An act to amend Section 2710 of the Public Resources Code, relating to geology. An act to add Section 2770.2 to the Public Resources Code, relating to geology.
Summary
AB 1635 is a narrow, technical bill affecting the Public Resources Code’s naming provision for the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. As introduced, it would amend Section 2710 to restate the chapter’s official name and citation language. The bill text indicates no substantive policy change to surface mining regulation, reclamation requirements, permitting, or enforcement; it is framed as a nonsubstantive cleanup measure.
The bill’s stated subject area is geology and surface mining, and its practical effect would be limited to clarifying or updating statutory wording in the code. Based on the materials provided, the measure does not create new duties for miners, local agencies, or state regulators, and it does not appear to alter the existing regulatory framework governing surface mining operations in California.
Impact
AB 1635 would make a minor conforming amendment to Section 2710 of the Public Resources Code, which names the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. Because the bill is described as nonsubstantive, it would not change the underlying legal standards for surface mining, reclamation, or related permitting and enforcement provisions. Its impact on state law would be limited to statutory housekeeping and clarification of the chapter’s citation language.
Sentiment
The available context suggests little controversy and a generally routine posture for the bill. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes showing opposition or debate, and the bill’s description as a nonsubstantive amendment indicates it is likely viewed as a technical cleanup measure rather than a policy change. The re-referral to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee is consistent with standard legislative processing for a natural resources measure.
Contention
No specific points of contention are evident in the provided materials. Because the bill only revises the naming language for an existing act, there is no apparent dispute over environmental regulation, mining operations, or local government authority. If any concern were to arise, it would likely be limited to whether the amendment is necessary or purely technical, but no such objection is documented here.