California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted 2 D cosponsors

SB 974 — California Environmental Quality Act: small disadvantaged community water system: state small water system: exemption.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 234, Statutes of 2020.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 11, 2020. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 80% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 5 sponsors

    1 primary, 4 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (2 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 6 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, as specified, if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA includes exemptions from its environmental review requirements for numerous categories of projects, as prescribed. This bill would, with certain specified exceptions, exempt from CEQA certain projects consisting solely of the installation, repair, or reconstruction of water infrastructure, as specified, that primarily benefits a small disadvantaged community water system, as defined, or a state small water system, as defined, by improving the small disadvantaged community water system's or state small water system's water quality, water supply, or water supply reliability, by encouraging water conservation, or by providing drinking water service to existing residences within a disadvantaged community, a small disadvantaged community water system, or a state small water system where there is evidence that the water exceeds maximum contaminant levels for primary or secondary drinking water standards or where the drinking water well is no longer able to produce an adequate supply of safe drinking water. To qualify for this CEQA exemption, the bill would require these projects to meet certain labor requirements and certain conditions, including fully mitigating all construction impacts and not affecting wetlands or sensitive habitat. The bill would also define various terms for purposes of this exemption. The bill would require the lead agency, before determining a project is exempt under these provisions, to contact the State Water Resources Control Board to determine whether claiming the exemption will affect the ability of the small disadvantaged community water system or the state small water system from receiving federal financial assistance or federally capitalized financial assistance. If the lead agency approves or carries out a project that is exempt from CEQA by the above provisions, the bill would require the lead agency to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located, as provided. Because a lead agency would be required to file the notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal this exemption on January 1, 2028. 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

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 234, Statutes of 2020.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 34. Noes 3.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 71. Noes 3. Page 5289.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. (Corrected August 24).

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  12. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 18).

  13. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (August 6).

  15. July 29 hearing postponed by committee.

  16. Referred to Com. on NAT. RES.

  17. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  18. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 33. Noes 6. Page 3882.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. Ordered to second reading.

  21. Read third time and amended.

  22. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  23. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  24. Set for hearing June 9.

  25. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  26. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 3621.) (May 29).

  27. Set for hearing May 29.

  28. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on EQ.

  29. April 1 hearing postponed by committee.

  30. Set for hearing April 1.

  31. Referred to Com. on EQ.

  32. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.

  33. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 4 co-sponsors · 117 not signed on · 5 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (4)

Not signed on (117)

117 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 117 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

SB 974 Hurtado Senate Third Reading By Aguiar-Curry

Passed 71 Yea · 3 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 47103
Democratic 18202
Republican 6000
Total 71305
% of votes cast 90%4%0%6%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Weber — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Wood — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Smith — Yea
Eggman — Not Voting
Frazier — Not Voting
Voepel — Not Voting
Obernolte — Yea
Gray — Yea
Salas — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Ting — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Brough — Yea
Fong — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Low — Yea
Diep — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Chu — Yea
Chau — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Burke — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gloria — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Daly — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Nay
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Unfinished Business SB974 Hurtado et al. Concurrence

Passed 34 Yea · 3 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 22302
Democratic 10000
Republican 2001
Total 34303
% of votes cast 85%8%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Pan — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Monning — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Allen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Bates — Nay
Moorlach — Not Voting
Borgeas — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5001
Unaffiliated 11000
Republican 1000
Total 17001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Chau — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Diep — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Fong — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Not Voting
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7101
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 9101
% of votes cast 82%9%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Eggman — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Chau — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Cunningham — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 33 Yea · 6 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 22401
Democratic 10000
Republican 1200
Total 33601
% of votes cast 83%15%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Chang — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Roth — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Hill — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Beall — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Monning — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Moorlach — Nay
Bates — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Borgeas — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

environment labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 974 do?
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, as specified, if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA includes exemptions from its environmental review requirements for numerous categories of projects, as prescribed. This bill would, with certain specified exceptions, exempt from CEQA certain projects consisting solely of the installation, repair, or reconstruction of water infrastructure, as specified, that primarily benefits a small disadvantaged community water system, as defined, or a state small water system, as defined, by improving the small disadvantaged community water system's or state small water system's water quality, water supply, or water supply reliability, by encouraging water conservation, or by providing drinking water service to existing residences within a disadvantaged community, a small disadvantaged community water system, or a state small water system where there is evidence that the water exceeds maximum contaminant levels for primary or secondary drinking water standards or where the drinking water well is no longer able to produce an adequate supply of safe drinking water. To qualify for this CEQA exemption, the bill would require these projects to meet certain labor requirements and certain conditions, including fully mitigating all construction impacts and not affecting wetlands or sensitive habitat. The bill would also define various terms for purposes of this exemption. The bill would require the lead agency, before determining a project is exempt under these provisions, to contact the State Water Resources Control Board to determine whether claiming the exemption will affect the ability of the small disadvantaged community water system or the state small water system from receiving federal financial assistance or federally capitalized financial assistance. If the lead agency approves or carries out a project that is exempt from CEQA by the above provisions, the bill would require the lead agency to file a notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk of the county in which the project is located, as provided. Because a lead agency would be required to file the notice of exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the county clerk, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal this exemption on January 1, 2028. 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 SB 974?
SB 974 is sponsored by Hurtado, Melissa (Democratic), Mathis, Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. (Democratic), Salas, and Dodd.
What is the current status of SB 974?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 11, 2020. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 974?
Track SB 974 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 974

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 974

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →