An act to amend Section 90135 of the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental protection, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
AB 35 makes procedural changes to how California implements the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 (Proposition 4). The bill removes the prior approach that allowed certain implementing regulations to be adopted as emergency regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act and instead exempts those regulations from the APA altogether for the bond programs covered by the act. It also establishes a separate process for competitive grant programs using that exemption, requiring state entities to draft solicitation and evaluation guidelines, post them for at least 30 days of public comment, respond to comments, consult with impacted tribes, finalize the guidelines, and submit them to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for consistency review and website posting.
The bill also reinforces transparency and oversight for Proposition 4 spending. It requires the Natural Resources Agency to publish annual expenditure lists with detailed project information, including location, objectives, status, outcomes, public benefits, costs, bond funding amounts, matching funds, and the statutory chapter under which funds were awarded. It preserves independent audit authority and reporting requirements for grant expenditures, and it allows previously developed and compliant program guidelines to be used without repeating the new process. The measure is an urgency statute, meaning it takes effect immediately.
AB 35’s impact is mainly on administrative law and bond-program implementation rather than on substantive environmental standards. It amends Public Resources Code Section 90135 to streamline rulemaking for Proposition 4 programs while adding procedural safeguards for grantmaking and public transparency. State agencies administering bond-funded programs would have more flexibility to move quickly, but they must still provide public notice, tribal consultation, and state-level verification of grant guidelines. The bill also affects the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of Finance, and any state entity administering competitive grants under the bond act, with a specific exemption for the State Water Resources Control Board from the guideline-submission requirement.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill advanced with unanimous or near-unanimous votes in committee and on the floor, and the final recorded votes were 13-0, 15-0, and 76-0. The urgency rationale in the bill text emphasizes climate change, wildfire risk, drought, drinking water reliability, and the need to promptly distribute Proposition 4 funds consistent with voter intent.
There is little visible opposition in the available record, but the main policy issue is the balance between speed and process. Supporters appear to favor faster implementation of voter-approved climate and water bond funding, while the bill still preserves public comment, tribal consultation, and agency review to address concerns about transparency and accountability. The only notable carve-out in the text is the exemption for the State Water Resources Control Board from submitting final guidelines to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, which may reflect existing oversight structures for that board.
AB 35 amends Public Resources Code Section 90135 to change the administrative framework for implementing Proposition 4 bond programs. It exempts certain program-guideline and selection-criteria regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act, replaces the prior emergency-regulation model, and adds required steps for competitive grant programs, including public posting, comment, tribal consultation, and review by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency. It also strengthens reporting and transparency requirements for bond-funded expenditures and preserves audit authority, affecting state agencies that administer safe drinking water, wildfire resilience, drought, clean air, and related climate adaptation programs.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little recorded controversy. Committee and floor votes were unanimous or overwhelmingly favorable, and the urgency clause frames the measure as necessary to speed implementation of voter-approved climate and water investments. The discussion record available here does not show substantive opposition, suggesting the measure was viewed as a technical implementation bill rather than a major policy dispute.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is procedural: whether Proposition 4 implementing rules should be handled through the Administrative Procedure Act or exempted to allow faster grant administration. The bill’s supporters emphasize urgency, climate impacts, and timely distribution of funds, while the retained safeguards—public comment, tribal consultation, and Natural Resources Agency verification—appear designed to address concerns about transparency and accountability. The only specific exception in the text is the State Water Resources Control Board’s exemption from the final-guidelines submission requirement, which may be a point of administrative distinction rather than open conflict.