Sea level rise and groundwater rise: contaminated sites: report.
Impact
The implications of AB 1102 on state laws are significant as it establishes new responsibilities for developers and local agencies, thereby impacting public safety and environmental integrity. This law reinforces the need for systematic evaluations of contaminated sites, which can ultimately lead to more informed decision-making when it comes to urban planning and development in vulnerable areas. The State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Toxic Substances Control are tasked with compiling a report on these sites, which the Legislature will use for future regulatory considerations. However, the bill also specifies that no state reimbursement is required for local agencies, which could affect local responses to these mandates.
Summary
Assembly Bill 1102, introduced by Assembly Member Boerner, focuses on the intersection between environmental vulnerabilities and development projects, particularly addressing sea level rise and groundwater rise risks associated with contaminated sites. The bill mandates that any proponent of a new development located within 1,000 feet of a designated contaminated site must conduct a risk assessment related to these environmental issues. This assessment aims to provide insight into the potential impacts of rising water levels on these sites and the safety of new developments.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding the bill appears to be mixed. Supporters advocate for the necessity of assessing environmental risks in urban development, citing that understanding these risks is crucial to mitigating future disasters related to climate change. Conversely, there is concern that imposing these assessments could burden local agencies with additional responsibilities without financial support, complicating their operations.
Contention
A notable point of contention within AB 1102 is the requirement for risk assessment that may lead to delays in development permitting processes. While proponents of the bill argue that such assessments safeguard communities from adverse impacts of rising water levels, some stakeholders fear that the additional requirements could deter investment and development in affected areas, thus slowing economic growth and urban renewal in regions that rely on new construction.