AB 1999 amends Section 8775 of the California Business and Professions Code to revise the statutory language that governs who may use the titles “photogrammetrist” and “photogrammetric surveyor.” The changes are described in the bill and digest as nonsubstantive edits: the text replaces gendered pronouns with a gender‑neutral form and adjusts the wording around the protected titles.
The amendment does not create a new license, change who is eligible to use the protected titles, or alter the underlying enforcement scheme. Its practical effect is administrative and interpretive: it aims to reduce ambiguity in title protection and update dated drafting, but it will require regulators and licensees to update forms and guidance to match the revised statutory text.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the wording of B&P Code §8775 to modernize pronouns (moving from “he or she” to “they”) and to correct slotting of the words that define who may use the photogrammetry titles. It does not create new licensing categories or expand the set of professionals who may use those titles.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are licensed land surveyors, civil engineers who hold registration, licensed photogrammetric surveyors, and the state licensing board that enforces professional title use. Secondary impacts fall on employers, professional associations, and compliance teams that maintain job titles and public materials.
Why It Matters
Although legally minor, the edits reduce the risk that outdated grammar will generate disputes about title use. For compliance officers and regulators, the bill signals a need to align statutory text, administrative forms, and enforcement policies without expecting material changes to licensing eligibility.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law Section 8775 bars anyone from using the titles “photogrammetrist” or “photogrammetric surveyor” unless they are a registered civil engineer, a licensed land surveyor, or specifically licensed as a photogrammetric surveyor. AB 1999 targets only the statute’s wording: it replaces gendered pronouns with a gender‑neutral singular pronoun and tidies the clause that lists authorized titleholders.
The bill’s digest characterizes these edits as nonsubstantive.
Because the bill does not change the list of authorized titleholders or add a new certification, it imposes no new qualification or examination requirements. Enforcement authority remains where it is now; licensing boards will continue to discipline improper use of the protected titles under the same substantive standard.
Practically, the board and regulated professionals will need to update their published materials to reflect the corrected statutory language.There is a drafting wrinkle in the introduced text: the amendment appears to attempt a straightforward tidy‑up but the printed lines contain duplicated words and punctuation that will require careful proofreading during bill markup and enrollment. That matters only because a supposed ‘‘nonsubstantive’’ edit that contains its own drafting errors can produce interpretive questions — not because the bill intends any substantive change.In short: AB 1999 is a housekeeping bill.
It modernizes statutory language and reduces the chance that gendered phrasing will date the statute, but it preserves existing licensure boundaries and enforcement approaches; the main downstream tasks are administrative updates by the licensing board and license holders.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1999 amends Section 8775 of the California Business and Professions Code — the provision that protects the titles “photogrammetrist” and “photogrammetric surveyor.”, The amendment replaces gendered pronouns (e.g.
“he or she”) with a gender‑neutral form (“they”) in the statutory text.
The bill expressly makes only nonsubstantive changes; it does not add or remove any category of professionals authorized to use the protected titles.
Regulatory impact is administrative: the licensing board and professional organizations will need to update forms, web content, and enforcement guidance to mirror the revised wording.
The introduced text contains a visible drafting glitch (duplicated words and a misordered phrase) that must be fixed in enrollment or subsequent amendments to avoid creating ambiguity.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Modernize pronouns and tidy title‑use clause
This single section revises the statutory sentence that forbids use of the titles “photogrammetrist” or “photogrammetric surveyor” unless the person holds registration as a civil engineer, is a licensed land surveyor, or is licensed as a photogrammetric surveyor. Practically, the provision substitutes a gender‑neutral pronoun and rearranges wording to read more cleanly. The change is framed as editorial: it is intended to update grammar and inclusivity without altering the scope of protected titles.
No new licensing content; administrative updates required
Because the amendment does not create new substantive obligations, there is no new application process, exam, or fee in the text. The Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists (and other affected agencies) will nonetheless need to update statutory citations on forms, guidance documents, online content, and enforcement checklists so the administrative record aligns with the amended text.
Potential ambiguity from drafting errors and how to address it
Although the bill’s intention is non‑substantive, the introduced language contains a duplicated word and punctuation anomalies that could introduce interpretive doubt. The practical fix is ministerial—clean up the enrolled bill language and update the official code text—but until that occurs, enforcement officers and regulated parties may face unnecessary questions about exact wording. The section therefore matters not for policy change but for precise codification.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Licensed land surveyors and registered civil engineers — they retain existing title protections while statutory language becomes more modern and less likely to be misread in administrative or disciplinary contexts.
- Photogrammetric surveyors — clearer, gender‑neutral wording reduces the chance that older phrasing will be used to challenge legitimate title use or to create confusion about professional status.
- Regulatory and licensing staff (Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists) — the bill simplifies public‑facing language and aligns the statute with contemporary drafting norms, which helps communications and compliance outreach.
Who Bears the Cost
- Licensing boards and agencies — small administrative costs to update forms, guidance, websites, and enforcement manuals to reflect the amended text.
- Employers and professional associations — one‑time costs to revise job descriptions, marketing materials, and internal policies that reference statutory titles to match the updated wording.
- Legislative and drafting staff — time and resources to clear up the introduced bill’s drafting glitches during enrollment or subsequent amendment, to ensure the code is free of duplication and ambiguity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between updating statutory language to be clearer and more inclusive and the risk that even editorial edits—or sloppy drafting while attempting them—create new ambiguity that complicates enforcement; improving form can temporarily worsen function unless the clean‑up is executed precisely.
The bill is explicitly framed as nonsubstantive, but that label does not eliminate interpretive risk. Replacing gendered pronouns with singular “they” is ordinarily treated as an editorial modernization, yet in tightly worded statutes even small changes can prompt challenges if opposing parties argue a shift in meaning.
The introduced text’s own duplication and punctuation errors heighten that risk: a housekeeping change that introduces a new ambiguity is self‑defeating unless cleaned up before codification.
Implementation will be straightforward but not automatic. The state board will need to revise administrative materials and may choose to issue guidance clarifying that licensing criteria and enforcement practices remain unchanged.
That guidance will matter because practitioners and employers will rely on it to avoid title misuse allegations. Absent prompt administrative clarification, the only real consequence is increased transaction costs for regulators and regulated entities; the substantive rights and obligations in current law stay the same.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.