House Prepares to Act on Jobs Package (a.k.a. “second stimulus”)

*The House of Representatives is expected to act on a series of bills this week that would keep federal highway and transit funds flowing through FY 2010 and provide major new surface transportation investments to boost job creation and economic recovery. The actions will be split up among a series of legislative packages, some of which will clear both chambers this year and some that would not likely see action in the Senate until 2010. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), other members of the House Democratic leadership, and Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) unveiled today a $75 billion “Jobs for Main Street” proposal that among other things would provide $48 billion in new federal infrastructure investments. The package is paid for by redirecting funds provided last year to stabilize the financial sector. According to the T&I Committee, the package contains $27.5 billion for highways, $8.4 billion for transit, $800 million for Amtrak, $500 million for airports, $100 million for ship construction and $11 billion in other infrastructure investments (including Corps of Engineers activities). These funds are in addition to the federal investments already set for the core federal transportation programs in FY 2010.

*The transportation investment levels are virtually identical to the amounts provided earlier this year in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the structure of these additional resources in terms of timelines, allocations, and accountability are expected to follow closely with recovery funds. The details of the package have not yet been made available, but we will provide specifics shortly. The measure is also expected to extend the authorization of the core federal highway and transit programs through FY 2010. Speaker Pelosi said the House will act on the bill December 16 and the Senate will consider the measure after the first of the year. She said she hopes a final bill will be presented to President Obama before he delivers his State of the Union address. Chairman Oberstar added, “The House acting on this now assures that state’s programs will be fully funded, Highway Trust Fund revenues will be invested, the sustainability of job creation will go forward, and we will be gaining jobs rather than losing jobs because of what the House will do in this recovery program.”

*With the current short-term extension of the surface transportation programs set to expire December 18 and the Senate not expected to consider the House jobs package until 2010, the House is also planning to pass two bills that will have the combined effect of extending the authority to spend highway and transit funds through February 23. The Senate is expected to act on these measures this year. As such, the programs would have their third short-term extension.

*If the House proposal to extend the authorization for the remainder of 2010 as part of the jobs legislation survives, further interim measures (at least through 2010) would not be necessary. The combination of these actions would be another major infusion of new federal resources in transportation infrastructure improvements and stabilize the operation of the highway and transit programs through October 2010. At the same time, Congress would be allowed to redirect its attention back to a multi-year reauthorization bill early next year.

* Information is provided from The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), an alliance of EUCA.

Invest in Water Infrastructure!

 

EUCA members : Investing in water infrastructure is one of the most important investments our country can make!

 

Know the facts – Stay updated – Spread the word – Talk to your Congressman about supporting water infrastrucutre for our nation and our state.

 

Here is why:

 * A federal investment of $20 billion in ready-to-go water infrastructure projects would create approximately 400,000 jobs in 2010. Leading economists have estimated between 20,003 and 26, 669 construction, engineering and manufacturing jobs for every billion dollars of federal investment in water infrastructure. Similar studies have been made by various federal agencies.

*Federal investment in water and wastewater infrastructure will result in significant job creation in every state. Assessments of water and wastewater needs conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Government Accounting Office and the Water Infrastructure Network have identified needs in our nation’s largest and smallest communities with projected shortfalls in funding approaching $500 billion over the next 20 years.

* There is an enormous back-log of ready-to-go water infrastructure projects with estimates placing the value of these projects in excess of $40 billion.

* The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided a valuable template for utilizing federal funding for ready-to-go water infrastructure construction. ARRA relied on the CWA and SRF programs to distribute federal funding for the construction of water infrastructure. Modest modifications to this project delivery system can assure that $20 billion can be utilized for critical wastewater and drinking water construction projects within 90-120 days:

Moving forward:

 1. Funds provided to the states should be made available in the forms of low interest or negative interest loans.

 2. States should be allowed to use up to 3 percent of the funding to hire staff or consultants to assist in processing SRF applications.

 3. Encourage states to allocate all funds received within 90-120 days.

 4. Funds not under contract within 90-120 days should be remitted to the federal government to go for deficit reduction.

House Passes Massive Funding Bill, Includes FY 2010 Transportation Investments

The House of Representatives today passed 221 to 202 legislation that would fund the federal transportation programs and a host of other federal agencies in FY 2010.  The measure would boost highway investment from $40.7 billion in FY 2009 to $41.8 billion in federal highway investments ($41.1 billion for the core highway program and $650 million in additional highway investments distributed to the states).  It also would include $10.73 billion for the public transportation programs—a $602 million increase.
           
The bill would also provide $2.5 billion for high speed passenger rail “to provide grants to states or Amtrak for high speed/intercity passenger rail.”  The measure retains Airport Improvement Program investment at $3.5 billion. 

Finally, the bill includes $600 million for “grants to support significant transportation projects in a wide variety of modes, including highways and bridges, public transportation, passenger and freight railroads and port infrastructure.”
           
The measure now moves to the Senate for consideration, but Senate leaders have not said when that debate will occur.  The programs are currently operating on a short-term extension that lasts through December 18.

EUCA will continue to keep you updated as this moves forward!

Health Care Bill has Multiemployer Plans Feeling Ill:

There is a lot of noise surrounding national healthcare.  EUCA is determined to bring you the most up-to-date information that is simple, straight-forward  and relevant to you and your business. The rest we’ll leave to the pundits. 

Here is what you need to know:

The House and Senate each have their own version of the healthcare bill. The Senate will take up debate on its pending health care bill after Thanksgiving and the House of Representatives passed its own version earlier in November.

Here is how the bills compare:

 1. Public option

Both bills include the creation of a government-run insurance provider to compete with private insurers. However, the Senate version would allow states to opt out of the public plan.

2. Who is covered

The House bill covers about 96 percent of legal residents under age 65 – compared with 83 percent now. Government subsidies to buy coverage start in 2013. About one-third of the remaining 18 million people under age 65 left uninsured would be undocumented immigrants.

The Senate bill covers about 94 percent of legal residents under age 65 compared with 83 percent now. Government subsidies to help buy coverage start in 2014. Undocumented immigrants would not receive assistance.

3. What it costs and how it is paid

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the House bill’s cost over 10 years as $1.052 trillion. The Senate overage provisions cost $848 billion over 10 years. Under the House bill, much of the money to pay for the reforms would be raised through a 5.4 percent surtax on high-income people — individuals making more than $500,000 a year or couples with annual incomes in excess of $1 million.

The Senate version imposes a series of new taxes including: a 40 percent tax on “Cadillac health plans” (employer-sponsored group plans with premiums of over $8,500 for individuals or over $23,000 for families); the introduction of annual fees for health care companies; an increase in Medicare payroll taxes from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent for those earning more than $250,000 a year and a so-called “Botox tax,” that is a five percent tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

4. Individual mandates

Each bill requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — $750 by2016 in the Senate bill and 2.5 percent of income in the House bill.

 5. Subsidies/exchanges

Each bill sets up insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, in which people without access to affordable coverage through an employer can buy plans. Subsidies are available to households earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $88,200 for a family of four.

6. Employer mandate

The House bill requires employers to pay 65 percent of family premiums or pay a penalty based on payroll; businesses with less than $500,000 in payroll are exempt.

The Senate bill fines employers with more than 50 employees if the employer does not offer health care and any employee receives a subsidy through new government sponsored exchanges. The fine is equal to $750 for every person on the payroll.

7. Insurance reforms

Both bills include bans on lifetime limits, premium disparity based on health status and sex, and coverage denials based on preexisting conditions.

8. Medicaid expansion

The Senate bill expands Medicaid to cover everyone earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,327 for a family of four.

The House bill expands Medicaid to cover households earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level, or $33,070 for a family of four.

9. Abortion provision

The Senate bill bars the use of federal funds for abortion but it requires at least one plan in the exchange to offer abortion and one that doesn’t.

The House bill bans abortion from being covered in the public option or in the exchange’s private plans that take subsidized custumers. There is an exemption if a woman’s life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest.

 What happends when/if the Senate passes its version of the bill?

If the Senate passes its bill, representatives from both legislative houses then meet to “reconcile” the differences between the legislation.

*Above information based on Washington Post and Associated Press reports.

How will this affect my business? 

For multiemployer plans the chief concerns about the final bill are:

• Keeping health care contributions and benefits tax free (Senate bill taxes some benefits).
• Preventing any weakening of ERISA protections that guard trustees and plans from suits for medical malpractice or other medical outcomes (both bills threaten ERISA preemption).
• Barring exemptions that favor non-union employers (House bill has an exemption for small employers).

EUCA will continue to keep you updated – Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns, or if you would like more information about the bill.

UPDATE: LAO Reports on ARRA Funds for CA Transportation

Using Federal Economic Stimulus Funds for Transportation:

The Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) recently reviewed the progress of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), local road agencies, and transit operators in their use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds in the months since the enactment of the federal stimulus programs.

What the LAO Determined:

(1) Caltrans has made good progress in the use of almost $1 billion made available to the department, already putting out to bid contracts for 92 percent of the funds;

(2) local road agencies have been slower to use their obligated ARRA transportation funds, with contracts for only one–third of their funds out to bid; 

 (3) The progress of transit system operators is unclear due to a lack of complete information. From the data the LAO was able to compile, however, the operators appear to be making good progress. The LAO recommends that the Legislature hold oversight hearings on the use of ARRA transportation funds to determine if any actions are necessary to ensure that California meets various ARRA deadlines.

Too see the full LAO Report click on the link: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/trns/trans_stimulus/trans_stimulus_112309.pdf

EUCA wants to know: (How)  have the ARRA funds helped your business? Please leave your comment below.

Follow the Money

The Federal 2010 Appropriations Bill was signed by President Obama. In it $2.1 billion was secured for wastewater SRF and $1.38 billion was secured for drinkingwater SRF funds. This is a tremendous increase from the 2009 Appropriations bill which included only $49 million for cleanwater and $80 million for drinkingwater.

How much will CA get? We can expect approximately $145.7 million for cleanwater SRF and $127 million for drinkingwater SRF. It usually takes between 60-90 days to get the money after the request is made.

Where is the money right now? The funds  have to make their way through the  red-tape. Here is the process for getting the money: 1)President Signs > 2) Funds go to Office of Management and Budget > 3) funds go to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) > 4) funds are distributed to states’ (California) 5) funds are distributed to Regional Projects and localities (i.e. YOU).

When can we expect to get them? We are hoping for these funds to be distributed sometime between May and August- but as of now there is no set date.

click the link below to read the 2008/2009 priority list of clean drinkingwater projects for California:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2008/exhibit_a_finalsrfprioritylist2008_2009.pdf

click the link below to check out California’s cleanwater SRF information website:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/index.shtml

EUCA will continue to track the money !

Please call, email or leave a comment below if you have any questions or concerns.

Selling $11 Billion to the Pissed Off Masses?

Getting Californian’s on Board the 2010 Water Bond

Incredibly, the legislature was able to come together to pass a water package. Republicans and Democrats alike. Truly, it’s incredible. North and South. It’s historic. Farmers and environmentalists. It’s great. Yes, it’s all of the above superlatives. What it’s not… is done.

To accurately describe the package in its current state we might include the following: nada, zero, zip. And that’s what it will stay. That is, unless we can get this by the voters. Some think this will be easy (I’m not sure who these “some” are) and some say this will be impossible. Never mind that. What it really is, is absolutely vital. Unfortunately, taking it to the voters right now feels a little like asking your boss if you can put your house mortgage on the company credit card.

To accurately describe the California voters in their current state we might go with the following: pissed off –frustrated – disoriented – discouraged – broke and completely fed-up. We should make no mistake about it; this is our target base – these are the individuals we have to get an $11.14 billion permission slip passed. Is it good timing? Um…No. Could there be worse timing? …Probably not. But anyone plugged into California politics, policy, and history will tell you that it just might be the only time.

When California has recovered from this recession (and we will) and has reformed the way we function, govern and balance our budget (and we will), California will still need water. Our children will need water. And their children will need water. This issue will not go away. And it cannot be put off. So, is California broke? Yes. Can we afford this right now? No. But we can all agree that there is a time and a place when going into debt is not only necessary but absolutely vital.

Liken the water bond debt to the collapse of your roof, or a surgery to save your life while you are unemployed. Can you afford the bill? No. Is the timing terrible? Without a doubt. But you have to find a way. Why? Because the only thing worse than doing it, would be to not do it. And one day, when you are back on your feet and life feels more stable, you look back at the repair of your roof or the surgery to save your life as having been a tough but necessary decision – and 100% worth it.

We must find a way to make Californian’s understand that they need to pass this bond. Why? Because if they don’t do it now, they will regret it more than they could possibly imagine down the road. I think Californian’s can and will wake up to the need for water, but it will not be easy. Right now, somewhere in sunny southern California people are basking by their pools and families in parts of Northern California are washing cars and watering their sidewalks in the middle of the afternoon on 80 degree days. Do these folks see the pressing need to spend $11 billion to rebuild our water system? Not as long as their faucets turn on. So it will be the job of those who understand the absolute desperate need for this water bond to explain it to those who do not.

If we cannot come together to do this we will fail to seize on a moment in our state’s history to repair California that may never come again. It will take tremendous efforts, outreach and dollars to do this. But it can be done. The strategy: make voters understand, between now and November 2 2010, that this is the only time. This is going to take serious money for the campaign. Like $10-15 million serious. But California is home to a resilient, innovative, forward-thinking and moving, optimistic group of citizens. We must find a way (and the dollars) to remind them of this. Restoring, rebuilding and re-designing our states water infrastructure system is a now or never deal. We cannot afford it – but we cannot afford to wait.

Calfornia Legislature Delivers on Major Water Package

For a legislature that can’t get it together enough to produce a balanced budget any year, let alone every year, and can’t compromise or work together on even the most seemingly simple of matters, I’ve gotta hand it to ‘em this time! After working through the night, just as the sun was coming up in Sacramento the state legislature managed to come together to pass sweeping legislation that will reshape (quite literally) California’s desperate and broken water system by changing how Californians receive, use and share our state’s water.

The final Bill package, titled “Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010,” will include an $11.14 billion bond that (narrowly) passed through both the Assembly and the Senate. This bond must go before the voters for approval in next November’s election. EUCA will be at the forefront of every effort to ensure that this bond measure succeeds in getting voter approval. 

Here are the 5 major parts of the water package deal that were reached this morning:

 1)  $11.14 billion bond to pay for the states entire water overhaul. $3 billion would be set aside for new water storage (reservoirs etc…) and more than $2 billion would go toward recycling, drought relief, conservation efforts and watershed protection projects. *(Below you will find a more specific breakdown of how money will be allocated.)

2)  A politically appointed 7 member delta counsel will oversee the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The counsel could be charged with approving the highly controversial peripheral canal to direct water around the delta.

3) A 20% conservation mandate for urban areas, with credits for cities that have made substantial conservation efforts. The same mandate will not apply to Agricultural entities; instead, they will be charged with following a “best practices” guide for water use.

4) New regulations will be implemented to monitor groundwater levels throughout California.

5)   An increase in the penalties for illegal water diversion will be implemented.

 *Here is how the $11.14 billion breaks down:

Drought Relief – $455 Million Total

• $190 Million for local relief projects (water conservation and efficiency, recycling and related infrastructure, groundwater cleanup, local and regional conveyance projects, local and regional storage projects)
• $100 Million for local storage for emergency supplies in San Diego County
• $90 Million for disadvantaged communities
• $75 Million for small community wastewater treatment projects
• $80 Million deposited into Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
• $20 Million for water quality projects on the New River

 Water Supply Reliability – $1.4 Billion Total

• $1.05 Billion in competitive grants for integrated regional water management (money allocated to each of the 12 regions, with $50 Million for interregional projects)
• $350 Million in local conveyance projects (must have 50% non-state cost share unless the project is deemed a benefit to disadvantaged communities)

 Delta Sustainability – $2.25 Billion Total

• $750 Million for Delta Sustainability (including levees and other flood control, or preserving economic, sustained agriculture or improvement of water quality facilities and other infrastructure)
  •  
• $250 Million for economic recovery and loss of revenue for Delta Counties and local government
• $1.5 Billion for Protection, Conservation and Restoration (develop and enhance the BDCP, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mercury contamination, etc.)

 Statewide Water System Operational Improvement – $3.0 Billion Total

• Continuously appropriated to California Water Commission for storage projects
• Eligible projects include: 

1. surface storage identified by CALFED
2. groundwater storage and contamination prevention or remediation
3. conjunctive use and reservoir reoperation projects
4. local and regional surface storage

• Funding Requirements:

1.  Provide ecosystem improvements
2. Provide water quality, flood control, emergency response, or recreation as means of public benefit
3. By Jan 1, 2018, all feasibility studies must be completed. This will advance long-term Delta objectives. Commitments are in place for 75% of nonpublic benefit cost share.

•  No funds available in this section until Dec. 15, 2012
• Public Benefit cost share may not exceed 50%

 Conservation and Watershed Protection – $1.785 Billion Total

• $250 Million for Coastal county watersheds
• $100 Million for Migratory birds
• $215 Million for Endangered/threatened species protection
• $600 Million for Various small conservancies
• $30 Million for Watershed education facilities
• $100 Million for Forest fuel reduction (fire prevention and forest restoration)
• $250 Million for Klamath River dam removal
• $20 Million for Siskyou County economic redevelopment funding
• $50 Million for CSU research and education efforts
• $50 Million for Ocean Protection
• $60 Million for Salmon fish passage funding
• $50 Million for infrastructure mitigation

 Groundwater Protection and Water Quality – $1.0 Billion Total

• Groundwater cleanup for drinking water
• Disadvantaged communities
• Wastewater treatment in “small communities” (population no more than 20,000)
• Stormwater management (facilities and infrastructure detention and retention basins)
• Ocean protection
• $100 Million to Dept. of Public Health for urgent and emergency actions
• $100 Million for basinwide management and remediation for facilities on the Dept. of Toxic Substances list

 Water Recycling – $1.25 Billion Total

• $1.0 Billion Water recycling and other advanced treatment projects (desalination, recycling infrastructure, groundwater recharge infrastructure)
• $250 Million Water conservation and efficiency projects

Tackling our state’s water system has been years in the making and is considered one of the most complicated and complex issues in California’s state history. For weeks we have watched as the legislature worked around the clock to craft a package that makes everyone happy relatively satisfied. No matter what one thinks of the job the legislature has done so far, it is truly incredible that they were able to come together (more or less) to pass such a significant piece of legislation for our state.

 As always, EUCA will continue to keep you updated as we move forward on this.

Congress Turns on the Faucet for Water Funding

In Sacramento and DC water is the name of the game for California right now. In Sacramento, water policy to repair, rebuild and redistribute water and water infrastructure  hangs on by a thread inside the state capitol. The entire deal is so fragile that it may have wholly come together or shattered into a million  irreprable pieces by the time i’m done posting this blog. Let’s hope for the former.

On the national front, EUCA has been working with our partners at Clean Water Construction Coalition  (CWCC) to  lobby for both an increase in funds and a securitization of funds for Waste Water and Drinking Water now and into the future.  On October 29 the Senate and House finalized the 2010 Appropriations Bill that funds the Wastewater and Drinking Water SRF (State Revoloving Funds) programs for the federal fiscal year that began October 1, 2009. A Continuing Resolution (CR) for several other federal funding programs was attached to the Bill. The final numbers are as follows:

$2.1 billion for Wastewater SRF

$1.38 billion for Drinking Water SRF

 $157 million for water infrastructure grants

 Why this matters to you! increase funding = increase in available projects = more jobs.

 There are three important provisions in the Appropriation Bill that are worth noting (note: they’re wordy)

 1. For fiscal year 2010, “to the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants and not less than 20 percent of the funds made available under this title for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by the State for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiencyimprovements, or other environmentally innovative activities;”

 What the hell does that mean? A minimum of 20% of the funds must be made available for green projects.

 2. For fiscal year 2010, “That not less than 30 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants and not less than 30 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by the State to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these), except that for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grant appropriation this section shall only apply to the portion that exceeds$1,000,000,000”

 What the hell does that mean? A minimum of 30% of these funds must be made available as grants (i.e. the “grantee” does not need to repay the funds)

 3. For fiscal year 2010 (only) the requirements of Section 513 (Davis Bacon) (i.e. federal prevailing wage) will apply to both Waste Water and Drinking Water projects.

One Last Thing! :

The funds mentioned above are a one time deal for 2010. Currently there is no guartentee of money for Waste Water and Drinking Water, leaving us year after year to have to go back to Congress and beg not to be left high and dry.  A reauthorization bill would secure funding for Waste Water and Drinking Water for the future and significantly increase the amount of funds put into the State Revolving Fund.

We are working hard alongside a handful of other associations to ensure the passage of both the 2010 Appropriations Bill (which should be on its way to the President’s desk for signature) and the Reauthorization bill (to secure funds) , which is still in negotiations in the House.

All in all, its a bit of light  water at the end of the tunnel for California and those who build it. When the money comes… we’ll be ready! In the meantime, try to stay afloat.

 

 

Repairing California: The Start of Something Big?

In the next few minutes the group Repair California will submit initiatives to the Attorney General that would allow California voters to approve and then hold a constitutional convention that would be in charge of rewriting our state’s constitution. Think you’re alone in supporting the idea? You’re not: A recent field poll shows that nearly 70% of Californians support the idea of making “fundamental changes” to our states constitution. In fact, Meg Whitman, Tom Campbell and Gavin Newsom are all in support of the idea as well-  (not necessarily surprising when you consider the fact that they’re all looking for votes while noting that 70 percent of Californian’s support the idea…but nonetheless, they’re all behind it for now) Dem front-runner Jerry Brown has also expressed interest in the idea. Republican candidate Steve Poizner is the only one who remains opposed, fearing that it will open the gates for increasing taxes.

…which brings me to my next (of first) point: Everyone agrees (well, 7 out of 10 of us) that California needs major reforms. That’s easy. But how to reform our state is an entirely different debate. Think about it: Would a CA constitutional convention be a way to eliminate the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes and/ or pass a budget? Would we toughen up on illegal immigration? Reform proposition 13? What about Prop 98? Should we extend or eliminate term limits?  Should we move to a part-time legislature?  These are just a few of the flood gates that the constitutional convention could …well, would open up, (and I didn’t even mention gay marriage…..gun control…..abortion… you get the point. ) So it won’t shock you when I tell you that the same study as mentioned above also found that there is little agreement among Californian’s on what reforms are best for our state.

But at the end of the day, California is in desperate need of repair – the kind that legislative duck tape can’t fix. And a constitutional convention just might be the major renovation this state needs. Regardless of the kinds of ideas that get thrown on the table, the point is that they get thrown on the table. From there, Californians will have to decide what we take and what we leave.

So, what would a constituational convention look like to you? What would need to be included in a rewrite of our state constitution to provide security and stability both for the health of our industry and our state as a whole? Do you think Californians can reasonably and responsbily create or reform our constitution to create a better more stable state, or do you think special interests and a dynfunctional system will inevitably find their way in and screw it up?

Fun Facts about California’s Constitution, courtesy of Wikipedia:

• It is the third longest constitution in the WORLD (behind those of Alabama and India) – yes, India.
• It was the result of progressive mistrust of elected officials: “In response to widespread public disgust with the powerful railroads which controlled California’s politics and economy at the start of the 20th century, Progressive Era politicians pioneered the concept of aggressively amending the state constitution by initiative in order to remedy perceived evils.”
• Between 1911 and 1986 our state constitution was amended 500 times
• The constitution of California distinguishes between constitutional amendments and revisions, the latter of which is considered to be a “substantial change to the entire constitution, rather than a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions”.
•  Both amendments and revisions require passage of a California ballot proposition by voters, but they differ in how they may be proposed. An amendment may be placed on the ballot by either a two-thirds vote in the California State Legislature or signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, (among the lowest thresholds for similar measures of any U.S. State)
• It has been described as “the perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be”.