(1) Existing law permits the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency during conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property, including epidemics. Existing law provides that the proclamation takes effect immediately, affords specified powers to the Governor, and terminates upon further proclamation by the Governor. The Governor proclaimed a state of emergency March 4, 2020, related to the COVID-19 pandemic. An executive order issued by the Governor on March 27, 2020, and extended on May 29, 2020, prohibits the eviction of residential tenants during the pendency of a state of emergency, except as specified. Under the executive order, this protection is effective through July 28, 2020. Existing law establishes a procedure, known as an unlawful detainer action, that a landlord must follow in order to evict a tenant. Existing law provides that a tenant is subject to such an action if the tenant continues to possess the property without permission of the landlord in specified circumstances, including when the tenant has violated the lease by defaulting on rent or failing to perform a duty under the lease. Existing law, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits, with certain exceptions, an owner of residential real property from increasing the gross rental rate for a dwelling or unit more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living, as defined, or 10%, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for the immediately preceding 12 months, subject to specified conditions. This bill would authorize an owner of real property and a tenant to sign and execute a tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement that, during a state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and unspecified additional days, would allow the tenant to defer the tenant's unpaid rent, and would prohibit the owner from serving a notice terminating the tenancy or filing a complaint for unlawful detainer for that unpaid rent or during the state of emergency, unless an exception applies. The agreement would require the tenant to repay the unpaid rent to the state as installments in accordance with a specified repayment schedule, or ahead of the repayment schedule, during taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034. The bill would require the owner of real property to offer the tenant a signed copy of the agreement, along with a specified notice, prior to executing the tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement, and would make related changes. The bill would require the owner of real property to obtain a signed acknowledgment of receipt from the tenant if the tenant declines the offer. If the tenant does not respond to the offer, the bill would require the owner to confirm, under penalty of perjury, that the owner hand-delivered or mailed the offer. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would void any demand for the payment of unpaid rent accrued, or any notice to terminate tenancy served, beginning on March 4, 2020, upon the declaration of the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and until the state of emergency is terminated, as provided. The bill would, during the state of emergency, prohibit an owner of real property from demanding payment of unpaid rent, serving a notice terminating tenancy, or filing a complaint for unlawful detainer, among other things, unless the owner includes a signed acknowledgment of receipt or a sworn confirmation of a rejected offer for a tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement. This bill would grant a tenant who has entered into a COVID-19 eviction relief agreement an affirmative defense in any unlawful detainer action brought by the owner. The bill would also stay any eviction action where a party to the eviction action produces a signed COVID-19 eviction relief agreement. (2) Existing law authorizes the Franchise Tax Board to require any person to withhold for income tax purposes an amount of a taxpayer's income, as specified, that reasonably represents the amount of tax due, as determined by the board. Existing law also provides for the collection of various debts by the Franchise Tax Board, including fines, state or local penalties, bail, forfeitures, restitution fines, restitution orders, and other amounts imposed by specified state courts and delinquent tax debt due to the federal Internal Revenue Service. This bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to calculate the repayment installments of unpaid rent, and would authorize a tenant to apply for reduction or forgiveness of repayment installments depending on the taxpayer's income. The bill would require specified persons to withhold the amount of each installment from each tenant's income during taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, as provided. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to transfer these moneys to the Treasurer to be deposited in the General Fund. This bill would specify that any deferment or repayment of rent authorized under these provisions is not included when determining the lowest gross rental rate for purposes of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (3) Existing law, the Personal Income Tax Law, and the Corporation Tax Law, impose taxes upon taxable income, and in conformity with federal income tax law, generally defines "gross income" for purposes of those laws as income from whatever source derived, except as specifically excluded, and provides various exclusions from gross income. Existing law authorizes various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. Existing law establishes the continuously appropriated Tax Relief and Refund Account in the General Fund and provides that payments required to be made to taxpayers or other persons from the Personal Income Tax Fund are to be paid from that account, including any amount allowable as an earned income tax credit in excess of any tax liabilities. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, would exclude from gross income the gross amount of unpaid rent in a signed and executed tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement that is reduced or forgiven by the Franchise Tax Board, as described above. This bill would allow a credit against those taxes for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, to a qualified taxpayer who is an owner of real property, as specified, in an amount equal to the gross amount of unpaid rent deferred by the qualified taxpayer in a signed and executed tenant-owner COVID-19 eviction relief agreement between the qualified taxpayer and a tenant that meets the requirements described above, or in an amount equal to the gross amount of unpaid rent deferred plus inflation of at least 2% if the qualified taxpayer is a small business owner. The bill would require the qualified taxpayer to register with the Franchise Tax Board, and would require the board to approve the reservation, as specified. The bill would authorize the qualified taxpayer to claim the credit in any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2034, of the qualified taxpayer's choosing, or to sell the credit to an unrelated party, subject to specified conditions. If the amount allowable as a credit exceeds the qualified taxpayer's tax liability for the taxable year, the bill would authorize the qualified taxpayer to choose whether to be refunded the balance from the Tax Relief and Refund Account upon appropriation by the Legislature or to carry over the balance to reduce the taxpayer's tax liability in the following taxable years, as provided. The bill would require the Director of Finance to make certain adjustments relating to the General Fund and the operation of the provisions of the bill. (4) 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
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all households pursuant to specified law, existing law requires the local government to rezone sites within specified time periods and that this rezoning accommodate 100% of the need for housing for very low and low-income households on sites that will be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for specified developments. This bill, the Neighborhood Homes Act, would deem a housing development project, as defined, an allowable use on a neighborhood lot, which is defined as a parcel within an office or retail commercial zone. The bill would require the density for a housing development under these provisions to meet or exceed the density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households according to the type of local jurisdiction, including a density of at least 20 units per acre for a suburban jurisdiction. The bill would require the housing development to meet all other local requirements for a neighborhood lot, other than those that prohibit residential use, or allow residential use at a lower density than that required by the bill. The bill would provide that a housing development under these provisions is subject to the local zoning, parking, design, and other ordinances, local code requirements, and procedures applicable to the processing and permitting of a housing development in a zone that allows for the housing with the density required by the act. The bill would also require that a housing development under these provisions comply with public notice, comment, hearing, or other procedures applicable to a housing development in a zone with the applicable density. The bill would provide that the existing zoning designation applies if the existing zoning designation for the parcel allows residential use at a density greater than that required by these provisions. The bill would require a local agency to require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to the bill's provisions be for a term longer than 30 days. The bill would authorize a local agency to exempt a neighborhood lot from these provisions in its land use element of the general plan if the local agency concurrently reallocates the lost residential density to other lots so that there is no net loss in residential density in the jurisdiction, as provided. The bill would specify that it does not alter or affect the application of any housing, environmental, or labor law applicable to a housing development authorized by these provisions, including, but not limited to, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Housing Accountability Act, obligations to affirmatively further fair housing, and any state or local affordability laws or tenant protection laws. The bill would require an applicant of a housing development under these provisions to provide notice of a pending application to each commercial tenant of the neighborhood lot. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by the Neighborhood Homes Act address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project, as defined for purposes of the act, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. That act states that it shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring a housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, except as provided. That act further provides that a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. The bill would provide that for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed housing development project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if the housing development project is consistent with the standards applied to the parcel pursuant to specified provisions of the Neighborhood Homes Act and if none of the square footage in the project is designated for hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging use, except for a residential hotel, as defined. The Planning and Zoning Law, until January 1, 2026, also authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a multifamily housing development that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including a requirement that the site on which the development is proposed is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least 23 of the square footage of the development designated for residential use. Under that law, the proposed development is also required to be consistent with objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time the development is submitted to the local government. This bill would permit the development to be proposed for a site zoned for office or retail commercial use if the site has had no commercial tenants on 50% or more of its total usable net interior square footage for a period of at least 3 years prior to the submission of the application. The bill would also provide that a project located on a neighborhood lot, as defined, shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards, objective design standards, and objective subdivision standards if the project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Neighborhood Homes Act. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes a local agency to establish a community facilities district to finance various services, including police protection, fire protection, recreation programs, and library services, and provides for the annexation of territory to an existing community facilities district. This bill would authorize an applicant seeking to develop a housing project on a neighborhood lot to request that a local agency establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, or to request that the neighborhood lot be annexed to an existing community facilities district, as specified, to finance improvements and services to the units proposed to be developed. The bill would prohibit any further proceedings to be taken to annex the territory, or to authorize that annexation in the future, for a period of one year from the decision of the legislative body at the hearing on the annexation if a specified number or groups of persons, including 50% or more of the registered voters or 6 registered voters, whichever is more, residing within the territory proposed for annexation or proposed to be annexed in the future, file written protests with the legislative body. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing any development, impact, or mitigation fee, charge, or exaction in connection with the approval of a development project to the extent that those facilities and services are funded by a community facilities district established pursuant to these provisions. By imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to local planning and zoning, 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.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, among other things, requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove that project within specified time periods. This bill would extend by 18 months the period for the expiration, effectuation, or utilization of a housing entitlement, as defined, that was issued before, and was in effect on, March 4, 2020, and that will expire before December 31, 2021, except as specified. The bill would toll this 18-month extension during any time that the housing entitlement is the subject of a legal challenge. The bill would also provide that if the state or a local agency extends, on or after March 4, 2020, but before the effective date of the bill, the otherwise applicable time for the expiration, effectuation, or utilization of a housing entitlement for not less than 18 months and pursuant to the same conditions provided by this bill, that housing entitlement shall not be extended an additional 18 months pursuant to this bill. 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. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to housing entitlements, 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) Existing law imposes various fees contingent upon a criminal arrest, prosecution, or conviction for the cost of administering the criminal justice system, including administering probation and diversion programs, collecting restitution orders, processing arrests and citations, administering drug testing, and incarcerating inmates. This bill would repeal the authority to collect most of these fees, among others. The bill would make the unpaid balance of most court-imposed costs unenforceable and uncollectible and would require any portion of a judgment imposing those costs to be vacated. (2) Existing law allows the board of supervisors of any county to establish the office of the public defender and requires the public defender to defend, without expense to the defendant, any person who is not financially able to employ counsel and who is charged with the commission of a crime. Existing law allows the court to hold a hearing to determine whether a defendant owns an interest in real property or other assets and to impose a lien on the property. Upon conclusion of trial, existing law allows the court to make a determination of a defendant's present ability to pay all or a portion of the cost of the public defender. If the court finds that the defendant has the financial ability to pay, existing law requires the court to order the defendant to pay all or a part of the costs the court believes reasonable and compatible with the defendant's financial ability. This bill would delete the authority of the court to impose liens on the defendant's property and make a post-trial determination of the defendant's ability to pay and to order the defendant to pay the costs of the public defender. By requiring a county to provide a public defender without charge to a defendant who may have the ability to pay, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law allows the court to impose a civil assessment of up to $300 against a defendant who fails, after notice and without good cause, to appear in court or who fails to pay all or any portion of a fine ordered by the court. This bill would repeal the authority of the court to impose that assessment. (4) Existing law requires a person who has been convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug to install an ignition interlock device on the vehicle that person operates. Existing law requires a manufacturer certified to provide ignition interlock devices to adopt a fee schedule for the payment of costs of the device in an amount commensurate with a defendant's ability to pay. Existing law requires that a person subject to this requirement pay a percentage of the cost of the ignition interlock device program, up to the full cost, based on the person's income. This bill would prohibit the person from being responsible for the costs of the certified ignition interlock device or servicing by the installer of the device. (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, 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.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various deductions in computing the income that is subject to the taxes imposed by those laws, including a deduction for net operating losses, which may be carried back for 20 taxable years preceding the taxable year of the loss, as specified. The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, in conformity with federal income tax law, generally define "gross income" for purposes of computing taxable income as income from whatever source derived, except as specifically excluded, and provides various exclusions from gross income. This bill would allow a taxpayer under either the Personal Income Tax Law or the Corporation Tax Law to transfer any tax loss, as defined, to an unrelated party, as provided. The bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and before January 1, 2026, would provide for an additional exclusion from the taxpayer's "gross income" under both of those laws any amount received by a taxpayer in exchange for a tax loss transferred under this bill if the taxpayer invests that amount in an affordable housing project or a corporation, partnership, or limited liability company that is engaged in providing affordable housing, as provided, within 180 days of receipt. The bill would authorize the Franchise Tax Board to adopt regulations to implement these provisions and exempt those regulations from the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Existing law requires a bill that would authorize a new tax expenditure, as defined, under the Personal Income Tax Law or the Corporation Tax Law, or an exemption from the taxes imposed by the Sales and Use Tax Law to contain specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax expenditure will achieve and detailed performance indicators and data collection requirements for determining whether the new credit achieves these goals, purposes, and objectives. This bill would make findings specifying the goals, purposes, and objectives of the exclusions from "gross income" allowed by the bill will achieve and detailed performance indicators and data collection requirements for determining whether those exclusions achieve these goals, purposes, and objectives.
The California Constitution authorizes any person who is a United States citizen, at least 18 years of age, and a resident of the state to vote. This measure, in addition, would authorize a United States citizen who is 17 years of age, is a resident of the state, and will be at least 18 years of age at the time of the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that occurs before the next general election in which the citizen would be eligible to vote if at least 18 years of age.
The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%. The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to authorize a person over 55 years of age or any severely and permanently disabled person residing in property eligible for the homeowner's exemption to transfer the base year value of that property to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county, or another county that has adopted an ordinance allowing base years value transfers from other counties, as provided. The California Constitution also provides that the purchase or transfer of the first $1,000,000 of the principal residence of a transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, is not a "purchase" or "change in ownership" for purposes of determining the "full cash value" of property for taxation. This measure, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, would authorize an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster, as defined, to transfer the taxable value, defined as the base year value plus inflation adjustments, of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in the state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that person's principal residence within 2 years of the sale of the original primary residence. The measure would limit a person who is over 55 years of age or severely disabled to 3 transfers under these provisions. The measure, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, would exclude from the terms "purchase" and "change in ownership" for purposes of determining the "full cash value" of property the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, if the property continues as the family home of the transferee. The measure would require that the taxable value of the property be determined as provided. In the case of property tax benefits provided to a family home under these provisions, the bill would require the transferee to claim the homeowner's exemption within one year of the transfer. The measure would specify that the above-described provisions relating to transfers between parents or grandparents and children or grandchildren would apply to transfers occurring on or before February 15, 2021. The measure would establish the California Fire Response Fund in the State Treasury. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on calculations by the Director of Finance, the additional revenues and savings that accrued to the state from the implementation of this measure's provisions from the General Fund to that fund. However, the measure would provide that, if the amount required to be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund exceeds the amount transferred for the previous fiscal year by more than 10%, that excess amount would not be transferred to the California Fire Response Fund. The measure would require the Legislature to appropriate moneys in the fund solely for the purpose of funding fire suppression staffing by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and underfunded special districts that provide fire protection services, as provided. The measure would also establish the County Revenue Protection Fund and continuously appropriate moneys in that fund for the purpose of reimbursing eligible local agencies, as provided. The measure would require the Controller to annually transfer a specified amount, based on the above-described calculations by the Director of Finance, from the General Fund to that fund. The measure would require each county to annually determine the gain of the county and any local agency within the county resulting from the implementation of this measure and, if that amount of gain is negative, provide that specified eligible local agencies may receive a reimbursement from the County Revenue Protection Fund. The measure would require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration provide a reimbursement to each eligible local agency that has a negative gain, determined every 3 years based on the aggregate gain of the eligible local agency, as provided, and require the Controller to transfer any remaining balance in the County Revenue Protection Fund to the General Fund at the end of each 3-year period, to be available for appropriation for any purpose.
Under existing law, a registered voter may vote by mail by requesting a vote by mail ballot for a specific election or by becoming a permanent vote by mail voter. County elections officials must begin mailing ballots and other required materials to these voters no later than 29 days before the day of the election. Existing law, the California Voter's Choice Act, authorizes any county to conduct any election occurring on or after January 1, 2020, as an all-mailed ballot election if specified conditions are met. In an all-mailed ballot election held under the act, the county elections official must mail a ballot to every registered voter, regardless of whether the voter requested a vote by mail ballot or is a permanent vote by mail voter. This bill would require county elections officials to mail a ballot to every registered voter for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election. Existing law requires county elections officials to permit voters with a disability, and military or overseas voters, to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system. This bill would require county elections officials to permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election. Existing law requires the Secretary of State to establish, by January 1, 2020, a system that a county elections official may use to allow a voter to track the voter's vote by mail ballot through the mail system and processing by the county elections official. County elections officials are not required to use the system, however. This bill would require county elections officials to use the Secretary of State's system, or a system that meets the same specifications, for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election. Under existing law, a vote by mail ballot is timely cast if it is voted on or before election day and, if returned by mail, received by the voter's elections official via the United States Postal Service, or a bona fide private mail delivery company, no later than 3 days after election day. This bill would, for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, extend the deadline by which vote by mail ballots must be received by the county elections official to the 17th day after election day. Under existing law, any jurisdiction having the necessary computer capability may start to process vote by mail ballots on the 10th business day before the election. This processing includes opening vote by mail ballot return envelopes, removing ballots, duplicating any damaged ballots, and preparing the ballots to be machine read, or machine reading them, including processing write-in votes so that they can be tallied by the machine, but under no circumstances may a vote count be accessed or released until 8 p.m. on the day of the election. This bill would authorize these jurisdictions, for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, to begin processing vote by mail ballots on the 29th day before the election. By requiring county elections officials to mail a ballot to every registered voter, and to take other actions expanding vote by mail voting, including making remote accessible voting available to all voters, 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, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards prescribe waste discharge requirements for the discharge of stormwater by municipalities and industries in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires regulated municipalities and industries to obtain a stormwater permit. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 provides the authority and procedure for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization, reorganization, and sphere of influence changes for cities and districts, as specified. This bill would establish municipal wastewater agencies and would authorize a municipal wastewater agency, among other things, to enter into agreements with entities responsible for stormwater management for the purpose of managing stormwater and dry weather runoff, to acquire, construct, expand, operate, maintain, and provide facilities for specified purposes relating to managing stormwater and dry weather runoff, and to levy taxes, fees, and charges consistent with the municipal wastewater agency's existing authority in order to fund projects undertaken pursuant to the bill. The bill would require the exercise of any new authority granted under the bill to comply with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. To the extent this requirement would impose new duties on local agency formation commissions, the 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, 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, the Urban Water Management Planning Act, requires every public and private urban water supplier that directly or indirectly provides water for municipal purposes to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan. The act requires an urban water management plan to include a water shortage contingency plan, as provided. Existing law required the Department of Water Resources, in consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board and other relevant state and local agencies and stakeholders, to use available data to identify, no later than January 1, 2020, small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability. Existing law required the department, in consultation with the state board, to propose to the Governor and the Legislature, by January 1, 2020, recommendations and guidance relating to the development and implementation of countywide drought and water shortage contingency plans to address the planning needs of small water suppliers and rural communities, as provided. This bill would require a small water supplier, as defined, with 1,000 to 2,999 service connections, inclusive, to prepare and adopt a small water supplier water shortage contingency plan that consists of specified elements. The bill would require a small water supplier with 15 to 999 service connections, inclusive, to take specified actions related to water shortage planning and response. The bill would require small water suppliers to provide to the public, and to report, the plan and specified water shortage planning information, as prescribed. This bill would require a county at risk of drought or water shortage, as determined by the department and the state board, to take specified actions related to water shortage planning and response, including, among other actions, including drought and water shortage planning information in the county's existing planning processes and establishing a county drought and water shortage task force. By imposing additional duties on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department, the state board, the Office of Emergency Services, or a relevant state agency to take specified actions to support a county's implementation of these provisions. This bill would impose requirements on the department and the state board to support implementation of the recommendations of the department's County Drought and Advisory Group, including requiring the department to maintain its drought and water shortage risk vulnerability tool for small water suppliers and rural communities, requiring the state board to identify state small water systems, small water suppliers and rural communities, and concentrations of domestic wells in California through a data system similar to the department's data system for public water systems, and requiring the department, in consultation with the state board and relevant state agencies, to establish a standing interagency drought and water shortage task force, as prescribed. The bill would require a county drought and water shortage task force and the interagency drought and water shortage task force to include, among other representatives, representatives from local governments. By imposing additional requirements on local governments, the 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, 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.