AB 1153 revises the state program under Section 48020 to widen how the responsible department may address illegal disposal sites. The bill authorizes the department to spend program funds directly, make loans to repayable parties, and award partial grants to public entities; it also sets criteria for how sites are prioritized for cleanup and when the department may step in to clean publicly owned sites.
Beyond funding mechanics, the bill explicitly opens eligibility for abating solid waste dumped into municipal storm sewers, funds removal of abandoned recreational vehicles, and allows grants to build enforcement capacity (including local illegal dumping officers). It requires local enforcement to provide ongoing prevention where the department funds cleanup and directs the department to prioritize projects in disadvantaged communities while consulting local enforcement agencies and regional water boards.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill gives the administering department three funding tools—direct expenditure, repayable loans, and partial grants—and instructs it how to prioritize cleanup projects. It creates eligibility rules for storm‑sewer cleanups, abandoned RV removal, and funding for enforcement teams and strategies.
Who It Affects
State program administrators, local public entities that apply for partial grants, certified local enforcement agencies required to provide ongoing enforcement, regional water boards, and owners/operators of illegally contaminated sites. Disadvantaged communities are singled out for prioritization.
Why It Matters
AB 1153 shifts the state program from a narrower grant model toward a mixed toolkit (loans, grants, direct action) and ties state-funded cleanup to local enforcement obligations, which will change how jurisdictions apply for assistance and how projects are evaluated for public benefit and leverage of other funds.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill instructs the department that manages Section 48020 to prioritize cleanup projects using a set of practical factors: public‑health and environmental risk at the site, whether the site owner can handle cleanup without state money, whether the department can adequately clean up the site with available funds, and whether the proposed action maximizes use of those funds. The department retains latitude to add other prioritization factors in its program guidance.
When it comes to paying for cleanup, the department gains three explicit tools. It may spend program funds directly to perform cleanup work; it may make loans to applicants who demonstrate an ability to repay state funds; and it may issue partial grants to public entities.
The bill limits direct state cleanup of publicly owned sites to cases where the public entity lacks the resources or expertise to manage timely cleanup itself.Partial grants that cover more than half of a cleanup’s cost require extra scrutiny: the department must weigh applicant cash or in‑kind contributions, the availability of other funding sources, the public benefit produced, and whether the project includes innovative, cost‑effective approaches to abating solid‑waste problems. The department can add other factors when assessing these larger grants.Separately, the bill authorizes use of program funds to abate illegal disposal sites more broadly, including grants for public entities to address abandoned solid waste.
It makes municipal storm‑sewer solid‑waste removal eligible for partial grants so long as the grant money is used for solid‑waste cleanup or mitigation and the grantee establishes an ongoing prevention program to stop reoccurrence. The bill also permits expenditures for abandoned recreational-vehicle removal and for developing enforcement strategies, local enforcement teams, and illegal dumping enforcement officers, and it calls for prioritizing enforcement projects in disadvantaged communities.
Finally, the department must consult certified local enforcement agencies and the regional water boards when developing and implementing the program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The department may use program funds three ways: direct cleanup expenditures, loans (to applicants that can repay), and partial grants to public entities.
The department may only pay for cleanup of a publicly owned site directly if it finds the public entity lacks resources or expertise to do timely cleanup itself.
Partial grants that supply more than 50% of cleanup funds trigger extra review; the department must consider applicant contributions, other funding sources, public benefit, and innovative, cost‑effective approaches (plus other department‑determined factors).
When the department funds cleanup within a jurisdiction, the local enforcement agency must provide ongoing enforcement to prevent recurring illegal disposal; municipal storm‑sewer cleanups are eligible only if an ongoing prevention program is established.
The department may also fund removal/disposal of abandoned recreational vehicles, development of enforcement strategies and local enforcement teams (including officers as defined in Penal Code §830.7), and must prioritize enforcement projects in disadvantaged communities (Health & Safety Code §39711).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Site prioritization criteria
This subsection requires the department to weigh risk to public health/environment, owner capacity to self‑clean, the department’s ability to clean with available funds, and the goal of maximizing use of funds when setting cleanup priorities. Practically, this forces the agency to balance high‑risk, resource‑intensive sites against lower‑risk projects that get more value per dollar; the department may add other criteria, giving it room to formalize scoring or thresholds in guidance or regulations.
Funding tools and limits for public sites
Subdivision (b) authorizes three funding mechanisms—direct expenditures, repayable loans, and partial grants—and places a clear restriction on direct cleanup of publicly owned properties: the department steps in only when the public owner lacks resources or expertise to act promptly. For grant decisions the agency must document applicant repayment ability for loans and may need procedures for verifying in‑kind contributions and matching funds when assessing grant requests.
Grants for illegal disposal abatement and storm‑sewer eligibility
This subsection explicitly allows program funds to abate illegal disposal sites and to be distributed as grants to public entities. It conditions continued local enforcement on receipt of department funds and expands eligibility to include solid waste removed from municipal storm sewers—subject to the grantee’s establishment of an ongoing prevention program. Expect the agency to define what qualifies as an adequate prevention program and how it will verify ongoing enforcement activity.
Additional eligible expenditures and prioritization
Subdivision (d) creates a short menu of additional eligible uses: removal/disposal of abandoned recreational vehicles (referencing Health & Safety Code §18010), development of enforcement strategies, and funding for local enforcement teams and illegal dumping enforcement officers (referencing Penal Code §830.7). It requires the department to prioritize those projects in disadvantaged communities, putting a geographical equity lens on enforcement and capacity‑building funds.
Consultation requirement
The department must consult certified local enforcement agencies and regional water boards when developing and implementing the program. That consultation mandate will shape implementation documents and may become the vehicle for resolving operational questions—such as defining ‘ongoing enforcement’ or setting performance metrics for prevention programs—before final guidance or grants are issued.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Disadvantaged communities — prioritized for enforcement and abatement projects, which could accelerate cleanup and reduce exposure to health and environmental harms in neighborhoods with cumulative burdens.
- Small or resource‑strained local agencies — can receive partial grants, loans, or direct department assistance when they lack capacity to manage cleanups themselves, easing local budget pressure on difficult sites.
- Regional water boards and watershed managers — gain an explicit route to fund storm‑sewer solid‑waste abatement and associated prevention programs that protect water quality.
- Municipalities that develop innovative, cost‑effective anti‑dumping programs — projects showing leverage or innovation are favored when large grants are on the table.
- Residents and downstream users — quicker abatement of dumped waste, abandoned RVs, and storm‑sewer blockages can reduce localized health risks and improve sanitation and water quality.
Who Bears the Cost
- The administering department — will absorb increased administrative duties: loan underwriting and collection, grant oversight, verification of in‑kind contributions, and enforcement coordination, all of which require staff and systems.
- Local enforcement agencies — must provide ongoing enforcement where state funds are used; that obligation will consume enforcement staff time and may require sustained funding even if the grant pays the cleanup cost.
- Local public entities receiving partial grants — may be required to provide matching funds, in‑kind services, or to sustain prevention programs, creating operational and fiscal commitments beyond the one‑time cleanup.
- Site owners who receive loans — will bear repayment obligations and any state conditions attached to loaned funds; owners judged able to pay may be prioritized to shoulder cleanup costs.
- Counties and cities that must remove abandoned RVs or create local enforcement teams — may need to reallocate budget or seek new revenue to staff and operate these programs if grants are limited or temporary.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between targeting scarce state funds at the highest‑risk, often expensive cleanups and stretching those same dollars to achieve broader, sustainable reductions in illegal dumping through grants, loans, and enforcement capacity‑building; the bill simultaneously empowers the department to act directly and seeks to shift responsibility back to local enforcement, forcing hard choices about when to pay for cleanup versus when to invest in prevention and local capacity.
AB 1153 gives the department broad discretion to set priorities and evaluate applications, but the bill leaves important terms undefined. The statute says the department may consider "other factors" when prioritizing sites and when approving large partial grants, which creates implementation flexibility but also the risk of uneven decision‑making unless the agency issues clear scoring rules or guidance.
Similarly, phrases like "ongoing enforcement" and "ongoing program" for storm‑sewer prevention are criteria the department must operationalize; the absence of statutory definitions means grant applicants will rely on forthcoming guidance or regulation to know whether they qualify.
The mix of loans, partial grants, and direct expenditures raises trade‑offs. Loans can stretch program dollars and hold applicants accountable, but they require underwriting, monitoring, and collections capacity the department may not currently have.
Requiring local enforcement after state‑funded cleanups is logically aimed at preventing recurrence, but it effectively imposes an operational obligation on underfunded local agencies—creating potential unfunded mandates. Finally, prioritizing disadvantaged communities aligns resources with environmental justice goals, but it could reduce funding for widely visible, high‑cost single sites that pose acute regional risks, setting up inevitable political and technical contestation over where to invest scarce dollars.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.