November 16, 2020 - Presented to: Assembly Natural Resources Committee Hon. Laura Friedman, Chair Select Committee on Waste Reduction and Recycling Hon. Kevin McCarty, Chair
April 29, 2015 - The Beverage Container Recycling Program has operated with an annual structural deficit averaging about $90 million since 2008-09 and is currently forecast to run an average deficit of almost $60 million from 2014-15 to 2017-18, absent any changes to reduce expenditures or increase revenues. In this report, we make several recommendations that could eliminate the structural deficit and improve overall program effectiveness. Specifically, we recommend (1) requiring beverage manufacturers to pay for the full cost of recycling their containers, (2) evaluating program activities to determine how cost-effective they are at achieving recycling and litter reduction goals, (3) giving recyclers more flexibility in where they locate and piloting a new recycler payment structure in order to improve convenience for consumers, and (4) adjusting the administrative payments to program participants to reflect their actual costs.
February 16, 2016 - The Governor’s budget for 2016–17 proposes a total of $9 billion in expenditures from various sources for programs administered by the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Agencies. In this report, we assess many of the Governor’s budget proposals in the resources and environmental protection areas and recommend various changes. We provide a complete listing of our recommendations at the end of this report.
February 15, 2017 - In this report, we assess many of the Governor's 2017-18 budget proposals in the resources and environmental protection areas and recommend various changes. We provide a complete listing of our recommendations at the end of this report.
October 16, 2023 - The 2023‑24 budget package provides a total of $19.2 billion from various fund sources—the General Fund, bond funds, a number of special funds, and federal funds—for programs administered by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) and Environmental Protection Agency. This is a net decrease of $15.5 billion (45 percent) compared to 2022‑23 estimated levels. This change is primarily due to a large amount of one-time funding—mostly from the General Fund—provided to departments within both agencies in 2022‑23.
February 21, 2014 - In this report, we analyze the Governor's 2014-15 budget for the state's resources and environmental protection programs. We review and make recommendations on a number of major policy proposals, including a review of the administration's recently released Water Action Plan as well as the proposal to reduce or eliminate several programs currently funded by the Beverage Container Recycling Fund (commonly referred to as the "bottle bill"). We find that these policy proposals are generally reasonable approaches, though we identify trade-offs in the proposals and offer recommendations for legislative consideration. The report also identifies several issues included in the Governor's budget that merit additional legislative oversight. This includes the proposal to provide the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection with a total of $43 million from the General Fund to address deferred maintenance backlogs. While we find that it makes fiscal sense to address deferred maintenance, there is uncertainty about what factors have contributed to the large backlogs, as well as how the state can best address maintenance needs on an ongoing basis.
April 21, 2016 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy, and Transportation
February 17, 2000 - Analysis of the 2000-01 Budget Bill, Resources Chapter
October 18, 2021 - The 2021‑22 budget package provides a total of $21.7 billion from various fund sources—the General Fund, bond funds, and various special funds—for programs administered by the California Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Agencies. This is a net increase of $4.8 billion (22 percent) compared to 2020‑21 estimated expenditures.
Correction 10/22/21: Funding amount for CDFW has been corrected.
February 21, 2001 - Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill, Resources Chapter
February 18, 1998 - Analysis of the 1998-99 Budget Bill, Resources Chapter
February 24, 2014 - In order to minimize the negative economic impact of cap-and-trade, it is important that auction revenues be invested in a way that maximizes GHG emission reductions for a given level of spending. In reviewing the Governor's proposed expenditure plan, we find that there is significant uncertainty regarding the degree to which each investment proposed for funding will achieve GHG reductions. This uncertainty is the result of several factors, including there being only limited data and analysis provided by the administration, as well as the fact that the level of emission reductions achieved would depend on the specific projects funded by departments. Given these concerns, we recommend that the Legislature direct ARB to develop metrics for departments to use in order to prospectively evaluate the potential GHG emission benefits of proposed projects, as well as direct the board to establish a set of guidelines for how departments should incorporate these metrics into their decision making processes.