California Assembly Bill AB352

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/19
• Refer: 2/11/19
• Report Pass: 3/14/19
• Refer: 3/18/19
• Report Pass: 3/26/19
• Refer: 3/26/19
• Refer: 4/10/19
• Report Pass: 5/20/19
• Engrossed: 5/30/19
• Refer: 5/30/19
• Refer: 6/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/14/19
• Refer: 8/14/19

Caption

Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020.

Impact

Following the approval of AB 352, state agencies will be required to prioritize grant allocations from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to disadvantaged communities. The provisions of the bill reflect a commitment to ensure that under-resourced regions receive the necessary support to combat environmental threats effectively. Furthermore, the new division created under this bill will ensure that a substantial portion of grant funding is dedicated to initiatives that can significantly improve local economic, health, and environmental conditions, thereby directly addressing climate-related adversities faced by vulnerable populations.

Summary

Assembly Bill 352, introduced by Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia, aims to establish the Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020. This legislation, if approved by voters, will authorize the issuance of up to $3.92 billion in bonds to finance various critical programs aimed at enhancing California's response to severe environmental challenges. Specifically, it targets wildfire prevention efforts, the assurance of safe drinking water, preparations for drought conditions, and flood protection initiatives. This multifaceted approach seeks to bolster the state's environmental resilience against the impacts of climate change and chronic natural disasters.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 352 appears largely supportive, as many stakeholders advocate for its comprehensive approach to environmental protection and public safety. Advocates argue that the funding and prioritization of disadvantaged communities reflect a necessary shift towards equity in climate resilience efforts. However, some concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of bond measures and the fiscal responsibility associated with such significant public financing. The debate hints at a fundamental tension between immediate environmental needs and long-term economic considerations.

Contention

Key points of contention derive from ongoing discussions about the allocation of funds and the prioritization criteria for grants. While the bill intends to offer preferential treatment to areas with high poverty rates and environmental vulnerabilities, questions regarding the potential for fund mismanagement or inefficiency remain. Moreover, interpretations of what constitutes a 'disadvantaged community' can vary, complicating the outreach and implementation processes. These uncertainties must be addressed to ensure the bill's intent translates into tangible improvements for those most at risk.