Read. Adopted. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 2825.)
Read. Amended. Adopted. (Page 3772.).
Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (state act) . The state act, with certain exceptions, imposes a mandatory minimum penalty of $3,000 for each serious waste discharge violation, as defined, and for certain other described violations if those violations occur 4 or more times in any period of 6 consecutive months. The state act authorizes the state board or a regional board, in lieu of assessing all or a portion of the mandatory minimum penalties against a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that serves a small community, to elect to require that POTW to spend an equivalent amount toward the completion of a compliance project. The state act defines a POTW that serves a small community to mean, in pertinent part, a POTW serving a community of 10,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, as specified. This bill would expand that definition to include a POTW serving a community of 20,000 persons or fewer or a rural county, as specified.
(1) Existing law classifies controlled substances into 5 schedules, with the most restrictive limitations placed on controlled substances classified in Schedule I, and the least restrictive limitations placed on controlled substances classified in Schedule V. A controlled substance in any of the schedules may be possessed or dispensed only upon a lawful prescription, as specified. Existing law does not classify ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine within any of these 5 schedules, but provides that it is a crime, punishable as specified, for a person in this state who engages in specified transactions involving those drugs to fail to submit a report to the Department of Justice of all of those transactions, or to fail to submit an application to, and obtain a permit for the conduct of that business from, the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law prohibits the sale of more than 3 packages or 9 grams of a nonprescription product containing ephedrine or the other drugs, as specified. This bill would instead provide that it is a misdemeanor, punishable as specified, for any retail distributor, except pursuant to a valid prescription from a licensed practitioner with prescriptive authority, to sell or distribute to a person specified amounts of nonprescription products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine within specified time limits, to sell or distribute any of those substances to a person whose information has generated an alert, or, except under specified conditions, to sell or distribute to any purchaser a nonprescription product containing any amount of those substances. The bill would contain provisions requiring the secure storage and monitoring of products containing any amount of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, as specified. The bill would require retail distributors to transmit, on and after July 1, 2013, sale information to the National Precursor Log Exchange (NPLEx) for purposes of determining whether the sale would violate these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators regarding the transaction records in NPLEx, as specified. The bill would provide that the information in the system may not be used for any purpose other than to meet the requirements of, or comply with, this act or a certain federal act, as specified. The bill would require that the system be available to the department and state law enforcement at no charge and would prohibit the Department of Justice or any other state agency from bearing any cost for the development, installation, or maintenance of the system. The bill would specify legislative findings and intent. The bill's provisions would remain in effect only until January 1, 2018. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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.
Read. Adopted. (Page 2785.)
This resolution would recognize the month of January 2012, and each following January, as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, and it would recognize February 1, 2012, and each following February 1, as California's Free From Slavery Day.
(1) Under the California Public Records Act, except for exempt records, every state and local agency, upon request, is required to make records available to any person. This bill would revise the definition of a state agency, for purposes of the act, to include the Assembly and the Senate. The bill would require that any budget, fund, or account of the Senate and Assembly, or other expenditure created in the annual Budget Act, as specified, constitutes a public document for purposes of the act. (2) The Legislative Open Records Act requires, among other things, that legislative records be open to inspection at all times and that any person has a right to inspect any legislative record, except as provided. The bill would repeal the Legislative Open Records Act.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 provides, in part, that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, on account of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. This bill would repeal the provision entitling the act the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, and would instead state the findings of the Legislature that the above-described provision was enacted as part of the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions. The state board is authorized to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms, as defined, meeting specified requirements to be used for compliance with those regulations. This bill would require the state board to adopt a compliance offset protocol that meets specified criteria if the state board adopts a cap-and-trade program that allows the use of offsets for compliance under the cap-and-trade program.
Existing law requires the Legislature to make an annual appropriation to the Judicial Council for the general operations of the trial courts based on the request of the Judicial Council, which is submitted to the Governor and the Legislature. The Judicial Council is required to allocate the funding for trial court operations to the trial courts in a manner that best ensures the ability of the courts to carry out their functions, promotes implementation of statewide policies, and promotes the immediate implementation of efficiencies and cost-saving measures in court operations, in order to guarantee access to justice to citizens of the state. Existing law requires the Controller to apportion trial court funding payments to the individual trial courts pursuant to the allocation schedule adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. This bill would, among other things, delete the provisions relating to the manner in which the Judicial Council allocates funding for trial court operations, and would instead require that the amount allocated to each trial court from the amount appropriated for trial court operations be equal to the pro rata share of the prior fiscal year's adjusted base budget, except as provided. The bill would require the Legislature, based on the information submitted in the Governor's proposed budget, and prior to the allocation of funds to each local trial court in accordance with the allocation schedule adopted by the Judicial Council, to specify, in each annual Budget Act, the funding amounts to be allocated for programs of statewide concern from the total funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature. The bill would prohibit the Judicial Council, or its designee, from withholding or expending any portion of the total funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature for any statewide information technology or administrative infrastructure program that was not identified in the annual Budget Act, unless the Judicial Council, or its designee, first obtains the written approval of 6623% of a proportional representation of all local trial courts. The bill would require the Judicial Council, or its designee, to allocate 100% of the funds appropriated for trial court operations according to each court's share of statewide operational funding. Existing law provides that the Judicial Council retains the ultimate responsibility to adopt a budget and allocate funding for the trial courts, as specified, and empowers the Judicial Council to authorize a trial court to carry unexpended funds over from one fiscal year to the next. This bill would delete those provisions and would instead provide that unexpended funds shall be the funds of that court, which may carry those funds over from one fiscal year to the next. The bill would prohibit those funds from being reallocated or redirected without the consent of the management of the trial court.
Existing law requires that various state agencies submit certain reports to the Legislature and other state agencies. This bill would eliminate the requirement that certain state agencies submit certain reports to the Legislature and other state agencies. This bill would make various conforming changes.
(1) Existing law prohibits the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation and permits a person to maintain an action in inverse condemnation for the purpose of obtaining compensation for a taking. Existing law applies the doctrine of comparative fault for the purpose of apportioning responsibility and reducing damages to the extent a plaintiff is found partially at fault. This bill would apply the doctrine of comparative fault to inverse condemnation actions and would require a court or arbitrator to reduce the compensation paid to a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding, in direct proportion to his or her percentage of fault, if any, in the damaging of property that constitutes a taking. The bill would make these provisions applicable only to inverse condemnation actions filed on or after January 1, 2013. (2) Existing law governs offers by a party to compromise a dispute that is to be resolved by trial or arbitration. Existing law provides in this regard, among other things, that if the defendant makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff is prohibited from recovering his or her postoffer costs and is required to pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. Existing law also awards to the plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding reasonable costs actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court, or in any appellate proceeding, in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding. This bill would provide, notwithstanding the latter provision, that if the defendant in an inverse condemnation action filed on or after January 1, 2013, makes an offer that the plaintiff does not accept, and the plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's postoffer costs. Additionally, the bill would provide that the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendant's costs for expert witnesses. Alternatively, if the plaintiff rejects the offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the bill would prohibit the plaintiff from recovering his or her postoffer costs, but would provide that the plaintiff shall not be ordered to pay the defendant's postoffer costs.
