdens and vulnerabilities affecting California communities. Otay Mesa and the neighboring communities of San Ysidro and Nestor have among the most burdened CalEnviroScreen scores in the state. Citing a new solid waste landfill in this area would increase the pollution burden on these communities. </li><li>Capacity. According to the County of San Diego’s Five-Year Review, which was completed as part of the solid waste Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan in 2022, the county has sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate disposal through 2053. The projected capacity is based on the assumption that the Sycamore Landfill will apply for projected expansions to their daily permitted capacity and that the county will achieve landfill disposal reductions targets through increased conservation and recycling, expanding composting and construction and demolition recycling, and implementing mandatory recycling ordinances. The expansion of Sycamore Landfill is expected to occur before two of the county’s four landfills are estimated to close in 2030. Sycamore Landfill has completed California Environmental Quality Act requirements for the expansions; however, the Local Enforcement Agency has not received an application to revise the facility’s Solid Waste Facility Permit. </li><li>This bill. This bill would prohibit the regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for the proposed East Otay Mesa landfill or any other new or expanded solid waste disposal facility that might be proposed in the Reserve or in a Tijuana River tributary in the future. </li><li>Prior legislation. AB 2601 (Eduardo Garcia, 2022) would have prohibited a regional water board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, if the land is located within three miles of the United States’ border with Mexico. Additionally, this bill would have prohibited a regional water board from granting a variance for a new landfill or lateral expansion of an existing landfill located within three miles of the United States’ border with Mexico. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. </li><li>Author’s statement:</li></ol>Border communities already face some of California’s most pressing environmental hazards in the form of dangerously polluted air and water that has created a public health crisis. The Tijuana River is already one of the most polluted watersheds in the nation. Allowing developers to build an unnecessary landfill in that watershed would further impact local communities that are already enduring ecological disasters. SB 1208 will protect vulnerable Californians by prohibiting a landfill that would further pollute the waters of the Tijuana River and threaten local residents.<ol><li>Double referral. This bill was previously heard by the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, which has jurisdiction over water quality permitting. This bill passed that committee on June 25th with a vote of 5-0. Due to the timing of the committees’ hearings, amendments agreed to in the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee will be adopted in this committee, should the bill pass. Those amendments: <ul><li>Require the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to make formal written findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the construction, operation, and closure/post-closure of a new nonhazardous solid waste landfill within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River will not harm or otherwise adversely affect the Tijuana River or areas tributary to the Tijuana River. </li><li>Require a regional water board to make a finding that the waste discharge requirements protect water quality, meet water quality objectives, and protect beneficial uses. </li><li>Add a severability clause. </li></ul></li></ol>REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:SupportActivist San DiegoAlliance San DiegoAlonso Gonzalez, Deputy Mayor, Chula Vista California Environmental Voters California Latino Environmental Advocacy NetworkClean Earth 4 KidsFood and Water Watch Jennifer Campbell, Councilmember, San Diego Jose Rodriguez, Council Member, Nevada City Marni Von Wilpert, Councilmember, San DiegoMonica Montgomery Steppe, Supervisor, San Diego CountyNatural Resources Defense Council Nora Vargas, Chair, San Diego County Board of Supervisors Paloma Aguirre, Mayor, City of Imperial Beach Ron Morrison, Mayor, National City San Diego Pediatricians for Clean Air Sean Elo Rivera, Council President, City of San Diego Sierra Club California UDW/AFSCME Local 3930Unite Here Local 301,000 individuals OppositionNational Enterprises, Inc. Analysis Prepared by:	Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. /

<h1>SENATE COMMITTEE ON </h1>Senator Anna Caballero, Chair2023 - 2024 Regular SessionSB 1208 (Padilla) - Waste discharge permits: landfills<table><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Version: </td><td>Policy Vote: </td></tr><tr><td>Urgency: </td><td>Mandate: </td></tr><tr><td>Hearing Date: </td><td>Consultant: </td></tr></table><h2>Bill Summary:</h2> This bill would prohibit a Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land is located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River, except as provided.<h2>Fiscal Impact:</h2> <ul><li>The Water Boards estimate ongoing costs of approximately $900,000 annually (Waste Discharge Permit Fund) to address unintended consequences that the State Water Board anticipates resulting from this bill’s provisions. The costs would be primarily associated with enforcement actions, involving minor, moderate, and major violations of water quality statutes and regulations, and would depend on the number, type, and severity of the violations that occur. </li></ul><h2>Background:</h2> Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. The law was amended in 1972 and became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The federal CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has implemented pollution control programs, including setting wastewater standards for industrial facilities, as well as setting water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters without a permit. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System in order to discharge into surface water. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As authorized by the CWA, the NPDES Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Examples of pollutants include, but are not limited to, rock, sand, dirt, and agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste discharged into waters of the United States. The NPDES Program is a federal program which has been delegated to the State of California for implementation through the State Water Board and the Regional Water Boards. Tijuana River and Estuary Contamination. The Tijuana River flows north from Tijuana into the Tijuana River and Estuary (TJRE) in the U.S., emptying into the Pacific Ocean at Imperial Beach. The TJRE is severely contaminated by untreated sewage, industrial waste, and urban run-off due to inadequate infrastructure and urbanization and the watershed is classified as an impaired water body according to the U.S. Clean Water Act. This contamination is a persistent environmental and public health threat with major economic, legal, social, and health implications for the nearby communities such as San Ysidro and Imperial Beach, according to a February 13, 2024, white paper from the San Diego State University, School of Public Health, titled Tijuana River Contamination from Urban Runoff and Sewage: A Public Health Crisis at the Border.Environmental impacts of landfills. In support of this measure, the author provided the committee with a July 2022 article from Environmental Science and Pollution Research, titled An overview of the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling and open dumping. The article reports that landfilling is associated with various environmental pollution problems, namely, underground water pollution due to the leaching of organic, inorganic, and various other substances of concern contained in the waste, air pollution due to suspension of particles, odor pollution from the deposition of municipal solid waste, and even marine pollution from any potential run-offs. Further, the research shows health impacts may occur through the pollution of the underground water and the emissions of gases, leading to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of the exposed population living in their vicinity. It should be noted that this article was based on a “desk review,” which is a scientific method that involves scanning the available body of literature. The study did not specifically look at the environmental impacts of landfills in California. California’s Regional Water Boards are required to ensure landfills comply with existing laws and procedures that protect water quality from the impacts of landfill operations. The East Otay Mesa Recycling Collection Center and Landfill. More than a decade ago, San Diego County voters approved a county-wide initiative to allow for the construction and operation of a landfill and recycling center in East Otay Mesa. In 2011, a proposal submitted for a class III solid waste landfill occupying approximately 340 acres of the 450-acre site. The remaining 110 acres would remain undeveloped with an additional 1000-foot buffer. The proposed project is located in the unincorporated area of south San Diego County, approximately one and one-half miles from the City of San Diego, two and one-half miles from the City of Chula Vista, and one-quarter mile from the United States/Mexico border. If this bill passes, this proposed landfill in East Otay Mesa would not be able to receive a waste discharge permit from the Regional Water Board.San Diego’s land-fill capacity. San Diego has 12 facilities that process waste: eight recycling and transfer stations and four landfills: Otay Mesa Landfill, Miramar Landfill, Sycamore Landfill, and Borrego Landfill. Two of the largest landfills (Miramar and Otay) are set to close by 2030. On September 20, 2022, CalRecycle approved the Five-Year Review Report for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan for the County of San Diego. The report indicates that the county has enough capacity with existing landfills to last through 2053. However, this scenario assumes the Sycamore Landfill will apply for three expansions to their daily permitted capacity. Sycamore Landfill has complete California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for these landfill expansions; however, there has been no application to the Local Enforcement Agency to revise the Solid Waste Facility Permit. The disposal projection scenario also assumes the county will meet aggressive recycling and organic waste targets, thereby diverting a greater rate of organic materials from the landfills. As noted above, the report references that Miramar and Otay are estimated to close by 2030. This closure date may happen earlier, opponents argue, since, to date, diversion targets have not been met. “If that does happen, Sycamore may not be fully prepared or even authorized to accept higher inflows,” according to opponents. CalEnviroScreen. In order to address the cumulative effects of both pollution burden and these additional factors, and to identify which communities might be in need of particular policy, investment, or programmatic interventions, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed and now maintains and updates the CalEnviroScreen tool on behalf of CalEPA. The tool applies a framework, developed by OEHHA in 2010, for assessing cumulative impacts. According to OEHHA cumulative impacts refer to exposures and public health or environmental effects from all sources of pollution in a geographic area. Cumulative impacts also take into account groups of people that are especially sensitive to the effects of pollution and socioeconomic factors. The CalEnviroScreen tool's framework is based in large part on input from a statewide working group on environmental justice that pointed out the unmet need to assess cumulative burdens and vulnerabilities affecting California communities. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Otay Mesa, the site of the proposed landfill, has a score in the 90-100% (which is the most polluted percentile). <h2>Proposed Law: </h2> This bill would prohibit a Regional Water Board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land is located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River, except as provided. This bill would:<ol><li>Prohibit a Regional Water Board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land is located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River.</li><li>Expand the definition of “landfill used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste” to also include a disposal site regulated by a Regional Water Board as a Class II landfill, as provided.</li><li>Provide that it does not apply to a public agency restoration and beneficial reuse project for abandoned sand and gravel mining quarries located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River.</li></ol><h2>Related Legislation:</h2> AB 2601 (Garcia, 2022) would have prohibited a Regional Water Board from issuing a waste discharge permit for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land is located within three miles of the United States border with Mexico. This bill was held on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.SB 1383 (Garcia, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) establishes methane emissions reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants including to reduce the disposal of organic waste 75 percent below 2014 levels by 2025 and to recover 20 percent of edible food for human consumption that is currently landfilled by 2025.-- END --

(2024-08-19: Read second time. Ordered to third reading.)

Waste discharge permits: landfills.

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_7BA603F8-6B3D-42CA-A8F5-1C15BE8BFAFC"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:Content>The Legislature finds and declares that the use of areas within the Tijuana River watershed for landfill disposal and related activities create the potential for pollution and other hazardous conditions that can adversely affect human health and the environment.</caml:Content></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_8FA06281-569B-430D-AD05-369CD3E2D8D5"><caml:Num>SEC. 2.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:PRC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'30.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'CHAPTER'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'ARTICLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'40060.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION" xlink:type="locator">Section 40060 of the <caml:DocName>Public Resources Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_407E7548-D13C-49F0-A086-A63E51BB01C2"><caml:Num>40060.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_7B680BFF-61E1-4F88-81D4-89B8D34A7475"><caml:Content>(a)(1)Notwithstanding any other law, a regional water board shall not issue a waste discharge permit for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, which is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land has been primarily used at any time for the mining or excavation of gravel or sand.(2)(A)Notwithstanding any other law, and not subject to a variance, a regional water board shall not issue a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the new landfill is to be located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine
						Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River. This prohibition does not apply if both of the following conditions are satisfied:(i)The Secretary for Environmental Protection makes written findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, and posts on the agencys internet website, that the construction, operation, and closure or postclosure of a new nonhazardous solid waste landfill within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River will not harm or otherwise adversely affect the Tijuana River or areas tributary to the Tijuana River.(ii)A regional water board makes a finding that the
						waste discharge requirements for the landfill protect water quality, meet water quality objectives, and protect beneficial uses.(B)Subparagraph (A) shall does not apply to a public agency restoration and beneficial reuse project for abandoned sand and gravel mining quarries located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River.(b)A regional water board, in a public meeting, may grant a variance from paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if the applicant demonstrates and the regional water board determines that the discharges to
						a new facility or expansion of an existing facility during its operation and postclosure period will not pollute or threaten to pollute the waters of the state. In deciding whether to grant a variance, the regional water board shall consider, among other factors, site characteristics, including permeability and transmissivity of the underlying soils and depth to groundwater. For the purpose of this section, groundwater means the uppermost aquifer usable for beneficial purposes.(c)Nothing in this section precludes any This section does not preclude a local jurisdiction from exercising any power that it has pursuant to any other law.(d)The following definitions govern the construction of this section:(1)Landfill used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste means a disposal site regulated by a regional water board as a Class II or III landfill pursuant to Subchapter 2 (commencing with Section 20200) of Chapter 3 of Subdivision 1 of Division 2 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations.(2)Lateral expansion means a new or expanded waste management unit that is not authorized on January 1, 1989, under existing waste discharge requirements issued pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code and an existing solid waste facility permit issued pursuant to this division. For purposes of subdivision (f), lateral expansion does not include a new or expanded
						waste management unit for which waste discharge requirements were issued by a regional water board before January 1, 1989, but were subject to review after that date pursuant to Section 13320 of the Water Code.(e)The regional water board may hold a single hearing for purposes of granting a variance pursuant to subdivision (b) and establishing waste discharge requirements.(f)Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a regional water board shall not grant a variance from paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if the variance is for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, located within the boundaries of the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. For purposes of this subdivision, the boundaries of the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin are the boundaries described in
						Exhibit A of the judgment in Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District v. City of Alhambra, et al., Case Number 924128 of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.(g)The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection>

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_7BA603F8-6B3D-42CA-A8F5-1C15BE8BFAFC"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:Content>The Legislature finds and declares that the use of areas within the Tijuana River watershed for landfill disposal and related activities create the potential for pollution and other hazardous conditions that can adversely affect human health and the environment.</caml:Content></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_8FA06281-569B-430D-AD05-369CD3E2D8D5"><caml:Num>SEC. 2.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:PRC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'30.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'CHAPTER'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'ARTICLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'40060.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION" xlink:type="locator">Section 40060 of the <caml:DocName>Public Resources Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_407E7548-D13C-49F0-A086-A63E51BB01C2"><caml:Num>40060.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_7B680BFF-61E1-4F88-81D4-89B8D34A7475"><caml:Content>(a)(1)Notwithstanding any other law, a regional water board shall not issue a waste discharge permit for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, which is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land has been primarily used at any time for the mining or excavation of gravel or sand.(2)(A)Notwithstanding any other law, and not subject to a variance, a regional water board shall not issue a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of
						nonhazardous solid waste if the new landfill is to be located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River.(B)Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a public agency restoration and beneficial reuse project for abandoned sand and gravel mining quarries located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River.(b)A regional water board, in a public meeting, may grant a variance from paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if the applicant demonstrates and the regional water board determines that the discharges to a new facility or expansion of an existing facility during its
						operation and postclosure period will not pollute or threaten to pollute the waters of the state. In deciding whether to grant a variance, the regional water board shall consider, among other factors, site characteristics, including permeability and transmissivity of the underlying soils and depth to groundwater. For the purpose of this section, groundwater means the uppermost aquifer usable for beneficial purposes.(c)Nothing in this section precludes any local jurisdiction from exercising any power that it has pursuant to any other law.(d)The following definitions govern the construction of this section:(1)Landfill used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste means a disposal site regulated by
						a regional water board as a Class
						II or III landfill pursuant to Subchapter 2 (commencing with Section 20200) of Chapter 3 of Subdivision 1 of Division 2 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations.(2)Lateral expansion means a new or expanded waste management unit that is not authorized on January 1, 1989, under existing waste discharge requirements issued pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code and an existing solid waste facility permit issued pursuant to this division. For purposes of subdivision (f), lateral expansion does not include a new or expanded waste management unit for which waste discharge requirements were issued by a regional water board before January 1, 1989, but were subject to review after that date pursuant to Section 13320 of the Water Code.(e)The
						regional water board may hold a single hearing for purposes of granting a variance pursuant to subdivision (b) and establishing waste discharge requirements.(f)Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a regional water board shall not grant a variance from paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if the variance is for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, located within the boundaries of the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. For purposes of this subdivision, the boundaries of the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin are the boundaries described in Exhibit A of the judgment in Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District v. City of Alhambra, et al., Case Number 924128 of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection>

<caml:Preamble>The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</caml:Preamble><caml:BillSection id="id_7BA603F8-6B3D-42CA-A8F5-1C15BE8BFAFC"><caml:Num>SECTION 1.</caml:Num><caml:Content>The Legislature finds and declares that the use of areas within the Tijuana River watershed for landfill disposal and related activities create the potential for pollution and other hazardous conditions that can adversely affect human health and the environment.</caml:Content></caml:BillSection><caml:BillSection id="id_8FA06281-569B-430D-AD05-369CD3E2D8D5"><caml:Num>SEC. 2.</caml:Num><caml:ActionLine action="IS_AMENDED" xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="urn:caml:codes:PRC:caml#xpointer(%2Fcaml%3ALawDoc%2Fcaml%3ACode%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'DIVISION'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'30.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'PART'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'CHAPTER'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'1.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawHeading%5B%40type%3D'ARTICLE'%20and%20caml%3ANum%3D'2.'%5D%2Fcaml%3ALawSection%5Bcaml%3ANum%3D'40060.'%5D)" xlink:label="fractionType: LAW_SECTION">Section 40060 of the <caml:DocName>Public Resources Code</caml:DocName> is amended to read:</caml:ActionLine><caml:Fragment><caml:LawSection id="id_407E7548-D13C-49F0-A086-A63E51BB01C2"><caml:Num>40060.</caml:Num><caml:LawSectionVersion id="id_7B680BFF-61E1-4F88-81D4-89B8D34A7475"><caml:Content>(a)(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a regional water board shall not issue a waste discharge permit for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, which is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the land has been primarily used at any time for the mining or excavation of gravel or sand.(2)Notwithstanding any other law, and not subject to a variance, a regional water board shall not
				 issue a waste discharge permit for a new landfill that is used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste if the new landfill is to be located within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve or within an area that is tributary to the Tijuana River.(b)A regional water board, in a public meeting, may grant a variance from paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if the applicant demonstrates and the regional water quality control board determines that the discharges to a new facility or expansion of an existing facility during its operation and postclosure period will not pollute or threaten to pollute the waters of the state. In deciding whether to grant a variance, the regional water board shall consider, among other
				 factors, site characteristics, including permeability and transmissivity of the underlying soils and depth to groundwater. For the purpose of this section, groundwater means the uppermost aquifer usable for beneficial purposes.(c)Nothing in this section precludes any local jurisdiction from exercising any power which that it has pursuant to any other provision of law.(d)The following definitions govern the construction of this section:(1)Landfill used for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste means a disposal site regulated by a
				 regional water board as a Class
				 II or III landfill pursuant to Sections 2533 and 2541 of Subchapter 2 (commencing with Section 20200) of Chapter 3 of Subdivision 1 of Division 2 of Title 23 27 of the California Code of Regulations.(2)Lateral expansion means a new or expanded waste management unit which that is not authorized on January 1, 1989, under existing waste
				 discharge requirements issued pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code and an existing solid waste facility permit issued pursuant to this title. division. For purposes of subdivision (f), lateral expansion does not include a new or expanded waste management unit for which waste discharge requirements were issued by a regional water board before January 1, 1989, but were subject to review after that date pursuant to Section 13320 of the Water Code.(e)The regional water board may hold a single hearing for purposes of granting a variance pursuant to subdivision (b) and establishing waste discharge requirements.(f)Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a regional
				 water board shall not grant a variance from paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) if the variance is for a new landfill, or a lateral expansion of an existing landfill, located within the boundaries of the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. For purposes of this subdivision, the boundaries of the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin are the boundaries described in Exhibit A of the judgment in Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District v. City of Alhambra, et al., Case Number 924128 of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.</caml:Content></caml:LawSectionVersion></caml:LawSection></caml:Fragment></caml:BillSection>

Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes  0.) (August  15).

August  7 set for first hearing. Placed on   suspense file.

Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on  APPR.

From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on  APPR. (Ayes  9. Noes  1.) (July  1).

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on  NAT. RES. (Ayes  5. Noes  0.) (June  25). Re-referred to Com. on  NAT. RES.

Referred to Coms. on  E.S. & T.M. and  NAT. RES.

In Assembly.  Read first time.  Held at Desk.

Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes  6.) Ordered to the Assembly.

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes  5. Noes  2.) (May  16).

May  13 hearing: Placed on  APPR suspense file.

From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on  APPR. (Ayes  4. Noes  0.) (April  24).

April  17 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

From printer. May be acted upon on or after March  17.

Introduced.  Read first time.  To Com. on RLS. for assignment.  To print.

SB 1208 Padilla Senate Third Reading By Boerner

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Natural Resources]

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

SB 1208: Waste discharge permits: landfills.

Current Status:

Assembly Floor

Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Senate Floor

Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

News Coverage: