Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

We have seven bills on today's agenda, two on consent, and we will try to go in file order. We don't have enough folks for a quorum yet, so we'll proceed in Subcommitee, and I think that our first author is ready to proceed. So, Senator Eggman, you're ready to go on file item one, SB 231?

I am. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members, and thank you for letting me jump up here quickly. I'm presenting today on behalf of Senator Hurtado on two bills. The first one is SB 231, and we are happy, she is happy to accept the amendments from the Committee listed in the analysis.

Adam Gray, one of our former Members in the other house, requested an audit of DWR, the Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board, centering on year water year 2021, where there was significant modeling errors, which led to an overrelease of an estimated 200,000 acre feet of water from the California reservoirs. So SB 231 will be the vehicle. After that audit is released, those findings are reviewed to be able to come up with better predictive modelings going forward.

Unfortunately, that hasn't all been released yet. For her to have a full analysis in order to make those suggestions, and that's what this Bill will be used for. The author commits to not moving the Bill forward until that is released and that is all defined and there are no objections, no witnesses in support, and I respectfully ask for your. I vote when the time is right.

Thank you. We'll move on to. Do you have any lead witnesses here today?

There are none.

Okay, do we have any other support witnesses here in the room? Okay, do we have any opposition witnesses here in the room? Not seeing anyone? We'll move on to any witnesses wishing to testify via the teleconference service. Operator, can you prompt any individuals waiting to testify in opposition or support of SB 231?

To provide comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. There are no comments in queue at this time. Please continue.

Okay, we'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Senator Laird.

I would just say that, as the analysis noted, I did a Bill in 2007 that set up the first system to do ag water measurement. This Bill builds on it. And when we have a quorum, I will move the Bill.

I just want to thank the author and you on her behalf, or vice versa. And would you like to close.

Just respectfully, ask for your aye vote.

Okay. And I do note that I think part of the recommendation here of do pass is amended is that the author will not move the Bill off the floor if the audit findings come back in a certain way as stated. Yes. Thank you. All right, well, so we'll vote on that Bill at the appropriate time. Senator Eggman, thank you for that. And I believe you're also presenting Senate Bill 315 on behalf of Senator Hurtado.

I am. SB 315 on behalf of Senator Hurtado. And again, she thanks the committee for their amendments and is gladly accepting them. SB 315 has to do with the challenges faced by ground sustainability agency.

As you know, we passed SIGMA a few years back, really asked people with overdrafted areas to really get them into compliance.

This bill has to do with asking the Water Board to provide clear benchmarks and establish acceptable pathways and provide technical assistance to those agencies who have not been able to achieve that in order for them to achieve their plans. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do you have any witnesses here? All right. Do we have any other support witnesses in the room? All right. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Are you the only lead witness?

Probably. I'll be quick. Kyle Jones of Community Water Center. Also on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability, Clean Water Action, Planning Conservation League, CivicWell and Environmental Working Group. Looking forward to removing our opposition with the Committee amendments.

And we just want to thank the committee and author staff for working together on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room wishing to speak in opposition to SB 315? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator. Can you please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 315.

Supervised comment in support or opposition for SB 315. Please press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, there are no comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. So we'll bring it back to members on the dais. Senator Laird?

Mr. Chair, I had real concerns about this bill in the original form and particularly in a delay of sigma. The author's amendments addressed that, and the testimony we just had showed that I think a lot of people removed their opposition. So at the appropriate time, I will be willing to support this bill and maybe even move it.

Okay, I'm going to take a quick, brief step back. We do have a quorum at this time, so we'll establish quorum and so assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

With quorum established, we'll vote on the consent calendar, which is.

Well, we're in the middle of that bill, so why don't I formally move item number two, SB 315, and allow her to close, and we'll finish.

Okay. And I just also want to thank the author for making these amendments. I also had concerns about the bill, but I do think that, as Senator Laird noted, many of those concerns were addressed by the amendments that she took. So would you like to close, Senator?

We know groundwater remains an important resource for so many, and we're very grateful for the committee's analysis and glad to accept the amendments. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Okay, so we have a motion from Senator Laird on SB 315, and the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 6-0. We'll leave that on call for members who haven't voted yet. Okay, so Senator Umber is here, and I know he has to get back to the judiciary. We will go ahead and have him present his bill at this time. File item number four, SB 579. Senator Umberg, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And a special thank you to Catherine Moore for her assistance on helping with this bill. This is the issue that everyone in California has been talking about of late. It's the lack of transparency in the location of the Department of Fish and Wildlife stocking lakes and ponds. What this bill does: it will increase transparency by requiring the Department of Fish and Wildlife to report what they plan to do in terms of stocking. We don't want to raise false expectations.

So the document will be clear that there are a number of agencies that may prevent the planned stocking. I urge and aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Umberg, do you have any lead witnesses here in support?

I'm it.

Okay. And do we have anyone in the room waiting to testify in support? Anyone in opposition? Okay. With that, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator. If you could, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 579, we can begin to.

Provide comments in support or opposition for SB 579, please press one, then zero. There are no comments at this time.

Okay. With that, we'll bring it back to numbers here. Any comments or questions? A real barn burner here. I'm glad you're looking ahead to your retirement. I look forward to having some fishing there. Would you like to close?

Yes. Apparently, we've resolved all the concerns of those who are opposed to transparency and fish stocking, and I urge aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on SB 315? Senator Gonzalez moves the bill. Okay, and so the motion is do pass Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Then, that is for SB 579 [Roll Call]. Okay, that's only four.

The vote is 4-0. We'll leave that bill on call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Umberg.

And Mr. Chair, I'll move item number one to catch up if you would like, since we didn't have a motion. Then I'll move consent. I'll do whatever you want. So we move here?

All right, we'll move to consent. We do have a quorum and thank you, Senator Laird. It moves the consent calendar. So, we have two items on consent today. File item number three, SB 504. And file item number five, SB 275. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of four-zero. We'll leave that bill open on call. Senator Laird, would you like to present SB. File it under seven, SB 583.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, on behalf of Senator Padilla, I am here to present Senate Bill 583. I want on his behalf, to begin by thanking you and your staff for working on this bill with his office. And SB 583 would establish the Salton Sea Conservancy under the Natural Resources Agency.

There are 10 conservancies in the state system. The two established most recently were the Sierra Nevada Conservancy in 2004 and the Delta Conservancy in 2009. They focused state efforts on investment in a particular area.

And that's exactly what would happen with the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea was once a major resort destination. It's become an ecological and public health crisis due to evaporation and agricultural runoff.

The evaporating sea exposes a toxic lake bed, which negatively impacts local health. Many residents in the area suffer from headaches, nosebleeds, and asthma. Hospitalization rates for children with asthma are double the state average.

And yet, at the same time, the Salton Sea is a vital part of the economy in the economically depressed area of imperial county. Conservancies, as Senator Dahle knows, as a longtime board member and original advocate for the Sierra Conservancy, do both economic development and environmental protection.

And if there's a textbook case for the need for both of them, it is the Salton Sea. A conservancy could help expedite the construction of new habitat and dust suppression.

It will play a vital role in protecting and restoring the Salton Sea. And by uniting all of the conservation projects under one entity, it streamlines efforts and brings about necessary change.

Today, here to testify in support is Frank Ruiz with Audubon California. And on behalf of Senator Padilla, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have four minutes.

Thank you. Members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Frank Ruiz. I am the Salton Sea program director for Audubon California. And I am a member of the communities that were mentioned. And the Salton Sea is the place of the intersections of environmental crisis, public health crisis, economic crisis.

When I joined Audubon in 2017, I helped to put a documentary together and we interview a family of five. It's very common to hear communities and local families complain of nosebleeds, respiratory problems.

The family that I want to mention when I share this story, five of them. They all suffer from either COPD, asthma, respiratory problems, mom, dad, the three kids at that time 12, nine and six. They go to school carrying an inhaler and a bronchodilator.

They already know how to inject themselves, in case they have an asthma attack. And this is just one of the problems that we have at the Salton Sea. The other problems is the environmental crisis.

We lost more than one third of the Avian colonies that used to come down to the Salton Sea. From the 400 different species, we lost more than one third. The Salton Sea is at the brink of a major ecological collapse. So I want to underscore a few reasons why we support the Salton Sea Conservancy. Number one, it will allow the conservancy to consolidate all the different entities and agencies.

My perspective is not just as a member of the community, I lead the second largest habitat restoration project at the Salton Sea. I know how difficult it is because the system that is implemented is not conducive for the fast implementation of any projects.

The conservancy will bring all those different players under one umbrella. It will expedite the process of any kind of projects. The state conservancy can offer many benefits. They complement the state regulatory efforts on issues of statewide significance.

They can deliver programs tailored to local, regional and regional needs instead of moving funds through state level departments. And they allow for greater coordination and partnership between the local, state and Federal Governments stakeholders, local tribes.

A conservancy will establish the opportunity to address some of the major issues that the state is currently trying to address, such as public health and such as implementation of habitats that is mandated by the State of California. We believe that a conservancy can work in partnership with all these different players.

For these and many other reasons, we urge the Committee Members to an aye on this conservancy, and we appreciate the support. And on behalf of the local communities and the autobond society, I want to thank you all.

Thank you. Mr. Ruiz, do we have anyone else in the room that wants to speak in favor of this bill? Please limit your testimony to your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Aaron Wooley on behalf of Sierra Club California, we support the concept of Salton Sea Conservancy and look forward to working with Senator Padilla as this bill moves forward.

Thank you.

Alex Loomer, on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, Pacific Institute and Alianza Coachella Valley in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else in the room, let's hear from any opposition witnesses. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none. Do we have any other opposition witnesses here in the room? Okay, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator, could you please prompt anyone on the line?

Provide comments and support or opposition. Please press one, then zero. 146 please go ahead.

Hello, this is Mariela Loera with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. Also supporting concept of SB 583.

There are no further comments. Please continue.

We'll bring the discussion back to the days. Any questions or comments? Senator Dahle.

Yeah, I know that you're just presenting this bill, and I am in favor of good governance. And so I wanted to just, this is a little bit different than the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, which I set on, which you authored that legislation.

Because there's the JPA, there's the Salton Sea authority. Can you maybe give me a little flavor for what the governance of this conservancy is going to look like with all those other players? I know that the gentleman mentioned, they're going to bring them all together. Is that doable under the conservancy?

The answer is yes, it's doable under the conservancy. The Salton Sea Authority has a slightly different mission and a slightly different potential membership. It's really a joint powers agreement between the local governments in the area.

And this is, as was said in the opening statement, is a focus on environmental protection and economic development. And so it is going to be a model that is similar to the previous conservancy.

So it brings together local officials and it brings together all the state agencies that are involved in these programs. So everybody is around a table that has some piece of it to decide how to do it.

And the one thing is that the state, I don't know if it's been adjusted upward or downward, but the solution was that because the water flowing into the Salton Sea is lessening and there's evaporation, there is, as the witness said, areas that are exposed to the lake that weren't exposed before, they're causing hazardous releases of air.

And the plan is to take some of the key areas and turn them into marshes as it recedes so that it's still part of the Pacific Migratory Flyway and it lessens the dust and other impacts. And the state has set aside $135,000,000 to do this. And the important thing is to have everybody at the table to try to figure out how to move ahead on that.

And even though I was not asked to comment on this, if there is something strange that happens with the state's allotment for the Colorado River, that would be lessened to the agricultural interests in the area and that would be lessened runoff into the Salton Sea and that would make this problem more acute. So this is a very timely.

I am very familiar with the Salton Sea, actually toured it like 25 years ago when it's now gotten worse, and worked with V. Manny Perez, who was an Assemblymember that represented that area, Eduardo Garcia and Senator Weisso, all on trying to figure out how to deal with the actually issues that's there.

So I'm going to support the bill today. I haven't looked at the governance of it. I'll take a look at that as we move to the floor.

But to reserve my right to vote against it on the floor if I don't like the governance, because I think key to this conservancy is how they're going to work with all the competing interests that are down there and actually put that money to good use and actually get something done.

And I'll address your concern in the close.

Okay.

Anyone else have any comments or questions? I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's an important issue, obviously. And while I think the analysis notes, and as we heard from some of the questions here, there is some feeling that this is still a work in progress.

I think it's important to move this ball forward, which is why we are recommending that it due pass to appropriations. Would you like to close, Senator Laird?

Thank you. And Senator Dahle is correct, as even the analysis refers, there's work to be done on this bill. And I believe what I was going to offer to do when I thought I'd be sitting there quizzing the author is offer to help him, because the model for the conservancy, as I said earlier, was used as the model for the Delta Conservancy five years later.

And I think there's real potential here to figure out how to make sure to get all the right state agencies and local agencies in the right balance together. He already has an area spelled out, and then it's the duties that are assigned to the conservancy. And I think this is the right mechanism for the problem.

And then I think we will all work together to get a Bill that you can vote for on the Senate Floor when it gets there. On his behalf, I would request an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on the bill? Senator Dahle moves the bill. The motion is due past appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is six-zero. We'll leave that on call and we'll move back to file item one, which we heard in Subcommittee.

I'll move file item one.

And the bill has been moved by Senator Laird. File item number one, SB 231. And so the motion is due past amended to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is five-zero. We'll leave that on call. And so with that, I'm going to hand the gavel over to Vice Chair. Not here. Senator Laird, Senator Dahle, would one of you like to take over as chair?

I'd happily present. Senator Min, welcome to your own committee and when you're ready, please present Senate Bill 337.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'm presenting SB 337, which would establish a statewide goal to conserve 30% of California's lands and coastal waters by 2030, codifying the 30 x 30 executive order. We're in the midst of a global extinction crisis, and it's time to double down before it's too late. 1 million species are at risk of extinction worldwide, and California, of course, is not exempt from this crisis.

Our state is one of 36 global hotspots for biodiversity, with the highest concentration of imperiled species in the United States. More than 900 of this state species are at risk of extinction, and two-thirds of our native plants will lose most of their range within the next century. According to some scientists, the extinction crisis is the most serious environmental threat to the persistence of civilization -

- because extinctions are irreversible, conserving our lands and waters is one of the best tools we have to prevent extinction, protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Conserving lands and waters can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon. Protecting 30% of our land and coastal waters by 2030 is the bare minimum needed to avoid ecosystem collapse, safeguard biodiversity, and help to stabilize the planet's climate.

This bill would codify the 30 x 30 goal established by Governor Newsom's Executive order in 2020, ensuring that it is in statute and that it will persist and remain a commitment for future administrations through 2030. Today I have with me Pamela Flick, the Executive Director of the Defenders of Wildlife, which is a sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Welcome to the Committee. As the lead witness in support, you have up to but no requirement to take the full four minutes. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you, Senator Laird, and thank you Senator Min. Good afternoon, my name is Pamela Flick. I'm the California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, which is a national conservation organization dedicated to the protection of all animals and plants and their natural communities. Defenders is proud to sponsor SB 337 because it would improve protection of our state's unparalleled biodiversity by codifying California's 30 x 30 state policy goal. This bill comes at a critical time.

Nature around the world is in a state of crisis, and there's no time to act like now. Approximately 1 million plant and animal species, as the Senator mentioned, are threatened with extinction, and some of those in just the coming decades. As one of 36 globally significant biodiversity hotspots with the highest concentration of imperiled species in our nation, California has much to lose. Time is of the essence. SB 3337 builds on important movement for global action.

California is already a leader in protecting biodiversity, with approximately 24% of its land in protected status. But some of our most diverse areas and coastal waters remain unprotected, including those that provide crucial ecosystem services, including water filtration, carbon sequestration, and pollination, which are critical to Californians. We must codify California's 30 x 30 commitment to protect our state's biodiversity and to ensure that the 30 x 30 policy goal endures beyond the current administration.

With SB 337, the Golden State can continue to lead the way toward meeting this important conservation goal and set an example for the rest of the country and, indeed, the world. For these reasons, I urge your aye vote. Thank you, committee members, and thank you, Senator Min, for authoring this important bill.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. This would be the opportunity for anyone to state that they join in support of this bill in this room.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee members. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the Pacific Crest Trail Association, in support.

Thank you very much.

Dennis O'Connor for the Mona Lake Committee in support.

Thank you very much, stranger.

Michael Jarrett, on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity and support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much.

Alex Loomer, on behalf of Trout Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, Planning and Conservation League, the Environmental Defense Fund, California Trout, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Audubon, the Wildlands Conservancy, and the Environmental Defense Center of San Diego all in support, and thank the chair for his leadership on this.

I'll take that as the second lead witness, using the balance of the four minutes. Is there anyone else in the room in support? Seeing none, this would be the opportunity for anybody in the room to express opposition. Seeing none, then moderator, we will go to the teleconference lines, and this is the opportunity for anybody to express a position on the bill. But it is just name, affiliation, and whether they support or oppose. Moderator, tee them up.

To provide comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. One, then zero. Line 157, please go ahead. 157, your line is open.

Abigail Mile, on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, and the California State Parks Foundation, all in support. Thank you.

158?

Hi, this is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental Voters calling in support.

Thank you.

149.

Hi. This is Mary Buxton from Climate Action California, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, in support.

Thank you very much. Moderator next caller.

Line 151.

This is Pam Heatherington from the Environmental Center of San Diego in support.

Thank you very much. Moderator next caller.

151. 155, please go ahead. 155?

This is Daniel Rossman speaking on behalf of the Wilderness Society in favor of the bill.

Thank you very much. Moderator next call.

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

Thank you very much. And moderator, thank you very much for your help today. We'll bring the matter back before the committee. Are there questions or comments? We have a motion. I've been hit on...

You're not going to let me chair? I'll just have to ask.

I just didn't look to my right.

You're not used to looking to your right is the problem here. I would like to just say, look, I know I have no illusion that this bill will not get out of here with flying colors. And I heard the testimony from all the witnesses. But I just want to say that we've seen this is an executive order signed by the governor, and it's going to ratify it and put in perpetuity a goal.

But there's no detail in this piece of legislation of how we're going to achieve that goal. And I think that that's the one thing that the public has been misled on. Many pieces of legislation since I've been here for 10 years. We had SB 100, we've had SB 32, which is an extension of the original AB 32 with no detail, and we continue to pass legislation with no detail of how we're actually going to achieve it. And this is a very aggressive plan.

2=3030 is like right around the corner, seven years from now, and when you talk about the impact to meet the goals of this type of legislation, there are costs that go with that. There are regulations that come with that. At the same time, we're seeing our energy costs explode. We're seeing the cost of goods go up in California, cost of transportation. All those things are happening. Cost of electricity, nothing mentioned in this piece of legislation.

And so I'm not going to support the bill today because it doesn't have that detail that we desperately need to be able to articulate back to our constituents what it means for California to lead the way in the world. And my information talks about the UN and all the globally stuff, but California is doing all the work and I don't see China; I don't see other countries leading the way when we produce 1% of the emissions or carbon in the world.

So can you address how we're actually going to get this done at the same time making sure that Californians can afford to stay in California and that we actually achieve it?

Thank you for the question, Senator Dahle, and the comments. And I share many of your concerns about how we're going to achieve this goal in a thoughtful but methodical way. And as you may recall, since I became chair of this committee, we did hold at the beginning of this year. We did hold a hearing earlier this year on that very question, how do we get to 30 x 30? Now, I view the 30 x 30 debate as a little bit different than the carbon emissions debate.

This is about trying to preserve and maybe expand our open spaces that are preserved. I think that's important for biodiversity. It's also really important for what California is because when we think of our state, I know many of us think it's part of our ethos. When we think about the outdoors, whether it's backpacking, hiking, farming, surfing, or whatever else, the outdoor wilderness is part of our DNA. Now, as far as your question, why don't we have details in this?

Because as you may recall, I was very forceful in asking the Administration earlier this year about progress, and I don't feel like we're getting there, but there is a report coming out from the Natural Resources Agency to the legislature that is due no later than March 31 of next year. And so we thought, at this point in time, it was not appropriate to call for some kind of report or benchmarks when we know that there's a report coming out.

So this is really step one of a longer process. After that report comes in, we do anticipate that we're going to actually try to set some interim targets, and you could look for some legislation next year furthering this, assuming that this gets out.

Well, I just want to, for the record, to make sure the record knows that, first of all, 65% of California is protected. It's the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in Cali. We have; there's never going to be a house built on there. There's never going to be - maybe we might do some forestry, and there's many conservation easements.

I know this is more about land, but a big chunk of California is already protected, and many other places are protected by conservancies and conservation easements and the like. So anyway, I just want to, for the record, to show that we have no detail in the plan of how we're going to get there. And I think that's critical for Californians to know, and a cost associated with it at the same time. So thank you, Senator.

The only response I'd have is, again, we are waiting for those numbers for the report from next year. The figures I have are that we have about 23, 24%. I think that's what the administration testified up. Our land that is protected, but maybe we can get back to them and see what the discrepancy is.

Private land or public land?

I think all land.

Yes, I have comments to make, but I'm going to wait and see if anybody else has comments. Then, Senator Dahle and I have had this exchange on the floor, so I might as well just repeat the other half that I usually repeat when that happens. And I'll do it on two things. And I'll begin with the statistics about forest land because it is forest land that 57% is in federal ownership of what is in the forest land.

But the forest land is a fraction of the total land of the state. And so you get to a lower number when you factor in all the urban and agricultural, and nonforest lands. And yes, the forest land is 57% federal, about one to 3% state, and then the rest in private ownership.

But I want to speak specifically to the issue of goals and whether or not they're specificity, because I was present as a legislator when we adopted Assembly Bill 32, and the criticism against it in 2006 is there were no specifics, and yet the authority was granted, the funding was granted, and even though there were no specifics in the bill, we met that goal three years early and went on to the next goal.

The same thing happened when I was mayor 30-something years ago, and the diversion from our landfills was adopted. We were going to have 50% diversion within a certain time. I thought at the time, it'll never happen. There was not specificity. But before the pandemic, we were at 60% in California and looking at 75. Same thing happened with regard to renewable electricity in the portfolio. It was adopted in 2011. It's like we're going to have 33% by 2020. We exceeded it years early and went ahead.

There wasn't specificity, but it was done. And so I think the important thing is that if you adopt the goal and you have the tools, you have every impetus and every tool to meet the goal. And that is what we have done with the goals. And this is the latest in a series that does exactly that. And I know that from what the author said; he will continue to work as this goes through to deal with reports and other things -

- and see if there's things he needs to make, but that's it. And then, just before I ask if you wish to close, as chair of the committee, I have to ask you if you're accepting the amendments that the other chair of the committee asked you to take.

Yes, we are accepting all amendments, and I want to thank the staff for their incredible work on this bill. I do think it's important as a priority, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Then I'll take that as a close. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Gonzalez.

Please call the role.

SB 337. The motion is do pass is amended to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

The vote is seven-two and the bill is out. We're nearing the end of our hearing. Do we have everyone here?

Yeah.

Okay. With everyone here, we're going to lift the bills on call, starting with the consent calendar. And again, that's file items three and file item five, SB 504 and SB 275. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote on the consent calendar is four-zero.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is 10-zero and the consent calendar is out. Okay, we'll move to file item number one, SB 231. The motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is five-zero, with chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

What is this? I'm sorry.

File item one, SB 231.

[Roll Call]

The vote is nine-zero. That bill is out. We'll move to file item number two, SB 315, by Senator Hurtado. The motion is do pass. Is amended to appropriation. Assistant, Please call the roll.

And the current vote is six-zero, with chair voting aye.

Aye. Allen I. Becker. Aye. Becker I. Grove I. Hertado. Limon I. Okay.

That vote is ten-zero. The bill is out. We're lifting the call. Next on file item number four, SB 579 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do passed appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

The current vote is four-zero, with Senator, the chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

The vote is ten-zero. The bill is out. Final bill of the day. We'll lift the call on file item number seven, SB 583 by Senator Padilla. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is six-zero and chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

The vote is ten-zero. That bill is out, and that is our last bill. So thank everyone for your patience today. And we've concluded the agenda. Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.