To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
March 17, 2009 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources
March 17, 2009 - Presented to Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee and Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
March 10, 2009 - Presented to Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
March 9, 2009 - Presented to Assembly Natural Resources Committee
February 24, 2009 - Presented to Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
February 3, 2009 - The Governor’s budget proposes only one significant budget-balancing solution in the resources and environmental protection areas—$350 million of loans from various special funds to the General Fund. We offer a number of recommendations for achieving General Fund savings beyond the Governor's proposal, including shifting funding for various programs from the General Fund to new or increased fees. Fees are an appropriate funding source in these cases, in our view, because the state is either providing a service directly to beneficiaries or administering a pollution control program that should be funded on a “polluter pays” basis. Our fee proposals relate to: (1) wildland fire protection, (2) fish and game regulation, (3) water quality regulation, and (4) scientific activities of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that support regulatory programs. We also recommend program reductions and/or expenditure deferrals in CalFire and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to create additional General Fund savings. In addition, we assess the administration’s approach in evaluating alternatives to the way water is currently conveyed through the Delta as a key component of solving Delta water problems. We find that the analysis being conducted by the administration is too narrow to fully inform the Legislature of the costs, benefits, risks, and trade-offs of the various conveyance alternatives.
December 16, 2008 - On November 17, 2008, we reported on the draft scoping plan of the Air Resources Board (ARB) for implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. After reviewing both (1) the response of the ARB (dated November 26, 2008) to the questions we asked about the proposed scoping plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on October 3 of this year and (2) ARB’s response to the peer review of the scoping plan, our office continues to conclude that ARB's economic analysis of the AB 32 scoping plan lacks a sensitivity analysis and fails to lay out an investment pathway for the scoping plan.
December 11, 2008 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 On Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy
December 1, 2008 - The role of the Legislative Analyst's Office is to review state programs and make recommendations to the Legislature as to how the state can operate more effectively and efficiently. This report summarizes various changes to law that we have recommended in recent years. Recommendations in this report include, among many others: (a) Simplify and Consolidate K-12 General Purpose Funding, (b) Promote the Adoption of Health Information Technology in California, (c) Fund Inmate Education Programs Based on Actual Attendance, and (d) Increase and Index the State Gas Tax.
November 21, 2008 - We were asked to report on the draft scoping plan of the Air Resources Board (ARB) for implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006 [AB 32, Núñez]). We conclude that (1) the scoping plan’s overall emissions reductions and purported net economic benefit are highly reliant on one measure—the Pavley regulations, (2) the plan’s evaluation of the costs and savings of some recommended measures is inconsistent and incomplete, (3) Macroeconomic modeling results show a slight net economic benefit to the plan, but ARB failed to demonstrate the analytical rigor of its findings, (4) economic analysis played a limited role in development of scoping plan, and (5) despite its prediction of eventual net economic benefit, the scoping plan fails to lay out an investment pathway to reach its goals for GHG emissions levels in 2020.
October 20, 2008 - California’s water delivery system is facing a series of challenges due in part to a combination of increasingly variable weather conditions, legal requirements, and system operation and conveyance constraints. These challenges affect water availability, reliability, and delivery. Recent public and private efforts have sought ways to address these challenges. These measures include proposals to increase water through groundwater storage, surface storage, infrastructure changes, and system operation improvements, among others. This report provides, through a “quick reference” document relying heavily on charts to present information, a snapshot of water in California, including: (1) An Overview of California’s Water Governance; (2) Water Supply, Source, and Delivery; (3) How Do We Finance Water Projects? (4) What Drives the Cost of Water?, and (5) Issues for Legislative Consideration
September 11, 2008 - Presented to Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce, Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications
September 11, 2008 - Presented to Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce, Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications
August 26, 2008 - Presented to Assembly Special Committee on Water
June 17, 2008 - Item Number 3860, Agenda Pages: 155 and 156 Department of Water Resources—LAO Recommended Proposition 84/1E Flood Management Alternative