Existing law finds and declares that prenatal care, delivery service, postpartum care, and neonatal and infant care are essential services necessary to assure maternal and infant health, and that these services are not currently distributed so as to meet the minimum maternal and infant health needs of many Californians. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to develop and maintain a statewide community-based comprehensive perinatal services program, as specified, to deliver services in medically underserved areas or areas with demonstrated need. Existing law provides for the licensure of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals, by the department. Existing law generally makes a violation of those licensing provisions a crime. Existing law sets forth provisions for critical access hospitals, as designated by the department and certified as such by the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the federal Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2026, to establish a 10-year pilot project within up to 5 critical access hospitals to allow participating hospitals, on an application basis, to establish standby perinatal services, as defined. Under the bill, the first 2 hospitals selected, if qualified, would be nonprofit and located in the County of Humboldt and the County of Plumas. The bill would set forth various criteria for the selection of the participating hospitals with regard to standards and resources. The bill would require the department to develop a template to collect and evaluate data on safety, outcomes, utilization, and populations served under the pilot project, as specified. The bill would require the department to prepare and submit an evaluation to the Legislature and to make the evaluation publicly available. Under the bill, an approved standby perinatal service would be subject to all relevant licensing enforcement provisions, as specified. The bill would set forth provisions relating to suspension or revocation for noncompliance and to a hospital's request for program flexibility. The bill would require a hospital requesting approval to establish a standby perinatal service to implement and maintain certain requirements relating to, among other things, compliance with professional standards and recommendations, having specified equipment and supplies, defining the responsibility of the medical staff and administration, implementing contracts, and developing a quality improvement program. The bill would set forth specific requirements for a physician who has responsibility of the standby perinatal services. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Humboldt and the County of Plumas. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law sets forth an expedited procedure for judicial review of decisions by a local public agency regarding the issuance, revocation, suspension, or denial of a permit involving expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as specified. This bill would provide similar expedited judicial review for denials of permits or other entitlements for housing development projects or residential units at the trial and appellate level, as specified. The bill would authorize a petitioner, the Attorney General, or the Department of Housing and Community Development to file a petition for writ of mandate under these provisions. The bill would require a local agency, upon the request of an applicant or notice from the department or the Attorney General, to compile a record of its proceedings as they occur and to certify the record within 15 days of the service of a writ. The bill would require that a hearing be set no later than 45 days after the filing of the writ and that the court issue a decision no later than 30 days after the matter is submitted or 75 days after the writ was filed, whichever is earlier. The bill would authorize the temporary assignment of judicial officers to ensure the timelines are met.
(1) Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments. Existing law makes any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use, as specified, void and unenforceable. If the governing documents require association approval before a member may make a physical change to the member's separate interest or to the common area, existing law requires an association to satisfy specified requirements, including to provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for making its decision in reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed physical change, as described above. This bill would make any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document, void and unenforceable to the extent that it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure, as specified, that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster, as defined. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the owner of a separate interest in a common interest development who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. This bill would require any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document that subjects a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster to review by a body to be processed and approved, as specified. The bill would defined various terms for these purposes. The bill would require the body to, among other things, determine whether an application is complete or incomplete and to provide written notice of this determination to the applicant no later than 30 calendar days after the body receives the application. Once an application is deemed complete, the bill would require the body to conduct any review of the proposed modification to the separate interest within 45 calendar days, as specified. If a body finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant, as described. If an application is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as specified. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the applicant who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. (2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards and certain procedures are followed, including that the proponent of the development project requires in contracts with construction contractors that specified standards will be met in project construction, as specified. Existing law requires the proponent of the development project to make a specified certification that certain labor standards will be met and requires the prime contractor to provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury, as specified. This bill would authorize a housing development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the housing development satisfies certain objective standards, including that the housing development is located on a parcel on which a residential structure was destroyed or damaged in a disaster. The bill would require a local government to approve the development within 90 days of the submittal of the development if the local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the development is consistent with specified objective planning standards. If the development is determined to be in conflict with those standards, the bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department that made the determination to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as specified. By mandating a higher level of service on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that an ordinance that precludes specified placements and uses of manufactured homes, mobilehomes, or recreational vehicles for use during the reconstruction or repair of any home damaged or destroyed in a disaster is unenforceable for a period of 3 years following the disaster declaration. The bill would require the housing development proponent to comply with certain labor standards, including that the housing development proponent will comply with the above-described labor standards, including the requirements that the development proponent make the specified certification and that the prime contractor provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury. By imposing certification and penalty of perjury requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it determines that the project would not have that effect, as provided. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would provide that its streamlined, ministerial approval process for a housing development, as described above, offers an optional streamlined, ministerial approval process and does not affect the availability, applicability, or use of any other exemption from CEQA. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to the approval of a housing development that would otherwise be discretionary, the bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. (4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (5) 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 specified reasons.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2027, for a project, located in a geographic area for which the Governor declared a state of emergency on or after January 1, 2023, that is to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed by wildfire, and the project is not otherwise exempt from CEQA, as specified, the lead agency to prepare the record of proceeding concurrently with the administrative process. The bill would also require an action or proceeding brought to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the certification of an environmental impact report, or the adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, for the project to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 calendar days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings. The bill would require an applicant to agree to pay the costs of the trial court and court of appeal in hearing and deciding any action or proceeding brought under these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court to implement these requirements. The bill would require the project to be consistent with the applicable zoning and land use ordinances. By requiring a lead agency to prepare the record of proceedings concurrently with the administrative process, 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.
(1) The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, "full cash value" is defined as the assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Existing law defines "newly constructed" and "new construction" to mean any addition to real property since the last lien date and any alteration of land or of any improvement since the last lien date that constitutes a major rehabilitation thereof or that converts the property to a different use. Existing law, where real property has been damaged or destroyed by misfortune or calamity, excludes from the definition of "newly constructed" and "new construction" any timely reconstruction of the real property, or portion thereof, where the property after reconstruction is substantially equivalent to the property prior to damage or destruction. Existing law, pursuant to the authorization of the California Constitution, authorizes the transfer of the base year value of property that is substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor, to comparable replacement property within the same county that is acquired or newly constructed within 5 years after the disaster, as provided. Existing law authorizes the owner of property substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor, to apply the base year value of that property to replacement property reconstructed on the same site of the damaged or destroyed property within 5 years after the disaster if the reconstructed property is comparable to the substantially damaged or destroyed property, determined as provided. This bill would extend the 5-year time period described above by 3 years if the property was substantially damaged or destroyed by the 2025 Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, Hurst Fire, Lidia Fire, Sunset Fire, or Woodley Fire, or the 2024 Mountain Fire or Franklin Fire, on or after November 1, 2024, but before February 1, 2025. The bill would make these provisions applicable to the determination of base year values for the 2025–26 fiscal year and fiscal years thereafter. By imposing additional duties on local tax officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to authorize local governments to provide for the assessment or reassessment of taxable property physically damaged or destroyed after the lien date to which the assessment or reassessment relates. Existing property tax law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county, by ordinance, to provide that every assessee of any taxable property, or any person liable for the taxes thereon, whose property was damaged or destroyed without their fault, may apply for reassessment of that property, as provided. Existing property tax law requires, for property to be eligible for reassessment under these provisions, that the damage or destruction be caused by one of 3 specified occurrences, including a major misfortune or calamity in an area or region subsequently proclaimed by the Governor to be in a state of disaster if the property was damaged or destroyed by the misfortune or calamity that caused the Governor to proclaim the region to be in a state of disaster. Existing property tax law generally requires that an application for reassessment be filed within the latter of the time specified in the county's ordinance or within 12 months of the misfortune or calamity and be executed under penalty of perjury. This bill would also authorize a local government to provide for the assessment or reassessment of taxable property damaged by a major misfortune or calamity in an area or regions subsequently proclaimed to be in a state of emergency, as specified. The bill would authorize the local government by ordinance to provide the assessor the discretion to determine the appropriate date of damage for the purposes of reassessment. This bill would, in the case of property damaged or destroyed by the 2025 Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, Hurst Fire, Lidia Fire, Sunset Fire, or Woodley Fire, or the 2024 Mountain Fire or Franklin Fire, extend the period to file for reassessment to the latter of the time specified in the county's ordinance or within 24 months of the fires. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing property tax law provides, pursuant to the authorization of the California Constitution, a disabled veteran's property tax exemption for the principal place of residence of a veteran or a veteran's spouse, including an unmarried surviving spouse, if the veteran, because of an injury incurred in military service, is blind in both eyes, has lost the use of 2 or more limbs, or is totally disabled, as those terms are defined, or if the veteran has, as a result of a service-connected injury or disease, died while on active duty in military service. Existing law, for purposes of this exemption, deems property to be the principal place of residence of a veteran if the veteran is confined to a hospital or other care facility, as provided. This bill would additionally deem property to be the principal place of residence of a veteran if a dwelling on the property was completely destroyed in a disaster for which the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency and specified conditions are met. (4) Existing property tax law, in accordance with the California Constitution, provides for various exemptions for property used exclusively for a specified exempt purpose. This bill, in the case of property impacted by the 2025 Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, Hurst Fire, Lidia Fire, Sunset Fire, or Woodley Fire, or the 2024 Mountain Fire or Franklin Fire, would deem property to be eligible for a use-based exemption, as specified, if the property received an exemption for the 2025 calendar year, the property is no longer used for an exempt purpose due to damage from the fires, and certain other conditions are met, including that the property has not changed ownership since the commencement date of the applicable disaster. The bill would make these provisions operative only for lien dates prior to January 1, 2033. (5) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles and the County of Ventura. (6) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (7) Existing law requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law authorizes a local authority, as defined, to adopt a program to regulate sidewalk vendors if the program complies with specified standards. These standards include restricting the local authority from requiring a sidewalk vendor to operate within specific parts of the public right-of-way, except when that restriction is directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns. A violation of these provisions is punishable only by an administrative fine, as specified. This bill would prohibit a local authority, except as otherwise required by state or federal law, from providing voluntary consent to any individual to access, review, or obtain certain records of the local authority that include personally identifiable information of any sidewalk vendors in the jurisdiction without a subpoena or judicial warrant. The bill would also prohibit a local authority and its personnel from disclosing or providing in writing, verbally, or in any other manner personally identifiable information of any sidewalk vendor that is requested, except pursuant to a subpoena or a valid judicial warrant. The bill would define "personally identifiable information," for these purposes, to include an individual's name, business name, home address, business address, birthdate, telephone number, California driver's license or identification, and other related information. The bill would also define "immigration enforcement" for these purposes. Existing law authorizes a local authority to adopt additional requirements regulating the time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending if the requirements are directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns. These include requiring the sidewalk vendor to obtain from the local authority a permit or valid business license, provided that the local authority issuing the permit or business license accepts a California driver's license or identification number, an individual taxpayer identification number, or a municipal identification number in lieu of a social security number for the issuance of a permit or business license, and that the number collected is not disclosed, except as specified. This bill would also prohibit a local authority, in the above-described circumstances, from inquiring into or collecting information about an individual's immigration or citizenship status, place of birth, or individual criminal history, or requiring an applicant to submit fingerprints, complete a LiveScan fingerprinting, or submit to a background check as part of an application for a permit or business license. The bill would require a local authority that inquired into or collected information or documentation regarding an individual's place of birth or criminal history, required an applicant to submit fingerprints or complete a LiveScan fingerprinting, or performed a background check before January 1, 2026, to destroy those records on or before March 1, 2026, unless those records are expressly required by law to be preserved. The bill would provide that specified personally identifiable information collected by a local authority is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. This bill would prohibit an agency or department of a local authority, including any nonpublic entity working on the local authority's behalf, as provided, from using local authority moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for certain purposes, and from engaging in specified activities related to immigration enforcement, when enforcing certain provisions regulating sidewalk vendors. The bill, for specified contracts between a nonpublic entity and a local authority entered into or modified on or after January 1, 2026, would require a nonpublic entity to explicitly agree to adhere to these provisions and would immediately terminate the contract if it is found that the nonpublic entity has violated these provisions. (2) Existing law, the California Retail Food Code (the code) , establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities and requires local health agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law requires compact mobile food operations to meet specified health and safety standards. For purposes of the code, a "compact mobile food operation," means a mobile food facility that operates from an individual or from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions by an operator or employee of a compact mobile food operation or a sidewalk vendor punishable only by an administrative fine, as specified. This bill would prohibit an enforcement agency, including any nonpublic entity working on the enforcement agency's behalf, as provided, from using enforcement agency moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for certain purposes, and from engaging in specified activities related to immigration enforcement, when enforcing certain provisions regulating compact mobile food operations. The bill, for specified contracts between a nonpublic entity and an enforcement agency entered into or modified on or after January 1, 2026, would require a nonpublic entity to explicitly agree to adhere to these provisions and would immediately terminate the contract if it is found that the nonpublic entity has violated these provisions. This bill would also prohibit an enforcement agency from providing voluntary consent to any individual to access, review, or obtain certain records of the enforcement agency that include personally identifiable information of any sidewalk vendor or operator or employee of a compact mobile food operation in the jurisdiction without a subpoena or judicial warrant. The bill would further prohibit a local authority and its personnel from disclosing or providing in writing, verbally, or in any other manner personally identifiable information of any sidewalk vendor that is requested, except pursuant to a subpoena or a valid judicial warrant. Existing law prohibits a food facility from being open for business without a valid permit and requires a permit to be issued by the enforcement agency when investigation has determined that the proposed facility and its methods of operation conform to code requirements. This bill would require a permit application for a compact mobile food operation to comply with specified requirements. In this regard, the bill would require an enforcement agency to accept a California driver's license or identification number, an individual taxpayer identification, or a municipal identification number in lieu of a social security number. The bill would also prohibit an enforcement agency from, among other things, inquiring into the individual's immigration status, citizenship status, or criminal history, as prescribed. The bill would further require an enforcement agency that inquired into or collected information or documentation regarding an individual's place of birth or criminal history, required an applicant to submit fingerprints or complete a LiveScan fingerprinting, or performed a background check before January 1, 2026, to destroy those records on or before March 1, 2026, unless those records are expressly required by law to be preserved. The bill would provide that specified personally identifiable information collected by an enforcement agency is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The bill would make other related changes to these provisions. To the extent the bill would impose new requirements on local governmental agencies, it would create a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law requires the department, subject to any necessary federal approvals and the availability of federal financial participation, to make Medi-Cal payments to designated public hospitals (DPHs) and their affiliated government entities, as defined, in recognition of the Medi-Cal managed care share of graduate medical education (GME) costs. Existing law requires that the payments consist of direct and indirect GME payments made in recognition and support of the direct costs incurred in the operation of GME programs and the increased operating and patient care costs associated with teaching programs, respectively. Under existing law, the nonfederal share of these payments consists of voluntary intergovernmental transfers (IGTs) of funds provided by DPHs or their affiliated government entities, or other eligible public entities, as specified. Under existing law, the continuously appropriated DPH GME Special Fund is established for these purposes. This bill would require the department, subject to any necessary federal approvals and the availability of federal financial participation, to make additional Medi-Cal payments to district and municipal public hospitals (DMPHs) , defined as nondesignated public hospitals, and to their affiliated government entities, in recognition of the Medi-Cal managed care share of GME costs. Under the bill, these payments would be made in a manner consistent with the methodology for GME payments to DPHs and their affiliated government entities and would consist of the above-described direct and indirect GME payment components. The bill would authorize the department to seek federal approval for other forms of GME payments to DMPHs and their affiliated government entities, as specified. Under the bill, the nonfederal share of payments under these provisions would consist of voluntary IGTs of funds provided by DMPHs or their affiliated government entities, or other eligible public entities, to the extent permitted under certain federal regulations and other applicable federal Medicaid laws, and with no state General Fund moneys being used to fund the nonfederal share of payments. The bill would establish the DMPH GME Special Fund, with moneys deposited being continuously appropriated to the department for purposes of these provisions. The bill would require the department to seek any necessary federal approvals for GME payments, effective no sooner than January 1, 2026. The bill would authorize the Director of Health Care Services to modify the requirements set forth in these provisions to the extent necessary to meet federal requirements or to maximize federal financial participation, as specified.
Existing law establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, with various responsibilities with respect to developing and implementing the state's energy policies. Existing law requires, as part of the 2027 edition of the integrated energy policy report, the commission to include an assessment of the potential for fusion energy to contribute to California's power supply. Existing law requires the commission to carry out technical assessment studies on all forms of energy, including, among others, advanced nuclear powerplant concepts, fusion, and fuel cells. This bill would establish the Fusion Research and Development Innovation Initiative within the commission to accelerate the development and growth of fusion energy by advancing fusion science and technology. The bill would require the commission to administer the initiative and provide financial incentives for projects that, among other things, advance research and development into fusion energy, accelerate the deployment of new research and technology capabilities that support the commercialization of fusion energy, or achieve the initiative's goal of delivering the world's first fusion energy pilot project in the state by the 2040s, as specified. The bill would make its provisions operative, and implementation of its provisions contingent, upon an appropriation by the Legislature for the initiative. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2028.
The California Safe Drinking Water Act provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various duties and responsibilities for the regulation and control of drinking water in the State of California. The act requires the state board to adopt primary drinking water standards for contaminants in drinking water based upon specified criteria, and requires a primary drinking water standard to be established for hexavalent chromium. Existing law authorizes the state board to grant a variance from primary drinking water standards to a public water system. This bill would prohibit a public water system that meets the total chromium maximum contaminant level (MCL) enforceable standard for drinking water in California from being determined, held, considered, or otherwise deemed in violation of the primary drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium while implementing a state board approved compliance plan or while state board action on the proposed and submitted compliance plan is pending, except as provided.
Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to update every 5 years the plan for the orderly and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, and use of the water resources of the state, which is known as "The California Water Plan." Existing law requires the department to include a discussion of various strategies in the plan update, including, but not limited to, strategies relating to the development of new water storage facilities, water conservation, water recycling, desalination, conjunctive use, and water transfers, that may be pursued in order to meet the future needs of the state. Existing law requires the department to establish an advisory committee to assist the department in updating the plan. This bill would revise and recast certain provisions regarding The California Water Plan to, among other things, require the department to expand the membership of the advisory committee to include, among others, tribes, labor, and environmental justice interests. The bill would require the department, as part of the 2033 update to the plan, to update the interim planning target for 2050, as provided. The bill would require the target to consider the identified and future water needs for all beneficial uses, including, but not limited to, urban uses, agricultural uses, tribal uses, and the environment, and ensure safe drinking water for all Californians, among other things. The bill would require the plan to include specified components, including a discussion of the estimated costs, benefits, and impacts of any project type or action that is recommended by the department within the plan that could help achieve the water supply targets. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature the amendments, supplements, and additions included in the updates of the plan, together with a summary of the department's conclusions and recommendations, in the session in which the updated plan is issued. The bill would also require the department to conduct public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan.