(1) Existing law creates the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which, if approved by the voters at the November 2, 2010, statewide general election, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,140,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water and water supply reliability program. The bond act, among other things, would continuously appropriate $3,000,000,000 to the California Water Commission for specified water projects, including surface storage projects identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision, dated August 28, 2000, except as specified. Funds allocated for this purpose are authorized by the bond act to be provided to local joint powers authorities formed by irrigation districts and other local water districts and local governments located within the applicable hydrologic region to design, acquire, and construct those projects. The bond act would also require the Department of Water Resources to be an ex officio member of each joint powers authority, prohibit the department from controlling the governance, management, or operation of the surface water storage project, and authorize the joint powers authorities to include in their membership governmental and nongovernmental partners that are not located within their respective hydrologic regions in financing the surface storage projects, including, as appropriate, cost share participation or equity participation. This bill would would delete the authorization for joint powers authorities to include nongovernmental partners in their membership. The bill would also prohibit the joint powers authorities from including in their membership any for-profit corporation, or mutual water company whose shareholders and members include a for-profit corporation or any other private entity. The bill would require the Secretary of State to include the changes made by this bill when submitting to the voters the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, at the November 2, 2010, statewide general election. (2) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires the Department of Personnel Administration to establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position in the state civil service, subject to specified merit limits and except as specified. Existing law requires the salary range to be based on the principle that like salaries shall be paid for comparable duties and responsibilities. Existing law allows the state to enter into memoranda of understanding relating to employer-employee relations with employee organizations representing certain state employees. This bill would, until January 1, 2013, prohibit a person employed by the state whose base salary on or after the effective date of the bill is greater than $150,000 per year from receiving a salary increase while employed in the same position or classification. The bill would exempt from this prohibition a person whose compensation is governed by an operative memorandum of understanding, as described above, a person who has been exempted by Executive order of the Governor, as specified, and a person whose salary is set pursuant to the California Constitution. The bill would also authorize the Controller to reject a request for disbursement of funds that violates these provisions. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations regarding the state budget deficit.
This measure would designate the week of May 2 to May 8, 2010, as Public Service Recognition Week, and encourage all Californians to recognize the crucial role of public employees in this state.
Existing law regulates pesticide use and requires a pesticide use report to be submitted to the county agricultural commissioner or the Director of Pesticide Regulation, as specified, for use in the setting of priorities for, among other things, pesticide use enforcement and pest control research, environmental monitoring, and public health monitoring and research. Existing regulations provide that prior to the purchase or use of pesticides for the production of an agricultural commodity, the operator of the property, as defined, or the operator's authorized representative, shall obtain an operator identification number for pesticide use from the county agricultural commissioner of each county where pest control work will be performed. This bill would codify that requirement relating to the operator identification number and, on and after January 1, 2012, would require the county agricultural commissioner to withhold the issuance of an operator identification number for pesticide use if, pursuant to a notice transmitted by the State Water Resources Control Board or a California regional water quality control board, an operator of the property is found to be in violation of specified water quality requirements after the exhaustion of all administrative proceedings and appeals. The bill would authorize a county agricultural commissioner to levy a specified civil penalty on an operator who obtains an operator identification number by means of fraud. By imposing new requirements on county agricultural commissioners, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires the State Water Resources Control Board (state board) and a California regional water quality control board (regional board) to prescribe waste discharge requirements, as specified. The act authorizes the state board and a regional board to waive certain waste discharge requirements as to a specific discharge or type of discharge if the state board or the regional board makes a specified determination. For purposes of implementing the provisions relating to the issuance of an operator identification number for pesticide use, this bill would require the state board or a regional board to provide notice to the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the appropriate county agricultural commissioners if, pursuant to an administrative order, the state board or the regional board finds that an operator of the property, as defined, is in violation of any specified water quality requirements. The bill would prohibit the state board or the regional board from transmitting the notice unless 30 days have elapsed after the date on which specified administrative or judicial appeals and proceedings are exhausted. The bill would require the state board or the regional board to issue a written certification of compliance to an operator of the property upon remedying the violation, and payment of administrative civil liability imposed, for the water quality violations. The bill would require the county agricultural commissioner, upon receipt of a certificate of compliance, to immediately issue the withheld operator identification number to an operator who has remedied the subject violation or violations. The bill would also make a technical, nonsubstantive change to the provisions. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
This measure would designate that January 18, 2010, be observed as the official memorial of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birth, commemorate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement in changing public policy in California and in the United States of America.
(1) The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions. This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit for a rate imposed by a city, county, city and county, or special district to service bonded indebtedness, incurred to fund specified public improvements, facilities or buildings, and housing, and related costs, that is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable. This additional exception would apply only if the proposition approved by the voters results in bonded indebtedness that includes specified accountability requirements. (2) The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 23 of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax, except that certain school entities may levy an ad valorem property tax for specified purposes with the approval of 55% of the voters within the jurisdiction of these entities. This measure would change the 23 voter-approval requirement for special taxes to, instead, authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to impose a special tax with the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the tax. This measure would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions. (3) The California Constitution prohibits a county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district from incurring any indebtedness exceeding in one year the income and revenue provided in that year, without the assent of 23 of the voters and subject to other conditions. This measure would lower to 55% the voter approval threshold for a city, county, or city and county to incur bonded indebtedness, exceeding in one year the income and revenue provided in that year, that is in the form of general obligation bonds to fund specified public improvements.
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1971 (FESA) directs federal agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, to carry out conservation programs for endangered species listed under FESA. FESA generally prohibits activities affecting these threatened and endangered species unless authorized by a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (permitting agencies) , as appropriate. FESA requires a federal agency authorizing, funding, or carrying out an action (agency action) to consult with a permitting agency on any actions that might affect listed species. A biological opinion is the permitting agency's written report describing the agency action and how it will affect the species or its critical habitat. If the permitting agency determines that take will occur incidental to the agency action, an incidental take statement is developed that contains reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize that impact and terms and conditions to implement those measures. The incidental take statement accompanies the biological opinion. Under FESA, incidental take permits are required when nonfederal activities will result in take of FESA listed species. FESA prohibits the issuance of an incidental take permit unless the applicant submits a conservation plan. Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) , if any person obtains from the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce an incidental take statement or incidental take permit pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 that authorizes the taking of an endangered species or threatened species listed pursuant to the federal act that is an endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species pursuant to CESA, no further authorization or approval is necessary under CESA for that person to take that species, if that person notifies the Director of Fish and Game, as specified, and the director determines that the statement or permit is consistent with CESA. This bill would require the inclusion in the notice of a specified additional information, including copy of the biological opinion along with an incidental take statement or a copy of the conservation plan with an incidental take permit. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations to implement those revised incidental take and consistency determination provisions.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income persons are provided with health care services. Under existing law, for certain hospitals that receive Medi-Cal reimbursement from the department and that are not under contract with the department pursuant to specified existing law, interim payments and cost report settlements for inpatient hospital services provided on and after July 1, 2008, are reduced by 10%, as specified. Existing law revises the amount of these payments, beginning on October 1, 2008, pursuant to a specified formula. Existing law exempts certain small and rural hospitals and certain open health facility planning areas from this revised formula. Existing law, for purposes of interim payments, specifically provides that open health facility planning areas with 3 or more hospitals with licensed general acute care beds are not exempt from this revised formula. Existing law, for purposes of the cost report settlements, specifically provides that open health facility planning areas with more than 3 hospitals with licensed general acute care beds are not exempt from this revised formula. This bill would revise both of the above provisions to prohibit a state-owned or state-operated hospital from being included in determining the number of hospitals in an open health facility planning area. This bill would revise the cost report settlement provision by requiring that an open health facility planning area have 3 or more specified hospitals, instead of more than 3 specified hospitals. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law establishes various programs to enhance education technology, including the California Technology Assistance Project, which is composed of regional consortia that work collaboratively with school districts and county offices of education to meet locally defined educational needs that can be effectively addressed with the use of technology, as specified. This bill would authorize the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish a task force for education technology, funded by private donations, for the purpose of making recommendations to increase and enhance the level of technology used to deliver instruction in California public schools. The task force would consist of no more than 15 education technology experts, including, but not necessarily limited to, parents, current credentialed teachers, administrators, school board members, researchers, and industry representatives, as specified. This bill would require the task force to address specified topics to be presented to the state board and the Legislature on or before September 1, 2012, and require the state board to adopt a comprehensive statewide plan to increase and enhance the level of technology used to deliver instruction in California public schools technology literacy model content standards, pursuant to the recommendations of the task force, on or before January 1, 2013. The bill would provide that the report to the Legislature be in a specified form. This provision would be inoperative on September 1, 2016.
Existing law regulates the labeling requirements on various consumer products. This bill would prohibit, on or after January 1, 2012, a person from packaging or labeling a consumer product, as defined, for distribution or sale in California if that product is contained in a package, or has an affixed label, that states that the product is flushable, sewer and septic safe, or other like term or phrase unless the product meets specified criteria. The bill would require a person who has packaged or labeled a consumer product for distribution or sale in California that is labeled as flushable, sewer and septic safe, or other like term or phrase, to maintain, in written form, documentation of the testing substantiating the validity of the claim, except as specified. The bill would exempt certain retailers and wholesalers from these provisions. The bill would make violation of this provision punishable by a fine of up to $2,500.