California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB137

Introduced
12/7/18  
Introduced
12/7/18  
Refer
1/24/19  
Refer
1/24/19  
Report Pass
3/11/19  
Report Pass
3/11/19  
Refer
3/12/19  
Refer
3/12/19  
Report Pass
3/19/19  
Engrossed
3/28/19  
Engrossed
3/28/19  
Refer
3/28/19  
Refer
3/28/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Report Pass
6/25/19  
Report Pass
6/25/19  
Refer
6/25/19  
Refer
6/25/19  
Refer
6/26/19  
Refer
6/26/19  
Report Pass
6/28/19  
Report Pass
6/28/19  
Refer
6/28/19  
Refer
7/3/19  
Refer
7/3/19  
Report Pass
7/11/19  
Report Pass
7/11/19  
Refer
7/11/19  
Refer
7/11/19  

Caption

Facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control.

Impact

The legislation extends the enforcement of misdemeanor penalties to various actions including the concealment, destruction, or obstruction of levees and other flood control facilities without permission. This change aims to ensure that flood protection measures remain uncompromised, which could significantly enhance the state's capacity to manage flood-related disasters. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that no reimbursement for compliance costs will be mandated for local agencies or school districts, which may invoke debate regarding financial implications for these entities.

Summary

Assembly Bill 137, introduced by Assembly Member Cooper, focuses on reinforcing flood control measures in California, particularly under the directive of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. The bill prescribes that facilities related to the State Plan of Flood Control are deemed critical public infrastructure essential for safeguarding lives, property, and economic stability. A key aspect of this legislation is an amendment to existing Water Code provisions concerning the construction and maintenance of levees and related infrastructure along critical waterways such as the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 137 leans towards support for public safety, considering the critical nature of flood control infrastructure, especially following historical flooding events in California. Supporters of the bill emphasize the importance of maintaining strict regulations to prevent any compromises to vital flood control facilities. Conversely, concerns have emerged over whether the lack of required reimbursements for local agencies might strain their resources, prompting calls for a more nuanced approach that accommodates local realities while ensuring safety protocols are upheld.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the bill's provision for expanding the scope of activities deemed illegal, thus increasing the potential for prosecution and enforcement by peace officers. Detractors have raised concerns this might lead to overreach in cases where minor infractions occur inadvertently, suggesting the need for clearer guidelines and thresholds for enforcement. Discussions about balancing robust flood protection measures against the operational flexibility of local agencies encapsulate broader debates on governance and resource management in the context of environmental safety.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1958

State Plan of Flood Control: facilities.

CA AB257

Encampments: penalties.

CA SB1011

Encampments: penalties.

CA AB562

California State Auditor: interference.

CA AB660

Public agencies: unlawful interference.

CA SB31

Encampments: sensitive areas: penalties.

CA SB1325

Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act: the right of self-quarantine.

CA AB392

Conspiracy: shoplifting.