21st Century Policy Project

Remarks by Senator Byron Sher, made available at the Issues Summit

I want to begin by thanking the Integrated Waste Management Board and especially its new chair, Danny Eaton, for inviting me to speak to today. I look forward to working with Danny in the coming months on the board's budgetary and legislative priorities for the 1999-2000 legislative session.

I also want to recognize my friend and former colleague in the Legislature, Senator David Roberti, who is now the newest member of the Board. David has always been a great friend of the environment and, as the Senate Pro Tem, was a staunch and consistent supporter of important environmental protection legislation.

In fact, relatively few people know that without David Roberti, and his staff person Rick Dunne, it is unlikely that AB 939 would have become law. Senator Roberti worked diligently in the last week of the 1989 session to negotiate the final details of the legislation with then-Governor Deukmejian.

And as the Senate Leader, he delivered one of the more memorable and persuasive speeches on the Senate Floor in support of the bill in the closing hours of the session while Rick helped work the floor to obtain the votes needed for passage of the bill.

The final vote was 24-10. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Perhaps most important, in this ninth year of the 10-year experiment known as the California Integrated Waste Management Act, I want to recognize and congratulate the representatives of the solid waste and recycling industries, of local governments throughout the state, and of the staff members of the Waste Board who have worked so hard over the past decade to make the law a success.

It is not an overstatement to say that, thanks in no small part to your efforts, there has been a sea change in the attitudes, and actions, undertaken by local governments and the private sector waste industries in the way in which we manage solid waste and recyclables in the state.

Waste haulers, both large and small, have shown their commitment to integrated waste management through the significant investments in capital and resources throughout the state.

I recall attending the annual reception hosted by the waste industry in Sacramento (informally know as the "Trash Bash") this past year and noticing for the first time that the small golden trash can lapel pins traditionally worn by industry representatives had been replaced by the chasing arrow recycling logo, a sign that the waste industry had embraced the recycling ethic wholeheartedly.

And where once only local governments like my own home city of Palo Alto, or the city of Berkeley, had aggressive recycling and composting programs, now hundreds of local jurisdictions have established curbside programs and green waste recycling programs.

I'd like to take a few minutes today to review with you the policy underpinnings of AB 939 as they were set forth in the late 1980's, and then to conclude with some thoughts on where integrated waste management policy should go in the next millennium.

One needs to look no further than the findings and declarations of the Act to determine the policy basis for the original legislation.

In 1988, the Legislature determined that Californians had disposed of over 38 million tons of garbage, primarily in landfills, at a per capita rate which exceeded most industrialized countries.

It also determined that improper landfilling of solid waste posed a potential threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health.

And it found that while the state would exhaust its projected landfill space by the mid-1990's, there existed no long-term or coherent plan for managing of the state's waste in the final decade of the century.

More broadly, the Legislature had come to the conclusion that a series of legislative actions were needed to address the state solid waste crisis. Key issues were the potential scarcity of disposal capacity, toxic contamination from leachate, and a lack of a clear set of state policies promoting source reduction, recycling, composting, and environmentally safe disposal.

In addition to these policy concerns, the state agency which oversaw solid waste management, was viewed by many in the Legislature as being anti-recycling, and pro landfill or waste-to-energy.

It was in this policy and political climate that AB 939 was introduced.

Governor George Deukmejian had been roundly criticized in the press and in the Legislature for his veto of legislation in 1988 which had set much less ambitious goals for the recycling of solid waste, and which had largely left the old solid waste management board intact.

So the Governor did something we have seen precious little of over the past eight years; he engaged the Legislature in a bipartisan negotiation to formulate legislation which reformed both the policies and the structure of state solid waste management law.

In retrospect, it is interesting to note that the most significant, and controversial, policy initiative insisted upon by the Deukmejian Administration was to provide an incentive in the law for waste-to-energy projects to be constructed in the state. At the time, these projects were seen by some as an attractive and economically viable alternative to landfilling. Several large corporations had made it known that they intended to build large new facilities in places like Irwindale, East Los Angeles, and Redwood City (in my Assembly District) to process municipal solid waste into energy.

Because of the Administration's insistence, the final version of AB 939 contained a provision which gave local agencies diversion credit for incinerating solid waste. This provision provoked strong opposition from some environmental groups, and from key legislators who represented areas where these facilities were to be constructed.

As we all know now, it was the economics of the energy markets, coupled with the restrictions placed on new sources of air pollution in smoggy Southern California which have greatly restricted the development of new waste-to-energy plants in the state.

Needless to say, at least in some respects, things have changed dramatically since the original law, and the assumptions under which it was passed, were first considered.

For example, according to the latest figures from the board staff, California has gone from a 12% statewide diversion rate in 1989 to a 32% rate in 1997, the latest year for which figures are available.

Over 173 cities and counties throughout the state have met or exceeded the 25% diversion requirement for 1995, and 42 jurisdictions have already met their 50% diversion requirements. Many others have adopted integrated waste management plans and undertaken specific programs to assist in complying with the law.

In addition, it has become clear that the state's "landfill crisis" is really a series of regional disposal crises. Thanks, in part, to the requirement in the law that local agencies identify disposal capacity and facilities in their integrated waste management plans, it has become clear that at least some areas of the state have adequate access to disposal facilities.

However, in may other respects, the policy assumptions, and challenges first identified in 1989, remain as valid, and as daunting, as they were ten years ago. Indeed, as you meet today to discuss where state integrated waste management policy should proceed as we enter the 21^st century, we can begin by correcting some of the serious mistakes which have been made over the past decade or so with this law.

For example:

• As a general matter, precious little has been done to promote stable and economically viable markets for recycled goods in the state. While a good deal of progress has been made in the "supply side" of AB 939, the "demand side" of the law has atrophied. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult to ensure stable and predictable markets for diverted materials.

• More specifically, while many local governments and private sector have taken responsibility for the promotion of markets for diverted materials, the state itself has lagged woefully behind. Unfortunately, the prior administration repeatedly blocked efforts by the Legislature to enact bills which would have greatly strengthened the state's role as a engine driving recycled product procurement. As a result of these policies, rather than taking a leadership role in promoting the use of recycled materials and adopting procurement policies which push the envelope, state government has actually become a regressive force in market development. I am hopeful that the new administration in Sacramento will end the unfortunate practice of vetoing legislation designed to ensure that the State of California, and its subsidiary agencies, becomes the largest procurer of recycled goods in the country
  
• While landfilling is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the predominant option for disposal of those wastes which cannot be reused, our landfill regulatory program is in serious need of overhauling. For example, in my view, it was a serious mistake for the board and the Legislature to revise the law in the early 1990's to effectively prohibit the board from reviewing the multi-media environmental problems associated with improperly operated landfills. The board is now placed in the unfortunate position of being required to turn a blind eye to sometimes glaring water quality problems associated with disposal facilities and leaving such concerns to often lackluster or timid regional water boards. I would hope that this area of the law could be revisited so that the board's broader mission of protecting the environment could be restored.

• While the diversion requirements of the law are a central tenet to determining its success, I am concerned that we have become overly concerned with "numbers-crunching" as an end in itself, and less concerned with the quality and diversity of programs adopted by local agencies in order to meet the law's underlying intent. I am troubled by the extraordinary lengths that some local jurisdictions are going to ensure that their diversion numbers fit into a mathematical equation which determines successful diversion. I am also concerned about the number of local agencies who are now coming forward stating the need to revise their base-year numbers in order to revise their diversion rates. Rather than struggling to back into the diversion requirements in the law, it may make more sense to define alternative programmatic approaches which ensure quality and not just quantity.

• In addition to these issues, we need to re-think both the structure and the funding for integrated waste management programs under the new administration. With respect to the board itself, in my view, it is long overdue that a designated slot be established for local government official under the law. In addition, it is time to look at whether an even numbered board where the potential for tie votes on important public policy matters, should be revisited. And finally, as Governor Davis has suggested in his budget submittal to the Legislature, it is time to look at moving the state's beverage container recycling program over to CAL/EPA so that that program and the programs administered by the board can be coordinated more effectively and efficiently.

In closing, I would simply state that, in my view, the basic provisions of the Integrated Waste Management Act remain as current and relevant today as they were a decade ago when the law was passed and signed into law. Over the long haul, California has the unique opportunity to become once again an international leader in the field of integrated waste management. The duties of the state and local agencies, as articulated in Public Resources Code Section 40051, are as important today as at any time in the past.

"The board, and local agencies, shall promote the following waste management practices in order of priority:

• Source reduction
• Recycling and composting
• Environmentally safe transformation and landfill disposal"

I look forward to working with the board and all of the participants in today's conference to ensure that the Integrated Waste Management Act continues to be a success into the 21^st Century.

Last updated: October 18, 2007