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 public in person and via the 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. I ask all members of the committee to be present here in room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We have 13 bills on today's agenda. Bills will roughly be heard in file item order or when authors are here, but since we don't have a quorum at this point, we'll proceed as a subcommittee. Our first bill we will hear this morning is file item number 13, Senator Laird, and this is SB 756.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee member. Senate Bill 756 authorizes the Water Board staff to obtain inspection warrants for both water rights and water quality violations, for unlicensed cannabis investigations, and to participate in unlicensed cannabis site inspections alongside law enforcement with criminal warrants when requested and on approval of a judge.

The bill also allows the Water Board to serve unlicensed cannabis cultivators with enforcement documents using physical methods that provide receipt, such as FedEx and the United States Postal Service.

Since unlicensed cultivators typically refuse accepting certified mail to avoid enforcement. Although the Water Board concurrently seek inspection warrants for water quality violations, the same authorization does not exist for water rights violations.

Additionally, there is no explicit authority that allows the Water Board to accompany law enforcement, despite the Water Board often being asked to participate so that they can provide technical expertise on water violations. Several state entities currently have this authority, such as the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Food and Agriculture.

California faces extreme weather whiplash due to climate change and we face prolonged drought and there isn't enough water to go around. On top of that, over 90% of all California waterways are significantly polluted.

So basically, federal authorities have estimated that in just San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Riverside counties, 5.4 million gallons of water are used daily for unlicensed operations. They also create elaborate pipelines and makeshift unpermitted roads, banned pesticides and rodenticides are used.

Many other impacts this bill equips the state and regional Water Boards with the tools to preserve beneficial use of water for all Californians. This bill is actually not a drug enforcement bill. It is a process bill with regard to the Water Board and environmental enforcement. It has support from environmental and water organizations. There's no registered opposition.

My office has worked with civil liberties and drug decriminalization organizations to address their concerns, and I will take amendments in the next committee to put that out. Here for me for technical assistance and this happened so quick, I didn't look to make sure she was here, is Yvonne West from the State Water Resources Control Board. But that's for technical assistance. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Do we have any other support witnesses here today?

Not here.

Okay, we'll move on to lead witnesses. Let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2100.

Good morning. Thank you, Senator Laird, for introducing this measure. My name is Yvonne West. I'm the Director of the State Water Resource Control Board, Office of Enforcement, and I'm simply here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Danielle Blacet-Hyden with CMUA in support.

Seeing no one else in the room. Let's hear from any lead witnesses in opposition. Okay. Let's hear from any other opposition witnesses here in the room. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. We'll limit teleconference testimony to 15 minutes total, although that may not be a problem.

Those wishing to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the bill. Moderator, if you could please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 756, we will begin.

Yes, thank you. If you'd like to place your line in queue proposition at this time, please press star followed by one, on your phone. You may remove yourself from queue at any time by pressing the same star followed by one. And if you are using a speaker phone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers.

Thank you. Moderator. Do we have anyone on the line?

No, sir. We have no lines in queue.

All right, thank you to all of our support and opposition witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the members. Do any of our members have questions or comments on this? Okay. SB 756. Sorry. And this is file item 13, seeing no comments.

Good.

All right, Senator Laird, would you like to close?

Just at the appropriate time? I would appreciate an aye vote.

Fantastic. We have a motion on the bill, but we don't have quorum yet, so we'll take that vote in a little bit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Laird. All right, our next bill is going to be file item number 10. And this is Senator Eggman, SB 687. Eggman, you can proceed when you're ready.

Good morning, Members, and Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments on page 11 of the analysis. Today, I am presenting SB 687, which concerns the health of the Bay Delta Estuary and California's water supply. All things run through Stockton. The Bay Delta covers more than 1600 square miles and is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It's home to nearly 10 million people.

And the health of the Bay Delta is critical to providing drinking water for over 25 million people and, of course, providing over water for over 4 million acres of farmland for irrigation. So it's safe to say it's important both for the economy and for the environment. So, as folks probably know, it was a bay Delta Water Plan created some 30 years ago. And part of that plan was to do a plan on what is the water quality.

And as people also know, there is also has been for a lot of years. I mean, we are already at conveyance, but there is talks of building another type of conveyance to go through the delta. And so what this bill does is simply say, let's get that water quality plan done before we start any kinds of construction.

Makes sense to say that we need to know what the risks, ramifications, for the whole water quality will be before we decide how much water that we're going to be able to divert safely. That's all this bill does. It doesn't stop any of the VSAs. It doesn't stop anything else. And with me today, I have Paul Yoder, representing the Bay Delta counties, the Delta counties. And then also Doug Obegi with NRDC. Thank you, Senator Laird.

Thank you. You may proceed. You have two minutes each for your two witnesses.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Won't need all that. But Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Delta counties, Yolo, Solano, San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Contra Costa, the Delta Counties Coalition in support of the bill. Updating the Bay Delta Plan prior to the board's consideration of the Delta conveyance project is critical to protecting delta communities. Tribes, fishermen depend on the delta.

An updated bay Delta plan is important tool to protect the water quality of the delta for farms and cities that rely on these vital resources. We're threatened with the proliferation of harmful algal blooms, saltwater intrusion, and other sources of pollution. It just seems to me that the entire state would benefit from understanding that a plan has actually been vetted and approved, not just for folks that are north of the delta, not just for folks that are in the delta, but frankly, especially for folks that are south of the delta who hope to get this water. So I'd urge your aye vote on Senator Eggman's bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Doug Obegi. I'm a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and we urge an aye vote on this bill. Protecting water quality in the delta is critically important for the state's salmon fishermen, who are currently out of work because of the collapse of the salmon fishery, as well as farms and communities in the delta, all of whom are affected by water quality conditions. NRDC proposed a small tunnel several years ago.

Critically to our evaluation, though, are the operating rules, which are set by the Water Quality Control Plan. And that's important not just to protect the environment, but also for all the ratepayers in Southern California and in Central Valley who would be responsible for paying for this project. They need to have a better sense of how much water this project will yield sustainably so that they can determine the cost effectiveness of their investment.

The bill requires that the plan be updated before the State Water Board completes or does its permitting process for this project. In addition, in recent years, the State Water Board has waived the water quality control plan requirements, resulting in worsening water quality in the delta, salinity intrusion, harmful algal blooms, and the bill prohibits the tunnel from being operated in the future if those rules are being waived. It's a simple, common sense measure to say, if we're going to approve a tunnel which this bill allows to happen, it has to play by the rules. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2100. Again, if you would like to do that, just limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Okay. Seeing none, let's move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Oh, in support?

Yes. Frank Molina, on behalf of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition. And you have two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Jennifer Pierre. I'm the general manager for the State Water Contractors, respectfully in opposition of SB 687. We agree with the Senator's desire to see progress made toward adoption and implementation of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. In fact, the state water contractors have been strong proponents of that.

In partnership with the Newsom Administration and water users throughout the state, we urge the advancement of the watershed wide approach to flows, ecosystem restoration, and water supply reliability through the voluntary agreements. The Legislature, through the state budget process, has approved funding to help advance and implement the voluntary agreements package, and that set of tools would essentially become the new Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.

So we're fully supportive of taking demonstrable and meaningful steps toward the adoption implementation of the VAS and the water quality control plan. But that being said, we have strong concerns with the tactic that's being proposed in this bill to leverage progress on the Water Quality Control Plan. Eighteen of our 27 members are supporting the planning activities to advance the Delta Conveyance Project.

All projects, including the Delta Conveyance Project, will be subject to applicable rules and regulations, including whichever water quality control plan is in place at the time that the tunnel becomes operational. We believe it's inappropriate and unnecessary to hold the project hostage until and unless the Water Quality Control Plan is approved and also fully implemented, which is how the bill reads, that it has to be fully implemented. So that could be eight years or the current water quality control plan has been in place since 1996.

The Delta Conveyance Project is a critical climate adaptation strategy. We only need to look at this last year, from prolonged drought to extreme atmospheric river events, to see the climate whiplash that is our water reality and the tunnels designed and intended to help ensure that we can capture and move water during major storm events to help mitigate against prolonged multi-year drought cycles.

California's existing water system and aging infrastructure is poorly equipped to handle the climate change we're experiencing, and the Delta Conveyance Project is a centerpiece for the state water project modernization effort that's been championed by the Newsom Administration and was recently emphasized in the governor's water supply strategy. There's no rationale for holding the progress on the Delta Conveyance Project hostage to leverage other objectives. Both the Water Quality Control Plan and the Delta Conveyance Project can both move forward together.

We do not need to create undue conflicts and challenges for California water management. For these reasons, we are respectfully opposed to SB 687 and request your no vote today.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses in opposition? Okay, let's hear from any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100. Please limit your comments to name, affiliation, and position.

Thank you. Cyrus Stevers, representing the Municipal Water District of Orange County, and I personally apologize for the late opposition, both to the Committee and the author.

Anyone else in the room? Okay, 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 the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 687, we will begin.

And if you wish to give a comment, please press one then zero on your phone at this time. One moment, please.

Thank you, Moderator. Do we have anyone on the line?

Yes, sir, we do have one person in queue. We just have to give them their information. Their line number. One moment please. And I do apologize for the delay. We should have them in conference in just one moment.

Thank you, Chairman. Barry Nelson with Golden State Salmon Association in strong support of SB 687. Thank you.

Moderator, do we have anyone else on the line?

No other lines in que.

All right, thank you to all of our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the members. Do any members here on the committee have any questions or comments? Okay, Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I just think this is a commonsense measure. We talk a lot about setting goals. We're going to do all this, but if we don't actually have the benchmarks that we need to be able to say what is the level of water quality that is necessary to maintain the health, then just using the VSAs as a patchwork model doesn't seem to be as effective. This doesn't get in the way of anything, doesn't get in the way of the voluntary service agreements.

It just says we should know what the water quality objectives should be before we begin the construction of something to move a bunch of water through. If I invite anybody to my district in August, you can't go anywhere near the Delta. It is a beautiful fluorescent green that is toxic to anybody who gets near it. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Again, we don't have a quorum yet, but we'll take a vote on that when we do. We'll move on to File Item Number Three. Senator Dodd, you are prepared to present SB 310: File Item Three.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm presenting today SB 310, pertaining to cultural burning. I'm accepting the suggested amendments in the Committee analysis and thank the consultant for working with my staff on this important bill.

SB 310 would recognize tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning practices, defined as 'the intentional application of fire by cultural fire practitioners to achieve cultural goals and objectives.' SB 310 is another in a series of bills I've authored to advance the use of prescribed fire for wildfire prevention and forest management. The bill would vest authority in the Secretary of Natural Resources to decide if, in recognition of tribal sovereignty, certain state approvals for cultural burning may be waived.

Tribal and native people have retained control and sovereignty over cultural burning since time immemorial. The State Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force has established it would support and enable the expansion of cultural burning for the health and well-being of all communities, including habitat diversity, resilient ecosystems, and wildfire prevention.

Pursuant to an agreement with the State Resources Secretary, Native American tribes would not only be able to continue their cultural burning practices, but also benefit from the protections granted to certified burn bosses and have access to the Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program, which was established by my SB 926 last year. There is no opposition to the bill and is supported by a number of organizations, including the Pacific Forest Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Farm Bureau, and the Humboldt Redwood Timber Company. With me today is Sara Clark, representing the Karuk Tribe.

Thank you, and do you have two witnesses today, Senator? Or one?

I think we have one.

Okay. I guess you have four minutes then.

I'll take only two minutes of your time. Good morning. My name is Sara Clark. I'm a partner at Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, a public interest law firm in San Francisco. I've worked with the Karuk Tribe on cultural burning issues for a number of years, and I'm here to urge your aye vote on SB 310. Tribes and Native American people have used cultural burning since time immemorial. It is used to steward plants related to basket weaving, food, and medicine.

It is used to create and maintain habitat for a number of really important species, such as elk and salmon, and as the state is now learning, cultural burning reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfires by reducing fuel loads and by creating resilient ecosystems. Tribes are the most knowledgeable about these practices, and they have never ceded or relinquished control over them. SB 310 would take the important step of formally recognizing tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning and state law.

In furtherance of this sovereignty, SB 310 would enable the Secretary of Natural Resources to enter into agreements with federally-recognized tribes to coordinate cultural burning activities on their ancestral lands. Specifically, the Secretary is authorized to find that state permits, such as those issued by CAL FIRE and Air Districts, are not required for cultural burning programs. Instead, the potential health and safety impacts would be handled under tribal law.

SB 310 would mark an important step in recognizing and respecting tribal sovereignty with respect to cultural burning, while enabling the conditions needed to expand its use. This would have benefits for both tribal and non-tribal communities alike across the state. In addition, SB 310 includes a small but important fix to the 2021 legislation that was authored by Senator Dodd related to prescribed fire liability.

SB 332 made it less likely that private landowners or other burners would receive a suppression cost bill if they needed help with an escaped prescribed fire, so long as they were following certain best practices. SB 310 this year would allow federally qualified burn bosses, like their state counterparts, to rely on the same relaxed liability standard in order to address important workforce shortages. Thank you for your time. We request an aye vote.

Thank you. Let's hear from any other support witnesses here in Room 2100. Again, limit your comments here to name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Abigail Mighell, on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood Companies, also in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition. I guess we have none. So let's hear from any other opposition witnesses here in the room. Okay, since we don't have any, 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 prompt anyone on the line in support or opposition of SB 310, we'll begin.

Yes. And if you wish to comment in support or opposition, please press one then zero on your telephone keypad at this time. We have no lines in queue.

Thank you. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Any of our Members have questions or comments? Senator Dahle.

I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward, and obviously, a California pre-European settlement burned almost every ten years and so I think this is a great bill to actually show how we can put natural fire back on the landscape in a managed way and reduce the liability. So I'll be happy to move the bill whenever we get a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Anyone else? I have some comments. First of all, I would just want to thank you for working with our staff. Obviously, cultural burning is an important, long-established tradition that has helped to provide beneficial fire.

It's part of what we need going forward with resiliency. When we first saw the bill, I think we did have concerns that there wasn't enough data on how common this practice was. So appreciate you taking the proposed amendments. I think the five-year sunset will allow us to collect that data and see if this policy is worth renewing in five years. So with that, at the appropriate time, look forward to voting on the bill.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Right. Do we have corn yet? Okay. Not yet. Okay. So our next bill will be file item one, SB 23 Caballero. And since she is not able to present today, Senator De Padilla will present in her place. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I'm here to present SB 23 on behalf of Senator Caballero, which seeks to provide specific pathways for California to streamline the regulatory permitting process for water supply and flood risk.

Excuse me, reduction projects without compromising environmental protection. On behalf of Senator Caballero, I'd like to thank the committee for their work on the bill and accept the committee amendments. From 2020 to 2022, California experienced the driest three-year period on record for about just three months ago.

This prolonged drought was met with a series of atmospheric rivers and a bomb cyclone that brought significant amounts of rain and snow, leading to widespread flooding, residential and agricultural property damage, and evacuation orders for tens of thousands of residents, most of which were low income.

The havoc of the last few months has resulted in at least 22 fatalities in the state and thousands of displaced individuals, not to mention millions of dollars of agricultural land being put out of production.

The unnecessarily lengthy permitting process for water supply and flood risk reduction projects is unfortunately a contributor to these outcomes. The state's long and expensive permitting processes have affected projects in every single one of our districts.

Despite the need for water supply and flood protection, infrastructure being quite evident, the permitting process can be mired in delays caused by overlapping jurisdictions of state and federal agencies, confusion over what's required for a completed application, and state agency and project applicant staffing issues.

As delays occur, costs increase and depending on the size of the project, delays can ultimately cost water ratepayers and taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

The state has invested billions of dollars in water infrastructure projects in recent years, which will be essential to managing extended dry conditions and intense precipitation events.

We must recognize improving water supply reliability and ecosystem resiliency through the development of new infrastructure requires efforts to modernize our regulatory schemes.

SB 23 identifies opportunities to improve this streamline and streamline the regulatory permitting process while preserving established environmental protections so these critical infrastructure projects are built at a pace and scale needed to prepare for climate change and protect families and businesses that are affected by the delays inherent in our current permitting process.

Streamlining projects incentivizes investment in water projects which will not only prepare California for climate change, but generate jobs and contribute to state and local economies.

Streamlining projects will help to stabilize our water supply and most importantly, help keep our communities safe. On behalf of Senator Caballero, I thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With me today to testify in support is Chris Anderson with the Association of California Water Agencies and Mary Lynn Coffey, outside council with Nassiman representing Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Chris Anderson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies. First, just want to thank the committee and particularly the committee staff, Genevieve Wong, for all of her time and attention paid to this bill.

Also thanking Senator Padilla for pitching in for Senator Caballero this morning. We've all heard the science about climate change.

Little to no snowpack in the coming decades, prolonged droughts followed by intense atmospheric rivers, sea level rise, and the massive implications it holds for California's water supply. Of course, these are not just future hypotheticals. Climate change is here, and we've seen how weather whiplash is intensifying both drought and precipitation events.

Snowpack has historically accounted for about 30% of California's water supply. As a result, we built an entire water infrastructure system around the reliable appearance of snowpack in our mountains.

If we are to ensure California is able to thrive in a changing climate, we must aggressively rebuild the way we source, store and deliver water. At the same time, we must ensure our flood control infrastructure is ready to withstand intense atmospheric, rivers and sea level rise.

While the urgent need for these projects is evident, getting these projects built can be a significant challenge. SB 23 would address known sources of permitting delay for water supply and flood risk reduction projects in three key ways.

First, the bill addresses the permit application process. The time between an application is submitted and decision issued by the agency can be mired in delays. SB 23 would create a standardized and transparent process with deadlines on both the applicant and the agency to ensure both parties are working together to expedite the review process.

Second, the bill would take permit streamlining tools already available in existing law and ensure they're being utilized to expedite these projects.

These tools balance environmental protection with expedited review, but are not utilized to the extent they should be. SB 23 would ensure these tools are being utilized in a standardized and transparent manner. And finally, state agency staffing and resource issues are often impediments to expediting permit reviews.

SB 23 would help address these issues by loudening project applicants to provide agencies with funding necessary to say, for instance, hire additional staff. Importantly, what this bill intends to accomplish is within the existing regulatory permitting framework.

SB 23 would not shortcut or compromise any steps in the environmental review process. This bill merely proposes common sense ideas to address known sources of permitting delay. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members. I'm Mary Lynn Coffee, representing Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water. For the 2 million people of Santa Clara Valley, Valley Water is the first line of defense against drought, groundwater overdraft, intensified flooding and sea level rise. We strongly support this bill.

SB 23 tackles the causes of costly permitting delay for water supply and flood risk reduction projects, including establishing a pathway to complete application for 401 certs and addressing inadequate permit agency staffing, failure to use streamlining tools we already have, and open-ended deadlines with no accountability.

I'd like to speak briefly about natural community conservation plans, habitat conservation plans and other watershed scale biological plans. I'm going to call these HCPs. These are plans that have already been approved by state and federal regulators.

The use of HCPs as watershed plans to guide mitigation of impacts to waters of the state in issuing 401 certs was mandated by the State Water Board in 2019 for all HCPs approved prior to December of 2020. That's all HCPs that were available to the State Water Board in draft or otherwise when they were adopting.

Regional boards have not embraced this approach, even though it's better for species and habitats. Also, the approach falls short because of the date limitation.

New HCPs are amended and approved all the time. SB 23 says Water Boards must used already approved HCPs as watershed plans to streamline section 401 project mitigation if those plans address biological goals for aquatic resources.

If an HCP doesn't address all the project's impacts, the waterboard may require additional mitigation not already included in the HCP, including mitigation for temperature or in stream flow.

This will expedite project permitting because it avoids a protracted renegotiation of different, often geographically isolated and less effective mitigation sites that can add literally years to permitting processes.

Using HCPs as watershed plans yields better outcome for species and habitat, ensures mitigation dollars are invested wisely and reduces permitting delays that drive up the cost of projects and leave communities at risk of flooding, groundwater overdraft, subsidence and water shortage for years.

Valley Water urges your aye vote on SB 23 to deliver critical climate adaptation projects faster while still protecting the environment. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we hear further witnesses, we're going to establish a quorum assistant. Please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Okay, a quorum has been established. We'll now go back to hearing witnesses in support of SB 23. It looks like we have a queue of support witnesses here in room 2100. Please limit your comments, your name, affiliation and position on the measure. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the Rancho California Water District, also in support.

Good morning. Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority in support.

Good morning. Abigail Mile, on behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, also in support.

Sarah Stevens with the Municipal Water District of Orange County, Las Virgenes Water District and the Coachella Valley Municipal Water District, in support.

Morning, Mr. Chair and members. Carlos Gutierrez, on behalf of the California Fresh Fruit Association and California Citrus Mutual, in support.

Good morning. Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the cities of Santa Rosa and Belmont, who are pleased to support the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Annalee Akin, on behalf of Mesa Water District, in support.

Good morning. This is Gail Delhunt with Western Growers and I'm also representing the California chamber this morning. Thank you. We're in support.

Morning, Mr. Chair and members Dawn Kepke Mchugh, Kepke Pedrone, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance and support.

Morning. Heidi Hanneman, on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, in support.

Good morning. Catherine Freeman, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and also on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support. Thank you.

Ashley Walker with Nassiman on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, Olivenhain Municipal Water District and Padre Dam Municipal Water District, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker, on behalf of the Sonoma County Water Agency in support of SB 23.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Kristen Olsen, on behalf of the San Diego County Water Authority, United Water Conservation District and San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority, in support.

Hi. Alex Biering at California Farm Bureau Federation, in support. Thank you.

Paul Yoder, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members Glenn Farrell, on behalf of the State Water Contractors and Cal DeSal in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Bob Reeb with Reeb government relations on behalf of Desert Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Roland Water District, Solano County Water Agency, Valley Ag Water Coalition, Walnut Valley Water District and the Water Replenishment District of Southern California in support.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition here? We have one. All right. You have 4 minutes then.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Doug from the Natural Resources Defense Council. I won't take up all that time. We appreciate the work of the committee and appreciate the author's willingness to work with us to try to work through some of these issues.

Unfortunately, even as amended, we do oppose the bill and urge a no vote. Permitting of water supply infrastructure is highly complicated and does affect our environment. When we are building new water storage projects, we are taking water from the environment.

And so going through the permitting process frequently requires negotiations between the applicant and the agency to get to a better outcome. A lot of times, what we see is that having a strict timeline actually can be counterproductive because you end up in having to either deny the permit on behalf of the agency or lead to conditions that the applicant does not like.

And frequently, the applicant actually is the cause of delay, either as a result of having to redo their environmental analysis, redo their water rights application. And we've seen this with a number of projects in recent years. Unfortunately, SB 23 doesn't just streamline the process.

It fundamentally alters the state's authority to fully to require effective mitigation for impacts caused by water supply and flood control projects. And that happens really in two ways.

One is that the bill fundamentally conflates the responsibility of the Water Boards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which applies to any permit issued by the Federal Government on the Clean Water Act with the dredge and fill procedures, the wetlands policy adopted by the State Water Board.

And it limits those mitigation measures in a 401 certification to those that would be effective with respect to wetlands impacts.

But that leaves out all of the other projects and all the other impacts, including minimum stream flows for salmon, water temperatures for salmon, water quality and impacts to water rights holders downstream.

401 is under federal law and state law, 401 certifications are supposed to ensure that a project complies with state water quality standards and other appropriate requirements of state law. Obviously, this will be a big issue in the next committee.

But even with respect to the wetlands policy itself, SB 23 is not consistent with this adopted wetlands policy. As the committee staff appropriately points out, we believe in many ways that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. We all want everything to be perfect.

We want permitting to be simple and easy. We also want to have adaptive management, and we want to safeguard the environment. These are not easy decisions and tipping the scales towards speeding up the process.

Permitting new, massive infrastructure can leave our Fish and Wildlife and the thousands of jobs in Native American tribes that depend on them in even worse shape than today. And for all those reasons, we urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100. Please limit your comments, your name, affiliation and position on the measure.

Good morning. Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in the room, let's hear from any 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 start prompting any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 23, we can begin.

Good morning. Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of Community Water Center in opposition.

Yes, sir. And we'll go to line 25 first. Your line is open.

Thank you. Chair and members of the committee, this is Alex Bloomer on behalf of Cal Trout, Trout Unlimited, the Environmental Law Foundation and Defenders of Wildlife in opposition.

Thank you. Moderator do we have other people on the line?

Next, we'll go to line number 16.

Good morning. This is Kurt Cowie calling on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support of SB 23.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line number 20.

Good morning, Chairman, Members Erik Turner with Neimala Pappas and Associates, on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District, Eastern Municipal Water District and Santa Margarita Water District in support.

And next, we'll go to line number 22.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California in strong support.

And next we'll go to line number 10.

Line 10, you are open. Next, we'll go to line 24.

Good morning. Hannah Davidson on behalf of the Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District and we are in support.

We have no further lines in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. We'll bring the discussion back to the committee. Do any of our members have questions or comments? Senator Allen.

Well, I want to appreciate everyone coming in and all the issues that the author is trying to address here. And obviously, we don't have our author here. And I really appreciate, Senator, for stepping in for her. But I'm definitely concerned about the bill's provisions that would limit the state's authority to impose terms and conditions to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of water infrastructure projects. I understand from the committee analysis that the sponsor's intent is to codify all the processes and the procedures.

But while the procedures authorize the waterboards to use the approved plans as watershed plans, it's not required. And additionally, the procedures don't restrict waterboards from imposing additional conditions or supplementing it. So I know the committee analysis, the amendments in the analysis don't specifically call out deleting this provision from the bill. I'm hoping that the author will commit to working with our committee staff. If the bill comes out today, it's going to go over to Senate EQ.

And so I'm hoping that Senator Caballero's team would be willing to work with our staff to amend the language so that it's consistent with what's required by the procedures. If not, I'm seriously, we'll be considering trying to remove those provisions from the bill if it comes over to our committee. One other note, I'm also interested in seeing similar changes to the water board provisions for section 401 notifications and environmental review documents as those being made to the lake and stream bed alteration provisions today.

So I'm willing to vote for the bill to move the conversation forward. I understand that the author is trying to do a number of important things here, but there continue to be a slew of difficult environmental issues, some of which were also just mentioned during public comment, that need to be addressed if I'm going to feel comfortable moving the bill forward. But as I say, it would go to EQ if it gets out of committee today.

Mr. Chairman.

Senator Eggman, I'm sorry.

Mr. Chairman, Senator, I am asked on behalf of the Senator to convey that she is committed to working through all of the issues that have been raised in the analysis, particularly with regard to some of the procedural issues that may be raised in the EQ Policy Committee and wanted to convey that commitment to you on her behalf.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator Eggman.

Thank you. And also acknowledging that you're not the author of the bill, Senator, but I also, and have communicated with the author that we wouldn't be able to support this bill today. I mean, to echo my friend, the Chair of EQ, this is a massive bill. It seems like it should be four bills in one. And I think you see so many people lined up to speak in support. There's something big on the other side, lots of water.

Anyway, it would be ingenuous of me to vote for a bill that would just go in direct opposition of the bill I just presented to talk about the importance of water quality and being able to plan and then saying that's not part of the conversation at all. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting this, but hopefully at some point down the line, because we're all interested in getting projects moved faster.

If there's good metrics in place, hopefully I'll be able to support it at a later time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Senator Dahle.

Well, thank you for presenting the bill for the Senator. I want to just weigh in a little bit on the fact that we're seeing a lot of these bills. And why are we seeing these bills? I think the Senator is frustrated, at least my conversations with her and as well as I am as well being frustrated. Look, we are seeing swings in climate, drought, severe drought and flooding. And how are we reacting to that?

I think that's the goal of this legislation, is to talk about how are we going to react to the change in climate. And we're not reacting. We are basically allowing it to happen and we are not reacting to it. And we have to be responsible to our constituents who are really confused of what's happening here at the state level. We've seen masses of amounts of water going straight into the ocean, which we could use at a later time, at the same time destroying major infrastructure.

And we've seen droughts where we have curtailed agriculture. We have done all kinds of different things. And so I'm going to support the bill. I do think there's some issues with the bill, but we need to have this conversation.

And I know that it is very broad, but at some point, the legislature has to step in and do something because we are not reacting to climate change in the way that we should and not responsibly because we're allowing water to run to the ocean, which is not good. We don't have the ability to use it and we're seeing droughts and fires and those things. And we need to respond in a different way.

And I think that's where the Senator is coming forth, is to try to strike a balance to where we can actually adapt to climate change in a way that is productive for the environment and for agriculture and for people that live in cities. So those are the reasons I'm going to support the bill. I will be in EQ with Senator Allen to talk about some of maybe the amendments to this bill.

But I think the overarching conversation that we need to have and we need to be real about is that we're not getting anything done. We are stuck in a litigation, we're stuck in permitting processes. And at the end of the day, the fishers are being devastated by it and our communities are being devastated by it, and we need to react to it in a different way and in a more timely manner.

So I will be supporting the bill today and look forward to having those conversations in the next Committee EQ.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Senator Laird.

I run a risk having been out of the committee room presenting a bill and not having heard the debate of commenting and then being weird compared to what people testified, but a few points, and that is, I strongly support environmental laws we're talking about. But at some point, they're going to be blown away if they don't work.

For example, the flood that just devastated my district with Pajaro in the Pajaro river, we have a flood project that is ready to be built in a year, and we could not get to it in time. And a lot of people are out of their homes and jobs as a result. And we will be, there's an EIR that's been done, and yet there would still have to be additional work in compliance.

And I think we're going to work to see if we can expedite that project but not override the basic premises that were identified in the EIR to be mitigated. And when this group, and I think with the exception of the person sitting appropriately on my right, all of us voted for the Diablo Canyon Bill last fall, and that bill did not override the Coastal Commission.

But for the first time, it said they have a fixed amount of time to act so that their rights are there and the mitigations are there. But there's a way to make it work time-wise compared to everything else that has to be done.

And Anderson Dam is in my district, and from start to finish, that's going to be, probably got said in the testimony, 2008 to 2032, when there's dam safety and we're going through atmospheric rivers and we can't save the water, there's got to be a way to meet the safety in those projects, but do it in a timely fashion.

And so I believe the Senator who's Chair of EQ's comments of trying to make it workable, and I think that's the issue, is how do you make sure that you don't surrender some of the things that the reason those laws are in place, but you make them workable, so nobody wants to repeal them.

And I think that's the challenge that's in front of us, and I'm going to vote to move this along, but I believe that this is triggering that debate in a way that we should have it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Anyone else? All right, well, I have a few comments as well. And building on the comments of Senator Laird, this is an ambitious bill, and I thank you, Senator Padilla, for presenting it. I want to thank the author, staff and sponsors for working diligently with our committee staff and getting the bill to where it is today.

Look, I share a lot of the same concerns raised by Senator Eggman, Senator Allen, Mr. Obiji, this bill is addressing a real problem, which is that we do have important projects that seem to be delayed, and we need to get those projects online.

The legislature has tasked the Department of Fish and Wildlife with that important role, though, of making sure that we get that balance right, that our actions in approving projects don't substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, that state Water Boards are making sure and taking care that waste discharges are not degrading our water quality across the state. These are resources that all of us and future generations are going to depend on. So we want to get that balance right.

I think this bill has come a long way on that front, but given the debate we're hearing today, I think there's a lot more work that needs to be done. One concern that I have in particular, and I think Senator Eggman raised this, is the broad scope of the bill, particularly its application to water supply projects. As we know, there have been a lot of controversial water supply projects throughout the state, including in my district.

This bill as written right now, would apply to all of them. Should these highly controversial projects be expedited, or should we have something more like the status quo where DFW and state Water Boards proceed in a normal manner to make sure that projects are not harming our state's resources? So, look, this is about, I think, getting that balance right. This bill's moved in the right direction. I do still have concerns about the bill. Our staff still has concerns about the bill.

But this is the first policy committee for the bill. There will be time to work on it, to get it in a better position moving forward. And so, with that in mind, I am happy to support the bill today, look forward to future discussions and further evolution of the bill, particularly as it moves over to environmental quality. So with that, Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think, on behalf of Senator Cabiera, I would remind the committee what my daughter often reminds me of. It can be both and. We can protect the environmental review process as one that is meaningful, and we can improve the regulatory oversight process in a way that is more productive. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Do we have a motion on SB 23? Senator Dahle has moved the bill. The motion is due pass as amended. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 23. The motion is due pass as amended, to Environmental Quality. [Roll Call]

All right, we have six votes in favor. We'll leave the bill on call. And now we're going to move to the consent calendar. We have five bills on proposed consent today. File item number two. SB 256 by Senator Dodd. File item number six. SB 371 by Senator Ochoa Bogh.

File item number nine. SB 675 by Senator Lamone. File item number 11. SB 772 by Senator Dahle. And file item number 12. SB 841 by Senator Dahle. So we have quorum. We'll vote on the consent calendar. Assistant, please call the roll. Sorry. We need a motion. Okay, Senator Laird moves the consent calendar. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have six votes in favor. We'll leave the bill open on call. Our next bill is file item number four. SB 286. Senator McGuire, are you prepared to proceed?

Senator McGuire, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. First and foremost, I want to take a moment, Mr. Chair, and say thank you to you and to your amazing staff for your work on SB 286. I'm joined today, Mr. Chair, by Kate Hucklebridge. She's the Executive Director of the State Coastal Commission. She'll be here for any technical comments and questions.

And advancing this bill today couldn't be more fitting, as it is Oceans Day here in the state of California, and we're grateful to have this opportunity to be with you. I also want to say thank you to Senator Limon, who we're adding on as a co-author here on this important measure. Mr. Chair and Members, we all know the Golden State is staring down some extraordinary deadlines to meet our climate goals.

Power generation plays a massive role in achieving these goals, along with backfilling the energy generated by the temporary agreement that extended Diablo Canyon sunset. And I want to take a moment to acknowledge Senator Laird for his tenaciousness and focus on that and making sure that the community is also involved in this process and want to say and acknowledge Senator Laird for that. If we're serious about meeting these deadlines, we must move heaven and earth to deploy new green power generation facilities.

We know in this era of great transition from fossil fuels, we must do it right. And that's why we've introduced SB 286. It's the offshore Wind Expediting Act. This bill will expedite the stateside offshore wind permitting process through the State Coastal Commission and the State Land Commission, and at the same time ensure environmental safeguards remain in place. California's storied fishing fleet interests are protected, along with advancing resources that benefit communities and develop family sustaining careers through workforce education programs.

This bill requires the Coastal Commission to use its consolidated permitting process for any new development, delivery, and transmission of offshore wind energy projects. This expedited permitting process is expected to shave three years, three years off of the stateside permitting timeline when it comes to development and deployment of offshore wind projects. This expedited process can be completed without sacrificing coastal resources or, candidly, local government's local coastal program priorities.

This bill also designates the State Lands Commission as the lead CEQA agency, as they are already the state agency who is staffed up to handle CEQA in state waters. The bill requires the Coastal Commission and Lands Commission to coordinate with federal agencies to advance joint CEQA NEPA documents for proposed projects. This will avoid duplication and fold two regulatory processes into one which will rapidly speed up permitting timelines. In addition to this desperately need to streamlining, the bill focuses on creating collaborative partnerships to bring folks together.

It requires the Coastal Commission to bring the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Lands Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, representatives from the commercial fishing industry, representatives from the offshore wind industry, federal agencies, labor, Native American tribes, along with others, all to the same table associated with the development of new statewide standards to deploy this offshore wind industry.

And once this standard is completed and approved, the state will then front load new statewide permitting criteria. For example, and I'm going to wrap it up here, this bill will create a first in the nation statewide standard to compensate the fleet for lost fishing ground. The current process where wind companies go port to port creates disparities and candidly puts the fishing fleet at a disadvantage. It provides financial assistance to coastal cities and counties for the purpose of designing, constructing, and improving climate resilient critical infrastructure.

It includes one-time investments for fishermen to strengthen existing fleet infrastructure, and as well as building more resilient offshore wind energy projects on land. It supports tribal communities who may be impacted by the offshore wind development. And for the first time ever, it creates career training programs focused on the most disadvantaged communities, including native communities, getting Californians the career training they need to be able to get these turbines up and running. I'm going to end it right here.

We are actively engaged with stakeholders, and we know that there is still more work to do on this bill. And that is why we're grateful to the Chair and we're going to continue to keep the Chair in the loop as we move forward in these negotiations.

California has to get this right, and it's time to get both the offshore wind and fishing industries and communities at the table to develop this collaborative process. We have here today Beau Biller with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association and Peter Adame. He is the Executive Director with the Surfrider foundation, and we'll turn it over to them. Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Senator McGuire. We'll take the lead witnesses. Mr. Biller and Mr. Adame each will have two minutes. State your name again for the record and welcome.

Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairs, Members of the Committee. Beau Biller, on behalf of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, we greatly appreciate the author's work in this space to protect the fishers within the state. I want to read off just quickly for the record, a number of the folks within our commercial fishing web that we would like to put on the record.

We have the California Wet Fish Producers Association, the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries, California Fishermen's Resiliency Association, the Bodega Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association, Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association, the Fisherman's Marketing Association, Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Organization, the Commercial Fisherman of Santa Barbara. But again, on behalf of the professional, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, we ask for your aye vote and greatly appreciate working with the author to preserve a seat at the table for California's commercial fishers. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Adame.

Good morning, honorable Members of the Senate. My name is Peter Adame, and I'm here to support Senate Bill 286 on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation, which works to protect our beautiful coastline. Offshore wind will help California do its part to combat climate change, but we cannot ignore the dramatic impact it will have on our coastal communities, fishermen, fisheries, and other marine resources. When I'm not volunteering with Surfrider, I work for a California based seafood company called Loose America.

We have a dock in Monterey Bay, and I'm here to stress that our American fishermen are really struggling and need to be considered through this process. With offshore wind, floating turbines will be placed in high wind zones that naturally coincide with the nutrient dense upwelling zones that signify biodiversity hotspots in California. Essentially, the turbines will likely be located where sea life and fishing activity is most concentrated. This demonstrates the need for the monitoring, mitigation, and agency collaboration that this bill establishes. Surfrider urges the Committee to move SB 286 forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have moving on to other witnesses in support of SB 286? Please limit your comments, your name, position, and affiliation. No. Okay. Seeing no witnesses in support here, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition.

Mr. Chair? More of a tweener position. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Brian White, on behalf of Offshore Wind California. We are an association of offshore wind developers, technology companies, and consultants who are highly supportive of offshore wind, a responsible development of offshore wind, and appreciate Senator McGuire for introducing this bill. First, let me say we don't have an official position. We have talked to the author's office about the bill, try and get a better understanding of it.

And to that end, while the bill seeks to provide a mechanism to expedite permitting through better coordination among the Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, we do want to make sure that the bill does not get out too far in front of the AB 525 permitting process and the permitting roadmap that they'll be developing by this summer. And then there's the new proposed mitigation measures.

We want to make sure that that doesn't conflict with the existing processes and the community benefit agreements that each leaseholder will actually have to implement as part of their leaseholders agreement. We do recognize and respect the fact that the fishermen need to be taken care of, and that will be accounted for also through the community benefits agreements on a project by project basis, and that will also be done through the construction operation plans as part of the consistency determination.

There is a need for a continuous monitoring program. We actually support that type of concept. We think knowing the information first before we can figure out what the impacts are. There is a bill in the Assembly to try and do that. And so we are supporting that bill. But for now, we'll continue to work with the author, try to get a better understanding of the bill, make sure that the mitigation procedures don't impact existing processes and the current AB 525 process. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, we'll move on to any other opposition witnesses here in room 2100. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator, do we have anyone on the line?

Yes, sir. We'll go to line number 10. Your line is open. Okay. And we'll go to line number 31. Your line is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange. On behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, we have a support if amended position. Really appreciate the author and his staff willing to work with us to ensure, hopefully, that the maritime industry has a seat at the table. Thank you for your consideration. And we respectfully ask you move the bill forward.

Thank you. Anyone else?

There are no further lines in queue. No sir.

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

Well, thank you, Senator McGuire, for bringing this forward. I know you and I both have the fisheries as something that we, obviously, the rivers out of my district and your district feed the ocean, and fisheries are a big part of that. So I'm actually kind of a little bit confused on how the bill works. This is basically putting a mitigation in front of, like, doing the actual study. We're already saying that.

I know they're going to get a seat at the table, but there's also the ability for resources to come from somewhere, and I'm not sure where those resources would come from to mitigate. So can you kind of lay out what the strategy is of how this would work?

Yeah, 100%. And thank you for that question. So, first and foremost, this would create a consolidated permitting process. And that's when we talk about streamlining. So right now, there could be up to three different types of permitting when it comes to an offshore wind project in the state: local, state, federal. What this process would do is develop a consolidated process where all state agencies would come together, led by the Lands Commission, to advance one combined local and state agency permitting process.

We are currently in discussions with the Federal Government to be able to do a combined CEQA NEPA as well. That's why I say this bill is a work in process. What the goal would be is you combine the local with state. That shaves about three years, up to three years off the process, because you wouldn't have that first phase of an environmental impact report for example.

If we could get the feds to be able to say we agree on a combined CEQA NEPA through state lands, that would shave additional time off that. Then there are three different funds that would be created within this bill. One that would do port side and fleet infrastructure for the fishing fleet, which we know incredibly challenged in this state. Another fund that would be focused on local communities and Native American tribes who could be potentially impacted.

And the third would be on career training, working with California community colleges to be able to prop up new training facilities at California community colleges, whether it's on the central coast, the north coast, or other areas in this state, to ensure that we have the workforce to advance these turbines out in the sea. The way that we're going to get everybody at the table, per this piece of legislation, for the first time in this state's history.

And by the way, this would be the first in the nation, is you bring all the regulatory agencies, plus those stakeholders that would be impacted by offshore wind to be able to develop the standards collaboratively in the first two years. So you'd have offshore wind, you'd have labor. Most of these ports now have project labor agreements. We need to have labor at the table. You would bring in environmental and tribal interests to work with the Coastal Commission, who would be in the lead on these standards to help develop that.

Okay, so this is a lot different than any other process that we've ever witnessed as far as you usually have a developer who would bring a project forward and then would have to go through all the steps you just talked about, whether it's NEPA, CEQA, Coastal Commission, local. So you're combining all those. I understand that. I understand the thought process for that.

But the second part of that is that you're going to put together--the project proponent usually has to pay for all those things that if there's a mitigation, that's paid for by the project proponent.

So in this case, we're front loading that and we're saying, hey, we're going to already compensate the fisheries because we know there's going to be an impact. We're going to figure that's what basically this, I know this is not the Appropriations Committee, but this is a different policy than we've ever seen before. So I'm trying to wrap my mind around who's the project proponent.

Correct.

The project proponent would be those who are applying. So those who would get the lease to be able to build from BOEM in federal waters off of the California coast would need to be able to go through these application processes and this process, rather than being done on the back end--and again, I'll ask the Executive Director if she wants to correct me on this--but rather this being done in the back end, we front load this whole process to the front end to be able to get these projects deployed quicker.

That's the public that's going to be front loading that?

When I say front loading the actual permitting process with the state. Right. So you would have a permitting process that would be done on the front end. You wouldn't have a local permitting. We respect local coastal plan. You would have the state move forward. State lands would be lead CEQA. We would want the feds to be able to work with us, be able to combine NEPA and CEQA. We believe it's going to shave about three years off the process. But Senator Dahle, you're absolutely right.

This is the first time that we're doing this in the nation. But I just want to get through the previous conversation that you all just had on the bill. We're about needing to deploy this infrastructure quickly. I'm going to go to where Senator Laird just discussed, and I'm going to paraphrase, because he didn't say it, we're either going to amend to be able to meet our green energy demands, or we're going to get run over. We're not going to be able to meet these goals.

We can have both. But Madam Executive Director, I don't want to put words in your mouth in regards to process, and if you want to comment on that on the technical side, and I'll give you my microphone.

Thank you, Senator. I did want to make one quick clarification I think, a little bit about the permitting, streamlining aspects, but also then the planning portion that goes into the fishing and the fishing fleet mitigation. So the Coastal Commission did do a federal consistency review last year for offshore wind, the existing areas that were just recently leased. So we did do a preliminary analysis of impacts and have shown that we know there will be impacts to the fishing fleet, to the environment, to other things.

So we kind of did that preliminary analysis. Next, what we need to figure out is the strategy through which we will assess and then mitigate those impacts. And so this specifically when we're looking at the fishing fleet, we have a good sense of what those impacts are going to look like from our initial analysis, but we need to understand, because they're pretty large scale impacts, how we're going to mitigate.

And so that it's that planning that we're trying to front load so that when we actually get to the point of having projects, then we will have a strategy that lays out, here are the components of a fishing agreement that should be included. Every developer will need to have a fishing agreement with the local fishing community, and here are the elements that we think should be included.

And we want the fishing industry and the wind industry, as well as stakeholders to help us figure out what those elements are. So it's that planning process we're really trying to front load.

All right. This is somewhat confusing because typically the bill we had before us earlier, many of these projects have been through those planning projects, and so we're trying to streamline those projects. This is actually, as the Senator suggested, something that we've never seen before and usually have a proponent that comes in with a project. And in this case, we're doing all the environmental work and then saying, okay, this is what the hoops you're going to have to jump through.

And here's the mitigation already through this type of legislation. So I'm going to lay off the bill. I'm going to get to see it again, and I think it's going to energy, is that correct, in two weeks?

Yeah.

So I want to learn a little more. We can spend some time together, talk about this bill, because I think this makes me nervous for the environmental side of it, where we go in. And I'm all for streamlining and getting to where we need to go. I obviously understand that part of it. But at the same time, we need to be very careful about how we put all these agencies together.

And there's reasons for different agencies having different powers and controls and in this case, we really don't have a project proponent. It is the state doing this. This is the state leading, as you said, something like we've never seen in the nation. And that should be cause for some concern to make sure that we, number one, that somebody's going to have to pay.

At the end of the day, it's going to be the ratepayer that has to buy this energy that's going to be produced out there after all this mitigation has been done. And so anyway, I'm going to be laying off your bill today. I'll be looking forward to working with you and the folks that are going to be impacted, the fishing industry, and the local communities and the tribes that are going to be impacted as well.

Mr. Chair, if it's all right, I'll just say the reason why we are here at this table today is because you see some of the most impoverished communities in this state who are desperate to be able to see new industry coming in. I'm going to give an example in Humboldt County. Humboldt County was dependent on natural resources, fisheries and logging for over a century. That is all dried up.

If we do not expedite the permitting of this new energy source, those rural communities will continue to suffer. And the whole intention of this is to be able to embrace our green energy future where this state, this Legislature, this Governor, previous Governor has all said we need to go, but it's not going to work if we do not expedite the deployment of wind energy, plain and simple.

And off of the Humboldt coast, off of the Central Coast, you have some of the most wind rich regions on the planet. So if, by the way, how many times, and I'm grateful, by the way, when the Coastal Commission gives its word they're going to do it. I get it. There has been challenges, but how many times have you ever seen the Coastal Commission come forward and say, let's get this done quicker? They want to get it done.

And I'm grateful to the Commission, to this Executive Director, for having that vision to help this state adopt its green energy goals. And if we don't do it, we're going to be back here all complaining, by the way, about the long lead times when it comes to state and federal CEQA and NEPA processes. We can't have it both ways. So where we're at today is we're advancing this bill that ensures that we're cutting three years off of the permitting timeline. Three years.

And we do fair and just compensation to the fleet who will be losing fishing ground, and we develop career training pathways, and we protect local communities. But I look forward to Senator Dahle, and Senator Dahle is incredibly sincere in his offer, and I am grateful to always work with him on.

We have a rich wind resource, which is no doubt there. But if we get this wrong, if we get it wrong and we expedite it and we get it wrong, and everybody's compensated and taken care of, the fish and fleet and whoever the training and all that, if we get it wrong, we have at risk a fishery that is world class and has been hurt by a lot of decisions that we've made in the past. So there is a risk here, the fleet.

And I want to make sure that we take a look at that risk and manage that risk. That's what this is about. So I just want to be on record as saying that, look, I just tried to streamline projects that we know are already built on a bill before this, but we have to be wise right here because this is something different than we've ever seen. Usually you have a project proponent comes forth with a project and it gets analyzed.

This is the state stepping in and streamline that process with the Federal Government, with the tribes, and with the fisheries. So I just want this Policy Committee to understand what we're really voting on today. And we have to do this right, because if we get it wrong, it will cost us, and the generations that come behind us will go, what the heck were they thinking? Just to get something done in a quick manner. So I just want to make that a point.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, for that discussion. Thank you, Senator McGuire. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Restating some of the overall things here, we purposefully, in doing the Diablo deal last fall, continued it through 2030, and the fastest that wind could come on is 2029. And the idea was to make sure the transmission was ready for the wind in the Central Coast by doing that. So then it's incumbent on us to then move to the wind in a way that it moves things along.

And last Thursday, along with nine other legislators, I got in a boat and went out to the turbines in the North Sea, and I've also been to the ones in Glasgow. Sometimes you see that and you learn more about your home by doing that. And what I saw was they were actually incredibly coordinated, and it shone a light on how incredibly not coordinated we are at this time. And I think the issues of coordination are much larger than this bill.

The transmission for the Humboldt one could kill that project if it's not there. There is not adequate transmission in that part of the state. And I'm concerned about whether there's a plan. And even if you run the lines in the ocean to the south, there's almost nowhere except Diablo Canyon to plug in the lines that have additional transmission. And you got to do that in the next five years or six years, which is daunting.

And there are many, many other issues because getting at what Senator Dahle was asking about, some of these things aren't decisions of the applicant. Where we cite, these ports aren't necessarily going to be totally within the purview of the applicant. And the port is the one issue that is resolved in the Humboldt, but it's not resolved in the Morro Bay or off the central coast in a clear way. And there's lots of interests.

There's talk in some of the studies of bifurcating the duties between three different ports. There's an issue of jobs that come with it to certain places. And the Governor had a point person on wind and he promoted her to the PUC. And right now there's not somebody doing what the larger issue is. This really requires coordination between the agencies, between the Legislature, between the companies, between the stakeholders, to manage this. This bill is just a part of it.

And if you look at the fisheries, the port permitting what local governments, the transmission, the labor standards, all in trying to do this in a reasonable amount of time. And it's really daunting. And so I'm going to vote for this bill, but I think that this whole thing is a work in progress, much less than this bill. And the question is how in a coordinated way, are we going to address and answer all these issues in a timely fashion?

And I came away thinking this is really urgent. And right now I don't see the level of coordination. I mean, I saw coordination in the other two sites I've seen that doesn't exist here. And so as part of this bill, I hope it forces the issue on the overall coordination. And I appreciate the one stop permitting, but it gets back to our previous debate. How do you adhere to the standards and yet expedited and coordinated in a way that it shaves time and it moves it?

And so I just wish you luck. I think this is daunting, and it might need to be coupled with some kind of administrative process that the Governor and the Legislature and other people do to just make sure these issues are resolved in a timely fashion, because a lot of them are outside of the purview of the individual applicants. And if the individual applicants are already going to do mitigations that address some of these issues.

How do we make sure we're not doubling up in how they do it? And I know there's been lots of coordination in the Central Coast with regard to the sanctuary and all these other things. And there is major concerns. I had a letter from the Morro Bay fishing industry with 23 concerns on wildlife just listed. And it actually magically arrived the night before we were going out to the turbine.

So I put some of these questions to the people in the other country about how they've done it and how they've mitigated it, and what they would suggest. I'll vote for this bill, but I want everybody to start to work on the larger thing, to move this along. Because unless we make some key decisions in the next year or so, we're not going to meet some of the deadlines we have.

And this is the one big project that has the potential of completely substituting the baseload of Diablo Canyon and going further in regard to what we have to do for renewable industry. One of the things that always gets said, and it got said by people on this trip, is you guys just dream of all these deadlines and goals. But the underlying stuff is still a problem. And this is the underlying stuff. So I wish you luck, help in any way. We've got to make sure that we address all these issues and move this in a timely fashion.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank Mr. McGuire for bringing this bill forward, because it does create a conversation, and the conversation does need to happen. I mean, in 2008, the voters approved high speed rail dollars. And we had a promise of having transportation from Los Angeles to San Francisco during that ballot measure process. And it is 2023, and there is not one ounce of track laid. And there were lawsuits, continued to be lawsuits, that continued to delay projects.

I'm not supporting the project. I don't support the project. I never have. But it just is an ongoing issue. This is another huge megaproject that the State of California will take on. Part of the problem, if you look at water storage projects that are ready to go, my good colleague, the former secretary of Natural Resources, commented on a dam that was just one year away, but it was 10, 12, more than 10 years in the making. We have temperance flat.

We have other things that are years, years in the making and delayed in projects because of continuous lawsuits for CEQA mitigation. And you call it mitigation, but it's really buying off or giving the entity what they want for either mitigation or a project labor agreement or the environmental group that's pursuing the lawsuit. And then that's given by what my colleague from Beaver calls the project originator or the individual bringing the project proponent, the project proponent.

So all that mitigation takes place, and then they start the project, and there's another lawsuit, then they mitigate with somebody else, and then there's another lawsuit, and lawsuits is what creates--and we are the top litigation state in the nation according to several polls and several informational articles that are out there.

So I guess my question to you is, everybody gets in the room in the beginning, and the state's in charge, and everybody get what they want, and the project proponent has to pay all that money out, mitigate every standard, sign a project labor agreement, all the things. Does that eliminate the litigation that can go forward?

Like once all that happens and you come to a deal, and then the project is granted, do you still have years of litigation waiting in the process, or does this piece of legislation change that?

It's in the middle. And let me explain. There are three opportunities to be able to litigate, for example, an offshore wind project right now, local, state, and federal. This bill consolidates the local into the state, so it eliminates one of the three. So now you're down to two bites at the apple. As long as CEQA in this bill remains to be in place, there will be an ability to litigate.

But it's for the first time, and by the way, we're learning, and I'm going to turn it over to the Executive Director. We're learning from mistakes on the East Coast on this bill, which is why you're seeing us bring this forward. Other states, they tried to do something similar. Nine east coast states with a consolidated process, and it fell apart. We are moving forward with one of the largest coastlines in North America. It will reduce the opportunity for litigation. It will not eliminate it.

And when you say reduce, either the Director or yourself. When you say reduce, is that by 5%?

Well, no. So, like, if you take a look right now, if the offshore wind project will be moving forward, you have three different environmental processes. You'd have a local EIR, a state EIR, a federal NEPA. The locals consolidate in the state. So you take one off the table, the local. So then you have state. And then if we can work to get the feds on board with us, then you'd have a combined CEQA NEPA. But I'll turn it over if it's all right. With the permission of the Senator to be able to discuss that as well. Please, Madam Executive Director, is that okay?

And then also, when you discuss this, Madam Director, I apologize. To add one more thing to it. The good Senator, Mr. McGuire just said that it would consolidate the local with the state and the state with the federal. So, I mean, take the Delta conveyance or the Delta outflows issue. If we consolidate with the federal, a lot of times, water, specifically water is very, very political.

New biological opinions came out under the Trump Administration, which were challenged in a lawsuit, even though they gave different biological opinions. If they were under an Obama Administration or Biden Administration, maybe the opinions would be taken differently when California would react. And I'm not trying to make something political. I'm just trying to say is that the best interest of a project like this is to turn it over to the feds, regardless of who is in power?

They'd turn it over to us? Yes.

Oh, they would turn it over to us? Thank you for clarifying that. Go ahead, ma'am.

So a couple of things. I think already we're working with the Federal Government very closely. So the Coastal Commission, under our federal consistency authority, work with the federal agencies on regulatory review in federal waters. So that partnership is already happening.

What we're talking about here is working with them to see if we can do a joint CEQA NEPA document, which the idea being that if we can do that and we can do it on a timeline that makes sense, it would strengthen both of those documents, ideally, and make them stronger if there is a litigation challenge through the State Lands Commission. Correct. And then I don't think you could ever eliminate a litigation risk.

But I do feel that part of what has been successful so far in the planning efforts we have is a lot of stakeholder engagement and a lot of the kind of that front loading of discussion and process that we were talking about has already been going on, and we would want to continue that. And the fishing working group is an example of that. We would want to do that in other arenas as well.

When the Coastal Commission did approve two consistency determinations last year, we didn't get litigation, which is a little surprising. And I think the reason we didn't is because we worked really hard to pull in the communities that would normally litigate against some of these things. We pulled in the environmental community to try to address their concerns, the fishing community. And so I think the idea of front loading a lot of this process is to hopefully bring everybody on board as we move forward.

I believe it would reduce litigation risk. It can't eliminate it. That's not possible. But if we can address the concerns of the fishing fleet through the strategy as an example, they'll be less inclined to litigate. So that is kind of where we're heading into this and why we think front loading is important to think through all this. And we really, as the Senator mentioned, we are trying to learn lessons from the East Coast and from Europe. We have know, partnering with different governments.

We have been trying to learn the lessons of how to permit these things quickly and efficiently and successfully. So we're trying to incorporate that as we go in. And I absolutely agree with Senator Laird. There's a lot of coordination, and we are doing some of it, and more needs to be done to address all of the elements of offshore wind. This is one component, it's an important component, but it's not the only one.

Thank you. And so just for simple layman's terms, for myself, I apologize. NEPA would be combined into the state's role, and the state would be like the lead agency, right?

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. So there still would be a lead federal agency that would do a NEPA document. But the idea is that there's so much overlap in the analysis that goes into CEQA and NEPA that if we are working with our federal agency partners and sort of working through that analysis together, then those documents would be consistent. And the more consistent you are, the stronger it is. So there would still be two documents.

BOEM would still be the lead on a NEPA document, and they would still have their own actions on that, and then the state would have its own. But we would be working really closely to pair those analyses so you don't end up with different ways of looking at impacts to fishing as an example.

Thank you. So just to my good friend Senator McGuire, I see the benefits. I do, and I see what you're trying to do. But I do concur with what my colleague Senator Dahle from Beaver said. Know, if we get it wrong, I mean, we got the logging industry wrong, and now lumber mills and a lot of people are out of work, and we're importing more lumber than we ever have just for the products that we need. You all know my opinion on the oil industry.

I think you're totally getting that wrong. We are brutalizing foreign countries. We have slave labor developing cobalt in the Dominican Republic of the Congo. We are importing oil from Ecuador, where they have zero environmental policies that protect the indigenous tribes and the indigenous Indians in that community. And I think we're getting that wrong. And so I understand what you're trying to do and I think it will be beneficial. I wonder who's going to pay for it. But it's not just the resource.

Money is, I don't want to say always available, but there's always somebody who's going to pay for a project. And part of my fear is it'll be the end user or the person know rates of utilities will go up. I'd like to see the studies in Europe and on the East Coast of what's happening there.

I love the out of the box thinking on making this happen so that we can at least reduce litigation and that we could come together with one solid project where things could be streamlined a little bit faster than waiting years and years or decades actually on a project. But I do have the same concerns and it's not my district. I don't have fisheries in my district. I have a small one in Kernville, but nothing what you guys have on the coastal area.

But I have concerns that if we get it wrong, it will devastate our fishing industry, just like reducing water for our farmers in the Central Valley devastates the world's food supply. California is a unique place. It's one of the most populous states, but it's also one of the most energy producing and food producing states in the world.

And if we get it wrong, it don't only have an impact on us, it has an impact on the nation and the world, and it starts with our local fisheries in that area. So I really do applaud and appreciate, like I said, the out of the box thinking on trying to address this. We've created a behemoth monster with what I believe, CEQA.

I believe the environment should be protected, but I don't think it should be protected at all cost where you shut down everything to protect the environment, because there has to be a balance. We do need to protect our environment. But like I said, I appreciate and applaud you for coming up with this idea. I really do. I'm going to lay off the bill to see where it goes. I'm not on another Committee where it's going next.

So I'd like to see what it looks like when it comes to the floor and see what kind of working with the opposition and stuff that is out there that have concerns, even though they call themselves tweeners, because I think they're going to represent the ratepayers. So thank you for thinking outside the box.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Just very quickly. I'll make it 30 seconds. Is that, look, my belief is that you need to meet with any and all, and you have to continue to grind to be able to get it right. And that's what we're committed to do. And in fact, the Executive Director and I will be in a large meeting with Wind Energy next week having conversations about how we can get this right.

But I think that we can all agree no matter what your party affiliation, we know where we're going to get it wrong. Where we get it wrong is doing what we always have done. Doesn't work.

Exactly.

So we're here today to be able to advance an expedited permitting process that will help get the power that we need and preserve the environment. And I think that's absolutely critical. And you'll also see a very similar bill on transmission that we'll be advancing this year because, as Senator Laird just said, that's our second largest Achilles heel. Thank you so much, Senator Grove, and I'm grateful to work with you for.

Thank you for the piece of legislation. It's very interesting. But just like I said, we've got to get it, I know we're going to get it wrong in pieces, but it's got to be done right or there will be other devastated industries that will be affected by this.

Thank you, ma'am, very much.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Briefly, I want to thank the author and Dr. Hucklebridge. Always good to see you and appreciate your contribution here. Obviously, the wind energy component of our renewable and clean energy portfolio is critical. It is massive in scale, it's complex. There's many overlapping sort of regulatory schemes, as you well know. And I think this is a thoughtful bill that clearly will continue to move in some good directions.

But a significant demand and need with significant impact, wholly appropriate to try to create a framework on the front end on the planning component so that given the extent and scope of the types of permits and reviews that will be required up and down the coast of California, that in advance of that, that what this bill seeks to do is really to harmonize many of the existing, even federal and state regulatory schemes.

We're not creating necessarily, in my view, new infrastructure, new staffing demands, new fiscal demands. We're seeking to require and statute an actual sensible harmonizing of these existing regulatory schemes in a way that are clear, consistent, transparent, and much more efficient. And that is the point. And that's why I appreciate the author's work here, appreciate the Coastal Commission's work, and I'll be happy to be in support of move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Senator Allen.

Thank you, Congressman. Well, I do want to just thank our colleagues for the dialogue, because I do think that they're raising some questions about the extent to which we're subverting a normal timeline in the way that these kinds of projects might roll out. You're being proactive in helping to address some of the mitigation issues that we all know would happen as a result of the implementation of a massive offshore wind project there.

But I'm heartened by the tone of the dialogue you've had with our colleagues and certainly happy to support the bill. But I think we all know we're stepping into a great deal of complications with this sort of work. There's a whole set of environmental challenges associated with the reason why we're impacting the fishery is because of all the environmental challenges associated with this sort of technology. And it's not without some trepidation that I think about these issues.

I'll be supporting your work today, but I do appreciate extent to which the dialogue today has touched upon a lot of the complexity of what we're doing here on a lot of levels, both from a process perspective, but also from an environmental perspective. And I do kind of hope that our environmental community will really take, including the folks that are here today with Oceans Day. Right.

I mean, today is literally the day where the halls are filled with activists coming to talk about oceans issues. And I think we know that there's a trade off. We want to meet our climate goals. We know that offshore wind can play a really important role in that effort. We also know that there's some ecological impacts, and I just want to make sure they're being properly mitigated, taken into account.

I just also want to welcome the engagement and the input from our friends who are here today, whether they be from Oceania or Surfrider or Coast Keeper, et cetera, in this dialogue.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Seeing no other discussion, Senator McGuire, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. I'll be quick. I just want to say again how much I appreciate the thoughtful conversation here today. We'll be engaging with each and every one of you. I want to take a moment to say thank you to the Executive Director and to the Coastal Commission. They are sticking their neck out on this issue and really grateful to be working with them on this. Lastly, business thrives on consistency.

If you have standardized framework in place, you know what to expect. Deploying this type of energy, that's a good thing in this state. It's a good thing for our grid, it's a good thing for business and the environment. And there are very few bills that would expedite energy as well as provide brick-hard safeguards for the environment. And that's what we want to do. We'd be grateful to have your support and would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on SB 286? Padilla moved the bill. Okay. The bill is moved by Senator Padilla. The motion is do pass as amended. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 286. The motion is due passed to Energy, Utilities and Commissions. [Roll Call]

We have three votes in favor. We'll leave the bill open on call. We have a few other bills we should vote on real quickly that we heard before, so we'll start with file item number one, SB 23. Assistant, please call the roll. I'm sorry. And do we have a motion? I'm sorry. On SB 23. I'm sorry. Did that get passed? I'm sorry, what do we have? SB 310, which is file item number three. Okay, Senator Dodd. Do we have a motion on that?

The motion is due pass as amended and moved by Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 310. The motion is due passed as amended to Judiciary. [Roll Call]

We have five votes in favor. We'll leave the bill open on call. The next item, SB 687. File item number 10 by Senator Eggman. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion on SB 687? Moved by Senator Allen. The motion is due passed as amended to Environmental Quality. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have four votes in favor. We'll leave the bill open on call. Then finally, we have SB 756. File item number 13 by Senator Laird. Do we have a motion? Can someone potentially move the bill? Potentially? Okay. Moved by Senator Eggman. The motion is due passed to Judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll. File item number 13. SB 756.

[Roll Call]

We have six votes in favor. We'll leave the bill on call. Okay, so that will move finally to file item number five, SB 360. Senator Blakespear, thank you for your patience. You are prepared to present?

I am. Thank you. And I appreciate the very important issues that you've been dealing with here today. It's been fascinating to listen to them, and my bill that I'll discuss should be relatively shorter than the previous bills. So thank you to the chair who's just stepped out and my Senate colleagues for hearing this today. So today I present SB 360.

What this does is it allows somebody who serves as a supervisor or a City Council Member to also serve on the Coastal Commission and LAFCO or a JPA at the same time, concurrently, if they choose to. So right now, there are certain statutorily enumerated roles that somebody can fill together with being a Coastal Commissioner, but it does not include LAFCOs and JPAs.

As someone who came from local government, as I know many of you did, when you layer on expertise in municipal government, it makes you a better representative for constituents. So this, I think, is something that's supported by the Coastal Commission. And we have here today to the Legislative Director, Sarah Christie, and the Executive Director who you heard from earlier, Kate Hucklebridge, who also can answer any questions. So with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. The Chair and the Vice Chair, having stepped out, I am keeping the meeting going here. Thank you. So those two witnesses you named are just for questions. They're not presenters?

That's right.

Then this would be the opportunity for anybody that is in the hearing room to register support for this bill. Seeing none, this would be the opportunity for anybody in this room to oppose the bill, seeing none. Moderator, we will go to the phone system. This would be the opportunity for anyone to express a position on this bill. And it is just name, organization and position. Moderator do we have anybody that's in the queue?

Not at this time, sir, but if you do wish to comment on this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. And there's no one in queue.

Thank you, Moderator, we'll get back to you in a bit. This would be the opportunity for any members of the committee to have a question or a comment. We have a motion by Senator Dahle seeing no one else having comments. Would you like to close?

No. I appreciate your support.

Thank you. And I was going to say initially it was a very low bar for you to say this was brief, but you actually have set a record. So would you please. Whoops. Did you agree in your comments to accept the amendments?

Yes, it's the one amendment about "sandag", right? The word "sandag."

Yes, of course, that's accepted, and I'm confident that was in the motion. So would you please call the role.

File item number five, SB 360. The motion is due pass as amended. [Roll Call]

That's five votes. Why don't you see if Senator Min or Senator Grove have a vote?

Yes, we still keep the roll open.

This is file item five, SB 360.

SB 360. And the motion is due pass as amended. [Roll Call]

That's seven votes. We'll put it on call. That's enough to get out. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And with great pleasure, I'm going to turn the gavel back over to the Chair.

Thank you, Senator Laird, for filling in. So our next bill is File Item Number Seven: SB 659. Senator Ashby, thank you for your patience. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

You guys have had quite the morning. You're not done. You have a long day ahead of you. Thanks for making some time for me, too. I am here to talk to you about SB 659. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to start by thanking your incredible staff. They have been very helpful to my team, and this is a better bill for their participation. I will gratefully be accepting the Committee's recommended amendments.

I rise to present SB 659, which will allow California to create an additional groundwater recharge capacity of ten million acre feet by 2035. The amendments accepted will require the plan to include best practices identified by the Department to protect safe drinking water and maintain a high level of water quality. SB 659 does not waive any environmental laws.

This Legislature has worked hard to address climate change, and sometimes those efforts require us to choose a course, a path forward, before identifying every detail of implementation post-production. This moment calls for goal setting before it's too late. To meaningfully address the future of water supply in a shifting climate, we must be proactive. With the impacts of climate change so steadily upon us, extreme temperatures, reduced snowmelt, intense droughts, and floods are becoming more and more common, which we are all far too familiar with.

California's aquifers have more storage capacity than our surface reservoirs, and storing more water underground can help water users adapt to the loss of snowpack and increased flood risk. Groundwater is a critical component of the state's water storage, accounting for up to 60 percent--that is far over half of the state's total water supply--during a drought. Groundwater recharge projects have multiple benefits, not just one.

They reduce flood risk, they help store water for the drought, they maintain agricultural productivity for domestic water use, and very importantly, sustain groundwater dependence ecosystems. The Sacramento region, which I have had the great pleasure of working with for many years on water, has done an incredible job of increasing groundwater levels for 20 years and has sustainably stored water in the region, which importantly has allowed Sacramento to use a transfer system to provide water to drier parts of the state in difficult years.

We have taken a coordinated approach to capture more water in groundwater basins when conditions are wet and have actually seen groundwater levels increase because of this. This allows the Sacramento region to be less dependent on precious water in our rivers and lakes when conditions are dry, which is really important because it supports the river basin ecosystems, too.

This model can be scaled up to increase groundwater levels across the entire State of California and should be. A substantially increased groundwater supply is essential to create a reliable supply of water for the environment. Our communities and all of our California industries require it. SB 659 is an all of the above strategy. Governor Newsom has already stated the need for additional groundwater recharge capacity, deeming it one of his core pillars of the water supply strategy. SB 659 complements those efforts and yours.

It builds on the success of this Legislature's past work to address the impacts climate change has had on our water supply in a way that is consistent with California's existing policy goals, many of which have been set by most of you. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce reliance on fossil fuel, protect our environment, build sustainable communities, and better prepare ourselves and our constituents for the future. SB 659 does all of the above.

I have with me today two support witnesses, and I'd like to introduce them now, if that is okay, Mr. Chair. The first is Ryan with the Regional Water Authority, and the second is Michael with the California Association of Winegrape Growers.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

I'll be brief. Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority. RWA is a joint powers association comprised of 22 local drinking water suppliers here in the greater Sacramento area that provide water to two million people. RWA's mission is to assist those members in achieving the human right to water. The single greatest threat to that ability is the impacts of climate change. Groundwater recharge is a solution to the challenges that climate change is presenting.

As the Senator just described, we have successfully recharged our groundwater basins here over the last two decades, a period that coincides with megadrought, and that same thing can be done up and down the state. It may look different in different districts, Senate districts, than it does here in Senator Ashby's district, but the opportunity exists again up and down the state. And so this bill will establish a goal to get us to focus on that solution. I guess I'll close with we know it works.

We know it's cost-effective and we know that it can be scaled up to meet the size of the challenge, and I'm here happy to answer any other questions, but I know you guys have had a long morning already, and I'll just close with that, other than to say thank you for the time and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Michael Miller, the California Association of Winegrape Growers. I want to thank the author for her leadership on this bill. Thank the Committee Members and staff for your attention to this bill. It's a very important issue that we're proud to cosponsor along with our cosponsors here. Winegrape growers in California have a decades-long commitment to sustainability.

There are over 200,000 acres of sustainable vineyards in California, and 80 percent of the wine produced in California in 2021 came from a sustainable winery. The iconic industry is leading the way in sustainability. Our practices include reducing water use through precision viticulture techniques, increasing the use of recycled water, creating ponds for recharging irrigation, and much more. A big part of sustainability is stewardship and looking forward, preparing for the future.

With that in mind, we know that vineyards in this industry are going to be sustainable in the next hundred years. California cannot rely on a water conveyance system that was created 100 years ago. We need to look forward. As previously stated, climate change demands that we increase our focus and efforts on groundwater recharge. SB 659 does this by creating a modest goal to work towards, while at the same time considering all interests and all stakeholders. Our organization represents vineyards all over California.

Many of our growers in the south end of the Central Valley are panicking right now. They are looking at the high streamflows, which have already caused flooding. As the spring weather heats up, they look at the snowcap east of them and they see increased flooding coming their way. Ironically, they also look down the road aways and know that very soon, drought will be back with us sooner than any of us would like.

The reality of climate change is that we cannot afford to view the last five years as a blip. We must expect repeated years of drought with occasional winters that bring atmospheric rivers and such. This is our new norm. This is a climate change future for all of us, and we must plan accordingly. That is why there is such a diversity of environmental, water, and industry groups in support of SB 659. When's the last time you all saw such support for a water bill?

We are proud to cosponsor this critically important legislation to provide water not only for California vineyards, but for all of California. We thank the author for her leadership, and we thank our cosponsors for their partnership, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, let's hear from any other support witnesses here in the room. Please limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the Rancho California Water District, in support of the bill for the reasons already stated.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ross Buckley, on behalf of the City of Sacramento, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of the Community Water Center. I want to thank your staff and folks for working on the amendments and also for the author and the author's staff. In support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of various agricultural commodity associations: Western Ag Processors, Fresh Fruit Association, UnitedAg, and Western Growers, in support.

Good morning. Sarah Boudreau, on behalf of the City of Roseville, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Mark Fenstermaker, on behalf of the Sonoma County Water Agency and Sustainable Conservation, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Chris Lee, on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in support.

Thank you. We'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Okay. Let's hear from any other opposition witnesses here in the room. No. Popular bill, Senator. Okay, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Those wishing to testify should limit their comments to their name, their affiliation, and their position on the measure. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 659, we can begin.

Thank you. And if you would like to comment, please press one followed by zero. One moment, please. We'll go to line number 19. Your line is open.

I'm with the Northern California Water Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 20. Your line is open. Okay, they took themselves out of queue. Line 30, your line is open.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Kendra Daijogo with the Gualco Group, on behalf of Modesto Irrigation District, in support.

Moderator, do we have anyone else on the line?

Yes. We have line 20. Your line is open.

Morning, Chair and Members. Erik Turner, Niemela, Pappas and Associates, on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District, in strong support.

And Mr. Chair, there are no other lines in queue.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. We can now bring the discussion back to our Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Senator Laird.

I just have a quick comment, and I salute the author for doing this. Our water development in California should be all of the above. This is a key part of it. I appreciate you taking the amendments. And the only concern I had was the ten million acre feet as a goal and whether it was, in fact, realistic. But you'll be moving this, and I think you still have time to address that question because I would like to see this be a meaningful goal.

And if the goal is just virtually every place in California that could take groundwater, that's probably not a goal that we will reach. And we really have to do this over time. So with that, I would move the bill as amended.

Thank you. Senator Dahle.

My question is along the same lines as Senator Laird. Ten million acre feet. So I represent Oroville and Shasta. Shasta is the largest aboveground storage facility in the state, which is around four million acre feet. So you're talking about two and a half times the amount of that water being stored in California annually. So, anyway, I don't know how you came--I was just wondering how you came up with ten million.

As somebody who is a farmer and works the land, it's very difficult to recharge. Only certain places you can recharge. And we know that because of the soil conditions that are out there. And so, anyway, I'm going to support your bill, but I think that we need to be thinking about how we're going to achieve that, because we have SGMA and we have all these other laws and abilities.

Yes, and this is complementary to SGMA. I'd be more than happy to address the ten million, why we came up with that number, and where we got it from. But first, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least just say thank you to Senator/Secretary Laird for taking my calls. The bill is better for your input as well.

I took this bill because in my time on the Sacramento City Council, I had the opportunity to actually serve on the ACWA Board, which most of you are far more familiar with than most local electeds are because they're the State Water Agency that you all deal with. I got on that board because I represented 110,000 people who lived in a floodplain. For seven years, they were in a building moratorium. For five of those seven years, they were in a drought.

And the uncertainty between flood risk and drought is so severe in California that it forces people like local elected officials to become water experts quickly. I learned way more about slurry walls and detention basins than I ever wanted to know in a lifetime. And that is why some of these good folks out here came to my door, even though I'm a brand new freshman Senator, and I have leaned heavily on Secretary Laird for some help.

But ten million acres is not a random picked out of the sky number. In fact, DWR suggests that California's capacity, what's possible--not a stretch goal, but what's possible--is 13 million. Originally, I wrote this bill to say that we would average ten million per year because some years, that's more possible than others. So we were looking for an average, but with the help of staff, we actually modified that to make it more about what we can collect. So it's capacity-driven now. So we're creating the capacity to take on ten million in the years that that is possible. That comes from input from this Committee and from Senator Laird.

Thank you. Senator Dahle. Okay. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. And also to the author, thank you for taking this on. I've worked on bills about beneficial use for years now, so I think it's a great idea. As you said, it's one more option that we have to have on the table, but I also have concerns about the ten million acre fee, how that's going to happen. But first Committee, and so thanks for being ambitious.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else on the Committee have any questions or comments? All right, seeing none. Senator Ashby, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you for the good questions.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on SB 659? I'm sorry, Senator Laird. Senator Laird has moved the bill. The motion is 'do pass as amended to the Committee on Rules.' Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay, we'll leave the bill on call. All right. Our final bill today is--

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Anthony. Our final bill today is file item number eight, SB 651. Senator Grove is prepared to present. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're saving the best for last. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting SB 651. And I want to thank the Committee for working with my office on this bill. And I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments, the proposed amendments by the chair and the Committee. Members and staff, or, excuse me, not Members, but staff, for helping us move this bill further along. SB 651 was amended to shorten the judicial review period to 270 days for critical water storage projects.

SGMA requires groundwater sustainability agencies to adopt groundwater sustainability plans that will reduce pumping to sustainable levels by 2040. Many GSA plan to reach this goal by implementing groundwater recharge and surface water projects, but unfortunately, many of the GSA's have failed to achieve their short term implementation goals because of drought and long, drawn out litigation.

On March 28, 2022 Governor Gavin Newsom saw this as an issue, and he issued an Executive order in N-7-22 exempting certain projects from CEQA and related measures to address the drought situation that we found ourselves in. This Executive order proved especially useful to water districts and GSA's to increase water supply and to counter the drought, the need for the regulatory streamlining process to ensure these projects to be successful. That's why the Governor exempted certain water projects from CEQA.

What this bill calls for is not an exemption with the Committee amendments. Rather, it calls for a simple streamline of judicial reviews that occur when a party challenges the results of an environmental impact report. Environmental impact reviews are questioned, if questioned properly, should be addressed properly in a courtroom setting, but we shouldn't have to wait over a year for the judge's decision. This is especially true considering the highly variable water and weather threats that we have.

We shouldn't have to wait to capture much needed groundwater and our environment, for our environment, food production and communities. And as I say many times before food grows where water flows, the recent floods will subside and we will have to address the issue of our dry years and have groundwater storage. I'm advocating for a proactive approach that will speed up the construction of our critical water projects.

The longer we wait, the less water our growers and communities and habitats will have to capture and survive during the dry years. SB 651 will help GSA's build projects that need to reach SGMA compliance with a short 17 year window. Last month, six plans were deemed inadequate by DWR, meaning that they're in threat of state control. This includes areas in my district Tulare, Lake Kaweah Tulare, and current sub basins all near or around my district.

The GSAs believe that SB 651 will help achieve the priorities that have been set forth to reach sustainable yield while not hindering environmental quality. This bill has also been supported by nearly two dozen state and local agricultural businesses, organizations, and water districts. Again, this is a proactive approach, not a reactive approach. Several bills have gone through this Committee today that address some of the issues that we have with water projects being put forth so that we can capture more water.

And this bill is just one of them. With me today to testify in support is Jon Rubin, assistant General manager and General counsel for Westland Waters District. You're up.

Thank you. You have 2 minutes. You have one witness today.

I have two.

You have two. You each have 2 minutes. Thank you.

Yes. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The issues Senate Bill 651 are intended to address and that are before the Committee today. Improvements in water infrastructure are critically important to California, and I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to that discussion. As mentioned, my name is Jon Rubin. I'm the assistant General manager and General counsel for Westlands Water District. Westlands'mission is to provide timely, reliable and affordable water service to landowners and water users in western Fresno and Kings County.

Westlands serves as the groundwater sustainability agency for the Westside Subbasin. Westlands has aggressively addressed the mandates of the Sustainable Groundwater Management act and specifically has taken extraordinary actions to ensure it manages the sub basin to achieve sustainability by 2040 and avoid undesirable results. And consistent with widely acceptable principles of land repurposing, Westlands has retired land that was previously in agricultural production, supporting its use for groundwater recharge as well as for renewable energy.

The ability to recharge water during high flow events is an important component of the district's efforts to accomplish its objectives. Westlands has seen the legal environment delay, consideration and implementation of water infrastructure projects. How the legal environment has frustrated the ability to use the water resources of the state to the fullest extent to which they are capable, Westlands has also experienced.

Westlands experience has also been that expediting these projects, particularly projects related to water conservation and groundwater recharge, can be done and in fact, has been done consistent with water right priorities and protection of fish and wildlife. For these reasons, Westlands values the intent of SB 651 and if enacted into law, the effects it will have in advancing the state's balanced water management objectives. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My second witness is Bob Reeb. He's the President of Reeb Governmental Relations and a representative of the Central Valley AG Water Coalition.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. We're in support of this bill. I'd like to speak to one of the comments raised in the analysis. First, in regard to undesirable results, we're unaware of any groundwater projects that recharge, projects that have led to groundwater contamination in Central Valley. In fact, in the San Joaquin Valley, these projects tend to benefit groundwater quality by diluting nitrate contamination levels in that groundwater. So rather than raise SGMA implementation concerns, we view these groundwater recharge projects as essential components to achieve groundwater sustainability.

The agricultural water suppliers that I represent understand that the Committee must focus on each bill and that comes before it. And having said that, this bill and legislation like it really can't be viewed with a narrow lens. SGMA implementation costs, the irrigated lands regulatory program, nitrate management zones, nutrient management costs under CV-SALTS, conversion to cleaner engines for better air quality, and paying for the fixed costs of water supply facilities that over the past decade have yielded little in the way of water supply.

All pile on costs to the growers that produce the food that we eat. Bills like this, as it was introduced and as it's been amended, really seek to lower the costs and the time to bring these essential projects online. And so you've seen a theme, I think, today between Senator McGuire and Senator Grove and others that are trying to expedite the bringing online of these essential water projects. This bill will help forward and advance those, and that's why we support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, do we have any other witnesses in the room in support? Please limit your testimony to your name, your affiliation, and your position on the bill. Thank you.

Hi, Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Kristin Olsen-Cate. On behalf of United Water Conservation District in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Taylor Roschen. On behalf of various AG associations, including, Western Growers Association, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Are you the only one?

You have 4 minutes then? If you like.

I think so.

Okay, I won't take up the full time. My name is Erin Woolley. On behalf of Sierra Club California. CEQA plays a critical role for environmental protection to ensure that the effects of projects are properly disclosed to the public. There's opportunity to take account of any input from the public and to incorporate necessary mitigation into a project before it's finalized.

As a secondary measure, CEQA ensures that environmental impact reports go through a judicial review process whereby the public can have additional opportunity to hold agencies and project developers accountable for what is in an EIR.

For these reasons, Sierra Club California opposed the original version of the bill, and we appreciate the amendments that have been made to remove the pieces about exempting these projects from CEQA review and from the Delta Reform act, but would remain opposed to the bill because of the inclusion of the amendment to put a limit on the judicial review process, that undermines the ability of the public to hold agencies accountable and streamline something that really does need to have the full time that's necessary to consider the impacts of the projects that would be incorporated under that bill.

So respectfully remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses here in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to the witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Again, those wishing to testify should limit their comments, their names, affiliations and positions on the bill. Moderator if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 651, we can begin.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no lines in queue.

Thank you, moderator. All right, thank you to all of our witnesses. We can bring the discussion back to our Members. Do any of our Members have any questions or comments on this bill? Senator Allen.

Well, I share some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. I'm going to stay off for the purpose of this hearing, but I know it's coming at EQ, and if it gets out today, we can work on it.

Thank you, Senator Allen.

Basically, we had a bill with Senator Dahle and want to create some conformity. The bill got out, but I want to make sure we're being consistent. So we'll talk to you, Senator, after this hearing.

I appreciate that. My good Senator from Santa Monica. Contrary to what the opposition said, it doesn't eliminate CEQA. It only requires you judicial review to happen in 270 days. And it is similar to Senator Dahle's bill. But this bill specifically addresses water recharge. And Senator Dahle's bill addressed a separate matter.

I think we can get there.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Senator Hurtado.

I just want to say. I would thank the author, a good bill, and when it's appropriate, I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Eggman.

Just to thank the author for accepting the amendments, I'll be supporting the bill today.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the Committee? Okay. I want to thank Senator Grove and your staff for working with us on this bill. We had concerns about the exemption from CEQA, shared some of those concerns with opposition, and certainly appreciate and understand your desire to make sure that groundwater sustainability agencies are in compliance with SGMA, but was not convinced that exemption from CEQA was the way to get there. We do have an Executive order, of course, but that is a temporary, not permanent order.

And so it's important to make sure that when we talk about sustainability, that we're not degrading, resulting in chronic lowering of groundwater levels or degrading water quality and land subsidence. I think CEQA environmental review serves an important purpose here. Without it, we may not have the ability to know if GSA's are on the right track to achieve sustainability. Our staff spent a lot of time working with your staff on various options.

I'm glad you were able to find a resolution with the fast tracking that puts this bill in alignment with Senator Dahle's bill. Look forward to continue working with you and your staff as this bill moves forward into EQ, should it get out today. So, again, thank you. And I will be supporting the bill as amended. Senator Grove, would you like to close?

Absolutely. The idea was just to take the governor's idea and make it permanent. It was a great idea that the Governor did. And I appreciate your staff and the Committee staff working with me, Mr. Chair, and taking the amendments so that we can address this issue. And at least if we're able to get this bill out today, make a small impact so that we can address the GSA's and groundwater storage. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Grove, we have a motion from Senator Hurtado on the bill. The motion is due, pass as amended to Environmental Quality. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the vote right now is 8-0. We'll hold the roll open. And with that, I think we are now at the end of our hearing. We have bills on call. If all Members could please return to the hearing room immediately, we can finish lifting calls without delay. So we'll go back to SB 23. File item one by Senator Caballero. The motion is due pass as amended to Environmental Quality. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote right now is 9-0, but we do have absent Members, so we'll leave the bill open on call. Next item is file item number three, SB 310 by Senator Dodd. The motion is due pass as amended to Judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll again.

All right, the current vote is 5-0, with chair voting aye. [Roll call]

The vote is 11-0. That bill is unanimous. The bill is out. Next item is file item number four, SB 286 by Senator McGuire. The motion is due pass to Energy, Utilities and Communications. Assistant, please call the roll.

The current vote is 3-0, with chair voting aye. [Roll call]

The bill vote is 10-0. That bill is out. I'm sorry, it's 9-0. The bill is out. So the vote is 9-0 on SB 286. All right, our next file item is file item number five, SB 360 by Senator Blakespear. The motion is do pass as amended. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 7-0, with chair voting aye. [Roll call]

The vote is 11-0. That bill is out. Next item is file item number six. I'm sorry. File item number seven, SB 659, by Senator Ashby. The motion is due pas as amended to the Committee on Rules. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 9-0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

The vote there is 10 ayes, zero no's. That bill is out. Okay, the next file item is file item number eight. SB 651 by Senator Grove. The motion is due pass as amended to Environmental Quality. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 8-0 and with Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That bill is 9-0 vote. That bill is out. Okay, our next item is file item number 10. SB 687 by Senator Eggman. The motion is due pass as amended to Environmental Quality. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 4-0, with chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Okay, the vote there is 8-1. The bill is out. Okay, we have file item number 13, SB 756. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 6-0, with chair voting- File item number 13, SB 657. And the motion is due pass Judiciary. All right. And the current vote is 6-0, with chair voting aye. [Roll call]

The vote is 11-0. That bill is out. Finally, we'll close with the consent calendar. There are five bills on proposed consent. File item number two, SB 256. File item number six, SB 371. File item number nine, SB 675. File item number 11, SB 772. File item number 12, SB 841. Assistant, please call the roll.

We also on the consent calendar, the current vote is 6-0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

That vote is 11-0. The consent calendar is out. Finally, we have one bill remaining on call. SB 23, file item number one by Senator Caballero. The motion is due pass as amended to Environmental Quality. Assistant, please call the roll.

All right. Current vote is 9-0, with Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

The vote is 10-0. The bill is out. Thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation. We have concluded our agenda. Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.