The information in this newsletter is being distributed among allied associations that form the California Alliance for Golf (CAG), the organization that speaks with one voice in the Capitol regarding legislative and regulatory issues of statewide scope.
CAG GETS DOWN TO WORK IN SACRAMENTO
CAPITOL DAY
Every spring the California golf community gathers up its leaders from different sectors and regions, pairs them in groups that balance those sectors and regions, and on one very long day they traipse around Sacramento meeting with different legislative offices and the occasional state agency. Or as CAG President Len Dumas put it in his thank-you message to this year’s attendees – “Capitol Day is a critical component of the golf community’s effort to communicate what CAG is all about, share the unified voice of that community as it relates to the game’s legislative and regulatory priorities, and learn the same from the offices and agencies we meet with.”
This year’s “Day” featured three (3) separate groups of five industry leaders who taken together met with 25 different legislative offices. As with all California Capitol Days, the offices were selected strategically; that is, other than the obligatory meetings with the leaders of the two legislative houses, the meetings were chosen to coincide with members serving on the committees in both houses that are or would be hearing those bills of greatest interest to the California golf community, none more important than the bill (AB 1954) sponsored by CAG and authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego) in this year’s session. More about AB 1954 in the summary that follows, but do know that it has passed unanimously out of both of the policy committees to which it was referred by the Assembly Rules Committee and is headed to Appropriations, where, because of the way in which we structured the bill’s remedies to involve only the most de minimis of costs to the state, we anticipate it getting out of Appropriations to the Assembly floor for vote, where because we have managed to incur zero opposition while currying overt support from the three most populous municipal governments in California, among others, we are optimistic about passing the floor and on to the Senate. Of course, “anticipation” and “optimism” are not guarantees, as there are no guarantees in legislative politics. So, we will take nothing for granted and continue to exercise respectful diligence as the process moves forward.
SUMMARY
[SPONSOR]
AB 1954 (Municipal golf courses: reservations) (Ward; D-San Diego)
Status: Passed by Arts, Entertainment, Sports & Tourism Committee April 7 and passed as amended April 16 by Privacy & Consumer Affairs Committee.
Location: Appropriations Committee.
Summary: There are over 220 golf courses in California that are municipally owned by cities, counties, charter cities, and the state. As part of publicly owned park systems, these courses operate per business models that eschew maximal revenue generation in favor of making them universally and equitably available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs and civic organizations. Because California’s urban areas are among the most golf-starved in the nation, this model creates a demand for tee times second to none.
It has also created opportunities for 3rd party tee time brokers to capture and broker tee times at inflated prices and in the process substantially reduce the already strained supply of recreational opportunities available to California residents, siphon resources that might otherwise accrue to the benefit of golf enterprise funds and/or general funds of municipal park departments, and turn them more into de facto playgrounds for the privileged than recreational sites equitably available to local residents, seniors, juniors, school athletes, local clubs, local charities, and civic organizations.
AB 1954 would give the state’s cities, counties, charter cities, and the state itself a tool in the form of a civil remedy to restrain 3rd party brokering that is not performed by consent of the parties. This is a tool that they do not now have and one that only the state can provide.
[OPPOSE]
SB 1197 (Permanent standard time) (Niello; R-Roseville)
This bill would repeal the permanent daylight saving time preference expressed by 60% of the California electorate in 2018 and replace it with a permanent standard time preference.
Among the many reasons CAG opposes this bill:
[TRACK]
AB 1603 (PFAS) (Schultz; D-Burbank)
The bill would require the director, on or before January 1, 2028, to prescribe the time when, and the conditions under which, a PFAS-restricted material may be used or possessed in different areas of the state and would authorize the director to prohibit the use or possession of a PFAS-restricted material in those areas. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2030, prohibit a person from using a pesticide that contains, and a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any pesticide that contains, any of the specified PFAS that are intentionally added as active or inert ingredients. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2035, prohibit those actions for pesticides that contain PFAS that are intentionally added as active or inert ingredients. Violations of these provisions would be a crime.
The bill is a work clearly in progress that addresses an issue that demands addressing but in its initial iteration addresses it in ways that may have unintended consequences that carry risks that could be avoided were it to be addressed in a more deliberate, measured, and focused way using extant organs of the state’s regulatory structure.
AB 2635 (Small off-road engines: rebates) (Rodrguez; D-San Fernando)
This bill would require each air pollution control and air quality management district, no later than January 1, 2028, to implement and maintain a commercial rebate program to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment consistent with specified requirements. This bill would prohibit, until January 1, 2032, a local government from adopting or enforcing an ordinance that prohibits the use of small off-road engine landscaping equipment, except as specified, and would prohibit the punishment of a violation of an ordinance adopted by a local government governing the use of any small off-road engine landscaping equipment as an infraction or misdemeanor, as specified.
The bill raises concerns golf has had with CARB’s failure to take seriously AB 1346’s directive to ban the sale of subject gas powered equipment only upon making a finding that an electric equivalent is commercially available and fit for intended use, a concern exacerbated by the City of San Francisco and others proposing ordinances that banned the use of subject gas powered equipment in addition to banning its sale.
AB 1572 (Interscholastic athletics; officiating) (Alanis; R-Modesto)
This bill would require the CIF to annually verify the eligibility of its officials to officiate CIF contests by requiring those officials to annually register through a platform, as provided. The bill would require the platform to consist of (1) a statewide and standardized background screening, (2) a record of rules tests, online training modules, sport-specific annual certification, and continuing education requirements, and (3) a record of liability insurance coverage. This is consistent with the “platform” California’s golf organizations strictly follow now.
AB 1720 (Ticket sellers) (Haney, D-San Francisco)
This bill, except as specified, would prohibit a ticket seller from selling a ticket for more than the equivalent of the original price for the ticket if it has been acquired directly from the primary contractor plus 10%. Because the bill would create a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (Based on 03/19/2026 text)
AB 1640 (Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act) (Stefani; D-San Francisco)
This bill would prohibit a person from selling or transferring, or facilitating the sale or transfer, of a restaurant reservation for an amount higher than the person paid for the reservation. Exempts from this prohibition, a person who has a written agreement with the restaurant that expressly authorizes the person to charge the higher amount. It would Allow the Attorney General, or any county counsel or city attorney, to bring civil action against violators for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, injunctive or declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees. It would Provide individuals or entities who suffer actual harm with a private right of action to pursue civil litigation against violators for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, attorney’s fees, and any other relief a court deems proper and establish the California Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act Fund in the State Treasury to collect any civil penalties collected by the Attorney General for the purposes of administering the bill.
SB 887 (California Environmental Quality Act: environmental leadership development projects: data centers: clean energy power plant projects) (Padilla; D-Chula Vista)
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 if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would prohibit the application of categorical exemption to a project for the development and operation of a data center, as defined.
# # # # # # # # # # #
April 1 is the key date climatologists use to determine the yield of the season’s Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountain snowpacks for allocating releases to in the first case the California State Water Project and in the second case to Lakes Mead and Powell, which feed the Central Arizona Water Project, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District and California’s Metropolitan Water District for distribution to that wholesaler’s 26 Southern California water retailers.
The April 1 verdict: Poor in the 2nd case, a verdict mitigated in part by the fact that the reservoirs are full after a couple of years of ample precipitation; sufficiently disastrous in the 1st case (Arizona and Southern California’s MWD) that the Bureau of Reclamation has taken emergency actions that will have in the words of the press release it put out April 17 the following deleterious consequences:
“Reclamation acknowledges that the proposed reduced releases from Lake Powell will accelerate the downstream decline of Lake Mead, with the potential for up to an additional 40% reduction to Hoover Dam’s hydropower generating capacity as early as this fall. Reclamation and its lower basin partners are collaborating to conserve water in Lake Mead and maintain its water levels, even as releases from Lake Powell are planned to decrease.
The initial proposed drought response actions may also impact recreation across multiple sites. At upstream reservoirs, boating access may be reduced earlier in the season than normal. In the Grand Canyon, lower flow rates will affect rafting conditions, and fishing may be more challenging. At Lake Mead National Recreation Area, reduced water levels may further limit boating access.”
Add to this the recent reporting about the waters of the Northern Pacific Ocean being well above average temperatures before an expected El Nino condition raises it more as the year progresses, and it behooves the golf community (and everyone else) to remember that the reservoirs were similarly flush with water just before the 2020-2022 drought practically drained them dry. It also behooves all to remember that the seven (7) states of the Colorado Compact are under the gun to come to an agreement by the end of this year as to how to reallocate their Colorado River flows to reflect the reality that a river that once yielded 15-16 million-acre-feet annually is now yielding no more than 12 million-acre-feet, a yield that climatologists tell us is only going to continue dropping as the Century progresses. The states haven’t met since January.
Takeaway: While many of the issues, possibilities, and challenges represented by the bills we are sponsoring, opposing, and tracking/watching in the 2026 legislative session are transitory, water along with land use pressures are guaranteed to be ongoing year in and year out – veritable elephants in golf’s room that can never be ignored.