That was the news.

Having had a week to think about it - the story behind the news is why it matters.

For the first time in several years, Congress is seriously debating a return to the core purpose of the federal transportation program: building and maintaining the infrastructure that moves people, freight, goods, water, energy, and commerce. That conversation should sound familiar to Californians. Because while Washington debates the future of federal transportation funding, California is asking many of the same questions through discussions surrounding transportation funding, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mitigation, project delivery, and CEQA reform. In both places, policymakers are increasingly confronting the same challenge:

How do we get more infrastructure dollars into actual infrastructure?

The BUILD America 250 Act is not perfect, and it is far from law. The Senate has yet to begin developing its version, and substantial negotiations remain ahead. But the committee's overwhelming bipartisan vote gives us something we have not had in quite some time—a realistic pathway to a long-term federal transportation authorization. That matters because the current authorization expires in September 2026.

The proposal would invest approximately $580 billion over five years, including nearly $294 billion for the Federal-Aid Highway Program and roughly $45 billion dedicated to bridge improvements. California is projected to receive approximately $27 billion under the proposal, making it one of the largest beneficiaries in the nation.

But the most important part of the bill is not the funding level. It is the philosophy.

For years, the transportation community has watched funding increasingly flow through discretionary grant programs and transportation-adjacent initiatives that often required states, regions, and local agencies to compete for funding based on objectives only indirectly related to transportation system performance. Many of those programs were well-intentioned. But they also contributed to a growing disconnect between transportation funding and transportation outcomes.

The BUILD America 250 Act begins moving the conversation back toward fundamentals. Approximately 90 percent of highway funding under the proposal would flow through established formula programs. That means more predictability for states, greater accountability for taxpayers, and more transportation dollars reaching actual transportation projects. It means transportation agencies can spend less time pursuing competitive grants and more time delivering projects.

For California, that distinction is particularly important. The state faces enormous transportation funding challenges over the coming decades. At the same time, project costs continue to rise due to inflation, permitting complexity, environmental review requirements, and increasingly expensive mitigation obligations.  And mission creep for a finite funding source. Every dollar spent on process or transportation adjacent programs is a dollar that does not reach transportation projects. That is why CalCIMA continues to engage on issues such as VMT mitigation reform and broader project delivery improvements. The goal is not to eliminate environmental protections. The goal is to restore balance and ensure infrastructure dollars produce infrastructure outcomes.

The movement of goods, services, freight, and people is what drives the American economy. Adding capacity, improving system reliability, and adding, repairing, and modernizing lane miles are not abstract policy goals—they are directly tied to economic prosperity, competitiveness, affordability, and quality of life. In growing states like California, continued investment in transportation capacity is essential to sustaining economic growth itself. Housing, manufacturing, agriculture, goods movement, energy reliability, and virtually every sector of our economy depend on the safe and efficient movement of people, freight, water, goods, and commerce. To be clear, transit, bike paths, pedestrian infrastructure, and alternative transportation modes all play important roles in a balanced transportation system. But transportation funding should first and foremost fund transportation infrastructure. Roads, bridges, freight corridors, ports, transit systems, and the infrastructure that allows people and commerce to move safely and efficiently must remain the primary focus.

The BUILD America 250 Act does not represent the finish line. It represents something equally important. For the first time in years, it provides a credible roadmap for returning transportation policy to its foundational mission.

The hard work is still ahead. The Senate must act. Congress must negotiate a final package. And stakeholders across the country must remain engaged to ensure the bill stays focused on its core purpose. But for the first time, we can see the road ahead more clearly.

That is good news for California.

That is good news for infrastructure.

And that is good news for everyone who depends on the movement of people, freight, goods, water, energy, and commerce.

The starting block is behind us.

Now comes the race.

As part of CalCIMA’s SMARA at 50 initiative, we asked the California State Geologist and the California Department of Conservation to help identify historic publications, reports, workshop proceedings, and technical references documenting the evolution of California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and mined-land reclamation practices over the past fifty years.

The publications indexed below were among the materials recommended from Department archives and historic California Geological Survey / Division of Mines and Geology publications. Together, they provide a unique window into the evolution of:

• Mined-land reclamation

• Watershed and hydrology management

• Mineral resource planning

• Revegetation and habitat restoration

• Beneficial reuse of mined lands

• California’s broader environmental planning systems

These materials reflect the science, technology, regulatory structure, and professional practices of their time. Some legal, regulatory, and technical information may now be outdated; however, the publications remain valuable historical and technical resources for understanding how reclamation and land stewardship practices evolved in California.

Many of these publications also document landscapes familiar to Californians today — including areas that have since become parks, neighborhoods, habitat areas, lakes, business districts, and public infrastructure. In some cases, modern communities were built upon reclaimed mined lands whose history is no longer widely recognized.

Original publications may be downloaded directly through the California Department of Conservation publication archive system. We want to thank the State Geologist and Department for providing reference to these documents.

We invite you to explore these materials and reflect on the history, evolution, and future of reclamation and mineral resource management in California. 

If you have personal experiences, photographs, historical context, or stories related to these publications or reclamation projects, we encourage you to share them with us as part of the SMARA at 50 effort.

California Geology Articles

The California Geology magazine series documented many of the early ideas, projects, and implementation approaches that shaped California reclamation practice during the first decades of SMARA.

1975 — Reclamation of Sand and Gravel Pits

Author: Ken Carreiro
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 28, No. 12
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=28_12.pdf

One of the earliest California articles discussing reclamation of sand and gravel mining operations at the same time SMARA was being adopted. Reflects the growing realization during the 1970s that mined lands required long-term planning for erosion control, grading, and future land use.

1975 — Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 / California’s New Surface Mining and Reclamation: A Summary

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 28, No. 12
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=28_12.pdf

Contemporaneous summaries explaining California’s newly adopted Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). Useful for understanding how the law was originally presented to the public and mining community, including its early focus on reclamation, long-term land-use planning, and conservation of important mineral resources.

1979 — A Photo Story of the Reclamation of American River Dredge Tailings

Author: Jon L. Burnett
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 32, No. 7
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=32_07.pdf

Documents reclamation of historic gold dredge tailings along the American River in what is now the greater Sacramento metropolitan region, including areas near modern Gold River, Rancho Cordova, and Folsom.

Large portions of the American River landscape were heavily altered by floating gold dredges during the early 1900s, leaving extensive cobble fields and reshaped terrain that still subtly influence the region today. Provides an early visual record of how these disturbed lands were reclaimed and integrated into expanding urban and recreational uses.

1982 — California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 35, No. 3
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=35_03.pdf

Short early-1980s update discussing implementation of SMARA as the law matured during its first decade into an operational statewide reclamation program.

1982 — Surface Mined-Land Reclamation Planning in California: A Cooperative Approach

Authors: Zoe Mankoski and Kenneth Cole
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 35, No. 3
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=35_03.pdf

Important early article describing reclamation planning as a cooperative effort between mine operators, local governments, and the California Division of Mines and Geology. Reflects the site-specific and adaptive planning philosophy of early SMARA implementation.

1982 — Reclamation of Dredge Tailings, Folsom District

Author: Brian K. Young
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 35, No. 6
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=35_06.pdf

Documents reclamation work associated with historic gold dredging east of Sacramento in the Folsom and Gold River region.

Explains how former dredge-mined landscapes containing large cobble piles and disturbed terrain were stabilized and prepared for future use. Today much of this region is integrated into the greater Sacramento urban area.

1985 — Aggregate Pit Reclamation

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 38, No. 10
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=38_10.pdf

Short feature discussing reclamation of aggregate mining operations during a period when California was rapidly expanding its modern reclamation programs and long-term land-use planning concepts.

1987 — Mined Land Reclamation Program

Author: James Pompy
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 40, No. 1
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=40_01.pdf

Overview of California’s mined land reclamation program during the 1980s and the growth of SMARA implementation systems.

1987 — Where Did the Mine Go?

Author: R. R. Munro
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 40, No. 1
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=40_01.pdf

Public-facing article illustrating how reclaimed mined lands can transition into parks, open space, habitat, recreation areas, lakes, and development sites after reclamation.

1987 — Surface Mining and Reclamation Practice

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 40, No. 1
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=40_01.pdf

Overview of reclamation practices and implementation concepts under SMARA during the late 1980s, including grading, erosion control, revegetation, and long-term mined-land management.

1987 — California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Surface Mining Reclamation

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 40, No. 1
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=40_01.pdf

Brief discussion of the relationship between CEQA and mined-land reclamation planning as California’s environmental review and reclamation systems became increasingly interconnected.

1991 — Update on the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975

Author: Gail Newton
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 44, No. 12
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=44_12.pdf

1990s-era update discussing continued evolution of SMARA implementation and regulatory development during a period of expanding environmental regulation and land-use planning complexity.

1992 — The Division of Mines and Geology’s Environmental Protection Program

Author: Trinda L. Bedrossian
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 45, No. 6
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=45_06.pdf

Overview of the California Division of Mines and Geology’s broader environmental protection and reclamation support role during the maturation of California’s reclamation systems.

1992 — Implementing an Award-Winning Reclamation Plan at Castle Mountain Mine

Authors: Lynn A. Pirozzoli and James S. Pompy
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 45, No. 6
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=45_06.pdf

Case study describing implementation of an award-winning reclamation plan at the Castle Mountain Mine in California’s Mojave Desert region.

Provides practical examples of large-scale reclamation planning in California’s Mojave Desert region, including grading, revegetation, erosion control, and long-term land management.

1993 — AB 3098 SMARA Eligible List (July 1, 1993)

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 46, No. 4
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=46_04.pdf

Early published list associated with AB 3098, which linked state purchasing eligibility to compliance with SMARA requirements.

Historically important because it reflects California’s early use of public purchasing requirements to encourage regulatory compliance.

1993 — AB 3098 SMARA Eligible List (July 30, 1993)

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 46, No. 5
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=46_05.pdf

Follow-up publication continuing implementation of AB 3098 compliance eligibility tracking.

Illustrates how California’s mine compliance tracking systems and eligibility reporting evolved during the early 1990s.

1994 — The Mineral Industry of California in 1993 (Legislation Update)

Author: Fred V. Carrillo
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 47, No. 3
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=47_03.pdf

Annual mineral industry update discussing legislative and regulatory developments affecting California mining and reclamation during the early 1990s.

1994 — Index to Statutory and Regulatory Reclamation Plan Requirements

Publication: California Geology, Vol. 47, No. 5
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=47_05.pdf

Concise technical reference summarizing statutory and regulatory reclamation plan requirements under SMARA. The standards were newly developed.

1996 — Reclaiming Surface Mined Land to Waterfowl Habitat

Author: Michael K. Lacy
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 49, No. 2
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=49_02.pdf

Explores how former sand and gravel mining sites can be reclaimed into productive wetland and waterfowl habitat through grading, shoreline design, vegetation planning, and water management. Includes examples relevant to California’s Central Valley.

1996 — Native Seed Collection for Mined-Land Revegetation

Author: Karen Wiese
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 49, No. 4
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=49_04.pdf

Practical guide to native seed collection for mined-land revegetation and reclamation projects, reflecting California’s growing emphasis during the 1990s on habitat restoration and native plant use.

1997 — Reclaiming Mined Land Provides for the Future

Author: Shelly Fischman
Publication: California Geology, Vol. 50, No. 3
Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=50_03.pdf

Teacher-oriented educational feature explaining mined-land reclamation concepts and long-term land stewardship to general audiences.

Open-File Reports

OFR 86-14 (1986) — Revegetation of Disturbed Land in California: An Element of Mined-Land Reclamation

Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=OFR_86-14

Foundational revegetation guidance document emphasizing site-specific reclamation planning, soil conditions, erosion control, drainage, climate adaptation, and plant selection.

OFR 90-04 (1990) — Nursery Sources for California Native Plants

Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=OFR_90-04

Statewide native plant nursery source guide created to support reclamation and habitat restoration projects across California’s diverse geography and climate. An incredible early 90’s resource.

Special Publications

SP 51 (2000) — California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and Procedures (Third Revision)

Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SP_51

Comprehensive SMARA handbook compiling statutes, regulations, model ordinances, reclamation planning guidance, financial assurance guidance, mineral resource classification information, and implementation procedures.

For many practitioners entering the mining and reclamation field during the late 1990s and early 2000s, this publication became a foundational reference explaining how California’s reclamation system functioned in practice. Historical document; statutory and regulatory provisions may now be outdated.

SP 59 (1982) — Proceedings of Mined Land Reclamation Workshop

Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SP_59

Workshop proceedings documenting early implementation discussions only a few years after adoption of SMARA. Covers reclamation planning, watershed management, revegetation, erosion control, groundwater, bonding, and local government implementation.

Provides an important snapshot of California’s early reclamation philosophy and collaborative technical culture. Significant and detailed document and discussions.

SP 85 (1984) — Proceedings of Productive Second Uses of Mined Land Conference

Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SP_85

Major interdisciplinary conference volume focused on productive post-mining land uses including parks, recreation, habitat, urban development, industrial reuse, agriculture, forestry, and tourism.

Reflects California’s growing recognition during the 1980s that mining could function as an interim land use followed by long-term public, environmental, or economic reuse.

SP 123 (2003) — Rehabilitation of Disturbed Lands in California: A Manual for Decision Making

Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SP_123

Comprehensive restoration-oriented manual covering soils, hydrology, erosion control, revegetation, native plant systems, watershed processes, ecological succession, monitoring, and long-term rehabilitation planning.

Represents California’s transition from simple surface stabilization toward modern restoration ecology and ecosystem-based reclamation approaches. Historical technical document; some scientific methods and regulatory references may now be outdated.

Special Reports

SR 163 (1989) — Surface and Groundwater Management in Surface Mined-Land Reclamation

Link: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SR_163

Important California hydrology guidance document published before modern stormwater and hydromodification programs fully matured.

Discusses:

• Runoff, erosion, sediment transport

• Groundwater recharge

• Stream stability, flood control

• Watershed impacts associated with mining and reclamation

Demonstrates how California reclamation planning was already addressing landscape-scale hydrologic and watershed-management issues decades before many modern stormwater concepts became widely adopted.

Reports of the State Geologist

SMARA-related topics were periodically addressed in annual Reports of the State Geologist beginning around the 69th report series, generally focusing on mineral land classification, legislation, reclamation implementation, and statewide mining issues.

These reports provide useful historical context regarding the evolution of California mineral policy and reclamation oversight.

We have been talking about this moment for more than a year.

In meetings with both Senate and House Republican and Democrat transportation policy leadership, I have remained hopeful that a real opportunity would emerge to refocus the federal transportation program on its core mission. After months of anticipation, Congress has finally released the framework for the next federal surface transportation reauthorization bill: the bipartisan five-year BUILD America 250 Act. Just as importantly, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves and Ranking Member Rick Larsen have demonstrated something that has become increasingly rare in Washington: Bipartisan agreement that America’s transportation system still matters.

That matters.

For those of us in the infrastructure and construction materials industries, this proposal represents the starting block for what will become one of the most important policy debates of the coming decade. The current federal transportation law expires in September 2026. While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act delivered historic levels of funding, it also created substantial leakage away from the core mission of the federal highway program. Billions of dollars were diverted into discretionary grant programs, non-core mitigation requirements, and policy initiatives often disconnected from actually building and modernizing transportation infrastructure capacity.

The BUILD America 250 Act attempts to reset that focus.

And make no mistake — the clock is already ticking.

The encouraging news is that both the House and Senate appear to be communicating seriously with one another. There is broad recognition that a long-term reauthorization bill must get done. Unfortunately, transportation reauthorization is currently competing with a number of other major national policy priorities for oxygen in Washington. That is precisely why industry, labor, local governments, freight stakeholders, and infrastructure advocates must engage now, before the window narrows.

This bill is not the finish line. It merely locks in the details of the starting block.

There is still a long way to go before a final bill reaches the President’s desk. But getting a bill done this year is critical to restoring long-term certainty for states, regional transportation agencies, contractors, and the industries that supply the materials that make infrastructure possible.

From an infrastructure perspective, several elements of the BUILD America 250 Act are encouraging. The proposal authorizes roughly $580 billion over five years, including approximately $474 billion in Highway Trust Fund contract authority focused primarily on core transportation infrastructure programs. It also includes roughly $56 billion for bridge investment and repair, increased support for freight mobility, expanded truck parking programs, and renewed emphasis on formula funding that allows states to actually deliver projects.

Equally important is what the proposal begins to pull back from.

The legislation would scale back or eliminate a number of discretionary and “temporary pilot” style programs created or expanded under the prior bill that diverted funding away from roads, bridges, and freight mobility. It would reduce emphasis on programs tied to broad greenhouse gas performance mandates, duplicative environmental justice grant criteria, and other requirements that too often became vehicles for delay, litigation, or unrelated mitigation expenditures rather than infrastructure delivery itself.

That focus matters because somewhere along the way, the federal transportation program drifted from its foundational purpose.

Federal highway funding should first and foremost be used to build, preserve, modernize, and expand transportation infrastructure. That means projects that move people, freight, goods, water, energy, and commerce safely and efficiently across this country. Those investments directly impact economic productivity, supply chain resilience, public safety, affordability, and quality of life.

The movement of goods, services, freight, and people is what drives the American economy. Adding capacity, improving system reliability, and adding, repairing, and modernizing lane miles are not abstract policy goals — they are directly tied to economic prosperity, competitiveness, affordability, and quality of life for every American community.

In growing states like California, continued investment in transportation capacity is essential to sustaining economic growth itself. Housing, manufacturing, agriculture, goods movement, energy reliability, and virtually every sector of our economy depend on the safe and efficient movement of people, freight, water, goods, and commerce.

We need strong guardrails moving forward.

Transportation funding cannot become an open-ended source of unrelated mitigation spending that adds cost, delay, and uncertainty without materially improving transportation outcomes. We need accountability to ensure taxpayer dollars actually build infrastructure capacity and improve system performance.

Good intentions do not build infrastructure. Materials do.

We also need to recognize a basic reality: Modern infrastructure does not happen without the materials that make it possible. Every road, bridge, transit corridor, runway, levee, and water system starts with aggregates, asphalt, concrete, cement, industrial minerals, steel, and other essential construction materials. If it’s built, we’re in it.

Increasingly, if America is serious about domestic manufacturing, energy reliability, supply chain resilience, and national security, then infrastructure must once again become a national priority — not an afterthought.

We are not adjacent to America’s future — we are foundational to it.

The bipartisan release of this proposal is an important first step. Now comes the difficult part: Maintaining momentum, preserving bipartisan cooperation, and ensuring the final bill stays focused on its core purpose.

Because ultimately, infrastructure policy is economic policy.

And this is one moment we cannot afford to miss.

Graniterock’s annual Quail Hollow Quarry open house, held April 25 in Felton, offered more than a look inside an active mining operation. The tour provided a window into one of California’s most distinct and unique landscapes. 

Set within the Santa Cruz Sandhills, the quarry operates alongside a fully endowed conservation area and habitat conservation plan, revealing how mineral production and species protection intersect in practice.

We toured the site on a cool, overcast day, ideal conditions for walking the quarry floor and observing the slopes above the quarry. Moving upslope in small groups led by Quail Hollow Manager Ben Snow, the setting challenged expectations of the Santa Cruz Mountains. This was not the dense, shaded redwood forest most associated with the region. Instead, the landscape opened into something more reminiscent of the Sierra Nevada foothills, where manzanita and oak grow among scattered stands of ponderosa pine.

Teichert and Benchmark Resources recently hosted an exceptional Women of CalCIMA tour through the Yuba Goldfields, offering not just a visit to an active mining operation, but a rare opportunity to experience a landscape shaped by more than a century of mining, innovation and advancement, and environmental knowledge.

We gathered at Teichert’s Western Aggregates Plant on a clear windy morning, welcomed by CEO Mary Teichert. Reflecting on her own start in the industry in QA/QC, she emphasized the importance of building relationships and connections. Then, rather than sending us on our way, Mary joined us for the day, riding along and joining the conversations as our caravan of white vans drove through the unique environment of the Goldfields.

A Landscape Shaped by Legacy Mining, Being Reshaped by Modern Mining

The Yuba Goldfields are not a static place. They are the cumulative result of multiple eras of mining in California and the responses and adaptations which followed.

In the mid-1800s, hydraulic mining in the Sierra Nevada, at sites such as Malakoff Diggings, sent vast quantities of sediment downstream. It buried farmland, altered the Yuba River and the valley floor, and eventually led to a legal decision to eliminate hydraulic mining. A substantial portion of the material, approximately one-third, now forms the Goldfields and originated from these upstream operations.

The impacts were so significant that they triggered one of California’s earliest environmental legal landmarks, Woodruff V. North Bloomfield Mining and Gravel Company, bringing an end to large-scale hydraulic mining and forcing efforts to manage its legacy. Structures like the Daguerre Point Dam were built to control sediment movement, stabilize a system fundamentally reshaped by hydraulic mining upstream and protect the farmlands and valley below.

Today, that same structure is the focus of modern restoration. A nature-like fishway is being developed to restore migratory pathways for species including white sturgeon and salmonids, turning a historic constraint into an opportunity for ecological recovery.

Beginning in the early 1900s, dredging operations reworked these deposits at an unprecedented scale. At times, as many as 14 dredges operated simultaneously, excavating to depths of 75 to over 100 feet and systematically turning over the Goldfields. The result is unmistakable: Long rows of cobble tailings stretch across thousands of acres. From above, it resembles a golf course for giants. You can trace the paths of the historic dredging.

Dredge 17: Past in the Middle of the Present

Watching the Landscape Change

From there, the tour moved through the processing plant, where material from the mining area is conveyed, often by floating conveyors, to be washed, sorted, sized, and prepared for use in building infrastructure and communities.

Our caravan wound past hundreds of acres of dredge tailings and ponds, eventually reaching the current mining area near the townsite of Hammonton, where we observed an electric clamshell dredge in operation. From there, the tour continued to an overlook above Daguerre Point Dam.

But to fully understand what is happening in the Goldfields today, it helps to step back in time.

Western Aggregates area within the Yuba Goldfields, 1999–2025, showing the progression of mining and the reworking of dredge tailings.

The animation shows modern mining gradually progressing around and northeast from the Western Aggregates Plant site—reworking historic dredge tailings, removing rows, and reshaping the land, with ponds emerging where tailings once stood.

What took more than a century to create is now being methodically reworked, one section at a time, to supply materials for the local construction market.

This is not yet reclamation. It is an active phase of landscape transition, where new landforms are taking shape, but the final landscape has not yet been established.

A Glimpse of the Outcome

To understand where that process leads, it helps to look at a complete example from a similar, though smaller-scale, landscape.

At Mississippi Bar along the American River near Folsom, former dredge tailings have been mined and the land reclaimed into a landscape that now supports recreation and ecological function. While these areas have been restored to dry ground, the contrast remains visible—between the remaining dredge tailings piles and the regraded trails and pathways that now cross the site.

Processing plant at left, with the northern extent of the dredge tailings reworked and restored.

View of dredge tailings at Mississippi Bar, showing the characteristic scalloped pattern formed by dredging.

View through a saddle in the dredge tailings ridge at Mississippi Bar, with reclaimed grassland and scattered oaks below.

From atop those ridges, the transition becomes clear: areas that have been regraded and restored give way to functional terrain that supports new uses and habitat. In contrast, the remaining tailings—composed of coarse cobble—are largely impassable, with limited habitat typically confined to the narrow spaces between piles, creating a stark and fragmented environment.

While smaller in scale than the Yuba Goldfields—where dredge tailings formed from reworking hydraulic mining deposits can exceed 75 feet in height—the Mississippi Bar site provides a clear, accessible example of what reclamation can achieve.

Recreation on reclaimed mining lands at Mississippi Bar.

Recreation is now part of that landscape. Trails cross areas that were once dredged, and activities like horseback riding occur across ground that has been levelled and restored, where a sand and gravel processing plant once stood.

The Scale Behind the Story

The Yuba Goldfields are not just visual; they are foundational.

Construction aggregate, sand, gravel, and crushed stone, makes up the vast majority of the material in concrete and asphalt and underpins nearly every piece of infrastructure in California. Over the past several decades, the state has consumed roughly 180 million tons of aggregate annually .

Because aggregate is a low-value, high-bulk material, it must be sourced close to where it is used. Transporting it long distances significantly increases cost, emissions, and congestion.

That makes regions like Yuba essential to their surrounding communities.

The Yuba City–Marysville region holds substantial permitted reserves and supplies material to neighboring areas, helping meet demand across the broader Sacramento region.

Restoration in Motion

In partnership with Teichert’s Hallwood plant on the north side of the river, the Yuba Water Agency, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other stakeholders the Hallwood Fish Habitat Project was implemented, enabled in part by a targeted SMARA exemption granted by the State Mining and Geology Board.

The project enhanced floodplain function and migratory habitat along the river. Material removed from the channel was processed at Teichert’s Hallwood facility and supplied to the local market—reducing project costs for taxpayers and ratepayers while supporting the continued availability of essential construction materials.

At Daguerre Point Dam, that work continues upstream. The planned nature-like fishway builds additional natural benefits on those downstream improvements, expanding access for species including white sturgeon and improving conditions for salmonids.

SMARA at 50: From Plan to Assurance

While reclamation in the Yuba Goldfields is ongoing, the long-term outcome is not speculative, it is defined in an adopted reclamation plan and secured by financial assurances.

Under SMARA, mining is recognized as a temporary land use. Reclamation is planned in advance, and financial assurances ensure it is completed.

In the Yuba Goldfields, that framework is visible in motion. At Mississippi Bar, it is visible in outcome.

Together, they demonstrate that what begins as extraction is planned from the outset to end in restoration. But they also demonstrate the wisdom gained over time in California and the importance of SMARA and planned reclamation. The Goldfields serve as another reminder why this structure is important.

A Landscape in Transition

The Yuba Goldfields are not simply a remnant of California’s mining past. They are a working example of how that past is being reshaped—intentionally, incrementally, and under a framework designed to ensure a defined future.

It is a landscape created by extraction, reworked by industry, and guided toward restoration. And that comes home to you when you tour the landscape.

CalCIMA members stand strong in responsibly providing the essential materials for the future of California’s infrastructure, while advancing environmental stewardship, innovation and a commitment to the land. This year, we proudly mark the Golden Anniversary of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and FOUNDATION TO FUTURE highlights the critical role industry plays in shaping resilient infrastructure today while preparing for the demands, opportunities, and possibilities of tomorrow. 

We invite presentations from across all industry sectors, including essential minerals, aggregates, concrete, and asphalt, to showcase how your work is advancing the future of the minerals and materials which build California. We also welcome discussions honoring the legacy of mining and restoring the lands from which the essential natural resources and ingredients of California’s Success are gathered and manufactured. Finally, presentations addressing compliance with governmental laws and policies impacting mineral and material producers.

Submit your presentation by May 26.

CalCIMA and its members held our annual 2026 Legislative Summit and Lobby Day in Sacramento on March 10-11, 2026.

Monday evening, CalCIMA hosted a dinner with a number of legislators, including Assemblymembers Isaac Bryan, Juan Carrillo, and Lori Wilson, and Senator Tim Grayson. On Tuesday, members gathered at the Capitol Event Center for a full day of presentations from legislators, government agencies, and associations.

CalCIMA President and CEO Robert Dugan hosted an Industry CEO Roundtable. Featured executives included Emily Cohen, United Contractors ; Dan Dunmoyer, California Building Industry Association ; and Chris O’Connor, Associated General Contractors . The roundtable discussed key legislative priorities to ensure California can continue to build to meet the demands of a growing population and the barriers we all have in common to move the state forward. Dugan observed that we have a lot of common ground to fight for if we want to protect California’s quality of life for future generations.

Similarly, Dugan held a Q&A session with Lance Hastings, President & CEO of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA), where they discussed the importance of protecting rare earths, essential mineral supply chains, and the opportunities and barriers to protecting manufacturing jobs in the state, and where we are working together to fight the battle. 

Members had the opportunity to hear from, and talk with, a number of influential legislators, including chairs of the transportation, appropriations, and natural resources committees, as well as the Senate Minority Leader. They spoke on a range of important issues such as transportation funding, natural resources and water, housing and more. Thank you to Senators Josh Becker and Brian Jones, and Assemblymembers Lori Wilson and Buffy Wicks for speaking to our members.

CalCIMA was fortunate to have a wide array of speakers from different agencies and organizations to speak on CALGreen embodied carbon requirements, Caltrans funding, Department of Conservation Priorities, and industry priorities from the manufacturing and technology industries. Thank you to the following speakers:

• Ida Antoniolli, State Architect
• Danny Yost, Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs, Caltrans
• Jennifer Lucchesi, CA Department of Conservation

On Wednesday, CalCIMA members split into six groups to visit members of the legislature and their key staff in the Capitol Annex.

In all, our members were able to meet with over 40 legislators and key policy leaders during the two-day event, educating and advocating for our priority issues in the Legislature. Given the significant turnover of legislators every two years, telling our story and connecting the dots for elected officials between where the essential building blocks of civilization come from that we provide, and the ultimate use of those foundational materials in critical infrastructure, technology, and consumer goods they want for their constituents in their districts, really makes a difference. 

The practical impact on CalCIMA member fleets will depend heavily on legal outcomes and California’s independent regulatory authority. While some anticipate the repeal could weaken the broader regulatory structure supporting zero-emission vehicle mandates, including California’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation, the immediate compliance landscape for California fleets remains unchanged. For more information, [read CalCIMA’s blog / read Alston and Bird’s advisory at EPA Repeals 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding | Alston & Bird].

What the 2009 endangerment finding established

The 2009 Endangerment Finding enabled EPA to regulate GHGs from light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, engines (including heavy-duty diesel engines), and certain stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. For heavy-duty fleets, the finding provided the legal basis for federal Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 GHG standards, CO₂ emission limits for truck manufacturers, and federal fuel efficiency requirements tied to emission standards. In effect, the Endangerment Finding allowed EPA to treat GHGs as pollutants subject to Clean Air Act authority, shaping more than a decade of federal vehicle policy.

What repeal means at the Federal level

If repeal is finalized and survives legal challenge, EPA would no longer regulate greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Federal GHG standards for future model years could be rescinded or significantly revised, and upcoming federal heavy-duty truck GHG rules, including Phase 3, could be paused or rolled back. Federal alignment with California-style zero-emission truck frameworks would likely weaken. However, existing standards already in effect for current model years would not immediately disappear. Formal rulemaking would be required to amend or withdraw current regulations, and such actions would almost certainly face legal challenge.

What this means for CalCIMA fleets

For CalCIMA members operating heavy-duty diesel fleets, a potential loosening of federal truck standards could ease certain OEM requirements tied to federal CO₂ limits. Over time, this may reduce upward cost pressures associated with federal GHG compliance, slow federally driven electrification mandates, and increase flexibility in available engine and equipment configurations.

That said, California’s regulatory authority operates independently of the federal Endangerment Finding. CARB programs, including Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF), the Low NOx Omnibus Rule, and Clean Truck Check (CTC), remain in effect unless modified through separate state action or federal preemption. As a result, California policy continues to drive fleet compliance obligations for CalCIMA members operating within the state.

Federal–State tension and legal uncertainty

The repeal effort may heighten federal–state tension, particularly regarding California waiver authority, federal preemption, interstate commerce impacts, and enforcement consistency across states. These dynamics could create regulatory uncertainty in the marketplace, especially for manufacturers and multi-state fleet operators. However, this development does not provide immediate regulatory relief for California-based fleets, and existing state requirements remain in force unless directly altered.

Near-term outlook

Many predict that legal challenges to repeal are highly likely, and federal rule revisions would take time to implement. California is expected to continue advancing and enforcing its programs unless federal action directly targets state authority. In the meantime, early indications suggest that some OEM product planning may shift in response to anticipated federal flexibility, potentially expanding the range of options available to fleet operators.

CalCIMA will continue monitoring developments closely and keep members informed as federal and state actions evolve.

What you see today is not an accident. It's the result of SMARA. It's the result of intentional reclamation, long-term planning and community engagement.

CalCIMA producer member Granite Construction mined this site over 30 years ago. It used the materials to build and enhance critical infrastructure throughout the capital region. Now this site is being used as a skate park, dog park, fishing pond, soccer field, as well as providing space for county offices and services.

As we mark 50 years of the Surfacing Mining and Reclamation Act, Granite Regional Park is one example of how responsible mining and reclamation help not only build California, but give something lasting back to the community.

If your company, agency or organization has a SMARA reclamation project that you are proud of, we invite you to submit to the SMARA at 50 Golden Anniversary Reclamation Awards. help us tell these stories, your stories, our stories and California's stories to the public.

Submit here: https://www.cognitoforms.com/CalCIMA2/SMARAAt50GoldenAnniversaryReclamationAwardApplicationForm

CalCIMA members may have heard lately that the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) is being updated and that there is a “rebalancing” of projects and funds occurring. This blog is to help update members on the current status. 

The SHOPP is the largest of the state highway programs and dedicated to the “fix-it-first” goals of maintenance, safety, operation, and rehabilitation of the state highway system that do not add new capacity. It is supported by both state and federal funds. 

The SHOPP is currently going through a biennial update. While it is a 4-year schedule of projects and funding, it goes through a running update every two years, which incorporates on-going projects from the prior SHOPP while adding new ones, and adjusting for budget realities. So, the current SHOPP was adopted in 2024 for years 2024 to 2028. In 2026, it is being updated for years 2026-2030. Adoption is expected next month, so the details are fairly clear at this point.

The 2026 SHOPP proposes approximately 594 projects valued at $17 billion. This will encompass 521 projects in the prior SHOPP and 73 new ones1. This compares to the 2024 SHOPP, which forecast $21.2 billion for 635 projects. 

In all, if adopted as proposed, the 2026 SHOPP would invest nearly $12 billion in pavements, bridges, culverts, and safety. Of this, approximately $9 billion would be for nearly 5,600 miles of pavement, $2.8 billion for 4.7 million square feet of bridges, $400 million for almost 700 transportation management systems, and $700 million for nearly 262,000 linear feet of culverts. Many of the multimodal elements are delivered through these preservation projects where they are more cost-effective. 

One wrinkle in the proposed 2026 SHOPP is that there will be some “rebalancing” of project schedules and expenditures from the 2024 SHOPP into the 2026 SHOPP. This is because there has been a substantial amount—nearly $1 billion—in emergency work the past 3 years that took priority over and deferred the start of other projects. It also reflects that there is 16% less funding for the total program and 34% less, or about $800 million, for new projects due to lower than estimated gas tax revenues. So, the previously scheduled projects are being deferred from one fiscal year to the next as timing and programming capacity are reassessed.

For members looking to find out exactly what projects are proposed for the 2026 SHOPP, go to Caltrans’ interactive 2026 SHOPP Dashboard.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 17, 2026

Contact: Adam Harper - aharper@calcima.org | (916) 554-1000 ext. 102

CalCIMA Launches Statewide Campaign Marking 50 Years of California’s Landmark Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

Sacramento — The California Construction and Industrial Materials Association (CalCIMA) today announced the launch of a statewide public awareness campaign commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), one of California’s foundational land-use and conservation laws.

“We have to tell the stories of reclamation today so future generations can build on our progress,” said Robert Dugan, President & CEO of CalCIMA. “We mean this figuratively and literally. If it’s built, we’re in it, and it’s our industry that has made California’s economic powerhouse a reality, but we were able to do this thanks to strong laws that gave stability and certainty to our businesses and neighbors. We’re committed to showcasing this important work and hope the state will join with us.”

Enacted in 1975, SMARA established California’s framework for responsible surface mining, reclamation, and long-term mineral resource planning. As the law approaches its golden anniversary in 2026, CalCIMA is inviting state leaders, scientific institutions, archival organizations, and federal partners to help document and reflect on five decades of implementation, oversight, and progress.

A Durable, Bipartisan Framework

Adopted during a formative era in California environmental policy, SMARA emerged from years of legislative study and stakeholder engagement dating back to the late 1960s. The law aligned state oversight, local land-use authority, reclamation planning, and scientific mineral classification into a single, coordinated framework. Today, SMARA continues to:

• Require approved reclamation plans and financial assurances to ensure mined lands are restored.

• Integrate scientific mineral resource classification into land-use planning.

• Coordinate state, local, and — where applicable — federal land management responsibilities.

• Support responsible production of the materials that underpin transportation systems, flood protection, clean energy infrastructure, housing, and public works.

Statewide Institutional Reflection

As part of the anniversary initiative, CalCIMA is formally inviting participation from:

• The Office of the Governor

• The California Department of Conservation

• The State Mining and Geology Board

• The California Geological Survey

• The California State Archives and State Library

• Relevant federal land management and wildlife agencies 

The goal is to document institutional perspectives, preserve archival materials, and ensure the historical record accurately reflects how SMARA was developed and implemented over five decades. While participation will not imply endorsement of any specific project, it’s important today more than ever before for campaigns to support historical accuracy and completeness as Californians reflect on the law’s origins, evolution, and continuing relevance. 

Why This Matters Now

California’s continued focus on infrastructure resilience, mineral supply chains, clean energy development, and climate adaptation underscores the enduring relevance of SMARA’s structure. The statute’s emphasis on planned end uses, financial assurance, and intergovernmental coordination remains central to balancing conservation and resource development in the nation’s largest state.

CalCIMA’s campaign will include public education efforts, media engagement, archival preservation initiatives, and collaboration with public institutions to ensure future generations understand how California built and sustained a responsible surface mining and reclamation framework.

“If it’s built, we’re in it. We’re an essential part of what makes California special,” Dugan reiterated. “From roads and levees to schools and renewable energy infrastructure, the materials governed under SMARA are foundational to modern California. As we mark fifty years, we want Californians to understand both the conservation achievements and the infrastructure contributions this law has made possible.”

About CalCIMA

The California Construction and Industrial Materials Association (CalCIMA) is a statewide trade association representing producers of construction aggregates, industrial minerals, cement, concrete, and related materials essential to California’s infrastructure, housing, and public works. Since SMARA’s enactment, CalCIMA and its predecessor organizations have been continuously engaged in the statute’s implementation and evolution.

California marks the 50th anniversary of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) in 2026. It’s a law that quietly reshaped how California manages working lands, mineral resources, and post-mining landscapes. In other words, the act has been a profoundly important conservation framework, and also shows the lifecycle of important California land. 

Understanding SMARA’s origins is essential to understanding its durability, and why it continues to matter as California confronts housing shortages, climate adaptation, wildfire resilience, water infrastructure needs, and critical mineral supply challenges. Mineral and rock producers hope that policymakers, agency heads and environmental groups join us to tell this 50-year story. 

Through phased reclamation under SMARA, the George Reed Clements Pit mines and restores the Reed Family Orchard, demonstrating how surfacemined lands can return to productive agricultural use while preserving working landscapes.

Environmental Awakening and the Need for a New Framework

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, environmental policy in the United States had entered a period of rapid transformation. The Cuyahoga River fire, the publication of Silent Spring, and growing public concern over air and water pollution catalyzed a wave of landmark legislation. Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. In California, the legislature adopted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CA Endangered Species Act, and expanded statewide approaches to land and resource management. 

Up to that point, most regulation affecting mining and other industrial activities had been by local governments. Its focus was on health and safety ordinances, building codes, nuisance controls, and zoning requirements. While some operators reclaimed land voluntarily, this did not ensure long-term land restoration, nor did it resolve conflicts where mineral deposits crossed jurisdictional boundaries or where urban expansion encroached on finite mineral resource areas. 

SMARA emerged at the intersection of these realities. It was designed to fill a critical gap: 1) Establish a statewide land use and reclamation framework to ensure mined lands would be restored to usable and environmentally sound conditions once extraction ended, and 2) Map and conserve for potential future development and societal benefit the state's essential mineral resources. 

Senator John Nejedly authored SMARA. He explained the following in his 1975 letter to Governor Edmund G. Brown requesting favorable consideration of SB 756 (SMARA): 

“…existing controls do not (1) adequately assure that reclamation will occur, (2) provide a mechanism to resolve jurisdictional problems when mineral deposits cross city and county boundaries, and (3) recognize the need to protect mineral resource deposits from the effects of urbanization.” 

This framing remains central to SMARA’s role today. 

A pond and wildlife habitat field mark the successful SMARA reclamation of the 711 Materials Waterford Pit in Stanislaus County, with the land now owned and stewarded by the Reed family.

A Conservation Ethic Rooted in Stewardship

Often overlooked in modern debates is the conservation philosophy embedded in SMARA. Conservation, as understood by the law’s authors, did not mean locking landscapes away from use. It meant managing working lands responsibly, balancing extraction for infrastructure projects with restoration. Lawmakers were adamant in protecting resources essential to society. 

A fundamental recognition in SMARA is that mineral resources exist only where geology placed them. They are finite, locationspecific, and foundational to human civilization, from housing and transportation to renewable energy, water systems, and wildfire-resilient infrastructure. SMARA explicitly recognized this reality by pairing reclamation requirements with policies to identify and conserve mineral resource lands of regional and statewide significance. 

Reclamation and Restoration

SMARA’s definition of reclamation is both practical and ecological. The law focuses on recontouring, slope stability, revegetation, erosion control, water quality, and post-mining land uses compatible with surrounding conditions and community needs. Over time, reclaimed mines across California have become housing developments, schools, parks, agricultural lands, wetlands, flood control facilities, habitat preserves, and open space. SMARA encourages reclamation concurrent with mining activities so that many mines restore habitat and undertake other reclamation activities as they mine. While satellite imagery enables us to highlight high-visibility conversions of final reclamation of land to residential or commercial use, it should be emphasized that mines reclaim to landforms suitable for such development. The majority of reclaimed mine lands return to open space or naturalized conditions reflecting California’s broader land-use reality. 

According to the California Natural Resources Agency’s 2022 Nature-Based Solutions strategy, only a small fraction of the state’s land, roughly six percent, is developed. Most landscapes remain open space, agricultural, or managed for natural resource values as over 25% of the state is durably conserved. Mine reclamation outcomes likely mirror that distribution. 

Modernization and Enduring Relevance

SMARA has become one of the state’s most dynamic laws and a model for updating old frameworks. Legislative updates, including major reforms in the early 1990s and later modernization efforts such as AB 1142 in the last decade, strengthened financial assurance bonding, clarified state oversight, and improved consistency across jurisdictions. These updates reinforced the act’s original purpose while adapting it to contemporary expectations. 

Throughout these changes, SMARA has remained distinct from environmental statutes governing pollution control. As Assemblymember Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) later emphasized, SMARA is fundamentally a land-use and reclamation law, complementary to environmental frameworks. 

Jacquie Borges, Environmental Engineer, and Rachel Reed, Senior Land Use Specialist at Graniterock’s 21.6-acre A.R. Wilson Quarry revegetation area, featuring coast live oak woodland, grassland, and scrub species.

Looking Ahead: Why SMARA at 50 Matters

As California navigates climate adaptation, housing affordability, infrastructure renewal, wildfire safety and critical mineral supply chains, SMARA’s relevance is growing. SMARA’s story demonstrates that resource development and environmental stewardship can work in tandem, and that long-term planning can align economic necessity with land restoration. 

Throughout the 50th anniversary year, CalCIMA will highlight reclamation outcomes, historic investments, and modern success stories that illustrate how the act has worked in practice. These stories, grounded in real landscapes, partnerships, and communities will help inform industry, policymakers, educators, and the public about a law that quietly shaped California’s working lands for half a century. 

This article is only the beginning of a series of activities and articles this year to recognize the accomplishments of SMARA.

From Rare to Routine

Why It Matters: The Western Joshua Tree Example

• Renewable energy projects critical to California's climate adaptation face millions in mitigation costs, which ultimately will be passed to ratepayers through higher energy bills.
  
• The Governor and legislature adopted a budget trailer bill to institute per tree costs to streamline permitting as the Department warned they couldn't handle the permitting load. 
  
• Homeowners still face permit costs in the thousands for basic property maintenance, such as removing dead trees.
  
• Developers are still struggling to develop projects and meet relocation criteria and most permits applied for have not been granted or issued as of the adoption of a Conservation Plan in August and the testimony of the Director on permits issued and unissued.

Escalating Costs and Slowed Climate Adaptation

• Pathways to College Charter School of Hesperia provided a security guarantee of $25,000 an acre for 25 acres of WJT habitat. 
  
• For the Crotch Bumble Bee, an incidental take permit required a $8 million security deposit to create just 40 acres of habitat, offsetting the impact of 159 planned homes. 
  
• Over 40% of CESA permits requested in recent years remain unissued, highlighting how overwhelmed the system has become or perhaps how expensive the security costs have become with project proponents possibly not signing the permit offered and ending their project instead. 

A Shift in Decision-Making Authority

CDFW's Expanding Workload

Implications for California's Future

1. Climate Adaptation Delays – Renewable energy projects, carbon sequestration systems, and modern utility infrastructure are slowed, blocked and/or made more expensive by new permitting burdens.
   
2. Rising Costs for Californians – Homeowners, ratepayers, and local governments shoulder the expense of climate mitigation and delays.
   
3. Strained Conservation Efforts – Resources are diverted from modern landscape recovery plans for already-listed species and conserved lands, delaying progress on existing landscape scale conservation goals.

Conclusion: A System Under Pressure

• Supporting a comprehensive Transportation reauthorization bill that is on time (SEP 2026), indexed appropriately to let our industry plan for the future of California, and that keeps the 80:20 ratio for revenue investment between highway and transit. Full text HERE.
• Comprehensive Permit reform, by supporting the passage of the SPEED Act, more firm guidelines on NEPA, ESA and CWA documentation and process thereby reducing the potential for litigation in properly conducted environmental impact reviews. Full text HERE.
• Support for Workforce development funding supporting career and technical education through versatility in Pell Grants allowing them to be used for trade schools and skilled workforce readiness programs. As well as immigration reform to provide more employment based visas. Full text HERE.
• Maintaining materials neutrality- let the engineers and experts decide what is best for each project based on performance backed research, which allows for innovation and cost effectiveness. Full text HERE.

• In 2023, CalCIMA first raised concerns about permitting backlog and staffing during a meeting with BAAQMD senior leadership; 
• Since then, we have maintained ongoing communication with District staff, offering technical expertise, data-driven suggestions, and open dialogue to find solutions; 
• We hosted hands-on trainings for BAAQMD permit engineers at member facilities including asphalt operations at Graniterock in San Leandro and aggregate operations at Vulcan Materials in Pleasanton to provide direct insight into how materials facilities operate and how permits intersect with real-world practices; and
• We engaged in dialogue on the District's permitting handbook, providing input to ensure it reflects practical, consistent guidance that supports both regulatory standards and operational feasibility.

CalCIMA-Sponsored Legislation Passes to the Floor 

Wildfire Legislation Advances

Legislation Amending Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act Passes

CalCIMA-opposed Water Permitting Bill Halted, Made 2-Year Bill

Workplace Surveillance Bill Undermining Worker Safety Scope Narrowed

• Confusion over how compliance failures are determined under CTC particularly regarding malfunction indicator lamps (MILs) and non-critical vs. critical codes;
• The operational and financial strain of quarterly testing, particularly for rural or distributed fleets;
• The need for alignment between DMV registration deadlines and emissions test timelines;
• Uncertainty following CARB's planned repeal of the ACF rule's ‘High Priority Fleet' and ‘Drayage' components, and what this means for zero emission vehicle (ZEV) purchases already made that have not taken delivery; and
• A lack of clarity regarding CARB's next steps for the ACF and ACT rules, in addition to other current and future programs affecting diesel and ZEV market access.

Your Participation Matters at CARB's ZEV Forward Public Dialogue

• For 2026 reports of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, companies may submit data based on information they already have or are already collecting.
• CARB will not penalize incomplete reports as long as companies show good faith efforts to comply and retain relevant emissions data from their prior fiscal year.
• This flexibility only applies to the first reporting cycle; enforcement expectations will tighten in future years.
  

Deadlines are fixed in statute:

• SB 253: Scope 1 and 2 emissions must be reported in 2026; Scope 3 in 2027
• SB 261: Climate-related financial risk disclosures are due January 1, 2026.

Regulations will define key mechanics:

• Reporting dates, platforms, formats, and verification requirements will all be set in CARB's formal rulemaking later this year.
• Fees and enforcement procedures will also be detailed in regulation.

Definitions of “doing business” and “revenue” are clarified in the FAQ. These criteria determine which companies are subject to the laws and were a major source of delay—especially for SB 261. CARB's guidance now makes it clear that companies meeting these thresholds should prepare to report.

SB 261 may move faster: Because it permits reporting using the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) or a similar framework, companies can use existing models, and CARB is signaling that it expects submissions in 2026, regardless of regulation timing.

CARB will allow “good faith” first-year compliance for SB 253 reporters, based on its December 2024 Enforcement Notice.

• Build internal recordkeeping and reporting systems.
• Begin climate risk reporting under SB 261 using a TCFD-style framework.
• Scope assurance options for emissions data required by SB 253.
• Engage in CARB's rulemaking process, with final regulations expected by the end of 2025.
• Monitor chamber lawsuit on SB 253/SB261 which could impact reporting obligations

Table 1 – Key Information on CARB July 9th FAQ

Table 2:  SB 253 and SB 261 Overview

1. Submittal of Type III Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) or similar data
2. Report data to CARB, beginning in 2026, that products are meeting the carbon reduction targets

• The U.S. EPA's Environmentally-Extended Input Output (USEEIO) Models for materials. It collects and collates average emissions data for materials from a variety of data sources, or
• A combination of industry average data from EPDs and life cycle assessment (LCA). For LCAs, they are considering whether to focus only on the manufacturing phase or all phases of a materials' use and life.
• Each has advantages and disadvantages. The USEEIO models provide a broader look and consistency among the variety of building materials being considered, whereas EPDs and LCA provide more of a realistic picture of what is actually happening at plants in California.

• One is to request EPDs, but ask for ones that are updated every 2 years (compared to the current 5 years), focus on specific emissions of interest, and that use CARB-approved emissions factors.
• The other is simply to develop their own criteria for manufacturers to report energy use; material inputs, output, and quantities; and total facility carbon emissions.

• AB 982 (Carrillo) – CalCIMA-sponsored bill to extend the life of idle mines sailed through the Assembly (78–1) on June 2. It is now in the Senate awaiting referral to committee.
• SB 526 (Menjivar) – A bill targeting aggregate facilities with unfeasible dust mitigation mandates by revising South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1157, this problematic piece of legislation is a top priority for CalCIMA due to concerns of its impact to our industry. After extensive work in the Capitol and leading an opposition coalition – which included our labor partners – the author agreed to park the bill in the Assembly while she continues to work with South Coast Air Quality Management District to address the dust issue in her community. The bill passed the Senate with a number of democrats staying off or voting no following CalCIMA's initial lobbying. 
• AB 978 (Hoover) – Supported by CalCIMA and sponsored by Granite Construction, this bill faced early hurdles with concerns voiced by local governments but, after taking amendments, the bill passed the Assembly easily and with no opposition. This week the bill also passed a policy committee hearing in the Senate unanimously. CalCIMA continues to work closely with the sponsor and met repeatedly with the Senate Transportation Committee to support its recent passage. 
• AB 1425 (Arambula) – This bill sought to prohibit “pit dewatering” anywhere the San Joaquin River Parkway's groundwater lay within 50 feet of the surface—an overly restrictive carve-out that would have effectively shut down responsible water management at several key aggregate operations along the San Joaquin River. CalCIMA's early and vocal opposition—emphasizing that existing CEQA mitigations under the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan already strike the proper balance between resource protection and infrastructure needs—was instrumental in this bill's failure to pass its first policy committee.

• Wildfires: Following the LA fires in January, CalCIMA began taking a more active role in wildfire policy, and began working with our industry partners to launch BuildingWithResilience.com. CalCIMA is also supporting key wildfire legislation, namely AB 1 (Connolly) and SB 616 (Rubio). AB 1 Requires the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to consider whether to update the Safer from Wildfires regulations to include certain building hardening measures by 2030 and every 5 years thereafter. SB 616 creates an independent Community Hardening Commission within the Department of Insurance, with the goals of developing a unified and centralized fire mitigation standard for all levels of government across the state, as well as generating guidelines to enable the creation of a wildfire data sharing Platform. Both bills passed unanimously and are currently in the second house awaiting referral.
• Transportation: Working closely with our partners at Transportation California (TC), we've been at the table with Assemblymember Lori Wilson and Senate leadership to explore alternative transportation-funding models. While legislation is not moving this year, our efforts continue and Assemblymember Wilson – as Chair of Assembly Transportation Committee – continues to be our champion and is planning to hold informational hearings in the summer. At the top of the state budget agenda is leveraging the Administration's desire to create a statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) mitigation bank to fund transit-oriented development for prudent reforms to how the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) implements VMT analysis and mitigation (pursuant to SB 743, 2013). TC is also advocating for high-speed rail and transit capital and operations funding as part of the state budget process as the Governor submitted a partial plan for the extension of, and expenditure of funds from, the state's Cap-and-Trade program. TC and CalCIMA are also supporting AB 697 (Wilson) which would facilitate cost-effective and environmentally beneficial improvements along the State Route 37 corridor by allowing projects to proceed under the California Endangered Species Act permitting process, and AB 289 (Haney) which would authorize Caltrans to establish a five-year work zone speed safety pilot program to enforce speeding violations in highway maintenance and construction work zones using speed safety systems. CalCIMA CEO Robert Dugan joined Assemblymember Haney at a press conference to promote AB 289. 
• Private right of action: CalCIMA joined the CalChamber-led coalition in opposing SB 310 (Wiener), which aimed to create a new private right of action for wage and hour penalties, undermining last year's PAGA reforms. The coalition was able to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote and it was moved to the inactive file. The author of AB 1331 (Elhawary), an overly broad bill limiting workplace surveillance in off-duty areas that would have created a new private right of action, ultimately agreed to remove the private right of action in order to pass the bill off the Assembly floor. 
• Environment: Despite the ostensible focus on affordability pronounced by legislators at the start of the year, legislation on water and the environment that would increase costs in California were introduced. A bill opposed by CalCIMA and AGC, SB 755 (Stern) would have required state contractors to annually report their emissions and climate-related financial risk. This bill was held in Senate Appropriations. AB 1313 (Papan) would have created an entirely new stormwater permitting process for all commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) facilities, which the costs to comply with would have likely ranged from tens of thousands to millions of dollars for each property owner. CalCIMA joined a coalition in opposition and were able to prevent this bill from coming up for a vote on the floor after it was moved to the inactive file.