Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning is what my script says. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participation number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 694-8930. I will maintain the quorum during the hearing, as is customary. We're hoping this will be a lot less dramatic than some of the other hearings this morning. We are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building.

I will ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum. But in the meantime, we'll proceed in Subcommittee. We have 11 bills on today's agenda. We're going to proceed a little out of order today, starting with file item number nine. Senator Padilla, you may proceed when you're ready. On file item nine, SB 605.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. It's my pleasure to present SB 605. I want to begin by accepting the Committee amendments and thank you and the staff for working with our office. SB 605 would develop a strategic plan for wave and tidal energy technology, infrastructure and facilities, and energy generation costs. California, as we know, has set lofty and necessary climate goals. But to reach them, we need more clean renewable energy source options.

We have over 1000 miles of shoreline that represent an untapped source of clean and potentially perpetual energy. Wave power is clean, consistent and predictable. In 2021, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that even if only a small portion of the potential energy from the ocean is captured, it would make significant contributions to our nation's energy needs. The report also found that wave power has the potential to meet a significant portion of the country's electricity demand.

The Biden Administration has allocated tens of millions of dollars to advance this technology, and there are at least a dozen companies in the State of California currently exploring the potential of wave and tidal power generation. SB 605 will enhance the SB 100 goals and accelerate efforts that will help ensure grid reliability with energy generated by clean, abundant and renewable sources.

The Bill requires the California Energy Commission to study the potential and feasibility and benefits of wave and tidal energy in California, to draft a strategic plan, and to report to the Governor and to the Legislature, in addition to approving pilot projects as part of the evaluation as appropriated. The more innovation that we can foster in this space, the more California stands to benefit from this clean energy source.

With me today, I have Terry Tamminen, former California EPA Secretary and CEO of AltaSea at the Port of Los Angeles, and also Marcus Lehmann of CalWave. Following their testimony, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have four minutes between the two of you. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you. Marcus was not able to attend, but I'll keep it brief given that it's late. Thank you for the opportunity. I am Terry Tamminen, the President and CEO of AltaSea at the Port of Los Angeles, a nonprofit dedicated to the blue economy or harvesting the ocean solutions to climate change.

I served as secretary of the California EPA for Governor Schwarzenegger and contributed to our Global Warming Solutions Act, our Million Solar Roofs Initiative, our Hydrogen Highway Initiative, and other policy measures to help measures to help California achieve its clean air and zero carbon goals.

And I mention those only because all of those measures and the many that have followed, have harvested the low hanging fruit. We need now to continue to innovate the policies, technologies, and financing of new clean, renewable energy sources for our state if we hope to achieve our ambitious goals for clean air and a climate resilient economy. That's why we're very grateful to Senator Padilla and are proud to sponsor SB 605, the wave and tidal energy Bill.

This important measure would set California on a path towards becoming a global leader in ocean energy and developing this untapped source of clean, resilient, abundant and renewable energy. There's been some comment that some of the technology might have environmental impacts, which, of course, is something this Committee wants to consider. But I do also want to point out that much of the technology will not have an environmental impact. It's mounted on existing infrastructure, like breakwaters and other kinds of infrastructure that's already in place.

Wind and solar have helped the state meet its clean energy goals. But the sun doesn't always shine, and of course, the wind does not always blow. Ocean, wave and tidal energy has the potential to complement solar and wind energy by providing a more predictable source of energy day and night. As the Senator mentioned, there's at least 12 companies demonstrating the potential of wave and tidal power in California, or ready to enter our market.

In its 2021 report on marine energy opportunities, the US Department of Energy concluded that California's ocean energy resources has enough power to power 13 million homes, and this can happen soon. I know there was some concern that the technology is in its earliest stages in many cases, and that it might take more than a decade to deploy at scale.

But in fact, many of the technology companies coming from Europe have already been widely proven. Using the model created by AB 525 that was signed into law in 2021 for offshore wind energy, SB 605 would require the California Energy Commission, in concert with other relevant state agencies, to study the potential feasibility and benefits of wave and cycle energy.

Please wrap up. That'd be great.

Yes. So with the passage of that, we know that we can ensure grid reliability and cleaner energy for California. Let me ask my colleague Dan Jacobson to speak on behalf of Marcus Lehman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. I'll just echo my comments to the former Cal EPA Secretary. And urge an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. With that, we'll hear from any other support witnesses here in the room. Any me too's in the room. No, seeing none. Okay, we'll move to opposition. Do we have any opposition lead opposition witnesses here in the room? Any other opposition witnesses? Any me too opposition witnesses? No. All right, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference.

Thank you.

Moderator.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are in support or opposition to SB 273, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. And we will go to line 472. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Julia Rome on behalf of SF Travel, and we're in full support of SB 273. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Line 475, please. Go ahead.

I think the moderator announced the wrong Bill number. You may have callers coming.

I'm sorry. This is SB 605. Mr. Moderator.

Thank you very much.

Sorry about that. If you could prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 605.

Excellent. Sorry about that. I went on the first one. And again, if there's anybody in support or opposition to Senate Bill 605, please go ahead and press 1 followed by zero, and we'll go to line 475. And they just took themselves out of queue. They must have been for the other one as well. They came back. Please go ahead. 475.

Yeah, hello. This Marcus Lehmann, Co-Founder CEO of CalWave Power Technologies, also supporting the Bill. We had a successful 10 months deployment in San Diego, funded by the Department of Energy and also funded now to conduct two year long commercial pilot.

Okay, if you could just limit these comments to your name, affiliation and position on the Bill, that'd be great. Mr. Moderator, do we have anyone else in the queue?

Nobody else is queued up, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

All right, thank you to all of our witnesses. Do we have anybody on the dais who has any comments or questions on SB 605, file item nine? All right, we have a motion to move the Bill by Senator Grove, and I think at this point, we can actually establish a quorum, so let's go ahead and do that. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

And Mr. Senator Padilla, I apologize. With quorum established, we're going to first vote on the consent calendar, which is file item number five, SB 470 by Senator Alvarado-Gil, and file item number seven, SB 835 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Consultant, please call the roll.

I would actually move the consent.

I'm sorry. Yes, and let's have a motion there first. Thank you.

All right. On the consent calendar. [Roll Call].

Okay, the vote right now is seven, and we'll leave seven ayes. We'll leave that Bill on call. So I have a comment. I'm sorry, it's eight votes aye, no votes, and we'll leave that Bill on call. I wanted to make a comment on this Bill. I supported this Bill when it was heard before Senate Energy Committee, and I continue to support it today. I want to thank Senator Padilla for your leadership on this issue and for taking the amendments and working closely with our staff.

I believe we have to take an all of the above approach in assessing and investing in renewable energy. And as you noted in your statement, as your witnesses noted, there is tremendous potential for offshore wave and tidal energy to provide zero carbon renewable energy for California at both small and large scales. This Bill will help to ensure that further research to help commercialize this potential resource can occur.

We know there are trade offs in any renewable energy projects we have, and we know there's some concerns around impacts of this particular type of energy source. So I appreciate your willingness to ensure that monitoring strategies are incorporated into the bill's required study to ensure that we can try to develop this type of energy generation adaptively to minimize adverse impacts. So appreciate that. And with that, would you like to close?

Just to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with our office and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion on the Bill from Senator Grove, and the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll,

[Roll Call].

The vote is 8 to 0. We'll leave that Bill on call. Thank you very much, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Senator Wiener.

All right, so with that, we'll go back to file order. Senator Wiener, are you ready to proceed? You are, with file item number one, SB 273.

If you can. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and your committee staff for working with us on this bill. And we're happy to accept the committee's amendments as outlined in the analysis. I also just want to just stress for the committee that we will continue, I'm sorry. We will work with BCDC, which came to us very recently with proposed amendments. We've been anticipating those amendments or asking for them for a very long time. We're finally glad to have them in summary form.

We're committed to working with BCDC, and I am optimistic, cautiously optimistic, that we'll be able to reach a resolution. This bill, colleagues, is about piers 30-32 in San Francisco. For anyone who has not been to piers 30-32 in San Francisco, these are piers that are gradually crumbling into the bay. The pier is really not usable except for maybe parking and other limited uses. And even that is gradually declining. And pretty soon, the pier will be completely unusable for anything.

Parts of it are fenced off. It is a dilapidated blight on the San Francisco waterfront, and something needs to happen to it. The proposed project that's at issue in this Bill will reduce the. Will basically remove the pier and replace it with a pier that is almost 50% smaller. So nearly 50% of the footprint of piers 30-32 will be returned to open bay water, and we will have a smaller pier. The project will then shore up the seawall, will provide significant infrastructure support for the area.

The seawall in the San Francisco Bay, on the San Francisco waterfront is in huge need of infrastructure work, and this will help with that. We will see visitors serving retail general office use, which is why we need a bill to do this deepwater birthing facility and a publicly accessible aquatic center with a publicly accessible floating swimming pool and expanded access to the San Francisco Bay.

We will see urgently needed infrastructure improvements to improve resiliency around sea level rise and seismic risk, including, as I mentioned, a seismically enhanced sea wall. Thank you. And about six acres of bay fill will be removed, as I mentioned. And this bill will authorize the State Lands Commission to approve that project. So I want to be clear. This is not approving the project. This is simply authorizing the approval process to happen because of the office space which will help subsidize all of this other amazing work.

We need a bill. There will also be housing at an adjacent site that is not part of this issue because it's not part of trust land. The State Lands Commission will still have to review at BCDC, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, in addition to the San Francisco Port Commission and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

With me here today to testify is David Beaupre, the deputy director of planning and environment at the Port of San Francisco. Beverly Yu, the legislative director of the State Building and Constructions Trade Council. In addition, for any technical legal questions that may arise, we have Justin Bigelow, a deputy city attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney's Office.

Your lead witnesses can proceed and you have two minutes each, unless you divide that up differently.

Good afternoon committee members. Thank you Senator Wiener. My name is David Beaupre. I'm deputy director of the port. I'm here on behalf of our Executive Director, Elaine Forbes, who couldn't attend because of an existing port commission meeting. This legislation is a high priority for the city and if approved, the resultant project will benefit the city, the region and the state.

The legislation will allow a project that benefits include, as Senator Wiener mentioned, six acres of bay fill removal, bay water quality and habitat improvements, retention of a self dredging deepwater berth, which is critical to the port's cruise industry, disaster response for the city, research vessels and ceremonial birthing. It includes a water recreation center that includes access to in bay swimming, a swimming pool, as well as access to the Bay Area water trail. Five acres of new public access.

It's a 400 $1.0 million investment in resilience and sea level rise and seismic improvements, which in San Francisco alone we know is going to be a project requiring billions of dollars investment that we don't think taxpayer money alone can pay for. So having private investment leverage public money will help the city, the region and the port significantly.

It includes a food market hall that enhances the public realm and creates there, there between the ferry building and the ballpark, visitor cruise retail to support the incoming cruise ships and commercial space to pay for all the community benefits and trust benefits that the project comes with it. So the last thing I want to just mention is the port has been working with its regulatory partners, Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the State Lands Commission on the evolution of the design and program of the park.

And through that 18 month process, the project sponsors have significantly improved the design of the project. So with that we respectfully request your support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Beverly Yu, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, representing half a million members statewide, we thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Unfortunately, our San Francisco building trades leader, Rudy Gonzalez couldn't make the meeting today, so I'm here with our comments. We're in strong support of SB 273, which would authorize a mixed use project located on piers 30-32 in the city and County of San Francisco.

In the midst of a struggling economy and coming out of the COVID crisis, we need to be supporting projects that bring jobs and economic opportunities to the cities and the region. This $1.3 billion project, which includes $400 million in resiliency infrastructure, will create over 1000 high paying union construction jobs, ensuring the continued success of the maritime industry and tourism sector. Additionally, this project offers environmental benefits by reducing the size of the pier from 13 to 7 acres, positively impacting the ecology of the bay.

Green roofs and onsite treatment systems will contain and treat stormwater runoff, and clean power hookups will reduce the use of polluting maritime diesel engines. This project has been discussed for decades and this is the first plan that balances objectives of financial selfsufficiency, support of maritime activity, public access activation and removing fill from the bay. There has been extensive input for this project and there were significant concessions from the developer as well.

We urge you to support this important bill which will bring jobs, economic development, environmental benefits, and it's a must visit waterfront destination to the bay. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses here in the room for me to testimony? Please limit your testimony to your name, affiliation. No, nobody in the room. Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses in the room? Are you the only one, sir? All right. I guess you have up to four minutes if you'd like it, although you're encouraged not to take that much.

Thanks very much.

Thanks Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to thank our good friend Senator Wiener for conversations with his office and thank the committee staff for an excellent bill analysis. I'm the Executive Director of Save the Bay, which has been around for more than 60 years working to protect and restore the bay. We're actually the organization that led the legislature to create the Bay Conservation and Development Commission under Governor Reagan, and it's done an excellent job.

And we're opposing this bill today even with the changes that the Committee has recommended. Because the Bill still primarily mandates an office building on a newly constructed pier. It's not a water oriented use that is allowable under state law and public trust doctrine. It's a use that could be accommodated at countless upland sites instead of in the bay. And it's a use that isn't needed when San Francisco is experiencing more than 30% office vacancy now and growing.

The reason that we oppose the bill is the bill does damage to a crucial coastal agency and its authority to regulate shoreline in the interest of the public at a time of rising sea level. Now, that's authority that our coastal agencies actually need, more authority from the legislature, not less, at this time of rising seas. The evidence that this is the wrong approach to take is actually in the statute right now on this site.

Two previous times, the legislature has passed bills essentially mandating a certain kind of development. First a cruise ship terminal with an office building, and then the warriors arena. Neither of those happened at this site because they were not the right thing for this site, and they both have happened in other parts of the city, and so could this office building. So accommodating appropriate uses on the shoreline is something that the legislature could actually contribute to improving by taking a comprehensive statewide approach.

We're recommending that you not move this bill. But if you do move this bill along, it really needs stronger provisions for directing the coastal agencies, the State Lands Commission, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and I would argue the Coastal Commission as well, to come back to the Legislature in a very short period of time with specific recommendations for any statutory changes or regulatory changes they need so that they can accommodate sea level rise and resilience consistent with the public trust.

This is actually something that the state's original climate adaptation strategy in 2009 under Governor Schwarzenegger asked these agencies to do, to come back to you with recommendations about how statute needed to change. Unfortunately, Governors Brown and Newsom and the legislature have not insisted on that. This bill would be an opportunity to do that, and we encourage you to make that change if you're going to move the bill. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room? Seeing none. Mr. Moderator, could you please queue up the line for anyone waiting to testify in support or opposition of file item one, SB 273.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you are in support or opposition to Senate Bill 273, please press one filed by zero at this time. One filed by zero, and we'll go to line 459, please. Go ahead. 459, you're open.

Hello. I don't know if I would give my line number. This is Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

And anybody else, please take this opportunity to press one file by zero for opposition or support to SB 273. Nobody else is queuing up this time, Mr. Chair.

Okay, well, thank you to our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the committee. Do any of our committee members have any questions or comments? Okay.

Well, I will just say that this is the first policy committee hearing for this bill, and the San Francisco waterfront does need, as you described, extensive investment for seismic upgrades and to provide resilience to sea level rise. This proposed project is one way to help pay for these needed investments while attracting visitors and others to the waterfront.

I appreciate the author's acceptance of the committee amendments and his pledge to work with BCDC and stakeholders in an effort to address the concerns raised by opposition and by BCDC. Based on past precedent, I know that bills involving development in public trust lands in the San Francisco Bay Area have often involved extensive, long lasting, multiparty negotiations to try to find a balance that all stakeholders can agree upon.

And so, recognizing the concerns raised by opposition, I'm supporting the bill today to allow you time for that effort. But I would ask that you continue working with me and the committee staff as the bill moves forward. But with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, we do appreciate the committee's engagement, and I look forward to moving this bill forward. Into the continued conversation we'll be working with BCDC, I want to just acknowledge I'm a big fan of save the bay. And actually, fun fact, I was the best man at Mr. Lewis's sister's wedding 30 years ago. It was like, time goes by really quickly. And so I consider him a friend, and it's a fantastic organization, and we'll continue that dialogue as well.

And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on SB 273? Moved by Senator Grove. Okay. Consultant, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. The motion is do passes amended to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 6-0 right now, and we'll put that bill on call. Thank you, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, colleagues.

All right, so our next, we got a trifecta of bills here from Senator Caballero, who's here and ready, I think. Senator Caballero, would you like to start with file item two, SB 306? You can proceed when ready.

Somebody a lot taller than me. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present SB 306, which seeks to address extreme heat climate impacts through both direct mitigation and strategic planning measures. First, I would like to thank the Committee for their work on the Bill, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments that are in the analysis.

Senators, during last year's climate change Working Group, chaired by the good Senator from Santa Cruz, the group committed to creating a climate change program to benefit Low income residents by helping them to lower their energy bills by retrofitting their homes through energy efficiency enhancements or weatherization on steroids, double paned windows, insulation, energy efficient water heaters or heaters and air conditioning units.

When I go out and I talk to people in my district about climate change, that's not something that's in the front of their mind until there's a drought, until there's no water. And part of the reason is because it isn't real to them other than increasing cost of bills. And so this is a program that would make a tremendous difference for people that are of limited income that don't have the ability to make these kind of improvements to their housing units.

So in last year's budget, $1.1 billion was allocated to establish the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program at the California Energy Commission, which includes the direct install program to provide minimal to no cost energy efficiency upgrades for low to moderate income residents. SB 306 seeks to establish priorities and guardrails on the newly funded direct install program to ensure communities most affected and vulnerable to extreme heat, poor air quality, and other climate change extremes are able to access the grant funding for energy efficient home modifications.

Research has indicated for years now that heat kills more Americans than any other extreme weather event, including floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. While California has made many investments in programs that combat climate change and rising temperatures in certain parts of the state, it is getting hotter each passing year. For example, in 2021, Fresno County, which is in my district, experienced 69 days where temperatures exceeded 100 degrees, an all time high, and almost double the historical frequency of past weather patterns.

And my guess is that applies to a couple of other Senators whose districts are very, very similar. According to research done by Public Policy Institute of California, extreme heat events will become more frequent, more severe, and longer in duration. Without proper mitigation, exposure to extreme heat can cause existing health problems to become worse, including respiratory and heart conditions, and, in extreme cases, heat stroke and death.

In April of 2022, the state released a report entitled Protecting Californians from extreme heat, a state action plan to build community resilience this report outlined a multiagency approach to mitigate the health, economic, cultural, ecological and social impacts of increasing temperatures. SB 306 codifies this extreme heat action plan and requires the Natural Resources Agency and the Office of Planning and Research to update the plan every three years.

Each agency identified in the extreme heat action plan would also be required to collaborate on its implementation and make the status of its implementation available to the public online. We have all heard from constituents who are struggling not only with excessive heat but also with high energy bills, particularly in the summer. Folks are simply looking for relief. SB 306 will have a direct impact on residents Bill the quality of their lives and homes, and ensure state strategies for long term heat mitigation.

Goals are continually updated and made accessibly. And finally, California will make a major investment of climate change resources in low income communities of color. Thank you and I respectfully request your aye vote today. With me today to testify is Michael Jarred, representing Climate Resolve.

Thank you. Is that your only witness?

Yes.

Okay, you have up to four minutes.

All right. Good evening, Michael Jarred on behalf of Climate Resolve. Climate Resolve is a nonprofit based in Los Angeles that builds on collaborations to champion equitable climate solutions. Climate resolve is proud to support Senator Caballero's SB 306, which would require the Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency to update the state's extreme heat action plan every three years, in alignment with the state's climate adaptation strategy.

One of climate resolved areas of focus is extreme heat because it is a silent killer that disproportionately impacts the elderly, children, low income households, those with preexisting medical conditions, and communities of color. Heat is a public health emergency. Last September, Los Angeles experienced 14 consecutive days with temperatures above 100 degrees. According to the UCLA heat maps, Los Angeles is poised to see 50 extra extreme heat days by 2050.

Merced county has on average, had 80, on an average heat days, has had 84 extra visits to emergency rooms. There was 445 heat days between 2009 and 2018 in the county. There are solutions and strategies to adopt and mitigate to the impacts of extreme heat, but they require action from different state agencies. As the Senator said,

in April of 2022, the state's extreme heat action plan was released. Which brought together numerous state agencies and made concrete recommendations, many of which are being implemented as we speak. The last extreme heat state action plan was in 2013. We cannot afford to wait nine years between plans. SB 306 will put the extreme heat action plan into statute, require its regular update, and ensure it includes legislative priorities such as additional measures to protect schools and students from the impacts of extreme heat.

For these reasons, climate resolve supports SB 306, and thanks you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses here in the room? Just limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position on the measurement.

Good evening. Lillian Mervis with MCE, the state's first community choice aggregator, here in support. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else in the room? Okay, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. Do we have any other opposition witnesses here in the room? Okay. Then we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Mr. Moderator, if you could please queue up the line for Senate Bill 306.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. If you are in support or opposition to SB306, please press one, followed by zero at this time, one filed by zero.

Exciting Bill. All right. Thank you to our witness. I will bring the discussion back to Members. Any questions or comments? All right, we have a motion by Senator Eggman. All right, Senator Caballero, would you like to close?

And nobody is queuing up, Mr. Chair.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you, Senator Caballero. The motion by Senator Eggman is do pass and is amended to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the vote right now is 6-0. We'll leave that bill on call. Senator Caballero, you can present. Would you like to present file item three or four next? File item three, SB 366.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And members. Today I present SB 366, a bill that would modernize the California water plan to reflect the state's new climate reality and establish long term water supply targets that, when met, will ensure sufficient high quality water for all beneficial uses. First, I would like to thank the committee for their work on the bill and accept the committee amendments. California is in a race against climate change.

Pressured by multi year droughts, floods and other intensifying climate change impacts, California's aging water infrastructure and facilities are unable to keep pace, leaving groundwater basins, overdrafted, wells dry, water quality degraded, landfallowed, businesses, workers and communities suffering, as well as severe cutbacks to the state's water delivery system and local supply. Every sector in California is affected, and bold changes are necessary to address deficiencies and adequately serve the state's population and environmental, agricultural and business needs.

Recently, the state has taken steps to move California towards sustainability, including a major investment of over $8 billion for water projects in the past two years. The Newsom Administration recently released water supply strategy, adopting to a hotter, drier future, which updates a plan that is 20 years old and outlines multiple steps and goals to ensure the state has sufficient water in the future to meet our needs. But this plan is not in statute and it's not financed.

The California Water plan is currently the state's strategic plan for managing and developing water resources for current and future generations. This plan presents the status and trends of California's water dependent natural resources, water supplies, agricultural, urban and environmental water demands for a range of plausible future scenarios. SB 366 modernizes the California Water plan process and establishes water supply targets and statute, amplifying Governor Newsom's water supply strategy and ensuring there are goals that extend beyond any one Administration.

The title of this bill is "California Water for All." My intent in authoring this bill is to ensure that the state has a practical approach to our water limitations and that there is enough water for all beneficial usage, which includes urban agriculture and the environment. California has a long and successful track record, setting targets through legislation in several sectors to establish desired change benefiting the states, the state, residents and businesses, including housing, climate, workforce development, education, transportation and public safety.

But when it comes to water, targets are needed and we cannot afford to wait any longer. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 366. With me today to testify is Danielle Blacet-Hyden, deputy executive director for the California Municipal Utilities Association, and Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties.

Thank you. May proceed. You have two minutes each.

Thank you. My script says good afternoon, but I think we're officially an evening now. So good evening, Chair and members. My name is Danielle Blacet-Hyden with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We are proud to co-sponsor and support SB 366. I want to thank the committee and your staff for the work on a path forward for the bill. It's much appreciated. The current iteration of the California Water Plan has been in existence for over 65 years.

It provides detailed information on the state's water resources and recommendations for sustainably managing those resources. However, it's missing a key component, a north star for water supply planning. In a world where our changing climate and other factors are affecting every aspect of water management, we need to move from a mindset of managing for scarcity and instead plan for a future where there's enough water for all beneficial uses, including small communities, urban centers, business, agriculture and the environment.

As one of the largest economies in the world, we should not have such a fragile water supply that three years of drought nearly cripple our communities, farms and fisheries. We have been fortunate to have a very wet winter, but we could be right back in severe drought conditions and a water supply crisis in just a few years. So how can we address these boom and bust water cycles in a meaningful way?

Well, with the amendments, SB 366 establishes a 10 million acre feet statewide water supply planning target for 2040, which, as Senator Caballero noted, amplifies the governor's water supply strategy from earlier or from late last year. Then DWR is required to establish a target for 2050 as part of its 2028 update to the California Water plan that will ensure sufficient water for all beneficial uses, recognize the impacts of climate change on the state's water resources, and support a sustainable economy and environment.

It is past time for the state to have a water supply planning goal, and we thank Senator Caballero for her leadership in bringing this bill forward. We support SB 366 and urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon again.

Thank you. Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties, representing California's 58 counties. I want to talk about counties in water planning. Counties are at the forefront of the current water whiplash, continuing drought and extreme water years. Counties are rarely the entity that owns or manages the water supplies. These fall to utilities, wholesalers and our partners in groundwater sustainability agencies. But we're active participants in these agencies and we lead on emergencies.

California's hydrology, from Del Norte County to Inyo County to the coastal Southern California areas to our stressed Central Valley, are at the forefront of what's happening right now. We need to adapt. We need active planning for climate adaptation. Right now, we need to move beyond the 1970s water plan and focus on the current and future of our local communities. We need the state water plan to address regional water needs with specific targets. All counties are required to develop new regional housing. All counties.

And without water, we can't do that. We need new water supplies and new types of water supplies. And to be clear, this isn't all of the above. It's not just one. But to continue to protect our most vulnerable communities, our ecosystems and our economic production statewide. We have to build groundwater, surface water, small scale conveyance. We have to have flint plain management. We have to think about this in a very different way. And today is the day to kind of change that.

We need specific targets for where we need to go for water supply, and we think that this bill moves us in the right direction if we want to adapt to climate change. Today is the day to change how we change water supply planning. So with that, we urge your aye vote, and we thank the author for her work on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room? Any other support witnesses? Please limit your comments to your name, affiliation and position on the measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Dawn Koepke with McHugh, Koepke Pedrone, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. Pleased to be another co-sponsor and in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Irvine Ranch Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Jamie Miner, on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District, Eastern Municipal Water District and Santa Margarita Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Thank you.

Cyrus Stevers for the Municipal Water District of Orange County, Los Virginia's Municipal Water district and the Coachella Valley Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Glenn Farrel, on behalf of the State Water Contractors and Cal D. Sal, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Annalee Akin, on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and Mesa Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Can you hear me down here?

Yes, we can. That's a tremendous mustache. Go ahead.

Good evening. Chair and members of the committee, Daniel Merkley with the Gualco group on behalf of the Kern County Water Agency, Kings River Interest, Modesto Irrigation District, and San Bernardino Municipal Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Good evening Chair and members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Western Growers, Mojave Water Agency, and Western Municipal Water District, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support in the room, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition, and I think we have two here with us, and I understand you're splitting the four minutes here, so you may proceed, Dennis.

Thank you, Chair. And I'd like to thank the chair and the consultant for their analysis. The committee amends largely address most of the issues that we raised in our letter, and I want to thank the author for taking those amendments. However, we continue to oppose targets, interim or otherwise. As we noted in our letter, setting planning targets in advance of rigorous analysis of current conditions and likely futures is backwards.

Many things need to be investigated and evaluated before projecting water trends or likely future hydrology under climate change. Then those projections need to be thoroughly reviewed and verified, and only then can one be reasonably certain that any identified mismatches of supplies and demands are appropriate for planning purposes. In our letter, we also questioned the justification of the bill's 15 million acre foot water supply target proposed for 2050. But what about the proposed 10 million acre feet target for 2040?

It's not entirely clear where the 10 million acre foot target came from, but last August, the Governor laid out a long term strategy to bolster state California's water supply. According to the accompanying report, California's water supply strategy adapting to a hotter, drier future quote we now know that hotter and drier weather could diminish our existing water supply by up to 10% in 2040. So what was the governor's plan of action to address that 1.8 million acre feet of increased water recycling? 0.8 million acre feet.

We'll call it 0.1 acre feet for diesel, a half a million of stormwater capture and a half a million for water conservation, which adds up to 2.9 million acre feet of water by 2040. It also included 4 million acre feet of additional above and below ground storage, but it also noted that storage capacity does not equate to an equal amount of water. So at most, they're estimating 7 million acre feet of water. Now, I'm not arguing that 10 million acre feet is unachievable or unnecessarily high.

I'm saying that I'm personally not able to say with a high degree of confidence whether 10 million is too high, too Low, or just right. And I'm pretty sure no one else in this room could say with any high degree of certainty about that either. The current California water plant update is scheduled to be released at the end of this year. At the very least, we should hold off on setting any targets until that update is released.

In our letter under item four, we noted that there are numerous smaller issues, including but not limited to a list of items. Should this bill pass the committee today. One item that we still want to talk, discuss, and hopefully resolve with the authors and sponsors are questions about the accuracy and relevance of many of the findings. There are other smaller issues, too, but we will document those that we didn't want to pile on in our letter.

Now, all that said, because the committee amends largely address most of the issues in our letter, once the amends are in print, we will likely be revisiting our position on the bill, probably moving from a firm opposed to opposed unless amended. And we will detail specifically our remaining issues. Now, again, notwithstanding the interim targets, which.

Again, we're just nearing four minutes right now.

Okay, let me just say that we agree that the California water plan needs updating. That for the last two or three updates, there has been no plan in the water plan. It has been all of the above everything is equal priority approach. And if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. And so we do agree that we need to improve the stuff. And we look forward to working with the author should the bill pass the committee today.

I know we have a second witness. The first witness took over four minutes. If you could just keep it very brief.

Of course. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members. Doug Obegi, on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, appreciate the sponsor and Senator's willingness to talk with us about our concerns and greatly appreciate the committee's analysis and suggested amendments.

We still remain opposed to the bill as amended, but hopefully we can work through some of these issues particularly focused on the need to protect and restore our bay Delta and leave water in our rivers, when most of these supply tools are about taking water out of our rivers. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses here in the room? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Mr. Moderator, if you could, please prompt.

Any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 366, we can begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you are in support or opposition to SB 366, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. One moment, please, and we'll begin with. Line 392, you are open. 392, can you hear us? This is David Jones. On behalf of the City of Burbank and sport. Line 459, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Erin Woolley. On behalf of Sierra Club California, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists, in opposition.

Thank you.

Line 457, you are open.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members. Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 462.

Hello, this is Spencer Saks on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, in support.

Thank you.

Line 465, you are open.

Good evening. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 474.

Mr. Chair and members, Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 478, please go ahead.

Yes, good evening. Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Corona, in support of 366. Thank you.

Thank you.

483, you are open.

Good evening Chair and members. Eric O'Donnell with Townsend Public Affairs, on behalf of the York Belinda Water District, in support. Thank you.

Line 484, please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Andrea Ventura. I represent Clean Water Action and we are in opposition and would like to mirror NRDC's comments.

Line 485, please go ahead.

This is Christy Foy in support on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District. Again, in strong support.

Line 487, please go ahead.

Good evening. Paul Helliker from San Juan Water District, in strong support of the Bill and the targets.

488, you are open. 488.

I'm Raquel Ayala with Reef Government Relations ,on behalf of Bell Flowers, Somerset Mutual Water Company, Desert Water Agency, Altradi Irrigation District, Elsanor Valley Municipal Water District, Roland Water District, Solano County Water Agency, Walnut Valley Water District, and the Water Replenishment district of Southern California in support of this measure.

Line 489 please go ahead.

This is Sarah Boudreau with the City of Roseville in support.

We'll give a final reminder to testify in support or opposition to SB 366, please press 10. Line 490, please. Go ahead. Go ahead and hit 10 again. I think you took yourself out of queue. There you are. You're open.

Hi, this is Alex Bearing from the California Farm Bureau in support.

Mr. Chair. We have exhausted the queue.

We are exhausted. Okay. Thank you to all of our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the panel here. Any members have any questions or comments? Vice Chair Seyarto. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'd just like to say that, first, I'm in support of your bill number one. Number two, I know Senator Eggman and myself have been here since 2012, and let me just give you a background. In 2012, we were coming into a drought. We passed a water bond because of the drought, and most of that was derived by the drought and we negotiated for water storage. In the 11 years I've been in this legislature, we've had the two wettest years in history.

2018 was the wettest year recorded. The Orville Dam spillway broke. We were in a drought before that. We went through a drought after 2018. And this year may be recorded as one of the wettest years in history as well. So when we have the opposition come up and talk about we have no plan. That's exactly right. We don't have a plan.

And when we did the water bond, how you do the water bonds and you do bonds around here is you go around and figure out who do you have to give carrot to to get their vote for the water bond.

And we should lay it out in a way where when you have a bond, these are the five projects, or these are the six projects that are actually going to yield water and help our constituents out, the environment out and agriculture out, we don't do it that way around here because there is no plan. So I'm encouraged that you actually have, hopefully, a starting place that we actually have a plan.

So that when we do a water bond, which I know Senator Eggman has a bill coming forward that creates a bond, we have a plan to say, this is the best place to spend our money, and we can go to our constituents and advocate for those bonds and spend the money on those projects and actually create real wet water that makes a difference for California. What we have in the governor's plan is conservation. We have done a great job in California of conservation.

And when we see these cycles like this, we have to capture water when it's running to the ocean like it is today. And we see areas of our state where they're going to be flooded for some time because we actually have a snowpack for the first time. So for those reasons, I will be supporting your bill and encourage you to work with the opposition.

But at the end of the day, we need a plan so we can show and demonstrate to Californians that we actually are going to do the right thing for the environment, for agriculture, and for communities that need this desperate water in these great swings in the cycles that we've been seeing in the last 10 years. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, Senator Eggman.

Thank you very much.

Most everybody who supported this are all south of me. And as you know, I'm sitting in the delta where all the water runs through. And so I guess, in opposition to my friend Brian Dahle, you don't have enough on conservation here. So we're looking at a lot of things, and you do talk about increasing regional self reliability. But I just think part of any plan needs to also include looking at conservation at all levels. Otherwise, we're just talking about moving around the water that we have.

And then when you say conveyance, that signals to my folks that you're talking about coming right through the middle of us. So I'll support it today and just hopefully, you keep working on some of these issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman, Senator Laird.

One of the great joys of serving on this committee is that occasionally Senator Dahle and I vote together, and we have completely different rationales for getting there. And I would offer, and it makes the case for this bill, that actually there was an administration plan that was an all of the above strategy that had conservation, improving infrastructure, some decal storage, and it had all those different things. And that water bond in 2014 was one of the first times there were not really earmarks.

It was actually you had to prove that you could produce water against any of those goals. And the case for the bill is that that was a plan the administration did, and it wasn't in what was the conventional water plan. And there is a precedent for this because I think before the water plan, that was the one before last, the legislature said tribes need to be involved and they legislated. So for the first time, there was consultation and inclusion of tribal needs in it.

And I think I'm going to vote for this bill. I think there still needs to be issues, and I wasn't here because I'm maneuvering different committees right now to hear some of the debate. But I think the Senator is starting with what she thinks needs to be done. But the water plan does include a lot of things. It does include conservation.

And it really is making sure that whether it's inner bill or in the plan and not in her bill, that all those things are in the water plan, and then it balances off. So it's trying to figure that out. And to presuppose what Senator Dahle would say if he was going to speak again, he would say, and then somebody needs to actually implement it. You can't appropriate the storage and then not spend it. So hopefully, I just saved us about 10 minutes.

And if you really want to get them going, just say the word biomass at the podium and we won't have an end of the hearing. And so I think this bill is a good framework. And yes, we still have questions to answer, and yes, there's a question about whether the ultimate target is the right thing or has flexibility. But I'm excited that this is here, and I want to give the Senator a chance to work on those issues, and I will recommend an iPhone.

Thank you, Senator Laird, Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward and really working with all stakeholders involved to make it work. I want to move the bill at the appropriate time. I will be supporting it today. I wanted to just get a little bit of background and context on how you kind of came up with some of the goals for 2000 and 42,050. I think you have 10, what is it? 10 MAFs.

Thank you for that question. I appreciate it. And let me just say that this committee passed out a bill recently that set as a goal 10 MAFs, or million acre feet, for groundwater recharge alone. So it's interesting to me that this, that just sets a target of 10 million acre feet out to 2040 is so controversial.

But basically what we did is we took all the facts and figures from the different entities that have been studying water and the impacts of the drought on the State of California. The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and this is all recent, in 2021, indicated that there would be a 45% to 60% reduction in Sierra snowpack by 2050, which results in eight to 10 MAF loss during that period of time.

PPIC said in the report this year that by 2040 there will be a 2.7 maf per year reduction in San Joaquin Valley groundwater supply by 2040 and 0.4 maf reduction in delta exports by 2050 due to climate change and increased regulations. And the Delta Stewardship Council said in 2021 that there will be a 0.0 maf reduction in 2050 in the Sacramento Valley storage.

And the Bureau of Reclamation said in 2023 that there will be a reduction in Colorado river supply of two to four MAF per year total, with an impact on California of approximately one MAF per year. So you add that up, and that's between 12.5 and 14.5 MAF. And so we picked 10 as the target for 2040 and 15 by 2050, based on these estimates that show that all over the state by region, that you'd see a reduction in what we currently have in the system.

And I just have to say that one of the interesting things about doing this work is that, and I want to recognize Turlock irrigation district that was here, they figured things out a while back. They have a storage above ground storage, a dam. And they ended up spending resources to bring in JPL, their lidar technology system, which runs planes over the snowpack in their region. And in order to determine what the amount of snow that had fallen during the winter and the viscosity of the snow.

In other words, does it have a lot of water or is it just very thin? And what they were able to do is they were able to repurpose their dam so that they didn't release water during the winter. They could allow enough space for that snowfall. And the point I make is that that is technology that we can use to determine whether we can repurpose our already existing infrastructure to be able to save water.

Instead, we send some guy up there with a stick that looks for snow.

It frustrates me that we have this huge issue, and we could redo some of the things that we're working on, some of the things that already exist that would give us a better idea of what the snowpack looks like, how much water is in the snowpack, how can we avoid floods in our region, how we can do flood more with groundwater recharge, water recycling, small d cell water conservation, increased storage from dam repurposing from flood to storage.

And so this plan really provides an opportunity for us to get that kind of data so we can figure out how are we going to meet the needs of the state and frankly, how the state is going to operate together, because our conservation goals are always done based on watersheds. And there are some areas of the state that feel like they don't have to conserve because they planned for storage they've got the storage.

Their ratepayers have paid for it, and so they're not willing to reduce their use because other areas of the state need it. So I think it's one system. It's one system. And what I'm hoping comes out of the plan is a recognition that we're going to have to do everything above as was stated by my good friend from Santa Cruz in order to be able to meet our needs.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you and thank you, Senator Caballero, for bringing forth a bill that I know a lot of people been working very hard on and that's trying to identify one of the most. Water. Securing our water system is one of the foundational issues that we have in California. If we don't fix that, if we don't get that right, a lot of other things fail along the way.

And one of the things about this is it helps us identify because that's one of the questions I've always asked water districts, folks, what do we need in 2050? How much water do we need? We have this much storage now. And we know for sure that this much storage now is not working. It's not even coming close to working. And so we need to increase that. And so they went to work. They're the experts.

And one of the things that I also mentioned to them was this can't be solved by politicians and politics. We need to have some engineering on the ground to help us. Yeah, we need good science to help us determine according to our population and what we're looking at in the future what that number is going to be, because all of the above approach is what we're eventually going to have to get to. But we don't know how much of what we need and where it goes.

And in order for us to make that plan, this is necessary. This is a necessary giant step to be able to achieve that. What we have done in the last 10 years is essentially waste two of the wettest years in California's history. And I'll bet you if we're not doing this, that in five more years, we're going to waste another one. Because there are some people that don't want this to move forward, but we have to, we have to move this forward.

So I appreciate you bringing this bill. I appreciate the extra hard work by all of these water districts and utilities trying to figure out the science behind what we need to get it out of the politics so we can actually get something done. So, sounds like, I'm going to be supporting your bill today, which I am.

Okay, thank you, Senator Seyarto. Anybody else on the fommittee have any questions or comments? All right, I thank you to Senator Caballero and your staff and your sponsors for all the hard work that went into this bill. As we've heard and just in seeing the list of oppose and support, this is a very controversial topic. But we all know that water is critical to our state's future. I do just want to address a couple of the things you brought up.

I know you brought up the fact that in SB 659, which we passed out of this committee earlier this month, we left groundwater recharge targets in. You mentioned that, and I apologize for the confusion. This was something that my staff had overlooked and did not fully appreciate in assessing that bill. So it's on our radar. We're going to be coordinating with the other policy and fiscal committees to ensure consistency between this bill and that bill should this bill get out of committee.

On the snowpack issue, I just want to direct your attention into page 10 of the analysis, because that issue is addressed. And the monolith committee position letter specifically notes that on the snowpack study that you cited, it focuses on snowpack in part because precipitation lacks consensus on whether future conditions in the western United States will be wetter, drier, or remain the same.

In other words, the study offers no opinion on whether California would receive more or less water in the form of precipitation in the future, only that less of it will come in the form of snow. So I think that conservation is important, and I appreciate we had a phone call last week, and that was very productive, I thought, and I certainly appreciate your frustration on the state's approach to water management.

Certainly recognize the importance of managing and starting to build out supply and procurement and storage at the same time, as we discussed. I think that we have to keep that supply number dynamic to some degree because this is unlike other targets. It is dependent on our usage. And I think it's also critical that we in California get on that road to conservation and reducing demand even as we try to deal with the supply.

We know drought is going to be a big part of our future, and I think managing that is going to be very important. But with that, we do have a motion on the bill from. I believe it was Senator. No, we don't have a motion yet. Do we have a motion? I'm sorry. Hurtado said, okay, we have a motion from Senator Hurtado. And so, Senator Caballero, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you for the robust discussion. I don't know where people got the idea that conservation was not going to be included. We'll make it explicit so that there's no question about it. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The bill has been moved by Senator Hurtado, and the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations consultant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The vote right now is 10-0. We'll leave that bill on call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And you can proceed. Your last Bill, Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. Well, my notes say good morning, and obviously, that's not right, although if we wait long enough, we may be. It may be. So, thank you very much Mr. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 753. This Bill will enhance the penalty punishable as a misdemeanor or felony, a wobbler, if an operator of an illegal cannabis grow site is found to have stolen water, tampered with water infrastructure, or dug an unpermitted well.

California's arid climate means that every year, regardless of the year's rain output, our water resources are stretched thin. Climate change is exacerbating California's dry season, and the state is experiencing more frequent and longer periods of severe, extreme, and exceptional drought. Lack of rain during the wet season has resulted in shrinking freshwater supply, straining all parts of the economy. According to a recent Cal Matters report, examples of water theft by illicit cannabis growers in the state are prolific.

In 2020, the Brooklyns Institute estimated that upwards of 9.5 million gallons of water was diverted by illegal cannabis activities. 9.5 million gallons of water. That's drinking water for our communities, water for environmental habitat that support fish and wildlife, and water to help combat forest fires. Current law does not provide a deterrence or resources to track and stop the illicit activities of a multibillion-dollar criminal industry.

The State Water Resources Control Board has the authority to fine illegal cannabis operations up to $1,000 a day for stealing water. But this level of criminal activity, a fine. But because of this, a fine is simply not enough. And I had an opportunity to talk to the folks in San Bernardino County and Riverside, that area. They're going out to the desert, and they're totally changing the landscape by building wells and hooking into other water supplies and these grows are huge.

It's really beyond what the local sheriff's office can handle. In 2018, state officials charged over $1 million in fines to over 1,000 water rights violators. Yet the problem continues. The cultivation of cannabis in remote forested landscapes, or as I said, in the desert, and the use of pesticides on soil, cannabis plants, and nearby native vegetation directly impacts wildlife and fish and nearby water sources. This legislation clarifies existing state law to explicitly penalize groundwater pollution and water theft in cases of illegal cannabis farming.

This Bill will protect one of our most valuable resources, water, and punish the behavior of illicit cannabis cultivators that refuse to get licensed and undermine the work we've done to promote the legal and safe consumption of cannabis products. Punishing this activity as a criminal offense is not only warranted, but absolutely critical to protect our natural resources and vulnerable communities who are dependent on dwindling water supplies. With me to testify in support of the Bill and facilitate questions is Sid Nag, Policy Advocate for RCRC.

Sir, if you're the only witness. So you got four minutes.

I'll use it all.

Thank you. You don't have to use it up here. You got up to four minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Good evening, Mr. Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Siddharth Nag, Sid Nag, with Rural County Representatives of California, and we'd like to first thank. RCRC would like to thank Senator Caballero for her continued leadership in this space, including the measure before you here today, SB 753. As the Senator very nicely laid out, illegal cannabis remains a serious threat in California. Illegal cultivators commit worker exploitation, water theft, and environmental pollution as par for course with their illicit production.

And because sites can go undetected for years, the environmental damage they cause over time can be truly devastating to all of our counties, as, again, the Senator very nicely laid out. On top of these ordinary, extraordinary challenges, counties plagued with illicit cultivation have also been reckoning with historic drought and extreme water scarcity. Counties that rely on key waterways, like the Russian River, such as the Russian River and Mendocino County, are forced into greater challenge when their constrained supply is siphoned by illegal actors.

Our current penalties are not strong enough, unfortunately, to deter individuals from engaging in this illegal activity, and they do not specifically recognize the harm that illegal actions pose to local water resources, including the development of unpermitted wells and their impact to our groundwater resources. And I need not go on to this Committee to also point out the harm that the illegal sector poses to our burgeoning legal cannabis market here in California today.

As the Committee analysis very nicely details, SB 753 reflects amendments that were discussed in prior committee hearings for a prior version of this Bill. And we are grateful to the author for her work on this, and we're pleased to support the Bill here today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of this Bill? Seeing none. We'll move to any opposition witnesses. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses in the room? Seeing none. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room? Okay. Seeing none. Mr. Moderator, could you please prompt any individuals waiting to testify via teleconference on SB 753?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you are in support or opposition to Senate Bill SB 753 please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. And we will begin with line 477. You are open.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, calling on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Line 482, you are open.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County, in support.

Please go ahead, line 491.

Mr. Chair Members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. Thank you. In support.

And we have a couple more with operators. One moment, please.

And we'll go to 481. You are open.

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

And we do have one more queuing up. One moment, please, with an operator. And we'll go to 493. Please go ahead, 493.

Hi, this is Ellen Komp with California NORML. We have sent in an opposition letter to the Bill and have contacted the author's office. She herself says huge gardens are the problem, but she wants to penalize as few as 50 plants. We want to protect groundwater, too, but this Bill is overbroad, and we hope to work with the author to amend it so that it's.

I'm sorry, and this is just me too, so thank you for that. All right, well, with that, let's bring it back. And Mr. Moderator, we're done with the queue?

Yes, everybody has queued up.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee then. I see. Senator Laird.

I want to thank the author for bringing the Bill. And it is a genuine problem. And I'm doing a companion Bill, because right now, if you're the Water Board, you have to give 24-hour notice.

And when the sheriff gets a warrant, the sheriff doesn't. So that that can be synchronized. And I think in both cases, they're environmental bills, they're not law enforcement bills. And so I salute you. And at the appropriate time, I'll be ready to move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Grove.

Thank you. Thank you for this Bill and your previous Bill. There were a lot of comments on the previous Bill that I did supported, and I applaud you for having a plan. On this Bill after redistricting, I represent Kern, Tulare, and Fresno counties, but got a deferred area of San Bernardino County until the new Senator is elected in that area. And we did an aerial tour. When I represented that community, the Sheriff Dykes took us on an aerial tour.

And there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of illegal Marijuana grows. Big tents that just pop up in the desert area. They put illegal water straws in the ground. They pollute our area, they pollute the water supply. They have moats around their facilities. Sheriff Dykes did several best where they have foreign forced labor. Individuals that they brought in some of them barely clothed, starving. It's just crazy that that happens in the State of California.

And so I think that your Bill will, especially adding the felony touch to it. I think that the problem that we have is there's not enough penalties either, fines. Because they make billions of dollars. So they'll just start up in the next five-acre lot over, and it's just open space, not really owned by any individual. They just move to the next lot. And so I appreciate this piece of legislation. Look forward to it passing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Grove. We have Senator Limon, Hurtado, and then Dahle.

Well, I think I'm going to echo just what's been said. I really do see this as an environmental issue. Santa Barbara County has some cannabis growing, and so once you see that both when the legal is there, there's also continued illegal grows. And what we're just seeing is that the contamination in the waterways are very serious. And they're elaborate. I mean, they're so serious.

They are things that we have put into law years ago that says, you cannot do it this way, you shall not do it this way. And they are happening. So I appreciate you bringing this forward, and will be supporting.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Limon. Senator Hurtado.

Again, another great Bill that you're bringing forward. Want to be a co-author, and if the Bill hasn't been moved yet, I like to move the Bill at the appropriate time. And, yeah, great work.

Thank you, Senator Hurtado. Senator Dahle.

I'll be quick. I want to be added as a co-author as well. We have thousands of these up in the north. We see literally hundreds of water trucks a day stealing water and also coagulants and pollution in salmon-bearing streams. Mind you, there are not many of those left in California. So thank you for the Bill. Look forward to supporting it.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Anyone else on the Committee? Okay, so we have a motion on SB 753. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

The vote is 8-0. We'll leave that Bill on call. Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. And thank you to the Committee.

So I think we have Senator McGuire ready to present. And this is file item six, SB 500. Senator McGuire, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. SB 500 is the joint committees on Fisheries and Aquaculture annual ominous Bill - omnibus. Oh, dear Lord, it's been a long day. Omnibus Bill to remedy issues and challenges large and small related to California's fisheries or agriculture industries. This is something that Senator Padilla has really been looking forward to all day. He will not clam up on this one.

SB 500 addresses various issues, including allowing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to require specific colors and or patterns to differentiate fishing gear from one another. Having a state managed fisheries gear be color coded will help identify and reduce the number of unknown whale entanglements.

Number two, it makes the urchin fishery safer by allowing the Fish and Game Commission to create a John Doe deckhand permit, adding an extra pair of eyes to an urchin diving boat when the diver is underwater, and it extends the current aquaculture fee program until January 1, 2025. Currently, the program is set to expire on January 1 of 2024. I want to say thank you to David Goldenberg. He was the Executive Director of the California Sea Urchin Commission, was going to join us.

The garage closed at seven, and he wasn't going to be able to get his car out. So, honest to God truth. So he is unable to be here. But we have the man, the myth, the legend. Mr. Chair. Mr. Rob Ross, President of the California Fisheries and Seafood Institute, to better speak in support of the omnibus Bill.

Thank you. Are you the only witness?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so you have up to four minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm Rob Ross. I represent the California Fisheries and Seafood Institute. We have members that are members of the Sea Urchin Commission. I also represent the California Aquaculture Association. An element of the Bill that we haven't mentioned is that in both cases, industry has volunteered to provide more funds for the work that the Department of Food and AG does for Urchin, along with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Fisheries. And we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for that very succinct and appropriate testimony. Do we have any other witnesses here in support? Please limit your testimony, your comments, your name, affiliation, position on Bill? We don't have anyone. Okay, any witnesses? Lead witnesses in opposition, seeing none. Any other witnesses in the room? In opposition? Okay, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Mr. Moderator, could you please queue up anyone in support or opposition of SB 500?

Thank you. If anybody is in support or opposition to SB 500, please press 1 0 at this time. One followed by zero. One moment, please. And we do have one with an operator. Anybody else, please hit 1 0 so you can get your line number. And we will go to line 473, please. Go ahead.

Good evening, Chair and Members. This is Megan Cleveland with The Nature Conservancy in support.

Mr. Chair. Nobody else queued up.

Fantastic. Thank you to our witnesses. Okay, do we have any other. Anyone on the Committee that wants to speak on this Bill. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Dahle. Senator McGuire, would you like to close?

And I apologize. I will be taking the Committee amendments as well. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for allowing us to present. And then I hope you all enjoy the evening.

Thank you, Senator McGuire. It's the beginning of a long night for some of us. All right, the motion from Senator Dahle is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

The vote right now is seven nothing, and we'll leave that bill on call. Okay, we'll move to-Senator Allen is not here in the room, so we'll move to file item number 11. Senator Dahle, SB 836. You can proceed whenever you-

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I want to give you a little background before I read the testimony, SB 836. Last year, I did a bill, actually, it was a two year bill, to try to do water conservation in California. Had some issues with my bill concerning stuff that I was not trying to do. This bill simply is trying to do water conservation in Siskiyou County, a place where we have water theft. The last bill we just talked about, where we literally have hundreds of truckloads of water leaving our ditches off of county roads. So this bill, by the way, the folks that have the water on this ditch are an attempt to give 30% of their water right away for fish.

So they have 100% of their water. They're going to give 30% away. The problem is, we want to be able to put that water in a pipe so that we don't, number one, get it taken from us. Number two, we control leakage and theft. So thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Across rural California, water loss and agriculture residential is a result of poor delivery systems. Open-air ditches are subject to contamination, evaporation, and leakage, resulting in water waste, which may never reach the end user.

SB 836 allows water right holders in Siskiyou County to improve the water flow of water, either through lining a ditch or installing a conduit. This b2ill would require the rotor rights holder to notify all landowners before making repairs and modifications and are responsible for the cost. Existing law slows down emergency repairs and water serving improvements when non water right holders resist access, especially during drought years, the state desperately needs water conservation solutions.

Piping can help to solve these issues for the consumer and reduce water waste by up to 50%. This bill creates more flexibility when dealing with water pipes and conduits that need repair. SB 836 would improve water efficiency and would bring water delivery systems into California into the modern age. I am also taking author amendments suggested by California Land Title Association that would rightfully honor existing easement agreements.

I have with me Jim Halpenny here to speak directly about the challenges here and many of the water rights owners that are facing. He actually is a person that is on the ditch.

Thank you. And you have one witness, Senator Dahle? Okay, fantastic. You have up to four minutes. Thank you. You may proceed.

My name is Jim Halpenny. I'm a farmer, landowner, and water rights holder in Siskiyou County. And I've heard some pretty lofty ideas here on what we need to do about water in California.

And we have just one of the small details we want to take care of in California. California law consistently holds that a water right holder cannot pipe or line an open ditch with an impervious material. It's been tried in court. I've got a list of at least five cases that date back to the late 18 hundreds.

What we're asking for is a change in that law from those days to where we can carry that water through a pipe so that it gets to the end user where it's deeded to the certain AP number piece of real estate. I read the analysis by the Committee that written permission seems to be a big deal. But if we have to have written permission, if I get written permission from any landowner, I can put that ditch anywhere. We already have existing easements for those ditches.

We have an easement to convey the water. We have an easement to maintain the ditch. We just don't have an easement to put that to line the ditch or to put it in pipe. And we're asking for your vote to change that legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of this bill here today? Okay, seeing none. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Any other opposition witnesses? Okay, seeing none.

Mr. Moderator, if you could please queue up any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 836, we can begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you're in support or opposition to SB 836, please press 1-0, one then followed by zero. At this time, nobody is queuing up.

Very controversial bill. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Thank you to our witness. Anybody on the committee have any questions or comments? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Grove to move the bill. Senator Dahle, would you like to close.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, we have a motion on SB 836.

Senator Dahle, would you like to close. I just thank you for your time today. And obviously, we've had many other bills that have addressed some of the issues, but this Bill actually is good conservation. The folks that own the water rights on the ditch are willing to give their water rights up for fish, but they want to get the remaining amount to their farm and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Dahle, we have a motion on SB 836.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 8 to 0. We'll leave that Bill on call for absent Members. Okay, we have two bills left. Senator Allen, you are doing file item number eight, and that is SB 389. Sorry. You can proceed when ready.

Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good evening. And let me start by thanking the Members, sorry, the Members of the staff, for the diligent work that they did on this Bill. Genevieve, I'll be accepting the Committee's amendments, so I'm pleased to be presenting this Bill today, which will provide our Water Resources Control Board with the ability to verify the existence and scope of claims to senior water rights. California has had a complicated history when it comes to water rights. Those who claim to hold rights prior to 1914, the establishment of what is now the Water Board are exempted from the same scrutiny given to their post 1914 counterparts.

As the state faces increased drought and water shortages, it has become increasingly challenging for the board to approve new diversion applications or to limit orders for reduced usage, given their need to account for diversions, they lack sufficient information about.

By providing the board with the ability to ask for proof of these rights, along with information pertaining to its scope, the board is able to make more informed decisions, which is a benefit to all holders in the system, regardless of the kind of right that they may have. To be clear, the primary focus of this Bill is information gathering.

That being said, through the gathering of evidence and opportunity for hearing, the Bill grants the board the ability to ultimately issue a decision on the validity of a right. The language in the Bill referencing a notice and opportunity for hearing, is consistent with the other with other proceedings currently in place, as outlined in the analysis, along with the requirement of placing the burden of proof on the claimant.

In an effort to address concerns of the opposition, the Committee amendments will require the board to issue a finding of how this information would protect the public interest and allows for the setting of regulations to establish more transparency about the hearing process, along with kinds of evidence that would be sufficient. All the amendments are on page nine. So the Bill is not an overhaul of our water rights system.

It's aimed at ensuring our system is operating the way it's supposed to before we run out of time to fix it. It ultimately comes down to making sure that the rights are legitimate. The rights are legitimate. So here to testify in support of the Bill, I have Matthew Baker of the Planning Conservation League, the bill's sponsor, along with Professor Dave Owen from the UC College of Law, San Francisco, formerly known as Hastings, who's a water and environmental attorney who specializes in water resource management.

So we have two witnesses. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good evening, Senators. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning and Conservation League, sponsor of the Bill. This Bill is simply intended to provide a tool for the board to better understand and manage the system for all users. There are a million people in California without access to safe drinking water, entire fisheries on the verge of extinction, vast areas of agriculture that have been left dry over the past few decades.

We must do a better job managing the system. This proposal would not undermine the liability of water rights, as some might say. Rather, it is a basic, nominal improvement to indeed affirm the certainty of our supplies. 45% of right holders and 35% of diversions by volume are held up in pre 1914 rights which have never been adequately documented and remain poorly understood. Giving the board the power of verification is not punitive. It is just for the purposes of information gathering.

It is just good accounting, and it's accounting that we need to better be prepared for the hard times ahead. We urge your support. I thank you very much, and I see the rest of my time to the Professor. Thank you.

Thank you. You have up to three minutes, sir.

All right. Thank you, Chairman. Good late evening? I guess. So in my remarks, I hope to convey just three points about SB 389. First, the reporting that this Bill requires is a pretty standard element of property law. There's nothing novel here. Second, there's good reasons why this is a standard element of property law. And third, the methods that the Bill uses are also familiar. They're also tried and true. So I'll start with the first point.

SB 389 empowers the State Water Board to compel water right holders to verify their rights. And that's similar to a local building department asking you to produce a survey when you're going to get a permit to build near a property line. It's similar to a police officer asking someone who's pulled over to show her license and registration. It's also similar to the patent office asking people who claim patents to submit supporting evidence.

In other words, there's nothing novel in a property regime about asking people to demonstrate that their rights are what they say they are. And in fact, the only thing that's weird is that in California water law, we've had significant classes of water rights where we haven't given the state the ability to demand that verification for a very long time.

Second, there are very good reasons why we verify people's property rights, and the most important one is that verification stops people from using things that aren't theirs, either intentionally or inadvertently. And that's a real threat with water, just as it is with land or intellectual property or patents.

If you can just say that something is yours and there's no check from the state, no ability for the state to verify that in a quick way, then of course, people are going to say things are theirs that weren't really theirs. And again, not necessarily intentionally. It could happen accidentally, but it will happen, and it will particularly happen for something like water that is so valuable, and it's most likely to happen when water is scarce.

And finally, the methods that this Bill uses are straightforward and traditional. It uses a preponderance of the evidence standard, which just means more likely than not, based on the evidence available. That's the same evidentiary standard that is used in most civil cases. And it satisfies due process requirements by requiring notice and an opportunity for a hearing, which are the basic and standard requirements of due process. So the broader point here is that this Bill is just about bringing some common sense to California water management.

For a property regime to work, the state has to be able to get people to verify that they own what they say they own, and we don't have that and haven't had that for a long time in California for a significant and important set of property rights. It's a big problem, and this Bill would fix it.

Thank you. Professor. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of this Bill? Name, affiliation and position on the Bill?

Doug Obegi, Natural Resources Defense Counsel, in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Dennis O'Connor, Mono Lake Committee in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses. Let's move on to any lead opposition witnesses. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses in the room? All right, seeing none. Do we have any other. Oh, I'm sorry. Lead opp. Okay, redo. You're taking the long way around. Sorry. Okay, so you each have two minutes or four minutes in the aggregate if you want to split that.

All right, thank you. Good evening. My name is Rebecca Smith. I'm a practicing water rights attorney here on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, here to express our concerns about SB 389. At the outset, I want to say AQUA supports the goal of improving our water rights system. This opposition is not meant to suggest that water users should be able to operate outside the law or outside the limits that they have within the water rights.

Still, there are practical and equitable problems with this Bill that need to be addressed. You heard this Bill characterized as just like getting showing your driver's license. The problem with that characterization is that these historic water rights that this Bill is targeting are based on the 100 years of history and parcel use of a particular parcel.

If you come to me today and say, tell me if I have a riparian water right, I will say, let me see the data and the history of that parcel all the way back to the date of the parcel's patent. So the first time it passed into private ownership. That's a significant amount of information. And all of those rights are defined in the context of the stream system. So riparians each enjoy a correlative share in the stream system.

Pre 14s have a system of seniority, just like our post 14s that are defined among the folks who are actually within the system. I also want to note the board doesn't operate in a vacuum when it comes to these rights. It can and does have the ability to issue informational orders. And each of these claimants, although they don't hold state board permits, they do provide annual reports.

Those reports indicate the basis of their right, the location of use, the rate of diversion, the amount of water that's being diverted. Anyone who's diverting over 10 acre feet a year is also reporting under SB 88, in monthly, weekly, or even hourly intervals, the amount of water they're having diverted. There are remedies here. When a user exceeds the scope of their right, the other users or complainants to the State Board can instigate an investigation and can also instigate any kind of court proceeding and adjudication.

The standard of review is also an issue for our water rights holders. These rights are long vested rights that have had the opportunity to be challenged and have been sitting around in our system for a long time.

You're at two minutes. If you wouldn't mind wrapping.

I'm going to steal a little your time, Don. And when we look at the standard of review. There's a comparison to the stream adjudications. The difference is that a stream adjudication is a user initiated process that adjudicates a right as to everybody who's claiming on the stream. This, in contrast, would be a board initiated process as to one particular user. There's a substantial difference there.

And we think it's important to note that we would welcome the opportunity to work with the author and the Bill proponents to address our concerns and the board's need for certainty in managing the water right system. But the Bill, as it stands, AQUA has significant concerns about.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Don Gilbert, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association and its dozens of public water agency members, regrettably opposing my friend Senator Allen's Bill. Approximately 80% of surface water rights are held by public water agencies. So this Bill, let's be clear, is directed at public water agencies, at local government.

We believe that unless there's data to the contrary, which I haven't seen in the analysis, and I haven't heard in any of the presentations by the proponents, that there should be a little higher regard for our public water agencies as good stewards of this important resource, unless there's some trigger that suggests that's objective, that suggests that an investigation is needed. Because despite what the proponents argued, we're not talking about some matter of fact thing, an investigation. There's no real, quote, probable cause. There's no real trigger.

With respect, the effort to fix that in the amendment, all the waterboard has to say is, we have cause. So then they go and they investigate, and we don't think it's nothing that we start having to prove up our water, right. We think the state should have to prove that there's a problem before they investigate local government.

Thank you. If you could wrap up here.

Yeah. So again, the key point is that we are very concerned about investigations by the State Board of Local Public Agencies who are good stewards of this important resource. And we respectfully request your opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right. Do we have any other opposition witnesses here in the room? It looks like we have a few. Please limit your testimony or comments, your name, affiliation and position on the measure. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the Orange County Water District, Rancho California Water District, and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, all in opposition.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Glenn Farrell, on behalf of the State Water Contractors, in opposition.

Thank you.

Hi there. Jamie Miner on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District and Santa Margarita Water District, in opposition.

Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good evening. Lily Mackay. On behalf of San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and United Water Conservation District, in opposition.

Thank you.

Annalie Aiken. On behalf of San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Mesa Water District and Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Chair and Members Alfredo Medina here, on behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District, also respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good evening. Danny Merkley, again, with The Gualco Group. On behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Fresno's Mayor Jerry Dyer, Kern County Water Agency, Kings River interests and Modesto Irrigation District, opposed.

Thank you.

Chair Members Ed Manning with KP public affairs, on behalf of Mojave Water Agency, Western Municipal Water District and Western Growers, in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As he stated, if you are in support of or opposition to SB 389 please press 1 0. We will begin with line 459. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in the room? Okay. Not seeing any. We'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 389, I'd appreciate it.

Hello. Thank you. This is Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and California Environmental Voters on support.

Thank you.

Line 469, you are open.

Good evening. This is Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute. Respectfully opposed.

Please go ahead. 485.

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

Thank you.

You are open. Line 488. Please go ahead. 488.

Hello. Rachel Adayala with Reef Government Relations, on behalf of El Dorado Irrigation District, Desert Water Agency, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Solano County Water Agency, and Valley AG Water Coalition in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 458, you are open.

Good evening. My name is Cody Phillips, on behalf of California Coast Keeper Alliance, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

491, please go ahead.

Mr. Chairman and Members, respectfully in opposition. This is Paul Yoder, on behalf of the counties of San Joaquin and Stanislaus, and also the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 494, you are open.

Alex Wimmer, on behalf of the Center of Wildlife in support.

Thank you.

Please go ahead. Line 495.

Good evening. Noelle Mattock with the City of Roseville in opposition.

Thank you.

Line 496, you are open.

Good evening. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of various agricultural associations and opposition.

Thank you.

497, you are open.

Mr. Chairman, Members Ivy Britain with the Northern California Water Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll give a quick reminder. One followed by zero, if you'd like to testify in support or opposition to SB 389. Line 499, please go ahead.

This is Alex Biering from the California Farm Bureau. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

And we have gone through the queue. Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you, Mr. Moderator. Thank you to all of our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Do we have any comments or questions on the Bill? Senator Eggman.

Just to appreciate for whomever your constituent you're bringing this forward for, but for my constituents, it's a very hard. You're talking about pre 1914 water rights. And as some of the opposition said, you're not talking about there's a problem. So when somebody goes and looks, you're talking about State Water Resources Control Board just going and looking at everybody and then deciding if they think they have appropriate waters or not and then making them prove it.

So it looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. And so I won't be supporting this today.

Thank you. Would you like to respond to Senator Allen?

I'll respond.

Okay. Thank you. Senator Eggman. Senator Dahle.

Well, so I want to try to get. What do you think of, what's the problem? That's, I think, the question that needs to be answered. Look, if you have a pre 1914 water right, it's not like nobody knows you have it right.

Last year, for example, during the drought, people with pre 1914 water rights in my district got curtailed because we had a serious water shortage. I guess to me, if you can answer the first question is what's the basis of the allegations that you don't think are getting covered right now?

Yeah, look, we know we have a water problem. We've tasked our Water Board with investigating and ascertaining water rights in the state. We know that there is a whole issue of these rights that have been around for over 100 years. And all we're saying is that the Water Board ought to have the flexibility to ascertain whether the rights are actually real or not. There was a whole study done on this.

A bunch of water law experts got together and talked about the lack of flexibility the Water Board has right now. I understand that the Water Board is our governmental tool to ensure that there is an equitable and fair and legally sound system for control over water and distribution of water around the state. If folks feel that the waterboard is going to take this and kind of become some massive authoritarian machine, we got to reform the waterboard. But it's their job to make sure.

And you asked about what constituent right. We all have a stake in the water system in the State of California. Every single one of us, every single Californian does. We want to make sure that there's access to an equitable access to water in the state. So we're not asking for some massive overhaul of the water rights system.

We're just saying that for those folks that have been sitting on water rights for a long, long time to prove up their claim, if there's some reason that the Water Board wants to ask them about their claim. This is a basic tenant of property law that you want to have some proof that you actually have title to this asset that you have. That's the concept here. It's something that comes out of a pretty substantial report that was done by a whole slew of water law experts.

It's referred to in the analysis. It's about information gathering ultimately, and making sure that the system is actually working as intended.

Well, I would suggest that a lot of people can get together and come up with a lot of ideas, but at the end of the day, we have a system in place where you have to demonstrate you have a water right. And we have a court system that has been tried many times on these. Who has rights? And I toured the delta a couple of years ago and you see the river goes to the delta. So I've met with some wine grape growers, actually, quite frankly.

And I'm like, where do you get your water from? They get it out of a ditch and they have a riparian right. Because before they were developed, there was a slew that came through there and they developed their water, right.

So I guess for me, by the way, in sub two, which is the area where we talk about what we Fund out of the resources agency, we put money, millions of dollars into upgrading the Water Board's ability to actually put the water rights on digitized, which are paper. So we are moving in the direction of actually getting that to where you can click a button and it will tell you Landowner X, y or z, this is their water, right? Because we're digitizing it.

So I don't see where the problem is. I think this is more of an opportunity for us to give power to another agency to go out and when some environmental group wants to, or somebody who doesn't like somebody's ability to have water right, be able to harass them and to make them do something that is proven and is part of their deed.

But Senator, with so much respect, you said just now that we have a system that you must demonstrate your right. The whole point of the Bill is that we don't have a system by which people demonstrate their right if they're pre 1914. That's what the Bill is trying to address, is to ensure that what you just described as our system is actually truly our system.

No, I guarantee you, if you have a pre 1914 water right, you've got documentation that you have a pre 1914 water right.

Then you're not going have to a problem with this Bill.

Why were you giving the agency the power to go out and harass somebody that doesn't need harassment?

It's not about harassment. It's not about harassment. It's such a funny frame, right?

Okay, well, give them the ability to question somebody who is. So you're guilty before you have to prove your innocence.

No, listen, do you think that when you walk into an airplane and they ask you to show your ID that you're guilty before proven innocent because they're asking for some proof of who you are. I mean, the truth is that we've got a complicated system. The stakes are incredibly high. And we've tasked the Water Board with the sacred duty of ensuring that we have enough water for everybody and that there's a fair system that is actually grounded in law and water rights.

Your comment, I think, underscores the very point you said just off the cuff because you assume that this is right, because we all assume this is right, which is that we have a system by which everyone has to demonstrate their right. And yet we don't have that pre 1914. And if what you're saying is right, that everyone's got documentation, there's no problem here. The Water Board doesn't have the resources to go out and become some massive kind of harassment agency. That's not their goal.

That's not what they're all about. That's not their M.O. But they have a need to ensure that there's some semblance of proof associated with water rights around the state. That's the role that we've tasked them with in statute. And so this is about effectuating their role. This is all in water code 1051. That's the goal here. Now, if your concern is about harassment, I'm happy to work with you on some language that would ensure that that wouldn't happen.

The amendments, I think, heard some of those kinds of concerns. And the Committee is asking that there be a finding that there's a reason to believe the information would protect the public interest or further the State Board's responsibilities under the section, and only under those circumstances can they investigate the diversion. This is on page nine. So unless these folks have totally are derelicting their fiduciary duty and their duties under a law, it would be entirely inappropriate for them to engage in harassment.

There has to be a finding that there's reason to believe that the information of getting these rights would protect the public interest or further their responsibilities. There has to be a proactive finding for them to act under this Bill. So I don't know who we're appointed, the Water Board, maybe you got to get on Rules Committee and oppose them or get folks that are less inclined to.

Well, trust me, I do oppose most of the appointments that come through, and that's the process we have available to us. But look, I'm not going to be supporting your Bill, obviously today, and you're guilty. This basically is giving power to the waterboard. And there are some, let's be honest, there'll be some in this state that think that if you have a pre 1914 water right that you don't deserve it for some reason, or you can read lots of articles about that.

And so I won't be supporting this kind of legislation. And I've seen too many times where the Legislature has delegated the power to agencies. Perfect example is California Air Resources Board, and we don't get the results, and we get people getting their businesses harassed when they're rightfully in the right. So I won't be supporting your Bill today. And I think it is overreaching. And I think that there is plenty of opportunities and law that they've proved up on their rights.

And if they haven't, somebody's suing them because water is a scarce resource in California.

No function under law for people to prove up their rights if they're pre 1914. Right now, that's just a fact.

Senator, where do you have evidence that somebody is stealing water that's not theirs under a pre 1914 water right. If you would produce that, then we would maybe have some basis for this Bill.

I'm not on the waterboard. I'm not tasked with that role. The waterboard is.

Does the waterboard have evidence that they have pre 1914 peoples taking water that's not theirs?

If they don't have the evidence, look at the language that we have in the Bill. They have to have a finding that there is a reason to believe the information that they're gathering here would protect the public interest or further their responsibilities. And the responsibilities are outlined on page three of the analysis. So only under those circumstances could they go and do the sort of investigation that you're so concerned about.

Well, Senator Dahle, does that change your mind?

Not one single bit.

Okay. Well, then maybe we can.

With all due respect to the author who helped me get a Bill out of Committee today, I respectfully am not supporting.

This is how you pay me back.

We'll move on to Senator Padilla, then. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Dahle.

So obviously, we don't trade votes around here. That's what the Senator wanted to say.

I don't think anyone implied that. Thank you, and Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the author for what I would describe as I think I have a good understanding of the policy objective. The author you're trying to achieve here. Senator, with respect to certain elements of the board charter that I think everybody would acknowledge, to say the least, does have some deficiencies in some discrete areas.

I appreciate you taking amendments, particularly with respect to sort of the threshold finding requirements, and I'm happy to help at this point, move the Bill along so you could evolve it.

But I want to be clear that I'll reserve my right to revise and oppose as the Bill and final form moves, because I do have some concerns. I'm not sure that the language that you've proposed here is being discreet enough with respect to cleaning up the inherent General claims and forfeiture provision tensions with how the appellate, which is the stated basis for some of the provisions of your Bill to clarify that, particularly with respect between the tensions of sort of the conflicting claims principles that the appellate review have brought to light and also sort of statutory adjudication provisions.

I'm not sure we're cleaning up some of that tension yet, but I want to give you and your office and the opposition every opportunity to sort of evolve that in a way that maybe adds some benefit. But I will be clear. I think there's more work to be done here.

As someone I used to work with many years ago, a fellow named John Cahani, who was a marine veteran and served as a city attorney, said, it ain't soup yet. And I'm not so sure this is soup yet, or if it can get there. But I'm happy to move it here and hope that you'll continue to make that distinction a little clear.

Yeah, very much. Appreciate that very much Senator, and I absolutely welcome your office and your personal engagement in helping us to tighten up the language so you'll feel more comfortable.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Padilla. And water in my recipes are an essential part of soup. So there we go. Senator Hurtado. Great. Any questions?

Not soup. It's water. Yeah.

I promise to keep it short, so I will try to do my best. I just want to say I really appreciate your efforts, but on this measure, I don't think you're wrong on what you're trying to do. I support what you're trying to do.

I don't think that I could support the Bill in its current format, but I want to get to a place where I can support the Bill, and I want to be able to, if there's any input I could provide or anything of that sort, I mean, I'd, I'd like to because I, I think there's some arguments that, that you make that are legit. I mean, they're legit arguments that need to be addressed. And so I want to be helpful in any capacity.

Just wanted to respectfully let you know that I will be abstaining from the Bill today, but I hope to support you in the near future.

Thank you very much. And we're going to work on it. We're going to work on it. There's some media issues here we're dealing with, but we're going to work with the opposition, see if we can come to a good solution.

Thank you, Senator Hurtado. So I know this Bill has a lot of apprehension associated with it. And I think there was an articulated concern that I think Senator Dahle and Senator Eggman raised very eloquently that this Bill could be seen as overly empowering the Water Board, impacting water rights and the ability of various waterboards around the state to provide water to their customers. But I would just clarify one thing. This Bill is about more than just stealing water. It's also about determining rights.

And I think that, personally, that's very important to understand. Because I think it's better to understand those rights now and to fully flesh that out than to do that at a later point in time when those rights might be at risk, when they might be at risk of being challenged. And we find out that actually we don't have the water resources that we think we have. So I think this Bill will help us do that.

I do hope that you continue to work with opposition and some of the real concerns that were raised. But I think that by having a better understanding of our water usage, we can start to make better decisions as we plan out the future water. And we've heard so much about that issue today. So for those reasons, I'll be supporting the Bill today. And, Senator Allen, would you like to close?

Yeah, I really appreciate the discussion. I know this is a tough set of issues, and I do think that the language that we're taking is going to help to address a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. But I recognize that there's more to be done. And so I genuinely welcome the engagement of the Members, including those folks who don't feel comfortable being there today, to see if we can.

I think you've heard where we're coming from, maybe don't fully agree with some of the premises, but encourage you to read the report or at least the Executive summary. And I encourage you to, let's work together. Let's try to see if we can come to a place where we'll be able to let the Water Board do its work, but do so in a way that's respectful of water rights holders around the state, including pre 1914 water rights holders.

It's so important, given our long term challenges with water, that are only going to get more difficult as climate change sets in. And with that, I respectfully ask for the opportunity to keep working on this ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Allen, do we have a motion on. Sorry. Senator Padilla moves the Bill and the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations consultant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you.

Okay, so that item is 43, and it'll remain on call. Next up, we have 704. SB 704 by Senator Min. It's our last Bill. So, Senator Min. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Fleeing right now. You want to wait?

Wants to hear my Bill. It's very exciting. All right. Thank you, Members of the Committee. Thank you. Vice Chair Seyarto. I'm presenting SB 704, which would remove outdated Coastal Act policies and add policies promoting offshore wind energy deployment. The Coastal Act provides for the regulation of development in our state's coastal zone and includes policies to protect environmentally impacted areas, environmentally sensitive areas, and to address equity concerns and adverse impacts raised by development.

When the Coastal Act was enacted, a loophole was created that allowed oil and gas development, refineries, and petrochemical facilities to circumvent environmental protection standards otherwise applied to all other projects. This loophole, known as the Industrial Override Provision, is obviously severely outdated and continues to perpetuate 1970s-era statewide energy goals. 50 years later, new oil and gas development is not necessarily consistent with the state's efforts to decarbonize its economy and to achieve net zero carbon emissions.

SB 704 would close the Industrial Override Loophole for new oil and gas development while allowing existing facilities to continue to be repaired and maintained. This Bill levels the playing field to ensure that all new energy development meets the same standards to be approved as other projects. This is a long overdue and common-sense reform. As many of you know, my own district was devastated by the 2021 offshore oil pipeline spill near Huntington Beach.

SB 704 also promotes offshore wind energy by enacting coastal act policies to encourage and facilitate its deployment. SB 704 ensures that wind is at the back of offshore wind. Yesterday, I received a late opposed, unless amended letter from the Western States Petroleum Association. I've not yet had a chance to review that letter, but I will have a conversation with WSPA after I've reviewed their late proposal.

Today, I have with me to testify Ann Alexander from the Natural Resources Defense counsel to speak in support of this Bill.

All right, Ms. Alexander, you have four minutes if you're the only witness.

Okay. And I don't believe I will need.

And you do not have to take it all.

And I do not believe I will need them, because this is really quite straightforward.

And you may proceed.

Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Ann Alexander, Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, here in support of 704. Current law that governs oil and gas development in our state's fragile coastal zone is badly in need of the update that SB 704 would provide.

As has been explained, the law currently contains a 1970s-era loophole that essentially allows oil and gas and petrochemical development, some of the dirtiest industries in the state, to develop within California's coastal zone, even if they don't meet the basic environmental protections that are required for every other kind of development within this fragile zone.

Here in 2023, we now know that giving a massive loophole to the oil and gas and petrochemical industry is exactly the last kind of activity that we want to give a free pass to in this manner. We know this, of course, from the painful experience of the October 21 pipeline leak off the coast of Huntington Beach that left us with essentially weathered tarballs washing up all along our coast.

What we also know is that the California public, when polled, strongly opposes oil and gas development within the coastal zone at all, which suggests that, at the very least, we should not be allowing a giant loophole that gives a free pass to this industry. They should at least have to meet the basic standards that every other industry has to meet. Appropriately, nothing in this Bill would limit maintenance and repair of offshore oil and gas facilities.

It would only limit new construction in the way that every other industry is limited in the coastal zone. And in addition, the legislation is looking not just to the past, but to the future by encouraging the Coastal Commission to seek technical advice and recommendations concerning offshore wind. So for all of these reasons, we respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

That was done in less than two minutes. Awesome. All right, is there anybody else in the room who would like to come to the microphone to express their support for this Bill? 704.

Hi, Samantha Samuelson for Audubon California, Surfrider, and California Environmental Voters, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? With that, is there anybody in the room who wishes to be a primary witness in opposition? I think my mouth stops working at eight, so we got to go fast here. All right. There doesn't seem to be anybody else in the room in opposition, so we'll go to the phone lines. AT&T operator, you can open the phone lines for anybody who wishes to comment. I mean, wishes to express either their opposition or support for SB 714.

AT&T operator, we're having a hard time hearing him. Did he go home? No. All right, we're going to stand by for a minute while we try to reestablish our connection with the AT&T operator.

And there's 17 bills.

That's awesome. Definitely past midnight. I could go home and take a nap. But there are some.

Hi, this is AT&T. I just want to reconnect. Your line disconnected.

Thank you.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Not sure what happened.

So we're on board again, AT&T operator, we're ready to take any opposition or support comments from.

SB 704.

For SB 704. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you so much. One moment. I'm going to place you back.

How many?

Yeah, I want to hear the.

Spoiler alert. Dahle, No.

Doing my best.

AT&T operator, are you there again?

Yeah, we'll be there the rest of our natural life.

Ladies and gentlemen on the phone line, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero i you're in support or opposition to SB 704. And we'll go to line 501. Please go ahead, 501. 501? 501, can you hear us? You are open.

Hello, this is Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there another person?

Yes. We'll go to line 500. You are open 500.

Good evening. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Line 502. Please go ahead. 502, did you want to re-queue? Please press one zero. Looks like you took yourself out. One followed by zero. Or anybody else? Please press one followed by zero. Put yourself in queue for SB 704. You are open 502.

Hello, Kamal Valadez with Azul, in support.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Mr. Chair, there are no other participants queued up.

If there are no other participants queued up, we're going to bring it back to the dais. We have a motion to move the Bill. Do we have anybody else who would like to comment and extend this just a little bit longer? I have several comments, but I'm going to reserve them. We have a motion by Mr. Padilla. Senator Padilla. So would you like to close?

Sure. I could drag this out because I'm just going to Judiciary, but I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

With that, go ahead and call the roll.

File item number 10, SB 704. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

All right. That Bill is seven Ayes, two Noes, and we'll put that Bill on call. We are at the end of our hearing, and we have bills on call. If all Members could please return to the hearing immediately, we can finish lifting calls as soon as you are here. All right, I guess everyone is here, then. So we'll go back through file item order. Can I get the list? All right, so we'll start with file item one. I'm sorry.

We'll start with the consent calendar. Consultant, please call the roll.

For the consent calendar. [Roll call].

Okay. That Bill has 10 votes, and the Bill is out. All right, let's go to file item number one, SB 273 by Senator Wiener. Consultant, please call the roll.

SB 273, the motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is 6-0, with both the chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay. That Bill. That Bill is vote 10-0. That Bill is out. Okay, we'll move to file item two, SB 306, by Senator Caballero. We need a motion on this Bill. No, we don't. We have a motion. Sorry. I'm sorry. The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations.

All right, the current vote is 6-0, with both Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, that Bill is. The vote is 10-0. That Bill is out. Okay, we'll move to file item three, SB 366, by Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

Current vote is. Which one are we doing again?

I'm sorry. We're lifting the call on file item number three, SB 366 by Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations.

Yes. And the current vote is 10-0, with both Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, that Bill is out unanimously. Okay, we'll lift the call next on file item number four, SB 753 by Senator Caballero. The motion is due, pass to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

The current vote is 8-0, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

That Bill has 10 votes. That Bill is out. All right, we'll lift the call next on file item number six, SB 500 by Senator McGuire. The motion is do pass, as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 7-0, with the Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

That Bill has nine votes, and the Bill is out. Okay, we'll lift the call next on file item number eight, SB 389, by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 4-3 and Chair voting Aye. Vice Chair voting No. [Roll call].

Okay, the vote is 6-3. That Bill is out. Okay, we'll move next to file item number nine, SB 605, by Senator Padilla. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 8-0, with both Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, the vote on that Bill is 10-0. That Bill is out. Okay, we'll move next to file item number 10, SB 704, by me. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Consultant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 7-2, with Chair voting Aye and Vice Chair voting No. [Roll call].

Okay, the vote on that Bill is 7-2. The Bill is out. All right, last Bill of the day is by Senator Dahle. SB file item 11, SB 836. The motion is do pass as amended. Consultant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 8-0, with Chair voting Aye. [Roll call].

Okay, that vote is 10-0. The Bill is out. Thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation. We have concluded the agenda. Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is now adjourned.