Organic waste: recovered organic waste product procurement targets.
The legislation reflects California's broader environmental goals, particularly efforts to significantly cut methane emissions as part of a strategy aimed at addressing climate change. AB 1985 requires local jurisdictions to adhere to strict procurement schedules, with escalating targets where they must achieve procurement of 30% by January 2023, 65% by January 2024, and 100% by January 2025. Rural jurisdictions enjoy a temporary exemption from these requirements until December 2026, recognizing the unique challenges they may face in meeting such ambitious goals.
Assembly Bill 1985, introduced by Robert Rivas, focuses on enhancing California's efforts to manage organic waste and reduce methane emissions. The bill amends the Public Resources Code to establish procurement targets for recovered organic waste products at the local jurisdiction level. It mandates that jurisdictions meet specific targets for recovering organic waste for human consumption, aiming for a substantial reduction in organic waste disposal by the established deadlines of 2025 and beyond. Notably, the bill emphasizes edible food recovery, with a target of at least 20% of disposed edible food being recovered by 2025.
Support for AB 1985 is generally strong among environmental advocates who see it as a vital step toward reducing food waste and mitigating climate impacts from methane emissions. However, concerns have been raised by some rural jurisdictions and local governments who worry about the feasibility of meeting these stringent targets, especially under current resource constraints. This has led to a divide in sentiment where urban localities who may have more resources feel differently than their rural counterparts who may face significant logistical challenges.
Key points of contention surrounding AB 1985 revolve around the penalties for noncompliance with organic waste procurement targets. The bill allows the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to impose penalties based on the level of compliance, creating uncertainty for local jurisdictions struggling to meet these new standards. Additionally, the temporary exemptions for rural areas have sparked a debate about equity in waste management responsibilities and the potential for a tiered compliance model that could better address the varying capabilities of different localities.