|
Prepared by Precision Advocacy
With just days remaining before the legislature adjourns for the year on August 31, Sacramento has entered the final days of the 2025-26 legislative session. Negotiations are continuing on several major end-of-session issues, including the wildfire liability package, where recent legislative counterproposals have moved in a more favorable direction for Orange County, but significant details remain unresolved and final bill language has not yet been released.
This report provides an update on those negotiations, as well as recent legislative and budget developments with particular relevance to Orange County. It includes a summary of the legislature’s oversight hearing on California’s pesticide regulatory program and its connection to concerns in Ladera Ranch, as well as an overview of the Legislative Analyst’s Office assessment of the enacted 2026-27 state budget, including implications of H.R. 1 for county health and human services programs. As the session concludes, attention will increasingly turn from legislative negotiations to the governor’s action on measures sent to his desk and preparation for the 2027-28 budget and legislative cycle.
Wildfire Liability End-of-Session Package
Wildfire liability negotiations have moved substantially over the last several days, and the direction is more favorable to Orange County than the governor’s original proposal. Both the Assembly and Senate have now developed counterproposals that reject several of the provisions of greatest concern to counties. However, there is still no final agreement and no public legislative language. Negotiations are occurring at the leadership level among the governor, Senate, and Assembly, with the legislature facing an extremely compressed timeline.
The practical deadline is now Friday, August 28. Because legislation generally must be in print for 72 hours before a vote, failure to reach agreement and publish language by Friday would make passage before the August 31 adjournment extremely difficult. As of today, neither the governor nor legislative leaders have released the actual bill text.
Local government Infrastructure Recovery. The governor’s original proposal would have limited local governments to the depreciated value of destroyed infrastructure rather than the full cost of rebuilding. The Assembly counterproposal expressly rejects that provision, and current reporting indicates lawmakers in both chambers oppose reducing local government recovery. This is consistent with the County’s and local government coalition position that utility-caused disasters should not leave taxpayers responsible for rebuilding public assets. The original county concerns also include recovery of emergency response costs, avoiding mandatory reliance on FEMA, and preserving recovery for lost tax revenues. Those issues have not been clearly resolved in the publicly available Assembly or Senate outlines, so they remain important items to review when actual language appears.
Both houses are rejecting elimination of insurance subrogation. The governor proposed substantially restricting or eliminating insurers' ability to recover from utilities after paying wildfire claims. Both the Assembly and Senate appear to favor preserving the existing right of subrogation. The Senate would nevertheless prohibit insurers from selling subrogation rights to hedge funds unless approved by the insurance commissioner. This reduces one potential avenue for shifting utility-caused wildfire costs into California’s already stressed property-insurance market.
The legislature is also pushing back on limits on survivor damages. The governor proposed limiting certain non-economic damages, including a $150,000 cap for some individuals. The Assembly proposal rejects that cap. The Senate takes a somewhat different approach. It would permit claims by people outside the immediate wildfire area but require those plaintiffs to meet a higher evidentiary standard establishing that the wildfire caused their harm.
Utility accountability provisions appear likely to survive and may become stronger. There is significant agreement around restricting utility executive bonuses following serious utility-caused fires and increasing shareholder-funded penalties for safety violations. The Senate proposal reportedly goes further by requiring closer CPUC scrutiny of utility spending and profits and requiring consideration of tying rate increases to inflation. Senate proponents estimate the latter could produce more than $2 billion annually in ratepayer savings, although the actual statutory mechanism is pending.
Restrictions on attorneys' fees and claim trafficking remain part of the discussion. Both houses appear open to limiting some attorneys' fees associated with wildfire litigation, although the Senate proposal would address fees paid by utilities as well as plaintiffs.
At this point, the negotiations are trending in the right direction on the County's most immediate concern – preserving full recovery from utilities for damaged public infrastructure. The Assembly position is particularly clear on this point, and Senate members involved in the negotiations have also publicly expressed opposition to forcing local governments to absorb costs caused by private utilities.
County concerns will remain unresolved until there is actual language. The final package should be reviewed specifically to ensure that it:
- Preserves full replacement-cost recovery for public infrastructure, without depreciation limits or other indirect caps;
- Preserves recovery of fire suppression, emergency response and mutual-aid costs;
- Does not require counties to rely primarily on FEMA or other uncertain federal reimbursement;
- preserves the ability to recover lost property tax or other public revenues attributable to a utility-caused catastrophe; and
- Does not create new Wildfire Fund priority, offset, causation or damages provisions that effectively subordinate public-agency claims even if an explicit local-government cap has been removed.
Joint Oversight Hearing on California’s Pesticide Regulatory Program
On August 11, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee held a joint oversight hearing titled “Putting Public Protection First: Is California’s Pesticide Program Achieving its Purpose?” The hearing, chaired by Senator Catherine Blakespear and Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-X), examined the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) progress in protecting public health and the environment, implementing recent reforms, transitioning toward sustainable pest management (SPM), and overseeing pesticide enforcement by county agricultural commissioners (CACs). The hearing came two years after passage of AB 2113, three years after release of the state’s SPM Roadmap, and nearly a decade after the last major legislative oversight hearing on DPR. A separate State Auditor review of the relationship between DPR and CACs is also underway.
Ladera Ranch. The hearing has relevance for Orange County because Senator Blakespear opened her remarks by discussing Ladera Ranch and recent cases of rare childhood cancer in the community. Blakespear emphasized that no cause has been established and that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is currently investigating whether environmental factors may be associated with the cases. According to Blakespear, CDPH expects to complete its report this fall. She noted that she, Assemblymember Sanchez, Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, and a representative of Congressman Mike Levin recently met with CDPH and urged the department to conduct a comprehensive investigation and make the process transparent and accessible to the community.
Blakespear specifically acknowledged community concerns regarding pesticides and herbicides, while cautioning that there has been no determination that pesticide exposure is associated with the Ladera Ranch cases. She nevertheless pointed to integrated and sustainable pest management as precautionary approaches that communities can consider as California works to reduce reliance on higher-risk chemicals.
That distinction is important when reviewing the health research presented at the hearing. The studies discussed by researchers largely involve agricultural communities with substantially different exposure circumstances than Ladera Ranch; they provide evidence regarding pesticide exposure and potential health risks but do not establish an explanation for the Orange County cancer cases.
Health Research and Exposure Monitoring. The first panel focused on pesticides, human health, and California’s regulatory system. Dr. Ana Maria Mora of UC Berkeley discussed findings from CHAMACOS, a long-running study of 601 Salinas Valley farmworker families that has followed children from pregnancy into adulthood and collected more than 400,000 biological samples. The accompanying research summary reports widespread organophosphate exposure among participants and associations between prenatal exposure and a range of reproductive, neurological, developmental, and respiratory outcomes. It also notes that children may be particularly vulnerable because they are less efficient than adults at metabolizing organophosphates.
Mora argued that California’s pesticide-use reporting system is unusually comprehensive but measures where chemicals are applied rather than what ultimately enters people’s bodies. She recommended ongoing biomonitoring, linking pesticide-use data to birth, developmental, school and cancer-registry data, examining cumulative and combined exposures, and providing additional protections around homes, schools and child-care facilities.
This issue could become particularly relevant to Orange County as the Ladera Ranch investigation proceeds. During questioning, DPR acknowledged that it does not conduct human biomonitoring itself. The department relies on other state programs for some of that work and uses measures such as air monitoring as proxies for potential exposure. Director Morrison expressed support for exploring better ways to identify actual exposure and connect those findings to health risks and possible mitigation.
Questions About Who Is Responsible for Local Enforcement. A major theme throughout the hearing was the division of responsibility between DPR and CACs. California essentially operates a two-tier system. DPR registers and evaluates pesticides and establishes statewide requirements, while CACs implement and enforce many of those requirements locally, including issuing permits for restricted materials and evaluating proposed applications based on local conditions.
The committee background paper makes an important point for Orange County – CACs enforce state pesticide laws under DPR’s direction and supervision, while state law generally preempts cities and counties from separately regulating pesticide registration, sale, transportation or use. Thus, the Orange CAC is particularly important when residents raise concerns about compliance, pesticide drift, restricted material permits or other matters governed by state pesticide law.
Frontline community witnesses argued that the respective responsibilities of DPR and county commissioners are not always clear to members of the public and that implementation can vary substantially between counties. Assemblymember Diane Dixon echoed concerns about overlapping responsibilities and said clearer lines of authority and follow-up could be helpful. Connolly noted that these questions are among the subjects of the ongoing State Auditor review.
The committee backgrounder likewise cites a 2023 U.S. EPA Region 9 audit that found inconsistencies among county pesticide investigations and enforcement decisions. The pending state audit is examining DPR oversight of county enforcement, including restricted-material permitting, evaluations of alternatives, and the activities of pest control advisers.
County Agricultural Commissioners: More Resources and Local Flexibility. Representing CACs, the Nevada County Agricultural Commissioner emphasized that county staff issue restricted-material permits, inspect applications and businesses, investigate illnesses and drift complaints, respond to emergencies, collect pesticide-use information, and take enforcement action. He argued that counties provide critical local knowledge regarding weather, nearby communities, environmentally sensitive areas, water resources and other site-specific conditions.
At the same time, county commissioners cautioned that responsibilities have grown faster than resources. Their recommendations included stable state funding for county pesticide programs, earlier county involvement in developing new policies, adequate training and technology support, realistic implementation timelines, and continued state-local collaboration. They also argued against a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to account for differences in geography, crops, staffing and community needs.
For Orange County, this portion of the hearing may ultimately be as significant as the broader debate over particular pesticides. Any legislative or regulatory effort to strengthen local inspections, investigations, reporting, community outreach or enforcement could create new workload and funding implications for the County’s Agricultural Commissioner.
Sustainable Pest Management and Safer Alternatives. The hearing also examined implementation of California’s Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) Roadmap, released in 2023. SPM is intended as a broader, whole-system approach that builds on integrated pest management and incorporates human health and social equity, environmental protection, and economic considerations. The Roadmap calls for California, by 2050, to eliminate the use of designated “Priority Pesticides” through a transition to SPM and to make SPM the state’s standard pest-management approach.
There was broad agreement on the goal of reducing risk, but disagreement over the pace and mechanics of the transition. Environmental and community witnesses pressed DPR to move more quickly and questioned whether 2050 is sufficiently ambitious. Agricultural and regulated-industry representatives stressed that growers and other users need viable, effective replacements before higher-risk products are removed and called for faster registration of lower-risk products, greater investment in pest prevention, and financial and technical assistance for farmers transitioning to SPM practices.
This is not exclusively an agricultural issue. The Roadmap specifically contemplates both agricultural and urban pest management, making its implementation potentially relevant to Orange County parks, public facilities, schools, community associations and other managed landscapes.
DPR’s Response and AB 2113 Implementation. DPR presented the hearing as evidence that significant reforms are already underway. AB 2113 and the 2024-25 budget provided DPR with 120 additional permanent positions, representing roughly a 25% expansion, along with increased funding through the pesticide mill assessment. DPR said the resources have allowed it to reduce scientific-review backlogs, modernize registration through the CalPEST electronic system, expand research and grants, establish new advisory bodies, and accelerate reevaluations.
DPR reported that its registration process is now moving approximately twice as fast for most products and four times as fast for complex new-active-ingredient reviews, while maintaining scientific review standards. The department has also created the Scientific Prioritization and Review Committee to help determine where risk-evaluation resources should be focused.
On enforcement, DPR said it oversees 55 CACs serving all 58 counties and approximately 500 local inspectors. DPR evaluates each county pesticide program at least once every three years and conducts more than 400 oversight inspections annually. The department is also updating enforcement-response regulations, particularly for repeat or egregious violations, and has received new authority allowing some pesticide-use enforcement cases to be handled at the state level, including cases involving repeat violations across multiple counties.
Additional Considerations. Assemblymember Dixon raised another issue likely relevant to Orange County’s predominantly urban and suburban setting – residents often have difficulty translating statewide pesticide-use information into an understandable picture of what is being used near a particular home or community. Witnesses acknowledged that California has substantial pesticide-use data, but that the information can be difficult for residents to interpret at a localized level.
DPR’s SprayDays California system is intended to improve advance public notification, but DPR testified that the system applies to scheduled applications of restricted materials requiring permits in production agriculture. It therefore does not appear, based on the hearing materials, to provide a comprehensive notification system for every pesticide or herbicide application in an urban or suburban setting. This distinction may be particularly relevant as Orange County considers concerns involving residential communities such as Ladera Ranch.
Key Issues
- CDPH’s Ladera Ranch investigation, expected this fall, will be the most immediate Orange County-specific development. The hearing did not establish a connection between pesticides and the childhood cancer cases.
- The State Auditor’s DPR/CAC enforcement audit could lead to legislation or regulations clarifying the respective responsibilities of DPR and CACs and potentially imposing new county enforcement, reporting or oversight requirements.
- DPR’s pending enforcement-response regulations could affect the way Orange County investigates violations and assesses or coordinates enforcement actions.
- County funding and staffing could become an issue if the state expands local inspection, community-engagement, notification or enforcement obligations without corresponding resources.
- Urban SPM policies and localized exposure information may receive greater legislative attention, particularly given the Ladera Ranch concerns and the hearing’s discussion of the limitations of existing pesticide-use and notification data.
- The 2050 SPM timeline and Priority Pesticide strategy are likely to remain active policy debates, with potential implications for both agricultural and nonagricultural pest management in Orange County.
The hearing did not identify a new immediate regulatory requirement for Orange County, but it placed the County squarely within the broader statewide pesticide-policy discussion because of the Ladera Ranch investigation. The most consequential issues for the County are likely to be the pending CDPH findings, the state audit of DPR/county enforcement, potential changes to the role and resources of CACs and increasing state pressure to expand sustainable pest management and improve public access to localized pesticide-exposure information.
Background
Legislative Analyst’s Summary of the 2026-27 Budget Act
The Legislative Analyst’s Office’s (LAO’s) August 2026 overview of the enacted 2026-27 state budget highlights a spending plan that benefits from unexpectedly strong recent revenues but remains structurally imbalanced. The report summarizes budget actions adopted through the end of June and is based on the administration’s estimates incorporated into the final budget package.
Overall Budget Condition. The 2026-27 budget includes approximately $252 billion in General Fund spending, $347 billion in total state spending and roughly $539 billion when federal and bond funds are included. General Fund spending increases approximately $6 billion, or 2.5%, from 2025-26.
Despite strong revenues, the state continues to spend more on an ongoing basis than it collects. The administration estimates an $18.5 billion operating deficit in 2026-27, followed by projected deficits of $10.4 billion in 2027-28, $8.7 billion in 2028-29 and $8.3 billion in 2029-30. The enacted budget is balanced largely because it draws down the unusually large balance carried over from 2025-26. The state is expected to end 2026-27 with approximately $19.6 billion in General Fund reserves, while the Safety Net Reserve is fully depleted.
The budget also relies on approximately $14 billion in budget solutions, including reserve actions, borrowing, spending reductions and revenue increases. The LAO estimates the state will have approximately $29.2 billion in outstanding budgetary borrowing by the end of 2026-27.
The immediate budget is considerably stronger than appeared possible earlier in the cycle, but the multiyear outlook remains challenging. The ongoing deficits and reliance on one-time resources and borrowing suggest that county programs dependent on state funding could again face pressure in the 2027-28 budget.
H.R. 1, Medi-Cal, and CalFresh. For Orange County, the most consequential portion of the report is the implementation of federal H.R. 1. The administration estimates that H.R. 1 and related state policy decisions will ultimately result in approximately 1.3 million Medi-Cal disenrollments and 700,000 CalFresh disenrollments statewide through 2029-30.
Importantly for counties, the budget recognizes the substantial administrative workload created by the new eligibility requirements. It provides:
- $197 million General Fund ($709 million total funds) for county Medi-Cal eligibility work; and
- $223 million General Fund ($460 million total funds) for county CalFresh eligibility work.
These are one-time appropriations intended to support county implementation over multiple years.
The state also backfills reductions in federal matching funds for emergency Medi-Cal and CalFresh administration, at an ongoing cost of approximately $1 billion General Fund. However, the budget does not backfill the Medi-Cal coverage or food benefits that will be lost. It instead provides targeted assistance, including $108 million for food banks anticipating increased demand from CalFresh disenrollment.
The report reinforces the County’s concern that H.R. 1 is not simply a state fiscal issue. Although the budget provides meaningful administrative funding, it does not replace lost health coverage or nutrition benefits. Counties will therefore be responsible for implementing more complicated eligibility rules while also managing the downstream effects of disenrollment on the safety net, indigent care, food assistance and other county services.
Medi-Cal and Health Care. Health represents nearly 40% of all new discretionary spending in the budget. Major actions include delaying previously planned reductions to Medi-Cal safety-net clinic payments by $1 billion and dental payments by $258 million, providing $361 million for dental benefits for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, and funding hospital assistance.
The budget provides $365 million one time for hospitals, including $250 million for UC and county hospitals, with another $115 million for financially distressed private nonprofit and public hospitals.
The renewed MCO tax is expected to generate substantially less net funding than the existing tax, approximately $2.3 billion, compared with $7 billion to $8 billion annually under the current structure, and will rely much more heavily on private health-plan enrollment because of new federal Medicaid rules. The budget also shifts $387 million in MCO tax funding to behavioral health and uses $212 million from the Behavioral Health Services Fund to offset other state health expenditures.
Homelessness and Affordable Housing. The final budget significantly increases funding for the seventh round of HHAP. Previous budget action had provided $500 million; the 2026-27 budget adds another $400 million, bringing HHAP Round 7 to $900 million. At the same time, the state imposes additional accountability requirements, including a local matching requirement that applies to participating cities and the counties in which those cities are located, as well as the requirement for a prohousing designation.
Affordable housing investments include:
- $200 million one time for the Multifamily Housing Program;
- $500 million in state Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, in addition to roughly $135 million otherwise required; and
- Streamlined access to federal tax credits for projects selected through the new Housing Development and Finance Committee.
The report also notes that ongoing Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding will be substantially lower than in prior years.
Local Revenue. Beginning January 1, 2027, the budget extends the sales tax to many purchases of prewritten digital software. The administration estimates the change will generate $560 million in local sales tax revenue during the first half-year and approximately $1.1 billion annually thereafter statewide, in addition to General Fund revenue.
This represents a potentially meaningful new source of local sales tax revenue, although the LAO report does not provide an Orange County-specific estimate or specify how much would accrue to the County versus cities and other local entities.
Courts, Climate, and Other Local Programs. The budget includes $2.1 billion for courthouse construction, modifications, deferred maintenance and new judgeships, including $150 million for deferred maintenance and $100 million in 2026-27 to support 13 new judgeships and related facility modifications.
The budget also directs approximately $372 million in projected cap-and-invest funding to continuously appropriated programs that include local transit, safe drinking water, and forest health. It provides an additional $150 million General Fund for the Community Air Protection Program. These statewide investments could create opportunities for Orange County and regional agencies, although the report does not identify county-specific allocations.
The LAO report confirms that the 2026-27 budget provides considerably more near-term funding than might be expected from a state facing an ongoing structural deficit. For Orange County, the most important positive elements are the county administrative funding for H.R. 1 implementation, HHAP augmentation, preservation of key Medi-Cal provider funding, hospital assistance, housing funding and potential new local sales tax revenue.
At the same time, the report underscores the larger concern facing the County going forward: the state is funding the transition to H.R. 1 but is not fully funding its consequences. Significant Medi-Cal and CalFresh disenrollment is still anticipated, and lost benefits are largely not backfilled. Combined with persistent state operating deficits and substantial outstanding borrowing, this makes the 2027-28 budget a significant risk point for county health, human services, homelessness, and other safety-net programs.
Grant Opportunities
Below is a list of the latest grant opportunities released by the state. All opportunities for local jurisdictions may be found here.
Expected Award Announcement: 06/30/2027
Title: Flood Partnership: Real-time Data Grant Program
State Agency / Department: Department of Water Resources
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $3,500,000
Funding Method: Reimbursement(s)
Application Deadline: 9/21/26 09:00
Title:2027 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
State Agency / Department: CA Department of Food and Agriculture
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $28,000,000
Funding Method: Advances & Reimbursement(s)
Governor’s Press Releases
Below is a list of the governor’s press releases beginning August 19.
August 26: Governor Newsom awards $48.5 million to drive economic growth and advance innovation across the state, supporting the creation of 20,000 new jobs
August 25: Governor Newsom announces appointments 8.25.2026
- Cynthia Stein, of Piedmont, has been appointed General Counsel at the California Housing and Homelessness Agency
- Nicole Richardson, of San Ramon, has been appointed Administrative Director of the Division of Workers Compensation at the Department of Industrial Relations
- Sherri Sarro, of Escondido, has been appointed Deputy Director of Response at the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
August 25: Governor, First Partner statement on the passing of Dolly Parton
August 25: ICYMI: The nation’s economic engine, California, continues to lead in job creation and raising wages
August 25: California becomes first state to offer same-day and ongoing opioid treatment support
August 24: Governor Newsom signs legislation 8.24.2026
August 24: Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 8.24.26
- Heather Durand, of Humboldt County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Humboldt County Superior Court
- Martin Gonzalez, of Imperial County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Imperial County Superior Court
- Kjehl Johansen, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court
- Lindsey Berg-James, of Monterey County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Monterey County Superior Court
- Evan Acker, of San Bernardino County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the San Bernardino County Superior Court.
- William Patrick Dudley, of San Diego County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the San Diego County Superior Court.
- Michael Garabed, of San Diego County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the San Diego County Superior Court.
- Katherine Lucero, of Yolo County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Yolo County Superior Court.
- Binh Dang, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve in an interim appointment as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- Benyomin Forer, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to serve in an interim appointment as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- Candice Henry, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve in an interim appointment as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- Michael Rasmussen, of Sacramento County, has been appointed to serve in an interim appointment as a Judge in the San Joaquin County Superior Court.
August 22: Governor Newsom announces intent for California to sue Trump administration over latest attack on voting; new legislation introduced to defend democracy
August 22: FACTS NOT ON FOX NEWS: California attracts more startup investment than 49 states combined
August 22: Governor Newsom signs legislation 8.22.2026
August 21: Governor Newsom announces appointments 8.21.26
- Mike Marshall, of Sacramento, has been appointed State Chief Information Security Officer at the California Department of Technology.
- William Shafroth, of Santa Barbara, has been appointed to the California State Coastal Conservancy.
- Rita Gallardo Good, of Long Beach, has been reappointed to the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, where she has served since 2023.
- Nisha Devi Rodrigo, of San Francisco, has been reappointed to the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls
- Joelle Gomez, of Stockton, has been reappointed to the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls
August 21: FREE MONEY FOR KIDS: Governor Newsom and First Partner celebrate one million families claim CalKIDS “baby bonds” accounts
August 21: Governor Newsom issues statement on federal Colorado River plan
August 20: Governor Newsom signs legislation 8.20.2026
August 19: Governor Newsom awards $11.3 million to 13 prohousing communities to build more affordable housing
August 19: California sends FREE life-saving asthma inhalers to ALL schools
August 19: Governor Newsom announces appointments 8.19.26
- Ayushi Roy, of San Francisco, has been appointed State Chief Technology Officer at the California Department of Technology
- Eric De La Cruz, of Sacramento, has been appointed Executive Director for the Racial Equity Commission
- Lisa Weiler, of Lakeport, has been appointed to the State Rehabilitation Council
- Christine Aurigemma, of Carlsbad, has been appointed to the State Rehabilitation Council
- Michael Love, of Sacramento, has been reappointed to the State Rehabilitation Council
- Michelle Bello, of Sacramento, has been reappointed to the State Rehabilitation Council where she has served since 2024
- Matthew Asner, of Northridge, has been reappointed to the State Rehabilitation Council
|
