Assembly Standing Committee on Agriculture

Madam Secretary, if you wouldn't mind to call the role. That's fine, that's fine. We'll just call it and then [Roll Call]

No quorum. Okay. We don't have a quorum yet. zero, we do. We have a quorum. Fantastic. And so with that, we do have a quorum. I want to address some logistical items. We are pulling file item one, which is Assembly Bill 240. Assembly Member cholera from the agenda per the author. And as a result, we now have five bills on our agenda for our consideration, two of which have been proposed as consent items. It's Assembly Bill 605 by ArambuLA and Assembly Bill 1141 by.

So we have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion by Vice Chair Mathis. A second by Mr. Alanis. Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll? So the second was by some Member Villapudua. Thank you. On the consent calendar, the motion will be on AB 605, do pass to appropriations, and on AB 1141, do pass to emergency management Committee. [Roll Call]

The conset is out. And so with that going down. File order, do we have any authors here? If we have the sergeants place those calls, that would be outstanding. We have a short agenda, three items and two authors. One of them is no. So one of them is a Member of this Committee.

But as we wait, also just want to make mention that for anyone that will be providing some comments this afternoon, we ask that you please just state your name, the organization you represent, and if you support or oppose those bills that are under our consideration. Any Member of the public may also submit written comments to our Committee through email. Emails may be sent to the address found on the Committee website, which is agri.committee at Assembly.ca.gov.

And so with that, we will patiently wait for our colleagues to make their way to room 126. Ms. Wilson, welcome to Assembly agriculture. We're excited. Well, we will start in file order, which is file item number two. Assembly Bill 239. So when you are ready, motion by some of them are Alanis and seconded by it was Carlos again motioned by some of them are Villapudua and seconded by some of the women.

Well, if you indulge me for a moment, I thank you for the motion and the second and the confidence in the Bill. Well, good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB two third 9239 which will direct the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to adopt standards of identity for avocado oil. Extra virgin avocado oil contained near 100% soybean oil, an oil commonly used in processed foods that is much less expensive to produce.

Originally, as it was introduced, our intent was to establish a Commission on avocado oil. Our office was happy to consult with a few Members of the avocado industry who suggested that a standardization would be a better way of achieving the goal of strengthening the existing avocado grower community while also protecting consumers. Consumer demand is rising for all things avocado, including oil made from the fruit.

Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Selina Wang. I am associate Professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology at University of California in Davis. In 2010 and 2011, I led a team of researchers at UC Davis and published two reports on the quality and purity of olive oil. These reports received worldwide attention from consumers, producers, industry stakeholders and regulators. In 2012, the United States International Trade Commission held a public hearing in Washington, DC in which I testified for my research as part of the investigation into the conditions of competition between American olive oil producers and major foreign suppliers.

This Bill would be a good step towards empowering avocado growers in California to create a strong avocado oil industry in our state. My witness today is Dr. Selena Wang. Selina is the Department Vice Chair and associate Professor of cooperative extension and small scale fruit and vegetable processing at UC Davis.

After one year of the investigation, USITC concluded, and I quote, unenforced standards can lead to adulterated and mislabeled product weakening the competitiveness of high quality US produced olive oil in the US market. In 2014, I helped draft the standards for California. Since the establishment of the Olive Oil Commission of California in 2014, I've been served as a Member of the Grades and Standards Committee as well as the research Committee.

In 2010, my PhD student and I published a similar study on avocado oil in which we collected 22 samples from six grocery stores and two online sources. We measured their chemistry, quality and purity. Quality refers to if the oil meets particular grade standards such as extra- virgin or refined. Purity refers to if the oil is made from avocados. All avocado oil should be made from avocados. We found most samples were of poor quality and adulteration with soybean oil at 100% was confirmed in two extra-virgin and one refined sample.

Our findings demonstrate there is an urgent need to develop standards for avocado oil, not only to ensure consumer receive high quality and authentic products, but to establish a level playing field to support the continuing growth of avocado oil industry. And this is why I'm supportive of the Bill. My lab is continuing to do research to understand how natural variants such as cultivar climate, harvest time influence the chemistry of avocado oil so that we have the data to support a fair standard.

I believe together we can help consumers to gain confidence in the quality and authenticity of the products they purchase as well as the honest producer can make a living. Thank you.

And thank you for your testimony. There is no opposition on file and so certainly at this time we'll open it up for some public comment. So if we have Members in the audience that would like to register their supporter or opposition to the Bill, please step forward again. State your name, organization and whether you support or oppose the Bill.

Sorry. Thank you. Hi Taylor Rochin on behalf of the California Avocado Commission, we don't have an official position, but we'd very much like to offer our appreciation to the Assembly Member for working with our producers and understanding this issue, and we'll continue to offer technical assistance as the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Any other Members of the audience wishing to register support our position? See none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions. Comments Members of the Committee see none. I will kick it back to Assembly Member Wilson, would you like to close?

Well, thank you for your time consideration. And I would also like to thank Professor Wang for all her work in improving the quality of ag products for people across this great state and for coming out to testify in support of the Bill. As you note from her testimony, it's extremely important to the quality and standards and ensuring consumer protections, as well as protections for our growers here in California and across our country. I respectfully ask for. Aye vote.

Thank you Assembly member. I certainly appreciate this know reading the brief. You know, it seems know a state like California where we have such stringent standards and we grow the freshest produce, something like this seems like it's very much necessary. So thank you for that. There is a motion and a second on the Bill, Madam Secretary, if you. Could please call the roll on AB 239. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. And so next Bill, the agenda is file item three again. It's Assembly Bill 408 by Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you. Two witnesses. I'll wait for them to come forward for you. Major issues. All right, California's flood. Well, I'm here to present AB 408. California's food and farming system is on the front lines of the climate crisis. And if the state wants to create a more climate resilient agriculture sector, then it must act now to scale up investments.

AB 408 proposes a 3.4 billion in bond funding to support four pillars of our food system, climate smart agriculture, farm worker well being, healthy food access, and regional food infrastructure. Advancing climate smart agriculture practice not only helps farmers, fishers, and ranchers, these practices also bring a host of co benefits, such as supporting biodiversity, improved air and water quality, and support for local jobs and economic development.

This is especially important because we also know that the pandemic, recent flood impacts, and ongoing supply chain challenges are affecting farmers, farm workers, and agriculture productivity. It is time that we secure the necessary resources and invest in the people who feed us and avoid displacing small scale farms, farmers of color, and farm workers to other states and other countries. We also must invest in food access and ensuring that our communities have the facilities they need to bring food from the farm to the table.

This includes school kitchen facilities that can be used to teach kids about nutrition and infrastructure to deliver meals to seniors and other populations with high rates of food insecurity. With this proposed bond, the state has an opportunity to scale this work up across the state and ensure California's food and farming system is ready, resilient, and helping our state fight climate change while continuing to feed our communities. I would like to thank you for allowing me to present this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Sandra Nakagawa. And I'm the policy Director at the California Climate and Agriculture Network. We are proud to be one of 18 organizations co sponsoring AB 408, a Bill that would put a $3.4 billion food and farm resilience bond before the voters of the November 2024 ballot.

And I would like to introduce two of my witnesses, Sandra Nakagawa from the California Climate and Agricultural Network, also known as CalCAN, and Jessica Gonzalez from the California Certified Organic Farm.

The climate crisis is already having devastating effects on California's food system. We know that climate impacts are going to intensify over the coming years and that those impacts won't be felt equally across all communities. Low income communities of color are especially vulnerable to climate related risks, and they also experience higher rates of food insecurity. That's why this Bill seeks to create a more climate resilient and equitable food and farming system by providing funding for sustainable, healthy food access and regional food economies.

These are critical investments that can help disadvantaged communities and tribes obtain or produce foods grown, caught and harvested here in California. AB 408 will help build certified farmers markets, school kitchen facilities, and much needed infrastructure to deliver meals to California's growing senior population. This Bill also recognizes that building climate resilience in the food system requires investing in farmers and ranchers as they adapt to intensifying climate related extremes.

We've heard from farmers impacted by recent storms who are questioning whether they're going to be able to continue operating. So I'm going to leave the Committee today with the words of one of those producers, Molly Myerson of Little Wing Farm, a small, diversified organic farm in Marin County. Molly shared this with us. Quote, small scale producers have been left out to dry with regards to support and relief programs.

These operations are potentially the most vulnerable to increased climate change challenges as we already struggle day to day. The newer generation of farmers don't have generational wealth, land stability or government backing to buffer the losses due to climate related damages. The decision to fold your business or double down in the face of increasing insecurity is a daily debate, end quote. In closing, it's absolutely urgent that California invest in a more climate resilient food and farming system. And I urge your aye vote today on AB 408.

Thank you. Please.

Thank you. Chair Rivas and Members of the Agriculture Committee for the Opportunity to testify in support of 48 AB 408. I am Jessica Gonzalez, policy advocate at California Certified Organic Farmers, CCOF. We represent 3000 organic farms, ranches and businesses throughout California. CCOF is sponsoring AB 408 because it puts farmers first. This Bill expands the market for California grown food, ensures a strong farming workforce, and provides tools to farmers to adapt to climate change. Farmers across California are facing extreme climate impacts.

We have been hearing devastating stories from our Members about crop losses, and some are even going out of business due to wildfires, droughts and floods. AB 408 is about making farmers more resilient to these climate impacts. This Bill ensures steady funding for CDFA's popular climate smart agriculture programs over the next five years, including 75 million for the healthy soils program. The survival of farms depends on a strong and healthy workforce.

If we want to have a resilient farming system and food system, we need to expand resources to protect essential farm workers. Farmers and ranchers are struggling to keep up with increasing farming costs. We know from our Members that labor is often their highest cost. This bond would invest in farm worker housing, safe drinking water and personal protective equipment to ensure a strong and healthy workforce. We ask the Committee to vote yes on AB 408 and invest in the resilience of California farmers and farm workers.

Thank you for your testimony. At this time, there is no opposition on file, and so we'd like to open it up for public comment. Members of the audience would like to register the support opposition for the Bill. Please do so now. Again, name organization and your position.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of 13 of the bill's 18 co sponsors, the Agricultural Institute of Marin, American Farmland Trust, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Carbon Cycle Institute, Center for Food Safety, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Carbon Cycle Institute, Food Forward, Health care without Harm, Mandela Partners, Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council, roots of Change, and the Sustainable Agricultural education, all in strong support of AB 408. Thank you.

Hi, Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in strong support. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jamie Fenus. On behalf of the community alliance with family farmers. In strong support,

Liv Butler, Californians Against Waste in support.

Thank you, chair and Members, my name is Noah Whitley, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Californian Compost Coalition. In support,

Marquis King Mason, California environmental voters strong support. Thank you.

Melissa Sagun, on behalf of the Californians for Pesticide Reform and Pesticide Action Network, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Wilson, I see in here that less than 4% of this entire bond goes to supporting dairies, cattlemen, even tribal communities that are dealing with these infrastructure difficulties. Are you planning on making this more equitable to them so they can have a little more to kind of diversify and go out that direction? Are you looking at doing any of that?

Thank you. I see no other Members of the audience that want to register comments. I'll kick it back to this Committee. Any Members of this Committee have questions. Super Vice Chair.

Yeah, absolutely. The point of this is to ensure that as we go through this process, that we're prioritizing disadvantaged communities. And I would kind of center those a part of those communities.

And then also with climate, it's clear that we go through obvious drought and flood. And you've got marked here 140,000,000 for floodplain expansion and habitat restoration to reduce flood risk and support groundwater recharge. But there's nothing directed towards water storage, direct groundwater recharge. Do you have any plans to address.

That for water storage at this point? We don't. I mean, it's something we consider. We can't consider, but there are bonds related to that. But for me, I consider recharging our groundwater recharge extremely important and something that we don't in other places allow for beneficial use. So we think this is a great opportunity to add that as one of the beneficial uses and to be able to use resources directly related to that. But I'm definitely open, as we work through this legislative process, to incorporating all views and ensuring that we meet the original intent of the bond.

So you're wanting to put beneficial use into this?

You said, am I wanting to put beneficial. I was talking specifically about groundwater recharge, sir.

Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other Members of the Committee wish to ask questions? Comments c nine. Senator Wilson, you'd like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, in this budget environment, many programs that have been making significant strides are at risk of seeing reductions. It is important that as we get closer and closer to our climate goals, that at the same time, we don't abandon our support for the agricultural community. I strongly believe that this bond will have a tremendous impact not only for the agriculture industry, but our farm workers and other food workers. I would like to respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Wilson. Really appreciate efforts that have gone into this legislation. I know this has been a broad coalition to really address some of the challenges that the industry has faced, not only this year, but in previous years, and certainly understanding that the challenges are many and that this certainly, it doesn't seek to address all the challenges industry faces, but certainly is very focused on many of those challenges across the state. So with that, Madam Secretary, I need a motion. There's a motion by Senator Wood, second by Senator Joan Sawyer to pass this legislation to the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll on AB 408. Wilson Motion do pass to Natural Resources Committee.[Roll Call] That Bill is out. Thank you Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you. And our final item of the day, certainly last and never the least, here is assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, longtime Member of Assembly Agriculture Committee from the great City of Los Angeles. He will be presenting Assembly Bill 10116. Member Jones-Sawyer the microphone is all yours.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. For my inaugural agriculture Bill, I present AB 1016 with authorizes the Department of Pesticide Regulation to create a safe and robust program for unmanned vehicle aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, to be used for aerial pesticide application in California. Today, farms primarily use drones to capture soil health, water usage, and other farm data. A drone can be used to apply pesticides, but only if the applicator has trained alongside a fixed wing pilot in order to earn the requisite training before licensing.

This training requirement with fixed wing pilots creates regulatory misalignment, which limits the ability to train for and become a licensed pesticide aerial applicator in the state to federally licensed drone operators. As evidence of this misalignment, there are only 12 licensed drone aerial applicators in California, while there are hundreds of fixed air aerial applicators. Simply the skills training process required by the state is keeping this precision technology from entering our agriculture industry.

As such, AB 1016 authorizes DPR to create a credentialing program to safely train FAA licensed drone pilots to sit for the aerial applicator license. This Bill allows DPR to set up a program that helps integrate the technology into aerial applicator business in the safest manner possible. If drones were part of an aerial pesticide applicators toolkit today, the state would enhance food and worker safety while promoting agricultural workforce development.

By encouraging the adoption of precision agriculture technology, AB 1016 helps remove workers from direct contact with pesticides encourage rural students to work in agriculture related fields through the integration of technology allows farmers and applicators to efficiently apply pesticides by using the right tool for the right application, saving pesticides, water and aircraft fuel costs and impacts. Lastly, I look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders on this critical issue to find a way for the state to embrace this technology in a banner that keeps californian safe.

With me to speak in support of this Bill is Al Staley, a former farmer from San Diego. County. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon Chairman Rivas and Members. I'm honored to speak to you today in favor of this. My name is Al Stehly and I'm a third generation farmer from San Diego County where I grow avocados, citrus, and wine grapes, most of which are certified organic. I have been a licensed agricultural pesticide applicator, or QAL, for over 35 years and in that time have seen many advances in application technology that has resulted in improved efficacy and worker safety.

The UAV, or drone spray application, is relatively new technology, and many California farmers want the opportunity to utilize this safe and accurate technology. The obvious improvement to safety is the ability to remove the applicator from intimate contact with the spray equipment and pesticides. The drone allows the operator to apply the materials very precisely while remaining on the edge of the treatment area. The less obvious improvement to worker safety is that for my crew, a UAV would eliminate the use of mist blowers.

A mist blower is basically a leaf blower with a tank of chemicals weighing about 60 pounds, fully loaded that is carried on the back of the field worker. The field worker trudges through the vineyard trying to maintain a uniform walking speed and application rate while climbing up and down hills, avoiding rocks and gopher holes. With drone spray technology, we can not only remove the worker from the application area, we are removing a heavy gas driven sprayer and chemical filled tank from their back.

Finally, drone technology ensures uniformity of coverage. It flies and applies materials at the same speed, no matter what the terrain is. For these reasons, I ordered and purchased a drone, a $20,000 investment, and we have secured two of the three FAA licenses needed to operate it. I say we because three of my employees are joining me on this journey into this new technology.

By far the most difficult hurdle to clear is the apprenticeship and Journeyman process currently required to obtain a license to use a drone for pesticide applications in California. I believe AB 1016 gives the Department of Pesticide Regulation direction and flexibility to craft a clearer path for farmers like me to get licensed without compromising the safety of field workers or the public. California is second to none in promoting and regulating safe pesticide use, and this Bill will ensure that that continues.

A drone used to apply chemicals or spread beneficial insects is not a substitute or replacement for conventional aerial applications. Drone technology will only be used where a helicopter or fixed wing application would not be efficient or cost effective. In a counties such as San Diego, where the average farm is less than 10 acres, drone technology will benefit not only small vineyards and groves but also specific treatments in larger acreage operations.

In my own operation, we will continue to lean heavily on aerial applicators that we have used for over 35 years as my drone is no match when it comes to spraying large groves of trees or a large vineyard. Thank you for allowing me to testify about AB 1016. I truly believe that drone spray technology will make pesticide and fungicide applications safer for the workers and more effective than the ground based application.

And thank you for your testimony. Also have a note here that Terry Gage is here to provide some testimony as well. Yes, please.

Good morning, everyone. As the Chairman indicated. I'm Terry Gage with the California Agricultural Aircraft Association. I'd like to thank all the Committee for being here and I especially would like to thank the author for bringing this Bill to our attention and listening to some of our concerns and the sponsor of the Bill, we met with them and we're talking through some concerns that we have. But we really appreciate the willingness that the author has to engage.

So thank you very much and your staff has been great on this.

Okay. Since 1945, CAAA has represented the professional aerial application industry in California. Our membership runs from the Oregon border all the way down to the Mexican border. We have about just over 40 operator Members and we represent about 150 flying, actively flying pilots. All of our pilots are highly trained, skilled professionals and they average about 25 years of experience and they've flown over that experience over millions of acres. So we know aerial application technology. We believe there are some benefits to drone technology.

Thank you.

There is a place for drone technology in agriculture, but it's really important that we focus on safety and we roll this technology out slowly both for the benefit of our communities and our environment and our pilots. Frankly, we're concerned about the safety of our pilots out there making applications near where these units may be flying. As these discussions continue, we encourage the author to pursue a framework again like he's been very actively in licensing and accreditation.

And we look forward to continuing our conversations to come to a common ground that we think we can all be happy with and move forward in the right direction with this technology. Thank you.

Fantastic. And thank you for your comments. And so at this time we would like to open up for public comment any Members of the audience that wish to register their support or opposition for this Bill. Now's the time to do so.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Thank you for having us here today. Peter Ansel from the California Farm Bureau, proud to sponsor and support the Bill.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public see none. I will kick it back to our Committee, Assembly Member Wood.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones-Sawyer, for bringing this Bill forward. A question to the witness in opposition of the Bill at this point.

I want to clarify. We are not in opposition. We have not taken a position. So just, I think you indicated earlier we needed to state that. I apologize for not saying...

We'll call you a tweener then. I understand that the requirements are pretty strict with regard to agriculture, which is why the Bill is before us. I'm not aware that they're that strict anywhere else, so enlighten me, if you will. For example, I had a call or a Zoom meeting yesterday with folks from the mosquito and vector control district that are using drone technology.

I'm not aware that they are required to do what's being asked of agricultural this is protecting public health and safety. Also know that utilities use drones to fly over lines to see if the lines have been damaged. Drones are used in a variety of ways, but I've never heard of this requirement to be trained side by side with a fixed wing aircraft. So what makes this so different than a public agency flying drones for mosquito control? Help me understand that.

Sure. Well, one thing to clarify, there's a little misunderstanding with the current apprenticeship and Journeyman program. With the current apprenticeship and Journeyman program, you either fly depending on what type of aircraft you fly. If you fly a rotor wing aircraft, you fly under a rotor wing pilot. If you fly a fixed wing, you fly under a fixed wing pilot. So it's not specific to fixed wing is what I'm saying. There's a variety of pilots out there that you could fly under.

As long as he's a dirtyman pilot, he could supervise you into the know. California has some of the most stringent regulatory requirements when it comes to pesticide application. We have a lot of environmental concerns. We have a lot of urban and rural encroachment issues. We have to be very careful on those applications that we make that we don't have unintended consequences, and we maintain those products on site.

When it comes to our concern with the agricultural side of this is even us EPA is saying they don't have any data on the deposition of these units. So I do agree with the author and the sponsor know for spot applications, this could be a very effective tool out in the middle of nowhere. And that's frankly what a lot of unmanned, sorry, vector control do. Ultra Low volume rates. We don't do that in California, not in agriculture.

We do heavier volume rates, so they're putting out a lot less product in a lot more specific areas away typically from the public. So not knowing the efficacy and the deposition and the aerial spray dynamics of these units, these are all the things that concern us, mainly because we're in an environment where people are very concerned about pesticides, and we can't afford any missteps with this. So we think that there's opportunity, again, for this unit, these platforms.

But I think we need to move carefully and cautiously and try to figure out what they do, what they don't do well, and use them in that particular matter. EPA is still figuring out how to regulate them, and the FAA is frankly, figuring out how to regulate them.

Yeah, and I appreciate that concern. I guess I would just note that the mosquito and vector control people were thrilled because they can apply very efficiently Low volumes, and there's nothing that gets more people more wound up than pesticides in the air. And I'm not aware of any of some of the current requirements that are facing agricultural entities being on these pilots that are flying these, and they're flying like, 40 gallons of material at a time.

That's pretty good size, pretty good sized drone to carry 40 gallons of spray around. So I don't even know what you guys are using in the ag world. I mean, does it look like a 747 or does it look like. I don't know, but 40 gallons seems like a pretty good size. I know what a 50 gallon drum looks like. Mine's 30 liters or eight gallons. Okay. Yeah. So a third or actually 20% of. And the mist blower that it replaces only carries four gallons.

So we are already doing ultra Low volume, but we're doing it by hand with the instrument on their back.

Well, I just want to thank you for the discussion. I want to say I want to support your Bill. I'd love to be added as a co author if it leaves the Committee.

Be my honor to have you there, sir.

Any other questions, Mr. Chair? Comments? Mr. Alanis, if you don't mind.

So I was one of the founders of our drone unit. From where I'm from, I actually got to be policy and procedure writer for the OES, for the state with drones. My biggest hurdle with our air unit was they thought that I was going to replace them, but it was just to complement them and obviously fill in the gaps as we've spoke today. So I'm glad that we're looking into that and we're making this possible. So thank you. I'll be supporting this.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Jones-Sawyer. I appreciate you bringing this forward, and I appreciate the ag aviators engaging in the conversations that are happening. I think the biggest concern overall is just safety in General.

As mentioned already, when it comes to pesticides, when it comes to anything, you get into Hazmat, you get into OSHA training, you get into these different things of making sure that people fully understand what it is they're putting in the tank and that the safety of that person, as well as where it's going to be applied, comes into play when it comes to pesticide.

I mean, the numerous regulations, especially when you get into proximity of schools, when you get into drift, when you get into other things. It's not that the gentleman here, not that you wouldn't understand this, sir, but there are other people that are going to go out and be like, oh, well, I can spray with a drone who haven't read up on it. And we want to make sure that you don't have somebody just willy nilly going out there.

So I think it's important that we make sure every aspect of this gets drawn down. When I did army transportation and logistics, when you wanted to become Hazmat certified, you didn't just take the kid out that learned how to drive a Humvee and put them in an 18 Wheeler hauling Hazmat, you went through a process, you went through training to make sure they understood what they were carrying and what the implementations of that are.

I just want to make sure that going forward, you really look in depth at what it is on the hazmat side, on the safety side for pesticides. That way, applicators, whether it's pilots or drone pilots, understand the ramifications of what they're spraying and the safety regulations and everything else. I know there's a lot of talk of, okay, well, they're not directly spraying, but you still have to load the rig. You still have to do that.

There's still concerns and procedures that need to be taken on that to make sure everybody's taken care of. So I appreciate you working with everybody on this. I will be supporting it today. I look forward to the final product and making sure that it's aligned. Thank you.

Thank you.

There's a motion by Member Soria. Is there a second 2nd by Member Wood? Okay. And the motion is do pass to the Assembly, the Committee on privacy and consumer Protection. Madam Secretary, please call the role. Thank you.

On AB 1016, Jones-Sawyer, do pass to privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [Roll call].

All right. That Bill is out. And so that wraps up our meeting, Madam Secretary. If we can get those missing votes from the Members that were absent on.

On the consent calendar, we have AB 605, Arambula and AB 1141, Megan Dahle. [Roll Call]

Consent calendars out.

And then on AB 239, Wilson. [Roll Call]

If we could take conversations outside, please. Is that it? Okay. Fantastic. We stand adjourned.