Bid to revive deal on cleanup of lead paint falters
As deadline looms, bid to revive deal on cleanup in California falters in Sacramento.
After months of talks, a last-minute proposal to decontaminate homes across California fails in the Legislature.
SACRAMENTO — After months of negotiations, a last-minute proposal for a deal in the California Legislature on cleaning up lead paint in homes across the state has failed.
With lawmakers facing a Friday deadline to pass bills for the year, Assemblyman Tim Grayson (D-Concord) introduced legislation late Tuesday that would have required paint companies to pay $475 million over the next decade to clean up lead paint, with additional funds coming from the settlement of a long-running lawsuit with 10 cities and counties on the issue. Grayson contended that the proposal would have allowed for the cleanup of more lead in homes across the state than solely relying on the court case.
But by Wednesday morning, Grayson conceded that he couldn’t reach an agreement between the companies and the local governments involved in the litigation and was abandoning the effort.
“We were close, but it wasn’t the exact framework that was going to get the deal done,” a spokesman for Grayson said.
Discussions over who is responsible for cleaning up lead paint in California homes have taken the better part of the year at the Capitol.
Last fall, a state appellate court ruled that three paint companies, ConAgra, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams, were responsible for cleaning up lead used in homes built before 1951 in Los Angeles and nine other cities and counties.
A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge has tentatively ruled the companies owe $409 million, including a settlement agreement the local governments have reached with NL Industries.
The companies had earlier sought to take the issue directly to California voters, filing a statewide ballot measure that would have eliminated their own liability in exchange for a $2-billion taxpayer-funded bond to clean up the lead paint and other health hazards. That measure qualified to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, but the companies withdrew it so they could continue negotiations in the Legislature over the summer. The companies have also appealed the court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A spokeswoman for the companies said they would still like to see lawmakers address the issue.
“There are components to [the Grayson bill] that we like and others that we do not — demonstrating the balance and compromise achieved by the Legislature,” spokeswoman Tiffany Moffatt said in a statement.
“We believe our state leaders, not the courts, should address the problems created by deteriorated lead paint in poorly maintained housing through a statewide program in which all former lead paint manufacturers would contribute. Unfortunately, the 10 cities and counties are blocking that legislation,” Moffatt added.