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.
[February 2025 – Volume I]
The deadline for submitting bills in the 2025 session of the Legislature is February 21. While some, like one of the bills we cover in this issue (SB 72), are filled in with specific language that has been vetted by Legislative Counsel and referred to policy committees, others, like a couple we also cover in this issue (SB 51 and SB 89), are “spot bills” – that is, they have a number, title, and general subject but do not have much if any detailed language yet.
“Spot” bill language must be submitted to Legislative Counsel by 5:00 PM March 3; however, the public may not be privy to their final language until they are formally referred to committee or committees. In other words, we may not be privy to their detailed language until a few days prior to their hearings in committee.
In this issue we’ll share the bills we are thus far either watching or in some measure working. We’ll also cover one regulatory milestone of consequence.
============================================================
2025 BILLS
[As of 2/10]
SB 51 (Permanent standard time. Introduced: 12/18/2024) (Niello; R-Roseville)
Summary: Existing state law, Proposition 7, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election, sets the standard time for California and sets daylight saving time to begin each March and end each November. Proposition 7 authorizes the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to change the dates and times of the daylight-saving time period, consistent with federal law, and authorizes the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to provide for the application of year-round daylight-saving time when authorized by federal law. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would relate to the implementation of permanent standard time.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would relate to the implementation of permanent standard time.
Background:
The key phrase in the “summary” is “consistent with federal law.”
Current federal law permits states only two (2) options with respect to Standard versus Daylight Time: 1) Permanent Standard Time or 2) a combination of Standard and Daylight Time as prescribed by Congress (no wiggle room on the times/dates or details). Currently, 48 states hew to the biannual spring/fall switch. Two (2) states, Arizona and Hawaii, remain on Standard Time year-round. Thus, while California and the other 47 states are free to follow suit with Arizona and Hawaii by moving to permanent Standard Time, they CANNOT move to permanent Daylight Time without special dispensation from Congress in the form of a waiver or specific enabling legislation. Thus, the path of no resistance to ditching the biannual clock switch that the public increasingly wants to ditch, and the medical community also supports ditching, is ONLY the Standard Time option. There is no such simple Permanent Daylight Time option.
While it is true that many Californians have made clear a preference for not changing their clocks twice per year it is not clear that Californians have a preference for mitigating the consequences of changing their clocks twice per year by moving toward permanent Standard Time. Indeed, as the language in SB 51 makes clear, the only evidence that exists on that question indicates that Californians’ preference for such mitigation would be to move to permanent Daylight Saving Time, as evidenced by the passage of Prop. 7 in 2018.
In contrast to the assertions issued by some that Pacific Time Zone states are considering permanent Standard Time, Washington Senator Patty Murray (D) and Florida Senator Rick Scott (R) on January 8 reintroduced the “Sunshine Protection Act,” which would mandate that all 50 states hew to permanent Daylight Time – a bill bipartisan in its introduction and bipartisan in its current list of supporters, a list that includes the Senior Senators from the three states in the Pacific Time Zone, California, Oregon, and Washington. For that reason, the PGA of America and IAGA have begun to survey their respective member Sections and Amateur Associations with respect to their preferences in terms of permanent Daylight versus permanent Standard Time. We expect that other national allied organizations will follow suit and, in the process, find the sweet spot of a national consensus on the question of Daylight versus Standard Time.
Conclusion:
Despite previous efforts in California that would have moved the state to permanent Daylight Savings Time, something that would likely have been of economic benefit to the California golf community, CAG stayed clear of weighing in, content to just let things remain status quo (biannual switching of the clocks).
However, given increased public support for "ditching the switch" along with solid medical evidence that supports the elimination of the biannual clock switch, the choice is no longer between a status quo that we find perfectly acceptable and a switch that while perhaps marginally better economically, is not worth an expenditure of the political capital required to pursue. The choice is now between Standard and Daylight Time. Golf didn't ask for that choice; it was made for us by others and other forces, and it may not be wise to remain agnostic on the subject.
# # # # # # # # # # #
SB 89 (Restrict Use of Pesticides Containing Glyphosate) (Weber Pierson; D-San Diego)
Summary: SB 89, as introduced, Weber Pierson. Pesticide use: glyphosate. Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of specified pesticides, as prescribed. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to restrict the use of pesticides containing glyphosate for nonagricultural purposes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to restrict the use of pesticides containing glyphosate for nonagricultural purposes.
Like SB 51 this too is a “spot bill;” details to be filled in prior to referral to the policy committees the Senate Rules Committee deems relevant to the subject matter. The key word in the bill is the use of the verb “restrict” to describe what the Senator will be seeking when the language is filled in, as opposed to the use of the phrase, “restricted substance,” which is a legal term of art replete with consequences and complications that go beyond mere regulation of usage.
Based on what we have to come to understand about the author’s intent, we believe that when the details are filled in, they will reflect a form of regulation that restricts who in the nonagricultural sector can use products containing glyphosate (e.g., licensed applicators), who can sell/disburse it (licensed vendors), and perhaps how those thus licensed can apply it. If we had to suggest a parallel, it might be to the way in which certain licensed applicators can apply neonicotinoids, a protocol that allows for golf course applications, while restricting other non-licensed applications.
If our understanding is correct, and we have good reason to suspect that it is, CAG will not involve itself in this bill beyond watching to ensure that our “good reason” pans out. The California golf community has done a good job in recent years communicating to legislators and regulators that golf’s application of nonorganic substances is done by trained licensed applicators in small measures on limited bases. An end user’s perspective that focuses on the health and safety of the employees who make application.
# # # # # # # # # # #
SB 72 (California Water Plan: Long Term Supply Targets) (Caballero; D-Merced)
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to update every 5 years the plan for the orderly and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, and use of the water resources of the state, which is known as “The California Water Plan.” Existing law requires the department to include a discussion of various strategies in the plan update, including, but not limited to, strategies relating to the development of new water storage facilities, water conservation, water recycling, desalination, conjunctive use, and water transfers, that may be pursued in order to meet the future needs of the state. Existing law requires the department to establish an advisory committee to assist the department in updating the plan.
This bill would revise and recast certain provisions regarding The California Water Plan to, among other things, require the department to expand the membership of the advisory committee to include tribes, labor, and environmental justice interests. The bill would require the department, as part of the 2033 update to the plan, to update the interim planning target for 2050, as provided. The bill would require the target to consider the identified and future water needs for a sustainable urban sector, agricultural sector, and environment, and ensure safe drinking water for all Californians, among other things. The bill would require the plan to include specified components, including a discussion of the estimated costs and benefits of any project type or action that is recommended by the department within the plan that could help achieve the water supply targets. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature the amendments, supplements, and additions included in the updates of the plan, together with a summary of the department’s conclusions and recommendations, in the session in which the updated plan is issued. The bill would also require the department to conduct public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan.
This is not a spot bill. It is a rerun of a bill in the 2024 session (SB 366) that made it all the way to Governor Newsom’s desk only to be vetoed – a bill that CAG supported in 2024 and will again support in 2025 – a bill that we believe is destined to pass into law at some point, whether this year or a year in the very near future.
The passage of SB 72 would revise and recast certain provisions regarding The California Water Plan to require the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to coordinate with the California Water Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, other state and federal agencies as appropriate, to develop a comprehensive plan for addressing the state’s water needs and meeting specified long-term water supply targets established by the bill for purposes of The California Water Plan. It would go beyond the current approach to water supply planning by establishing for the 1st time in the history of the state specific targets to be met by certain dates along with a financing plan for achieving those targets, with a specific target of 9 million-acre-feet of additional supply by 2050.
This would represent a huge shift in the state’s approach to coping with the effects of aridification – from an almost single-minded focus on conservation as the primary tool to a more diversified approach that combines conservation with the construction of a 21st Century appropriate equivalent of the 20th Century’s State Water Project. A shift clearly in the interests of the golf community.
There are 81 “targets” of all aspirational decarbonization sorts in California law, among them the AB 1346 banning of the sale of SORE (Small Off-Road Engines) equipment under 25 horsepower that the golf community knows all too well. Applying one aspirational target for something as important to the future of the state as water supply doesn’t seem a stretch. And given that the additional 9-million-acre-feet that is the “target” represents nothing more than the amount of water that climatologists estimate is the amount of water that will be lost to aridification in 2050, it really doesn’t represent a stretch at all. While there are sure to be environmental organizations that will oppose the bill out of concern that the 9-million-acre-feet of additional supply envisaged by the bill could come at the expense of the fresh water flows central to the health of the Sacramento Delta, we believe that the bill has gone to great lengths to make clear that the target is to be achieved only through means entirely separate and apart from upsetting the integrity of the Delta upon which the water conveyance system is wholly dependent.
Because there are costs associated with implementation, albeit at less than $5 million per year a fraction of a fraction of the state’s $300 billion budget, there will be a budget “ask” required to overcome the ostensible reason Governor Newsom gave for his veto of last year’s SB 366 version.
# # # # # # # # # # #
SB 224 (Water Supply Forecasting) (Hurtado; D-Bakersfield)
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to gather and correlate information and data pertinent to an annual forecast of seasonal water crop. Existing law also requires the department to update every 5 years the plan for the orderly and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, and use of the water resources of the state, which is known as “The California Water Plan.”
This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2027, to adopt a new water supply forecasting model and procedures that better address the effects of climate change and implement a formal policy and procedures for documenting the department’s operational plans and the department’s rationale for its operating procedures, including the department’s rationale for water releases from reservoirs. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report on its progress toward implementing the new forecasting model and to post the report on the department’s internet website. The bill would also require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report that explains the rationale for the department’s operating procedures specific to the previous water year.
This too is not a spot bill but one with considerable detail that we are not going to share with you because this is a bill that CAG has tagged for watching only for what it represents in terms of the same kind of increased focus on supply sources in addition to conservation that SB 72 represents. Conservation has been and will continue to be a sharp tool in the state’s long-term water resiliency toolbox, but if it is the only tool, it’s hard to see how California can long remain a vibrant state that supports the 5th largest economy in the world and the recreational amenities that currently adorn it.
# # # # # # # # # # #
AB 310 (Amendment to Nevaeh Youth Sports Safety Act) (Alanis; R-Modesto)
Summary: Existing law, the Nevaeh Youth Sports Safety Act, requires a youth sports organization to ensure, by January 1, 2027, that its athletes have access to an automated external defibrillator (AED) during any practice or match. Existing law requires the AED to be administered by a medical professional or other certified and qualified person designated by a youth sports organization.
This bill would instead require, by January 1, 2027, a youth sports organization to ensure that its coaches are certified to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to operate an AED. The bill would require, by January 1, 2027, a youth sports organization to have a written emergency response plan that includes certain information, including the location and procedures to be followed during a sudden cardiac event. The bill would require, by January 1, 2027, a youth sports organization to properly maintain and test its AED, as specified.
The hearts of every junior golf program in the state ought to be gladdened by the proposal of this amendment that would specifically allow for their coaches to fulfill the “certification” requirement set to take effect in 2027 as opposed to the Nevaeh Act’s original requirement of a “medical professional or other certified and qualified person.”
One wouldn’t think that this bill would incur opposition on its way to the Governor’s desk, but one never knows. So, we’ll watch, wait, and see.
==============================================================
MWELO
(Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance)
A quick update on a matter as long running as it is consequential — "long running" in terms of having taken roughly 6 years to go from initial review to adoption of a final Rule; "consequential" in terms of governing all new golf course constructions and much more importantly, anything that can be characterized as a "reconstruction" under definition of the Rule and California Law, with redoes of greens and irrigation systems qualifying golf courses as "reconstructions" under the Rule.
The matter: California's "Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance" [MWELO] — the set of minimum standards that every planning agency/body in the state is required to hew when approving the landscape plans of all constructions and reconstructions/remodels containing landscaping of any kind — homes, businesses, and that huge category to which golf courses belong, Large/Special Landscapes, a category that includes golf courses, parks, sports fields, and cemeteries.
The new iteration of MWELO has now been finalized and published. All is as we expected in a process that CAG has been engaged with for the duration of the 6 years – “expected” as in DWR’s decision to refrain from making substantive changes until the next review process.
Now that everyone is satisfied that the definitions are sufficiently understandable and the whole thing is aligned with the Building Codes, MWELO will be back on the 3-year update/revision schedule that California law requires - a schedule that was delayed to accomplish two (2) things that both the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the state's water agencies agreed needed to be fixed before venturing forward with more substantive changes to the Ordinance:
With all that now done and posted as of last month, the 11-member Technical Panel that kicks off the 3-year review process will soon begin, followed in turn by the much larger stakeholder process that golf participated in to arrive at this most recent update. It also means that the 13-page separate chapter for golf within the greater Large/Special Landscape Section that the SCGA proposed at the end of 2017 will be considered as part of the next update/revision. Those members of the Technical Panel that tried to give golf a water haircut by reducing turf's Plant Factor (the evapotranspiration rate of turf) from 1.0 to 0.8 are not going to go away, making golf’s 13-page chapter that was informally moved forward by DWR and endorsed by the Coachella Valley Water District the credible alternative necessary to obviate the efforts of some environmental groups to reduce the game’s water footprint through means inconsistent with sound agronomic practices.
We share this with a level of detail that some may find excruciating for two (2) reasons:
Just another in a long line of matters as esoteric as they are complicated and as important as they are indicative of the central truth of the dictum that holds that both angels and devils of every matter are in the details.