en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

Reliable historical references on Jews in Saint Petersburg contradict the claim that Jews there were required to practice Russian Orthodoxy.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica entry on Saint Petersburg describes a longstanding Jewish community in the city: Jews laid the foundations of a permanent community there in 1802, maintained a prayer house, and eventually completed a central synagogue in 1893. That would not have been possible if Jews in Saint Petersburg had been required to practice Russian Orthodoxy.

A separate historical overview of Jews in Russia explains that, under Russian law, Jews were defined by religious confession and that there was not a sustained, coordinated policy of converting all Jews to Russian Orthodoxy (aside from pressures on some army recruits). In other words, Jews in imperial Russia—and specifically in Saint Petersburg—were often restricted in where they could live and subject to discrimination, but they were not categorically required to become Russian Orthodox Christians.

So the sentence confuses severe residence/legal restrictions on Jews with a blanket requirement of Orthodox religious practice.

The sentence makes two factual errors about the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000.

1. The Act did not create the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The text of Public Law 106-506 itself states, in its congressional findings, that the federal government had already established the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in 1973. The 2000 law provided for how that existing unit would be administered; it did not formally create it.

2. The Act did not authorize $900 million in federal spending over ten years. Congressional sources describing the law put the federal authorization at about $300 million over 10 years. The House committee report says the bill would authorize $301 million total: $200 million over 10 years for federal-land projects and $101 million over 10 years for payments to local governments for related activities on nonfederal lands. A CRS report similarly summarizes the 2000 act as authorizing $300 million in federal funds over 10 years.

The "$900 million" figure appears to conflate the broader estimated cost of Lake Tahoe restoration efforts with the federal authorization in this specific act. As written, the sentence inaccurately attributes both the creation of the management unit and the size of the federal authorization to the 2000 law.

This sentence appears to confuse Katherine Feinstein's total time serving on the San Francisco Superior Court with her much shorter time as presiding judge.

Governor Jerry Brown's 2016 appointment announcement says Katherine Feinstein served in several positions at the San Francisco County Superior Court from 2000 to 2013, including presiding judge, assistant presiding judge, supervising judge, and trial judge. That means her court service lasted roughly 13 years, but not all of it was as presiding judge.

Contemporaneous reporting from 2010 says she was elected to serve as presiding judge for a two-year term beginning on January 1, 2011. So the claim that she was presiding judge "for 12 years, through 2012" is incorrect: the 12-year figure refers roughly to her broader tenure on the court, not to the presiding-judge post.