Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Good morning. We have a packed house today. I wonder why you're all here. Good morning. Before we begin, we want to do a few opening remarks so everyone knows the rules of the room. To ensure members of the media and the public have access to our proceedings today, the hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and members of the public can provide testimony in person here in Room 444 or via the phone. For any members of the public providing comment via phone, we're using moderated telephone service.

The call in number for the hearing is 877-692-8957, and the public access code is 1315444. Please call in when the author of the bill you'd like to comment on begins the presentation. The operator on the line will give you instructions on how to be placed in the queue. If you're calling in, please eliminate all background noise, which includes muting us so we don't hear ourselves twice. We have ten bills on the consent calendar. We are going to begin as a Subcommittee.

We don't have a quorum yet, so I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar as soon as we get to the point where we have a quorum and can hear that motion. And now we will, I guess, call the hearing to order and convene as a Subcommittee, and we will call roll as soon as we are able. Let's see, who's the most senior--oh. The Vice Chair is here. Perfect. I was trying to figure out who to hand the gavel to.

I was like, the perfect stage entrance, Mr. Mathis. Appreciate it. So we're going to start with my bill: AB 460. So I'm handing the gavel to the Vice Chair, and I will change seats.

The author may present her bill.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Pleased to present AB 460, which will increase the State Water Board's enforcement authority to better manage the precious water resources here in California. As we all know, climate change is presenting us with unprecedented challenges across all sectors of our society. This is as true, if not more, when it comes to our water sector, which we all know and deal with every week in this Committee.

While this winter has offered much-needed relief--I don't know if you guys got the rain last night at 11:00 p.m; I don't know what that was, but it rained in my house at 11:00 p.m last night--and brought a severe three-year drought to an end, we do not know what next year will bring. We do know that sooner or later, we will have another drought and we know it will be ever-increasing and severe.

Given this, we cannot afford to waste our water resources nor allow anyone to illegally and unlawfully steal water. It does not matter if the theft impacts another person or our environment; depends on the water as much, if not more, than we do. Water is essential to all life, and illegal diversion of water has real consequences for others and for California. We should not and cannot tolerate this illegal activity.

As you heard earlier in this legislative session about what happened up in the Shasta River this August, a group of water users openly, willfully, and illegally diverted water in violation of an emergency curtailment order that the State Water Board had put in place to maintain minimum in-stream flows to protect salmon and other in-stream uses of water.

The Shasta is a tributary to the Klamath, which is home to one of the most important salmon runs on the Pacific Coast that supports both commercial and recreational uses. But more importantly, it's the cultural uses by the Karuk and Yurok Tribes that we should also be paying attention to. The situation has become even more tragic now that the recreation and commercial salmon fishery will be closed for the season for only the second time in our state's history.

What happened last August on this Shasta was egregious and it cannot be allowed to pass without a forceful response by us, the Legislature. And I want to pause right there and just say that that is what this bill does. It focuses on the illegal use of water. It enforces current law. As I have had the opportunity to meet with many of the opposition that we'll hear from today, I've asked every single one of them, 'do you agree with me that this enforces the current rules?'

And every single person has said yes. The question is, how do we enforce those rules? I also want to point out that the bill is double referred to judiciary, and some questions of due process will be dealt with by that Committee. The question before our Committee today is the water question. The question of: should we be enforcing this through the State Water Board? So that's why I introduced AB 460.

The bill will allow the State Water Board to issue an interim relief order to take immediate action to stop harm from happening. As you heard in our earlier hearing, 20 days is too long to wait for illegal diversions to happen. A lot of water can be taken in 20 days. It will increase the penalties for violations from 500 dollars a day to 10,000 dollars a day, plus 2,500 acre foot of water illegally diverted. We cannot allow the theft of water to be the cost of doing business.

It allows the State Water Board to obtain an inspection warrant if a property owner will not cooperate with its attempt to carry out its mandate and protect the public interest. It adjusts the water right violation penalties so that they keep pace with inflation, something I should say we should do for all penalties, but we're doing it here in this bill. The opposition will argue that this bill is a dramatic expansion of the State Water Board's authority.

It's not. If you do not break the law, if you are following the rules as they stand today, this bill does not change anything for you. The opposition will argue that the bill egregiously violates due process. We have done our best to get due process right in this bill.

I am the first to always say that I may not get it right the first time, and I invite the opposition to continue conversations with us on due process to ensure that we have the ability to stop illegal use immediately while ensuring the due process of those in the state that are doing right by our water and doing right by our environment.

And again, that's a question we will continue to work on as we move forward to the Judiciary Committee if we were to get out today. I want to also add that in our effort to get due process right, we ensure a hearing within 15 days; again, open to the conversation about what is right on due process, but we worked hard to make sure that the issue was heard as quickly as possible by the Board.

I just want to say something that I think is really important--because we forget it often in these water rights conversation--the public owns California's water. The people of California have a right to this water. Water rights holders possess a right to use it, and they must do so in the public interest, and they must do so lawfully. And that is what this bill ensures is the case. And with that, today, I will turn it over to my witnesses today.

We have with me today, Redgie Collins of CalTrout, and over the phone we have Council Member Hockaday of the Karuk Tribe, who will testify via phone. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

All right. We're going to pause real quick and establish quorum.

Oh, perfect. Thank you.

[Roll Call].

All right, we have a quorum. Primary witnesses may proceed.

You want to go first or should we let the council member--

I'm easy. Whatever is best.

Okay. Well, can we let the council member on the phone go first, please?

Absolutely. Let's go to the phones.

Thank you. Mr. Council Member, are you there?

Morning. Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Yes. Go ahead.

Okay. I'm Aaron Hockaday, Karuk, tribal council member for the Karuk Tribe. I'm born and raised on the Klamath River. I have five children, six grandchildren. I am a Karuk dip fisherman on the Klamath River. I'm here today to testify how important it is to make the rules and regulations more higher for illegal versions. As you all know last year that the Shasta farmers group took water from the Shasta and drained it three quarters of the water.

That was right after a devastating fish kill on the Klamath River that killed fish for 50 miles. There was no oxygen in the water for 50 miles for 24 hours. It killed everything living in that stretch. And the farmers turned around and took water right after that. For us, the Karuk Tribe, that was hurtful. That was called no respect for what Mother Nature does for the people.

So increasing the fines would be great because we're not out of the drought yet and we're still in climate change, and what's going to stop them from doing again? They laughed at the Water Board because they knew that the fine wasn't going to hurt them. For the 80 farmers that paid for the fines, it only cost them 50 bucks for taking water for 20 days. That left fish stranded on the climate river, in the streams and everything.

Right now, the climate river is in dire needs because we are on the second closure of salmon fishing. The Karuk Tribe is probably only going to be able to catch at least 100 fish just for ceremony purposes only this year. That's not because the state telling us or the federal government. That's what we're doing to protect the fish. We've been doing it since 2017, just so we can have fish for the future, for our grandchildren.

When the farmers take illegal versions and make money off it, that's greed. That's profit for greed. That's not profit for the people of California or nothing. They knew that the fish kill happened and they still took the water. I think that bill AB 460--sorry about this; I'm a little nervous on the phone--should be enforced. We should upgrade the fines. I mean, what's going to stop them from doing it again?

They told the Water Board they were going to do it and they did it. They told the whole people, everybody, they were going to do it. So what's going to stop from anybody? What's going to stop the Scott River farmers from doing what they want to do with the water when the Scott River goes dry almost every year?

Thank you.

Stretches as a valley.

Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you, Council Member. I was lenient and let you go about a minute over time.

Okay. Sorry about that.

No, it's okay. And if you could stay on the line in case there are questions.

It's a passionate issue, so stand by for questions as they come up.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Chairperson Bauer-Kahan and Members of the Assembly of Water Parks and Wildlife. My name is Redgie Collins, and I'm the Legal Policy Director for California Trout. I'm here today because water policy changes to improve California's ecosystem is my life's work and passion. I'm also here today because the origins of AB 460 stem from the Shasta Valley, just a short drive from where I raised my family in Mount Shasta.

AB 460 is backed by recommendations from some of the preeminent water rights thinkers in California. In 2021, a team of water rights experts from UC Davis, Pacific McGeorge, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and a former State Water Resources Control Board Member wrote a series of recommendations that included interim protections found in AB 460. This bill would not affect anyone that is adhering to their current water right.

Let me say that again. AB 460 will only make it more difficult for those seeking to break existing law. This bill responds to a very real problem. Six months after that white paper was published in August of 2022 under an emergency drought declaration, at the height of the drought and at the height of the summer heat, water users intentionally and vocally violated their water rights and drained half the Shasta River, a key tributary to the Klamath. A rancher from the Shasta River Water Association--

Sorry, guys.

Oh, no worries. I thought it was me. Thank you. A rancher from the Shasta River Water Association stated that the State Water Resources Control Board obviously, and I quote, 'obviously don't have much enforcement power' because they showed up and told us, 'shut off your pumps right now.' And we said no. The rancher went on to ask, 'you'd think they'd'--meaning the State Water Resource Control Board-- 'get an injunction, shut off the pumps, wouldn't they?' End quote.

The bill is not about increasing the Board's power, but instead about giving the Board common sense, effective, proven tools to accomplish the job that the Board is already tasked by this Legislature to do. Finally, this bill and its supporters reflects a growing trend. Fish and feathers conservation organizations, tribal nations, environmental justice organizations, clean drinking water advocates, and many others are working towards a common goal, which is a rarity. May not sound like it, but it is. Take a look around this chamber.

These people and these entities will be here until we see common sense changes reflected in the Legislature needed to protect all of California's interests, especially those in water. Thank you.

All right, thank you. At this time, we'll see if there's any primary opposition that would like to present. And being that we gave a little extra time for the proponents, I'll give you guys three minutes instead of the standard two.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Committee. Thank you for having me this morning. My name is Robert Donlan. I'm a water rights attorney here in Sacramento, and I represent public and private water suppliers around the state. Before I get into the specific concerns about 460, I would like to make some general observations. First, it is unclear what the bill aims to fix, despite your clarifications this morning. To be clear, water agencies do not sanction unauthorized diversion and use of water.

But 460 goes well beyond legislative fixes to address what happened in the Shasta River last year. This bill is not about water rights. This is about expanding the Board's authority to deal with issues that go beyond illegal diversions. Second, the process for modifying and conditioning water rights is critical. Water rights are real property and support billions of dollars of infrastructure investment in our state's economy.

As such, State Board water right actions must be implemented consistent with constitutional and statutory procedural requirements and the California Administrative Procedures Act. And water users must be afforded a right to independent judicial review. While these processes can be time-consuming and often expensive, they ultimately result in more informed and defensible water management action and remain durable over time. AB 460 would authorize the State Board to issue interim relief orders in adjudicative proceedings.

In our view, this authority, with the exception of increasing fines, is unnecessary in light of State Board's existing authorities. It is unworkable under many of the legal doctrines that would authorize the State Board to issue interim relief, and the proposed process is unconstitutional and conflicts on many levels with procedural rights and protections afforded water right users under state and federal constitutions in the California APA. AB 460's proposed modifications to Water Code Section 1126--

One minute remaining on your time.

Thank you. Would eliminate meaningful judicial review of State Board water right actions and undercut administrative accountability. State Board actions that affect fundamental vested rights in our communities and economies require the highest level of judicial scrutiny, not a weakening or elimination of administrative and judicial review. Water agencies understand that modern water problems require creative solutions, and we are prepared to work with the Legislature and the State Water Board on that.

It is our view that California's existing water rights system includes the flexibility to address modern problems while also providing water users with a degree of certainty and expectations that allow for investment in system improvements and actions to improve the environment.

Thank you. If we could go to the other.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jennifer Pierre. I'm the General Manager for the State Water Contractors, and we are respectfully in opposition of AB 460. We concur with the notion that the State Water Board needs strong tools to effectively enforce violations of curtailment orders and illegal diversions, and we do not illegally divert. But this bill does impact us and it actually impacts all of us.

Our concern is that AB 460 goes far beyond that narrow scope as was described, and would expand the State Water Board's authority substantially beyond what is necessary to enforce the water rights system, which is actually to the detriment of all water users, not just those that are legally diverting. We believe that outside the very real and legitimate due process and legal concerns in the bill, the practical consequences of the measure would have a real impact on all of Californians.

At a time when water agencies must rapidly invest in their water supply portfolios to be climate resilient, a complete dismantling of the water rights system will paralyze these agencies from making these urgent and necessary investments. Water agencies are making investments in their infrastructure based on their water rights, which are the foundation of their water portfolios.

A water agency considering investments in a groundwater bank, a new storage facility, or even a recycled water facility cannot justify that investment if the entire water right they depend on is in question. Likewise, with such a major disruption in the California water right structure and system, the ability for communities to plan and develop housing to meet the long-term needs of Californians is untenable.

How can communities make the necessary findings under the Subdivision Map Act and the Environmental Planning Process to prove up a reliable water supply if there is such great uncertainty in the water rights which are relied upon for those supplies? We believe this measure poses significant risk to future housing and commercial development.

There are a number of recommendations in the PCL report that could be effective at addressing some of the specific concerns that have been raised, and we have supported these measures and legislation consistent with those recommendations. Examples include funding for the State Water Board staff to update and modernize the water rights information system and improved monitoring and reporting.

AB 460 exacerbates our water reliability uncertainty, making it harder for water agencies to invest in the projects needed to ensure climate change--excuse me--climate resilience. For these reasons, we are respectfully opposed to AB 460 and request your no vote on the measure.

Thank you. We'll go to support in the room. Name and organization, and then to the phones after that.

Good morning. Daniel Barad, on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists, in strong support.

Good morning, Assembly Members. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning and Conservation League, cosponsor of the bill, strong support.

Good morning. Cody Phillips, on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance, in support.

Good morning. Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee, in support.

Samantha Samuelsen with Audubon California, in support.

Victoria Rome with Natural Resources Defense Council, in support.

Justin Malone for Heal the Bay, in support.

Alex Leumer with Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Law Foundation, in strong support.

Good morning. Matt Clifford with Trout Unlimited, in support.

Juan Altamirano with the Trust for Public Land, in support.

Abraham Mendoza with Community Water Center and also on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and Clean Water Action, in support.

Thank you. We'll go to the phones for support. Operator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support, please press one then zero. Press one then zero. We will first go to line 16.

And just name and organization and stance, please.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Line 36.

Hi. This is Santiago with California Environmental Voters, in support.

We will now go to line 38. Your line is now open.

Deirdre Des Jardins with California Water Research, in strong support.

Line 23, your line is now open.

Good morning. Don McEnhill with Russian Riverkeeper, in support.

Line 37, your line is now open.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group, in support.

And Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak in support.

All right. Thank you, Operator. While we have you, let's go to opposition on the line as well.

And once again, ladies and gentlemen, for those who wish to speak in opposition, please press one and zero at this time.

Got you. That's efficiency there.

We have several people who have signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please.

And again, just name, organization, and stance.

We will now go to line 30. Your line is now open.

Kristi Foy, on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District, in opposition.

Line 34, your line is now open.

Good morning. Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Corona, in opposition.

Line 12, your line is now open. Line 12, your line is open. We're going to move on to line--pardon me. Line 12, please go ahead.

Good morning. Justin Hopkins with Stockton East Water District, in opposition.

Line 21, your line is now open. Line 21, your line is open. We're going to move on to line 32. Your line is now open.

Sarah Boudreau with the City of Roseville, respectfully opposed.

Line 31, your line is now open. Line 31, your line is open. We're going to move on to line 25. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon. Dana Ferreira, on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District, respectfully opposed.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Operator. And finally, to those in opposition in the room again, name organization.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members Don Gilbert, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Orange County Water District, all in opposition. Thanks.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Ed Manning from KP Public Affairs on behalf of Mojave Water agency and Western Municipal Water District, in opposition.

Mr. Chair Members Paul Yoder, on behalf of the counties of San Joaquin and Stanislaus. It's also the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. In opposition.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members Chris Anderson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, in opposition. Good morning. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association, in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association, in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Members Dean Tally, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Robert Gonzalez with Crew Strategies, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in opposition.

Good morning. Alex Bearing with California Fabrio in opposition.

Good morning. Gail Delahant with Western Growers Association and opposition. Good morning. Brenda Bass, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Opposition.

Good morning. Lily Mckay, on behalf of San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and United Water Conservation District, both in opposition. Thank you.

Dennis Albion, on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, excuse me, sorry. And San Gabriel Valley MWD, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Turner, on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District and Santa Margarita Water District, in opposition. Good morning. Danny Merkley with the Guaco group on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Kern County Water Agency and Kings river interest in opposition.

Good morning. Noel Kramers with Wine Institute in opposition. Good morning. Trisha Garringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed. Good morning. Taylor Roshan with consorties and Conway on behalf of California Fresh Fruit Association, California Cotton Jenners and Growers Association, Growership Association, Western Egg Processors, Western Plant Health, Apple and Blueberry Commission, in opposition.

Good morning. Cyrus Stevers with the municipal water District of Orange County, the Coachella Valley Water District and the loss of Virginist municipal water District. Opposition thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair Members Bob Reeb with Reeb government relations on behalf of Bellflower, Somerset Municipal Water Company, El Dorado Irrigation District, Desert Water Agency, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Palmdale Water District, Roland Water District, Solano County Water Agency, Valley Ag Water Coalition and Walnut Valley Water District, in opposition.

Thank you, Steve Baker, with Aaron Reed and associates for the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in opposition.

Thank you. At this time, we will go to Members. Mr. Ward, Ms. Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank our chair for bringing this piece of legislation forward. It's been very interesting to learn about the history of how this came to be and maybe the moment that we're in right now to be able to use this through your legislation, to be able to update some of our processes to respond to these illegal diversions.

And if we are in agreement that we have these limited and isolated incidences of illegal diversions and that our response mechanisms right now are ineffective to be able to stop the activity, especially when water is particularly scarce, then we do need to be able to think about the ability for us to lawfully respond, to be able to curtail that activity, and particularly under the penalties, too.

If we agree that the fine structures are just insufficient, then I appreciate that that is something that can be enhanced through this Bill. Had a chance to hear a lot of input with very mixed opinion on this and really trying to also appreciate that I kind of wear two hats on how does this affect my constituents and how do I also have responsibilities as a Member of this body thinking about statewide water needs as well.

And I generally want to be more supportive of supporting our state agencies and believe and trust in them to be able to do the right things on behalf of Californians. And so I'm not certainly opposed to wanting to see how we can give them this power to be that extra enforcement tool to be able to achieve the ends that we want to achieve. So to that end, how would this Bill establish parameters for the State Water Board exercising in action in the first place?

Yeah, thank you for the question. So the Bill does require a finding of the board, and I can pull up that language exactly, but that there would be harm that it needs to happen. And there's very specific criteria in the Bill for that. But the most important mechanism, I think, in ensuring that we are keeping them in check, if you will, is the due process. And like I said, we are going to continue to work on that through judiciary.

But currently, as I said, and I think we can all agree, because all of the things specified in the Bill that would allow them to lead to an interim relief order are current law, one could go to court right now and litigate these issues. Right. And so anybody who's gotten up in opposition could be in court on this today. That's not going to change what the problem is in part is our courts are so overrun, as we as a body know.

So that takes time and it can take up to 20 years right now. So this is trying to give us a mechanism in the meantime, but we need to get that due process right, so that there is a check on the board, so that the court is coming in to make sure that we're not stopping use that is lawful, appropriate, necessary use whatever word you'd like. And so we did require the hearing within 15 days.

We did require any hearing to be done as quickly as possible. After that, you are currently and will continue to be allowed to appeal to a court and end up in that same process you can be in today. And so we're trying to make sure that this gives us that immediate action, but protects those rights of all of the water rights holders to get the due process they need and to make sure that the court is a check on the board. I think that's really critical.

Absolutely. And I think it's important that we get the parameters correct and tight to be able to respond to what is going to be narrow and isolated incidences of diversion and legal taking. That I think also would ruin the water supply planning for any given locality as well. Because that is what's going on here today. And we want to make sure that, especially under drought conditions or other extreme circumstances, that we're treating everybody equally.

And if there is an interim relief order that is imposed, and the State Water Board got that wrong, what would be the consequences of that?

Well, the court would stop the relief order, right.

But if there's a harm done saying no inappropriately issued, does that interesting taker, then maybe something to work out?

No, that's something I hadn't thought about and it's a fair question is what is the check? Especially if it happens more than it's happening. I think we're always a check on this to fix the legislation. Sorry, excuse me.

If there's something to add from proponents and also from the opposition, if you have an answer to that, that'd be great, I think, for the discussion.

Sorry to butt in there, but the idea in my mind, and the answer to that question would be in the concurrent jurisdiction with the existing court system and the State Water Resource Control Board. And so like any court system, like any body that has a ruling, that ruling can be challenged and injury can be addressed in a similar filing. Of course, once a ruling is final, that's the immediate action.

I will point to the Bill that says the interim relief will only be provided if there is an imminent harm. It's extremely high standard, and the standard is actually brought from precedent that's in the civil court system. And so that is a well received and long standing precedent that we use that language from.

So if somebody had an order and it was immediately imposed, they are then incurring potential harm for business or activity or agriculture or whatever their issues are. And it was later debated and ruled that that was illegally ordered, that there could be restitution for them, for harms that their business or their industry incurred.

Yeah. And if I may, and I'd like to turn over, but just so I can finish what I was about to.

Say, I also want to hear. I think the opposition wants to.

Yes, exactly. So if I can finish and then turn it over. So one of the things that I think, and I said this in my opening is this is the first anyone who's raised this with me. So I think it's something we should work on. I think it's a good question, again, something that I think we can ask you to share about, too. They may have input on how that would work well, but I don't feign that I'm going to get it right the first time.

And we have asked the opposition to please come to us with constructive feedback. I've asked them how we can make due process better. To be fair, I have not met with all 400 and something water agencies, but big stakeholders. I'm doing my best, guys. My staff is trying to meet with as many of them as possible. We're doing our best here. I heard someone chuckle in the back, and we do want to get this right, and we would like their input.

And so this is something, we're asking them to come to the table. We're asking them to provide us thoughts on this due process and how to get it right, because I do want to get it right. Look, I'm a former litigator. I believe deeply in due process. So that is something I'd like to work on and I would like them to be my partners in that.

Well, if anybody in this body can do that, I know you can because of your extensive experience and your commitment to those issues. The other thing that is just.

Mr. Ward, real quick, I want to go back to them because they clearly had something to add into that.

No, thank you.

And now that we do have the opposition at the table, let's have the discussion.

It's a very good question. And we had concerns with the original version of the Bill with respect to judicial review of these interim relief orders, the amendments that were made on March 30 eliminated judicial review of interim relief orders. You cannot get court relief for review of an administrative interim relief order in a court against the board or any officer of the board to review, prevent, or enjoin any of the following until you have a final decision.

So it could be 20 years before a water right holder could get relief from a court. And that's the due process concern, the judicial review concern that we're most concerned about. These amendments came in in the March 30 amendment. Also eliminated was the independent judgment standard that has been the standard of review for water right decisions since the water code was enacted. That's eliminated, and presumably some lesser standard of review would replace that.

But your question raises the very important issue about how do we check the State Water Board if they're wrong? Right.

There's no bond that's required to be posted. If the board gets it wrong, the board can order a water user to do all sorts of engineering studies, environmental review. They can order the board to reimburse their costs. But if the board got it wrong, there is no relief.

And if I may, on those amendments, as said, I was trying to get it right in the absence of any suggestions. So I'm delighted to be hearing some suggestions today, and we'll be following up on that.

And I appreciate those suggestions, too. I think we're sort of starting to.

Take, that's why we have the process, so we can have the discussion.

Yes.

I think that we're able to create a little checklist of some of these issues that I know that you'll take seriously and be able to work through a little bit of sort of a more macro question that I'm trying to get my mind around is knowing that so much of what has occurred over the decades has really been set into place through judicial action and court precedents.

And to what extent is a new administrative power sort of intersecting with the constitutional rights to some of this judicial review is just something that I'm really trying to kind of sift through. But I think that maybe some of these discussions and possibly working with opposition can help to elucidate some of the solutions here that won't, with this Bill, become law and be implemented, be overturned. Right. That's something I know you think critically through sort of those subsequent steps as well, too.

Yeah. And I look forward to judiciary's input. I just want to say that because I think they will be very keen to that question and will provide us with good feedback to allow us to get it right.

Thank you. So I'm happy to move the Bill, because I know it really deserves a lot more critical thought. My hope is that this is something that in final form will be something that is narrowly designed to a very narrow set of circumstances where these illegal takings are occurring, and that we are being fair in how we are implementing a new state power for all parties. There can also be very quick resolution to that question as well.

You would achieve the benefit, you would hopefully actually achieve additional deterrence from the takings ever occurring in the first place. And I think that this is something that is workable, but I look forward to seeing how the Bill matures as it goes forward.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Member warden, Member Rubio, and then Member Bennett, and then other Members.

Thank you. So I know we talked about the review and judiciary, so I'll try to keep it more focused on the water issues. I saw a lot of my ag communities here, and I just want to emphasize that I am from Southern California. And once upon a time, I was asked, do I have ag in my district? And I answered, absolutely, I eat.

So with that, I want to say that all of Californians eat, and if there's an impact on the ag community, then we're all impacted. 60% of the produce in the United States comes from California. So I want to just start with that. Part of the discussion was about the predictability of water supply, and I think the other issue was the housing issue, and how can we ensure that that water supply assured? I guess I come from a district, just so you know, every single water district in my area is opposed. The San Gabriel Valley depends on groundwater mainly, and then we do water rights, and then the last resort is imported water. So if there's adverse effects to this, my community would for sure, I mean, 100% be affected by this. So I want to ensure that not only the ag community is protected, but also my community.

To Mr. Word's point, yes, I want to do right by California, but my primary concern are the residents of my district right now. So the predictability part is an issue for me, for the housing, but also for my ag communities. And just wanted to go back to one of the issues we talked about, the Water Board having the right to sanction or whatever the words we may use, but can't we get relief right now?

Say the ag, say, hey, we're putting a restraining order, a temporary restraining order, on whatever you're doing. Is that part of what we're talking about? Within the 15 to 20 days? Wasn't that a relief of sorts during the whole Shasta fiasco number one. But number two, we talk about agencies trying to do the right thing. Not all of them do the right thing. Unfortunately, we're all human. And I've seen some of these agencies, not the waterboard maybe, but not right now.

Some of these agencies take different rulings for different groups based on their relationship with them. So it could be a punitive just because it's this group or that other group. How can we prevent that? And I know that also will be dealt with in judiciary. But it's important here because I know a lot of our farmers have those relationships. There's always some adversarial relationship because they blame the farmers for everything that has to do with water.

How do we protect those groups when we are giving the power to these agencies? Again, I hope that they do the right thing, but we all know that if they don't have a good relationship, they'll take it out in one way or another, try to penalize them and using these powers to punish them for something that was done in the past. So I want to ensure that when we're talking about this, that those issues are addressed. The farmers, number one.

Number two, well, I guess they're both equally important. But the housing issue, how do we ensure that we do have the reliability? So when we are doing development, we're in a housing crisis. And the weirdest nexus right now is that we're having these conversations with both housing and water reliability. But I want to make sure that we address those issues. And I trust, and I spoke to many of you, I trust that we can come into agreement. But I know, and I'm speaking to my opposition.

A lot of you came to us, but some of those folks have not necessarily gone to the author. I understand there's 400 and plus agencies, but is there a way that maybe we can convene a group and I will help if that's something that will help the folks out here, I will help to convene this group so that we can work these issues out. The last thing we want is to affect our food supply and affect our housing supply.

And I think that we all are in agreement of that. And I've worked with the author many, many times. We're not always on the same page, but I know that we can work this out if we sit down objectively. I want to say this, I usually say it in private, but I'm going to say it in public.

You can't go to an author and just say their Bill sucks because we all have different opinions on that and to the point the author was making is, let's come with some constructive ideas, and I understand some of them are no goes. We've all been there, but can we work out all of the details that can possibly be worked out? The last thing that we want, again, is to affect our food supply and our housing supply.

And so I trust that you can come to the table. But to the opposition, I'd be more than happy to help convene those groups so that we can come up with a workable, non punitive Bill and address the issues that the opposition is raising, understanding that not everything is going to be addressed. If we are amenable to that, I would request from the author for us to do that.

And to the opposition, I'd be more than happy to be part of the convener of that group so that we all feel secure. I worked with the ad community a lot. Again, even though I'm from Southern California, they're my best friends because we eat and I depend on them to eat, but want to put that on the table so that we can all. I know that there's an agreement that we can make.

It just takes a matter of work and again, openness, that not everything's going to be addressed. But if we can address the majority of these issues, then I would request that from you, of course.

Yeah. If I may, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Yes. And as I've told you and others, I would really like that. I think, as I said, I'm never one to think I got it right the first time. That's what this process is about. As the Vice Chair said, this process is about ironing these things out. And I think that what is interesting about this is not everyone. So I don't want to say everyone, but the vast majority of people, even in the opposition, agree that we need to stop the illegal taking of water. Right.

And I see the nodding of heads over here. And so fundamentally, we agree about the premise of what I'm trying to achieve. I do think that there is. That's a great place to start, and that isn't always the case. Right. That the vast majority of agree about the goal. And I think that I see the problem as slightly broader than they do. Although yesterday I was in a meeting talking about this, and somebody said, this is going to halt all our water projects.

And it actually happened to be an agency that I've had the privilege of going out and seeing that's doing incredible water projects, incredible groundwater work. And I said, well, that's the last thing I want to do. So how is this Bill do that? And they couldn't yet give me that answer, right. And so I said to them, I need to understand that. And I think I'm a pretty capable person. If you walk me through that, maybe we can find a solution.

But I need to understand it, right. And so that's what I would like. And I don't understand how this is going to stop housing. I don't want to stop housing. I'm trying to come around on that. Again, it's enforcing current law. So I am working through understanding that. But again, walk me through that. Help me understand what we're doing in here that's causing that, and let's fix it, because I don't want to stop housing.

And I say from the dais when I'm sitting in the chair seat all the time, that I value so deeply the agricultural community in California for its economic impacts, which you didn't mention, but also for the national security it provides to this nation, which we've seen through the Ukraine crisis, how critical it is in California that we are part of the breadbasket of the nation and a huge part of it.

And so that's the last thing I want to do, help me understand how enforcing current law gets us there. How can I make the Bill better? So I would really, not only do I welcome that, I'd like that.

All right, thank you. We're going to go to Member Bennett, then Villapudua, Dahle, Schiavo, then Pellerin.

Thank you very much. I'd just like to get some clarity from the opposition on the issue of agreement that we have a problem. Does the Water Board, in your opinion, have sufficient authority right now to have addressed the problem that we had with Shasta River, or is change needed?

Answer freely. We're here to have the discussion.

I do not believe the Board doesn't have adequate tools to curtail and eliminate and take enforcement action against illegal diversions. That's not to say that a fine structure that created disincentives to unauthorized diversions might not be appropriate, and we're willing to have that conversation. This bill doesn't do that. In our view, it goes well beyond that. But the Board does have ample authorities, and they had authorities that they didn't exercise last August in the Shasta Valley. They could have gone and gotten a TRO. And you can get a TRO very quickly.

For the use of acronyms' sake.

A temporary restraining order. That was authority that the Legislature gave them just last year. So I do think the Board has adequate authority to prevent unauthorized diversion. I think the issue is what is unauthorized? And this bill suggests that something that might conflict with the public trust or reasonable use, these doctrines that really have no discernible legal bounds, could result in an unauthorized aversion. And that's where the uncertainty that Jennifer was talking about is created. Go ahead.

So you're not in agreement that the Water Board needs increased authority?

I don't think they need an increase in authority. I think it would be appropriate to look at the fine structure to make sure it--

Thank you. And the first thing I'd like to say to this Committee is that there is a Judicial Committee that is going to go through this in terms of review. So I think our first responsibility, and it's legitimate for us to talk about whether this is legally constructed and whether it has due process, et cetera. But our primary focus with this Committee should be on what's the water situation that we need to address.

And then the Judicial Committee get into the heavy lifting in terms of due process and those kinds of things. And so when it comes to water, I think that the water rights and the water regulation in the State of California has evolved very slowly from a time all the way back in the 1850s when we were trying to decide how we were going to do water in a state that had gold miners here. And that was probably the dominant issue. And then gradually agriculture came in.

We're now a state of 40 million people, essentially a modern state with tremendous diversity of demands on our water. Many issues that I think are becoming more and more apparent to us in terms of how do we do recharge and how do we store water and water rights and all of that. It's certainly in my mind, things like being able to move timely and quickly on a water situation is essential.

You can't have a state with 40 million people and as complex of a water system as we have right now and not be able to move quickly and timely. So I would be in disagreement with the opposition that this incident highlights a need for some regulatory reform, some change in policy as we move forward. It's already narrowly constructed by the author, because the author has put in that the determination that the Water Board must find is eminent harm. All right.

Eminent harm is a high standard, as has been pointed out, and means that the Water Board should not and cannot and can easily be stopped if they're willy nilly in terms of the application of this. And yet even with that standard of eminent harm, we have the allegation that this is going to stop all housing projects and it's going to do all these things.

And I think that we have to be aware, because this won't be the last time a water bill comes forward in front of this Committee, is that there is almost always an acceleration and an expansion and an exaggeration of the impacts of any attempts we make to try to modernize the water rules and regulations in the State of California, that just inevitably happens.

Mr. Bennett, do you have any other questions? Do you have any other questions?

Well, I'm setting this up for some questions, sir, but I think this is a pretty important issue.

Indeed it is.

Thank you. If we have this high standard, and I want to go back to my point, we have these things that get accelerated, and then all of a sudden everybody's saying, well, I don't want to vote for a bill that's going to kill all housing in California. Nobody wants to vote for a bill that's going to do that.

The question is, is that really an accurate exaggeration, an accurate portrayal of a bill that has standards in here, like they have to make a determination of imminent harm? And so with that, the author is asking us, is this bill appropriate to continue to move forward, to have it take the next step? In terms of that, will the judicial Committee review almost all of things I'm hearing deal with due process issues and those kinds of identification issues.

And I think that they should be very carefully reviewed and reviewed here also appropriately, but recognize this is the first crack at it. The other thing that seems to happen with water bills as they move forward is that people don't come forward with solutions to the author and then they get presented only here.

And so the author is saying, I've been asking for if you got a problem and you got a solution, bring it to me so that I can understand it, I can present it, I can work it out. Would have been nice to have that. Hopefully that will happen. But at this point in time, I trust the author to get this right and the sincerity of the author to try to make the changes as these things are brought up.

As Assembly Member from San Diego clearly pointed out, if something that the author says, hey, I hadn't thought of it that way. I want to think about that. That's exactly what the Committee process is for.

The final thing I would encourage the author to do is not respond to the adamant opposition so much that you narrow the bill so much that a year from now we're not saying, well, we wish that the Water Board wouldn't have been narrowed so much because I think we have to have some reasonable confidence in our water regulators to deal with this very complicated issue. The public has difficulty understanding the complexity of water in terms of groundwater, aquifers, all of those kinds of things.

And the author is trying to move us into a more modern regulatory process going forward. And so with that, my final question for the author is, do you feel confident that between now and when you get to Judiciary Committee, you can get to the point where you feel comfortable with the issues that have been raised today in terms of due process, et cetera?

Yeah. And as I've acknowledged, I think we have work to do on the due process question, and I hope that we'll be able to have that conversation and we'll try to figure out how to get the voice of all 400 agencies table through advocates. But that's next week. I don't know when we're next Wednesday, next Tuesday. So I don't think it'll necessarily all be fixed by Tuesday.

I can't make that promise to the Committee here today, but they vote on it and they get to determine that, having brought bills to them where they've raised in the past and corrected constitutional questions, I trust that they will do that and that the consultants there are, as we all know, incredibly skilled and smart and will be helpful. So I will do my best.

But I think this is a continuing conversation and the commitment I have that I'm giving here today, as you heard me give to our colleague from the San Gabriel Valley, is that, that is an ongoing commitment to get it right. And if we think we have it right, and they come back to me in the Senate and they say, oh, we didn't catch this, I'm committed to continuing that conversation. Right. So I don't think that there's an endpoint to that conversation.

If next year it's playing know, this becomes law and it's playing out in a way that we didn't foresee, I'm committed to fixing it then. Right. So I think that the commitment and is ongoing.

Well, I trust the author's commitment to doing that, which is why I seconded the motion from the Assembly Member in San Diego.

And I appreciate the opportunity. I think that Assembly Members here during Committee are supposed to do two things, both ask questions and offer their perspective on the complicated issues in front of us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Bennett. I believe we're going to Mr. Villapudua.

Thank you. Great discussion. I did receive a lot of opposition calls, but especially folks that, they're not the bad apple. Right. They're not the folks that are not doing everything they're just supposed to be doing. And I applaud you for especially those who are acting in bad faith. I think that that has to be brought up, but I think that what it's been discussed is that we need to have more voices.

We need to have more folks that are at the table. And so I was beating myself yesterday and going over this bill, and I'm glad that we kind of had the discussion prior as I spoke to the Chair, Madam Chair, about this morning, because this is a very important bill and how do we fix this? How do we come to the table?

And it was brought up by Assembly Member Rubio about maybe getting together and having more folks, and I would love to be added to that. What is the answer? How do we get more folks to really be at the table so we have this discussion?

Okay, thanks. I didn't know if it was a rhetorical question or an actual question.

I know you answered it. You did answer. You're reaching out. But, I mean, there's folks in the audience right here that are listening, especially the informational meeting that we had that was really heartfelt. Right. Folks that were speaking, you can't ignore them. Right. So now that we have everyone in the room, we're huddling up here. How do we huddle and work out and talk it out?

Yeah, no, I appreciate that, and I invite you to be a part of that. I think the thought that's going into this is actually really important. And so the conversations we've been having. Right. So some people have said just limit it to the example of Shasta. Right. The curtailment, that they violated the curtailment order.

Another thing that we've heard and more last year than this year from some of our colleagues, especially in the northern part of the state, is the illegal growers that are diverting water illegally off the rivers. Right. That's not a curtailment order. That's just illegal stealing of water. Right. So that's another example that maybe, by the way, that it had been, people are saying, just do the Shasta example. Well, that's not the only example that we know of today of people who are misusing water. Right.

So how do we incorporate all those that, again, I think that's another example of people, something all of us believe should be fixed. Maybe I don't want to speak for everybody, but vast majority of us agree that illegal growers shouldn't be stealing water. So how do we make it so it includes those types of things as well, which I think we should. And so not too narrow, but also, if we're ending housing, not too broad. Right.

So again, I haven't fully been able to grasp why this would impact housing and what in the language needs to change if that were the case. But that's what needs to happen, and those are the conversations. So how do we do that? I think we've been trying to talk to different agencies that have come to us in a more constructive stance. I've had several meetings where people have just wanted to come in and tell me how they hate what I'm trying to do here.

And I'm like, and as our colleague said, I introduced it because I liked it. Right. That's probably true of all of us. We introduce the bills we think are good and people can disagree with us. But if I think I'm trying to do something good here, I need you to come to me and help me do it right. Rather than just tell me I shouldn't do it. That's not a productive conversation. And so that's the type of conversations we've been trying to have.

And so how do we do that? I think we continue to ask people to do that. And I've said to some of you, I'm not in conversation with every water agency. That's fairly impossible. Given my time constraints. But as you've heard from some of them and I've talked to others, ask them give me more specifics, help me understand this. Right. And I think you guys, that's why I said I'd love you at the table.

I think you can help me get those specifics from your locals that I can't meet with individually because I would have no time for anything. So I think it is using all of our power across the state. We represent San Diego to the north, to the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay. Right. I mean, I think we have the power to understand this and work together to get it right.

Yeah, I think with the opposition side mentioned about even like, let's have those talks on the fines, have those discussions. Right. So, yeah, add me to that list of working with Assembly Member Rubio and whoever wants to be part of that. Thank you. Oppositions right here. So let's let them to respond a little bit.

Yeah, I just want to respond to some things because I don't think they're an exaggeration. I think the vagueness of what allows the board to trigger the review is part of the problem. Right. We can say it's to impact a beneficial use, but there's already a balancing structure that occurs when these water rights are established. So to provide the board with the authorities to say, oh, there's an impact of one particular use versus another.

And now we're going to immediately curtail or have an enforcement action with what we believe is actually kind of a black box of due process in the bill is problematic. And that's how it impacts potentially non-legal diverters because we are totally not supportive of illegal diversions of water. I mean, we're the state water project. We're probably the most monitored entity in the state and we're good with that. And we don't like that others are illegally diverting water.

So we're not saying that that's not a problem. But I think the fact is that if we're talking about public trust doctrine or we're talking about beneficial uses, we're kind of eliminating the balancing features that are inherent in the water rights system and how those water rights are established. So that's part of the vagueness that creates the uncertainty across all of the water rights users.

And that's mentioned in a couple of places in the bill of just kind of allowing the board to say, hey, there's an impact, okay, but what is the balancing across all of the other uses? What's happening? And that impact then triggering an immediate action of curtailment, then without any sort of potential offsetting a check essentially on the board, should they go ahead and take that action prematurely or without going through that balancing? So I guess that's my plain language way of explaining it.

I'm not an attorney, so that's how I'm understanding it. And I think as it relates to housing, I'm not saying it's going to stop all housing, but the problem is that water agencies are facing a huge amount of uncertainty because of the hydrology. Right. We are all agreeing to that. We're seeing it, we're feeling it, and we're trying to plan for how do you capture and store and move water around? How do you develop water supply portfolios that can be responsive to that hydrology?

When we add an uncertainty around the regulations that are around our water rights, it's just another layer of uncertainty that you're planning against. And it makes it really challenging to be able to count on that. If you think over here, the Board at any time can essentially decide that my beneficial use is not as important as another, and essentially make a curtailment order, even on a legal diversion, because this is applicable. This isn't just about illegal diversion.

This could be on anything the Board deems is inconsistent with the public trust doctrine or with other kind of guidelines and principles that aren't really well defined in the law. So that's where the uncertainty comes from. So I don't want to exaggerate. No housing. I don't think that's what I'm saying. I'm saying planning for our infrastructure, water or otherwise, is really challenging when there's not a certainty in the regulatory structure. And the bill introduces a lot of uncertainty.

Thank you. We're going to go to Member Dahle.

Thank you. So this directly affects my district, and I think one of my biggest concerns is the power of the Water Board and giving them more broadened scope. So I've written a few notes. Illegal taking of water. So I spoke to the Water Board. It's probably been close to two years ago, zoomed with them photos of 50 water trucks a day going to the gross, and they told me they just couldn't do anything about that.

As my AG community is saying, we're watching water go, and so it's incredibly passionate region, let's just say. So some of the things in this make them very nervous coming onto your private property. What kind of scope is the Water Board going to have? What is their authority going to be? Some of it is accidental. The waterboard sent notices to every user in Siskiyou County and told them to curtail water. And I got hundreds of, excuse me.

I don't even have thousands of people because they know stressed and they had a well. It was a letter that was sent incorrectly that stirred up all of this chaos and concern. So I think probably my biggest concern is to actually give the Water Board more authority. Makes me very nervous and I'm not an attorney also. So reading through all this very, I know you're trying to make it very detailed and I know none of us want bad actors.

It's happened different times in my district and it comes from, I'm not excusing any of it, but it also comes from a lot of frustration over and coming as they see it after their water. Right.

Obviously, I'm not going to be able to support it today, but I am hopeful that as it moves forward, you will be able to hear from opposition and have some really important discussions because water is its life for our whole state and all of us feel very passionately about it and differently. And we're farmers. We're dry land farmers by the way. I don't have any irrigation. But anyway, so thank you for the commitment, for continued discussion.

And again, I just want to say bad actors are not what any of us want to see. But that also includes illegal Marijuana growers because 50 water trucks a day is not acceptable. I mean, I worked with CHP, I worked with everyone to stop that as on the other side of my valley, AG wells are going dry. So thank you.

I just want to briefly thank you. I mean, I think part of what you taught me a lot about that, and I think it's important to understand what's happening across the state. So I appreciate that.

All right. Member Schiavo.

I just wanted to thank you for bringing this forward. I know it's a complicated issue. We had the special hearing where we heard about the Shasta example. I'm sure a lot of people in the room are very frustrated with the farmer who made those comments now because it's coming back to really bite people. But it really speaks to part of the problem is that there is not real fear or penalty for stealing water from the rest of us. And that's a problem.

I feel like there's a lot of consensus around. There is a real problem here. We have to figure it out. I hear the challenge that you're facing, that people are not really coming to the table in earnest, which is very frustrating. And so I appreciate the conversation that's happening today and pointing out really specific things where there are concerns, because I think that's what has to happen to be able to move this forward in a productive way. Agree with all of my colleagues.

Obviously, we're not trying to shut down farming. We're not trying to shut down housing, which is a priority for all of us. We also need water to live, and we have to protect that as much as we can as well. So there's a lot of huge, long list of oppose here, but not opposed if amended.

And so I am hoping, and I think that there's a lot of consensus here that people will really come forward in earnest with solutions and with suggestions about how to make this, shape this in a way that will get at the goal, that there's a lot of agreement we need to get to and solve a problem that needs to be solved, but also incorporate and address some of the valid concerns that people have. None of us make perfect bills.

There's always improvements that can be made, and that can only be done when people come to the table and have that conversation. So I just want to join my colleagues in encouraging folks to really raise those specific changes that folks think that they need to see happen and appreciate your willingness to work on this going forward and have those conversations and make changes that really make sense to get at the goal of what this is, and happy to support it to see this conversation continue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Member Pellerin.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing this bill forward. I know our water issues in California are complex and complicated, and we have a lot of work to do, and we certainly don't want to see continuing illegal curtailment of water. But we also want to make sure we're dealing with the impacts and making sure that AG and housing and our fish have the water that they need to survive and thrive.

And I have had some concerns from my local water districts in my district, and I appreciate the concerns raised today by my colleagues, and I echo them as well. I had one question here from the district that I just want to understand. It says, would AB 460 allow the State Water Board to develop new environmental standards and then impose them by interim relief order?

I see a lot of different head movement.

And if someone's raising that, please raise it with me. I know.

So here's my commitment. I'm going to reach out to my district. I'm going to get more information from them and very specific questions and then bring them forward to you. And I do think you are, like, the absolute best person to be heading up this discussion in this bill, because you are going to do the due diligence and work with the opposition to make sure that these issues are addressed.

So with that, I will be supporting the bill today to continue this discussion, and I will do my part to reach out to my districts to get more concrete information as far as what their concerns are so we can address them and really have the best possible bill.

Yeah. And I think I'll just say, I mean, again, I tried to get it to limit it to current law. And like I said, one of the questions I ask when people come in and meet with me is, do you think this, I understand the vague nature. You used a different word. I can't remember exactly your word, but if that works. No, I'm telling you, it works better when it's not lawyers. But the discussion around, is it too vague?

But they have not said that I've included anything in here that is not current law. So if they believe that new standards or regulations would be made out of this, that was not my intent. And so I'll just say that.

I saw our gentleman from--I'm interested in the side to side discussion kind of from all of you. If you could all elaborate and share with the rest of us, I think that'd be great.

Yeah, I agree with that assessment. The only thing I'll add is that, of course, if this bill is passed, interim relief could be associated with potentially other bills that are passed in the future. There's no way to tell what future legislatures would do with that. So I think the answer is no.

And I think if you are going to look in the future and see what people are going to do with the water code, then I would love some of your time because I've got a few other questions on the future.

Well, I would just say, I think to my earlier point about you have a legally diverting person, but the bill kind of says to the Board, hey, if you think there's something else being impacted, you can stop it right away. That is where we think there could be some potential for additional standards to be established under the bill. So that's where it's not explicit.

But I just think that the lack of clarity about what the Board's actual authority is and when they can actually take this action and the fact that it is immediate with what we think is not due process can essentially De facto establish new rules for legal diverters of water.

And I agree with that, thankfully. Yeah, I think these are existing legal doctrines. They have no standards. It's not like the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act, where we have defined statutory standards for a violation and compliance. These are broad policy directives. The reasonable use doctrine, the public trust doctrine, those mean different things in different watersheds at different times.

And so the uncertainty is that there is no standard, and so the water agencies don't know whether they're in compliance today based on something that might come out of an interim relief order. Perhaps it's in a different watershed. These are the ambiguities that are created by some of the standards against which an interim relief order could be issued.

I had another question, too. You had earlier said that you thought the State Water Board had sufficient powers as it is. Why didn't they stop the Shasta diversion prior to 20 days?

I don't know. It stopped within eight days. Actually, the water user stopped illegally diverting. They could have gone and got a temporary restraining order. And I think they testified in your informational hearing that they were actually given advance notice before the unauthorized diversion occurred. I don't know why they didn't go to court.

They issued a press release the day that the unauthorized diversion began, and they issued a cease and desist order after 20 days because, as I understand it, the unauthorized diverter did not ask for a hearing.

I will add that the TRO process requires the Board to go to the AG's office in order for that to happen again. I don't think any of us know what happened at the Water Board. So we can't say, but I will say generally that there's no guarantee that the AG's office has the bandwidth or ability to respond as quickly as we're trying to achieve here in the bill.

The current law has it set up where the waterboard can turn around and go directly to the AG. The AG can take immediate action. Again, it gets into the bandwidth on timing and how soon different agencies interact and act, but the power does exist under current law.

Well, thank you all. This has been really informative, and I'm very grateful.

All right, Member Weber.

Checking, making sure it's still morning. So, good morning, everyone. I want to start by thanking the author for bringing this bill. This is a very complicated issue. I appreciate the initial informational hearing that we had in this Committee and all of the voices that have come today. I hate the fact that I had to present a bill in another Committee, so I wasn't able to be here the entire time. We are all here. We should all be here to create good policy for the entire state.

And in order for us to be able to do that in whatever area we are presenting bills is that we must have collaboration and cooperation with all parties that will be involved. And I think what I have seen prior to coming to this legislative body is that when what I call bad bills or when bills get out that have unintended consequences, it's because people haven't looked and come to the table to talk about all of the potential outcomes.

And as I'm sitting here and I'm listening to things like your explanation of how it could impact housing because of the broadness and the vagueness, that makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm thinking, like, I wish that conversation had had before we got here today.

Once these bills are put out, that's really when people should be reading through them, should be coming to the table, should be having conversations, so that what we create could be the best bill possible for all California, regardless if you live in the northern part or in the southern part or in the middle part of the state, because we all need water. It's important. It's essential to life.

We cannot live without water. What my Assembly Member, my colleague said, Assembly Member Schiavo said, when you look at the support and opposition, you don't see anything that says opposed unless amended. I don't think that anyone on the opposition can sit here and say that what's happening today is working for everyone. When we talk about the illegal diversion for Marijuana use, I'm sure that that is impacting probably every single one of these agricultural growers.

So we cannot sit here and say that what is happening today is the right process. The question is whether or not people are willing to come to the table to create something that works, understanding that no one's going to get everything that they want, you're not going to get everything that you want, and the opposition won't do everything that they want. But at the end of the day, something has to be done.

So I'm definitely going to support today because it allows a conversation to continue. Because it has to continue. It must continue for us to be able to survive as a state. And my hope is that everyone will come to the table and be able to articulate what the issues are and what the concerns are. I spoke with my staff and she said, oh, we've got some people who've come in an opposition. I said, well, what is their alternative, what alternative language?

What alternative solutions have they offered? And the answer was none. And that's not going to work. So I look forward to seeing what happens with this bill. My expectation is that everyone will come to the table because this is not going to go away. So you might as well come to the table so that what is created works for everyone.

And I look forward to seeing what will happen once people do decide to engage and not think that this can just be stopped just by saying this is a bad bill. So thank you. And I encourage everyone to continue the conversations, whether it's in legal term or in layman's term. I love how you articulated because it makes a lot of sense, but if you don't bring those to the table, then you can't fix it. So thank you.

Thank you, Member Weber. I believe. Mr. Hart.

Yeah. I think everybody's comments today, this has been really informative. I vividly recall reading the newspaper article last year about the Shasta River water division and thinking at the time, wow, there ought to be a law to fix that. And so I want to thank the author for taking on this challenge. This is not an easy thing to do.

And the Shasta River diversion put a face on the fact that it's really just a cost calculation to do business, to violate the order to preserve their ranching entity. And we got to fix that. That's specifically the problem I think that is the most urgent that this legislation needs to get at. And I really appreciate how the water districts around the State of California, with uncertainty and ambiguity and a really difficult circumstances, deliver water to all of us, to agriculture and urban users.

It's not an easy job and it requires long term investments. They're very expensive. And it is a delicate balancing act that we don't want to upset. So we got to figure out between these two places where there's an egregious violation that everybody recognizes could have been handled better and unraveling the state's water system and affecting housing. And I think this is the moment to do that. And this is the vehicle.

And we are in a process of making the change and making the bill better, and we're going to go forward and do that. And I support having that conversation and getting this bill going.

All right, my turn. I've got two pages of questions. This is a very robust conversation, and as we all know, too often it's difficult to get everybody in the same room, and our schedules get busy and everybody else's schedules get busy. And oftentimes the place where we have the primary discussion is here at these tables. And I know that the author will be working with everybody moving forward on this. My primary concerns definitely get into this definition issue with ambiguity.

I think we all understand that not being able to do business with a certainty creates a huge problem. And I wanted to ask Ms. Pierre if you would kind of expand, because one of the larger concerns, I feel, is the water community. Over the last several decades, especially since Sigma and everything else, we've done a lot of work with voluntary agreements. And I have a lot of concerns that something like this will get people to step away from the table.

So if you could just expand on that a little bit for us, because getting people to come to discuss and to voluntarily make agreements on what's happening with water has been a huge difficulty in this state. And I think we've done a lot of really good work there. And I know there's concerns amongst multiple people and contractors on what that's going to do.

Yes. So I didn't mention that before, but that is another issue. Again, when there's uncertainty in the system, it makes it difficult for people to make commitments, whether that's an infrastructure or involuntarily providing money and water, which is the basis of the voluntary agreement. So that's an agreement where more than 90% of water users throughout the state have signed onto the MOU and that we're moving forward with as a way to address environmental needs in our water rights system.

That requires different water agencies with differing levels of water rights, senior water rights, and junior water rights across the state to make commitments of water over a set term. It's set for eight years, with a potential expansion for 15. If there's uncertainty on when the board can actually regulate the water that they're continuing to use, even under the voluntary agreement, I think it creates uncertainty.

And perhaps I don't want to represent that any water users would walk away, but I think that they would have to take another look if this bill were to pass, as it is within how the voluntary agreement and what they've made commitments to, what their risks are affiliated with additional regulations that may be caused by this bill, and how that might disrupt people's willingness to make the contributions of water, which at this point and in the MOU is nearly a Folsom lake's full amount of water being dedicated to the environment. So this has the potential to definitely disrupt those discussions.

Yeah, I appreciate that perspective and that question. Caltra does 60 plus on the ground projects. The vast majority of our work in Siskiyou County and Shasta County are those on farm efficiency projects, where we work with ranchers and agricultural water users. We also work in the Central Valley working with rice growers. As this Bill was being presented just over the last six months that we were considering this, and the author was working with us as a co-sponsor.

We've had three really important projects be done in the Central Valley. We had a reverse auction that occurred that we had about 35,000 acre feet worth of water we could supply to those agricultural lands, those rice fields. We had 80,000 acres worth of applications just recently in the Scott Valley. We just got about, I think it's $8 million from CDFW to support a project that works on farmers' ditch and ranchers in that area.

Those folks directly stated that this legislation was actually part of the reason they entered that agreement, because of the certainty that our restoration projects and the water rights that we use to put in stream flow while creating in stream efficiencies would survive the test of time. So I actually think that legislation that can put forward real meaningful changes that actually, in my mind, clarify that water rights will be enforced, will actually incentivize voluntary agreements. At least it's been my experience in the last six months.

We support water rights enforcement, for sure. I think the question is, is the process and the bill something that is impactful, potentially, to non-illegal diverters? And I think that's what we need to work on.

So I'm going to ask a final question, and I'm going to go into my closing statement, the conversation about ambiguity. And I'm going to ask from Cal Trout, and then I'm going to ask the opposition to respond as well. This goes into what you'll be looking at in Judiciary. If you could define it without the ambiguity, what would that plain tongue, what would that be?

I'll always refer to the author here.

But I guess I didn't fully understand the question. I'm sorry.

There's the ambiguity. Right. On what this means, on what the scope is talked about. Correct.

Okay.

So if you could define that, and I looked at your sponsor for it.

But I mean, define the ambiguity or what are you trying to get me.

To define to get rid of the ambiguity, if you were to put a guardrail on we're going to go from here to here. What does that look like?

Thank you. Sorry. I apologize. I'm not on three ways, but I wanted to make sure I was answering your question. So that's what I'm trying to figure out. And as I mentioned, yeah, I know.

You'Ve got to kind of do that juggle of like, where exactly is that line?

Part of it is also really understanding. Again, that's why anyone can go to court.

And then I wanted to add on.

Legal users today and say they're not following the beneficial use doctrine. They're not following any of the doctrines listed in this bill. So let's be clear about that. Right? I believe if we get the due process question right, that having a short-term interim relief that allows those questions to be answered doesn't change the game in any meaningful way in the long term. That is not the position of the opposition, as you've heard.

And so what I've tried to understand, like I said yesterday, when somebody said to me this would stop all of our water projects because of the uncertainty, and I said, okay, how? Step by step at what point? And they said it was funding. And I said, okay, when do you get the funding? Help me. As you all have learned over the years, I'm someone who likes to be in the weeds. I really like to understand what point in the process are we impacting?

How are we impacting, how can we change that? And I'm working to get those answers. That group said they wanted to come back to me with much more detail, and I would never put someone on the spot in a moment where they don't feel ready to answer a question. So they're going to. And so I don't yet have that answer. I'm trying to get more information.

I'm trying to understand on the housing question, where in that process are we inserting the uncertainty, if we shorten the timeline, get you into court faster? I don't know what the answer is yet because I don't fully understand where sort of in the broad sense I understand, but I don't in the details. And so that's what I'm trying to get. So I don't yet have the answer.

I apologize if the opposition can. I mean, obviously, I'm putting you all on the spot here, but it's a bigger discussion and it'd be great for all of us to kind of know what direction and what you're looking at.

Yeah, I think for us, we'd ask the question a little bit differently. What is the bill trying to accomplish? If the issue is what happened in the Shasta Valley, that's one conversation. If we want to expand the board's authority into these other areas of law, if we want to eliminate judicial review, that's a different conversation. So I think the problem that we're having is that the stated purpose of the bill is to address the situation. The Shasta Valley, but very little of it actually did that. So we would like to have a conversation about remedies for the State Water Board to create disincentives to unauthorized me.

Let me point my question again. If you were to define that scope, I'm asking you this.

We think this expands the board's authority so that they can think without any checks and balances. I think regulate on those of us that are not illegally diverting. That is the concern along with, I think the process feels like a black box in a way that expands the board's authority. So that's the issue for us on the due process piece.

So how you craft the language around that, that's in part why you're not hearing amendments from us, because we just think there isn't an actual issue with the board's authority of scope. And they do have the current authority to address this now as it relates to the fines and the Shasta issue and illegal diversions. There are issues there, but those are a small part of what's in the bill. So I think that's the concern that we're having as legal diverters of water is that the board is getting a much expanded scope without a process that has a lot of light on it. That's our perspective of the language that helped.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Okay, so now I have a question. Stepping into the legal side. Right? I'm not a lawyer either. So you're stating that the board has the authority to deal with illegal diverters, but that authority is to just go to the attorney general, is that the case? Or to deal with it in an expedited manner? That's what I want. I don't want them to deal with it 30 days down the line. Right? So I was talking, maybe it was a staff member.

I was like, I'm a doctor. Right? So you need a hysterectomy because you're bleeding out. Because that's what I do. I'm not going to say you're bleeding out. I'm going to deal with you in 20 or 30 days and you're not going to want that either. Right? So I guess my question is, what is the expedited process for them to deal with it?

Well, the expedited legal process for any administrative action is to go to court and get a temporary restraining order that's available to them. They could also issue a cease and desist order, which is what they did. That does take 20 days under current law. That's what due process requires. Now the other incentive.

I'm sorry, I don't take people to court. I don't mean to interrupt. So how long does that process take? So if I want to go and get a temporary restraining order, what is the process? So I decide today, how long does that take?

It could take hours. It's not a lengthy process. We're talking about Siskiyou County as well, where they could have gone into court right away. There's a judge that would have heard their ex-parte motion on a temporary restraining order. There is some time involved, but there's also time in issuing an interim relief order. And the remedy for violation of the interim relief order is to go to court and get a restraining order of some sort. So ultimately we're talking about the same remedy.

One is administrative, one is in court. The courts are looking at a temporary restraining order application much differently than the State Water Board. Now in the case where somebody's illegally diverting in violation of a duly adopted state waterboard order, which was the case up in the Shasta. No, I was pointing north.

I think north is more this way.

Were you pointing. I was pointing north.

The violation there was not of the public trust doctrine. It was not of the reasonable use doctrine. It was of the State Water Board's regulation and the implementing order. That's what was violated. And so again, we're going around in circles on this, but we could talk about improving the board's remedies to act more efficiently and more strongly against clearly unauthorized aversion violations of duly adopted state waterboard orders. What this bill does in large part is deal with these other doctrines that have no standards.

So thank you for explaining it. So I'm going to just go out on a limb and assume, even though you should never assume, that you're going to provide that language to the author for her to look at and review, because I've heard a lot of different things. So it can go here, can go there, can go to the ag. That to me just seems like a lengthy process because going to the AG is not easy.

And having him intervene or decide that he or his people or whoever going to intervene, that doesn't happen overnight, while we're still having either orders that are not being followed or illegal activity happening. So that's one of my concerns. In other areas, we can't wait when there's a problem, but it seems like this system allows for a lengthy wait time before relief is happening. So I'm assuming that you'll give her that language to help out. But thank you so much for explaining that.

I saw Mr. Bennett throw his hand back, so let's keep it brief, if we can.

Two quick questions for you, and then I do have a comment I want to make and ask of the author, but does it work in reverse? Also, if the Water Board is given this authority, can people get temporary restraining orders if they feel that the Water Board has done something inappropriate?

Well, the bill, as currently amended, would eliminate the right to get a restraining order against the State Water Board.

And if that amendment is dropped, if that language is dropped, then temporary restraining order would be a way that people could take action against the Water Board if the Water Board is doing something that they believe is inappropriate, is that correct?

In some proceedings, it would be possible to get a restraining order against an administrative agency for exceeding their authority. That's a high bar.

But temporary restraining orders do exist against regulatory agencies. If people believe the regulatory agency is doing something and the court finds that that's going to be inappropriate.

Well, if you could meet the standard for issuance of a temporary restraining order, balancing the relative impact, et cetera, I'd.

Ask Cal Trout the exact same question.

Yeah, we're just looking at the. As you can see us scrambling through our pages, we're just looking at some of the sections of AB 460. And if you look at section or line 26, page 11. Thank you. It is further the intent of the Legislature that the courts assert jurisdiction and exercise discretion to fashion appropriate remedies pursuant to Section three, D nine of the code of civil procedure to facilitate resolution of state water rights issues in state's courts. We believe that addresses that.

Again, you said page.

Excuse me? Yeah, sorry. Page 11, line 26. Sorry for the mumbling.

And I'll just add, while you're all looking at 1126, I think I've said, and I can say again, despite the assertions of the opposition, as a former judicial branch litigator, I did not intend, nor do I believe I got rid of all judicial review. So that assertion is amazing to me. And if he believes I did so, I would really look forward to seeing how.

Great. So you're committed to not.

I believe in judicial review. Yes, sir. Thank you.

I'd like to point out, to the extent that we take the author's commitment seriously, which I certainly do, that the same remedy could apply. In other words, the argument being that the waterboard should have gone and gotten a temporary restraining order in that situation could be done. If the Water Board does something, the aggrieved party could also go and say, hey, we think the waterboard has exceeded their authority, et cetera, or that the Water Board's action needs a temporary restraining order because of the impact.

So just offer that as the opposite solution that is there. But I would like to finish with two comments. One is that we were told that we're going to meet again at 5:00 today because we know the two big bills that we have in front of us today were going to take some time. And I think that for us to rush this process is certainly inappropriate when we have these kind of technical conversations, and it is appropriate that we dig down. And I really welcome that.

We've had a back and forth which doesn't happen at committee hearings very often. You did an excellent job of addressing the issue of exaggeration leading to housing by talking about how you got there in other hearings, water hearings in particular. We haven't had that opportunity or it hasn't happened where people have been able to clarify how they get to this end thing. So that's what's been great about this process.

So what I think will be my final comment, depending on how the rest of this conversation goes, is that we also have to recognize, as I started off by saying, we are moving into an era where there is greater recognition that water is a public resource controlled by the citizens of California and the issue of private water rights. And this recognition of public water being a public resource is going to take time to try to work that out.

But as it becomes more recognized that it is a public resource, it needs more public oversight. It can't just be the old days where the senior water rights holders go and sue the junior water rights holders, and we just rely on the old doctrines and admittedly by the opposition that don't have the standards that are out there. We actually need more standards. We need more regulation because this is a public resource that is out there. This is an attempt to try to begin that process, and it is not ever going to be clean, easy, quick when you do that because we're trying to move into this new era out there. So thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Closing statement. Are we ready?

Well, I'd like to get back into some of my stuff. I allowed member question as it came up because again, this is part of having that robust conversation.

I appreciate it, Mr. Chair.

And while I'm chairing the opportunity to make sure we are having a robust conversation. So Mr. Bennett, I appreciate your compliments on me running the committee. For my district and where we're at, we have small disadvantaged immigrant communities that are dependent on surface water.

And when things get diverted, when things change up, we've literally had cities that have cattlemen, for example, had to do a contract with Mojave Water district who they don't touch at all on water rights to ensure that the city could get surface water. And there's a prison out there. I mean, there's all these different things that come into play. And so as this moves forward, I'm definitely not in a position to be able to support it today.

But I do look forward to your leadership in working with everybody in really honing down on some of these definitions, because our cities, our communities across the state, our water contractors, our agricultural partners, I think everybody that's at the table with water at the end of the day needs to know this is what the definition is. This is what the actual rule is.

And I think the biggest problem that we have in water today is we have a doctrine that means different things in different places to different people that is interpreted completely different depending on where you're at and what line you're looking at. If I drew a six in front of me, I see a six, you see a nine, somebody else sees a squiggly face. That's the problem that we have when it comes to water today.

And as this moves forward, because I'm sure you have your votes today, I just encourage you to really look at what we're defining. I encourage the opposition to work with you and really hone down how we can make this system better. I don't like the idea of a private citizen or business having to go and try to file a restraining order against the government. I think that lends us some very harmful issues. Anytime the citizens have to go fight against the government, especially in court, it seems to be a bigger mess. So I think it's important that we hone it down in plain language. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for leading us in this robust conversation. And I agree. I actually really appreciate all the questions, all the know, as I said to our colleague from Stockton or Tracy, where are you from? Mr. Villapudua? I was trying to remember what city you live in. Stockton, our colleague from, is we each represent different parts of this state with different water, different water uses different interests. Our water comes from different places under different water rights. And it's complicated.

And I think that, like I said, we all fundamentally agree that we should ensure that all rights have meaning, that all rights are enforced, that those that are flouting the law are taken to task. That is something that I think is real and is meaningful. And that's hard to do. And it's hard to do in this space.

Especially, I think, part of what I hear a lot and part of what we saw in the oppose rather than the opposed, unless amended, is this real fear of change in the water space. And yet I think that what we're seeing coming out of the Legislature is a real acknowledgement that the system isn't working for all Californians right now. And part of that is what you heard from the folks who aren't supporting the Bill. Right.

That the uncertainty that exists in today's water system isn't working for farmers in Miss Dahle's district. Right? And so how do we create a system that works better and works better for every California, whether it's the disadvantaged communities that don't have safe drinking water today or it's the farmers that don't know if next year they're going to get their allocation of water that they depend on to make ends meet and to feed our state. All of that is really, really critical.

And we need to get to certainty. And in order to get to certainty, we need to ensure that everyone's following the rules. And that's what the bill attempts to do. And as I said, I don't believe I ended all judicial review, but I may not have gotten due process right at this stage. And it's something like I said, I look forward to the continued conversations, the input from the experts at the Judiciary Committee and others to try to do better.

The order that happened on the Shasta River, I just want to be really clear, was under the public trust doctrine, under what is in the law today that is in the bill. And so how we get this right is complicated. But we don't want to create uncertainty that will end the projects or the agricultural community or the housing that each of us holds so dear and knows that Californians need.

But I truly, truly believe that we can get to a place where we are enforcing the law in an expeditious manner, as Dr. Weber, I think, did such a good job of hitting home the importance of that while also ensuring that we continue to have those things go forward, and I think it is better for all of us. It is better for all of us in all of our communities if that is the case. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you again. As we look at water rights, we've got senior and junior, we have water coming all over the state. So, members, at this time, we do have a motion from Mr. Ward, a second from Mr. Bennett. Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The bill is on call. We'll leave it open for missing members. Thank you, everybody, for the robust discussion. Next up we have Member Wicks, and I'm sure everybody's going to shuffle around here just a moment as we turn the gavel over.

Sounds good.

Thanks for hanging in there.

Oh, my God, thank you. He brought my jacket. I know they made it cold enough in here that we'll want to move. Yeah. Expeditiously. Okay. I'd love to entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Thank you. Motion by Mr. Mathis, a second by Ms. Davies. On the consent calendar is AB 277 with a motion do pass to Appropriations. AB 612, do pass to Appropriations. AB 613, do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 720, do pass to Appropriation. AB 966, do pass to Appropriations. AB 1024, do pass to Appropriations.

AB 1056, do pass to Appropriations. AB 1212, do pass to Appropriations. AB 1611, do pass to Appropriations. AB 1760, do pass to Appropriations. Ayes that all of them? Yes. Great. Please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call].

That's out. See, now we've already moved 11 bills. Good job, Committee.

So now we will take up AB 1337. Ms. Wicks, when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I hope we're all ready for round two here, but hopefully it'll be a quicker, though very important and robust conversation. So at its heart, AB 1337 is actually a pretty straightforward Bill, and I'm authoring it because I believe in fairness and equity. And I think the fundamental question that this Bill begs is, do we believe that water is a public good? Do we believe that we should have one regulatory framework with which we all operate?

And that, especially in times of crisis, in times of shortage, that we have a regulatory body that can look at all of our residential, agricultural, business, and environmental needs and weigh those against each other to create a framework that is fundamentally built on equity. Before California passed the Water Commission Act of 1913, our state's water rights system was incredibly unfair. It was exclusionary.

It was sort of the textbook definition of systemic racism with indigenous people and people of color literally forbidden from owning the land that was necessary to attain a water right. But that was the law. And then in 1914, we began regulating our water supply in a more comprehensive fashion.

Now, more than 100 years later, those who have inherited the pre-1914 water rights claim, first in time, first in line, and they opposed this Bill because it would subject them to a regulation by a state-appointed body, a body appointed by the Governor. But they have essentially inherited a legal right that is, I believe, fundamentally privileged and, frankly, discriminatory. And I think it's long overdue for reform.

The State Water Resource Control Board already has the ability to curtail water use in order to balance legitimate demands from residential, agricultural, business, and the environment. But it lost a court case against the same organizations that opposed this Bill, and AB 1337 would amend the law upon which the ruling was based. I'll refer you also to the Committee analysis here on page three.

In discussing the reasoning behind the ruling, the court suggested that the time may be right for the Legislature to revisit the question of whether the State Water Board should have the broader authority over pre -914 water rights. Quote, whether this approach to water rights in California presents sound policy at a time of increasing water scarcity is a question for the Legislature.

The court clearly was opening the door pretty wide for us, and I believe it's time that we walk through that door and we as a body should decide how we want to create equity within our water system here. As the Bill states, the Board would issue a curtailment order for any diversion, regardless of basis of right, when water is not available under the diverter's priority of right.

In other words, in times of shortage made increasingly severe because of climate change, when California doesn't have enough water to go around, everyone needs to sacrifice. Fairness and playing by the same rules, that is fundamentally what this Bill is about. Testifying in support of the Bill today are Cody Phillips with California Coastal Keeper and by phone, Cynthia Cortez with Restore the Delta. And I would respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Cody Phillips with California Coast Keeper Alliance. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. California's water rights system is largely based on the idea of first in time, first in right. The State Water Board, which the California Supreme Court has found is charged with the comprehensive planning and allocation of waters, is responsible for managing this system. In part, this is accomplished by protecting senior water rights by telling junior appropriators when to curtail.

These curtailments are an essential part of managing California's water rights system, and if junior appropriators do not curtail, the system becomes a free-for-all all. And even the most senior water rights face uncertainty. Because of the curtailment case's decision decided last year by the 6th Appellate District, the Water Board's authority to curtail pre-1914 water rights rights, which predate the Water Commission Act, have been severely limited.

While the Board can still curtail pre-1914 water rights to prevent waste and unreasonable use, and during a drought emergency, which is defined in very limited circumstances, the Board cannot curtail junior pre-1914 water rights when there's not enough water to satisfy the more senior pre-1914 water rights. Because pre-1914 water rights are estimated to compose 40% of the state water rights by number and somewhere between a third and 40% by volume, this is a significant gap in authority.

AB 1337 deals with this in two ways. First, it clarifies that the board has the authority to promulgate regulations and issue curtailment orders when water is not available under a diverter's priority of rights, regardless of the basis for that right. Unlike post-1914 water rights, whose permit terms require curtailment when there's not enough water, pre-1914 water rights don't have permits and need to be curtailed through these orders.

Second, it makes clear that any unauthorized use of water is a trespass and allows the board to issue a cease and desist order when that trespass occurs, and these orders are subject to the existing notice and hearing requirements of Water Code Section 1834. This Bill is a much-needed solution to the curtailment case's decision and will help ensure that the most senior water rights in the system are playing by the same rules as everyone else.

Thank you, and we have a witness on the phone, I believe. Moderator?

Madam Chair, pardon me. Who is it that you're looking for?

Moderator?

Cintia Cortez.

Ms. Cortez, your line is open.

Thank you. Sorry about that. Good morning. My name is Cintia Cortez. I am the assistant policy analyst at Restore the Delta. Beyond that, I am here as a concerned resident of South Stockton. My family and I live in Stockton, a community facing flood threats during wet years and surrounded by proliferating half-infested water for half of the year. All issues that could be resolved with a water rights reform.

A water rights system that prioritizes the best interests of the public and meets the water needs of local communities. Why are we allowing communities that live in the delta, one of the largest estuaries in the US, with poor water quality issues that can be resolved by increased water flow? The current water rights system in California is antiquated and does not serve the public's best interest. It serves the best interest of the majority of California water rights holders that are 91% white males.

That does not accurately represent communities that are directly impacted by current water allocations. Indigenous peoples and communities of color in the delta were not given the opportunity to acquire water rights under state law, and the water rights system continues to fail to recognize that indigenous communities who used and stewarded the waterways since time immemorial have prior rights to the water. Today, so called senior water rights holders still have a tight grip on river flows.

Currently, in times of drought, senior water rights holders are on their portion of water allocations, while local communities are restricted from access to water and are less vulnerable to environmental impacts. This exacerbates environmental issues in environmental justice communities like Stockton, increasing public health concerns. Additionally, in wet years like we are seeing now, we have temporary urgency change petitions that protect the allocation of water for senior water rights holders.

Environmental justice communities in the delta are at the mercy of the decisions being made by the Water Board and water rights holders who we now know are mostly white males who are protecting their own personal interests. They are not seeing the impact on our communities caused by lack of flows through the delta. Why would they? It is not their communities that are being impacted by their actions. Nobody would knowingly expose their families to an environment in which Delta environmental justice communities live in.

Approval water forest standards that have been crafted through exclusionary policy making process be withheld and that permitting of the Delta conveyance project be withheld until the BDP achieves compliance. Thank you for the opportunity today.

We serve the Delta Coalition Members, Winter and winter Shingle Springs, safe California Salmon and Little Manila Rising have filed a title six complaint, a petition for rulemaking, where we asked for the completion of the Bay Delta plan that includes flow based and temperature water forest criteria.

Thank you. If you could wrap up.

Thank you so much.

Can I also say I'm happy to take the Committee's amendments? Zero, yes. Perfect.

Sorry. Thank you. Yes, everyone in the audience. Maybe that changes things for you. Okay.

Primary opposition. If you'd like to join us up here. Thank you. And we'll have four minutes. You may share it as you see fit.

Great. Thank you. Valerie Kincaid with Paris Kincaid Wasiewski, a law firm in Sacramento that represents several water users, water rights holders. I'm happy to talk today and appreciate the opportunity to talk about what water users think 1337 will do and won't do. 1337 expands state waterboard authority over historic rights it did not issue and has not yet defined. 1337 would allow the state waterboard to curtail water users in any year, not just emergency years.

This ability to take over local systems in any year will erode the investment, maintenance and ability to deliver water supply reliably. Investments and solutions are critically needed right now to face the challenge of climate change, increased demand, faltering reliability, and it is not the time to take these solutions off the table. What 1337 won't do. 1337 will not improve state waterboard management. 1337 does not provide the data, tools or knowledge to the state waterboard to run local systems.

Local systems are complex and require intense data management and intricate understanding of operations. State waterboard curtailment currently relies on outdated information and projected estimates rather than real-time data. In the delta curtailment, the State Water Board used six-year-old demand data, six, and flawed supply projections. They put that into a spreadsheet to determine at a staff level whether water was available.

There is no model, no actual measured data, no real time data, no accounting for return flows, no understanding of transfer agreements, and no accounting for local demand reduction or drought planning actions. Because the State Water Board lacks the data it needs, curtailment data is constantly revised based on unilateral discussions with water right holders in back rooms. This is a major due process violation and a transparency issue, which this legislation endorses. In summary, 1337 will reduce water supply reliability, reduce investment in critical solutions.

It will allow for the violation of due process while not improving the state waterboard's ability to manage the system. Increasing the frequency with which the State Water Board manages the system with antiquated tools is not modernization. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm happy to work with the Committee on any Improvements.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning chair. I'm Michelle Rhimers, the General manager of Turlock Irrigation District. TID is the oldest irrigation district in the state and hold an assortment of pre and post-1914 water rights that cover diversion, storage and power generation. We hold these rights on behalf of our diverse community, which 67% identified as members of racial and ethnic minority groups, according to the US census.

I'm very proud to lead an organization that is forward thinking and that looks for solutions for the future and does it in a collaborative and transparent fashion. In fact, we have partnered with the state on Project Nexus, the first in the nation project to cover a portion of our canals with solar panels. We have partnered with the state to create the first watershed level climate change model and to test floodmar.

We partnered with NASA and the state on snowpack measuring with atmospheric Snow Observatory, and we partnered with the Scripps Institute and the state on forecast informed reservoir operations. As system operators, we have made the investments in the latest technology and operational tools to be the best stewards of the resources that is entrusted to us. Water supply certainty sits at the very core of water agency planning, housing creation and economic development.

Without this certainty, my community's future and our way of life, as well as many others, is threatened. Unfortunately, handing the State Water Board's sweeping curtailment authority as proposed in AB 1337 would not lead to more effective and reliable management of the system. But it will create tremendous uncertainty for water agencies and the communities they serve. I really do struggle to understand what problem AB 1337 is attempting to solve. Currently, no one can divert in excess of their water, right?

And a user cannot divert when there is insufficient water available. AB 1337 would authorize the State Water Board to issue curtailments in all water years, rather than just drought emergencies. This year is the third wettest on record for the Tuolumne River watershed. So why would the State Water Board need expanded authority to issue curtailments in a year like this? It's hard for me to understand. There are ways to improve the Administration of Water Rights System.

But giving the State Water Board curtailment authority in all years,

If you could wrap up

unreliable and unpredictable water supply for the agencies tasked with delivering water for drinking, industrial uses, agricultural and environmental purposes. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will start with the support in the room. If you would come up and give us your name, your organization and your position.

Good morning again, Members. This is Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning and Conservation League, also a co-sponsor to this bill. We accept the amendments and remain in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Broad, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee in support.

Good morning. Matt Clifford with Trout unlimited, in support.

Good morning. Clarissa Bezdek with California trout in support.

Alex Limer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, in support.

Juan Altamirano with the Trust for Public Land, in support

Good morning. Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of Community Water center in support and also on behalf of leadership, Council for Justice and Accountability, Clean Water Action and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Thank you. We will actually take opposition in the room first, and then we'll go to the phone. So if you are here in opposition in the room, join us at the mic. And again, same rules apply. Name, organization and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Don Gilbert, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Orange County Water District, all opposed. Thank you.

Jamie Miner, on behalf of Santa Margarita Water District, also in opposition.

Paul Yoder, on behalf of the counties of Solano, San Joaquin and Stanislaus, and also the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Anderson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, in opposition.

Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association, in opposition.

Hi again. Jennifer Pierre, state water contractors, in opposition.

Kirk Wilbur on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association, in opposition

Danny Merkley with the Guaco group, on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Kern County Water Agency and Kings River interest.

Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association, in opposition.

Dean Talley, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of Mesa Water District, the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and San Gabriel Valley MWD, as well as several agricultural interests such as the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers and others. Thank you. Opposed.

Good morning. Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition.

Good morning. Tricia Geringer with the Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Noel Kramers with Wine Institute, respectful opposition.

Good morning. Kristen Olsen, San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and the United Water Conservation District, in oppose.

Good morning. Robert Gonzalez with Cruise Strategies, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, respectfully opposed.

Good morning, chairmembers. Alfredo Ornelas here, on behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District, also respectfully opposed.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of Bellflower, Somerset Mutual Water Company, El Dorado Irrigation District, Desert Water Agency, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Palmdale Water District, Roland Water District, Solano County Water Agency, Valley AG Water Coalition and Walnut Valley Water District in opposition.

Thank you, moderator. We'll go to the phones and take both support and opposition. And for those listening, in your name, your position, and your organization. If you have one.

Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to 1337, please press one than zero on your phone. Only press one than zero once, as pressing it twice will remove you from the queue. We're going to start with line 55.

Deirdre Dan with California Water Research and Support, for.

We'll now move on to line 54. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Angelina Cook with California Sports Fishing Protection alliance in support.

Line 57, your line is now open.

Hello. Natia Quintana, on behalf of the Yuba Water Agency, in opposition.

Line 52.

Hi, good morning. Sharon Gonzalez with the City of Corona in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Line 60.

This is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters in support.

We're now moving on to line 30. Your line is now open.

Kristi Foy, on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District, in opposition.

Line 49, your line is now open. Just a moment. I apologize. We're going to move on to line 56. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Don McInhill with Russian Riverkeeper in support.

Justin Hopkins, on behalf of Stockton East Water District, in opposition.

Line 50, your line is now open.

Thank you. Line 61, your line is now open.

Sarah Boudreau with the City of Roseville in opposition.

Line 49, your line is open.

Good morning, Madam Chairmembers. Aaron Avery with the California Special District Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Line 58, your line is now open.

Good morning, Paul Helliker, San Juan Water District, opposed.

We're going to take a moment here just to call for anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition to 1337. Please press 1, then 0. Madam Chair, it appears- pardon me, we have at least one more person, that wishes to speak, just a moment.

Mr. Moderator, do you have them?

Line 64. Line 64, your line is now open.

Good afternoon. My name is.

And pardon me if. You could repeat that line 64. Your volume was very low.

Ferreira, Modesto Irrigation District, strongly opposed.

Thank you and we will bring it back. Thank you Moderator we'll bring it back to the Committee for comments or questions. Yes.

Thank you, guys. So I'm concerned about the impacts that this will have on my community, my district, the Ag community there, and TID and MID are both in my districts and they're both leaders in the state. As far as examples on how to manage water and for the opposition, you brought up your concerns on expanded authority. Can you elaborate a little bit on that, on what concerns you had?

And if we could just, when we use acronyms, say them out so we all.

Modesto Irrigation and Turlock Irrigation District.

That's right. One of the major concerns here is this expands authority not only over pre-14 rights, but it empowers the State Water Board to curtail in any water year. And the issue with that is that curtailment, as it has been done the four times the State Water Resources Control Board has exercised curtailment in 2014, 2015, 21, 22. It is a weekly operation of local systems. So you're exactly right. TID and MID are wonderful water stewards.

Michelle talked about all of the programs that they do, and not only that, but they work with the Hetch Hetchy System in San Francisco. It's very complex to have the State Water Resources Control Board have issue an email to them telling them how to operate on a weekly basis in drought years even is frankly, questions you know, reliability, the ability to deliver supplies. They have full-time operators that are running new Don Pedro, it's very complex.

To have, in any water year, the State Water Resources Control Board be able to come in and control those systems on a weekly basis is just a completely destabilizing proposal. And water supply reliability, I don't think it's an exaggeration. If that happened, would be just destroyed.

And I don't know how you ask these folks to continue to make the investments that Michelle makes on a daily basis when again, a state board that doesn't really have the information it needs to make these calls is controlling their system on a weekly basis. So it's very destabilizing in every year.

Thank you for answering that. I'm good.

Oh, thank you. Yes, Mr. Bennet.

I know oftentimes when I'm sitting in the chair that the author is sitting in, I would like to promptly respond to the opponent's comments. And so my first question is, what is your response to the questions raised by the opponents?

Yeah, first of all, I know you weren't here for the opening, but I'll go back to that. I think this question begs the Bill, and I'll use this as part of my response is, do we fundamentally believe that water is a public good that needs to be regulated in a fair way that we all have to abide by, including our pre-1914 water rights holders? And I think we do. I think we do for equity reasons, I think we do for fairness reasons.

And I believe that we can have a regulatory body that can do that in a fair and just way. I think some of the concerns raised by opposition are, frankly, concerns about regulation writ large. And so I think it's slightly, I don't want to say disingenuous, that's too strong of a word. But maybe just a difference of opinion around should we have regulation or not when it comes to water. And I think we should.

I think water is one of the most fundamental elements that we need for human survival and balancing the needs for agricultural business, our urban needs, et cetera, is really critical, especially in times of shortage. And what this Bill would do is allow for our state regulatory body to do that, and to do that with our pre-1914 water rights holders, to bring them into compliance with what the rest of the water rights holders are doing. And I have a senior water rights holder in my district.

They're also very sophisticated. I think they're honorable actors. It's not a judgment on them or their performance. This is about bringing fairness and equity in terms of all of our water rights holders.

Second question, many other western states do regulate preexisting water rights. Do you have any statistics or information on that? And where California stands relative to most other western states?

Yeah, I'll let my witness here express that.

I'm sorry, I don't have statistics on all that information. I can tell you that it's done in a different way in certain states. For example, all states had a moment in time where they didn't have a law that regulated water rights, and then they did. And there was grandfathered water rights in that system. Other states, I believe Oregon and Washington are examples. They just required those grandfathered water rights to become a part of the system, to obtain a permit and be regulated alongside everyone else.

California just grandfathered those water rights in and gave them special immunities which post-1914 water rights do not have.

Great. Yeah, thank you very much. I would just weigh in that I think the authors made a strong point both in the comments that you had written in advance of this, which is essentially what you have repeated here.

But it goes back to the issue of fundamental question that water, increasingly, people are becoming aware that water is a public resource that needs to be controlled, needs to be regulated, and to have this fairly significant exemption of pre-1914 water rights is a huge hole in our ability to make good water policy here in the State of California. So I'd certainly be supporting the motion and I move the recommended action.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Dr. Weber seconds.

Chair, I'd like to ask another question.

Oh, no, we're not done. I just wanted to get that on the record.

Do you want to go now or do you mind if I move to Mr. Villapudua? Okay, Mr. Villapudua. Don't worry I wasn't shutting it down.

So there was a question just asked. Do you think that the timing is right? Right? I mean, especially after we've had a dramatic replenishing of water supply? And then I have two questions, too. The second one would, knowing that we're inflation is high, cost of food is high. I mean, everything we go to the store is expensive. Is that also going to be adding?

Would this Bill add more to the cost?

Sure.

Sure. I think now is exactly the right time. I think, again, the court case kind of pointedly said, hey, Legislature, take a position on this. And so I think it's incumbent upon us to do so. I also think in moments of climate change like this year, yes, we may have had a wet year, but look at all the years preceding this. It is going to be the new norm where we have a lot of these fluctuations.

And so the ability for us as a state to decide that we're going to have a regulatory framework to create more certainty around water and to create more equity, I think is imperative. So I do think now is the right time. In terms of the cost of food and all these other kind of components. Again, I think my hope is that with this Bill, it will create more certainty, which I think certainty is really, really critical.

This isn't, in my understanding of it, not something that's going to cost and increase cost for our agricultural needs or others. And this is about really balancing all the needs of the state.

You good, Mr. Villapudua? Ok, great. Did someone else? Mr. Alanis, did you want to go back?

Yes, thank you. So in my neck of the woods, we have a saying that food grows where water flows, and I don't see a state agency actually helping my area for that. I think we've done a great job regulating locally with our water districts. And so I wanted to get a question for you, if I could, the author on the fairness you talked about the fairness. Who's, like, being treated unfair in this Bill is one of the questions I have.

Well, I think this gives benefit to pre-19 current, the current structure gives privilege and benefit to pre-1914 water rights holders.

And do we know how many of those we have?

The pre-1914 water rights holders account for approximately 45% of all diverters by number and 35% of diversions by volume.

Opposition. Do you guys have a number for that one?

No, I don't have a specific number for the percentage of water rates that are pre-14 compared to others. But remember that this Bill actually subscribes in amendment four to the system of priority. So to the extent that we're talking about dismantling the system of priority, this Bill actually doubles down on that, agrees that that is the rule of water rights, and includes that in that amendment. So I'm not sure that this Bill is dismantling priority or addressing equity.

One of the issues I think that we're kind of talking past each other on is regulation versus control. And the state Water Board does have the ability, and it should have the tools to regulate from a higher perspective, but it shouldn't be allowed to manage local systems on the ground. That's never what it meant to be, and that's what happens in curtailment. So it actually issues a weekly email to water users and water operators during curtailment, controlling their systems. And that's not really a long-term solution.

It's not really what the state Water Board is supposed to be doing. So I love the idea of really smart, good, modernizing legislation that gives the state Water Board tools to regulate from where it should be. But when it gets into managing systems that are local, I think we've gone too far. And I think that's one of the problems with this Bill.

If I could just add that from a water operator perspective, we manage from the Joelme River, we manage much differently than the state does.

On the state level, I would say we're more conservative. So we start making cutbacks in dry years, as soon as we see a non-average year, we start making cutbacks to deliveries. And we do that to ensure that we have supply to survive a multi-year drought, and not just for agriculture, but for our residents as well. And so taking those actions early on, again, we're planning way ahead of the state before they even declare an emergency.

But to know if this were to become law, then there's no incentive for us to do that anymore. We're going to be waiting for an email every week to determine how our water is going to be used. And I would just try to respond in the sense of I said it in my comments. I am a pre-1914 water right holder, and I hold it on behalf of all of the community that we serve.

And I said, it's 67% is non-white, and they look to us to be the purveyors and to get them through years of drought.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me do that.

Of course. Ms. Dahle.

So I think this goes back again to the concerns of my district is the authority of the Water Board. Right? And one of the things I just underlined to prevent waste and unreasonable use. So, again, it doesn't, unless I'm missing something, like, really say, what is waste and what is unreasonable use? So in our ag communities, somebody driving by, watching an alfalfa field being watered, they may consider that to be waste or unreasonable. Right? If you're concerned about your drinking water at your home, as you're traveling through my district.

So I think there's a lot of concerns with this Bill. Obviously, I'm a no, but it'll be interesting to see as it moves forward with the pre-14 water rights. And I mean, people, those are homesteads, those are generational. Again, it's ag, and that water is life. Again. Anyway, thank you.

Might I respond? So I would love to have you as part of the conversation, because of your expertise, I think, both in your family business, but also the region that you represent. I'd love to have the opposition at the table in a substantive, meaningful way to provide meaningful amendments and feedback. I have yet to craft a bill that hasn't taken amendments before it's gotten to the Governor's desk.

So I'm always open to talking to you or others, as well as the opposition, to ensure that we get the Bill in a better place. I think you have stronger bills when you have robust conversations with the opposition. So I would invite you or anyone else to the conversation as the Bill progresses. And I know this is not a small Bill, so I think it does warrant such level of conversation.

Thank you. Oh, Mr. Ward.

Thank you. Thank you, I fully appreciate the goals here that we're trying to make sure that we are striving towards a more equitable situation with climate change and with our total supply that's available to us. And I'm wondering, with the amendments that you're working on right here, when we say that the board may issue a curtailment regardless of the basis of right, when water is not available under the diverter's priority of rights.

So is there still an allowance then or a deference to those that have a higher priority of right?

I'll let my expert witness give you the exact response on sort of when this is triggered.

Right.

Yes. The most senior water rights would only be curtailed if there's not enough water to satisfy all the junior appropriators above them in the priority chain.

Senior water right holders would only be curtailed under this Bill when there's not enough water to even satisfy the pre-1914 water right users among themselves.

Understand.

And as we acknowledge that we do this right now in a state of emergency. And so if we're not in a state of emergency and we're having a term called a water shortage, how is that term defined? I guess it feels like we would be in a State of emergency then, if there's a shortage.

Yes. So Water Code Section 1058.5 defines what an emergency is when the Water Board can use that emergency regulations, and it's when the Governor declares a state of emergency or it's the third. Let me find the exact language so I'm not paraphrasing. In a critically dry year immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below-normal dry or critically dry years.

Right.

And so the second year of that, the second critically dry year, is not an emergency unless there's a state of emergency proclamation. And there's a difference between a statewide drought and a regional drought as well.

Okay, fair. So there can be times when we have water shortage. Somebody defines what that means when that term is triggered, but we may not necessarily be in a State of emergency.

Correct.

Okay. I appreciate the work that's being done on here and have yet to kind of hear so a lot from San Diego, a lot of our resources, and actually increasingly more because we're trying to get off of the state water project and alleviate northern water California. We're doing a good job there with local resources, but we're still very reliant on Colorado River. And a lot of that comes with complex negotiations with imperial users as well that have superior rights as well.

I haven't heard enough yet from my San Diego authority on how this might affect that for our guarantees as well. Happy to support this going forward today and continue to listen to those local voices as well, to make sure that our interests are protected.

Thank you. And I'm happy to entertain any conversations directly with your water districts, should they want that.

All right. Member Rubio.

Thank you. Same basic comments. I'm from Southern California and the San Gabriel Valley depends on groundwater. The part that the question, I guess, is right now, under the emergency order, the Water Board has those rights. And thank you for explaining the water years. But L.A. County, right away, as soon as we start with the dry years, there's that 15% cut, 30%. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I've never really have had kind of the state say, hey, you guys need to reduce their water.

By the time the state says that my area, and specifically L.A. County has already done that and above. And so the difficulty that I'm having is currently we have that authority under emergency drought. And so to the point of the Water Board again, that I made earlier is, are they going to take this to punish those that they deem to be, quote-unquote, enemies? And that's what my concern is. Like I said, for me, my area is 100% water until we can't do it anymore. Right.

And again, L.A. County and my area are very diligent when it comes to dry years and trying to make sure that we get ahead of the curve and start cutting water before anybody tells us to do it and, you know, again, different regions, obviously. And we've had other issues in the area of contamination, so we're very cautious about the water supply.

And so it just feels like the Water Board will be punitive to those that they just deem enemies, as opposed to for doing it for the right reasons.

So a couple of things, and I'll have Cody add addition as well, if he likes. But one, I don't know that all whiter rights holders are as responsible. Right. And you all have, I think, paved the way in many ways around ensuring that you're being mindful of water resources in times of shortage. So I think this will bring about more sort of certainty and guarantee across the board to ensure that our senior water rights holders are as responsible, which I think is important.

And then the second point I would make is that this is looking at the water issues in totality, right. And ensuring that we are creating a sort of fair and equitable system across the board. That all of our senior water rights holders are acting in such good faith and being stewards of water, particularly in times of shortage, which I think is important. And again, the focus is really around times of shortage when we know that we're facing critical turns.

And I know we don't feel it in the same way this year because of the snow, but remember what this felt like last year at this time. And that is right around the corner again. And so that is what we have to prepare for. I don't know if you want to add anything else.

Yeah, just to the punitive nature, the Bill right now only allows the Water Board to issue these curtailment orders when there's not enough water to satisfy the diverter's priority of right.

So they can't go out and say, please curtail, even though there's enough water in the river to satisfy your right. We're going to ask you to curtail anyway. They're only allowed to issue these orders when there's not even enough water to satisfy the right. So it really can't be targeted other than by the priority system.

And I think that sort of limited nature scope for the Bill is really important.

Right. Okay. Well, like I said, I'm still trying to process what's not being done right now since the Water Board does have this authority to basically say, hey, let's curtail here, curtail there. In my mind, it already does.

It's a good question. Blanca, I think you're, or Assembly Member Rubio. I mean I think you're hitting on exactly why there was such surprise with the court case. I think many people view that actually the Board already does have that authority. I think what this Bill does is clarify exactly just that.

Thank you. Okay. Did other Members have? Wait. Did Miss Pellerin? We're going to have first-timers.

Just want to thank the author for taking on a tough subject with water, and water is absolutely life, but we got to make sure it's life for everybody, for all of our interests, and make sure we're equitable in that. And while there are some concerns of the Bill, I'm hearing from you that you're going to be working with the opposition and come up with the best Bill possible to make sure that we're able to move forward.

So I'll be voting for it today with the promise with you to work with the opposition?

I promise to work with the opposition.

Okay.

Amazing, Mr. Mathis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've just got a couple of questions for the opposition. I'll limit it to two because my hometown was the city without water for quite a while during the last drought. And I know we've heard a lot of different aspects of drought be brought into this. So as the Bill suggests, the Water Board needs the authority to curtail rights at any time because the system is essentially left unmanaged outside of certain drought years.

So the question is, can you explain how watersheds are managed to balance water supply and ecosystem demands when the Water Board's curtailment authority is not in effect. So that's question one, and I'll go ahead and give you question two so then we can dive into it. How would curtailing water rights outside of drought emergencies impact? All right, I appreciate the commentary. How would curtailing water rights outside of drought emergencies impact the development of housing projects, particularly in areas where water scarcity is already a significant issue?

Because I know for me personally, in my district, we've literally had housing projects that got shut down because of not having adequate. So if we can dive into that. Hear from the opposition and back to the author, please.

Sure. So the State Water Resources Control Board has a number of tools they use regularly in non-drought times to ensure that there's sufficient environmental flows in the system. They do that through the Porter-Cologne Act. They have done that in the Bay-Delta System since the early 1970s. So that is ongoing. It's not an unregulated system. It's actually a highly regulated system.

But the difference between curtailment regulation and regular regulation is that everyday non-drought regulation is telling systems the parameters under which they should operate. And curtailment actually comes in and operates those systems for the locals. So it's an extreme measure, having curtailment when the State Water Board has done it. Again, they come in and literally send, they don't even send it to the water suppliers. You have to log in and check your weekly update on how you can operate.

So you go from having a regulatory system that gives you parameters under which locals manage to having the State Water Resources Control Board come in and manage your system, like we've said a couple of times on a weekly basis. Again, those are extreme measures. And the tools that they use to determine availability are really only supposed to be in emergency times. They're not great tools. It's like if you're bleeding out and you need a tourniquet, you might use a belt.

You don't go to the hospital and have. There's a number of belts on the wall, you know. There are plenty of regulations in regular times, and curtailment is a totally different animal. Your second question on housing. Yeah, go ahead.

You brought up Porter-Cologne, and I know some of us on the Committee. We've got a lot of new Members. Porter-Cologne, maybe not everybody's familiar with. So could you dive into what Porter Cologne is a little bit, just for the sake, for everyone here?

Sure. Porter-Cologne is a section of the Water Code that allows the State Water Resources Control Board to look at systems and adopt water quality control plans to make sure that they're operating within the public trust. And to have environmental flows. So it's the higher level regulatory job that the State Water Resources Control Board does on a daily basis.

All right. And then the housing question.

Sure. And I'll let Michelle, do you want to talk about housing? I'm happy to dive in.

Sure. I mean, I guess it just goes back to this, both the last Bill and this Bill, it just creates major uncertainty for water planning and providing. And so the first thing with a new housing development, the first thing that they look at is, what is your water supply? First thing on ag lands, when you go to purchase it, the first thing is, what's your water supply?

And as a water purveyor, I work with cities and counties to let them know, yes, we can expand, yes, we can serve those cities. I guess the point of this uncertainty of giving this broad authority is I can't say that with a straight face anymore. I know you mentioned about extremes, but I can't look my ratepayers and my customers in the eye and let them know how this is going to shake out.

I wish I had more faith in the State Water Board, but I have not personally experienced that. And so I think your intentions are well. I think it's just absolute, genuine fear of how this is going to be implemented. And that's just from a water planner purveyor. And I talk about infrastructure and I talk about expansion, and we have great new businesses coming to our community. And I'm super excited about it, but I don't know if I can supply them water.

So it is uncertainty, and it is pretty vague, and I'm not trying to blow it up, but it is just the reality of I have to provide certainty.

We had something as small as a gas station that got turned down because of access to water. So it happens quite often.

Mr. Alanis

Sorry, this further debate making more quick questions going in my head. And so from what I understand, water is the most regulated in California. We're just trying to regulate on top of regulate on top of regulate right now. And. Cody right? Cody. So I have a question for you with the junior water right holders. When or who decides that they have sufficient water? And then. So then you curtail the senior holders, because from what I understand, there's almost no year in which there is 100%.

Correct. So after 1914, all the post-1914 water right holders had to apply for water right at the State Water Board. And during that process, they have to prove that there is enough water available in the system to satisfy the water right they're applying for and in the permit terms that they receive, they have to curtail if that water is not available.

And if they don't, they're subject to the Water Board's enforcement authority, which we were talking about a bit with AB 460, the cease and desist order, that 20-day hearing period. So it all is in the process of obtaining the permit in the first place. The pre-1914 water right holders existed before that law came into being, so they didn't have to apply for a permit. They don't have a permit with those permit terms and conditions.

And so identifying exactly where the priority is for those pre-1914 water right holders happens in something called a full stream adjudication, which any water right holder can go and petition the State Water Board to do. They take time, they take money, but it does solidify the priority of positions on streams.

And so how often does that happen?

I'm not entirely sure how often it happens, but it is a tool that is available.

Just to guess, does it happen like once a year or maybe once a decade?

These full-stream adjudications can take decades, so I can't give you an answer on that.

Opposition, do you guys have any information on that part?

Sure. I mean, that's part of the issue, right? Is that what are functional adjudications in a curtailment year happen on a weekly basis by state Water Board staff. Oftentimes we'll call staff and tell them that they got the methodology wrong. They're on the 9th iteration right now from 2021 to 22. And a lot of times we have, frankly, changes that are proposed by the State Water Board to exactly what we're talking about this. Who decides when water is available?

It's state Water Board staff, through a spreadsheet, oftentimes unilaterally in back rooms. So we've got a major due process issue there, because if you're calling and saying that your priority is wrong and you're ahead of me, and I'm not included in that discussion, we've got a problem.

It all right. Any others from the committee? Mr. Bennett.

This is not a question of whether current priority senior water rights holders are doing a good job with the water or not. It's not a question of whether they're well intentioned or not. It's a question of whether they alone should stand outside of the same process that everybody else has to follow. That's number one. And then you ask yourself, those senior water rights holders therefore make it harder for us to have a cohesive water policy in the State of California, because they can make different decisions.

And it is not in the interest of a state as large as this to be dependent upon senior rights holders who can trace their authority all the way back to their ancestors that got these water rights back in the late 1800s in terms of doing this. So that's not the question. And so what we hear, mostly in opposition, is we're doing a good job. We don't need this. Hey, this might upset us. We don't want this. The question is, what is fair for water policy?

And when we think about water policy in California, and I very much respect the concern about how regulated it is, we were virtually the last state in the union to even regulate groundwater. So we are a far cry away from trying to bring coordination to water policy here in California. And even that groundwater law that we passed doesn't require us to be sustainably pumping groundwater until 2040. People are scratching their heads in other places in the world.

So I believe what this bill does is it simply grants in a very narrow range. And that is when there is not sufficient water as defined by the bill. Not all the time, not willy nilly, but at these critical times, when we're at last year in a 1200-year drought, we're in front of the court trying to have the State Water Board say to a senior water rights holder, the waterboard ought to have some control here. And the judge saying, you just don't have it.

And the judge even inviting. But I'm not saying this makes sense, my ruling, but it's just what I legally have to do because the Legislature hasn't acted. And this bill, this author is trying to act and is certainly open to hearing about how to act. But the fundamental issue, I think, is undeniable. You can't just continue to exist with 35 or 40% of the water out of touch during these extreme periods when there is insufficient water out of touch by the only coordinated regulatory body representing all the citizens of California, because those senior rights waters holders don't have to represent all the citizens of California, they don't even have to represent all the citizens in their area.

They can, depending on the senior white, depending on how they've allocated and how they're managed, can represent a very narrow set of people. That's simply not appropriate. All due respect to the opposition's raising arguments, and I appreciate, again, what it might create in terms of vagueness, et cetera, but it just can't remain this way. Just like if somebody back in 2014, people argued we shouldn't change, we shouldn't start to regulate groundwater. People scratch. How can you say we should continue to not regulate groundwater at all in California? The same thing is true in this situation. How can we say we're not going to have any regulatory authority of significance during these times in the pre 1914 period? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. I think that actually brings up one of my larger concerns. When we start talking about senior rights versus junior rights. The lower half of our state is dependent on Colorado River water. When you look at the western region of the US and we talk about droughts, it's not just California that hits drought years, it's western region. It's what is known as the Deadpool scenario for the Colorado River, which means you hit a point where LA and San Diego get cut off from water. So it's extremely important that we are careful as a state when looking at water rights and how we're going to manage those rights, that we don't end up cutting ourselves off from Colorado as things move along. So with that, are there any other. Mr. Hart.

Yeah, I hope. Does the author pledge to not try to cut us off of our Colorado?

I promise not to cut us off of Colorado.

It was only that easy, members.