Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via our teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 621-7161. I will maintain decorum during the hearing.

As is customary, we are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street Building, and I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2100 so that we can establish quorum and begin our hearing. But for now, we'll start as a Subcommitee. I do have one announcement to make, that for this hearing, Senator Becker will be replacing Senator Henry Stern, who is unavailable for good reasons. So today we have 12 bills on the agenda.

The hearing will start with the special order of business for one bill, and then the remaining bills will be heard in file order. One bill, file item number one, SB 559, Min is testimony only. Three bills are on proposed consent: file item number three, SB 668, author Dodd, SB 539, Stern, and file item nine, SB 550, Senator Grove. Since we don't have a quorum, we'll go ahead and proceed with a Subcommitee and we'll establish quorum later.

So with that, I guess it is me.

Thank you. As the definite ranking Member present of all the others that are present behind the Chair, I am going to Chair this portion of the hearing. And item number one is SB 559, Senator Min, and it is testimony only. So we're going to hear from Senator Min and then go to testimony in the room or testimony on the teleconference and then that should run the course. So welcome to your Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're doing a fine job today. Welcome and thank you to my fellow Members, Chair Laird. I'm here to present SB 559, which seeks to end the practice of offshore oil drilling in California's state waters. This bill impacts just three offshore oil rigs, Eva, Emmy and Esther, all of which currently operate off the coast of Orange County. These platforms were constructed between 1963 and 1985 and are the last remaining oil platform still in operation in state waters.

Now entering 60 years of life, these platforms have outlasted their intended lifespan and if left to operate, will continue to pose a threat to our marine ecosystem's coastal communities and our state's vibrant coastal economy. As we all well know, in October 2021, a major oil spill took place off the coast of Orange County. Approximately 25,000 gallons of oil spilled into coastal waters, killing birds and fish, forcing beach closures and harming local economies.

It took nearly 1500 people and almost $3 million in state funds to clean up the spill. First responders have reported that the oil leak stretched over hundreds of miles from the coast off of Huntington Beach, down past the Mexican border. And by the way, we did avoid the worst case scenario in this particular spill, as the initial estimates could have been far, far worse on the scale of Refugio Beach.

Just as coastal businesses started to recover from this event, two months later, platform Eva experienced a leak. Offshore oil production in both federal and state waters off the coast of California accounts for less than 0.3% of annual production in the United States each year.

It's less than a drop in the bucket of US oil production, and yet it poses a continued threat to our coastal economies due to the outdated infrastructure, a coastal economy that here in California is estimated to generate nearly $2 trillion a year in revenue. It's time to stop pollution where it starts, and to aid the state in its transition towards more sustainable resource procurement while protecting our beautiful coastlines.

SB 559 would direct the State Lands Commission to begin negotiations for voluntary relinquishment of oil production in California state waters, offshore oil and gas leases by December 31, 2025. If negotiations were not reached or did not result in a settlement by the end of 2025, this bill would require State Lands Commission to terminate the leases of oil production in state waters. Now, there is currently a cost study underway that can potentially inform what shape this bill should take next year.

And so, as of now, SB 559 remains a work in progress. That being said, I think it's imperative that we continue the conversation about ending offshore oil production in this state as we move to our clean energy future but also as we look to preserve our coastal economy. We owe it to future generations to meet our energy targets while preserving the natural beauty of our coastlines. With that, I want to thank Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee for this discussion.

And, Senator, do you have any lead witnesses?

We do not today.

Okay, then we will go to the Committee room and we will ask if there are any witnesses in support of this bill. Please come to that microphone right there.

Good morning, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support. We note that our support of the bill is premised upon an expectation that the fair compensation to oil companies contemplated by the bill following termination of the leases would be zero.

We base this assumption on facts, including continued operation of the leases constitutes a public nuisance, the abatement of which does not constitute a taking, and the decommission and restoration costs of removal of the platforms and other infrastructure with the leases likely far exceed any remnant value of continued operation of the leases. Oil and gas production has long polluted and disrupted coastal marine environments, imposing continuing risks on coastal communities' economies, health, and environments. Much of the infrastructure is old and corroded, long past its lifespan.

Aging infrastructure with limited deliverables risk stranded assets as industry offloads decommissioning and cleanup obligations upon the public. The 11 remaining active oil and gas leases and only three active offshore platforms in state waters pose ongoing and unacceptable threats to the $44 billion coastal economy and is in conflict with California Climate Policy. Thank you.

Thank you. And I let you go because we had no lead witness, and I'll do the same thing for the opposition before we get to the me toos. Is there anybody else that wishes to do a me too in support of this bill? Seeing none. Is there anyone that wishes to speak in opposition? Perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Paul Deiro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. As we know and as the Senator described, the bill requires the State Lands Commission to terminate all remaining oil and gas leases under its jurisdiction in tidelands and submerged lands within state waters.

Whether or not there is an agreement between the state and the operators for these leases, unilaterally determinating long standing contracts that effectively go into perpetuity, this bill has the potential of being unconstitutional, could result in substantial liability to the state for takings claims. As you know, we import over 75% of our oil that the refineries need to meet the demand of California drivers. We import them all from foreign countries. They come here via vessels.

This would produce further reliance on foreign oil imports, creates risk, and could impact our energy supply, market volatility, international turmoil, global environmental quality, and increased global air emissions. We do not at this point believe that the cost study is an adequate solution to address the potential takings issues, and for those reasons, we stand opposed to the bill.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody that wishes to simply state their opposition in the room. Seeing none. We will go to the teleconference line. Moderator, welcome. We will take anyone that wishes to briefly testify on this bill, whether in support or opposition.

If you would like to provide public testimony for SB 559, please press one and then zero at this time. That command again: one, then zero. And we have no comments at this time.

Thank you very much, Moderator. I am sure, Chairman Min, it's going to be back to you in a little while. This was testimony only. Does that include if anybody wants to ask you questions from the Committee? I don't have any, and I don't think you want to ask questions of yourself. So this is fairly much a mood issue. Great. Then that completes the testimony and the testimony only. And I'm happy to turn the Chair back to Senator Min.

Thank you, Chairman Laird. I believe at this moment, we are waiting on our next bill presenters, so we'll sit tight.

I have bills if you want.

Yeah, let's go ahead and present Senator Laird's bills.

You want me to walk around? Okay.

Get your steps in, sir. Number six here. Welcome, Senator Laird. You may present your bill, SB 39.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In 2004, the last year in the Legislature that you could tombstone a bill, the governor signed the Laird-Leslie Act to create the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy had two goals, environmental protection and economic development. Part of the arrangement was that there would be six members of the board that would be local elected officials, and there are zones within the Sierra Conservancy that each local elected official runs from.

In 2021, Senator Dahle authored SB 208, which I was a co-author of, that added territory to the Sierra Conservancy and added, actually, new counties. And so it requires a realignment of the counties for the selection of the different local officials. This bill does that realignment. It was recommended in the annual report to the Legislature by the Conservancy.

And I should note that Senator Dahle has a bill this year, SB 481, that would add acreage to the Sierra Conservancy in Siskiyou County, but it wouldn't add counties. So if this bill moves ahead, it wouldn't require revision if that other bill passes. This bill has bipartisan support, no registered opposition. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, do we have any lead witnesses in support?

I don't believe we do.

All right. And any others in the room wishing to testify in support of this bill? Okay, do we have any other support witnesses here in room 2100? Okay, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Okay, do we have anyone in the room who would like to express their opposition to SB 39? Okay. With that, we'll move on to the witness. Any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Operator? Moderator, if you'd please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 39, we could begin.

If you would like to provide public testimony for SB 39, please press one, then zero; that command again, one, then zero.

Thank you, Moderator. If you could please open the lines and call on any witnesses individually, we can continue.

We have one person queuing up. One moment, please while we provide them per line number.

And we will hear from line 10.

Good morning, Chair and Members. This is Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you.

Moderator, do we have any other witnesses queued up?

Mr. Chair, we have no further witnesses at this time.

Okay. And since we don't have any Members here, there's no other Members with questions or comments, since I don't have any. Senator Laird, would you like to close?

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Senator Laird, we'll wait till we have others to take a motion to vote on this bill. With that, we can have you present SB 272.

Thank you very much. Senate Bill 272 will boost our state's coastal resiliency by ensuring California's coastal communities are planning and prepared for sea level rise. It builds off of the Pro Tem's SB 1 on sea level rise and follows her efforts with guidelines and processes for carrying out the local planning laid out in her bill.

The bill requires a local government within the coastal zone or the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, also known as BCDC, to address sea level rise planning and adaptation through an existing local coastal program or a San Francisco Bay shoreline coastal resiliency plan. It sets a deadline of January 2034 with the goal of completing plans by January 2029.

A sea level rise plan must include the best use of available science, a vulnerability assessment, a sea level rise adaptation plan, a timeline for updates. The issue here has been accentuated by the atmospheric rivers that have hit California in the last few months. If you look just at my district, which is ground zero for the atmospheric rivers, that has suffered tremendous impacts.

In my own hometown of Santa Cruz, our iconic Westcliffe Drive, which is 2.7 miles out from the boardwalk to the Natural Bridges Park, the waves crashed over the road and parts of the road fell into the ocean, and it is quite likely that they will never be able to be restored. And so there's a horrible decision to be made about how to secure it for now and what to plan for in the future. That happened in many other places.

In Carmel, the waves came into the lagoon. Sewer pipes were going out into midair from the beach. There's a question about how to plan for that. Big Sur is the poster child for trying to figure it out with the slides that have closed the highway.

And in Morro Bay, we were lucky enough that weeks before the atmospheric rivers hit, the sewer treatment plant was closed, a new recycling plant away from the beach was opened, or there would have been a catastrophic failure of raw sewage in the ocean. These are planning items that each individual jurisdiction is going to have to do. And so that's what this bill does.

It will look familiar to you because it passed through this Committee in a nearly identical form with bipartisan support last year with the support of every returning Senator that's sitting here today. But the governor believed when it got to his desk that there was not money here, even though it was subject to appropriation in the bill and there was money in the bond or the climate resiliency package that was approved in the budget last year. So it's very disappointing.

And now the atmospheric rivers have really made the case for it. And some of us also want to make sure the 43% cut in the budget is not made. And so this is a vehicle for making sure this planning goes ahead and is funded by the budget. And the case has been made the last few months for doing it. As currently written, the League of Cities in the California State Association of Counties have laid off an opposing the bill. And I see some of them here.

We may hear from them. I worked hard last year to address their concerns and was able to move them to neutral on this bill. So I have here to speak and support Sarah Griffin with the Surfrider Foundation. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, honorable Members of the Senate. My name is Sarah Griffin, and I'm here to proudly support Senate Bill 272 on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation. Surfrider protects the beloved coastline that has drawn so many of us to California. As you are well aware, sea level rise is squeezing our beaches. For those of us who live on the coast, we are seeing one of the greatest land battles of our time play out.

Developers, businesses, property owners, industry, and governments all want a piece of this shrinking slice of land or to protect their coastal assets at all cost. Without proper planning, these public spaces and resources that define our coast will no longer exist. We have to let beaches move inward and relocate our infrastructure to places where it will not continually fail and flood. All of this takes local planning supported by the state.

Senate Bill 272 keeps California beaches in existence by requiring local governments to plan for sea level rise. Californians care about the coast, and we must urge forward thinking and planning to preserve our coastline. If we do not act, fail to plan, and instead respond through emergency armoring, our beaches will disappear. As a resident of Half Moon Bay, I'm seeing this firsthand.

The areas that were hit hardest by this winter's barrage of storm events and coastal flooding have become damaged with debris and polluted by sewage. Currently, there are areas we can't safely surf, walk, or access the ocean. Surfrider urges this Committee to move this bill forward with a yes vote today so we can keep beaches accessible, public, and enjoyable in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Laird, do you have any other witnesses here today?

No.

Any other people wishing to testify? We'll just ask you to limit your comments, your name, affiliation and position on the measure. Let's hear from any other support witnesses.

Robinson, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation and Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else here in support in the room? Okay, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Each side will be permitted two minutes for the two primary witnesses. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alex Torres here, Director of State Government Relations for the Bay Area Council. On behalf of our over 330 members, we are respectfully opposed unless amended at this time. But we want to acknowledge the author's office's efforts to hear us out. The Senator alluded to his efforts last year on a very similar bill to get opposition to neutral. I think we actually might be able to move into a support position and look forward to working forward those amendments.

Our organizations acknowledge climate change and support sound actions to limit it. Our problem with the measure as it sits now is that SB 272 would circumvent existing collaborative, multiyear efforts to establish agreeable adaptation guidelines. The ambiguous language presents additional obstacles for implementation of the state mandated local program. 272 does not acknowledge two existing sea level rise planning efforts developed with widespread agreement on key principles and direction for action from a diverse group of public and private stakeholders.

One effort by the Coastal Commission, the other by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Essentially, a lot of collaboration and work went into these existing regional efforts that aren't accounted for in the bill, and we see that as a significant challenge and one that would leave a lot of institutional knowledge, collaboration on the table.

Lastly, it's our understanding as drafted 272 is intended to be entirely incentive based in the sole consequence in that the sole consequence for a local government that does not adopt and submit a local plan determined to be consistent with the applicable guidelines of the Coastal Commission or BCDC is that it shall not be prioritized for sea level rise funding appropriated by the Legislature.

We believe it's important to make clear that nothing in the bill establishes any other form of penalty or consequence, including any restriction or limitation on planning and development approvals. But like I said, we have some amendments we've submitted the author's office.

I appreciate that. Primary witness in opposition limited to two minutes.

Yeah, I'll be very quick, Mr. Chairman, Members. Sylvio Ferrari, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area; similarly positioned as the Bay Area Council who just spoke, and we agree with the amendments that they've submitted, and we actually know if we can look to those previous processes, we're going to be able to incorporate some great metrics that can really create a win win for everybody. So look forward to working on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to anyone who is wishing to testify in this room in opposition, limiting their comments, their name, affiliation and position on the measure.

Chair, Members, Nick Romo with the Legal California Cities. If I may confirm our neutrality and our respect for the Senator, it's not without some trepidation. LCP process is a long and costly process and some work, as you noted in the analysis while underway. So we hope to work with you. Thank you.

Thank you. And just if we could limit that to name, position, affiliation. Anyone else in the room? Okay. With that, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Those wishing to testify should limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measure. Moderator, if you could please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 272, we can begin.

If you would like to provide public testimony in support or opposition for SB 272, please press one, then zero. That command again: one, then zero.

Thank you, Moderator. How many folks do we have waiting to testify?

Right now, just one.

Okay. Thank you. Moderator, if you could please open the lines and call them, that person will continue.

Line 15, please go ahead.

Hi. That person is Daniel Gluesenkamp with the California Institute for Biodiversity in strong support of SB 272 and all the work to advance coastal resilience and save intertidal biodiversity. Thank you.

Moderator, do we have anyone else on the line?

Mr. Chair, we have no further comments at this time.

Okay with that, since we do have a quorum here, I'd like to just establish quorum at this point in time. Let's see, where am I looking here? Quorum has been established. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call] Quorum is established.

Assistant has noted a quorum has been established. With that, the Committee membership has been provided Committee rules for review. Without objection, the Committee rules for the 2023 to 2024 Legislative session will be adopted. Okay. With that we can return back to--we'll take it back to Members. And I do have some brief comments myself or do we have any questions from the dais? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, my good colleague, the former secretary of Natural Resources, who's very educated on this subject matter and many others. You are one of the most amenable colleagues that I serve with on the State Senate. And so I know that you worked really hard last year to make sure that you removed all the opposition. Is it your intent to work with this? Because it's a Bay Area bill, right. It's your area, your bill.

But I do have a sympathetic heart for people that have collaborated and worked together, like the cities and other organizations that have built this long term collaboration to make sure the needs of the city is met with building and everything, but also protecting the shoreline.

Well, the short answer to your question is yes. I was going to mention in the close that there are lots of issues that I think are between some of the organizations and BCDC in this instance. And it puts me in a role of having to mediate it a little. I will figure it out.

I will figure it out. My goal is to address their issues and move them to neutral or support and move this bill along.

You will figure it out.

Thank you.

Thank you for asking.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any other questions from Committee Members? Thank you. And I'd like to thank you, Senator Laird, for all your leadership and attention to the issue of sea level rise. And I know that you worked very hard last year, as you described, to try to get this to a place where most folks felt reasonably happy with it. And I appreciate that effort and working with all stakeholders and the administration.

With that, I'm supporting the bill today without amendments because I want to see you continue to work to try to allow those negotiations to continue. And I hope you'll continue to work with me and the Committee staff as this bill moves forward.

Thank you. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, just to add a comment and thank the author for his work to bring collaboration to the maximum extent possible. I'll echo the Chair's comments.

And just as someone who's dealt with this issue extensively up and down the coast of California, one of the great regrets that I observed was the sort of incomplete process that your bill seems to address, which is the state would invest financially in supporting the planning process with local partners and special district partners and port partners up and down the state, only to have disagreement over the concept, the content, excuse me, of local coastal plan amendments, port master plan amendments to then fall apart before pre-certification occurred with coastal and to withdraw their application at the last minute, both throwing away all the time that was invested and throwing away the state's financial commitment in supporting the time that was invested.

So it seems to me that this is an overdue effort to remedy that and to get everyone in partnership focused on doing the resiliency planning that needs to be done. I'm happy to support, and I thank you.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Any other comments or questions from Members? Thank you. Senator Laird, would you like to close?

Just I really appreciate the discussion. Reiterate my commitment, respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you.

The bill has been moved by Senator Eggman. The motion is do passed to governance and finance assistant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Currently at 6-0, we'll leave the Bill on call. Wanted to revisit SB 39 with Senator Laird, presented just a few moments ago. Do we have a motion on SB 39 moved by Senator Eggman? Assistant? Please call the roll. And. I'm sorry, the motion is do pass to appropriations.

SB 39 motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote is 6-0, and we'll leave that Bill on call with that, since we do have a quorum, I'd like to also just mention that we have three bills on consent. File item number three, SB 668. File item number eight, SB 539. And file item number nine, SB 550.

Mr. Chair, I move the consent calendar.

I'll move by Senator Laird with that assistant. Can we please call the roll,

[Roll Call]

The vote count on our consent calendar is 7-0. We'll leave that on. Call our next presenter, Senator Dahle. You look prepared. You can present your Bill, SB 361.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. SB 361 directs the Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Water Resources to reactivate, upgrade and install new stream gauges and develop a plan to Fund their long term maintenance. I'm happy to accept the suggested amendments on pages 4 and 5 of the analysis, California must prepare for extreme climate change related events, including droughts and floods. It is critical that the state effectively manage water across all year types to maximize the benefits of limited water supply.

To do so, California needs to understand how much water flows down rivers and streams and when those flows occur. For example, during extremely wet times. Like the recent series of atmospheric rivers, stream gauges help assess risks downstream and can inform emergency measures to protect lives, infrastructure and property. Currently, there's a lack of transparency, consistency, and access associated with the quality and accuracy of various sources of water data.

70% of local watersheds have no history of stream gauging, and less than half provide data on key metrics for water management. In addition, many of the active gauges do not provide real time reporting. In 2019, I authored SB 19, which required the Water Board at DWR to develop a plan to deploy a network of stream gauges. The Board Department did an excellent job of completing the plan. This year, SB 361 takes the next step in directing the implementation of the recommendations made in the plan.

I urge your I vote on this critically important water management Bill. With me today is Caitlin Redner, representing the Environmental Defense Fund, and Kurt Klossmayer, representing the Nature Conservancy in support of this Bill.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you very much. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Caitlin Rodner Sutter, California Director for Environmental Defense Fund. I'm here to ask for your support for SB 361. Climate change has brought a new, drier reality to California, punctuated by increasingly frequent and more intense storms, kind of like what we're experiencing today. Making effective water management decisions under these conditions requires an understanding of how much water flows down rivers and streams and when those flows occur.

Managing our water system without this information is akin to managing a budget without understanding how much income we have or how much we are spending. Stream gauges and other water data infrastructure are critical tools in gathering this information so we can make informed decisions. EDF has an extensive history developing tools and supporting better water data for decision makers.

We developed an open source groundwater accounting platform and co developed a new web application called Opentet to enable farmers and water agencies to accurately track water consumption using data from satellites and other water stations. Additionally, our staff provided support for the Open and Transparent Water Data act and co founded the California Water Data Consortium.

Comprehensive streamflow information and other water data are essential to manage water for multiple needs, including flood protection, water quality, water supply, and protection of freshwater ecosystems by facilitating the creation of a robust and reliable network. This Bill will allow local agencies, along with state and federal agencies, to manage our water more effectively. So we're very appreciative of Senator Razad's leadership in this space over the years and ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses in support? May proceed.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Kirk Clausemeyer and I work for the Nature Conservancy. I'm the Director of data science. For the past eight years, we've been working on promoting the importance of water data in California, and we've partnered with Senator Dodd to help support SB 19. I served on the technical Advisory Committee for the California Stream Gauging Prioritization plan. One thing we learned is that managing water in California is difficult.

Asking managers to do it without data is like asking a person to navigate a dark room with a blindfold on and their hands tied behind their back. It's going to be painful, and they'll probably make some mistakes. We're asking you today to vote I on this Bill to make a comprehensive stream gauging network in California to improve flood safety, improve water supply and water quality, and to improve the health of our freshwater ecosystems.

I love data, and it hurts me to see that 70% of our watersheds have no data in them, no history of stream gauging, and no current stream gauges. It makes my job finding adequate flows for ecosystems very difficult. We're at a key moment right now where the water managers have authored a plan that outlines specific locations and the costs to make a comprehensive stream gauge network. This Bill basically gives them a deadline.

And I don't know about you, but I certainly work better when I have a deadline. The deadline is 2030, and so there's plenty of time to get this done. To close a comprehensive stream network is essential for water management in California, and I'm asking you to vote I in support of this to get our water managers out of the dark. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses here in room 2100? If you could limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure, that would be appreciated.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members Bob Reeb with Reeb government relations. On behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association and Solano County Water Agency in support.

Thank you.

Catherine Freeman, on behalf of CSAC, representing the 58 counties of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michael Miller with the California Association of Wine Group Growers. I'm also speaking on behalf of Wine Institute this morning, they asked me to express their support for the Bill. Sustainability stewardship are a big part of our iconic industry. We thank the author for his leadership on this issue, and we have full support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members of the Committee, Alex Loomer, on behalf of Trout Unlimited, California Trout South Yuba River, Citizens League, Greenbelt alliance, the Northern California Water Association, American Rivers and Defenders of Wildlife in strong support.

Thank you.

Sakira Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel. On behalf of California Municipal Utilities Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Christa Nelson, on behalf of the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority here in support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else here in support? Okay, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Again, each side is permitted two minutes for primary witnesses, but looks like we don't have anyone in opposition. So let's hear from any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100. No, all in support. Okay. With that, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Again, those wishing to testify should limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measure.

Moderator if you could, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 361. We will begin. If you would like to provide public testimony in support or opposition for SB 361, please press one, then zero. That command again. One, then zero. Thank you. Moderator if you can go ahead. I was just going to say we have two people queued up, and the first person is line 13. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates representing the California Association of Professional Scientists in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And next, we'll hear from line 10.

Good morning. Julia hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in Sports. Good.

And, Mr. Chair, there are no further comments at this time.

All right, well, thank you to all who testified. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Senator Laird.

I just have the comment that I think this is a really good bill. And if you look at the history of the need for measurements, even the reason that there are flood bypasses here is that for 80 years, flood control was built without understanding what it could hold, and there were floods that happened and measurement turned it. And there have been a number of bills to do this. This is really helpful to the process, and I would move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support the bill. I think it's really good that we monitor these streams. We need to know how much water is coming, and it's definitely something that is very supportable. We need to have that information. I do have a comment, though, and I know the bill doesn't address it. I would hope that, as I know, these things are very expensive, and putting them in position will be very expensive.

I would hope that this body would use the Environmental License Plate Fund, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, or the General Fund instead of pushing it back to water users. I know that's not addressed in the bill, but I know they're all in the plan that was brought forth that you had produced last year. So thank you for bringing this forward and following through and making sure that we do start measuring water in this state.

Thank you, Senator.

Anyone else on the Committee wish to speak or ask comments? Okay, Senator Dodd, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do we have a motion on SB 360? Senator Laird. Bill has been moved by Senator Laird. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Because not having a motion or recommendation is like having no data for water. Sorry. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Members. And the vote count is 7-0. We'll leave that on call. Senator Caballero in the room. Okay, Senator Jones, are you prepared to present? And we have SB 708, which we'll be presenting. Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Jones.

Thank you, Senator Min and Members. Before I start my presentation, if anybody's interested, I was down in Anza-Borrego last weekend, and the flowers are absolutely going off right now.

So I'd love to share any pictures with you if that helps get the bill approved this afternoon. Anyways, I'm here, Senator Min and Members, for SB 708. California balances recreational interests of off highway vehicles with the need to protect the environment. The great success of the OHV recreation has come from a clear understanding of the rules and the willingness of OHV organizations to share individual responsibility with their members. The OHV competition sticker program was discontinued by the California Air Resources Board for competition motorcycles after 2022.

However, the discontinuation of the sticker does not outlaw competition. So now we are left in a need of a way for law enforcement to clearly identify the vehicles and provide clear rules to event administrators. As most of you will remember, I've been working on this issue for four years, but last year's effort was vetoed by the governor due to its costs.

The governor did not have a problem with the policy, as he wrote in the veto message that he recognizes the economic benefits of OHV to rural communities. OHV competitions are popular with families and have made certain communities destination places for fans. We went back to the drawing board with the stakeholders and the administration within parks and forged what is now a much more straightforward solution based on existing programs such as the Snow Parks permit.

SB 708 creates a permit to identify offhighway competition motorcycles and makes permits available through the mail without requiring DMV to register and identify competition vehicles, like my previous bills did. This program will simply provide a clear and simple solution to identifying who is allowed on a competition course. I am proud to say there is no opposition. I have with me today Terry McHale of Aaron Read Associates and Don Amador of the OHV Coalition.

We'll move on to lead witnesses in support. And again, each side is permitted two minutes for each primary witnesses. Each of their two primary witnesses and all others wishing to testify should limit their comments to name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Go ahead, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Terry McHale with Aaron Read and Associates. First of all, I want to thank Catherine for all the hard work on this and the meetings we had. There is no opposition. This is a streamlined solution to a bureaucratic problem.

We want to make sure that those who are recreating during competition races are clearly and absolutely identified. This is what this does. The fees collected by state parks for this permit will be used to offset the cost of issuing the permit. It works. It's simple. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Good morning, Chair and the board Members. My name is Don Amador, government affairs with AMA District 36. We strongly support SB 708, a bill that will create an online sanctioned event permit program for model year 2022 and newer competition motorcycles that will be added, like you heard before, to an existing state park program. This new permit program is needed because CARB ended the red sticker program in 2021 with no subsequent identification process in place for the newer models.

That lack of a vehicle identification decal has caused chaos and confusion with numerous state and federal land management agencies when they're trying to identify those vehicles at sanctioned events on public lands. And also, importantly, 708 also restores fee monies that were once collected that were lost when the Red Sticker Program ended in 2021. Those funds will once again help riders pay for event related costs such as trail maintenance, conservation, and law enforcement.

Again, this new program would mirror current permits at state parks, including the OHV non resident sticker and the snowbark permits. We make the purchase of OHV non resident permits unnecessary for California residents trying to replace the obsolete red sticker decal. I ask for an aye vote by this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room?

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ashley Walker with Nossaman, on behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room in support? Okay. Any lead witnesses in opposition? No. Any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? No. Okay. We'll move on to any witnesses wishing to testify via the telephone service. Again, those wishing to testify should limit their comments, their name, affiliation and position on the measure. Moderator, if you could please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 708, we will begin.

If you would like to provide public testimony in support or opposition for SB 708, please press one, then zero. That command again: one, then zero. And we have one person queued up. First, we will hear from line 12.

Thank you, Moderator.

Chairman and Members, James Lombardo on behalf of the California Motorcycle Dealers Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you for all our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments on this? Okay, so we have a motion to move the bill. Senator Jones, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Grove has moved the bill. The motion is do pass as amended to transportation. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote count is 7-0, and we'll leave that Bill on call. For remaining Members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Jones. Okay, our next presenter, since Senator Caballero is not here, Senator Eggman, are you prepared to present? Thank you. Senator Eggman, you have two bills today, SB 586 and SB 638, and you may present when ready.

Thank you very much, and good morning to all of you here today. I am presenting SB 586, and I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments on this Bill. Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, California began to reevaluate our own levy systems, and through that, passed a $4 billion bond, the last flood bond that was passed in the State of California.

And in 20081 of my predecessors supported SB five, which, among other things, included a deadline for projects located in the region to achieve a 200 year standard flood protection by 2025. Why 2025, do you say? Just kind of an arbitrary number that they put out there. And, of course, part of that rationale was, as somebody said before, if they don't have deadlines, people don't work towards things to keep people working towards the deadline.

Of course, funding these types of projects is a complex and lengthy process. You need support from the feds. Locals have to be able to do their part. And a lot of that is you raise the money through development fees. And, of course, if you don't build, then you don't have development fees, then you can't do the projects because you can't partner with the Federal Government. And, of course, as you all know, relying on the Federal Government can be a lengthy process.

The Corps of Engineers is not always as nimble as you'd like. And so those processes or the deadlines often get delayed. And as you know, there's probably no way to get one of these big projects done without. So I've got a couple areas in my district, and we've taken the amendments that this will only apply to the Mossdale track area and to West Sacramento to do away with that deadline, because we've had to move it a couple of times.

And so this would just say everyone is working towards have, if you see our City of Lathrop, you see river islands, big, lovely projects that have really begun to transform my area in a way that much more livable. And we need more housing, right? We need places for people to. So we're asking, let's get rid of that artificial deadline as we continue to work towards improving our levees and keeping them all up to speed.

And with me today to testify is Scott Shapiro, the General counselor for the San Joaquin flood control area.

Thank you Senator Eggman. We'll move on to lead witnesses in support.

Good morning, Members of the Committee, Senators, thank you for the time to speak today. My name is Scott Shapiro. I'm General counsel for the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency. Our thanks to the Senator for introducing a very important Bill for our area as well as West Sacramento.

It's true that some of the best work that's been done in flood control in our Central Valley has been done as a result of partnerships with the Federal Government, nearly $3 billion of investment in the last 10 years. And that investment works best when it's a partnership of the state, the locals, and the feds, allowing us to spread our local and state money. Even better.

This Bill will align the deadline from an arbitrary 2025 to the deadlines of what's happening on the federal projects and create that flexibility. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have or fill in behind the Senator. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses in support? Anyone else in the room wishing to support?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Bob Reeb with Reeb government relations on behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members Karen Lange, on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of Stockton, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Audrey Ritaichek from cruise strategies on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room in support. Okay. Let's hear from lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any here today? No. Do we have any other opposition witnesses here today? Okay. We'll move on to witnesses wishing to testify via teleconference. Moderator could you please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 586.

if you would like to provide public testimony in support or opposition of SB 586, please press one, then zero at this time. And we have no comments at this time.

Okay. Thank you to all our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Any Members have questions? Senator Laird, I have a comment, and I'm going to happily support this Bill. As the analysis points out, I had one of the bills that was in the 2007 flood package, and it was really hard fought. My piece was about planning and evacuation and safety, but the liability and the developing in deep flood zones, it had some euphemism.

I can't remember what it was. Were the ones that stalled that package for three or four years and I appreciate the amendments you took that narrowed it to the two areas. That's really significant. My one concern is, and I just offer it because if people are listening, thinking this is a precedent for other areas, it concerns me.

And that is that the fact that in the description that an active federal project in planning, design, construction, or close out the Pajaro one, which is we got funded last year completely and we didn't make it in time for the construction with the flood happening, was in planning for 25 years. And so if you have planning as one of the items for which you can move off the deadline, that is really no deadline.

It just means that you can be working on planning and you can have the deadline moved off forever when people like in Pahro are in harm's way and you want every bit of pressure on it to move the projects. And believe me, I get the Army Corps of Engineers because it took the state changing how we finance projects in that one to really burp the money out of the Corps of Engineers and get it completely funded.

So I just wanted to make that comment, and I will happily move the Bill. Thank you, Senator. Alert anyone else? All right, so I do have some comments. As one, I shared some of the concerns of my colleague from Monterey. This has obviously been a year where even today we're experiencing a lot of rainfall. It's been an eventful year from a water perspective. And we're all familiar with the atmospheric rivers that have caused billions of dollars in damage around the state.

We're about to experience, I believe, our 15th atmospheric river this year. Now, this Bill, like flood management generally, is very complex. Central Valley has one of the highest flood risks in the nation. And on the one hand, we do want to give our locals the tools and flexibility necessary to partner with the US Army Corps of Engineers and get these important flood protection projects done to make sure that areas like the ones that our author represents achieve urban levels of flood protection that are adequate.

But obviously, these projects can and have been getting delayed. On the other hand, the last thing we want to do is exempt areas from adequate flood protection and potentially put people and businesses in harm's way.

So I know that the author has worked very, very diligently, including with our Committee staff, to try to get this Bill in a place where a lot of us feel more comfortable with it and finding that right balance between ensuring that residents are protected with common sense flood projection while making sure that we have progress on moving these projects forward.

So I appreciate, in particular, you narrowing this Bill to specific areas that have delayed Army Corp projects and reducing potential state liability for flood damages during the extended time periods. I want to thank the author for working with our staff and look forward to seeing this Bill. But with that, we do recommend an I vote here. And we do have a motion on SB 586 from Senator Laird. The motion is do pass is amended to governance and finance assistance. Please call the role.

[Roll Call]

6-0. And we'll leave that Bill on call.

Thank you very much.

All right. And Senator Eggman, are you prepared to present SB 638?

I am.

Fantastic. You may proceed.

Thank you very much. And this may seem like I'm backstepping, right? Because I say we want to give a little bit more flexibility, and then I say we're going to have floods and we need some more money. But they go hand in hand because, as I said in my earlier statement, we haven't had a flood bond in a long time. It is time now, as we've all seen.

So this is a proposal for a $6 billion bond that will provide critical funding for infrastructure throughout the state, but focused primarily in the Central Valley, as we have all seen and experienced. I have parts of my district underwater. I know Senator Grove does. I know Senator Laird does. And it's time for the state to take some more action on these projects. These are not about the storage projects where you have all the multi-benefit use.

We do have some carved into that for this, but this will be primarily for the Central Valley, where, as we all know, are the levee systems that not only protect people but move water up and down, provide for the agriculture that we all need all of these projects. With me today so that we know that if we don't do something, it's going to cost us well over trillions of dollars to be able to be reactive after it comes.

So it's this time to be proactive again to provide more funding for some of the projects in my district, others districts. And with me here today, I have Bob Reeb, on behalf of the bill sponsor, Central Valley Flood Association, who's been a great partner. We've been working with them since last year to get this just right, we hope. And also John Cain with River Partners.

Thank you. And as a reminder, each of you have two minutes to speak. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of California Central Valley Flood Control Association. It's a fact that California has been underinvesting in its flood protection system for decades. Without adequate investment in that system, California may expect as much as $3.2 billion in damages and 500 deaths on average per year in the Central Valley by 2072.

The California Central Valley Flood Protection Board was created back in 2007 and given additional duties and responsibilities with respect to the state plan of flood control facilities. They provided three updates to their or two updates to their initial plan in 2012. That 2022 update calls for a total investment of $25 to $30 billion in the Central Valley flood control system over 30 years. Our dams, levees, and weirs and bypasses are generally 75 years old.

Imagine driving down a freeway in your district that hasn't been repaired or improved in 75 years. That's what we're dealing with in our systems. It demands a significant state investment, but it's not the state on its own. The Federal Government funds 65% of the cost of federal flood control projects that protect our urban areas. So we're going to be able to leverage a lot of money from the Federal Government and from local agency participation in this measure.

I would just close by saying that the bill provides a robust amount of funding for the state plan of flood control facilities for urban projects outside of the Central Valley from San Diego all the way up the coast. And it also includes a very robust dam safety funding program, which is based on a program that the Newsom Administration, the Department of Water Resources, and a broad coalition of dam owners have been working on. And this would provide the funding at a 50% match for that program. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We have another witness.

Hello. My name is John Cain. I'm the conservation director at River Partners. River Partners is a nonprofit that focuses on floodplain restoration. Since our founding by farmers 25 years ago, we've restored 16,000 acres of floodplain, mostly in the Central Valley. River Partners is grateful for the senator's leadership on the proposed bond and supports the bond.

The investment that will be financed by the bond is necessary to implement the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan and prepare for a changing climate that will bring much larger floods and severe drought. Analysis from the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan estimates that damages from a major event could total $1 trillion in the Central Valley, damages that could be largely avoided, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, by implementing the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.

River Partners and several other nonprofit conservation organizations were very engaged in the development of the plan in 2012 and its updates in 17 and 22. The plan prioritizes multi-benefit flood management projects. It includes a conservation strategy to ensure that investments in the flood protection also improve ecosystem function along the rivers of the Central Valley. Perhaps most importantly, the plan calls for expanding our floodways and bypasses to accommodate the floods that climate change will bring.

It calls for expanding the Yolo bypass, creating a new flood bypass in the south delta between Stockton and Tracy to divert floodwaters away from urban areas in the Stockton metropolitan area. And it calls for large-scale floodplain restoration in the San Joaquin Valley, modeled after River Partners' Dos Rios project, which is featured on the COVID of the 2022 CVFPP and is also named the first state park by the Governor in 13 years, Dos Rio State Park.

River Partners is working with Senator Eggman and her staff to ensure that the bond will adequately fund floodway expansion, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, where peak floods are expected to triple in the next 50 years.

If you could close, that would be great.

The best way to keep our communities safe from flooding is to give rivers more room to convey floods and let floodwaters recharge aquifers. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses here in room 2100?

Good morning. Pilar Onate-Quintana, here for Yuba Water Agency, in support, and also Irvine Ranch Water District, support if amended with a particular note of thanks for the dam safety and climate resilience piece.

Thank you.

Hello. Kristin Olsen here on behalf of the San Diego County Water Authority and United Water Conservation District, here in support of SB 638, in particular the dam safety funding.

Thank you.

Nick Romo, on behalf of the League of California Cities. Appreciate the senator's leadership.

Thank you.

Andrea Abergel, with the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support, and request the author and Committee to consider Valley Water's amendments.

Thank you.

Manny Leon, from the California Alliance for Jobs, in support.

Thank you.

Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Serrano Water District, in support, specifically on the dam safety funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, senators. Adam Quinonez, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies with a support if amended position, happily working with the sponsor and author on amendments that would broaden some of the funding categories.

Thank you.

Good morning. Scott Shapiro again, general counsel for the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency and several dozen levee maintenance agencies in the Central Valley, supporting.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Bob Reeb again, on behalf of two of our other clients, the Solano County Water Agency and the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, in support.

Thank you. I guess that was kind of like a flood of support. Witnesses. Do we have any other witnesses in the room? Okay. Sorry, dad jokes. Okay. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? All right. Do we have any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? Okay. Moderator, we'll move to the teleconference service. If you could please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 638, that would be great.

If you would like to provide public testimony in support or opposition to SB 638, please press one, then zero. That command again. One, then zero. And we have two people queued up. First, we'll hear from line 19.

Good morning, Chair. Martin Radosevich on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District. No formal position yet, but we would like to urge dedicated funding to address sea level rise in coastal communities. We look forward to working with the author. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have one more person queued up. One moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. And we'll now go to line 18.

Good morning. This is Jack Blattner with the Sacramento metro Chamber, representing over 600 member businesses in the six county region. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you to all who have supported this bill. I will bring the discussion back to members. Senator Laird.

I'm a co-author of this, and I think it's because of the great leadership of Senator Eggman. She is just putting a stake in the ground that we have to do this, because 2006 was the last time there was a statewide flood bond. And we have some authorized projects now that aren't fully funded within the state pots, completely separate from the prospective ones that everybody was testifying about. And when she was first introducing it, I just expressed the desire that it be brought to every place in the state. Now we have seen why that's the issue. And I think our problem will probably be when you negotiate this, how do you cover everything that needs to be covered? How do you make progress? But this is an important thing, and I will happily move this item.

Any other comments or questions from fellow members? Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support the bill. I appreciate you bringing it forward, and I applaud you for all again working with the opposition. I just have one comment that will appear, actually it is very negative. I have one comment. It is very negative. Last year, we had $100 billion budget and we couldn't find $6 billion in a $100 billion budget to fund a project that, like my colleague, my good colleague, the former secretary of natural resources, said, we haven't had a flood bond in years. This is something that is drastically needed, according to other comments. And it is very disappointed that with $100 billion increase in budget for our flood control areas, for the total budget, we couldn't find 6 billion in last year's budget.

I know everybody talks about a deficit this year, but we still have $223 billion and it's all about priorities and how we spend money. So to go back to the tax cares disappoints me, but I desperately know we need it. So I applaud you for bringing it forward. But I do want to make that comment that it's about priorities and how we spend our money and we could have come up with $6 billion last year with $100 billion increase or increase in our budget. Thanks.

Senator Allen.

Yeah, I just want to also express my support for this. I know the next item on the agenda is our other bond and I know there's going to be some work underway between our offices and of course our partners on the Assembly side to see where this bond conversation goes. But lots of very important infrastructural needs associated with your proposal and looking forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, I want to make a comment as well. This is, as Senator Allen noted, one of two climate bond proposals the committee is going to hear today. And the committee is recommending a do pass for both bills so that work on them can continue. Certainly we have major flood protection needs, as has been alluded to, this is primarily a flood protection bond with some additional dam safety and other proposals.

And while I support that effort, we obviously want to make sure that we're not neglecting other climate resiliency priorities that we're facing across the state, including wildfire, drought, extreme heat mitigation, and so much more, including in districts like in Southern California. And so some of these topics like groundwater recharge and others are included in the bill.

But I do think more is needed, and I do think we also need to ensure that there is regional parity, equitable distribution as we talk about a bond that we may not see another bond proposal like this for some time if this gets out. So look forward to working with the author, having our staff work with the author as the bill moves forward. Look forward to seeing the discussions between the two proposals here. But thank you so much. And we do have a motion, I believe, at this point. Do we have a motion?

I'm sorry. Yes, please close.

May I close?

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I think these conversations are ongoing. I mean, I didn't wake up and say I want to do a flood bond. But when we look around on what's going on, we understand that something needs to be done, and we really want to put a stake down those of us in the Central Valley and the areas that are so prone to flood to say, whatever bigger things might come along, we have to be right at the table because this is urgent and we protect most of the infrastructure that really goes around the rest of state and not minimizing other needs that we have. But we are often overlooked.

And so we want to really make sure that we set this table with all of our partners, that we need to be there, any kind of larger bond that comes together, or we can just go ahead with this one to take care of our floods, protect people, and get that dam safety. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And sorry for almost cutting off that eloquent close.

I let you overdo me last time, but I was going to get my space in.

It's my second hearing, so my apologies. Senator Laird has moved the bill. The motion is do pass as amended to do pass to governance and finance. And assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill vote so far is 7 to 0. We'll leave that on call. Thank you, Senator Eggman. With that, Senator Caballero, are you prepared to present your Bill, SB 438? You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SB 438, a Bill that clarifies provisions from last year's carbon capture, removal, utilization and storage, or CCRUS Program. I want to be clear. I will be accepting the amendments 1 and 3 outlined in the Committee analysis. Amendment one clarifies that the inadvertent release of oil from a well, serving as an underground geologic storage facility and injecting carbon dioxide would be a class six well, as well as adds additional reporting language for such incidents.

And amendment three deletes section 1 and 4 related to the unified permit application and infrastructure pipelines. This amendment was at my office's request after stakeholder feedback. After further discussion with the Committee, I will not be accepting amendment number two related to Proposition 70, but will be removing section three in its entirety because that Proposition 70 language will be covered by Senator Dodd's SB 256. It was inadvertently stuck in my Bill, and I don't want to do anything to prejudice Senator Dodd's Bill.

So on to the Bill presentation. Climate change in California has increased in severity and poses a significant threat to public health, safety, the environment, and the economy. California has led the world to create policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to move our state to meet the goal to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2045. And I think it's really clear that we can't get there unless we do carbon capture.

Numerous experts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, Stanford University, Lawrence Libermore National Laboratory, UC Berkeley, UC Los Angeles, and the California Air Resources Control Board agree that carbon capture, removal, utilization and storage is critical and necessary component of climate change. And we've been working with most of these scientists in crafting the solutions that we've been proposing for carbon capture.

On September 16, 2022 Governor Newsom signed into law SB 905 as part of the historic Climate package establishing breakthrough policy for CCRUS application. An essential element and commitment in that Bill was to achieve carbon neutrality. The Bill established the carbon capture, removal, utilization and storage program to evaluate the safety and efficacy of carbon capture and removal technologies to maximize workforce benefits and protect frontline communities by minimizing impacts to health, safety and the environment from these new innovative technologies.

Since the passage of the Bill, several stakeholders and scientific researchers have assisted with recommendations to clarify the intent of the specific provisions that were contained in that Bill without changing the original direction or meaning of the policy. SB 438, as proposed to be amended, specifically clarifies that unintended residual oil that is expressed during sequestration is not and should not be considered enhanced oil recovery when there is no oil production well equipment present, there's no intention to have that be EOR.

This simple change will allow California to continue its work to balance efficient project approval processes with thorough health and safety guidelines and reporting mechanisms, and gives California an avenue for emission reduction projects while maintaining our strict environmental standards. Thank you for the opportunity to present this Bill today, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify and support is Virgil Welch from the California Carbon Solutions Coalition.

Please go ahead, Mr. Welch, and no more than two minutes.

Virgil Welch with the California Carbon Solutions Coalition. We're a business labor organization working to ensure that CCUS technologies can support achievement of California's climate goals, including carbon neutrality, in 2045. As the Senator mentioned last year, there was some tremendously important work done to advance the policy framework for CCUS in our state, both SB 905 and the Climate change scoping plan developed and adopted by the California Air Resources Board. California has a number of industries that can benefit from deployment of CCS technologies.

We have some of the best geology on the face of the earth to permanently and safely store emissions in furtherance of our climate goals. And we have a skilled workforce that can help to deploy this infrastructure and benefit from the jobs that we can create and maintain from CCUS technologies. So we've made a lot of progress in the right direction, as virtually every credible expert has identified. We are going to need this technology to meet our climate goals.

This Bill furthers those efforts, keeps up the momentum, and we're pleased to support this Bill as part of the larger effort to make sure that we can use CCUS technology to meet our climate goals in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other primary witnesses in support today? Please limit yourself to two minutes. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members Theo Peyos representing the Calpine Corporation. We are in strong support of this Bill. We'd just like to point out that this Bill does nothing to weaken the Limón Bill of last year to prohibit enhanced oil recovery. This is simply a technical cleanup that says, in case you happen to be storing CO2, you can imagine that in many of these sequestration sites, there was, at one time, could have been some oil that was produced, or maybe it was never produced, but you just get a little bit of residual oil that comes up.

There'd be no equipment to capture that oil and take it to market. It would simply be cleaned up. So it's purely a technical cleanup Bill. And for those reasons, we support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2100.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Israel Salas here with SoCal Gas and San Diego Gas and Electric in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Kristen Olsen here on behalf of DTE Energy in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here in support? Okay, we'll move on to any lead witnesses here in opposition. Do we have anyone here in opposition? You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition. CCS is a dangerous delay tactic championed by the fossil fuel industry and other polluters to continue business as usual while taking resources away from the needed transition to clean, cheaper, renewable energy. CCS has consistently proven to be exceptionally unsafe, ineffective, economically unsound, and unnecessary, despite decades of development and billions of dollars of investment. Bioenergy with CCS, or BECCS, comes with safety, health and climate dangers.

And given the heavy land use, resource requirements and logging needed to feed BECCS facilities, it adds unacceptable harms to biodiversity and ecosystems, the climate, food and water security and human rights. So CDR is not the same thing as CCS. There are IPCC pathways that don't require CCS. We need real solutions. CCS and BECCS are not viable or just climate solutions. We must invest in an equitable transition to clean, renewable solar and wind energy, battery storage and electrical vehicles. That upholds environmental justice, ensures no worker or community is left behind, and ends fossil fuels and other dirty energy. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses here in opposition? No. So with that, do we have any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? No. Okay. With that, we'll move on to the witnesses waiting to test. I'm sorry. Oh, we have one other. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Sorry it took a while to get up here.

Sorry about that.

Sakereh Carter on behalf of Sierra Club California in opposition.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else here in opposition? Okay, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Again, limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure. And for those wishing to testify or provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 621-7161 moderator if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 438, we could begin.

If you would like to provide public testimony in support or opposition. SB 438, please press one, then zero at this time. And, Mr. Chair, we have no comments at this time.

All right. With that, we'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Do we have any questions or comments from Members? Senator Becker?

Thank you. Just wanted to maybe follow up on something that was raised by one of the witnesses as well. Is your belief that doesn't weaken kind of the enhanced oil recovery pieces of the previous bills?

That's correct, yeah.

Okay.

If I could on that and get my good colleague who worked with me on this, is that the allegation and the possibility is that carbon capture and storage could be used as a way to extract oil and to continue the fossil fuel industry. We made it very clear in the Bill that passed last year that that was not going to be permitted. But as you're storing carbon, what you're doing, basically, is shoving the carbon into the pores way below the Earth's surface.

And that may, as part of the equalization, it may express some oil. But if there's no opportunity, if there's no setup, to be able to capture it and use it and use it as part of a production, then there's no problem. So the whole point of this is just to make it very clear that if there's no equipment there to be able to capture the oil and to put it in a pipe and to use it, that the expression of that oil from the carbon sequestration would not be in violation of the statute, the regulation that we passed.

Great. Well, good. Well, I do note some of the concerns raised by some of our friends in the environmental justice community. I know those will continue to be addressed going on. I know you're working on these, but I will be supporting this Bill today as an important part of the compromise we all worked on last year going forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I would move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Allen.

Yeah. Just associate myself with Senator Becker's comments, and I know the Bill is going to go to environmental quality. So happy to vote for the Bill today here in natural resources, and we'll be taking a look at it over there. So looking forward to that discussion.

Thank you, Senator Limón.

Thank you. And I will say that the author did, before the Bill was introduced, did reach out to our office to let us know. What I feel is important to also note is that in those moments where there is some kind of expression of oil that would need to be reported. So the Legislature in the aggregate would have information about how often this is or is not happening. And that to me, as the author of the 1314, the other Bill is helpful, right.

That this won't be kind of a practice that will just keep happening without notice. We will have the ability to notice, to monitor, to follow, and to ensure that in no way it veers off track to be like a backdoor to then creating an enhanced or recovery. So I think that that's part of the Bill, it's part of the conversation, and I will be supporting it for those reasons. So thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone else on the Committee have any questions or comments? I do want to just say, first of all, I thank you for your work here. Thank you for the testimony of your witnesses. We're obviously facing a severe climate crisis, and I think when you're facing something of the scale that the scientists are telling us we're facing, we have to take really a kitchen sink approach. Nothing can be off the table.

And I know there's some controversy around carbon capture and sequestration, but it is potentially a very important tool that might be useful in extracting carbon from the atmosphere. This is something that the Air Resources Board has said is a priority for them. This is a technical Bill, as I think one of your witnesses testified, and I appreciate you narrowing the scope of this Bill to make it a technical Bill, a cleanup Bill.

So I support the Bill with the amendments, and I thank you for your work and negotiations here. I'm sorry, and I almost forgot again. Senator Caballero, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank you for all the comments here today, the questions raised. And I want to second, what you had to say is that if this year has not caused anybody to pause and to say we absolutely have to do everything we can to focus on climate change, then I want to invite you to come to my district so that you can see the tremendous devastation it has wrought.

It doesn't end up because we don't have a good media system anymore in the state. You don't read it on the front page of the newspapers, but it's devastating. And if we have a strawberry production in the state, that'll be unusual because I've got thousands of acres underwater right now, and it's raining, so we can't take anything off the table. And not only that, but our energy needs are such that we've got to have a lot of options on the table.

And that's what this is all about, trying to make sure that we have the energy we need, we have the jobs that we're going to need, that we're looking forward to the future, and that we're sequestering carbon as quickly as possible. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Caballero, we have a motion by Senator Eggman to move the Bill. The motion is do pass as amended to environmental quality assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 867 today. Of course, let me first start by acknowledging that this is very much a work in progress. I've worked on several bonds in the past, and it always seems to go till the last minute. It's just the way things work around here.

So this Legislation, if enacted and passed by the voters next year, will provide funding for concrete steps for our state to reduce the impacts of rising global temperatures and extreme weather events, and invest in necessary preventative measures to protect our most vulnerable communities and our natural resources. We all know about the issues associated with climate change.

California's fourth climate assessment suggests that the cost of climate change for California alone could be more than $113,000,000,000 annually by 2050, which is a little mind blowing to get your head around. We, of course, had a historic climate budget in '21, '22 but only a quarter of that funding was spent on natural resources. And the Senator mentioned that earlier, actually, during the discussion over Senator Eggman's bond proposal.

So only a quarter of that funding was spent on natural resources designed to safeguard communities from fires and floods, droughts and extreme heat. And I think as we start to get our heads around this, the scale of what it will take to deliver a climate resilient California is really extraordinary. And the longer we wait to make these investments, the higher the cost will be to recover from the climate impacts as we go. What are some of those impacts? This year's extraordinary rainfall.

While easing drought conditions, which is very good, it's led to massive flooding and devastating communities and ravaging farmlands. In many of the towns that are in your districts, 20% of the state's population lives in flood prone areas. That number is expected to grow as climate change continues to set in and causes more concentrated rainstorms like the atmospheric rivers that we've seen this year, rather than the more frequent smaller showers, which our land can handle better.

The value of buildings vulnerable to flooding is estimated to be around 575,000,000,000, without the inclusion of public infrastructure, such as roads and airports and seaports. So it's our strong belief that concentrated investments are needed to prevent the devastation that we're now experiencing and instead capture the stormwater so it can be used to recharge groundwater basins, supplement dwindling surface water supplies, prepare us for the dry years that we know are coming back.

Let's not forget, of course, that even with this record breaking rain we've seen this year, the last three water years were the driest on record. So this is this new weather pattern that we have to plan for, back to back, extremely dry years punctuated by severe storms. Our current systems are just not designed for this new normal. We've got to invest now to reshape these systems and be better prepared.

So while today's news is focused on breached levees and atmospheric rivers and a looming snowpack that threatens even more flooding, we know that fire season is fast approaching. There's going to be a lot of buildup in the brush, and then if things are dry, come fire season, that could certainly be a challenge. I mean, we also have seen how much wildfires are becoming more intense each year due to hotter temperatures, wide-scale tree death caused by prolonged drought.

2021, I think, had the highest and second highest number of acres burned in history. So, anyway, this is lots of problems on our hands, and we're looking for ways to try to get some resources to address these threats. So this bond sets a course to reduce the severity of climate change impacts by investing in necessary measures to protect communities and our vital natural resources, while ensuring that we're better prepared to adapt.

It dedicates money to projects that will reduce fire risk near communities and ensure our forests are healthy enough to withstand more intense wildfires. Reduce the risk of catastrophic flood events by slowing and capturing runoff, which would improve groundwater infiltration and help to stabilize drinking water supplies. It also seeks to protect coastal communities from sea level rise and also help urban communities adapt to rising temperatures by reducing heat island effect through greening projects, investing in measures such as cooling centers to protect our most vulnerable residents.

So we know we need to take aggressive, proactive steps to address the impacts we know that are coming. This is one step in that effort. And with me today to testify in support of AB 867 is Elizabeth Forsberg with the Nature Conservancy and Adam Quinonez with AQUA in support.

Thank you. We'll move on to lead witnesses in support. As a reminder, for purposes of time, you're limited to two minutes each. Thanks so much. You may proceed.

Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Liz Forsberg, and I'm the Director of Policy for the Nature Conservancy. Life as we know it is at stake in California. Extreme heat, flooding, drought, sea level rise, and catastrophic wildfires threaten our home. The risk string of atmospheric river events and the over $1 billion in damages they brought are just the latest evidence that we are failing to protect California from the accelerating impacts of climate change.

Despite record-breaking state budgets, state investment in natural resources have not matched the pace and scale of identified needs. As Senator Allen mentioned, without intervention, the cost of climate change to California is estimated to reach 113,000,000,000 annually by 2050. We applaud Senator Allen for introducing SB 867, which will provide a structured investment plan to address the challenges of climate change and provide stable, long term funding for nature based climate solutions.

Governor Newsom has issued several reports and Executive orders that have created a roadmap to climate resiliency in California that will help guide and direct investments. The strategic plans also underscore the significant funding for climate and nature based solutions. SB 867 will drive implementation of these plans and will finance projects to improve water resilience, protect the state from catastrophic wildfire, sea level rise and extreme heat, and ensure California meets its commitment to protect 30% of its biodiversity by 2030.

Our state simply can't afford to keep cleaning up one disaster after the next. We need serious investments in nature based climate solutions, and SB 867 is the best path to get us there. Thank you.

May I proceed? Good morning again, Mr. Chair, and Members. Adam Quinonez on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, I want to thank the Senator, who stole all my best talking points for his leadership on this issue, as well as his staff, who've been leading on this issue for the last couple of years. Senators, now is the time to invest in California's aging water infrastructure system.

As the last year has shown us, the state's water infrastructure system was not designed to effectively manage the weather extremes that we are facing today. During this time, the state has experienced one of the driest periods on records where rivers and reservoirs ran dry to historic rainfall that has flooded much of the state, devastating communities, homes, and businesses. Investments are needed to strengthen California's water infrastructure, support a reliable and safe water supply, and to protect our communities.

As the Committee analysis highlights, the cost of inaction will far exceed the cost of investment today. AQUA represents over 460 public water agencies throughout California that are dealing with climate change today. We're very happy to be working with Senator Allen's office on amendments that would help secure California's water future.

Our proposed amendments would focus investments in a number of key water categories including recycled water and desalination, groundwater recharge, flood protection and dam safety, capturing and moving additional flood flows, safe drinking water, healthy watersheds, the state water project, and, of course, water conservation. We've seen some really great investment over the last couple of years from this Legislature and the Governor.

I want to underscore how much that is appreciated, but we must do much, much more to adapt to our changing climate. From flooding throughout the state, PFAs contamination of groundwater resources, subsidence caused by overdrafting and our inability to capture flood flows: these all impact California's water reliability, and we must invest now.

We're at the beginning of this process, and I want to again thank Senator Allen and his staff and our partners as we work to build a proposal that helps every region of the state to address the impacts of climate change. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Laird, I want you to Adam Quinonez is a big Morro Bay guy and I think has actually seen some of the impacts of the flooding firsthand.

All right. Thank you. We'll hear from any support witnesses here in room 2100. Again, if you could limit your comments to name, affiliation, and position on the measure, that'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Senators. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of several clients, first Water Reuse California, all the state's water recyclers. We know there's a lot of water in the system right now, but we appreciate this Committee's forward thinking to the next route and encourage significant investment in recycled water. Also on behalf of Serrano Water District, investment in dam safety to deal with all the water in the system right now. So appreciate those conversations as this bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jamie Miner, on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association. Appreciate the acknowledgement of the importance of stormwater investments in the legislation. Encourage a significant investment to that regard to both to help water quality as well as reduce flood impact and make sure we're capturing and storing that water.

Additionally, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, West Basin Municipal Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, and Monterey One water, I want to echo the comments of AQUA and water reuse in support of funding for water recycling and any sort of water or climate bond. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, Members. Nick Romo, on behalf of League of California Cities, we city officials across the state appreciate Senator Allen's leadership. After our city summit, we plan to increase our engagement. Thank you.

Good. Thank you.

Pilar Onate-Quintana for the Irvine Ranch Water District, support if amended position with particular interest in recycled water and dam safety funding.

Thank you.

Hello again. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support and urge the author and Committee to consider CMUA's recommendations in the bond.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members. Darryl Lucien here testifying on behalf of a 40 Acre Conservation League, the state's only black-led land trust. Want to emphasize equity and disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, disadvantaged groups in the bond, very similar to the bond over in the Assembly. Look forward to working with the author.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Annalee Akin on behalf of Mesa Water District in support if amended in alignment with AQUA's priorities.

Thank you.

John Cain of River Partners expressing our support. Look forward to engaging as the measure evolves. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses here today? All right, do we have any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100? Okay, then we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator if you could please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 867, we can begin.

If you would like to provide public testimony in support or opposition to SB 867, please press one, then zero. That command again: one, then zero. And we have two people queued up. First, we'll hear from line 15.

Thank you, Moderator. We can go.

Line 15, please go ahead, and line eight.

Thank you, Senators. My name is Diana Weynand. I'm chair of the Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley, and I'm calling on behalf of the California Coalition of all climate reality chapters in strong support.

Thank you.

And once again, line 15. Line 15, please check your mute. And we lost line 15. No further comments at this time.

Our loss. Okay, thank you for all our witnesses. Do we have any comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Grove and Senator Eggman. Oh, Senator Eggman, do you want to go first?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to stay off your bill today, unlike my colleague from Stockton, who has language in her bill. And I realize that there could be amendments taken to her bill, but it's not as in, you say it's a work in progress. Your bill is a work in progress.

And where there's detailed information on my colleague from Stockton's water bond that's going to talk about addressing having the people vote for flood protection for the central valley because we're often overlooked and left behind. I've got know the Tulare River and the Tulare Lake out there is just flooding into local communities and housing, and I think my colleague from Stockton's bond will help address that issue.

I look at the language in your bill, and if you look at page 4 and 5, it just basically says, number one, blank dollars and no dollar amount for drought water. Blank two is a blank. Three is a blank. Four is a blank. Five is a blank. Six is a blank. Seven is a blank. And then when it talks up the total sum, that's a blank. 36. It's all blanks.

It's all blank, to be fair.

Okay.

Not just that portion.

Okay. It's all blanks. And I realize it. I think you are someone who works with everybody in the community and the stakeholders and bringing them together. I've learned that about you since I've been serving with you in the Senate. And I know that you have good intentions to make sure that we have a good bond that goes before the people. But I can't vote on it, but I'm not going to vote no.

And so I'm just going to abstain, letting you know that the reason why is because there's just not enough information in the bill on where we're going to put this money and what's going to happen to it. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. And I'll move this bill. I won't be supporting it today and appreciate your leadership in this whole space. I was one of the negotiators on the 2014 water bond I think we did look forward to continuing to work with you through this process. And I guess I just like a commitment from you. I know you're part of the Los Angeles delegation and there's a whole bunch of you.

So those of us further up north and especially in the valley, have to be a little bit more scrappy, which is why we got all our language in. I really said what we need to do and what our needs are. So I guess I'm just looking for a commitment to you that we'll continue to work together and that you heard about our needs today and that we won't just get dwindled down as this process keeps going forward.

Absolutely. This is truly a statewide effort. Everybody makes sure that their voices are brought to the table. I know you will. And my good friends in Central Valley are going to make sure that Central Valley needs are met. The Bay Area folks as well. This whole thing happens as a massive negotiation, as you know, well, involving know the needs of your region are very important, not only to our state priorities, but to this bond effort as well.

I just saw Diamond Lake down southern just got filled up from, opened up the waterways to let that in. So it's like first time and I don't know how long, but three years. That lake is now full thanks to having a system in place that can actually move water when we need to and not just lose it to massive floods. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Senator Becker. Then, Senator Laird.

Thank you. I just want to say as chair of budget sub two on natural resources, environmental protection, energy, I'm very supportive of these efforts and look forward to working with you going forward.

Thank you, Senator Becker. Senator Laird.

Thank you. I guess if the definition is scrappy for the Central Valley, then the Central Coast has to be scrappier. And we have formed a caucus because of we were lost. But the one thing is I really appreciate the fact that this is a work in progress, that these pots are blank because the author will be responsive to the comments that are made in moving forward.

And you have a big challenge because there's a demand that is overwhelmingly larger than the amount that will be in this bond. And the one thing in addition to everything that is said that we discovered, and I've become a little bit of a broken record, but some of the major problems we had in climate in the storms in the Central Coast were the fact that Caltrans bridges have never been raised.

And in the City of Santa Cruz, after 100 year storm 40 years ago, we raised the four bridges because redwood trees battered down a bridge and we wanted to be resilient, but who didn't? Caltrans and the first bridge coming into town on the river that caught so much debris that it backed up and flooded a residential area. And there's three different bridges in our county that that hasn't happened to.

And right now, if you wish to do a resiliency project to prevent future flooding, it competes against every other road project that exists now under the transportation system. And it's going to take a bond like this to kick start some of those projects. And if you're in a small jurisdiction relatively, then that just makes it almost impossible. You're choosing between congestion or adequate transportation or whether or not to protect people who are in harm's way during a big storm.

But I would just hope that in the long list of things you've heard from this Committee, you would just add that to it and think about it as you negotiate it. I'm going to happily support the motion.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Grove.

I would just like to tell my colleague from the coastal area that I'm glad that he got resources from the last water bond and resources and allocations from this body to be able to address some of the issues that he has in his district. But again, I stick with my colleague, and I know she's supporting the spill and a co-author, and she's part of that negotiations for these resources.

But 99, which affects our entire state, was flooded in my area and it was closed down and they were diverted for a couple of days, coming up here on the northbound freeway. That affects the entire state. And we haven't had resources in a long time. We have gaping holes in our infrastructure on roads where some communities and rural areas have 10 foot drops in roads where water has been running over bridges.

So this flood situation that we have right now has shown a drastic effect all over our state. But again, the Central Valley seems to be left out. And I wish we were as strong as the LA delegation. We're not, but we do have a lot of needs in our area that do have impacts on the State of California, and I would hope that you would recognize that as you move.

Absolutely. I guess my only question you, Senator, is where do you feel as though the Central Valley is being left out? I mean, there's blanks on everything, including any coastal priority too. The Central Valley is not going to be left out in this process. And I guess what is making you feel as though, what's giving you that fear, I suppose?

So, history. And then there's blanks on everything. And I realize it's a negotiation moving forward, but history speaks volumes of the Central Valley being constantly overlooked. There's an article in the paper right now, DWR has released 80% of the water to go to our farmers. That's great, but if you can't get 100% in this kind of year, I don't know what we're going to have to have to get farmers 100% of their water allocation.

So just when you look at the Central Valley, it just continually, on all aspects, not just this subject matter, gets overlooked. And so I appreciate you saying that the Central Valley is not going to be overlooked. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Senator Grove, and I have a couple more questions or comments. I would just encourage my colleagues that if there are conversations that could be had offline outside of the hearing, that'd be great. Senator Laird, then Senator Eggman.

I'll be brief. We did not get state resources for those bridges at the local level. We had to do it ourselves. And in the interest of remembering history, I was budget chair when we did the last transportation bond. And the only geographic carve out in the $18 billion transportation bond, the only geographic carve out was 1 billion for highway 99 in the Central Valley. Everybody else competed. Highway 99 got its own $1.0 billion.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Thank you.

I know better to have a back and forth.

Okay, Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that you'll do your best to include the Central Valley, and I know that you know that it's struggling significantly right now. And I know we've had conversations about Allensworth, and you've been there, you visited, and they're having some really deep challenges there. So I know that you are committed in helping the Central Valley as well. For that reason, I'll be supporting the bill today.

Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? All right, well, I will say as the loan representative of Orange County here at dais today, we feel like sometimes like we're the little brother or sister of LA. I appreciate--well, sometimes we get our lunch money stolen from our big brother. But I just want to say we support this. The Committee recommendation today is to do pass because I think we want to see this get out.

But I think you've heard the comments here today, and I hope you do take those to heart. The framework is promising, but obviously the details matter. There's a little bit of a Goldilocks thing here, I think. I certainly appreciate the focus and details of the proposal from Senator Eggman.

I think yours has a framework, and as I mentioned earlier, I believe we need a broader framework, and you address a lot of issues, but the details do matter, and I do hope that you will continue to work with all stakeholders, as I know you'll do, particularly those in the Central Valley with Senator Eggman and with our Committee staff as you move this bill forward. But the recommendation today is do pass. The bill has been moved by Senator Eggman. And so with that, would you like to close?

Yeah, I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate everyone understanding also the complexity of this sort of negotiation. It turns out the Assembly has opinions, too. The Administration have opinions too. And what's also, and this is just, I guess, part of the job, but everybody seems to think that they're put upon.

Right. The LA caucus is always getting together, talking about how the Bay Area is always getting more of their fair share, and the Bay Area people feel the same way about everyone else. So it's part of the great challenge of our work is making sure that there's an equitable distriubution.

Of course, I will say there ends up being more of the money typically does go to, at least if you look at as a proportion of population, more of it typically ends up going to rural areas just because that's where the space exists for a lot of the big infrastructure. But it's a difficult process because we never have enough money to do everything we know we need to do.

It's ultimately a matter of making sure that every voice is brought to the table and we're engaging with each other and we're really hearing each other and incorporating each other's needs. And I know that there are some really strong advocates for the valley here in this Committee, in our Senate and our Assembly, and they're going to be really important parts of this discussion. So I appreciate the comments that have been made. I drive the 99 a lot myself. We like to drive back and forth.

We always do the 99, typically, because there's a lot more to do along there with a four year old than on the five. So I care about the flooding there, too, just so we could get up to work on the Monday. But this is going to be a lot of work. And I thank everyone for recognizing the complexity of this effort and really do welcome everyone's perspectives as we move this process along. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Allen. As I mentioned, the bill has been moved by Senator Eggman. The motion is do passed to governance and finance. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote on the bill is 8-0, and the bill is out. With that, we will hear the bills on call. So we'll start with the consent calendar. Assistant, please call the roll.

For the Consent Calendar, we have file item number 3, SB 668, file number 8, SB 539, and file number 9, SB 550, with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair also voting aye. [Roll Call]

The bill is out. What's the vote? 8-0. Okay. What's our next bill? 10 to zero. Bill is out. 10 to zero. All right, we'll move to file item number 2, SB 361. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 361, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is Chair voting aye and Vice Chair also voting aye. And the current vote count is 7-0. [Roll Call]

The vote is 10-0. The bill is out. Let's move to file item number 4, SB 438, Caballero. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 438. The motion is do pass as amended to Environmental Quality. The current vote is 9-0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

10-0. The bill is out. We'll move to file item number 5, SB 708, Jones. Assistant, please call the roll.

Senator, SB 708. The motion is do pass as amended to Transportation. The current vote is 7-0, with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair also voting aye. [Roll Call]

The vote is 10-0. The bill is out. We'll move to file item number 6, SB 39. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 39. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is 6-0, with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair not voting yet. [Roll Call]

The vote is 10-0. The bill is out. 9-0. I'm sorry, 9-0. The bill is out. We'll move to file item number 7, SB 272, Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 272. The motion is do pass to Governance and Finance. The current vote is 6-0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

The vote is 9-0, and the bill is out. We'll move to file item 10, SB 586, Eggman. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 586 is do pass as amended to Governance and Finance. The current vote is 6-0, with Chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting. [Roll Call]

The vote is 9-0. The bill is out. We'll move to 11, SB 638, Eggman. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 638 is do passed to Governance and Finance. The current vote is 7-0, with Chair voting aye, Vice Chair not voting yet. [Roll Call]

The vote is 9-0, and the bill is out. Final vote of the day. File item 11, SB 867, Allen. Assistant, please call the roll. I'm sorry. And that bill was already voted out. My apologies. There's a motion to move. Can I open it? The vote is out. I did. Okay. So, thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation. We have concluded the agenda. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.

What was the vote on 438?

One moment. Excuse me. 438. Which one's that? Which file item number 4. We voted on. It was 9-1.

What's the vote on?

Okay, I'm sorry. One correction. File item 4, SB 438, the vote count was 9-0. I incorrectly said it 10-0 earlier. With that, we're done voting. And so thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation. We've concluded the agenda, and the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.

All right, thank you.