California Assembly Bill AB619

California 2021-2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/21
• Refer: 2/25/21
• Report Pass: 4/8/21
• Refer: 4/13/21
• Report Pass: 4/14/21
• Refer: 4/15/21
• Report Pass: 4/20/21
• Refer: 4/21/21
• Refer: 5/12/21
• Report Pass: 5/20/21
• Engrossed: 6/1/21
• Refer: 6/2/21
• Refer: 6/9/21
• Report Pass: 6/28/21
• Refer: 6/29/21
• Report Pass: 7/6/21
• Refer: 7/6/21
• Refer: 8/16/21
• Report Pass: 8/26/21
• Enrolled: 9/9/21
• Chaptered: 9/30/21
• Passed: 9/30/21

Caption

Air quality.

Impact

AB619 imposes additional duties on counties, compelling them to establish more robust protocols for managing public health risks related to poor air quality. This increase in responsibility constitutes a state-mandated program; thus, the state must reimburse local agencies and school districts for relevant costs in accordance with the constitutional requirements. Such measures could drastically change the landscape of local emergency management and increase local government accountability regarding public health dissemination and actions.

Summary

Assembly Bill 619, also known as AB619, aims to strengthen California's emergency preparedness for air quality crises stemming from wildfires or other sources. Specifically, it mandates the California Department of Public Health to develop comprehensive plans with specific recommendations and guidelines that counties are required to incorporate into their emergency plans. Counties must address all the recommendations outlined in the state-developed air quality plan by their next emergency plan update, ensuring they are better equipped to handle significant air quality events.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB619 is generally positive among public health advocates and environmental organizations, who view it as a necessary step towards enhancing public safety amid rising concerns over air pollution and climate change-related wildfires. Nonetheless, some local officials may view the additional responsibilities and potential costs as burdensome, leading to a mixed reaction from various stakeholders, particularly among those tasked with implementing the new requirements.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding AB619 include concerns about the adequacy of funding and resources for counties to fulfill the new requirements effectively. Critics argue that placing additional mandates on local governments without guaranteed state financial support could lead to inequities in public safety measures across counties. Furthermore, the bill's focus on developing county-specific plans raises questions about the consistency and efficiency of emergency responses in multi-county regions.