Assembly Water Parks And Wildlife Committee

If you will I This is on. Is that anything? Yeah. So then what is that? Oh. That allows her to talk. Yeah.

Well, let's go and take. Look at this. If you start recession first, you get a quorum fast.

Pappen here. Jeff Gonzalez. Jeff Gonzalez here. Alanis here. Alvarez. Avila Farias here. Baines. Bennett. Bennett here. Berner. Berner here. Colosa. Colosa here. Gallagher. Hart. Hart here. Rodriguez. Rogers. Rogers here.

Thank you, Madam Chair members. The 47th Assembly District is one of the most beautiful places in California. The Coachella Valley floor, the San Jacinto Mountains rising above it, the wide stretches of high desert encompassing one of our nine national parks. It's a landscape unlike anywhere else. Even you too knew it when they ventured into the Mojave Desert and named one of the greatest albums in rock history after the iconic Joshua Tree. Only four assembly districts in California can claim the western Joshua tree, and mine is one of them. Those trees are part of what makes the desert what it is. For generations, people in the high desert have built their lives there. They've raised children, cared for aging parents, and invested their savings into modest homes, often on property that came with Joshua trees long before government ever regulated them. The trees were not a burden. They were a symbol of the place they called home. That relationship has been strained by the western Joshua Tree Act, how it came to be and how it's been implemented. The underlying policy legislation had one hearing in this committee, then it was folded into the budget, and desert homeowners had no real opportunity to weigh in. The reach of the Act has been broader than most homeowners anticipated. The Act does not clearly define take, and routine activities near a tree can trigger permitting requirements. A homeowner doesn't have to remove a tree to face consequences. They don't even have to touch it. Department of Fish and Wildlife has acknowledged this directly. The fees in its own words may disproportionately affect low income residents and single family homeowners. Over time, a tree that was a point of pride has started to feel like a liability, and that's not what anyone intended. The good news is that this committee and the proponents of this act have shown a real willingness to address this, and I'm proud that by accepting the committee amendments, my bill becomes part of that effort. So thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee staff for working with us on this effort. Now, high desert homeowners who need to remove or trim up to 10 Western Joshua trees to address health and safety needs, including defensible space, can get a permit without paying mitigation fees. That's welcome relief for the homeowner who's trying to do the right thing and keep their property safe. These changes are modest, but they're extremely valuable to the residents, and they respect the Western Joshua Tree Act. This iconic tree is worth protecting, and the people who live alongside it every day have a stake in getting that right. I'm committed to continuing to work with this committee and the administration to make sure the Act achieves its conservation goals while treating desert residents as partners in that effort. Thank you.

No witnesses.

Good afternoon, Nathan Skatz on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Thank you so much. Is there any opposition that would like to Come forward. Okay, seeing none. No members of the audience. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Assembly Member Berner.

Yeah, I appreciate the question, Assemblymember. The way Joshua Trees grow is when they drop their seedlings, They create these little pups, little baby Joshua trees. And so when you're taking a tree or you're interacting with one of these trees, you could theoretically have multiple of them that are really in the way of, let's say, a connection to a wastewater line or something like that. And so we work with the committee staff to get to the number of 10. So I'm happy to continue having conversations on, but that was sort of the idea behind it.

Okay. Any other members of the committee wish to chime in?

That's what we should be doing here. Would you like to close?

Okay. This enjoys a due pass as amended recommendation. Madam Secretary.

Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alaniz? Aye. Alaniz, aye. Alvarez? Avila-Farias? Aye. Avila-Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Coloza? Aye. Coloza, aye. Gallagher? Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Rodriguez? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye.

Yes. Yes. Great. Well, now here, Assembly Bill 1772 from our chair, Assemblymember Papin. Proceed when ready. Anybody heard about the golden muscle? This is the bill you've been waiting for. So thank you Vice Chair Gonzales for the opportunity to present and prevent the proliferation of golden mussels AB 1772 addresses a fast threat Golden mussels, first detected in North America in October of 2024, they're more adaptable than the kagwa and the zebra mussels, and they spread very quickly. Impacts are already clear. Cog water systems, higher maintenance costs for reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities, reduced recreational access due to closures, and quarantines and harm to native ecosystems. Last year's AB 149 was a good start by funding prevention and improving reporting, but it really didn't address the long-term issue with golden mussels. California still lacks a coordinated framework for aquatic invasive species. AB 1772 creates that framework by, number one, establishing a statewide decontamination standard for watercraft. Number two, creating reciprocity so certifications are recognized across water bodies within California. And number three, identifying broader long-term funding sources. This bill is about coordination and it's about consistency. Without it, the state will keep reacting. With this bill, we can try to stay at least ahead of the threat. With me to testify today is Devin Middlebrook, who is from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, who really has been, if you'll excuse the reference, sort of the gold standard as it relates to decontamination. Quite impressive. I've really enjoyed our conversations. And then Mark Smith representing a number of water agencies and boat manufacturers who will be here to answer technical questions. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Middlebrook. Thank you, Chair Pappin. Good morning, Vice Chair Gonzalez and committee members. Again, Devin Middlebrook with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, or TRPA. Formed through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada in 1969, we are charged with protecting Lake Tahoe. TRPA leads the Lake Tahoe Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Control Program, and since 2008, we have inspected nearly 125,000 boats, treated more than 775 acres of aquatic invasive weeds and clams, and educated tens of thousands of boaters and non-motorized paddlers at Tahoe. Tahoe does not have golden mussels, but we are very concerned. They could have devastating consequences on Tahoe's famed clarity and $5 billion annual recreation-based economy. In response to this new threat, TRPA now requires mandatory decontaminations of all motorized boats entering Lake Tahoe. In 2025, Tahoe boat inspectors prevented 72 boats with invasive species from entering Lake Tahoe, including one boat with attached golden mussels. AB 1772 offers a comprehensive approach to proactively addressing the threat of golden mussels, including statewide monitoring, decontamination standards, training, public education, and funding. The Tahoe region is a real-world example of science, prevention, control, and education working together to stop the spread of invasive species. AB 1772 takes the lessons learned at Tahoe and applies them statewide. Thank you for supporting this important legislation and would love to have any of you up this summer to visit one of our inspection stations in person. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Mark Smith on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association and several water agencies. Here to answer technical questions, we'll not be addressing any comments to the committee, but do you want to say one thing? I want to appreciate the work that the committee staff and that the author staff have put into this bill Countless hours to get to where we are and countless more to go Thank you Thank you Any witnesses in support Me too.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman, members. Bo Biller on behalf of the Marine Recreation Association and the California Yacht Brokers Association, and we appreciate the author diving into this important issue and look forward to working on some additional items as we go forward. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker for Sonoma Water. We don't have an official position this morning, but appreciate all of the work by the author and her staff. We continue to look for opportunities to promote recreation, but want to ensure that our water supply and affordability of our water supply remains the top priority for this effort. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Vice Chair and members, Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California. We're not in opposition, but extremely cautious. I want to just highlight some issues as the legislation moves forward. RVOC is a nonprofit advocacy organization. It's 58 years working to promote the enhancement and protection of the state's waterways on a variety of issues, including mussels and invasives. And as we look at the legislation, as it's moving today, as proposed for amendment in the analysis, our caution is that the details still need to be worked out going forward. And we will continue to be engaged on those issues. But what's not there yet is, first, a balanced approach that, as intended, spreads the commitment of stakeholders and beneficiaries of these efforts so that it's not just the voters who are paying the fee. The second is that there would be real reciprocity. reciprocity. Right now, the agencies appropriately have the authority to close down a body of water when there's an infestation, or if there's even a fear. If we pay for decontamination and a standard, and that's developed, we need to have assurance we'll be able to go from one waterway to another. That may need to have regional approaches. It may not be statewide. Statewide decontamination standard, of course, would be appropriate. And then also, we're afraid of building an infrastructure that will exist after golden mussels are already all throughout the state. We've already found it in San Diego. It is in the waterways through the state. So what's the post-infestation approach that will be taking as California? Will a boat in a waterway or a reservoir where there's a complete infestation, will the boaters be able to go on that waterway and stay there? So the comprehensive approach is extremely challenging. We're engaged. We're hopeful that we'll be able to support the bill when these issues get worked out. And we encouraged the bill to pass today so that we could work on those issues but wanted to make sure to highlight them today And with a closing to thank Assemblymember Papin for her leadership and the committee to take this on, because it is a real threat to navigation and recreation and the water supply.

Assemblymember Bennett. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have a few questions for the author. And as I mentioned to the author, this has been a very important issue, the whole issue of muscles in my district all the way back when I was on the Board of Supervisors for a long period of time. Lots of stakeholders, lots of varying points of view, and the details are really important. So I want to try to clarify a few things. One for the author is It says here that you want to develop a voluntary framework to prevent the overland spread of invasive mussels through the conveyance of watercraft over land.

I'm concerned about the, number one, I'm supportive of the bill. I just want to make sure I understand all the details of the bill. So a voluntary framework, are we thinking of if there's a voluntary framework, there will be no mandatory requirements in terms of the overland transfer? I'm concerned about making sure we err on the side of caution.

So do I have that right? I just want to make sure. The choice is ultimately yours, but they don't have to let you on the body of water.

So the point is you're trying to develop voluntary standards or agreements for voluntary standards. I'm just trying to understand. So if you follow the voluntary standards, then you're allowed on to the lake,

And I'm sure I'm not trying to be... Just let me interject, if I may.

Yeah.

It makes sense. And I understand what I mean, I completely understand what you're trying to accomplish. I think I understand what you're trying. So I'm very supportive of that.

I'm just not very articulately asking this question. OK, so it's my fault. I'm not articulate what I don't understand how it's voluntary if you can't go on to the lake if you don't do it. That's that's I'm just trying to get that little nuance. How is it voluntary if you can't go on the lake if you don't do it? I want it to be mandatory, but it sounds like it is mandatory because you can't go on the lake if you don't do it. Sure, there's a downside. Is the term voluntary? I prefer the mandatory, but if there's a voluntary aspect of this, I'm trying to understand what that voluntary aspect is so that there isn't some loophole there.

That's what I wanted the assurance on, right? Right.

Is there a specified reason?

Where were you looking?

Right here above the red.

I'm on page 2 of the bill.

Yeah, is that going to be filled in later?

It says, this is the bill about the California Constitution requires that if we make local agencies engage, mandated cost reimbursement.

This is not essential.

Because I want to make sure that we get buy-in and reasonable charges to do the work. And then the final question, final comment really, is that you're going to subsequently amend the bill to try to come up with equitable funding sources, et cetera.

And we want to make sure we have adequate funding. And the principle that we ought to as often as possible is that the people who are benefiting from an activity that it causes a cost to the public ought to be the ones that are reimbursing for the cost of that activity. If you want to do something that has a disadvantage, that should be borne primarily by the people that are benefiting from that activity. It doesn't mean it's all voters. And by the way from your answer can I assume that any craft being moved whether it a jet ski whether it windsurfers anything that being moved would be required to follow these

Sure. The experience we had in Ventura County is if all the other craft that could potentially, particularly with these being microscopic golden mussel, if they are not included, there's a sense of fairness issue that was out there because you could transfer in a canoe, you could transfer the invasive species fairly easily and water could be trapped there. So thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Say that one more time.

Yes, I think they're brilliant.

They're golden.

Perfect.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Just respectfully request an aye vote. We're going to get this right. Stay tuned, and we'll all be better off for it because there's nothing like fresh water and keeping fresh water fresh. Thank you.

Item number two, AB 1772. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Pappen? Aye. Pappen, aye.

Jeff Gonzalez, aye.

Alinez, aye.

Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Colosa? Aye. Colosa, aye. Gallagher? Aye. Gallagher, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Rodriguez? Aye. Rogers, aye. The bill is out.

Thank you. I will, Vice Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2521. So this bill kind of came out of the informational hearing that we had as to where we are with recharging groundwater. I believe I have a witness or two. We do not. Well, you can come, Pablo. If we have technical questions, I'll put you on the spot. Have a seat. Thank you. All right. And this is really to help expedite permitting for groundwater recharge projects. You'll recall that when we had that special hearing, we heard a lot from applicants about the expense involved with making an application to get a water right permit or to take off water. And there was a lot of data analysis that accompanies the permit application and we heard that they cost about So the idea that came out of that hearing is let see if we can be of assistance in at least the measurement part of the application process So we need to recharge more groundwater because California's hydrology is obviously changing. We used to get a lot of our water from melted snowpack. This year in particular is indicative that climate change is interfering with that ability. And then we get these big deluges of water and atmospheric rivers, and we have to be a little more nimble in capturing that water along the way because of the lessening of what we get from the snowpack. So as a result, we need to manage the system of reservoirs and conveyances differently because water is coming in different ways and different volumes. An important part of this shift in management will be to significantly increase the amount of water we recharge into our groundwater aquifers during wet periods. You know, sort of the opposite of making hay while the sun is shining, but you get the picture, right? Capturing water while it's raining. And then we have it for the dry summer months or those inevitable droughts. So to improve the permitting process for groundwater recharge, we need to improve our understanding of when there is excess water in the system that can be used for recharge without harming other water right holders in the environment or violating regulatory requirements. This bill will alleviate this need by calling for the completion of a watershed-wide water availability analysis by the California Council of Science and Technology, CCST. What they'll study is whether water-right applicants can use this information. They'll provide the data, and then it will be available to applicants to use in connection with their applications. that $50,000 data item that they have to do in connection with their permits. So CCST's network includes the state's best and brightest minds at the state's major research university institutions. It was actually set up by the legislature for just this very reason. I mean, California is rich in a brain trust. Why not take advantage of it? And this programmatic approach to groundwater recharge permitting will help us meet our ambitious goals and make us more climate resilient in the end and keep us more nimble along the way. So what we're trying to do is use the best and the brightest to at least help with the data about water when people are applying for their groundwater recharge permits. With that, we will conclude the author's brilliant presentation. I'm kidding. All right. Thank you.

Assemblymember Bennett. Just very quickly, I communicated with the committee staff on this, and I appreciate committee staff addressing the one concern when you do these programmatic approvals, and that is you can sometimes do a programmatic approval and then a number of years down the road people try to, you know, how far down can you still use that, particularly for a sensitive project? And I know your staff is very concerned about that and sensitive to that, so I look forward to them addressing those concerns that you guys share also.

Thank you.

especially since past water use data might not show the full quantity people were allowed to use? Well, what we're hopeful is that the study itself can really be used in two ways. It can be that kind of baseline that maybe an applicant wants to add on to and provide their own information, or if the applicant just wants to rely upon the information that's been provided by CCST, they can do that as well. So it gives the opportunity for both. This bill doesn't preclude any additional information

Yeah. Are they invited to the table, I guess we should say? In the process of determining this baseline data by CCST. I don't think that would be objectionable. We could certainly toy around with that in the bill language as well to make sure that that's a robust process with stakeholder input.

I just want to say I appreciate the sensitivity, and I'm grateful that you're sharing it with us, and I hope that in the end run, the data is beneficial to everybody, because you can't really make policy about that, which you have not measured. But I'm so grateful for your remarks, and it's nice to hear about the sensitivity, really. It is welcomed.

So I just want to preliminarily state that the data is not meant to be binding, per se. It is meant to be informative so that we can make informed decisions. But I think the question is a legitimate one, certainly. But this is not, you know, we're not putting this forth as like, you know, Moses coming from the mountain, and it's written in stone that this is only how much water exists, and weather plays a factor certainly. And so the bill is not written to be binding, and it is really meant to be an informative way of helping applicants along the way to be able to take off water when we have these deluges. and at a point where it's not quite as expensive either. You know, we heard a lot about the expense. So I'm really doing this to make it sort of like a public database that applicants can draw upon, not that it would be binding. And there's nothing in the bill that says it's mandated or binding or you have to be bound by that in order to get your application approved.

We have a motion and a second. Okay. Would you like to close?

Jeff Gonzalez? No voting.

Alanis? Not voting.

Alvarez? Aye.

Avila Farias?

Bennett? Aye.

Berner? Aye.

Colosa, aye. Gallagher?

Hart?

Hart, aye. Rodriguez? Rogers?

Rogers, aye. That bill is out. It has seven.

Thank you, madam.

Would you like to return?

Yeah, we got a few add-ons. All righty.

With that, we have completed our agenda, so let's do some add-on votes, and then we'll adjourn. Item number one, AB 1663, Alvarez.

Baines. Gallagher. Wallace, AB 1663.

And item number two, AB 1772, Alvarez.

Baines. Rodriguez.

Item number four AB 2521 Avila Farias.

Avila Farias, aye.

Item number one, AB 1663, Baines.

Baines, aye. That is out 12 to zero. Item number two, AB 1772, Baines.

Baines, aye. That is out 12 to zero. Item number four, AB 2521, Baines.

Okay. Okay. With that, we're adjourned.