Gino DiCaro

Bad environmental bills on governor's desk

By Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications

Capitol Update, Sept. 23, 2005 Share this on FacebookTweet thisEmail this to a friend

Of the 46 environmental bills which CMTA took a position on this year, only five "oppose" bills made it to the Governor's desk.  

SB 484 (Carole Migden, D-San Francisco) would require cosmetic manufacturers to submit an unnecessary, costly and burdensome report to the Department of Health Services of any ingredients in their products that are on the Proposition 65 list.  This bill would just be the tip of the iceberg, with additional bills of this ilk facing other industries in the years to come.

SB 600 (Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento) would establish a biomonitoring program which could provide useful information, but the bill is not based on a sound scientific foundation with safeguards to prevent mass hysteria upon release of results.  Guidelines similar to those adopted by the U.S. Center for disease Control are necessary.  CMTA is also opposed because no funding source was identified.

SB 820 (Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica) would require groundwater reporting which would cost business and agriculture $250 million to install wells and submit data.  The reporting requirements of the bill are such that the information submitted would be useless for the planning purposes intended.

AB 405 (Cindy Montanez, D-San Fernando) would prohibit the use of conditionally registered pesticides in schools.  Disinfectant and sanitizer products should have been exempted from the bill but were not.  The Department of Pesticide Regulation's protocol requires the consideration of all available data on product use risks, application methods and rates and level and extent of potential exposure prior to conditional registration.

AB 1125 (Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills) was amended in the waning hours of the session to include lithium ion and nickel metal hydride rechargeable batteries as well as nickel cadmium and sealed lead acid batteries in a mandatory retailer recycling program.  The former two types of batteries are not considered hazardous by the federal government and landfilling is considered an acceptable method of disposal  They do not present an environmental liability.  CMTA changed it's position from Neutral to Oppose.


** Click bill numbers to see CMTA veto request letters

Read more Environmental Impacts articles

Capitol updates archive 989898989