To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
March 9, 2010 - Presented to Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources
March 8, 2010 - In reviewing the Governor's budget proposal, we uncovered current actions and proposals of the administration that either circumvent the Legislature's authority, make it difficult for the Legislature to oversee the administration's spending, or limit the Legislature's flexibility in making decisions. We found that the administration is: developing new renewable energy procurement requirements that circumvent legislative policy as reflected in current state law (known as the renewables portfolio standard); using an Emergency Fund--intended to pay for large-incident wildland firefighting costs--to cover some day-to-day departmental expenditures that are more appropriately made subject to legislative budget review; proposing a somewhat similar emergency fund for flood management that would be structured to allow the administration to augment it at its discretion without notifying the Legislature; and proposing again to fund recreation activities at State Water Project facilities in a way that escapes legislative budgetary review for all the spending. Finally, we recommend rejection of the Governor’s proposal to dedicate the ongoing Tranquillon Ridge oil lease revenues to support state parks, because it limits the Legislature's future decision making.
March 4, 2010 - This responds to Senator Cogdill's request for an analysis of the net impact on jobs in California that would occur as a result of the implementation of AB 32 (Núñez), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006. In our response, we briefly summarize the basic provisions of AB 32 and its planned implementation through the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Scoping Plan (SP), discuss the avenues by which the SP would potentially affect California jobs, and present the jobs-related effects of the SP as estimated by CARB. We then comment on CARB’s analysis and offer our own view about how the SP might affect jobs.
February 9, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
January 21, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
January 21, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
January 21, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
January 21, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
October 30, 2009 - Sent to: Members, Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee and Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee
August 26, 2009 - Presented to Senate Select Committee on Delta Stewardship and Sustainability
June 16, 2009 - Presented to Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications
June 2, 2009 - Presented to the Budget Conference Committee
April 2, 2009 - Presented to Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources
March 19, 2009 - The Davis-Dolwig Act is a 47-year-old state law that specifies that the state, not water ratepayers, should fund the recreation component of the the State Water Project (SWP). The budget proposes a number of statutory reforms to the act, in part to provide a dedicated funding source for its implementation. We find that the Governor’s proposal does not address a number of major problems with the implementation of the act and that the administration’s approach improperly limits the Legislature’s oversight role. We also find that, over many years, the Department of Water Resources has been allocating costs to the state under Davis-Dolwig that are significantly in excess of the direct costs to SWP for recreation. In our report, we offer the Legislature a package of statutory reforms to address problems that we have identified with the implementation of Davis-Dolwig. These include clarifying the role of public funding for recreation in SWP. We also recommend that the state evaluate the potential to divest itself of SWP reservoirs that are used mainly for recreation.
March 17, 2009 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources