Assembly Natural Resources Committee

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Are we good now?

but otherwise. Here we go. I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments as outlined on page five. I'm proud to present AB 1938, which will create a process to establish an official state designation for California's most important service. Our state surfing industry generates 140 billion in annual economic activity with over 3.3 million domestic and international surfers visiting our shores every year. A 2025 study revealed surfing has an estimated economic value of almost 200 million per year in Santa Cruz county alone. While California is home to several world renowned surf breaks, including Malibu, Rincon, Trestles, Mavericks, the state does not officially recognize them. The value of a surf break, of surf break designations for local economies can be a game changer. The designation of high quality breaks in Australia demonstrated the ability to raise economic growth by 2.2 percentage points, bringing an annual average 20 million for every region with quality waves nearby. AB 1938 will require the Ocean Protection Council to establish a voluntary application process for local governments to designate an area of the coastline as a surf reserve. By establishing a process for surf reserve designations, California will continue to promote the unique attributes of surf zones that make our Golden State proud to be home to some of the world's best surf destinations and eyewitnesses. Not quite here yet, so we will move on.

Thank you. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, supportive of the measure in front of you with just a minor amendment to help local governments come in

Thank you so much.

Caitlin Leventhal with the California State association

position for the reasons identified by my

Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition? Are you the primary witness in support?

Come.

Sorry for being late. Little line getting in the building. Good afternoon, Mr.

Mark Fenstermaker here on behalf of Save the Waves Coalition in strong support of AB 1938. Save the Waves is an international nonprofit Based in Santa Cruz, California, our mission is to protect surf ecosystems across the globe. At the heart of this mission is the strategy of creating surfing reserves and protected areas. Which is why we're thrilled to see Assemblymember Irwin taking on the important issue once again. To create California's system of surfing reserves. Thanks to funding from the Ocean Protection Council, we we engaged in a two year long study to better understand the benefits and threats of surfing in Santa Cruz County. And the economics are clear. The surf industry in Santa Cruz county alone is generating almost $200 million annually for the local economy. But the study also revealed that the threat is becoming more clear and that climate change, the resulting sea level rise and how we respond to that threat can have detrimental effects on California's billion dollar surf breaks. While we know California's coast is one of the most regulated and best managed in the world, surf breaks as a natural resource fall through the cracks of this regulation and management. With the 2028 Olympics approaching and surfing set to be a prominently featured sport, the time has arrived to invest in these natural assets from an international perspective. California is one of the leaders in coastal management. However, there are many other examples from around the world where surfing reserves are being put in place. Save the Waves has worked with over 14 different communities internationally to create these surf reserves, including one just last week in Puerto Escondido in Oaxaca. We have seen the fruits of this program and how it has created community and ecological resilience in the face of a changing world. Surfing is the state sport. It generates billions of dollars for the state's economy and it connects people to nature, community and culture. For these reasons, we are pleased to support AB 1938. We thank assembly member Irwin for continued leadership on this effort. And we respectfully ask for your.

Brian.

Brian. President Ellis.

Ellis. President Alanis. Connelly. Connolly. President Garcia.

Garcia. President Haney. Haney. Present. Hoover. Cholera. Macedo.

Macedo. President Merzucci. Pellerin.

Heller. In. Present. Schultz. Wicks.

Wicks. President Zabur.

Zabur.

We have a quorum.

We'll now return it back to the dais. Any questions or comments?

Thank you.

Just respectfully ask for your.

We've got a motion by Ms. Pellerin. Do we have a second by Mr. Haney? This bill has a due pass record from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Aye.

Not voting.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

That measure's out, but we'll leave it on call.

Ms. Wicks, would you like to present?

And do we have a motion on the consent calendar while she's walking up? Motion by Ms. Peller. A second by Mr. Zaber. Madame secretary, can you call the roll?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members and staff, thank you to this committee for its analysis and for working with my staff to clarify and strengthen this bill. I'm happy to take the amendments outlined in comment 12 of the analysis. AB 2051 directs the Natural Resources Agency to convene a Coastal Resilience Permitting Working Group which will meet to develop a coastal resilience permitting roadmap for projects proposed along California's coast and in the San Francisco Bay, as amended. I'm taking as. As amendments I'm taking today will clarify coastal resilience projects either maintain, protect, restore or enable coastal ecosystems, infrastructure or communities to withstand and adapt to sea level rise and other natural hazards amplified by climate change. This is a broad definition encompassing nature based and engineered solutions. Both projects that restore wetlands when we can and protect that may require us to build seawalls when we must. Under current law, a project sponsor on the coast may need to secure up to 10 separate permits from state federal and local agencies. This process is plagued by redundant and inconsistent application requirements, no aligned review timelines, sequential rather than concurrent permitting processes, no single lead agency to coordinate or resolve conflicts, and chronic staffing vacancies in agencies that require highly specialized expertise. We must acknowledge that attempting to cut green tape is not a brand new idea and that recent administrations, including under Governor Newsom, have sought to move faster and with less bureaucracy to adapt to the realities of climate change. However, the challenge here remains massive and our work as legislators is not done. Decades worth of well meaning permitting processes remain overlaid on top of one another and all too often it is still too expensive and time consuming to move with the speed and cost efficiency our coastline is going to need to adapt to sea level rise and an altered climate. I recognize that the shoreline I represent in the San Francisco Bay is governed by a different set of permitting rules than those that are governed by the Outer Coast. However, as as support for this bill grows, I'm hearing from parties around the state who have an interest in keeping it from becoming regional only. It remains my goal to set a big table to commute a broad group of administrative and outside stakeholders to recommend reforms that could apply to our entire shoreline. AB 1251, sorry. Does not alter existing permitting requirements or weaken any environmental protections. An advisory group mandated in this bill is specifically charged with ensuring that streamlining efforts do not weaken protections for fish and wildlife habitat, tribal cultural resources or public access. But with this bill, we can set California on a path that will lead to actionable recommendations to improve permit issuance timelines, build a better alignment on mitigation requirements, accelerate permitting, and assess how to recruit and retain essential permitting staff. With me here to testify in support is Adrienne Covert with the Bay Area Council and Brad Benson with the Port of San Francisco. And when the time is right, I respectfully asked for an I vote

minutes, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Are there any witnesses in opposition here in the hearing room? Seeing none of there any persons in the hearing room in support or opposition. Come on down.

Charles Delgado, California State association of Counties in support.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair, Mr. Ellis.

But.

My door is always open, Mr. Ellis. So.

Seeing no other questions or comments, Ms. W. Would you like to close?

We have a motion. We have A motion by Ms. Pellerin. A second and third by Mr. Zburn. Mr. Haney. This bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Aye.

Not voting.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

That bill is out. Mr. Rogers. Welcome to the neighborhood. I'm so sorry. Whenever you're ready. Whenever you're ready, Sir.

right, Mr. Chair, members, I'm here today to present AB 2494. I'll start by accepting committee amendments and really want to thank Paige for working so hard with our office on this one. It has been over 50 years since we have rethought the management practices at the state's demonstration forest. In fact, it was 1947 was when the definition that we currently Use to guide the management practices was written. So nearly 80 years. There are 14 demonstration forests in the state of California. By far the largest one, which is about half of the total acreage, is in Mendocino county, the Jackson Demonstration State Forest. The current law says that the management of these forests will be governed by maximum sustained production of high quality lumber products. That means that these forests are being sustained by the very harvesting that happens in the lumber that's taken from them in the last 80 years. Not only do we know more about ecological restoration, biodiversity restoration, carbon sequestration, and especially wildfire, but we also have changed our partnerships and how we manage lands of indigenous folks in this state as well. So this bill would change the guiding principles that we use for these demonstration state forests to really focus on those factors that I mentioned. Biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, wildfire, resiliency, recreation and research. This is a gem in the middle of my community. And Mendocino county has been struggling to figure out how to create economic development. What we know is that the eco tourism industry in Mendocino county is 20 times larger. It has huge capacity to be able to both fit in this restorative work to make sure that we are supporting even the sawmills and the industries that have relied on it, but but also focusing instead on a future and an economic potential that the county wants. I'll introduce him in a moment here. But last November, the Board of Supervisors for the county of Mendocino changed their legislative platform asking for a change in how the management occurs so that they could begin that process of creating an economy that works for everybody. I did this bill for a couple of reasons, but first and foremost was to be responsive to our constituents who have been asking for this change for a long time. We did it because we wanted to recognize the co management practices of the indigenous tribes who help represent the area. As some of that has been occurring. But we wanted to make sure we codified that in statute. We did it because this is a key component of the governor's 30 by 30 goals. And in fact, as I mentioned, the last time that we revisited the management practices, we didn't have any climate change goals in California. And redwood forests are the highest sequestering trees per acre out of any type of land use in the state and across the world, as we want to recognize that as well. And finally, for the local economy, we know that there is a huge potential. And it is not a question of how much timber should we take, it's how. And by focusing on a restorative economy A restorative environment. We can provide a better future for our community. So with me to testify today, we have Ted Williams who's a supervisor for the county of Mendocino. We also have Buffy Campbell who's the Executive Director of the Intertribal Sinkion Wilderness Council.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time here today. My name is Buffy Campbell. I'm the Executive director of the Intertribal Center Sinkion Wilderness Council. It's a consortium of 10 sovereign tribal nations in Northern California. And it's my privilege to speak on behalf of these ten self governing nations. The entirety of Jackson Demonstration State Forest is in Northern Pomo country. Our ancestors were forcibly and abruptly removed from everyday existence on these lands. JDSF is still our home. It's a cultural landscape where we once tended the land and held ceremony. The historical management of Jackson Demonstration State Forest is concerning to tribes. Due to the impact of destructive logging practices. Cal Fire has not always had a good relationship with tribes. The tribal nations have not had a voice in co managing or governing regarding any state forest. In the past there have been issues with consultation and protection of tribal cultural resources. While there have been some improvements made at JDSF such as the Tribal Advisory Committee, these improvements have not been codified. AB 2494 would allow for this and be the first opportunity for tribal nations to voice concerns about our relatives the Redwoods. Modern science has not yet begun to know what these magnificent creations can give us in the way of ancient knowledge. These beings have been on earth for centuries and are the wisest we can learn from. By providing meaningful committed tribal co governance and stewardship and integrating into indigenous tribal ecological knowledge, sustained forest health and ecosystems will be realized once again. The Intertribal Sinkyon Wilderness Council by resolution is committed to working with federal partners to ensure the success of the 30 by 30 policy goals to safeguard the natural environment while strengthening government to government relationships with sovereign self governing tribal nations. And by resolution, the Intertribal Sinkion Wilderness Council supports AB 2491. We thank you for your support on AB 2494.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ted Williams and I've served for seven years as Mendocino County's fifth District Supervisor. Prior I served as the Fire Chief for a local district. My district includes Jackson Demonstration State Forest. My own career was shaped by the kind of economic opportunity that only California and Silicon Valley made possible. That level of opportunity has not reached Mendocino County. 48% of our population receives public assistance, and we're about to feel Greater Pain under HR1. Historically, our economy was rooted in resource extraction, a model with ever decreasing ceiling timber tax revenue. Today is a rounding error for us. In 2021, I sponsored a county resolution requesting scientific review of JDSF. It passed unanimously. Shortly after Deputy Secretary Jessica Morse of the California Natural Resources Agency joined us to respond directly. AB 2494 is the logical next step to that conversation. Half a century ago, the California Coastal act was passed with a bold vision that the coast should be protected and accessible for all people. This bill offers a similar bold vision of seeking the highest and best use of our forests for the benefit of all Californians. It would create potential for new, diversified economic opportunities, supporting greater self sufficiency. It would allow us to meet the urgency of climate change, advance restoration, expand tribal coast stewardship, retain our existing forest workforce with more stable funding, and broaden the scope of research endeavors. Support for this concept was added to my county's legislative platform recently. While our board is scheduled to formally discuss tomorrow, I see you already have independent letters of support from three of our supervisors. I respectfully urge you to your. I vote.

Melody Meyer, on behalf of the Environmental

sponsor this bill and with permission, on

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, clean water action 350 humboldt, siskiyou land Conservancy, Forest Working Group of the Grassroots Institute

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Chloe Shea, on behalf of California Environmental voters, in support.

Alex Bloomer, on behalf of the Mendocino

Resources Renewal Institute, Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and the California Native Plant Society.

Hello. Oops. Hello.

here on behalf of the JDSF Coalition and also as an indigenous person asking for support to save our Mother Earth. Hi, I'm Jessica Kroll, and on behalf of Mendocino Trail Stewards, I'm in support. Larry Aguilera, Save Jackson Demonstration Forest.

Good evening.

Thank you.

You're up first.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and members. My name is Peter Ransell. I'm representing the California Farm Bureau in opposition to AB 2494 as outlined in the thoughtful committee analysis, the demonstration state forests are intended to serve as living laboratories testing how to balance ecological values and sustainable timber production. AB 2494 fundamentally shifts that mission even with the thoughtful amendments that have been proffered up and accepted by the authority. The bill redefines management to prioritize on site carbon storage and ecological processes and restricts timber harvest to only restoration and research purposes. In doing so, it treats carbon as something that must remain standing rather than recognizing the full carbon life cycle of working forests. The bill creates a false choice between carbon storage and timber harvest. In reality, sustainable harvest is a key mechanism for long term carbon storage. The state is already investing in these forests through actions like the climate California climate investments with nearly $3 million going to the demonstration forests. It's a commitment to improve sustainable timber harvest, including through the Advanced Wood product grants made by the Governor's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force, the Joint Institute of Advanced Wood Products that seeks to create supply chains dealing with the fuels taken out of our forests. AB 2494 moves in an opposite direction away from active management and towards a preservation model that limits states ability to fully realize those investments. The committee's analysis warns that reducing timber harvest creates a funding instability, shifting the forests away from a self supporting revenue stream into a reliance on a fund where funding is uncertain and a lower priority. But most importantly, unmanaged and under managed forests do not maximize carbon benefits. The analysis acknowledges that timber harvest remains a vital tool for forest health and fire reduction. Without it we increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire, we don't decrease it, releasing far more carbon than is preserved in the forests. Finally, the bill disrupts ongoing science. As noted, forest management research takes years and CAL Fire is actively updating management plans today with a JDSF management committee that includes tribal co management, changing statutes midstream, risk delay, added costs and lost data. For all the work that's been going on over the past few years since that committee was formed and previously for science that has been in place in the forest for years. Demonstration forest should reflect the full spectrum of modern forest science, including how carbon is stored in forest and and in wood products, this bill narrows that scope at exactly the time when the state is looking to invest and expand that scope. This is 2026, not 2016. We are in the midst of a wildfire crisis and cannot afford to return to a forest management strategy that combined with climate change led us to this exact crisis. For these reasons I asked for a no vote still today.

Thank you.

I'll keep it within two minutes. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Matt Diaz. I'm the president and CEO of the California Forestry association and I come before you today to respectfully oppose 2494 AB 2494. Three reasons. Number one, the bill undermines the principles and values of sustainable forestry and forest management by significantly constricting the application of sound forest management practices across the entire demonstration state forest system. Now, I appreciate the committee's work that's been done to date to try to address these concerns, but I believe that there's more work that should be done really to allow for continuity of forest management activities without the threat of future litigation. That's one piece that I find to be very, very concerning to myself. While also maintaining long term sustained yield of forest products from the demonstration state force as a whole. For upwards of 70 years the demonstration state force have literally been self sustaining. 70 years self sustaining forest system in California. There is a funding shift, as Peter has indicated, to another fund in this state that is based on the generation of revenue from the sales of lumber products. And that fund has very specific mandated statutory requirements which have not been achieved to date. And I would suggest that we need to take a very close look at the funding shift needs. Lastly, Calforce is aware that there have been some challenges with demonstration state force in Jackson. The Jackson Demonstration State Forest itself and those. And as stated by the author, there are actually 13 that are forested landscapes in California that are forests. One that is near the Mexican border. And these 13 forests are now being. The issues in Mendocino county are being thrust upon the 13 forests that have no social challenge with them at all. Jackson Demonstration State Forest is a unique situation and I will continue to work with the author and staff to try to come up with solutions that are going to allow this bill to move forward well into the future. In closing, I just want to say that today's nomenclature as we talk about forest management in California is based on conservation 30 by 30 natural and working lands. And the demonstration state forests meet those in all in every form and fashion. They were 30 by 30 conservation and working lands before that term was developed by the state. With that I stand before you to answer any questions and we'll commit to continue to work on the bill.

John Anderson, Humboldt Mendocino Redwood

Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll now return it back to the Daisy. Before that though, Mr. Rogers, what would you say to the opposition's three points?

Understood, colleagues, any questions? Comments?

And as somebody who represents the Soquel demonstration for us. So if you could speak a little more to your intention behind shifting the DSF funding from the Forest Improvement Fund to the Timber Fund?

And why does that, why does the current situation not suffice?

Okay.

Then a question to our forest friends. How do DSFs impact old growth forests? And do the DSFs allow old growth trees or is old growth part of their regular harvest?

Yeah, please.

And a real quick follow up on the forest science. The stand density indexes that have been produced by Malcolm north and other fire scientists and forest scientists over the past few years have clearly shown that a overgrown forest is an unhealthy forest. And a healthy forest is one where there is space between trees and canopy. In fact, we've learned from forest management in our Sierras that that contributes to a healthier watershed because snow is able to hit the forest floor and ends up, instead of being evaporated into the atmosphere, it ends up in our water system. So there is definitely a difference on the way forest science works because we're looking at modern forest science like stand density that says you want some space in between trees. It actually shows you have a healthier forest and the large trees are able to thrive. You have fewer straws in the ground, basically competing for resources.

But you were saying that you don't

So when we speak to, I mean, I would say fair to say that I believe that somebody member Rogers is most familiar, I suppose with Jackson Demonstration State Forest. And there are remnants that again that force was divested to the state, transferred to the state in the 40s. At that period of time there were old growth remnants spread throughout the forest. It's 48,000 acres, it's quite large. All those trees remain and they will remain into the future until some level of natural mortality. So the old growth trees are retained. Now, to be fair and accurate and transparent, timber harvest activities are conducted well, well planned, well thought out and do harvest trees of all sizes. And that does include some of the larger second growth trees on the property at times, but certainly not all of them at any given time.

And I will say part, I think part of the impetus for this bill too, some of the history in the area is that there was a moratorium and an agreement that we would wait for this forest management plan to come in and that I think that it flared up again because an additional thp, a timber harvest plan was approved last year in advance of the management plan showing folks that Cal Fire wasn't going to wait to actually have these conversations and get some of these principles in place.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Well, I think what we're looking at is a binary view of either leaving the forests untouched so that every tree represents stored carbon at the forest level, or going in and doing management to address both captured carbon in the form of wood products. So this table that bench your home is captured carbon. The state clearly is leaning into the opportunities to stand up new supply chains to help rural economies by investing in advanced wood products like cross laminated timber that will take out all of the overgrowth in the forest, the small stand trees, and create new products out of it. So that will be captured carbon. It will decrease the potential for carbon emissions coming out of our forests. And so you'll end up with a sustainable, healthier forest with a real balance of carbon remaining at the forest level and carbon that's been removed to decrease the risk of emitted carbons.

Healthy forest benefits from a combination as opposed to an either or. It's a both.

Just to clarify, your bill is not stopping timber harvesting, Correct?

I know you are. That's why I wanted to do it for you. I got you, Mr. Connolly.

But yeah, just, just one more time for the record, it is active management that allows for continued timber harvest, but the timber harvest has to be projects that further biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, wildfire resiliency, recreation and research. So when I hear from the opposition that this wouldn't allow for some of the projects that are currently there, research projects to continue, it's literally in the bill that that is still allowed and

Supervisor Williams, can you tell us a

Well, our economy was long tied to resource extraction, and our only hope at the moment is a visitor economy. And in the winter, some places, if you have a mountain in snow, you may have a visitor economy. In the winter, we don't. We have a lot of people, restaurants, inns, wage earners that don't have those opportunities. Winter, basically we shut down. And so this is an opportunity to hopefully bring people from urban environments to enjoy their forest. And we know when they come, say there's an ultra marathon that's hosted in our county. I think this year it sold out in about four minutes. There's a lot of demand for access to the forest. When those people come, they lodge, they shop, they buy food. And that benefits not just county government, but all of the wage earners that are trying to make ends meet. The largest employer in my county is government. And I think we can all agree when that's the case, that's not an economic strategy that's going to work in the long term.

Do I see bringing forest ecologists and fire ecologists into the decision making, making the forest less safe or more safe? I would say more safe. Are all of us have a duty to public safety, number one priority, but closely intertwined with that is the public trust. And as long as the public sees that the harvest rate has to keep up with covering the wages of the decision makers, the public will never trust us. They won't trust that process. But if we can decouple those, and I think that's what this bill does successfully, we can show that the decisions are being made by experts in the field of forest health. We should reach the same conclusion. The opposition is pointing at that you need an actively managed forest. We do care about the forest health. So I think it's twofold. If what we're doing today is perfect, bringing science in shouldn't shift it. If it does that science is basically an audit highlighting where we can improve. Just like in the 60s we could have said our air and our water is already clean. Right? Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act. We've come a long way since the 60s. There's a parallel here. If we bring scientists in to look at our forests, they're going to find ways to manage it better. And in the process we will build the public trust.

And then for the opposition, can you provide details on some past or current research projects in Demonstration forest? How will AB 2492 stop this research

So the research. So if you. There is a. There's actually some information online that's provided by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and or Cal Fire I should say. And right now there are 23 projects ongoing on just Jackson Demonstration State Forest alone. The longest tiered watershed study in the nation is the Casper Creek Watershed Study. It has. And for those of you that don't know, I spent some of my career in public service working for the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The research coming out of the Demonstration State Forest was reviewed and literally used as a means of promulgating regulation to address things such as stand density as talked about by Peter here to talk about surface erosion protection from road use, skid trails, post fire recovery on Boggs Demonstration State Forest was, was, I mean for years was studied after the, after the Valley fire. Good God. There's research from UC Berkeley, Cal State, Wisconsin, Portugal, Spain. I mean it's on and on and on and on. The funding structure becomes challenging when the department does not have the resources necessary to pair with partners at times other sources of funding coming in and thrift may be short and can't partner well to get the work done. It also provides staffing for the. For the Demonstration State force. If that funding is short for some reason, that becomes a challenge. But let's investigate why the funding is actually short, and the funding has actually been short in years where there is some level of acrimony as it relates to projects actually pushing through. So to my previous comment about being very cautious on amendments as it relates to promoting litigation on projects out there is a very real problem. That is where. That's why I'm spending a lot of time being very, very open and transparent while being cautious to put together the right language that will allow projects to move forward, to allow for sustained fiscal resources for the state forest and allow for the sustain of research.

Well, like I mentioned, our tribal ecological knowledge has not been used in the, in the state forest since it's been given to the government. And since 1947, we have not had voices. By bringing indigenous knowledge back, we can continue stewarding the land, bringing forest health through stewardship, from bringing our people back into there, reconnecting them and realizing our connection with the land. We have many tribes that have cultural knowledgeable people that have the wisdom to come in and manage these forests in a way that is not transactional, but, you know, relationships, and that has scientific facts towards it too. We have many, many people that are ready to go out there and be tribal guardians, tribal rangers. We just currently don't have the capacity to do that. So that's why we're supporting this bill today, so we can get our voices heard once again.

Thank you, Mr.

So I have a few issues with the bill. The first being you're talking about one particular demonstration for us. That's correct. With your witnesses you have here today,

So from my point of view, after hearing my colleague, why not just do this for just yours and see if it works and then next year say, hey, it worked, we should do this for all demonstration forests?

I just based on my knowledge, there's differing needs. And so this one size fits all approach. And I'm going to refer to you, Matt, I mean, you kind of have familiarity. Do you think this one size fits all approach works or should we do this on a smaller scale before we apply it statewide?

Okay.

So.

And I'll just add that when I did see the language that came from committee, the second thing I did after talking to Matt was share it with Farm Bureau's legal team. And before the recent co management efforts came together with the Pomo tribes and Cal Fire and Jessica Morris assembled that effort, there were a number of people that were on the verge of going into litigation in order to get those thps moving again specifically because of the delays that were being experienced. So yeah, I think it's a real concern that everyone's going to have to be mindful of as we go Forward here.

Oh.

Right.

And just to touch on it because I know that this will be sorted out in appropriations. I just want to go on the record regarding my concerns about the shifting of the funding from the demonstration state Forest system away from its current dedicated fund to the timber Regulation Forest Restoration Fund because it was established for very specific reasons, including more transparency and certainty in the process of approving timber harvest permits. Given that TRFR turfr I'm told, is the response has yet to meet its statutorily required purposes. I find it somewhat irresponsible for us to shift the funding to the state demonstration for a system to turfr and encourage the author to remove that. But obviously I think you will work with opposition to figure those things out. So those are the concerns I have. But hopefully you can work with these folks and come to an agreement.

Chair.

Yeah, there's been a lot of discussion and so I don't need to relitigate it. All I do want to thank. First of all, I want to thank the county of Mendocino Supervisor Williams and the literally 1,000 people from my district who have signed on in support of the bill. This has been a long time coming for many of them because this issue has been thorny. Sacramento hasn't wanted to touch it. And from my perspective, it is about delivering for our local community who is trying to find a different future and what economic development means and squaring that with what we know about climate science, about carbon sequestration, and building a force that works for everybody. So I'm happy to continue to work with the opposition. There will be some fundamental disagreements about the future, but we certainly want to make sure that we find something that works for folks. And again, you know, I was going through some of the different red herrings that. That exist that are out there. We are looking for a well managed, actively managed forest that can provide for this community. With that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Yeah.

The motion is due pass as amended. 2. Appropriations. Brian.

Brian. Aye. Ellis.

Ellis. No. Alanis. Connolly.

Connolly. I. Garcia. Garcia. I. Haney.

Haney. I. Hoover. Culra. Macedo.

Macedo. No. Merzucci. Pelerin. Pelerin. Aye. Schultz. Schultz. I. Wicks. Aye. Wicks. I. Zabur. Zabur. I.

All right. You can. All right. It says good afternoon, but I think it's good evening. Can I. Should I start?

Chair and members, I'm proud to present AB 2483 on behalf of assembly member Al Haari, who is Accepting the committee's position, proposed amendments. This bill creates a permanent, dignified pathway into firefighting careers for formerly incarcerated individuals who served on Cal Fire hand crews. For nearly a century, California has relied on incarcerated firefighters who risk their lives clearing brush, cutting fire lines, and supporting fire suppression across the state. Participants are carefully screened and restricted to low level nonviolent offenders who demonstrate good behavior and hold low security classifications. These are folks who went through Cal Fire's rigorous hands on training, risked their lives on the front lines, and yet they returned home with no certificate and no job prospects. This bill will change that one. Sure, they leave with an official certificate and a fair shot at a real job, but this bill is about more than a job. It's about recognition, dignity, and rebuilding a chance to rebuild their lives. Joining me today to testify in support of the bill is Anthony Pedro, a formerly incarcerated firefighter, now with the Future Fire Academy.

All right.

That's what we would say.

Thank you, sir. Any persons here in the hearing room in support of this measure. Mr.

Bella Kern on behalf of Michelson center for Public Policy. Co sponsors. And strong support.

Thanks so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Seeing no one. I'll turn it to committee members. Any questions?

Mr. Zabur, if you could let somebody member. Ellewhari. I know that I'd love to be a co author of this bill. I think it's a terrific one in giving people recognition for the contributions they've made and hopefully giving them a leg up on the next days. Obviously these programs, you know, are effective also in reducing recidivism. And so I'd love to be.

Yeah.

Thank you. I would also like to be added as a co author, if I'm not already. Colleagues, if you don't know, we invested as a state through the climate bond last year into these exact academies. It only makes sense that we continue to help folks get certified down the. Down the pipeline. A motion by Ms. Macedo. A second by Mr. Schultz. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Great job, Anthony.

All right.

That bill is out. Mr. Garcia, would you like to close us out?

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 1777, the California Clean Skies act, to you today. This bill simply affirms California's authority to implement indirect source rules. These rules provide a flexible way to regulate pollution magnets or places that attract a lot of large vehicle activity and the tailpipe pollution that comes with them. The need for AB 1777 is more urgent than ever as the Trump administration retreats on climate and clean air policies and tries to undermine California's ability to protect our own residents from dirty air. This bill will ensure our state has the tools it needs to prevent the federal rollback of our landmark air quality laws. I introduced this bill for California's children and other vulnerable populations that are disproportionately impacted by dangerous air pollution. Particulate air pollution, particularly from diesel engines, raises the risk of serious health problems, including asthma, damage to lungs and airways, heart attacks, cancer, and even early death. The health impacts of air pollution are contributing to the affordability crisis facing Californians. The sickness drives up spending on health care and pricey prescription medicines and forces Californians to miss days of work and school. This bill is a substantial departure from my AB914, which you may remember from last year, which passed out of Committee 10.

AB 1777 does not require the Air Resources Board to act. It merely affirms that the board does in fact have the authority to issue an indirect source rule. I want to be clear that this bill is not prescriptive. Should CARB decide to exercise the authority that would be affirmed by AB 1777, they would need to initiate an open public process that considers cost effectiveness and input from all stakeholders, including supporters and opponents of my bill. We have seen the indirect source rules used effectively at the local level in both the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Districts. Compliance can be achieved through a menu of flexible options, from acquiring zero emissions trucks to building charging infrastructure, installing solar panels, placing air filtration systems in local schools and hospitals, and so on. Southern California's warehouse indirect source rule is already working ahead of schedule and building the goods movements system of the future. This sensible approach demonstrates that businesses can be enlisted to support California's zero emissions transition while maintaining their competitiveness. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to push forward policies to protect the health of our children, vulnerable residents and workers. AB 1777 will clarify and safeguard California's authority to clean up our air. I am proud to have the support of the environmental and environmental justice communities, clean tech, business leaders, health professionals, as well as both the SEIU State Council and SEIU United Service Workers West. With me today to testify are Ada Welder with Earthjustice and Ben Liu with the American Lung Association.

As you heard, I'm Ada Welder with Earthjustice. I am senior state Legislative representative and we are proud co sponsors of AB 1777. This bill, as you also have heard, affirms CARB's authority to regulate indirect sources. These sources attract activity from polluting vehicles. They spew diesel dust, they pollute our air and they harm our communities. And affirming this authority would allow CARB to take action when needed to slash this dangerous pollution. As the Trump administration attacks our ability to clean up our own air in the state. This is more important than ever that we have tools in our toolbox. Much of California is in federal non attainment with the Clean Air Act. And as we've seen, this administration is not above revoking funding like federal highway dollars that could be in jeopardy because of our non attainment. To use this authority, CARB would go through a full rulemaking process which does require input from all stakeholders. And this is what the South Coast Air District did when implementing their Warehouse Indirect Source Rule or isr. This ISR in the south coast created a menu of options. Flexible ability for industry to comply by installing solar panels or increasing the number of zero emissions trucks or installing charging stations. And what we've seen in the south coast is that this has not only helped with pollution, but warehousing has actually grown by 100 million square feet in the south coast alone since the rule was implemented. Not only can ISRs help clean our air, they provide market stability for our green economy. Clean vehicle companies alone employ over 72,000 Californians. And as we've had incentives from the federal government ripped back, these green economy companies need stability. And this is something that can be provided from an indirect source rule. We don't have to choose between clean air and a strong economy. And that's why we're urging your yes vote on AB 1777. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure.

Medical Society, Society of Latinx Nurses, St.

Thank you.

Mariela Racho with Leadership, Council for Justice

Good evening. Committee Chair and members Rafael Aguilera with the Green Lining Institute and strong support.

Good evening. Mr. Chair Mark Fenstermaker here to convey support for several organizations including the California labor for climate jobs, representing 17 unions and local councils, Environment and Economy or E2 center for Environmental Health, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Sierra Club and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.

Hi.

Hi everyone.

Christina Scaringe with the center for Biological Diversity and support.

Sophia Afakoa with the Coalition for Clean Air and support.

Quality Management District in support.

nrdc, SEIU State Board, seiu, United Service Workers west and Pacific Environment.

Protection Information center and the Resource Renewal

Good evening. Darrell Little with Cal Start and support.

Dr. Ruth McDonald on behalf of Climate Action California retired lung specialist speaking in strong support. Thank you.

Good evening Chair Brian and committee members Chris Shimoda on behalf of two clients today, the Supply Chain Federation, the California Trucking association and Respectful opposition. First, I'd like to thank the author for meeting with us over the interim and I'll just summarize the question before you with AB 1777 as follows. Should the legislature depart from a decades old proven framework of reducing emissions through cost effective, technologically achievable mobile and stationary source emission standards and instead grant CARB expansive new authority to impose duplicative and costly indirect source rules? To quote CARB's most recent AIR attainment document quote CARP has over 50 years of experience reducing emissions for mobile and other sources of pollution under state authority. During the 1960s, there were as many as 186 smog alerts in a single year. Today, alerts have been eliminated due to improvements in air quality. End quote. While no doubt these existing regulations have also added to California's cost of living, we have measurable results to show for them. For example, since 2005 diesel particulates from trucks servicing our ports have been reduced by 98% and nitrous oxides by 93% despite a 44% increase in cargo volumes. AB 1777, on the other hand, gives CARB expansive new blank check authority to adopt ineffective and costly regulations known as indirect source rules. These rules regulate broad categories of facilities including ports, shopping centers, highways and large residential developments based on emissions from vehicles and equipment they do not own, operate or directly control. And the CARB already directly regulates where these rules have been tried by air districts. They have failed as emission reduction strategies with the Biden EPA declining to award California credit for the aforementioned South Coast A Community Warehouse ISR in 2024, despite imposing more than a half a billion dollars in costs, these costs are being passed directly on to consumers members. In the midst of our state's affordability crisis, we urge you not to hand carve a blank Check to impose added costs without clear additional benefits to the state's air quality goals and respectfully request a no vote on AB 1777.

Thank you.

2 minutes and 15 seconds.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anybody here in opposition to this measure?

All of you know that there was

Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. We've got a third testifying witness. Good try, though, Marvin.

Chris McKayley on behalf of the California

Members.

In respectful opposition.

Chair and members. Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable.

Good evening, Chair and members.

Thank you.

Mr.

Todd Bloomstein representing the Southern California association of Contractors as well as the Southern

California Business Properties Association, NAOP California and the Building Owners and Managers association of

Good evening, members and chair and behalf of the California association of Authorities and the California Self Storage association and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Matt Roman on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad.

Daniela Garcia Hernandez on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. In opposition.

Chair.

Good evening, Chair.

Melissa Klek with Western Growers. We represent California's farmers, shippers and processors.

Thank you.

Jasmine V on behalf of International Warehouse

Thank you.

In respectful opposition.

Good evening.

of agricultural groups, California Groceries association and association of Equipment Manufacturers in opposition.

Thank you,

Chair. Members, good evening.

Lang here on behalf of the California Moving and Storage association, the Western Propane Gas association and the Specialty Equipment Marketers association, each in opposition with respect to the author. Good evening, Mr.

Jack Yanis. We have the California Fuels Convenience alliance, respectfully opposed.

Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers association,

Thank you.

of Long beach, respectful opposition.

Thank you so much. I will now turn it back to the Daisy. Questions, comments from colleagues. Also, I have a question, Mr. Kendrick, I just want to clarify if I heard your testimony right. It is not that the chamber is against ISRs. They just strongly support the local air district's ability to set ISRs. Is that what you told me?

Right.

But if there was, it would be regulated by the local air district.

From your perspective.

Got you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. I actually had a follow up question. So I understand that the California Chamber of Commerce has labeled this a cost driver. I appreciate the argument, although I find it to be a little tenuous. So in fairness, I'd like you to help walk me through it and I will give the author a chance to respond. Can you explain to me what the anticipated increase in cost will be?

As much specificity as you can provide, who will bear the cost? And walk me through the methodology of how you labeled this particular bill to be a cost driver.

That is. Thank you. And then, in fairness, Mr. Garcia, would you like to respond?

Thank you both for answering the question. I would just say I'll be brief, Mr. Chair, and then I'll happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. I appreciate the response from the Cal Chamber, Representative. I think it's fair to say, I guess it's a possible cost driver, but it hasn't been articulated to me to any degree of sufficiency that it will actually lead to increased costs. It's a lot of theoretical application, quite frankly. I want to start by acknowledging Assemblymember Garcia and for his commitment to work on this effort and his constituents. I did support AB 914 last year, and I'll be supporting AB 1777 today. Great bill number, by the way. I do want to take this moment, though, to recognize and uplift the concerns that were raised by the ILWU and thousands of their members in a letter that they submitted. I would be remiss if I didn't point out, Assemblymember, that the ports have created thousands of jobs amongst our communities. Their letter mentions that 74% of their members members live within 10 miles of the ports, which speaks to how deeply rooted their workforce is in the future of this industry. There has been significant progress made in reducing emissions and improving operations at the port. I will also note that disadvantaged communities across the state continue to face serious air quality and public health challenges that cannot be ignored. My understanding of the intent of your bill is to ensure that the state uses all of its available tools at our disposal to address remaining gaps and maintain progress for clean air statewide. My one ask of you, Assemblymember Garcia, is that sometimes you're not going to find common ground with the opposition. But I ask you to continue to meet with them, engage with them and to find that common ground where you can. Do I have that commitment from you?

Okay. With that I'll move the bill.

Yeah, I, I can't speak to the local air districts. Perhaps other folks that have more experience regard regarding previous history can speak to that. But the concern here is that it's a federal pushback. The intent of the bill is to be a federal pushback to what the Trump administration is doing with the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not protecting the environment at all. And this is the California response to make sure we have a statewide response. And Carver already has the authority to regulate stationary sources of pollution. So this would be in addition to has the right to also indirect sources of pollution. And it has been working as was demonstrated with evidence with the south coast rule.

So the Bay Area Air District is actually in process looking at their own ISR right now. And you know, I can't speak specifically for air districts. I will say that when you are implementing regulations, especially regulations on, you know, it's a new their first time doing it, that's a costly thing to do from the air districts. But perspective, right from the regulator's perspective, it takes time, it takes energy. They want to be thoughtful on the way that they're implementing their rules in the way that it's impacting industry and the way that it's impacting frontline communities. It takes a long time to work through that. Process, which is also our point that if CARB were to go through this, they also would have to go through a very thorough rulemaking process. CARB does have the advantage of having more resources than many of our air districts do. I mean, South Coast Air District is the largest air district, not only in California, but I think actually in the country in terms of population represented. And so their resources and their ability to put forth something like this looks really different than some of our smaller air districts who maybe would want to do something like an ISR for their local jurisdiction, but wouldn't necessarily be able to do so. And I'll say that to the point that's been made over and over, this bill doesn't prescribe what an ISR would look like. There's nothing that says that CARB couldn't regionally tailor an ISR that they implement. It doesn't say that it's a one size fits all for the entire state.

Well, I can tell you right now, you know, we would want to get federal alignment with the federal government. We don't see that happening anytime soon. The current administration. So as it stands, I think yeah, 2029 would be a starting point.

Well, I could speak to my district, so consistently ranked by the American Lung association as one of the polluted in the country. And that is because of the vehicular traffic. And so I know a lot of the concern and opposition is the warehouses. The explosion of warehouses in my district, which has become the logistics hub of Southern California, has created a lot of pollution. But it's not the warehouses themselves or the construction that causes pollution, it's the mobile sources. Right. The Trucking Association. And I spoke with Mr. Shimoda about this. And so that's why I do have a companion bill that addresses and provides incentives for truckers to make that transition to EVs. And so this isn't happening in isolation. As I've always said, I have more of the carrot approach as opposed to the stick. And so I'm looking forward to this being a starting point. And like I said, and was stated again by Ms. Welder, there is a regulatory process that will happen if this bill goes through.

I would just like to point out

Yeah. So the assembly member actually articulated very well why this authority resides with local air districts. Your district is very unique.

You've got the explosion of logistics hubs. I mean, it's an economic engine of California, and it also happens to be trapped up against those mountains where it traps pollutants. Right. Your district is very different than the rest of the state. So an isr, which your district already has in theory tailored to your district, does not necessarily, the north state would need a different form of ISR than what your district has.

And no one is saying that that wouldn't be the case if this bill moves forward, that it wouldn't be a regional approach. No one is saying that because it's not prescriptive. And so those regulations would have yet to take place to determine how it would work.

So, you know, whenever I see a bill where we've got strong, strong support from, you know, everyone in the environmental community and obviously indirect source rules are incredibly, incredibly important. And you have that on one side, but then you've got the workers who are affected by this strongly opposed to the bill, I look at these things very carefully. So I read all the letters on both sides. To me, it's almost like we've got just sort of two narratives out there that are just like, don't meet. On one hand, you've got one side saying that this is giving CARB broad new authority, and then on the other side you say that it's affirming existing authority. And so, you know, my question in a way is, okay, if it's existing authority, why do we need it? And why are we sort of whipping up all of this opposition and concern about the bill? And on the other hand, if it is broad new authority, if it's something new, what is the new authority you're giving them? I mean, is it, is it, do you have existing, do you think that CARB has existing authority or not?

So is the goal to have CARB do a broad step statewide indirect source rule as a backup to local jurisdictions?

Yeah, I don't want to speak for the author, but I don't think he's asserting an indirect source rule. And in the current law, it implies that CARB has that authority by definition. If a local air district has that authority, CARB also has that authority. But I think without that specificity, there's not even the potential for those conversations or there's great hesitation in them even engaging in those conversations. And I think that is the purpose of bringing the bill. I don't want to speak for the author too much, but I think that is the point. Not to, you know, move us towards a pathway of coming up with some sort of statewide indirect sourcing or just to be clear about where authorities lie.

Chair, thank you.

It is as yet to be determined.

Yeah, absolutely. So, so, so, so with the passage of this bill, what it would, what would happen next is, is there's a regulatory process of rulemaking which would involve all stakeholders. And so as I've repeated with, with all stakeholders, opposition, those supporters, we're looking for a win win. Workers don't have to lose for us to win on our environment. And so, so those processes, that rulemaking is as yet to be determined. And this bill does Nothing that prescribes in regard to mitigation fees. The nightmare scenario of job loss. Any of that is not in here. So all it does is say that CARB does have the right to regulate indirect sources of emission, if they so choose.

Absolutely. And I have been in conversations with labor and I visited the ports, I met with pma, I've met with all the stakeholders and like, I can't reiterate enough, you know, what keeps on this narrative, the two narratives that you're talking about, this narrative that this guy is falling, the nightmare scenario, it's going to mean this, this and this and this and this and this. I don't know where that comes from because all this is doing is affirming carbs, our state regulatory Air Resources Board, the authority to regulate indirect source of emission, if they so choose.

Absolutely.

Yeah. I'd like you to consider looking at sort of what standards the air districts guide the air districts and think about whether or not those should be included as part of your bill. Obviously, if you've got an air district that doesn't have the resources to do an indirect source rule, and you know, the public isn't protected because an air district isn't acting, having the CARB have the ability as A backup to come in, I think is an important protection for the public. But on the other hand, you know, this bill is one sentence. It basically says, you know, if it's necessary to carry out their duties, the board has indirect sources authority and it really isn't bounded. So I think that that's where some of the concern is coming up. And then I'd say to say to the chamber, you know, I read all of this stuff and it doesn't seem to me like it's brand new, wholesale new authority. I mean, I think they've got the authority that's embedded there now. Probably they've got to show have they've got to take a step and show that an air district isn't protecting the public before they do that or they've got to show that there's got to be a demonstration made before carbass now. So I do think there is an expansion, expansion of authority with this, which I think you're, you know is appropriate. Yeah, it's an appropriate one. But on the other hand, I think we need to address the concerns that have been raised by by folks in labor about both the ports and about making sure that this new authority is guided by at least the same kinds of guardrails that the air districts have.

Mr. Burr, thank you.

Vice Chair ellis?

Chair.

These are good things.

Mr. Vice Chair, the rule in question, the South Coast AQMDs warehouse indirect source rule costs about a half a billion dollars a year. And just wanted to point out with respect to benefit to California's federal attainment standards, the prior administration so that the Biden administration actually declined to give credit to the south coast for that regulation. So the state is imposing a half a billion dollars of costs for no progress towards our attainment goals.

that's going to be passed on the consumer.

Okay. We talk about affordability. We talk about affordability. Forgive me, I'm a little fired up because I have been under the jurisdiction of the air districts and I know how they cost businesses money. It's a cost. We talk about affordability every day. Affordability, affordability. And yet we're going to impose another half a billion dollars and who knows how much more on what's called broad authority. Broad authority for them to implement anything they want. Does anybody know here that tires are made of butylstyrene, which is an oil derivative, and they wear out on the road and that's part of your particulate and your brake pads. And there are a lot of issues here. So I guess if you want to comply, don't drive.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other questions? Comments? Some of Mercedo, why do you close us?

Just one comment in response to that.

Okay, Mr. Mayor. Suchi.

So to reiterate once again, this bill is not prescriptive. It is not say whether those would continue to be standing or not or overlap or preclude from existing. All this is saying is that our state's Air Resources Board would have the explicit authority to regulate indirect source of mission if they so choose.

So how that affects the agreements that have been long standing or attempted at the ports is it does not apply.

with

Thank you.

Yes.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Do we have a motion by Mr. Schultz?

And a second by Mr. Cara. Favorite thing about being chair is I get to say the last words. Last Thursday, 40 states actually joined a collective lawsuit to sue the Trump administration for its recent termination of the endangerment findings, which underpinned six greenhouse gases that could be categorized as dangerous to human health. Critical component under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is not playing in good faith towards people's health and those 40 states included California. The author's been very clear numerous times and especially when you contrast it with his bill last year. This is not prescriptive. It is just codifying implied authority and making it explicit so that all the tools are in the tool belt as we look to try to provide a state that has clean air for everybody. It should also be noted that CARB does rules all the time that don't apply to everywhere in the state unilaterally. For example, diesel truck rules have exemptions for ag trucks and logging. And at birth, rules by definition only happen at the ports and not everywhere across California. The fact that we'd be focused on non attainment also brings something into focus here. But the ultimate power stays here in the legislature. I'm incredibly sympathetic to the ILWU and those negotiations at the ports. And to be honest and to call it straight, they also came to the state last year looking to work around their own air resource board, acknowledging that even those conversations required or desired for us to get involved. And we did, and we moved that legislation. The final power rests in the legislature. But I think clarifying the powers of our regulatory agencies and our local air districts is important as we figure out which tool is the appropriate tool for the right problem. It's not one size fits all, but you need all those tools. And so I want to thank the author for pushing as hard as he does on all the things that he does. This bill has a due pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Aye.

No.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Haney.

No.

Aye.

No.

I.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everyone.

Lifting the call on A.B.

Thank you so much.

Irwin.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

No.

Aye.

This concludes the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing.