SB 120: Water conveyance: use of facility with unused capacity.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2018-08-24
Existing law prohibits the state or a regional or local public agency from denying a bona fide transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that use and other requirements are met.
This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, prohibit a transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands, as defined, that is in the vicinity of specified federal lands or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the State Lands Commission, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources of those federal and state lands.
(1)Existing law, the California Values Act, prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from contracting with the federal government for use of their facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except as specified.This bill would specify that state and local law enforcement agencies are prohibited from contracting with the federal government for use of their facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody, except as specified.(2)Existing law imposes a fee, except as provided, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, per each single transaction per single parcel of real property, not to exceed $225. Existing law exempts from this fee any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax, as provided, or with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier.This bill would additionally exempt from this fee any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government pursuant to the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act, or by the state, or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state. The bill would provide that these exemptions apply retroactively to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government, or by the state, or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after January 1, 2018. The bill would also state that the exemption for real estate instruments, papers, or notices executed or recorded by the state, or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state is declaratory of existing law.By adding to the duties of county recorders in administering this recording fee, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.(3)Existing law establishes the county-administered In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, under which qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons are provided with services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes and avoid institutionalization. Existing law prohibits an increase in provider wages or benefits that were locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance from taking effect unless and until, prior to its implementation, certain conditions are met, including that the State Department of Social Services has obtained the approval of the State Department of Health Care Services, as specified.This bill would prohibit the increase in wages or benefits from taking effect unless and until the increase is reviewed and determined to be in compliance with state law.(4)Existing law requires the state and counties to share the annual cost of providing in-home supportive services and requires all counties to have a County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) commencing July 1, 2017, as prescribed. Existing law requires the County IHSS MOE to be adjusted for the annualized cost increases in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed on or after July 1, 2017. Existing law authorizes a county to negotiate a wage supplement and requires the countys County IHSS MOE to include a one-time adjustment by the amount of the increase, as specified, for the first time the wage supplement is applied. Existing law requires the wage supplement to subsequently be applied to the county individual provider wage when the increase takes effect at the same time as, and is the same amount as, the state minimum wage increases, and the minimum wage increase exceeds the county individual provider wage prior to applying the minimum wage increase.This bill would instead require the wage supplement to subsequently be applied to the minimum wage when the minimum wage increase is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid without the inclusion of the wage supplement and the increase to the county wage paid takes effect at the same time as the minimum wage increase. The bill would require that the wage supplement be in addition to the highest wage rate paid in the county as of June 30, 2017. The bill would provide that these new requirements do not apply for any changes to provider wages or health benefits locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, for which a rate change request was submitted to the State Department of Social Services for review prior to January 1, 2018, and instead would require that in these cases, the wage supplement subsequently be applied to the minimum wage when the minimum wage is equal to or exceeds the county individual provider wage including the wage supplement. The bill would appropriate $1,000,000 to the State Department of Social Services for the purposes of the provisions relating to cases in which a rate change request was submitted to the department for review prior to January 1, 2018.(5)Existing law requires each county to provide cash assistance and other social services to needy families through the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program using federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, state, and county funds. Existing law specifies the amounts of cash aid to be paid each month to CalWORKs recipients.Existing law establishes the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care. Under existing law, a child who is placed in the approved home of a relative is eligible for AFDC-FC if he or she is eligible for federal financial participation in the AFDC-FC payment, as specified. Existing law provides for benefits for a child who is placed in the approved home of a relative and who is ineligible for AFDC-FC pursuant to the CalWORKs program. Existing law establishes the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program (ARC) for the purpose of making the amount paid to relative caregivers for the in-home care of children placed with them who are ineligible for AFDC-FC payments equal to the amount paid on behalf of children who are eligible for AFDC-FC payments.Existing law provides for the implementation of the resource family approval process, which replaces the multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, certifying foster homes by foster family agencies, approving relatives and nonrelative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving guardians and adoptive families. Existing law defines a resource family as an individual or family that has successfully met both home environment assessment standards and permanency assessment criteria, as specified, necessary for providing care for a child placed by a public or private child placement agency by court order, or voluntarily placed by a parent or legal guardian.Existing law provides for the temporary or emergency placement of dependent children of the juvenile court and nonminor dependents with relative caregivers or nonrelative extended family members under specified circumstances. Under existing law, a relative caregiver or nonrelative extended family member is required to submit an application for approval as a resource family and initiate a home environment assessment within 5 business days after the placement. This bill would state the Legislatures intent to provide interim support to an emergency caregiver, as defined, who has a pending application under the Resource Family Approval Program that has been temporarily delayed due to the need to increase capacity for statewide implementation of the program. This bill would require counties to provide an emergency assistance payment or ARC payment to that emergency caregiver who meets specified requirements, and is caring for a child or nonminor dependent placed in the caregivers home under specified circumstances, if the child or nonminor dependent resides in California, and is not otherwise eligible for AFDC-FC or ARC. The bill would require the payments to be made either through ARC or through the TANF block grant emergency assistance program for child welfare services, as specified. The bill would make payments available through June 30, 2018, if specified conditions are met. The bill would provide that counties would not be liable for any federal disallowance or penalty imposed on the state based on implementing these provisions. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2019.By expanding the duties of counties relating to foster care, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.(6)Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program.This bill would provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for purposes of implementing the bill.(7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.(8)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.(1)Existing law, the California Values Act, prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from contracting with the federal government for use of their facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except as specified.
This bill would specify that state and local law enforcement agencies are prohibited from contracting with the federal government for use of their facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody, except as specified.
(2)Existing law imposes a fee, except as provided, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, per each single transaction per single parcel of real property, not to exceed $225. Existing law exempts from this fee any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax, as provided, or with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier.
This bill would additionally exempt from this fee any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government pursuant to the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act, or by the state, or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state. The bill would provide that these exemptions apply retroactively to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government, or by the state, or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after January 1, 2018. The bill would also state that the exemption for real estate instruments, papers, or notices executed or recorded by the state, or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state is declaratory of existing law.
By adding to the duties of county recorders in administering this recording fee, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3)Existing law establishes the county-administered In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, under which qualified aged, blind, and disabled persons are provided with services in order to permit them to remain in their own homes and avoid institutionalization. Existing law prohibits an increase in provider wages or benefits that were locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance from taking effect unless and until, prior to its implementation, certain conditions are met, including that the State Department of Social Services has obtained the approval of the State Department of Health Care Services, as specified.
This bill would prohibit the increase in wages or benefits from taking effect unless and until the increase is reviewed and determined to be in compliance with state law.
(4)Existing law requires the state and counties to share the annual cost of providing in-home supportive services and requires all counties to have a County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE) commencing July 1, 2017, as prescribed. Existing law requires the County IHSS MOE to be adjusted for the annualized cost increases in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed on or after July 1, 2017. Existing law authorizes a county to negotiate a wage supplement and requires the countys County IHSS MOE to include a one-time adjustment by the amount of the increase, as specified, for the first time the wage supplement is applied. Existing law requires the wage supplement to subsequently be applied to the county individual provider wage when the increase takes effect at the same time as, and is the same amount as, the state minimum wage increases, and the minimum wage increase exceeds the county individual provider wage prior to applying the minimum wage increase.
This bill would instead require the wage supplement to subsequently be applied to the minimum wage when the minimum wage increase is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid without the inclusion of the wage supplement and the increase to the county wage paid takes effect at the same time as the minimum wage increase. The bill would require that the wage supplement be in addition to the highest wage rate paid in the county as of June 30, 2017. The bill would provide that these new requirements do not apply for any changes to provider wages or health benefits locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, for which a rate change request was submitted to the State Department of Social Services for review prior to January 1, 2018, and instead would require that in these cases, the wage supplement subsequently be applied to the minimum wage when the minimum wage is equal to or exceeds the county individual provider wage including the wage supplement. The bill would appropriate $1,000,000 to the State Department of Social Services for the purposes of the provisions relating to cases in which a rate change request was submitted to the department for review prior to January 1, 2018.
(5)Existing law requires each county to provide cash assistance and other social services to needy families through the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program using federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, state, and county funds. Existing law specifies the amounts of cash aid to be paid each month to CalWORKs recipients.
Existing law establishes the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care. Under existing law, a child who is placed in the approved home of a relative is eligible for AFDC-FC if he or she is eligible for federal financial participation in the AFDC-FC payment, as specified. Existing law provides for benefits for a child who is placed in the approved home of a relative and who is ineligible for AFDC-FC pursuant to the CalWORKs program. Existing law establishes the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program (ARC) for the purpose of making the amount paid to relative caregivers for the in-home care of children placed with them who are ineligible for AFDC-FC payments equal to the amount paid on behalf of children who are eligible for AFDC-FC payments.
Existing law provides for the implementation of the resource family approval process, which replaces the multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, certifying foster homes by foster family agencies, approving relatives and nonrelative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving guardians and adoptive families. Existing law defines a resource family as an individual or family that has successfully met both home environment assessment standards and permanency assessment criteria, as specified, necessary for providing care for a child placed by a public or private child placement agency by court order, or voluntarily placed by a parent or legal guardian.
Existing law provides for the temporary or emergency placement of dependent children of the juvenile court and nonminor dependents with relative caregivers or nonrelative extended family members under specified circumstances. Under existing law, a relative caregiver or nonrelative extended family member is required to submit an application for approval as a resource family and initiate a home environment assessment within 5 business days after the placement.
This bill would state the Legislatures intent to provide interim support to an emergency caregiver, as defined, who has a pending application under the Resource Family Approval Program that has been temporarily delayed due to the need to increase capacity for statewide implementation of the program. This bill would require counties to provide an emergency assistance payment or ARC payment to that emergency caregiver who meets specified requirements, and is caring for a child or nonminor dependent placed in the caregivers home under specified circumstances, if the child or nonminor dependent resides in California, and is not otherwise eligible for AFDC-FC or ARC. The bill would require the payments to be made either through ARC or through the TANF block grant emergency assistance program for child welfare services, as specified. The bill would make payments available through June 30, 2018, if specified conditions are met. The bill would provide that counties would not be liable for any federal disallowance or penalty imposed on the state based on implementing these provisions. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2018, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2019.
By expanding the duties of counties relating to foster care, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(6)Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program.
This bill would provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for purposes of implementing the bill.
(7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(8)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
(1)Existing federal law requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to carry out a surface transportation project delivery pilot program, under which the secretary may enter into an agreement with a state for the state to assume the responsibilities of the secretary with respect to federal environmental review and clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) with respect to one or more transportation projects, as specified. If a state assumes this responsibility, existing federal law authorizes a state to assume the responsibilities of the secretary for environmental review required under any federal environmental law pertaining to the review or approval of a specific project, and the state to assume the responsibilities of the secretary with respect to one or more transportation projects within the state under NEPA, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, provides that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of the responsibilities it assumed as a participant in the pilot program for highway projects.This bill would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to assume the responsibilities of the United States Secretary of Transportation under NEPA and other federal environmental laws for any railroad, public transportation, or multimodal project undertaken by state agencies, as specified. The bill would provide that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of these responsibilities. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2021.(2)Existing law generally provides for programming and allocation of funds for transportation capital improvement projects through the state transportation improvement program process administered by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law requires 25% of available funds to be programmed and expended on interregional improvement projects nominated by the Department of Transportation, and 75% of available funds to be programmed and expended on regional improvement projects nominated by regional transportation planning agencies or county transportation commissions, as applicable, through adoption of a regional transportation improvement program. Existing law authorizes each transportation planning agency or county transportation commission to request and receive up to 5% of those funds for the purposes of project planning, programming, and monitoring. This bill would authorize the department to make an advance payment to transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions from those funds for programming, planning, and monitoring if the total allocation is equal to or less than $300,000. The bill would require funds advanced in this manner to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program and allocated by the California Transportation Commission prior to payment. (3)Under existing law, the California Transportation Commission allocates various state and federal transportation funds through specified state programs to local and regional transportation agencies to implement projects consistent with the requirements of those programs. These programs include the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account, and a program established as part of the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to fund transportation improvements in counties that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. Existing law requires the commission to adopt guidelines for these programs. This bill would authorize these guidelines to include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing an implementing agency to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that would allow the agency to expend its own funds in advance of allocation of funds by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures, as specified (4)Existing law creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. Existing law provides for the deposit of various funds, including revenues from certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees, for the program in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. Existing law requires funds available for the program to be allocated for various purposes and requires the remaining funds available for the program to be allocated 50% for maintenance of the state highway system or to the state highway operation and protection program and 50% for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to a specified formula. Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program from the Controller in a fiscal year, existing law requires an eligible city or county to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. Existing law requires the commission to report to the Controller the cities and counties that have submitted a list of projects and requires the Controller, upon receipt of the report, to apportion funds to eligible cities and counties.This bill would authorize an eligible city or county, prior to receiving an apportionment under the program, to expend other funds on eligible projects and to reimburse the source of those other funds when it receives its apportionment from the Controller. The bill would require the Controller, if a city or county is not included in the commissions initial report to the Controller, to retain the monthly share of funds that would otherwise be apportioned and distributed to that city or county and to apportion those funds to that city or county when the Controller receives a subsequent report from the commission that the city or county has become eligible, as specified. The bill would require the Controller to reapportion to all eligible cities and counties any funds that were retained in this manner but that were not apportioned and distributed under these provisions, as specified. The bill would make other related changes. (5)This bill would appropriate $274,473,990 from the Federal Trust Fund to the Department of Transportation for the 201718 fiscal year for specified transportation-related purposes. (6)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.(1)Existing federal law requires the United States Secretary of Transportation to carry out a surface transportation project delivery pilot program, under which the secretary may enter into an agreement with a state for the state to assume the responsibilities of the secretary with respect to federal environmental review and clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) with respect to one or more transportation projects, as specified. If a state assumes this responsibility, existing federal law authorizes a state to assume the responsibilities of the secretary for environmental review required under any federal environmental law pertaining to the review or approval of a specific project, and the state to assume the responsibilities of the secretary with respect to one or more transportation projects within the state under NEPA, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, provides that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of the responsibilities it assumed as a participant in the pilot program for highway projects.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to assume the responsibilities of the United States Secretary of Transportation under NEPA and other federal environmental laws for any railroad, public transportation, or multimodal project undertaken by state agencies, as specified. The bill would provide that the State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of these responsibilities. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2021.
(2)Existing law generally provides for programming and allocation of funds for transportation capital improvement projects through the state transportation improvement program process administered by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law requires 25% of available funds to be programmed and expended on interregional improvement projects nominated by the Department of Transportation, and 75% of available funds to be programmed and expended on regional improvement projects nominated by regional transportation planning agencies or county transportation commissions, as applicable, through adoption of a regional transportation improvement program. Existing law authorizes each transportation planning agency or county transportation commission to request and receive up to 5% of those funds for the purposes of project planning, programming, and monitoring.
This bill would authorize the department to make an advance payment to transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions from those funds for programming, planning, and monitoring if the total allocation is equal to or less than $300,000. The bill would require funds advanced in this manner to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program and allocated by the California Transportation Commission prior to payment.
(3)Under existing law, the California Transportation Commission allocates various state and federal transportation funds through specified state programs to local and regional transportation agencies to implement projects consistent with the requirements of those programs. These programs include the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account, and a program established as part of the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to fund transportation improvements in counties that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely to transportation improvements. Existing law requires the commission to adopt guidelines for these programs.
This bill would authorize these guidelines to include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing an implementing agency to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that would allow the agency to expend its own funds in advance of allocation of funds by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures, as specified
(4)Existing law creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. Existing law provides for the deposit of various funds, including revenues from certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees, for the program in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. Existing law requires funds available for the program to be allocated for various purposes and requires the remaining funds available for the program to be allocated 50% for maintenance of the state highway system or to the state highway operation and protection program and 50% for apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to a specified formula. Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program from the Controller in a fiscal year, existing law requires an eligible city or county to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. Existing law requires the commission to report to the Controller the cities and counties that have submitted a list of projects and requires the Controller, upon receipt of the report, to apportion funds to eligible cities and counties.
This bill would authorize an eligible city or county, prior to receiving an apportionment under the program, to expend other funds on eligible projects and to reimburse the source of those other funds when it receives its apportionment from the Controller. The bill would require the Controller, if a city or county is not included in the commissions initial report to the Controller, to retain the monthly share of funds that would otherwise be apportioned and distributed to that city or county and to apportion those funds to that city or county when the Controller receives a subsequent report from the commission that the city or county has become eligible, as specified. The bill would require the Controller to reapportion to all eligible cities and counties any funds that were retained in this manner but that were not apportioned and distributed under these provisions, as specified. The bill would make other related changes.
(5)This bill would appropriate $274,473,990 from the Federal Trust Fund to the Department of Transportation for the 201718 fiscal year for specified transportation-related purposes.
(6)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes necessary to implement the 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Expenditure Plan.This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2017.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 1810, a transferor of water shall not use a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands that is in the vicinity of a national monument, a national preserve, a national park, a state or federal wilderness area, or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the State Lands Commission, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands.
(b)For purposes of this section, desert lands means the portion of California located within the following area:
Beginning at Interstate 15 and the intersection of the range line between Ranges 5 and 6 East, Township 11 North, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, southerly along those range lines to the intersection with Interstate 40 in Township 8 North, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian;
Thence easterly along Interstate 40 to the intersection of Interstate 40 and the range lines between Ranges 12 and 13 East, Township 7 North, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian;
Thence southerly along the range lines between Ranges 12 and 13 East to the intersection with State Highway Route 62 in Township 1 South, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian;
Thence easterly along State Highway Route 62 to the intersection with United States Highway 95;
Thence northerly along United States Highway 95 to the California-Nevada boundary;
Thence northerly along the California-Nevada boundary to Interstate 15;
Thence westerly along Interstate 15 to the point of beginning.
SECTION 1.Section 7284.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:7284.6.(a)California law enforcement agencies shall not:(1)Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:(A)Inquiring into an individuals immigration status.(B)Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.(C)Providing information regarding a persons release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.(D)Providing personal information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individuals home address or work address unless that information is available to the public.(E)Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants.(F)Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.(G)Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.(2)Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.(3)Use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.(4)Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5.(5)Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility.(6)Contract with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310).(b)Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a), this section does not prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing any of the following that does not violate any policy of the law enforcement agency or any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating:(1)Investigating, enforcing, or detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting for a violation of, Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. Transfers to immigration authorities are permitted under this subsection only in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).(2)Responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific persons criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, or similar criminal history information accessed through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law.(3)Conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, so long as the following conditions are met:(A)The primary purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.4.(B)The enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of state or federal law unrelated to immigration enforcement.(C)Participation in the task force by a California law enforcement agency does not violate any local law or policy to which it is otherwise subject.(4)Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code.(5)Giving immigration authorities access to interview an individual in agency or department custody. All interview access shall comply with requirements of the TRUTH Act (Chapter 17.2 (commencing with Section 7283)).(c)(1)If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, for which a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing basis, it shall submit a report annually to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. The law enforcement agency shall report the following information, if known, for each task force of which it is a member:(A)The purpose of the task force.(B)The federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved.(C)The total number of arrests made during the reporting period.(D)The number of people arrested for immigration enforcement purposes.(2)All law enforcement agencies shall report annually to the Department of Justice, in a manner specified by the Attorney General, the number of transfers pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), and the offense that allowed for the transfer pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).(3)All records described in this subdivision shall be public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)), including the exemptions provided by that act and, as permitted under that act, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be disclosed.(4)If more than one California law enforcement agency is participating in a joint task force that meets the reporting requirement pursuant to this section, the joint task force shall designate a local or state agency responsible for completing the reporting requirement.(d)The Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, shall report on the total number of arrests made by joint law enforcement task forces, and the total number of arrests made for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be included in the Attorney Generals report. The Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney Generals Internet Web site.(e)This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.(f)Nothing in this section shall prohibit a California law enforcement agency from asserting its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters.SEC. 2.Section 27388.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:27388.1.(a)(1)Commencing January 1, 2018, and except as provided in paragraph (2), in addition to any other recording fees specified in this code, a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75) shall be paid at the time of recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, except those expressly exempted from payment of recording fees, per each single transaction per parcel of real property. The fee imposed by this section shall not exceed two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225). Real estate instrument, paper, or notice means a document relating to real property, including, but not limited to, the following: deed, grant deed, trustees deed, deed of trust, reconveyance, quit claim deed, fictitious deed of trust, assignment of deed of trust, request for notice of default, abstract of judgment, subordination agreement, declaration of homestead, abandonment of homestead, notice of default, release or discharge, easement, notice of trustee sale, notice of completion, UCC financing statement, mechanics lien, maps, and covenants, conditions, and restrictions.(2)The fee described in paragraph (1) shall not be imposed on any of the following documents:(A)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax as defined in Section 11911 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.(B)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier.(C)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (Title 7 (commencing with Section 2100) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure).(D)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.(b)The county recorder shall remit quarterly, on or before the last day of the month next succeeding each calendar quarterly period, the fees, after deduction of any actual and necessary administrative costs incurred by the county recorder in carrying out this section, to the Controller for deposit in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund established by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, to be expended for the purposes set forth in that section. In addition, the county shall pay to the Controller interest, at the legal rate, on any funds not paid to the Controller before the last day of the month next succeeding each quarterly period.(c)If the Department of Housing and Community Development determines that any moneys derived from fees collected are being allocated by the state for a purpose not authorized by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, the county recorder shall, upon notice of the determination, immediately cease collection of the fees, and shall resume collection of those fees only upon notice that the moneys derived from the fees collected are being allocated by the state only for a purpose authorized by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code.(d)(1)Subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, shall apply to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government on or after January 1, 2018, and the fee imposed by this section shall not be imposed or billed for any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (Title 7 (commencing with Section 2100) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure) on or after that date.(2)The Legislature finds and declares that subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, reflects the original intent of the Legislature in enacting this section and is therefore not a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. Subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, shall apply to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after January 1, 2018, and the fee imposed by this section shall not be imposed or billed for any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after that date.SEC. 3.Section 11461.35 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:11461.35.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to provide, through June 30, 2018, interim support to emergency caregivers, as defined in subdivision (c), who have pending applications under the Resource Family Approval Program that have been temporarily delayed due to the need to increase capacity for statewide implementation of the program.(b)Commencing on the date of the release of the all-county letter pursuant to subdivision (j), and subject to the limitations contained in this section, each county shall provide a payment equivalent to the resource family basic level rate of the home-based family care rate structure to an emergency caregiver, as defined in subdivision (c), who is caring for a child or nonminor dependent placed in the home of the caregiver pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 309, Section 361.45, or based on a compelling reason pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 16519.5, effective the date of the emergency or compelling reason placement of the child or nonminor dependent, or the release date of the all-county letter pursuant to subdivision (j), whichever is later, if the child or nonminor dependent meets both of the following criteria:(1)The child or nonminor dependent is not otherwise eligible for AFDC-FC or the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program, pursuant to Section 11461.3, while placed in the home of the emergency caregiver.(2)The child or nonminor dependent resides in California.(c)For purposes of this section, an emergency caregiver means an individual who has a pending resource family application filed with an appropriate agency on or after the effective date of this section, and who has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4 or has successfully completed the home environment assessment portion of resource family approval pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 16519.5.(d)Funding for the payment described in subdivision (b) shall be as follows:(1)Notwithstanding Section 11461.3, if the emergency caregiver is a relative, as defined by paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 319, of the child and the county placing agency has determined that the child would be ineligible for federal AFDC-FC when placed in an approved resource family home, the child shall be deemed eligible for the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program for the purpose of making the payment authorized by this section.(2)If the emergency caregiver is a nonrelative extended family member, or if the county placing agency has determined that the child would be eligible for federal AFDC-FC when placed with the relative once the home is an approved resource family home, payment as specified in this section shall be made through the Emergency Assistance Program that is included in the states Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant.(e)(1)The department shall make available to counties funding to cover up to 60 days of emergency assistance payments made pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d).(2)The department shall extend the funding provided in paragraph (1) through June 30, 2018, if either of the following conditions are met:(A)The county has documented good cause for the delay in approving a resource family application that is outside the direct control of the county, which may include delays in processing background check clearances or exemptions, medical examinations, or delays that are based on the needs of the family.(B)The county has documented a prior existing backlog of resource family applications, and has communicated to the applicant an anticipated date by which the application will be processed. Each county with a prior existing backlog of resource family applications shall provide to the department and implement a countywide plan based on available resources to the counties and recent state guidance on resource family approval that will eliminate the backlog by September 1, 2018.(f)Any amounts expended for emergency assistance by a county placing agency as a result of not meeting either of the conditions specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) shall be compared to the maintenance payment costs that the county otherwise would have expended prior to Resource Family Approval Program implementation, to determine the net fiscal impact to the county placing agency.(g)Counties shall not be liable for any federal disallowance or penalty imposed on the state based on implementation of this section, including a countys action in reliance on the states instruction related to implementation of this section.(h)Payments authorized pursuant to this section shall not continue beyond June 30, 2018.(i)No appropriation pursuant to Section 15200 shall be made for purposes of implementing this section.(j)Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the State Department of Social Services may implement and administer this section through all-county letter or similar instructions. The all-county letter or similar instructions shall be finalized and published no later than 21 days following the enactment of this section.(k)This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2018, and, as of January 1, 2019, is repealed.SEC. 4.Section 12306.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:12306.1.(a)When any increase in provider wages or benefits is locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, or any increase in provider wages or benefits is adopted by ordinance pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 9100) of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Elections Code, then the county shall use county-only funds to fund both the county share and the state share, including employment taxes, of any increase in the cost of the program, unless otherwise provided for in the annual Budget Act or appropriated by statute. No increase in wages or benefits locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance pursuant to this section shall take effect unless and until, prior to its implementation, the increase is reviewed and determined to be in compliance with state law and the department has obtained the approval of the State Department of Health Care Services for the increase pursuant to a determination that it is consistent with federal law and to ensure federal financial participation for the services under Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act, and unless and until all of the following conditions have been met:(1)Each county has provided the department with documentation of the approval of the county board of supervisors of the proposed public authority or nonprofit consortium rate, including wages and related expenditures. The documentation shall be received by the department before the department and the State Department of Health Care Services may approve the increase.(2)Each county has met department guidelines and regulatory requirements as a condition of receiving state participation in the rate.(b)Any rate approved pursuant to subdivision (a) shall take effect commencing on the first day of the month subsequent to the month in which final approval is received from the department. The department may grant approval on a conditional basis, subject to the availability of funding.(c)The state shall pay 65 percent, and each county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of wage and benefit increases pursuant to subdivision (a) and associated employment taxes, only in accordance with subdivision (d).(d)(1)The state shall participate in a total of wages and individual health benefits up to twelve dollars and ten cents ($12.10) per hour until the amount specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code reaches twelve dollars ($12.00) per hour at which point the state shall participate as provided in paragraph (2).(2)For any increase in wages or individual health benefits locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, and approved by the department, or any increase in provider wages or benefits adopted by ordinance pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 9100) of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Elections Code, the state shall participate as provided in subdivision (c) in a total of wages and individual health benefits up to one dollar and ten cents ($1.10) per hour above the amount per hour specified for the corresponding year in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of, subdivision (c) of, and subdivision (d) of, Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code.(3)(A)For a county that is at or above twelve dollars and ten cents ($12.10) per hour in combined wages and individual health benefits, the state shall participate as provided in subdivision (c) in a cumulative total of up to 10 percent within a three-year period in the sum of the combined total of changes in wages or individual health benefits, or both.(B)The state shall participate as provided in subparagraph (A) for no more than two three-year periods, after which point the county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any future increases in wages and individual health benefits that exceed the amount specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).(C)A three-year period is defined as three consecutive years. A new three-year period can only begin after the last year of the previous three-year period.(D)To be eligible for state participation, a 10-percent increase described in this paragraph is required to be commenced prior to the date that the minimum wage reaches the amount specified in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code.(4)Paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply to contracts executed, or to increases in wages or individual health benefits, locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance, prior to July 1, 2017.SEC. 5.Section 12306.16 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:12306.16.(a)Commencing July 1, 2017, all counties shall have a County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE).(b)(1)(A)The statewide total County IHSS MOE base for the 201718 fiscal year shall be established at one billion seven hundred sixty-nine million four hundred forty-three thousand dollars ($1,769,443,000). This amount reflects the estimated county share of IHSS program base costs calculated pursuant to Sections 10101.1 and 12306, as those sections read on June 1, 2017, and reflected in the departments 2017 May Revision local assistance subvention table for the 201718 fiscal year.(B)If actual IHSS program base costs, as determined by the Department of Finance on or before May 14, 2018, attributable to the 201718 fiscal year are lower than the costs assumed in the 2017 May Revision local assistance subvention table, the statewide total County IHSS MOE base for the 201718 fiscal year shall be adjusted accordingly pursuant to Sections 10101.1 and 12306, as those sections read on June 1, 2017.(2)The Department of Finance shall consult with the California State Association of Counties to determine each countys share of the statewide total County IHSS MOE base amount. The County IHSS MOE base shall be unique to each individual county.(3)(A)Administration expenditures are included in the County IHSS MOE and shall include both county administration, including costs associated with the IHSS case management, information, and payrolling system, and public authority administration.(B)The amount of General Fund moneys available for county administration and public authority administration is limited to the amount of General Fund moneys appropriated for those specific purposes in the annual Budget Act, and increases to this amount do not impact the County IHSS MOE.(C)To be eligible to receive its share of General Fund moneys appropriated in a fiscal year for county administration and public authority administration costs, the county is only required to expend the full amount of its County IHSS MOE that is attributable to county and public authority administration for that fiscal year and no additional county share of cost shall be required. The department shall consult with the California State Association of Counties to determine the county-by-county distribution of the amount of General Fund moneys appropriated in the annual Budget Act for county administration and public authority administration.(D)Amounts expended by a county or public authority on administration in excess of the amount described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not be attributed towards the county meeting its County IHSS MOE requirement.(E)As part of the preparation of the 201819 Governors Budget, the department shall work with the California State Association of Counties, County Welfare Directors Association of California, and the Department of Finance to examine the workload and budget assumptions related to administration of the IHSS program for the 201718 and 201819 fiscal years.(c)(1)On July 1, 2018, the County IHSS MOE base as specified in subdivision (b) shall be adjusted by an inflation factor of 5 percent.(2)Beginning on July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, the County IHSS MOE from the previous year shall be adjusted by an inflation factor of 7 percent.(3)(A)Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), in fiscal years in which the total of 1991 realignment revenues received pursuant to Sections 6051.2 and 6201.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the prior fiscal year is less than the total received for the next prior fiscal year, the inflation factor shall be zero.(B)Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), in fiscal years in which the total of 1991 realignment revenues received pursuant to Sections 6051.2 and 6201.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the prior fiscal year is equal to or up to 2 percent greater than the total received for the next prior fiscal year, the inflation factor shall be one-half of the amount specified in either paragraph (1) or (2).(C)The Department of Finance shall provide notification to the appropriate fiscal committees of the Legislature and the California State Association of Counties by May 14 of each year of the inflation factor that will apply for the following fiscal year, based on the calculation in subparagraph (A) and (B).(d)In addition to the adjustment in subdivision (c), the County IHSS MOE shall be adjusted for the annualized cost of increases in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed, on or after July 1, 2017, including any increases in provider wages or health benefits adopted by ordinance pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 9100) of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Elections Code.(1)(A)If the department approves an increase in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance pursuant to Section 12306.1, the state shall pay 65 percent, and the affected county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of the cost increase in accordance with subparagraph (B).(B)With respect to any increase in provider wages or health benefits approved on or after July 1, 2017, pursuant to subparagraph (A), the state shall participate in that increase as provided in subparagraph (A) up to the amount specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 12306.1. The county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any cost increase exceeding the amount specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 12306.1.(C)With respect to an increase in benefits, other than individual health benefits, locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, or adopted by ordinance, the countys County IHSS MOE shall include a one-time adjustment equal to 35 percent of the nonfederal share of the increased benefit costs.(D)The county share of increased expenditures pursuant to subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, shall be included in the County IHSS MOE, in addition to the amount established under subdivisions (b) and (c). For any increase in provider wages or health benefits, or increase in other benefits pursuant to subparagraph (C), that becomes effective on a date other than July 1, the Department of Finance shall adjust the countys County IHSS MOE to reflect the annualized cost of the countys share of the nonfederal cost of the wage or health benefit increase. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys 201718 paid IHSS hours and the appropriate cost-sharing ratio as grown by the applicable number of inflation factors pursuant to subdivision (c) that have occurred up to and including the fiscal year in which the increase becomes effective.(2)(A)If the department does not approve the increase in provider wages or health benefits, or increase in other benefits pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), that are locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance pursuant to Section 12306.1 or paragraph (3), the county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of the cost increases.(B)The county share of increased expenditures pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be included in the County IHSS MOE, in addition to the amount established under subdivisions (b) and (c). For any increase in provider wages or health benefits that becomes effective on a date other than July 1, the Department of Finance shall adjust the countys County IHSS MOE to reflect the annualized cost of the countys share of the nonfederal cost of the wage or health benefit increase. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys 201718 paid IHSS hours and the appropriate county sharing ratio as grown by the appropriate number of applicable inflation factors pursuant to subdivision (c) that have occurred up to and including the fiscal year in which the increase becomes effective.(3)In addition to the rate approval requirements specified in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, of Section 12306.1, it shall be presumed by the department that rates and other economic terms that are locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance are approved.(4)(A)With respect to any rate increases to existing contracts that a county has already entered into pursuant to Section 12302, the state shall pay 65 percent, and the affected county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of the amount of the rate increase up to the maximum amounts established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. The county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any portion of the rate increase exceeding the maximum amount established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys 201718 paid IHSS contract hours, or the paid contract hours in the fiscal year in which the contract becomes effective if the contract becomes effective on or after July 1, 2017, using the appropriate cost-sharing ratio as grown by the applicable number of inflation factors pursuant to subdivision (c) that have occurred up to and including the fiscal year in which the increase becomes effective.(B)With respect to rates for new contracts entered into by a county pursuant to Section 12302 on or after July 1, 2017, the state shall pay 65 percent, and the affected county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of the difference between the locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance, provider wage and the contract rate for all of the hours of service to IHSS recipients to be provided under the contract up to the maximum amounts established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. The county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any portion of the contract rate exceeding the maximum amount established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys paid contract hours in the fiscal year in which the contract becomes effective using the appropriate cost-sharing ratio.(C)The county share of these expenditures shall be included in the County IHSS MOE, in addition to the amounts established under subdivisions (b) and (c). For any rate increases for existing contracts or rates for new contracts, entered into by a county pursuant to Section 12302 on or after July 1, 2017, that become effective on a date other than July 1, the Department of Finance shall adjust the countys County IHSS MOE to reflect the annualized cost of the countys share of the nonfederal cost of the increase or rate for new contracts. This adjustment shall be calculated as follows:(i)For a contract described in subparagraph (A), the first-year cost of the amount of the rate increase calculated using the pro rata share of the number of hours of service provided in the contract for the fiscal year in which the increase became effective.(ii)For a contract described in subparagraph (B), the first-year cost of the difference between the locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance, provider wage and the contract rate for all of the hours of service to IHSS recipients calculated using the pro rata share of the number of hours of service provided in the contract for the fiscal year in which the contract became effective.(5)In the event the state ceases to receive enhanced federal financial participation for the provision of services pursuant to Section 1915(k) of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396n(k)), the County IHSS MOE shall be adjusted one time to reflect a 35-percent share of the enhanced federal financial participation that would have been received pursuant to Section 1915(k) of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396n(k)) for the fiscal year in which the state ceases to receive the enhanced federal financial participation.(6)The County IHSS MOE shall not be adjusted for increases in individual provider wages that are locally negotiated pursuant to subdivision (a) of, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (d) of, Section 12306.1 when the increase has been specifically negotiated to take effect at the same time as, and to be the same amount as, state minimum wage increases.(7)(A)A county may negotiate a wage supplement.(i)The wage supplement shall be in addition to the highest wage rate paid in the county since June 30, 2017.(ii)The first time the wage supplement is applied, the countys County IHSS MOE shall include a one-time adjustment by the amount of the increased cost resulting from the supplement, as specified in paragraph (1).(B)A wage supplement negotiated pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall subsequently be applied to the minimum wage when the minimum wage increase is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid without inclusion of the wage supplement and the increase to the county wage paid takes effect at the same time as the minimum wage increase.(C)For any changes to provider wages or health benefits locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, for which a rate change request was submitted to the department prior to January 1, 2018, for review, clause (i) of subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) shall not apply. A wage supplement subject to this subparagraph shall subsequently be applied to the minimum wage when the minimum wage is equal to or exceeds the county individual provider wage including the wage supplement.(8)The Department of Finance shall consult with the California State Association of Counties to develop the computations for the annualized amounts pursuant to this subdivision.(e)The County IHSS MOE shall only be adjusted pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d).(f)A countys County IHSS MOE costs paid to the state shall be reduced by the amount of any General Fund offset provided to the county pursuant to Section 12306.17.SEC. 6.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.However, to the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.SEC. 7.The sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) in reimbursements is hereby appropriated to the State Department of Social Services in the 201718 fiscal year for the purposes specified in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (7) of subdivision (d) of Section 12306.16 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.SEC. 8.This act is a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 12 of Article IV of the California Constitution, has been identified as related to the budget in the Budget Bill, and shall take effect immediately.(a)California law enforcement agencies shall not:
(1)Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A)Inquiring into an individuals immigration status.
(B)Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
(C)Providing information regarding a persons release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.
(D)Providing personal information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individuals home address or work address unless that information is available to the public.
(E)Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
(F)Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(G)Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
(2)Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.
(3)Use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.
(4)Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5.
(5)Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility.
(6)Contract with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310).
(b)Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a), this section does not prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing any of the following that does not violate any policy of the law enforcement agency or any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating:
(1)Investigating, enforcing, or detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting for a violation of, Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. Transfers to immigration authorities are permitted under this subsection only in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).
(2)Responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific persons criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, or similar criminal history information accessed through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law.
(3)Conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, so long as the following conditions are met:
(A)The primary purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.4.
(B)The enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of state or federal law unrelated to immigration enforcement.
(C)Participation in the task force by a California law enforcement agency does not violate any local law or policy to which it is otherwise subject.
(4)Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(5)Giving immigration authorities access to interview an individual in agency or department custody. All interview access shall comply with requirements of the TRUTH Act (Chapter 17.2 (commencing with Section 7283)).
(c)(1)If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, for which a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing basis, it shall submit a report annually to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. The law enforcement agency shall report the following information, if known, for each task force of which it is a member:
(A)The purpose of the task force.
(B)The federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved.
(C)The total number of arrests made during the reporting period.
(D)The number of people arrested for immigration enforcement purposes.
(2)All law enforcement agencies shall report annually to the Department of Justice, in a manner specified by the Attorney General, the number of transfers pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), and the offense that allowed for the transfer, transfer pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).
(3)All records described in this subdivision shall be public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250)), including the exemptions provided by that act and, as permitted under that act, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be disclosed.
(4)If more than one California law enforcement agency is participating in a joint task force that meets the reporting requirement pursuant to this section, the joint task force shall designate a local or state agency responsible for completing the reporting requirement.
(d)The Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, shall report on the total number of arrests made by joint law enforcement task forces, and the total number of arrests made for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be included in the Attorney Generals report. The Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney Generals Internet Web site.
(e)This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(f)Nothing in this section shall prohibit a California law enforcement agency from asserting its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters.
SEC. 2.Section 27388.1 of the Government Code is amended to read:27388.1.(a)(1)Commencing January 1, 2018, and except as provided in paragraph (2), in addition to any other recording fees specified in this code, a fee of seventy-five dollars ($75) shall be paid at the time of recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, except those expressly exempted from payment of recording fees, per each single transaction per parcel of real property. The fee imposed by this section shall not exceed two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225). Real estate instrument, paper, or notice means a document relating to real property, including, but not limited to, the following: deed, grant deed, trustees deed, deed of trust, reconveyance, quit claim deed, fictitious deed of trust, assignment of deed of trust, request for notice of default, abstract of judgment, subordination agreement, declaration of homestead, abandonment of homestead, notice of default, release or discharge, easement, notice of trustee sale, notice of completion, UCC financing statement, mechanics lien, maps, and covenants, conditions, and restrictions.
(2)The fee described in paragraph (1) shall not be imposed on any real of the following documents:
(A)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer tax as defined in Section 11911 of the Revenue and Taxation Code or on any Code.
(B)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential dwelling to an owner-occupier.
(C)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (Title 7 (commencing with Section 2100) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
(D)Any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.
(b)The county recorder shall remit quarterly, on or before the last day of the month next succeeding each calendar quarterly period, the fees, after deduction of any actual and necessary administrative costs incurred by the county recorder in carrying out this section, to the Controller for deposit in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund established by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, to be expended for the purposes set forth in that section. In addition, the county shall pay to the Controller interest, at the legal rate, on any funds not paid to the Controller before the last day of the month next succeeding each quarterly period.
(c)If the Department of Housing and Community Development determines that any moneys derived from fees collected are being allocated by the state for a purpose not authorized by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, the county recorder shall, upon notice of the determination, immediately cease collection of the fees, and shall resume collection of those fees only upon notice that the moneys derived from the fees collected are being allocated by the state only for a purpose authorized by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d)(1)Subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, shall apply to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government on or after January 1, 2018, and the fee imposed by this section shall not be imposed or billed for any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act (Title 7 (commencing with Section 2100) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure) on or after that date.
(2)The Legislature finds and declares that subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, reflects the original intent of the Legislature in enacting this section and is therefore not a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. Subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), as added by the act adding this subdivision, shall apply to any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after January 1, 2018, and the fee imposed by this section shall not be imposed or billed for any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state on or after that date.
SEC. 3.Section 11461.35 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:11461.35.(a)It is the intent of the Legislature to provide, through June 30, 2018, interim support to emergency caregivers, as defined in subdivision (c), who have pending applications under the Resource Family Approval Program that have been temporarily delayed due to the need to increase capacity for statewide implementation of the program.
(b)Commencing on the date of the release of the all-county letter pursuant to subdivision (j), and subject to the limitations contained in this section, each county shall provide a payment equivalent to the resource family basic level rate of the home-based family care rate structure to an emergency caregiver, as defined in subdivision (c), who is caring for a child or nonminor dependent placed in the home of the caregiver pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 309, Section 361.45, or based on a compelling reason pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 16519.5, effective the date of the emergency or compelling reason placement of the child or nonminor dependent, or the release date of the all-county letter pursuant to subdivision (j), whichever is later, if the child or nonminor dependent meets both of the following criteria:
(1)The child or nonminor dependent is not otherwise eligible for AFDC-FC or the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program, pursuant to Section 11461.3, while placed in the home of the emergency caregiver.
(2)The child or nonminor dependent resides in California.
(c)For purposes of this section, an emergency caregiver means an individual who has a pending resource family application filed with an appropriate agency on or after the effective date of this section, and who has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4 or has successfully completed the home environment assessment portion of resource family approval pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 16519.5.
(d)Funding for the payment described in subdivision (b) shall be as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding Section 11461.3, if the emergency caregiver is a relative, as defined by paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 319, of the child and the county placing agency has determined that the child would be ineligible for federal AFDC-FC when placed in an approved resource family home, the child shall be deemed eligible for the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program for the purpose of making the payment authorized by this section.
(2)If the emergency caregiver is a nonrelative extended family member, or if the county placing agency has determined that the child would be eligible for federal AFDC-FC when placed with the relative once the home is an approved resource family home, payment as specified in this section shall be made through the Emergency Assistance Program that is included in the states Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant.
(e)(1)The department shall make available to counties funding to cover up to 60 days of emergency assistance payments made pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d).
(2)The department shall extend the funding provided in paragraph (1) through June 30, 2018, if either of the following conditions are met:
(A)The county has documented good cause for the delay in approving a resource family application that is outside the direct control of the county, which may include delays in processing background check clearances or exemptions, medical examinations, or delays that are based on the needs of the family.
(B)The county has documented a prior existing backlog of resource family applications, and has communicated to the applicant an anticipated date by which the application will be processed. Each county with a prior existing backlog of resource family applications shall provide to the department and implement a countywide plan based on available resources to the counties and recent state guidance on resource family approval that will eliminate the backlog by September 1, 2018.
(f)Any amounts expended for emergency assistance by a county placing agency as a result of not meeting either of the conditions specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) shall be compared to the maintenance payment costs that the county otherwise would have expended prior to Resource Family Approval Program implementation, to determine the net fiscal impact to the county placing agency.
(g)Counties shall not be liable for any federal disallowance or penalty imposed on the state based on implementation of this section, including a countys action in reliance on the states instruction related to implementation of this section.
(h)Payments authorized pursuant to this section shall not continue beyond June 30, 2018.
(i)No appropriation pursuant to Section 15200 shall be made for purposes of implementing this section.
(j)Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the State Department of Social Services may implement and administer this section through all-county letter or similar instructions. The all-county letter or similar instructions shall be finalized and published no later than 21 days following the enactment of this section.
(k)This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2018, and, as of January 1, 2019, is repealed.
SEC. 4.Section 12306.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:12306.1.(a)When any increase in provider wages or benefits is locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, or any increase in provider wages or benefits is adopted by ordinance pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 9100) of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Elections Code, then the county shall use county-only funds to fund both the county share and the state share, including employment taxes, of any increase in the cost of the program, unless otherwise provided for in the annual Budget Act or appropriated by statute. No increase in wages or benefits locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance pursuant to this section shall take effect unless and until, prior to its implementation, the increase is reviewed and determined to be in compliance with state law and the department has obtained the approval of the State Department of Health Care Services for the increase pursuant to a determination that it is consistent with federal law and to ensure federal financial participation for the services under Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act, and unless and until all of the following conditions have been met:
(1)Each county has provided the department with documentation of the approval of the county board of supervisors of the proposed public authority or nonprofit consortium rate, including wages and related expenditures. The documentation shall be received by the department before the department and the State Department of Health Care Services may approve the increase.
(2)Each county has met department guidelines and regulatory requirements as a condition of receiving state participation in the rate.
(b)Any rate approved pursuant to subdivision (a) shall take effect commencing on the first day of the month subsequent to the month in which final approval is received from the department. The department may grant approval on a conditional basis, subject to the availability of funding.
(c)The state shall pay 65 percent, and each county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of wage and benefit increases pursuant to subdivision (a) and associated employment taxes, only in accordance with subdivision (d).
(d)(1)The state shall participate in a total of wages and individual health benefits up to twelve dollars and ten cents ($12.10) per hour until the amount specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code reaches twelve dollars ($12.00) per hour at which point the state shall participate as provided in paragraph (2).
(2)For any increase in wages or individual health benefits locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, and approved by the department, or any increase in provider wages or benefits adopted by ordinance pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 9100) of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Elections Code, the state shall participate as provided in subdivision (c) in a total of wages and individual health benefits up to one dollar and ten cents ($1.10) per hour above the amount per hour specified for the corresponding year in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of, subdivision (c) of, and subdivision (d) of, Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code.
(3)(A)For a county that is at or above twelve dollars and ten cents ($12.10) per hour in combined wages and individual health benefits, the state shall participate as provided in subdivision (c) in a cumulative total of up to 10 percent within a three-year period in the sum of the combined total of changes in wages or individual health benefits, or both.
(B)The state shall participate as provided in subparagraph (A) for no more than two three-year periods, after which point the county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any future increases in wages and individual health benefits that exceed the amount specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(C)A three-year period is defined as three consecutive years. A new three-year period can only begin after the last year of the previous three-year period.
(D)To be eligible for state participation, a 10-percent increase described in this paragraph is required to be commenced prior to the date that the minimum wage reaches the amount specified in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1182.12 of the Labor Code.
(4)Paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply to contracts executed, or to increases in wages or individual health benefits, locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance, prior to July 1, 2017.
SEC. 5.Section 12306.16 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:12306.16.(a)Commencing July 1, 2017, all counties shall have a County IHSS Maintenance of Effort (MOE).
(b)(1)(A)The statewide total County IHSS MOE base for the 201718 fiscal year shall be established at one billion seven hundred sixty-nine million four hundred forty-three thousand dollars ($1,769,443,000). This amount reflects the estimated county share of IHSS program base costs calculated pursuant to Sections 10101.1 and 12306, as those sections read on June 1, 2017, and reflected in the departments 2017 May Revision local assistance subvention table for the 201718 fiscal year.
(B)If actual IHSS program base costs, as determined by the Department of Finance on or before May 14, 2018, attributable to the 201718 fiscal year are lower than the costs assumed in the 2017 May Revision local assistance subvention table, the statewide total County IHSS MOE base for the 201718 fiscal year shall be adjusted accordingly pursuant to Sections 10101.1 and 12306, as those sections read on June 1, 2017.
(2)The Department of Finance shall consult with the California State Association of Counties to determine each countys share of the statewide total County IHSS MOE base amount. The County IHSS MOE base shall be unique to each individual county.
(3)(A)Administration expenditures are included in the County IHSS MOE and shall include both county administration, including costs associated with the IHSS case management, information, and payrolling system, and public authority administration.
(B)The amount of General Fund moneys available for county administration and public authority administration is limited to the amount of General Fund moneys appropriated for those specific purposes in the annual Budget Act, and increases to this amount do not impact the County IHSS MOE.
(C)To be eligible to receive its share of General Fund moneys appropriated in a fiscal year for county administration and public authority administration costs, the county is only required to expend the full amount of its County IHSS MOE that is attributable to county and public authority administration for that fiscal year and no additional county share of cost shall be required. The department shall consult with the California State Association of Counties to determine the county-by-county distribution of the amount of General Fund moneys appropriated in the annual Budget Act for county administration and public authority administration.
(D)Amounts expended by a county or public authority on administration in excess of the amount described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not be attributed towards the county meeting its County IHSS MOE requirement.
(E)As part of the preparation of the 201819 Governors Budget, the department shall work with the California State Association of Counties, County Welfare Directors Association of California, and the Department of Finance to examine the workload and budget assumptions related to administration of the IHSS program for the 201718 and 201819 fiscal years.
(c)(1)On July 1, 2018, the County IHSS MOE base as specified in subdivision (b) shall be adjusted by an inflation factor of 5 percent.
(2)Beginning on July 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, the County IHSS MOE from the previous year shall be adjusted by an inflation factor of 7 percent.
(3)(A)Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), in fiscal years when in which the total of 1991 realignment revenues received pursuant to Sections 6051.2 and 6201.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Code for the prior fiscal year is less than the total received for the next prior fiscal year, the inflation factor shall be zero.
(B)Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), in fiscal years when in which the total of 1991 realignment revenues received pursuant to Sections 6051.2 and 6201.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Code for the prior fiscal year is equal to or up to 2 percent greater than the total received for the next prior fiscal year, the inflation factor shall be one-half of the amount specified in either paragraph (1) or (2).
(C)The Department of Finance shall provide notification to the appropriate fiscal committees of the Legislature and the California State Association of Counties by May 14 of each year of the inflation factor that will apply for the following fiscal year, based on the calculation in subparagraph (A) and (B).
(d)In addition to the adjustment in subdivision (c), the County IHSS MOE shall be adjusted for the annualized cost of increases in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed, on or after July 1, 2017, including any increases in provider wages or health benefits adopted by ordinance pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 9100) of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Elections Code.
(1)(A)If the department approves an increase in provider wages or health benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance pursuant to Section 12306.1, the state shall pay 65 percent, and the affected county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of the cost increase in accordance with subparagraph (B).
(B)With respect to any increase in provider wages or health benefits approved on or after July 1, 2017, pursuant to subparagraph (A), the state shall participate in that increase as provided in subparagraph (A) up to the amount specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 12306.1. The county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any cost increase exceeding the amount specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 12306.1.
(C)With respect to an increase in benefits, other than individual health benefits, locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, or adopted by ordinance, the countys County IHSS MOE shall include a one-time adjustment equal to 35 percent of the nonfederal share of the increased benefit costs.
(D)The county share of increased expenditures pursuant to subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, shall be included in the County IHSS MOE, in addition to the amount established under subdivisions (b) and (c). For any increase in provider wages or health benefits, or increase in other benefits pursuant to subparagraph (C), that becomes effective on a date other than July 1, the Department of Finance shall adjust the countys County IHSS MOE to reflect the annualized cost of the countys share of the nonfederal cost of the wage or health benefit increase. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys 201718 paid IHSS hours and the appropriate cost-sharing ratio as grown by the applicable number of inflation factors pursuant to subdivision (c) that have occurred up to and including the fiscal year in which the increase becomes effective.
(2)(A)If the department does not approve the increase in provider wages or health benefits, or increase in other benefits pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), that are locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance pursuant to Section 12306.1 or paragraph (3), the county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of the cost increases.
(B)The county share of increased expenditures pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be included in the County IHSS MOE, in addition to the amount established under subdivisions (b) and (c). For any increase in provider wages or health benefits that becomes effective on a date other than July 1, the Department of Finance shall adjust the countys County IHSS MOE to reflect the annualized cost of the countys share of the nonfederal cost of the wage or health benefit increase. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys 201718 paid IHSS hours and the appropriate county sharing ratio as grown by the appropriate number of applicable inflation factors pursuant to subdivision (c) that have occurred up to and including the fiscal year in which the increase becomes effective.
(3)In addition to the rate approval requirements specified in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, of Section 12306.1, it shall be presumed by the department that rates and other economic terms that are locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance are approved.
(4)(A)With respect to any rate increases to existing contracts that a county has already entered into pursuant to Section 12302, the state shall pay 65 percent, and the affected county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of the amount of the rate increase up to the maximum amounts established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. The county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any portion of the rate increase exceeding the maximum amount established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys 201718 paid IHSS contract hours, or the paid contract hours in the fiscal year in which the contract becomes effective if the contract becomes effective on or after July 1, 2017, using the appropriate cost-sharing ratio as grown by the applicable number of inflation factors pursuant to subdivision (c) that have occurred up to and including the fiscal year in which the increase becomes effective.
(B)With respect to rates for new contracts entered into by a county pursuant to Section 12302 on or after July 1, 2017, the state shall pay 65 percent, and the affected county shall pay 35 percent, of the nonfederal share of the difference between the locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance, provider wage and the contract rate for all of the hours of service to IHSS recipients to be provided under the contract up to the maximum amounts established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. The county shall pay the entire nonfederal share of any portion of the contract rate exceeding the maximum amount established pursuant to Sections 12302.1 and 12303. This adjustment shall be calculated based on the countys paid contract hours in the fiscal year in which the contract becomes effective using the appropriate cost-sharing ratio.
(C)The county share of these expenditures shall be included in the County IHSS MOE, in addition to the amounts established under subdivisions (b) and (c). For any rate increases for existing contracts or rates for new contracts, entered into by a county pursuant to Section 12302 on or after July 1, 2017, that become effective on a date other than July 1, the Department of Finance shall adjust the countys County IHSS MOE to reflect the annualized cost of the countys share of the nonfederal cost of the increase or rate for new contracts. This adjustment shall be calculated as follows:
(i)For a contract described in subparagraph (A), the first-year cost of the amount of the rate increase calculated using the pro rata share of the number of hours of service provided in the contract for the fiscal year in which the increase became effective.
(ii)For a contract described in subparagraph (B), the first-year cost of the difference between the locally negotiated, mediated, imposed, or adopted by ordinance, provider wage and the contract rate for all of the hours of service to IHSS recipients calculated using the pro rata share of the number of hours of service provided in the contract for the fiscal year in which the contract became effective.
(5)In the event the state ceases to receive enhanced federal financial participation for the provision of services pursuant to Section 1915(k) of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396n(k)), the County IHSS MOE shall be adjusted one time to reflect a 35-percent share of the enhanced federal financial participation that would have been received pursuant to Section 1915(k) of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396n(k)) for the fiscal year in which the state ceases to receive the enhanced federal financial participation.
(6)The County IHSS MOE shall not be adjusted for increases in individual provider wages that are locally negotiated pursuant to subdivision (a) of, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (d) of, Section 12306.1 when the increase has been specifically negotiated to take effect at the same time as, and to be the same amount as, state minimum wage increases.
(7)(A)A county may negotiate a wage supplement. The
(i)The wage supplement shall be in addition to the highest wage rate paid in the county since June 30, 2017.
(ii)The first time the wage supplement is applied, the countys County IHSS MOE shall include a one-time adjustment by the amount of the increase, increased cost resulting from the supplement, as specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1).
(B)A wage supplement negotiated pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall subsequently be applied to the county individual provider minimum wage when the county individual provider wage meets all of the following criteria: minimum wage increase is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid without inclusion of the wage supplement and the increase to the county wage paid takes effect at the same time as the minimum wage increase.
(i)The increase to the county individual provider wage takes effect at the same time as the state minimum wage increase.(ii)The increase to the county individual provider wage is the same amount as the state minimum wage increase.(iii)The minimum wage increase exceeds the county individual provider wage prior to applying the minimum wage increase.(C)For any changes to provider wages or health benefits locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed by a county, public authority, or nonprofit consortium, for which a rate change request was submitted to the department prior to January 1, 2018, for review, clause (i) of subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) shall not apply. A wage supplement subject to this subparagraph shall subsequently be applied to the minimum wage when the minimum wage is equal to or exceeds the county individual provider wage including the wage supplement.
(8)The Department of Finance shall consult with the California State Association of Counties to develop the computations for the annualized amounts pursuant to this subdivision.
(e)The County IHSS MOE shall only be adjusted pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d).
(f)A countys County IHSS MOE costs paid to the state shall be reduced by the amount of any General Fund offset provided to the county pursuant to Section 12306.17.
SEC. 6.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
However, to the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
SEC. 7.The sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) in reimbursements is hereby appropriated to the State Department of Social Services in the 201718 fiscal year for the purposes specified in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (7) of subdivision (d) of Section 12306.16 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
SEC. 8.This act is a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 12 of Article IV of the California Constitution, has been identified as related to the budget in the Budget Bill, and shall take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)With the passage of Senate Bill 1 (Chapter 5 of the Statutes of 2017, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017), California will have over $50 billion in new funds over the next decade to invest in highway and road repair, transit and rail expansion, and other projects to improve Californias economy and the livability of our communities.(b)Senate Bill 1 contains strong accountability standards, and calls for cost efficiencies.(c)Since 2006, the California Department of Transportation has participated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assignment Program, which allows California to assume federal responsibilities for NEPA actions on highways and local roads provided the state waives its sovereign immunity and defends any NEPA challenges in federal court.(d)According to the California Department of Transportation, NEPA Assignment has been shown to significantly reduce environmental document processing times and to greatly accelerate transportation project delivery. For example, under NEPA Assignment, there has been a median time savings of 10.8 months in approving draft environmental assessment (EA) documents and 12.5 months for final EAs. There has been a nearly 28-month time savings in finalizing draft environmental impact statements (EIS). Time savings in the environmental process results in significant project cost savings.(e)Based on the success of the NEPA Assignment Program for highways and roads, Congress expanded the program to include rail and transit projects in 2012.(f)Senate Bill 1 will allow the state to be a funding partner in transformative rail and transit projects, which could include projects such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) to San Jose project; the Los Angeles Union Station Link US project; and the Altamont Corridor Express ACE forward project.(g)Projects listed above and other rail and transit projects should have the same opportunity to benefit from the time and cost efficiencies that highway and road projects enjoy today through NEPA Assignment.(h)Because the federal government requires states to waive sovereign immunity to participate in the NEPA Assignment Program, that authority is needed in California to expand the NEPA Assignment authority used for highway and road projects, to also include transit and rail projects.SEC. 2.Section 13979.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:13979.2.(a)The secretary, on behalf of the agency, and any department, office, or other unit within the agency with the authority to implement transportation projects, may assume responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other federal environmental laws, pursuant to Section 327 of Title 23 of the United States Code, for any railroad, public transportation, or multimodal project.(b)Prior to assuming the responsibilities set forth in subdivision (a) through execution of a memorandum of understanding between the State of California and the federal government, the secretary shall submit a copy of the draft memorandum of understanding to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Execution of the memorandum of understanding shall occur no sooner than 30 days after the secretary provides the draft memorandum of understanding to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, or whatever lesser time after that notification that the chair of the joint committee, or his or her designee, may determine.(c)The State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of any responsibilities assumed pursuant to subdivision (a).(d)In any action brought pursuant to the federal laws described in subdivision (a) for a project for which responsibilities have been assumed pursuant to subdivision (a), no immunity from suit may be asserted pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and any immunity is hereby waived.(e)No responsibility assumed pursuant to subdivision (a) may be delegated to any political subdivision of the state, such as a county, or its instrumentalities.(f)This section does not affect the obligation of the secretary and all departments, offices, and other units within the agency to comply with state and federal law.(g)Nothing in this section is intended to repeal or modify Section 820.1 of the Streets and Highways Code.(h)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed.SEC. 3.Section 14527 of the Government Code is amended to read:14527.(a)After consulting with the department, the regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions shall adopt and submit to the commission and the department, not later than December 15, 2001, and December 15 of each odd-numbered year thereafter, a five-year regional transportation improvement program in conformance with Section 65082. In counties where a county transportation commission has been created pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 130050) of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, that commission shall adopt and submit the county transportation improvement program, in conformance with Sections 130303 and 130304 of that code, to the multicounty-designated transportation planning agency. Other information, including a program for expenditure of local or federal funds, may be submitted for information purposes with the program, but only at the discretion of the transportation planning agencies or the county transportation commissions. As used in this section, county transportation commission includes a transportation authority created pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 130050) of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code.(b)The regional transportation improvement program shall include all projects to be funded with the county share under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 164 of the Streets and Highways Code. The regional programs shall be limited to projects to be funded in whole or in part with the county share that shall include all projects to receive allocations by the commission during the following five fiscal years. For each project, the total expenditure for each project component and the total amount of commission allocation and the year of allocation shall be stated. The total cost of projects to be funded with the county share shall not exceed the amount specified in the fund estimate made by the commission pursuant to Section 14525.(c)The regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions may recommend projects to improve state highways with the interregional share pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 164 of the Streets and Highways Code. The recommendations shall be separate and distinct from the regional transportation improvement program. A project recommended for funding pursuant to this subdivision shall constitute a usable segment and shall not be a condition for inclusion of other projects in the regional transportation improvement program.(d)The department may nominate or recommend the inclusion of projects in the regional transportation improvement program to improve state highways with the county share pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) and subdivision (e) of Section 164 of the Streets and Highways Code. A regional transportation planning agency and a county transportation commission shall have sole authority for determining whether any of the project nominations or recommendations are accepted and included in the regional transportation improvement program adopted and submitted pursuant to this section. This authority provided to a regional transportation planning agency or to a county transportation commission extends only to a project located within its jurisdiction.(e)Major projects shall include current costs updated as of November 1 of the year of submittal and escalated to the appropriate year, and shall be consistent with, and provide the information required in, subdivision (b) of Section 14529.(f)The regional transportation improvement program may not change the project delivery milestone date of any project as shown in the prior adopted state transportation improvement program without the consent of the department or other agency responsible for the projects delivery.(g)Projects may not be included in the regional transportation improvement program without a complete project study report or, for a project that is not on a state highway, a project study report equivalent or major investment study.(h)(1)Each transportation planning agency and county transportation commission may request and receive an amount not to exceed 5 percent of its county share for the purposes of project planning, programming, and monitoring.(2)Notwithstanding any other law, but to the extent consistent with applicable federal law or regulation, the department may make an advance payment up to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) per year to transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions for programming, planning, and monitoring under paragraph (1) where the total allocation under that paragraph is equal to or less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000). Funds advanced shall be programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program and allocated by the California Transportation Commission prior to payment.SEC. 4.Section 75225 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:75225.(a)A lead applicant agency may apply to the commission for a letter of no prejudice for a project or for any component of a project included in the program of projects approved by the Transportation Agency. If approved by the commission, the letter of no prejudice shall allow the lead applicant agency to expend its own moneys for the project or any component of the project and to be eligible for future reimbursement, as applicable, from moneys available for the program from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created pursuant to Section 16428.8 of the Government Code, or from moneys available for the program pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 11053 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.(b)The amount expended under subdivision (a) shall be reimbursed by the state from moneys available for the program if all of the following conditions are met:(1)The project or project component for which the letter of no prejudice was requested has commenced, and the regional or local expenditures have been incurred.(2)The expenditures made by the lead applicant agency are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with applicable laws and procedures. If expenditures made by the lead applicant agency are determined to be ineligible, the state has no obligation to reimburse those expenditures.(3)The lead applicant agency complies with all legal requirements for the project, including the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)).(4)There are moneys designated for the program that are sufficient to make the reimbursement payment.(c)The lead applicant agency and the commission shall enter into an agreement governing reimbursement as described in this section. The timing and final amount of reimbursement is dependent on the terms of the agreement and the availability of moneys for the program.(d)The commission, in consultation with intercity, commuter, urban rail, and other public transit entities, may develop guidelines to implement this section.SEC. 5.Section 2033 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2033.(a)On or before January 1, 2018, the commission, in cooperation with the department, transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and other local agencies, shall develop guidelines for the allocation of funds pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2032.(b)The guidelines shall be the complete and full statement of the policy, standards, and criteria that the commission intends to use to determine how these funds will be allocated.(c)The commission may amend the adopted guidelines after conducting at least one public hearing.(d)The guidelines may include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing local or regional transportation agencies to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that allows the agency to expend its own funds in advance of an allocation of funds by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures. A letter of no prejudice shall only be available to local or regional transportation agencies for moneys that have been identified for future allocation to the applicant agency. Moneys designated pursuant to (a) of Section 2032 shall only be reimbursed when there is funding available in an amount sufficient to make the reimbursement.SEC. 6.Section 2034 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2034.(a)(1)Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year, an eligible city or county shall submit to the commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding shall be adopted by resolution by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. The list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds shall include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the projects completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 2030.(2)The commission shall submit an initial report to the Controller that indicates the cities and counties that have submitted a list of projects as described in this subdivision and that are therefore eligible to receive an apportionment of funds under the program for the applicable fiscal year. If the commission receives a list of projects from a city or county after it submits its initial report to the Controller, the commission shall submit a subsequent report to the Controller that indicates the cities and counties that submitted a list of projects after the commission submitted its initial report.(3)The Controller, upon receipt of the initial report, shall apportion funds to eligible cities and counties.(4)(A)For any city or county that is not included in the initial report submitted to the Controller pursuant to paragraph (2), the Controller shall retain the monthly share of funds that would otherwise be apportioned and distributed to the city or county pursuant to paragraph (3).(B)If the Controller receives a subsequent report from the commission within 90 days of receiving the initial report from the commission that a city or county has become eligible to receive an apportionment, the Controller shall apportion the funds retained pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the city or county.(C)The Controller shall reapportion to all eligible cities and counties pursuant to the formula in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 2103 any funds that were retained pursuant to subparagraph (A) but that were not apportioned and distributed pursuant to subparagraph (B).(b)For each fiscal year, each city or county receiving an apportionment of funds shall, upon expending program funds, submit documentation to the commission that details the expenditures of all funds under the program, including a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, if applicable, and the estimated useful life of the improvement.(c)Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year, an eligible city or county may expend other funds on eligible projects and may reimburse the source of those other funds when it receives its apportionment from the Controller.SEC. 7.Section 2192 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2192.(a)The following revenues shall be allocated for infrastructure projects pursuant to this section:(1)The revenues deposited in the Trade Corridors Enhancement Account pursuant to Section 2192.4, except for those revenues in the account that were appropriated by Senate Bill 132 of the 201718 Regular Session (Chapter 7 of the Statutes of 2017).(2)An amount of federal funds equal to the amount of revenue apportioned to the state under Section 167 of Title 23 of the United States Code from the national highway freight programs, pursuant to the federal Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, Public Law 114-94).(b)The funding described in subdivision (a) shall be available upon appropriation for allocation by the California Transportation Commission for infrastructure improvements in this state on federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on the Primary Freight Network, and along other corridors that have a high volume of freight movement, as determined by the commission and as identified in the state freight plan developed pursuant to Section 13978.8 of the Government Code. Projects eligible for funding shall be included in an adopted regional transportation plan. Projects within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization shall be included in an adopted regional transportation plan that includes a sustainable communities strategy determined by the State Air Resources Board to achieve the regions greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. In developing guidelines for implementing this section, the commission shall (1) apply the guiding principles, to the maximum extent practicable, in the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan released in July 2016 pursuant to Executive Order B-32-15, and (2) consult the state freight plan and the applicable port master plan.(c)Eligible projects for these funds include, but are not limited to, all of the following:(1)Highway improvements to more efficiently accommodate the movement of freight, particularly for ingress and egress to and from the states land ports of entry, rail terminals, and seaports, including navigable inland waterways used to transport freight between seaports, land ports of entry, and airports, and to relieve traffic congestion along major trade or goods movement corridors.(2)Freight rail system improvements to enhance the ability to move goods from seaports, land ports of entry, and airports to warehousing and distribution centers throughout California, including projects that separate rail lines from highway or local road traffic, improve freight rail mobility, and other projects that improve the safety, efficiency, and capacity of the rail freight system.(3)Projects to enhance the capacity and efficiency of ports, except that funds available under this section shall not be allocated to a project that includes the purchase of fully automated cargo handling equipment. For the purposes of this paragraph, fully automated means equipment that is remotely operated or remotely monitored, with or without the exercise of human intervention or control. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the use of funds available pursuant to this section for a project that includes the purchase of human-operated zero-emission equipment, human-operated near-zero-emission equipment, and infrastructure supporting that human-operated equipment. Furthermore, nothing in this section shall prohibit the purchase of devices that support that human-operated equipment, including equipment to evaluate the utilization and environmental benefits of that human-operated equipment.(4)Truck corridor improvements, including dedicated truck facilities or truck toll facilities, including the mitigation of the emissions from trucks or these facilities.(5)Border access improvements that enhance goods movement between California and Mexico and that maximize the states ability to access funds made available to the state by federal law.(6)Surface transportation, local road, and connector road improvements to effectively facilitate the movement of goods, particularly for ingress and egress to and from the states land ports of entry, airports, and seaports, to relieve traffic congestion along major trade or goods movement corridors.(d)Projects funded with revenues identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be consistent with Article XIX of the California Constitution.(e)(1)In adopting the program of projects to be funded with funds described in subdivision (a), the commission shall evaluate the total potential economic and noneconomic benefits of the program of projects to Californias economy, environment, and public health. The evaluation shall specifically assess localized impacts in disadvantaged communities. The commission shall consult with the agencies identified in Executive Order B-32-15 and metropolitan planning organizations in order to utilize the appropriate models, techniques, and methods to develop the parameters for evaluating the program of projects. The commission shall allocate the funding from subdivision (a) for trade infrastructure improvements as follows:(A)Sixty percent of the funds shall be available for projects nominated by regional transportation agencies and other public agencies, including counties, cities, and port authorities, in consultation with the department. The commission shall provide reasonable geographic targets for funding allocations without constraining what an agency may propose or what the commission may approve.(B)Forty percent of the funds shall be available for projects nominated by the department, in consultation with regional transportation agencies.(2)In adopting a program of projects pursuant to paragraph (1), the commission shall prioritize projects jointly nominated and jointly funded by the state and local agencies. In considering geographic balance for the overall program, the commission may adjust the corridor-based targets in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) to account for projects programmed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1).(f)(1)The commission shall adopt guidelines, including a transparent process to evaluate projects and to allocate the funding described in subdivision (a) for trade infrastructure improvements in a manner that (1) addresses the states most urgent needs, (2) balances the demands of various land ports of entry, seaports, and airports, (3) places emphasis on projects that improve trade corridor mobility and safety while reducing emissions of diesel particulates, greenhouse gases, and other pollutants and reducing other negative community impacts, especially in disadvantaged communities, (4) makes a significant contribution to the states economy, (5) recognizes the key role of the state in project identification, (6) supports integrating statewide goods movement priorities in a corridor approach, and (7) includes disadvantaged communities measures, as established by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code, and other tools the commission determines, for evaluating benefits or costs for disadvantaged communities and low-income communities. Project nominations shall include either a quantitative or qualitative assessment of the benefits the project is expected to achieve relative to the evaluation criteria.(2)The guidelines adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) may include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing regional transportation agencies and other public agencies to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that allows the agency to expend its own funds for a project programmed in a future year of the adopted program of projects, in advance of allocation of funds to the project by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures. A letter of no prejudice shall only be available to local or regional transportation agencies for moneys that have been identified for future allocation to the applicant agency. Monies designated for the program shall only be reimbursed when there is funding available in an amount sufficient to make the reimbursement.(g)In addition, the commission shall also consider the following factors when allocating these funds:(1)Velocity, which means the speed by which large cargo would travel from the land port of entry or seaport through the distribution system.(2)Throughput, which means the volume of cargo that would move from the land port of entry or seaport through the distribution system.(3)Reliability, which means a reasonably consistent and predictable amount of time for cargo to travel from one point to another on any given day or at any given time in California.(4)Congestion reduction, which means the reduction in recurrent daily hours of delay to be achieved.(h)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:(1)Disadvantaged communities are those communities identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code.(2)Low-income communities are census tracts with median household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with median household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Developments list of state income limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.(i)It is the intent of the Legislature for the commission to adopt an initial program of projects utilizing the state and federal funds described in subdivision (a) for eligible projects as soon as practicable and no later than May 17, 2018.SEC. 8.Section 2396 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2396.(a)The commission, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, shall develop and adopt guidelines for the program consistent with the requirements of this chapter. Guidelines adopted by the commission shall be exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). Prior to adopting the guidelines, the commission shall conduct at least one public hearing in northern California and one public hearing in southern California to review and provide an opportunity for public comment. The commission shall adopt the final guidelines no sooner than 30 days after the commission provides the proposed guidelines to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the transportation policy committees in the Senate and the Assembly.(b)The guidelines adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) may include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing regional agencies to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that allows the agency to expend its own funds for a project programmed in a future year of the adopted program of projects, in advance of allocation of funds to the project by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures. A letter of no prejudice shall only be available to local or regional transportation agencies for moneys that have been identified for future allocation to the applicant agency. Moneys designated for the program shall only be reimbursed when there is funding available in an amount sufficient to make the reimbursement.SEC. 9.The sum of two hundred seventy-four million four hundred seventy-three thousand nine hundred ninety dollars ($274,473,990) is hereby appropriated from the Federal Trust Fund to the Department of Transportation for the 201718 fiscal year, as follows:(a)One hundred million four hundred ninety-six thousand six hundred thirty-nine dollars ($100,496,639) for local assistance, non-State Transportation Improvement Program, to be scheduled by the department between Programs 1835020-Local Assistance, 1840019-State and Federal Mass Transit, and 1845022-Regional Planning.(b)One hundred seventy-three million nine hundred seventy-seven thousand three hundred fifty-one dollars ($173,977,351) for capital outlay, non-State Transportation Improvement Program, to be scheduled in Program 1835019-Capital Projects.SEC. 10.This act is a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 12 of Article IV of the California Constitution, has been identified as related to the budget in the Budget Bill, and shall take effect immediately.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)With the passage of Senate Bill 1 (Chapter 5 of the Statutes of 2017, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017), California will have over $50 billion in new funds over the next decade to invest in highway and road repair, transit and rail expansion, and other projects to improve Californias economy and the livability of our communities.
(b)Senate Bill 1 contains strong accountability standards, and calls for cost efficiencies.
(c)Since 2006, the California Department of Transportation has participated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assignment Program, which allows California to assume federal responsibilities for NEPA actions on highways and local roads provided the state waives its sovereign immunity and defends any NEPA challenges in federal court.
(d)According to the California Department of Transportation, NEPA Assignment has been shown to significantly reduce environmental document processing times and to greatly accelerate transportation project delivery. For example, under NEPA Assignment, there has been a median time savings of 10.8 months in approving draft environmental assessment (EA) documents and 12.5 months for final EAs. There has been a nearly 28-month time savings in finalizing draft environmental impact statements (EIS). Time savings in the environmental process results in significant project cost savings.
(e)Based on the success of the NEPA Assignment Program for highways and roads, Congress expanded the program to include rail and transit projects in 2012.
(f)Senate Bill 1 will allow the state to be a funding partner in transformative rail and transit projects, which could include projects such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) to San Jose project; the Los Angeles Union Station Link US project; and the Altamont Corridor Express ACE forward project.
(g)Projects listed above and other rail and transit projects should have the same opportunity to benefit from the time and cost efficiencies that highway and road projects enjoy today through NEPA Assignment.
(h)Because the federal government requires states to waive sovereign immunity to participate in the NEPA Assignment Program, that authority is needed in California to expand the NEPA Assignment authority used for highway and road projects, to also include transit and rail projects.
SEC. 2.Section 13979.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:13979.2.(a)The secretary, on behalf of the agency, and any department, office, or other unit within the agency with the authority to implement transportation projects, may assume responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other federal environmental laws, pursuant to Section 327 of Title 23 of the United States Code, for any railroad, public transportation, or multimodal project.
(b)Prior to assuming the responsibilities set forth in subdivision (a) through execution of a memorandum of understanding between the State of California and the federal government, the secretary shall submit a copy of the draft memorandum of understanding to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Execution of the memorandum of understanding shall occur no sooner than 30 days after the secretary provides the draft memorandum of understanding to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, or whatever lesser time after that notification that the chair of the joint committee, or his or her designee, may determine.
(c)The State of California consents to the jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of any responsibilities assumed pursuant to subdivision (a).
(d)In any action brought pursuant to the federal laws described in subdivision (a) for a project for which responsibilities have been assumed pursuant to subdivision (a), no immunity from suit may be asserted pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and any immunity is hereby waived.
(e)No responsibility assumed pursuant to subdivision (a) may be delegated to any political subdivision of the state, such as a county, or its instrumentalities.
(f)This section does not affect the obligation of the secretary and all departments, offices, and other units within the agency to comply with state and federal law.
(g)Nothing in this section is intended to repeal or modify Section 820.1 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(h)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 3.Section 14527 of the Government Code is amended to read:14527.(a)After consulting with the department, the regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions shall adopt and submit to the commission and the department, not later than December 15, 2001, and December 15 of each odd-numbered year thereafter, a five-year regional transportation improvement program in conformance with Section 65082. In counties where a county transportation commission has been created pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 130050) of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, that commission shall adopt and submit the county transportation improvement program, in conformance with Sections 130303 and 130304 of that code, to the multicounty-designated transportation planning agency. Other information, including a program for expenditure of local or federal funds, may be submitted for information purposes with the program, but only at the discretion of the transportation planning agencies or the county transportation commissions. As used in this section, county transportation commission includes a transportation authority created pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 130050) of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code.
(b)The regional transportation improvement program shall include all projects to be funded with the county share under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 164 of the Streets and Highways Code. The regional programs shall be limited to projects to be funded in whole or in part with the county share that shall include all projects to receive allocations by the commission during the following five fiscal years. For each project, the total expenditure for each project component and the total amount of commission allocation and the year of allocation shall be stated. The total cost of projects to be funded with the county share shall not exceed the amount specified in the fund estimate made by the commission pursuant to Section 14525.
(c)The regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions may recommend projects to improve state highways with the interregional share pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 164 of the Streets and Highways Code. The recommendations shall be separate and distinct from the regional transportation improvement program. A project recommended for funding pursuant to this subdivision shall constitute a usable segment and shall not be a condition for inclusion of other projects in the regional transportation improvement program.
(d)The department may nominate or recommend the inclusion of projects in the regional transportation improvement program to improve state highways with the county share pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) and subdivision (e) of Section 164 of the Streets and Highways Code. A regional transportation planning agency and a county transportation commission shall have sole authority for determining whether any of the project nominations or recommendations are accepted and included in the regional transportation improvement program adopted and submitted pursuant to this section. This authority provided to a regional transportation planning agency or to a county transportation commission extends only to a project located within its jurisdiction.
(e)Major projects shall include current costs updated as of November 1 of the year of submittal and escalated to the appropriate year, and shall be consistent with, and provide the information required in, subdivision (b) of Section 14529.
(f)The regional transportation improvement program may not change the project delivery milestone date of any project as shown in the prior adopted state transportation improvement program without the consent of the department or other agency responsible for the projects delivery.
(g)Projects may not be included in the regional transportation improvement program without a complete project study report or, for a project that is not on a state highway, a project study report equivalent or major investment study.
(h)(1)Each transportation planning agency and county transportation commission may request and receive an amount not to exceed 5 percent of its county share for the purposes of project planning, programming, and monitoring.
(2)Notwithstanding any other law, but to the extent consistent with applicable federal law or regulation, the department may make an advance payment up to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) per year to transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions for programming, planning, and monitoring under paragraph (1) where the total allocation under that paragraph is equal to or less than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000). Funds advanced shall be programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program and allocated by the California Transportation Commission prior to payment.
SEC. 4.Section 75225 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read:75225.(a)A lead applicant agency may apply to the commission for a letter of no prejudice for a project or for any component of a project included in the program of projects approved by the Transportation Agency. If approved by the commission, the letter of no prejudice shall allow the lead applicant agency to expend its own moneys for the project or any component of the project and to be eligible for future reimbursement reimbursement, as applicable, from moneys available for the program from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created pursuant to Section 16428.8 of the Government Code. Code, or from moneys available for the program pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 11053 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(b)The amount expended under subdivision (a) shall be reimbursed by the state from moneys available for the program from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund if all of the following conditions are met:
(1)The project or project component for which the letter of no prejudice was requested has commenced, and the regional or local expenditures have been incurred.
(2)The expenditures made by the lead applicant agency are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with applicable laws and procedures. If expenditures made by the lead applicant agency are determined to be ineligible, the state has no obligation to reimburse those expenditures.
(3)The lead applicant agency complies with all legal requirements for the project, including the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)).
(4)There are moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund designated for the program that are sufficient to make the reimbursement payment.
(c)The lead applicant agency and the commission shall enter into an agreement governing reimbursement as described in this section. The timing and final amount of reimbursement is dependent on the terms of the agreement and the availability of moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for the program.
(d)The commission, in consultation with intercity, commuter, urban rail, and other public transit entities, may develop guidelines to implement this section.
SEC. 5.Section 2033 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2033.(a)On or before January 1, 2018, the commission, in cooperation with the department, transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and other local agencies, shall develop guidelines for the allocation of funds pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 2032.
(b)The guidelines shall be the complete and full statement of the policy, standards, and criteria that the commission intends to use to determine how these funds will be allocated.
(c)The commission may amend the adopted guidelines after conducting at least one public hearing.
(d)The guidelines may include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing local or regional transportation agencies to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that allows the agency to expend its own funds in advance of an allocation of funds by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures. A letter of no prejudice shall only be available to local or regional transportation agencies for moneys that have been identified for future allocation to the applicant agency. Moneys designated pursuant to (a) of Section 2032 shall only be reimbursed when there is funding available in an amount sufficient to make the reimbursement.
SEC. 6.Section 2034 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2034.(a)(1)Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year, an eligible city or county shall submit to the commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget. funds. All projects proposed to receive funding shall be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by resolution by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. The list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds shall include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the projects completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with subdivision (b) of Section 2030.
(2)The commission shall submit an initial report to the Controller that indicates the cities and counties that have submitted a list of projects as described in this subdivision and that are therefore eligible to receive an apportionment of funds under the program for the applicable fiscal year. The If the commission receives a list of projects from a city or county after it submits its initial report to the Controller, the commission shall submit a subsequent report to the Controller that indicates the cities and counties that submitted a list of projects after the commission submitted its initial report.
(3)The Controller, upon receipt of the initial report, shall apportion funds to eligible cities and counties.
(4)(A)For any city or county that is not included in the initial report submitted to the Controller pursuant to paragraph (2), the Controller shall retain the monthly share of funds that would otherwise be apportioned and distributed to the city or county pursuant to paragraph (3).
(B)If the Controller receives a subsequent report from the commission within 90 days of receiving the initial report from the commission that a city or county has become eligible to receive an apportionment, the Controller shall apportion the funds retained pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the city or county.
(C)The Controller shall reapportion to all eligible cities and counties pursuant to the formula in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 2103 any funds that were retained pursuant to subparagraph (A) but that were not apportioned and distributed pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(b)For each fiscal year, each city or county receiving an apportionment of funds shall, upon expending program funds, submit documentation to the commission that includes details the expenditures of all funds under the program, including a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, if applicable, and the estimated useful life of the improvement.
(c)Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year, an eligible city or county may expend other funds on eligible projects and may reimburse the source of those other funds when it receives its apportionment from the Controller.
SEC. 7.Section 2192 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2192.(a)The following revenues shall be allocated for infrastructure projects pursuant to this section:
(1)The revenues deposited in the Trade Corridors Enhancement Account pursuant to Section 2192.4, except for those revenues in the account that were appropriated by Senate Bill 132 of the 201718 Regular Session (Chapter 7 of the Statutes of 2017).
(2)An amount of federal funds equal to the amount of revenue apportioned to the state under Section 167 of Title 23 of the United States Code from the national highway freight programs, pursuant to the federal Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, Public Law 114-94).
(b)The funding described in subdivision (a) shall be available upon appropriation for allocation by the California Transportation Commission for infrastructure improvements in this state on federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on the Primary Freight Network, and along other corridors that have a high volume of freight movement, as determined by the commission and as identified in the state freight plan developed pursuant to Section 13978.8 of the Government Code. Projects eligible for funding shall be included in an adopted regional transportation plan. Projects within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization shall be included in an adopted regional transportation plan that includes a sustainable communities strategy determined by the State Air Resources Board to achieve the regions greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. In developing guidelines for implementing this section, the commission shall (1) apply the guiding principles, to the maximum extent practicable, in the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan released in July 2016 pursuant to Executive Order B-32-15, and (2) consult the state freight plan and the applicable port master plan.
(c)Eligible projects for these funds include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
(1)Highway improvements to more efficiently accommodate the movement of freight, particularly for ingress and egress to and from the states land ports of entry, rail terminals, and seaports, including navigable inland waterways used to transport freight between seaports, land ports of entry, and airports, and to relieve traffic congestion along major trade or goods movement corridors.
(2)Freight rail system improvements to enhance the ability to move goods from seaports, land ports of entry, and airports to warehousing and distribution centers throughout California, including projects that separate rail lines from highway or local road traffic, improve freight rail mobility, and other projects that improve the safety, efficiency, and capacity of the rail freight system.
(3)Projects to enhance the capacity and efficiency of ports, except that funds available under this section shall not be allocated to a project that includes the purchase of fully automated cargo handling equipment. For the purposes of this paragraph, fully automated means equipment that is remotely operated or remotely monitored, with or without the exercise of human intervention or control. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the use of funds available pursuant to this section for a project that includes the purchase of human-operated zero-emission equipment, human-operated near-zero-emission equipment, and infrastructure supporting that human-operated equipment. Furthermore, nothing in this section shall prohibit the purchase of devices that support that human-operated equipment, including equipment to evaluate the utilization and environmental benefits of that human-operated equipment.
(4)Truck corridor improvements, including dedicated truck facilities or truck toll facilities, including the mitigation of the emissions from trucks or these facilities.
(5)Border access improvements that enhance goods movement between California and Mexico and that maximize the states ability to access funds made available to the state by federal law.
(6)Surface transportation, local road, and connector road improvements to effectively facilitate the movement of goods, particularly for ingress and egress to and from the states land ports of entry, airports, and seaports, to relieve traffic congestion along major trade or goods movement corridors.
(d)Projects funded with revenues identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be consistent with Article XIX of the California Constitution.
(e)(1)In adopting the program of projects to be funded with funds described in subdivision (a), the commission shall evaluate the total potential economic and noneconomic benefits of the program of projects to Californias economy, environment, and public health. The evaluation shall specifically assess localized impacts in disadvantaged communities. The commission shall consult with the agencies identified in Executive Order B-32-15 and metropolitan planning organizations in order to utilize the appropriate models, techniques, and methods to develop the parameters for evaluating the program of projects. The commission shall allocate the funding from subdivision (a) for trade infrastructure improvements as follows:
(A)Sixty percent of the funds shall be available for projects nominated by regional transportation agencies and other public agencies, including counties, cities, and port authorities, in consultation with the department. The commission shall provide reasonable geographic targets for funding allocations without constraining what an agency may propose or what the commission may approve.
(B)Forty percent of the funds shall be available for projects nominated by the department, in consultation with regional transportation agencies.
(2)In adopting a program of projects pursuant to paragraph (1), the commission shall prioritize projects jointly nominated and jointly funded by the state and local agencies. In considering geographic balance for the overall program, the commission may adjust the corridor-based targets in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) to account for projects programmed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1).
(f)(1)The commission shall adopt guidelines, including a transparent process to evaluate projects and to allocate the funding described in subdivision (a) for trade infrastructure improvements in a manner that (1) addresses the states most urgent needs, (2) balances the demands of various land ports of entry, seaports, and airports, (3) places emphasis on projects that improve trade corridor mobility and safety while reducing emissions of diesel particulates, greenhouse gases, and other pollutants and reducing other negative community impacts, especially in disadvantaged communities, (4) makes a significant contribution to the states economy, (5) recognizes the key role of the state in project identification, (6) supports integrating statewide goods movement priorities in a corridor approach, and (7) includes disadvantaged communities measures, as established by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code, and other tools the commission determines, for evaluating benefits or costs for disadvantaged communities and low-income communities. Project nominations shall include either a quantitative or qualitative assessment of the benefits the project is expected to achieve relative to the evaluation criteria.
(2)The guidelines adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) may include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing regional transportation agencies and other public agencies to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that allows the agency to expend its own funds for a project programmed in a future year of the adopted program of projects, in advance of allocation of funds to the project by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures. A letter of no prejudice shall only be available to local or regional transportation agencies for moneys that have been identified for future allocation to the applicant agency. Monies designated for the program shall only be reimbursed when there is funding available in an amount sufficient to make the reimbursement.
(g)In addition, the commission shall also consider the following factors when allocating these funds:
(1)Velocity, which means the speed by which large cargo would travel from the land port of entry or seaport through the distribution system.
(2)Throughput, which means the volume of cargo that would move from the land port of entry or seaport through the distribution system.
(3)Reliability, which means a reasonably consistent and predictable amount of time for cargo to travel from one point to another on any given day or at any given time in California.
(4)Congestion reduction, which means the reduction in recurrent daily hours of delay to be achieved.
(h)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)Disadvantaged communities are those communities identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)Low-income communities are census tracts with median household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with median household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Developments list of state income limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(i)It is the intent of the Legislature for the commission to adopt an initial program of projects utilizing the state and federal funds described in subdivision (a) for eligible projects as soon as practicable and no later than May 17, 2018.
SEC. 8.Section 2396 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:2396.(a)The commission, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, shall develop and adopt guidelines for the program consistent with the requirements of this chapter. Guidelines adopted by the commission shall be exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). Prior to adopting the guidelines, the commission shall conduct at least one public hearing in northern California and one public hearing in southern California to review and provide an opportunity for public comment. The commission shall adopt the final guidelines no sooner than 30 days after the commission provides the proposed guidelines to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the transportation policy committees in the Senate and the Assembly.
(b)The guidelines adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) may include streamlining of project delivery by authorizing regional agencies to seek commission approval of a letter of no prejudice that allows the agency to expend its own funds for a project programmed in a future year of the adopted program of projects, in advance of allocation of funds to the project by the commission, and to be reimbursed at a later time for eligible expenditures. A letter of no prejudice shall only be available to local or regional transportation agencies for moneys that have been identified for future allocation to the applicant agency. Moneys designated for the program shall only be reimbursed when there is funding available in an amount sufficient to make the reimbursement.
SEC. 9.The sum of two hundred seventy-four million four hundred seventy-three thousand nine hundred ninety dollars ($274,473,990) is hereby appropriated from the Federal Trust Fund to the Department of Transportation for the 201718 fiscal year, as follows:
(a)One hundred million four hundred ninety-six thousand six hundred thirty-nine dollars ($100,496,639) for local assistance, non-State Transportation Improvement Program, to be scheduled by the department between Programs 1835020-Local Assistance, 1840019-State and Federal Mass Transit, and 1845022-Regional Planning.
(b)One hundred seventy-three million nine hundred seventy-seven thousand three hundred fifty-one dollars ($173,977,351) for capital outlay, non-State Transportation Improvement Program, to be scheduled in Program 1835019-Capital Projects.
SEC. 10.This act is a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 12 of Article IV of the California Constitution, has been identified as related to the budget in the Budget Bill, and shall take effect immediately.
SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes necessary to implement the 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Expenditure Plan. CORRECTIONS: HeadingLines 1, 2, and 3.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes necessary to implement the 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Expenditure Plan.
SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2017.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2017.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2018 | In committee: That the measure be held in committee pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(d). |
| Aug 31, 2018 | From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(d). (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Aug 31, 2018 | Withdrawn from committee. |
| Aug 30, 2018 | From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(d). (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W. |
| Aug 30, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(d). |
| Aug 29, 2018 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Aug 29, 2018 | Assembly Rule 63 suspended. |
| Aug 29, 2018 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 28, 2018 | Coauthors revised. |
| Aug 27, 2018 | Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. |
| Aug 24, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. |
| Aug 24, 2018 | Assembly Rule 78 suspended. |
| Mar 12, 2018 | Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Calderon. |
| Mar 6, 2018 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Mar 5, 2018 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 24. Noes 0.) (March 5). |
| Mar 1, 2018 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET. |
| Jan 4, 2018 | From inactive file. |
| Sep 15, 2017 | Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Calderon. |
| Sep 15, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 14, 2017 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 9.) (September 14). |
| Sep 13, 2017 | Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. |
| Sep 11, 2017 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET. |
| Sep 11, 2017 | Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. |
| Sep 11, 2017 | September 11 hearing postponed by committee. |
| Sep 7, 2017 | Read third time and amended. |
| Sep 1, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 31, 2017 | Assembly Rule 96 suspended. |
| Jun 5, 2017 | Referred to Com. on BUDGET. |
| May 11, 2017 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 11, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 26. Noes 9. Page 1041.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 9, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 8, 2017 | Withdrawn from committee. (Ayes 26. Noes 11. Page 982.) |
| Jan 19, 2017 | Referred to Com. on B. & F.R. |
| Jan 12, 2017 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 11. |
| Jan 11, 2017 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2018 | That the measure be held in committee pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 29, 2018 | SB 120 Roth Senate Third Reading By FRIEDMAN | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 28, 2018 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources |
Passed |
|
| Aug 24, 2018 | SB 120 Senate Third Reading By FRIEDMAN Amendment Set #1 | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Mar 5, 2018 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Budget |
Passed |
|
| Sep 14, 2017 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Budget |
Passed |
|
| May 11, 2017 | Senate 3rd Reading SB120 B. & F.R. | Senate Floor |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| 29 palms inn | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Alliance for Children's Rights | * Support | Mar 5, 2018 |
| Allied Labor | * Support | Sep 14, 2017 |
| Amah Mutsun Land Trust | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| American Assets Capital Advisers | ** Against | Aug 27, 2018 |
| American Ground Water Trust | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Anaheim Chamber Of Commerce | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Aquilogic | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Associated General Contractors Of California | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Association of California Cities - Orange County | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Association Of California Water Agencies | * Against | Aug 28, 2018 |
| Audubon California | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Azul | ** Support | Aug 28, 2018 |
| Big Sur Land Trust | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Bike San Gabriel Valley | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| BizFed | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Building Industry Association Of San Diego | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Building Industry Association of Southern California | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Cadiz Inc. | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Association Of Mutual Water Companies | ** Against | Aug 27, 2018 |
| California Association Of Resource Conservation Districts | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| California Building Industry Association | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Business Properties Association | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Chamber Of Commerce | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Coastal Protection Network | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California County Welfare Directors Association | * Support | Mar 5, 2018 |
| California Groundwater Coalition | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California League Of Conservation Voters | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California League of United Latin American Citizens | ** Against | Aug 27, 2018 |
| California Native Plant Society | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Special Districts Association | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California State Association Of Counties | * Support | Mar 5, 2018 |
| California State Council Of Laborers | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California State Parks Foundation | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California State Pipe Trades Council | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Transit Association | * Support | Sep 14, 2017 |
| California Wild Sheep Foundation | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| California Wilderness Coalition | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Calmutuals | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Campbell House | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Campbell House B&B | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Camrosa Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Cdp Rural Caucus Region 10, Inland Empire | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Center For Biological Diversity | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Center For Food Safety | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Children Now | * Support | Mar 5, 2018 |
| Childrens Law Center of CA | * Support | Mar 5, 2018 |
| Clean Water Action | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Coalition of Contractors | * Support | Sep 14, 2017 |
| coalition to protect america's national parks | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Community Water Center | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Cucamonga Valley Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Curt Hagman, Fourth District Supervisor | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Defenders Of Wildlife | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Desert | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Desert California | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Desert Tortoise Council | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Earthjustice | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| East Orange County Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| El Toro Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Engineering Contractors Association | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Environment California | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Environment Defense Fund | * Support | Aug 28, 2018 |
| Environmental Defense Fund | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Environmental Science Associates | * Against | Aug 28, 2018 |
| Environmental Working Group | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Food & Water Watch | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Friends Committee On Legislation Of California | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| friends of big morongo canyon preserve | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Friends of the Earth - US | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Friends of the Inyo | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Garney Construction | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Gateway Neighborhood Association | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Geoscience Support Services, Inc. | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Global Business Development - Water, Stantec Inc. | ** Against | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Golden State Water Company | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Greater Riverside Hispanic Chamber of Commerce | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Groundwater Resources Association Of California | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Harrison House Music, Arts & Ecology | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Hispanic 100 | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Hispanic Access Foundation | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Indio Water Authority | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Inland Empire Economic Partnership | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Inland Empire Utilities Agency | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Inland Empire Waterkeeper | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Inpipe Energy | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| International Union of Operating Engineers | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Janice Rutherford, Second District Supervisor | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Jurupa Community Services District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Kenney GeoScience | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Laborers' International Union of North America | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| League of United Latin America Citizens | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| League of United Latin American Citizens | ** Against | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Limoneria | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Lisa Bartlett, Fifth District Supervisor | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Liuna | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Los Angeles Area Chamber Of Commerce | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Los Angeles County Business Federation | * Against | Aug 28, 2018 |
| Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Mission Springs Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Mojave Desert Land Trust | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| mojave national preserve conservancy | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Mojave National Preserve Conservancy | * Support | Aug 28, 2018 |
| morongo basin conservation association | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Multicultural Communities for Mobility | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Municipal Water District Of Orange County | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| National Association Of Industrial And Office Parks California | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| National Parks Conservation Association | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| native american land conservancy | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Natural Resources Defense Council | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Nature For All | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Next Gen California | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| NextGen California | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Orange County Business Council | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Orange County Council of Governments | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Orange County Taxpayers Association | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Otay Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Parker Groundwater | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Pechonga and the Calusa Tribes | * Support | Aug 28, 2018 |
| Planning And Conservation League | * Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Roscoe Moss Company | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Santa Margarita Water District | * Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Save the Redwoods League | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| sequoia forestkeeper | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Sierra Club California | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation And Open Space District | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Sonoma County Water Agency | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| South Orange County Economic Coalition | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Southern California Association Of Governments | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Southern California Partnership For Jobs | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Southern California Water Committee | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Stantec Inc. | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| State Building & Construction Trades Council Of California | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| State Controller Betty Yee | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Tfl Consulting | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| The Nature Conservancy | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| the vet voice foundation | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| The Wilderness Society | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| The Wildlands Conservancy | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Three Valleys Municipal Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Tlf Consulting | ** Against | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Trabuco Canyon Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Transportation California | * Support | Sep 14, 2017 |
| Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| United States Senator Dianne Feinstein | ** Support | Aug 27, 2018 |
| Urban Counties of Californa | * Support | Mar 5, 2018 |
| Valley Industry & Commerce Association | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| vet voice foundation | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Vet Voice Foundation | * Support | Aug 28, 2018 |
| West Yost Associates | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Wholly H2O | ** Support | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
| Yorba Linda Water District | ** Against | Aug 31, 2018 |
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular Session
SB 120 (Roth) - Water conveyance: use of facility with unused capacity
Version: August 24, 2018 | Policy Vote: Not Applicable |
Urgency: No | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: August 31, 2018 | Consultant: Ashley Ames |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. However, it was referred to the Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 (d), which only provides the option to (1) hold the bill, or (2) return the bill as approved by the Committee to the Senate floor for consideration of the bill as amended in the Assembly.
Bill Summary: This bill would prohibit mining and conveying groundwater from underground basins underlying desert lands, as specified, unless the State Lands Commission (SLC), in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), finds that the transfer will not adversely affect those lands, including habitat and groundwater resources.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown one-time costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, (General Fund) for SLC to conduct the environmental impact assessment. The SLC indicates that these costs would be reimbursed by the project proponent.
Unknown one-time costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, (General Fund) for DFW to review water transfers and conduct the analyses required under this bill.
Background: Current law prohibits a public agency from denying a bona fide water transferor access to and conveyance in a water facility with unused capacity for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if (1) fair compensation is paid for that use and (2) the transferred water does not reduce the beneficial uses or lessen water quality of the water in the facility.
Additionally, use of the facility cannot injure any legal user of water; unreasonably affect fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses; or unreasonably affect the overall economy or the environment of the county from which the water is being transferred.
Proposed Law: This bill would prohibit a transferor of water to use a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands that is in the vicinity of a national monument, a national preserve, a national park, a state or federal wilderness area, or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the SLC, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands.
This bill would also define “desert lands” as a specified area in the Mojave Desert surrounding where the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (Cadiz Project) is being proposed.
Related Legislation: AB 1000 (Friedman, 2017) was identical to this bill with the exception of having a large piece of desert land identified. AB 1000 was held on suspense in this committee.
Staff Comments: The area of desert lands to which this bill would apply would subject the proposed groundwater transfer and storage project known as the Cadiz Project to the finding requirement. The Cadiz Project is a proposed groundwater transfer and storage project located in the Cadiz Valley, which is in the Mojave Desert. In 1998, Cadiz Inc. and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) began discussion about a project that would have supplied groundwater from to the MWD service area. Ultimately, MWD decided not to go forward citing uncertainties about potential for environmental impacts.
Over the past twenty years, the project has completed its CEQA review. However, this review was completed several years ago, and since then several additional studies have been published that could potentially affect the project’s environmental impact. There is significant uncertainty regarding the sustainable yield of the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin, and stakeholders on either side of the issue dispute the other side’s estimates. Most significantly, a recent study suggests the aquifer could be connected to an environmentally sensitive spring. The federal government recently waived its own environmental review of the project.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: SB Hearing Date: August 31, 2018
Author: | Roth | ||
Version: | August 24, 2018 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Dennis O'Connor | ||
Subject: Water conveyance: use of facility with unused capacity
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Existing law:
- Requires the State Lands Commission (SLC) to be the steward and manager of the state's public trust lands. SLC has direct administrative control over the state's public trust lands and oversight authority over public trust lands granted by the Legislature to local governments.
- Grants, in trust, public trust lands to over 70 local public agencies to be managed for the benefit of all the people of the state and pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine and terms of the applicable granting statutes.
- Authorizes lands owned by the state and under the jurisdiction of SLC to be leased by SLC for grazing, commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes.
- Prohibits the state or a regional or local public agency from denying a bona fide transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that use and other requirements are met, including:
- The commingling of transferred water does not result in a diminution of the beneficial uses or quality of the water in the facility and the transferred water is of substantially the same quality as the water in the facility.
- This use of a water conveyance facility is to be made:
- Without injuring any legal user of water;
- Without unreasonably affecting fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses; and,
- Without unreasonably affecting the overall economy or the environment of the county from which the water is being transferred.
- The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA):
- Defines “sustainable groundwater management” as the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.
- Defines “undesirable results” as any of the following effects:
- Chronic lowering of groundwater levels (not including overdraft during a drought if a basin is otherwise managed).
- Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage.
- Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion.
- Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies.
- Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.
- Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
- Requires that a groundwater sustainability plan be adopted for high and medium priority groundwater basins in California.
- Establishes basic requirements for groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs).
- Long-term planning and implementation horizon.
- Measurable objectives and interim milestones to achieve sustainability in 20 years.
- Most requirements similar to the current, voluntary groundwater plan requirements adopted 22 years ago.
- DWR will develop new regulations for updating basin boundaries and criteria to evaluate sustainability plans.
- Provides state oversight to ensure compliance with SGMA.
- Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to evaluate groundwater sustainability plans within two years of submission.
- Authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to temporarily intervene in four limited circumstances:
- No governance structure for a basin after 2 ½ years.
- No plan after five years (overdrafted basins) or ten years (other basins).
- Plan is inadequate and the basin has serious groundwater problems.
- Local agency has not adequately implemented the plan and the basin has serious groundwater problems.
- Requires the SWRCB to return control to local agencies as soon as they adopt an adequate plan.
- Authorizes the SWRCB to limit its temporary control to the portion of the basin not being managed.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
- Prohibit a transferor of water to use a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands that is in the vicinity of a national monument, a national preserve, a national park, a state or federal wilderness area, or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the SLC, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands.
- Defines “desert lands” as a specified area in the Mojave Desert surrounding where the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (Cadiz Project) is being proposed.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, “California is still grappling with the catastrophic impacts of this year's disastrous fire season; on top of that our state continues to recover from the repercussions of a historic drought. Now is not the time to imperil our water supply, without fully understanding the potential impacts of this proposal to extract water from a desert aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the natural recharge rate of this basin from rainfall is from 2,000 to 10,000 acre-feet a year – a range that is from 5 to 25 times less than the 50,000 acre-feet of annual extraction envisioned by the project. For decades, the federal government has applied and required scientific reviews to major projects such as this desert water extraction proposal and I believe we should continue to apply that standard. Considering the federal government has chosen to abdicate its responsibility to protect its public lands in the Mojave, the state has an obligation to ensure the review that was originally intended to take place by the federal government is completed before authorizing a project that has the potential to significantly impact such a fragile ecosystem.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
A coalition of business and labor interests write, “SB 120 seeks to impose additional state environmental review by unrelated agencies on a project that has already undergone environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a project has been publicly-reviewed and approved under CEQA but there are questions about the validity of that environmental review, our court system is available for resolving those questions. This bill disregards CEQA as the final arbiter of environmental safety and sets a dangerous precedent that once any infrastructure project goes through the CEQA process, it has not necessarily complied with California environmental law.”
“Furthermore, the use of water conveyance facilities is governed by the wheeling statutes in the California Water Code. The purpose of these statutes is to prevent public agencies from denying access to aqueducts and other water conveyance facilities when there is available space. This bill would frustrate that purpose and make it more difficult to move water, something on which California’s entire water system depends. Furthermore, only owners of conveyance facilities are empowered to make findings or impose conditions on wheeling approvals – Metropolitan owns and governs the Colorado River Aqueduct, not the State Lands Commission.”
“Without a doubt, this bill is detrimental to water resource and drought response planning throughout the state. In fact, any project that is subject to CEQA review might face the same threat of protracted, redundant review and the great uncertainty that comes with that, should SB 120 become law.”
COMMENTS
It’s All About Cadiz. This bill is focused on the proposed groundwater transfer and storage project known as the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project. The Cadiz Valley is about 3 miles south of historic Route 66 near the now abandoned town of Chambless in the Mojave Desert. According to the Cadiz Inc. website, the project “is designed to capture and conserve billions of gallons of renewable native groundwater flowing beneath our property in California’s Mojave Desert that is currently being lost to evaporation and salt contamination at nearby dry lakes. Through the active management of the aquifer system and employing a state-of-the-art groundwater protection program, the Project will reduce the loss of groundwater to evaporation from the dry lakes, put this water to beneficial use and create a reliable water supply for Southern California.”
Long Standing Controversy. In 1998, Cadiz Inc. and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) began discussion about a project that would have imported Colorado River water to Cadiz, Ca. and exported groundwater from Cadiz to the MWD service area. Ultimately, MWD decided not to go forward citing uncertainties about potential for environmental impacts.
In the intervening years, there have been environmental documents certified, numerous court challenges, sometimes conflicting findings by federal agencies, and strong and consistent opposition by Senator Feinstein and others.
The crux of the dispute is differing estimates of the sustainable yield of the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin. Cadiz, citing a CH2M study, claims the groundwater basin naturally recharges at 32,500 acre-feet/year and can sustainably support the proposed water supply and storage project. Opponents respond that the U.S. Geological Survey’s study found that the natural refill rate of the desert aquifer is between 2,000 and 10,000 acre feet of water per year.
There continues to be a back and forth of studies reaffirming or countering the positions of the projects proponents and opponents.
What about SGMA? The Cadiz Valley groundwater basin has been categorized by DWR as a very low-priority basin. As such, it is exempt from SGMA.
Related Bills. AB 1000 (Friedman, 2017) was substantially similar to this bill with the exception of having a large piece of desert land identified. This bill was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: None
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom
State Controller Betty Yee
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
29 Palms Inn
Amah Mutsun Land Trust
Audubon California
Bike San Gabriel Valley
California Coastal Protection Network
California Democratic Party Rural Caucus Region 10, Inland Empire/Desert California
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
California State Parks Foundation
California Wild Sheep Foundation
California Wilderness Coalition
Campbell House
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety
Chicano Indigenous Community for Culturally Conscious Advocacy & Action (CHICCCA)
Clean Water Action
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
Community Water Center
Defenders of Wildlife
Desert Tortoise Council
Earthjustice
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Working Group
Food & Water Watch
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve
Friends of the Earth – US
Friends of the Inyo
Gateway Neighborhood Association
Harrison House Music, Arts & Ecology
Hispanic Access Foundation
Indivisible CA 33
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Mojave Desert Land Trust
Mojave National Preserve Conservancy
Morongo Basin Conservation Association
Multicultural Communities for Mobility
National Parks Conservation Association
Native American Land Conservancy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature for All
NextGen California
Planning and Conservation League
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
Sequoia Forestkeeper
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations
Vet Voice Foundation
Wholly H2O
American Ground Water Trust
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Aquilogic
Association of California Cities – Orange County
BizFed (Los Angeles County Business Federation)
Building Industry Association of San Diego
Building Industry Association of Southern California
Cadiz Inc.
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Groundwater Coalition
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Special Districts Association
California State Council of Laborers
California State pipe Trades Council
CalMutuals
Camrosa Water District
CH2M
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Curt Hagman, Fourth District Supervisor
East Orange County Water District
El Toro Water District
Engineering Contractors Association
Garney Construction
Geoscience Support Services, Inc.
Golden State Water Company
Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Groundwater Resources Association of California
Hispanic 100
Indio Water Authority
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
InPipe Energy
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12
Janice Rutherford, Second District Supervisor
Jurupa Community Services District
Kenney GeoScience
Laborers’ International Union of North America
League of United Latin America Citizens
Limoneria
Lisa Bartlett, Fifth District Supervisor
LiUNA
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Mission Springs Water District
Municipal Water District of Orange County
National Association of Industrial and Office Parks California
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Council of Governments
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Otay Water District
Parker Groundwater
Roscoe Moss Company
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Santa Margarita Water District
South Orange County Economic Coalition
Southern California Association of Governments
Southern California Partnership for Jobs
Southern California Water Committee
Stantec Inc.
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
TFL Consulting
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
West Yost Associates
Wildermuth Environmental, Inc.
Yorba Linda Water District
-- END --
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 120
:
PRIOR SENATE VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/31/18 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)
AYES: Portantino, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-25, 8/29/18 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill requires the State Lands Commission (SLC), in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), to find that the transfer of the water from a groundwater basin underlying specified desert lands will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands in order for the transfer to be allowed.
- Requires SLC to be the steward and manager of the state's public trust lands. SLC has direct administrative control over the state's public trust lands and oversight authority over public trust lands granted by the Legislature to local governments.
- Grants, in trust, public trust lands to over 70 local public agencies to be managed for the benefit of all the people of the state and pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine and terms of the applicable granting statutes.
- Authorizes lands owned by the state and under the jurisdiction of SLC to be leased by SLC for grazing, commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes.
- Prohibits the state or a regional or local public agency from denying a bona fide transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that use and other requirements are met, including:
- The commingling of transferred water does not result in a diminution of the beneficial uses or quality of the water in the facility and the transferred water is of substantially the same quality as the water in the facility.
- This use of a water conveyance facility is to be made:
- Without injuring any legal user of water;
- Without unreasonably affecting fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses; and,
- Without unreasonably affecting the overall economy or the environment of the county from which the water is being transferred.
- Enacts the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) which:
- Defines “sustainable groundwater management” as the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.
- Defines “undesirable results” as any of the following effects:
- Chronic lowering of groundwater levels (not including overdraft during a drought if a basin is otherwise managed).
- Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage.
- Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion.
- Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies.
- Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.
- Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.
- Requires that a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) be adopted for high and medium priority groundwater basins in California.
- Establishes basic requirements for GSPs.
- Long-term planning and implementation horizon.
- Measurable objectives and interim milestones to achieve sustainability in 20 years.
- Most requirements similar to the current, voluntary groundwater plan requirements adopted 22 years ago.
- The Department of Water Resources (DWR) will develop new regulations for updating basin boundaries and criteria to evaluate sustainability plans.
- Provides state oversight to ensure compliance with SGMA.
- Requires DWR to evaluate GSPs within two years of submission.
- Authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to temporarily intervene in four limited circumstances:
- No governance structure for a basin after 2 ½ years.
- No plan after five years (overdrafted basins) or ten years (other basins).
- Plan is inadequate and the basin has serious groundwater problems.
- Local agency has not adequately implemented the plan and the basin has serious groundwater problems.
- Requires the SWRCB to return control to local agencies as soon as they adopt an adequate plan.
- Authorizes the SWRCB to limit its temporary control to the portion of the basin not being managed.
This bill:
- Prohibits a transferor of water to use a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands that is in the vicinity of a national monument, a national preserve, a national park, a state or federal wilderness area, or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the SLC, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands.
- Defines “desert lands” as a specified area in the Mojave Desert surrounding where the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (Cadiz Project) is being proposed.
Comments
It’s all about Cadiz. This bill is focused on the proposed groundwater transfer and storage project known as the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project. The Cadiz Valley is about three miles south of historic Route 66 near the now abandoned town of Chambless in the Mojave Desert. According to the Cadiz Inc. Web site, the project “is designed to capture and conserve billions of gallons of renewable native groundwater flowing beneath our property in California’s Mojave Desert that is currently being lost to evaporation and salt contamination at nearby dry lakes. Through the active management of the aquifer system and employing a state-of-the-art groundwater protection program, the Project will reduce the loss of groundwater to evaporation from the dry lakes, put this water to beneficial use and create a reliable water supply for Southern California.”
Long standing controversy. In 1998, Cadiz Inc. and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) began discussion about a project that would have imported Colorado River water to Cadiz, Ca. and exported groundwater from Cadiz to the MWD service area. Ultimately, MWD decided not to go forward citing uncertainties about potential for environmental impacts.
In the intervening years, there have been environmental documents certified, numerous court challenges, sometimes conflicting findings by federal agencies, and strong and consistent opposition by Senator Feinstein and others.
The crux of the dispute is differing estimates of the sustainable yield of the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin. Cadiz, citing a CH2M study, claims the groundwater basin naturally recharges at 32,500 acre-feet/year and can sustainably support the proposed water supply and storage project. Opponents respond that the U.S. Geological Survey’s study found that the natural refill rate of the desert aquifer is between 2,000 and 10,000 acre feet of water per year.
There continues to be a back and forth of studies reaffirming or countering the positions of the projects proponents and opponents.
What about SGMA? The Cadiz Valley groundwater basin has been categorized by DWR as a very low-priority basin. As such, it is exempt from SGMA.
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1000 (Friedman, 2017) was substantially similar to this bill with the exception of having a large piece of desert land identified. This bill was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
Unknown.
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom
State Controller Betty Yee
29 Palms Inn
Amah Mutsun Land Trust
Audubon California
Bike San Gabriel Valley
California Coastal Protection Network
California Democratic Party Rural Caucus Region 10, Inland Empire/Desert California
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
California State Parks Foundation
California Wild Sheep Foundation
California Wilderness Coalition
Campbell House
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety
Chicano Indigenous Community for Culturally Conscious Advocacy & Action
Clean Water Action
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
Community Water Center
Defenders of Wildlife
Desert Tortoise Council
Earthjustice
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Working Group
Food & Water Watch
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve
Friends of the Earth – US
Friends of the Inyo
Gateway Neighborhood Association
Harrison House Music, Arts & Ecology
Hispanic Access Foundation
Indivisible CA 33
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
Mojave Desert Land Trust
Mojave National Preserve Conservancy
Morongo Basin Conservation Association
Multicultural Communities for Mobility
National Parks Conservation Association
Native American Land Conservancy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature for All
NextGen California
Planning and Conservation League
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
Sequoia Forestkeeper
Sierra Club California
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Vet Voice Foundation
Wholly H2O
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/31/18)
American Ground Water Trust
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Aquilogic
Association of California Cities – Orange County
BizFed (Los Angeles County Business Federation)
Building Industry Association of San Diego
Building Industry Association of Southern California
Cadiz Inc.
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Groundwater Coalition
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Special Districts Association
California State Council of Laborers
California State pipe Trades Council
CalMutuals
Camrosa Water District
CH2M
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Curt Hagman, Fourth District Supervisor
East Orange County Water District
El Toro Water District
Engineering Contractors Association
Garney Construction
Geoscience Support Services, Inc.
Golden State Water Company
Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Groundwater Resources Association of California
Hispanic 100
Indio Water Authority
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
InPipe Energy
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12
Janice Rutherford, Second District Supervisor
Jurupa Community Services District
Kenney GeoScience
Laborers’ International Union of North America
League of United Latin America Citizens
Limoneria
Lisa Bartlett, Fifth District Supervisor
LiUNA
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Mission Springs Water District
Municipal Water District of Orange County
National Association of Industrial and Office Parks California
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Council of Governments
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Otay Water District
Parker Groundwater
Roscoe Moss Company
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Santa Margarita Water District
South Orange County Economic Coalition
Southern California Association of Governments
Southern California Partnership for Jobs
Southern California Water Committee
Stantec Inc.
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
TFL Consulting
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
West Yost Associates
Wildermuth Environmental, Inc.
Yorba Linda Water District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “California is still grappling with the catastrophic impacts of this year's disastrous fire season; on top of that our state continues to recover from the repercussions of a historic drought. Now is not the time to imperil our water supply, without fully understanding the potential impacts of this proposal to extract water from a desert aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the natural recharge rate of this basin from rainfall is from 2,000 to 10,000 acre-feet a year – a range that is from 5 to 25 times less than the 50,000 acre-feet of annual extraction envisioned by the project. For decades, the federal government has applied and required scientific reviews to major projects such as this desert water extraction proposal and I believe we should continue to apply that standard. Considering the federal government has chosen to abdicate its responsibility to protect its public lands in the Mojave, the state has an obligation to ensure the review that was originally intended to take place by the federal government is completed before authorizing a project that has the potential to significantly impact such a fragile ecosystem.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of business and labor interests write, “SB 120 seeks to impose additional state environmental review by unrelated agencies on a project that has already undergone environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a project has been publicly-reviewed and approved under CEQA but there are questions about the validity of that environmental review, our court system is available for resolving those questions. This bill disregards CEQA as the final arbiter of environmental safety and sets a dangerous precedent that once any infrastructure project goes through the CEQA process, it has not necessarily complied with California environmental law.
“Furthermore, the use of water conveyance facilities is governed by the wheeling statutes in the California Water Code. The purpose of these statutes is to prevent public agencies from denying access to aqueducts and other water conveyance facilities when there is available space. This bill would frustrate that purpose and make it more difficult to move water, something on which California’s entire water system depends. Furthermore, only owners of conveyance facilities are empowered to make findings or impose conditions on wheeling approvals – Metropolitan owns and governs the Colorado River Aqueduct, not the State Lands Commission.
“Without a doubt, this bill is detrimental to water resource and drought response planning throughout the state. In fact, any project that is subject to CEQA review might face the same threat of protracted, redundant review and the great uncertainty that comes with that, should SB 120 become law.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-25, 8/29/18
AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cunningham, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Quirk, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Choi, Dahle, Daly, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Gray, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chávez, Cooper, Eduardo Garcia, Low, O'Donnell
8/31/18 21:57:44
**** END ****
(Without Reference to File)
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 120
Author:(Roth)
As Amended Ver:August 24, 2018
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: Vote not relevant
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Budget | 24-0 | Ting, Obernolte, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bloom, Caballero, Chávez, Choi, Cooper, Fong, Gloria, Harper, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Mathis, Reyes, Medina, Mullin, Gipson, Patterson, Rubio, Mark Stone, Weber, Wood | Obernolte, Travis Allen, Choi, Fong, Harper, Lackey, Mathis, Patterson, Voepel |
Natural Resources | 7-0 | Muratsuchi, Chau, Eggman, Limón, McCarty, Mark Stone, Reyes | Obernolte, Travis Allen, Choi, Fong, Harper, Lackey, Mathis, Patterson, Voepel |
SUMMARY: Requires the State Lands Commission (SLC), in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to find that the transfer of the water from a groundwater basin underlying specified desert lands will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands in order for the transfer to be allowed. Specifically, this bill:
- Prohibits a transferor of water to use a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands that is in the vicinity of a national monument, a national preserve, a national park, a state or federal wilderness area, or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the SLC, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands.
- Defines "desert lands" as a specified area in the Mojave Desert surrounding where the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (Cadiz Project) is being proposed.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the SLC to be the steward and manager of the state's public trust lands. SLC has direct administrative control over the state's public trust lands and oversight authority over public trust lands granted by the Legislature to local governments.
- Grants, in trust, public trust lands to over 70 local public agencies to be managed for the benefit of all the people of the state and pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine and terms of the applicable granting statutes.
- Authorizes lands owned by the state and under the jurisdiction of SLC to be leased by SLC for grazing, commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes.
- Prohibits the state or a regional or local public agency from denying a bona fide transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that use and other requirements are met, including:
- The commingling of transferred water does not result in a diminution of the beneficial uses or quality of the water in the facility and the transferred water is of substantially the same quality as the water in the facility.
- This use of a water conveyance facility is to be made:
- Without injuring any legal user of water;
- Without unreasonably affecting fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses; and,
- Without unreasonably affecting the overall economy or the environment of the county from which the water is being transferred.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's statement:
California is still grappling with the catastrophic impacts of this year's disastrous fire season; on top of that our state continues to recover from the repercussions of a historic drought. Now is not the time to imperil our water supply, without fully understanding the potential impacts of this proposal to extract water from a desert aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the natural recharge rate of this basin from rainfall is from 2,000 to 10,000 acre-feet a year – a range that is from 5 to 25 times less than the 50,000 acre-feet of annual extraction envisioned by the project. Considering the federal government has chosen to abdicate its responsibility to protect its public lands in the Mojave, the state has an obligation to ensure the review that was originally intended to take place by the federal government is completed before authorizing a project that has the potential to significantly impact such a fragile ecosystem. For decades, California has applied and required scientific reviews to major projects such as this desert water extraction proposal and I believe we should continue to apply that standard.
- Background. The area of desert lands this bill applies to would subject the proposed groundwater transfer and storage project known as the Cadiz Project to the finding requirement. The Cadiz Valley is about 3 miles south of historic Route 66 near the now abandoned town of Chambless in the Mojave Desert. According to the Cadiz Inc. website, the project "is designed to capture and conserve billions of gallons of renewable native groundwater flowing beneath our property in California's Mojave Desert that is currently being lost to evaporation and salt contamination at nearby dry lakes. Through the active management of the aquifer system and employing a state-of-the-art groundwater protection program, the Project will reduce the loss of groundwater to evaporation from the dry lakes, put this water to beneficial use and create a reliable water supply for Southern California." The project proposes to connect to the Colorado River Aqueduct through a new conveyance pipeline in an existing railroad right-of way that crosses federal and state land in order to transfer groundwater to fill unused capacity.
- Controversy. The Cadiz Project has been considered for approximately twenty years. In 1998, Cadiz Inc. and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) began discussion about a project that would have imported Colorado River water to Cadiz and exported groundwater from Cadiz to the MWD service area. Ultimately, MWD decided not to go forward citing uncertainties about potential environmental impacts. The Cadiz Project has completed its environmental impact review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Cadiz Project has faced opposition from environmental groups and United States Senator Diane Feinstein. In 2015, the United States Bureau of Land Management said Cadiz couldn't use the right-of-way because the proposed water infrastructure didn't further a railroad purpose. This meant the Cadiz Project would need federal approval and be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the Trump administration recently reversed the decision and asserted that the Cadiz Project does not need federal approval. In 2017, SLC wrote the project proponents and stated that the pipeline that is part of the Cadiz Project crosses state lands under SLC jurisdiction and would require a lease from SLC. There are many disputed facts about the impact of the Cadiz Project between the project proponents and opponents, including the rate of groundwater recharge, the quality of the water being removed, and the impacts on natural springs and sensitive desert habitat. The review and finding this bill requires could offer an opportunity for the state to better understand the impacts of this water transfer on the state's natural and cultural resources.
- Governor Brown. Last year the Governor wrote a letter of support for a substantially similar bill AB 1000 (Friedman) of 2017. Below is an excerpt from that letter:
California's natural landscapes are vast and varied. Our desert landscapes may be the most fragile ecosystems of all. To the casual observer, these deserts – like the Mojave Desert – seem harsh and unforgiving when in reality a rich and specially adapted ecosystem of plants and animals thrives when given a chance.
Every drop of water matters to the long-term health of nature in the Mojave Desert. Until I signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 into law, California had failed to comprehensively manage groundwater in a wise and thoughtful way… AB 1000 requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Lands Commission to preserve our desert landscapes no matter what happens in Washington.
Analysis Prepared by: Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0005022
Date of Hearing: August 28, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Al Muratsuchi, Acting Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 120
Author:(Roth) – As Amended Ver:August 24, 2018
SENATE VOTE: 26-9
SUBJECT: Water conveyance: use of facility with unused capacity.
SUMMARY: Requires the State Lands Commission (SLC), in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to find that the transfer of the water from a groundwater basin underlying specified desert lands will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands in order for the transfer to be allowed.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the SLC to be the steward and manager of the state's public trust lands. SLC has direct administrative control over the state's public trust lands and oversight authority over public trust lands granted by the Legislature to local governments.
- Grants, in trust, public trust lands to over 70 local public agencies to be managed for the benefit of all the people of the state and pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine and terms of the applicable granting statutes.
- Authorizes lands owned by the state and under the jurisdiction of SLC to be leased by SLC for grazing, commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes.
- Prohibits the state or a regional or local public agency from denying a bona fide transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that use and other requirements are met, including:
- The commingling of transferred water does not result in a diminution of the beneficial uses or quality of the water in the facility and the transferred water is of substantially the same quality as the water in the facility.
- This use of a water conveyance facility is to be made:
- Without injuring any legal user of water;
- Without unreasonably affecting fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses; and,
- Without unreasonably affecting the overall economy or the environment of the county from which the water is being transferred.
THIS BILL:
- Prohibits a transferor of water to use a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands that is in the vicinity of a national monument, a national preserve, a national park, a state or federal wilderness area, or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the SLC, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources, including groundwater resources or habitat, of those federal and state lands.
- Defines “desert lands” as a specified area in the Mojave Desert surrounding where the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (Cadiz Project) is being proposed.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author’s statement:
California is still grappling with the catastrophic impacts of this year’s disastrous fire season; on top of that our state continues to recover from the repercussions of a historic drought. Now is not the time to imperil our water supply, without fully understanding the potential impacts of this proposal to extract water from a desert aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the natural recharge rate of this basin from rainfall is from 2,000 to 10,000 acre-feet a year – a range that is from 5 to 25 times less than the 50,000 acre-feet of annual extraction envisioned by the project. Considering the federal government has chosen to abdicate its responsibility to protect its public lands in the Mojave, the state has an obligation to ensure the review that was originally intended to take place by the federal government is completed before authorizing a project that has the potential to significantly impact such a fragile ecosystem. For decades, California has applied and required scientific reviews to major projects such as this desert water extraction proposal and I believe we should continue to apply that standard.
- Background. The area of desert lands this bill applies to would subject the proposed groundwater transfer and storage project known as the Cadiz Project to the finding requirement. The Cadiz Valley is about 3 miles south of historic Route 66 near the now abandoned town of Chambless in the Mojave Desert. According to the Cadiz Inc. website, the project “is designed to capture and conserve billions of gallons of renewable native groundwater flowing beneath our property in California’s Mojave Desert that is currently being lost to evaporation and salt contamination at nearby dry lakes. Through the active management of the aquifer system and employing a state-of-the-art groundwater protection program, the Project will reduce the loss of groundwater to evaporation from the dry lakes, put this water to beneficial use and create a reliable water supply for Southern California.” The project proposes to connect to the Colorado River Aqueduct through a new conveyance pipeline in an existing railroad right-of way that crosses federal and state land in order to transfer groundwater to fill unused capacity.
- Controversy. The Cadiz Project has been considered for approximately twenty years. In 1998, Cadiz Inc. and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) began discussion about a project that would have imported Colorado River water to Cadiz and exported groundwater from Cadiz to the MWD service area. Ultimately, MWD decided not to go forward citing uncertainties about potential environmental impacts. The Cadiz Project has completed its environmental impact review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Cadiz Project has faced opposition from environmental groups and United States Senator Diane Feinstein. In 2015, the United States Bureau of Land Management said Cadiz couldn’t use the right-of-way because the proposed water infrastructure didn’t further a railroad purpose. This meant the Cadiz Project would need federal approval and be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the Trump administration recently reversed the decision and asserted that the Cadiz Project does not need federal approval. In 2017, SLC wrote the project proponents and stated that the pipeline that is part of the Cadiz Project crosses state lands under SLC jurisdiction and would require a lease from SLC. There are many disputed facts about the impact of the Cadiz Project between the project proponents and opponents, including the rate of groundwater recharge, the quality of the water being removed, and the impacts on natural springs and sensitive desert habitat. The review and finding this bill requires could offer an opportunity for the state to better understand the impacts of this water transfer on the state’s natural and cultural resources.
- Governor Brown. Last year the Governor wrote a letter of support for a substantially similar bill AB 1000 (Friedman). Below is an excerpt from that letter:
California’s natural landscapes are vast and varied. Our desert landscapes may be the most fragile ecosystems of all. To the casual observer, these deserts— like the Mojave Desert— seem harsh and unforgiving when in reality a rich and specially adapted ecosystem of plants and animals thrives when given a chance.
Every drop of water matters to the long-term health of nature in the Mojave Desert. Until I signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 into law, California had failed to comprehensively manage groundwater in a wise and thoughtful way… AB 1000 requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Lands Commission to preserve our desert landscapes no matter what happens in Washington.
- Previous Legislation.
AB 1000 (Friedman, 2017) was substantially similar to this bill with the exception of having a large piece of desert land identified. This bill was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
29 Palms Inn
Audubon California
Azul
Big Sur Land Trust
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
California League of Conservation Voters
California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom
California Native Plant Society
California Wilderness Coalition
Campbell House B&B
CDP Rural Caucus Region 10, Inland Empire/Desert
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety
Clean Water Action
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
Community Water Center
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
Food & Water Watch
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Earth-US
Hispanic Access Foundation
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Mojave Desert Land Trust
Mojave National Preserve Conservancy
Morongo Basin Conservation Association
Multicultural Communities for Mobility
National Parks Conservation Association
Native American Land Conservancy
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextGen California
Save the Redwoods League
Sierra Club California
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
Sonoma County Water Agency
The Nature Conservancy
The Vet Voice Foundation
The Wildlands Conservancy
United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Opposition
American Assets Capital Advisers
American Ground Water Trust
Aquilogic
Association of California Cities – Orange County
BizFed (Los Angeles County Business Federation)
Building Industry Association of San Diego
Building Industry Association of Southern California
Cadiz Inc.
California Association of Mutual Water Companies
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Groundwater Coalition
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California League of United Latin American Citizens
California State Council of Laborers
Camrosa Water District
East Orange County Water District
El Toro Water District
Engineering Contractors’ Association
Garney Construction
Geoscience Support Services, Inc.
Global Business Development – Water, Stantec Inc.
Golden State Water Company
Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Groundwater Resources Association of California
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
InPipe Energy
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12
Jurupa Community Services District
Kenney GeoScience
League of United Latin American Citizens
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Industrial and Office Parks California
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Council of Governments
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Otay Water District
Parker Groundwater
Roscoe Moss Company
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Santa Margarita Water District
Southern California District Council of Laborers
Southern California Partnership for Jobs
Southern California Water Committee
South Orange County Economic Coalition
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
TLF Consulting
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Wildermuth Environmental, Inc.
Yorba Linda Water District
2 Individuals
Analysis Prepared by: Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. /
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 120
Author:(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
As Amended Ver:March 1, 2018
Majority vote. Budget Bill Appropriation Takes Effect Immediately
SENATE VOTE: 26-9
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Budget | 24-0 | Ting, Obernolte, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bloom, Caballero, Chávez, Choi, Cooper, Fong, Gloria, Harper, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Mathis, Reyes, Medina, Mullin, Gipson, Patterson, Rubio, Mark Stone, Weber, Wood |
|
SUMMARY: The amendments to this bill make the following changes to implement the 2017-18 Budget Act. Specifically, this bill:
- Clarifies a provision to restrict contracts with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody.
- Provides for payments to families caring for foster children who may not be currently receiving a payment due to delays with the Resource Family Approval (RFA) process. Some caregivers have gone without payment for well over 90 days. To remedy this situation, the amendments will allow for payments to be made to families who are waiting for approval. Specifically, the amendments:
- Provide payments to cases that would qualify under the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding (ARC) Program on a prospective basis prior to resource family approval if the child has been placed with the caregiver.
- Provide Emergency Assistance (EA) TANF payments to nonrelative extended family members on a prospective basis prior to resource family approval if the child has been placed with the caregiver. The state will cover the counties' nonfederal share of these payments for up to 60 days.
- Provide that if a county can demonstrate good cause or submits a plan to eliminate its RFA backlog by September 1, 2018, the state will continue to cover the county's share of EA TANF costs up to an additional 60 days, through the end of June 2018.
- Provide that if a county does not demonstrate good cause or does not submit a plan to reduce the backlog, the county will be responsible for the nonfederal share of EA TANF costs after the initial 60 days, through the end of June 2018.
- State that the Department of Social Services (DSS) is authorized to implement this section via All County Letter (ACL) and is required to finalize and publish the ACL no later than 21 days following the enactment of the act that adds the section.
- Clarifies statute adopted as part of the 2017 Budget in association with the discontinuance of the Coordinated Care Initiative, specifically SB 90 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017, which established a new In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and collective bargaining structure. SB 90 authorized counties to negotiate an IHSS provider wage supplement. The amendments provide further guidance to counties as they begin the negotiation process for increasing wages or benefits for IHSS providers and do the following:
- Require that any increase in IHSS provider wages or benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed, or adopted by ordinance shall not take effect until the increase is determined by the DSS to be in compliance with state law.
- Specify that any IHSS provider wage supplement negotiated by a county shall be in addition to the highest wage rate paid since June 30, 2017, and a county's MOE shall include a one-time adjustment by the amount of the increased costs resulting from the supplement.
- Clarify that an IHSS provider wage supplement can be subsequently applied to the county individual provider wage when the state minimum wage increase is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid without including the wage supplement and the increase to the county wage paid takes effect at the same time as the state minimum wage increase.
- Allow counties that submitted a wage change request to DSS prior to January 1, 2018, to be excluded from the above new requirements. Instead, in these counties the IHSS provider wage supplement negotiated by a county can be in addition to the highest wage paid any time prior to January 1, 2018, and the wage supplement can be applied to the county individual provider wage when the state minimum wage is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid with the inclusion of the wage supplement.
- Appropriates one million dollars in reimbursements to DSS in fiscal year 2017-18 for costs associated with allowing counties that submitted a rate change request to DSS prior to January 1, 2018 to be excluded from the above new requirements.
- Exempts any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government (in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act), the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state from the recording fee established under SB 2 (Atkins), Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017, the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The amendments apply the exemption retroactively to any relevant document filed on or after January 1, 2018.
- Declares that this measure is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Nicole Vazquez / BUDGET / (916) 319-2099 FN: 0002596
Date of Hearing: March 5, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUDGET
Philip Y. Ting, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 120
Author:(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) – As Amended Ver:September 11, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 26-9
SUBJECT: Transportation
SUMMARY: The amendments to SB 120 make the following changes to implement the 2017-18 budget. Specifically, this bill:
- Clarify a provision to restrict contracts with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody.
- Provide for payments to families caring for foster children who may not be currently receiving a payment due to delays with the Resource Family Approval (RFA) process. Some caregivers have gone without payment for well over 90 days. To remedy this situation, the amendments will allow for payments to be made to families who are waiting for approval. Specifically, the amendments:
- Provide payments to cases that would qualify under the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding (ARC) Program on a prospective basis prior to resource family approval if the child has been placed with the caregiver.
- Provide Emergency Assistance (EA) TANF payments to nonrelative extended family members on a prospective basis prior to resource family approval if the child has been placed with the caregiver. The state will cover the counties’ nonfederal share of these payment for up to 60 days.
- Provide that if a county can demonstrate good cause or submits a plan to eliminate its RFA backlog by September 1, 2018, the state will continue to cover the county’s share of EA TANF costs up to an additional 60 days, through the end of June 2018.
- Provide that if a county does not demonstrate good cause or does not submit a plan to reduce the backlog, the county will be responsible for the nonfederal share of EA TANF costs after the initial 60 days, through the end of June 2018.
- State that the Department of Social Services (DSS) is authorized to implement this section via All County Letter (ACL) and is required to finalize and publish the ACL no later than 21 days following the enactment of the act that adds the section.
- Clarify statute adopted as part of the 2017 Budget in association with the discontinuance of the Coordinated Care Initiative, specifically SB 90 (Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 25, Statutes of 2017, which established a new In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and collective bargaining structure. SB 90 authorized counties to negotiate an IHSS provider wage supplement. The amendments provide further guidance to counties as they begin the negotiation process for increasing wages or benefits for IHSS providers and do the following:
- Require that any increase in IHSS provider wages or benefits that are locally negotiated, mediated, or imposed, or adopted by ordinance shall not take effect until the increase is determined by the DSS to be in compliance with state law.
- Specify that any IHSS provider wage supplement negotiated by a county shall be in addition to the highest wage rate paid since June 30, 2017, and a county’s MOE shall include a one-time adjustment by the amount of the increased costs resulting from the supplement.
- Clarify that an IHSS provider wage supplement can be subsequently applied to the county individual provider wage when the state minimum wage increase is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid without including the wage supplement and the increase to the county wage paid takes effect at the same time as the state minimum wage increase.
- Allow counties that submitted a wage change request to DSS prior to January 1, 2018 to be excluded from the above new requirements. Instead, in these counties the IHSS provider wage supplement negotiated by a county can be in addition to the highest wage paid any time prior to January 1, 2018, and the wage supplement can be applied to the county individual provider wage when the state minimum wage is equal to or exceeds the county wage paid with the inclusion of the wage supplement.
- Appropriate one million dollars in reimbursements to DSS in fiscal year 2017-18 for costs associated with allowing counties that submitted a rate change request to DSS prior to January 1, 2018 to be excluded from the above new requirements.
- Exempt any real estate instrument, paper, or notice executed or recorded by the federal government (in accordance with the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act), the state or any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state from the recording fee established under SB 2 (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017), the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The amendments apply the exemption retroactively to any relevant document filed on or after January 1, 2018.
- Declare that this measure is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Nicole Vazquez / BUDGET / (916) 319-2099
Date of Hearing: September 14, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUDGET
Philip Y. Ting, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 120
Author:(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) – As Amended Ver:September 11, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 26-9
SUBJECT: Transportation Trailer Bill
SUMMARY: This trailer bill includes statutory changes related to transportation necessary to implement the Budget Act of 2017. Specifically, this bill:
- Ensures that cities and counties that receive monies from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, SB 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), but use their own funds to start a project before the SB 1 funds begin flowing to them, can reimburse themselves when they receive their SB 1 apportionment from the Controller’s Office. The language also allows for a 90 day grace period if a city or county fails to submit their project list to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by the deadline. If they submit the list within 90 days of the deadline, they would still receive funding.
- Allows that for the following California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) programs—The Transit and Intercity Rail Program, The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, Trade Corridor Investments, and the Local Partnership Program— an implementing agency could expend its own funds on a project programmed by the CTC for a future year, and be reimbursed at a later time for eligible projects.
- Allows small (typically rural) transportation planning agencies to receive from Caltrans a single advance payment for programming, planning, and monitoring activities of no more than $300,000 or less per year. This approach minimizes workload and has been used informally by Caltrans for the last ten years.
- Expedites the delivery of SB funded projects by authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to assume the federal government’s responsibility for federal environmental review and clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for any railroad, public transportation, or multimodal project undertaken by state agencies. Authority sunsets January 1, 2021. Caltrans already has this assignment for federally-funded highway projects and has been able to expedite the construction of projects as a result.
- Appropriates $274.5 million from the Federal Trust Fund to Caltrans for the 2017-18 fiscal year for transportation-related purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriates $274.5 million from the Federal Trust Fund to Caltrans.
COMMENTS: This trailer bill includes technical clean up provisions related to transportation necessary to implement the 2017 Budget Act.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Farra Bracht / BUDGET / (916) 319-2099
Date of Hearing: September 13, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUDGET
Philip Y. Ting, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 120
Author:(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) – As Amended Ver:September 11, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 26-9
SUBJECT: Transportation Trailer Bill
SUMMARY: This trailer bill includes statutory changes related to transportation necessary to implement the Budget Act of 2017. Specifically, this bill:
- Ensures that cities and counties that receive monies from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, SB 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), but use their own funds to start a project before the SB 1 funds begin flowing to them, can reimburse themselves when they receive their SB 1 apportionment from the Controller’s Office. The language also allows for a 90 day grace period if a city or county fails to submit their project list to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by the deadline. If they submit the list within 90 days of the deadline, they would still receive funding.
- Allows that for the following California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) programs—The Transit and Intercity Rail Program, The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, Trade Corridor Investments, and the Local Partnership Program— an implementing agency could expend its own funds on a project programmed by the CTC for a future year, and be reimbursed at a later time for eligible projects.
- Allows small (typically rural) transportation planning agencies to receive from Caltrans a single advance payment for programming, planning, and monitoring activities of no more than $300,000 or less per year. This approach minimizes workload and has been used informally by Caltrans for the last ten years.
- Expedites the delivery of SB funded projects by authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to assume the federal government’s responsibility for federal environmental review and clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for any railroad, public transportation, or multimodal project undertaken by state agencies. Authority sunsets January 1, 2021. Caltrans already has this assignment for federally-funded highway projects and has been able to expedite the construction of projects as a result.
- Appropriates $274.5 million from the Federal Trust Fund to Caltrans for the 2017-18 fiscal year for transportation-related purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriates $274.5 million from the Federal Trust Fund to Caltrans.
COMMENTS: This trailer bill includes technical clean up provisions related to transportation necessary to implement the 2017 Budget Act.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Farra Bracht / BUDGET / (916) 319-2099
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 120
Author:(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
As Introduced Ver:January 11, 2017
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 26-9
SUMMARY: This bill expresses legislative intent to adopt statutory change relating to the budget of 2017.
COMMENT: The Legislature routinely enacts a series of follow up bills to the budget package late in the legislative session to address issues that were unresolved from the June budget discussions or required technical clean up.
Analysis Prepared by: Christian Griffith / BUDGET / (916) 319-2099 FN: 0001666
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 120 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 120
Author: Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review
Introduced: 1/11/17
DIGEST:
This bill expresses the intent of the Legislature to enact statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2017.
ANALYSIS: Senate Bills 82 through 99, inclusive, and Senate Bills 101 through 122, inclusive, are to be considered as vehicles for the 2017-18 Budget Trailer Bills.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
None received
None received
Prepared by: Melissa Ward / SFA / (916) 651-1520
5/9/17 16:24:56
**** END ****
Discussed in Hearing
14MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
23MIN
Assembly Floor
39MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources
5MIN
Assembly Floor
8MIN
Assembly Floor
8MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Budget
4MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Budget
35SEC
Assembly Floor
Bill Author
