Existing law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, requires all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans, except as specified. The act authorizes any local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin to decide to become a groundwater sustainability agency for that basin. The act deems certain agencies created by statute to manage groundwater the exclusive local agencies within their respective statutory boundaries with powers to comply with the act and authorizes these agencies to opt out of being the exclusive groundwater management agency.

This bill would create the Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency and would establish the agencys initial boundaries. The bill would authorize the boundaries of the agency to be adjusted, as specified. The bill would require the agency to elect to be a groundwater sustainability agency under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act for that portion of the Tule Subbasin that lies within the boundaries of the agency and would require the agency to develop and implement a groundwater sustainability plan to achieve sustainable groundwater management within the territory of the agency. The bill would generally specify the powers and purposes of the agency. The bill would prescribe the composition of the 5-member board of directors of the agency and would require members and alternates to be chosen, as specified. By imposing duties on the agency and the County of Tulare, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would deem the Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency the exclusive local agency with powers to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Tule Subbasin.

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.

Existing law, as added by the Victims Bill of Rights, approved as Proposition 8 at the June 8, 1982, statewide primary election, and as amended by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, among other things, defines a serious felony.

Existing law prohibits plea bargaining in a case in which a serious felony is charged and imposes a 5-year enhancement for conviction of a serious felony if the person has previously been convicted of a serious felony.

This bill would include knowingly furnishing fentanyl to a minor within the definition of a serious felony. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, as added by the Victims Bill of Rights, approved as Proposition 8 at the June 8, 1982, statewide primary election, and as amended by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, among other things, defines a serious felony. Existing law, as added by Proposition 184, approved at the November 8, 1994, statewide general election, and amended by the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, approved as Proposition 36 at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, commonly known as the three strikes law, imposes additional years of imprisonment in the state prison on a person who commits a serious felony and has been convicted of, or who has a prior conviction for, a serious felony. Existing law includes furnishing specified controlled substances to a minor as a serious felony for these purposes. The Legislature may directly amend these initiatives by a statute passed in each house by a ²/₃ vote, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters.

This bill would include furnishing fentanyl to a minor within the definition of a serious felony, including for purposes of the three strikes law. felony. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, as added by the Victims Bill of Rights, approved as Proposition 8 at the June 8, 1982, statewide primary election, and as amended by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, among other things, defines a serious felony. Existing law, as added by Proposition 184, approved at the November 8, 1994, statewide general election, and amended by the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, approved as Proposition 36 at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, commonly known as the three strikes law, imposes additional years of imprisonment in the state prison on a person who commits a serious felony and has been convicted of, or who has a prior conviction for, a serious felony. Existing law includes furnishing specified controlled substances to a minor as a serious felony for these purposes. The Legislature may directly amend these initiatives by a statute passed in each house by a ²/₃ vote, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters.

This bill would include furnishing fentanyl to a minor within the definition of a serious felony, including for purposes of the three strikes law. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 568

Author:(Macedo)

As Amended Ver:July 18, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: Assembly Public Safety Committee

Creates the Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to oversee groundwater management and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in portions of the Tule subbasin in eastern Tulare County.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: Concur

1. Delete the previous contents of this bill pertaining to establishing a felony penalty for knowingly furnishing fentanyl to a minor.
2. Create the Tule East GSA and deems it the exclusive GSA for purposes of complying with SGMA within its boundaries.
3. Provide the initial boundaries of the Tule East GSA shall include all land located within the boundaries of Hope Water District and Ducor Water District and areas east of the Lower Tule Irrigation District, Pixley Irrigation District, and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District, excluding the boundaries of the Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Vandalia Water District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and the City of Porterville.
4. Provide the initial boundaries may change upon an action by the Tule East GSA board at a public hearing with 30 days' notice. The boundaries shall be depicted on a map and submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Provides the boundaries shall not include an area subject to management by another GSA or a management area unless the Tulare Basin GSA has entered into a memorandum of understanding or other legal agreement with said GSA.
5. Provide that the Tule East GSA shall be governed by a five-member board that consists of the following members: (a) one member chosen by Hope Water District; (b) one member chosen by Ducor Water District; (c) one member from the Tulare County board of supervisors; and (d) two members to represent groundwater-dependent agricultural interests within the territory of the Tulare Basin GSA that may be selected from a list provided by the Tulare County Farm Bureau; at least one of these two members shall represent socially disadvantaged farmers.
6. Authorize the board to adopt resolutions, policies, rules and regulations at a public hearing for the purpose of regulating, conserving, managing, and controlling groundwater within the agency's territory.
7. Require the Tule East GSA to enter into a coordination agreement with other GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin.
8. Authorize the Tule East GSA to impose fees, including permit fees and groundwater extraction fees, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program.

COMMENTS

This bill is substantially similar to AB 1044 (Macedo) of the current legislative session. AB 1044 did not pass out of the Assembly before the house of origin deadline. The author subsequently amended this bill to include the contents of AB 1044, making three notable changes: 1) provide that a Tulare County supervisor shall represent Tulare County on the Tule East GSA; 2) provide that an individual who represents socially disadvantaged farmers shall be on the board of the Tule East GSA; and 3) remove a provision exempting "supplemental water" from oversight by the Tule East GSA.

Located in California's Central Valley in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, the Tule Subbasin covers approximately 475,895 acres, or about 744 square miles. DWR designates the subbasin as "high" priority and subject to conditions of critical overdraft. Communities within the subbasin include the City of Porterville, Allensworth, Alpaugh, Ducor, Earlimart, East Porterville, Pixley, Poplar-Cotton Center, Richgrove, Terra Bella, Teviston, Tipton, and Woodville. According to the 2022 Census data, the Tule Subbasin has an estimated population of 152,577 people. Most of the land within the subbasin and surrounding areas is used for growing crops and raising livestock. Groundwater in the subbasin is used for drinking water, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and oil and gas extraction.

As recently as 2023, there were seven GSAs responsible for managing groundwater in the subbasin: Pixley Irrigation District GSA, Tri-County Water Authority GSA, Alpaugh GSA, Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA, Eastern Tule GSA, Tulare County GSA, and the Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA. Today there are 12 GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin. The increase in GSAs is a result of the breakup of the Eastern Tule GSA, which this bill seeks to address.

Formed in 2016, the Eastern Tule GSA is a joint powers authority that took on responsibility for managing groundwater in the eastern portion of the subbasin. This GSA initially had eight members: the County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Saucelito Irrigation District, Teapot Dome Water District, Vandalia Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and Porterville Irrigation District. For various reasons, all of the original members of the GSA, except Tulare County, have since split off to form new GSAs.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) designated the Tule subbasin as a "probationary" basin in September 2024 due to significant deficiencies in several of the groundwater sustainability plans for the subbasin and the adverse impacts that land subsidence resulting from over-pumping of groundwater is having on the Friant-Kern canal. Due to this designation, the basin is subject to "state intervention" under which the State Water Board will work with GSAs to develop an interim plan that will get the subbasin back on track to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA and Kern-Tulare Water District were partially excluded from the State Water Board's probationary designation and pumpers within the jurisdiction of these agencies will not be subject to reporting requirements and fees imposed by the State Water Board. These two agencies will retain this status so long as they comply with specified management actions. Some of the agencies that have split off from the Eastern Tulare GSA appear to think that they may obtain this "good actor" exemption from the State Water Board's probationary designation as well.

According to the Author

The author asserts that this bill "restores stability to the community by creating a dedicated [GSA], empowering the County to protect its water resources, support its agricultural economy, and secure a sustainable future for its residents." The author estimates the boundaries of the Tulare Basin GSA proposed in this bill represent approximately one-half of the territory previously managed by the Eastern Tule GSA.

Arguments in Support

Tulare County is the sponsor of this bill and asserts it is necessary "to provide ongoing GSA coverage for the lands previously governed by the Eastern Tule GSA." Tulare County maintains that "the new formation will allow the Tule Subbasin to work on satisfying the [State Water Board] and get the subbasin out of probationary status."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

The Assembly Appropriations analysis of the previous version of this bill is not relevant and the Senate Appropriations Committee did not hear this bill and, instead, reported it to the Senate Floor pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8; indicating this bill does not appropriate money, does not result in significant state costs or require the appropriation of funds, and will cause no significant reduction in revenues.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0-7

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez, Bonta, Bryan, Elhawary, Kalra, Lee, Ortega

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 13-0-0

YES: Papan, Jeff Gonzalez, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Boerner, Caloza, Hart, Macedo, Celeste Rodriguez, Rogers, Lackey

UPDATED

VERSION: July 18, 2025

CONSULTANT: Pablo Garza / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001993

Date of Hearing: September 10, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Diane Papan, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 568 (

Author:Macedo) – As Amended Ver:July 18, 2025

SUBJECT: Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency Act

SUMMARY: Creates the Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to oversee groundwater management and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in portions of the Tule subbasin in eastern Tulare County. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides the initial boundaries of the Tule East GSA shall include all land located within the boundaries of Hope Water District and Ducor Water District and areas east of the Lower Tule Irrigation District, Pixley Irrigation District, and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District, excluding the boundaries of the Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Vandalia Water District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and the City of Porterville.
2. Provides the initial boundaries may change upon an action by the Tule East GSA board at a public hearing with 14 days’ notice. Provides the boundaries shall not include an area subject to management by another GSA or a management area unless the Tulare Basin GSA has entered into a memorandum of understanding or other legal agreement with said GSA.
3. Provides that the Tule East GSA shall be governed by a five-member board that consists of the following members: (a) one member chosen by Hope Water District; (b) one member chosen by Ducor Water District; (c) one member chosen by Tulare County; and (d) two members to represent groundwater-dependent agricultural interests within the territory of the Tulare Basin GSA that may be selected from a list provided by the Tulare County Farm Bureau; at least one of these two members shall represent socially disadvantaged farmers.
4. Authorizes the board to adopt resolutions, policies, rules, and regulations at a public hearing for the purpose of regulating, conserving, managing, and controlling groundwater within the agency’s territory.
5. Requires the Tule East GSA to enter into a coordination agreement with other GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin.
6. Authorizes the Tule East GSA to impose fees, including permit fees and groundwater extraction fees, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, under SGMA, local agencies to sustainably manage groundwater in critically over-drafted basins by 2040 and in high- or medium-priority basins by 2042. Defines sustainable management of groundwater as the avoidance of the following six “undesirable results:” (a) chronic lowering of groundwater levels; (b) reduction of groundwater storage; (c) seawater intrusion; (d) degraded water quality; (e) land subsidence; and (f) depletions of interconnected surface water (Water Code § 10720 et seq.).
2. Requires local agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to form a GSA by June 30, 2017, unless statute designates an “exclusive local agency” for a given area. Provides that a county will be the default GSA for any area in a high- or medium- priority basin not managed by a GSA unless said county notifies the Department of Water Resources (DWR) that it will not be the GSA for an uncovered portion of a high- or medium-priority basin (Water Code §§ 10723 – 10724).
3. Provides that a GSA may be formed by a combination of local agencies via a joint powers agreement or memorandum of agreement or other legal agreement (Water Code § 10723.4).
4. Provides that a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) may be a single plan covering a basin implemented by a single GSA, a single plan covering a basin implemented by multiple GSAs, or multiple plans implemented by several GSAs subject to a coordination agreement (Water Code § 10727).
5. Requires GSAs intending to develop and implement multiple GSPs in a basin to coordinate with each other and ensure the GSPs utilize the same data and methodologies for the following assumptions: (a) groundwater elevation data; (b) groundwater extraction data; (c) surface water supply; (d) total water use; (e) change in groundwater storage; (f) water budget; and (g) sustainable yield (Water Code § 10727.6).
6. Designates 17 local agencies as the “exclusive local agencies” within their service territory that are responsible for complying with SGMA. Examples include Desert Water Agency, Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, Orange County Water District, and Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency [Water Code § 10723(c)].

FISCAL EFFECT: The Assembly Appropriations analysis of the previous version of this bill is not relevant and the Senate Appropriations Committee did not hear this bill and, instead, reported it to the Senate Floor pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8; indicating this bill does not appropriate money, does not result in significant state costs or require the appropriation of funds, and will cause no significant reduction in revenues.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. The author asserts that this bill “restores stability to the community by creating a dedicated [GSA], empowering the County to protect its water resources, support its agricultural economy, and secure a sustainable future for its residents.” The author estimates the boundaries of the Tulare Basin GSA proposed in this bill represent approximately one-half of the territory previously managed by the Eastern Tule GSA.
2. Background. This bill is substantially similar to AB 1044 (Macedo) of the current legislative session. AB 1044 did not pass out of the Assembly before the house of origin deadline. The author subsequently amended this bill to include the contents of AB 1044, making three notable changes: 1) provide that a Tulare County supervisor shall represent Tulare County on the Tule East GSA; 2) provide that an individual who represents socially disadvantaged farmers shall be on the board of the Tule East GSA; and 3) remove a provision exempting “supplemental water” from oversight by the Tule East GSA.
   
   Tule subbasin. Located in California’s Central Valley in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, the Tule Subbasin covers approximately 475,895 acres, or about 744 square miles. DWR designates the subbasin as “high” priority and subject to conditions of critical overdraft. Communities within the subbasin include the City of Porterville, Allensworth, Alpaugh, Ducor, Earlimart, East Porterville, Pixley, Poplar-Cotton Center, Richgrove, Terra Bella, Teviston, Tipton, and Woodville. According to the 2022 Census data, the Tule Subbasin has an estimated population of 152,577 people. Most of the land within the subbasin and surrounding areas is used for growing crops and raising livestock. Groundwater in the subbasin is used for drinking water, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and oil and gas extraction.
   
   GSAs for the Tule subbasin. As recently as 2023, there were seven GSAs responsible for managing groundwater in the subbasin: Pixley Irrigation District GSA, Tri-County Water Authority GSA, Alpaugh GSA, Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA, Eastern Tule GSA, Tulare County GSA, and the Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA. Today, there are 12 GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin. The increase in GSAs is a result of the breakup of the Eastern Tule GSA, which this bill seeks to address.
   
   Eastern Tule GSA. Formed in 2016, the Eastern Tule GSA is a joint powers authority that took on responsibility for managing groundwater in the eastern portion of the subbasin. This GSA initially had eight members: the County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Saucelito Irrigation District, Teapot Dome Water District, Vandalia Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and Porterville Irrigation District. For various reasons, all of the original members of the GSA, except Tulare County, have since split off to form new GSAs.

Probationary status for Tule subbasin. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) designated the Tule subbasin as a “probationary” basin in September 2024 due to significant deficiencies in several of the groundwater sustainability plans for the subbasin and the adverse impacts that land subsidence resulting from over-pumping of groundwater is having on the Friant-Kern canal. Due to this designation, the basin is subject to “state intervention” under which the State Water Board will work with GSAs to develop an interim plan that will get the subbasin back on track to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA and Kern-Tulare Water District were partially excluded from the State Water Board’s probationary designation and pumpers within the jurisdiction of these agencies will not be subject to reporting requirements and fees imposed by the State Water Board. These two agencies will retain this status so long as they comply with specified management actions. Some of the agencies that have split off from the Eastern Tulare GSA appear to think that they may obtain this “good actor” exemption from the State Water Board’s probationary designation as well.

Hope and Ducor Water Districts. Based on information available on the State Water Board’s website, Hope Water District has seven connections and primarily serves an elementary school. Ducor is a community services district serving 176 connections in rural towns. Both districts are dependent on groundwater and located south of the city of Porterville in eastern Tulare County.

1. Arguments in support. Tulare County is the sponsor of this bill and asserts it is necessary “to provide ongoing GSA coverage for the lands previously governed by the Eastern Tule GSA.” Tulare County maintains that “the new formation will allow the Tule Subbasin to work on satisfying the [State Water Board] and get the subbasin out of probationary status.”
2. Related legislation. AB 1044 (Macedo) of the current legislative session is substantially similar to this bill and creates the Tulare Basin GSA to oversee groundwater management and compliance with SGMA in portions of the Tule subbasin in eastern Tulare County. AB 1044 is on the Assembly Inactive file.
   
   SB 372 (Cannella), Chapter 357, Statutes of 2017, establishes the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Groundwater Sustainability Agency to manage a portion of the Delta-Mendota groundwater subbasin.
   
   SB 37 (Vidak), Chapter 391, Statutes of 2016, establishes the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency to manage the south eastern portion of the Kings groundwater subbasin.
   
   SB 564 (Cannella), Chapter 392, Statutes of 2016, establishes the North Fork Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency to manage the north-central portion of the Kings groundwater subbasin.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

County of Tulare (sponsor)

Valley Ag Water Coalition

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Pablo Garza / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 568

Author:(Macedo)

As Amended Ver:September 4, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Creates the Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to oversee groundwater management and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in portions of the Tule subbasin in eastern Tulare County.

Senate Amendments

1. Delete the previous contents of this bill pertaining to establishing a felony penalty for knowingly furnishing fentanyl to a minor.
2. Create the Tule East GSA and deems it the exclusive GSA for purposes of complying with SGMA within its boundaries.
3. Provide the initial boundaries of the Tule East GSA shall include all land located within the boundaries of Hope Water District and Ducor Water District and areas east of the Lower Tule Irrigation District, Pixley Irrigation District, and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District, excluding the boundaries of the Porterville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Vandalia Water District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and the City of Porterville.
4. Provide the initial boundaries may change upon an action by the Tule East GSA board at a public hearing with 30 days' notice. The boundaries shall be depicted on a map and submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Provides the boundaries shall not include an area subject to management by another GSA or a management area unless the Tulare Basin GSA has entered into a memorandum of understanding or other legal agreement with said GSA.
5. Provide that the Tule East GSA shall be governed by a five-member board that consists of the following members: (a) one member chosen by Hope Water District; (b) one member chosen by Ducor Water District; (c) one member from the Tulare County board of supervisors; and (d) two members to represent groundwater-dependent agricultural interests within the territory of the Tulare Basin GSA that may be selected from a list provided by the Tulare County Farm Bureau; at least one of these two members shall represent socially disadvantaged farmers.
6. Authorize the board to adopt resolutions, policies, rules and regulations at a public hearing for the purpose of regulating, conserving, managing, and controlling groundwater within the agency's territory.
7. Require the Tule East GSA to enter into a coordination agreement with other GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin.
8. Authorize the Tule East GSA to impose fees, including permit fees and groundwater extraction fees, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program.

COMMENTS

This bill is substantially similar to AB 1044 (Macedo) of the current legislative session. AB 1044 did not pass out of the Assembly before the house of origin deadline. The author subsequently amended this bill to include the contents of AB 1044, making three notable changes: 1) provide that a Tulare County supervisor shall represent Tulare County on the Tule East GSA; 2) provide that an individual who represents socially disadvantaged farmers shall be on the board of the Tule East GSA; and 3) remove a provision exempting "supplemental water" from oversight by the Tule East GSA.

Located in California's Central Valley in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, the Tule Subbasin covers approximately 475,895 acres, or about 744 square miles. DWR designates the subbasin as "high" priority and subject to conditions of critical overdraft. Communities within the subbasin include the City of Porterville, Allensworth, Alpaugh, Ducor, Earlimart, East Porterville, Pixley, Poplar-Cotton Center, Richgrove, Terra Bella, Teviston, Tipton, and Woodville. According to the 2022 Census data, the Tule Subbasin has an estimated population of 152,577 people. Most of the land within the subbasin and surrounding areas is used for growing crops and raising livestock. Groundwater in the subbasin is used for drinking water, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and oil and gas extraction.

As recently as 2023, there were seven GSAs responsible for managing groundwater in the subbasin: Pixley Irrigation District GSA, Tri-County Water Authority GSA, Alpaugh GSA, Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA, Eastern Tule GSA, Tulare County GSA, and the Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA. Today there are 12 GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin. The increase in GSAs is a result of the breakup of the Eastern Tule GSA, which this bill seeks to address.

Formed in 2016, the Eastern Tule GSA is a joint powers authority that took on responsibility for managing groundwater in the eastern portion of the subbasin. This GSA initially had eight members: the County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Saucelito Irrigation District, Teapot Dome Water District, Vandalia Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and Porterville Irrigation District. For various reasons, all of the original members of the GSA, except Tulare County, have since split off to form new GSAs.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) designated the Tule subbasin as a "probationary" basin in September 2024 due to significant deficiencies in several of the groundwater sustainability plans for the subbasin and the adverse impacts that land subsidence resulting from over-pumping of groundwater is having on the Friant-Kern canal. Due to this designation, the basin is subject to "state intervention" under which the State Water Board will work with GSAs to develop an interim plan that will get the subbasin back on track to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA and Kern-Tulare Water District were partially excluded from the State Water Board's probationary designation and pumpers within the jurisdiction of these agencies will not be subject to reporting requirements and fees imposed by the State Water Board. These two agencies will retain this status so long as they comply with specified management actions. Some of the agencies that have split off from the Eastern Tulare GSA appear to think that they may obtain this "good actor" exemption from the State Water Board's probationary designation as well.

According to the Author

The author asserts that this bill "restores stability to the community by creating a dedicated [GSA], empowering the County to protect its water resources, support its agricultural economy, and secure a sustainable future for its residents." The author estimates the boundaries of the Tulare Basin GSA proposed in this bill represent approximately one-half of the territory previously managed by the Eastern Tule GSA.

Arguments in Support

The Valley Ag Water Coalition (VAWC) supports this bill and argues that it honors a core tenet of SGMA that places an emphasis on local control of groundwater management. VAWC asserts this bill will "allow the new Tule East [GSA] to manage their groundwater resources and develop a plan that will address their unique circumstances."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

The Assembly Appropriations analysis of the previous version of this bill is not relevant and the Senate Appropriations Committee did not hear this bill and, instead, reported it to the Senate Floor pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8; indicating this bill does not appropriate money, does not result in significant state costs or require the appropriation of funds, and will cause no significant reduction in revenues.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0-7

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez, Bonta, Bryan, Elhawary, Kalra, Lee, Ortega

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes

UPDATED

VERSION: September 4, 2025

CONSULTANT: Pablo Garza / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001683

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 568

Author: Macedo (R)

Amended: 7/18/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/16/25

AYES: Limón, Seyarto, Allen, Grove, Hurtado, Laird, Stern

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 6/4/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency Act

SOURCE: County of Tulare

DIGEST:

This bill creates the Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to oversee groundwater management and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in portions of the Tule subbasin in eastern Tulare County.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, under the SGMA:

1. Requires high- or medium-priority basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed by a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) or coordinated GSPs by January 31, 2020, and requires all other high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a GSP or coordinated GSPs by January 31, 2022. (Water Code (WAT) §10720.7(a)).
   
2. Authorizes a local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin to decide to become a GSA for that basin. (WAT §10723)
   
3. Requires a GSA, upon adoption of a GSP, to submit the GSP to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for review. (WAT §10733.4(a)).
   
4. If GSAs develop multiple GSPs for a basin, requires the GSPs not be submitted until the entire basin is covered by GSPs. When the entire basin is covered by GSPs, the GSAs are required to jointly submit to DWR (1) the GSPs, (2) an explanation of how the GSPs implemented together satisfy SGMA for the entire basin, and (3) a copy of the coordination agreement between the GSAs to ensure the coordinated implementation of the GSPs. (WAT §10733.4(b)).
   

This bill:

1. Creates the Tule East GSA in the County of Tulare to develop and implement a GSP and specifies the initial boundaries of the Tule East GSA, as provided.
   
2. Requires the Tule East GSA to be governed by a board of directors (board) that consists of five members, as follows:
   1. One member chosen by Hope Water District from the members of the board of directors of Hope Water District.
   2. One member chosen by Ducor Water District from the members of the board of directors of Ducor Water District.
   3. One member chosen by the County of Tulare, as specified.
   4. Two members chosen by the other three board members to represent groundwater-dependent agricultural interests within the East Tule GSA territory, as specified.
      
3. Authorizes the board to adopt an ordinance to provide compensation to its members, as provided. Prohibits a board member from being compensated for more than a total of 10 days in any calendar month.
   
4. Authorizes the East Tule GSA to exclude groundwater pumpers from any part of its policies, rules, or regulations if the pumper extracts less than a minimum amount of groundwater annually specified by the board.
   
5. Authorizes the East Tule GSA to collect data and conduct technical and other investigations to carry out these provisions.
   
6. Authorizes the East Tule GSA to exercise any of the powers and authorities granted to GSAs by SGMA.
   
7. Authorizes the East Tule GSA to impose fees to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program.
   
8. Adds the East Tule GSAs to the list of “exclusive” local agencies with authority to manage groundwater and comply with SGMA within their respective agency boundaries.
   
9. Adds a savings clause providing that if there is any conflict between SGMA and this bill, the provisions of SGMA apply.

Background

SGMA. SGMA was enacted in 2014 to create a statewide requirement for sustainably managing groundwater resources. The objective of SGMA is to ensure the long-term reliability of groundwater resources and connected surface water resources. SGMA provides for the management of groundwater resources by local agencies subject to state oversight and, in the event that actions of local agencies are insufficient, state intervention by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board).

Tule subbasin. Located in California’s Central Valley in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, the Tule Subbasin covers approximately 475,895 acres, or about 744 square miles. DWR designates the subbasin as “high” priority and subject to conditions of critical overdraft. Communities within the subbasin include the City of Porterville, Allensworth, Alpaugh, Ducor, Earlimart, East Porterville, Pixley, Poplar-Cotton Center, Richgrove, Terra Bella, Teviston, Tipton, and Woodville. According to the 2022 Census data, the Tule Subbasin has an estimated population of 152,577 people. Most of the land within the subbasin and surrounding areas is used for growing crops and raising livestock. Groundwater in the subbasin is used for drinking water, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and oil and gas extraction.

GSAs for the Tule subbasin. As recently as 2023, there were seven GSAs responsible for managing groundwater in the subbasin: Pixley Irrigation District GSA, Tri-County Water Authority GSA, Alpaugh GSA, Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA, Eastern Tule GSA, Tulare County GSA, and the Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA. Today there are 12 GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin. The increase in GSAs is a result of the breakup of the Eastern Tule GSA.

Eastern Tule GSA. Formed in 2016, the Eastern Tule GSA is a joint powers authority that took on responsibility for managing groundwater in the eastern portion of the subbasin. This GSA initially had eight members: the County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Saucelito Irrigation District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Vandalia Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and Porterville Irrigation District. For various reasons, all of the original members of the GSA, except Tulare County, have since split off to form new GSAs. Tulare County is the sole remaining participant in the joint powers agreement.

Probationary status for Tule subbasin. The State Water Board designated the Tule subbasin as a “probationary” basin in September 2024 due to significant deficiencies in several of the GSPs for the subbasin and the adverse impacts that land subsidence resulting from over-pumping of groundwater is having on the Friant-Kern canal. Due to this designation, the basin is subject to “state intervention” under which the State Water Board will work with GSAs to develop an interim plan that will get the subbasin back on track to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA and Kern-Tulare Water District were partially excluded from the State Water Board’s probationary designation and pumpers within the jurisdiction of these agencies will not be subject to reporting requirements and fees imposed by the State Water Board. These two agencies will retain this status so long as they comply with specified management actions. Some of the agencies that have split off from the Eastern Tulare GSA appear to think that they may obtain a limited exemption from the State Water Board’s probationary designation as well.

Hope and Ducor Water Districts. Based on information available on the State Water Board’s website, Hope Water District has seven connections and primarily serves an elementary school. Ducor is a community services district serving 176 connections in rural towns. Both districts are dependent on groundwater and located south of the city of Porterville in eastern Tulare County.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/18/25)

County of Tulare (Source)

Valley Ag Water Coalition

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/18/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Water is life, and Tulare County has been deeply impacted by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Assembly Bill 568 restores stability to the community by creating a dedicated Groundwater Sustainability Agency, empowering the County to protect its water resources, support its agricultural economy, and secure a sustainable future for its residents.”

According to the County of Tulare, when the other entities that made up Eastern Tule GSA left the County as the sole member, “[t]he County does not have the resources to run a GSA and looked to the Kings River East Model (SB 37, 2016) to form a new GSA to cover the remaining area.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 6/4/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarez, Bonta, Bryan, Elhawary, Kalra, Lee, Ortega

Prepared by: Genevieve Wong / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116

8/20/25 23:11:16

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Monique Limón, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 568 Hearing Date: July 16, 2025

Subject: Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency Act

SUMMARY

This bill would create the Tule East Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to oversee groundwater management and compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in portions of the Tule subbasin in eastern Tulare County.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

SGMA was enacted in 2014 to create a statewide requirement for sustainably managing groundwater resources. The objective of SGMA is to ensure the long-term reliability of groundwater resources and connected surface water resources. SGMA provides for the management of groundwater resources by local agencies subject to state oversight and, in the event that actions of local agencies are insufficient, state intervention by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board).

Tule subbasin.

Located in California’s Central Valley in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, the Tule Subbasin covers approximately 475,895 acres, or about 744 square miles. The Department of Water Resources designates the subbasin as “high” priority and subject to conditions of critical overdraft. Communities within the subbasin include the City of Porterville, Allensworth, Alpaugh, Ducor, Earlimart, East Porterville, Pixley, Poplar-Cotton Center, Richgrove, Terra Bella, Teviston, Tipton, and Woodville. According to the 2022 Census data, the Tule Subbasin has an estimated population of 152,577 people. Most of the land within the subbasin and surrounding areas is used for growing crops and raising livestock. Groundwater in the subbasin is used for drinking water, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and oil and gas extraction.

GSAs for the Tule subbasin.

As recently as 2023, there were seven GSAs responsible for managing groundwater in the subbasin: Pixley Irrigation District GSA, Tri-County Water Authority GSA, Alpaugh GSA, Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA, Eastern Tule GSA, Tulare County GSA, and the Lower Tule River Irrigation District GSA. Today there are 12 GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin. The increase in GSAs is a result of the breakup of the Eastern Tule GSA.

Eastern Tule GSA. Formed in 2016, the Eastern Tule GSA is a joint powers authority that took on responsibility for managing groundwater in the eastern portion of the subbasin. This GSA initially had eight members: the County of Tulare, City of Porterville, Saucelito Irrigation District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Vandalia Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and Porterville Irrigation District. For various reasons, all of the original members of the GSA, except Tulare County, have since split off to form new GSAs. Tulare County is the sole remaining participant in the joint powers agreement.

Probationary status for Tule subbasin. The State Water Board designated the Tule subbasin as a “probationary” basin in September 2024 due to significant deficiencies in several of the GSPs for the subbasin and the adverse impacts that land subsidence resulting from over-pumping of groundwater is having on the Friant-Kern canal. Due to this designation, the basin is subject to “state intervention” under which the State Water Board will work with GSAs to develop an interim plan that will get the subbasin back on track to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District GSA and Kern-Tulare Water District were partially excluded from the State Water Board’s probationary designation and pumpers within the jurisdiction of these agencies will not be subject to reporting requirements and fees imposed by the State Water Board. These two agencies will retain this status so long as they comply with specified management actions. Some of the agencies that have split off from the Eastern Tulare GSA appear to think that they may obtain a limited exemption from the State Water Board’s probationary designation as well.

Hope and Ducor Water Districts. Based on information available on the State Water Board’s website, Hope Water District has seven connections and primarily serves an elementary school. Ducor is a community services district serving 176 connections in rural towns. Both districts are dependent on groundwater and located south of the city of Porterville in eastern Tulare County.

Existing law, under SGMA:

1. Requires high- or medium-priority basins that are subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed by a GSP or coordinated GSPs by January 31, 2020, and requires all other high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a GSP or coordinated GSPs by January 31, 2022. (Water Code (WAT) §10720.7(a)).
   
2. Authorizes a local agency or combination of local agencies overlying a groundwater basin to decide to become a GSA for that basin. (WAT §10723)
   
3. Requires a GSA of each medium- and high-priority basin to develop and implement a GSP to meet the sustainability goal of implementing one or more GSPs that achieve sustainable groundwater management, as specified. (WAT §§10721, 10727).
   
4. Requires a GSA, upon adoption of a GSP, to submit the GSP to DWR for review. (WAT §10733.4(a)).
   
5. If GSAs develop multiple GSPs for a basin, requires the GSPs not be submitted until the entire basin is covered by GSPs. When the entire basin is covered by GSPs, the GSAs are required to jointly submit to DWR (1) the GSPs, (2) an explanation of how the GSPs implemented together satisfy SGMA for the entire basin, and (3) a copy of the coordination agreement between the GSAs to ensure the coordinated implementation of the GSPs. (WAT §10733.4(b)).
   
6. Requires DWR to post the GSP on its internet website upon receipt and provide 60 days for persons to submit comments to DWR about the plan. (WAT §10733.4(c)).
   
7. Requires DWR to evaluate the GSP within two years of its submission and to issue an assessment of the plan. (WAT §10733.4(d)).

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would:

1. Create the Tule East GSA in the County of Tulare.
   
2. Specify that the initial boundaries of the Tule East GSA include:
   1. All land located within the boundaries of the Hope Water District and the Ducor Water District located in the County of Tulare.
   2. The area within the Tule subbasin east of the boundaries of the Lower Tule Irrigation district, Pixley Irrigation District, and Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District, excluding the boundaries of the Porterville Irrigation District, Sausalito Irrigation District, Vandalia Water District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Terra Bella Irrigation District, Kern-Tulare Water District, and the City of Porterville.
      
3. Authorize the initial boundaries to be changed by the Tule East GSA’s board of directors, as provided.
   
   1. Prohibit the boundaries of the agency from being adjusted to include an area of the basin within the management area, or proposed management area, of another GSA unless a memorandum of agreement is entered into.
      
4. Require the Tule East GSA to be governed by a board of directors (board) that consist of five members, as follows:
   1. One member chosen by Hope Water District from the members of the board of directors of Hope Water District.
   2. One member chosen by Ducor Water District from the members of the board of directors of Ducor Water District.
   3. One member chosen by the County of Tulare.
   4. Two members chosen by the other three board members to represent groundwater-dependent agricultural interests within the East Tule GSA territory.
      
5. Provide that board members shall serves of four years except that members appointed by Hope Water District, Ducor Water District, and Tulare County shall serve only as long as the member is an official of the appointing agency. Provide that members appointed by Hope Water District, Ducor Water District, and Tulare County may serve more than one term.
   
6. Authorize the board to adopt an ordinance to provide compensation to its members, as provided. Prohibit a board member from being compensated for more than a total of 10 days in any calendar month.
   
7. Authorize the board to adopt resolutions, policies, rules, and regulations at a public hearing for the purpose of regulating, conserving, managing, and controlling the use and extraction of groundwater within the territory.
   
8. Require the East Tule GSA to enter into a coordination agreement with other GSAs managing portions of the Tule subbasin.
   
9. Authorize the East Tule GSA to exclude groundwater pumpers from any part of its policies, rules, or regulations if the pumper extracts less than a minimum amount of groundwater annually specified by the board.
   
10. Authorize the East Tule GSA to collect data and conduct technical and other investigations to carry out these provisions. Require all hydrological investigations and studies carried out by the East Tule GSA be constructed by or under supervision of licensed engineers or other persons qualified in groundwater geology or hydrology.
    
11. Authorize the East Tule GSA to recommend and encourage water recycling and other water development projects that will enhance and contribute to responsible groundwater management as part of its annual plan for implementation of groundwater management objectives.
    
12. Require the East Tule GSA to develop and implement a GSP.
    
13. Authorize the East Tule GSA to exercise any of the powers and authorities granted to GSAs by SGMA.
    
14. Authorize the East Tule GSA to impose fees, including permit fees and groundwater extraction fees, to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program.
    
15. Add the East Tule GSAs to the list of “exclusive” local agencies with authority to manage groundwater and comply with SGMA within their respective agency boundaries.
    
16. Add a savings clause providing that in the event of any conflict between SGMA and this bill, the provisions of SGMA apply.
    
17. Makes various legislative findings and declarations regarding the need for this bill.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “Water is life, and Tulare County has been deeply impacted by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Assembly Bill 568 restores stability to the community by creating a dedicated Groundwater Sustainability Agency, empowering the County to protect its water resources, support its agricultural economy, and secure a sustainable future for its residents.”

According to the County of Tulare, when the other entities that made up Eastern Tule GSA left the County as the sole member, “[t]he County does not have the resources to run a GSA and looked to the Kings River East Model (SB 37, 2016) to form a new GSA to cover the remaining area.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

In a letter submitted by Clean Water Action, on behalf of other environmental justice groups, “[i]t is unclear how forming yet another GSA will alleviate the breakdown of governance in the basin. Rather than continuing to divide groundwater management in the region, it would be valuable to incentivize greater collaboration to ensure continued local control.” The groups are also “concerned about the financial burden this will place on Hope Water District and Ducor Water District. These are small county water districts, and if the bill passes, they would be responsible for meeting all SGMA requirements. It’s unclear how they could afford to do so given their limited resources.”

COMMENTS

AB 1044 (Macedo). The author of AB 568 had an identical bill, AB 1044, this legislative session. AB 1044 was not taken up on the Assembly Floor and was moved to the inactive file on June 9, 2025. On June 24, the contents of AB 568 (this bill) was replaced with the contents of AB 1044.

Starting over or building upon prior efforts? This bill seeks to address the breakup of the Eastern Tule GSA. However, there is concern that statutorily creating a new GSA will add to the time that it will take for the Tule subbasin to reach sustainability for two reasons. First, the organizations that would make up the GSA proposed by this bill could form the GSA immediately, without the enactment of this bill. It is argued that instead of waiting for the statutory creation of the GSA, one could be formed immediately. Second, the new GSA will need to develop a new GSP.

According to the author’s office, this bill is needed to prevent what happened with the Eastern Tule GSA where all but one of the member agencies withdrew from the GSA. By statutorily creating the East Tule GSA, it will be harder for members to withdraw. Additionally, the author and sponsor state that because the East Tule GSA will cover a similar territory as the former Eastern Tule GSA, the GSP development process will not need to start over and instead would build upon the Eastern Tule GSP.

Tule subbasin. It is of note that even if AB 568 is enacted, the creation of the East Tule GSA will not solve some of the larger issues that the Tule subbasin faces. Until the GSAs within the subbasin are able to develop GSAs that can be coordinated to reach groundwater sustainability, the basin is likely to remain subject to state intervention. The ability of the Tule Subbasin to move on from probation depends on the success of all the GSAs, including the East Tule GSA. An argument could be made this bill is needed to avoid what happened with the Eastern Tule GSA and provide the East Tule GSA with stability.

Tailor-made. This bill is based on language that was used to create the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency Act (Vidak, SB 37, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2016). Parties in opposition have expressed concern regarding some of the provisions as they would be implemented in the context of Tule Subbasin’s circumstances. As such, stakeholders in opposition are seeking the following amendments:

• Requiring 30 days’ notice, instead of 14 days’ notice, of a public hearing if the initial boundaries of the GSA are proposed to be changed and requiring that the map containing the GSA’s boundaries be submitted to DWR. This proposed amendment helps address concern of changing GSA boundaries. See Amendment 1.
• Requiring that the Tulare County-chosen governing board member be a member of the Tulare County Board of Supervisors. This amendment would enhance County involvement, addressing the concern that Tulare County would not be adequately involved. See Amendment 2, proposed Section 501(a)(3).
• Requiring at least one member of the governing board be or represent socially disadvantaged farmers. This amendment helps address concern that socially disadvantaged farmers would not be represented on the governing board. See Amendment 2, proposed Section 501(a)(4).
• Strike “supplemental water” provisions that would have prohibited an operator with supplemental water from being subject to more restrictive regulations than imposed on other operators. Strike the definition of “supplemental water” as a conforming change. This amendment helps address concern that the language could restrict the GSA’s ability to implement its plan and policies. See Amendments 3 and 4.

The committee may wish to make above-described amendments.

Related legislation.

SB 372 (Cannella, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2017) creates the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

SB 37 (Videk, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2016) creates the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

SB 564 (Cannella, Chapter 392, Statutes of 2016) creates the North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1

Amend Section 302 as follows:

(a) The initial boundaries may be changed upon action by the agency’s board of directors after a noticed public hearing with 14 30 calendar days’ notice. The boundaries shall be depicted on a map that shall be submitted to the Department and maintained by the board of directors of the agency. 

AMENDMENT 2

Amend Section 501 as follows:

(a) The agency shall be governed by a board of directors that shall consist of five members, as follows:

(1) One member shall be chosen by Hope from the members of the board of directors of Hope.

(2) One member shall be chosen by Ducor from the members of the board of directors of Ducor.

(3) One member shall be chosen by the county from the members of the board of supervisors of Tulare County.

(4) Two members shall be chosen by the other three board members to represent groundwater-dependent agricultural interests within the territory of the agency. These members shall be actively engaged in the production of agriculture within the territory of the agency. These members shall may be selected from a list of nominations submitted by the Tulare County Farm Bureau, but the nominees need not be members of the farm bureau. At least one member shall be or represent socially disadvantaged farmers.

AMENDMENT 3

Strike Section 417.

417.  “Supplemental water” means surface water or groundwater imported from outside the watershed or watersheds of the basin or aquifer and floodwaters that are conserved and saved within the watershed or watersheds that would otherwise have been lost or would not have reached the basin or aquifer.

AMENDMENT 4

Strike Section 704.

704. The availability of supplemental water to any operator shall not subject that operator to regulations by the agency that are more restrictive than those imposed on other operators.

SUPPORT

County of Tulare (sponsor)

Valley Ag Coalition

OPPOSITION

Central California Environmental Justice Network
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Community Water Leaders Network
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 568

Author:(Lackey)

As Amended Ver:May 23, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Adds selling, furnishing, administering, or giving fentanyl to a minor with knowledge that the substance is fentanyl to the list of ″serious″ felonies.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

″AB 568 will not only help prevent deaths by fentanyl overdoses but will also strengthen California′s justice system by making it fairer and more accountable. The bill is an essential tool in protecting our youth, ensuring their safety, and safeguarding their futures from the dangers of fentanyl exposure by treating fentanyl dealers in the same manner as those who provide sell other illegal narcotics to our children. It is a bold step toward a more equitable and secure California for all residents, especially the children we are sworn to protect.″

Arguments in Support

According to California District Attorneys Association, ″The threat posed by fentanyl is real, and it is growing. According to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fentanyl-related deaths have spiked by 55% across the U.S. in the past year, with California seeing a similar surge. In 2022 alone, over 5,000 Californians died from fentanyl overdoses, and an alarming number of these fatalities were minors. The consequences of failing to act are grave—without stronger penalties, more young people will continue to die, and the fentanyl crisis will worsen.

″AB 568 is a critical step forward in combating this crisis. By classifying the act of distributing fentanyl to minors as a serious felony, AB 568 ensures that those who knowingly and recklessly sell fentanyl to children will face severe legal consequences. This bill will give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on fentanyl trafficking, and it will send a clear message that California is committed to protecting its youth from this deadly epidemic.″

Arguments in Opposition

According to Drug Policy Alliance, ″Current California law is already too draconian, focused on expensive incarceration, rather than more intelligent investments in public health and drug treatment strategies. The current penalty for furnishing fentanyl to a minor (absent any enhancements for great bodily injury or other offenses) is three, six, or nine years in jail. AB 568 would add many more years, and require doubled sentences and incarceration in state prisons for any subsequent felony conviction. The United States Department of Justice and others have concluded, based on available evidence, that the threat of long sentences does not deter crime.

″The estimated per capita cost of incarceration in Los Angeles County for one year is approximately $90,000. The per capita cost of incarceration in a state prison in California exceed $133,000. Compare that to the cost of substance use disorder treatment, a lifesaving intervention that is still not available statewide. The approximate cost of a year of methadone treatment for a fentanyl dependent person is $6,552. The approximate cost of buprenorphine treatment is less than $6,000. It would be healthier, safer and better for public safety to send an additional 17 people to methadone treatment, or 19 people to buprenorphine treatment, than to incarcerate one person for an additional year in a state prison. Funding a robust, voluntary, low-barrier and evidence-based drug treatment system is a far more cost-effective investment.

″The state has made a sizable investment in primary and secondary prevention focused largely on youth. In 2024, the Substance and Addiction Branch of California Department of Public Health launched a multi-million dollar public education campaign Facts About Fentanyl, targeting young people online and through various other forms of media. Advertisement and materials are available in Korean, Spanish, Chinese, as well as English, and provided in partnership with Tribal governments. These approaches, in addition to substance use disorder treatment and harm reduction strategies, including community-based drug checking services, street outreach programs, and distribution of the opioid reversal medication naloxone, are far more effective investments.″ (Fn. omitted.)

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, ″Incarceration costs (General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. As discussed in more detail below, a person charged with or convicted of a serious felony is likely to receive a longer prison term than they would for a standard felony, and will receive a significantly longer sentence if they are convicted of any subsequent serious felonies. Longer sentences will result in increased incarceration costs to CDCR in the long term.

″The actual number of people convicted each year for selling fentanyl to minors is unknown. CDCR data shows 21 new admissions into state prison in 2024 with a primary offense of selling controlled substances to minors. By way of illustration, if there are three people convicted of selling fentanyl to a minor and each person is later convicted of another serious felony, this bill will result in each of them receiving a mandatory five-year enhancement in addition to their underlying sentence. The Legislative Analyst′s Office estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000, so these 15 years of enhancements could result in incarceration costs of approximately $2 million over five years, though costs may be slightly lower depending on in-custody credit earning. Actual costs resulting from this bill will depend on the number of convictions, defendants′ criminal histories, and judicial discretion, but the overall effect will be an increase in incarceration costs resulting from designating this offense as a serious felony.″

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: May 23, 2025

CONSULTANT: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000737

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 568

Author:(Lackey) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill designates the crime of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving fentanyl to a minor as a “serious” felony.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Incarceration costs (General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. As discussed in more detail below, a person charged with or convicted of a serious felony is likely to receive a longer prison term than they would for a standard felony, and will receive a significantly longer sentence if they are convicted of any subsequent serious felonies. Longer sentences will result in increased incarceration costs to CDCR in the long term.

The actual number of people convicted each year for selling fentanyl to minors is unknown. CDCR data shows 21 new admissions into state prison in 2024 with a primary offense of selling controlled substances to minors. By way of illustration, if there are three people convicted of selling fentanyl to a minor and each person is later convicted of another serious felony, this bill will result in each of them receiving a mandatory five-year enhancement in addition to their underlying sentence. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000, so these 15 years of enhancements could result in incarceration costs of approximately $2 million over five years, though costs may be slightly lower depending on in-custody credit earning. Actual costs resulting from this bill will depend on the number of convictions, defendants’ criminal histories, and judicial discretion, but the overall effect will be an increase in incarceration costs resulting from designating this offense as a serious felony.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

The bill is an essential tool in protecting our youth, ensuring their safety, and safeguarding their futures from the dangers of fentanyl exposure by treating fentanyl dealers in the same manner as those who provide sell other illegal narcotics to our children. It is a bold step toward a more equitable and secure California for all residents, especially the children we are sworn to protect.

1. Background. In the California Penal Code, a “serious felony” has a particular legal meaning. Being charged with or convicted of a serious felony has significant implications for the way a defendant’s case proceeds and sentencing for subsequent offenses. For example, plea bargaining is prohibited in any case in which the defendant is charged with a serious felony, meaning that a prosecutor cannot offer such a defendant an opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for information about other, potentially more culpable perpetrators. If a person who has been convicted of a serious felony is later convicted of another serious felony, the court must impose an automatic five-year sentence enhancement in addition to their base sentence. A person facing a felony charge who has previously been convicted of a serious felony may not be granted probation for their current offense.

Currently, selling or otherwise furnishing heroin, cocaine, PCP, or any methamphetamine-related drug is a serious felony subject to the conditions described above. This bill additionally designates selling or providing fentanyl to a minor as a serious felony. Under existing law, selling fentanyl to a minor is punishable as a felony by a base term of three, six, or nine years in state prison. Under this bill, anyone charged or convicted of selling fentanyl to a minor will be subject to the conditions described above, and, if they are later convicted of another serious felony, would receive a substantially longer prison sentence for that offense.

Research shows that lengthy criminal sentences, which are costly to state and local governments, do not effectively deter crime. In general, the certainty that someone will be punished for an offense plays a larger role in deterring their criminal activity, rather than the length of their potential punishment.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Deputy Chief Counsel: Stella Choe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 568

Author:(Lackey) – As Introduced Ver:February 12, 2025

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Adds fentanyl to the list of controlled substances for which it is a “serious” felony to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a person 18 years of age or older who solicits, induces, encourages, or intimidates any minor with the intent that the minor shall violate laws with respect to either specified controlled substances, including cocaine or heroin, who unlawfully sells, furnishes, administers, gives, or offers to sell, furnish, administer, or give, those controlled substances to a minor, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or nine years. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.)
2. Specifies that any person who is convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11353, in addition to the punishment imposed for that conviction, shall receive an additional punishment as follows:
   1. One year in state prison if the offense involved heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, or any analog of these substances and occurred upon the grounds of, or within, a church or synagogue, a playground, a public or private youth center, a child day care facility, or a public swimming pool, during hours in which the facility is open or in use.
   2. Two years in state prison if the offense involved heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, or any analog of these substances and occurred upon, or within 1,000 feet of, the grounds of any public or private elementary, vocational, junior high, or high school, during hours that the school is open or in use.
   3. One, two, or three years in state prison if the offense involved a minor who is at least four years younger than the defendant. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.1, subd. (a).)
3. States that a person 18 years of age or older who solicits, induces, encourages, or intimidates any minor with the intent that the minor shall violate specified laws involving controlled substances, including methamphetamine-related drugs and phencyclidine (PCP), or who unlawfully furnishes, offers to furnish, or attempts to furnish those controlled substances to a minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or nine years. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11380, subd. (a).)
4. Specifies that any person who is convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11380, in addition to the punishment imposed for that conviction, shall receive an additional punishment as follows:
   1. One year in state prison if the offense involved PCP, methamphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), or any analog of these substances and occurred upon the grounds of, or within, a church or synagogue, a playground, a public or private youth center, a child day care facility, or a public swimming pool, during hours in which the facility is open or in use.
   2. Two years in state prison if the offense involved PCP, methamphetamine, LSD, or any analog of these substance and occurred upon, or within 1,000 feet of, the grounds of any public or private elementary, vocational, junior high, or high school, during hours that the school is open or in use.
   3. One, two, or three years in state prison if the offense involved a minor who is at least four years younger than the defendant. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11380.1, subd. (a).)
5. States that a person who was convicted of a violation of specified controlled substance offenses including Health and Safety Code sections 11353 and 11380, who has previously served two or more prior separate prison terms for a violation of those listed offenses, may be punished in the state prison for life and shall not be eligible for release on parole for 17 years, or other sentence determined by the court for the underlying conviction and any enhancements, whichever is greater. (Pen. Code, § 667.75.)
6. States that a person who sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away a controlled substance is deemed to have personally inflicted great bodily injury for purposes of sentence enhancement when the person to whom the substance was sold, furnished, administered or given suffers a significant or substantial physical injury from using the substance. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (f)(2); added by Proposition 36, approved by voters on Nov. 5, 2024.)
7. Defines the following offenses as “serious” felonies:
   1. Murder or voluntary manslaughter;
      
   2. Mayhem;
      
   3. Rape;
      
   4. Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat or fear of bodily injury;
      
   5. Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or threat or fear of bodily injury;
      
   6. Lewd act with child under fourteen years of age;
      
   7. Any felony punishable by death or life imprisonment;
      
   8. Any felony in which defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice or personally uses a firearm;
      
   9. Attempted murder;
      
   10. Assault with intent to commit rape or robbery;
       
   11. Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer;
       
   12. Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate;
       
   13. Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate;
       
   14. Arson;
       
   15. Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure;
       
   16. Exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem;
       
   17. Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder;
       
   18. Burglary of an inhabited dwelling;
       
   19. Robbery or bank robbery;
       
   20. Kidnapping;
       
   21. Holding a hostage by an inmate;
       
   22. Attempt to commit a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death;
       
   23. Any felony where defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon;
       
   24. Selling, furnishing, administering, giving, heroin, cocaine, PCP, or methamphetamine to a minor;
       
   25. Forcible penetration with a foreign object;
       
   26. Grand theft involving a firearm;
       
   27. Any gang-related felony;
       
   28. Assault with the intent to commit mayhem or specified sex offenses;
       
   29. Maliciously throwing acid or flammable substances;
       
   30. Witness intimidation;
       
   31. Assault with a deadly weapon or firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter;
       
   32. Assault with a deadly weapon on a public transit employee;
       
   33. Criminal threats;
       
   34. Discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft;
       
   35. Commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert;
       
   36. Continuous sexual abuse of a child;
       
   37. Shooting from a vehicle;
       
   38. Any attempt to commit a “serious” felony other than assault;
       
   39. Any violation of the 10 years, 20 years, 25 years to life gun law;
       
   40. Possession or use of any weapon of mass destruction;
   41. Sex trafficking of a minor except where the person committing the offense was a victim of human trafficking at the time of the offense; and,
       
   42. Any conspiracy to commit a “serious” felony. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c).)
8. Prohibits plea bargaining in any case in which the indictment or information charges a “serious” felony unless there is insufficient evidence to prove the charge, the testimony of a material witness cannot be obtained, or a reduction or dismissal would not result in a substantial change in sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (a)(2).)
9. Provides that any person convicted of a “serious” felony who has previously been convicted of a “serious” felony receives, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court, an additional and consecutive five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction. (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1).)
10. Prohibits granting of probation on a current felony conviction if the defendant has one or more prior “serious” or “violent” felony convictions. (Pen. Code, §1170.12, subd. (a)(2).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 568 will not only help prevent deaths by fentanyl overdoses but will also strengthen California’s justice system by making it fairer and more accountable. The bill is an essential tool in protecting our youth, ensuring their safety, and safeguarding their futures from the dangers of fentanyl exposure by treating fentanyl dealers in the same manner as those who provide sell other illegal narcotics to our children. It is a bold step toward a more equitable and secure California for all residents, especially the children we are sworn to protect.”
   
2. Background on Fentanyl and Fentanyl-Related Substances: Fentanyl was synthesized in 1959 and has been used medically since the 1960s.^[1] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides this description of fentanyl^[2]:

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine

There are two types of fentanyl: pharmaceutical fentanyl and illegally made fentanyl. Both are considered synthetic opioids (made in a laboratory). Pharmaceutical fentanyl is prescribed by doctors to treat severe pain, especially after surgery and for advanced-stage cancer.

However, most recent cases of fentanyl-related overdose are linked to illegally-made fentanyl, which is distributed through illegal drug markets for its heroin-like effect. It is often added to other drugs because of its extreme potency, which makes drugs cheaper, more powerful, more addictive, and more dangerous.

According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), illegally-made fentanyl is sold as powders, nasal sprays, and pressed into pills to look like legitimate prescription opioids. The DEA reports that they’ve analyzed counterfeit pills ranging from .02 to 5.1 milligrams of fentanyl per tablet. 42 percent of pills tested contained at least 2mg of fentanyl which is considered a potentially lethal dose. However, lethality depends on a person’s body size, tolerance and past usage.

Some users of illegally-made fentanyl are unaware that fentanyl is in the counterfeit pill or the illegal controlled substance they were seeking and would have no idea how much fentanyl is contained in the product. However, may people who use or overdose on fentanyl knowingly take the drug because it provides an intense high.^[3]

1. Existing Laws on Selling or Furnishing Controlled Substances to Minors: Existing law prohibits selling, furnishing, administering, giving away specified controlled substances, or offering to commit those acts, to a minor. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11353, 11380.) The punishment for a violation of such an offense is 3, 6, or 9 years in state prison. Sentence enhancements of 1 to 3 years are available to add on to a person’s sentence for the underlying crime when the defendant is 4 years older than the minor, or if the offense occurred at specified locations such as a school, church or community centers. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.1.) A sentence enhancement of 3 years may also be added if the person to whom the substance was sold, furnished, administered or given suffers a significant or substantial physical injury from using the substance, such as an overdose. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (f)(2).) When those controlled substances include heroin, cocaine, PCP, or methamphetamine, the conviction qualifies as a strike for purposes of the Three Strikes Law. (Pen. Code, § 1192.7.) Enhanced sentencing including a life sentence may also apply to a person with prior convictions involving controlled substances. (Pen. Code, § 667.75.)

The jury instructions applicable to Health and Safety Code sections 11353 and 11380 require the following elements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a person to be convicted of the offenses:

• 1. The defendant unlawfully sold/furnished/administered/gave away a controlled substance to another;
  2. The defendant knew of the presence of the controlled substance;
  3. The defendant knew of the substance’s nature or character as a controlled substance;
  4. At that time, the defendant was 18 years of age or older;
  5. At that time, the person sold/furnished/administered/given the controlled substance was under 18 years of age;
  6. The substance was a controlled substance or an analog of a controlled substance; and,
  7. The controlled substance was in a usable amount. (CALCRIM No. 2380.)

Fentanyl is included in the controlled substances that are illegal to sell, furnish, administer, give away to a minor pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11353. Thus, the main effect of this law is to include the crime on the list of controlled substances that elevate the crime to a “serious” felony when the substance is cocaine, PCP, heroin and methamphetamine. As discussed above, illicit fentanyl is commonly mixed with other controlled substances, such as heroin and cocaine, oftentimes unbeknownst to the seller and buyer. Also, if the substance is mixed with cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, the crime would already be a “serious” felony.

1. Three Strikes Law: In 1994, California voters passed Proposition 184, knowns as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law that defined qualifying “strikes” as those felonies listed as "serious" or "violent" on June 30, 1993. That same year, the California Legislature passed similar legislation that was signed into law. (AB 971 (Jones), Chapter 12, Statutes of 1994.) Collectively, Proposition 184 and AB 971 became known as California’s Three Strikes law which imposes longer prison sentences for certain repeat offenders. Proposition 21 of the March 2000 primary election added to the lists of serious and violent felonies and defined qualifying prior strikes as felony listed as “serious” or “violent” felonies as of March 8, 2000, the date that the Proposition 21 took effect.

The Three Strikes law requires a person who is convicted of a felony and who previously has been convicted of one or more “violent” or “serious” felonies, known as strikes, to be subject to an alternative sentencing scheme. Specifically, if the person has one prior strike, the sentence on any new felony conviction must be double what is specified by statute. If the person has two prior strikes, the sentence on any new felony conviction was 25 years to life, although this provision was amended by Proposition 36, approved by voters in 2012, to require that the third strike must be a serious or violent felony in order to impose the life term.

The Three Strikes law contains a statutory lock-in date whereby only the offenses listed in the serious or violent list as of the specified date qualify as strikes. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.1.) Currently, the statute contains two dates to reflect a change to the list and lock-in dates in 2012^[4] and again in 2023^[5]:

• • • • 1. Notwithstanding subdivision (h) of Section 667, for all offenses committed on or after November 7, 2012, but before January 1, 2024, all references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, of Section 667, are to those statutes as they read on November 7, 2012.
        2. Notwithstanding subdivision (h) of Section 667, for all offenses committed on or after January 1, 2024, all references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, of Section 667, are to those statutes as they read on January 1, 2024.

(Pen. Code, § 667.1; see also Pen. Code, § 1170.125.) This bill does not amend the statutory lock-in dates.

1. Argument in Support: According to California District Attorneys Association, “The threat posed by fentanyl is real, and it is growing. According to a recent study by the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fentanyl-related deaths have spiked by 55% across the U.S. in the past year, with California seeing a similar surge. In 2022 alone, over 5,000 Californians died from fentanyl overdoses, and an alarming number of these fatalities were minors. The consequences of failing to act are grave—without stronger penalties, more young people will continue to die, and the fentanyl crisis will worsen.

“AB 568 is a critical step forward in combating this crisis. By classifying the act of distributing fentanyl to minors as a serious felony, AB 568 ensures that those who knowingly and recklessly sell fentanyl to children will face severe legal consequences. This bill will give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on fentanyl trafficking, and it will send a clear message that California is committed to protecting its youth from this deadly epidemic.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to Drug Policy Alliance, “Current California law is already too draconian, focused on expensive incarceration, rather than more intelligent investments in public health and drug treatment strategies. The current penalty for furnishing fentanyl to a minor (absent any enhancements for great bodily injury or other offenses) is 3, 6, or 9 years in jail. AB 568 would add many more years, and require doubled sentences and incarceration in state prisons for any subsequent felony conviction. The United States Department of Justice and others have concluded, based on available evidence, that the threat of long sentences does not deter crime.

“The estimated per capita cost of incarceration in Los Angeles County for one year is approximately $90,000. The per capita cost of incarceration in a state prison in California exceed $133,000. Compare that to the cost of substance use disorder treatment, a lifesaving intervention that is still not available statewide. The approximate cost of a year of methadone treatment for a fentanyl dependent person is $6,552. The approximate cost of buprenorphine treatment is less than $6,000. It would be healthier, safer and better for public safety to send an additional 17 people to methadone treatment, or 19 people to buprenorphine treatment, than to incarcerate one person for an additional year in a state prison. Funding a robust, voluntary, low-barrier and evidence-based drug treatment system is a far more cost-effective investment.

“The state has made a sizable investment in primary and secondary prevention focused largely on youth. In 2024, the Substance and Addiction Branch of California Department of Public Health launched a multi-million dollar public education campaign Facts About Fentanyl, targeting young people online and through various other forms of media. Advertisement and materials are available in Korean, Spanish, Chinese, as well as English, and provided in partnership with Tribal governments. These approaches, in addition to substance use disorder treatment and harm reduction strategies, including community-based drug checking services, street outreach programs, and distribution of the opioid reversal medication naloxone, are far more effective investments.” (Fn. omitted.)

1. Related Legislation: AB 292 (Patterson), would add felony domestic violence to the list of “violent” felonies for all purposes, including the Three Strikes Law. AB 292 is pending hearing in this Committee.
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. SB 14 (Grove), Chapter 230, Statutes of 2023, added sex trafficking of a minor, except if the person committing the offense was a victim of sex trafficking at the time of the offense as specified, to the list of “serious” felonies for all purposes, including the Three Strikes Law.
   2. SB 1042 (Grove), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have added human trafficking to the list of “violent” felonies as well as to the list of “serious” felonies for all purposes, including for purposes of the Three Strikes Law. SB 1042 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
   3. AB 537 (Acosta), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have added crimes, including human trafficking involving sexual exploitation, to the list of “serious” felonies. AB 537 failed passage in this committee.
   4. AB 1321 (Stone), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have added crimes, including human trafficking, to the list of “serious” felonies. AB 1321 was held in this committee.
      
   5. AB 1188 (Pan), of the 2011-2012 Legislative Session, would have added four new offenses relating to child abuse to the list of “violent” felonies, and added five new offenses related to human trafficking and the abuse of a child to the “serious” felony list. AB 1188 failed passage in this committee.
   6. AB 16 (Swanson), of the 2009-2010 Legislative Session, would have added human trafficking to the list of “serious” and “violent” felonies. AB 16 failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   7. SB 440 (Denham), of the 2009-2010 Legislative Session, would have added the crimes of child abuse likely to produce great bodily injury or death, physical child abuse, killing, mutilating, or torturing a domestic animal, elder abuse for which the defendant was incarcerated in state prison, and escape or attempted escape by force or violence to the lists of “serious” felonies as well as to the list of "violent” felonies, as specified; and added the crimes of human trafficking, stalking, solicitation to commit murder, fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer, willful flight or attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer, and felon in possession of a firearm, to the list of “serious felonies," as specified. SB 440 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
   8. AB 426 (Galgiani), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, would have added human trafficking to the list of “serious” and “violent” felonies. AB 426 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of School Police Chiefs
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Orange County Sheriff's Department
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside County Sheriff's Office
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Oppose

ACLU California Action
All of Us or None Los Angeles
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)
Californians for Safety and Justice (CSJ)
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Courage California
Drug Policy Alliance 1
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Initiate Justice
Initiate Justice Action
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Local 148 LA County Public Defenders Union
Ryse Center
San Francisco Public Defender
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition

Analysis Prepared by:

Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/fentanyl-driving-overdoses (Mar. 18, 2024) [accessed Feb. 28, 2025].) ↑

2. https://www.cdc.gov/stop-overdose/caring/fentanyl-facts.html (Apr. 2, 2024) [accessed Feb. 28, 2025]. ↑

3. Supra, note 1. ↑

4. Proposition 36, approved by California voters on November 6, 2012. ↑

5. SB 14 (Grove), Chapter 230, Statutes of 2023, which added sex trafficking of a minor to the list of serious felonies. ↑