1. It perpetrates an outright falsehood, and a potentially expensive one: "The Legislature finds and declares [that] Serpentine contains the deadly mineral chrysotile asbestos, a known carcinogen, exposure to which increases the risk of the cancer mesothelioma." As any geologist will testify, there is no such mineral as "chrysotile asbestos"; neither does serpentinite always contain chrysotile, which is not in itself asbestos. I use the word "testify" because a legislatural finding has legal weight, and the mesothelioma legal industry is both wealthy and running out of legitimate victims to make money from. The old cases of heavy industrial exposure to powdered asbestos are near extinction. New cases will have to come from the far more nebulous situations where people in or near areas of serpentinite will claim damages purely from fear of "asbestos." This is not at all unlikely. The legislature is about to make a mistake it will regret, and only the lawyers will benefit.
2. The state rock is a valuable tool among educators. For background, I can do no better than point you to Garry Hayes' post about serpentinite from last week. The unthinking rejection of the entire concept of a state rock will probably be waved about as an example of simplifying and reforming government. In fact, it is to wipe out one of our roots in the land and a source of state pride. Serpentinite is more than just a rock: it's an entire habitat and a distinctive biome.
As of now, the state senate will undoubtedly pass bill 624 soon, but it still needs to pass the state assembly and be signed by the governor. Surely geologists, landowners and government land agencies have a dog in this fight. I think the people of California do too. For example, see a landowner's viewpoint at the Looking for Detachment blog.