AB 2707 revises Section 501 of the Public Resources Code with nonsubstantive edits to the statutory text establishing the Department of Parks and Recreation. The amendment corrects drafting errors in the existing provision while leaving the department’s structure and governance intact.
Section 501 will continue to place the Department of Parks and Recreation in the Natural Resources Agency and state that the department is conducted under the Director of Parks and Recreation; the bill does not change how the director is appointed, how the director’s salary is set, or the requirement for Senate confirmation. The Digest accompanying the bill classifies the change as nonsubstantive and the measure carries no appropriation or fiscal committee referral.
At a Glance
What It Does
Edits the statutory text of Public Resources Code Section 501 to remove drafting errors and standardize wording; the change is editorial and does not alter statutory duties, appointment authority, or salary references.
Who It Affects
Legal drafters, code editors, state legislative staff, and the agencies responsible for maintaining official code publications; operationally it imposes no new duties on the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Why It Matters
Clean, unambiguous statutory language reduces the risk of clerical misreading and citation errors in legal and administrative contexts, and eases downstream code maintenance and publication work.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill replaces the current text of Section 501 of the Public Resources Code with a corrected version that removes a duplicated word and adjusts punctuation/capitalization so the statute reads cleanly. The amendment is limited to the way the department is described in the code; it does not add, remove, or modify the department’s statutory powers, responsibilities, or internal governance.
Because the edit is textual and editorial, it does not create new regulatory obligations, alter appointment authority, nor change cross-references elsewhere in the code. The bill leaves intact the existing salary reference to the Government Code and the requirement that the director serve at the pleasure of the Governor and be subject to Senate confirmation.Practically, the change will appear as an updated Section 501 in the published code and in online statutory databases.
Agencies and publishers will need to update their copies and citations to reflect the corrected wording, but no implementing regulations, agency rulemaking, or budget actions are necessary to effect the change.The Legislative Counsel’s Digest explicitly characterizes the amendment as nonsubstantive; that label, together with the limited textual nature of the edit, reduces the likely legal significance of the change in litigation or administrative interpretation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2707 amends only Section 501 of the Public Resources Code; it contains a single substantive section titled 'Section 1.', The textual edit removes a duplicated word and standardizes the statute’s phrasing and capitalization rather than altering duties or authorities.
The bill’s Digest describes the change as nonsubstantive; the measure contains no appropriation and did not require fiscal committee referral.
Because the amendment is editorial, it does not require the department to issue new regulations or the Governor to take administrative action.
The measure preserves existing cross-references: the director’s salary remains governed by the referenced chapter of the Government Code.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replace Section 501 with corrected statutory text
This provision substitutes a corrected version of Public Resources Code Section 501 into the code. Mechanically, the text removes a duplicated 'Agency' and tidies punctuation and capitalization so the opening clause reads cleanly. The practical effect is confined to the statutory wording; the substitution does not add or remove legislative commands, duties, or delegated authorities.
Classification as nonsubstantive and procedural notes
The digest explicitly states the amendment is nonsubstantive. That classification matters for interpretation: courts and agencies typically treat labeled editorial amendments as corrections of drafting errors rather than shifts in legislative intent. The digest also records that the bill carries no appropriation and was not referred to the fiscal committee, signaling limited budgetary impact.
No fiscal impact, majority vote
The bill metadata indicates a majority vote is required and that there is no appropriation or fiscal committee consideration. For practical purposes this means the bill follows regular legislative procedure for a non‑budgetary statutory correction and imposes no funding obligations on state or local government entities.
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
- Department of Parks and Recreation — gains cleaner statutory language that reduces the chance of clerical misinterpretation in internal and external documents.
- State code publishers and legal researchers — benefit from a corrected authoritative text that reduces citation errors and simplifies statutory indexing.
- Legislative and agency counsel — face fewer ambiguities when drafting related instruments or advising on statutory meaning, lowering review time for downstream materials.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative staff and the Office of Legislative Counsel — incur minimal drafting and processing time to prepare and move the amendment through standard channels.
- State code publishers and IT maintainers — must update published and online copies of the code and databases to reflect the revised wording (administrative, one-time cost).
- Archival and records offices — update historical records and annotations; cost is administrative and operational rather than budgetary.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate priorities: keeping the statutory code accurate and readable versus using legislative resources efficiently and avoiding inadvertent legal change; editing wording improves clarity but risks either consuming scarce legislative time or, if done carelessly, unintentionally altering substantive law.
Labeling an amendment as 'nonsubstantive' reduces the risk that the change will be treated as altering legal rights or duties, but it does not categorically preclude litigation over meaning. If parties point to the pre‑amendment wording in time‑sensitive matters, courts will look to legislative history and context to decide whether the edit simply corrected a drafting error or reflected a changed understanding.
There is also a practical implementation trade‑off: editorial cleanups require legislative floor time, staff effort, and administrative updates across code publications. Those costs are small here but cumulative if repeated frequently.
Finally, minor textual differences across printed and electronic sources during the update window can create temporary citation confusion for practitioners and courts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.