Senate Nat Resources — 2026-06-23

Thank you. All right, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. And just good morning to everybody. I want to go over a couple of things before we begin the hearing. First of all, as you'll notice, we do not have a quorum, so we're going to start as a subcommittee today. We have a lot of bills in a lot of committees, and so we're going to ask for everybody's cooperation and making sure that they stay within the two-minute time limits for our speakers and make their comments succinct so that you get your comments out, but we're doing it in a manner that's really efficient. So with that, we have 28 bills on today's agenda, and 11 are proposed for consent, and we're going to hear the bills in file order. So starting as a subcommittee, we're going to go ahead and start with our first bill. which would be, let's see, we have our first author here, and that would be Assemblymember Aguiar Currie. And you'll be presenting AB 706. Maybe I should put my glasses on so I can actually read that. You may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. And we're going to stay to a strict two minutes. I'll let you know if you're going over to wrap up, okay? Thanks, sir. Yes, sir. And I will do my best to stay under two minutes.

All right. Very well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. It's a good thing your partner ceded some time over here. But anyway, hey, this time while you guys are lining up, who other proponents of this bill are lining up, don't start yet. We're going to go ahead and take a minute to establish a quorum. Senator Specker. Sarato? Here. Sarato here. Allen? Here. Allen here. Cabaldon? Here. Cabaldon here. Grove? Here. Grove here. Laird? Here. Laird here. Stern? All right. We have a quorum. So at this time, we're going to take the Me Too's. Everybody that would like to express support for this bill, come up. Just your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the bill is all we allow at this time. So, you may be... Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wetsch on behalf of the Labor Management Committee of the Forest Products Industry, representing 10 various unions, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, representing 55,000 utility workers in the state, in strong support. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and members. John Doherty on behalf of the New California Coalition, in support. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Karen Lang on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in support. Good morning, Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in strong support. Thank you. John Anderson with Humboldt, Mendocino, Redwood Companies, double support. Thank you. Julie Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance, support. Good morning, Cassandra Moore on behalf of Pioneer Community Energy in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support. Thank you very much. And yes, gentlemen, if you will excuse. At this time, we're looking for the primary witnesses in opposition to this bill. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? If not, anybody who wishes to say they oppose the bill can come up to the microphone at this time. Name, organization, and your opposition. Thanks. Christina Scringe with the Center for Biological Diversity and Strong Opposition. Thank you. Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in opposition. We're a tweener. I'm Michael Jarre with the Nature Conservancy. We're supportive of amend and we're working with the author's office and the sponsor and we feel like the bill's moving in the right direction and thank them for their time. Very good. Thank you very much everybody for your cooperation. At this time we bring it back to the dais Anybody questions comments concerns a motion I just like to ask the author how negotiations are going with the opposition I know there's a certain amount of ideological division over biomass. Yeah, we can't hear you. Oh. You have to project. I'm just trying to... Too much. Now try. I think she heard it. So we've been working with the environmental community and I've been let Matt just brought this up as well. So now we're doing. Yeah, so we've heard a couple of different pieces that we know that we need to address and we're going to work on and that is essentially on feedstocks of sustainability standards as well as geographic scope of applicability. I'm assuming that's kind of the question that you're, I was walking up against the question, Senator. So we know for a fact that those are a couple of the issues that are outstanding, and we're committed to work with opposition on those issues. Okay, yeah, just encourage that continued dialogue. I've worked in this area. I know this is a tough one, but, you know, I think there's a real opportunity for us to figure out a real good path for biomass energy if it's done properly. And we've got to also make sure we're not incentivizing over logging, those kinds of things. So I just encourage those conversations, and I'm happy to support the bill today. Anybody else? All right. We have a motion to move the bill. I'll wait. So I applaud the author for bringing this matter forward because it is an important piece of the puzzle of how we're going to solve some of those conflagrations that we've been having. And I think the bill focuses mostly on the dead fuel that is there, the dead trees that have been eaten up by beetles that need to be removed. It's what do you do with it afterwards, and do you do something positive with it, which is you can create this biomass energy and add that to our grid system that needs to be added to, or do you just burn it and have the burn product go into the atmosphere? The answer to me is pursuing what you're talking about. So at that, I'll let you go ahead and close. So thank you very much. I appreciate your comments because I think those of us that have seen wildfire go through and inundate their communities realize all the leftover waste that there's there. So with or without the spell, California is taking on a massive wildfire mitigation projects to protect our communities and reduce emissions from increasingly dangerous and costly wildfires. So we're on track to create a lot of forest biomass waste. The status quo is creating more harmful greenhouse gas emissions with a much greater risk to people, the environment, and state's budget. I respectfully ask for your aye vote to make sure we find resources we need to use this waste in ways that benefit the environment, energy, reliability, and our economy. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you very much. We do have a motion by Senator Grove. Go ahead and call roll. The motion is due passed to Energy Utilities and Communications. Senators Becker, Sarato? Aye. Allen? Aye. Kevaldin? Grove? Aye. Laird? Aye. Stern? 5-0 on call. All right. That is 5-0 at this time. We'll keep it open for others to add on. And at this time, we're going to go ahead and take up the consent calendar. So the consent calendar is file item number two. AB 2513, number 6, AB 1592, number 9, AB 1663, number 11, AB 2207, number 12, item 12, AB 1699, item 17, AB 1802, item 19, which is AB 1891, item 20, which is AB 2260, item 23, which is AB 2032, Item 26, which is AB 2312, and item number 28, which is AB 2739. Do we have a motion? We have a motion. We're at the consent calendar. Go ahead and call roll. Senators Becker? Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Kevaldin? Kevaldin, aye. Grove? Grove, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Stern? Five-zero on call. Okay, that has five votes currently, and we'll leave it open for others to add on later. All right, next up, we have another bill from Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. It is AB 2026. You may present when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, thanking the chair and the committee staff for all the work on this bill. Thank you so much. I am pleased to present AB 2026, a bill to help California recharge more groundwater. This bill is complex, but so are the permitting processes for groundwater recharge projects. Today, permitting can be too slow or too rigid. In some cases, applicants need more certainty before taking on a costly, time-consuming process. My goal is to streamline permitting process for groundwater recharge and make sure the permits can actually be used when we need it. Groundwater recharge is absolutely essential to helping California navigate the new water reality. We are living in a time of weather extremes. Most of this water comes in short, intense storm events, and our current system is not designed to capture those big floods when they occur. During floods, we need the ability to divert water to recharge and protect our communities from extreme flooding. During drought, we need stored water to provide water to communities and the environment. Our largest water storage reservoirs are naturally formed aquifers, making them a cost-effective and natural way to store water that can support both water uses and environmental flows in dry times. Recharge creates environmental and public benefits by preventing land subsidence, diverting flood flows and helping communities meet their SGMA goals affordably. Last year, the Legislature passed SB 72, which required the California Water Plan to identify 9 million acre-feet of new supply to protect against water scarcity. Groundwater recharge could be a major factor in finding the water solutions. Right now, relatively few permits have been issued for groundwater recharge even though reports have called for more. Even when recharge is permitted, less than 4% of the permitted recharge actually takes place. We are missing opportunities that could be a win-win for our communities and the environment. We can't maintain the status quo. We have to take a look at the issues and make changes now to store water for our future This bill makes needed common sense census to streamline the permitting process and make those permits more usable. For example, this bill allows the Water Board and Groundwater agencies the tools to create flexible permit timelines for operators. This means that people can apply for permits before they know if the rainy season will be wet or dry. This allows the applicants to secure permits in advance but only use them when conditions are right instead of losing an opportunity because of rigid timelines. This bill makes it easier to capture flood flows safely. But most important, these changes are designed to move water during high flow conditions while maintaining existing environmental water user protections. I am committed to continuing to work on this bill should it move forward today. With me today I have Kristin Sikki from the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Kristin Peer, a water attorney with BKS law firm. Prior to joining BKS, she was a special counsel for the water policy for Cal EPA. The sponsors of the bill, Ryan O'Jane from Regional Water Authority and Cam Bezdick from the Northern California Water Association are also available to answer any technical questions. Thank you very much. Each of the witnesses, you have two minutes each. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, committee members. Excuse me. I'm Kristen Sicke, general manager of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. For those that aren't familiar with Yolo County, the fabric of the county is deeply rooted in its agricultural heritage and is defined by its rural productive soil and the legacy of the Bracero program. Farm workers are essential to the county's productive ag industry, which as we all know is dependent on water availability. More recharge is necessary, and the state has done its best to prioritize recharge and wet years, but somehow over the past decade, the process has become more complex. Our agency has participated in DWR and the Northern California Water Association's Sacramento Valley Flood Diversion Enhancement Working Group, which has brainstormed ways to improve the state's permitting process and has vetted AB 2026. Our irrigation district is a conjunctive use district. We rely on surface water and groundwater to grow food. Surface water comes from upstream reservoirs in Cache Creek during wet years, and groundwater is our savings account for dry years. We're constantly trying to optimize our system to divert excess winter water in Cache Creek to replenish groundwater using our unlined earthen canals. And we are considered the most successful applicant of 180-day temporary permits. There's frequently excess water in Cache Creek, and we have the existing infrastructure set up for these events. There's plenty of room in our conveyance system to put the water. Of the 11 years that we've submitted 180-day temporary permit applications, we diverted winter water in seven years, protecting the environment and downstream users, and these diversions have totaled a little over 42,000 acre-feet. The first year that we submitted in 2015, it took two months of pre-consultation with DWR, CDFW, and the Bureau and the State Water Board, and we received an eight-page temporary permit six days later with nominal fees. This last year, the 11th time submitting a permit, we received the 30-page permit 125 days after submitting it, and the fees were about $35,000. dollars. AB 2026 will be very helpful to advance groundwater recharge protecting communities during dry and critical years and protecting the environment and downstream water right holders. Thank you Thank you very much Next speaker Good morning I Kristen Pierre an attorney with BKS Law Firm and I represent the Regional Water Authority and the Northern California Water Association who are the sponsors of AB2026 I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important issue, which is California's ability to adapt to a changing climate and ensure water supply resiliency into the future. The bill is focused on one thing, ensuring that more diversions to groundwater recharge are occurring at times when it is wet so that our systems are more resilient when it's dry. Groundwater recharge is a cost-effective, scalable solution to improve water supply reliability for communities, agriculture, and the environment alike. Increasing the pace and scale of groundwater recharge is essential to achieving sustainability in the face of climate change. Despite a decade of efforts, additional legislation is needed to remove barriers that currently exist to permitting water diversion for recharge and allowing unpermitted diversions of flood flows for recharge. AB 2026 builds on previous legislation and incorporates many of the provisions contained in executive orders to help facilitate what we hope will be the next generation of groundwater recharge projects throughout California. Those changes include refining the process for unpermitted diversion of flood flows by expanding access to divert water when the river is operating for flood control, while also ensuring the protection of downstream water users and the environment. It also provides the state water board with the tools to improve permitted recharge by refining the requirements for temporary permits and midterm permits. And it also creates a structure for obtaining a permanent permit that would account for and recognize previous work and investment in groundwater recharge through obtaining at least five years of temporary permits. Both approaches to capturing flood flows and permitted recharge in AB 2026 will protect existing water rights, including the state and federal projects and environmental needs. I appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill, and I am available to answer any questions the committee members may have. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much for both of your testimonies. At this time, we'll take Me Too's. Anybody in favor of the bill or wants to express support for the bill may come up to the microphone, your name, your organization you represent, and your support for the bill. Good morning. Ryan O'Jackie with the Regional Water Authority, co-sponsor, and obviously in support. Good morning, Vice Chair and members. Cam Bezdek with the Northern California Water Association, proud co-sponsor and in support. Thank you. Good morning. Sophie Marine with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Jeff Neal on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Yellow County, also in support. Good morning. Melissa Werner here on behalf of the California Water Association in support. Thank you. All right. If that exhausts the support list, we'll go on to opposition witnesses. Do we have anybody who wants to testify as a chief opposition witness? If you do, ladies, if you can excuse yourself. Thank you. You guys come on up, have a seat. We each have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning. Kim Delfino. I'm here on the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in opposition. We have an opposed unless amended position. Let me be clear. Defenders has offered amendments to this bill because we do believe that we have to support and promote groundwater recharge. But AB 2026, even with the committee amendments, failed to address nearly all of the concerns that we have raised California salmon are in a crisis Native fish populations continue to decline Taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in habitat restoration floodplain projects fish passage improvements, projects such as the voluntary agreements that depend on healthy river flows. But AB 2026 would undermine those investments. The fundamental flaw in this bill is that it assumes that water that appears available on paper is available in the river. but salmon do not live on paper. Under this bill, a wet start to the water year can trigger diversion authority that continues long after the river conditions have changed. A river can experience declining flows, warming temperatures, shrinking habitat, yet diversions can continue because a cumulative runoff calculation says the year is still wet. That is not how rivers function. The bill repeatedly refers to excess and flood flows, but water that may appear excess from a water supply perspective may be essential for maintaining salmon runs, delta outflow, water quality, and public trust resources. AB 2026 also ties important state diversion decisions to weaker federal rules. California's public trust obligations and environmental protections should not depend on standards currently being weakened and rewritten in Washington. At the same time, the bill contains an exemption from 1600 review, which is one of our most important tools for protecting streams, riparian habitat, and fish from the impacts of diversion infrastructure. Perhaps most importantly, based on the letters of concern and opposition, there is no consensus that the approach this bill takes for changes in our diversion rules are ready for statewide implementation. The diversion criteria contained in the bill were not developed with input from affected water users, fisheries, experts, tribes, conservation organizations, and state agencies. Groundwater recharge is too important to get wrong, and we can improve recharge permitting, but we must do so based on sound science and a commitment to protect our rivers, fish, and public church resources, and for that reason, we urge a no vote. Thank you, ma'am. Our next speaker, two minutes, please. We have a long, long agenda. You do. Thank you. Thank you, Senator and committee members. Barry Nelson, representing the Golden State Salmon Association. We represent the 23,000 jobs in the salmon fishing industry when we have healthy salmon runs, which we do not. Our commercial salmon fishing has been shut down for the last three years. Recreational fishing has been virtually shut down for the last three years. That has caused catastrophic economic impacts in the fishing industry. The cause is primarily the decline of salmon in the Sacramento River Basin. For example, on the main stem of the Sacramento River, we've seen a 95% decline in the last 20 years of wild spawning fall-run salmon. The cause of that is water management, high water temperatures and excessive water diversions. Those water diversions kill baby salmon as they attempt to migrate down the rivers and into the ocean. This bill is simply designed to increase diversions without adequate protections for salmon. I'll give three simple examples. First is actually one Kim Delfino just mentioned, and that is the way the bill handles averages, allows diversions that would harm salmon even during low flow periods when conditions are poor. Second, even in dry years, there are sometimes short periods of high flows that are absolutely critical to the survival of outmigrating salmon. This bill has no protections for those flows. Up third, also as Kim Delphine mentioned, this bill is aligned with Trump administration rollbacks in environmental laws, protections for salmon and the Bay Delta, and this bill makes it harder for the state and future federal agencies to respond to those rollbacks. This discussion began in the legislature several years ago with a discussion of how to facilitate the diversion of flood flows. That's appropriate. We support that discussion. This bill has just lost its way. We see these bills as a major threat to the survival of the salmon fishing industry. You wrap up, please. You've got two minutes. Thank you very much. All right, this time we can go ahead and take the me-toos, and I'm going to pass the gavel back to the chair. You can come up, state your organization, your name, and also your opposition to the bill. Thank you. Good morning. Sam Bivens for Semi-Tropic Water Storage District. We're opposed to AB 2026 unless amended. Our amendments are narrow and designed to protect semi-tropics investment in a large groundwater recharge project called the Tulare Lake Project. Thank you. Hi, Alex Loomer on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Cynthia Cortez with Restore the Delta in opposition, also in opposition on behalf of California Sports Fishing and Protection Alliance. Good morning. Annalise Rivero with California Trout in Opposed Unless Amend. Thank you. Scott Webb with the Resource and Loans Institute, also speaking in opposition for Friends of the River, Yosemite River Alliance, and SF Baykeeper. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Karen Lang on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District is a member of the Tributaries Association and the Merced County Board of Supervisors with concerns about planada in opposition unless amended. Thank you. Good morning. Jamie Miner on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District, also a member of the San Joaquin Tributaries Authority that is opposed unless amended. We've appreciated conversations over the past few months with the Assembly member and with the sponsors, especially on just one specific provision related to the conditions just to ensure that everybody can enjoy the benefit of this bill and getting more water into the ground throughout the state. And we look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you. Alex Allen is on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you. Molly Colton with Sierra Club California in opposition. Sean Bothwell for California Coast Keeper Alliance. Opposed, unless amended. Good morning, Senators. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League, opposed unless amended. And Annalise Severo again with Trout Unlimited in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Okay, let's take it back for discussion from the members. Anyone have any? Senator Grove. Thank you, Madam Assemblymember, for Madam Leader, for bringing this bill forward. I really do believe we have to address the groundwater situation that we face. I think Sigma, one of the comments from the opposition that this bill is not based on sound science, and I can tell you that Sigma was not based on sound science, because if it was, we wouldn't be in the situation we end with water recharge. I do have a couple of questions, and I'm just asking for a commitment. You're an Honorable member, I've worked with you in the past. So I have three counties that are opposing this. Obviously, top three food-producing counties in the world, Kern, Tulare, and Fresno. Kern is very concerned about the semi-tropic situation. They've already invested millions in order to make sure that they are able to do the groundwater recharge. And there is a, they just don't want this to circumvent the process that they've already invested in. Will you continue to work with semi to address the concerns that they have So absolutely And you know Senator I committed to continue to work on this bill As we heard from some of the opposition that there questions that they have and amendments that we will be looking at So I will continue to be working on this. I don't know if you have a comment about that. Yeah, I would just say that we've been in conversations with Semi-Tropic and we are working on language and that should be resolved, I would expect, in short order. Okay, and then also Modesto and Merced, the Central Valley, again, producing food. They have concerns that this will affect the downstream. And it should be, there should be groundwater recharge, especially in the entire state, but specifically where we grow the food and we need the water, where our surface water has been denied. And so I appreciate you working on those amendments. Thank you, ma'am. Senator Laird. Thank you. I have some comments in a moment, but I thought I would ask the question, given the opposition, because there's two competing things here. There's expanding our groundwater expansion, and there's making sure the flows are protected going into various rivers and streams. how do you respond to the criticism that this will not affect those flows in a way that has the impact on fish and other things? Thank you, Senator Laird. I would respond by saying that we have developed an alternative criteria that does a pretty basic thing, which is to establish a threshold for when water is available. And the intent is to allow for permitted diversions when it is extremely wet in the system. And it calculates the method for water to be available under circumstances when the cumulative runoff is 80% of historical average. So it's quite wet. That's the trigger. And there would be four ways in which the diversions would be required to cease. And that's the time of year. So the diversions would only be allowed from December to March 31st, so just in the wet winter months. Delta conditions would need to be met, every single delta condition, which are protective of both the state water and federal water projects and also environmental concerns. There are minimum bypass flow requirements in the water availability analysis that would recognize existing water users. and also there's an established baseline for public trust resources that has been established by the California Environmental Flows Framework, which is a framework that was developed by UC Davis, UC Berkeley, in connection with NGOs, environmental NGOs. And there would be a cap on the amount of diversion at 20%. So it's these high flows and there would be a cutoff trigger that would disallow diversions, and then there would be a small allowable percentage of diversion. Also, this is just creating the system for the state board to identify water that's available. The state board would still retain its discretion to condition the permit for fish and wildlife purposes. It would be able to limit or condition the permit for the amount of water that's actually diverted. So this is a water availability analysis that we're providing in statute, but the State Board still retains the discretion. Let me ask a follow and just a comment that I was going to make as a piece of my comments anyway this is like four bills in one This is doing so many different things and when I read the analysis I was really nervous because there was such a level of detail on all these different things that as much as I know a lot about water, it scared me because I did not know where there were unintended consequences in this, and I couldn't identify it. And so to go to your point, how do you know this is really true? How do you know that if, because the state water project now seems to depend on a few big storms a year, and that's when the major water comes through the system, and we're only going to be successful in storage with that. And how do you make sure, and that actually, God help me if we started talking about the delta right now, but that is the heart of the issue in the delta is whether or not there's protections on those excess flows. How do we know that's true here?

Just for the record, when you say it flows out to the ocean,

Okay.

But it's true, right?

And then let me, and I don't know if the author's the best, but you can farm it out. You took eight amendments from the committee. It didn't seem to remove opposition. are you still working or there are still issues you feel need to be addressed in this bill because it's going on to another Senate committee

Okay. And when you say you think you'll get there, meaning you're still in negotiations and you still expect to take more amendments?

And do you think they will start to address the points that the opposition made?

They're shaking their head, but I don't want to invite them back to the mic right now.

It like yes we want to have more groundwater storage It is one of the major ways we can do it The question is always are we diverting flows that are necessary for other reasons in the process And I appreciate

And it seems to me that that's the heart of the debate, whether you can guarantee that that's true. and I know you have the backstop of the water board, which could come in and has to permit and has to do this, but I'm really torn, but I'm inclined to give you a chance to continue to work on this. I think that the real issue is you have to really work on this. You have to see if you can deal or demonstrate these flow issues and demonstrate that the safeguards are truly safeguards. And I don't know. The bane of this job is you can't ask about unintended consequences because they're usually unintended and you don't know. But given the volume of stuff in this bill, it seems like that makes me nervous, but I don't know how to get at it because...

Well, we have this horrible practice in the legislature of saying we'll come back and clean it up. and then people got what they wanted out of the original bill, and there's no pressure to clean it up. So it really needs to be done as part of this bill if it's going to happen. So, okay. I will. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cabaldon.

Well, I can say in the bill it would be up to the state water board to determine how much water would be diverted. but the idea is that in Yolo County, in the Sacramento Valley, there would be water available under those conditions where 80% of historical cumulative flow is the trigger, and it would cease at 50% when it drops down to 50% through December 1st of any water year, and it would end at March 31st of any water year. And there's also additional cutoffs for existing legal water users, for delta conditions needing to be met, for environmental baseline flow, bypass flow requirements. And there is a cap at 20% of whatever that flow in between those two thresholds is.

so I think we're talking about two different things the 72 hour imminent flooding is the unpermitted changes part of the bill. So that's the 1242.1, water code 1242.1, which allows for diversions of flood flows that are unpermitted. So I think we're maybe conflating two things, talking about two different things. We're not. That's just me doing it. You did not participate in the complaining. And then with respect to the analysis raises a question, and I think some of some of the opposition or some of the questions as well about potentially creating an implicit future right that a diversion would be. So what's our, what's your, the amendments don't deal with

issue and why is it not addressed directly? It is direct, addressed directly. It, the unpermitted flows, there's express language in the bill that states that it doesn't create a water right. and I can find that for you if you'd like.

So as Kristen had mentioned, this is simply going to streamline the water availability analysis portion, but that the state water board still goes through all of their downstream protections and environmental protections when they put conditions on each permit. And so they will still look at each unique application to say what downstream requirements should be put in place. What's the in-stream flow that's required to protect the environment, and how do we ensure that no downstream users are impacted? So that's something that still exists. And I think this streamlining portion is that, as I mentioned, we've gone through 180-day temporary permits for 11 years now, and we just submitted a long-term permit so that we don't have to do it every year. And the cost to apply was about $800,000. And so there's a significant expense involved in all of this, and this will help to, as mentioned, kind of streamline it and assist with those rural communities that may need something where the bulk of the cost, the water availability analysis, can be reduced because that's pretty expensive in the whole thing. I found the code section. It's as water code section 1242.1 F1. It says the person or entity making the diversion of groundwater. That's the start of it, yes. And so it's subdivision F1. It says diversion for groundwater recharge pursuant to this section shall not create a vested water right to divert, even of a temporary nature. The limitation is on the authorization to divert and not the limitation on the authorization for beneficial use of the water diverted to groundwater storage.

Okay. I will invite the opposition up to give some kind of quick responses because I saw you had to. Thank you.

Kim?

Okay, we do need to move on. I see a quick switch here. Was there a quick comment?

Mr. Chair, can I ask a follow-up? Yes, go ahead, Senator Laird.

This is one of those classic moments where in my eyesight are you nodding and them shaking their heads. Yeah, I appreciate that.

That is retained in existing law and it exists in this bill.

Mr. Chair, I really don't want to extend this debate, but opponents have been shaking their heads at every single thing that was just said. Could you speak to why you don't have the same opinion? Okay. Go ahead.

That has been taken away. Let me just say that we're not, the Defenders of the Wildlife's position is not we should scrap the bill and start over with the study.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you all. Sir, Senator Grubb.

Okay. Well, we started off with a really important bill and a complicated bill. I apologize. I wasn't here for the very beginning of it. but there was file order for the Public Safety Committee. So I got there first early to present. And also I know this is a loud hearing room, so I appreciate everyone's patience. I just have maybe one question myself, and I'll have some points and then let you close. We do talk about doing this in a transparent way, but the diversion standard itself wasn't necessarily a public process. Is there a way to get the public involved or have that be a public process? Thank you, Senator.

Would you like to close?

Okay. Well, thank you for taking on this complicated topic. It's really important. Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Senator Grove. It will be due pass to the Environmental Quality Committee. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato? Allen? Kvaldin? Aye. Kvaldin, aye. Grove? Grove, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Stern? 4-0. Okay, 4-0. That bill is on call. Thank you. Okay. Going from a complicated bill to an easier and a simpler bill. Go ahead when ready on AB 2216.

With me today, I have Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon, California, and Michael Jared on behalf of the Nature Conservancy. Okay, go ahead. You should have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Michael Chen, Senior Manager of Government Affairs for Audubon, California. I'm here today to express our support for AB-2216. The Delta is an essential part of the Pacific Flyway, one of North America's major migratory routes for birds. Since the 1970s, North America has lost 3 billion birds, approximately one-third of its total bird population, due to habitat loss and other human activities. California was once home to 35 to 40 million ducks and geese each year. Now our waterfowl populations are closer to 6 to 8 million and may continue to decline. With climate change, over 160 species of California birds are at risk of even greater population loss and even extinction. California needs to conserve important habitats in places like the Delta and work collaboratively with landowners if we want to stem or reverse these losses. Expanding the Conservancy will provide ample opportunities for the state and its partners to restore lost habitat, expand public access and recreation, and contribute to local economies. The Delta Conservancy has already demonstrated real leadership, planning expertise, and the collaborative culture that can be scaled up and expanded to new areas. Expanding the conservancy is also the most cost-effective way to expand its benefits to new constituents and make the program conservation gains more durable. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for I vote. Good morning, Chair and Honorable Members. My name is Michael Jared, Associate Director for the Nature Conservancy, and I'm testifying in strong support of AB 2216, which would expand and update the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Conservancy to cover the remaining portions of Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin, and Yolo counties, and would add Lake County by creating the Valley and Lake Program. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, or the Delta Conservancy, is one of the state's 10 state conservancies. State conservancies are non-regulatory entities that support communities by connecting them to state funding. The Delta Conservancy has a proven track record of working with local communities to identify shared objectives and develop locally supported priority projects that provide a statewide benefit. AB 2216 will expand the area that receives those benefits, support large watershed scale projects and new sources of funding. AB 2216 expands to those existing counties, but then also adds Lake County an ecologically sensitive yet economically disadvantaged community Some of the areas have significant wildfire risk and have not had access to recent funding packages for conservancy wildfire resiliency projects. In addition, AB 2216 would benefit the areas the Delta Conservancy already serves by doing the following, clarifying the ability to fund on-farm activities that contribute to wildlife habitat, expanding the type of climate resilience projects the Conservancy can fund, provide the Conservancy authority to provide grants for workforce development and to tribal organizations consistent with other Conservancies, and support funding for underserved groups by authorizing the Conservancy to do advanced payments and cover indirect costs. AB 226 would not affect the allocation of Prop 4 dollars or distract from the Conservancy's work in the Delta, but would better position the Conservancy to support this vital region in future funding measures. This will lead to better conservation and climate resilience outcomes while supporting regional economic development and public recreation opportunities. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Okay. Do you have anyone who would like to add on in support? Alex Loomer on behalf of the Maryland Defense Fund in strong support. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Rico Mastro-Donato, the Legislative Director for the Trust for Public Land, in support. Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife, in support. Cynthia Cortez, Restore Delta, in support. Jeff Neal, representing the Board of Supervisors of Yolo County, in support, and also Lake County. Appreciation for being added. Thank you. Good morning. Audrey Ritajek on behalf of Contra Costa County and we're support if amended. We're hopeful to be able to add Contra Costa into the bill if possible later. Okay. Anyone in opposition? Anyone adding in opposition? See none. Back to the committee. Senator Kowalden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I represent the Senate on the Delta Conservancy Board and I know there's been a lot of interest in expansion of all the conservancies. a direction in which I'm generally opposed to. The conservancies of California have specific missions, and I know there are folks that would like to be able to add more eligibility for funding programs and what have you that do a variety of conservation projects, but we really do need to focus in California on some of the critical resources areas, Tahoe, the ocean, the delta. These are not just sort of places that happen to be like every other place, but they are critical to not just the habitat, but to the entire state in so many profound ways. And so the Delta is often forgotten except as a waterworks project. And so my initial concern with the concept was we're going to lose the Delta in the focus. And these counties, the vast majority of most of these counties are not in the Delta. And I'll be very blunt. I watched the amount of sort of unincorporated area sprawl in Sacramento County in areas that are not in the Delta. And I am concerned. I do not want there to be any any lessening of the focus on the Delta or any of the concern any of the state funds that are that are available through bonds or GGR for elsewhere or elsewhere to go to support or to offset development projects in those sprawling areas when those dollars need to be for the Delta. And so I So I have a lot of concern about how that works, and I want to really put an explanation point behind what the author said, which is this is about making sure that projects that support the delta and its watershed, and clearly, in particular, that those particular geographies remain the center point of the bill, That we're not going to treat projects in Rancho equivalent to a project that is necessary in the Sassoon Marsh or elsewhere in the state, in the Delta region. That has to remain the focus. This is not a way for anyone, the nonprofits or developers or others, to say, okay, now this is a pathway into this. Now it's the co-equal parts of this conservancy. They are not co-equal parts of the conservancy. The point here is to protect the critical resources of the Delta and Clear Lake and that associated watershed. So I'm supportive of the bill today because of those protections and because the author has been very clear about what we're doing here and because I expect as a member of the board of this conservancy to keep an eagle eye to assure that that intent is upheld And this does not just become a way to make the states critical conservancies into generic conservancies that seek to take advantage of the voter support for projects that support these critical areas. So I appreciate the author's work to make this happen. It's also why I don't support extending it to Contra Costa County at this stage. I'm not saying never. But we need to make sure that we are keeping the delta at the center, adding Clear Lake, which has no other alternative and is also a critical area for the state, but without making this so generic that we're no longer focusing on those critical resources. So I'm going to support the bill today, appreciate the author, and I hope we continue to say out loud what we're really doing here, which is to support the delta and the watershed that supports it, including Clear Lake as the center of this work, and it is not an attempt to try to simply extend to every inch of the five delta counties, the Conservancy's efforts. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Senator Laird. Thank you. I would associate myself with the comments of my colleague and make two added points. Just to reinforce the one that I've seen this trend, it's going on in Prop 4 right now where people want to get added to areas to be able to be eligible for funding. And that's not a reason to do that. It's just not. And I totally agree. I've actually worked with the author on Clear Lake, and I totally agree to the need there, and that makes sense. Then going into certain urban areas, that doesn't necessarily make sense. And I think we have to send a signal to other conservancies that want to expand for similar reasons that we're going to look at that and not necessarily do that. because every part of the state will be in a conservancy, and then we will lose our focus on the Sierra or the Delta or the coast or the places where they are. Then the most obscure point I was going to make is the governance of the Delta Conservancy was based on the governance of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and one of the underwriting points was there had to be at least one more state appointment than local appointment. and by adding two, you kept one being a state appointment, so whether you knew it or not, you were consistent with the framework of conservancies in doing that, and if that had been a local appointment in some way, I would have been speaking up about you knocking over the balance right now So thank you Brilliant Yeah Okay, would you like to close? I just want to say, this bill has been a trusted partner for years. And so, the last thing we want to do is disrupt that. They have been an incredible partner that we've worked with. So this bill will obviously create more opportunities for the Delta Conservancy to continue our critical work to protect our Delta and its watershed. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Do we have a motion? Senator Cabaldon. Directly moves it. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Becker. Aye. Becker aye. Zarato. Allen. Cabaldon. Cabaldon aye. Grove. Grove, aye. Laird. Laird, aye. Stern. 4-0. Okay, that is 4-0. Thank you, Majority Leader. Good luck with the rest of your day. I'd like to invite up Assemblymember Bennett. You have two bills. Are you going to start with AB 1960? AB 2075 for the benefit of my witness. Okay, so we'll start with AB 2075. This is file item 22. Thank you. Thank you. As soon as it's quiet enough, you can go ahead. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In October of 2024, in Ventura County, a young tractor driver was clearing dry vegetation. And while for cattle grazing, when an accidental fire erupted caused by the engine, while the tractor driver followed all the correct safety standards, standards, his fire extinguisher equipment was attached to his truck, which was downhill a long ways away from the tractor. This event became the catalyst for the mountain fire, which would burn 20,000 acres to store 250 structures. The Ventura County District Attorney's investigation revealed uncertainty as to whether the company that contracted the tractor driver could be held liable for the fire safety noncompliance. AB 2075 clarifies the fire safety standards during operations near forest, brush, or grass-covered lands and ensures companies performing these activities can be held liable in the event of an accidental fire. With me today in support is Chuck Hughes, Ventura County Special Assistant District Attorney. Thank you very much. Okay, go ahead. Please have two minutes. My name is Chuck Hughes. I'm here testifying on behalf of Ventura County District Attorney Eric Nazarenko. We all know California is plagued by wildfires. Ventura County has been no stranger to those. We've had some of the largest fires in California history, the Thomas Fire, the Woolsey Fire, and as Assemblymember Bennett pointed out, the Mountain Fire in 2024. AB 2075 is designed to help prevent some fires. With a simple fix, keep fire equipment close to those who are working the land. When we reviewed the mountain fire, we found that statutes are inconsistent and somewhat vague as to what standards should be applied. As Assemblymember Bennett pointed out, in the mountain fire, the person operating the tractor had a fire extinguisher, but when the tractor caught fire, the fire extinguisher was too far away to get down to the fire extinguisher and back in time to put it out. Indirectly that resulted in the mountain fire because the standard for that situation was that the equipment simply needed to be ready for use in the immediate area That obviously is a subjective standard. What the tractor operator thought at the time was sufficient clearly turned out not to be. We've had a similar fire just a month ago in Simi Valley, the Sandy Fire. Fortunately, that only burned 2,000 acres and I think one structure, but the initial cause reports are that it was a tractor that hit a rock, caused a spark, and things got out of control. What AB 2075 proposes is a consistent bright line rule that will keep fire equipment close. It has to be, if you're working the land on foot with power tools, it has to be the fire equipment must be within 25 feet of the worker so they can get to it and get back, hopefully in time to extinguish any fire. If you're using a motor vehicle to work the land like a tractor, a fire extinguisher and shovel have to be in or attached to that vehicle. It's a very straightforward and clear rule. The 25-foot standard already exists in Public Resources Code Section 4431. So it just expands that same standard. The other thing we noticed is that in some of the statutes, only an individual is responsible for compliance, not the businesses employing that individual. AB 2075 will clarify in all situations that not just the individual but the business is responsible for compliance. It's our belief that businesses are in the best position to ensure compliance. So I would strongly urge your aye vote. Okay, thank you. Anyone else would like to add on in support? Any opposition? Good morning, Chair, members. Peter Ancel, California Farm Bureau, here on behalf of Farm Bureau and California Cattlemen's Association. We've expressed a letter of concern that the committee was nice enough to spend time discussing with us and it's included in the analysis. The author's office, we haven't been able to get there. We're hopeful that we'll be able to continue to have that conversation, and it really focuses on that standard around rangeland. So for people going out and doing work with grazers and those type of animals, a bright line standard, as we've seen the bill adjust for the forestry sector, we believe that there's an appropriate similar pathway to have the Board of Forestry look through its rangeland management advisory committee, and for rangeland work, and specifically, to be able to create a similar standard where that advisory committee can determine what's reasonable for those ranchers and farmers that are out often over many miles doing things like repairing fences that have come down. And that bright line rule becomes something once we're seeing a significant increase in that enforcement effort. Would be really useful to have some flexibility just like we've seen the bill adapt to for the forestry sector. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Committee, any? Senator Cabaldon. Just on that point, could you share with us your, are we getting there on that issue? I do. Like several members of the committee, I represent a lot of rangeland and cattlemen. I don believe even a letter has come in yet from the Farm Bureau about this It just surfaced at the end of last week that they called the office and said they had a concern So we need to investigate the concern, et cetera. I think we can get there. We've tried to make sure that this is, you know, that we do everything reasonable. The district attorney's office and their investigation really identified just how vague the language is, to say that it needs to be close is not very legally enforceable, et cetera. So as long as Farm Bureau is open to trying to make sure that it's something reasonable, that's not vague, the request for an advisory committee to give advice all seems reasonable to us as we move forward. So we're happy to have that. But again, it all surfaced. No specific language was offered. No letter, I believe, even came in. It's been very last-minute surfacing of this. Senator Grove? Thank you. I thank my colleague from Yellow for asking that question. Just a follow-up. I have two follow-ups. You gave an exemption or some type of language to the Forestry Service, right? So why wouldn't it be appropriate just to have the same language that's exempted for the Forestry Service to rangeland? We all have cattle. We all have rangeland. Well, my colleague from San Francisco doesn't, but the majority of us have either small farm rangeland or actually in our area where we have thousands of acres of feed of rangeland. It could be very appropriate. It's just this is literally the first that we've gotten anything. We got a phone call saying, hey, we have some concerns. But the bill actually affects rangeland, and it didn't dawn on you to help protect the farmers of that rangeland? The request for anything about rangeland only came as a phone call. Okay. You know. There wasn't a letter submitted. My understanding is there was a letter submitted. You can come up to the microphone instead of yelling. I invite you up to just respond quickly. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Senator. We submitted a letter to the Assemblymember staff and sat down with the committee consultant to talk about the letter and those concerns. So it was more than a phone call. But we did not submit through the portal because we hadn't taken a position on the bill in the first house and weren't concerned until we saw the bright line come up on rangeland and then the flexibility that was created through the Board of Forestry for the forestry sector. And then that, you know, we wanted to come in and have, frankly, a friendly conversation with the member before we put something into the portal. Got it. Absolutely. That's a process question. But yes, go ahead. It's a process. It's a process question. And thank you. So I apologize that I misunderstood. But you did submit a Brightline separation for forestry management. And I get it, right? I go to my favorite place in the world to go is Huntington Lake, and it almost burnt everything to the ground in the Creek Fire a few years ago. A lot of that, one of the instances that was indirectly, you mentioned the word indirectly, not directly, one of the indirect issues was someone doing some tree cutting up in a tree, right? I don't even know if they have fire extinguishers with them while they're on their belt up in a tree. You would think that might be a safety hazard in itself. So I realize that this needs to be addressed and that it should be closer than 25, 30, 40 feet, and there needs to be clarity. But I do have serious concerns about the exemption for the Forestry Service but not rangeland. And I have a serious concern about your comment about indirectly. Now, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even have a college degree, so you're a big way up on me. but you said indirectly that the farmer's tractor caused that. What do you mean by indirectly? What happened is the tractor became, Fully engulfed. Sorry. Oh, sorry. It's okay. The tractor became fully engulfed, and that fire was held to a very small acreage. Because the fire had burned so intensely at the tractor, several days later when the winds kicked up, still superheated debris from under the tractor blew out and started the mountain fire. That's why I say it was indirect. I was just curious about that. And if I made the department... Is that one of those new tractors? Did you do an investigation on that with the Cadillac converter, all that stuff that's on it that were required because of climate change that get overheated and can catch grass on fire? That I don't know, but what I'm told is it was actually an engine malfunction that the engine caught fire. The engine caught fire. And so with the malfunction and the engine caught fire, can you talk to me a little bit about the criminal liability for the employer or the liability that the district... I only say criminal because I have a district attorney sitting in front of me. So if there is a rangeland fire or something happens and there is a fire, does this bill impose criminal liability for the individual? I mean, the engine malfunction. A lot of businesses can stop a lot of things. They can require an employee to carry a fire or stevenouser on their tractor. They can hire somebody who's qualified to operate the tractor. But if you have an engine malfunction and it's out of your care custody and control, Is there criminal liability for such a situation like that? And I only ask that because you're a district attorney. Sure. Not generally. However, if there were a standard that a fire extinguisher had to be attached to that tractor, and there was not, there would potentially be misdemeanor criminal liability for that. Now, when a business is held criminally liable for a misdemeanor, no one goes to jail. It's a fine. And so the goal is not prosecution. The goal is compliance and making it clear that not just the person operating the tractor or the backhoe or whatever it may be is responsible for compliance, but the business is as well. Ventura County is a largely agricultural economy. We have no interest in putting our farmers and ranchers out of business or making life difficult for them. We're just trying to help prevent some of these fires. I totally get it. I understand, and I'm trying to just ask those questions so that there's clarity, right, because of the opposition on the bill. So, again, going back to the forestry exemption, are you willing to take the forestry exemption or same language and apply it to the cattleman language? The forestry exemption, as I recall, actually came up at the request of the Department of Forestry for timber. There was not a similar request as to rangeland and farmland. We're open to discussions. I am concerned about unnecessarily increasing the cost to the state agency if they have to evaluate all the different permutations of rangeland and farmland, but we are open to that if the Department of Forestry is open to that. Okay. So only if the Department of Forestry is open to it, you're going to address the rangeland and cattle land issue. No, we're open to discussing it, but we also need to discuss with the Department of Forestry. If that department were to say we don't want to be involved in that, it might affect the discussions. All right. Thank you. Same commitment from the author, obviously controlling the legislation. Absolutely. Thank you Thank you Thank you Mr Chair That bizarre I just wanted to quickly add on as a member of the Appropriations Committee to highly encourage you to consider resolving this and not treating rangeland differently than forestry Regardless of the Department's position, some equity in the application of these new rules is going to be important from my perspective. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I didn't put it. Okay. First, I want to confirm you're taking the amendments. Yes. Okay. Great. Well, I appreciate you working with the committee. As we discussed, this aligns different requirements across public resource code for equipment operators working on these fire prone landscapes. Obviously, we've heard concerns here about the range land. I think the committee amendments do rearrange the paragraphs. I think in the statute make clear more easily digestible subsections to improve the implementation. but as discussed, I think there might be further opportunities to provide additional flexibility similar to those provided to the timber operators working on timberland. So I appreciate you looking at addressing those. I do have a, we'll be supporting the bill here today. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? Senator Allen moves the bill. Would you like to close, actually? As always, when we do bills, we want to try to make sure that they're practical, that they're both enforceable, clear for the public, but also that they're practical in their application. So we look forward to continuing to work to make sure this bill meets those high standards that we should have for all good legislation. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Right. Well, again, I know this came out of a very specific situation, and we need to look at, and I love that, addressing the specific situation while making sure we don't have unintended consequences that we discussed. I will be supporting the bill here today. We have a motion from Senator Allen. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Thank you. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Cerato? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Grove? Laird, Stern. 3-0. 3-0. That bill will be on call. Thank you. Thank you to your witness. We'll now move to file M21, AB 1960. AB 1960. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments. Last year marked a historic and devastating change in terms of where we are with wildfires. AB 1960 allows Cal Fire to fund community-level hardening projects through the Wildfire Prevention Grants. Bless you. A 2025 study mapping the impacts of home hardening demonstrated that substantial reductions of property loss are achievable when community-wide mitigations are applied. This bill incentivizes homeowners to reduce risk by working together rather than one home at a time creating resilient communities. I have no witnesses. Okay. Anyone would like to add on in support? We do have a few folks approaching the mic. Christina Skorange with the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Thank you. All right. Martin Rodasiewicz on behalf of Megafire Action in support. Anyone in opposition? Oh support Good morning Mr Chair and members I here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support Okay great Jeff Neal representing the Orange County Fire Authority also in support. Excellent. Anyone in opposition? Any opposition add-on? A committee. Any committee comments on 1960? A.B. 1960? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Allen. Again, this is double referred, so this will go to emergency management. Next, the committee members, which you're accepting, will be taking up in the Senate emergency management due to legislative time constraints. I'd love to just kind of commend the author for his work on fire resiliency. We've talked extensively over the course of the last year or two, and many years actually, on this subject matter. And this is just one of many. Actually, both of those bills underscore the dedication. And at the end of the day, the experience that we've all had in our communities with these devastating fires, and we all know we have to do so much more to reduce our risk, and these bills are part of that effort. So I look forward to voting for it. Amen. I'll second those comments. Do we have a motion from Senator Allen? Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Please call the roll. The motion is, in this case, due past emergency management. Please call the roll. Thank you. Senator Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon? Grove? Laird? Stern? So 2-0 on call. Okay, that one is 2-0 on call. All right. See Assemblymember Creel? If you could take that discussion. Assemblymember Ben, if we could take that discussion outside, that would be great. Mr. McRio, you are here for 1808, file number 18. AB 1808, go ahead when ready. Yes, sir, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1808. First, I would like to thank the committee chair and his staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the amendments. I would also like to thank the opposition, who I believe is now neutral, for their willingness to work with me on this bill to come to a solution. Let me be clear. My intent with this bill is not to undo the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. In fact, I believe I'm the only member in the legislation in the Joshua Tree range that supported the trailer bill. And that is, in part, why I feel so much responsibility to make sure it works well. And the western Joshua tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecologically and culturally important. Western Joshua trees span across a large portion of California's desert. I believe it is critical that we conserve such a unique and beautiful part of my district. We need this conservation program to work, and to make it work, we need to make sure local residents who love the Joshua tree can admire and preserve the tree, while also still having the ability to do work on their own property and have safe, effective public infrastructure. The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the department to enter into an agreement within a county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a western Joshua tree associated with single residences multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects. This bill adds commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. Additionally, this bill will allow the department to waive fees for the removal of up to 10 trees for single-family homeowners to do work on their property and up to 40 trees for maintaining existing public works. Public works put in front of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act are pieces of critical infrastructure often surrounded by the Joshua Tree of how prominent the Joshua Tree is in my district. Currently, any maintenance of this critical infrastructure has a high price tag leading to delays, unnecessary improvements, and increased costs for locals who are already low income. Similarly, local homeowners who love the Joshua Tree are also unable to do work on their own property without paying high fees. Here to testify in more depth of this effect, this House of Residence is former Assemblymember Chad Mays, Lois, for the city of Yucca Valley. Okay, grateful to have a special guest here today. Please go ahead. Several minutes, two minutes from ready. Well, good morning, Chair Becker and Senators. My name is Chad Mays. I'm a contract lobbyist for the town of Yucca Valley here in support of AB 1808. As you know, this one for me is also personal. I grew up in Yacca Valley. I served on the town council and served as mayor. This isn't a community that I just represent. It's also my home. Joshua trees are part of who we are. They're in our yards, lining the roads I grew up on. It's not a community that wants to see them disappear. We understand better than most what it would mean to lose them. But living among them means facing realities that are easy to miss from Sacramento. In Yacca Valley, nearly every homeowner has Joshua trees on their property. So almost any project, a new sewer line, hardening a home against wildfire, or building that pool that a family's always dreamed of can trigger fees running into the tens of thousands of dollars. I've sat across from residents who simply couldn't afford it. Retirees on fixed incomes, young families trying to do the right thing, buried in paperwork and fees that they never expected. That's not conservation. That's a burden falling hardest on the people least able to carry it. AB 1808 offers measured relief, limited to the built environment, and now narrowed to primary homeowners. It protects the trees that matter most while giving families a workable, affordable path forward. The town Yacovalli wants to thank the author for bringing this important bill forward. Also wants to thank the chair and the committee staff and the committee, and also the opposition for their hard work on this. Town Yacovalli urges your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. With time to spare. Appreciate it. Okay, we have some add-ons in support. Please go ahead. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the Palmdale Water District in support. Thank you. We have some others in support. Mr. Chairman Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance and the California Association of Mutual Water Companies. Strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Richard Filges with the California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you. Ben Turner from Axiom Advisors on behalf of CBIA and High Desert Water District in support. Hello Chair and members, Nathan Skatz on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support. Go ahead. County Senator Bino also in support. Do we have any opposition? We do lead opposition or? We're moving opposition. We're moving opposition. Yes. Kim Delfino on the behalf of Delfin. Benders of Wildlife, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Native American Land Conservancy, and the California Native Plant Society. Removing our opposition, really appreciate working with the author. He really is a champion for Joshua Trees, and we think we've reached a good place. Thank you. Excellent. Others who'd like to comment here? Yes. Also removing opposition with thanks to the author for the amends. Much appreciated. Senator Biological Services. Yes. Thank you to the author's office for taking amendments. Molly Colton, Sierra Club, California, removing our opposition. Okay. With that, take it back to committee. Senator Grove. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I, too, represent this area along with the former Assemblymember in you. And the biggest grief I have is that people made a way out there because they love those beautiful trees. and now they are more of a hindrance than anyway for any type of improvement or anything on your private property. With an average income of $47,000 a year, our constituents are required under the Western Industrial Act basically to pay for the entire state's program because they live there. And if they need to hook up to city sewer or they want a water line, Somebody might have to navigate 10, 12, 14 trees just to get to the, they might have 15 acres and have to go from their house to the street, and the cost is significant. And so you have a lot of people not being able to increase those projects or to provide those projects for their home that are desperately needed. A lot of times the relocation fees are so extraordinary that people in our communities can't afford to do that. But again, I think my biggest beef is that our community, just because of where they choose to live, are required to pay for the entire Western Joshua Retreat Program. No one in Sacramento pays for it. No one elsewhere pays for it. They don't do the mitigation costs. They don't have to worry about sewer costs. They don't have to worry about hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties for the damage to one. And so I applaud you for making it easier for all our family homeowners to be able to access the necessity of services that we have in normal, you know, non-therald world countries where we can be able to access the same services that other people in the state do. So thank you very much. Okay. Well, I want to thank you as well. We've heard loud and clear in this committee how important this issue is and how important it is to get right. And so I appreciate you taking the time last year and this year working with our committee staff. I'll be supporting the bill here today. Do we have a motion? Senator Grove, would you like to motion? Yes. Motion from Senator Grove. The motion is due pass to environmental quality. Would you like to close? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I really thank you for the opportunity to present this and protecting the Yasha tree is a priority for me and in my district. This bill works to make sure we can protect the Yasha tree and coexist with the tree. I respectfully ask for my vote. Thank you. Excellent. With the motion again is to pass environmental quality. Please call the roll. We have Senators Becker. Aye. Becker, aye. Serato, Allen, Cabaldon. Cabaldon, aye. Grove, aye. Grove, aye. Laird, Stern. That is 3-0. That bill is on call. See Assemblymember Petrie Norris. Go ahead. You have one bill on consent. You'll be here presenting File item one AB 550 Hi good morning Excellent Alright good morning Mr Chair and members Pleased to join you today to present AB 550 This, oh, and thank you Mr. Chair, to you and your staff for your work on this bill. Happy to accept the committee amendments. The California Endangered Species Act has successfully protected endangered and threatened species by ensuring that impacts from development are minimized and mitigated. Under a normal process, when a developer identifies during the CEQA process an endangered species on the site of a project, they apply to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for an incidental take permit. This permit protects the developer from liability and spells out the mitigations a developer must undertake in order to ensure the viability of that species. Unfortunately, there is a gap in this process. Currently, there's no way to apply for a take permit for a species that is not yet listed but could be listed at some point in the future. What we've seen is that clean energy projects can be severely delayed if a species discovered on site is petitioned to be listed while construction is underway. We've seen examples where projects are delayed by more than a year and can face liquidated damages of some $100,000 per day. So AB 550 will reduce these disruptions by allowing developers to apply for a permit as soon as a species is under consideration for being listed. The species is ultimately listed and this early permit is in place, an incidental tick permit will be automatically triggered so there's no disruption to the project and the newly listed species is better protected. AB 550 is an example of common sense process efficiencies to maintain environmental protections while acknowledging the need for us to build fast and as cost effectively as possible. I'm pleased to be joined today by Kim Delfino from the Defenders of Wildlife and by you're representing the Large Scale Solar Association. Thank you. All right. All right. Welcome. You have two minutes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Kara Martinson with Capital Advocacy here today on behalf of the Large Scale Solar Association or LSA. LSA's members are responsible primarily for the solar development that is coming online and will help California meet our climate and energy goals. Thank you to the chair and your staff and our wonderful author for working through a set of amendments that we think are really a common sense measure. And the fact that we're sitting here together at the table today, I think, says as much. As the assembly member mentioned, this bill simply moves up the time for which you can obtain an incidental take permit. So we are maintaining those critical species protections while expediting clean energy, which is incredibly important right now as we're trying to capture all of those remaining tax credits and get the energy online that we need to keep California's grid clean, reliable, and affordable. With that, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good morning, still. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife. I have to say I'm very happy to be here in support of this bill with the committee amendments. Really appreciate working with the author on this. Contrary to popular notion, we do not oppose everything. We are supporting this bill. We actually think this is, and you took the words right out of my comments here, common sense approach. If a species is petitioned to be listed, it is more likely than not, I'd say 90% of the time, going to become a candidate and ultimately listed So it makes absolute sense that if a project developer wants to be able to go get a permit to be able to proactively deal with the issue before it becomes a candidate, they should do it. And this bill provides the proper protections in place, same standards as a candidate or a finally listed species. So we think this is a win-win. And we really appreciate work, again, trying to find a good solution to move projects forward expeditiously while still protecting the declining species that we have. Thank you. And for that reason, we urge an aye vote. Okay. I'd like to see it. Thank you both. Add-ons in support. Anyone else would like to add on in support? Yes, go ahead. Good morning. Christina Scarinj with the Center for Biological Diversity. With the amends, we've moved to support. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. In opposition, do we have any opposition? We do. Go ahead. Honorable Chair Becker and committee members, my name is David Bullock of the SFV Alliance. The bill is narrowly tailored just to the construction of renewable energy projects. If it is solid in its premise and the stated goal of protecting at-risk species and its habitats, it should be effective enough for all other construction processes, including but not limited to natural gas generation facility, hydrogen potential generating projects, nuclear generating facilities, new highway projects, and building of all structures, including single-family homes, that Californians greatly desire. I appreciate you are all very busy with creating and entertaining each other's legislation. You might not have heard the realization has set in that the goal of 100% renewable energy in California is not obtainable without being cost prohibitive to most Californians. New gas-powered generation projects with hydrogen capability are going forward, but not to fret. With the use of ammonia and selective catalyst reuptake inhibitors, The emissions are super small, and it's safe to say probably will put out less emissions over their lifetimes than the pollution coming from the burning solar panels in Los Angeles as we speak. We ask the author to amend this legislation to include all construction or for this committee to reject this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Any others in opposition? Hi, Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon California, changing our position from opposition to neutral. Thank you so much. Okay. Committee, Senator Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I don't disagree with the opposition that, you know, other projects should be included too. I mean, if it's endangered, it's endangered. If it's previously been enlisted, I mean, why is it okay for a solar panel company to be able to have it, but not a natural gas company? So the opposition, but I do understand, I mean, I've been here for 16 years. I know that you, I mean, I think the majority leader from your house was just here and presented a 30-page bill with various changes to the water application process and diversion process. And that doesn't happen very often. You have to take the bite out of the apple one at a time, I guess. But I do completely sympathize and agree with what the opposition said. I have two questions. Is there a mitigation permit cost? And if so, what is it? So because it's a 2081 permit, there would be a permit fee. The department does charge a permit fee for getting a 2081. And then if there is mitigation associated with that and there is a full mitigation standard, then yes that would be an additional cost associated And what the permit cost The 2081 permits shoot I should know that It not that much honestly I think We just listened to testimony on a previous bill that every year this Water Agency of North has to apply for a permit for the Water Board for $800,000 a year. Yeah, it's not that, trust me. If we had that, then we wouldn't be worried about the Department of Fish and Wildlife having not enough staff. But I think it's actually only maybe $1,000. I'll get back to you and tell you what it is, but it's quite low. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Happy to get back to you with that information. No, appreciate that very much. Thank you. I'm supportive of the bill. We have solar in our district. It's not beneficial to the taxpayer because we provide solar to the other parts of the state. And we don't have a tax-based revenue in my district because they keep extending it. Thank you. Sarcastically, thank you. so they keep extending the solar tax exclusion so large scale solar hopefully our county supervisors will stand up to large scale solar and say if you're not going to participate in contributing to our community you shouldn't be there and you can put them on Yolo County or the beaches of Santa Monica or something like that instead of in my district but right now we don't have that so just a comment I apologize I'm supporting the bill but there are a lot of negative impacts that communities that support large-scale solar have, and they're continually extended by this body that you take advantage of supporting for large-scale solar. And there are disadvantages to communities that produce large-scale solar in order to pursue the, quote, green energy advancement. And I do, again, want to reiterate that I do support the opposition in what they say. You know, we should have it for pipelines. If it's really about the plant, it should be about the plant. And if it's not, you shouldn't be able to pay a fine mitigation fee or relocation fee in order to just, you know, get your project. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Well, I'd like to acknowledge the leadership of the author on this. As amended, we feel this bill will protect both the species under the California Indian Species Act and facilitate the permitting of renewable electric generation facilities. And really, I feel like this approach could be a model going forward. So I appreciate everyone coming together on this. We'll be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the members for your questions and comments. I'll just say I want to say thank you to my two witnesses and the groups that they represent. I think that we've really been able to come together and try to hash out in a collaborative way a solution to a challenge that is facing California. I think I'm very open to continued conversations, and I think my witnesses are too. We're continuing conversations to identify other opportunities for us to modernize the Endangered Species Act and ensure that we are navigating the decades ahead in a way that preserves and protects California's environmental treasures and environmental resources while also ensuring that we can deliver for Californians. So look forward to those continued conversations and respectfully ask for an aye vote on the measure before you today. Thank you. Again, thank you for your work. Do we have a motion? Senator Cabalden moves the bill. It says do press to appropriate. Please call the roll. Oh, that's your other bill. Yes, for this, for 512, pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Cerato? Allen? Cabaldon? Cabaldon, aye. Grove? Grove, aye. Laird? Cern. So 3-0 on call. 3-0, that is on call. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, you are here to present AB 1613. Yes. Okay, your witnesses are coming. Good to see you again. I'm going to step out very briefly and turn the gavel over to Senator Cabaldon. Please go ahead with your testimony. Tell him to be nice. Just messing. Well, good morning, Senators. First, I'd like to accept the committee amends. Thank you, staff, for your work on that. I'm pleased to present AB 1613, a bill that would create a California off-highway vehicle safety and stewardship course as self-guided certification of knowledge of safe operating practices of OHVs and require operators of OHVs to take this course in order to access off-highway lands beginning in 2029. Both federal and state statute have standards for the safe operation of an OHV. However, there is no requirement that operators know these existing or other safety standards. Additionally, there is no requirement that they have the ability to demonstrate their knowledge through a certification program. Because of the gap in law, misuse, property damage, accidents, injuries, and even deaths have become a problem in our state parks and other public lands that allow OHV recreation. California has even ranked the highest in fatalities amongst deaths associated with OHVs across the country. As a result of this need, stakeholder conversations include several safety summits over the past few years, with members of the community, law enforcement, and the department have revealed a common interest in providing additional training and education to the OHV community. AB 1613 is the culmination of years of work amongst the community and is not only modeled after similar programs in other states like Utah and Arizona, but is modeled after California's own successful Boater ID card that the legislature approved over a decade ago. It is time that California take the reasonable step forward in our OHV lands in order to improve safety and enact the change the OHV community has been asking. With that, I would like to introduce my two witnesses. Amy Granat, Executive Director of Sierra Access Coalition, and Jane Artiga, President of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation. Welcome, and you will each have two minutes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Jane Artiga, President of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation and also known as CORF. We are partners of California State Parks. I recently retired from working with the natural resource field with the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM. I here today in support of AB 1613 and I would like to thank Representative Wilson for her leadership and commitment and safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring safe sustainable OHV recreation Over the past several years, I've seen significant shift in outdoor recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic, people turned to the outdoors as a safe outlet. And between 2020 and 2023, The sales of side-by-sides, which are the most popular vehicle OHV out there right now, increased by 220%. The rapid growth brought many new riders with little to no experience of understanding of safe riding practices or trail etiquette. As a result, we have seen increase in accidents, injuries, and environmental impacts throughout the county, state, and federally managed lands. In response, the California OHV Motor Recreation Division convened annual safety summits, bringing together law enforcement, industry, OHV organizations and land managers to improve safety, coordinating, messaging, and develop solutions. AB 1613 is a result as an inclusive stakeholder process and reflects a collaborative effort to address challenges. This bill takes practical education first approach to improving safety, reducing accidents, and protecting California natural resources while preserving access for responsible OHV recreation. For this reason, I respectfully urge for your support of AB 1613 and thank you for your time. Thank you. Good morning committee members. My name is Amy Granite. I am currently executive director of the Sierra Access Coalition, 25-year advocate for motorized vehicular access and off-highway vehicles. It's critically important for all those riding and driving on dirt roads and trails under federal, state, and county management that they understand how to travel safely and use best stewardship practices while enjoying our precious public lands. Other states have already enacted off-road educational mandates. Now it's California's opportunity to enact legislation. The greater off-highway enthusiast community came together, working with the leadership of Assemblymember Wilson and staff to create AB 1613, which will establish a mandated requirement to take an off-road education course, focusing on trail safety and etiquette for all those traveling on public lands. The course will also emphasize the need for stewardship to help protect California's natural and cultural resources by engaging and involving enthusiasts themselves. Those who use dirt roads in areas designated for off-road travel must understand the importance of stewardship and the need for environmental protection for those special areas. Equally, all operators of off-highway vehicles must understand safe operations of their vehicles and important responsibility that has to accompany their use. AB 1613 will mandate that operators must be informed about all the above and more through an easily and affordably accessible online course under the auspices of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of State Parks I respectfully ask for your support for AB 1613 I thank you Do we have others to add on in support Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Opposition? For any opposition we do. Good morning again Honorable Chair Becker and committee members. My name is David Bolag of the SFV Alliance. We are in opposition. This legislation is said to have the goal of safety for all involved with off-highway vehicles, OHVs, yet it's leading with the punitive cost of fines of 100 for the first offense, 250 for the second offense, and 500 for the third offense. And yes, we understand that with the first offense that the judge can remove the fine. The fines are not excessive on the surface, but when you add penalty assessments, you're looking at four to eight times that amount, meaning the fines could be $400 to $800 for the first offense, $1,000 to $2,000 for the second offense, $2,000 to $4,000 for the third offense. We encourage the author to bring those fines down 90% to the $10, $25, and $50 mark to make the reality of those fines close to the $100, $250, and $500 on the paper, stated on the paper. Going on, there are areas in the state with heavy usage of OHVs because of the sand dunes or unpaved routes to get provisions and care for loved ones. These are more impoverished areas. Having a fee forgiveness for indigent people would encourage people to obtain these trains. Also, many people start riding at a very young age. I have found those people in my personal life to be the safest and most conscientious of operating OHVs. Removal of the vehicle code 38615. That is the code that requires 15 years or younger to operate their vehicles with an adult close by at 300 feet and replacing it with this training would be helpful to those who have and will continue to operate OHVs underage and by themselves and implement your training program, encouraging more to participate in the training. Although we oppose the legislation, we would hope you take seriously the SFV Alliance suggestion and what will most likely be your forward momentum. Thank you. Thank you. Others in opposition? Back to committee. Members. Some of my fondest memories are off-road highway vehicle riding as a kid in, I think, Senator Valadaris' district every summer. And they're my fondest memories because I did survive, despite the utter lack of any attention to safety by the operator, my parents, or society. And so I'm fortunate to have those memories, and we want to make sure more young people get those memories. And so this bill, I know it's a carefully crafted, highly consultative way in order to address those issues, both for safety and for this committee for the responsibility they will have to the natural resources, to the parks, to the off-road areas. And so I'm very supportive and at the appropriate time, I'd be happy to move the bill. Okay. We're going to thank you for your work on this bill. And let's see. Well, let's just say, would you like to close? I would. I am so thankful that my colleague and my own senator has had such a rich experience as a youth with OHV And I think what this bill seeks to do is really bring together or really highlight the work that has been happening for years between the various members of this community, from law enforcement to the OHV community, where they've talked about what those issues are and what they need to address, especially given the fact that during the pandemic, we saw a big increase in outdoor activity. People went outdoors to have fun and we had more people using OHVs in our great state than ever before and so found that we needed more education because it wasn't about some culture that from their own household that they learned the best way to operate. They were new to it and that being new to this community brought about a of issues that they are hoping to address and so I'm glad to be as chair of transportation a champion for them to get this across the finish line and to make sure that whether you grew up with that as a part of your culture or you you're new to it that you can operate in a safe way while at the same time protecting our parks. Excellent. I've also had some unsafe experiences on up but but not in this country. So maybe removed from that. But I do appreciate the flexibility. It will be an adjustment for folks to think about carrying a card and again taking the course. So having some flexibility to wave a first line I think is important. We'll be supporting the bill today. We have a motion from Senator Cabaldon due pass to transportation. Please call the roll. in our committee. Are you going to start with filing for AB 1772? Okay. We are happy to have the chair of the assembly committee on water parks and wildlife here with us. Thank you. Water is in the house. Okay. So we'll start with golden mussels. An epidemic indeed. Okay, so I'll start by accepting the committee amendments. Thank you so much. AB 1772 is a coordinated response to a problem that's moving quickly and outpacing our current response, and that is that of golden mussels. So let me give you just a little background about the problem. I'm sure a lot of you have read about it in the press. But in October 24, the invasive golden mussel was detected in North America for the first time. It's similar to kagwa and zebra mussels, but more adaptable and able to spread across a wider range of conditions. We're already seeing the impacts. There's clogging of water systems and rising maintenance costs for reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities, affecting water delivery for ag homes and flood control. Recreational access is being reduced through closures and long quarantine periods for vessels that are those of the recreational variety. There are also environmental impacts including harm to native species and ecosystems. The legislature took action last year with AB 149 which was an important first by funding prevention and mitigation and improved reporting requirements, but it doesn't address the long-term challenge. California does not have a framework in place for a coordinated response to aquatic invasive species. So AB 1772 will create that framework through the following three items. First, it creates a statewide standard for vessel inspections and decontamination, so prevention efforts are consistent across California. It gives water managers better information by connecting California to WID, the vessel tracking system already used by much of the western United States. And third, it provides ongoing funding for invasive species prevention by including the non-motorized paddle craft in the program, consistent with approaches that are used elsewhere in the west. So this bill builds on the work already done and focuses on coordination and consistency. Without it, the state's just going to continue to be back on its heels, reacting to each new threat as it comes. With me to testify today is Devin Middlebrook with Tahoe Regional Planning Advocacy. And I would like to note that Tahoe has really been at the forefront of staying clean, staying pure, and I'm delighted you were able to make it down today because you guys are, you know, you're sort of the gold standard in fighting the gold and muscle. Take it away. Thank you, Assemblymember. Good morning, Chair Becker, committee members and staff. My name is Devin Middlebrook and I'm 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 non-motorized paddlers at Tahoe. Tahoe does not have golden mussels, but we are very concerned. They could have devastating consequences on Lake 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 aquatic invasive species from entering the lake, including one boat with attached golden mussels. So far in 2026, our inspectors have prevented two boats with attached golden mussels from entering Lake Tahoe. As noted in this committee's report on the bill, AB 1772 is attempting the ambitious goal of creating a comprehensive statewide approach to addressing the threat of golden mussels. We thank the bill's author and this committee for their continued analysis and willingness to incorporate input into bill amendments from the many interested stakeholders across the state. The Tahoe region is a real-world example of science, prevention, control, and education working together to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species. Many of the lessons learned at Tahoe are reflected in the bill. Again, this committee report notes additional amendments, considerations, and policy development to ensure a successful statewide program is created. I also want to emphasize the risk of not advancing legislation to stop golden mussels this year. Every day no action is taken, golden mussels spread further in the state, greatly increasing the risk to California's natural resources like Lake Tahoe. Finally I would like to extend a formal invitation to the members of this committee and staff to come up to the lake and visit our boat inspection stations in person to learn more about our program Thank you And I have Mark he represents many water agencies to answer any technical questions should the committee have them. We may. Others in support, do we have others in support who want to add on here? Great. Good morning, Steve Wallach on behalf of the California Tahoe Alliance in support. on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors in the South San Joaquin Irrigation District in support. Thank you. Good morning, Sophie Marine on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies with the support if amended position. We thank Assemblymember Papin for her leadership on this bill and all the work that's gone into it thus far. And we look forward to continue working with everyone to strengthen the bill to keep the ability of public water agencies keeping golden mussels out of their water bodies. Thank you. Thank you. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties. Support if amended. All right. Opposition. Do we have any opposition? We do. Are you okay to testify from there? Go ahead. Sure. Thank you, Chair and Members. Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California, a 58-year-old nonprofit advocacy Organization for the California's Boaters, co-sponsors of the Boater Education Card that was mentioned on the previous bill. And so we are informed by a long-term approach to how do we best protect the environment and provide for boating. Unfortunately, as this legislative intent vehicle in process comes to the Senate Policy Committee, the concerns and the issues that we've been emphasizing all throughout are not addressed, in fact negatively addressed. So we're in a position that we are opposing the bill unless it's amended today. You know, first and foremost, if we look back as we sit there, the bill as introduced last at the beginning of the year expressly set forth the intent of what we thought the collaborative effort would create today. It included alternative funding sources. Boaters are paying an additional sticker fee because of AB 149 last year. The Division of Boating and Waterways will raise that with emergency regulations to 42. and today we see with this bill it's not alternative funding source. It's more on the boaters. Non-motorized recreationists are boaters. Sailboats under eight feet are identified for new funding. That funding doesn't take into consideration the harbors of watercraft efficiency over at the Division of Boating and Waterways. Rather than have the sticker paid at the Department of Motor Vehicles like a boater registers their boat, will register their jet ski, They'll have to go to Fish and Wildlife to get a decal on their eight-foot sailboat or dinghy. There's a whole new bureaucracy that hasn't had a role in issuing labels and stickers and registering boats. At the same time, we're going to build this infrastructure of licensing, training, certifying smog stations for boats. I ask you to start to wrap up, please. Will do. Thank you. that system will be in place even after the invasive species have spread. There are already 125 sampling locations. There are 30 water agencies that are inspecting decontaminating today. So the tools are there. They are being addressed, such as Tahoe. And so for those reasons, we oppose the bill unless amended today. Thank you. Good morning. My name is David Kennedy. I am with BoatUS the Boat Owners Association of the United States RBOC is our state partner We have over 740 members nationwide of which 70 are here in California We share the concerns of RBOC with this legislation We also note some provisions that related to impounding of vessels by potentially non-governmental agencies and continue to, we're going to oppose unless amended. And we really do take a broader national view of these issues and urge the committee to learn from the experiences of other states. We noted the interest in the WID program and the database can work, but we also think it's important to have the data privacy parts of that. So, again, look forward to continuing to work on this legislation and are committed as a national group to try and find a solution to what we know is a very serious problem. Thank you. Thank you. Others in opposition? Okay. On the committee, anyone? Senator Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I agree and applaud the author for bringing forth a solution for the golden muscle emerging crisis because we do have a crisis in the state of California. The bill repeatedly, in its own identification, describes the golden muscles as that emerging crisis that necessitates an emergency response. That's the language in the bill. It's undeniable that we have to have something. With the urgency in that situation, are we doing enough with the bill for streamlined permitting, administrative processes, and have you had discussions with the governor's office, and have you considered declaring a state of emergency to address this issue? Just curious. I mean, if he signs this bill, not an urge clause goes back in January if the bill gets out of the building. I mean, I think it's a serious issue. of Ransom's bill? Yeah, Senator, it's a great question. You will also hear from Assemblymember Ransom today. Her bill deals more with permit streamlining and efforts of water agencies to move swiftly to address this issue. On behalf of the supporters and the folks, the coalition's working on this bill, we have had multiple conversations with CDFW, and they have a regulatory process that is underway right now, and they plan to actually release draft regulations, if not this week next, to start additional conversations about addressing golden mussels. So we are coordinating with the governor's office through CDFW on this issue. Some local counties have declared an emergency. Senator, there is an urgency clause in the ransom bill. Okay, thank you. So they're kind of paired together then. So I guess the question I have is this also is because I saw the ransom bill and I was curious about how your bill was structured because it is a state of emergency. The language in your bill says it is, and the Ramson bill as well. This bill is to help water agencies respond more quickly to golden mussels but ultimately pays for the mitigation. Who pays for the mitigation? Is it the voters? The B-O-T, you know, voters, not voters. Is that clear? Was it the voters? I think the voters already have a fee. This is for the recreational non-motorized, and it's $20 every two years. It's $20 every two years, and that money goes to support staff at CDFW for the new program? And education. And education for? Boaters, so that they can understand that you have to decontaminate so that we aren't spreading the golden mussels. That the education portion of it And then I guess the other question that I had was that the golden mussels have identified in Sacramento in the San Joaquin Delta water system project both which affect water systems throughout the state of California. Is there a reason why we're putting this on non-motorized vehicle or boaters and not an allocation for the state water resource? Again, I'm very touchy about having to pay for state projects that are specifically district orientated. I don't have a lot of lakes in my district, some, but individuals who operate these sailboats, they're going to be paying for this program when it seems to be a statewide issue, specifically because it's in the main water supply sources in the state. What's the reason for that? So it works sort of on a beneficiary pays principle. One of the reasons why boaters and non-motorized paddlecraft pay is because they are helping to secure their access to these water bodies in an orderly and timely fashion. Otherwise, alternatives are things like a clean, drain, dry, where you have to quarantine your vessel for a period of time and are not able to use it on a water body in order to ensure that it doesn't transmit muscles and invasive species from one place to another. It is an issue of statewide concern. I would suggest that it is appropriate to spend general fund monies and other dollars to help address this. But in lieu of the ability to do that, it is important to look at the users and assess them a fee on a beneficiary pays principle. There are other entities out there that could pay, including international cargo ships. That is a harder conversation to have because there are federal restrictions on our ability to impose fees on those users. They are the ones that bring the issue here to California in the first place. So I commend the author for working diligently to try to find an ongoing structural funding source that does not overly burden any one community, but helps provide funding to water managers who are dealing with something that everybody wants to eliminate. No, and I appreciate your answer and your response. I do. And I'm supportive of the bill. I just had questions. Obviously, I agree it's an emerging crisis. Obviously, it's an urgency situation, and we need to make sure it gets taken care of. But I just am very alarmed to the fact that we would take those, what you call a beneficiary use. I mean, there are lakes and streams. I mean, you don't pay a fine penalty or a fine to go to the beach. I mean, you do have private access and things like that. In some state beaches, there's a $10 parking fee. But I guess my thing is that this bill puts that burden on what you call beneficiary users to be able to go out and paddleboard or have a boat or a sailboat or anything out on our lakes and waterways when this is a statewide catastrophe situation that we're facing. I totally agree it's coming from foreign bodies of ships coming, but we can't control foreign operators. That's the problem as well. And they're not compliant to anything that we institute here in California, whether it's California Area Resources Board, whatever it is. We can't make them comply. Actually, they're self-reporting, too. They just submit a letter that says we burnt up this many emissions, and we accept that letter as the gospel, and it's not. So I just had that concerned. Again, we have to have some mechanism of way to address this issue. I get what you're trying to do with the $20 fee. I get with the education piece and making sure that we don't spread the muscles in a further. you did say that they're the golden example Tahoe is and it is but I guess I do have that issue with where the funding source because it should be a statewide funding source I agree that it should be I think it should be a statewide Because it's affecting everyone and every waterway in the state of California. And we should figure out how to make those foreign operators pay for it. But that's just a side thought. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Walton. Yeah, I want to pick up on this because I share Senator Grove's concern. But I know. Hopefully this meeting is not being recorded. But not necessarily the conclusion because I'm struggling. I'm not sure I can get to a place where I would support the fee on the non-motorized vessels, which I will be honest, I'm not a current, but I have been a boater in the Delta and other areas of Northern California. And I didn't pay that much attention to the language when it first came out, because I guess I didn't realize that we define non-motorized vessels so broadly. And so the notion that in January suddenly somebody going to Target in West Sacramento and they want to buy a raft to go put into Bridgeway Lakes, which is a fully man-made, but it is the waters of the state today, fully contained, that they will now have notices. Good news. The legislature has passed a new fee that you will have to pay every two years, therefore register. that's very broad. I understand the Senator Blakespeare level of paddleboarder who's going all over California paddleboarding and maybe she's accidentally going to transmit the golden muscle but that's not most users of paddleboards and rafts. There's some debate as to whether inflatable rafts count. This is a very, very big universe of folks. And it sounds to me like if there were a nexus study applied to this fee, like what is the proportion of the cost and the benefit that is related to these users of non-motivized vessels that it would be anywhere near this level of a fee? It's just, well, it is hard. I get it. I represent one port and three other docks in my district. And so I know the issue well. Obviously, the impacts are very heavy in my district as well. But the equity, particularly given the affordability challenge of us putting this much burden on these folks because they don't have the attorneys and the federal law on their side that the actual vessels do, just doesn't seem right to me or fair. And I'm concerned about us adopting a brand new every two-year fee for stuff that is not a boat. And it will not be perceived that way in the public as to why am I paying this mainly for an information campaign. So this is the part I struggle with. I mean, I have supported the budget letters and budget requests on the issue. It is exactly the crisis that the author has so eloquently outlined and that my colleague has emphasized as well. But to me, that's the reason why we need to take responsibility for this issue, but applying a brand new ongoing fee that folks are going to have to pay every two years for picking up an inflatable raft at Target, to me that's an overreach in terms of how to finance it. So I'm struggling with that piece of it, although I think the overall bill is absolutely necessary, and the issues around transferring between water bodies that the bill is taking on there are complicated but you doing great work on that I see all of that but the feet piece is really giving me a lot of heartburn And maybe I could phrase that as a question What do you think Nonetheless I will say just a couple things and it may persuade you it may not but I throw these out to you. Number one, all western states are doing this because it is such an invasive species and it is very, very small. So it is not such that that raft that you might have just bought at REI or whatever it is, isn't capable of transmitting the muscle to a pure place like Lake Tahoe, let's just say. So I get it. Boats are already paying it. So just so you know, this is not just a singling out. But unfortunately, these small non-motorized craft have the same capabilities. And so we tried to be very reasonably tailored. I thank the senator for her sympathies on the actual culprits and all this, because we tried and we beat our head against the wall a little bit on how could we make it happen so that your average person that just went to buy a raft isn't going to be impacted. But unfortunately, they do play somewhat of a role. We did try to keep it reasonably tailored, and the funds will be used in a very constructive manner. So I don't know if that persuades you, but those are the arguments I got for you, Senator Gvaldin. Okay. Well, I want to thank you for your leadership on this very complicated topic, very important topic. And we're going to be wrestling with this issue for the foreseeable future. And as these gold mussels spread, the water rates will rise as an implication. I did want to clarify one piece, which is that there was Prop 4 dollars allocated. CDFW got $20 million of Prop 4 money specifically for Golden Muscles. So that was one time. Yes, one time. Last year. Last year. Yeah, last year. So, you know, we're obviously taking this seriously, but, you know, there's a lot of work that needs to be done here on the legislative side as well. And, you know, we must at least delay, if not prevent, as long as possible, the impacts on all of us here on water rates if we don't act successfully. So your bill offers a lot of potential solutions as I think it will continue to evolve. I'm supporting it here today. Would you like to close? I just respect the request. Thank you to the committee for understanding the urgency of the matter. I do appreciate the discussion. Okay, do we have a motion? So moved. We have a motion from Senator Stern. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Please call the roll. Thank you. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Serato? Allen? Cobaldon? Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. All right, 3 to 0. We will keep that bill on call. Okay, let's move on. We will have to break for caucus, but hopefully we get both your bills in. That's my goal. Which of your data center bills do you want to start with? So we'll do 2469, please. Okay. So I thought I would start by accepting the committee amendments. And I've got two data center bills, as we know, this year. And this one is the first one and I label this one the get the data before you break ground bill And this legislation was crafted with two kind of principles in mind The first is good decisions start with good data I don think anybody can disagree with that And then second, California's water system is managed by thousands of local agencies. There are something like 3,500 water agencies in the state of California. This is very different than the electricity where we've got, you know, the three big IOUs and maybe 15 municipal electric agencies. California California's 3,500 is a very hyper-local issue when you're talking about water supply. And I think that's really important to keep in mind. So that's why water suppliers and municipalities have, it's necessary that they have the information they need before deciding where to locate large facilities that may place significant demands on one of California's most limited resources, water. You know, as we talk about energy and data centers, lest we not forget that energy we we can create more of. Water, we cannot do so. So AB 2469 focuses on the pre-entitlement process before a project is cited, before permits are issued, and before new demand is locked into the system. The bill has two major components. First, it requires a water supply assessment before project approval, an evaluation by the water supplier to determine whether a reliable, safe, sustainable water supply is available to serve the project. And I'm agnostic on what passes muster, what doesn't pass muster, none of that. You just have to do the water supply assessment. The second is it ensures that these large developments are responsible for any costs of any water infrastructure that's needed to serve the project or expand service capacity. Members, we're facing an affordability crisis and a climate crisis. and if we're going to grow our economy responsibly while addressing both, we need good data and we need to ensure that the infrastructure that is required to serve these large facilities is not shouldered by rate payers. This bill is about protecting the rate payers, protecting local water resources, protecting California's long-term water future, while at the same time ensuring that we remain an innovation leader. Transparency will really make development durable. Innovation and transparency, I don't believe, are mutually exclusive. I think that I say to the data center industry, help us help you. If you get enough water, you will succeed as well. So with me to testify today is we've got Matt Zuka, who is with the Mid-Peninsula Water District, and Sean Bothwell with the California Coast Keeper Alliance. I think we'll start with Matt. Go ahead. Thanks for being here, Matt. You're welcome. Why not? Go ahead.

I asked you to start to wrap up.

Thank you.

Marquis King Mason, Renato Resource Defense Council, in support. Thank you. Marissa Rodriguez, Planning Conservation League, in support. Kyle Jones with the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, in support. Thank you. Chloe Shea, representing California Environmental Voters, in strong support. Thank you. Scott Webb with the Research and Loan Institute, in support. Molly Colton, Sierra Club, California, in support. Thank you. Okay, opposition. Do we have a lead opposition? We do. Are you okay testifying from there? Come to the table.

Thank you, Chair Becker, for your continued leadership, and thank you, members of the committee. My name is Ahmad Thomas. I'm CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We must respectfully oppose AB 2469. SVLG represents Silicon Valley's innovation ecosystem. Our members play a vital role in driving California's economy and generating the revenues that support the state's general fund. We appreciate the committee's focus on water stewardship and thoughtful planning for California's growing data center infrastructure. But we should also recognize that data centers are critical infrastructure supporting health care, research, financial services, government operations, AI, and the digital economy more broadly. Unfortunately, this bill creates a separate regulatory framework for one industry without providing a comprehensive picture of statewide water demand or water management challenges. We have four primary concerns. First, while AB 2469 is presented as a disclosure measure, it functions in practice as a permitting bill by conditioning approval on a lengthy list of requirements including workforce disclosures, which apply to no other similarly situated industry. Second it singles out one sector for disparate treatment rather than advancing a comprehensive approach to California broader water management challenges Third it fails to adequately account for the complex operational trade involved in modern data center design where water use, energy efficiency, and cooling technologies must be balanced based upon local conditions. And finally, it creates unnecessary risk to privacy, security, competitiveness, and California's ability to develop the digital infrastructure that underpins our dynamic innovation economy. SVLG supports transparency, innovation, and responsible resource management. In fact, many of our member companies are leaders in recycled water use, clean energy procurement, efficient technologies, and sustainable infrastructure practices. California can advance smart water policy while continuing to support the infrastructure that powers our economy. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Melissa Sparks-Crans with the League of California Cities. Opposed unless amended on the language around what we believe is preemption to local cities and counties in approving these types of projects.

Thank you. Good morning, Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California, and we align ourselves with the League.

Good morning, Timothy Burr on behalf of TechNet and the Data Center Coalition in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to bring this back to the dais. Do we have any comments? I'll just say from, yeah, do you want to start? Who would like to start? That way you can align your comments. They'd be great. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We have what we call consumptive use. It is very different than a brewery that's going to use some water to make a beer. So I really bristle at the idea that data centers aren't somehow different in a certain regard. So we have the consumptive water use, and we also have the process. So they use a lot of water in the process, and then it doesn't come back. So I think it's reasonable. And then we combine that with the volume, and we have small water agencies who might not be prepared for that amount of volume. I think that recipe should entitle us to a bit more transparency. So we can plan on the water that one needs. And it is a part of CEQA to do a water supply assessment. But to say that your five-year plan on how many people you might need to serve in the future as an urban water user is somehow going to give you the water supply assessment you need for a data center, it is not the same. Because I got Sean here more as a technical, but obviously we've been in the trenches a lot. And I will say my office has met with the opposition, so I bristle at that as well. But go ahead.

I appreciate that, and the cannabis example is a good one, because I think both is the rationale for the bill, But also as another, like, warning, like, do we want to adopt a series of, like, very, like, niche sector-specific water supply and planning things? As a former mayor, I wouldn't want to have to deal with that. I didn't want to do – and so that's what I was trying to get at. Like, is there – and you've described a couple of the kind of the key – the core issues that are at stake. But couldn't this apply to anybody where most of the use is conjunctive, as an example? Are there first principles here that aren't about data centers specifically? Because the range of uses that you might be considering as a city or a water district in consultation are so broad. And so I get that that's a distinction here, but it doesn't feel like that's unique, that what we've heard yet is unique to data centers. There's just data centers are different from several other things, but all the things are very different from themselves. And so if it's conjunctive is the issue or one of the principles, why not just craft a framework that says if your water supply assessment is, you know, is a threshold of conjunctive use, then you have to do this other element. I mean, why does it need to be specific to data centers and not to the specific features of a data center that you're concerned about? I might address that from a slightly different way.

If I may, it is such that I'm sure you know in the state of California we have communities that are banning data centers. And that's why I use this phrase, help us help you. Is it going to benefit data centers if they're singled out by Monterey Park to say we don't want you? Likewise in Imperial County. So I really feel, and I was intrigued by the mayor of Monterey Park who said we need the state to act, and it is relating to data centers. So I think your point is well taken, but by the same token, what is happening, you know, it's incumbent upon us as policymakers to understand what's happening in the state, and what is happening in the state is peculiar to data centers, both the bad and the good. So this is an opportunity, as I say, to help them succeed. So I would take that as this bill could really help. Two other questions if you know my, Mr. Chair.

Let me just say, I'll start by saying, one thing that's somewhat lost in here is, The approval process is really just provide the information. What that information says is completely up to the city or county to make their discretionary decision or ministerial decision. This is just trying to provide them more data so that they can make those decisions not to tell them what to approve and what on I understand but we heard the testimony They are not asking for that The cities and the counties are opposed. So it's not coming from them saying, state, please help us with information that we can't get. So that doesn't mean that we don't do it. I'm not suggesting we don't have a statewide responsibility, but just in particular for those communities in which all the permitting authority and the water are the same entity, and therefore the full power of that consolidated authority gives them the power to get whatever they need on the water side. And then as a subset of that, the charter cities, which are almost entirely full service, and some of them are the largest governments in the state, why they don't get to, as the Constitution says they're supposed to have, the ability to make this choice for themselves. So, unfortunately, we do need to break for caucus. Usually I would try to conclude a bill and rush it, but we also have most of the exact same people here will be for your next bill. So we are going to need to recess and come back. We're planning to come back at 1 p.m., so we'll have a shortened caucus. but there's some things we need to take care of. So do need to take a break, and we will be back, but we will recess for now. Thank you. Assemblymember will come back. Okay, we are going to reconvene here. Do we have the audio? Is all that working, hopefully? Yep, we're good. Okay. We're going to come back together just as we do. I know that some of the senators now have some commitments as well. You are going to have a comment perhaps on the Charter City question? Yes. Thank you so much, Chair. I did want to let you know the following because the question came up from Senator Cabaldon about Charter Cities and having the ability to exercise their own authority as it relates to data centers, permitting data centers, getting the transparent information from data centers, et cetera. And it is as follows, and we have provided for it in the bill as well. And under the California Constitution Home Rule Doctrine, Article 11, Section 5, charter cities do have full authority to govern their own municipal affairs, free from state legislative control. However, the state legislature can preempt a charter city's local laws if it explicitly declares the subject a matter of statewide concern and tailors the law narrowly to that end, and water is as such. Regarding the preemption of authority in all cities, the bill is very narrow in that we want to ensure all cities are evaluating projects consistently across the state. Having a uniform standard avoids a situation in which one city says, well, we won't make you do a water supply assessment if you build here. in order to gain competitive advantage say over another city So there a checkpoint so to speak Collect all of this information and do an assessment and then the city can move forward in a way that makes sense for that municipality This bill doesn't take away decision-making authority. It ensures we aren't giving up information in pursuit of a competitive edge. As we've established, the water supply crisis is a real one. If we are measuring data center use in some cities and not others, we're not going to be able to meet the needs of the state as a whole. So thank you for the opportunity to mention that we did provide for that already in the bill. All right. Thank you for addressing that. Senator Stern. Yeah, I really appreciate that, too. The notion of having a common set of facts sort of preventing that undercutting, I think, is smart. I mean, I'm trying to think going forward just how to help you get a result here so we don't kind of repeat the same cycle again. The analysis didn't get into the urban water management planning front very much, but I do wonder where if some of those submissions can find their way into that planning process. if you're integrating into existing planning processes on top of what you're, just to make this new assessment and not have to sort of be this standalone architecture that folks are having this aversion to, exceptionalism, yada, yada, you know, the whole conversation we've been having. It's food for thought for you going forward. I'm just, I've been puzzling on it over the break. Like, if there's just a way to integrate, yeah, integrating this data set so that it's not just for purposes of the charter cities, uh, permitting decision, but so that you're, and maybe some of this gets into your next bill, by the way, right? Cause you're going pre, and this is kind of at that juncture, but, uh, do you, can you comment just, um, could, could potentially that water scarcity component and started doing that, that bigger dive, can we utilize, or maybe your experts know, can we utilize that urban water management planning process there to sort of abate some of the deeper concerns that you're doing, this sort of bespoke, just singular analysis when a scarcity analysis kind of like by its nature a little more of an integrated evaluation. So I don't know, I'm kind of pawing at it here, but maybe you or your folks just have just to struggle with this out loud a little bit of like how to get that piece in a way that doesn't feel like it's going to be some kind of, it's not going to be the kind of analysis that's actually meaningful to that. Well, I will say, thank you for the question. And I will say that if you are subject to CEQA, and that is a question at this point with 130 and 131, but if you are subject to CEQA, you would have to do the water supply analysis. So this is really just bringing those that where we say there's a gap, there was a question about it, where we say there's a gap, bringing it into an existing structure anyway. So it is not that a water supply assessment for a data center is something that doesn't have to happen with any data centers. There are some that may be subject to it. Did you want to add at all? The other thing I would add is for urban water supply plans, you know, I'm not an expert on them, but they don't happen regularly. So it you know and so I think the intent of this bill is really before we get too far down the road and build the data center that you brought up the scarcity report like that they do that on you know before that the approval process has gone forward and we too late right And so we're going to have stranded assets at that point. So I think it's more just, I think to your point, though, there might be something there of if an urban water supplier does have that kind of planning in there, that could be used by the individual folks to help them. I think there's some way to integrate that and allow them to or make sure those management plans take the super uses into account more acutely so that you don't sort of have to rely on that single end user to do sort of a unique analysis just in their bubble. But, like, okay, maybe you've got a few popping up or maybe it's multiple users in the region. Anyway, I just would encourage you to think about the meshing going forward. Okay, thank you. Well, I appreciate you working with our committee and the team. Obviously, it's a super important issue, right? We need to get it right. I'm sorry Senator Cabaldon had some other things he has to do right at this moment, But I know, you know, he's obviously very interested in the topic and many other folks here. So I appreciate you continuing to work with us and, you know, the opposition going forward. I appreciate some of the, again, amendments that were made. You know, I did have some concerns around the water scarcity plan in the fact that, you know, again, we're already doing the water use assessment. and we want to make sure it doesn't send kind of the wrong message to folks. Of course, we have droughts in California all the time, right? So we don't want to send the wrong message to anyone who's considering building a facility in our state that, hey, you know what, because I think the feeling is if you make this plan, then we're going to use the plan, right? And so the concern is that at some point the wool could be pulled out or something. and say somebody has done operations, which no one wants me. All this should be taken into account in advance, you would think, in the water supply assessment. So I do have some concerns about that. I know it's an important piece to you, but I think that's sort of one area kind of going forward that I do have some concerns. And I think it's worth at least looking at, you know, what are the pieces, you know, again, let's make sure that we're, I think what you're trying to do, ounce of profession is worth a pound of cure, right? Let's make sure we have all the information up front. But let's also not, you know, sort of send the wrong signals to folks that, you know, we may somehow curtail their operations without their consent or other things like that. You know, in a way that wouldn't happen to other users, right? We want to be, you know, any large golf course or any large water user, right, should be treated the same. With that, I will ask you to close. Well, I just thank you for the robust discussion. And you're right, we're going to strike a balance. And I think California is really going to be a leader. So I thank you, Mr. Chair, and respectfully request an aye vote. Okay. We have a motion from Senator Stern. The motion is due pass to local government. Please call the roll. Thank you. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Saratoe? Allen? Gabaldon? Grove? Laird? Stern? Aye. Aye. Okay, two to zero. We're going to move on to, do you want to take your second bill now? Sure. Yeah, okay. Yeah, let's go for it. 2619. Okay. So another data center water bill, and AB 2069 has a simple but essential goal. It ensures that local governments and water suppliers have the data they need about the actual and continuing water use of large facilities. AB 2069 requires data centers to provide their water use data to localities as part of the existing business licensure process. The bill also requires water agencies to include data centers and urban water management plans and annual water supply assessments and directs the Department of Water Resources to develop data center water use best practices and local planning guidance. Members, when it comes to water and when it comes to California's future, we can't manage what we don't measure. And that's really kind of the crux of the bill. This bill allows us, including small water agencies, to prepare so innovation really does have the opportunity to thrive. Same witnesses as the previous bill, Matt Zucca and Sean Bothwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'll not repeat the lengthy comments that I had from the previous bill, But needless to say, AB 2619 complements AB 2469 by ensuring that water agencies and local government have access to ongoing information. Planning is not a one-time exercise. We do this as has been discussed every five years as part of the urban water management plans. And we have to continually do that. So this data is going to support those efforts. Thank you. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Good afternoon, Chair. Committee members, Sean Bothwell, California Coast Keeper Alliance. Again, I'll make my comments short. This bill really is important to collect ongoing data because that's the type of data that's needed to inform rate structures and what and when we're charging rate payers. And so it's important to continue to get that current information so that we make sure we're charging everyone, not just CII folks, but every rate payer the appropriate amount based on the Constitution's proportionality requirement. And then lastly, I'll say on the guidance piece of things, this bill really just requires best practices to be looked at. Data centers, to their credit, are really innovating when it comes to conserving water, and so I think it's really good that the state's looking at it. And to be honest, we treat other facilities that use water for cooling a lot more stricter than just some best practices. Under the Clean Water Act and also the Water Code, for other facilities that do cooling, so power plants, they're required to do best available technology. This bill is just looking at what are those technologies out there, what are good practices. And so it doesn't go nearly as far as some of the other laws on the books when it comes to cooling and consumptive use. And so I think this is a good first step as technologies innovate to really look at what there is. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Others in support. We have others in support who would like to register their support. Please go ahead. This is Jack Wurston from Nausman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support. Megan Barbey with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Green Lighting Institute in support. Marcia Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Cynthia with Restore the Delta in support. Scott Webb with the Resource and Religious Institute in support. Molly Colton Sierra Club California in support We will now turn to the opposition Do we have a lead opposition witness Go ahead. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Timothy Burr on behalf of the Data Center Coalition. We are here in respectful opposition to AB 2619. As noted in the committee analysis, stakeholder discussions continue on this bill. In fact, thanks to the staff, we just got a mock-up in hand of some of the items that we've been discussing with the committee, the chair, as well as the author of the bill. So appreciate momentum here. The data center coalition supports requirements that align with five key benchmarks. Parity. Standards should apply to other similar commercial and industrial users to provide context and a holistic view of water demands. Confidentiality, provide clear public record protections for individual companies, specific sites and end users to maintain operational security. We're seeing more and more how important security is in the data center context and making sure we're protecting this information. Meaningful metrics, reporting should target actual water consumption rather than mere withdrawals or projections. Anonymity, ensure that any publicly available data is aggregated and anonymized. neutrality, encourage best practices that are reflective of all technically feasible options and allows for the development and deployment of innovative solutions. While we share the committee's commitment to responsible water use, we believe this bill, as in print, imposes disparate standards that threaten the security, competitiveness, and innovation of the infrastructure supporting our digital economy. Data center cooling is not one size fits all. It requires a delicate balancing act. Generally, cooling systems operate on an inverse relationship, systems that use less water often use more energy, operators selecting cooling methods based on local humidity, climate, the availability of purple pipe recycled water, and other factors. There's tremendous innovation happening in the data center space right now with respect to water. We have our commitment to continue working on this bill and on this issue. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Ashanti Smith, the director of policy for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We'd like to start by thanking the chair and committee staff for continuing to work on this bill as well as the author. And we're looking forward to reading some of the amendments that we had just received. Regarding the bill in print, we are in respectful opposition to AB 2619. Our concern with AB 2619 is that it creates a separate reporting and regulatory framework for a single industry without demonstrating why existing conservation and reporting requirements insufficient or how these additional mandates would meaningfully improve statewide water management. We have four primary concerns. First, the bill singles out data centers for facility level reporting requirements that are not applied at their commercial, industrial, or institutional, that are not applied to other commercial, industrial, or institutional users with comparable resource demands. Second, it layers a new reporting regime on top of existing conservation requirements including reporting of indirect water use associated with electricity generation, a metric that individual operators do not directly control and may have limited ability to accurately measure. Third, the bill advances prescriptive approaches to cooling and water management that may not be appropriate across all facilities and environments, limiting the flexibility needed to balance water use, energy efficiency, and system reliability. Fourth it creates unnecessary risks for operational flexibility security and competitiveness and California ability to respond to developing the digital infrastructure that underpins our innovation economy SVLG supports transparency, innovation, and responsible resource management. Many of our member companies are already leaders in recycled water use, clean energy procurement, efficiency technologies, and sustainable infrastructure practices. At a time where intensifying data center siting competition, California should support responsible infrastructure growth, not create barriers that discourage investment. We respectfully oppose AB 2619. Thank you. Thank you. Others in opposition? Afternoon. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectful opposition, but do appreciate the engagement of all parties. Thank you. Good afternoon. Amber Rosso at the Association of California Water Agencies. We previously had an opposed unless amended position on the bill. We'd like to thank the author and the staff for addressing and hearing our concerns. Thank you. Okay. Anna, do you want to confirm, are you accepting the committee amendments? Yes, I am. Thank you, Chair. Great. All right, we'll take it back to the committee now. Any comments? I'll have a few comments we're collecting. Again, I want to thank the author for working with us. I think there was some concern around the perjury as a practice, as a requirement in the bill, and we had some robust discussion around it. I think with the amendments, I didn't leave that standard in, but also include a good faith estimate of expected water use. So I appreciate that. The two other major changes around indirect water use, which is consistent with the amendments to 2469 as well. With that, I'll be supporting the bill today. Take motion. Thanks for everything. Okay. Would you like to close? Just thank you so much for the engagement, Mr. Chair, on the matter, as well as committee staff. It's been a journey, so respectfully request an aye vote. Okay. Thank you. The motion is due pass to local government. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Ciarto? Allen? Cabaldon? Grove? Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Zero, aye. Two to zero. That would be on call. Thank you, Chair. All right, we're going to go with Assemblymember Zabur, who was here previous to the break as well You have AB 1740 Okay. Let's just try to get started. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Chair members, I'm proud to present AB 1740, sponsored by the City of Santa Monica and Streets for All. I want to begin by thanking all the stakeholders that worked so hard with my staff on both all the versions of the bill. We had some folks who were very enthusiastic about earlier versions of the bill and some folks who had pretty significant concerns about earlier versions of the bill. and I really want to thank all of them for participating and working with my office and with the various committee staffs. I also really want to thank both the committee chairs in all, both the assembly side and on the Senate side and the staff, Catherine Dory Page, for their expertise in helping us shape the proposal and obviously we want to thank the bill sponsors, City of Santa Monica and Streets for All and the former bill sponsor, Abundant Housing, which is supportive of the bill but because it doesn't focus on housing, it's no longer a sponsor. Additionally, my thanks to the Coastal Commission, Coastal Commission staff, in particular Executive Director Hucklebridge. I want to thank them for their collaboration on this bill over the last couple months. I'm happy to be joined. I was going to be joined today by folks from Environment California who are supporting the bill. Hi, how are you doing? supporting the bill and all my friends in the environmental community who sort of fought so hard to protect our beautiful, vibrant California coast and environment. The California Coastal Act was a landmark policy achievement in the fight to protect and manage California's 1,100 miles of precious, vibrant coastline. The historic law balanced resource and ecological protection, coastal access, and economic vitality, and its passage marked a critical inflection point in California's commitment to defending our priceless coastline. This bill has always been one whose intention was to advance and protect the policies of the Coastal Act. As originally introduced, it intended to advance pedestrian enhancement, housing, visitor-serving uses in the coastal zones, only in areas that are highly urbanized and in which there are not other coastal resources that are necessary to protect. act. Therefore, the goal was to advance good community projects and at the same time protect the things that the California public cherishes like our clean water, our beaches, our wetlands and species and habitat. Achieving all these goals in a policy proposal is obviously complicated and we understand why there was so much interest and support on the original versions of the bill and concern and even fears related to those earlier versions. When AB 1740 was introduced earlier this year, it proposed targeted exemptions from coastal development permit requirements for a specified type of urban transit-rich coastal community that met standards around public access, transit, and greenhouse gas reduction. Santa Monica, in my district, is among the most transit-rich and multimodal cities in the coastal zone. It also remains one of the only coastal cities without a certified local coastal program. Under the Coastal Act, the local coastal program lets most coastal permits be processed by a city rather than requiring separate coastal commission approval, a more predictable, locally controlled process, with the Commission's oversight of the coastal zone preserved. The earlier versions of the bill were vetted, and feedback we received fostered a subsequent and extensive collaborative process among the Coastal Commission staff, the City of Santa Monica, and environment, housing, and mobility. advocates. Those conversations over the past couple months have led the city and the commission to reach an agreement that put Santa Monica on a path to achieving a local coastal plan within the next two years. Several weeks ago, after decades without a local coastal program, Santa Monica and the Coastal Commission agreed to a memorandum of understanding to guide LCP negotiations, with both sides saying completion within 18 months is feasible. Santa Monica City Council voted 7-0 to approve the MOU on May the 26th. Developing and mutually agreeing upon an MOU for an LCP is almost unprecedented and it's a testament to the reinvigorated energy and willingness of all parties to see the city granted a certified LCP. Once certified, the local coastal program, I'm sorry, someone is trying to sell me something. Once certified, a local coastal program will allow most coastal development permits to be processed by the city. Under the current process, it doesn't do anything different than what the city would normally get once they have a local coastal program, but rather than requiring separate coastal commission approval for very small projects and creating a predictable and locally controlled process while maintaining the commission's traditional mechanisms for oversight in the coastal zone. The bill before you today represents a win-win-win approach, Consistent with the agreement to quickly move forward with an LCP, AB 1740 now provides clear timelines, accountability measures, and reporting requirements designed to ensure the LCP for Santa Monica is completed and implemented. AB 1740 concurrently provides for smart climate strategies by giving the Coastal Commission new tools to support investments in transit, bike lanes, and pedestrian transportation across the state by creating an expedited statewide permitting process within the Commission's jurisdiction for bike, transit, and pedestrian projects that the Executive Director finds on balance enhanced coastal access. This process eliminates requirements for traffic studies and empowers the executive director to waive permit requirements if she deems the project provides commensurate or enhanced public access to the coast. The bill also requires the Coastal Commission to publicly report data on the approvals of these projects, providing greater transparency to the legislature of the use of this new tool. The bill rewards a good faith effort between the Coastal Commission and the City of Santa Monica, which is why I'm happy to be joined by the Commission staff here today, who adopted a neutral position on the bill as amended and have shared that they will additionally be agendizing this bill for their July hearing in order to consider taking a formal position of support. This bill brings both parties to the table and supports the City of Santa Monica in certifying an LCP that will preserve the Coastal Commission's traditional authority and ability to protect beaches and coastal resources from activities that threaten sensitive habitats. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me today in support, I'd like to introduce Sylvia Solis-Shaw, representing the City of Santa Monica. And I think we were to have Steve Blackledge from Environment California, who I understand may not be able to make it this afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. Sylvia Solis-Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica. Our coastline is central to our community's identity, economy, and quality of life. For decades, we've been a leader in coastal stewardship, sustainability, and public coastal access, and we are firmly in support of those goals. However, we also did sponsor AB 1740 to address longstanding permitting challenges in urban coastal communities. But our attempt was to also preserve strong environmental protections and public access. We have been working very collaboratively with the Assemblymember the Coastal Commission Streets for All and other stakeholders and we strongly support this consensus framework that is moving forward in AB 1740 Without this certified LCP, we do currently face permitting delays that can hinder projects, but we have firm confidence in the timeline and accountability measures that are in the current version of the bill, and we think we will get to a place where we can complete our LCP, and we want to thank the Assemblymember for his efforts. Okay. Thank you. Others in support? Do we have others in support? Excellent. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Mark Ysidro with the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you. Monica Salas on behalf of California Council for Affordable Housing and Housing Action Coalition in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm Sean Drake, legislative manager for the California Coastal Commission. The commission had previously had an opposing less amended position on AB 1740, looking for the Coastal Act exemptions that had been in the bill to be removed. As the author noted, the June 15th amendments to the bill did remove those exemptions, which brought the commission to a neutral position. So at this point, we appreciate the revised focus of the bill on getting the Santa Monica LCP to the finish line, and we're looking forward to the commission as to working with the city to do just that. Thank you. Okay. One more here? Yeah. There's, I think, a significant number of people who went from opposed unless amended to neutral, and I think we were going to speak after the commission spoke, if that's okay with the chair. Yes. Okay. Unless there's anybody else who wants to speak. In a lead opposition. If no one else is in a lead opposition perspective, that's fine. Okay, great. Susan Jordan, and reading on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, my organization, Azul, the Surfrider Foundation Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, California Coast Keeper Alliance and Heal the Bay and 14 additional environmental organizations who based on the amendments that remove all Coastal Act exemptions we remove our opposition unless amended position and are neutral now and we thank the author for removing all the Coastal Act exemptions from the bill. Thank you very much. Molly Colton with Sierra Club California. Thank you so much to the author for the amendments. We have removed our opposition to the bill. And Alex Loomer on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity in Audubon, California, echoing the previous comments and really greatly appreciate all the pleasure to work on this. Thank you. Kim Delfino piling on to the neutral category and with great thanks. Endangered Habitats League, Greenfoot Hills, Surfrider, and the West Marine Environmental Action Committee. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We'll take this back to the committee, which is me in this case. I want to appreciate your work on this. I know this has been a journey for this bill, and you set off to do something really meaningful for the community of Santa Monica. I'll just say from my own standpoint, I'm sensitive to some of the permanent streamlining that we're going after, And the pieces that here that also align with Senator Blakespear SB 689 around bicycle lanes pedestrian walkways Those pieces here that remain that your bill will help to make sure that really going forward we hopefully have better ways to address those so it'll have a lasting impact in that perspective. And I think we all look forward to the City of Santa Monica having the LCP done. And I know if Senator Ladd was here, he would have made a comment regarding some of the maybe issues from the past. But I do understand from you and others, I think the City of Santa Monica, certainly for the last few years at least, has been working in good faith to get that done. And there are incentives here to act in good faith and to both draft and certify a local coastal program. And again, make sure the conversion of existing lanes should be accelerated. So I have an aye recommendation on the vote. We do not have anyone to make a motion. So at this time, we can move forward to the next bill. But I look forward to motion and optimistic of passage at that time. Thank you. Would you like to close? Yeah, please. In just closing, I again want to thank the Coastal Commission staff and all the advocates who were so involved in this bill. I have a lot of confidence that this is going to result in, I mean, It's been 20-something years that the city of Santa Monica has not had a local coastal program after a lot of tries and a whole bunch of reasons. But this is actually setting up, I think, a process with a lot of transparency. And I want to appreciate both the city of Santa Monica and the Coastal Commission's good faith in putting together, I think, some processes that are going to really hopefully break through the barrier of having had an LCP approved in Santa Monica now for the last 20-something years. So very excited about that. And then, you know, the bike and pedestrian improvement piece is another positive thing about this bill. And so that is something that has statewide implications. It continues to retain the Coastal Commission's authority over this and discretion over this enhanced process. But we'll also demonstrate whether or not it's being used. And so for all those reasons, request an aye vote when there are folks here to vote. So thank you very much. Okay. Great. Well, thank you. Again, we'll take a motion at the appropriate time. I would like to invite up the member Bryan. Come on up. You are here to present. 1661. 1661. Interesting year. Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. There we go. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Always good to be before a natural resource committee. I'm here to present AB 1661, which will provide direct financial assistance to residents living within two and a half miles of the Englewood oil field who have respiratory or reproductive health conditions. The Englewood oil field is the largest urban oil field in the country and completely situated in my district. It covers more than 1,600 acres of active drilling in predominantly black and brown neighborhoods, redline communities. and for years, neighbors have raised consistent concerns about their health and the environment. In fact, two years ago, we passed a bill to close the Englewood oil field by 2030. That bill was signed into law, and in that bill, we created an equitable community repair and reinvestment account that will collect money from fees put on active low-producing oil wells in the field. The harms residents are experiencing living near that oil field have been confirmed by our own regulatory agencies Cal Jim public health rulemaking report found that people living closer to upstream oil and gas operations face a greater risk of reduced lung function and adverse prenatal outcomes than those who live further away Multiple peer-reviewed studies, including those focused on South Los Angeles, show that proximity to urban oil extraction is positively associated with decreased overall lung function, higher levels of toxic metals in residents' bodies, and elevated blood pressure that improves with distance from oil drilling sites. Essentially, the people who live next to active oil drilling, they die sooner, they have higher rates of heart conditions, they have lower lung capacities and higher rates of asthma. AB 1661 recognizes that while we continue the broader work of phasing out urban drilling and specifically the Englewood oil field, it's important to find ways to improve the conditions of life for those who have been directly impacted. So two years ago when we passed the legislation to close the field and force the operator to pay fees into a community repair fund, now we are trying to pass legislation to allocate the first $5 million of that community repair fund and direct cash assistance to families who have had adverse health impacts. This bill has had no opposition to date. And with me to testify are Tanya Borja representing Scope and Zoe Cunliffe representing Black Women for Wellness. Thank you. We'll go ahead. You have two minutes. My name is Tanya Borja. I serve as the Environmental Justice Policy Associate at Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education, also known as SCOPE. I'm here today to offer testimony and strong support of AB 1661, which would create a cash system program for residents living within 2.5 miles of the Inglewood oil field who are experiencing respiratory and reproductive harm. For over 30 years, SCOPE has organized alongside black and brown communities in South LA who are directly impacted by the largest urban oil field in the country. The Inglewood oil field spans more than 1,000 acres of active oil drilling, predominantly in black and brown neighborhoods. Through our organizing and in partnership with Black Men for Wellness, we have reached over 30,000 households and have directly spoken with over 5,000 residents. Children are especially vulnerable because their bodies are still developing, and we also see serious reproductive harm impacts, including higher rates of low birth weight and increased risk of premature birth in women living near oil wells in California. As someone who grew up in South L.A., this is not abstract, but I have experienced firsthand what it means to struggle to breathe. Black and brown communities have long bore the disproportionate burden of environmental racism and cumulative impact. This bill is about accountability, is about repair and reparations, ensuring the communities who have been most impacted are not left alone to carry the costs. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Zoe Conliffe, and I serve as the Environmental Justice Programme Manager with Black Women for Wellness. I am here today as a co-sponsor to speak in strong support of AB 1661. Black Women for Wellness is a community-based organization with a 29-year track record of supporting black women and girls, and we represent and uplift the lived experiences of frontline residents impacted by living in close proximity to ongoing toxic operations at the Inglewood Oilfield or the IOF. This field is a really enormous field which includes sprawling, uncovered, active oil drilling operations that exist in a predominantly black and brown community right next to parks, schools, and homes. In collaboration with Scope, we've spoken with over 5,000 residents living near the IOF who overwhelmingly report health concerns. related to the field. These health harms that community members have been suffering and speaking about for decades since the IOF began its operations over 100 years ago are backed up by robust scientific research, as Assemblymember Brian has already alluded to. So Dr. Jill Johnston has found that proximity to urban oil extraction operations in South LA specifically decreased overall lung function and long-term capacities, and studies that have been led by UC Berkeley and Stanford respectively have shown that within the state of California, pregnant people living near oil wells have higher rates of low birth weight babies and increased risk of premature birth. None of us here technically pays a monthly air fee, right? Not in the same way that we pay our utility bills for water and energy at least. Black communities near the IOF, by contrast, are paying for the dirty air that they are breathing due to ongoing oil drilling. They're paying with their decreased lung capacity, with the health impacts to their babies, with their lost school time, with their pocketbooks for inhalers, air filters and so on. Therefore, AB 1661's plan to use funds from the Equitable Community Repair and Reinvestment Account for direct cash assistance to residents who are already paying for these health harms is deeply important and an issue of environmental justice. Please vote in support of AB 1661. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have others? in support who would like to add on here. Yes, we do. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in support. Marie Lu on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance and the Central California Environmental Justice Network in support. Thank you. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you. Molly Colton with Sierra Club California in strong support. Thanks. Do we have anyone in opposition who would like to come forward? No, there's some rustling, but it does not appear. Well, I want to thank you. This is right or wrong, and for your efforts initially to also to close the oil field, but now from an environmental justice standpoint to make sure that those who suffered during all those years are up front to be to provide some kind of compensation, right, to provide some kind of redress for this situation. So I'm really grateful to you, Senator O'Brien. Thank you for all the work you do over the Assembly on natural resources, but particularly for this bill and for the witnesses for coming forward, especially having grown up there and having breathed the air for years that these fields produced. So I'll be very strongly supporting this bill today. Would you like to close? Absolutely, and thank you, Mr. Chair, and to your team. When we shut down, or passed legislation to shut down the Inglewood oil field, it set it on a pathway to be fully closed by 2030. And while it's shutting down for every low-producing oil well in the field, they have to pay into an equitable community repair fund that can only be appropriated within two and a half miles of the field. All this bill does is say that the first $5 million should go directly to the families and the universal basic income who have been impacted negatively and adversely in their health because they live close to that field, which is why there is no opposition, because this is long overdue, long deserved. It's the largest environmental reparations effort South LA has ever seen, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Well, I agree with you, and again, thank you for your leadership. We will take a motion at the appropriate time. Thank you all for being here Thank you Mr. Member Hadwick, you are here to present AB 1722. Go ahead, Wynne Reni. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. Rural communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of conflict with large predators. These predators, such as mountain lions, bears, or wolves, are killing livestock, pets, and people. Currently, the Federal Endangered Species Act recognizes self-defense when a person takes a listed animal based on a good faith belief that the action was necessary to protect themselves or another individual from harm. Unfortunately, it is not clear what self-defense standard applies when someone has to defend themselves or a loved one against a large predator protected under the California Endangered Species Act. Rather than leave it to a court or prosecutor's discretion, California should set a clear standard. AB 1722 establishes common sense exception to take under the California Endangered Species Act. Under this bill, a person can defend themselves or their family from bodily harm inflicted by an endangered species. It is important to know that take doesn't just mean kill an animal. It also includes commonly accepted actions like scaring away a charging bear with pepper spray or throwing a rock at a stalking mountain lion. Using pepper spray or a rock is considered take, even when that could be the best thing to do to prevent both human and animal injury. AB 1722 will ensure that ranchers, hunters, hikers, and people enjoying the outdoors have certainty that they can protect themselves if they encounter a dangerous predator. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I just want to clarify, do you accept the committee amendments? Yes. Okay. Yes, sorry. Thank you. Anyone in support? Anyone who'd like to add on in support? Stacey Heaton, Rural County Representatives of California, representing 40 rural counties statewide in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Karen Lang on behalf of the Shasta and Siskiyou County Boards of Supervisors, particularly Siskiyou. We talk to them every Wednesday morning, and the wolf situation there has really got their attention, and it's a real challenge. She's doing what her district needs. Ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair. Richard Filgas with California Farm Bureau, representing over 20,000 farming and ranchers in California in proud support. Thank you. Great. We do opposition or tweeter? Yes, sir. Opposition? Great. Go ahead. Hello, Chairs, Members. My name is Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in legislation and our thousands of supporters in California. Existing law already explicitly allows for self-defense against bobcats, mountain lions, coyotes. Thus, we believe this bill really is about wolves. And we all understand right now that detentions are particularly high around the issue of wolves in parts of Northern California in regard to predation of livestock. The department, the commission, and many stakeholders, including the assembly member, are working on that issue diligently. And with this in mind, our position really can be represented by a line that was written in a previous committee's analysis. And I quote, no examples of incidents where a cease-to-list species needed to be taken for self-defense have been provided to or discovered by this committee. Therefore, this bill is addressing a hypothetical problem. So we believe that the department should keep its prosecutorial discretion in any cases that may arise where self is claimed and we trust that the department should keep its prosecutorial discretion in any cases that may arise where self claim and we trust that the department to act fairly and judiciously in any case that would arise and unless shown otherwise we believe this bill is unnecessary at this time so respectfully ask for a no vote. Okay others in opposition Would you like to address the concerns raised by the opposition speaker in terms of the necessity of this given other self-defense? Absolutely. Because the wolf is federally protected, we want to make sure that we are protecting everyone in California. I do have instances because take is not actually getting rid of an animal or killing an animal. I have a constituent that I'm also personal friends with that had to throw things at a wolf to get it off of her porch. It was at the end of a wheelchair ramp trying to get her dog. They're getting closer and closer to my residents and their homes and their yards. They're walking across playgrounds. grounds. It is something that we want to be prepared for, not necessarily coming back after the fact. Well I appreciate your work on this, addressing something's obviously a very real and pressing need in your community. I will be supporting the bill here today. Thank you for taking the committee amendments. Is there anything else you'd like to address in your close? No, thank you for hearing the bill. It's a critical issue right now in my district and very unique to my district. So I appreciate that having the opportunity to present today. Okay. Well, thank you. We will take a motion when we have the opportunity. Your other bill is on consent. Thank you for joining us here today. All right. Now I think we'll be looking, we'll take a quick recess while we wait for other authors. Okay, we have Assemblymember Addis here. Please come forward and present AB 2254. I like your pen, very appropriate. Apropos. Good to see you, Senator, and thank you so much for hearing our bill today and to your staff as well for all the work on the bill and all the conversations. So I will be accepting the committee amendments, and they will be formally taken as we move into Senate Local Gov. So we're here to present AB 2254, the Coastal Monarchs Protection Act. This bill requires local governments within the coastal zone that have monarch butterfly overwintering sites within their jurisdiction to develop and implement overwintering site protection policies. Every year, the western monarch butterfly population migrates from California's coasts to rest in highly specialized habitats known as overwintering sites. And they migrate to and from the coast. They really go from Canada down to Mexico. The coastal sites provide the perfect microclimate for the butterflies to outlast the harsh inland winter weather and the survival of the monarchs is largely dependent on whether they able to find places to rest These sites are significant both culturally and economically to the surrounding areas certainly across the central coast they're vital and since the 1980s we have had a 95 percent decrease in the butterflies which means not just a hit to the nature and the natural environment we love, but also to our local economy. So 2254 would help address these concerns and create a consistent level of protection by requiring local governments to adopt enforceable overwintering site protection policies. And with me today is Angela Laws, endangered species conservation biologist and climate change lead with the Xerces Society, and Scarlett Winterholm, a Central Coast resident and intern in our office this year, who knows the butterfly groves very well. So we asked her to come testify. Okay, Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Angela Laws, conservation biologist with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Our organization has been working across California for decades to conserve monarch butterflies and the habitats that they depend on. I'm here today in strong support of AB 2254. The science is clear, monarchs are in trouble. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the monarch butterfly warrants listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Xerces Western Monarch Count documented only 12,000 monarchs last winter, down from millions in the 1980s. These extremely low population numbers put Western monarchs at serious risk of collapse. Overwintering sites are forested groves along coastal California and they are absolutely critical for monarch survival. Without these sites we will no longer have migratory monarchs in California. Yet sites are destroyed or severely damaged every year primarily due to trees where monarchs roost being topped or cut down. Once these monarch overwintering groves are lost they are impossible to recreate. While some regulatory production exists through the coastal act there are significant gaps and inconsistencies in implementation. AB 2254 offers a practical tailored solution. By requiring the adoption of overwintering protection policies, this bill creates clarity and predictability while protecting vital monarch habitats. For the future of California's monarchs, I respectfully urge you to support AB 2254. Thank you. Good afternoon chair and members. My name is Scarlett Winterholm and I was born and raised on the Monterey Peninsula. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today to share my strong support for AB 2254 and what I've seen firsthand as a Central Coast resident regarding our diminishing monarch butterfly population. When I was young every fall used to bring excitement and anticipation. Our large monarch population would flood my hometown with pride. Monarchs used to be a part of my normal life, whether that was field trips in elementary school or walks with my grandmother in Pacific Grove, it was normal to be met with the sight of our town's mascot, monarch butterflies. We call it Butterfly Town USA, but the truth is that will be a term of the past if we don't act quickly to preserve what little habitats we have left. As I sit here today, I can't say that that time of year brings excitement anymore. Now it brings anxiety, because the monarchs I once saw as a young girl don't join me on my walks anymore. Throughout the next few years, kids from my town won't get the same experience I did. Instead of seeing them on field trips or in the garden, they'll learn about them in the classroom. And they'll learn the reason they don't see them anymore is because we didn't do enough to protect them. These habitats can't be rebuilt, fixed, or replaced. As we lose more of them due to human development and climate change, all us locals can do is speak to lawmakers and ask them to make this a priority. This isn't just about butterflies. It's about whether we, as Californians, are willing to protect the places that make our state worth growing up in. AB 2254 is a chance to do that before it's too late. I ask you vote yes on AB 2254. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Others in support? Do we have others in support who would like to weigh in? Thank you. Jake Schultz on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, Semper Virons Fund, and Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you. Kim Delfino on the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and Audubon California in support. Alex Loomer on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity in support. Thank you. Molly Colton, Sierra Club California in support. Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to anyone who does not like monarch butterflies? Who would like to? No. Well, thank you for your work on this. Thank you for your testimony. Really powerful, really powerful. I've learned a lot in this bill. Thank you to our team as well for working with you. but I think the development of model policies by the Department of Fish and Wildlife will provide information to local jurisdictions and hopefully we can all figure out together how we can do more to protect the overwintering habitat. So I will be strongly supporting the bill. We'll have a motion at the appropriate time. Would you like to close? I just want to say thank you to both of our witnesses. It might be the first time for both of them to testify. Thank you for welcoming committee and I appreciate the consideration and respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Okay, well, hope to be able to go down and feature and see the habitat in the future. And thank you all for being here today. Thank you. We're going to take a recess while we wait for authors and I go testify to another committee. Thank you. The National Natural Resources Committee will come back to order. This is the first time I've been called and said they have an author, they don't have committee members, get over there. So I assume Mr. Kohlra is ready to present Assembly Bill 2218. Welcome to the committee. And whenever you ready Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to thank Chair Becker and his staff for working with me, my staff, and our sponsors to develop amendment language for this bill. There's been a lot of conversation. I think the bill is in an excellent space right now. Due to time constraints, I will be accepting the amendments discussed in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee should AB 2218 pass out of this committee today. Since time immemorial, indigenous communities have lived and grown in the region we now call California. As the original stewards of the land, they have developed a deep and comprehensive understanding of its complex ecological systems, including its vital watersheds. However, Western colonization led to widespread land seizures that deprived tribes of their traditional water resources and watershed management practices. This would lay the groundwork for a water rights system that continues to exclude tribes to this day. Although state agencies have worked to engage tribes on water issues, their impact has been limited by a lack of statutory authority to respond to water-related inequities. This means that work being done now can easily be reversed in the future. In light of these limitations, AB 2218 establishes a state policy of recognizing and addressing water-related inequities perpetrated against tries by state-sanctioned actions. This bill also requires a specific set of state agencies, including CNRA, the State Water Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, to implement this policy when they revise, adopt, or establish policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria to address inequities. By ensuring that agencies can respectfully and effectively address long-standing harms against indigenous communities, AB 2218 will help the state and sovereign tribes work together to protect the water resources that give us all life. With me to provide supporting testimony are Kenneth Brink, Vice Chair of the Karuk Tribe, and Melissa Tayaba, Vice Chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. Thank you very much. Welcome to the committee. You each have up to two minutes. Thank you. Hello, my name is Melissa Tayaba. I am the vice chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. My tribe was displaced from our ancestral villages along the Sacramento River and Delta waterways, but we have not and will not abandon our role as guardians of the water. We are distressed by the degraded conditions in our rivers, which impact the ability of our people to maintain culture, tradition, and food sovereignty. We have also heard similar concerns from other tribes and determined that current state efforts to protect tribal beneficial water uses are insufficient, which is why we are co-sponsoring AB 2218 with the Kuduk tribe. I would like my children and their children and the generations that come after to maintain our cultural traditions, Those traditions require healthy waterways that support fish, plants, and other organisms. I want them to live in a society where their voice and their knowledge as indigenous people is valued in governmental decisions about land and water management. I would like our ways of life to have equal protection as other water uses under the law. AB2218 would codify the need for tribal water rights and practices to be incorporated into state policies. As this bill has moved forward we have worked with the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee and this committee to develop amendments that ensure the bill requires specific actions from designated state agencies We also accepted reasonable requests from opposition to use terminology consistent with existing regulatory language However, we have not agreed to changes that would undermine the intent of the bill, which is to give us a seat at the table and codify commitments made via executive and agency action into law. Righting past wrongs requires a systemic change. This bill creates the foundation for that change in the water space. I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Kenneth Brink. I'm the vice chairman of the Kuduk tribe and we are proud to sponsor AB 2218. The colonization and displacement and the genocide of our people in California contributed to the loss of water resources and watershed management practices that support our traditional food sources and ways of life. California's water rights system based on first in time and first in right principle has historically overlooked the first inhabitants of this land and the original water users, the Native Americans of California. This complete oversight coupled with state sponsored actions that remove Native Americans from their lands and their waters has systematically excluded tribal nations from crucial decision making processes concerning our state waterways. 2218 provides a legitimate statutory basis to advance policies that respond to historical harm. As such, the bill represents a fundamental step towards addressing and rectifying generations of state-sanctioned injustice, functioning both as a value-based acknowledgement of past harms and as a practical tool to shape more equitable policy outcome and framework that equips advocates and decision makers with a legitimate statutory basis to advance policies that respond to historical harm. AB 2218 does not ask the state water board to do something foreign in its mission. The water board already has tribal consultation policy. It already has a racial equity resolution. California already has a government-to-government consultation act. What AB 2218 does is put those commitments on a firmer legal ground in the water rights context, where the exclusion of tribes has done enormous damage to our people, to our fisheries, and our rivers for far too long. California Water Decisions had treated tribes as stakeholders after the fact, rather than a sovereign government with ancestral, cultural, and ecological and legal interests in the waters at issue. AB 22 helps correct that by aligning state water law with consultation in equitable principles that state has already adopted. This bill is not about changing California's agency's direction. It's about making sure that these directions continue with clarity, accountability, and respect. We California Native Americans are asked to be given a place at the table where decisions about water directly affects our ways of life our ability to eat and sustain traditional foods and to practice our religion So in closing, I wanted to thank the chair and all the staff for all the hard work that did on this bill. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good. But thank you for being here and waiting all day to testify in support. Did we have both your witnesses? Both of them. Okay. Then we'll take others in support at this time. Good afternoon. Kyle Jones in support of our Community Alliance of Family Farmers and also asked to register support for Clean Water Action, California Institute for Biodiversity, and the Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment. Thank you. Gina Frisbee on behalf of the Yurok Tribe. Bridges to Ruffles Conservation Group and the Northern California Tribal Chairs Association in support. Helen Rubier from Eureka on behalf of Humboldt Progressive Democrats and the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee in strong support. Thank you. Cesar Gonzalez Garcia with the California River Indian Health Board representing 70 federally recognized tribes and 20 tribal health programs in support. Thank you. Marquis King-Meso, in support. Thanks so much. Marisa Rodriguez, with the Planning and Conservation League, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Katie Hawkins from Trial Unlimited, with strong support. Crystal Moreno, on behalf of the Indigenous Future Society and California Indian Environmental Alliance, in support. Cynthia Cortez on behalf of Restore the Delta, California Sports Fishing Protection Alliance and Endangered Habitats League in support. Thank you. Scott Webb on behalf of the Resource Rural Institute, Golden Gate Salmon Association, Friends of the River, Save the Bay, Mona Lake Committee, Mid-Klamath Watershed Council, Save California Salmon, and San Francisco Baykeeper in strong support. Thank you. Molly Colton, Sierra Club, California, in strong support. Thank you. Frank Molina on behalf of Yahaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the Sanian and Hispani-Sumash Indians in strong support. Pamela Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yocuts tribe and the Tule River tribe in support. Alex Loomer on behalf of Ramatouche tribe of the San Francisco Peninsula, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Trust for Public Land, Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plants Society, Audubon, California, California Trout, and Sustainable Conservation Support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Water Foundation. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chloe Shay on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you. Okay, opposition. Do we have some lead opposition witnesses? We do. If you're okay from there. You're okay from there. I'm okay from here. No, no, she's okay. Are you okay from there? Yeah, we're okay from here. Okay. Two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Member. Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA represents over 86 public agencies that provide water, waste water, gas and electric service in California. We recognize that this bill is intended to give tribes a seat at the table. We agree with that notion. We want tribes to be part of the decision making process. However, AB 2218 does more than give tribes a seat at the table. It calls into question water supply reliability for millions of Californians, and additionally, this bill is ripe for litigation. Our main concern is how this policy will impact water supply reliability. It will likely impact a wide range of water projects. However, the vague and seemingly far-reaching impact of the bill make it difficult to ascertain the nature and magnitude of the impact on water supply. Earlier this morning, you guys had a thorough debate on AB 2026, a different bill. It's a complex bill. Under AB 2218, we think it is likely that regardless of where that discussion on AB 22 or 2026 lands, these questions will have to be reopened to examine whether implementation of AB 2026 is consistent with the broad policy in AB 2218. For that matter, every bill considered in this committee is going to have to be reinterpreted by a regulator through the lens of AB 2218. We believe that impact will fall across the spectrum, and we don't know what that will mean for big or small project viability across the state. Our second concern is vague terminology. We understand that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work. We agree, but some certainty is needed to implement any state policy to avoid litigating every term and phrase. This is directly from page 8 of the committee analysis. Ultimately, according to the sponsors, it would be up to the tribes to determine whether a state agency has properly addressed past inequities when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, permits, or grant contraria. The other side of the argument is that state agencies acting in good faith to address inequities would be dependent on a subjective determination of the impacted tribe or tribe. If a tribe feels a state agency has not properly implemented this bill, the author of staff has indicated that the tribe could challenge that state agency action in court. Respectfully, even the proposed amendment to include a mediation process will result in the same conclusion. That conclusion is litigating every decision made by all 29 departments in this bill. We strongly urge your no vote because we cannot say with certainty how this bill will be implemented and what its impacts will be on water supply. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Amber Rosso. I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. We have an opposed unless amended position. We understand that amendments from this committee are being taken by the author, but they do not address our concerns. To be clear, we do not oppose addressing inequities. However, we respectfully ask the committee to carefully consider the breadth of this measure. AB 2218 directs over 29 different entities to implement a policy framework that relies on a subjective approval process without clearly defined standards, implementation guidelines, or measurable outcomes, including whether or not a state agency has properly addressed past inequities. We are also concerned that the bill does not adequately account for existing state efforts to strengthen collaboration and consultation with tribes. For example, AB 1284, recently chaptered, encourages the CNRA to enter the California Natural Resources Agency to enter into co-governance and co-management agreements with federally recognized tribes for the management of state lands and water resources and enables the CNRA to act as a signatory for the state on agreements related to the management of its natural resources. We would appreciate greater clarity on how AB 2218 will align with these recent directives. In addition, the bill raises important implementation questions regarding its interaction with existing consultation processes and established water management frameworks. For example, how will the bill affect the administration of California's water rights systems? How would its provisions apply during emergencies, such as droughts wildfires or other situations where water diversions may be necessary to protect public safety and critical resources Given these unanswered questions and the potential statewide impacts of these measures we respectfully request your no vote Thank you Thank you both. Others to express opposition. Good afternoon. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce, and with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Ben Turner from Maxim Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in opposition. Also, Brittany Barsotti from the California Special District Association asked me to voice her opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of El Dorado Irrigation District, Solano County Water Agency, and the Valley Ag Water Coalition in opposition. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Beth Olasso on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon, Danielle Legosti with the California Farm Bureau in respectful opposition. Thank you. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Corona in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon, Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Brenda Bass on behalf of Western Municipal Water District and Mojave Water Agency in respectful opposition. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Kim Besdek with the Northern California Water Association in respectful opposition, also registering respectful opposition on behalf of Regional Water Authority. Thank you. Lily McKay on behalf of San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority also opposed. Thank you. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in opposition. All right, let's bring it back to the committee. To all the members. Who would like to go first? Senator Laird. Let me ask, I appreciate you bringing this bill. And in a flip moment, let me thank the witness for defining NRA. because the only cavalier vote I've cast in my legislative service was when we named the resources agency, the natural resources agency, because I said we shouldn't put the NRA in charge of protecting fish and wildlife. And then I spent eight years in charge of the NRA, so little no. So in the analysis, the opposition says that they are concerned that this bill would require state agencies to operate under this policy without clear directions or guidelines of when to appropriately apply it. How would you respond to that? Well, I would say that they ask for, they're concerned for a lack of specificity on the one hand, yet if there's greater specificity, I think that there would be then the argument that, oh, the agencies are hamstrung. The reality is that the relationships between the various agencies and the many different tribes are all unique. And the situations that might arise from those relationships are unique. So to say that this is exactly where and how it must be applied is not realistic in terms of what those relationships are. And you had somebody sit next to you with implication you were going to respond. I am. Thank you, Senator Laird. Max Gomberg with the Shingle Springs Tribe. The agencies named here already have processes. The state and regional water boards for example they do water quality control plan updates They supposed to do them every three years Out of those updates they set water quality standards for certain contaminants They already have a consultation process where they supposed to be talking to tribes So the idea that there's going to be some massive change or impact is really out of step with what the existing processes are. The existing processes are already established. What this bill is doing is saying when they're doing that, when they're doing those water quality control plans, when they're doing the ocean plan, when they're doing the enclosed estuaries and bays plans, and every other permit they do, along with the ones that the agencies within natural resources do, like fish and wildlife, that they are identifying ways to acquire tribal input. They are looking at how to put that into those plans and policies, and that they're making sure that they have done their due diligence in talking to tribes. Well, let me try it this way. Your answer says there are processes in place, but the processes in place have never really included tribes. So if you're defaulting to the processes in place and you can't go back or it would be revolutionary to go back and change the water rights to recognize the original inhabitants. So how does this bill fall in that? Our process in place, many of those processes already include tribal consultation. This is codifying what is already happening in many instances. and what these water agencies are claiming that they already are doing. And in fact, many of them already have policies that require that type of tribal consultation as part of numerous types of analyses that they need to do for these water projects. So it's really, I think, codifying in a manner that respects the tribes but also recognizes what's already happening on the ground. And I would say that the fear of litigation, I mean, look, on the one hand, agencies are saying that they already do this engagement. And on the other hand, they're saying, well, they'll litigate every single decision, which I think is kind of disrespectful to the relationships that they've already built with these tribes over so many years to all of a sudden suggest now they're going to start litigating every decision. This doesn't allow for that. This simply codifies an engagement process that gives the tribes a seat at the table. Not veto power, not decision-making power over who controls the water rights, but actually using the tribe as a resource. As we've seen in recent years, it's been a huge boon for the state of California to actually consult the original caretakers of the land. And do you think, given the statements of the opposition, that there's anything you still want to work with them on? Because you sort of just rebutted a lot of the opposition with regard to it not being needed in the bill. Is there anything you think there is still worthy of conversation? I can't speak to what would get the opposition to move. I will say thanks to the work of this committee, as well as the work that was done in the Assembly, Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee. I think this bill is in a very good place in terms of putting guardrails around the process, guardrails around the litigation process requiring mediation. I think that's going to go a long way to—I think it improves the bill and will go a long way to ensuring that the relationships are cordial, that they're collaborative as they have been for many decades and even more so in recent years, I think. especially with the acknowledgement from the state of the need to engage tribes. And I think they lead to better outcomes I think the language on mediation I think is important so that there not this immediate jump to litigation in the courts Thank you very much Thank you Mr Chair Thank you. I guess I will give, you were jumping up there. Is there something? I'm just hanging back, but if we have a few minutes to respond would be great. One minute, yeah. One minute. Respectfully, this bill is being painted as a consultation bill, but it does more than that. It is a consent bill. The mediation language, 30 days plus 15 days is not mediation. There's still a viability that every single decision from the state water project to low regional recycling projects, prodigal reuse, all of those decisions that require a permit from the state water board or any of the CRNA agencies, agencies, they may be subject to a tribe's consent as to whether or not the consultation was sufficient. Well, before I get to my comments, do you want to address that? Well, I would say that they may be subject to tribe's consent on the consultation process. At no point do the tribes actually have decision-making authority. This is just ensuring that they've been consulted adequately. I think we owe them that much. Okay. Okay. I want to do two things. First, I just want to clarify that the committee amendments, different than the analysis, the committee amendments no longer include striking the Delta Stewardship Council. The specific reference to Delta Stewardship Council will remain in the bill. So I just wanted to note that. I think I want to thank you for taking up this issue. I want to thank you for working with my team and addressing concerns. I do think it's important to address these inequities around water rights and tribes. I do hear the concern of the opposition about the impact of state agencies, but we do feel that it's really important that these Native American communities have a seat at the table. And we thought we came up with an open compromise. Obviously, it's not going to fully satisfy the opposition, but I think we'll continue to discuss that. You'll continue to discuss that with them. But the mediation process is my hope that the Governor's Office of Tribal Affairs will be able to help mediate some of the potential disputes that might arise before any matter goes to the courts. And again, I think, as you said, it's really about having that seat at the table and are they given that chance. With that, I am supporting the bill here today. Thank you for your work. Would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Schoen. And I do want to thank your staff. A lot of times I put into it as well as my staff and the sponsor staff and council over many weeks, but especially the last few days and working over the weekend. That's what we, you know, for those that don't know, our staff works a lot, especially this time of year, all through the week and through the weekends. And I'm very grateful for that, grateful for the comments that were made. And I really want to thank you, Chair, for understanding the intent of the bill and making sure that underlying intent is still, if the bill is passed, is allowed to go forward. Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay. Do we have a motion? Senator Laird moves the bill. We do have a, let me just read the motion here, make sure I have it. This is a due pass to environmental quality. So this will have one more stop going forward. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sarato, Allen, Gabaldon, Grove, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Aye. Okay, two to zero, that'll stay on call. Thank you all. Thanks everyone for their patience on that one. Hey. Hey. Elouar, you are our last bill of the day. Thank you to your witnesses for their patience. I have the best witness. Mr. Chair, does that mean we'll be lifting calls after this bill and that we should tell all the other committee members to get over here? Love other committee members to join us. We need some motions. We'll be lifting calls after this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Ready to go? Yes, go ahead. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am proud to present AB 2483, which creates a permanent, signified pathway into firefighting careers for formerly incarcerated individuals who served on Cal Fire hand crews. California has relied on incarcerated firefighters for nearly a century. Men and women who risk their lives clearing brush, cutting fire lines, and supporting fire suppression across the state. These individuals are carefully screened, limited to low-level, nonviolent offenders with good behavior and low security classifications. These are folks who went through CAL FIRE's rigorous hands-on training, risked their lives on the front lines, and came home with no certificate or job prospects. AB 2483 changes that. It ensures they leave with an official certificate and a fair shot at a real job. This bill is about more than a job. It's about recognition, dignity, and a real shot at rebuilding their lives. This is about showing people that if you do the work, you deserve the opportunity, and we have the power to open those doors instead of keeping them locked. Joining me today is Chief Royal Ramey, CEO of the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program. We're excited to hear from him. Thank you for being here. You have a couple minutes. Thank you, Chair, and members of the community. My name is Chief Roy Ramey. I'm the co-founder and CEO of the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program, also known as FFRP. I spent two seasons as an incarcerated firefighter, and when I came home in 2014, I wanted to keep doing the work, but I quickly learned that my experience alone was not enough. I had the training, I had the frontline experience, but there was no certifications or clear pathway to turn that experience into a career. I navigated many hurdles and eventually got a job with the U.S. Forest Service and actually Cal Fire. This experience firsthand as a member in the fire service that California forest, watershed, public resources are under strain. And Cal Fire describes fuel mitigation as a year-round work that protects life, property, and California natural resources. California needs thousands of firefighters. FFRP has helped over 360 people get jobs in the fire service since 2018, and 75 alumni from FFRP actually got hired with Cal Fire. AB 2483 helps move California even closer to the goals by streamlining the pipeline into wildland firefighting for qualified formerly incarcerated firefighters. AB 2483 recognized the merit of training and experience. It requires recognized industry certifications for incarcerated firefighters and makes them competitive candidates when they later apply to Cal Fire. A yes vote sends a message far beyond California borders It declares that public safety and rehabilitation are not competing priorities They are partners in building stronger communities California has the opportunity to lead the nation by investing in people creating pathways to meaningful careers, and expanding our capacity in wildland firefighting, climate resiliency, and successful reentry. Let's show the world what is possible when public safety and rehabilitation go hand in hand. Thank you. Okay, others in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Prosecutors Alliance Action, proud co-sponsor in support. Good afternoon. Bella Kern on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy, co-sponsors in support. Jake Schultz on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any opposition? No. So take it back to the committee. Senator Lahren. This is a good bill. I would move it. Well, I want to thank you as well. This has been a, first of all, it's great to hear the stat about people actually getting employed and all the work that you've done. Really tremendous. This has been something I've had a personal interest in for many years. I know I worked with Senator Glazer for many years on this issue. And I really feel like you've taken us a long way forward with this measure, if we can get it all the way through. So thank you. I know it's kind of been complicated, maybe unnecessarily complicated, but it's taken a while to get to where we are. So this is really important. We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is due pass to labor, public employment, and retirement. Please call the roll. Thank you. Senator Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Slayertow? Allen? Kevolden? Grove? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? 2-0. That's 2-0. Keep it on call. Thank you. All right. So there's a few that we will lift the calls on. But I thank everyone who stuck around for our six-hour hearing. I appreciate you all. We will have some that we need a motion and, Senator, we can have to take an initial roll but we do need everyone here so we can wrap up. Please send the word out, send the bat signal that we need everyone here. Let me go through, give me one second. So let's start with file item one. AB 550, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriation. Senator Sarato? Allen? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Four to zero. That will stay on call. Consent calendar. Consent calendar. Yeah, consent calendar. The motion is due pass, or I'm sorry, consent calendar. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Stern? That's six to zero. Stay on call. By item three, due pass to energy utilities and communications. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Stern? Okay that one is six to zero Thank you File item 7 AB 1613 Wilson 2 passes for transportation Senator Zayarto, Grove, Laird, Laird, I. Stern. 4 to 0, that will stay on call. We need a motion for AB 1661. Would you be willing to? Senator Laird moves the bill. Please call the roll. Senators Becker.

Becker, aye. Sayurto. Allen. Cobaldon. Grove. Laird.

Laird, aye. Stern. Okay, 2 to 0. We also need a motion on AB 1722. Would you be willing to motion? Senator Laird moves the bill. That's a motion is due passed to the judiciary. Senators Becker.

Becker, aye. Sayurto. Allen, Kevaldin, Grove, Laird.

Stern. Two to zero. We also need a motion on AB 1740, file item 13. Yes, it has been accepted the amendments. Please call a motion from Senator Laird. Do pass to local government. Please call the roll. Senators Becker.

Booker, aye. Sarato. Any other time? It's file item 13, AB 1740 by Zabur. All right, let me get there.

Sarato, aye. Allen, Cobaldon, Grove, Laird.

Stern, 3 to 0. File item 14, AB 1772, Pappin. The motion is due pass to judiciary. Senator Sayerto?

Sayerto, aye. Allen, Cabaldon, Laird?

Laird, aye.

All right, that one's five to zero. AB 2469, Pappen, motion is due pass to local government. Senator Sayerto? Problem 15. Thank you, no. No, Sayerto, no. Allen, Cabaldon, Grove, Laird.

Laird, aye. That is a two to one. Three to one. Three to one. We'll stay on call. Problem 16, we have a motion which is due past the local government. Please go ahead and have some members. Senator Sierato.

Sierato, no. Allen, Cabaldon, Grove, Laird.

Laird, aye. Three to one. That'll stay on call. We go to file 118, AB 1808, do pass environmental quality. Please call the absent members. Senator Syrto.

Syrto, aye. Allen. Laird.

Laird, aye. Stern. That one's 5-0. We'll remain on call. AB 1960 Bennett, file 1121, do pass emergency management. Please call the absent members. Senator Syrto.

Syrto, aye. Cobaldon, Grove, Laird, Laird, aye. Stern. Okay, four to two. Four to zero. Oh, four to zero, excuse me. Four to zero. Not funny. Yes. Next up, AB 2075, volume 22, do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the absent members. Senator Sarato. Aye Sarato aye Grove Laird Aye Laird aye Stern 5 5 that stay on call AB 2218, 5-24, do pass environmental quality. Let's call the absent members. Senator Sireto. Allen. Cobaldon. Grove. Laird. Stern.

Okay, that's 2-0. That will remain on call. We do need a motion on the next bill. File item 25, AB 2254, Addis.

Senator Laird moves. Please call the bill to pass to local government. Senators Becker?

Becker, aye. Cerato?

Cerato, aye. Allen, Cabaldon, Grove, Laird?

Laird, aye. Stern? 3-0. And then file item 24, I believe you are done, Senator Laird. This is file item 2483, Eloware. Do you pass to Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement? Senator Sarato?

Sarato, aye. Allen, Cabal, then Grove. Four to zero on call. Four to zero. That one is on call. That's it. We do consent, Allen.

So Senator Laird is done.

Yeah, we'll go back. So you're on the consent calendar.

I see KMN Midway. Okay, let's start with file item one. Motion to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the absent members. Senator Sayarto.

Allen. Stern, still 4-0. Still 4-0. Keep going. File on 4, AB 2026, Aguirre-Curri, do pass of verimal equality. Please call the absent members. Senator Sayurto.

Sayurto, aye. Allen, Stern, 5-0. All right, that is now 5-0. At 22-16, file on 5, do pass as amended to appropriations. please call the absent members. Senator Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye. Allen, Stern, 5-0. 5-0. That'll remain on call. File 7, AB 1613, the motion is due pass for transportation. Please call the absent members. Senator Sarato? No. Sarato, no. Grove, Stern, no. 4-1. Okay, 4-1. That will stay on call. Then we have an exit file of 8. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Please call the absent members. Senator Sarato?

Sarato, no. Allen, Kevalden, Stern, 2. 2 to 1. On 510, Hadwick, the motion due pass to judiciary. Please call the absent members. Senator Sarato?

Sarato, aye. Alan Kvaldin-Grobe-Stern, 3-0. 3-0. It stays on call. Across the street.

Okay. We'll have a quick recess. Thank you. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee has reconvened. We're going to lift the calls on the outstanding items. We're going to start a file item number one, AB 550, Petrie-Norris. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the absent members. Senator Sayardo? Allen?

Allen, aye. Stern?

Stern, aye. Okay, we'll move on to file item number two, AB 2513, Petrie-Norris. Do pass to appropriations to the motion. Please call the absent members. That is consent. Sorry, let's just call it on the whole consent calendars. File items number two, six, nine, 11, 12, and 17. Senator Stern. Oh, I'm sorry, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, and 28, just to be thorough.

Stern, aye. That is 7-0. It is out. Do we have a vote on consent? Okay. Okay, file number 3, AB 706, Aguiar Curry, do pass to Energy, Utilities, and Communications. Please call the absent members. Senator Stern.

I need to check my own.

There's one. Sorry. 706, right? Yeah. Okay.

Stern, aye. That's 7-0. The bill is out. Okay. AB 2026, filing number 4, Aggie R. Curry. Motion is do pass to environmental quality. Senators Allen. Alan, no. Stern. Oh, I'm sorry. Alan not voting. Stern. Not voting. That is five to zero. The bill is out. Okay. Bill's out, but we will still leave that on call for the absent members? No. Okay. Bill's out. Final item number five, AB 2216, Aguirre-Curri motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. There's Allen.

Allen, aye. Stern.

Stern, aye. That is seven to zero. The bill is out. Seven to zero. We'll leave that on call. The bill is out. Sorry. The bill is out. The bill is out. Sorry. The bill is out. File number 7, AB 1613, Wilson. Motion is due pass to transportation. Please call the roll. Senator Stern.

Stern, aye. That is. Aye is not voting before, right? Right.

That is 6 to 1. That bill is out. Bill is out. File number 8, AB 1661, Bryan. Motion is due pass to appropriation. Please call the absent members. Senator Allen?

Allen, aye. Cabaldon? Grove?

Grove, no. Stern?

Stern, aye. That is 5-2 on call.

He did not. So it's 4. I'm sorry, 4-2. Let's leave it on call. Leave it on call. Thank you File number 9 then I sorry 10 No, file number 10, sorry, had with GD 1722. That motion is due passed to judiciary. Please call the absent members. Senators Allen?

Allen, aye. Cavalden? Grove?

Grove, aye. Stern?

Stern, aye. That is. Six to zero, still on call. Okay, we will leave that on call for the absent members. We'll move to, I think we're going to file item 13. Do I have that right?

Okay. That is AB 1740 with the motion is due pass to local government. Please call the absent members. Senator Allen.

Allen, aye. Cabaldon. Grove.

Grove, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. That's 6-0 on call. Okay. We will leave that on call for the absent member. AB 1772, Pappin, motion to pass to judiciary. Please call the absent members. Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cabalden? That is 6-0 on call. Okay, we'll leave that on call. Item number 15, AB 2469, data centers. Sorry, what is that motion? The motion is do pass to local government. Do pass to local government. Senators Allen?

Allen, aye. Cabalden? Grove?

All righty. That's 4 to 1 on call. Okay, 41, we'll leave that on call. AB 2619, Pappen, filing number 16. The motion is due to pass to local government. Please call the absent members. Senators Allen.

Allen, aye. Cabalden. Grove. 2619. Sorry. We are on AB 2619, Pappen, yes. Filing number 16.

That is 4-2 on call. Okay, we'll leave that one on call. Am I going to file a member 18 now?

Right? 17 was on consent?

File a member 18, AB 1808 Carrillo. Motion is due passed to environmental quality. Please call the absent members. Senators Allen?

Allen, aye. Stern?

Stern, aye. That is 7-0. That bill is out. Okay, thank you. The bill is out. File number 21, AB 1960 Bennett, the motion is due pass to emergency management. Please call the absent members. Kavaldin, Grove, Stern.

Stern, aye. Five to zero, that's on call. Okay, we'll leave that measure on call. File Item Number 24, AB 2218, Cholera. Motion is due passed to environmental quality. Please call the absent members. I don't consent, I believe. No, I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator Grove. Let's go back. File Item Number 22, AB 2075, Bennett. The motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Senators Grove Stern Aye Stern aye That is 6 That bill is out Okay, bill's out. Let's skip ahead. We're going to file number 24, AB 2218 Calra. Do pass to Environmental Quality is the motion. Please call the absent members. Senators Allen? Aye.

No. Stern?

Stern, aye. Four to zero. That is on call. I believe that on call. For the absent members. Parliament number 25, AB 2254, Addis. Motion is due past the local government. Please call the absent members. Senators Allen.

Allen, aye. Cabalden. Grove.

Grove, aye. Stern.

Stern, aye. That is six to zero on call. Okay, lastly, I think it's, is this our last one, file number 27? 27. Okay, AB 2483, El-Hawari. The motion is due to pass the labor, public employment, and retirement. Please call the absent members. Senators Allen.

Allen, aye. Cobaldon. Grove.

That is six to zero on call. Okay, we'll leave that measure on call. Did we move?

Did move consent? Great. All right. We will recess.

Recess.

We'll take a brief recess. Thank you.

Good afternoon. The Senate Committee on Senate Natural Resources and Water will start now, or reconvene. We have our last member who needs to vote today. We want to make sure he gets his right to vote. So we're going to start with file item one. Eight. Apologize. File item eight. AB 1661. Bryan, do pass to appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll. Senator Kambalden.

That vote is five to two. It passes. Yes? You want to do that? Are you being serious?

But the current vote is the chair and vice chair vote.

Okay. That's right. Okay, file item 10 is AB 1722, Hadwick, due pass to judiciary. Secretary, please call the roll. Chair is voting aye. Vice Chair is voting no. Senator Cobaldon?

Cobaldon, aye. Senator's an aye. I'm sorry, an aye. That is seven to zero. That bill is out. That is seven to zero That bill is out The Next item is AB 1740 Zabr do pass to local government Madam Secretary, please call the roll. That is Senator... Chair and Vice Chair voting. Vice Chair voting, aye. Senator Kvaldin.

Kvaldin, aye. 7 to 0. That bill is out 7 to 0. Next item is item 14. Not voting. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. I guess. Senator Kvalman.

Okay. So that is 6-0. That is 6-0. That bill is out. The next item is item 15, AB 2469, Pappen. Do pass to local government. Chair voting, aye. Vice chair voting, no. Senator Kvalman. That vote is 4-0. Oh, excuse me, 4-1. That's it. It's the next one. That vote is 4-1. It's out. It's out. Item 16 is 2619. PAPN, do pass to local government. The chair voting aye. Vice chair voting no. Senator Cabalden.

That vote is 5-2. That bill is out. File item 18, AB 1808 Carrillo, do pass. That is already out. Thank you. We're on 21. So item 21, AB 1960, Bennett, do pass to emergency management. Chair and vice chair, both voting aye. Senator Cabalden. Senator Grob. That is 5-0. That is out. That bill is 5-0. It's out. Next item. Item 24. AB 2218, cholera, do pass to environmental quality. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair not voting. Senator Cabaldon. Four to zero.

Five to zero. That's five to zero. That bill is out. Next item. Item number 25, AB 2554 Addis, do pass to local government. Vice Chair and Chair voting aye. Senator Cabaldon?

That bill is out, 7 to 0. And the last one we have here is item number 27, AB 2483, excuse me, Ella Harway, do pass to labor, public employment, and retirement. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye.

That vote is out 7-0. Thank you. This will conclude the Committee on Senate Natural Resources and Water. Thank you for coming back to vote.

You're welcome. Thank you.