SB 639 California Senate · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Zoning: Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.

Summary

Existing law requires each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan relative to the data and analysis contained in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, as specified and to amend its zoning ordinance consistent with the general plan. Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from entering into a development agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress on construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the urban level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas intended to be protected by the system, which, except as provided, shall be achieved by 2025 for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees. Existing law similarly prohibits each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. Existing law similarly requires the legislative body of each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to deny approval of a tentative map or a parcel map for a subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone after the amendments described above are complete unless the city or county makes a specified finding. Among the possible findings, is that the local flood agency has made adequate progress toward the urban level of flood protection as described above. This bill would include in the exceptions to the requirement that the urban level of flood protection be achieved for urban and urbanizing areas protected by project levees by 2025, specified areas located in the City of Marysville, the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yuba that shall, instead, be required to achieve the urban level of flood protection by 2030. The bill would authorize the Department of Water Resources to require a city or county listed above to contribute its fair and reasonable share of any property damage caused by a flood in its respective jurisdiction, as specified, until the city or county finds the area has met the urban level of flood protection. The bill would make a related technical change. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Sacramento, County of Sutter, County of Yuba, City of Marysville, and City of Sacramento.

Issues: ✗ Housing

Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared

Introduction

Feb 2025

Committee Review

Aug 2025

Senate Passage

May 2025

Assembly Passage

Sep 2025

Signed into Law

Oct 2025

Introduced Feb 20, 2025 Signed Oct 13, 2025

Maddy AI version diff · 7 comparisons

What changed between versions

07/08/25 - Amended Assembly → 07/17/25 - Amended Assembly · 5 edits · Jul 17, 2025

MODERATE

This amendment primarily corrects numerous drafting errors and consolidates definitions in Section 65962.4, but also makes two substantive changes: it shifts authority for determining when flood protection is met from the 'local flood management agency' to the 'city or county,' and it resolves a conflict in the Beach Lake subarea boundary definition by adopting the Sutterville Road/city limits/Highway 99 boundaries over the previously conflicting Meadowview Road/Freeport Boulevard/Beach Lake Levee/Morrison Creek boundaries.

REQUIREMENT

The trigger for when a city or county's obligation to contribute flood damage costs ends changes from 'until the local flood management agency attains the urban level of flood protection' to 'until the city or county finds that the area has met the urban level of flood protection as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 65007.' This shifts the determination authority from the flood management agency to the local government itself and adds a specific statutory definition reference.

DEFINITION

The Beach Lake subarea of the City of Sacramento boundary is now defined as bounded on the north by Sutterville Road, on the west and south by the city limits, and on the east by Highway 99. The prior version contained a conflicting definition using Meadowview Road, Freeport Boulevard, Beach Lake Levee, and Morrison Creek.

The Natomas subarea definition is consolidated into a single entry covering all three geographic portions (City of Sacramento, unincorporated County of Sacramento, and unincorporated County of Sutter) rather than having separate definitions in different parts of the section. The term 'Natomas Basin subarea' is also corrected to 'Natomas subarea.'

TECHNICAL

Numerous drafting errors are corrected throughout: redundant jurisdiction names (e.g., 'the City of Sacramento or Marysville, the City of Sacramento'), duplicate paragraph references ('(3) (3)'), grammatical errors in the legislative findings section ('is are' to 'are', 'its their' to 'their'), and a stray word 'Sacramento' after 'County of.'

The definition structure in Section 65962.4 is reorganized from a split format (separate paragraphs b, c, d for individual definitions followed by a second set in paragraph c) into a single consolidated definitions paragraph (c) with numbered items.

05/06/25 - Amended Senate → 07/08/25 - Amended Assembly · 8 edits · Jul 8, 2025

MODERATE

The Assembly amendment significantly expands the geographic scope of SB 639, adding the City of Marysville (Yuba County), unincorporated Sutter County, and additional unincorporated Sacramento County areas to the list of locations that get a 2030 deadline for achieving urban-level flood protection instead of 2025. It also broadens which local governments can be held financially liable for property damage from floods caused by unreasonable development approvals, and removes the fixed 2030 end date on that liability in favor of an open-ended standard tied to when flood protection is actually achieved.

SCOPE

The City of Marysville, protected by the Marysville Ring Levee in Yuba County, is added as a new area that must achieve urban-level flood protection by 2030 instead of 2025.

The Beach Lake subarea of the unincorporated area of Sacramento County is added as a new area with the 2030 deadline.

The Natomas Basin subarea now includes portions in unincorporated Sutter County (bounded by the Sacramento River, Natomas Cross Canal, Pleasant Grove Creek Canal or Steelhead Creek, and the American River), expanding beyond just unincorporated Sacramento County.

The legislative findings section is expanded to declare a special statute necessary for the County of Sutter, County of Yuba, and City of Marysville in addition to the previously listed County and City of Sacramento.

ELIGIBILITY

The liability provision is expanded so that the City of Marysville, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yuba can now be required to contribute their fair and reasonable share of flood property damage, in addition to the City and County of Sacramento.

TIMELINE

The fixed end date for local government liability (December 31, 2030) is removed. Liability now continues until the local flood management agency attains urban-level flood protection or the city or county finds the area has met that standard.

DEFINITION

The definition of the Beach Lake subarea within the City of Sacramento is changed from being bounded by Meadowview Road, Freeport Boulevard, Beach Lake Levee, and Morrison Creek to being bounded by Sutterville Road, city limits, and Highway 99 - a different geographic area.

New definitions are added for the Beach Lake subarea of unincorporated Sacramento County and for the City of Marysville (defined by its 2021-29 General Plan Housing Element Update adopted November 16, 2021).

02/20/25 - Introduced → 04/02/25 - Amended Senate · 8 edits · Apr 2, 2025

MODERATE

The Senate amendment significantly expands SB 639 by adding a new Water Code provision (Section 8307) that creates a framework for requiring cities and counties to pay their fair share of flood property damage when they unreasonably approve new development in previously undeveloped areas protected by state flood control projects. It also adds a specific authorization for the Department of Water Resources to require Sacramento City or County to contribute to flood damage between 2026 and 2030, and broadens the bill's special statute findings to cover both the City and County of Sacramento.

Scope change

The bill's scope expanded from solely imposing land-use restrictions on development in flood hazard zones to also creating a financial liability mechanism under the Water Code that can require local governments to pay for flood damage they caused by unreasonably approving development. The geographic scope also broadened from the City of Sacramento alone to include the County of Sacramento.

SCOPE

The bill now amends Section 8307 of the Water Code in addition to the Government Code sections, expanding its reach from purely land-use restrictions to a financial liability framework for flood damage.

The new Water Code section does not apply to land or projects for which a development application was submitted before January 1, 2008, creating a clear temporal cutoff.

The legislative findings and declarations were expanded from referencing only the 'City of Sacramento' to 'County of Sacramento and City of Sacramento,' broadening the special statute justification to cover both jurisdictions.

ENFORCEMENT

A new subdivision (e) in Section 65962.4 authorizes the Department of Water Resources to require the City of Sacramento or County of Sacramento to contribute its fair and reasonable share of property damage caused by a flood between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2030, if the city or county unreasonably approved new development in the Natomas subarea, Beach Lake subarea, or Natomas Basin portions.

REQUIREMENT

New Section 5 amends Water Code Section 8307 to establish that a city or county may be required to contribute its fair and reasonable share of flood property damage when it has increased the state's exposure to liability by unreasonably approving new development in a previously undeveloped area protected by a state flood control project. A city or county is exempt from contribution if it complies with the land-use restrictions in Sections 65865.5, 65962, and 66474.5.

DEFINITION

The new Water Code section defines 'state flood control project' (Sacramento River Flood Control Project and related watershed projects), 'undeveloped area' (agricultural or open space land not designated for development as of January 1, 2008), 'unreasonably approving' (approving without considering known flood risks or taking feasible mitigation action), and 'feasible' (capable of being accomplished within a reasonable period considering economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors).

FISCAL

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the amendment triggers a fiscal impact review due to the new potential liability obligations.

TECHNICAL

Fixed duplicate statutory cross-references (e.g., 'Sections 65962.1 and 65962.2, 65962.1, 65962.2' corrected to 'Sections 65962.1, 65962.2, and 65962.4') and removed a redundant 'which' before 'that will result in flood protection.'

Floor votes · Senate May 15, 2025 · Assembly Sep 3, 2025

How they voted

34–0

Passed · 6 other

Total votes 40

May 15, 2025

D Democratic30

26 Yea 4

86% Yea

R Republican10

8 Yea 2

80% Yea

Vote distribution

All Yea All Nay Mixed No data

Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions

Key actions

Committee

Amendments

Oct 13, 2025

Signed into law

Approved by the Governor.

legislature

Sep 8, 2025

Upper · Passed

Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2606.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

upper

Sep 3, 2025

Introduced

In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

upper

Sep 3, 2025

Lower · Passed

Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 2869.) Ordered to the Senate.

lower

Aug 29, 2025

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (August 29).

lower

Jul 17, 2025

Lower · Passed

Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

lower

Jul 16, 2025

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (July 15).

lower

Jul 8, 2025

Lower · Passed

From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on W. P., & W.

lower

Jun 16, 2025

Committee

Referred to Com. on W. P., & W.

lower

May 15, 2025

Upper · Passed

Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 1091.) Ordered to the Assembly.

upper

May 12, 2025

Upper · Passed

From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.

upper

May 6, 2025

Upper · Passed

From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

upper

Apr 30, 2025

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 969.) (April 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

upper

Apr 17, 2025

Upper · Passed

May 7 hearing postponed by committee.

upper

Apr 8, 2025

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 708.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

upper

Apr 2, 2025

Upper · Passed

From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on N.R. & W.

upper

Mar 5, 2025

Committee

Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and L. GOV.

upper

Feb 20, 2025

Introduced

Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

upper

1 primary · 0 co-sponsors