AgdaPkt 2005-06-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

L~gislatiYe &-// Bill Action ............................................................... It is our understanding, based upon conversa- tions with legislativ.e staff, that sa 928 wilL address ' three main topics: \'Vaste Board reorganization (i.e., full time, part ti,me, reduced, board member- ship); solid waste facility enforc~ment; and AÎ3 939 compliance and potential increase in recycling goals and requirements. The League, CSAC and the Regional Council of Rural Counties have sent a joint letter to the authors of SB 928 commenting on its provisions. A copy of that letter is posted on the League's website. The League's position and comments on increasing the AB 939 diversion rates are based upon review of the issue by the League's Environmental Quality Policy Committee, which was confirmed by the League Board of Directors. Briefly, the comments can be summarized as follows: Waste Board Re-Oraanization: It may be appropriate to consider alternative ways to re- organize the Waste Board, although we do not have a position on any specific re-organization proposal (i.e., reduced number of full-time board members, part-time board, etc.). We support inclusion of a position specifically designated for someone with local government experience. Enforcement: As organizations representing solid waste facility operators, hóst jurisdictions, neighbors to solid waste facilities, and local en- forcement agencies, the League, CSAC and RCRC understand the complexity of solid waste facility enforcement issues. It is not clear at this tilTlê what enforcement-related issues SB 928 would include. The Future of AB 939: This is the issue that in~bì;ci~ ang:CQunty officials the. most. As . c~~tLj&raftei:(:SB 928 only provides a blank for a potential increased diversion rate and thus is a place holder for some new number. . The League, CSAC and RCRC believe that any proposal to increase the AB 939 diversion rates should not be done without accompanying changes to how the goals and compliance are evaluated and the process streamlined. The three organizations were prepared to oppose SB 420 (Simitian), which would increase the AB 939 goal to 75 percent by 2015, in concept. This opposition was based upon the vi~w that it is premature to establish another AB 939 goal at thi$ time.. Although under SB 420 the 75 percent goal would not be -required" until 2015, it is unclear whether or not given the current recycling infra- structure if this is an achievable, cost effective or . reasonable goal to which local gover~ments should be held (It is important to note that SB 928 does not include any specific number for a new diversion rate or any suggested changes to streamline compliance evaluation. Thus, the League, CSAC and RCRC letter focused on the broad issues that we will use to determine an ultimate position on the bill.) In addition, the League, CSAC and RCRC, as well as numerous city and county officials, have participated in the Waste Board's excellent stake- holder process to evaluate alternative compliance options for AB 939. This process has provided an opportunity for representatives from cities and counties, the environmental community and solid waste and recycling communities to brainstorm and comment on the pros and cons of alternative ways of measuring AB 939 progress. The ideas dis- cussed at the stakeholder meetings and the con- cepts currently being considered by the Waste Board staff have merit and are a good starting point for future legislative discussions. The League, CSAC and RCRC concluded with the statement that no new, increased goal should be contemplated until the Waste Board has com- pleted its analysis of the diversion compliance options and the process of measuring compliance is streamlined. At that time, it may be appropriate to consider a higher goal for the future. The League will continue to be engaged in the Waste Board's stakeholder process and, of course, in discussions related to SB 928 throughout the remainder of the legislative session. We will keep you posted as SB 928 discussions evolve. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending on Senate Floor; Position: Review and Comment. www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 11