June 9, 2026 · Nat Resources · 9,269 words · 19 speakers · 52 segments
Welcome to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning. It looks like I'm the only one here. We don't need to call the roll, or do we? Nope, we're good. We're going to start as a subcommittee, though, right? Yes. And we have a first presenter. Assemblywoman Aguirre-Curry.
Good morning. Hi, good morning.
And you have, let's see, AB 1987.
That's right.
And you're accepting the amendments.
I am accepting the amendments.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate all the work that the committee has done. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I want to start by thanking the committee for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments today. AB 1987 will help fund our state wildlife areas by making sure the fees they generate support their operation and maintenance. California's wildlife areas provide natural habitat, control flooding, and give the public access to activities like hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and more. These areas generate almost $6 million per year from both hunter fees and agricultural leases. However, these funds are not required to support the wildlife areas where they are generated, even as these areas struggle with staffing and growing cost pressures. By directing these funds back into the lands themselves, this bill will allow wildlife areas to continue protecting our habitats and supporting public access. And I ask for your aye vote. My people are probably stuck in the line, but that's okay.
I can handle this. You can handle it? Okay, so is there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the microphone. State your name and position.
Hi, good morning. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California in support. Thank you. Thank you. Any other witnesses
in support? Are any of these your lead witness? No. I probably have to have my glasses on to tell you if they were. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais, and we will take this up after we have a quorum establish a quorum great thank you very
much for would you like to close yeah I respectfully ask for I vote it's a great program and I'd like to see it continue to make sure that we can have our habitats be strong and healthy and I appreciate your vote in your consideration thank you very much thank you madam leader I see mr. Hart is here
Assemblymember Hart. Good, and proceed when ready, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On January 6, 2025, President Biden issued a memorandum withdrawing all Pacific planning areas from future oil and gas leasing. California was promised the protection of its coastline, ensuring that marine ecosystems remain healthy and protected from the risks of offshore oil spills. Unfortunately, under President Trump's administration, that promise was broken. The Trump administration proposed a 2026-2031 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program that includes 34 potential offshore lease sales. Among them are six proposed lease areas covering California entire coastline where no new offshore oil and gas leases have been issued since the Reagan administration California coast is once again facing the prospect of expanded offshore drilling History has shown us that horrendous risks can follow In 2015 the Refugio oil spill became one of California's most significant environmental disasters. The spill contaminated nearly nine miles of the Gaviota coast, an area renowned for its rich marine biodiversity. The spill harmed marine protected areas, disrupted local businesses and tourism, and cost nearly $300 million dollars in cleanup and litigation. As the federal government considers new offshore leasing opportunities, California must take steps to protect our coastline and coastal communities from similar risks in the future. AB 1448 will protect against expansions of oil and gas leasing and drilling in federal waters by prohibiting the use of existing infrastructure to support new offshore development. The bill will require the State Lands Commission to consider additional environmental and safety factors before the transfer of a lease or changes to existing leases for oil and gas infrastructure. Finally, the bill will prohibit the state from issuing new leases that would facilitate oil and gas production from nearby federal platforms through an extraction process known as slant or directional drilling. AB 1448 is a proactive measure ensuring California has safeguards in place to respond to new offshore drilling before they put our coast at risk. Testifying in support of the bill is Carly Shelby on behalf of the Mayor of Half Moon Bay and Marie Lu on behalf of Oceana.
Due to time constraints, you guys have two or you ladies have two minutes each. Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Carly Shelby on behalf of the City of Half Moon Bay in strong support of this bill. Half Moon Bay is a coastal city whose economy, identity, and quality of life are inextricably linked to the health of California's coastline and ocean resources. The city is home to a thriving visitor economy, a working harbor, commercial fishery operations, recreational opportunities, and sensitive coastal habitats that attract residents and visitors from across the state. For communities like Half Moon Bay, the risks associated with offshore oil development are not theoretical. When spills occur, local governments are often left managing the consequences. This includes impacts to beaches, marine ecosystems, local businesses, tourism, fisheries, and public resources. These impacts last a lot longer than the headlines. AB 1448 takes a thoughtful and measured approach to protecting California's coast by strengthening existing safeguards against offshore oil expansion and ensuring that state-owned tidelands and submerged lands are not used to facilitate new offshore drilling activities. This bill also improves transparency and accountability by requiring additional review of lease assignments and modifications and ensuring that environmental, public trust, safety, and financial responsibility considerations are fully evaluated before approvals are granted. As federal policymakers once again consider expanding offshore leasing operations along the Pacific Coast, California has an important role to play in protecting the resources that support our coastal communities and economy. This bill builds upon decades of state policy, recognizing that the environmental and economic risks associated with offshore oil development can have profound consequences to local communities. For Half Moon Bay, protecting the coast means protecting jobs, protecting small businesses, protecting public access, protecting marine resources, and preserving the character of our community for future generations to come. So for these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote and applaud Assemblymember Hart for his leadership in this bill.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning, Marie Lu, on behalf of Oceana. For the past 25 years Oceana has been pushing back against the expansion of offshore oil drilling The threats to expand offshore oil drilling are unfortunately the highest they have been in decades Late last year the Trump administration announced the intent to offer for lease sale all the waters off the coast of California These leases would ignore conflicts with military needs or major shipping lanes, as well as impacts to California's extremely valuable coastal ecosystems, which power our tourism, fisheries, and coastal communities. We thank this committee for passing SJR 12 earlier this year, taking a strong stance against the federal threat. But the legislature must also do what it can to protect our coast from expanded oil drilling within our own statutes, which is what AB 1448 does. This bill has two new components since the committee last heard this bill. Should new federal leases be granted and developed, these leases would most certainly rely on existing infrastructure. California has already wisely banned the leasing for new infrastructure. And so these new federal leases would unfortunately look to using unreliable and dangerous existing infrastructure such as the Sable Pipeline, which resulted in the 2015 Refuge Oil Spill, as Mr. Hart mentioned. AB 1448 also removes an exemption to the state's own offshore oil ban. And since the passage of the California Coastal Sanctuary Act of 1994, the state has prohibited the leasing in state waters for new oil and gas leases, with a notable exception where the state's oil resources are being drained from the federal waters, a situation that has really only been raised in one area of the state known as Tranquilun Ridge off the coast of Santa Barbara County. While there have been attempts to get permission to drain to drill for this reserve, as covered in the analysis, none of these efforts have been successful and therefore is unlikely.
OK, can you wrap it up?
Yes, I'll I'll I'll end that this bill's last provision is a provision that was in this bill previously. And we thank the committee for passing that in the past. And California's coastal resources are too valuable to risk further offshore oil drilling. And I ask for your aye vote.
Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to other witnesses in support.
Good morning, Senators. Jennifer Fearing, offering support of AB 1448, also on behalf of Oceana, Surfrider Foundation, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and as a courtesy for Climate Health Now Action Fund, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and California Land Watch. Thank you.
Thank you. Next witness.
Good morning, Josh Gawgara on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support.
Thank you. Next witness.
Good morning, Christina Scaringe for the Center for Biological Diversity, Proud Co. Sponsor and strong support.
Thank you. Next witness.
Good morning, Melanie Law here on behalf of E2 in support,
also passing along the support of our allies at Business Alliance for protecting the Pacific Coast. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. Hi, good morning. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California in support. Thank you. Next witness. Good morning. Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance Environmental Protection Information Center, Heal the Ocean, Ocean Conservation Research, Physicians for Social Responsibility, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Society of Fearless Grandmothers Santa Barbara, Surf Industry Members Association the Climate Center and United Nations Association California in strong support Thank you Next witness Good morning I Natalie Brown reading support on behalf of California Coastal Protection Network Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Information Center, Resource Renewal Institute, and the Sierra Club California. Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll move to lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, any other individuals wishing to oppose the bill? State your name Seeing none Seeing none Bring it back to the dais We can't do anything because we don't have a quorum yet, sir But the bill is It's on call But it's going to be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations Thank you for your consideration And I respectfully ask for your vote Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Madam Chair. How are you? I'm good. How are you? Should we go into recess? Okay. The Committee on Natural Resources and Water will go into recess pending and off there, and she just walked in. Madam Assembly Member, would you like to start and present your bill? Thank you. year and I'm the first one to acknowledge that we absolutely need mitigation efforts to mitigate the effects of this invasive species and I've committed to be part of that process. Yet out of the 58 counties in California and golden mussel found throughout waterways in the state, only one county took a drastic measure to shut the water off water imports to local water supplies and of Of course, it's my county, L.A. County. Prolonged interruption of a region's imported water supply can threaten the stability of the basin and the drinking water supply for more than 1.5 million residents, many of whom live in disadvantaged communities. I introduced this bill knowing the only way forward is to coordinate as a state while retaining specific local control to address the threat of the golden muscle. AB 1894 has been amended to ensure that imported water deliveries are made in compliance with invasive mussel control plans approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This amendment reinforces the principle that invasive species management should be guided by state expertise, established regulatory processes, and approved mitigation plans rather than a patchwork of local restrictions. Thank you to the committee chair and staff for working with my office on this vital bill. I look forward to continuing the work to ensure this bill retains its core purpose without unintended constraints on local entities. With me today in support of this bill is Tom Love from Upper San Gabriel Municipal Water District and Jose Reynoso from the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. Thank you. Thank you. You each will have two minutes. Okay, thank you. Thank you committee and to the chair for this opportunity to testify in support of AB 1894. My name is Tom Love, of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. We are one of three wholesale water agencies responsible for importing water to replenish the main San Gabriel groundwater basin. I would like to thank Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio and members of the legislature for their commitment to replenishing groundwater in compliance with state law and subsequent to the development of an approved plan to address the complexity of invasive species. Let me be clear, AB 1894 does not eliminate protections against invasive species. Rather, it ensures that water deliveries operating under an approved state control plan can continue. After much collaboration and listening to stakeholders, Assemblywoman Rubio's bill preserves the ability to effectively manage both water resources and invasive species through a consistent statewide framework. The bill reflects careful public policy that is scientifically based, keeps rules regarding indemnification in place, clarifies an adherence to state law and regulatory guidelines on the critical issues of preventing, controlling, and eradicating newly immersed invasive golden mussel and other invasive species. We have accepted the suggested amendment that narrows the bill to imported water deliveries for groundwater replenishment that are made in compliance with an approved invasive mussel control plan. The need for AB 1894 became evident when imported water deliveries intended for groundwater recharge were suspended due to the presence of the golden mussel in the state water project. Similar actions were taken against Burbank Water and Power despite that agency operating under an approved Kawaga Mussel Control Plan. These actions have prevented water agencies from storing imported water supplies that are essential to maintaining groundwater levels protecting against drought, ensuring long-term water reliability for the communities we serve, and allowing the human right to water. The Maine-San Gabriel groundwater basin is governed by a court-appointed adjudication that expressly relies on imported water deliveries to offset overdraft and maintain groundwater sustainability. Imported water replenishment is not optional. It is a foundation component of basin management. Importantly, the sponsors of I ask you to wrap it up, sir. Thank you. And before we go to the next witness, I do deeply apologize, but we need to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Thank you. Becker. Senators Becker. Sayarto. Allen. Cabaldon. Cabaldon here. Grove. Here. Grove here. Laird. Laird here. Reyes. Here. Reyes here. Thank you. Your next witness. Thank you, sir. Good morning, committee members. My name is Jose Reynoso. I'm the general manager for the Sangueva Valley Municipal Water District. I would also like to thank Assemblymember Blanca Rubio for her leadership on this important issue. I'd like to briefly address questions regarding responsibility and liability. Existing law already requires agencies to develop invasive muscle control plans in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Those plans include monitoring, control measures, and actions intended to minimize downstream transportation of invasive mussels. AB 1894 does not modify those requirements, it does not modify permits, and it does not modify contractual agreements between parties. In fact, under our existing agreement with Los Angeles County Public Works, the responsible agencies are liable for damages to county properties or facilities associated with imported water deliveries. AB 1894 does not change that obligation. In addition, we have already implemented treatment and mitigation measures on our imported conveyance system to reduce the potential for golden mussel colonization and infrastructure impacts before water reaches county facilities These measures protect the district infrastructure and provide corresponding benefit to downstream facilities If invasive mussels are detected despite implementation of an approved control plan, the responsibility remains with existing laws, applicable permits, and approved control plans and contractual obligations between agencies. At its core, 1894 is a water delivery bill. It does not alter liability, it does not alter contractual obligations, and it does not alter existing agreements between agencies. It simply ensures that imported water deliveries operating under California's existing invasive muscle regulatory framework are not subject to infinite local prohibitions. Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration of AB 1894. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to make a clarification based on your first witness testimony. There is no committee amendments before us. The author had already taken the amendment, and the amendment is in the bill. So we're just clarifying that. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position. Good morning, Madam Vice Chair and Senators Rosanna Carvacho-Elliot here on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition in support. Thank you. Next witness. And Patrick Foy with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Next witness. Good morning. Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Thank you. Good morning. Kelly Gardner with the San Gabriel Valley Water Association in support. Thank you. Next witness. Linda Noriega with California Domestic Water Company and San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority in support. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? We'll go to lead witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition? Welcome. Would you like to have a seat at the table since you're a lead witness at opposition? You have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Dana Nickel with REIB Government Relations, testifying on behalf of the Valley Ag Water Coalition, which represents over 40 farm water suppliers in the San Joaquin Valley. Our client opposes this bill because it usurps the authority of a water system owner to protect its groundwater recharge facilities from damages resulting from the transportation of invasive golden mussels, an act that is prohibited under Section 2301 of the Vision Game Code. The bill imposes a strict statewide prohibition without any consideration for the significant costs that would be imposed on the property of another. This is contrary to state law. Our client would remove its opposition if the bill were amended to require the same type of contractual agreement that the sponsors of this legislation entered into with L.A. County Public Works. Their agreement protects the interest of the groundwater recharge facility owner. The committee analysis points out that if the water imported from the state water project were to contain golden mussels that damaged Public Works facilities, the sponsors of this bill would be responsible for mitigating the damages. Absent equal treatment under this legislation for all facility owners, Valley Ag Water Coalition respectfully requests a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair? Thank you, Senator Grove, for stepping in to run the committee. So we are up to do we do both opposition witnesses Do we have any other We did not Okay Do we have anyone else in opposition Registering opposition No not in opposition but in support In support from the City of Burbank Water and Power We're very thankful to the author for taking this on. Okay. Great. Okay, so we're going to come back to the committee. Yeah. Discussion? Senator Grove. Thank you. Thank you. It does seem like an unfair situation, like fair representation, you know, that has to happen because there's clues. Are you willing to work with the opposition and take an amendment to protect the ballot? Absolutely. And just to be clear, some of the statements were not factual. We are working with the department to make sure that we have the same liability issues up and down the state. So I absolutely would love to sit down and talk through the specific issues. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Senator Laird. I'm getting a kick out of the fact that they're not telling the truth, but you want to work with them. You know, in this business, I learned that, you know, the best way to, you know, solve anything is to sit down. And if we don't come to an agreement, then I can at least say that we tried. So I just want to make sure that we were clear that we have been working through this bill diligently. I have a lot of my Southern California water peeps here, and we took every opportunity to make sure that we were not damaging and we're not going outside of the current law already. This is detrimental to the city of Burbank is in danger of losing water. And one of my cities, the city of Azusa, is within six months of losing water. And so we've been trying to work with the county and it's been very difficult. So that's why this bill is coming through. So to the point that the opposition is trying to make. I'm willing to listen, but at the end of the day, we're going to do what's best for our community and follow the laws, to Senator Grove's point. So I want to make sure that that's clear. Let me just say before I ask my question that I really appreciate the problem you're trying to address. I salute the author for it. I intend to support the bill. But for those of us, and I have lived my entire career in the water issue, We haven't been focused on this the way you have because it's so intense. And while you're talking about liability and some of the legal issues, the real question I had, and when I was in the Assembly, I did a bill related to invasives and inspections and trying to keep it. And there was just a story this last week that they caught a ship at Tahoe with mussels before it went in by the inspection. And that's exactly what the intent was doing. So for those, I mean, I get how acute this is, but completely separate from the liability or the legality, how does this or does this in any way change or weaken the protections against the transfer of invasives? Because it seems like, in an odd way, that's what's at the heart of the issue. And yet, it doesn't sound to me like it's been proven in this instance, and it's halting the water delivery. So how do you assure us that nothing here weakens what we're doing with invasives in the face of trying to get water to these communities? Yes. So first of all, I did a bill last year. So it was a last-minute effort. The golden muscle was not part of the invasive species list. And so my district and our communities were not going to get money from a fund to be able to mitigate that And part of the coordination if you will was that all the districts were going to have to have a mitigation plan approved before any imports of water were going to happen So we rushed and added the golden muscle to the invasive species. I'm a second language learner. invasive species list, and that gave the water agencies the ability to follow the same regulations. To your point, I think it's called the coagula mussel. Again, second language to the learner. The other mussel was already, there was already a requirement to mitigate in order to import water. So what we did is we added the golden mussel with the same requirements as the other mussel. And so that happened, and we thought we were done with this, And so I'm, you know, celebrating. I'm the golden muscle queen here. And lo and behold, L.A. County was not accepting those regulations. So that's why we had to go further and enact this bill, trying to work with the county. I think we talked to seven different people or departments trying to get this fixed, and it wasn't happening. So I felt that in order to do this, we would have to put it in statute so that everybody was able to do this. So the point is that we added the golden mussel to the invasive species list so that we could follow the same regulations and rules to mitigate that issue the same way or the golden mussel the same way we do everything else. But in short, then, the protection exists. Yes. You did it last year. This does not weaken the protection. Just allows the water to be moved. And if somebody can demonstrate that there's an issue, then it goes to the existing statute in the protection case. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. So all we did was add the golden mussel to the whole, you know, litany of regulations. And I think you indicated that you were part of that. But we just added the golden mussel as part of the. I'm sure in some way I was part of it. So you are the golden muscle king. Your question was really responsive. I appreciate your answer. Senator Cabaldon. Yeah, thank you. I was struggling a little bit with the bill and the arguments in opposition as well myself, but I think the questions have been answered. And I think also, I mean, this is, if you are the queen of golden muscles, Please remove your subjects from our waterways. I'm trying. I'm trying. My only request is – I'm trying. Please. Hence the bill. I'm trying. You know, the situation – I'm on both ends of this and appreciate Senator Laird's comments because, you know, just like infectious diseases or other things, It can feel in the moment like the best response is just to lock yourself in and bar contact with anyone else. And what we know from both of these worlds is that we need people to – it's a whole-of-society solution. And what we don't want is folks who are water suppliers to say, you know, we suspect there might be an incident. it we're not going to you know maybe let's before we report it let's double check it 18 times because we don't want to put our contracts on the line and and so it's you you get lots of potentially unintended negative consequences when you when you make these things too adversarial instead of saying hey we have a problem together and we're gonna have to solve it together and and potentially putting some water purveyors out of you know, out of business because their contracts can't be fulfilled because their main customers said, oh, no, we don't. Even though you have an approved invasive species control plan, we still don't trust it. The vibe we don't like, and therefore we're not paying you. That's not an effective way to combat either infectious diseases or invasive species. And this seems like a well-crafted, balanced, but simple approach. Thank you. I appreciate that because it's agreed. You know, I think we got to this point because the city of Burbank was in danger of not receiving any water. and in my area the city of Azusa with with is within six months of of you know losing their water and so yes to everything that you said but at the end of the day are we going to have water for for for the communities and uh and you know and again you know that's what we were trying to do is trying to balance this between you know how uh how we can craft it so that the the intended purpose is met and not go above and beyond that purpose and I worked with my amazing uh San Gabriel Valley Water Coalition to do this. So trust and believe that the experts saw this, you know, multiple times. And we were not trying to, you know, disenfranchise anyone. We're just trying to figure out how we could fix this. Okay, well, I appreciate the discussion. And I also appreciate our committee for the... Oh, Senator Rae, sorry. Most of what I wanted to say was said by all of my colleagues, but having worked, having served with the Assemblymember, I know that there are issues she takes on and from the very beginning tries to find solutions. When I first read what the bill was about, I thought, there's no way. Why are we taking away the power of public agencies to make their decisions? but having finding a way to say you can't just say no if you find a problem then you can say no and then it goes through the process. My remaining concern is the amount of time that it would take to show the substantial and documented evidence to prove that there is a health issue. just going through that part to make sure that it isn't so cumbersome that health issues happen before it's substantial and documented. That would be my only concern with it. The opposition, I think, brought up some good points, but it was almost the opposite of what was said in the testimony given by those in favor. so you've got your work cut out for you and I know that you're someone who does sit down with opposition to try to figure out a way if there is a way thank you thank you Mr. Chair great Vice Chair any comments on this? I don't know see where we're at well again I appreciate the discussion because I appreciate our committee staff for their write up and don't move a muscle a lot of muscle mania a lot of funny so we've got to have our fun here too keep things interesting but yeah I appreciate you working hard to craft nuanced legislation on such a complex topic I will be supporting the bill would you like to close? thank you I respectfully ask for an aye vote okay so we have a motion from Senator Reyes the motion is do pass to appropriations please call the roll Thank you Senators Becker Aye Becker aye Sarato Aye Sarato aye Allen Cobaldon Aye Cobaldon aye Grove Aye Grove aye Laird Aye Laird aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Six to one. Okay, six to one. I'm sorry, six to zero. Oh, okay. Six to zero. Okay, so that bill is on call. Let's go back and thank you. We will go ahead and call the roll on a few other items. Can we do that? Starting out with file item 1 by Assemblymember Hart. The motion was person to Senate Rule 29. The measure be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. We have a motion from Senator Reyes. Please call the roll. Thank you. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Allen? Cobaldin? Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Grove? Grove no Laird Laird I Reyes Reyes I okay 42 that bill is on call and let's go to file item 9 AB 1987 the motion from Senator Reyes the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations please call the roll Senators Becker aye Becker aye Certo Certo I Allen Cabaldon Cabaldon I Grove Grove I Laird Laird I Reyes Reyes I six to zero that bill is on call and let's go to the consent calendar excellent agreement on this committee we've six bills today on the consent calendar senator Laird moves to consent calendar Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Cerato? Aye. Cerato, aye. Allen? Cobaldin? Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. 6-0. Okay, 6-0. That bill, the consent calendar is on call as well. All right, let's move to file item 11, ACR 107. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan, you are up. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm proud to present ACR 107. This is a resolution which recognizes the importance of the Diablo Range, one of California's most significant yet often overlooked natural landscapes. Stretching across much of northern and central California through 12 counties and over 3.5 million acres, the Diablo Range provides critical habitats for wildlife, supports diversity, and serves as an essential ecological corridor. The range provides habitat for several species, including our California condors, tool elk, mountain lions, golden eagles, and numerous native plants. It plays an essential role in protecting our water resources, helping to recharge our groundwater basins, and supporting watersheds that serve millions of Californians. As California faces increasing threats from climate change, drought, and catastrophic wildfire, the health and resilience of this mountain range becomes even more important. This resolution celebrates the ecological, historical, and economic significance of the Diablo range and encourages continued stewardship of the landscape. With me to testify in support is Edward Clement, Executive Director of Save Mount Diablo. Thank you. My name is Ted Clement, Executive Director of Save Mount Diablo. It is an honor to appear before you and on behalf of my organization I want to thank you for your good work and leadership on conservation matters. Save Mount Diablo is the sponsor of ACR 107 and our great assembly member Rebecca Bauer is the author Our organization is a nationally accredited not land trust founded in 1971 We have a land conservation mission focused on Mount Diablo and its entire mountain range that it is a part of and sustained by the Diablo Range. We respectfully request your favorable consideration of ACR 107, which acknowledges the Diablo Range as a California conservation priority. The Diablo Range provides California with one of its best opportunities to meet its 30 by 30 goals. The mountain range is over 200 miles long, runs through 12 counties, and contains over 4 million acres that are largely intact open space areas, of which only about 27% is currently protected. The Diablo Range is a critical wildlife habitat corridor with important species like California condors. Further, over 10 million people live nearby in communities around the Diablo Range. Thus, conserving more of the range provides California with an outstanding way to meet its 30 by 30 goals and help more people connect with nature. The mountain range is facing numerous threats, but there are also opportunities like growing partnerships for the range. Just last Thursday, Save Mount Diablo put on its second annual Diablo Range convening, about 70 organizations and agencies sent representatives. The keynote speaker was Dr. Jennifer Norris, the terrific executive director of California's Wildlife Conservation Board. In her remarks, she talked about the great opportunity the Diablo Range provides California for its 30 by 30 goals. And she also mentioned the importance of passing ACR 107 to grow awareness and support for the protection of the range. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Others want to register support? Anybody in opposition? Do we have any opposition witnesses or any registered opposition? We don't see any. We'll take it back to the committee. Senator Laird.
Well, I appreciate the author for doing this bill and the testimony. and at least a testimony. Everybody thinks we're talking about Mont Diablo. They don't understand the other 11 counties that are in them. I represent a bunch of them. And last night I got a text from a longtime friend in San Benito County who said, you're supporting that bill tomorrow. So they are at least aware of it in some other parts of the Diablo range. So this is a good thing, and at the appropriate time, I'll be happy to move the bill.
Excellent. Anyone else? Okay. Well, I appreciate it. And we'll be supporting the bill here today. Would you like to close? I just want to thank Save Mount Diablo for their incredible work preserving the range across the many counties. We've seen species come back as a result of that preservation, something that we all strive for in California. And you're invited to my district or Mr. Laird's to hike at any time. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Awesome. And I also appreciate, you know, the that the call out to 30 by 30. Right. And this is important areas. We look to accomplish our 30 by 30 goals. So with that, we have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is that the resolution be adopted. Please call the roll. Thank you. Senators Becker. Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato. Aye. Sarato, aye. Allen. Cobaldin. Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Grove. Aye. Grove, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Okay, 5 to 0, we'll keep that on call. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, we are waiting for our final author. I will message him and see if he's... Okay we are going to recess while we wait for our final author Okay, we will return to committee to hear file item 6 from Assemblymember Brian. Please go ahead when ready. Welcome. our resources chair in the assembly good to have you
thank you mr chair and committee members i'm here to present ab 1946 which encourages the state of california and its land conservation efforts to recognize the importance of making investments in historically underserved urban communities understandably it's often been easier to advance land conservation goals by investing in rural and suburban areas where land is typically more attainable and affordable for large-scale projects. However, as the state works towards meeting its 2030 conservation goals, the 30 by 30 goals, it's equally important to invest in conservation within highly urbanized historically underserved communities, bringing nature closer to where people live and work. Restoring and greening urban spaces wherever possible should stand as a co-equal goal, and this bill affirms our shared commitment to both visions. This bill seeks to elevate the awareness around the importance of continued investment in reducing nature poverty in our urban areas like my home in South Los Angeles. With me to testify is Norma Gonzalez, Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, and Doug Houston, representing the California Parks and Recreation Society as a technical support. Thank you for being here. You both have two minutes.
Wonderful. Good morning, Chairman and Honorable Members of this committee. I serve as the director of L.A. County Parks and Recreation, which serves 10 million residents throughout Los Angeles County. The state's 30 by 30 initiative to conserve 30 percent of land and water is vitally important for the state. But as currently implemented, it does not create an equal playing field for all Californians, especially if you live in urban, low income communities of color. In mapping the state's 30 by 30 framework, data showed that 84% of black and brown communities in L.A. County live with the highest environmental burdens and no opportunity for traditional conservation, but yet a significant opportunity for regeneration of land, of degraded lands into parkland. L.A. County Parks established an unprecedented partnership with all three conservancies, the Santa Monica, the Baldwin Hills, the Rivers and Mounds Conservancy, and nonprofit CBOs from every corner of the county to develop our own 30 by 30 framework that encompasses green space, biodiversity, environmental justice, climate resiliency, and equity with regeneration of degraded lands. Almost every park that we have built in the last two decades sits on top of degraded lands. And let me give you an example. Last year, we opened our first park in the unincorporated community of Carson. It took us 30 years to find the money to acquire, to clean and remediate, to build, and now we're maintaining and operating. That is the burden of low-income communities of color. We just can't go in and acquire land. We have to go through the hurdles of every step, which makes our ladder much harder to climb. I am really in support and thank the leadership of Assemblymember Isaac Bryan. L.A. County is united in this effort. And we want to thank you because AB946 is a critical path in response to addressing the funding gap to regenerate land that becomes parkland. We want more children to laugh, play, and find joy in find joy in our green spaces, in our parks, in their communities. Thank you for your support.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Doug Houston, I'm here on behalf of the California Park and Recreation Society. It's 5,000-plus local park professionals throughout the state, and we're urging your support for this bill. As the committee would certainly agree, 30 by 30 is a very noble, and it's a laudable objective and goal in the state, and it's a pursuit that's built off of some core principles. enhancing biodiversity, reducing fragmentation of land, protecting landscapes durably, but also all the while exploring opportunities for access and connecting people with nature. That's what AB 946 is about, understanding and recognizing co-equal goals associated with outdoors for all and 30 by 30 and we're trying to crosswalk that with this Phil and urging your support. Thank you
very much. Others would like to voice support. Please step to the mic. Good
morning again. Kiera Ross on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support of the bill. Thank you. Good morning. Kai Klassen on
behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in strong support. Thank you, Arthur. Good morning. Gabriella Fasio with Sierra Club
California in strong support. Thank you. Hi, good morning. Michael Chan with Audubon California
in support. Thank you. Do we have anyone registering opposition today? I see none. We'll take it back to the committee. Senator Laird?
You know, for most of the history of the state, our parks money was directed toward just really rural areas. And there was not a balance with making sure that that urban areas got a fair share. And in the parks bond measures in the late 1990s, it was the first time that there was a goal of 50 percent in the urban areas and 50 percent in the non-urban areas to make sure that there was proper investment to people that really needed it and actually had been paying taxes for ages and not necessarily being able to utilize the system. And that led to all these things, the cornfields in Los Angeles, Old Town in Los Angeles, the park that goes about 100 yards across all the way next to the 110. And it led to investment. And what this bill does is I think it moves it into current events. It sort of says that commitment now will be extended to the 30 by 30, which is the process that's front and center. So I commend the author for doing this. to appropriate time I will move the bill yeah thank you thank you sir thanks to
the author before joining the Senate I was on the statewide committee for 30 by
30 and and the I mean this is an effort that's principle the core objective of 30 by 30 is the conservation of land and water that is that is the court and it's It's not simple anywhere. It may have been before. I represent a district that's rural and urban and suburban all at once. And they all face different, but they all struggle to look over the fence to see the baseball game in different ways. And so I don know that the for me the framing is less about that question about urban versus rural And instead it that the urban areas also have there a very strong species and land conservation argument to be made which we did make in the 30 by 30 process with some limited success that equally compelling So it isn't necessary to think about urban as just being recreation and species and climate change and everything else being solved elsewhere in the state, which I think sometimes we do because it feels fascinating. but but the partly because of climate change the amount of species movement the amount of species speciation you know species diverging into you know 16 different kinds of rats in the London our ground or mosquitoes in the New York subway we're I mean we're seeing a change in biodiversity and the earth the role that urban community where we've typically thought of urban places of being the lack of biodiversity in many ways now they are they are creating different forms of biodiversity and we have not thought about what that means are we are we here to protect it do we need date does London need 18 counter rats you know and it is it's time for us to do that and so I think in addition to the recreation argument there is very strong research and resource and environmental reasons to be incorporating affirmatively not as stepchildren, but whether it's South LA or Vallejo in my district, that a land and water conservation program for the state that's part of an international effort together needs to be paying attention to the full scope of opportunities, including recreation, because often that is the best conservation approach for species and for other purposes is recreational opportunities. But I think the bill is drafted in a way that covers that full range. I think it's totally consistent with the 30 by 30 hypothesis, but broadens it more appropriately. The real opportunities are to advance that strategy through stronger investments in urban places and more direct engagement of parks, not just forests and habitat zones, in order to be a part of it. So thanks to the author for bringing it forward.
I'm also supportive of the bill. I move it, but Senator Laird moves 100 percent of the bills out of this committee. So I'll just be content to vote yes. Senator Grove.
Thank you. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. Why don't I share the biodiversity and all of those concerns that are addressed in it? This state is very diverse, and I got invited to go to Camp Curran up at Huntington Lake, which is in my district, and I met several hundred kids there, and the majority of them were from Los Angeles and San Francisco, and they'd never seen a lake, a pine tree, shot a bow and arrow, just kid stuff, rode a mountain bike down a hill. And so to invest in our local community so that kids have an opportunity to do things and see things that they normally wouldn't, I think it changes a lot of things about that generation. And so I'll be supportive of the bill for those reasons, not so much of all the other reasons that are in it, but mostly because I think it changes the kid picture. I really did. But, you know, when I talked to those kids and they showed me pictures, I mean, they're growing up on cement. And there's not anything around their areas and community. And they had never, I mean, these are 12 and 13-year-olds and they had never seen. To me, that's just, I don't want to say odd, but to me, you know, I've been going there since I was six months old. You know, so, and in my community, that's what you see. You drive through it to get to the next town. And so I think there a lot lost if kids in urban areas like where you represent don have the same I mean obviously you can put a forest in the middle of the city but you can create a great area where there parks and recreation and activities and baseball and softball and, you know, all of those things that kids would engage in that are positive activities for mental health and all kinds of other things that help them grow up to be well-rounded adults. So, thank you.
Our vice chair. Thank you. You know you like it, Kelly.
You know what? Actually, I do like it. I have my own perspective on the need for these parks. You know, one of the things, a couple of weeks back, I had the opportunity to have some spare time. And I was in the L.A. area, and I went and drove through some of the old neighborhoods I used to serve. And one of the things that really disappointed me was the condition of the parks, especially because, you know, we've had one of the parks my dad used to play in, Santanella Park. And, you know, it seems society has forced us to change our approach on some of these things. and it's sad uh you know when the wind blows and a tree limb you know falls down uh the answer is cut the trees down and and so you know as i pass by this park i'm looking at the dead grass i'm looking at trees that are not there anymore and it's like the maintenance of our parks that's as important to this effort is is we have some of the we have some space already but we're not maintaining the spaces that we have to achieve exactly what we're talking about. And in fact, we seem to be creeping in the other direction because of liability concerns and things like that. You know, this open space area, Santa Monica, you mentioned Santa Monica Hills. You know, I was hiking up there. It was about a year, year and a half ago, but just a few months before the fire that was up there, that started up there. While it was an enjoyable walk at the time, as a previous fire person, I was a little bit horrified at the overgrowth. And so all these things have to be integrated because once it burns, it's not much good for recreation and it certainly isn't good for the environment. And so, you know, I think these efforts to try to incorporate some of the spaces that we do have in our urban areas are really, really important. But it's, gosh, getting these spaces that have been there for decades back to what they're supposed to be is going to help that effort, you know, more than trying to find new spaces where there was, you know, an old battery plant or something. So, you know, I applaud the effort and hope that someday I'll be able to drive through and be really happy with what I see, because sometimes it's not about the ability to pay for it. The city that I worked for has had quite a renaissance, I guess you could call it, but the parks haven't, and that to me is a priorities issue. And so I would encourage people that are involved in that to make that maintenance and that partnership where we're all trying to maintain and create that open space, but at the same time people need to be able to use it and at the same time it needs to be safe and uh and so with that uh i appreciate your effort and we be supporting your bill okay well um i want to thank you first of all i want
to confirm you're accepting the amendments definitely accepting committee amendments and
thank you to the staff for your hard work awesome um well i appreciate all the comments that are made and you know from my own standpoint um you know a few thoughts you know come to mind i mean number one I've been very focused on we spend so much time and and and resources to create these great spaces and but the fundamentally the outdoors for all program is I think so important because we have to get people out to the spaces that we that that we're investing so much time and money in number two you know I share a bunch of sub to all the urban greening urban forestry all those efforts and it seems like we have to fight every year like those always seems like no-brainers to me and just you know they're small amounts in the cut in the in the in the context of budget sub 2 or the budget overall but it feels like we're always fighting for that urban greening you know money which is so important but to your point also it's just the you know the point of this bill it's just actually investing in these communities investing these parks as our vice chair says that even the maintenance of them but getting this land I mean, the fact that it took 30 years in Carson to get that land, remediate it and get it out to the community. These are things we really have to rectify. So I appreciate it. Be supporting the bill.
We have a motion, but let's let you close first.
I just want to thank you for the bipartisan support. Much to my colleague from Murrieta. We're just trying to make Inglewood look as good as Murrieta. no in Los Angeles the largest urban oil field in our state is getting ready to shut down by 2030 that's 1600 acres of open space that can be remediated and transformed as Senator Grove mentioned you know I know young people in the Crenshaw corridor who have never seen the beach and I think this bill is trying to make sure that they also don't live their lives never seeing a tree or a park or an open space we can do better balancing these goals we should prioritize all investments for both rural communities and urban communities and this ensures that we do so.
I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Excellent. We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker aye. Sarato? Aye. Sarato aye. Allen? Aye. Allen aye. Cobaldon? Aye. Cobaldon aye. Grove? Aye. Grove aye. Laird? Aye. Laird aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. 7-0. That bill is out. Congratulations. Okay, we're just going to go back and we have a few items on call and then we are finished. So let's go through and start with a file. Excuse me? Sure. Yeah. We will start with 11. This is ACR 107. Please call the roll. Please call the absent members. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Seven to zero. Seven to zero. That bill is out. All right, let's go back for file item one. This was Assemblymember Hart. Please call the absent members. Senators Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. That is five to two. That bill is out. Now we'll go next to file item content. calendar. We'll do the consent calendar. Please call the absent member. Senator Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Seven to zero. Then we'll go to file item eight. This was Blanca Rubio, AB 1894. Senator Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Okay, seven to zero. That bill is out. And lastly, File Item 9, Aguirre-Curry, AB 1987. Please call the absent member. Senator Allen. Allen, I. Seven to zero. I want to thank everyone who participated in today's hearing. We are adjourned.