California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 292 — Industrial hemp.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 485, Statutes of 2021.

  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 01, 2021. Enacted.

Prognosis

Advancing 58% · 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.

  • 3 sponsors

    1 primary, 2 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Mixed recorded votes

    7 passed, 1 failed in 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

(1) Existing law governs the cultivation of industrial hemp in this state and establishes a registration program administered by county agricultural commissioners and the Department of Food and Agriculture for growers of industrial hemp, hemp breeders, and established agricultural research institutions, as defined. Existing law requires specified registrants that grow industrial hemp, before the harvest of each crop, to obtain a laboratory test report indicating the THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) levels of a random sampling of the industrial hemp, and requires that sampling to occur no more than 30 days before harvest. Existing law requires a registrant that grows industrial hemp to destroy the industrial hemp grown upon receipt of a laboratory test report indicating a percentage concentration of THC that exceeds a specified level. Unless otherwise provided, a violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would instead require the sampling to occur within a timeframe determined by the department. The bill would require a registrant to destroy or dispose of the industrial hemp grown upon receipt of a laboratory test result described above. The bill would require that laboratory test reports of hemp include the measurement of uncertainty, as defined, associated with the test results. The bill would also require laboratories to use appropriate, validated methods and procedures for all testing activities, including when estimating the measurement of uncertainty. By adding new requirements for hemp testing, the violation of which could be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the registration application for an established agricultural research institution and hemp breeder to include, among other things, a plan for testing all of the plants cultivated. Existing law requires the registration application for a grower of industrial hemp to include, among other things, the approved cultivar to be grown, including the state or county of origin. This bill would require the testing plan of an established agricultural research institution and hemp breeder to provide for testing of a representative sample, instead of all, of the plants cultivated. The bill would require a grower of industrial hemp to include the country of origin, instead of the county of origin, of the approved cultivar in the registration application. (3) Existing law creates the Industrial Hemp Advisory Board, consisting of 13 members appointed by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to advise the secretary and make recommendations on all matters pertaining to industrial hemp. Under existing law, the membership of the board includes, among other members, 5 members who are registered growers of industrial hemp and one member who is a representative of the Hemp Industries Association or its successor industry association. This bill would change the membership of the board by increasing the number of members who are registered growers of industrial hemp to 6 and eliminating the member who is a representative of the Hemp Industries Association from the board. (4) Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to submit specified registration information to the United States Department of Agriculture. This bill would instead require the department to submit information relating to registrations described in a specified federal regulation to the United States Department of Agriculture. The bill would require each registered established agricultural research institution, registered grower of industrial hemp, and registered hemp breeder to report to the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture specified information regarding its hemp production in the state, including the location, acreage, and license or registration number associated with each location in the state where hemp will be produced. By imposing new reporting requirements, the violation of which could be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing federal law, the Agricultural Act of 2014, authorizes an institution of higher education, as defined, or a state department of agriculture, as defined, to grow or cultivate industrial hemp under an agricultural pilot program, as defined, under certain conditions. Existing federal law, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, requires a state desiring to have primary regulatory authority over the production of industrial hemp in the state to submit to the United States Secretary of Agriculture, through the state department of agriculture, a plan, with specified contents, under which the state monitors and regulates hemp production. Existing state law authorizes the Department of Food and Agriculture to establish and carry out an agricultural pilot program in accordance with the above-described provision of the federal Agricultural Act of 2014. Before cultivating industrial hemp, existing state law requires an established agricultural research institution to provide the Global Positioning System coordinates of the planned cultivation site to the county agricultural commissioner of the county in which the site is located. This bill would make both of these provisions of state law inoperative on the date on which a state plan for California is approved by the United States Secretary of Agriculture, and would repeal these provisions on January 1 of the following year. (6) Existing law establishes certain enforcement procedures with respect to industrial hemp that become operative as of the effective date that a state plan to regulate the production of industrial hemp is approved pursuant to the federal Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. Under existing law, these procedures require the enforcement of the approved state plan to comply with specified provisions of that federal law. In accordance with that federal law, these procedures require a grower of industrial hemp, established agricultural research institution, or hemp breeder that the Secretary of Food and Agriculture determines has violated the approved state plan to be subject to certain consequences depending on whether the violation is negligent or whether the violation is committed intentionally or with recklessness or gross negligence. This bill would revise these enforcement procedures to conform to the requirements for a state plan under that federal law by specifying that a grower of industrial hemp, established agricultural research institution, or hemp breeder, as a result of a negligent violation, is not subject to any criminal enforcement action by the state or a local government. (7) This bill would make other related changes to provisions governing the cultivation of industrial hemp. (8) 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 485, Statutes of 2021.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2211.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 70. Noes 0. Page 2477.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From consent calendar on motion of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  12. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (July 7).

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Coauthors revised.

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

  16. Referred to Com. on AGRI.

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

  18. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 886.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  20. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.

  21. Set for hearing April 19.

  22. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Withdrawn from committee.

  24. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  25. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 552.) (March 18). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  26. Set for hearing March 18.

  27. Joint Rule 55 suspended. (Ayes 32. Noes 4. Page 272.)

  28. (Ayes 32. Noes 4.)

  29. Art. IV. Sec. 8(a) of the Constitution dispensed with.

  30. Referred to Coms. on AGRI. and PUB. S.

  31. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 4.

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

Sponsors

  • Wilk · Primary
  • Jones-Sawyer · Cosponsor
  • Mathis · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Wilk

Co-sponsors (2)

  • Jones-Sawyer
  • Mathis

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"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

Unfinished Business SB292 Wilk et al. Concurrence

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 23000
Democratic 12001
Republican 4000
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Pan — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Newman — Yea
Bates — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Min — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

SB 292 Wilk Senate Third Reading By Aguiar-Curry

Passed 70 Yea · 0 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 41003
Democratic 22004
Republican 7002
Total 70009
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Frazier — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Levine — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Daly — Yea
Medina — Yea
Smith — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gray — Not Voting
Mathis — Not Voting
McCarty — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Not Voting
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Not Voting
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
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass. To Consent Calendar.

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8001
Democratic 4001
Republican 2000
Total 14002
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Not Voting
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

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

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 7000
Democratic 3000
Total 11000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gray — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Levine — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Consent Calendar SB292

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 23000
Democratic 11002
Republican 4000
Total 38002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Hueso — Yea
Pan — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Min — Yea
Newman — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Roth — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Bates — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

labor agriculture
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 292 do?
(1) Existing law governs the cultivation of industrial hemp in this state and establishes a registration program administered by county agricultural commissioners and the Department of Food and Agriculture for growers of industrial hemp, hemp breeders, and established agricultural research institutions, as defined. Existing law requires specified registrants that grow industrial hemp, before the harvest of each crop, to obtain a laboratory test report indicating the THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) levels of a random sampling of the industrial hemp, and requires that sampling to occur no more than 30 days before harvest. Existing law requires a registrant that grows industrial hemp to destroy the industrial hemp grown upon receipt of a laboratory test report indicating a percentage concentration of THC that exceeds a specified level. Unless otherwise provided, a violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would instead require the sampling to occur within a timeframe determined by the department. The bill would require a registrant to destroy or dispose of the industrial hemp grown upon receipt of a laboratory test result described above. The bill would require that laboratory test reports of hemp include the measurement of uncertainty, as defined, associated with the test results. The bill would also require laboratories to use appropriate, validated methods and procedures for all testing activities, including when estimating the measurement of uncertainty. By adding new requirements for hemp testing, the violation of which could be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the registration application for an established agricultural research institution and hemp breeder to include, among other things, a plan for testing all of the plants cultivated. Existing law requires the registration application for a grower of industrial hemp to include, among other things, the approved cultivar to be grown, including the state or county of origin. This bill would require the testing plan of an established agricultural research institution and hemp breeder to provide for testing of a representative sample, instead of all, of the plants cultivated. The bill would require a grower of industrial hemp to include the country of origin, instead of the county of origin, of the approved cultivar in the registration application. (3) Existing law creates the Industrial Hemp Advisory Board, consisting of 13 members appointed by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to advise the secretary and make recommendations on all matters pertaining to industrial hemp. Under existing law, the membership of the board includes, among other members, 5 members who are registered growers of industrial hemp and one member who is a representative of the Hemp Industries Association or its successor industry association. This bill would change the membership of the board by increasing the number of members who are registered growers of industrial hemp to 6 and eliminating the member who is a representative of the Hemp Industries Association from the board. (4) Existing law requires the Department of Food and Agriculture to submit specified registration information to the United States Department of Agriculture. This bill would instead require the department to submit information relating to registrations described in a specified federal regulation to the United States Department of Agriculture. The bill would require each registered established agricultural research institution, registered grower of industrial hemp, and registered hemp breeder to report to the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture specified information regarding its hemp production in the state, including the location, acreage, and license or registration number associated with each location in the state where hemp will be produced. By imposing new reporting requirements, the violation of which could be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing federal law, the Agricultural Act of 2014, authorizes an institution of higher education, as defined, or a state department of agriculture, as defined, to grow or cultivate industrial hemp under an agricultural pilot program, as defined, under certain conditions. Existing federal law, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, requires a state desiring to have primary regulatory authority over the production of industrial hemp in the state to submit to the United States Secretary of Agriculture, through the state department of agriculture, a plan, with specified contents, under which the state monitors and regulates hemp production. Existing state law authorizes the Department of Food and Agriculture to establish and carry out an agricultural pilot program in accordance with the above-described provision of the federal Agricultural Act of 2014. Before cultivating industrial hemp, existing state law requires an established agricultural research institution to provide the Global Positioning System coordinates of the planned cultivation site to the county agricultural commissioner of the county in which the site is located. This bill would make both of these provisions of state law inoperative on the date on which a state plan for California is approved by the United States Secretary of Agriculture, and would repeal these provisions on January 1 of the following year. (6) Existing law establishes certain enforcement procedures with respect to industrial hemp that become operative as of the effective date that a state plan to regulate the production of industrial hemp is approved pursuant to the federal Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. Under existing law, these procedures require the enforcement of the approved state plan to comply with specified provisions of that federal law. In accordance with that federal law, these procedures require a grower of industrial hemp, established agricultural research institution, or hemp breeder that the Secretary of Food and Agriculture determines has violated the approved state plan to be subject to certain consequences depending on whether the violation is negligent or whether the violation is committed intentionally or with recklessness or gross negligence. This bill would revise these enforcement procedures to conform to the requirements for a state plan under that federal law by specifying that a grower of industrial hemp, established agricultural research institution, or hemp breeder, as a result of a negligent violation, is not subject to any criminal enforcement action by the state or a local government. (7) This bill would make other related changes to provisions governing the cultivation of industrial hemp. (8) 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 292?
SB 292 is sponsored by Wilk, Jones-Sawyer, and Mathis.
What is the current status of SB 292?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 01, 2021. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 292?
Track SB 292 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 292

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 292

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →