HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - - Additional Documents - 2/16/2021From: Craig A Durfey [mailto:cadurfey@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 9:00 AM
To: GONZALEZ, GLADYS <GLADYS.GONZALEZ@costamesaca.gov>; Craig Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR URBAN PLANING FOR
GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN
SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC COMMENTS 02-16-2021
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: <kho@westminster-ca.gov>, Craig Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
please fwd to city council
thank you
craig
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:07 AM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: Ta, Tri <tta@westminster-ca.gov>, <ccnguyen@westminster-ca.gov>,
<cmanzo@westminster-ca.gov>, <kho@westminster-ca.gov>, Craig Durfey
<cadurfey@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:04 AM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: Doan, Linh <ldoan@westminster-ca.gov>, Craig Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:04 AM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: <ccordon@westminster-ca.gov>, Craig Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 7:51 AM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: <Rick.Miller@fountainvalley.org>, Craig Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 7:16 AM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: Beam, Adam <ABeam@ap.org>, Craig Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 7:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: Kelly McAmis <kmcamis@ggusd.us>, Craig Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Craig A Durfey <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR
URBAN PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: <voiceofoc@protonmail.com>, Nick Dibs <nickdibs1@gmail.com>, Craig Durfey
<cadurfey@gmail.com>, editor at oc-breeze.com <editor@oc-breeze.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <cadurfey@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:56 PM
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 02-18-2021 POOR URBAN
PLANING FOR GREEN SPACE TO PREVENT INCREASE BY 55 % LONG TERM
CHILDERN EXPOSURE TO LACK PARK GREEN SPACE./and GGUSD PUBLIC
COMMENTS 02-16-2021
To: : Maureen Blackmun <maureen.ggna@gmail.com>, <policechief@anaheim.net>,
<police@garden-grove.org>, <citymanager@ggcity.org>, Maria Stipe <marias@ci.garden-
grove.ca.us>, <JUDY@ggcity.org>, <Emily.Humpal@asm.ca.gov>, Charlie Larwood
<clarwood@octa.net>, Pam Haddad <pamha@ci.garden-grove.ca.us>, Carlos
<Carlos.Condarco@mail.house.gov>, Peter Sotherland <psotherland@octa.net>, Richard
<Richard.Santana@sen.ca.gov>
Cc: <cadurfey@gmail.com>, Maria Stipe <marias@ci.garden-grove.ca.us>,
<jdonnay@octa.net>, <boardofdirectors@octa.net>, "LLARSON@OCTA.NET"
<llarson@octa.net>, <Chris.Wangsaporn@ocgov.com>, <Christopher.Aguilera@asm.ca.gov>,
<channan@laocbuildingtrades.org>, <admin@voiceofoc.org>, <stephaniek@garden-grove.org>,
stevej <stevej@garden-grove.org>, <kimn@garden-grove.org>, <thuhan@garden-grove.org>,
<georgeb@ggcity.org>, <joneill@garden-grove.org>, <JONATHAN.DAVIS@sen.ca.gov>,
<JOHN.HANNA@asm.ca.gov>, <Joyce.Rivero@ocgov.com>, Phat Bui <phatb@ggcity.org>,
Lan Nguyen <lan.nguyen@ggusd.us>, <Lisa.Bartlett@ocgov.com>, <Gabriela Mafi >
<gmafi@ggusd.us>, Walter Muneton <walter.muneton@ggusd.us>, Bob Harden
<bob.harden@ggusd.us>, <response@ocgov.com>, <recreation@ci.garden-grove.ca.us>,
<ocbe@ocde.us>, OC Sheriff <jblashaw@ocsd.org>, <RANDYBLACK@ocfa.org>, Jim
Tortolano <orangecountytribune@gmail.com>, <DShawver@ci.stanton.ca.us>,
<GTaylor@ci.stanton.ca.us>, <RRamirez2@ci.stanton.ca.us>, <HAvan@ci.stanton.ca.us>,
CWarren@ci.stanton.ca.us <E-mail:>, <pvazquez@ci.stanton.ca.us>
02-15-2021
(P.R.D.D.C.)
PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN
CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C.
P.O.BOX 937 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92842
CELL 714-321-8238
CADURFEY@GMAIL.COM
SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.COM
FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY
U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS H2404 - HONORING CRAIG DURFEY FOR HIS FIGHT
AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf
new website socialemotionalpaws.org
CC.GGUSD BOARD
CC. City Garden Grove Council
cc. To whom it may concern.
Judy Moore
Planning Commission Secretary
Community and Economic Development Department
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Office: (714) 741-5121
E-mail: judym@ggcity.org
Dear Planning Commissioners
The of Garden Grove Park Master Plan dated Oct,22,2019 has yet to
begin implementing the recommendation to increase park acreage,
currently we are at .07 per 1,000 population the recommendations are
by 2030 of having two per acreage per 1,000 population. Without
correct acreage per 1,000 and not supporting GGUSD Mental Health
policy a report has identify ratification impacting our children mental
health https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145305/green-space-
is-good-for-mental-health In a sweeping nationwide study, researchers
from Denmark’s University of Aarhus found that childhood exposure to
green space—parks, forests, rural lands, etc.—reduces the risk for
developing an array of psychiatric disorders during adolescence and
adulthood. The study could have far-reaching implications for healthy
city design, making green space-focused urban planning an early
intervention tool for reducing mental health problems.
Using data from the Landsat satellite archive and the Danish Civil
Registration System, researchers tracked the residential green space
around nearly a million Danes and correlated that with their mental
health outcomes. The scientists found that citizens who grew up with
the least green space nearby had as much as a 55 percent increased
risk of developing psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety,
and substance abuse in later years.
The research was published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. It is the largest epidemiological study to
document a positive connection between green space and mental
health.
The impact of green space throughout childhood is significant.
Exposure to green space is comparable to family history and parental
age when predicting mental health outcomes. Only socioeconomic
status was a slightly stronger indicator.
I wrote a letter and the CC. to the prop 63 Commission about these
concerns above you have PDF to review my website on the blog
address these concerns as well as a recent update addition to my
website Garden Grove Down-Town GARDEN GROVE DOWN TOWN |
SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.ORG https://socialemotionalpaws.org/garden-
grove-down-town . As you will see the expansion of parks through
OCTA of the PE Rail to Dale street is vital to residents of Garden
Grove for mental wellness thus it requires awareness of our local
bodies of local government to carry to write resolution asking for a
State of California density of housing to equal acreage of 10 per
population as green prescription to attempt to seek Prop 63 funds to
expand parks and seek additional funds that are not being recognize
the local needs with upgrading parks repairs.
Parks and Improved Mental Health and Quality of Life More time spent
in parks and green spaces can help individuals fight against mental
health issues like depression, anxiety and stress. Making sure that all
people have access to parks and outdoor programming is a critical
way to increase these positive effects on health and quality of life for
your community.
The Facts • People living more than 1 kilometer away from a green
space have nearly 50 percent higher odds of experiencing stress than
those living less than 300 meters from a green space. Respondents
who do not report stress have more than 50 percent higher odds of
visiting a green space at least a few days a week than those reporting
stress.
Results also showed that the more often respondents visited green
spaces, the less stress they experienced. • Several studies have
confirmed that separation from nature is detrimental to human
development, health and wellbeing, and that regular contact with
nature is required for good mental health. • Scientists in the
Netherlands found that people who lived in residential areas with the
least green spaces had a 44 percent higher rate of physician
diagnosed anxiety disorders than people who lived in the greenest
residential areas. The effect was strongest among those most likely to
spend their time near home, including children and those with low
levels of education and income. • Physician-diagnosed depression was
33 percent higher in the residential areas with the fewest green
spaces, compared to the neighborhoods with the most. •
People who lived in close proximity to natural space had significantly
improved mental health up to three years after their move. Compared
to remove mental health scores, individuals who moved to greener
areas had significantly better mental health recorded three years after
the move. • Individuals reported less mental distress and higher life
satisfaction when they were living in greener areas. • A strong body of
evidence suggests that physical activity in green spaces has stronger
mental health benefits than physical activity in non-green spaces. •
Use of green spaces is associated with decreased health complaints,
improved blood pressure and cholesterol levels, reduced stress,
improved general health perceptions and a greater ability to face
problems https://www.nrpa.org/our-work/three-
pillars/healthwellness/parksandhealth/fact-sheets/parks-improved-
mental-health-quality-life/ One overlooked way we can significantly
improve our mental health: more nature You might grumble skeptically
at the notion that parks and plants make a real difference in our
happiness, but the research is convincing.
A pile of studies on the subject consistently points to a strong
connection between green space and mental health. In general,
scientists believe that experiences in "green space" can boost mental
health by improving the immune system, encouraging physical activity
and social interaction, limiting air pollution and noise that interferes
with thinking, and restoring a frenzied mind to a state of calm. Take a
study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences.
The researchers used data from Danish health registries for more than
940,000 children born between 1985 and 2003, and analyzed their
mental health outcomes in tandem with the green space surrounding
their homes. They found that the relative risk for developing a
psychiatric disorder in adolescence or adulthood was significantly
higher — from 15 to 55 percent — for those surrounded by the least
green space.
Even when the researchers controlled for parents' age and
socioeconomic status, family history of mental health, urbanization,
and municipal socioeconomic factors (think average income,
education, and unemployment where the child lived), green space
continued to have a protective benefit on mental health. The strongest
association between exposure to green space and increased risk of
developing a psychiatric disorder showed up for those who had lived in
downtown Copenhagen while the weakest was demonstrated in rural
Denmark.
There are questions the study can't answer, including whether people
with a higher genetic risk for mental illness would be more inclined to
choose denser urban areas, or whether unmeasured socioeconomic
factors like higher crime rates and lower-quality green space could
play a role in mental health outcomes. But this research begs us to
consider anew how exposure to nature in an urban environment could
enhance or hurt our mental health — and what we plan to do about
that. Kathleen Wolf, a research social scientist at the School of
Environmental & Forest Sciences at the University of Washington who
was not involved in the PNAS research, believes that this study and
others like it prove that we need to take green space seriously in
cities as a means for improving people's every-day quality of life and
wellbeing. "Can we, by way of urban greening and other interventions,
alleviate the pain and suffering before it happens?
'Blue' space: Access to water features can boost city dwellers' mental health
(theconversation.com)
GGADP_Final.pdf (ggcity.org)
Green Space is Good for Mental Health (nasa.gov)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145305/green-space-is-good-
for-mental-health
https://ggcity.org/sites/default/files/GGADP_Final.pdf
Governor’s budget proposal, relates to using federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund:
https://esd.dof.ca.gov/Documents/bcp/2122/FY2122_ORG3790_BCP4326.pdf
Outdoor Equity Program Application Guide
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/Outdoor_Equity_Program_Draft_Application
_Guide_12.30.20_for_Public_Comment_1.8.21_v8_1.15.21.pdf
'Blue' space: Access to water features can boost city dwellers' mental health
(theconversation.com)
https://theconversation.com/blue-space-access-to-water-features-can-boost-city-
dwellers-mental-health-122995
Baxter, Catherine Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:12 AM To: Craig A Durfey
Here is the website for the Outdoor Equity Grants Program established
at State Parks by AB 209 (Limón, Chapter 675, Statutes of 2019). State
Parks anticipates making $19 million available for funding in the first
round. State Parks is preparing guidelines for the program and
soliciting public input. Here are the draft program guidelines for public
comment. You can submit comments on the draft guidelines to
Richard.Rendon@parks.ca.gov. All comments are due by 5pm, 2/22/21.
Also, State Parks will be holding public hearings on the program at the
following times: · Thursday, February 11, 2021: 12:30pm to 3:30pm ·
Tuesday, February 16, 2021: 12:30pm to 3:30pm · Thursday, February
18, 2021: 12:30pm to 3:30pm
Garden Grove Unified School District Wellness Policy
gardengrove.healtheliving.net/wp-content/uploads/Wellness-Policy-FINAL.pdf
Wellness Policy Garden Grove Unified School District Board of
Education Lan Quoc Nguyen Bob Harden Walter Muneton Dina L.
Nguyen Teri Rocco Orbelin Portillo Superintendent of Schools Gabriela
Mafi, Ed.D . 2 STUDENT WELLNESS Students The Garden Grove Unified
School District, along with parents/guardians, the community, and
Governing Board ...
Thank You
Craig A. Durfey
The 2020-21 Budget:
Resources and
Environmental Protection
GABRIEL PETEK
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Overview of Governor’s Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Crosscutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Climate Change Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Wildfire Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Department of Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
New State Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Increasing Student Access to State Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund Insolvency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
California Department of Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Funding Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Department of Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Tijuana River and New River Restoration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Augmentations for Existing Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Department of Toxic Substances Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Board of Environmental Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Structural Shortfall of DTSC Special Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Department of Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
California Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) Division: Mission Transformation and Oversight 41
California Energy Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Appliance Efficiency Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Capital Outlay and Bond Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Proposition 68 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Several New Natural Resources Capital Outlay Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
1
Executive Summary
In this report, we assess several of the Governor’s budget proposals in the natural resources
and environmental protection areas . Based on our review, we recommend various changes, as
well as areas that would benefit from additional legislative oversight . In this summary, we describe
our major findings and recommendations . We provide a complete listing of our recommendations
at the end of this report .
In addition, our office has published two separate reports that include assessments and
recommendations related to natural resources and environmental protection programs .
The 2020-21 Budget: Climate Change Proposals reviews four proposals by the Governor related
to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts: (1) the cap-and-trade expenditure plan
($965 million), (2) climate-related research and technical assistance ($25 million), (3) a Climate
Catalyst Revolving Loan Fund ($250 million), and (4) a climate bond ($4 .8 billion) . The 2020-21
Budget: Wildfire-Related Proposals reviews 22 different proposals related to wildfire prevention,
mitigation, and response, including for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
and the California Natural Resources Agency . This report includes a brief summary of the key
recommendations from each of these reports .
Budget Provides $11 Billion for Programs
The Governor’s budget for 2020-21 proposes a total of $11 .4 billion in expenditures from
various fund sources for programs administered by the California Natural Resources ($7 .1 billion)
and Environmental Protection ($4 .3 billion) Agencies . The budget plan for these programs reflects
a net reduction of $1 billion (8 percent) compared to the current-year budgeted level . While there
is a net reduction in overall spending authority, the proposed budget is mostly consistent with
what was approved for the current year and generally does not reflect significant programmatic
reductions . Instead, the overall net spending reduction largely reflects the appropriation of
one-time funding in the current year . For example, the current-year budget provides natural
resources and environmental protection departments over $600 million more in one-time bond
funds from Proposition 68 (2018) than is proposed for the budget year .
Budget Includes Several Significant Fiscal and Policy Proposals
New Oversight Board for Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The
Governor’s budget plan includes $3 million from the General Fund for two years to establish a
Board of Environmental Safety to oversee DTSC, as well as perform specified responsibilities . We
recommend that the Legislature authorize the establishment of a new oversight board in order
to improve transparency and promote greater accountability of DTSC . However, if it chooses
to authorize a board, the Legislature will want to closely evaluate the different options for the
board’s structure and responsibilities to ensure that they align with legislative priorities . For
example, the Legislature may wish to consider how much authority the board should have to
direct DTSC’s day-to-day operations .
New Fee Structure for DTSC. The Governor’s budget includes two sets of changes to
address structural deficits in the Toxic Substances Control Account (TSCA) and Hazardous Waste
Control Account (HWCA)—two funds that support DTSC . First, the budget plan includes one-time
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
2
General Fund transfers totaling $13 million to address the structural deficits in the budget year .
Second, the Governor proposes budget trailer legislation to restructure various charges that
support the two funds on an ongoing basis . We recommend the Legislature wait to take action
on the Governor’s proposal to transfer General Fund to TSCA and HWCA until the May Revision
when updated information about the funds’ conditions will be available . We further recommend
the Legislature decide whether to establish a Board of Environmental Safety before weighing the
merits of the Governor’s proposals to restructure charges for TSCA and HWCA . The Legislature
may wish to consider whether the Governor’s budget trailer legislation to adjust TSCA and
HWCA would (1) create a charge structure that would cover the costs of both the departments’
existing mandated functions and potential program expansions, and (2) reflect the “polluter pays”
principle .
Purchase of a New State Park. The Governor’s budget includes $20 million from the
General Fund on a one-time basis to acquire land to create a new state park . The proposal lacks
numerous critical details, such as the properties the department is considering to create the new
park, metrics that will be used to select a property, and potential future costs to build-out and
maintain the park . Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature require the administration
to provide additional information on the proposal . Based on the information provided, the
Legislature may wish to approve, modify, or reject the proposal based on how the proposal aligns
with legislative budgetary and programmatic priorities .
Funding Enhancements for California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The
Governor proposes $19 million ongoing from the General Fund—transferred from the Habitat
Conservation Fund and Wildlife Conservation Board—and $20 million one time from the General
Fund to help CDFW better meet its mission, primarily for activities to protect fish and wildlife .
While we find that the proposed activities have merit, funding for the ongoing activities would
be shifted from other state conservation programs . We recommend the Legislature adopt the
one-time $20 million funding proposal because the resources will be used to make certain
department operations and maintenance activities more efficient . We further recommend the
Legislature weigh the relative trade-offs of the ongoing $19 million proposal with its other
conservation and General Fund priorities . Lastly, we recommend deferring action on a third
component of the Governor’s proposal—to extend funding scheduled to expire in 2021-22—
until next year when a more in-depth analysis of CDFW’s budget will be available .
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
3
OVERVIEW OF GOVERNOR’S BUDGET
In this section, we provide an overview of the
Governor’s 2020-21 budget plan for the state’s
natural resources and environmental protection
departments, including a brief description of the
main changes from the current year . Later in this
report, we provide more detailed assessments of
many of these specific proposals .
Overall Plan Mostly Similar to
Current Year
Total Spending of $11.4 Billion Proposed.
California’s Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Agencies oversee the activities of about
40 state departments, boards, and conservancies
whose missions are to protect and restore the
state’s natural resources and to ensure public
health and environmental quality . The Governor’s
2020-21 budget proposes total funding of
$11 .4 billion from all sources—the General Fund,
as well as special, bond, and federal funds—for
these entities . As shown in Figure 1, this reflects
a net reduction of $1 billion (8 percent) compared
to the current-year budgeted level . (Later in this
section, we compare proposed spending to revised
estimates for the current year, which have been
updated since the enactment of the budget .)
Net Reduction Mostly Reflects One-Time
Funding in Current Year. While there is a net
reduction in overall spending authority, the
proposed budget is mostly consistent with what
was approved for the current year and generally
does not reflect significant programmatic
reductions . Instead, the overall net spending
reduction largely reflects the appropriation of
one-time funding in the current
year . For example, the current-year
budget provides natural
resources and environmental
protection departments over
$600 million more in one-time
bond funds from Proposition 68
(2018) than is proposed for the
budget year . Partially offsetting
these reductions, the proposed
2020-21 budget also includes
various proposals for increased funding . We
summarize the most significant proposed budget
adjustments later in this section .
Summary of Natural Resources
Budget Changes
Total of $7.1 Billion Proposed for Natural
Resources Departments. As shown in Figure 2
(see next page), the Governor’s budget plan for
entities within the California Natural Resources
Agency (CNRA) includes a total of $7 .1 billion .
Almost half of this funding (including most of
the General Fund support) is for the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)
and debt service on past natural resources-related
general obligation bonds . More than half of
the total for natural resources departments is
proposed to be funded from the General Fund,
with the remainder mostly from special funds and
bond funds . Of the total proposed, $5 .4 billion
(76 percent) is to administer state programs, and
most of the remainder is for local assistance—
generally grants to local governments and
nonprofits to implement projects .
Key Changes for Natural Resources
Departments. Compared to updated estimates
of current-year expenditures, proposed 2020-21
spending for natural resources departments is
lower by $2 .3 billion (25 percent) . This reduction
largely reflects the expiration of one-time funding
provided in the 2019-20 Budget Act, as well
as technical budget adjustments made since
enactment of the budget, rather than significant
programmatic changes .
Figure 1
Proposed Spending Compared to 2019-20 Budgeted Level
(Dollars in Millions)
Agency
2019-20
Budgeted
2020-21
Proposed
Change
Amount Percent
Natural Resources $7,429 $7,095 -$334 -4%
Environmental Protection 5,007 4,313 -694 -14
Totals $12,436 $11,408 -$1,028 -8%
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
4
• General Fund. On net, General Fund
spending for natural resources entities
is proposed to decrease by $28 million
(1 percent) . This decrease reflects a number
of one-time, current-year appropriations,
including about $170 million provided for
various local assistance projects administered
by CNRA or the Department of Parks and
Recreation . The budget also includes
significant General Fund increases, including
(1) an additional $221 million in debt service
costs to repay previously approved, natural
resources-related general obligation bonds
and (2) roughly $120 million for CalFire to
enhance wildfire staffing and other resources .
(The Governor’s budget also reflects a
reduction of roughly $220 million from the
General Fund in both the current and budget
years for the Emergency Fund, which is used
to support certain costs associated with
fighting wildfires .)
• Bond Funds. The Governor’s budget provides
$1 .8 billion less for bond funded activities
and projects than estimated for the current
year . As noted above, some of this reflects
a net reduction in funds provided from
Proposition 68—over $400 million compared
to the current-year budget—for natural
resources programs . In addition, much of this
apparent budget-year decrease is related to
how certain bonds are accounted for in the
budget, making year-over-year comparisons
Figure 2
Natural Resources Budget Summary
(Dollars in Millions)
2018-19
Actual
2019-20
Estimated
2020-21
Proposed
Change From 2019-20
Amount Percent
Total $7,286 $9,423 $7,095 -$2,327 -25%
By Department
Forestry and Fire Protection $2,220 $1,902 $2,019 $117 6%
General obligation bond debt service 988 1,089 1,310 221 20
Parks and Recreation 1,172 1,041 1,029 -11 -1
Water Resources 746 2,317 973 -1,344 -58
Fish and Wildlife 538 560 573 13 2
Energy Commission 370 867 455 -412 -48
Conservation Corps 137 172 137 -35 -21
Conservation 138 146 136 -10 -7
Natural Resources Agency 353 484 130 -353 -73
State Lands Commission 103 85 61 -24 -28
Wildlife Conservation Board 196 195 48 -147 -75
Other resources programsa 324 565 223 -342 -61
By Funding Source
General Fund $3,771 $3,933 $3,906 -$28 -1%
Special funds 1,594 2,313 1,792 -521 -23
Bond funds 1,645 2,887 1,106 -1,781 -62
Federal funds 277 288 291 3 1
By Purpose
State operations $5,261 $5,684 $5,423 -$261 -5%
Local assistance 1,795 2,620 1,356 -1,264 -48
Capital outlay 231 1,119 316 -803 -72
a Includes state conservancies, Coastal Commission, and other departments.
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
5
difficult . Specifically, bonds that were
appropriated but not spent in prior years are
often carried over to the current year . The
2019-20 amount will be adjusted in the future
based on actual expenditures .
Summary of Environmental Protection
Budget Changes
Total of $4.3 Billion Proposed for
Environmental Protection Departments. As
shown in Figure 3, the Governor’s budget plan for
entities within the Environmental Protection Agency
includes a total of $4 .3 billion . Most of this supports
three departments—the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),
California Air Resources Board (CARB), and State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) . Of
the total budgeted, $3 .8 billion (88 percent) is
proposed to be funded from special funds, and
$2 .6 billion (59 percent) is for local assistance .
Key Changes for Environmental Protection
Departments. Compared to updated estimates
of current-year expenditures, proposed 2020-21
spending for environmental protection departments
is lower by $1 .2 billion (22 percent) . Similar to
natural resources departments, this reduction
largely reflects the expiration of one-time funding
provided in the 2019-20 Budget Act, as well as
technical budget adjustments .
• General Fund. The proposed budget reflects
a significant net reduction in General Fund—
$533 million (79 percent)—compared to the
current year . However, this mostly reflects
one-time costs for CalRecycle to conduct
debris cleanup activities following recent
wildfires, as well as for funding provided in
the current year to accelerate cleanup of lead
contamination near the Exide battery recycling
facility .
• Special Funds. Special fund expenditures
are estimated to decrease by $318 million
Figure 3
Environmental Protection Budget Summary
(Dollars in Millions)
2018-19
Actual
2019-20
Estimated
2020-21
Proposed
Change From 2019-20
Amount Percent
Total $8,014 $5,552 $4,313 -$1,240 -22%
By Department
Resources Recycling and Recovery $3,584 $2,102 $1,589 -$512 -24%
Air Resources Board 1,759 1,422 1,139 -284 -20
Water Resources Control Board 2,242 1,528 1,093 -435 -28
Toxic Substances Control 282 335 325 -10 -3
Pesticide Regulation 103 114 114 ——
Other departmentsa 45 52 53 1 1
By Funding Source
General Fund $2,176 $676 $143 -$533 -79%
Special funds 4,284 4,101 3,783 -318 -8
Bond funds 1,191 406 18 -388 -96
Federal funds 364 370 369 ——
By Purpose
State operations $3,611 $2,216 $1,757 -$459 -21%
Local assistance 4,403 3,336 2,556 -781 -23
Capital outlay —————
a Includes the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and general obligation bond debt service.
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
6
(8 percent) . The biggest
change affecting this
spending is the Governor’s
cap-and-trade expenditure
plan, which decreases the
allocation to CARB by almost
$200 compared to the
current-year budget .
• Bond Funds. The Governor’s
budget provides $388 million
(96 percent) less for
bond-funded activities and
projects than estimated for
the current year . This largely
reflects a reduction of over
$200 million provided from
Proposition 68 for SWRCB .
Similar to what is described for
natural resources bonds, much
of this apparent budget-year
decrease is related to how
certain bonds are accounted
for in the budget .
Budget Includes Several
Significant Fiscal
Proposals
Figure 4 lists the most
significant budget-year funding
changes proposed for natural
resources and environmental
protection departments . Most
of the funding increases are
proposed as one time or limited
term . (The figure does not
include year-over-year changes
in allocations of cap-and-trade
auction revenues to various
programs .)
Figure 4
Significant Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Budget Changes
(In Millions)
Proposal
2020-21
Amount
Fund
Source
Forestry and Fire Protection
Fire protection: relief staffing $93 Mostly GF
Fire protection: mobile equipment replacement 19 GF
Fire protection: direct mission support 17 Mostly GF
Various air attack base infrastructure projects 14 GF
Emergency Fund adjustment -219 GF
Department of Water Resources
Systemwide flood risk reduction projects $96 BF
Urban flood risk—American River project 46 GF
Sustainable groundwater management 40 GF
Tijuana River project 35 GF
New River Improvement Project 28 GF, BF
Natural Resources Agency
LiDAR data $80 GF
Conservation Corps
Residential Center—Ukiah $62 BF
Energy Commission
ARFVTF expenditures $51 SF
Department of Parks and Recreation
New state park $20 GF
Outdoor environmental education grant 20 GF
Museum storage facility 15 BF
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Funding enhancements $39 GF, SF
State Water Resources Control Board
Cannabis program $23 SF
Department of Conservation
Oil and gas oversight $14 SF
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Base funding to maintain operations $13 GF
GF = General Fund; BF = bond funds; LiDAR = light detection and ranging; ARFVTF = Alternative
and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Fund; and SF = special funds.
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
7
CROSSCUTTING ISSUES
CLIMATE CHANGE PROPOSALS
Major Proposals Related to Climate Change
Mitigation and Adaption. The Governor’s budget
includes four major proposals related to climate
mitigation and/or adaptation—(1) the cap-and-trade
expenditure plan ($965 million), (2) expanded
funding for climate-related research and technical
assistance ($25 million), (3) establishment of
the Climate Catalyst Revolving Loan Fund
($250 million), and (4) a climate bond ($4 .8 billion) .
Our recent report, The 2020-21 Budget: Climate
Change Proposals, includes a description of
each proposal, our assessment, and associated
recommendations .
Key Issues to Consider. There are a variety
of important considerations that the Legislature
will want to weigh as it constructs a climate
change package that best reflects its priorities and
achieves its goals effectively . Notably, the Governor
proposes a significant increase in the amount of
General Fund resources allocated to climate-related
activities, including significant out-year General
Fund commitments to pay off
the proposed bond . We urge
the Legislature to think broadly
about its priorities and the role of
the General Fund, Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF),
and other funds—as well as
nonfinancial tools, such as
regulatory programs—in achieving
its climate goals . Some of the key
considerations when developing an
overall approach include:
• Is the overall spending
amount consistent with
legislative priorities,
considering the potential need
and the wide variety of other
potential uses of the funds?
• How does the Legislature
want to prioritize funding for
adaptation versus mitigation?
As part of that evaluation, the Legislature
might want to consider the past and current
levels of spending for each type of activity, as
well as the relative merits of relying on funding
to achieve these goals versus other strategies,
such as regulations .
• How should funds be allocated in order to
most effectively achieve the Legislature’s
climate goals? Programs that receive funding
should (1) have clearly defined goals and
objectives, (2) be well coordinated across
different government entities, (3) address clear
market failures and complement regulatory
programs, and (4) have effective strategies
and resources for evaluating future outcomes .
Recommendations. We summarize our
recommendations on each of the proposals in
Figure 5 . Overall, the Governor’s approach includes
some positive steps intended to help reduce
climate change risks, including additional focus
on adaptation activities . In many cases, however,
the Legislature could consider modifications to the
Figure 5
Summary of LAO Recommendations
Cap-and-Trade Expenditure Plan
• Ensure multiyear discretionary expenditures do not exceed $800 million.
• Direct administration to provide additional information on expected
outcomes.
• Allocate funds according to legislative priorities.
• Consider other funding sources for high-priority programs.
Climate Research and Technical Assistance Funding
• Expand state’s climate adaptation activities with approach that reflects
legislative priorities.
• Delineate key climate policy goals and activities in statute.
Climate Catalyst Loan Fund
• Reject funding for Climate Catalyst Revolving Loan Fund.
• Consider a pilot project to gauge demand for loans.
Climate Bond
• Consider bond proposal as part of future General Fund priorities.
• Ensure focus of any bond package reflects legislative priorities.
• Ensure project selection criteria is designed to maximize effectiveness.
• Adopt evaluation requirements sufficient to inform future climate response
activities.
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
8
proposals that might better reflect its priorities and
achieve its climate goals more effectively . In one
case—the proposed Climate Catalyst Revolving
Loan Fund—we find that the administration has not
provided adequate justification to merit adoption,
though the Legislature could consider creating
a pilot program to gauge the type and number
of appropriate projects that might qualify for the
program .
WILDFIRE PROPOSALS
In recent years, California has experienced some
of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires
in the state’s history . While wildfires have always
been a natural part of California’s ecosystems,
recent increases in the severity of wildfires and the
adverse impacts on communities have increased
the focus on the state’s ability to effectively prevent,
mitigate, and respond to wildfire risks . In our
recent report The 2020-21 Budget: Governor’s
Wildfire-Related Proposals we assess: (1) the
state’s overall approach to addressing wildfire
risks and (2) the Governor’s wildfire-related budget
proposals that involve multiple departments .
In this section, we summarize the findings and
recommendations from our recent report as they
relate to natural resources departments .
State Should Develop Strategic Wildfire
Plan to Address Risks. In assessing the state’s
overall approach to addressing wildfire risks, we
find that several factors contribute to increasing
risks, including increased development in fire-prone
areas, unhealthy forestlands, climate change, and
the role of utility infrastructure management . In the
coming decades, the state will likely continue to
face demands for additional funding and resources
to respond to wildfire risks . Yet, without a broad
and comprehensive evaluation of wildfire risks
and mitigation strategies, it will be difficult for the
Legislature to efficiently and effectively allocate
additional funding related to wildfires . Accordingly,
we recommend that the Legislature require the
development of a statewide strategic wildfire
plan . The purpose of the plan would be to inform
and guide state policymakers regarding the most
effective strategies for responding to wildfires and
mitigating wildfire risks . In particular, this would
include guidance on the highest-priority and most
cost-effective programs and activities that should
receive funding, as well as an assessment of
how the state can achieve an optimal balance of
funding for prevention and mitigation activities with
demands to increase fire response capacity .
Governor’s Wildfire-Related Budget
Proposals. The Governor’s budget provides a total
of $492 million (mostly from the General Fund) for
22 proposals for wildfire-related augmentations
across multiple natural resources and other
departments . The total includes $179 million
for CalFire, $119 million jointly for CalFire and
the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services,
$80 million for CNRA, and $210,000 for the Forest
Management Task Force .
Based on our review, we classify the budget
proposals in three categories . Specifically, we find
(1) that even in the absence of a strategic plan,
some proposals appear reasonable; (2) several
proposals are promising but lack important
implementation details; and (3) some proposals
raise more significant concerns because they
might not align with some of the key elements
we think should be included in a strategic wildfire
plan, they lack basic workload justification, or
both . Figure 6 (see pages 10 and 11) summarizes
the wildfire-proposals for natural resources
departments and our recommendations for each
proposal .
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
The state park system, administered by the
Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks),
contains 280 parks and serves about 75 million
visitors each year . State parks vary widely by type
and features, including state beaches, museums,
historical sites, and ecological reserves . The size
of each park also varies, ranging from less than
one acre to 600,000 acres . In addition, parks offer
a wide range of amenities—including campsites,
golf courses, ski runs, visitor information centers,
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
9
tours, trails, fishing and boating opportunities,
restaurants, and stores . Parks also vary in the types
of infrastructure they maintain, including buildings,
roads, power generation facilities, and water and
wastewater systems .
For 2020-21, the Governor’s budget proposes
$1 billion in total expenditures—including
$213 million from the General Fund—for the
department . More than half of the department’s
proposed budget supports state park operations,
with most of the remainder for local assistance
grant programs . The proposed budget is
$11 million (1 percent) lower than the estimated
current-year spending level for Parks . This
decrease largely reflects the net effect of certain
one-time funding provided in the current year—
particularly for the development of the Native
American Heritage Center and grants for various
local park projects—offset by various funding
increases proposed in the 2020-21 budget .
NEW STATE PARK
The Governor’s budget includes $20 million
(one time) to acquire land to create a new state
park. The proposal lacks numerous critical
details, such as the properties the department
is considering to create the new park, metrics
that will be used to select a property, and
potential future costs to build-out and maintain
the park. We recommend that the Legislature
require Parks to provide additional information
on the proposal. Depending on the information
provided, the Legislature may wish to approve,
modify, or reject the proposal.
Background
Parks regularly acquires land to augment existing
state parks . Less frequently in recent years, the
department establishes a new state park . The
department has acquired properties for four new
state parks in the past 19 years—including Los
Angeles State Historic Park (2001), Fort Ord Dunes
State Park (2009), the California Indian Heritage
Center State Park (2011), and Onyx Ranch State
Vehicular Recreation Area (2014) . According to
the department, it has not made a large land
acquisition (over 45,000 acres) since the state
acquired Anza Borrego State Park in the 1940’s .
Governor’s Proposal
The Governor’s budget provides $20 million from
the General Fund (one time) to acquire property
to create a new state park . According to the
department, the intent of the proposal is to expand
public access to state parks by adding more
acreage of park land . (The budget also includes a
separate proposal of $4 .6 million from three bond
funds for smaller park land acquisitions intended to
expand existing state parks .)
At the time of this analysis, the specific
property, or properties, that the department is
considering purchasing have not been identified .
The department, however, has developed a list of
potential large-acreage properties it is considering .
In addition, the administration hopes other
landowners will come forward to express interest
in selling their property to the department, which
would increase the number of potential sites for a
new park .
Assessment
The concept of creating a new state park
is consistent with the department’s mission of
providing outdoor recreation and protecting
natural resources . However, the specific proposal
put forward by the department lacks sufficient
details, which make it difficult for the Legislature to
assess its merits . We identify several key pieces of
information that are lacking from the proposal .
Department Will Not Disclose Properties
Under Consideration. While the department
indicates it has a list of properties it is considering
to create a new state park, it indicates that it
will not share the list with the Legislature . Not
knowing the potential sites for a new park makes
it difficult for the Legislature to weigh the merits
of the proposal . One key problem is that the
Legislature will not be able to determine the
extent to which the sites under consideration will
effectively increase access to parks, such as by
ensuring that sites under consideration are located
in areas (1) with relatively few existing parks or
(2) near large population centers that would ensure
access to a greater number of people . Another
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
10
issue is that without knowing the properties
under consideration, it is unclear whether the
$20 million being requested is an appropriate level
of funding for acquiring a new state park . Some
properties under consideration might cost less than
$20 million to purchase, while others may cost
considerably more . In addition, it is unclear what
type of park the department will acquire, such as
a forest, beach, or desert, as well as what other
key features the park will have, such as preserving
important ecological or historical sites or providing
for recreational opportunities .
Proposal Lacks Key Information Needed to
Assess Future Costs. Without knowing the details
of a specific property, the department indicates
it is unable to estimate the costs to build-out the
new park with various infrastructure improvements .
Some properties under consideration might already
have usable infrastructure, while others may
require significant funding to construct or repair
basic amenities such as trails, restrooms, roads,
parking, or a visitor center . Similarly, Parks has not
estimated the ongoing operational costs to support
the new park with staff, routine maintenance, and
interpretive programs .
Further, the department has not identified the
source of funding for these future costs . State
parks typically are supported by a combination of
General Fund and special funds—particularly the
State Parks and Recreation Fund (SPRF), which
gets most of its revenues from various park user
fees . While a new park, especially if it has a high
volume of visitors, could generate significant fee
revenue to offset future operating costs, it is likely
Figure 6
Summary of Natural Resources Wildfire Proposals and Recommendations
Proposal Description Recommendations
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire)
Relief staffing $93.4 million mostly General Fund in 2020-21 (increasing to
$142.6 million ongoing) to support 294 positions in 2020-21
(increasing to 555 positions ongoing) for (1) additional firefighting
staff, (2) increased training academy staff, and (3) 14 fire engines
for training purposes.
• Make funding for training staff limited term.
• Provide additional seasonal staffing rather
than permanent staff.
• Reject funding for training fire engines.
Various capital outlay
projects
$39.4 million General Fund for new capital outlay projects
($11.9 million) and to continue previously approved projects
($27.5 million). New projects include replacing two helitack
bases, a conservation camp, and an auto shop.
• Approve.
Mobile equipment
replacement
$19 million General Fund for two years to replace CalFire vehicles
and mobile equipment.
• Approve.
Direct mission support—
administrative staffing
$16.6 million ongoing ($10.8 million General Fund and $5.8 million
reimbursements) to support 103 administrative positions.
• Require additional workload justification;
reject if sufficient information not provided.
• If justification is provided, align proposal
with positions that are justified.
Wildland firefighting
research grant
$5 million one-time General Fund to fund firefighting research
related to protective equipment and safety.
• Approve.
Hired equipment staffing $2.9 million General Fund in 2020-21 ($2.4 million ongoing)
to support ten positions to operate a program to contract for
firefighting equipment from private vendors.
• Require additional workload justification;
reject if sufficient information not provided.
• If justification is provided, align proposal
with positions that are justified.
Mobile equipment
staffing
$1.7 million General Fund in 2020-21 ($1.5 million ongoing) to
support nine positions related to processing and procurement of
vehicles and mobile equipment.
• Require additional workload justification;
reject if sufficient information not provided.
• If justification is provided, approve staffing
on limited-term basis.
(Continued)
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
11
the new park would require some ongoing General
Fund support . (The SPRF currently is being fully
utilized to support existing parks and likely does
not have a significant enough operating balance
to support a new park on an ongoing basis .)
Parks indicates that it is exploring options for
partnerships with private and nonprofit groups to
offset at least a portion of build-out and operational
costs . However, different locations are likely to
vary substantially in the opportunities for private or
nonprofit funding .
Department Has Not Identified Selection
Criteria. While Parks has indicated it is considering
multiple properties, the department has not
identified the metrics it will use to evaluate these
properties and select a preferred site for the new
park . The process Parks plans to use to select
a property is important, particularly given that it
does not intend to provide the Legislature with a
list of the properties under consideration . Based
on the stated intent for the budget proposal, we
might expect one key metric to be an assessment
of the extent to which each property would benefit
an area that currently has relatively low access to
state parks and other outdoor recreation . However,
departmental staff has indicated that Parks has not
conducted an analysis of park access to identify
such “park-poor” areas . Without an assessment
of the biggest gaps in parks access, it is unclear
how the department will select a location for the
new park that best meets the goal of providing
additional park access . In addition, clearly defining
selection criteria would help to ensure that the
department fully considers other important factors
in its decision-making process, such as future state
capital and operating costs, as well as the degree
to which each location conserves land that has
unique ecological features, historical significance,
or is otherwise of statewide interest .
Proposal Description Recommendations
Building standards and
defensible space
education—SB 190
$689,000 Building Standards Administration Special Revolving
Fund to support two positions for the Office of the State Fire
Marshall to implement provisions of SB 190 related to defensible
space inspections and fire safety building standards training.
• Approve.
CalFire and Office of Emergency Services Joint Proposals
Home hardening pilot
program—AB 38
$110.1 million—including (1) $100 million one time ($75 million
federal funds and $25 million General Fund); (2) $8.3 million in
2020-21 GGRF (decreasing to $6.1 million ongoing); and
(3) $1.8 million General Fund (decreasing to $1.6 million annually
for next four years)—to implement AB 38. Provides 33 positions.
Includes establishing a $100 million home hardening grant
program, conducting defensible space inspections related to real
estate transactions, training defensible space inspectors, hiring
mobile equipment positions, and purchasing a new fire engine.
• Approve majority of proposal related
to grant program with additional
implementation guidance.
• Provide funding for training and mobile
equipment staff for CalFire only on a
limited-term basis.
• Reject funding for additional fire engine.
Wildfire Forecast and
Threat Intelligence
Integration Center—
SB 209
$9 million General Fund and PUCURA (decreasing to $6.3 million
ongoing) to establish a weather forecasting intelligence and
integration center required by SB 209.
• Approve.
Other Entities
Light detection and
ranging data (LiDAR)
(CNRA)
$80 million one-time General Fund to contract for the collection of
LiDAR data of the entire state.
• Withhold action and require CNRA to
provide a detailed implementation plan.
• If no plan is provided, reject the proposal.
• Consider funding a pilot project.
Administration and
research support
(Forest Management
Task Force)
$210,000 ongoing Environmental License Plate Fund to support
two positions to conduct various workload required by executive
order.
• Approve and establish a statutory
framework for the task force.
SB 190 = Chapter 404 of 2019 (SB 190, Dodd); AB 38 = Chapter 391 of 2019 (AB 38, Wood); GGRF = Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund; SB 209 = Chapter 405 of 2019 (SB 209, Dodd);
PUCURA = Public Utilities Commission Utilities Reimbursement Account; and CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency.
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
12
Recommendations
Require Parks to Provide Additional Details.
We recommend the Legislature require the
department to provide it with the list of potential
properties under consideration during the course of
spring budget hearings . For each potential property,
we also recommend that Parks be required to
include estimates of the potential infrastructure
build-out costs, ongoing operational costs, and
revenues (from fees or partnerships) . In addition,
we recommend that the Legislature require Parks
to report on the metrics and process it will use to
select a site for a new state park .
Determine Action on Proposal Based on
Additional Information Provided. If the Legislature
receives sufficient information and determines that
a new state park is consistent with its short-term
and ongoing budgetary priorities, it may want to
approve the proposal . The Legislature also could
choose to modify the proposal based on the
additional information provided by Parks, such as
by providing a different level of funding to align with
the range of potential acquisition costs associated
with the size and type of park the Legislature would
like to see developed .
If the Legislature does not receive sufficient
information on the proposal, it may wish to reject
the proposal and direct the department to report
next year with a more fully developed plan to
acquire a new park . While information on the
location and type of the new park will be important
for the Legislature to weigh the benefits of the
proposal, we think that information on the future
costs and funding sources to support a new park
are particularly critical .
Consider Adopting Reporting Language. To
the extent that the Legislature provides funding
for a new park in 2020-21 before a specific site
is identified, we recommend that the Legislature
approve budget bill language requiring that the
department notify the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee (JLBC) regarding key details of the
acquisition prior to Parks having the authority to
spend any of the $20 million . This notice to the
JLBC should identify the property the department
selected, other properties that were under
consideration, the process used to select the
property, an estimate of future capital outlay and
operational costs, and identification of the funding
sources that will be used to fund these future costs .
INCREASING STUDENT ACCESS
TO STATE PARKS
The Governor’s budget includes two
proposals to increase student access to
state parks. In general, the proposals appear
consistent with recent legislative priorities.
However, the proposals lack details to fully
assess their merits. We recommend the
Legislature require Parks to report additional
information before taking action on the
proposals, as well as consider several oversight
questions regarding the broader goals and
outcomes of student park access programs.
Background
Increasing Student Access to Parks Has Been
a Legislative Priority. Improving student access to
state parks has been a priority for the Legislature
in recent years . To support this priority, the
Legislature has increased funding for park access
programs with various funding augmentations
from Proposition 68, Proposition 64 (2016), and
SPRF . In addition, last year the Legislature passed
Chapter 675 of 2019 (AB 209, Limón) to create
the Outdoor Environmental Education Grant
Program to provide grants to increase access to
outdoor environmental education experiences for
underserved and at-risk youth .
Parks Has Several Access Programs. Parks
has several programs that increase access to
state parks . Two programs that focus specifically
on K-12 students are the Parks Online Resources
for Teachers and Students (PORTS) program and
the Summer Learning Program (SLP) . The PORTS
program provides virtual field lessons for students
using videoconferencing technology to allow a
classroom of students to interact with a park
interpreter located at a state park . The department
estimates that 74,000 students were served by
the PORTS program in 2018-19 . The SLP program
coordinates with various nonprofit organizations to
host K-12 students at state parks for day trips and
overnight camping trips during the summer . Parks
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
13
estimates that 4,900 students visited state parks
under the SLP program in 2018-19 .
Governor’s Proposals
The Governor’s budget includes two budget
proposals that would provide augmentations for
programs designed to increase student access to
state parks .
• K-12 Access Program Expansion
($2.9 Million). The budget provides
$2 .9 million from the Environmental License
Plate Fund and 19 positions to expand the
PORTS and SLP programs . A portion of
the requested positions will replace existing
limited-term or seasonal positions with
permanent positions .
• New Outdoor Environmental Education
Grant Program ($20 Million). The Governor’s
budget includes $20 million (one time) from
the General Fund to establish the Outdoor
Environmental Education Grant Program
created by AB 209 .
Assessment
The proposals to expand student access
to state parks appear consistent with recent
legislative priorities, including the adoption of
AB 209 . However, the proposals lack basic
details necessary to fully assess their merits . For
example, the proposal to augment staffing for
the PORTS and SLP programs does not identify
(1) how many of the requested positions will replace
existing limited-term or seasonal positions and
how many will augment the programs, (2) how
the new positions would be allocated between
the programs, or (3) accurate estimated outcome
measures . Without this information, it is not
possible to assess what outcomes, such as number
of students served by the program, are likely to
be achieved . In addition, the department indicates
that it has not yet determined how it would
allocate grant funds for the Outdoor Environmental
Education Grant Program because it has not yet
had the opportunity to meet with stakeholders
and develop program guidelines . (Assembly
Bill 209 directs the department to wait to develop
program guidelines until after funding has been
appropriated .)
In addition, because the department’s student
access programs have generally started as limited
efforts—such as pilot efforts or ones facilitated
with nonprofit partners—the department has
not established broad program goals for the
programs or evaluated the most critical gaps in
student park access . For example, the department
has not created a long-term goal of the total
number of California students that will be served
by the various programs or an assessment of
the resources necessary to achieve that goal . In
addition, the department has not evaluated how it
will prioritize student access for over-subscribed
programs .
Recommendations
Obtain Details of PORTS and SLP Proposal
Before Taking Action. We recommend that
the Legislature require the department to report
information on the level of resources currently
dedicated to the PORTS and SLP programs, the
allocation of proposed new positions between
these two programs, and information on how
outcome metrics tie to the level of resources
budgeted . Regarding the Outdoor Environmental
Education Grant Program, the Legislature may want
to ask the department about what process it will go
through to develop program guidelines if funding is
approved .
Consider Broader Oversight Questions. Given
multiple recent funding increases provided for park
access programs, we recommend the Legislature
use these budget proposals as an opportunity
to consider broader questions about the goals,
administration, marketing, and implementation
of the department’s student access efforts . Key
oversight questions include:
• Goals. Does the department have long-term
goals for the number of students that it
hopes will participate in the PORTS and
SLP programs, as well as any other efforts
to increase student access? What are the
Legislature’s goals for ensuring K-12 students
have access to state parks and outdoor
learning experiences?
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
14
• Funding. What is it likely to cost to achieve
program goals? What are available sources of
funding—including potentially nontraditional
funding sources for parks—to increase
student park access and outdoor learning
experiences?
• Prioritization. Given limited funding, what
are the most cost-effective ways of providing
student access? Should programs focus on
specific grade levels? How should classes and
students be prioritized when programs are
over-subscribed? How should the department
balance the trade-offs of virtual park
experiences with in-person park visits? For
example, virtual field trips allow more students
to participate at lower costs, while in-person
field trips provide a more complete experience
and hands-on learning .
• Communication With Schools. What are
the most effective ways of marketing the
various programs and sharing information
with schools, students, and nonprofit
partners? What is the process for receiving
feedback from teachers and schools to ensure
programs target appropriate grade-level
content and align with curriculum? Are there
opportunities for these communication efforts
to be streamlined or improved?
HARBORS AND WATERCRAFT
REVOLVING FUND INSOLVENCY
The Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund
(HWRF), which is used to support various
boating-related activities, will become insolvent
in 2020-21 absent any intervention. The
Governor’s budget includes a “placeholder”
solution of $26.5 million to keep the fund
solvent, but the specific details of the solution
are unclear, as well as whether it would prevent
insolvency beyond the budget year if ongoing.
We recommend the Legislature consider the
following key issues: (1) the structure of the
vessel registration fee going forward; (2) the
current demand of boating programs and
the effects of reduced expenditures from the
fund; (3) the extent to which solutions should
come from increased revenues, decreased
expenditures, and fuel tax revenues; and (4) how
to prevent operational shortfalls for the fund on
an ongoing basis.
Background
Expenditures for Boating-Related
Activities. The HWRF is used to support various
boating-related activities, including management
of invasive aquatic plants and other species and
local assistance grants for boating facilities and
safety programs . The administration estimates that
a total of $79 million will be spent from the fund in
the current year, primarily by three departments—
Parks, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture .
As shown in Figure 7, $61 .7 million is to support
various Parks operations, local assistance
programs, and capital projects .
Most Revenue Generated From Vessel
Registration Fees and Fuel Taxes. The HWRF
receives a significant portion of its revenue from
vessel registration and renewal fees, as well as a
transfer from Motor Vehicle Fuel Account (MVFA) .
• Vessel Registration and Renewal Fees.
Vessel registration in the state is conducted
on a biennial basis . The state charges an
initial registration fee of $65 for most vessels
($37 in even years, the second year of the two
Figure 7
Parks Expenditures From the HWRF
(In Millions)
Program
2019-20
Estimated
Aquatic invasive plant removal $12.5
Public safety grants 11.5
Launch facility grants 11.0
Loan program for boating facilities 5.5
Quagga and zebra removal grants 3.8
Abandoned watercraft abatement 2.8
Capital outlay projects 2.7
Oceanography research 1.5
Beach erosion control 1.0
Other 9.4
Total $61.7
HWRF = Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund.
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
15
year cycle) . A majority of the fee is deposited
into the HWRF, while a small portion is
deposited into the Air Quality Improvement
Fund and the Alternative and Renewable Fuel
and Vehicle Technology Fund . The state also
charges a registration renewal fee that is due
every two years on odd numbered years . The
fee is $36 for most vessels . The full amount of
the renewal fee is deposited into the HWRF .
As a result of the renewal fee being collected
on a biennial basis, fee revenue fluctuates
predictably each year . The HWRF generally
receives about $4 million in even years and
$27 million in odd years . Both the initial
registration and renewal fees include a base
fee and a supplemental fee for activities to
prevent the spread of the quagga mussel, an
invasive species .
• Transfer From MVFA. The HWRF also
receives an annual transfer from the MVFA .
The transfer reflects the estimated amount of
state fuel taxes paid by vessel owners . The
amount transferred is based on the number of
registered boats in the state and has ranged
from $18 million to $29 million annually in
recent years .
Operational Shortfall and
Insolvency. Over the last
several years, the HWRF has
periodically faced operational
shortfalls—meaning planned
expenditures have exceeded
combined revenues and transfers .
Operational shortfalls have
typically occurred in even years
when the registration renewal fee
is not due . However, prior-year
reserves have been able to
support the fund during these
periods .
The operational shortfalls
were exacerbated because
of a technical correction
that was made as part of
the 2019-20 budget . The
change was intended to better
reflect past legislative intent
related to how fuel tax revenues associated
with vessels is distributed among the HWRF,
SPRF, and the General Fund . The outcome of
the change, however, is a significant decrease
in the amount of MVFA funds transferred to the
HWRF . For instance, the MVFA transfer fell from
$23 million in 2018-19 to $8 million in 2019-20 .
The 2019-20 budget also included a one-time
solution of $22 million—from a combination of
a reversion of unencumbered local assistance
appropriations and a transfer from the Public Beach
Restoration Fund—to offset the reduced transfer .
The fund is still estimated to have an operational
shortfall of $40 million at the end of the current
year, which will result in estimated reserves of
$38 .8 million . Figure 8 shows historical revenues
and expenditures from the HWRF .
Governor’s Budget
Absent any corrective actions, the administration
estimates that the HWRF will experience an
operational shortfall of $64 million in the budget
year . This would cause the fund to fully deplete
its remaining reserves and become insolvent . In
recognition of this problem, the Governor’s budget
20
40
60
80
100
120
$140
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17a 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20b
Year-End Balance
Revenues
and Transfers
Expenditures
HWRF = Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund.
a Revenues include a General Fund loan repayment of $46 million.
b Reflects $22 million in one-time budget solutions.
(In Millions)
HWRF Revenue and Expenditure History
Figure 8
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
16
includes a placeholder solution of $26 .5 million
to keep the HWRF from becoming insolvent . The
budget assumes half of this amount would come
from increased revenue and half from expenditure
reductions . However, at the time of publication,
the administration had not identified what specific
actions it would propose and, instead, states that it
intends to have a more complete proposal later this
spring .
Assessment
Unclear Whether Placeholder Solution Would
Prevent Insolvency Beyond Budget Year. While
the Governor’s budget includes a $26 .5 million
placeholder solution, the lack of specificity provided
makes it difficult to evaluate whether the solution
would prevent the HWRF from becoming insolvent
in subsequent years . While the current level of
funding assumed in the placeholder solution would
allow for the fund to remain solvent in the budget
year, it would also force the fund to deplete its
remaining reserves to $1 .3 million . Assuming the
$26 .5 million solution is ongoing, we estimate that
there would continue to be an operational shortfall
in 2021-22 of about $28 million . This would
ultimately place the HWRF in a similar situation to
what it is currently experiencing . Accordingly, it is in
the interest of the Legislature to approve a solution
that would keep the fund solvent in future years .
Options for Addressing the Operational
Shortfall. While the Governor does not yet have a
specific proposal, there are a wide range of options
for the Legislature to consider . Accordingly, it will
be important for the Legislature to establish its
priorities for the HWRF and determine how best to
address the projected insolvency in 2020-21 . While
the Governor’s placeholder solution could help the
fund remain solvent in the budget year, it is unclear
whether it would address the operational shortfalls
beyond 2020-21 . Accordingly, the Legislature will
want to consider long-term solutions in addressing
the structural imbalance . In order to assist the
Legislature in developing its plan, we identify a
framework of options for its consideration:
• Increase Revenues. The Legislature could
generate additional revenues by increasing
vessel registration or renewal fees . Roughly,
a $1 increase in the renewal fee, for instance,
would generate about $750,000 in odd
years . We also note that the base registration
renewal fee was last updated in 2005 . As
time has progressed, the fee has lost its
relative purchasing power due to inflation . This
may provide a rationale for the Legislature
to increase the fee to reflect its current
year value, which would result in about a
$7 increase in the fee . The Legislature could
also consider indexing the registration and
renewal fees to inflation, which would align
them with similar registration fees placed on
motor vehicles .
• Reduce Expenditures From HWRF. The
Legislature could also reduce expenditures by
decreasing the amount allocated to specific
programs supported by the fund . As noted
earlier, overall expenditures from HWRF
have increased significantly in recent years
from $48 million in 2014-15 to $79 million in
2019-20 . A reduction in expenditures also
may be warranted given the decrease in fuel
tax revenue transferred from the MVFA to the
HWRF going forward, though the Legislature
would want to consider the impact to
programs of any reduction in expenditures .
• Shift More MVFA Funds to HWRF. As
mentioned earlier, some of the fuel tax
revenue related to vessels is transferred to the
General Fund and the SPRF . This is a result
of vessel fuel tax revenue not being limited
for only transportation purposes under the
California Constitution—in contrast to fuel
tax revenue collected from motor vehicles .
The Legislature could eliminate or reduce the
amount transferred into these funds in order
to support the HWRF . For instance, the MVFA
is expected to transfer $35 million of fuel tax
revenue related to vessels to the General Fund
in the budget year . To the extent that a portion
of these funds was shifted from the General
Fund to HWRF, this would reduce funding
available for the Legislature’s General Fund
priorities .
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
17
Recommendation
Consider Key Issues in Budget Deliberations.
The Governor’s budget plan currently lacks a
detailed proposal . However, even in the absence of
a proposal, we recommend the Legislature consider
key issues when weighing different options for
addressing the insolvency in 2020-21 and the
longer-term operational shortfall in the HWRF . This
could include directing the administration to report
additional information on the following topics at
budget hearings:
• Structure of the Registration Fee. How do
California’s vessel registration fees compare to
other states? Would it make sense to have a
range of registration and renewal fees that are
based on the size of a vessel? What are the
trade-offs between a flat fee versus a tiered
fee?
• Effects on Reducing Expenditures . What
is the current demand for boating-related
programs—such as facilities, safety, and
invasive aquatic plant and species removal?
How would a reduction in expenditures from
the HWRF affect state goals for each of these
programs?
• How to Balance Different Options. How
does the administration intend to reach the
$26 .5 million adjustment for the HWRF?
To what extent should budget-year or
longer-term solutions come from increased
revenues, decreased expenditures, and fuel
tax revenues?
• Future Health of HWRF. How does
the administration intend on preventing
operational shortfalls on an ongoing basis for
the HWRF? How will the proposed solution
ensure that the fund is supported during
even years when the renewal fee is not being
collected? What level of ongoing solutions
would be needed to ensure that the fund
builds reserves going forward?
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) is responsible for promoting and regulating
the hunting of game species, promoting and
regulating recreational and commercial fishing, and
protecting California’s fish and wildlife for the public
trust . The department manages over 1 million
acres of public land throughout the state including
ecological reserves, wildlife management areas,
and hatcheries .
The 2020-21 Governor’s Budget proposes total
expenditures of $573 million for CDFW from various
sources, an increase of $13 million (2 percent)
compared to current-year expenditures . This
increase reflects the net total of the proposed
augmentations described in the next section and
the removal of several one-time, current-year
appropriations . Of the total proposed expenditures,
$172 million comes from the General Fund
(30 percent), $115 million from the Fish and Game
Preservation Fund (FGPF, 20 percent), $86 million
from federal funds (15 percent), $46 million from
general obligation bond funds (8 percent), and the
rest from other special funds .
FUNDING ENHANCEMENTS
The Governor proposes $19 million ongoing
and $20 million one time in 2020-21 to help
CDFW better meet its mission, primarily for
activities to protect fish and wildlife. While we
find that the proposed activities have merit,
funding for the ongoing activities would be
shifted from other state conservation programs.
We recommend the Legislature adopt the
one-time funding proposal and weigh the
relative trade-offs of the ongoing proposal
with its other conservation and General Fund
priorities. We recommend deferring action on a
third component of the Governor’s proposal—to
extend funding scheduled to expire in 2021-22—
until next year when a more in-depth analysis of
CDFW’s budget will be available.
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
18
Background
CDFW Has Experienced a Roughly $20 Million
Ongoing Budget Shortfall. As noted, the FGPF is
among the department’s largest funding sources,
providing roughly one-fifth of overall CDFW
resources . The fund receives revenues from a
variety of fees, including recreational hunting and
fishing license and permit fees . Expenditures from
the FGPF support many of the department’s core
activities, including various wildlife conservation
efforts, law enforcement, management of both
department-owned lands as well as inland and
coastal fisheries, and oversight over the state’s
commercial fishing industries . In recent years,
expenditures from the FGPF have exceeded its
revenues by roughly $20 million annually . This gap
developed in large part because the state has
created new costs for the fund without adding an
equivalent amount of new revenues . These costs
have resulted from significant employee salary
increases negotiated through the state collective
bargaining process, assigning new activities to
CDFW without providing new funding, and shifting
activities from other funding sources to the FGPF .
2018-19 Budget Provided Funding for
Three Years to Address Shortfall and Expand
Programs. In 2018-19, the Legislature augmented
CDFW’s budget by roughly $30 million, with about
$23 million of this amount expiring in 2021-22 . The
total augmentation consists of:
• $20 million in additional General Fund for the
department to address its funding shortfall
and maintain its existing
service levels—roughly
$7 million ongoing and about
$13 million for three years .
• $10 million annually for three
years—one-half from the
General Fund and one-half
from the Tire Recycling
Management Fund—along
with 30 new positions for
CDFW to expand its activities .
Figure 9 summarizes how
the department has used that
funding augmentation .
Legislature Directed CDFW to Undertake a
Detailed Review of Its Activities and Budget.
Along with funding increases, the 2018-19 budget
package included a requirement that CDFW
conduct a service-based budget (SBB) review by
January 2021 . This review is intended to provide
more clarity regarding the following:
• The core activities that CDFW undertakes .
• The existing gap between the department’s
“mission” level of service (defined as the
service standards and essential activities
required for the department to meet its
mission and statutory requirements) and its
current service levels .
• Instances where CDFW may be conducting
activities outside its mission and statutory
requirements .
• Detailed estimates for the costs and staffing
that would be necessary to meet mission
service levels .
• An analysis of the department’s existing
revenue structure and the activities supported
by those fund sources, including instances
where different funding sources or revenue
structures might be allowable or more
appropriate .
The budget package also required that the
SBB review include development of a new budget
tracking system to inform ongoing and future fiscal
decision-making processes .
The Legislature has provided $4 million in
one-time General Fund to support these activities .
Figure 9
Recent CDFW Service Expansions
(Dollars in Millions)
Activity Funding Positions
Law enforcement/wildlife trafficking prevention $3.7 6
Marine fisheries management 2.7 11
Salmon monitoring and conservation support 1.3 4
Hatchery production support 1.0 1
Status reviews of endangered species 0.6 2
Administrative support 0.4 3
Collaborative conservation activities 0.3 3
Totals $10.0 30
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
19
CDFW is still in the middle of the SBB process .
Specifically, it has accomplished two of the tasks
described—defining current and mission service
levels and their relative gap in terms of staffing
levels—but has not yet determined what it would
cost to fully achieve its mission or analyzed its
revenue sources and comparative distribution of
funding .
SBB Review Determined Existing Service
Levels Fall Short of Meeting Mission. While
CDFW has not yet completed the SBB review,
its initial analysis has identified significant gaps
between its existing levels of service and those
it has determined would be necessary to fulfill its
mission and meet all of its statutory responsibilities .
Figure 10 displays these results, showing the
difference between the number of staff hours
currently being dedicated in each of CDFW’s
eight areas of service compared to the number of
hours the department has determined would be
needed to meet its mission . As shown, in most
areas, CDFW has determined that current service
levels are less than one-third of mission levels .
The largest shortfall—both proportionally and in
terms of total staff hours—is in species and habitat
conservation, the service area the department
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Species and Habitat
Conservation
Permitting and
Environmental
Protection
Law
Enforcement
Public Use and
Enjoyment
Lands and
Facilities
Administrative
Support
Operational
Support
Education and
Outreach
Mission
Current
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Service Areas
Service Levels
Hours Per Year
Review Found CDFW Is Falling Short of Meeting Its Mission
Figure 10
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
20
has determined requires the most comparative
workload . Specifically, CDFW staff currently spend
about 690,000 hours per year on activities in that
service area, compared to the 2 .8 million hours the
department estimates would be needed to meet its
mission . The second largest gap is in the permitting
and environmental protection service area—falling
short of meeting mission service levels by about
1 .6 million hours annually .
CDFW Reviewing Both Staffing and Other
Options to Address Shortfalls. Notably, while
the initial SBB review focused on identifying
shortfalls in service levels defined solely by staffing
hours, CDFW indicates that the next phase of
its analysis will identify strategies for narrowing
those gaps through various approaches—not just
by seeking to add staffing resources and labor
hours . For example, the department plans to
investigate whether it could (1) adjust mission level
expectations by making legislative, regulatory, or
policy changes; (2) increase efficiencies within the
department to lessen the number of staff hours
needed to meet mission service levels, such as by
streamlining processes or acquiring new technology
or equipment; and (3) collaborate with partner
agencies to help complete some tasks .
Legislature Recently Reauthorized Funding
for Wildlife Conservation Programs. The Habitat
Conservation Fund (HCF) provides $30 million
annually for wildlife conservation efforts . These
monies have been used primarily for grants to
purchase land to preserve as undeveloped wildlife
habitat, as well as to fund habitat restoration
projects . Statute prescribes particular categories
of uses at certain departments for these funds .
For example, $10 million per year must be spent
to protect deer and mountain lion populations,
with a particular emphasis on native oak forests .
Additionally, at least $3 million annually must be
spent to acquire and restore stream and riparian
habitat, and another $3 million to acquire and
restore wetlands .
Of the total $30 million provided annually,
statute requires the following allocations:
(1) $4 .5 million to Parks, (2) $4 million to the State
Coastal Conservancy, (3) $500,000 to the Tahoe
Conservancy, and (4) the remainder (which totals
$21 million) to the Wildlife Conservation Board
(WCB) . Revenues into the HCF consist of about
$11 million annually from statewide tobacco taxes
and roughly $19 million from the General Fund
and are continuously appropriated to the specified
departments . The HCF—along with requirements
for its annual revenues and specified categories
of uses—was originally established in 1990 by a
voter-approved initiative, Proposition 117 . The
requirements are scheduled to expire at the end of
2019-20 . As part of the 2019-20 budget package,
however, the Legislature adopted budget trailer
legislation extending the requirement that the
state ensure a total of $30 million be continuously
appropriated into the HCF to continue the
existing categories of uses by WCB and the other
departments until 2030 .
Governor’s Proposals
The Governor proposes three separate
augmentations from the General Fund for CDFW .
Figure 11 summarizes the two proposals for
2020-21 . The third proposal would not take effect
until 2021-22 . Next, we describe each of the three
proposals .
$18.9 Million Ongoing Redirected From
WCB’s HCF Programs to Expand Species
Conservation Activities at CDFW. The Governor
proposes $18 .9 million in new ongoing funding to
be used primarily to augment CDFW’s habitat and
conservation activities . This includes increasing
compliance with the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) and a pilot approach to
expediting regulatory permitting processes for
restoration projects (as described in more detail
in the box on page 22) . While the proposed
$18 .9 million augmentation would provide new
resources for CDFW, these funds would not
represent new General Fund spending for the
state . Rather, the Governor proposes to shift these
funds from their existing uses within the HCF .
(To implement this shift the Governor proposes
budget trailer legislation to undo the recent
statutory reauthorization of funding for the HCF .)
As described earlier, WCB and other departments
currently use these funds—together with funding
from voter-approved bonds—primarily to acquire
and preserve land for conservation . Because
of existing statute specifying the amounts that
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
21
must be provided to Parks, the State Coastal
Conservancy, and the Tahoe Conservancy, the
funding shift would come from WCB’s portion of the
HCF—leaving WCB with only about $2 million of its
existing $21 million in HCF funds . The Governor’s
proposal does not include backfilling these funds
for WCB .
$20 Million One Time From General Fund
to Upgrade Equipment and Operations. The
Governor proposes one-time funding to be used
primarily to purchase equipment and undertake
projects that would improve efficiency throughout
the department’s operations . This includes
replacing one outdated aircraft and purchasing
43 fish stocking vehicles, 18 hatchery egg-sorting
machines, and 18 units of heavy equipment for
maintaining state wetlands . The funding would also
support 15 projects at state wetlands to improve
both energy and water-use efficiency . This includes
upgrading pumps and canals and installing solar
arrays to power water conveyance .
$23.4 Million Ongoing General Fund
Beginning in 2021-22 to Backfill Shortfall and
Maintain Service Expansions. The Governor
proposes that the Legislature act now to authorize
funding for 2021-22 that would allow the
department to sustain existing service levels—
including the recent expansions described in
Figure 9—when the three years of funding provided
by the Legislature in 2018-19 is scheduled to
expire .
Assessment
Ongoing Funding Addresses Some Service
Gaps, but Legislature Could Prioritize Other
Activities. As described previously, CDFW
has identified a significant deficit in existing
service levels, with the largest gaps in the areas
of (1) species and habitat conservation and
(2) permitting and environmental protection . Most of
the Governor’s proposals for new ongoing funding
are targeted in these categories, suggesting they
Figure 11
Summary of Governor’s 2020-21 CDFW Funding Proposals
(Dollars in Millions)
Activity Description Funding Positions
New Ongoing Proposals
Protect endangered species Conduct work to implement and enforce compliance with CESA, including
reviewing petitions to list new species as threatened or endangered,
processing and monitoring CESA-related regulatory permits, and developing
and implementing plans to help CESA-listed species recover.
$10.8 31
Increase awareness about
biodiversity and climate change
Conduct climate-risk assessments on CDFW lands. Develop and disseminate
education and outreach materials about state’s biodiversity and climate
change risks.
1.9 7
Improve permitting process for
restoration projects
Direct additional staff resources to consult with restoration project proponents
and process environmental permits to expedite time lines and enable
permitting for larger scale projects.
3.4 15
Administration and facilities Provide administrative support and office space proportional to new staff and
activities included in overall proposal.
2.8 5
Totals $18.9 58
New One-Time Proposals
New aircraft Purchase new aircraft to aerially monitor wildlife. $6.0 —
Fish hatchery equipment Purchase equipment to upgrade hatchery operations, including egg sorters
and fish stocking vehicles.
6.5 —
Equipment and water conveyance
projects at state wetlands
Undertake projects to improve water conveyance, including upgrading canals,
levees, and water pumps, and installing solar-panels. Purchase new heavy
equipment for maintenance including tractors, graders, and excavators.
7.5 —
Total $20.0
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife and CESA = California Endangered Species Act.
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
22
would help the department be better positioned
to carry out its mission . As such, we find that the
proposed use of the new $18 .9 million seems
well-targeted for addressing existing deficiencies
in CDFW’s services . For example, as shown in
Figure 11, the proposal includes $10 .8 million
for activities that would help the department
increase statewide compliance with CESA . The
SBB review found that CDFW staff time currently is
only sufficient to address 23 percent of its mission
service levels related to issuing and enforcing
CESA permits, and 38 percent of mission-level
workload to manage and monitor endangered
species . This means that the department is not
able to consistently research and monitor the
status of species that have been designated as
endangered or are most at risk of being threatened
with extinction . Similarly, the proposed $3 .4 million
to expedite restoration projects could help address
the roughly 450,000 hours per year SBB-identified
gap between current and mission service levels in
the department’s programs to restore and enhance
wildlife habitats . This deficit means that existing
CDFW staff often do not have time to consult with
stakeholders who seek to undertake restoration
projects to ensure their proposals are effectively
designed, focus on state wildlife priorities, and
meet regulatory requirements .
While the proposed activities focus on areas
in which the department’s current level of service
is significantly behind mission levels, these are
not the only areas for which that is the case . The
Governor’s proposal prioritizes addressing some
important deficiencies, but the Legislature could
also adopt a package of funding augmentations that
prioritizes improving services in different areas of the
department . As shown in Figure 10, the SBB review
identified gaps in all of DFW’s service areas, some
of which are not addressed by the proposed new
expenditures . For example, the SBB review found
that within the operational support service area, the
largest gap in service levels was within its genetics
research lab programs, which provide scientific
information to help guide the department’s activities
to preserve fish, wildlife, and plants . The Governor’s
proposal does not provide funding to address this
deficiency . Similarly, the proposal does not provide
funding to address the largest service level gap
identified under the law enforcement service area—
workload related to protecting the environment from
legal and illegal cannabis growing facilities .
Permitting Pilot Could Yield Helpful
Information, but Lacks Explicit and Measurable
Goals. We find that the proposal to provide
$3 .4 million and 15 new positions to expedite
permitting for restoration projects addresses an
important problem and could help the state better
Proposal Includes Pilot Initiative to Expedite Restoration Projects
As noted in Figure 11, included within the Governor’s proposal is $3 .4 million and 15 new
positions to improve the permitting process for habitat restoration projects . This is part of a larger
initiative being championed by the Secretary for Natural Resources to “Cut the Green Tape” and
make getting regulatory approvals for undertaking restoration projects easier, quicker, and less
costly . This effort is in response to feedback from proponents of restoration projects that the
prolonged process for attaining necessary permits is onerous, duplicative, and inhibits them from
implementing large scale projects . The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s particular
proposal would pilot a new approach in one selected region of the state to help expedite time
lines for granting environmental permits . Specifically, the requested funding would support a
“strike team” of staff working on grant administration and permitting to provide early consultation
with project proponents, hold permitting workshops, and seek to incorporate the use of existing
“programmatic” permitting options that could facilitate larger scale restoration projects . To start,
this pilot effort would be focused on the North Coast region of the state (Humboldt, Mendocino,
Del Norte, Sonoma, and Marin Counties) .
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
23
achieve its species and habitat conservation goals .
However, the proposal lacks detail about how
objectives and outcomes from this new approach
will be measured and communicated . This inhibits
the Legislature, state, and stakeholders from
evaluating the success of this novel approach and
how it might be modified or replicated for other
regions or departments .
Shifting HCF Would Leave WCB’s Existing
Programs Without Funding. Shifting $18 .9 million
from the HCF to CDFW would leave WCB with less
funding to dedicate for its current land acquisition
and restoration programs . The Governor’s
proposal essentially prioritizes increasing ongoing
programs at CDFW over sustaining WCB’s existing
HCF-funded programs on an ongoing basis . Part
of the administration’s rationale for this change
is that WCB has bond funds available right now .
Specifically, WCB has roughly $400 million in
remaining funds from voter-approved general
obligation bonds and special funds that can
support these programs . Those funds, however,
are one time and not ongoing . (Absent any change,
the HCF would be available annually until its
current 2030 statutory expiration .) In addition,
CDFW would prioritize conservation and restoration
projects that differ somewhat from historical HCF
areas of priority . Moreover, the Legislature recently
expressed its prioritization of continued General
Fund for existing WCB programs by reauthorizing
the HCF statutes through 2030 .
One-Time Funding Proposals Seem Likely
to Improve Efficiencies. As noted earlier, one
component of CDFW’s SBB analysis is seeking
to identify ways the department can better carry
out its mission with strategies that extend beyond
just requesting increased ongoing funding for
new staff . We find that the Governor’s proposal
to spend $20 million to upgrade equipment aligns
with this goal . That is, the proposed activities
likely will decrease the amount of staff hours and
costs needed to accomplish state objectives for
CDFW hatcheries and wetlands . For example,
the department proposes to spend $1 .5 million
to purchase 18 new egg sorting machines for its
hatcheries, and estimates that each machine will cut
in half the time that staff currently spend manually
sorting eggs using tweezers several times a year .
Additionally, CDFW estimates replacing the aging
fleet of fish stocking vehicles would save between is
$250,000 and $400,000 in annual maintenance and
labor costs .
The proposals to improve operations at state
wetlands—by improving water conveyance and
purchasing new heavy equipment—likewise are
likely to reduce the staff time and costs needed to
conduct ongoing operations and maintenance on
those lands . Specifically, the department estimates
the new equipment will save between $150,000
and $300,00 annually in fuel costs, repairs, and
labor charges . The proposed projects should
also improve the quality of those wildlife habitats
and decrease carbon emissions . Similarly, CDFW
estimates its proposal to spend $6 million to
replace an existing aircraft that is over 30 years
old would improve performance and could save
between $250,000 and $300,000 annually in
maintenance, repair, and fuel costs .
Proposal to Address Funding Shortfall Is
Premature. While the Governor’s proposal to
provide $23 .4 million General Fund in 2021-22
addresses an issue the Legislature will need to
confront next year, we find that committing these
resources now is premature . We believe a strong
case exists for maintaining CDFW’s present funding
levels and recent augmentations—especially given
the service deficiencies that the first phase of the
SBB review has identified currently exist even with
those resources . However, the Legislature would
benefit from seeing the full results of the SBB
review before determining how to fund those—and
all—department activities on an ongoing basis .
In particular, CDFW’s forthcoming analysis of
its existing funding and distribution of revenues
(during the next phase of its SBB review) will
be informative in weighing the most appropriate
sources of new funding . The review might support
the ongoing provision of General Fund, but it might
also support increasing other revenues, such as
user fees . A desire for this more complete analysis
and perspective was the rationale behind the
Legislature making CDFW’s 2018-19 augmentations
limited term . Because those funds do not expire
until 2021-22, adopting this component of the
Governor’s proposal now is not necessary, and
the Legislature can delay action for another year
without causing disruptions to CDFW activities .
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
24
Recommendations
Weigh Trade-Offs of Different Options for
Augmenting CDFW’s Conservation Activities.
As noted above, we find the proposed activities to
increase CDFW’s species conservation and habitat
restoration activities have merit . Because the shift
from the HCF would create some impacts on the
WCB programs currently receiving those funds,
however, the Legislature might want to consider
alternative responses to funding this proposal . Yet
other options also have associated trade-offs . We
recommend the Legislature consider the relative
merits of both the existing WCB HCF-funded
activities and the proposed CDFW activities in
the context of its other General Fund priorities .
Moreover, should the Legislature opt to provide
new ongoing funding for CDFW, we recommend
it specify it be used for activities that reflect the
Legislature’s priorities, which could differ somewhat
from those in the Governor’s proposal .
We believe the Legislature has four key options
for responding to the Governor’s proposal:
• Adopt Governor’s Proposal to Shift Funds
Away From Existing WCB Programs. The
advantages of adopting the Governor’s
proposed approach are (1) it would have a
neutral effect on the state budget and not
result in new net General Fund commitments
and (2) many similar WCB programs could
continue to be supported with bond funds
in the near future . The disadvantages are
that programs currently funded by the
HCF could be negatively affected by losing
these dedicated ongoing revenues and
the requirement to spend funds in certain
categories .
• Reject Fund Shift, Fund Proposed Activities
With New General Fund. The Legislature
could maintain existing General Fund within
the HCF for WCB and instead provide an
additional $18 .9 million from the General Fund
for CDFW’s proposed activities . This would
avoid impacting existing programs but would
increase ongoing General Fund commitments
for CDFW .
• Fund a More Modest Package of
Augmentations. The Legislature could opt
to provide new funding for the department
only for the activities which it deems to be
the highest priorities . This approach would
address some of CDFW’s existing service
deficiencies and at a lower overall cost
compared to the Governor’s proposal . This
approach, however, would leave more of
the existing service deficiencies in place .
Additionally, such an approach still would
require the Legislature to transfer some
funding away from existing HCF-funded
programs or expend some new General Fund .
• Defer Decision Until 2021-22 When
Results of SBB Review Are Complete. The
Legislature could also reject the Governor’s
proposal without prejudice and revisit it next
year once the SBB review is complete . This
approach would provide the Legislature with
the benefit of additional information about
the department’s existing revenue structure
and whether funds could appropriately be
shifted or generated from sources other
than the General Fund . However, delaying
augmentations for another year would mean
continuing CDFW’s current deficiencies in
the species and habitat conservation and
permitting and environmental protection
service areas, and forego for another year
the opportunity to pilot the proposed new
restoration permitting approach .
If Legislature Approves Pilot Strategy
for Restoration Projects, Add Reporting
Requirements. If the Legislature opts to fund the
proposal to provide funding and staff to test a
new approach for expediting restoration project
permitting, we recommend it adopt supplemental
reporting language for CDFW to submit two reports .
Given this would be a new pilot approach intended
to inform future statewide efforts, we believe the
goals and information gleaned from this effort must
be explicit, transparent, and widely disseminated .
Specifically, at the outset of the initiative, CDFW
should submit a report communicating the
measureable objectives it hopes to accomplish
through this new approach, including quantifiable
metrics that will indicate success . Such metrics
could include how many acres of land might be
restored and how much more quickly permits will
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
25
be granted compared to current time lines . We
recommend this first report be due in the fall of
2020 . Additionally, after the pilot approach has
been implemented for a few years, the department
should report on its successes (as measured by the
established metrics), any challenges and lessons
learned, and potential recommendations for how
the approach could be improved and replicated
in other regions of the state . We recommend this
second report be due no later than December
2023 .
Approve Proposal to Provide $20 Million
One Time to Improve Efficiencies. Because it
would make certain department operations and
maintenance activities more efficient by reducing
some ongoing costs and staffing requirements, we
recommend the Legislature approve the proposed
$20 million in one-time General Fund to replace
outdated equipment and modernize operations .
Defer Decision on $23.4 Million Ongoing
General Fund Until Next Year. Because CDFW
has sufficient funding to maintain existing service
levels in the budget year, we recommend rejecting
the Governor’s proposal to commit additional
General Fund for 2021-22 before it is needed .
Instead, we recommend the Legislature use
forthcoming information from the department’s
SBB analysis to determine the appropriate funding
sources and amounts for CDFW as part of the
2021-22 budget development process .
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
The Department of Water Resources (DWR)
protects and manages California’s water resources .
In this capacity, DWR plans for future water
development and offers financial and technical
assistance to local water agencies for water
projects . In addition, the department maintains the
State Water Project, which is the nation’s largest
state-built water conveyance system . Finally,
DWR performs public safety functions such as
constructing, inspecting, and maintaining levees
and dams .
The Governor’s 2020-21 budget proposes a
total of $973 million from various funds for support
of the department . This is a net decrease of
$1 .3 billion (or 58 percent) compared to projected
current-year expenditures . This year-to-year
decrease is primarily due to the way bond funds are
accounted for in the annual budget . Specifically,
DWR had $1 .8 billion in 2019-20 spending authority
from bond funds appropriated over the past several
years, compared to $628 million proposed for
appropriation in 2020-21 . (These totals exclude
the roughly $1 .7 billion in annual payments from
water contractors for DWR’s work on the State
Water Project, as those funds are not appropriated
through the annual budget act .)
SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER
MANAGEMENT ACT
IMPLEMENTATION
The Governor proposes providing
increased General Fund to facilitate continued
implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act—$30 million one time for local
assistance grants and $9.6 million ongoing for
DWR to conduct additional technical assistance
and oversight activities. We recommend
approving both proposals but also adopting
language to ensure the local assistance funds
are used for projects that provide public
benefits and focus on efforts needed to
effectively implement groundwater sustainability
plans.
Background
State Passed Major Legislation to Regulate
Groundwater in 2014. In 2014, the Legislature
passed and the Governor signed three new
laws—Chapters 346 (SB 1168, Pavley),
347 (AB 1739, Dickinson), and 348 (SB 1319,
Pavley)—collectively known as the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) . With the
goal of achieving long-term groundwater resource
sustainability, the legislation represents the first
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
26
comprehensive statewide requirement to monitor
and operate groundwater basins to avoid depletion
(known as “overdraft”) . The act’s requirements
apply to 94 of the state’s 515 groundwater basins
that DWR has found to be “high and medium
priority” based on various factors, including
overlying population and irrigated acreage,
number of wells, and reliance on groundwater .
While comprising less than one-fifth of the
groundwater basins in California, the 94 high- and
medium-priority basins account for 98 percent
of California’s annual groundwater pumping . Of
the identified basins, DWR has identified 21 as
being “critically overdrafted,” which it defines
as a condition where a “continuation of present
water management practices would probably
result in significant adverse overdraft-related
environmental, social, or economic impacts .” The
remaining 421 basins ranked as being lower in
priority—generally smaller and more remote—are
encouraged but not required to adhere to SGMA .
Local Agencies Are Developing and Beginning
to Implement Management Plans. SGMA assigns
primary responsibility for ongoing groundwater
management to local entities . Local groundwater
sustainability agencies (GSAs)—formed by a
single or combination of local public agencies
with existing water or land management duties—
are responsible for developing and implementing
long-term groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) .
These plans will define the specific guidelines and
practices that will govern the use of individual
groundwater basins, including potentially limiting
extractions from these basins . For most of the
regions of the state subject to SGMA, GSAs must
adopt and begin to implement GSPs by January
2022 . For the 21 basins identified as being in
conditions of critical overdraft, however, GSPs were
due on January 31, 2020, and, thus, those GSAs
must now begin implementing strategies to manage
their basins sustainably . The law requires that
critically overdrafted basins achieve sustainability
goals by 2040, and that all other basins do so by
2042 .
DWR Tasked With Important Role in
Supporting SGMA Implementation. SGMA
tasked DWR with several responsibilities in
the initial phases of the act’s implementation,
including defining and prioritizing groundwater
basins, collecting and disseminating data and best
practices, and providing technical and financial
assistance to GSAs . While some amount of its
data collection and technical assistance efforts
will continue on an ongoing basis, starting in
2020, DWR has also begun to assume significant
workload associated with reviewing initial GSPs to
ensure they comply with the law . The department
must also provide GSAs with assistance as they
implement the actions described in their plans, as
well as conduct annual reviews to ensure basins
are making steady progress towards sustainability
goals .
Along with DWR, SWRCB also has certain
responsibilities in implementing SGMA, specifically
by enforcing the law and intervening when local
entities fail to follow the law’s requirements . If any
basins ultimately fail to comply with SGMA, the
state is charged with taking over their management .
Because the act is still in its initial years of
implementation, SWRCB has not yet been called
upon to play a large role .
State Has Provided Significant Funding
to Support SGMA-Related Activities in
Recent Years. To support DWR’s SGMA-related
responsibilities, the state has provided roughly
$160 million total for the department’s state-level
activities since 2014-15, primarily from the General
Fund . While some of this funding has been used
to contract for technical reports and third-party
facilitation services to assist GSAs, much of it
has been used for DWR staff . The department
has gradually been increasing the number of staff
working on SGMA, up to a total of 119 funded
positions in 2019-20 . (The state is also spending
$750,000 per year for five staff at SWRCB for
SGMA-related workload .)
In addition to state-level funding, the Legislature
has appropriated funds from voter-approved
general obligation bonds for grants to local
agencies to begin complying with SGMA . These
local assistance funds include about $140 million
from Proposition 1 (2014) (appropriated between
2015-16 and 2017-18) and $46 million from
Proposition 68 (appropriated in 2018-19) to develop
GSPs . Additionally, the Legislature authorized
$88 million from Proposition 68 in 2019-20 for
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
27
grants to GSAs to begin implementing their GSPs
and employ practices that bring their groundwater
usage into balance . For example, implementation
grants might fund projects that increase the rate
of groundwater replenishment, such as by building
new infrastructure to direct floodwaters onto the
land and enable that water to percolate into the
groundwater basin .
Governor’s Proposals
Proposes 37 New Positions, $9.6 Million
to Expand DWR’s Role in Supporting SGMA
Implementation. The Governor proposes
$9 .6 million in ongoing General Fund in 2020-21 to
support 37 new positions and increase DWR’s
SGMA-related activities . These staff would
primarily be engaged in compliance reviews of
GSPs and providing technical assistance to GSAs
as they implement their sustainability plans . This
augmentation would grow to $11 .2 million in
2021-22 and to $16 .3 million annually beginning
in 2022-23 to also cover ongoing data collection
contracts, such as for monitoring changes in
groundwater levels, land use patterns, and ground
elevation (known as subsidence) .
Proposes $30 Million for Local Agencies
to Transition to Next Phase of SGMA
Implementation. The Governor’s proposal
also includes $30 million in one-time General
Fund support to provide grants to the critically
overdrafted groundwater basins that must start
implementing their GSPs in 2020 . While DWR
has designated 21 basins as being in critically
overdrafted status, two currently have or are in
the process of having their groundwater usage
adjudicated by the courts; as such, only 19 basins
will be regulated by SGMA’s requirements and be
eligible for this funding . DWR states that its current
plan for these funds would be to provide roughly
$1 .5 million to each of the GSAs to undertake
studies or projects that would help limit the
economic disruption in their regions from complying
with SGMA .
Assessment
Successful Implementation of SGMA Is
Fundamental to State’s Management of
Water Resources The passage of SGMA was
a critical first step towards better groundwater
management, and successful implementation of the
act’s requirements should continue to be a state
priority . The coming years represent an important
period for establishing how SGMA will guide local
operations and practices in future years . DWR
plays a key role in supporting local efforts, and
the proposed increase in positions and funding
for state-level activities would better enable the
department to carry out its responsibilities . Local
agencies are undertaking the work of gathering and
analyzing data about their areas’ groundwater use,
defining sustainability targets for their basins, and
developing and beginning to implement enforceable
plans and practices for how the basins can be
managed to achieve those sustainability goals .
The comprehensiveness and effectiveness of these
processes and plans will determine the overall
success of the act . DWR can support these efforts
by providing oversight and support to ensure GSAs
stay on track to meet deadlines and work toward
their sustainability objectives .
Critically Overdrafted Basins Would Benefit
From Additional Support for Successful
Transition… As noted previously, the 21 critically
overdrafted basins face earlier SGMA deadlines
than the remaining 73 basins that are subject to
the act’s requirements . These areas of the state
face the double challenge of experiencing the
most severe imbalance between groundwater
usage and available groundwater resources, as
well as the most expedited time lines to begin
addressing that imbalance . As such, we believe
the Governor’s proposal to provide $30 million in
additional financial assistance to these basins could
help facilitate their success in these initial phases of
SGMA implementation .
…However, Governor’s Proposal Lacks
Safeguards to Ensure Appropriate and Effective
Use of Funding. While the intention to assist
critically overdrafted basins in beginning to
implement SGMA is reasonable, the Governor’s
proposal lacks details about how exactly the
funds would and should be used . For example,
the proposal does not include language specifying
that the use of these funds should be limited to
studies or projects that are necessary to enable the
GSAs to proceed with implementing their GSPs .
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
28
The Governor’s proposal also lacks adequate
safeguards to ensure these state funds would
be used for broad public benefits rather than to
address potential economic impacts on private
individuals . Moreover, the broad nature of how the
administration has described the purpose of these
funds—to help GSAs address potential negative
economic impacts in the region that could result
from SGMA—raises concerns about how they could
be used . For example, local stakeholders might
seek to use them not just to further implementation
of the law, but to address a wide range of
associated local impacts—including changes in the
local labor markets, shifting land use decisions,
and regional economic development . Such ancillary
issues are beyond the scope of DWR’s expertise
and also exceed the responsibilities that SGMA
tasks to the state . The state must be careful to
avoid setting expectations that it will assume
financial responsibility for addressing what could be
significant regional economic impacts associated
with SGMA implementation .
Recommendations
Approve $9.6 Million Increase for DWR’s
Implementation Activities. We recommend the
Legislature approve the Governor’s proposal to
provide DWR with additional staff and funding
to implement SGMA . Enhancing DWR’s efforts
to support GSAs will increase the chances that
local agencies will achieve statewide groundwater
sustainability goals . Moreover, helping to
ensure greater local compliance with the act’s
requirements will lessen the odds that the state has
to assume what likely would be significant costs to
take over management of noncompliant basins .
Approve $30 Million for Implementation
Grants but Add Language Directing Use of
Funds. To help support critically overdrafted basins
in their efforts to begin bringing their groundwater
use into balance, we recommend approving the
Governor’s proposal to provide $30 million in
one-time General Fund . However, we recommend
the Legislature include provisional language in
the budget bill that places parameters around
how these funds can—and cannot—be used .
For example, we recommend requiring that the
funds be used on projects that focus on public
benefits (such as for studies of strategies to assist
vulnerable communities that may lose drinking
water from dry wells) rather than private benefits
(such as to compensate individual farmers who will
have to reduce their dependence on groundwater
pumping) . Moreover, we recommend these funds
be focused on local efforts needed to implement
GSPs (such as to collect additional data necessary
to follow the plans) rather than projects intended
to address regional economic impacts that are
outside DWR’s scope of responsibility for assisting
with SGMA implementation (such as responding to
potential changes in the local labor market) .
TIJUANA RIVER AND NEW RIVER
RESTORATION PROJECTS
The Governor proposes providing funding
for projects to address pollution flowing
into Southern California in binational rivers
across the border from Mexico—$35 million
for the Tijuana River in San Diego County and
$28 million for the New River in Imperial County.
Both the proposals would address serious
public health and environmental concerns.
For the Tijuana River projects, however,
the administration has not yet identified a
source for funding ongoing operations and
maintenance activities in future years. We
recommend approving the New River proposal,
but requiring that the administration provide
an ongoing funding plan for the Legislature to
consider prior to approving the Tijuana River
proposal.
Background
Cross-Border Pollution Flows Into Southern
California in Rivers From Mexico. Areas in
Southern California have experienced pollution
flowing in binational rivers across the border from
Mexico . One prime example is the Tijuana River,
which flows from the Mexican city of Tijuana across
the border into the Tijuana River National Estuarine
Research Reserve in San Diego County and then
out into the Pacific Ocean past the city of Imperial
Beach . A second example is the New River,
which flows from the Mexican city of Mexicali into
the city of Calexico in Imperial County, and then
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
29
into the Salton Sea . Both rivers are dangerously
contaminated, creating public health concerns and
negative environmental impacts in their respective
regions .
Raw Sewage and Waste Flow Into Tijuana
River Valley. For many years, contaminated storm
and wastewater from the city of Tijuana and its
surrounding areas have flowed into California
through the Tijuana River and nearby canyons
and tributaries . Contaminants found in the river
include raw sewage, used tires, residential and
industrial waste, building materials, sediment,
and some hazardous waste . Polluted flows are
most severe during heavy storm events . These
toxic conditions have led to illnesses and other
negative public health effects in the region, which
contains several economically disadvantaged
communities . Additionally, the sewage and debris
flowing into the Tijuana River National Estuarine
Research Reserve compromise state and federal
wildlife habitat restoration and species conservation
efforts . After the flows pass through the estuary,
they empty into the Pacific Ocean, where the waste
discharges have led to frequent beach closures
that affect public access and local recreation-based
economies . The California Attorney General
(together with the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board and some cities in San Diego
County) has filed a lawsuit alleging water quality
violations against the International Boundary and
Water Commission, a binational federal agency that
addresses boundary and water issues and operates
a water treatment plant at the Tijuana border .
The state has dedicated some resources
towards addressing these persistent issues with
the Tijuana River . For example, over the past 15
years, state Parks spent a combined total of nearly
$9 million to remove sediment and trash from
the Goat Canyon Sediment Basin facility that is
located within the National Research Reserve . Also,
Chapter 542 of 2017 (SB 507, Hueso) provided
$500,000 to San Diego County to identify and
study potential projects to address pollution in the
valley . (The final report from that study is due in
spring 2020 .) Additionally, the 2019-20 Budget Act
provided $15 million from Proposition 68 to the
State Coastal Conservancy to undertake projects in
the valley .
New River Severely Contaminated by Various
Pollutants. The New River is also heavily polluted,
primarily from discharges of waste from domestic,
agricultural, and industrial sources in both Mexico
and the Imperial Valley . The river contains trash,
pathogens, and multiple contaminants at levels that
violate numerous state water quality standards .
Such conditions pose a threat to public health
and result in foul odors that inhibit economic
development in the region . These issues are
most prevalent in the city of Calexico, but also
contribute to the water quality problems that
the state has been trying to address where the
river ends at the Salton Sea . Because of this,
Proposition 68 included $10 million specifically to
address New River water quality issues .
Mexico and U.S. Governments Making
Some Efforts to Address Issues. Both the
U .S . and Mexican governments have dedicated
some resources towards addressing the pollution
in these rivers . For example, the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) states
that since 1997, the U .S . government has provided
about $330 million for these issues, including
(1) $280 million for the Tijuana River, mostly to
help build a wastewater treatment plant near the
border (the Mexican government also contributed
to the construction and operation of that plant)
and (2) $50 million for wastewater and sanitation
projects in Mexicali . CalEPA also reports that in
both Tijuana and Mexicali, Mexico is working on
upgrading infrastructure to collect and convey
sewage on its side of the border . These efforts and
expenditures, however, have not yet been sufficient
to rectify the significant pollution problems present
in both rivers .
The recent trade agreement between the U .S .,
Mexico, and Canada dedicated up to $300 million
for wastewater treatment along the U .S .-Mexico
border . However, how and where these funds will
be spent—including how much will be dedicated
to issues in California as compared to other border
states—has not yet been determined .
Governor’s Proposals
The Governor has two one-time funding
proposals to help address these border river
pollution issues .
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
30
$35 Million to Address Pollution Issues in
the Tijuana River Valley. The Governor proposes
$35 million in one-time General Fund support to
construct a series of projects in various tributaries
of the Tijuana River on the U .S . side of the valley,
as well as to operate and maintain them for two
years . The projects have the primary goals of
capturing trash and sediment and preventing
flooding . San Diego County would serve as the
lead agency for implementing and managing these
projects . The proposal includes:
• $17 million to build sediment detention basins,
automated trash screens, and infrastructure to
control flows in Smuggler’s Gulch .
• $4 million to build infrastructure to control flows
and manage existing trash collection structures
and sediment basins in Goat Canyon .
• $1 million to construct a flood control channel
and to undertake a feasibility study in Yogurt
Canyon .
• $6 .5 million annually for two years to operate
and maintain the new projects .
$28 Million for Improving Water Quality in
the New River . The Governor proposes a total of
$28 million—$18 million from the General Fund and
$10 million from Proposition 68—for the New River
Improvement Project, which would address solid
waste and water quality issues that are affecting
the city of Calexico and the Salton Sea . Specifically,
the proposed funding would help build a bypass
structure to divert much of the polluted river water
to the city’s existing wastewater treatment plant,
as well as a system to pump the water back into
the riverbed after it has been treated . The proposal
would also construct a new trash screen just
downstream from the Mexican border to keep
debris from flowing further down the river . The
city of Calexico would serve as the lead agency
for managing and implementing the projects and
has committed $50,000 annually to operate and
maintain them on an ongoing basis . The specific
components of the proposal include:
• $15 million to build a bypass encasement .
• $7 .3 million to build a trash screen and
diversion structure .
• $5 .4 million to build a pump back system .
Assessment
Waiting for Mexican or U.S. Governments
to Respond Would Prolong Negative Impacts.
Many of the negative impacts that the Tijuana
River and New River regions are experiencing are
caused by pollution that occurs on the other side
of the international border . This suggests that
Mexico—or our federal government—should take
the lead on actions and expenditures to address
them . However, given the magnitude of the effects
California is experiencing on public health, natural
resources, local economies, and recreation, it is
reasonable for the state to take action to respond .
While the state should not take full responsibility
for addressing all of the pollution in these rivers,
we find that making some contributions to try to
mitigate the damaging impacts Californians are
experiencing is appropriate .
Funding for Ongoing Maintenance and
Operations of Tijuana River Projects Not
Yet Identified. While the city of Calexico has
committed to funding the ongoing costs to maintain
and operate the proposed New River Improvement
Project in the future, no similar commitment has
yet been arranged with a local entity for the Tijuana
River projects . The Governor’s proposal would fund
the estimated annual costs of $6 .5 million for the
first two years, but does not include a plan for how
those costs would be covered thereafter .
Recommendations
Require Administration Submit Funding Plan
for Ongoing Costs. We recommend the Legislature
require that the administration present a plan for
how operations and maintenance for the Tijuana
River projects will be funded in future years . The
Governor’s proposal includes funding for the
first two years of these ongoing costs, but does
not identify a source for supporting the activities
thereafter . A full understanding of the potential
funding options—and an evaluation of the likelihood
of the state ultimately assuming these costs on an
ongoing basis—is essential for the Legislature to
adequately evaluate the trade-offs associated with
this proposal .
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
31
Withhold Approval of Funding for Tijuana
River Projects Until State Has Plan for Funding
Ongoing Costs. We recommend the Legislature
withhold action on approving the proposed
$35 million for the Tijuana River projects until it
has more certainty about how ongoing costs to
operate and maintain the projects will be funded
in future years . We believe the proposed projects
have merit and address important needs in the
region . Because of this, we believe the state
should ensure they will continue to function
as intended beyond the two years for which
maintenance funding is proposed . Approving
funding to construct the projects without a plan
for which entities will assume the significant costs
of operating and maintaining them on an ongoing
basis runs the risk of them falling into neglect and
failing to function effectively in the future . This could
place future pressure on the state to fund ongoing
costs to protect its substantial investment . If the
administration believes there is a significant chance
that the state will need to assume the $6 .5 million
in annual costs to maintain these projects, the
Legislature should incorporate that cost into its
decision of whether or not to construct these
projects now . If the administration is able to submit
the aforementioned plan within the coming months,
this would still allow the Legislature to consider
approving funding for the Tijuana River projects as
part of the 2020-21 budget .
Approve Funding for New River Project.
Because the proposed projects would address
serious public health issues in the city of Calexico
and the administration has a plan for how the
investments would be maintained in future years by
local stakeholders, we recommend approving the
Governor’s proposal to provide $28 million for the
New River Improvement Project .
AUGMENTATIONS FOR
EXISTING STAFF
The Governor has three proposals to continue
funding for a total of about 30 existing positions
at DWR, but also requests $550,000 in additional
funding for these positions in 2020-21 compared
to subsequent years. Because we find no
justification for this higher level of funding, we
recommend the Legislature fund the Governor’s
requests at a level that is $550,000 less than
proposed in the budget year.
Background
Newly Established Positions Typically Cost
More in Initial Year. When departments request
that the Legislature approve the addition of new
positions, they typically request supplementary
resources in the first year for one-time expenses
such as computers, cubicle build-out, and
potentially for new specialized equipment or
vehicles . The overall amount requested for
positions is usually less in subsequent years,
reflecting a decreased funding need after these
one-time purchases have been completed .
Governor’s Proposals
Requests $550,000 More in 2020-21
Compared to Subsequent Years, but for Existing
Positions. The Governor has three proposals to
continue a total of about 30 existing positions at
DWR and to either change their funding source
or extend funding that was initially provided on
a limited-term basis . Even though these are not
newly established positions, the proposals include
additional funding for 2020-21 compared to
subsequent years . Across the three proposals, the
total additional funding requested for these existing
positions in the budget year is $550,000 . (In total,
the three proposals request $6 .7 million .) The
specific proposals are as follows:
• Central Valley Flood Protection Board:
Continuation of Existing Staffing. Extends
limited-term General Fund for 19 existing
positions to continue core activities
at the Central Valley Flood Protection
Board—$322,000 higher costs in 2020-21 .
• Flood Planning Resourcing. Switches
funding from bond funds to the General Fund
for 8 .5 existing positions working on flood
planning—$194,000 higher costs in 2020-21 .
• Stream Gaging Plan Implementation.
Switches funding from special funds to
the General Fund for 3 existing positions
to develop a plan for implementing stream
gages—$34,000 higher costs in 2020-21 .
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
32
Assessment
No Justification for Additional Costs for
Existing Positions. We find no justification for
providing DWR with $550,000 more for the
30 positions in 2020-21 . These existing staff will
not be assuming new responsibilities or needing
new equipment, and the department should
be able to sustain them with the same level of
resources in the budget year as in future years .
The administration states that the difference in
requested funding is due to a change in its internal
accounting methodology for charging “overhead”
to different funds and programs . A change in
internal accounting, however, does not explain why
a different amount of resources would be needed
across the years or justify the state providing the
department with additional funding in one year for
conducting the same activities as in future years .
Recommendation
Reduce Funding for 30 Existing Positions by
$550,000. We recommend the Legislature provide
$550,000 less funding than requested by the
Governor in 2020-21 for 30 existing positions .
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
The Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) is charged with protecting the people of
California and the environment from the harmful
effects of toxic substances . DTSC administers the
following major programs:
• Site Mitigation and Restoration. DTSC
implements the state’s laws regarding the
identification, assessment, and cleanup of
sites contaminated by toxic substances,
including sites that are part of the federal
Superfund program, as well as state-only sites
(those where the state is the lead agency) .
The program currently oversees investigations
and cleanup of releases of hazardous
substance at approximately 1,300 sites .
The department also monitors long-term
operations and maintenance activities at more
than 230 sites where cleanup is complete .
• Hazardous Waste Management. The
department regulates the generation,
storage, transportation, and disposal
of hazardous waste through permitting,
compliance monitoring, and enforcement
of noncompliance . DTSC oversees more
than 95,000 hazardous waste generators
throughout the state and permits 71 treatment
and storage facilities . Additionally, DTSC
supports and oversees 81 local entities,
known as Certified Unified Program Agencies
(CUPAs), that implement the six elements
of the CUPA program—such as regulating
hazardous material release response plans
and inventories, and hazardous waste
generator and onsite treatment activities .
• Safer Consumer Products (SCP). This
program is intended to reduce human and
environmental exposure to toxic chemicals
by working with the industry to develop
safer consumer products . The SCP collects
information on the presence of toxic
chemicals in products in order to identify
priority products for possible regulation . It
also provides support and guidance to priority
product manufacturers for the analysis of safer
alternatives, and issues regulatory responses
to proposed alternatives .
• Exide Technologies Facility Contamination
Cleanup. DTSC oversees lead contamination
removal and remedial actions in the
communities surrounding the Exide
Technologies lead-acid battery recycling
facility in the City of Vernon .
The Governor’s 2020-21 budget proposes a total
of $325 million for support of DTSC . The proposed
amount reflects a decrease of $10 million, or
3 percent, compared to projected current-year
expenditures . Most of the department’s budget
is from special funds, particularly the Toxic
Substances Control Account (TSCA) and
Hazardous Waste Control Account (HWCA) .
The proposed budget would support a total of
947 positions for the department .
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
33
BOARD OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
We recommend that the Legislature
establish a Board of Environmental Safety in
order to improve transparency and promote
greater accountability of DTSC. However, the
Legislature could consider a different structure
and responsibilities for the board as compared
to that proposed by the Governor if such
changes would better align with legislative
priorities. For example, the Legislature may wish
to consider board membership and confirmation
requirements, as well as how much authority the
board should have to direct DTSC’s day-to-day
operations.
Background
Legislature Established Independent Review
Panel (IRP) to Review DTSC. Chapter 24 of
2015 (SB 83, Committee on Budget and Fiscal
Review) established within DTSC a three-member
IRP to assess the department’s performance in
various areas of operations and administration, as
well as to make recommendations to improve its
programs . The IRP held 28 public meetings and
submitted 11 reports to the Legislature between
January 1, 2016 and January 8, 2018 . The IRP
issued its final report on January 8, 2018, in which
it identified five priority areas on which to focus in
order to improve DTSC’s programs: (1) continuity
in executive leadership, (2) human resources,
(3) stable fiscal resources and addressing
structural deficits, (4) increased transparency and
accountability, and (5) reviewing governing statutes
that may need revision or repeal . One of the IRP’s
recommendations was to establish an oversight
board or consider other structural changes at DTSC
to improve accountability and transparency .
Governor’s Proposal
Establish Board of Environmental Safety.
The Governor’s budget proposes $3 million from
the General Fund for two years and budget trailer
legislation to establish a Board of Environmental
Safety (board) within DTSC . The five-member board
would be composed of a full-time chairperson
and four part-time paid members . The board
would be supported by 12 staff including ones
with expertise on hazardous substances and
environmental science, as well as administrative
support staff . Board members would be appointed
by the Governor, and four would be required to
possess expertise in one of the following areas:
public health, environmental science, environmental
law, or cumulative impact assessment and
management . One board member would be
selected from the public . Board members would
not be subject to confirmation by the Senate .
Beginning January 1, 2021, the board would
be required to conduct no fewer than six public
meetings per year .
Key Responsibilities of the Board. The
Governor’s proposed budget trailer legislation
specifies the board’s responsibilities, including the
following functions:
• Establish Charges for HWCA and TSCA.
The board would establish by regulation a
schedule of charges for (1) hazardous waste
facilities, generators, and handlers subject
to HWCA charges and (2) entities subject to
TSCA charges . (We discuss HWCA and TSCA
funding in greater detail later in this analysis .)
• Hear and Decide Permit Appeals. The board
would hear and decide appeals of hazardous
waste facility permit decisions .
• Provide Opportunities for Public Hearings.
The board would be required to hold
public hearings on individual permitted or
remediation sites .
• Provide Direction to DTSC. The board
would be required to evaluate alternatives
and develop recommendations to the director
of DTSC for a plan for hazardous waste
management in the state . The board would
also review and approve the director’s annual
priorities—including clear performance
metrics—for each of DTSC’s programs .
• Develop a Multiyear Schedule for
Discussion of Long-Term Goals. The board
would schedule discussions of long-term
goals for topics, including improvements to
(1) the efficiency of DTSC’s hazardous waste
facility permitting process, (2) DTSC’s ability
to meet its duties and responsibilities, (3) the
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
34
site mitigation program and how the cleanup
of contaminated properties is prioritized, and
(4) DTSC’s implementation of its enforcement
activities .
• Provide Ombudsman Services to the Public
and Regulated Community. The legislation
establishes an office of the ombudsman
within the board to (1) receive complaints
and suggestions from the public, (2) evaluate
complaints, (3) report findings and make
recommendations to the director and the
board, and (4) provide assistance to the public
when appropriate .
Under the statutory framework proposed by the
administration, the director of DTSC, or a designee,
would be required to present and respond to the
board on any issue or item brought before the board
by the public, ombudsman, or a board member .
Furthermore, the board would be required to
prepare an annual review of DTSC’s performance,
including, but not limited to, the director, and
provide the review to the Secretary of CalEPA .
According to the administration, the proposed
board structure is intended to respond to the
specific needs for DTSC and has been informed
through many years of stakeholder discussions .
The administration considered other examples of
similar boards in other departments . For example,
the administration considered:
• Board of Fire Protection Within CalFire.
Responsible for developing the general
forest policy of the state and determining
department guidance policies .
• State Mining and Geology Board Within the
Department of Conservation. Responsible
for providing oversight and direction to the
Office of Mine Reclamation and the California
Geological Survey .
• Fish and Game Commission Within CDFW.
Responsible for formulating general policies
for the conduct of the department .
(For information about existing boards that are
overseen by CalEPA, see the box on page 35 .)
Assessment
Board Could Be Established Through
Legislation. Both the policy committee process
and the budget process could be used to establish
a board . We note that a bill currently making its
way through the legislative process would establish
a board generally similar to the one proposed
by the Governor . Specifically, AB 995 (C . Garcia)
would create the Board of Environmental Safety
in CalEPA . Under the proposed legislation,
each member of the five-member board would
fill a different specialized position (representing
environmental law, environmental science, public
health, regulatory permitting, and cumulative impact
assessment and management) . There would be
a full-time salaried chairperson of the board with
the remaining four members receiving per diem,
but no salary . Members would be appointed to
serve four-year terms—two of the initial appointees
would serve two-year terms in order to stagger
appointments . The bill specifies the duties of
the board, which includes (1) reviewing specified
policies, processes, and programs within the
hazardous waste control laws; (2) proposing
statutory, regulatory, and policy changes; and
(3) hearing and deciding appeals of hazardous
waste facility permit decisions . The board would be
required to hold no less than six public meetings
per year . In addition to creating a board, the bill
would require the Secretary for CalEPA to convene
a task force to review the fee structure for HWCA
and TSCA . The Secretary would be required to
provide recommendations to the Legislature, by
January 10, 2021, on how these funds could be
modified to ensure they provide adequate funding
to support DTSC’s programs .
Concept of Establishing a Board Has Merit.
A board that holds regular public meetings
could improve transparency and allow the
public and stakeholders a regular venue to raise
issues and discuss their concerns . The board
structure could also help to promote greater
accountability by requiring the DTSC director to
regularly report on the department’s progress
towards meeting outcome goals . While we think
the Governor’s concept of establishing a board
has merit, the Legislature will want to closely
evaluate the specifics of the choices made by the
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
35
administration . Specifically, as we describe in our
recent report, The 2020-21 Budget: Assessing
the Governor’s Reorganization Proposals, and
summarize in the box on page 36, the Legislature
will want to keep in mind several key considerations
when evaluating the specifics of the proposal .
In this section, we discuss how most of these
considerations apply to the proposed creation of
the Board of Environmental Safety .
Board Could Make DTSC’s Programs More
Effective. Some elements of the Governor’s
proposal could make DTSC’s programs more
effective and result in the public receiving
improved services . In particular, the proposals to
require that the board (1) review and approve the
director’s annual priorities for each program and
(2) provide the Secretary of CalEPA with an annual
performance review appear to be directed towards
improving the department’s performance .
Board Would Not Immediately Result in
Improved Efficiency. The proposed board would
not result in DTSC using fewer resources or
improving the quality of services provided within
existing resources in the near term . Under the
proposed structure, the board would have limited
ability to require the department to make changes,
such as those intended to result in improved
efficiency . However, to the extent that the board
uses its oversight functions to steer the department
towards changes that improve its effectiveness—
as described previously—this could result in more
efficient operations in the long term, if done within
existing resources .
CalEPA Boards
Two Boards Operate Under California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
CalEPA oversees and coordinates the activities of two boards, three departments, and one office .
The two boards that CalEPA currently oversees are:
• California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB is charged with protecting the public
from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight
climate change . CARB consists of 16 members . Twelve are appointed by the Governor
and confirmed by the Senate, including five who represent local air districts, four experts
in fields related to air quality, two public members, and the Chair, who serves as the only
full-time, salaried member . Two members represent environmental justice communities (one
appointed by the Senate and one by the Assembly), and two nonvoting members appointed
for legislative oversight, (one from the Senate and one from the Assembly) . Voting members
serve six-year terms . CARB holds monthly meetings . CARB has 35 authorized positions to
support its activities including a Small Business Ombudsperson .
• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). SWRCB is charged with preserving,
enhancing, and restoring the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for
the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, as well as ensuring
proper water resource allocation and efficient use . Each of the five full-time salaried board
members fills a different specialized position (representing the public, engineering expertise,
water quality expertise, legal expertise, and water supply) . Members are appointed to
four-year terms and confirmed by the Senate . The board allocates water rights, adjudicates
water right disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes statewide
water quality standards, and guides the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards located
in the major watersheds of the state . The SWRCB’s broad authority over water allocation
and water quality protection generally enables it to provide comprehensive protection to
California’s waters . SWRCB generally meets twice each month . SWRCB has 18 authorized
positions to support its activities .
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
36
New Structure Would Improve Accountability.
The addition of the board would result in a
government structure where the Legislature and
the public could more easily identify the persons
responsible for managing DTSC’s programs and
hold them accountable . Annual goal setting,
long-term goal setting, and an annual performance
review of DTSC by the board would establish a
public process for identifying performance issues,
determining who is responsible for them, and
measuring the department’s progress towards
addressing them . The creation of an ombudsman
who would receive complaints from the public,
render assistance, and make recommendations
to the board and the director would increase
the department’s accountability by creating
an additional forum for the public to voice its
concerns . In addition, providing a public hearing
forum to appeal departmental permit decisions
could result in a more transparent appeals process .
Establishment of the Board Is Based Upon a
Policy Rationale. According to the administration,
the proposal to establish the board is designed
to address several problems that have occurred
in recent years . First, the board is intended to
provide strategic guidance for DTSC, which the
IRP found to be lacking . Second, as discussed
previously, the board structure is intended to
enhance public transparency and accountability
on DTSC processes, which has eroded the trust of
Issues to Consider When Reviewing Reorganization Proposals
In our recent publication, The 2020-21 Budget: Assessing the Governor’s Reorganization
Proposals, we recommend that the Legislature consider the following key questions when
evaluating proposals to reorganize state departments:
• Would the Reorganization Make Programs More Effective? A reorganization should
result in programs becoming more effective and the public receiving improved government
services .
• Would the Reorganization Improve Efficiency? A reorganization should result in
programs using fewer resources or improving the quality of services provided within existing
resources .
• Would the New Structure Improve Accountability? A reorganization should result in a
government structure where the Legislature and the public can easily identify the person or
entity responsible for managing a program .
• Is the Reorganization Based Upon a Policy Rationale? A reorganization should be
consistent with an underlying policy rationale to address a problem that has been clearly
identified .
• Does the Reorganization Reflect Legislative Priorities? A reorganization should be
consistent with the priorities that the Legislature has set for a program or government
function .
• Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? The benefits of a reorganization should outweigh
the costs to implement the reorganization, which can sometimes be significant .
• Is the Reorganization Well Planned? A reorganization should be well planned given
that it can result in significant complexities—such as the need to reclassify positions and
responsibilities .
• How Should the Reorganization Be Implemented? Government reorganizations can be
implemented in a few different ways, though typically they have been pursued either through
the formal executive branch reorganization process laid out in statute or budget trailer
legislation .
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
37
some stakeholders . Third, the proposed fee-setting
authority is intended to help ensure that fees are
set at levels that will maintain fiscal solvency in
TSCA and HWCA in the future .
Establishment of the Board Is Intended to Be
Consistent With Legislative Priorities. Ultimately,
the Legislature will have to determine the extent to
which this specific proposal is consistent with its
priorities for DTSC . However, through the creation
of the IRP, the Legislature signaled its intent to
identify options for DTSC to improve its overall
operations including permitting, enforcement,
public outreach, and fiscal management, and
the IRP recommended the creation of a board to
provide oversight of DTSC’s activities .
Benefits Could Potentially Outweigh the
Costs in the Long Term. The Governor’s budget
contains $3 million from the General Fund for the
implementation of the board and for the cost of
holding public meetings that are accessible to the
communities where they are held . It is difficult to
determine whether the benefits of establishing
a board—including possible improvements to
effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability—would
outweigh the monetary costs . However, in the short
term, establishment of a board would result in a
relatively small increase in costs .
Proposal to Establish Board Is Supported
by Adequate Planning. The proposal to establish
a board appears to be consistent with several
years of work by the administration, stakeholders,
and the IRP . In our view, the administration has
presented a reasonable plan that can serve to
facilitate discussions between the Legislature and
the administration for the establishment of a board .
Other Issues for Legislative Consideration.
In addition to considering whether the creation
of the board meets general criteria for successful
reorganizations, the Legislature faces other, more
specific implementation decisions regarding the
board . Accordingly, we raise some issues for the
Legislature to consider as it deliberates over this
proposal .
• Board Member Confirmation. The
Legislature may wish to consider the degree
to which specific details related to board
membership would reflect legislative priorities .
For example, the Legislature should consider
whether the Governor’s proposal to appoint
all five board members without making them
subject to Senate confirmation is likely to
result in a board that reflects the Legislature’s
priorities . Alternatively, for example, the
Senate and Assembly could each appoint one
member, and the Governor could have three
appointees who would be subject to Senate
confirmation . (Requiring Senate confirmation
would be consistent with AB 995, as well as
for SWRCB and CARB members .)
• Board Member Qualifications and
Compensation. The Legislature may wish
to consider whether it would prefer to have
one board member selected from the general
public (as proposed by the Governor) or
to require professional qualifications for all
appointees . Assembly Bill 995, for example,
would require the fifth board member to have
expertise in the area of regulatory permitting .
Also, the Legislature may wish to consider
how the board members are compensated
and how compensation levels might affect the
state’s ability to recruit qualified candidates .
Under the Governor’s plan, the chair of the
board would be a full-time salaried position
and the remaining four board members would
be part-time salaried positions . Under AB 995,
for example, the chair would be a full-time
salaried position, and the other four members
would not receive salaries but would receive
per diem compensation .
• Board’s Authority Over the Department.
Under the Governor’s proposal, the board
would have a complementary role to DTSC
and would perform specific functions,
while the department would maintain
day-to-day management responsibility . The
administration’s proposed structure was
created to respond to its assessment of
the specific needs of DTSC as identified
through stakeholder discussions and internal
discussions . However, other boards under
CalEPA’s jurisdiction, such as SWRCB and
CARB, have greater authority to direct
day-to-day operations than is proposed
for the Board of Environmental Safety . The
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
38
Legislature may wish to consider how much
authority to invest in the board to allow it to
require changes to DTSC’s operations .
Recommendation
We recommend the Legislature establish a
board in order to improve DTSC’s transparency and
accountability, and thereby help restore confidence
in the department within the regulated community
and the public . We note that SWRCB and CARB
already exist under CalEPA and have demonstrated
that a board-based structure can be a successful
model for environmental regulatory agencies . In
our view, the long-term benefits of establishing a
board to oversee DTSC’s activities could eventually
outweigh the short-term costs and result in the
public receiving improved services .
However, if the Legislature authorizes a new
oversight board, we would recommend that it
consider a range of issues to ensure that the
structure and responsibilities of the board are
consistent with legislative priorities . This could
include consideration of the board membership and
confirmation requirements, as well as the level of
authority the board would have over DTSC .
STRUCTURAL SHORTFALL OF
DTSC SPECIAL FUNDS
We recommend the Legislature decide
whether to establish a Board of Environmental
Safety before weighing the merits of the
Governor’s proposals to restructure charges for
HWCA and TSCA. We further recommend the
Legislature wait to take action on the Governor’s
proposal to transfer General Fund to TSCA and
HWCA until the May Revision when updated
information about the funds’ conditions will be
available. The Legislature may wish to consider
whether the Governor’s budget trailer legislation
to adjust TSCA and HWCA would (1) create a
charge structure that would cover the costs
of both the department’s existing mandated
functions and potential program expansions,
and (2) reflect the polluter pays principle.
Background
DTSC administers HWCA and TSCA, which
combined typically represent about half of DTSC’s
total budget . Figure 12 displays the amount and
percent of total funding that TSCA and HWCA
comprise in each of DTSC’s four major programs .
As shown, the bulk of TSCA funding goes to the
Site Mitigation and Restoration program, the SCP
program, and the Exide Technologies Cleanup
program, while the bulk of HWCA funding goes to
the Hazardous Waste Management program .
TSCA Receives Revenues From Various
Sources. Major sources of revenue for TSCA
include various charges, fines, and penalties .
TSCA typically receives about 80 percent of its
revenue from an environmental charge levied
on organizations that use, generate, store, or
conduct activities related to hazardous materials .
The amount of the charge is scaled based on the
number of employees the organization has . For
example, organizations with between 50 employees
and 75 employees pay $352 annually .
Figure 12
TSCA and HWCA Support for Major DTSC Programs
(Dollars in Millions)
Program
2018-19
TSCA HWCA
Amount Percent Amount Percent
Site Mitigation and Restoration $40.8 29.8%——
Hazardous Waste Management 0.6 0.7 $61.9 74.4%
Safer Consumer Products 13.2 88.0 ——
Exide Technologies Facility Contamination Cleanup 60.5 96.1 0.9 1.5
TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act; HWCA = Hazardous Waste Control Account; and DTSC = Department of Toxic Substances Control.
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
39
Organizations with 1,000 or more employees pay
$16,681 annually . In addition, over the past few
years, TSCA has received General Fund loans to
expedite the cleanup of contamination from the
Exide Technologies Facility . These loans to TSCA
have been large enough in recent years to account
for roughly half of TSCA’s revenues .
HWCA Receives Revenues Mainly From
Charges. Major sources of revenues for HWCA
include charges on hazardous waste generators,
waste disposal entities, and other facilities that
handle hazardous waste . For example, the fee
on generators generally is based on the amount
of hazardous materials produced, subject to a
cap . Some charges on generators and facilities
are subject to an annual Consumer Price
Index adjustment . Other charges, such as a
U .S . Environmental Protection Agency (U .S . EPA)
identification verification charge and a manifest
charge, are not adjusted for inflation .
Office of State Audits and Evaluations
(OSAE) Conducted a Performance Audit. In
response to concerns about DTSC’s accounting
practices, OSAE, within the Department of
Finance (DOF), conducted a performance audit of
DTSC’s accounting practices that was released in
December 2019 . The audit found (1) an ineffective
system of quality control, (2) improper application
of accrual policies and procedures, (3) inadequate
review of accounting transactions, (4) incorrect
revenue account classifications, and (5) an
outdated cost allocation plan . DTSC is currently
working to address these audit findings .
TSCA and HWCA Face Structural Imbalances.
In recent years, the growth in expenditures
from TSCA and HWCA has outpaced growth
in revenues, transfers, and other adjustments,
creating structural imbalances in both funds .
According to the most recent estimates available,
in 2018-19, HWCA expenditures were $5 .7 million
greater than revenues, and TSCA expenditures
were $13 .1 million greater than revenues (excluding
expenditures and the General Fund transfer for
Exide cleanup) . We note that the magnitude of
the structural imbalances has been unclear until
recently because DTSC’s accounting unit has
experienced significant delays in closing DTSC’s
monthly financial records and providing accurate
certified financial statements and financial
information for use by the State Controller’s Office
and DOF . DTSC has indicated these delays were
partly due to the implementation issues with its
transition to the Financial Information System for
California (commonly referred to as FI$Cal) .
According to the administration, the structural
imbalance is due, in part, to additional operational
costs to implement expanded responsibilities
the department has been given since 2000 . For
example, Chapter 559 of 2008 (SB 509, Simitian)
established the SCP program, which is currently
funded at about $16 million, most of which is
funded from TSCA . Other budget augmentations
in recent years—several of which were intended to
improve program performance in certain operational
areas—have increased costs to TSCA and HWCA .
HWCA Backfill From General Fund Approved
in 2019-20. To address the structural deficit
identified by the department, the 2019-20 budget
plan included a total of $46 million from the General
Fund to keep HWCA fiscally solvent for two years,
including $27 .5 million in 2019-20 and $18 .5 million
in 2020-21 . In the absence of the backfill, the
HWCA balance was projected to become insolvent
in 2019-20 .
Governor’s Proposal
General Fund Transfers to TSCA and HWCA in
2020-21. The Governor’s budget plan proposes to
transfer $12 million from the General Fund to TSCA .
Absent the $12 million transfer, DTSC would fall an
estimated $10 million short of being able to fund
the projected costs for the programs it supports .
Under the Governor’s proposal, TSCA would start
the 2020-21 fiscal year with an estimated beginning
balance of $753,000 and end the year with an
estimated reserve of $2 million . The Governor
proposes an additional $1 million transfer from
the General Fund to HWCA, increasing the total
transfer for the budget year to $19 .5 million . Under
the Governor’s proposal, HWCA would begin the
2020-21 fiscal year with an estimated balance of
$5 .5 million and end the year with an estimated
reserve of $1 .3 million .
One-Year Change and Increase in Charges for
2021-22. The proposed budget trailer legislation
makes two sets of changes for the charges that
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
40
generate revenues for TSCA and HWCA . First, for
HWCA, it replaces the existing generator, U .S . EPA
identification verification, manifest, and disposal
charges with a new generation and handling
charge, which would be based on a price-per-ton
model and effective in 2021-22 . This change, in
combination with proposed elimination of some
charge exemptions, is projected to increase
revenues into HWCA . Figure 13 displays the
projected revenues for HWCA in 2020-21 and
2021-22 under the Governor’s proposal . Second,
the proposed language increases the level of
charges that would have to be paid under TSCA’s
existing environmental charge . These specific
changes would remain in effect until the charges
adopted by the board for 2022-23 went into effect .
New Board Would Set TSCA and HWCA
Charges for 2022-23 and Out Years. The
administration proposes budget trailer legislation
to provide the proposed Board of Environmental
Safety with ongoing authority to set charges for
TSCA and HWCA beginning with the 2022-23 fiscal
year based on the charge structures established
in 2021-22 . The board would establish a schedule
of charges annually based on its calculations of
charges necessary to align TSCA’s and HWCA’s
revenues with the amounts appropriated by the
Legislature for support of DTSC’s programs .
While the board would have authority to set these
charges annually, the administration’s proposed
language sets a maximum level for each charge
that would be adjusted annually beginning in
2022 to reflect increases or decreases in costs as
measured by the Consumer Price Index .
Issues for Legislative Consideration
Long-Term Solution Should Reflect “Polluter
Pays” Principle. The Legislature will want to
consider options for modifying the current revenue
structure for HWCA and TSCA to ensure that they
generate sufficient future revenues to support
mandated departmental functions . Importantly,
changes to the charges imposed under HWCA and
TSCA should reflect the polluter pays principle:
those who produce or otherwise contribute to
pollution should bear the costs of managing
it to prevent damage to public health and the
environment . The administration states that this
principle is part of its rationale for how it structured
this proposal . Generally, we find that the proposal is
consistent with the polluter pays principle .
Are Statutory Maximum Charges Set at a
Level That Would Allow for Program Growth?
The Legislature may wish to consider whether
the caps on charges proposed in the Governor’s
proposed budget trailer legislation would be
sufficient to cover the costs of
both the department’s existing
mandated functions and potential
program expansions (such as
when the SCP program was
created) . The administration has
not provided an estimate of the
potential revenue that could be
generated under the new charge
structures, which includes potential
increases in some charges, as
well as elimination of others . This
makes it difficult for the Legislature
to assess the degree to which the
proposed structure would provide
a long-term fix to the structural
deficits facing TSCA and HWCA .
The Legislature may wish to have
the department report on whether
the proposed charge maximums
Figure 13
HWCA Revenue Projections Under Governor’s Proposal
(In Millions)
2020-21 2021-22
Existing Charges
Projected
Revenue Proposed Charges
Projected
Revenue
Generator $28.6 Generation and handling $61.1
Disposal 6.2
EPA ID verification 5.4
Manifest 2.2
Subtotals ($42.4)($61.1)
Facility $5.6 Facility $11.2
Other 0.1
Subtotalsa ($5.7)($11.2)
Total Revenue b $48.0 $72.3
a Fee-for-service revenues are not included—fee-for-service charges are calculated based on the Department of Toxic
Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) actual costs which are not assignable to DTSC’s nonpermitting activities related to
facility permits or to its overall regulatory program costs.
b May not total due to rounding.
HCWA = Hazardous Waste Control Account and EPA ID = Environmental Protection Agency Identification.
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
41
would allow enough flexibility to expand existing
departmental functions or create new ones in the
future without the need to make additional statutory
changes to them .
Recommendations
Decide Whether to Establish a Board Before
Weighing HWCA and TSCA Proposals. We
recommend the Legislature decide whether to
establish a board within DTSC before weighing the
merits of the Governor’s proposals to restructure
charges for HWCA and TSCA . Under the
Governor’s proposed budget trailer legislation, full
implementation of the proposal to allow a board to
set charges for various entities under HWCA and
TSCA is contingent upon first establishing such
a board . If the Legislature rejects the Governor’s
proposal to establish a board, the proposed
budget trailer legislation regarding HWCA and
TSCA charges would require significant revision
before they could be implemented . We recommend
the Legislature consider the scope of the board’s
authority and define its responsibilities consistent
with legislative priorities before the Legislature
takes up the issue of whether such a board should
be given the authority to annually adjust HWCA and
TSCA charges .
Withhold Action on General Fund Transfers
Pending May Revision. We recommend the
Legislature wait to take action on the Governor’s
proposal to transfer General Fund to TSCA and
HWCA . Given the level of uncertainty that has
plagued these two funds over the past several
years, we believe it makes sense to wait until
the May Revision when more information about
prior- and current-year revenues and expenditures
will be available before taking action on this item .
We will provide an updated analysis of TSCA and
HWCA fund conditions at the time of the May
Revision .
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
The Department of Conservation (DOC) is
charged with the development and management
of the state’s land, energy, and mineral resources .
The department manages programs in the areas
of (1) geology, seismology, and mineral resources;
(2) oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources;
and (3) agricultural and open-space land . The
Governor’s budget proposes $136 million for
DOC in 2020-21, a decrease of about $10 million,
or 7 percent, from estimated expenditures in
the current year . The year-over-year decrease is
mainly explained by a reduction in one-time bond
appropriations from the current year, partially
offset by a budget proposal to increase oil and gas
regulatory activities (described in more detail in the
next section) .
CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC ENERGY
MANAGEMENT (CALGEM) DIVISION:
MISSION TRANSFORMATION AND
OVERSIGHT
The administration proposes $13.9 million
and 53 positions in 2020-21, growing to
$24.3 million and 128 positions in 2022-23.
We recommend the Legislature approve most
of the resources proposed, but recommend
withholding action on the public transparency
component of the proposal ($600,000 and
three positions in 2020-21) until the department
provides additional information to justify the
request. Absent additional justification, we
would recommend the Legislature reject it.
We also recommend the Legislature consider
approving only the funding and positions
requested in 2020-21, but not for the out-years,
thereby providing the Legislature an opportunity
to request an update on the division’s
performance as part of its deliberations on the
2021-22 budget.
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
42
Background
CalGEM Regulates Oil and Natural Gas
Production. Chapter 771 Statutes of 2019
(AB 1057, Limón) changed the name of the Division
of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) to
the CalGEM Division . The division regulates onshore
and offshore oil, natural gas, and geothermal wells .
The division is charged with ensuring the safe
development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal
resources in the state through sound engineering
practices that protect the environment, prevent
pollution, and ensure public safety . The division
consists of headquarters in Sacramento, and four
geographic districts (northern, southern, inland, and
coastal) . It coordinates with other state and federal
agencies on regulatory issues that fall outside of its
jurisdiction . For example, it collaborates with the
U .S . EPA, SWRCB, and the nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to implement
and carry out water pollution and control programs .
In order to fulfill its mandate to regulate oil and
natural gas operators, the division performs various
regulatory activities .
• Reviews and Approves or Denies Permits.
Oil and natural gas operators must obtain
permits from the division in order to perform
a variety of common activities including
(1) drilling new wells, (2) reworking or
deepening existing wells, and (3) plugging
and abandoning wells . The division typically
evaluates 7,000 to 10,000 permit applications
per year .
• Witnesses Field Operations. State law
and regulations require division staff to
witness about 30 different oil and natural
gas production operations and the testing
of certain equipment (referred to as “shall
witness” operations) . For example, the
plugging and abandonment of a well
encompasses numerous steps that are
required to be witnessed by field inspectors .
State law and regulations also allow the
division to witness certain oil and natural
gas production operations and testing of
equipment (referred to as “may-witness”
operations) . Generally, the division places a
higher priority on sending field inspectors to
observe “critical” may-witness operations that
are performed near a building intended for
human occupancy such as a home or school .
There were 27,468 shall-witness operations
2018 .
• Evaluates Aquifer Exemptions. An aquifer
exemption is one of a series of requirements
to allow an operator to inject oil and natural
gas production fluids into the ground if the
aquifer is not a current or future source of
drinking water . The approval of an aquifer
exemption consists of six sequential review
and approval steps by multiple agencies—
including CalGEM, SWRCB, and U .S . EPA—
and takes at least one year to complete . The
division is currently involved in 19 aquifer
exemption package reviews that are at various
stages in the approval process .
• Regulates Underground Injection Control
(UIC). The UIC program regulates the
permitting, drilling, inspecting, testing,
and sealing of about 55,000 UIC wells in
California that fall into two categories: (1) wells
that inject water or steam for enhanced
oil recovery and (2) wells that return briny
water—typically unusable for drinking or
irrigation—from oil and natural gas production
back underground . According to the division,
there are over 850 UIC projects statewide that
require review . These projects are generally
defined by a geological zone or area and
can be as small as a few wells or as large as
thousands of wells that inject fluids .
• Performs Construction Site Well Reviews.
The division developed the construction site
well review program to assist local permitting
agencies in identifying and reviewing the
location and condition of oil or natural gas
wells located near or beneath proposed
construction sites . According to the division,
this function is important in urban areas,
such as Los Angeles, where oil fields are
typically older—sometimes more than
100 years old—and urbanization is rapidly
occurring . In 2018-19, the division processed
370 construction site reviews which take from
days to months to complete depending on
the size and complexity of the review and the
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
43
availability of data on the wells at or near the
construction site .
• Regulates Pipelines and Facilities. After
oil and natural gas is pumped from the
ground, it goes through a production facility
that prepares it for sale to refineries or gas
utilities . The division’s pipelines and facilities
unit oversees these facilities and regulates
all oil and natural gas production equipment
between the wellhead, where oil and natural
gas leaves the ground, and the sales meter,
where ownership or custody changes hands .
• Issues Notices of Violation (NOV) and
Enforcement Orders. The division’s
enforcement program was established in
2018-19 to centralize and standardize the
division’s statewide enforcement efforts .
Field inspectors issue NOVs to operators
who are out of compliance with state laws
or regulations . NOVs can be followed by
enforcement orders to comply (Orders) if a
noncompliant operator refuses to voluntarily
take action to remedy a violation . Under the
enforcement program, staff review NOVs
and draft Orders in coordination with the
department’s legal staff .
• Regulates Idle Wells. The division regulates
idle wells which are generally defined as wells
that have not produced for two years or more
and have not yet been properly plugged and
abandoned . Idle wells can leak oil or natural
gas, which can pose risks to life, health,
property, and natural resources if they are not
adequately monitored and tested regularly .
The division manages different plans for the
elimination and testing of idle wells, which
require division staff to monitor to ensure all
work is being completed by operators in a
timely manner, and staff witness well testing to
ensure it is done to the appropriate standards .
New idle well regulations, that went into effect
April 1, 2019, are expected to increase the
number of idle wells tested per month from
about 200 in 2020 to over 700 in 2023 .
• Regulates Well Stimulation. Well stimulation
treatment refers to processes performed
on oil and natural gas wells to increase
production, such as hydraulic fracturing (also
known as fracking) . The division regulates
well stimulation treatments in cooperation
with SWRCB, which reviews all proposed
projects to determine their potential effect
on groundwater . The division performs an
extensive engineering review and well integrity
evaluation for well stimulation projects .
Division Has Expanded Over the Past Decade.
Over the past decade, the state has enacted
legislation to strengthen the division’s regulatory
authority and oversight over oil and natural
gas production and provided the division with
significant new resources . As shown in Figure 14
(see next page), between 2012-13 and 2019-20,
the Legislature approved proposals to (1) increase
field inspections, (2) enhance the UIC program,
(3) perform construction site reviews, (4) improve
gas pipeline safety through periodic testing,
(5) establish a centralized statewide enforcement
program, (6) develop a new idle well management
program, (7) implement a program to regulate
well stimulation, and (8) provide funds to plug
abandoned wells .
Well Statewide Tracking and Reporting
(WellSTAR). In addition to the regulatory resources
shown in Figure 14, the Legislature funded
WellSTAR beginning in 2015-16 . WellSTAR is an
electronic database—now nearing completion—that
allows oil and gas operators to submit required
information online and allows the public to access
information about well stimulation permits, well
maintenance data, and other data . WellSTAR
was implemented largely in response to U .S . EPA
requirements, as well as various changes in state
law that required increased collection and reporting
of information on well stimulation treatments and
disposal of water produced during oil and natural
gas drilling operations .
Recent Legislation Expands the Division’s
Regulatory Role. The Legislature recently passed
four pieces of legislation that increased the
division’s regulatory authority and required the
division to perform studies . Some of the major
provisions from each piece legislation are as
follows:
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
44
• Chapter 771 of 2019 (AB 1057, Limón.)
Chapter 771 authorizes the division to require
increased financial assurances from an
operator based upon the division’s evaluation
of the risk that the operator will desert its
wells and the potential threats the wells pose
to life, health, property, and natural resources .
Chapter 771 also mandates operators provide
additional documentation—such as proof of
sale and lease agreements—when ownership
of wells or facilities changes .
Figure 14
Key CalGEM Enacted Budget Proposals Since 2012-13
(Dollars in Millions)
Program and Proposal Description
First Year Ongoing
Positions Amount Positions Amount
Oil and Gas Operations
DOGGR Compliance and Support Staff Augmentation (2012-13)—Funding
and positions to enhance DOGGR’s onshore and offshore regulatory
programs by improving its (1) construction site review, (2) environmental
compliance program, and (3) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.
18 $2.5 18 $2.3
Chapter 313 of 2013 (SB 4, Pavley) Implementation (2014-15)—Funding
and positions to implement a program to regulate well stimulation, including
hydraulic fracturing, as mandated by SB 4.
65 13.0 60 9.3
SB 4 Contracting Costs (2014-15)—Funding to complete an independent
scientific study on well stimulation treatments as required under SB 4.
—5.7 ——
UIC Program (2015-16)—Funding and positions to enhance the UIC program
and to increase the division’s support staff.
23 3.5 23 3.3
Underground Gas Storage Regulation (2016-17)—Funding and positions
for increased regulatory activities for underground gas storage facilities.
20 4.2 20 3.3
Chapter 601 of 2015 (AB 1420, Salas) Implementation (2016-17)—Funding
and positions to improve gas pipeline safety through periodic testing.
10 1.4 10 1.2
Oil and Gas Studies (2016-17)—Funding (two year) to contract for
independent scientific studies to assess well stimulation practices.
—3.0 ——
Chapter 272 of 2016 (AB 2729, Williams) Implementation, Idle Well
Testing (2017-18)—Funding and positions to develop a new Idle Well
Management Program.
8 1.5 15 2.5
Enforcement Program (2018-19)—Funding and positions to develop a new
Centralized Statewide Enforcement Program.
6 1.2 6 1.2
Regulatory Field Inspection (2018-19)—Funding and positions to increase
inspections and enforcement and mitigate the risk of urban encroachment
on oil and gas fields.
21 4.3 21 3.7
Deserted and Orphan Wells
Orphan Well Elimination (2012-13)—Funding (three year) to plug orphan oil
and gas production wells that pose a threat to the environment and public
safety.
—$1.0 ——
Orphan Well Remediation (2016-17)—Funding to plug orphan oil and gas
production wells that pose a threat to the environment and public safety.
—1.0 —$1.0
Chapter 652 of 2017 (SB 724, Lara) Implementation (2018-19)—Funding to
carry out additional deserted well and production facility work.
—1.6 —0.6
a The California Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) Division was formerly known as the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), until it was renamed by
Chapter 771 of 2019 (AB 1057, Limón).
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
45
• Chapter 772 of 2019 (AB 1328, Holden).
Chapter 772 requires the division—in
consultation with CARB—to measure
emissions from up to 500 idle and abandoned
oil and natural gas wells in California, in order
to provide information on hazardous wells and
better understand how fugitive emissions may
pose a risk to workers and nearby residents .
Chapter 772 also requires contracted
independent experts to undertake a study
that includes an estimate of the hydrocarbon
emissions from the state’s idle and abandoned
wells .
• Chapter 773 of 2019 (SB 463, Stern).
Chapter 773 generally requires (1) an operator
to apply for a permit to perform a well
stimulation treatment in order to maintain
wells that are used for underground storage
of natural gas; (2) an operator of a natural
gas storage well to provide the division
with a complete chemical inventory of the
materials that could be emitted from the well
in the event of a leak; and (3) the division to
review and, if necessary, revise its natural gas
storage well policy and regulations .
• Chapter 774 of 2019 (AB 551, Jackson).
Chapter 774 requires each operator of an
oil or natural gas well to submit a report
to the division, beginning July 1, 2022,
that estimates the operator’s total costs
to plug and abandon all of its wells and
to decommission all attendant production
facilities, including site remediation .
Chapter 774 requires the division to conduct
inspections of certain idle wells and deserted
production facilities and to report certain
information stemming from these inspections
to the Legislature .
Governor’s Proposal
The administration proposes $13 .9 million from
the Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Administrative Fund
in 2020-21 (growing to $24 .3 million in 2022-23
and ongoing) primarily to support the expansion
of CalGEM activities . Under the proposal,
the department would receive an additional
53 positions in 2020-21 (growing to 128 positions
over three years) for these activities . Of the total
positions proposed, the division would increase
by 120 authorized positions over three years to a
total of 427 authorized positions, or by 39 percent .
(We note that the Governor’s proposal would also
establish eight positions—six administrative and
two legal—outside of the division .) Figure 15
summarizes the seven components of the
Governor’s proposal .
Increase Field Presence. The Governor
proposes $4 .8 million and 22 new positions in
2020-21 (growing to $14 .1 million and 70 new
positions in 2022-23 and ongoing) to expand
the division’s field presence . The positions would
perform the following regulatory functions:
(1) witness field operations, (2) review UIC projects
and applications, (3) review and manage the aquifer
exemption approval packages, (4) process permit
Figure 15
Governor’s Proposed California Geologic Energy Management Division Expansion
Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Administrative Fund (Dollars in Millions)
Description of Expansion Components
2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 and Ongoing
Funding Positions Funding Positions Funding Positions
Increase field presence $4.8 22.0 $9.9 48.0 $14.1 70.0
Implement legislation 6.4 16.0 4.9 27.0 4.9 27.0
Regulatory enhancement (enforcement)0.8 5.0 1.3 8.0 1.6 10.0
Collect data on pipelines and facilities 0.6 3.0 1.4 7.0 1.7 10.0
Improve public transparency 0.6 3.0 0.9 5.0 0.9 5.0
Meet new requirements for idle wells 0.3 2.0 0.6 3.0 0.6 3.0
Address increased well stimulation workload 0.4 2.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 3.0
Totals $13.9 53.0 $19.5 101.0 $24.3 128.0
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
46
applications, and (5) perform construction site
reviews . Some of the requested positions could
perform more than one of these five regulatory
functions . For example, 23 of the positions
(Associate Oil and Gas Engineers) could perform
field inspections, as well as process permit
applications and work on UIC reviews . About 27 of
the proposed positions (Engineering Geologists)
would spend the bulk of their time in the field, while
most of the remaining 20 positions would perform
support staff functions or serve in supervisory roles .
Implement Recent Legislation. The budget
includes $6 .4 million and 16 new positions in
2020-21 ($4 .9 million and 27 positions in 2022-23
and ongoing) to implement recent legislation,
including (1) $1 .3 million and 7 positions to
implement Chapter 771, (2) $1 million (one time)
to implement Chapter 772, (3) $400,000 and
2 positions to implement Chapter 773, and
(4) $3 .2 million and 18 positions to implement
Chapter 774 .
Regulatory Enhancement (Enforcement).
The administration proposes $800,000 and five
new positions in 2020-21 (growing to $1 .6 million
and ten positions in 2022-23 and ongoing) to
identify and implement enforcement actions .
Enforcement staff would perform several functions
including collecting and organizing evidence,
gathering and evaluating well ownership and lease
information, and identifying responsible parties to
support the issuance of Orders . Legal staff would
support enforcement staff by organizing evidence,
building enforcement cases, and prosecuting and
adjudicating Orders .
Collect Data on Pipelines and Facilities.
The Governor proposes $600,000 and three new
positions in 2020-21 (growing to $1 .7 million and
ten positions in 2022-23) to collect and analyze
information that operators are required to provide,
such as maps and data on oil and gas pipelines
and tank facilities and pipeline management
plans . The staff would utilize this data to identify,
map, and categorize wells and facilities to guide
regulatory activities . According to the division, this
would allow it to better (1) plan for inspections;
(2) identify hazards; (3) collect, manage, and
analyze facility condition information; (4) retain
data on abandonment costs; and (5) prioritize well
abandonment projects .
Improve Public Transparency. The budget
includes $600,000 and three new positions in
2020-21 (growing to $900,000 and five positions
in 2022-23) to improve public transparency by
(1) conducting more data analysis and improved
public reporting, (2) performing ongoing analysis
of newly available data from WellSTAR, and
(3) adding a second public outreach coordinator for
the division in order to increase its ability to work
with local government agencies and community
organizations .
Meet New Requirements for Idle Wells.
The Governor proposes $300,000 and two new
positions in 2020-21 (growing to $600,000 and
three positions in 2022-23) to meet requirements
imposed by new idle well regulations . The staff
would (1) centralize the idle wells program and
standardize forms and processes used by division
staff and operators, and (2) increase tracking of
operator compliance .
Address Increased Well Stimulation
Workload. The administration proposes $400,000
and two new positions (growing to $500,000
and three positions in 2022-23) to address the
increasing number of well stimulation applications .
The additional staff would analyze data collected
under the well stimulation program and review and
track well maintenance performed by operators .
Assessment
Six Components of the Governor’s Proposal
Are Reasonable… We find that most components
of the administration’s expansion proposal are
reasonable based upon three-year workload
forecasts and the need to provide additional
resources to implement recent legislation . For
example, the main driver of additional field
presence workload is associated with shall-witness
and critical may-witness operations . Data show
that shall witness operations increased 59 percent
from 2017 to 2018 . In addition, the division waived
oversight of roughly one-third of all shall-witness
oil and natural gas operations from 2016 through
2018, indicating a clear ongoing need for the
division to have a greater presence in the field .
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
47
As another example, only about 170 of the 850
UIC projects (or 20 percent) were in progress as
of July 2019—indicating that a significant number
of projects will be forthcoming for the division to
review and monitor .
…But One Component Lacks Detail. The
Governor’s proposal provides little information
on how the public transparency component
would increase public awareness with regard to
the division’s regulation of oil and natural gas
production and storage operators . Specifically,
the proposal does not clearly identify the gaps in
current public reporting that would be addressed
or describe the specific actions the five proposed
staff would take to fill those gaps . Furthermore,
the proposal neither explains how increasing the
number of staff analyzing the data provided by
WellSTAR would improve regulatory planning and
permitting activities, nor how this, in turn, would
improve public transparency .
Division’s Workload Could Vary Due to a
Number of Factors. The division’s annual workload
is somewhat uncertain and can change over time
for a number of reasons . For example, the amount
of oil and natural gas produced in California
varies depending on market factors . For example,
crude oil production in California decreased by
20 percent between 2014 and 2018 . Significant
production slowdowns in California’s oil and natural
gas industry result in decreases in some of the
division’s workload, such as field inspections .
Other factors that can affect the division’s annual
workload include (1) where field inspections are
occurring and the associated travel time, (2) varying
complexity of project reviews—such as for UIC
and construction site reviews, and (3) inherent
uncertainty regarding workload associated with
new initiatives .
Recommendations
Approve Most of the Funding and Positions
Proposed for 2020-21. We recommend the
Legislature approve $13 .3 million and 50 positions
(out of the Governor’s total request of $13 .9 million
and 53 positions) for 2020-21 . We find that these
resources are justified on workload basis and are
consistent with recent statutory requirements .
We recommend the Legislature withhold
action on the public transparency component of
the proposal—$600,000 and three positions in
2020-21—until the department provides additional
information to justify the request . Absent additional
justification for this component, we would
recommend the Legislature reject the proposed
resources related to public transparency .
Ensure Continued Oversight Such as by Not
Approving Proposed Out-Year Expansions.
The division’s workload can vary over time
based upon a number of factors, which adds
uncertainty to the ongoing level of resources
the department will require to implement its
programs . Furthermore, the division has been
the subject of continuous legislative oversight in
recent years due to concerns with department
operations, including noncompliance issues in the
UIC program as identified by U .S . EPA, as well
as other issues . Given the workload uncertainty
and historical concerns with the department’s
operations, the Legislature might wish to engage
in ongoing oversight of the division through the
budget process . This could be accomplished
by only approving the funding and positions
proposed for 2020-21 (on an ongoing basis), but
not the proposed expansion in the out-years . The
administration would be required to come back
next year to submit its proposal for 2021-22,
thereby providing legislative budget committees
the opportunity to request an update on the
division’s performance in key areas of operations,
such as implementing recently enacted legislation,
witnessing field operations, reviewing and
approving or denying permits, and issuing Orders .
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
48
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
The Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission (commonly referred
to as the California Energy Commission, or CEC)
is responsible for forecasting energy supply and
demand, developing and implementing energy
conservation measures, conducting energy-related
research and development programs, and siting
major power plants .
The Governor proposes to allocate $455 million
for CEC in 2020-21, a net decrease of $412 million
(48 percent) compared to estimated expenditures
in the current year . This net decrease is primarily
the result of (1) a technical issue related to unspent
prior-year funds being carried over into the current
year and (2) about $100 million in one-time GGRF
being spent in 2019-20, but no new allocations
in the 2020-21 budget . This decrease is partially
offset by a proposed $51 million increase in
one-time spending for zero-emission vehicle fueling
infrastructure .
APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS
The Governor’s budget proposes $750,000
(Public Utilities Commission Utilities
Reimbursement Account [PUCURA]) and four
positions to adopt and periodically update
energy efficiency standards that promote the
use of flexible demand technologies pursuant
to Chapter 697 of 2019 (SB 49, Skinner). We
recommend the Legislature use a different,
more appropriate fund source for these
activities. We recommend using the Energy
Resources Program Account (ERPA) if the
structural deficit is addressed this year. If
not, we recommend using the AB 32 Cost of
Implementation Account (COIA).
Background
State law requires CEC to reduce statewide
consumption of energy by adopting efficiency
standards for appliances sold in California . The
standards, adopted by regulation, must be
technologically feasible and cost-effective, which
means that the total lifetime savings from reduced
energy is less than the higher up-front costs .
Currently, CEC’s development and implementation
of energy efficiency standards is primarily funded
by (1) ERPA, which is supported by a statewide
surcharge on electricity consumption, and (2) COIA,
which is supported by a fee on large greenhouse
gas (GHG) emitters .
Chapter 697 directs CEC to adopt and
periodically update standards that promote the
use of flexible demand technologies to assist
with grid reliability and integration of intermittent
renewables . This means developing regulations
for appliances that have the capability to shift or
reduce electricity use during certain days or times
based on electricity prices or other issues related
to balancing electricity supply and demand . In
addition, Chapter 697 requires CEC to collaborate
with CNRA and DWR to assess opportunities for
upgrades to the State Water Project to enhance
flexible demand capabilities .
Governor’s Proposal
The budget includes $750,000 (PUCURA) to
implement Chapter 697 . The funding would support
four new permanent positions to adopt appliance
standards, plus one two-year, limited-term position
to assess upgrades to the State Water Project .
Revenue for PUCURA comes from California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) fees assessed on
regulated investor-owned utilities (IOUs) .
Assessment
Unclear Whether PUCURA Is Appropriate
Fund Source. PUCURA is not currently used to
fund implementation of CEC energy efficiency
standards . The purpose of the fund is to
support CPUC activities, including regulation
of IOUs . However, the activities required by
Chapter 697 relate to statewide appliance
standards and changes to the State Water Project .
Under the proposal, IOU ratepayers would be
paying for CEC activities that are meant to benefit
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
49
energy users across the state, including those
outside of IOU territories (such as publicly owned
utilities) . As a result, it is unclear whether PUCURA
is an appropriate fund source for these activities .
Alternate Fund Sources More Appropriate.
Alternate fund sources are likely more appropriate
for these activities . In our view, ERPA is the most
appropriate funding source because (1) the fund
is supported by a statewide charge on electricity
consumption—not just IOU customers and
(2) historically, this is the main source of funds
used for CEC energy efficiency regulatory activities .
However, it is worth noting that there is a structural
deficit in ERPA, and the fund is projected to be
insolvent in 2025-26 . If the Chapter 697 activities
are funded with ERPA, the projected date of
insolvency would be in 2024-25 . Supplemental
Report Language adopted as part of the 2019-20
Budget Act directs CEC to develop a plan by
April 1, 2020, to fully address the structural deficit .
Another option would be to shift funding to
COIA . This fund is used to pay for administrative
activities related to achieving the state’s GHG
goals, including CEC energy efficiency regulations
and implementation of the Renewables Portfolio
Standard . Activities related to Chapter 697 appear
to be an appropriate use of these funds because
they help integrate zero carbon intermittent
renewable resources, which can help reduce GHGs .
Recommendation
Shift Costs to Alternative Fund Source. If
the administration proposes—and the Legislature
adopts—changes that address the ongoing ERPA
structural deficit, we recommend the Legislature
use ERPA to fund Chapter 697 implementation . In
our view, ERPA is the most appropriate fund source
because it is tied directly to statewide energy
consumption and, historically, is the primary fund
used for state energy efficiency activities . However,
if the ERPA structural deficit is not addressed in
this year’s budget, we recommend the Legislature
consider shifting the fund source to COIA in the
short-term until the structural deficit is addressed .
CAPITAL OUTLAY AND BOND ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSITION 68 IMPLEMENTATION
The Governor proposes appropriating
$514 million from Proposition 68, primarily
for local parks and flood protection projects.
We recommend the Legislature approve the
proposals, as we find them to be reasonable
and consistent with bond language and the
multiyear allocation plan the administration
previously presented to the Legislature.
Background
Proposition 68 Provides $4.1 Billion in
General Obligation Bonds. In June 2018, voters
passed Proposition 68, authorizing the state to sell
a total of $4 .1 billion in general obligation bonds
for natural resources-related purposes, including
habitat restoration, parks, and water projects .
(The Legislature placed this bond on the ballot
through Chapter 852 of 2018 [SB 5, de León] .) The
bond measure includes a number of requirements
designed to control how funds are administered
and overseen by state agencies . For example, most
funds must be used for local assistance—typically
allocated through a competitive grant process
to local governments, nonprofit agencies, and
other organizations to implement projects . The
bond also includes several provisions designed
to assist “disadvantaged communities” (with
median incomes less than 80 percent of the
statewide average) and “severely disadvantaged
communities” (with median incomes less than
60 percent of the statewide average) . For example,
it requires that for each use specified in the bond,
at least 15 percent of the funds be spent to benefit
severely disadvantaged communities .
About 60 Percent of Proposition 68
Funds Has Already Been Appropriated.
Proposition 68 provides funding for multiple
types of activities . Bond funds are distributed
across 20 state departments, including 10 state
conservancies . Combined, the 2018-19 and
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
50
2019-20 budgets appropriated $2 .4 billion
(60 percent) from Proposition 68, leaving
$1 .7 billion available for future appropriation . The
Legislature has already appropriated the majority of
funding for most of the bond’s categories .
Governor’s Proposals
Appropriates Over $500 Million From
Proposition 68. Figure 16 displays the Governor’s
various Proposition 68 proposals for 2020-21 .
As shown, these proposals total $514 million
Figure 16
Proposition 68 Overview
(In Millions)
Program
Implementing
Department
Bond
Allocation
Prior
Appropriations
2020-21
Proposed
Natural Resources Conservation and Resiliency $1,497 $873.0 $74.0
Restoration and conservation projects Conservancies $345 $185.8 $26.4
Restoration and conservation projects WCB 265 197.3 0.8
Voluntary agreements CNRA 200 70.0 —
Salton Sea management CNRA 200 141.2 10.0
Habitat restoration and protection CDFW 95 32.8 3.2
Los Angeles River watershed RMC/SMMC 75 31.8 14.8
Various specified projects CNRA 71 69.3 —
Deferred maintenance CDFW 50 10.0 5.0
Restoration and conservation projects CCC 40 21.8 12.0
Healthy coastal and marine ecosystems OPC 35 10.3 0.1
Watershed improvement SNC 25 23.6 -0.2a
Forest management and urban forestry CalFire 25 23.5 0.6
Projects that assist coastal communities OPC 21 10.3 0.1
Working lands and riparian corridors DOC 20 17.4 1.0
Multibenefit green infrastructure CNRA 20 18.7 0.1
Healthy soils CDFA 10 9.5 0.1
Parks and Recreation $1,323 $606.2 $291.5
Improve and expand local parks Parks $1,035 $517.7 $255.0
Improve and expand state parks Parks 170 35.0 24.6
Lower cost coastal accommodations SCC/Parks 60 5.4 5.5
Trails, greenways, and river parkways CNRA 40 37.5 0.1
Deferred maintenance at fairgrounds CDFA 18 10.6 6.3
Water $1,280 $950.8 $146.5
Flood protection and repair DWR $460 $251.6 $122.9
Sustainable groundwater management DWR 240 173.6 20.2
Safe drinking water SWRCB 220 205.8 1.8
Sustainable groundwater management SWRCB 160 133.3 0.7
Multibenefit stormwater CNRA 100 93.1 0.5
Water recycling SWRCB 80 74.3 0.3
Water efficiency and enhancement CDFA 20 19.0 0.1
Totals b $4,100 $2,433.0 $514.0
a Governor proposes to revert $182,000 from the current-year appropriation.
b Includes funding for bond administration.
WCB = Wildlife Conservation Board; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RMC = Rivers
and Mountains Conservancy; SMMC = Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; CCC = California Conservation Corps; OPC = Ocean Protection
Council; SNC = Sierra Nevada Conservancy; CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; DOC = Department of Conservation;
CDFA = Department of Food and Agriculture; Parks = Department of Parks and Recreation; SCC = State Coastal Conservancy; DWR = Department of
Water Resources; and SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board.
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
51
across multiple departments and programs, which
represents just under one-third of the total bond
funding still available for appropriation . Of the
proposed funding, about $125 million (25 percent)
is to continue existing program activities, such as to
allocate another round of grant funding or support
state staff who are administering the programs .
Almost three-fourths of the Governor’s proposed
Proposition 68 spending plan is for two program
categories—local park grants and flood protection .
The spending plan includes only one first-time
appropriation for a program—restoration of the
New River . We describe each of these three
proposals:
• Grants to Improve and Expand Local Parks
($255 Million). State Parks would allocate
the majority of these funds ($203 million)
through competitive grants to create and
expand safe neighborhood parks in park-poor
neighborhoods . Funds would also be
dedicated to creating or improving regional
parks ($28 million) and enhancing recreation
and tourism in rural communities ($23 million) .
• Multibenefit Flood Protection Projects
($123 Million). DWR would use these funds
for a number of new and continuing flood
management projects that both achieve public
safety improvements and enhance habitats for
fish and wildlife . Most of these projects would
be undertaken in the Central Valley, including
to expand floodwater capacity and habitat in
the Yolo Bypass .
• Salton Sea/New River Improvement Project
($10 Million). As described earlier in the
“Department of Water Resources” section,
these funds would be used to help address
pollution in the New River, which flows into
the Salton Sea . Bond language reserved these
funds specifically to address New River water
quality issues .
Assessment
Proposals Consistent With Bond Language
and Multiyear Plan. We find the Governor’s
proposals to be reasonable and consistent
with legislative and voter intent . The Legislature
and voters structured the bond around specific
priorities, and by continuing implementation
of most bond categories, the administration is
taking steps to address those identified issues .
For the three large or new 2020-21 proposals,
the administration has identified projects that are
ready to be implemented and utilize the funds .
Moreover, the appropriations are consistent with
the multiyear “rollout” plan for Proposition 68 that
the administration submitted to the Legislature in
the 2019-20 budget process .
While a few bond categories have significant
proportions of funding left to appropriate—
including voluntary agreements, CDFW habitat
restoration and deferred maintenance, coastal
ecosystems, state parks, and lower cost coastal
accommodations—the rationale for continuing
to delay the release of these funds has merit .
Specifically, these programs either have funding
remaining from earlier bonds, or departments
are still in the process of undertaking additional
planning to prepare for effective implementation
before expending funds .
Recommendation
Approve Governor’s Proposals. Because
they are consistent with both bond language and
the multiyear allocation plan the administration
previously presented to the Legislature, we
recommend the Legislature approve the Governor’s
2020-21 Proposition 68 funding proposals .
SEVERAL NEW NATURAL
RESOURCES CAPITAL OUTLAY
PROJECTS
The Governor’s budget includes $57 million
to begin 12 new major capital outlay projects for
departments within CNRA, as well as several minor
capital outlay projects . As shown in Figure 17 (see
next page), these proposals include eight projects
to acquire, expand, or improve state parks; four
projects to replace or relocate CalFire facilities; and
various minor projects for CalFire and the Tahoe
Conservancy . The total costs for completion of the
proposed projects is estimated to be $254 million
($157 million General Fund and $97 million from
various bond funds) .
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
52
In addition, the proposed 2020-21 budget
includes $298 million ($134 million General Fund
and $164 million from various other funds) for
the next phases of previously approved natural
resources capital outlay projects . The budget
also reappropriates funding for several projects
experiencing delays and reverts $3 .6 million
previously provided for the California Conservation
Corps Tahoe Base Center equipment warehouse
relocation project that is unable to move forward at
this time .
Figure 17
Summary of New Natural Resources Capital Outlay
(In Millions)
Project 2020-21 Phase 2020-21 Funding Total Project Cost
Parks
New state park acquisitiona A $20.0 $20.0
Museum storage facility acquisition A 15.0 15.0
System acquisition A 4.6 4.6
Candlestick Point SRA initial build-out P 2.7 50.0
Old Sacramento SHP riverfront improvements P 0.6 5.0
Colonel Allensworth SHP visitor center P 0.6 8.6
Lake Perris SRA: replace lifeguard headquarters P 0.4 9.2
Humboldt Redwoods State Park: replace restroom P 0.2 3.8
Subtotals ($44.1)($116.2)
CalFire
Minor projects Various $4.6 $4.6
Intermountain Conservation Camp replacement P 3.8 73.3
Lake-Napa auto shop and warehouse replacement A,P 2.1 22.4
Kneeland Helitack Base relocation A 0.9 18.3
Howard Forest Helitack Base replacement A 0.6 18.0
Subtotals ($11.9)($136.6)
Other
Tahoe Conservancy minor projects Various $0.9 $0.9
Subtotals ($0.9)($0.9 )
Totals $56.8 $253.6
a The proposed project is only the acquisition of land for a new state park. Costs to build-out park infrastructure are not included.
A = acquisition; P = preliminary plans; SRA = State Recreation Area; and SHP = State Historic Park.
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
53
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Issue Governor’s Proposal LAO Recommendations
Climate Change
Various proposals (1) $965 million discretionary cap-and-trade
expenditure plan, (2) $250 million General
Fund for new Climate Catalyst Revolving
Load Fund, and (3) $4.75 billion general
obligation bond for November 2020 ballot.
Refer to recent report, The 2020‑21
Budget: Climate Change Proposals.
Wildfire Prevention and Response
Various proposals $378 million for 12 proposals for CalFire,
CNRA, and the Forest Management Task
Force related to wildfire mitigation and
response activities.a
Refer to The 2020‑21 Budget:
Governor’s Wildfire‑Related Proposals.
(The summary in this report includes
a table that briefly describes each
proposal and our recommendations.)
Department of Parks and Recreation
New state park $20 million one-time General Fund to acquire
land for an unspecified new state park.
Require department to provide additional
details on potential properties and
future costs. Determine action based
on information provided and consistent
with legislative priorities. Consider
adopting reporting language if funds
are approved.
Increasing student access
to state parks
$22.9 million including (1) $ 20 million
one-time General Fund and (2) $2.9 million
ongoing ELPF to expand student access to
state parks.
Direct department to present additional
details related to the $2.9 million
ongoing funding. Consider oversight
questions regarding broader goals and
outcomes of programs.
Harbors and Watercraft
Revolving Fund
insolvency
$26.5 million as a “placeholder” solution to
keep the fund solvent in 2020-21.
Consider key issues when weighing
options for addressing insolvency.
Direct the administration to report
additional information at budget
hearings.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Funding enhancements $19 million ongoing shifted from Wildlife
Conservation Board and $20 million one
time in 2020-21 to help CDFW better
meet its mission, both from General Fund.
$23 million ongoing General Fund beginning
in 2021-22 to backfill funding shortfall and
maintain service expansions.
Weigh the relative trade-offs of the
$19 million ongoing proposal with
other conservation and General
Fund priorities. Adopt the one-time
$20 million proposal. Defer action on
$23 million proposal until next year
when a more in-depth analysis of the
CDFW’s budget will be available.
(Continued)
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
54
Issue Governor’s Proposal LAO Recommendations
Department of Water Resources (DWR)
Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act
implementation
$30 million one time for local assistance
grants and $9.6 million ongoing for DWR to
conduct additional technical assistance and
oversight activities, both from the General
Fund.
Approve both proposals but adopt
language to ensure the local
assistance funds are used for projects
that provide public benefits and
focus on efforts needed to effectively
implement groundwater sustainability
plans.
Tijuana River and New
River restoration projects
$35 million General Fund for the Tijuana River
and $28 million—$18 million General Fund
and $10 million from Proposition 68 bond
funds—for the New River to address cross-
border pollution issues.
Approve New River proposal but require
administration provide a plan for
addressing ongoing costs at Tijuana
River prior to approving that proposal.
Augmentations for existing
staff
$6.7 million General Fund for 30 existing
positions across three proposals to either
change their funding source or extend
funding that was initially approved on a
limited-term basis.
Provide $550,000 less than requested in
2020-21 for 30 existing positions.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Board of Environmental
Safety
$3 million (two years) and 15 positions
to establish a 5-member Board of
Environmental Safety that would hold regular
public hearings and perform specified
functions.
Authorize creation of a new oversight
board, but consider the specifics of the
proposal to determine the degree to
which it reflects legislative priorities,
including how much authority the
board should have to direct DTSC.
Structural shortfall of
DTSC special funds
$12 million General Fund transfer to the
Toxic Substances Control Account (TSCA),
$1 million General Fund transfer to the
Hazardous Waste Control Account (HWCA),
and budget trailer legislation to restructure
charges for TSCA and HWCA.
Wait until May Revision to take action on
proposed General Fund transfers to
get updates on TSCA and HWCA fund
conditions. Decide whether to establish
a board before weighing the merits of
the Governor’s proposal to restructure
charges. Consider whether the new
charges would cover future costs and
reflect polluter pays principle.
Department of Conservation
California Geologic Energy
Management Division:
mission transformation
and oversight
$13.9 million and 53 permanent positions
in 2020-21 growing to $24.3 million and
128 permanent positions in 2022-23 to
(1) strengthen enforcement of existing laws
and regulations that govern oil and natural
gas operators and (2) implement recent
legislation.
Approve most of the 2020 -21 request,
but withhold action on $600,000
and three positions intended to
improve public transparency until
additional justification is provided.
Recommend the Legislature consider
approving only the 2020 -21 request
on an ongoing basis to ensure future
legislative oversight.
(Continued)
gutteranalysis full
www.lao.ca.gov
2020-21 BUDGET
55
Issue Governor’s Proposal LAO Recommendations
California Energy Commission
Appliance efficiency
standards
$750,000 (Public Utilities Commission Utilities
Reimbursement Account) and four positions
to adopt and periodically update energy
efficiency standards that promote the use
of flexible demand technologies pursuant to
Chapter 697 of 2019 (SB 49, Skinner).
Use a different, more appropriate
fund source for these activities.
We recommend using the Energy
Resources Program Account if the
structural deficit is addressed this year.
If not, we recommend using the AB 32
Cost of Implementation Account.
Bond Administration
Proposition 68
implementation
$514 million from Proposition 68 across
multiple departments for various projects
and programs.
Approve proposals.
a Two of these proposals are joint proposals with funding for CalFire and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.
CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; and ELPF = Environmental License Plate Fund.
gutteranalysis full
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2020-21 BUDGET
56
LAO PUBLICATIONS
This report was reviewed by Brian Brown and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan
office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature.
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are
available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento,
CA 95814.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT UNIT
Ross Brown Climate Change 916-319-8345 Ross.Brown@lao.ca.gov
Energy Commission
Rachel Ehlers Fish and Wildlife 916-319-8330 Rachel.Ehlers@lao.ca.gov
Water Resources
Shawn Martin Toxic Substances 916-319-8362 Shawn.Martin@lao.ca.gov
Conservation
Jessica Peters Forestry and Fire Protection 916-319-8363 Jessica.Peters@lao.ca.gov
Parks
gutteranalysis full
Commission Teleconference Meeting
October 22, 2020
PowerPoint Presentations and Handouts
Tab 2: • PowerPoint: Every Young Heart and Mind:
Schools as Centers of Wellness
Misc: •Handout:
•Handout:
Letter from Senator Jim Beall
Written Public Comment
October 22,2020KaiLeMassonSeniorResearcherSchoolsMentalHealth Project Lead
Every Young Heart and Mind:
Schools as Centers of Wellness
The Project’s Journey
Mental wellness is essential to school success
First project events held in December 2016
More than 20+ stakeholder engagements
On July 27, 2020, the Subcommittee voted unanimously to submit the draft plan to the full Commission
Student Mental Health Crisis
Even before COVID-19
Adverse childhood experiences impacting learning
Anxiety, depression, and suicide ideation all too common
Mental health-related incidents on school campuses increasing
Hope Amid the Crisis
Partnerships between school districts and
behavioral health care providers
A range of models for schools as centers of
wellness
Growing momentum
-Training, workshops, and conferences
Incentivize partnerships
Lift up youth voice
Opportunities Along the Way
5
Guiding Principles
1.Each child should be emotionally and intellectually nourished
2.Schools should be centers of wellness and healing
3.Health and education must join together
4.Prevention and early intervention must be prioritized
5.Youth and families must be engaged and have ownership
6.Sustainable funding, continuity and collaborative leadership
6
Recommendation 1:
Establish State Leadership
The Governor and the Legislature should establish a leadership structure dedicated to the development of schools as centers for wellness and healing.
Governor’s office
State Board of Education
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Department of Health Care Services
Department of Education
Other agencies
7
Recommendation 1:
Establish State Leadership
State leadership should develop and implement a state-level strategy drawing on the K-12 State System of Support.
Systemwide priorities include:
•Advancing social emotional learning
•Empowering youth as leaders
•Increasing prevention services among birth-to-5 and their families
8
Recommendation 2:
Invest in Wellness
The State should make a significant
investment to establish schools as
centers for wellness and healing.
Support programs and services
Build capacity and sustainability
9
Recommendation 3:
Support Community Capacity
The State leadership structure should help
counties and school districts develop the
capacities for:
Model program development
Data and management systems
Workforce capacity
Fiscal sustainability
10
Next Steps
Work with State leaders including the
Governor’s office and the Legislature to
implement
Communications rollout in the upcoming
months (e.g., mass media like newspapers,
television and radio, as well as targeted
distribution and discussions through partners).
11
Proposed Motion
The Commission adopts the report –
Every Young Heart and Mind: Schools as
Centers of Wellness
12
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
As you know, a fundamental premise of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) is the concept of “non-supplantation.” In
other words, California voters were promised that their investment would be used to expand services, not replace funding
for services already provided through other sources. The need for this foundational requirement in the MHSA was– and
still is – very clear: we will never build the robust community-based programming Californians desperately need if new
dollars simply replace funding for an old system, while “old” dollars are shifted to other uses. The need to build up – rather
than simply replace – funding streams is so important that “non-supplantation” is spelled out nine times in the Act, most
notably in section 5891 (a) “these funds shall not be used to supplant existing state or county funds utilized to provide
mental health services.”
Mental health services throughout the state will likely be negatively impacted by an anticipated constriction of revenues.
The county-based system of care, the non-profit agencies that make up our community-based mental health delivery
infrastructure, and the millions of Californians served by these resources may be at risk. In a time of severe fiscal hardship,
it is important to ensure that crucial community mental health services are available to Californians and that community
mental health resources are not diverted to other purposes.
To this end, I am writing to ask your assistance in reporting the county-by-county “maintenance of effort” required by the
Act. This information will be greatly important to the Legislature in performing our oversight and budgeting roles and in
ensuring that the purpose of the Act is fulfilled.
Given the OAC’s central and essential role in overseeing the Act and ensuring that its requirements are met, this
information seems most appropriately housed in your agency. If you should need my assistance in facilitating a
conversation with other agencies to meet this request, please contact my staff by emailing Carly.Hasbrook@sen.ca.gov and
Tom.Steel@sen.ca.gov
Thank you as always for your kind and timely assistance.
Sincerely,
Jim Beall
Senator, District 15
CC: Lynne Ashbeck, Chair
Dr. Dawnté Early, Chief, Researcher and Evaluation
Toby Ewing, Executive Director
Mara Madrigal-Weiss, Vice Chair
From: Craig A Durfey <>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 8:35 AM
To: Sala, Brian@MHSOAC <Brian.Sala@mhsoac.ca.gov>; Craig Durfey <>
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT HOMELESS COMMISSION TO END HOMELESS Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:00 A.M.
10-18-2020
(P.R.D.D.C.)
PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN
CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C.
P.O.BOX 937 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92842
CELL
SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.COM
FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY
U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS H2404 - HONORING CRAIG DURFEY FOR HIS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM
... Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf
new website socialemotionalpaws.org
please my email written letter under public comments.
cc. Orange County Board of Supervisors
cc. American Legion District 29
cc. Ca state Assembly/Senate
cc. Calif U.S. Congress representatives
COMMISSION CHAIR ANDREW DO
Homeless Commission to End Homeless
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Hall of Administration Building,
333 W. Santa Ana Blvd.,
10 Civic Center Plaza,
Room 465, Santa Ana, California 92701
Dear Commissioner Chair Do
Seeking support to address the homeless veterans issues since our families has served
one in Vietnam where my uncle Larry got a Purple Heart for a lost eye, my cousin served
full career in the U.S. Navy retired, my father was a U.S. Marine, as for me I was on the
draft list to Vietnam during the war. I As well support all homeless, the City of Garden
Grove CA just recently named a new Congressional Medal of Honor Bike/Pedestrian Trail
Park which P.R.D.D.C. had major role in helping to give Honor to all who have served and
made truly sacrifice for our country. The letters of support came from American legion
Post 555 Midway City American legion Post 716 los Alamitos , Assembly member Quick
Silva call to Honor our War dogs saving lives in battle and now the American Legion Post
72 of Anaheim supports P.R.D.D.C. efforts. Since Southern in Calif State was only two
memorials now there will be a new Memorial added to Congressional Medal of Honor
Bike/Pedestrian Trail Park once the funds have been raised.
https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/garden-grove-congressional-medal-of-honor-
bike-and-pedestrian-tra
I would like address some of my research from my website that has a contributing
factors with homeless. Housing shortage in the City of Garden Grove in your District
Supervisor Do City of Garden Grove Ca has five separates privately owned vacant lots
and the six one the city-owned community garden it’s a garden, located at 11421 Garden
Grove Blvd., has about 40 plots https://www.ocregister.com/2014/05/08/garden-grove-
community-garden-offers-residents-an-oasis/. I also request for consideration for
P.R.D.D.C. contributions to the Community efforts ,State, Federal advocacy a letter of
support to add to my organization as Founder of
P.R.D.D.C..
I believe that OCTA Measure M 2 funds ought to be consider become a key player
with having ownership of the Pacific Electric Corridor as to the mental health in
developing green space from urban density increasing and Cities as such Garden
Grove Calif is severely under the needed green space. OCTA PE Rail corridor
much has been idle from the portion between the cities of Santa Ana and Stanton
was purchased in 1982 for $15 million using state and local funds.
The remaining portion was purchased in 1992 for $13.1 million of Measure M
transit funds. In recognition that the Corridor is some of the last underutilized
land in a substantially built-out area of Orange County, the Board of Directors
(Board) established “ROW protection” principles in 1996.Yet during that period of
time OCTA survived resident as to what they wanted the out come was more
bike/walking back then. Now some 18.10 years in the making to occur from its
purchase the guiding principles from then to now much has traumatically change
and with new Calif State laws housing from SCAG want more density this a huge
impact the lack of green space has an effect with mental wellness along the
communities that OCTA owns as well los Angeles Transit. Recent CA State report
local Cities have impacted from Covid 19 financially with transportation from hear
on.
Just recently in the City of Garden Grove has develop 3700 feet of bike/pedestrian
trail park with a 100 feet wide is empty of much needed funds to construct a
complete park and as well as to ongoing maintenance cost per year per mile, just
the 363 tree five year cost $90,000 not including water bill, weekly up keep. I
made suggestion to Sacramento Assembly and Senate to create a trust which
can provide a partnership with local Cities to provide needed park maintenance,
Active Transportation, with increase funding for road maintenance from heavy
trash trucks as well deferred road repair that effect the active transportation
safety thus improves the opportunity to encourages safe route to school as well
as more exercise which both have been proven to improve mental health.
Below I have utilized your outline tables of number descriptions to reference by
numbers to provide how my research has found many suggested news reports, Ca
State Resolution SCR 73 blue light impact health, to Federal funds to States in
supporting LWCF, with AB 209 Parks outdoor environment grants. Purdue
University College of Veterinary Medicine has shown that overall symptoms of
post-traumatic stress disorder are lower among war veterans with service dogs.
Then U.S. Congress about 10 legislation bills for veterans pass the House. To
community youth Civic engagement from high schools’ opportunities to help
support active duty service by writing such as the City of LA Habra Resolution for
adopting a platoon and large banners as well as Mike Rowe show from Facebook
called return a Favor where there are approximately ten aired show about
veterans helping each other to individuals helping veterans. Please consider the
concepts can applied to the Homeless Commission much work needs to be done
with technology safety with screen time in order to improve mental health see my
website socialemotionalpaws.org. A request to the Orange County Chiefs
Association to fully adopt AB 902 2015 bike fine into a diversion education than a
fine for all due the cost of a ticket this was supported by the State Chiefs
Association. How military war dogs play big part helping return veterans such as
the movie true story Megan please review the YouTube story that we need to
expand this program with added funding for food, shelter, vet bills in adding
prevent from PTSD ,Suicides and even first responders now through workers
comp been diagnosed with PTSD.
OUTLINE TABLE
1. Homeless Prevention (sub-categories will be listed) 2. Housing (sub-categories will
be listed) 3. Shelter (sub-categories will be listed) 4. Outreach 5. Veterans Services
6. Employment 7. Benefits 8. Legal Services 9. Transportation 10. Mental Health
11. Substance Use 12. Physical Health (includes Vision and Dental) 13. Basic
Needs (Food, Clothing) 14. Information and Referral 15. Domestic Violence 16.
Education 17. Crisis and Emergency Services 18. Spiritual Support 19. Re-
Entry/Criminal Justice 20. Other:
2.
12. Physical Health (includes Vision
MINNEAPOLIS, Oct. 9, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Senator Richard Pan and the California
legislature are to be commended for having passed the California State Resolution SCR-
73 in providing awareness around the importance of encouraging citizens, particularly
children, to consider taking proactive safety measures in reducing eye exposure to high-
energy visible blue light.
Ophthalmologists, optometrists, and medical researchers continue to learn more about
the dangers associated with blue-light exposure. The scientific community has produced
a large and growing body of research, which identifies numerous known and emerging
potential long-term concerns for all age groups with cumulative blue light exposure due
to digital screen usage.
"Given California children and California workers are now required to spend even greater
amounts of time in front of their electronic devices as a result of distance learning and
remote working, it is more important than ever to take proactive safety measures in
reducing exposure to high-energy visible blue light," said Justin Barrett, CEO of Eyesafe.
In commemorating this anniversary, Invisible Shield, a ZAGG Brands (NASDAQ:ZAGG)
company, will donate Vision Guard® blue light screen protectors with Eye safe
technology to Improve Your Tomorrow and The Rose Family Creative Empowerment
Center. https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/eyesafe-is-pleased-to-recognize-the-
second-anniversary-of-scr-73
12. Physical Health (includes Vision
The Blue Light Summit 2020 brings together world leaders from consumer electronics
and health care, and is open for registrants including employers, health care providers,
media and the public. Featuring Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer and ZAGG Brands (among other
global technology leaders), the virtual event will include new product and solution
introductions and discussions by health care professionals about the connection
between screen time, blue light exposure and overall health — an issue of growing
importance with the widespread shift to remote learning and working amid COVID-19.
Presented by UnitedHealthcare Vision, TÜV Rheinland Group and Eyesafe, the Blue Light
Summit 2020 will include an eye doctor roundtable discussion on the health impacts of
blue light exposure and multiple newsworthy announcements relating to advances and
new product solutions spanning electronics, health care and vision insurance. In addition
to leading device manufacturers and health care experts, the event will include
presentations by Gene Munster, Managing Partner at Loup Ventures and Frank Azor,
Chief Architect of Gaming Solutions at AMD.
https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/dell-hp-lenovo-and-acer-to-announce-new-eyesafe-
products
12. Physical Health (includes Vision
HOW DOES BLUE LIGHT IMPACT THE EYES?
Anterior structures of the adult human eye (the cornea and lens) are very effective at
blocking UV rays from reaching the light-sensitive retina at the back of the eyeball. But
HEV blue light is different, with much of it passing through the cornea and lens and
reaching the retina at the back of the eye. Studies suggest that, over time, cumulative
exposure to the HEV blue light could cause specific long-term damage to your eyes:
Potential damage to retina cells, particularly in children and teens, Long-term vision
problems such as increased incidences of age-related macular degeneration
(AMD),Suppressed production of the natural release of melatonin, which can lead to
disrupted sleep cycles, Digital eye strain, which is commonly exhibited by dry eyes,
headache and blurred vision https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/what-is-blue-lighthow-
does-blue-light-impact-the-eyes https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/what-is-blue-lighthow-
does-blue-light-impact-the-eyes
2. Housing (sub-categories will be listed) 3. Shelter (sub-categories will be listed) 4.
Outreach 5. Veterans Services 6. Employment 7. Benefits 8. Legal Services 9.Ect,
Rep. Levin spoke on the House floor about the DELIVER Act.
Washington, D.C. – Today, the House of Representatives passed the Dependable
Employment and Living Improvements for Veterans’ Economic Recovery (DELIVER) Act,
legislation led by Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) that includes six bipartisan bills he introduced
to strengthen and expand services for homeless and unemployed veterans. The
legislation will allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide more services
for homeless veterans, improve and expand eligibility for the HUD-VA Supportive Housing
program, create a rapid retraining program for unemployed veterans, improve the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for servicemembers returning to civilian life, and
more. A section-by-section summary of the bill is available here.
“Now more than ever, veterans are struggling to find jobs and secure housing, and we
must do more to help them get back on their feet,” said Rep. Levin, Chair of the House
Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. “I have seen veterans and
their families in my district lining up for food, heard from veterans who couldn’t access
desperately-needed housing resources, and met with former servicemembers who
struggled to start new careers despite services that should’ve been there for them. No
veteran should go hungry, homeless, or jobless. I am proud to lead the DELIVER Act so
that we can do right by our veterans and provide the housing and employment
opportunities they deserve. I’ve had positive conversations with my colleagues in the
Senate and I am hopeful that this legislation will receive a vote and arrive on the
President’s desk this year.”
https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/support-veteran-housing-and-employment-
house-passes-major-legisla
4. Outreach
SACRAMENTO — The State Board of Education on Wednesday approved criteria for
California students to earn a new Seal of Civic Engagement, an incentive aimed at
encouraging active and ongoing citizenship.
To earn the seal, students must demonstrate excellence in civic learning, participation in
civics-related projects, contributions to their community, and an understanding of the
United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the American democratic
system.
Students may earn the seal on a transcript, diploma, or Certificate of Completion.
California history and social science teachers worked in partnership with the California
Department of Education to develop the initial requirements.
“The future of our democracy depends on a knowledgeable and actively engaged
citizenry,” said State Board President Linda Darling-Hammond. “With this new seal, we
hope to prepare all students with an empathetic concern for others, a deep
understanding of democracy, and the civic engagement skills needed to contribute to the
welfare of their local communities, the state, and the country.”
“We know that when young people activate their voices, they can be among the
strongest change agents in our communities,” said State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tony Thurmond. “Education is the cornerstone of realizing our democratic
ideals, and this new seal puts additional tools in students’ hands as they work to shape
the future.”https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/california-board-of-education-
approves-civic-engagement-award
Other:
REQUEST U.S. CONGRESS REPRESENTIVES TO ADDRESS FOR THE ADDTIONAL NEED TO
HONOR WAR DOGS BY REINTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF OUR
HISTORY OF WAR DOGS SACRIFICES THEY MADE TO PROTECT THIER PARTNERS.. In
2007, U.S. Representative Walter B. Jones sponsored congressional legislation within
H.R. 4986 National Defense Authorizations Act for FY 2008, Section 2877 of Pub.L. 110–
181 authorizing the JBMF the exclusive rights to design, fund, build, and maintain the
Military Working Dog Teams National Monument. The bill was signed into public law by
the President George W. Bush on January 28, 2008.
https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/2007-within-hr-4986-national-defense-
authorizations-act-war-dog
10. Mental Health
“The capability they bring to the fight cannot be replicated by man or machine. By
all measures of performance, their yield outperforms any asset we have in our
inventory.” -General David Petraeus Jun 07, 2017 · Megan Leavey shares her story
and talks about being portrayed in a new movie.
Real-life Marine fought the military to keep her hero dog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caWofZhFLNI&t=50s
Marine Megan Leavey And Her Beloved Dog Honored
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsmbDOgjIgs
2012/05/13 Cpl. Leavey and Sgt. Rex honored
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzYv_asHYmY
Bull Terrier), served as a mascot of the 11th
Pennsylvania Infantry during the American Civil War.
Every military working dog is a noncommissioned officer – in tradition at least.
Some say the …
Until November 2000, military working dogs were euthanized or abandoned after
retirement. …
Some even fight alongside elite Special Operations units. Specially-trained
military working dogs …
Some dogs even jump from planes and rappel from helicopters. These extremely
resilient, super …Real-life Megan Leavey talks about the Marines and Sgt. Rex
https://www.lohud.com/story/entertainment/movies/...Jun 02, 2017 · Real-life
Megan Leavey talks about the Marines and Sgt. Rex. Valley Cottage native Megan
Leavey's story has been made into a movie starring Kate Mara.
Real Life Megan Leavey Shares Stories of Dog Rex and Megan ...
https://people.com/pets/the-real-life-hero-behind-megan-leavey-opens-up-about-
how-her...The Real Life Hero Behind Megan Leavey Opens Up About How Her
Canine ... up to and who his new handler was. ... to when they see the film version
of her story. Megan Leavey premieres in theaters ...
Author: Kelli Bender
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1097173/military-working-
dog-human-handler-bond-in
10. Mental Health
President Trump Signs the Great American Outdoors Act, Preserving
and Protecting our National Parks
Fulfilling President Trump’s promise to restore, conserve, and protect America’s lands,
the Great American Outdoors Act provides the necessary funds, dedicating up to $1.9
billion per year for five years to fund deferred maintenance projects identified by the
National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Education. These infrastructure
updates will preserve our most important national treasures and give more American
families opportunities to explore the great outdoors.
In addition to improving infrastructure at our national parks, the Great American
Outdoors Act also provides permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF). The LWCF supports recreational access, protection, and preservation of our
Nation’s most valuable natural and cultural resources. Supporting over 98 percent of
counties across the country, the LWCF grants enable State and local governments to
develop and improve parks in their communities, as well as permanently conserve
outdoor recreation areas for public use and enjoyment.
This legislation signed today is not just about outdoor recreation. In signing the Great
American Outdoors Act, President Trump is protecting and enhancing the economies of
numerous gateway communities that surround our national parks and wildlife reserves.
By bringing more visitors to our parks, the Great American Outdoors Act will stimulate
local businesses across the country. Again, President Trump is proving that a strong
economy and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand.
https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/president-trump-signs-the-great-american-
outdoors-act-preserving
VIDEO AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVENT
SIGNING https://www.facebook.com/foxsanantonio/videos/44734463760307
96
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_and_Water_Conservation_Fund
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/502756-during-
a-time-of-uncertainty-great-american-outdoors
Parks and green space are precious, but should councils have to pay
for them?
10. Mental Health
More adults want councils to protect spending on green spaces, including parks and
playgrounds, than spending on libraries, youth clubs and helping people find work. Nine
out of 10 adults in the Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by environmental charity
Groundwork said green spaces are an important factor in making somewhere a good
place to live or work.
The results come as councils face unprecedented budget cuts, and the future of non-
statutory services are at huge risk. But a range of environmental bodies will argue in
Manchester on Wednesday that failure to maintain investment in green space is a false
economy.
Take building safe communities. Green spaces near our homes give us valuable places to
get to know our neighbours, and build the social glue that reduces crime, says a report
on the benefits of green space. "High-quality, well-maintained parks and green spaces
make a significant contribution to the establishment and retention of stable and law-
abiding communities," it says. It also states that if everyone had easy access to green
spaces, obesity costs to the NHS could be reduced by up to £2bn, and that the calming
effect of green spaces has been shown to reduce hospital admissions for mental illness
in deprived urban areas in the US.
Get Society Weekly: our newsletter for public service professionals
Read more
Far-fetched claims? Not if we remember the origins of public parks. The first official
acknowledgment of the need for my local park in east London came in the 1839 annual
report of the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages. Recording a mortality rate
far higher than the rest of London, brought about by overcrowding, insanitary conditions
and polluted air, he wrote: "A park in the East End of London would probably diminish the
annual deaths by several thousand … and add several years to the lives of the entire
population."
This was followed by a petition to Queen Victoria urging the formation "within the Tower
Hamlets, of a Royal Park". The Act of Parliament passed in 1841 made Victoria Park the
first in the world specifically intended to meet the needs of the surrounding
communities.
Today in the UK we don't need parks to prevent diseases spreading, but they still provide
a range of vital benefits. So how can we pay for them? The majority of those polled want
councils to pay for their upkeep. But 40% said money from sponsorship by local
companies should foot the bill. In Manchester, MPs worked closely with major
industrialists to bring parks to cities. Is that the way forward 150 years on?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/30/parks-green-space-councils-pay
10. Mental Health
Parks and Improved Mental Health and Quality of Life
More time spent in parks and green spaces can help individuals fight against
mental health issues like depression, anxiety and stress. Making sure that all
people have access to parks and outdoor programming is a critical way to
increase these positive effects on health and quality of life for your community.
The Facts
• People living more than 1 kilometer away from a green space have nearly 50
percent higher odds of experiencing stress than those living less than 300
meters from a green space. Respondents who do not report stress have
more than 50 percent higher odds of visiting a green space at least a few
days a week than those reporting stress. Results also showed that the more
often respondents visited green spaces, the less stress they experienced.
• Several studies have confirmed that separation from nature is detrimental
to human development, health and wellbeing, and that regular contact with
nature is required for good mental health.
• Scientists in the Netherlands found that people who lived in residential
areas with the least green spaces had a 44 percent higher rate of physician-
diagnosed anxiety disorders than people who lived in the greenest
residential areas. The effect was strongest among those most likely to
spend their time near home, including children and those with low levels of
education and income.
• Physician-diagnosed depression was 33 percent higher in the residential
areas with the fewest green spaces, compared to the neighborhoods with
the most.
• People who lived in close proximity to natural space had significantly
improved mental health up to three years after their move. Compared to pre-
move mental health scores, individuals who moved to greener areas had
significantly better mental health recorded three years after the move.
• Individuals reported less mental distress and higher life satisfaction when
they were living in greener areas.
• A strong body of evidence suggests that physical activity in green spaces
has stronger mental health benefits than physical activity in non-green
spaces.
• Use of green spaces is associated with decreased health complaints,
improved blood pressure and cholesterol levels, reduced stress, improved
general health perceptions and a greater ability to face
problems https://www.nrpa.org/our-work/three-pillars/health-
wellness/parksandhealth/fact-sheets/parks-improved-mental-health-quality-life/
One overlooked way we can significantly improve our mental health: more nature
You might grumble skeptically at the notion that parks and plants make a real difference
in our happiness, but the research is convincing. A pile of studies on the subject
consistently points to a strong connection between green space and mental health. In
general, scientists believe that experiences in "green space" can boost mental health by
improving the immune system, encouraging physical activity and social interaction,
limiting air pollution and noise that interferes with thinking, and restoring a frenzied mind
to a state of calm. Take a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. The researchers used data from Danish health registries for more
than 940,000 children born between 1985 and 2003, and analyzed their mental health
outcomes in tandem with the green space surrounding their homes. They found that the
relative risk for developing a psychiatric disorder in adolescence or adulthood was
significantly higher — from 15 to 55 percent — for those surrounded by the least green
space.
Even when the researchers controlled for parents' age and socioeconomic status, family
history of mental health, urbanization, and municipal socioeconomic factors (think
average income, education, and unemployment where the child lived), green space
continued to have a protective benefit on mental health. The strongest association
between exposure to green space and increased risk of developing a psychiatric disorder
showed up for those who had lived in downtown Copenhagen while the weakest was
demonstrated in rural Denmark.
There are questions the study can't answer, including whether people with a higher
genetic risk for mental illness would be more inclined to choose denser urban areas, or
whether unmeasured socioeconomic factors like higher crime rates and lower-quality
green space could play a role in mental health outcomes. But this research begs us to
consider anew how exposure to nature in an urban environment could enhance or hurt
our mental health — and what we plan to do about that.
Kathleen Wolf, a research social scientist at the School of Environmental & Forest
Sciences at the University of Washington who was not involved in the PNAS research,
believes that this study and others like it prove that we need to take green space
seriously in cities as a means for improving people's every day quality of life and well-
being.
"Can we, by way of urban greening and other interventions, alleviate the pain and
suffering before it happens?"
Some might see trees and gardens as "nice, frilly things" to have around us, says Wolf.
But she sees encounters with green space and nature as opportunities to prevent or
diminish mental illness.
"Can we, by way of urban greening and other interventions, alleviate the pain and
suffering before it happens?" says Wolf.
It's a bold vision that may sound like it mistakes green space as a panacea for all that
ails us, but Wolf is more realistic than that. She knows that greening alone won't prevent
every mental health condition, but she's also confident that designing and creating
public places, workplaces, schools, and parks around green space could significantly
improve people's quality of life and emotional well-being. Scientific research, she says,
suggests that experiencing natural environments in urban settings help people recover
from the constant low-grade stress of city life.
10. Mental Health
‘Blue’ space: Access to water features can boost city dwellers’
mental health
Officials are increasingly recognizing that integrating nature into cities is an effective
public health strategy to improve mental health. Doctors around the world now
administer “green prescriptions” – where patients are encouraged to spend time in local
nature spaces – based on hundreds of studies showing that time in nature can
benefit people’s psychological well-being and increase social engagement.
Much of this research to date has focused on the role of green space in improving mental
health. But what about “blue” space – water settings such as riverside trails, a lake, a
waterfront or even urban fountains?
You probably intuitively know that being close to water can induce feelings of calm. And
many poets and artists have attested to the sense of awe and magic that water can
evoke. But can it deliver the same wide-ranging benefits that urban green infrastructure
brings to mental health? A few studies have shown that water bodies score just as well –
if not better – in supporting psychological well-being as compared with “green” nature.
So far the evidence is sparse, though, and mostly limited to coastal settings in Europe.
What if you’re in one of the 49 countries in the world, or 27 American states, that are
landlocked with no ocean shore? For natural capital to deliver health benefits to people,
it needs to be right next to them, integrated into the everyday fabric of their world.
A recent research review identified only 33 studies where blue care
interventions, such as a beach activity, swimming, sailing, fishing or canoeing,
were used to treat individuals with specific mental health problems – including
PTSD, addiction and depression – and people with physical disabilities. Overall,
these studies found that blue care interventions delivered direct benefits for
health, especially mental health and social well-being.
https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/%E2%80%98blue%E2%80%99-space-access-
to-water-features-can-boost-city-dwellers%E2%80%99
10. Mental Health
Real-life Marine fought the military to keep her hero dog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caWofZhFLNI&t=50s
10. Mental Health
Green Space is Good for Mental Health
In a sweeping nationwide study, researchers from Denmark’s University of Aarhus found
that childhood exposure to green space—parks, forests, rural lands, etc.—reduces the
risk for developing an array of psychiatric disorders during adolescence and adulthood.
The study could have far-reaching implications for healthy city design, making green
space-focused urban planning an early intervention tool for reducing mental health
problems.
Using data from the Landsat satellite archive and the Danish Civil Registration System,
researchers tracked the residential green space around nearly a million Danes and
correlated that with their mental health outcomes. The scientists found that citizens who
grew up with the least green space nearby had as much as a 55 percent increased risk of
developing psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse in
later years.
The research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It
is the largest epidemiological study to document a positive connection between green
space and mental health.
The impact of green space throughout childhood is significant. Exposure to green space
is comparable to family history and parental age when predicting mental health
outcomes. Only socioeconomic status was a slightly stronger indicator.
Researchers are still working out exactly why green space is so beneficial, but it clearly
provides health benefits across the population. It can encourage exercise, provide
spaces for socializing, decrease noise and air pollution, and improve immune function by
providing exposure to beneficial microbiota. It also can help with psychological
restoration; that is, green space provides a respite for over-stimulated minds.
Green space most strongly protects against mood disorders, depression, neurotic
behavior, and stress-related issues, the study found, signaling that psychological
restoration may be the strongest protective mechanism that green space offers. The
effect of green space is also dose-dependent, meaning those who have longer exposures
to green space have greater mental health benefits.
4. Outreach
Sharing from Facebook Mike Rowe show called return a favor these segments
can be inspiring to all let’s consider how this can spread in Orange County CA.
California students to earn a new Seal of Civic Engagement, an incentive aimed
at encouraging active and ongoing citizenship. Exhibit character traits that
reflect civic-mindedness and a commitment to positively impact the classroom,
school, community, and/or society, below are examples how it’s possible to
improve veterans hope such as these Return A Favor segments and through
school districts could help expand the act of one million kindness. President
Trump Signs the Great American Outdoors Act, Preserving and Protecting our
National Parks Fulfilling President Trump’s promise to restore, conserve, and
protect America’s lands, the Great American Outdoors Act provides the
necessary funds, dedicating up to $1.9 billion per year for five years to fund
deferred maintenance projects identified by the National Park Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the Bureau of Indian Education. These infrastructure updates
will preserve our most important national treasures and give more American
families opportunities to explore the great outdoors. In addition to improving
infrastructure at our national parks, the Great American Outdoors Act also
provides permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF). The LWCF supports recreational access, protection, and preservation of
our Nation’s most valuable natural and cultural resources. Supporting over 98
percent of counties across the country, the LWCF grants enable State and local
governments to develop and improve parks in their communities, as well as
permanently conserve outdoor recreation areas for public use and enjoyment.
https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/president-trump-signs-the-great-american-
outdoors-act-preserving
More time spent in parks and green spaces can help individuals fight against mental
health issues like depression, anxiety and stress. Making sure that all people have
access to parks and outdoor programming is a critical way to increase these positive
effects on health and quality of life for your community
https://www.nrpa.org/contentassets/9c491783f73a45f89abb0443b1a3e977/parks-
improved-mental-health-quality-life.pdf
4. Outreach
The Weights Veterans Carry
FACEBOOK SHOW MIKE ROWE CALLED RETURN A FAVOR
This week the team is in Texas to meet Justin "Boflex" Bohannon, an Army Veteran who
is lifting up Veterans with PTSD through fitness.
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/315146612448877
Mike Rowe Returning the Favor Saving our Veterans !!
177,144 members Welcome to The Returning the Favor Effect, the official
Facebook Group for Returning the Favor, a Facebook Watch show by Mike Rowe.
Here, members are encouraged to highlight do-gooders in their own communities,
inspire one another and discuss how everyday people can make an impact.
Returning The Favor – Mike Rowe
https://mikerowe.com/tag/returning-the-favor
mikerowe.com, Michael Gregory Rowe is an American television host and
narrator, actor and former opera singer best known for his work on the Discovery
Channel series Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch, After the Catch, Somebody's Gotta Do
It - Mike Rowe introduces us to people who perform unique jobs in his CNN
Original Series, Somebody's Gotta Do It
Saving our Veterans
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/558852827918761
SOLDIER DOGS
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/2045985955672664
GREAT WAY TO HELP CHILDREN AND DOGS MIKE ROWE
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/2224634101164689
A Hero's Retreat
https://www.facebook.com/1938059449798649/videos/1955900624681198
Paula & Serving Those Who Have Served | Returning the Favor
"Veterans need more than hot dogs and handshakes... To serve our country is the
most beautiful thing in the world."
Here's to not needing to wait to celebrate our hardworking veterans!
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/717031488864271
One Soldier's Inspiration to Serve
The Returning the Favor Effect Page comes to life when Mike and the team find
themselves in the Heart of Dixie to meet MSgt. Rob Dinsmore - a 30-year retired
Air Force Veteran who was inspired to help local Alabama vets suffering from
PTSD after watching the premiere episode of Returning the Favor: Operation
Combat
Bikesaver. https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/23976348069844
62
Saluting Our Veterans
Mike Rowe and team return a special Memorial Day favor to veteran Darren
Atkins who h… See More
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/690951921470587
Operation Combat Bikesaver
Mike Rowe visits a garage in Indiana to surprise Jason, a former Army engineer
who runs a therapeutic bike building program for veterans.
https://www.facebook.com/1938059449798649/videos/1942086476062613
The Weights Veterans Carry
This week the team is in Texas to meet Justin "Boflex" Bohannon, an Army
Veteran who is lifting up Veterans with PTSD through fitness.
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/315146612448877
Veterans Helping Veterans
This week the RTF crew heads to Conesus, New York to meet up with Justin
Cogswell; the founder of Operation Build Up: a Veteran run non-profit that assists
local Veterans in need of transportation by giving them refurbished vehicles.
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/2130392330565359
Paula & Serving Those Who Have Served | Returning the Favor
"Veterans need more than hot dogs and handshakes... To serve our country is the
most beautiful thing in the world."
Here's to not needing to wait to celebrate our hardworking veterans!
https://www.facebook.com/1938059449798649/videos/717031488864271
Serving Those Who've Served
With the 4th of July in their rearview, Mike and the crew make a patriotic delivery
to Paula Miritello, founder of My Brother Vinny: an organization that distributes
furniture, housewares and clothing to formerly homeless veterans in Westchester
County, New York.
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/266176391346566
Saluting Our Veterans
Mike Rowe and team return a special Memorial Day favor to veteran Darren
Atkins who has been providing care packages to the vets in his community of
Whitesburg, KY.
https://www.facebook.com/ReturningTheFavor/videos/690951921470587
4. Outreach
SACRAMENTO — The State Board of Education on Wednesday approved criteria
for California students to earn a new Seal of Civic Engagement, an incentive
aimed at encouraging active and ongoing citizenship.
To earn the seal, students must demonstrate excellence in civic learning,
participation in civics-related projects, contributions to their community, and an
understanding of the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and
the American democratic system.
Students may earn the seal on a transcript, diploma, or Certificate of Completion.
California history and social science teachers worked in partnership with the
California Department of Education to develop the initial requirements.
“The future of our democracy depends on a knowledgeable and actively engaged
citizenry,” said State Board President Linda Darling-Hammond. “With this new
seal, we hope to prepare all students with an empathetic concern for others, a
deep understanding of democracy, and the civic engagement skills needed to
contribute to the welfare of their local communities, the state, and the country.”
“We know that when young people activate their voices, they can be among the
strongest change agents in our communities,” said State Superintendent of
Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. “Education is the cornerstone of realizing our
democratic ideals, and this new seal puts additional tools in students’ hands as
they work to shape the future.”
Since then-Governor Brown signed AB 24 into law in October 2017, the CDE has
worked with teachers, a variety of stakeholder groups, and the public to draft
criteria and guidance for the seal.
Under the direction of the State Board, the department worked to ensure that the
criteria approved today are accessible to all students, support rigorous and
continuous civic engagement, promote diversity and inclusion, engage young
students, reflect an interdisciplinary approach, and recognize civil disobedience
as a form of civic engagement.
The criteria are:
* Be engaged in academic work in a productive way;
* Demonstrate a competent understanding of U.S. and California constitutions;
functions and governance of local governments; tribal government structures and
organizations; the role of the citizen in a constitutional democracy; and
democratic principles, concepts, and processes;
* Participate in one or more informed civic engagement project(s) that address
real-world problems and require students to identify and inquire into civic needs
or problems, consider varied responses, take action, and reflect on efforts;
* Demonstrate civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions through self-reflection;
and
* Exhibit character traits that reflect civic-mindedness and a commitment to
positively impact the classroom, school, community, and/or society.
The criteria include extensive guidance to support local educational agencies as
they implement the seal in their communities.
The CDE also created a Resources to Support Civic
Engagement https://socialemotionalpaws.org/blog-post/f/california-board-of-
education-approves-civic-engagement-award
10. Mental Health
“Congressional Medal of Honor Bike and Pedestrian Trail” in honor of Garden
Grove’s Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.
Effective immediately through Tuesday, December 1, 2020, the Garden Grove
Congressional Medal of Honor Bike and Pedestrian Trail, from Stanford Avenue to
Brookhurst Street, will undergo improvements causing temporary closures.
Closures will take place in four phases: At the June 9, 2020 Garden Grove City
Council meeting, the Garden Grove City Council approved the official naming of
the trail as the “Congressional Medal of Honor Bike and Pedestrian Trail” in honor
of Garden Grove’s Congressional Medal of Honor recipients.
The trail will fully reopen after the last segment is complete, on Tuesday,
December 1, 2020, with an official unveiling tentatively scheduled for January
2021.
http://www.oc-breeze.com/2020/10/03/188192_garden-grove-to-close-bike-and-
pedestrian-trail-during-improvements/
10. Mental Health
Study shows service dogs are associated with lower PTSD symptoms
among war veterans
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — A preliminary study led by researchers in the Purdue
University College of Veterinary Medicine has shown that overall symptoms of
post-traumatic stress disorder are lower among war veterans with service dogs.
The pilot study was co-funded by the Human Animal Bond Research
Institute (HABRI) and Bayer Animal Health.
The study was led by Maggie O’Haire, assistant professor of human-animal
interaction, with the help of K9s For Warriors, an accredited nonprofit
organization that provides veterans with service dogs. The pilot research project
provides scientific evidence of mental health benefits experienced by veterans
with PTSD who have service dogs.
“We found that the group of veterans with service dogs had significantly lower
levels of PTSD symptomology than those who did not have a service dog,” O’Haire
says. “They also had lower levels of depression, lower anxiety and increased
social participation, meaning a willingness to leave their house and go engage
with society in different activities.”
The study is published in the February issue of the Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology.
Participants were recruited between November 2015 and February 2016 from a
national sample of 304 individuals who applied and were approved to receive a
trained PTSD service dog from K9s For Warriors. Of these, 141 individuals chose
to participate in the preliminary trial. Approximately half of the sample of
participants were on the waitlist to receive a service dog and the other half
already had a service dog.
Measurements of various aspects of PTSD symptoms, quality of life, social
functioning and work were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
Results reveal that veterans suffering from PTSD exhibited better mental health
and well-being on several measures if they had a service dog, including:
• Lower overall symptoms of post-traumatic stress.
• Lower levels of depression.
• Higher levels of life satisfaction.
• Higher overall psychological well-being.
• Lower levels of social isolation and greater ability to participate in social
activities.
• Higher levels of resilience.
• Higher levels of companionship.
• Less absenteeism from work due to health among those who were
employed.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/study-shows-service-dogs-
are-associated-with-lower-ptsd-symptoms-among-war-veterans-.html
Thank You
Craig A Durfey