Relative to climate change.
SCR 50 is a nonbinding legislative resolution on climate change that focuses on the concept of “maladaptation,” meaning climate resilience actions that are ineffective or that unintentionally increase climate-related risks. The resolution states that California is already experiencing severe climate impacts, including drought, wildfires, extreme heat, flooding, and public health harms, and argues that adaptation efforts must be designed carefully so they do not waste public resources or make future conditions worse.
The measure calls on the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (GO-LCI) to work with state agencies, researchers, and communities to develop a statewide policy and agreed-upon definition of maladaptation, and to evaluate the effectiveness of climate resilience measures. It also asks GO-LCI to review existing policies and plans in the state’s Adaptation Clearinghouse database to identify whether any are maladapted or likely to become maladapted. Because it is a concurrent resolution, SCR 50 does not create or amend statutory law, but it expresses legislative intent and directs attention to state climate planning practices.
SCR 50 does not change the California Government Code or other statutes; instead, it adds a chaptered resolution to the public record and urges executive-branch climate planning agencies to adopt a statewide maladaptation framework and review existing adaptation policies. Its practical effect is to influence state climate resilience planning, especially within GO-LCI and related departments, by encouraging more standardized evaluation of adaptation investments and their long-term effectiveness for communities, infrastructure, and natural systems.
The bill appears to have been received very favorably. It passed committee and floor votes unanimously in the available voting history, with no recorded opposition in the provided votes. The resolution’s framing emphasizes urgency, fiscal prudence, and the need to protect vulnerable communities, suggesting broad support for the general policy goal of improving climate adaptation planning.
There is little evidence of direct controversy in the available materials, but the resolution identifies a policy gap that could be debated: how to define “maladaptation,” who should set that definition, and how aggressively state agencies should review or revise existing climate programs. Potential points of concern include whether new evaluation requirements could slow implementation, how to measure effectiveness across different regions and hazards, and how to balance upfront adaptation costs against long-term savings. The text also highlights equity concerns, noting that low-income communities, immigrants, people of color, Native American tribes, women, and older adults face greater climate risks, which may shape future debates over prioritization and resource allocation.