Subdivisions: water supply.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 300 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 300.
You're tracking AB 300
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 300 — Subdivisions: water supply.
Last action — From Senate committee without further action.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
(1) The Subdivision Map Act prohibits approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement, unless the legislative body of a city or county or the designated advisory agency provides written verification from the applicable public water system that a sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the project. This bill would require, until January 1, 2017, the public water system, or the local agency if there is no public water system, to review, verify for accuracy, and approve, as specified, the subdivider's water savings projections attributable to voluntary demand management measures, as defined. The public water system would be authorized to collect fees necessary to provide the additional analysis of the voluntary demand management measures. This bill would provide that a water supply assessment completed, as specified, satisfies the existing requirement of verifying sufficient water supply, unless the public water system receives specified new information. The public water system would be required to determine the projected water savings attributable to the voluntary demand management measures that will be incorporated into the subdivision. The projected water savings would be required to be calculated using specified data compiled or maintained by the public water system or the water savings projections adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. If a project applicant proposes to use a new voluntary water demand management measure for which neither the California Urban Water Conservation Council nor the public water system has adopted an estimate or method to calculate the projected water savings of the proposed voluntary demand management measure, the projected water savings would be required to be made based on documented methodologies or calculations submitted in the record. Five years after the project has been fully developed, the public water system would be required to include within its next urban water management plan a report on the monitoring and compliance of voluntary water demand management measures and to determine, if practicable based on readily available information, whether they have resulted in the water savings necessary to achieve the agreed upon water demand offsets. The bill would also require the public water system to document the measured annual water use of the subdivision in comparison to the projected demand associated with the subdivision, and to calculate the water savings attributable to the voluntary mitigation measures financed by the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund for the subdivision. If the public water system bases its written verification of a sufficient water supply for the subdivision, in whole or in part, on the use of voluntary demand management measures within the subdivision, the written verification would be required to be conditioned on the maintenance and operation of the voluntary demand management measures, or measures that are at least as water efficient, as agreed to by the applicant and the public water system, and the recordation as a covenant running with the land for the lots within the subdivision. The bill would provide that by acceptance of a deed to a lot, each purchaser would acknowledge the obligation to comply with the voluntary demand measures for the lot as described in the covenant. These covenants would be authorized to be enforced pursuant to the existing authority of a public water system. The bill would further require a builder, prior to the close of escrow, to give a purchaser information that would be required to be included in a maintenance manual that informs the purchaser of the existence of the home's unique water saving devices, including specified information. The bill would also encourage the public water system to commit to carrying out the water conservation measures funded by the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund within 24 months of the sale of the last unit of the proposed subdivision. The bill would require the public water system to choose water conservation measures that are the most cost-effective means to yield water savings. The bill would authorize expenditures from the fund to be made within the subdivision or elsewhere within the service area of the public water supplier, at its discretion. Not less than 40% of the proceeds from the voluntary water demand mitigation fund would be required to be directed to water conservation programs in any disadvantaged community, unless the public water system makes a specified finding. By adding to the duties of the public water system, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires a city or county that determines a project, as defined, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. If no public water system is identified, the city or county is required to prepare the water supply assessment. This bill would require, until January 1, 2017, if the project applicant elects to include voluntary demand management measures, any city, county, or public water system preparing a water supply assessment to reduce the projected water demand for the project to an amount below planned water demand reduction actions contained in an adopted urban water management plan and the current statutory, regulatory, and local ordinance requirements, based on the project applicant's voluntary water demand management measures, as defined. The bill would authorize the applicant to enter into a mutual agreement with the public water system to mitigate water demand associated with a proposed subdivision by depositing funds in a Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund, as defined. The fees paid into the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund would be prohibited from exceeding the amount necessary to offset the actual or percentage of actual water demand impacts agreed upon in the agreement between the applicant and the public water system. The bill would authorize, at the discretion of the public water system, the amount required for the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund to be reduced by a portion of the normally required system capacity charges that finance future water supplies. The bill would also authorize any reduction in the capacity charge to be calculated using the amount of water projected to be conserved using the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund at the cost determined by the public water system for developing new water supplies or for water conservation. The bill would not require the total reduction in system capacity charges to be equal to the amount paid into the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund. The bill would require the public water system to determine the projected water savings attributable to the voluntary demand management measures that will be incorporated into the project. The public water system would be required to expend all funds from the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund on water conservation measures that will reduce the projected demand associated with the subdivision. The public water system would be prohibited from using any funds from the Voluntary Water Conservation Mitigation Fund to supplant funding for water conservation programs required by planned water reduction actions contained in an adopted urban water management plan, existing law, or paid for by existing customers through water rates and surcharges. By adding to the duties of the public water system, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill Text
- Amended 06/30/09 - Amended Senate Current pdf June 30, 2009
- Amended 06/23/09 - Amended Senate pdf June 23, 2009
- Amended 06/10/09 - Amended Senate pdf June 10, 2009
- Amended 04/20/09 - Amended Assembly pdf April 20, 2009
- Amended 04/02/09 - Amended Assembly pdf April 02, 2009
- Introduced 02/17/09 - Introduced pdf February 17, 2009
- AB300 View text html
Action History
-
From Senate committee without further action.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W.
-
Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W.
-
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on N.R. & W. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 17).
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
-
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and N.R. & W.
-
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
-
Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1742.)
-
Read second time. To third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 20).
-
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (April 28).
-
Re-referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on W.,P. & W. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 15).
-
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and W.,P. & W.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Caballero · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Caballero
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (121)
121 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 121 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Kehoe | — | Yea |
| Wiggins | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Aanestad | — | Yea |
| Cox | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 78 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 85 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| % of votes cast | 92% | 0% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (92)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hagman | — | Yea |
| Carter | — | Yea |
| Eng | — | Yea |
| Evans | — | Yea |
| Chesbro | — | Yea |
| Conway | — | Yea |
| Cook | — | Yea |
| Bill | — | Yea |
| Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Tom | — | Yea |
| Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Feuer | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Charles | — | Yea |
| De | — | Yea |
| La | — | Yea |
| Torre | — | Yea |
| De | — | Yea |
| Leon | — | Yea |
| Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Ammiano | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Coto | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Duvall | — | Yea |
| Yamada | — | Yea |
| Gaines | — | Yea |
| Bonnie | — | Yea |
| V. | — | Yea |
| Manuel | — | Yea |
| Perez | — | Yea |
| John | — | Yea |
| A. | — | Yea |
| Perez | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Audra | — | Yea |
| Saldana | — | Not Voting |
| Furutani | — | Yea |
| Garrick | — | Yea |
| Gilmore | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Harkey | — | Yea |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Bass | — | Yea |
| Huffman | — | Not Voting |
| Jeffries | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Krekorian | — | Not Voting |
| Lieu | — | Yea |
| Mendoza | — | Yea |
| Miller | — | Yea |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Nestande | — | Yea |
| Ruskin | — | Not Voting |
| Silva | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Not Voting |
| Smyth | — | Yea |
| Swanson | — | Yea |
| Torlakson | — | Yea |
| Torrico | — | Yea |
| Tran | — | Yea |
| Adams | — | Yea |
| Blakeslee | — | Yea |
| Block | — | Yea |
| Blumenfield | — | Yea |
| Brownley | — | Yea |
| Buchanan | — | Yea |
| Hayashi | — | Yea |
| Huber | — | Yea |
| Logue | — | Yea |
| Ma | — | Yea |
| Nava | — | Not Voting |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Solorio | — | Yea |
| Torres | — | Yea |
| Villines | — | Yea |
| Emmerson | — | Yea |
| DeVore | — | Yea |
| Fuentes | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Not Voting |
| Niello, Roger W. | Republican | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 18 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 20 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (21)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Charles | — | Yea |
| De | — | Yea |
| Leon | — | Yea |
| Fuentes | — | Yea |
| John | — | Yea |
| A. | — | Yea |
| Perez | — | Yea |
| Audra | — | Yea |
| Hall | — | Yea |
| Harkey | — | Yea |
| Miller | — | Not Voting |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Ammiano | — | Yea |
| Duvall | — | Yea |
| Solorio | — | Yea |
| Torlakson | — | Yea |
| Price | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Strickland, Tony | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 13 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 15 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 88% | 0% | 0% | 12% |
How each member voted (17)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Fuller | — | Yea |
| Huffman | — | Yea |
| Tom | — | Yea |
| Berryhill | — | Yea |
| Krekorian | — | Yea |
| Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Bonnie | — | Yea |
| John | — | Yea |
| A. | — | Yea |
| Perez | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Yea |
| Blumenfield | — | Yea |
| Yamada | — | Not Voting |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Davis | — | Yea |
| Duvall | — | Yea |
| Krekorian | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 300 do?
- (1) The Subdivision Map Act prohibits approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement, unless the legislative body of a city or county or the designated advisory agency provides written verification from the applicable public water system that a sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the project. This bill would require, until January 1, 2017, the public water system, or the local agency if there is no public water system, to review, verify for accuracy, and approve, as specified, the subdivider's water savings projections attributable to voluntary demand management measures, as defined. The public water system would be authorized to collect fees necessary to provide the additional analysis of the voluntary demand management measures. This bill would provide that a water supply assessment completed, as specified, satisfies the existing requirement of verifying sufficient water supply, unless the public water system receives specified new information. The public water system would be required to determine the projected water savings attributable to the voluntary demand management measures that will be incorporated into the subdivision. The projected water savings would be required to be calculated using specified data compiled or maintained by the public water system or the water savings projections adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. If a project applicant proposes to use a new voluntary water demand management measure for which neither the California Urban Water Conservation Council nor the public water system has adopted an estimate or method to calculate the projected water savings of the proposed voluntary demand management measure, the projected water savings would be required to be made based on documented methodologies or calculations submitted in the record. Five years after the project has been fully developed, the public water system would be required to include within its next urban water management plan a report on the monitoring and compliance of voluntary water demand management measures and to determine, if practicable based on readily available information, whether they have resulted in the water savings necessary to achieve the agreed upon water demand offsets. The bill would also require the public water system to document the measured annual water use of the subdivision in comparison to the projected demand associated with the subdivision, and to calculate the water savings attributable to the voluntary mitigation measures financed by the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund for the subdivision. If the public water system bases its written verification of a sufficient water supply for the subdivision, in whole or in part, on the use of voluntary demand management measures within the subdivision, the written verification would be required to be conditioned on the maintenance and operation of the voluntary demand management measures, or measures that are at least as water efficient, as agreed to by the applicant and the public water system, and the recordation as a covenant running with the land for the lots within the subdivision. The bill would provide that by acceptance of a deed to a lot, each purchaser would acknowledge the obligation to comply with the voluntary demand measures for the lot as described in the covenant. These covenants would be authorized to be enforced pursuant to the existing authority of a public water system. The bill would further require a builder, prior to the close of escrow, to give a purchaser information that would be required to be included in a maintenance manual that informs the purchaser of the existence of the home's unique water saving devices, including specified information. The bill would also encourage the public water system to commit to carrying out the water conservation measures funded by the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund within 24 months of the sale of the last unit of the proposed subdivision. The bill would require the public water system to choose water conservation measures that are the most cost-effective means to yield water savings. The bill would authorize expenditures from the fund to be made within the subdivision or elsewhere within the service area of the public water supplier, at its discretion. Not less than 40% of the proceeds from the voluntary water demand mitigation fund would be required to be directed to water conservation programs in any disadvantaged community, unless the public water system makes a specified finding. By adding to the duties of the public water system, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires a city or county that determines a project, as defined, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment. If no public water system is identified, the city or county is required to prepare the water supply assessment. This bill would require, until January 1, 2017, if the project applicant elects to include voluntary demand management measures, any city, county, or public water system preparing a water supply assessment to reduce the projected water demand for the project to an amount below planned water demand reduction actions contained in an adopted urban water management plan and the current statutory, regulatory, and local ordinance requirements, based on the project applicant's voluntary water demand management measures, as defined. The bill would authorize the applicant to enter into a mutual agreement with the public water system to mitigate water demand associated with a proposed subdivision by depositing funds in a Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund, as defined. The fees paid into the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund would be prohibited from exceeding the amount necessary to offset the actual or percentage of actual water demand impacts agreed upon in the agreement between the applicant and the public water system. The bill would authorize, at the discretion of the public water system, the amount required for the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund to be reduced by a portion of the normally required system capacity charges that finance future water supplies. The bill would also authorize any reduction in the capacity charge to be calculated using the amount of water projected to be conserved using the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund at the cost determined by the public water system for developing new water supplies or for water conservation. The bill would not require the total reduction in system capacity charges to be equal to the amount paid into the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund. The bill would require the public water system to determine the projected water savings attributable to the voluntary demand management measures that will be incorporated into the project. The public water system would be required to expend all funds from the Voluntary Water Demand Mitigation Fund on water conservation measures that will reduce the projected demand associated with the subdivision. The public water system would be prohibited from using any funds from the Voluntary Water Conservation Mitigation Fund to supplant funding for water conservation programs required by planned water reduction actions contained in an adopted urban water management plan, existing law, or paid for by existing customers through water rates and surcharges. By adding to the duties of the public water system, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Who sponsors AB 300?
- AB 300 is sponsored by Caballero.
- What is the current status of AB 300?
- This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track AB 300?
- Track AB 300 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 300
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 300
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →