WELCOME CLASS OF 2017 AND 2021
I would like to welcome the class of 2017 to the civil engineering industry. As the newly graduated engineers are busy getting acquainted in their new roles and responsibilities, freshman students are getting ready to embark on four years of civil engineering college education. We ask our members and industry leaders to encourage the recent civil engineering graduates to participate in ASCE and contribute to the success of our profession. We encourage the freshman class to join ASCE, and learn about our industry through participation in ASCE events, visiting local project sites, and meeting and networking with many of our outstanding engineers. We invite our younger members to visit projects in the greater Sacramento area such as the Oroville Dam, Folsom Dam, Downtown arena, etc. and witness some of the outstanding civil engineering projects that contribute to the safety of the general public, and the growth and success of our community.
ASCE’s 2017 Individual Awards will be held on September 21, 2017 at the Del Paso Country Club to honor and recognize Sacramento’s engineers and contracting professionals for their outstanding contributions to our industry and community. Please make your nomination no later than August 11. Click here to access the online nomination form.
Please email us about your project and lessons learned that you would like to share with our members. Our civil engineering industry will improve and meet future infrastructure challenges as a result of our member’s professional development, success and innovation.
Elias Karam, P.E., M.ASCE
Sacramento Section President 2016-2017
Back to top
Calendar of Events
September 21, 2017
5:30 PM PDT
Registration Opening Soon
Del Paso Heights Country Club
3333 Marconi Ave.
Back to top
Call for Individual Award Nominations
CALL FOR INDIVIDUAL AWARD NOMINATIONS
Do you know someone who has gone above and beyond the call of duty for the civil engineering profession? This is your chance to publicly recognize that individual at the ASCE Sacramento Section Individual Awards & Installation Banquet to be held on Thursday, September 21, 2017 at the Del Paso Country Club in Sacramento. Registration to open in August.
ASCE Sacramento Section recognize individuals for outstanding achievements or leadership in civil engineering or who, through their work, support and advance the profession. Contributions in any of the following areas are considered:
|Outstanding Civil Engineer Public Sector
||Outstanding Practitioner Advisor
||Frederick W. Panhorst Structural
|Outstanding Civil Engineer Private Sector
||Outstanding Community Service
||David N. Kennedy Water Resource
|Outstanding Young Civil Engineer
||Jonathan Burdette Brown Education
|Outstanding ASCE Section Officer
||Excellence in Journalism
||Stewart Mitchell History and Heritage
|Outstanding Branch Officer
||William H. Hall Flood Control
|Outstanding YMF Officer
||Arthur L. Elliot Bridge
|Best Civil Engineering Event
||Charles C. Pope Construction
||State Legistlator of the Year
|Outstanding Civil Engineering Faculty Advisor
||Francis N. Hveem Geotechnical
To Make a Nomination
Complete the online nomination form here. For a list of criteria for each award category, click here. If you would rather print out the form and return it by mail or email, click here to download a nomination form.
Questions? Please contact Tony Quintrall, ASCE Sacramento Section Senior Director,
firstname.lastname@example.org Please submit your nomination by August 11, 2017.
Back to top
2017-18 Section Election Ballot
2017-2018 SACRAMENTO SECTION ELECTION BALLOT
It's that time of year again to submit your ballot to elect officers for the Sacramento Section. Click here to access the official ballot and mail or email (scan) your vote today. Ballots accepted until August 31.The following is a list of open positions and the candidates running to fill them. Please note the Junior Director position remains vacant.
Back to top
Capital Branch Activities
2017-2018 CAPITAL BRANCH BALLOT
Click here to download the official ballot and cast your vote for the upcoming year. Ballots due no later than September 19th.
AUGUST LUNCH MEETING
Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017
Old Spaghetti Factory
1910 J St
Sacramento, CA 95811
11:30 AM Networking, 12:00 - 1:00 PM Lunch and Presentation
TOPIC: Earthquake Risk Assessment for Enhancing Seismic Resilience of the Built Environment
SPEAKER: Dr. Tom Nifuku, Miyamoto International, Inc.
Registration Link: http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=ndd6x9pab&oeidk=a07eefhuuhaf22887d3
Earthquake risk assessment can probabilistically and numerically express potential seismic losses of the built environment. This risk information can be used to enhance disaster resilience such as prioritized building retrofit implementation, earthquake recovery planning, and disaster risk management policy making. Two case studies will be presented, including seismic risk assessments for the city Pasto, Colombia, and the public school system in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. The processes used to estimate building damage, casualties and debris volume will be presented. Example building retrofit guidelines will also be presented along with the methodology used to prioritize their implementation for optimal efficacy.
About the speaker:
Dr. Tom Nifuku is an expert for disaster-risk assessment and resilience enhancement of structures and infrastructure systems. He developed MiyamotoQuake, which provides advanced probabilistic analysis of earthquake risks to structures. Using MiyamotoQuake and other risk assessment tools, he works with many international organizations, such as World Bank, USAID, United Nations, and international governments and municipalities to evaluate and help manage seismic risks for regions such as Haiti, Mongolia, Latin Americas, Myanmar, Nepal and the U.S. His approach to seismic risk analysis has led to the authorship of several technical publications covering business continuity planning and highway network recovery. He has worked in the structural and seismic risk engineering industry for over 20 years. He earned advanced degrees from Waseda University in Tokyo and University of California, Irvine, and he is a licensed professional engineer in California and Japan.
The ASCE Capital Branch is pleased to announce an opportunity for the Civil Engineering Firms, Contractors and Vendors to sponsor ASCE’s monthly Luncheons. The sponsoring company will have the opportunity to make a brief presentation that is 3 to 5 minutes long and is supported by a few slides in PowerPoint format. This opportunity will provide the sponsoring company a great marketing opportunity to the local engineering community. For further information, please contact Jai Singh at (916) 580-9725.
Past Meetings Sponsor:
Thank you to "CH2M, Sacramento, CA" (https://www.ch2m.com/) for sponsoring in the ASCE Sacramento Capital Branch July Luncheon Meeting.
JOIN US ON LinkedIn.
The Capital Branch has started a Group Page to make it easier to post announcements about upcoming events of interest to Civil Engineers in the Sacramento area. To join the group page go to https://www.linkedin.com/in/asce-sac-section-capital-branch-b0148b87.
Back to top
Central Valley Branch Activities
We have monthly lunch meetings with various presentations on the third Tuesday of each month. If you are in the Stockton area please join us. For more information about the Central Valley Branch, please contact Rhett Kilgore at email@example.com.
Back to top
Feather River Branch Activities
For more information about future meetings and activities, please contact, Jim Richards at firstname.lastname@example.org, or 530-762-9464.
Back to top
New Mentorship Program
The ASCE Student Chapter at UC Davis is creating a mentorship program between upper-division students and young professionals in the civil engineering field. By establishing a strong mentor to mentee program, we hope to bridge the gap between academia and the professional world.
Mentors will help their mentees in a variety of ways to prepare for the professional world. For example, mentors can provide advising on how to apply and interview for a job or internship, tours at their place of work, or discussions on the possible pathways to becoming a professional civil engineer.
- Introductory Event, Fall 2017 (Early October)
- Final Event, Spring 2018 (Late May)
Further mentor and mentee meetings and communications will be primarily to the mentor’s discretion, to comply with their schedules. This may include email conversations, phone or video calls, or meeting in person.
If you are interested in being a mentor and helping promote the student community, please contact Josh Marston (YMF Student Affairs Chair) at email@example.com or Scott Putty (ASCE UCD Mentorship Chair) at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Back to top
Engineers Without Borders
NEXT CHAPTER MEETING
Wednesday, August 16, 6 PM
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Please contact Megan LeRoy at 707-291-5629
if you have difficulty entering the building.
We are planning our annual fundraiser and looking for sponsors. Click here
to to download information on corporate sponsorship level opportunities.
4th ANNUAL FUNDRAISER & SILENT AUCTION
Thursday, September 21, 6 PM - 8 PM
Blue Prynt Restaurant
815 11th Street
Early bird ticket sales will begin Monday, July 31 for only $30. Tickets will increase to $35 on Monday, August 14 so get your tickets early! Tickets can be purchased at www.ewb-sac.org until Thursday, September 14.
SARTENEJA, BELIZE UPDATE
The Sacramento Valley Professional Chapter of Engineers Without Borders (EWB) sent a team on an assessment trip to Sarteneja, Belize from May 12 to May 21. The village experiences frequent flooding that has become more severe in recent years. During the assessment trip, the team braved heat, humidity, and voracious mosquitoes as they performed a topographical survey of the village’s road network, mapped overhead utilities, obtained maps of underground utilities, interviewed several non-profits about the flooding problem, installed gauges to measure water levels in wells, ditches, and in the ocean, and priced materials, tools and equipment.
The team was surprised to learn that that village is almost completely flat, and that the flooding is not caused by storm surge or overflowing streams. Instead, the flooding is caused by a combination of factors including flat topography, relatively impervious soil, limited and poorly maintained drainage systems, roads that are higher than the surrounding building foundations and effectively act as levees, and lots that have been filled without providing an alternative drainage path.
The Village Council was very helpful in establishing contacts, setting up interviews, and providing food and lodging during the trip. The team has completed its post-assessment report and received approval from EWB’s national office to move to the alternatives analysis phase. After completing the alternatives analysis and design phases and receiving approval from EWB’s national office, the team plans to return to Sarteneja in April 2018, when the men of the village are home from their seasonal fishing trips, to implement the preferred alternative. This will likely include coordination with the national government’s Ministry of Works, who will supply equipment and operators for free as long as the village pays for the operators’ food. The implemented solution will improve quality of life within the village by minimizing flooding and related property damage.
Back to top
NEW! GUIDED, INSTRUCTOR-LED ONLINE COURSES
ASCE announces new asynchronous online instructor-led programs in which you move through a 6 or 12-week learning experience with your peers. The Guided Online Course content includes recorded video lectures, interactive exercises, case studies, live webinars and weekly discussions to help you master the course material. Gain unlimited, 24/7 accessibility to weekly modules. Complete coursework at the time and pace that is most convenient for you, using your own devices. Click here to see full list of courses.
Buy 2 Registrations and get the 3rd Free!
To receive this discount, email contact information for all registrants email@example.com and a registration confirmation email will be sent to each attendee. Or call 1-800-548-2723 to register, and mention the code GOCFREE. To inquire about larger group discounts, write to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Design of Foundations for Dynamic Loads
August 16–18, 2017 | San Francisco, CA
Pumping Systems Design for Civil Engineers
August 18, 2017, Sacramento, CA
ON-DEMAND WEBINARS SUBSCRIPTION
You've asked for it and we listened! Pay 1 low rate, and gain unlimited access to your choice of 10 on-demand webinars from ASCE's complete catalog, during a 365-day subscription period. Order your on-demand webinar subscription today! For individual use only, not to be used for groups.
- 10 on-demand webinars of your choice
- State-of-the-practice programs taught by leading practitioners
- A convenient, effective, affordable way to earn CEUs/PDHs for P.E. license renewal
Webinars are convenient, low-cost, and an efficient training option. Login anywhere and interact with the instructor and other participants. Live webinars cover practical, targeted topics taught by experts in their field. Gain knowledge and earn PDHs. Plus, as a Sacramento Section member, a portion of the webinar fee will go back to support our local chapter. For more details, go to: http://mylearning.asce.org/diweb/catalog/t/2125/c/79 Use Promo Code WEBSACSEC to secure your preferred rate.
ON-DEMAND LEARNING WEBINARS
On-demand learning is a convenient and effective method for engineers to earn PDHs/CEUs and gain practical, real-world knowledge. ASCE's programs are developed by industry experts and available for a variety of technical areas and in your choice of format to meet the demands facing today's engineers. Plus, as a Sacramento Section member, a portion of the webinar fee will go back to support our local chapter. For more details, go to: http://mylearning.asce.org/diweb/catalog/t/2135/c/79. Use Promo Code WEBSACSEC to secure your preferred rate.
Back to top
ASCE America’s Infrastructure Report Card
ALL EYES ON SACRAMENTO CIVIL ENGINEERS
Om Prakash, PE and David M. Schwegel PE
Back in 2007, decisions were made among Sacramento leaders to not engage as aggressively as other regions of California in the Proposition 1A (www.hsr.ca.gov) formulation process. Consequently Sacramento became the “rock bottom priority” on “America’s Largest Infrastructure Project” putting our region in a deep recession for the past ten years. The economic benefits of this project that have cut Fresno’s unemployment rate in half in only five years have almost completely bypassed our Region, thereby calling for much more effective decision making moving forward.
Over the past two years, key leaders have stepped forward in Sacramento, recognizing the importance of making wise decisions to plot a more favorable economic trajectory for our region. Specifically SACOG (www.sacog.org) CEO James Corless has orchestrated workshops featuring high-level economic development decision makers nationwide educating our local economic development experts on traits of economic development success. A common theme is the importance of making wise decisions on robust investments in infrastructure. As Greater Sacramento Area Economic Council (www.selectsacramento.com) CEO Barry Broome explained at the Region 9 Infrastructure Symposium in Sacramento in 2016: “Build it, and they will come. Don’t build it, and they won’t.” He citied specific infrastructure challenges for both our state and our region, namely: (a) California has the 2nd worst roads in the nation ahead of the District of Columbia only, and (b) Sacramento has the 15th worst roads in the nation.
Now that the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) has passed, key decision makers including Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg are calling on ASCE Sacramento Section members to provide guidance on the implementation of major infrastructure initiatives (including SB1) within our Region. Specifically they need guidance on which aspects of our infrastructure that have the greatest investment need, so that they can identify specific projects and provide justification on their funding applications. The Sacramento Infrastructure Report Card will be a key decision making tool to fulfill these objectives.
ASCE Society educated the Sacramento Report Card leadership team on the specifics of what it’s going to take to make the Sacramento Infrastructure Report Card a reality. A critical first step is for subject matter experts to step forward to chair the following grading subcommittees:
(1) Public Parks and Recreation;
(2) Public Transportation System,
(3) School Infrastructure and Facilities,
(4) Solid Waste Management,
(5) Traffic Congestion,
(6) Wastewater System,
(7) Water Quality for Drinking Water, and
(8) Water Supply System.
Please make your capabilities known to Report Card Chair Dr. Om Prakash, Ph.D., P.E., QSD, M.ASCE (email@example.com) at your earliest convenience, so that these grading subcommittees can be established. Once this is done, then ASCE Society representatives can fly in from Washington DC and Reston Virginia to help orchestrate the kick-off meeting.
Time is of the essence. Key Sacramento decision makers have already been notified of the forthcoming Sacramento Report Card, and have started planning their marketing campaigns accordingly. Additionally, key California decision makers have been notified of the forthcoming California Report Card, which will be heavily reliant on our local publication. Time is of the essence. Report Card production experts from ASCE Society and the Sacramento Report Card Committee look forward to working with you as a subject matter expert on this key publication that will play a critical role for local, regional, and statewide infrastructure decision making for the next decade.
Back to top
THE MECHANICS OF BID PROTESTS
By Dan Baxter Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP
In recent years, bid protests have occurred with increasing frequency in the context of government contract awards, becoming an ever-more pervasive part of doing business with government agencies of all stripes. In August of 2016, a Nextgov.com article reported an upsurge in federal bid protests from 1,652 in fiscal year 2008 to 2,639 in 2015—a 60% increase¹.
Most public sector contractors are generally familiar with the basic mechanics of a government project award and subsequent protest. Typically, such projects are initiated via a governmentally-issued request for proposal (“RFP”) that is publicly disseminated. Interested bidders must submit “responsive and responsible” bids, the lowest of which is usually awarded the contract (some bids also are assessed using a point system). From time to time, a project award is “protested” by one or more losing bidders, and the protest process is handled under a framework whose specifics depend on the governmental entity and contract at issue. One nearly universal truth, however, is the fact that bid protests—and the determination thereof—typically occur within a highly-constricted period of time.
Because of the short timelines associated with bid protests, it is imperative for losing bidders to swiftly review winning submissions in order to determine whether they are “responsive” and “responsible.” In that vein, a “responsive” bid is one that satisfies the requirements of the RFP (or similar solicitation document) itself, while “responsibility” focuses on the qualifications of the bidding contractor to perform the work at issue. It is highly recommended that contractors have a bid review committee or similar personnel in place to review winning bids as a matter of course, rather than on an ad hoc basis. Ideally, such groups will have at least one person dedicated to evaluating “responsiveness,” with another devoted to assessing “responsibility.” Not only will such bifurcation generally produce a quicker initial review, but the concepts of “responsiveness” and “responsibility” are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate pair of eyes devoted to each.
If a losing bidder determines that the winning submission is either “non-responsive” or “non-responsible,” it will have a very limited period of time to press its position with the awarding agency. Protest timelines may differ, but usually the initial protest document (which sometime consists merely of a notice of protest, with a more substantive document to follow) will be due a matter of days after the award.
Typically, once one or more bidders have submitted their protests, the winning bidder will be provided an opportunity to respond in writing. Following that response, the awarding agency will often hold a hearing in which the parties may appear in person to articulate their respective positions. Ultimately, the awarding agency determines the outcome of the protest, usually reaching one of the following decisions:
- Sustain the protest, and award the project to the next-highest bidder.
- Reject the protest, and maintain the award to the initial awardee.
- Rebid the project entirely, soliciting totally new bids.
Protest requirements can be technical and onerous, and a failure to meet those requirements can (and usually will) result in the protest being rejected for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of the protest. Accordingly, the assistance of legal counsel is well-advised to ensure both that the governing procedural standards are met, and that the protest is presented in the strongest and most cohesive manner possible.
Contact Information: Dan Baxter—Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP, 400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Floor, Sacramento, CA; (916) 441-2430; firstname.lastname@example.org
¹Frank Konkel, “GSA Officials on Increased Bid Protests: ‘This is How it’s Going to Be’,” August 2, 2016. 1594653.1
Back to top
The Law & Civil Engineering
THE SURVEYOR WAS LIABLE TO FUTURE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY FOR HIS ERRORS
A surveyor was hired to survey some property and divide it into two separate parcels. A house, retaining wall and driveway had already been constructed on the northerly portion of the property. When the client hired the surveyor to make the survey, he told him that he wanted the property divided in such a manner that the house, retaining wall and driveway would be contained on one parcel and the other parcel would consist of a vacant lot. The client died while the survey was being made. The surveyor completed the survey for the executor of the estate and filed and recorded a survey map dividing the property into two parcels. However, the surveyor had made an error in his survey and had not divided the property so that all the improvements were located on one parcel. The surveyor’s division of the property resulted in part of the retaining wall and driveway being located on the “vacant lot.”
The person who purchased the entire piece of property, comprised of both parcels, from the deceased client’s estate later entered into contracts to sell the two parcels to different buyers. The buyer of the “vacant lot” discovered that there had been an error in the survey and that due to the encroachment of the retaining wall and driveway on his parcel, it was not possible to construct the house that had been designed for the property.
The buyer of the two lots from the estate resolved the issues with his buyers and sued the surveyor to recover the amounts he had paid in settlements and expenses to deal with the problems as well as compensation for his time lost from his employment while resolving the issues.
At the trial, the surveyor claimed that he should not be liable since he had no contract with the buyer of the property from the estate and hence, owed no duty to that party. The trial court held that the surveyor’s negligent performance of his contract with the original owner did not render him liable to the future owners of the property. The appellate court disagreed.
The appellate court held that the surveyor could be held liable to parties with whom he had not contracted for negligent performance of his contract. In finding that there could be liability, the court cited several guidelines applicable to the issue. The determination of whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm.
The court held that when the surveyor prepared his survey, he could reasonably anticipate that it would be used and relied upon by persons such as future owners, who purchased the surveyed property. The surveyor could be liable.
Back to top
Region 9 Legislative Advocate
The Legislature completed its crafting of the State Budget and numerous budget trailer bills. Governor Brown signed the budget with NO line-item vetoes.
Laurel Rosenthall with CALmatters wrote “Now, the use of trailer bills ebbs and flows with the economy. Lawmakers write more of them when the state’s fortunes are down and fewer when times are flush, ranging from 61 trailer bills in 2004 to 16 passed so far this year—with more still in the works.”
John Meyers wrote in the LATimes “Gov. Jerry Brown holds two unique records when it comes to state budgets. No governor has signed more of them, and none in modern times have been as hesitant to veto items they don't like. In the budget he signed on Monday, Brown made no changes. It's not the first time. This was Brown's second consecutive budget in which he took no veto actions, and his third veto-free budget since 1982.”
Why no vetoes? That is a good question. Chriss Street writes in Beitbart that Brown negotiated a deal “that guaranteed Democratic leaders he would not veto any of their spending” in return for “$2 billion more for his reserve fund than the constitutionally mandated $1.3 billion.”
The budget and related acts signed by the Governor include:
AB 97 by Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting (D-San Francisco) - Budget Act of 2017.
AB 99 by the Committee on Budget - School finance: education omnibus trailer bill.
AB 102 by the Committee on Budget - The Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration: Office of Tax Appeals: State Board of Equalization.
AB 103 by the Committee on Budget - Public safety: omnibus.
AB 107 by the Committee on Budget - Developmental services.
AB 111 by the Committee on Budget - State government.
AB 115 by the Committee on Budget -Transportation.
AB 119 by the Committee on Budget - State government.
AB 120 by Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting (D-San Francisco) - Budget Act of 2017.
SB 85 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - Education.
SB 89 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - Human services.
SB 90 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - Public social services: 1991 Realignment Legislation and IHSS Maintenance of Effort and collective bargaining.
SB 92 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - Public resources.
SB 94 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - Cannabis: medicinal and adult use.
SB 96 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review - State Government.
The Dept. of Finance has released its summary of the enacted 2017-18 budget.
The Senate Business, Professions And Economic Development Committee approved ASCE supported AB 56 (Holden D) that clarifies the definition of housing-related infrastructure for the purposes of programs administered through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank).
The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee approved ASCE supported AB 1523 (Obernolte R) that would authorize the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, upon approval of its board of directors, to use the design-build contracting process for local agencies to award a contract for the construction of the Mt. Vernon Avenue Viaduct project in the City of San Bernardino.
The Senate Environmental Quality Committee approved ASCE supported AB 1671 (Caballero D) that requires, on or before January 1, 2020, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to update its backflow protection and cross-connection regulations. According to the author, “The United States Environmental Protection Agency has determined that contamination from backflow is the leading cause of disease outbreaks in a water distribution system. Backflow prevention assemblies are critically important components of drinking water systems because they prevent contaminants from making their way from one location into the entire water system. The state’s Cross Connection Control Regulations were revised in July 1987 and have not been updated since that time. The regulations are out-of-date and must be updated to ensure comprehensive guidance for the protection of public health. This bill will protect California’s drinking water supply by ensuring that the protective actions taken by water suppliers meet current industry guidance and are clearly supported in regulation.” Another measure, AB 1529 (Thurmond, D) requires certifications for cross-connection or backflow prevention device testing and maintenance that were determined by the State Department of Public Health (DPH) to demonstrate competency to be approved California-specific certifications, and prohibits, under certain conditions, a water supplier from refusing to recognize statewide certifications that meet standards set by the SWRCB.
Air Resources Board has released its 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, finds “climate-warming emissions fell by 1.5 million metric tons (MMT) in 2015 compared with 2014, which is equivalent to removing 300,000 vehicles from California’s roads for a year,” adds the carbon intensity of the economy, or the amount of greenhouse gases “needed to generate each million dollars of gross state product,” has “fallen 33 percent since its peak in 2001,” while “during that same period, the state’s gross state product has grown by 37 percent.”
Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center has released “Building Drought Resilience in California’s Cities and Suburbs,” examines “evolving roles in managing urban water supply and lessons to help us better prepare for droughts of the future,” recommendations include “state should avoid the ‘better safe than sorry’ approach it took with the mandate and rely instead on a ‘trust but verify’ policy.”
Legislative Analyst’s Office has released its report, “Overview of the 2017 Transportation Funding Package,” describes “major features” of SB 1, which raises gas tax by 12 cents a gallon and is estimated to “increase state revenues for California’s transportation system by an average of $5.2 billion annually;” among “issues for legislative consideration,” LAO recommends “increasing efficiency at Caltrans” by “reducing its capital outlay support staff relative to the volume of capital projects the department delivers” and “ensuring oversight and accountability” by establishing “outcome measures” in law that could be used to hold the administration accountable.
Western States Petroleum Assn. has released report it commissioned from Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, “Oil & Gas in California: The Industry and Its Economic Impact,” findings include: “industry sustains 368,100 jobs, generates $26.4 billion in state and local tax revenues” and accounts for “$148 billion in total economic value” which is “larger than 15 US state economies.”
Little Hoover Commission has released its report, “Improving State Permitting for Local Climate Change Adaptation Projects,” finds “local governments designing and constructing projects to protect Californians from the threat of climate change have landed on a collision course with the state’s complicated permitting process intended to protect the environment,” recommendations include establishing “multi-agency communication early in the process” and developing “detailed guides for expectations and requirements for permit applications.”
Ocean Protection Council and Ocean Science Trust have released their report, “Readying California’s Fisheries for Climate Change,” outlines “four climate change scenarios for the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem” and “seven potential management strategies to adapt to climate change impacts,” note “we have seen market squid moving farther north, loss of kelp beds in Northern California, and compromised shellfish populations,” suggestions include managing for “ecological resilience,” fishery transitions and “strengthen monitoring and forecasting.”
Back to top
(Those listed in blue are considered Section Board Members with voting authority. Everyone else on this list is invited to our meetings to give an update on their subsidiary organization)
STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS
Back to top