For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “Why would the state want to get into this business?”
Jay Lund, UC Davis civil engineering professor, on proposed water conservation rules
- Legislature Faces Final Week and Nearly 1,000 Bills
- How the Final Week Shaped Up…See the “Suspense File”
- Unions v. Business: Referendum Language Change Bill on Newsom’s Desk
- State Water Board Weighs Water Conservation Rules for 400+ Cities
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING SEPT. 8, 2023
Legislature Faces Final Week and Nearly 1,000 Bills
CalMatters commentary from Dan Walters
The California Legislature entering the final week of its 2023 session faces nearly 1,000 pending measures ranging from consequential to toothlessly symbolic – and perhaps some still to be drafted.
Historically, the last few days of any session are rife with rumors about phantom bills that might surface and be hustled through the process.
There are some contentious, high-profile measures that are already on the legislative agenda for the final days, having been cleared for floor action.
One survivor is a measure that would elevate child trafficking into a serious crime, which wouldn’t seems to be controversial but became a symbol of the sharp partisan differences over crime and punishment. Democrats stalled the Republican-authored bill in committee but media coverage and pressure from Newsom sprung it from political jail, so to speak.
There’s more bipartisan support for a package of bills to confront California’s deadly epidemic of fentanyl misuse.
Labor unions are making a full-court press in this year’s session with multiple bills to make it easier to organize workers and/or expand mandatory employment benefits, such as more paid sick leave days and a sharp hike in minimum wages for health care workers.
Finally, there are two efforts, backed by Democratic leaders, that would change how measures placed on the statewide ballot by petition are framed. Both are clearly aimed at making ballot processes more difficult, thus thwarting recent efforts by business interests to block new regulations and taxes.
They are specifically aimed at three measures already qualified for the 2024 ballot, one challenging new regulation of the fast food industry, another opposing new restrictions on where oil wells are drilled and a third that would make it much more difficult to raise state and local taxes.
One pending bill, Assembly Bill 121, would change how referenda are worded for voters, and would, if passed, affect both the fast food and oil well referenda. AB 121 also contains an unusual passage to tightly restrict judicial challenges to the law.
The second, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, would require that the 2024 measure to require two-thirds votes for local taxes and voter approval of new state taxes would itself need a two-thirds vote to be adopted. Sponsors want to place ACA 13 on the March primary ballot so that it would apply to — and perhaps kill — the November tax restriction measure.
Such are the games of September.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/09/california-legislature-insurance/
How the Final Week Shaped Up…See the “Suspense File”
Sacramento Bee
Last Friday was the California Legislature’s make-or-break day for bills that will cost the state money. Bills of this nature are placed in the “suspense file,” and members of the Senate and Assembly Appropriations committees vote twice per year to pass them to their chamber’s floors or hold onto them.
Suspense hearings are held ahead of deadlines for bills to make it out of fiscal committees. The suspense file is meant for measures that will require expenditures of $50,000 or more from the general fund and $150,000 or more from a special fund. But some bills that don’t meet that fiscal threshold sometimes still end up on the suspense file.
The process is one of the Legislature’s least transparent, making it an easy way for lawmakers to kill politically contentious bills.
There is no public testimony during the suspense hearings, public votes are limited and information on amendments is almost non-existent.
Friday’s deliberations didn’t yield many fireworks. Several significant bills made it through Appropriations and onto the Senate and Assembly floors, where lawmakers will consider them during the final two weeks of session.
Here are some that made it to the legislative home stretch:
Assembly bills AB 1 would allow legislative staffers to form a union and collectively bargain for better wages and benefits. Similar proposals have failed four times in recent years, but it looks like this one could get to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
AB 28 would levy an excise tax on firearms and ammunition. This one has also fallen short multiple times, but gun control advocates are hopeful this year will be different. AB 531 and SB 326 is Newsom’s bill package for a March 2024 mental health bond measure. The governor wants to put a $4.7 billion bond on the ballot to add thousands of new behavioral health beds and change how counties pay for mental health services. Senate bills SB 2 would shore up California’s concealed carry permitting process in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The June 2022 ruling struck down parts of California’s firearm permitting framework, pushing lawmakers to bring requirements in line with new legal precedent. A bill from Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-Burbank, failed to make it through the Assembly last year. He’ll get to make his case again.
SB 94 would allow state prison inmates serving life without parole for crimes committed before June 5, 1990, to petition courts for resentencing.
SB 43: Would reform the state’s conservatorship laws by updating the criteria for determining if a person is with severe mental illness is gravely disabled.
SB 4 and 423: Would streamline multifamily housing developments and homebuilding on properties owned by houses of worship. The powerful State Building and Construction Trades Council of California has opposed these measures in a push for more union labor requirements. But they seem headed for success.
Newsom’s wish is the Legislature’s command — at least when it comes to clearing the way for the governor’s March mental health ballot measure. The Senate and Assembly rules committees announced Friday they were making all 2024 bond measure bills — besides the two that make up the governor’s proposed mental health initiative — two-year bills.
This prevents the other proposed bond measures from going before voters during the March 5 primary election, reducing competition for ballot space and voter support. Newsom is rallying support to place a $4.7 billion bond measure on the March ballot to add up to 10,000 new mental health beds and overhaul how California counties pay for behavioral health care. To qualify for the ballot, the bills need support from two-thirds of lawmakers by the end of the session on Sept. 14.
Other 2024 bonds proposed by lawmakers include measures to build more affordable housing, strengthen defenses against wildfires and floods and modernize school campuses.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article278869744.html#storylink=cpy
Unions v. Business on Referendum Language Change Bill on Newsom’s Desk
Sacramento Bee
California voters may see clearer ballot language on statewide referendums after lawmakers on Tuesday endorsed a bill that would eliminate the often puzzling “Yes” or “No” choice.
If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs Assembly Bill 421 into law, voters will instead be asked whether they want to “keep the law” or “overturn the law.” The changes would take effect immediately and be in effect for the 2024 election because of an urgency clause attached to the measure.
The Senate approved the bill 29-8, surpassing the two-thirds majority required to send the bill onward. The Assembly concurred with a vote of 54-17 when the roll was closed.
The governor in 2021 vetoed an effort to ban paid signature gathering in the state.
Assembly Majority Leader Isaac Bryan, a Los Angeles Democrat and the bill’s author, characterized the Legislature’s approval as a win even though the version that passed was significantly slimmed down from the original proposal.
“It feels like a light step because we were so ambitious. That speaks to the change that’s needed,” Bryan said. “Did we go for everything and the kitchen sink at the beginning? We absolutely did, because the people deserve for us to fix these processes completely.”
The original bill took aim at both the signature-gathering process for referendum petitions and the language on the ballot. Portions that were amended out would have established new registration and training requirements for paid signature-gatherers; required disclosure of the top three funders on the petition form, and mandated that campaigns gather at least 10% of signatures using volunteers.
Those funders would also have been listed on the ballot itself. Instead, the final version of the bill requires that the top three backers of the referendum be disclosed in the official voter information guide prepared by the Secretary of State’s office.
The effort was championed by labor unions, such as SEIU California, whose policies are increasingly becoming the targets of business-backed referendum campaigns. Supporters argued that paid signature-gatherers flock to California and make upwards of $10-$15 per signature. “Clearing up confusion on the ballot means putting power back where it should be: in the hands of voters,” said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, in a statement Tuesday.
SEIU has been supporting fast-food workers whose state-approved labor council will face a referendum next November that was bankrolled by corporations such as McDonald’s and Chipotle.
The California Chamber of Commerce, which advocates for business interests, still opposes the bill even without many of the more stringent requirements. In its letter of opposition, CalChamber argues that changing the ballot language to the “keep/oppose” format “makes the vote about the Legislature’s action, not about the proposed statute itself.”
The organization posits that such a “profound difference from the historic intent and function” of the referendum process would only be changeable by constitutional amendment rather than statute.
“We will be encouraging a veto,” wrote spokesperson Denise Davis in a statement Tuesday. AB 421 next goes to Newsom’s desk.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article278999269.html#storylink=cpy
State Water Board Weighs Water Conservation Rules for 400+ Cities
San Jose Mercury News
Dozens of California cities could be required to impose permanent water conservation measures starting in about a year — and keep them in place even when the state is not in a drought — under proposed new rules from state water regulators.
The landmark rules are required by two laws that former Gov. Jerry Brown signed in 2018 after a severe five-year drought. Environmentalists and some water districts support them, saying they are critical as the state grapples with climate change and more severe droughts. But some water agencies have been strongly opposed, saying Sacramento is beginning a new era of micro-managing how local communities use water.
Under the new rules, roughly 400 of the California’s largest cities and water districts are required to come up with a water-use budget every year beginning Jan. 1, 2025. They could eventually face fines of up to $1,000 a day — and $10,000 a day during drought emergencies — for failing to set and meet appropriate targets.
In general, the Central Valley and Southern California’s inland communities could face the biggest cuts, while places where water conservation levels already are higher, including the Bay Area and much of coastal Southern California, would have far fewer or no required reductions in the first few years.
“We see conservation as one tool in the toolbox to address the water supply challenges that are going to result from climate change and a hotter, drier future,” said Eric Oppenheimer, chief deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board.
Some independent analysts say the rules could spark a major controversy as the state water board imposes them over the next year.
“Why would the state want to get into this business?” said Jay Lund, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis. “Most of the urban water agencies are doing a pretty good job. They understand that droughts are getting worse, and seem to be preparing for that in their own ways.”
Public hearings on the draft rules begin in October. A final vote by the state water board is expected next summer.
The new laws make it likely that water agencies will need to take such actions as offering more rebates for home owners and business owners who replace lawns with drought-tolerant plants and who purchase water-efficient appliances. The agencies could also limit the hours and days of lawn watering to meet their targets, even when droughts are not occurring.
The targets will vary by community. They are based on a formula made up of three main factors: a standard of 47 gallons per person per day for indoor water use — dropping to 42 gallons by 2030; an amount for outdoor residential use that varies by community depending on regional climates; and a standard for water loss due to rates of leaks in water system pipes.
This week, state water officials made public the first detailed look of how the new rules could affect each city.
The first threshold, in 2025, would spare a total of 228 cities and water agencies that serve 73% of California’s urban population, including nearly all of the Bay Area. They already use water efficiently enough to meet the new state standards, the State Water Resources Control Board estimated.
Those include most of the state’s major water providers, among them the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, San Jose Water Company, city of San Diego and others.
But 80 water agencies representing 15% of the population would need to reduce use by up to 10% starting in 2025, the board estimated. Those include Livermore, Hollister, Newport Beach and Ukiah.
Another 51 water agencies representing 8% of California’s urban population would need to reduce their water use by 10% to 20% starting in 2025, the state board estimated. Those include Tracy, Martinez, Fresno, Modesto and Beverly Hills.
Finally, another 37 water agencies representing 4% of the state’s urban population would have to cut water use by 20% or more starting in 2025, the state board estimated. Those include Los Banos, Bakersfield, Merced and the Desert Water Agency in Palm Springs.
State water board officials say that the initial targets are their best estimate. The targets could still change because cities and water agencies will be allowed to get credit under the law if they use recycled water or have significant population changes, among other factors.
But the new state estimates clearly show that by the end of this decade, most major water providers could have to reduce their use.
By 2030, the state water board estimated, only 97 agencies representing 28% of the state’s urban population would escape additional conservation requirements. Another 88 with 18% of the state’s urban population would see cutbacks of 10% to 20%, and 134 representing 19% of the state’s urban population would see required cutbacks of 20% or more.
Environmental groups say the rules are common sense. Water that cities save can be used to reduce the severity of mandatory rationing during droughts, said Tracy Quinn, CEO of Heal the Bay, a Los Angeles environmental group.
Opponents of the laws say that the decisions are best left to local water agencies, and tough state-imposed urban water budgets could harm smaller, less wealthy communities.
“This regulation could have a really significant cost impact on water suppliers and their customers,” said Chelsea Haines, regulatory relations manager for the Association of California Water Agencies. “We want to make sure the standards are feasible and are going to be attainable. We want to set California up for a successful water-efficiency future.”