California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 1 D cosponsors

SB 37 — Contaminated Site Cleanup and Safety Act.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Kalra.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to compile a list of specified information, including, but not limited to, hazardous waste facilities where the department took, or contracted for the taking of, corrective action to remedy or prevent, for example, an imminent substantial danger to public health. Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to compile a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis by local health officers. Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to compile a list of specified information, including, but not limited to, all cease and desist orders and cleanup and abatement orders issued under the Water Code that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. Existing law requires designated local enforcement agencies to compile and submit to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste, and requires the department to compile these lists into a statewide list. Existing law requires these agencies to update the information as appropriate, but at least annually, and to submit the information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection. Under existing law, the Secretary for Environmental Protection is required to consolidate the information provided by these state agencies and distribute the information in a timely fashion to each city and county in which sites on the lists are located and to any other person upon request. This bill would repeal the requirement for the State Department of Health Care Services to compile a list of all public drinking water wells, as described above. The bill would repeal the requirement for the state agencies to provide their respective lists to the Secretary for Environmental Protection and instead require these agencies to post the lists on their respective internet websites. The bill would repeal the requirement for the Secretary for Environmental Protection to consolidate the information submitted by the state agencies and instead require the secretary to post the information, or links to the information, on the California Environmental Protection Agency's internet website. The bill would repeal the requirement for the Secretary for Environmental Protection to distribute the information to each city and county in which sites on the lists are located and to any other person upon request. The bill would make other nonsubstantive, conforming, and technical changes. (2) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and adopt guidelines to implement CEQA, which guidelines shall include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt from CEQA. Existing law provides that a project located on a site that is included on the consolidated list created and distributed by the Secretary for Environmental Protection shall not be exempted from CEQA under this provision. This bill would provide that a project located on a site that is included on any list compiled by the state agencies specified above and posted on the California Environmental Protection Agency's internet website is exempted from CEQA if the project meets specified conditions, including, but not limited to, that the project not involve excavation that would disturb soil contamination and groundwater contamination at or beneath the site, the use of the site proposed by the project complies with all applicable land use requirements for the site, and the project does not include construction on the site of new or expanded sensitive uses, as specified, or new or expanded use of the site as a park, golf course, or any other similar open-space area, as provided. The bill would provide that a project that is located on a site that is included on any of the aforementioned lists is exempted from CEQA if, through a review of the project by the lead agency pursuant to specified regulations, the project is determined not to have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and the project is an action by a state agency or a local agency, as defined, for the protection of natural resources or the environment or an enforcement action by a state or local agency, among other specified projects. The bill would provide that this exemption does not apply to a project that includes construction on the site of new or expanded sensitive uses, as specified, or new or expanded use of the site as a park, golf course, or any other similar open-space area, as provided. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project would be exempt under these provisions, and file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located, as specified, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also expressly provide that a project that is included on any of the aforementioned lists shall not be exempted from CEQA as a project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, commonly known as the "common-sense exemption." (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Kalra.

  2. Ordered to third reading.

  3. From inactive file.

  4. Notice of intention to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Kalra.

  5. Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

  6. Ordered to third reading.

  7. Read third time and amended.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (August 26).

  11. August 19 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (July 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (June 16). Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

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

  16. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  17. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1340.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  18. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1180.) (May 20).

  21. Set for hearing May 20.

  22. May 10 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  23. Set for hearing May 10.

  24. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 917.) (April 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  25. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E.Q.

  26. Set for hearing April 26.

  27. April 12 hearing postponed by committee.

  28. Set for hearing April 12.

  29. Re-referred to Com. on E.Q.

  30. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  31. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  32. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 7.

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

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6200
Democratic 6000
Republican 0200
Total 12400
% of votes cast 75%25%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay

Official roll call →

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

Passed 7 Yea · 1 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5003
Republican 1100
Democratic 1000
Total 7103
% of votes cast 64%9%0%27%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
McCarty — Yea
Chau — Yea
Mathis — Not Voting
Friedman — Not Voting
Wood — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Special Consent SB37

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 4000
Democratic 13000
Unaffiliated 22001
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Min — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Newman — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Pan — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Melendez — Not Voting
Glazer — Yea
Roth — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Bates — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Democratic 1000
Republican 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kamlager — Yea
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

environment
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 37 do?
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to compile a list of specified information, including, but not limited to, hazardous waste facilities where the department took, or contracted for the taking of, corrective action to remedy or prevent, for example, an imminent substantial danger to public health. Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to compile a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis by local health officers. Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board to compile a list of specified information, including, but not limited to, all cease and desist orders and cleanup and abatement orders issued under the Water Code that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. Existing law requires designated local enforcement agencies to compile and submit to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste, and requires the department to compile these lists into a statewide list. Existing law requires these agencies to update the information as appropriate, but at least annually, and to submit the information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection. Under existing law, the Secretary for Environmental Protection is required to consolidate the information provided by these state agencies and distribute the information in a timely fashion to each city and county in which sites on the lists are located and to any other person upon request. This bill would repeal the requirement for the State Department of Health Care Services to compile a list of all public drinking water wells, as described above. The bill would repeal the requirement for the state agencies to provide their respective lists to the Secretary for Environmental Protection and instead require these agencies to post the lists on their respective internet websites. The bill would repeal the requirement for the Secretary for Environmental Protection to consolidate the information submitted by the state agencies and instead require the secretary to post the information, or links to the information, on the California Environmental Protection Agency's internet website. The bill would repeal the requirement for the Secretary for Environmental Protection to distribute the information to each city and county in which sites on the lists are located and to any other person upon request. The bill would make other nonsubstantive, conforming, and technical changes. (2) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and adopt guidelines to implement CEQA, which guidelines shall include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt from CEQA. Existing law provides that a project located on a site that is included on the consolidated list created and distributed by the Secretary for Environmental Protection shall not be exempted from CEQA under this provision. This bill would provide that a project located on a site that is included on any list compiled by the state agencies specified above and posted on the California Environmental Protection Agency's internet website is exempted from CEQA if the project meets specified conditions, including, but not limited to, that the project not involve excavation that would disturb soil contamination and groundwater contamination at or beneath the site, the use of the site proposed by the project complies with all applicable land use requirements for the site, and the project does not include construction on the site of new or expanded sensitive uses, as specified, or new or expanded use of the site as a park, golf course, or any other similar open-space area, as provided. The bill would provide that a project that is located on a site that is included on any of the aforementioned lists is exempted from CEQA if, through a review of the project by the lead agency pursuant to specified regulations, the project is determined not to have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and the project is an action by a state agency or a local agency, as defined, for the protection of natural resources or the environment or an enforcement action by a state or local agency, among other specified projects. The bill would provide that this exemption does not apply to a project that includes construction on the site of new or expanded sensitive uses, as specified, or new or expanded use of the site as a park, golf course, or any other similar open-space area, as provided. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project would be exempt under these provisions, and file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located, as specified, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also expressly provide that a project that is included on any of the aforementioned lists shall not be exempted from CEQA as a project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, commonly known as the "common-sense exemption." (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 37?
SB 37 is sponsored by Cortese, Dave (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 37?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 37?
Track SB 37 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 37

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 37

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →