Store Research
ASSEMBLY BILL 1258 (WARREN – 1976)
CHAPTER 176, STATUTES OF 1976
Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-530-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available. Please Note: Governor files did not exist prior to 1943.
The Z’berg-Warren-Keene-Collier Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 was enacted following legislative passage of Assembly Bill 1258. (See Exhibit A, #1i and #15, document PE-6) Assembly member Edwin L. Z’berg introduced Assembly Bill 1258 on March 20, 1975. (See Exhibit A, #1a) Support for the bill was received from the Department of Finance, the California Forest Protective Association, and the Sierra Club, among others. (See Exhibit A, #15, document PE-1) The United States Forest Service voiced opposition to the legislation. (See Exhibit A, #15, document PE-1) The author, Assembly member Z’berg, passed away during the 1975-76 legislative session, so on January 12, 1976, Assembly member Charles Warren took over as lead author of this measure. (See Exhibit A, #1d)
Assembly Bill 1258 was assigned to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation for consideration of its policy issues. (See Exhibit A, #3) After approval by that Committee, the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means considered its fiscal ramifications. (See Exhibit A, #5) The Assembly amended the bill on April 30 and May 8, 1975 and January 12 and January 22, 1976. (See Exhibit A, #1b through #1e and #2) Assembly Bill 1258 was approved by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate on January 26, 1976. (See Exhibit A, #2)
While in the Senate, the Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard the policy issues of the measure. (See Exhibit A, #8) Subsequent to approval by that Committee, Assembly Bill 1258 was assigned to the Senate Committee on Finance which considered its fiscal implications. (See Exhibit A, #2) Three amendments were made to Assembly Bill 1258 by the Senate, on March 18, April 19, and May 12, 1976. (See Exhibit A, #1f through #1h and #2) The Senate voted to pass the bill, and it was returned to the Assembly on May 20, 1976. (See Exhibit A, #2)
The Assembly approved the Senate amendments and forwarded Assembly Bill 1258 to the Governor on May 22, 1976. Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed the bill on May 23, 1976, and Assembly Bill 1258 was recorded by the Secretary of State on May 24, 1976 as Chapter 176 of the Statutes of 1976. (See Exhibit A, #1i and #2) The bill contained an urgency clause in Section 23 of the chaptered version, which caused Assembly Bill 1258 to become effective immediately upon enactment. (See Exhibit A, #1i, pages 351 and 352)
The Legislative Analyst prepared an analysis of Assembly Bill 1258 as amended January 12, 1976 that described the bill as modifying “extensively the present bases for taxing timber and timberlands.” (See Exhibit A, #10a, page 1)
As you go through the materials, you will see that the effort which resulted in the enactment of Assembly Bill 1258 commenced as early as 1973 after a study team from the University of California at Davis concluded that existing tax policies were contrary to good forestry management policies. (See Exhibit B, #1) We include this 1973 proposal along with other background materials leading up and subsequent to the introduction of Assembly Bill 1258. (See, generally, Exhibit B)
The purpose of Assembly Bill 1258 as ultimately enacted was set forth in the Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis prepared by the Assembly Office of Research as follows:
The general purpose of this bill is to implement an alternative system of forest taxation which will encourage, rather than discourage, good forest practices. Proponents of the measure argue that the existing system encourages undesirable practices, such as the cutting of immature timber and cutting in exempt residual stands intended for reseeding and soil protection. In addition, the yield tax is reputed to be fairer to small timber owners than the present ad valorem system.
(See Exhibit A, #13, page 2)