Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum, which I think we do have, and we can begin our hearing. We have 22 bills on today's agenda and bills will be heard in file item order. We have 13 bills on proposed consent. Before we hear presentation on bills, let's establish a quorum. Madam Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators. Min? Min here. Seyarto? Seyarto here. Allen? Dahle? Dahle here. Grove? Grove here. Hurtado? Hurtado here. Laird? Laird here. Limon? Mcguire? Padilla? Padilla here. Stern?

We have a quorum, and I should just mention that two announcements that we have today. First, Senator Eggman is not here so she'll be replaced for this hearing today with Senator Mcguire. Second, we will not be hearing AB 676 in this morning's hearing. AB 676 by Bennett.

Mr. Chair? I would move the consent agenda.

Thank you. So since the quorum has been established we'll vote on the consent calendar which are file Items number One, AB 30 by Ward. Two, AB 277 by Rodriguez. File item number four, AB 389 by Assembly Member Ramos. File item number Eight, AD 584 by Hart. File item number 10, AB 606 by Mathis. File item number 12, AB 655 by Petrie-Norris. File item number 13, AB 706 by Luz Rivas. File item number 16, AB 1150 from the AWPW Committee. File item number 18, AB 1279 by Fong.

File item number 19, AB 1526 by the ANR Committee. File item number 20, AB 1611 by Lowenthal. File item number 21, AB 1686 by Grayson and file item number 22, AB 1706 by Bonta. Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators. Min? Min aye. Seyarto? Seyarto aye. Allen? Dahle? Dahle aye. Grove? Grove aye. Hurtado? Hurtado aye. Laird? Laird aye. Limon? Mcguire? Padilla? Padilla aye. Stern?

And the vote right now is seven Eyes, zero no's.

Vote right now is 7 ayes, 0 no's. We'll put the consent calendar on call because I believe the Assembly is still in. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. We have bills. Okay. Do we have authors here? Okay, we do. Ms. Wilson's here. I'm sorry, I didn't see Ms. Wilson. So, Ms. Wilson. Assemblywoman Wilson will present. Let's see. And this is going to be file item number. Which? File item number three. I'm sorry. AB 345. Ms. Wilson, you can present.

Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I would like to first start by thanking the Committee for working with my office to strengthen the Bill by adding language that will increase accountability when it comes to advanced payments for multi-benefit projects. I am happy to accept these amendments. I am pleased to present this Bill, AB three, four, five, which will provide the Department of Water Resources discretionary authority to utilize an advanced payment option when funding local flood protection and or multi benefit habitat restoration projects.

Department of Water Resources already has this discretionary authority for certain projects. The State of California continues to make progress at undoing the damage to our environments and protecting endangered species. However, much work remains to implement multi benefit projects that can protect our communities from natural disasters while simultaneously protecting the environment. State funding of these projects ensure that there are sufficient funds to pay for the project. Unfortunately, the state does not provide funds to local agencies until after the local agency has paid project expenses.

This Bill would help alleviate cash flow problems that are created as a result of local agencies having to cover their own share and the state share before getting reimbursed. This ensures that the vital work can continue in the most expeditious way possible, which is beneficial for all of us in our communities. My witness and support today is Eric Nagy, Executive Director with the Little Egbert Joint Powers Agency.

Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity today to testify. I'd like to start by thanking the Assemblywoman for her leadership on this issue. It's winners like we just had that, I think, really remind all of us of the importance of having all the tools that we can available to us as local agencies in partnership with the state to deliver improved flood protection for the Valley.

And it's through a measure like this where we get some financial flexibility to create a stronger partnership that allows flood risk reduction projects to advance or multi benefit projects to advance. Thank you. I'm happy to take questions.

Do you have any other lead witnesses in support? I do not. Okay, fantastic. And so, anyone else in the room wishing to provide me to testimony? Anyone in the room?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, Karen Lang, on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association and the Solano County Water Agency in support.

Thank you.

Morning. Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 California counties in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other lead witnesses in the room. Let's hear from any lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any other witnesses in the room who would like to express their me-too opposition? Seeing none.

We'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Mr. Moderator or Ms. Moderator, could you check the queue for us and prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 345.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Currently have one in queue. To testify in opposition or in support, please press one and then zero at this time. We're going first to line number 17. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association in support.

Anyone else, Mr. Moderator?

We have one more queuing up. It'll be just a moment while we get that line number. Thank you for your patience. We're going to line number 21. Line 21. Go ahead, please.

Thank you Chair and Members, my name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. We are in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the--

Mr. Chair, we have no additional callers in queue.

Thank you. Thanks for all our witnesses. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Senator Grove? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I really appreciate. It's not very often that people look at the Central Valley and want to protect the food supply in this building, and I appreciate you doing that. And I would just like to move the Bill at an appropriate time. We have a motion. Senator Laird.

I was going to make a similar comment, although I always remind the Senator from Bakersfield, food is grown in other places than the Central Valley, and it is grown in the Pajaro Valley, where there is a major flood control problem that was witnessed this winter. And we have a project that was completely approved and ready to go. And I did the Bill on the state and local share.

Then I had to do a Bill that did exactly what this Bill does that allowed them to take advance monies as they were ahead of the development before the actual construction. And so the great thing about this Bill is it solves the problem for everybody. And you don't have to do the one offs like I had to do. So I, too, wish to thank the author and look forward to supporting the Bill. And I'm sorry that I was beaten to making the motion.

Any other comments or questions? Senator Grove.

I'd like to reply to the former Secretary of Natural Resources. I know this is his expert field. My simple comment was, I realized that in his district, he was dealing with a sequin. All these issues for 20 plus years and still didn't manage to get all this done, and he had to do special legislation.

I simply was just thanking the author for looking out for the Central Valley because we are the top three food producing counties in the entire world. Mr. Chair? Yes. Would you like to respond? No. I'd just like to say I was so ignorant that I had to ask the Senator from Bakersfield, where my counties were, and she let me know they were seven, eight, and nine behind the one, two, and three. So I am grateful for her eternal vigilance.

Thank you. Do you have any comments that you would like to make in response? Okay. All right. Anyone else seeing no other questions or comments from the DA's, we have a motion. Senator, Assembly Member Wilson, would you like to close?

Thank you for the consideration and lively discussion. I happen to, although I'm a Northern Californian, well, I raised Northern Californians, I am actually a Central Valleyian, born and raised in Fresno county and lived there till I was an adult. I can drink before I left. And so I am, by heart, a Central Valley.

And so I want to make sure they are included in all legislation and the work that I do here in the Assembly, because this is vital for food production, it's vital for protecting flood control. It is a multi-benefit. It supports multi-benefit projects. And to the point of Senator Laird, it's now a statewide and no more one offs. When we see calamities, we get to do this statewide. And happy to have anyone join on as a co-author who supports this as well. And with that, aye respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We have a motion from Senator Grove. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Madam Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote right now is 7-0. We'll leave that on call. Thank you very much, Assembly Member. So we'll move on to our next Bill.

We have two items present to be presented by Assembly Member Bennett. File item number five, AB 560. You can proceed whenever.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, pleasure to be here today. First, I'd like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill. I recognize we still have some more amendments as we work this Bill forward. We're looking forward to taking those in the Judiciary Committee if we're successful in earning your support today. California took its first meaningful steps on groundwater in 2014.

And since then, we still have a number of significant challenges trying to get our groundwater basins into sustainable pumping levels. In fact, with the drought, groundwater pumping has actually increased rather than decreased since then. Today, there are two issues about groundwater pumping that I think is very important for us to address moving forward. Our groundwater law, I think, is at risk of having some long term impairments as a result of me not shutting my phone off.

And also, what's happening is, now that these groundwater plans are coming forward, we're starting to see adjudications of the groundwater plans. Simply put, it would be a mistake if California substitutes adjudication for the efforts of the groundwater agencies and all of the hard work being done by the local agencies. The culture in California for groundwater adjudications has essentially been a number of usually powerful groups come together.

They get involved in an adjudication, they all come together and come up with a settlement proposal, they present it to the judge, and the culture is, the judge goes, fact is, we have it in state law. If 75% of them agree, the judge can go ahead and make that the order of the court.

If that's what we have after each adjudication, that won't be good for California, and it particularly won't be good for low income Californians for groundwater agencies, both of which don't have the resources of the most powerful to hire the best law firms to battle it out. These water adjudications are long. They take a long time. If that's what the State of California wanted, we would never have adopted Sigma in the first place.

I think for those of you that were around at the time, Sigma was adopted because we didn't want adjudication of all of the basins, the groundwater basins in California, to be the norm. We wanted it to be worked out at the local level by local leaders, but with representation of all of the interests there in the basin. And that's much more likely to happen in the groundwater planning process than in an adjudication process dominated by the most powerful.

So the point I want to make is we need to do something to keep that from becoming the norm. We have an unusual situation here with all these groundwater plans coming forward. The very first adjudications are coming forward. This is the critical moment in terms of which way are we going to go. This is a modest attempt to try to make sure that we elevate at least the attention of everybody about the groundwater plan out there.

And when I say it's a modest attempt, we've been working with everybody hard because this is really a complicated problem. You got the groundwater agencies literally creating law for what's going to happen in that basin, and you've got the potential for the judicial branch to create a different set of rules. Certainly we want everybody to have the right to appeal to judicial review, and certainly we don't want to challenge the Independence of the Courts.

And so we have really paid attention to Judicial counsel's letter that came out on this. And we are very willing in the Judiciary Committee, again, if we're able to earn your support today, to take the major recommendation that they make. That I think addresses two of the big concerns.

And that is instead of having the court submit the plan to the DWR for review, which means we're directing the courts to do something, we simply make it a requirement that when the parties to the lawsuit, parties to the adjudication, when they propose their settlement, they submit their proposed settlement to DWR. We give DWR a short timeframe to respond. And if DWR doesn't respond, then that assumes that the proposed settlement is okay. And so we're not directing the courts to do anything.

This is just a requirement in a water adjudication that deals with the groundwater basin, that you simply check in with DWR to make sure that it is consistent with that basin. Two things are accomplished with that. We don't infringe upon the Independence of the Courts, which is exactly the recommendation that the Judicial Council recommended that we take. The second thing is we move it up in the process.

We're not coming in at the last minute and saying, hey, now we want DWR to do this, which everybody has expressed a concern about that. So I think it's been wonderful that we've been able to work with judicial counsel. We've been able to accept that. I think by accepting that, we address both of those issues.

And we certainly will clean up the references to, sometimes we refer to a proposed settlement, sometimes we refer to a proposed judgment, and we need to clean that up in the Bill as it goes forward. But with that, I will be respectfully asking for your. aye vote.

And thank you. I know the water stuff is a little more complicated and I appreciate a little bit extra time to talk to you about that.

Thank you for working with our staff. Do you have any lead witnesses here today?

Yes, I do. And thank you very much for that reminder. I'm really pleased, and I'm pleased because they represent Kern County Supervisor Philip Peters and he's the Vice Chair of the IWVGA. And then Kyle Brochard, co counsel of Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority. So we have a groundwater authority and we have a supervisor from Ventura County. And you can come up here to speak. All right, I'm sorry, Kearney County.

Thank you. And just for time reasons, we'll limit each witness to two minutes for up to two primary witnesses. So they'll each have two minutes and you may proceed whenever you are ready. Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Philip Peters. I'm the Vice Chair for the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority and I'm joined today by Kyle Burchard. He is the co counsel for the authority and he'd be happy to answer any legal questions that you have.

The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority is one of the few groundwater authorities representing a critically overdrafted basin that has an approved and adopted groundwater sustainability plan. We've worked very closely with the community to develop this plan. We have community Members on our committees informing this plan. Unfortunately, we're also party to an adjudication that was filed largely to undermine the GSP. And that adjudication would establish rights for a large agricultural user in the basin, as well as the United States Navy and several small domestic pumpers.

And it's been expressed by some of the litigants that they would rather exclude some of these disadvantaged pumpers, the small farmers, simply because they can't pay those fees. And the authority has realized the need to include them and make sure that their voices are heard. We've offered, through the mitigation fee to get them class representation. And AB 560 would just ensure that those voices are heard regardless of the outcome of that.

It would make sure that we get a chance to make sure that those small farmers, those small pumpers have a voice, have some input through the Department of Water Resources on these adjudication cases. That's why I speak strongly in favor of 560 and I would ask that you do the same. I think this would make a lot of difference in many of these adjudications going forward. Thank you for your testimony. Or do you have any comments as Well? I do not. All right.

Do we have any other lead witnesses? Something? No. All right, let's hear from any other support witnesses then, here in the room. So if you have our support witness, just please limit your comments to your name, position on the measure and affiliation. Dave Runston, community Alliance with family farmers in support. Any other. Me too. Witnesses in the room? Okay. Seeing none. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition here? Are you a lead witness in opposition? Yes, I'm one of two. Okay.

And again, please limit your. You have two minutes for your comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. I am Brenda Bass on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, and we respectfully oppose AB 560. It is well known, even in the water and environmental law sphere, that comprehensive groundwater adjudications are complex, expensive and lengthy proceedings. These proceedings involve and implicate thousands of overlying landowners.

And we're concerned, really, with the fact that the Bill, as it is in print today, refers a proposed settlement to the State Water Board at the end of these cases and will add unnecessary length and expense because there's no deadline by which the board must respond. And again, the Assembly Member just described some changes that he's looking to make to the Bill. But again, I can only speak to the Bill that's in print, so apologies for some inconsistencies with where we may go.

But first, I would also like to point out that existing law does authorize courts to consult both the State Water Board and DWR on water rights cases, including groundwater adjudications. However, generally this occurs during the pendency of the case, which allows the state to provide any relevant input earlier into the process. Courts can and do use this provision, but as I mentioned, this Bill mandates the referral of the stipulated judgment to the State Water Board, which then moves the engagement to the end of the proceeding.

We have other concerns about the specific findings that the waterboard would be directed to make under the Bill, particularly in regard to the consistency of a proposed judgment with a GSP. Importantly, current law provides that the court must affirmatively find that the judgment does not substantially impair a GSA's or the state's ability to comply with Sigma and to achieve sustainability.

So compliance with Sigma is the correct yardstick by which to evaluate a judgment and ensure it is compliant with the law and with Sigma rather than a GSP, which is simply one of many ways that you may comply with Sigma. If you could start wrapping up, that'd be great. Furthermore, only the court, not a GSA or a GSP, may modify rights to groundwater. So that further reduces the relevance, and for these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members Bob Reeb with Reeb Government relations on behalf of the Valley AG Water Coalition. It'll be difficult to wrap everything into two minutes, Mr. Chairman, but let me just start off by saying that the Sustainable Groundwater Management act was not intended to be a substitution for adjudication. We have separation of powers here in California, as we do in the nation. The courts have the authority solely in California to determine water rights when it comes to groundwater.

Sigma was necessary because the prior plans, AB 3030 plans, didn't have financing for local agencies to be able to implement those plans. I was in the room in 2013 to 14, and we were negotiating and drafting and negotiating and drafting on that law to make sure that local agencies, through the groundwater sustainability agencies, could do the necessary work to bring those basins into sustainability. Adjudication is only to determine groundwater rights.

I'll remind the Committee, and I spoke to the Committee on another Bill Earlier this Year, that in the Central and West Coast basins down Los Angeles County, when the adjudications were completed the 1950s, they were set at a level that was still unsustainable. The pumping rights the court gave exceeded the safe yield of those basins. And that's why the locals came up here to get the Water Replenishment District act adopted, and they formed the water Replenishment District of Southern California to optimally manage those basins.

So we can't conflate adjudication with Sigma. This Bill starts to move into what I call, and I'm not being disparaging, but it moves the adjudication process into an environmental justice consideration. When we look at small farmers or disadvantaged communities, it's not appropriate in those terms. When we're doing adjudication, we're looking at pumping rights and appropriate rights in that basin.

If you could start wrapping up, that'd be great. Yeah.

So there's a lot to talk about here. Can't do it in two minutes. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have, but we're going to ask for a no vote today.

Thank you. And everyone out there, including yourself, sir, are welcome to submit comments through our Committee website or to email the staff, and those will be made public. Do we have anybody in the room who wants to speak in opposition to this Bill? AB 345, please again limit your comments to your name, affiliation and position on the measure. Gail Delahant with Western Growers Association, and we are strongly opposed to the Bill. Thank you. Margie Lee. On behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Thank you. Lily Mckay. On behalf of San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and United Water Conservation District, in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Chris Anderson. On behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, in opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Aaron Norwood. On behalf of the Alman alliance, also in opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Taylor Roshan. On behalf of various AG clients, in opposition. Thank you.

Dennis Albion. On behalf of the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers and others we oppose as well.

Thank you.

Danny Merkley with the Guaco Group. On behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Mayor of Fresno, Kern County Water Agency, Kings River Interest and Modesto Irrigation District, in opposition.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no other witnesses in the room, let's open it up to the teleconference service. So, Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 345, we can begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if anyone wishes to speak in support or opposition, please fish one than zero at this time, and we'll go to line 24. Please go ahead and.

24, your line is open. Please go ahead.

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

Line 20, please go ahead.

Mr. Chair and Members, good morning. Roger Dickinson, on behalf of CivicWell. Formerly the local government Commission and support. Thanks very much.

And line 25, please go ahead.

Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau in opposition. Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak at this time.

Thank you to all those who testified. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Anyone on the dais. Mr. Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and my compliments to the author for the good work that you do. Typically, and I think I understand where the Bill intends to go and frankly, intends to better approach a better harmonization between, frankly, the policy implementation elements that deal with sustainability in practice and addressing the unintended outcomes of some of the adjudication review. However, these are separate and distinct functions, as you well know, my concern here, and I'm going to respectfully, with respect, be staying off the Bill.

And here is why, even wherever, and I appreciate the testimony prospectively with respect to what may discussed it, if it moves there in judiciary. But it's both a blend of policy and the judiciary scope.

But whether it is prior to petition and part of the administrative record for the reviewing officer to review in an adjudication proceeding, or whether it is prior to a final entry of judgment or an order, the information that is advisory that you seek to include in the scope in the record isn't required in the underlying statutory scheme with respect to adjudication proceedings. That mandates the reviewing officer to even consider that information. And even in the suggested amendments that you've proffered, they're not dispositive. They're advisory.

So it seems to me plainly that this just creates a broader record, which is maybe or maybe not appropriate. But what it does is just increases or has an impact on avenues of appeal or review. So to me, certainly on that question, this is a Bill that simply broadens an avenue for appeal and sort of conflates two separate functions, both of which are legitimate.

I think the way that you're trying to get at this, although I respect and understand where you're trying to go, I think the way you're getting at this is something that perhaps there should be consideration given to going directly at the underlying schemes, constitutionally or otherwise, that address directly the scope of review in an adjudication proceeding and what a hearing officer, what judicial review has to consider in that proceeding. Right now, as you well know, that scope is very narrow and very discreet.

And I don't know that sort of adding this into the record is going to get you where you want to go, particularly, again, whether it's at petition or whether it's prior to entering of a determination, it's not dispositive. And you make that clear in both your versions. And so to me, it doesn't seem to actually accomplish anything than to broaden avenues of review. And so for those reasons, I'm going to respectfully stay off. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Dahle.

Thank you. Well, it's easy to follow. That took a lot of the comments I would like to make as well. I just want to make it maybe boil it down to very simple adjudication. And the GSA are two different avenues, and this Bill would be blending those together. For those reasons, I will actually oppose the Bill.

Senator Laird.

I have a question, because I want to back off from the specifics of the Bill and go to the problem that you're trying to address and then move on to the specifics. And I think it can be characterized, interestingly, in one little valley that you, I, and Senator Grove share. And Senator Grove actually spent some time growing up there, the Kwayama Valley. And it's a stress basin. It amazingly comes closer, intersects with four counties than Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern.

And there are these issues where first there are two big farms and they use roughly 70% of the water, and there are all these itty bitty farms that use real small amounts of water. And there is a certain injustice two ways. One is that the big farms can afford to fight this out and the small farms can't. And there's an example of one farm, and I can't even remember, they use something like five acre feet of water a year. And so there's an issue.

There's an issue that they don't have the resources that the larger farms have to fight it, but also in how you consider the water consumption. The existing system doesn't reward conservation because the two larger farmers just use, and the small ones really, by the nature of their operations, have to really conserve. It seems to me that one of these two, if not both, is the problem you're trying to address. Could you just comment on that? Is that what you're trying to get at here?

I am trying to address one of the problems that I'm trying to address is the fact that the least powerful do not get represented as well in adjudication, the normal water adjudication process. And in the culture that has been established here for decades in terms of water adjudications. So, yes, that is one of the problems.

And if I could take that a step further, the implication that adjudications are very narrow and completely separate from groundwater plans is not the reality when these groundwater plans are being reviewed. We have a situation in our county where a proposed settlement is out there that is suggesting that the sustainable yield number be increased by 33% over what the groundwater agency has found as a sustainable yield number. And the judge has implied that he's very favorable to doing that because all the major parties are interested.

Meanwhile, the groundwater Sustainability Agency, that is, as almost all these groundwater agencies are starved for resources, simply do not have the ability to continue to fight that battle in adjudication. They're not as well represented. So groundwater adjudication, whether they're perfect or not, were designed by this Legislature. I mean, groundwater sustainability plans, whether perfect or not, were designed by this Legislature to be the way to work this out. And there were many people expressing reservations about groundwater sustainability agencies being constantly overturned by adjudication.

So those of you that say, hey, let's wait and try to do this some other way, this is the moment. We're either going to establish that if the first few situations where major pumpers are unhappy with a groundwater adjudication and they're able to reverse that, is what we will see, that will reinforce everybody else to go to adjudication. We can't stop that. That's the law. That is the law. Now, we're not trying to stop it.

We're just trying to say that there ought to be at least a clear awareness as to whether that is inconsistent or not inconsistent. We're at risk right now, just like they could be up in Kyama. We're at risk right now of having that happen. And it almost not being even identified that there is an inconsistency here. The judges are not. They haven't evolved in a culture like that. And if I could, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to ask my expert witness.

Well, if I could. The chair is chairing it, but I think you've done a good job as it is. And the question I was going to follow up with is that there was a statement made that amendments are going to be taken to the next Committee, and we haven't seen those, or at least I haven't. So I didn't understand the extent to which those amendments address some of the concerns that were raised or issues we've been discussing.

Thank you. That's a question?

Yes. Sorry if there wasn't an inflection.

The number one concern that we've had, and you've heard today is that if we do this at the end of the process, if after the courts have said, okay, this is what the proposed settlement is, and this is what I'm getting ready to make this a proposed judgment that that's too late in the process, that people have been going at this for a number of years and now they're going to have to wait.

And the other argument is that the court shouldn't be directed to do anything in terms of them proactively having to submit something. But it is very common to be able to say before you do your lawsuit, before you do your proposed settlement, you need to do certain things.

All we're simply saying at the recommendation of judicial counsel is that the people who are proposing the settlement, in our situation, the six big pumpers that are participating in the adjudication, when they come up with their proposed settlement, they need to submit it to DWR. Let's say we get 90 days or 120 days for DWR to respond. And then when they submit the proposed settlement to the judge, this is pretty early in the process.

The judge will have the benefit of the DWR analysis of that proposed settlement right there, rather than asking a judge to sit there and try to now dive into the whole groundwater sustainability plan, et cetera, and see whether it's, see.

The thing about it is what you said just made sense. But I don't understand. My question was what if that is in the Bill now and what will be amended in so that we understand what might be coming.

What's in the Bill now, is language that says the courts must submit the proposed settlement to DWR and the recommendation from judicial counsel, which we just got recently, which is why we didn't have time to get amends and all of that done. They say it would be better if the participants submit that before they submit the settlement proposal to the court. That's the language that we have committed to taking in the Judiciary Committee. Should we move from here? And I might point out--

Do you believe that if you take that language, that will move the Judicial Council to neutral?

Well, I believe I can make a very compelling argument that it addresses all of the significant concerns they have. Because the two major concerns they have, they don't want to be direct. They don't want to have the courts being directed to do something, and they want to move the DWR.

I think what I'm trying to do here is basically demonstrate that you are addressing a legitimate concern that this Bill might still need some work, that I want to give you the chance to do that work. I'm trying to understand what that work is and how far that work will take you. That was the genesis of what I was trying to do here, and I think you've responded that way so that you're moving towards some of the concerns.

I would just like to know that you, in fact, are, but I just know from sort of common areas and areas we both represent that have similar issues that you're trying to address, something that I hear about from people when I move through the district.

Well, thank you. I appreciate the question. We've tried to engage stakeholders from the beginning to address these issues. We know it is nuanced in terms of trying to deal with the Independence of the Courts. If we would have had the review earlier, we would have been able to address those concerns. But it was very heartening.

I think that Judicial Council didn't just come out and say no and why, but Judicial Council actually offered a suggested solution, which we thought was very elegant, and it addressed both of those concerns, and we are 100% committed to taking those. And we also think that the Natural Resources Committee is one or sorry, but that the Judiciary Committee will be the appropriate place to make sure we have the exact language that addresses the concerns of the Judiciary Council.

Well, Senator Min and I are on judiciary. Senators Allen and Stern, who are on this Committee and aren't here, are also on Judiciary. I think we would have the ability to make sure that those amendments met what you're telling us right now. So thank you. I appreciate the response to the question.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing the Bill forward. Very strategic, bringing my favorite county supervisor here. I mean, actually, that's a true statement. That was very strategic of you.

And I want to be honest with you, I didn't know that's who was going to be coming. We did not recruit your staff. I think I'm very lucky. Rather than strategic, we actually were working with Indian Wells, and Indian Wells had communications with Kern, and the Kern supervisor came. But it does demonstrate that we have both groundwater agencies and we know counties that are concerned about the adjudication process, et cetera.

But anyway, thank you again, kudos to you for bringing my favorite county supervisor. I'm not an attorney and I'm not the former secretary of natural resources, but I do have huge concerns. I realize that this will address some of the issues that we have in some of our groundwater sustainability plans or management plans.

And I realize also that one of those is specifically in my district, which has a naval base, one of the largest research facility naval bases in the entire nation, China Lake Nas, the warfare center is vital to that community. I realize that there is now farming in that area that hasn't been always been there. And I know that there is a problem going on in East Kern. And I know that my colleague on the County Board of Supervisors is very much involved in it.

I do want to refresh everybody's memory here on this dais, that if we adjusted Delta outflows due to new biological opinions and sent water down to the Central Valley, and you gave us the surface water that we rightfully pay for, we would not be in the situation of requiring to pump groundwater to produce the food that your constituents eat, including the world. So just a refresher on that. And again, you said we couldn't pump anymore, and now you have to address these basin issues.

But again, if we had the surface water, we wouldn't be pumping from the ground. So just a reminder of that. I agree with my colleague in the Riverside Inland Empire area. San Diego. You're going to say San Diego. I know I'm working with you on Imperial Valley issues, and so I appreciate. So I agree with my colleague in the concerns that I have.

And again, I love the supervisor that you brought, but we are going to disagree on this issue, and we can have a conversation about that later. I have a concern, one of the concerns I said I had, and you kind of somewhat addressed it in a comment on your amendments, but I'm looking for specifics. You said the Bill currently before us says that you'll submit the application or submit the information to the judge.

The Department of Water Resources will, after the whole process is done, and get a recommendation, for instance, I believe, and I'll have to be corrected if I'm wrong. This adjudication that we've been going through in the Indian Wells Valley area, the judge has had it for two years, right or wrong? Close to.

Sort of.

Sort of.

The adjudication was filed a number of two or three years ago, and we.

Don't have a decision yet.

We actually don't even have a judge appointed yet.

Okay.

The judicial counsel is supposed to appoint one.

Okay. So we've been waiting two years and we don't even have a judge yet. So farmers, growers, ranchers are going through this entire process and they can't even get a judge. And at the end of this whole process. Then they submit it to the Department, or the Department of Water Resources under this language, will submit it to the judge for a review. And I know you said you're going to take an amendment regarding the Judicial Council's concern, is there a time limit?

Do we have 30 days, 90 days? 120 days? Like, how much longer do we wait? We've waited two years, and we don't even have a judge yet.

So we certainly have been very sensitive in terms of addressing that. We've asked the DWR, what kind of time frame do they need? We don't have a response from them yet, but when we go to Judiciary Council, if we don't have a response from them, we will put a time limit on, and right now it's 120 days, is what I would be proposing to be the time limit.

And I might point out that that 120 days I don't think is going to be slowing things down because as the parties get together, there will be an appropriate time. We know these things take a long time. It's pretty easy, I think, to say, hey, this is what we're coming together on as a settlement amongst just the private parties.

Now let's go ahead and send this to DWR so that we can get this while other work is going on, while you're still doing other things in the lawsuit. These things, because they take so much time doing something additional in the middle of a five or six year process, I don't think has any significant impact in terms of the timing, but it's certainly not going to be at the end, which has been the big concern.

Okay, thank you. Through the chair. I would like to hear your response on the question that my colleague from the Bay Area asked. Because you stood up and acted like or appeared to me, there was a perception that you had a legal response to that question on the Judicial Council that my colleague asked about addressing Judicial Council's concerns.

I do believe that there are amendments that are being worked on that will address the Judicial Council's concerns. I haven't spoken personally with judicial counsel, but my understanding is that the amendments will address those concerns. As you've just heard, the parties can go to the Department of Water Resources or the State Water Resource Control Board. They can submit independently. When they have their settlement ready, they can submit that to the appropriate agency and get that advisory opinion and then give that packet over to the court.

Can't they do that now? Can't the Department of Water Resources seek a judicial review now, or can't they go to a judge now and have them look at.

So I think you're asking it the other way. A judge can refer stuff to the State Water Board. Now they can, but they're not required to do so. And it's usually issues that are being referred, not necessarily a review of the entire settlement.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Dahle.

Just have a real quick point. Number one, we're talking about the State Water Resource Control Board, not DWR in these proceedings. And number two, this is going to be a statewide law.

There's a lot of talk about what's happening in Indian Wells and that part of the state, but this is going to affect statewide. This is setting a precedence for a lot of other issues that aren't as specific as the Indian Wells situation. So I just want to make that note.

So I appreciate my colleagues. Senator Grove, comments from Beaver. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I appreciate his comments. That's my concern. My biggest beef with a lot of the things that happen in this Legislature is they have one little thing happen in, I don't know, in Beaver, California, and one little thing happened in Beaver, California. And then they run a piece of legislation that affects the whole state and negatively impacts, right? And I don't want to be that person.

I think Kern county in the Indian Wells Valley should address that issue, fix it and move on. And there's a lot of times when locals have a problem and then they bring it to the state to fix it. And we've had an end run around our county and our community constantly. If you look at oil, water rights, farming, I mean, the state does end runs the grown farm workers movement on the union issue, the state intervenes in our district because the locals bring that here.

And like I said, you picked my favorite county supervisor. But I don't like the fact that we're up here addressing this Bill with you and then making it statewide law and not addressing our own problems. So I do have a huge concern. I have concerns about how long it's going to take to get to the reports back from the judge. I have a concern on the judicial counsel part about directing a judge to respond to this.

They're an independent part of our government and so I do have these concerns. I wish we've had time to talk beforehand, Mr. Peters, I apologize that we did not. You're still my favorite, but I'll be laying off the Bill. I was a no until you brought my county supervisor up here, but now I'm just going to lay off the Bill and see what you do to it in judiciary.

I don't know if you want to respond to that or not.

I sure do.

Okay. I just would remind you that we have seven more bills, including one of yours you don't mind.

Do you want me to make this the close also, or are there other. Okay, great. But yeah, just a quick response. When you say, I think we have addressed the issue of how much longer it's going to be going to take, and that's not going to make any significant difference with the new proposal. That's not in the Bill now. But that is what I think all of us know.

The reason you have Committee hearings is to make your Bill better, to make sure you clean it up, to make sure you hear from stakeholders. That's exactly what we're doing, Number one. And so I think that with the changes that we have accepted from Judicial Council, the recommendation of Judicial counsel, not ourselves, they're recommending these changes and we're willing to accept those. And so it addresses the two concerns you have Independence and the period of time as it moves forward, number one.

Number two, this does not come from, I did not even know about Indian Wells when I proposed my Bill. I didn't know about Kern. County. That just shows you how statewide the application is of this Bill. In that already there are very few adjudications yet because groundwater sustainability plans, most of them were not submitted until 2022. So this adjudication, we haven't even seen to the extent of that this is going to happen. So this is not going after one little tiny, taking, one little tiny problem.

This is fundamentally, I brought this before I knew about these cases because I recognize after working in groundwater for a long time that this is going to be the major threat to groundwater sustainability plans is that there will be an attempt by the most powerful to avoid all of the difficult parts of the groundwater sustainability plans by doing adjudication.

Thank you, Limon. So I just have a couple very quick questions for you. First, in hearing the debate, it sounds to me, and I just want to confirm this, like you will continue to work with judicial counsel to try to improve the Bill per their suggestions.

Absolutely.

Okay. And second, you'll continue working with stakeholders to try to address some of the concerns raised today.

Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you. With that, would you like to close?

I would. And just want to remind everybody of just a couple of brief things. And that is, when you do water bills, the opposition consistently in the State of California throws everything at it. And you would think that this Bill is going to have this big, major impact when in fact, all it is, is a request for a non binding piece of advice fairly early, just when an initial proposal is out there.

And if we can't do that, then I fear we won't be able to do anything, and we risk having adjudications become the norm and literally the neutering of groundwater sustainability agencies in California. That's not good for California for all kinds of reasons. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on AB 345? I'm sorry. AB 560. Okay, we have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is do pass. Although there will be amendments, it sounds like do pass to judiciary. And so. Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators. Min? Min aye. Seyarto? Seyarto no. Allen? Dahle? Dahle no. Grove? Hurtado? Laird? Laird aye. Limone? McGuire? Padilla? Stern? Okay.

All right, the vote count is 2-2. We'll leave that open on call. Assemblyman Bennett, we have your next Bill, which I believe is 676, File item six. I'm sorry. No, it's file item seven. It is AB 1563. And just as a reminder, I know we have people who have flights to catch.

Great.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you very much. Again, I'd like to thank the chair and like to thank the Committee staff. And California took the first meaningful step in terms of trying to regulate groundwater back in 2014. Since then, groundwater overdrafting has gotten worse, not better. And one significant problem we have is simply this. The groundwater sustainability agencies have the responsibility to get pumping down to sustainable levels in their basins.

They're having great challenges in doing that, but they don't have the authority to say no to any new wells coming into the basin. And Bloomberg spent a year, introduced this Bill a year ago in January, the Governor made it an executive order because he thought it was appropriate. But that executive order can be ended at any point in time. This Bill simply tries to make sure that we take a common sense step.

If you're responsible for getting the groundwater pumping down, but you have no ability to stop super massive capacity groundwater wells from going into the very basin that you're in charge of, in terms of getting it to sustainable yield, it does not make common sense. And in the interest of time, I think most of us know about this Bill.

I've taken significant amendments, significant amount of stakeholder input, and as a result of that, I'm really happy that we have, the small farmers have come on board for this particular Bill, number one. And number two, we have modified the Bill so that it only applies to critically overdrafted basins. So we're not putting any undue burdens on the small and mid size. I mean, the medium and Low priority basins, number one.

And number two, we have an exemption for replacement wells, and that exemption for replacement wells significantly decreases the problems that people have cited in terms of small agencies and small people who have a replacement well out there. So with that, respectfully, you're ready to answer any questions you may have.

Do you have any witnesses in support today?

Today, I have no witnesses. No witnesses in support. I'm sorry. Well, thank you. He was able to show up.

Yeah. And if you could speak behind the glass, that'd be great. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Yeah. Rather than read long remarks, our offices are in Yolo County, and we have a serious problem going on, which is reflective of this Bill. In the 10 year period through 2017, 800 new wells were drilled. 47,000 acres of permanent perennial crops were planted, and 75% of this acreage was planted on historically non-irrigated land. And so it's just compounding the overdraft that is occurring.

And this is what happened in the San Joaquin Valley, which is why we have Sigma. We represent small farms. We've represented small farms for 45 years. And what we see over and over again is somebody plunks down an orchard next door to some small farms and rural residents, and then they all have to spend 50 to 100,000 hundred thousand dollars to drill a new well. And nobody takes any responsibility for that. And so we need some way to manage this process.

We can't just have people do whatever they want. I mean, maybe that worked in the past, but it's not working now. And this Bill is, as he said, limited to critically overdrafted basins. It exempts replacement wells. And so, for instance, in Sonoma, they're requiring people to do a study, and I think the county is actually going to do it for them. And the county estimates it's going to cost about $5,000 to do a study of whether your well is going to impact.

In that case, they're talking about salmon in the rivers, but it would be the same sort of thing for doing a study, whether it's going to impact other people. CAF was the only organization that supported Sigma. Right? I mean, the people opposed to this did not support Sigma. They didn't support climate legislation, they didn't support efforts by Senator Wolf.

To try to limit the well drilling. So we need something in statute, right? DWR is doing a study, but it's just to create guidance, and I would strongly urge you to support this Bill.

You could start wrapping up, that would be good.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Do you have any other witnesses Assembly Member Bennett?

No, I don't.

Okay. Do we have anyone in the room that would like to offer me to testimony? And so, if so, just please state your name, your affiliation and position on the Bill. Do we have anyone? I guess not. Okay. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition?

Two minutes each. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we have two witnesses. Lead witnesses, opposition.

My name is Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations, speaking today on behalf of the Valley AG Water Coalition. Two points have to be made. When you own property in California, you have a right to the groundwater resources, to the beneficial use of groundwater below your property. Number two, groundwater sustainability agencies absolutely have power to regulate groundwater production, despite the fact that a lot of us opposed sigma. In the end, we spent two years making sure that GSAs had the authority to regulate groundwater.

They haven't even had a chance to do so. Probably the significant problem with this Bill is it asks for a licensed professional for a well down in the Tulare Lake Basin, for example, to sign and stamp that that well won't cause infrastructure damage due to overpumping.

We've experienced subsidence in a lot of these areas for 70 years. To ask a licensed professional to opine on one new well that it's not going to create subsidence issues for surrounding infrastructure, I don't see how that benefits anyone. The Bill is unnecessary. It's going to add cost, and it's to create litigation risks. We're asking you to give the GSAs time to implement SGMA and do their job without interference of legislation like this. We're asking for a no vote.

Thank you. We have another witness. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. I'm Brenda Bass, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, and we respectfully oppose AB 1563. As you've heard, AB 1563 would create a new permitting regime for groundwater wells that will negatively impact agricultural businesses, the people and other businesses that rely on a thriving agricultural economy for their livelihoods and on food security in California. And I think it's important to note that this Bill goes way beyond simple GSA oversight into well permitting.

We're talking about something that really goes into putting a whole slew of new regulatory red tape on counties and GSAs when they come to the decision about whether to authorize a new permit to be installed. And SGMA, as we've heard, was originally agreed upon and intended to equip GSAs with many tools and to provide a multi year, phased approach to achieving sustainability goals. This Bill Limits that discretion and makes a change to SMGA in the middle of the planned pathway to sustainability.

Furthermore, despite the argument that this is a means of offering the GSA better insight into managing groundwater basins, it only allows them to look at a small subset of the wells that are going in in their jurisdictions. It essentially is limited only to Ag wells. And in the last five years, DWR reports that 16.6 thousand domestic wells were completed in the same time period. That means that at least two new domestic wells have been drilled for every one AG well in the last five years.

But this Bill completely exempts those wells from GSA oversight. So the Bill really isn't giving the GSA that much more oversight over new well drilling because it exempts a whole class of users. I'm not saying that that would be an improvement to the Bill, but it does raise the question, why are we only looking at AG Wells? Why have we decided that AG is a problem here?

If you could wrap up, that would be great.

Finally, DWR is presently reviewing best practices for permitting new wells and plans to release a report on that. And I think that report would include pertinent information that might inform policy moving forward. Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it. Okay with that, do we have any witnesses in the room who would like to give me, too? In opposition to this, a name, affiliation and position on the measure?

Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association and strong opposition.

Thank you.

Karen Lang. On behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, in opposition.

Thank you.

Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group, on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Mayor of Fresno, Kern County, Water Association, and Modesto Irrigation District, in opposition.

Thank you.

Noel Kramers with Wine Institute, in opposition.

Thank you.

Taylor Roshan. On behalf of various agricultural associations, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, also in opposition.

Thank you.

Katie Little with the California Farm Bureau, in opposition.

Thank you.

Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Margie Lee with the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Lily McKay, on behalf of United Water Conservation District, in opposition.

Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of California Seed Association and California Pear Growers and others.

Thanks so much. Thank you. Chris Anderson, Association of California Water Agencies, in opposition.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other opposition witnesses, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Mr. Moderator, could you please prompt any individuals waiting to testify and let me know how many are in the queue.

And, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 1563, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, it looks like we have four in queue right now. Thank you. Okay, and we'll go to line 26, please go ahead.

Mr. Chair Members. Ivy Britton with the Northern California Water Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 29, please go ahead.

This is Brian Shobe with the California Climate and Agriculture Network, in support.

Thank you.

Line 18, please go ahead.

Good morning. Kathy Schaefer. On behalf of, behalf of Climate Action California and Climate Reality California Coalition in support of 1563. Also, we appreciate that the Senate committees are taking phone calls. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 32, please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators, Rosanna Carvacho Elliott on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition, in opposition; and I do take offense to the statement that everyone who's opposed to this Bill.

If you could just limit your testimony to your name, affiliation and position. That'd be great. Thank you. Next caller.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak at this time.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the dais then. Do we have any Members who'd like to ask questions or comment on the Bill? Senator Laird?

I'm going to comment just that for those of you that might not been on the Committee last year, we had a version of this Bill last year, and this has pared it down to critically overdraft basins. And the Bill last year we passed out of Committee and passed off the floor.

And I think the major issue was lots of us here in different incarnations were involved in SGMA, and I don't think any of us intended that some of the steps wouldn't be taken until 2039 to meet the 2040 deadline. And there's some places that this has started to be the feeling, and what I think is this Bill just gets at that. So at the appropriate time, I'll be ready to move the Bill.

Thank you. Anybody else? Senator Padilla?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And briefly, I recognize that this has some further refinement potentially moving forward. Happy to move the Bill forward today. I appreciate that the scope has been drastically reduced to critically overdrafted scope. I think that's appropriate. I still have concerns, but in this particular case, I'm happy to help you move it in this case. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Padilla, I think we have a motion from Senator Laird. All right, Senator Dahle

First I want to just ask the author that under my understanding, under the executive order, that there is a study being done on these basins right now. Is that correct?

There is a study being done.

So why would we not wait for that study to come back before we move the Bill forward?

With the permission of the chair, I'd like to cite this article.

Yes, you can.

Thank you. This is a Bloomberg article. They spent a year researching what's going on in California. And I'll just read to you just the top groundwater gold rush. Banks, pension funds, and insurers have been turning California's scarce water into enormous profits, leaving people with less to drive.

I read the article.

Thank you, good. And so I think if people read this article, this article shows there is an urgent and critical problem going on at this point in time. And I can't imagine anything's going to come out in that report that's going to suggest groundwater agencies shouldn't have and shouldn't have had for the last eight years the ability to stop these outsiders from coming in with super giant wells with super capacity.

Reference in the article, Wells that can pump 190,000 gallons a minute being sunk 1500 feet down, 2000 feet down, and literally draining the aquifer. And I think that Senators like yourself representing the areas that you represent ought to be defending the existing pumpers because it is the existing pumpers, not just the low income ones.

It's the existing family farms that have been there for generations that are privately contacting us and saying, I hope your Bill passes because it's the only thing that's going to save us from these people. We have a serious problem. I can't see anything, and back, by the way, last January, January of 2022, when I first introduced the Bill, we didn't have a study going on and it has alerted us to at least get going on this particular study. This is a serious problem.

Nobody else is offering a solution to stop out of country pension funds from coming in and investing in their stockholder reports. They actually say this is just a 10 or 12 year investment. We're going to make enough return that we don't have to worry about what's going to happen when the aquifer runs dry. We don't have to worry about it. That is not good for California. And I don't know how anybody can sit there and just say, well, particularly after reading this article and say, yeah, let's just let the status quo go on.

I just wanted to interject, Senator, will you make the article available to us and we can distribute that? It would be okay if it was part of the record.

Absolutely. And I was--

Thank you. Senator, go ahead.

I know that that article is out there. I've read that article and I agree with a lot of what's happening out of country pension funds, preferably the Canadian Teachers Unions owning a lot of our land in the Valley. We had a Bill last year that Senator Hurtado brought forward that actually was asked and it was unanimous bipartisan Bill, then the Governor vetoed it because apparently he doesn't want to know who is buying our land up in. So I know Senator Hurtado, myself, those of us who are generational farmers here are concerned about the issues that you bring forth.

But my point is that there is really no need for this Bill because the fact of the matter is that counties and GSAs have the authority in Tehama County, which I represent, did a moratorium on their own, said, hey, we have this issue and allowed no AG Wells or residential wells to be drilled and put a moratorium on it until they could balance the drafting of the overdraft problem that they had in Tehama. And they're moving forwards with that process.

And actually now they're starting to allow permits where they have sustainable groundwater situations. So for me, again, it's the state coming in and proposing when the locals have the control to be able to do that. So I just want to make that point that there is right now on the books, counties. We did it. So I represented the Board of Supervisors in Lassen County for 16 years. Our issue wasn't somebody pumping for growing trees.

It was the State of Nevada, which was coming across California line pump drilling wells and pumping the water in to build homes in the State of Nevada. Our county was the first county in the state to actually go to war with another state over water rights because they were going to overdraft our groundwater. So there's a lot of tools available at the county level.

The gentleman that came here from Yolo, their county has the ability right now to do a moratorium and their GSA to stop groundwater wells being drilled and residential as well. So that's the point I wanted to come out, is that this Bill really isn't necessary. The locals can do this. Who should be driving their GSAs. And we see that in lots of parts in my district because of the exact problem that we're faced with, with these giant corporations coming in and depleting our groundwater.

So I just want to make that point that there's an avenue right now the state is stepping in and usurping local control with this legislation. And I think that's wrong. We need to allow the locals to do their job because they know what's better happening on the ground. This is a very big state with a lot of different water basins, and it's very technical at the same time. So I just want to bring that up.

I agree with you on the fact that I read this article, thought maybe we should send it to the Governor because he vetoed the Bill that was bipartisan. That said, we should know who's coming into California, these hedge funds and the like. So appreciate the comments.

If I may? Senator, I want to congratulate you for the actions that you took at the local level. As a county supervisor, I did the exact same thing. When SGMA passed, I pushed forward legislation, said, we're going to put a moratorium on until the groundwater agency actually creates their plan. Because how could they create their plan with all the new wells going in at the same time? That was vehemently opposed also.

And meanwhile, I had private farmers coming up and say, I sure hope your Bill passes, but I'm not going to be able to show up because everybody else is putting pressure on me to doing that. So with regard to your Bill, simply because the Governor vetoed a Bill that you and I both supported to try to stop the Canadian pension funds from coming in doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. And this is something.

And your reference that this Bill takes away local control is the number one argument that I think is completely false. That was used last year against the Bill. This Bill empowers the local GSA if they want to. It does not say they have to say no.

It simply says that if your Board of Supervisors, for whatever reason, doesn't have the courage to do this, and we have many Boards of Supervisors that don't have the courage to take on that Canadian pension fund, if your Board of Supervisors doesn't have the courage, then at least your local groundwater agency that has the responsibility to get the pumping down to a sustainable level. At least give them the opportunity. That's all this Bill does. It does not require them to say no.

But it's not the state coming in mandating anything except if the Board of Supervisors doesn't have the guts to do it. And even if the Board of Supervisors does have the guts, they can only do it with their emergency authority. So it's only temporary. This law would make this permanent. GSAs could permanently do this. And the final thing, if I could just in the area--

Do we have any other Senators that would like to make any comments? Okay, so maybe you could also make this your close as well.

And the final thing, if I could, the reference was made out there that GSAs can do this anyway. It's simply not true. When you get a well permit and you install the well, you have a vested right. It is much more difficult for GSAs that don't have very much in the way of resources, and legal Resources, to defend cutting back a well that's already in operation that has a vested right.

It is much easier for that GSA to say at the beginning, we can't have 20 super capacity wells going into this basin at this point in time. We have to respectfully say no. You Have to wait in line. If Nevada comes in, you want to have the GSA and the Board of Supervisors with the authority to say no. And it's the GSA that has the most knowledge about the basin. I will end with this. This is a serious problem.

Serious enough that it's been even recognized by the Senator. They took action, but the opposition is offering us no solution to this problem. It is a problem right now causing many domestic wells to go dry. And all we get are well, we should wait. We should see this or there's this little issue here.

This is a time for action and we're either going to be on record as saying we want to do something, empower the GSAs to try to stop this or we're going to let this happen. And 10 years down the road we literally will have a serious problem because of these super capacity wells going in. And with that, respectfully ask for your support and hope that people will recognize the seriousness of this problem and let this Bill move forward. And I really appreciate your support.

Great. All right, so we have a motion on AB 1563 from Senator Laird. The Bill has been moved and the motion is do pass to Governance and Finance. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote count is 5-2. We'll leave that open on call. All right, thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. We will finally move to our next item and author. Assemblymember Hart, you're here to present. It's AB 1197. File item number nine and you may begin when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators, I'm pleased to present AB 1197 today to the committee. I want to thank your staff for working with my team on the bill. I'm happy to accept the ommittee's amendments. California's small and family farmers face numerous challenges that make it difficult for them to survive economically and maintain food production. Climate change, decreasing crop resilience and recent droughts threaten farm to fork efforts, farmers markets and other important community market opportunities. AB 1197 will, for the first time, define local food producers and identify small local farms that provide essential produce to California's communities. By mapping local food producers the measure will support efforts to connect small family farms to the necessary resources and ensure California continues to protect diverse cultural communities and uplift local economies. Testifying in support today are Jamie Fenus, representing the Community Alliance with Family Farmers and Patricia Miller, a california farmer and a member of the Community Alliance for Family Farmers.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Fantastic. Thank you. Good morning, or maybe afternoon at this point, chair and members, I'm Jamie Fanous. I'm the policy director with the Community Alliance with Family Farmers which has represented small family farms for over 45 years. We represent roughly 8,000 family farmers across the state of California and are the sponsors of AB 1197 and we're extremely grateful to the Assemblymember for authoring this essential legislation. In California, It's estimated we lose, on average of four family farms a day the recent impacts of COVID, extreme weather and market pressure, we're expecting that number to be quite higher. These days, most small farms grow produce and food, which they sell locally via direct sales, whether it's farmers markets, community-supported agriculture, food hubs, farm stands, co-ops, you name it. And supporting local food systems is essential to support California's cultural diversity, communities and as well as economic well-being and food security across the state. For example, certified farmers markets allow small farms to market their produce at retail prices without the additional expenses of commercial preparation. This increases their net income and makes it possible for them to stay in business. Currently, there are approximately 655 certified farmers markets and 2,700 certified producers in California, but this is down by about 30% from 10 years ago. In California, 75% of farms operate on less than $100,000 in gross sales, so it's fair to assume most of those producers are family farmers which grow and sell locally. Today, at least 50% of cropland is owned by the top 5% total landowners, and almost 40% of land is owned by nonfarmers that are rented or leased. The unfortunate reality is that we need to accept that we are losing our local family farmers as a result of these intense pressures. AB 1197 is an important step to protect local food producers by identifying them. By authorizing the Department of Conservation to provide...

You could wrap up. That would be good.

To assist in the mapping of local food producers. We believe supporting local food producers is essential to supporting beginning and historically underserved farmers, and we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. And you have two witnesses, correct? Okay.

Good morning, Chairman and members. My name is Patricia Miller. I have lived in Stockton, California for over 30 plus years and retired from the Stockton Police Department in 2020 while simultaneously becoming a farmer and a farmer voice highlighting on food justice and healthy security for local children and their families. When COVID happened, I was with the Edible Schoolyard Project in Stockton, and at the time we changed the trajectory from edible education within Stockton Unified School District and within a month of schools closing from the pandemic, we started providing weekly community-supported agriculture CSA boxes, which equated to about 30 pounds of local, organic and sourced produce. We started with 225 boxes weekly, and within eight months, we were giving out over 995 boxes a week that brought in 150,000 pounds of produce, fruit and chicken in 2020, feeding families who lost trust in many systems for many reasons. The next devastating time I saw was how many of my friends and colleagues lost their small farms due to drought and wildfires it was just unbelievable. When I saw the lumen of the red skies for weeks in Stockton, it was catastrophic. The team heard many stories from people all over the community, from Tracy, Manteca, Galt of thanks and grace for the nourishment we continued doing for our community. Love and thanks poured over us all year long. This is what kept the team humble and continued to build trust in Stockton. Since I...

You could start wrapping up. That would be appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you. I have owned a small business, a CSA business farm that I started. And with my goal, I just want you all to understand, I get to feed my children's children. So this legislation aims to identify with the overall goal of one day protecting local food producers like myself and future disasters to come and secure, as well as enhance local food. I respectfully ask in your support of this legislation.

Thank you very much. Do we have any witnesses in the room that would like to speak up in support of the bill? Please limit your comments, your name, affiliation and position on the measure.

Greetings, Mr. Chair, and all who are present. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ahmad Majid. I am a resident in Stockton, California, also a local agriculture organizer for small producers and the like.

And you support the bill?

Yes, in support of the bill.

Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the room that would like to speak in support of the bill? All right, seeing no one in the room, do we have anyone in opposition to the bill? No. Primary opposition witnesses? Any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Mr. Moderator, let's check the phone lines and see if there's anyone in the queue that would like to speak in support or opposition of AB 1197.

Thank you Mr. Chair. If anyone wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 1197, please press one, then zero at this time. And looks like we have four in queue, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. You can have them go.

And we'll go to line 31, please go ahead.

Abigail Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform, in support.

Line 27, please go ahead.

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

This is Brian Shoe with the California Climate and Agriculture Network, in support.

Line 29, please go ahead.

Line 34, please go ahead.

This is Lena Brooke with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and we are in support.

Mr. Chair. We have one more. Line 21, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District. We are in support.

Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Thank you to all our witnesses. We'll bring it back to the dais. Senator Laird.

This is a good bill. There's no listed opposition. I would move the bill.

Senator Grove asked to move it earlier, so she will be moving the bill. Senator Grove.

Just so we get it going here.

So I just have a couple of questions and I may have to have your witnesses answer. And I didn't before the testimony. One of your witnesses says that 50% of California's farmland is owned by top five companies or organizations. What are those top five? Who are they?

I would love to know myself personally. We just know the data that was done by UCNR a couple years ago. Okay.

Thank you. And then your second witness testified, the edible schoolyard and also on the CSA boxes that increased substantially. Was that part of the last-mile USDA program?

No, it was not.

Okay. Thank you. Just curious. Thank you. I like the bill. I appreciate it. I wish we had that data. As my colleague said earlier, Senator Hurtado, I, several others had a bill about individuals that own farmland. And this just came up again. And I thought you maybe had something that we couldn't find.

I have my suspicions. Would love to know that.

Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Anybody else on the dais? Okay, we will then take the... would you like to close with some of them?

Simply, respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, so we do have a motion on AB 1197 from Senator Grove. And the motion is due, pass as amended to agriculture. Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Min. Aye. Min, aye. Seyarto. Allen. Dahle. Grove. Grove, aye. Hurtado. Laird. Laird, aye. Limon. McGuire. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Stern.

All right, the vote count is 4-0. We'll leave that Bill on call. Thank you very much, Assembly. We'll move on to our next Bill. Assembly Member Mathis? You are free to present file item 11, AB 682, whenever you're ready.

Well, good afternoon, Chairman and Senators. I'm presenting AB 682, a Bill relating to the State Water Resources Control Board: OnLine Tools. This Bill is based upon recommendations from the state audit from 2022 and conversations with the State Water Resources Control Board.

I'll keep it short. These tools just help update, give us time frames, give us costs, give us a little bit better analysis and help people know what's actually going on. And with me today, we have Danielle Blacet from the California Municipal Utilities Association and also Beth Olhasso on behalf of Water Use Association. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed when ready. You have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. My name is Danielle Blacet-Hyden with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We represent public water and wastewater systems throughout the state and we support AB 682. Securing funds for water and wastewater infrastructure projects is a key part of ensuring our systems are able to keep pace with customer needs and adapt to the effects of climate change. AB 682 will add more transparency and accountability to the process for requiring the Water Board to update its online search tool for funding applications.

While the board may be working on improvements to their system, this Bill will ensure they fulfill the recommendations in the state auditors report in a timely manner. We urge your. aye vote on AB 682.

Thank you. Very succinct. Much appreciated.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Water Reuse California, we're the state's water recyclers. I will echo the comments of my colleague from CMUA and urge your support of the Bill. Thank you.

Even more succinct. Very much appreciated. Okay, do we have any other witnesses here in support of the Bill? Who'd like to give Me Too Testimony? All right. Seeing none. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition here in the room? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Mr. Moderator, let's check the phone lines to see if there are any folks on there in support or in opposition to AB 682.

All right, great. Anybody on the dais have any questions or comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close Assembly Member?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition of AB 682, please press 1 and 0 at this time. Mr. Chair, we have no in queue wishing to speak at this time.

Yeah. Thank you, Chairman, Senators. This is a great Bill, taking the auditor's recommendation to make sure that when we go to fund water projects, there's tools necessary there. Has support. It's passed all the other committees on consent, so thank you for your support here today.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on this Bill?

I move the Bill.

Senator Laird moves the Bill. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote count on that is 5-0. We'll leave it on call. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Mathis. All right, do we have Assembly Member Addis in the room? Not seeing her. But I do see Assemblyman Wood, who's been waiting here for a long time. So Assembly Member Wood, would you like to present your Bill? AB 1272, file item seven. Feel free to speak whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members.

Thank you for your patience.

I'm used to being at the end of the alphabet.

I know what that means. Anyway, I'd like to start by thanking you and your Committee staff for their work on this Bill and by clarifying that I will be accepting the Committee amendments. Members, this Bill is about taking a proactive measure to prepare for times of drought. AB 1272 authorizes the California State Water Resources Control Board to develop principles and guidelines for the diversion and use of water in some of the state's most critical salmon and steelhead bearing watersheds.

The Bill will advance efforts to update our infrastructure and usage patterns, help water users become more prepared for the extended drought periods, which we have become all too familiar with. Ultimately, these contingency plans will create transparency, predictability, and resiliency during times of severe drought. And while the state has loosened some of its water restrictions because of recent storms, water shortage remains a concern in several parts of the state, including the Klamath River.

It is past time that we start preparing for the next drought before it stops raining. Here to testify in support is Caitrin Chappelle with the Nature Conservancy.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Caitrin Chappelle. I'm the Associate Director of the California Water Program for the Nature Conservancy. As a science based organization that works worldwide to deliver conservation solutions that benefit people and nature, we are proud to voice our support for AB 1272 as our climate changes. California's weather is becoming increasingly characterized by extremes, very, very wet years and longer and more extended severe droughts.

While this past year we experienced significant precipitation, we need to start thinking about how to prepare for the dry years we know are coming. California's coastal watersheds are especially susceptible to extreme dry conditions of our changed climate. These rivers and streams are home to some of the state's endangered fish populations. But more importantly, or as importantly, they also provide crucial water supplies to communities, rural residents, and tribal nations.

Despite the importance of these watersheds, recent drought response has focused on other areas of the state, leaving many smaller coastal watersheds vulnerable. Most of California's watersheds lack guidance on how water should be used in times of shortage. Advanced planning that develops clear standards to guide water use during dry periods is crucial to protect rivers and communities.

AB 1272 would direct the State Water Board to develop principles and guidelines to manage stream flow within these important, crucial watersheds and help water users develop plans to prepare, increase certainty for vulnerable communities, and increase resilience to drought. This year, California shuttered its salmon fishery because of low fish populations due to drought. If we invest in practical watershed management solutions like AB 1272, our coastal watersheds could provide conditions to facilitate the rebound of our salmon populations while balancing human and nature needs.

We can't afford to treat California's extreme weather patterns as emergency events. And so we urge your support on AB 1272. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Just the one primary witness? Perfect. Do we have anyone else in the room who would like to testify in support? Please just limit your comments, your name, affiliation, and position on the measure.

Sure. Megan Cleveland, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. In support.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Seeing no one else in the room in support? Do we have anyone here, primary witness in opposition? Seeing no one in the room. Anyone in opposition to this Bill? Seeing no one. Let's open up the phone lines. Mr. Moderator, is there anyone on the phones? Can you queue them up?

And if you would like to speak in support or opposition of AB 1272, please press 1 and 0 at this time.

Mr. Chair, we have no one queuing up wishing to speak at this time.

All right. Well, thank you to our witness for testifying. Let's bring it back to the dais. Do we have anyone here who'd like to ask any questions or make any comments? Seeing none. Mr. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on AB 1272. Moved by Senator Limon. Okay, and this is file item 17, AB 1272. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote count is 5-0. We'll leave that on call. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Wood.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

Assemblywoman Addis, file item 14. Are you prepared to present AB 720? All right, proceed whenever you're ready. Thanks so much.

Well, thank you, Chair and Members. Today I'm here to present AB 720, which helps California achieve its climate resiliency goals through conservation ranching. North America's grasslands are among the most imperiled ecosystems in the world. Climate change, excessive development, invasive species, aquifer depletion, and poor grazing practices have decrated large portions of grasslands, increasing economic and ecological vulnerability. Grazing, when actively managed to promote biodiversity, can support grassland bird conservation and provide other benefits.

This is especially the case in California, with 61 million acres of rangelands that are more resilient carbon sinks than even forests. Nationally, the Audubon Society has developed the Conservation Ranching Initiative, an approach that offers incentives for good grassland stewardship. And benefits bird populations and the local economy. So 720 builds on existing efforts across the state and the nation by giving us the tools necessary to mimic historic wild herds of grazing mammals, support nutrient cycles, and remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Specifically, AB 720 does this by including grants for conservation ranching under the Rangeland Grazing Land and Grassland Program. So it's a win-win strategy, bolstering sustainability for California's ranchers, making our beef taste better in addition to all of that, and offering financial incentives so that ranchers and other private landowners can improve nutrient cycles, soil health, and biodiversity on some of California's most endangered and sensitive landscapes. And we do have one witness, Matt Allshouse of the Audubon Society.

Thank you. You have two minutes. And proceed whenever you're ready.

Hi, thanks for having me. I grew up on my family's ranch, and I take pride as a land steward and as a conservationist. I'm Matt Allshouse, from National Audubon Society. I take pride in being a conservationist and a land steward. I work here in California from Modoc County to Orange County and just about everywhere in between. And I'm out on ranches with ranchers, and every single one of them would consider themselves a conservationist and a land steward as well.

Between these drastic differences in their landscapes, the cultures that they work with, and the ecosystems they're working in, the one thing that every operator has in common is that they don't have the technical and financial capacity to do conservation work on their ranches. This Bill would allow them to access those funds and that technical knowledge with Audubon's help. And I thought I'd tell a little story about a rancher I work with in the San Joaquin Valley.

You could see on their fence line the difference between their property and their neighbors. The thing was that they had twice as many animals on it. Their neighbor's property was bare ground. They went through three years of drought. And because of the infrastructure that they had and the way they grazed, they were providing wildlife habitat, sequestering carbon, had water infiltration, and had more animals than their neighbor. The difference between those two people isn't ethics.

It's the information and the funding that's available to get these programs on the ground. So we hope for your support with AB 720.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Do we have anyone else in the room who'd like to speak in support of this Bill? Again, name, affiliation, position on the measure.

Morning- Good afternoon. Megan Cleveland with The Nature Conservancy, in support.

It is barely the afternoon. Thank you. Anyone else in the room? All right, thank you. Seeing no one else. Do we have anyone who's a primary witness in opposition? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition in the room? Seeing no one. Mr. Moderator, let's check the phone lines and see if there's anyone there and queue them up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0 at this time. And we have two in queue.

They can proceed when ready.

Start with line 29. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Brian Shobe again with the California Climate and Agriculture Network. In support.

Line 21. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and Members, my name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. In support.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue wishing to speak.

Thank you to our witnesses and those who testified in support. Being done with that, do we have anyone on the dais? Senator Laird.

I did a version of this Bill the last two years, and each time it was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. So apparently it was a brilliant strategy to start with an Assembly Member and get it over here. And so I congratulate you for doing this. This is a good Bill. I would move the Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else? Senator Grove.

I support the Bill. I have one concern, and I know that it happens almost on every piece of legislation that goes through this building. But it says that on the definition of socially disadvantaged farmer rancher, it used to be a different definition, and that definition is now changed under your piece of legislation. The different definition was anyone who's socially, economically disadvantaged, anybody who was having issues with all the regulatory processes that come out of this building.

And now that language is changed to socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher, refers to only a class of farmer entirely based on race. And so, I take- I don't want to say offense to that language, but I just think that there are poor farmers of every color out there that are trying to make a living operating farms and providing food for our constituents.

And also that a federal statute that was similar in the same definition of farmer under a COVID program was found by a federal court to be discriminatory. So you're adopting discriminatory language in the Bill. I don't like the idea that it's based on race. I think every farmer should have equal opportunity as long as they meet their requirements of being economically disadvantaged.

But I like the idea that you're expanding the program and allowing people to apply for these funds that desperately need them. And the information needs to be out there, but I think it needs to be out there for all disadvantaged farmers, not just based on race. So just my comments.

Do you like to respond to that? You don't have to. Do you have any questions? Okay. You could use that as your close if you'd like.

Yeah. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Appreciate the comments and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Addis. Okay, so do we have a motion on AB 720? I'm sorry, Senator Laird did move the Bill. My apologies. The motion is do pass to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote count is 7-0. We'll leave that on call. Thank you so much, Assemblywoman.

Thank you so much.

And our last item of the day is file item 15 AB 748. Assemblymen Villapudua, are you prepared to present? Proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair Members, I am proud to present AB 748 today. The Bill got through the Assembly on consent and last year's version got through this Committee unanimously. So we are hoping for the similar results this time around. AB 748 creates a program and task force within the Natural Resource Agency to support the removal of abandoned commercial vessels from our waterways.

The task would consist of representatives of the state and federal and local agencies to foster collaboration at every level to safely and efficiently remove the toxic waste sites from our delicate water system. With me to support and to testify is Andrea. I can't say. Ratajczak. Ratajczak

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Members. Audrey Ratajczak from Cruz Strategies on behalf of Sacramento County, we're proud to sponsor AB 748 that will establish the Commercial and Abandoned Derelict Vessel program to identify, prioritize and Fund the removal of abandoned and derelict commercial vessels throughout the state. This is a significant problem in California. Strown throughout the Delta and other California waterways.

A 2017 study by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife identified 55 commercial vessels in the Delta with an estimated removal cost of about 33 million. While the delta has a high concentration of these vessels, it is not the only waterway plagued by the problem. These can become hazards to navigation, the environment, and public health and safety. Through deliberate action or negligence.

These vessels break up, sink or block navigation channels, and they contain harmful substances and materials that are used to construct the vessel, but they leach into the waterways. Despite the growing problem of abandoned vessels in our state's waterways, there is no specific and adequate statewide program to remove and deconstruct them. So for these reasons, AB 748 is greatly needed and we ask for your support today. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support in the room who would like to come up seeing no other witnesses? Do we have any witnesses in opposition in this room who would like to come up seeing no witnesses in opposition in this room? We will now go to the phone lines. Moderator, can we please queue up for Assembly Bill. Sorry, 748.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if anyone wish to speak on support or opposition of AB 748, please press 1 and 0 at this time. It. And we have no one queuing up to speak at this time.

All right, thank you very much. We will now pass it back to the Chair and Members, this is the time for questions and comments.

Seeing no questions or comments, we have a motion from Senator Padilla. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Please call the roll. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Perfect. Assistant. Please call the roll. Motion is do pass to judiciary,

Senators: Min aye. Seyarto. Allen aye. Dahle. Grove aye. Hurtado aye. Laird aye. McGuire. Padilla aye. Stern aye.

The vote count is 8-0. We'll leave that Bill on call. Thank you so much, Assembly. Sure. Thank you. Members. If all remaining. All Members of the Committee who are not here could please return to the hearing immediately, we can start lifting the call on bills. We'll take a brief recess while we're waiting for them. Oh, we do? Okay. We'll lift the call. We'll do it a couple of times then. All right, we'll do consent. So consent calendar Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote on the consent calendar is 7-0. Senators. Allen. Allen aye. Limon aye. McGuire. Stern. Stern aye.

Could get on the road for 5 hours.

The Bill count is 10-0. We'll leave that open for call for remaining Members. Let's move on to our next Bill. File item number three, AB 345 by Assemblywoman Wilson. And the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. And please call the roll.

Current vote is 7-0, with Chair voting aye, and Vice Chair also voting Aye. Senators Allen. Allen aye. Limon aye. McGuire. Stern. Stern aye.

Okay, the vote on that is 10-0. We'll leave it on call. Next item is file item number five, AB 560 by Assemblyman Bennett. The motion is do pass. Judiciary Assistant, please call the roll.

And the current vote is 2-2. With Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting no. Senator Allen. Allen aye.Grove. Hurtado. Hurtado no. Limon. Aye McGuire. Padilla. Stern aye.

Is 5-3. The vote on that is 5-3. We'll leave it on call. Next file item is file item number seven, AB 15. I'm sorry. 1563 by Assemblymen Bennett. Assistant, please call and the motion is do pass to governance and finance assistant. Please call the roll.

Current vote is 5-2, with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting no. Senators Grove. No. Grove. No. Your favorite supervisor can this year, Senator Hurtado no. McGuire. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Six-Four.

The vote on that is 6-4. We'll leave it open on call. Next file item is file item number nine, AB 1197 by Assemblyman Hart. The motion is do pass as amended to agriculture assistant. Please call the roll.

Current vote is 4-0. Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto. Senator Allen. Allen aye. Dahle. Hurtado. Hurtado aye. Limon aye. McGuire. Stern, aye. Stern, aye.

The vote on that is 8-0. We'll leave it open on call. All right, our next file item is file item number 11, AB 682, by Assemblyman Mathis. The motion is do pass Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 5-0, with Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto. Dahle. Grove. Grove aye. Hurtado aye. Limon aye. Padilla.

All right, the vote count on that is 8-0. And so we'll leave that open on call. File item 14 is our next item, AB 720 by Assemblywoman Addis. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 7-0, with Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto. Senator Dahle. Senator McGuire. Stern. Stern aye.

The vote on that is 8-0. We'll leave it open on call. Our next item is file item number 15, AB 748, by. I'm sorry, what? That's what I just said. AB 748. File item 15, AB 748 by Assemblyman Villa Padua. The motion is do pass judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 8-0, with Senator Min. Chair voting aye, Senator Seyarto. Dahle. McGuire.

All right, it's still 7-0. We'll leave that open on call. 8-0. I'm sorry, we'll leave that open on call. All right, last item, I believe, is item. File item number 17 by Assemblyman Wood. The motion is do pass, as amended, to appropriations. Assistant please call the roll.

Current vote is 5-0, with chair voting Aye. Senator Ciardo Dahle. Grove. Hurtado aye. McGuire. Stern. Stern aye.

The vote count on that is 7-0. We'll leave that open on call. We are going to take a short recess while we wait for the remaining Member of the Committee to return. I'm sorry, what? And so we will open up the roll again. And so we'll start here with the consent calendar. Assistant, please call the roll.

The consent calendar. Senator Mcguire? Aye. Senator Mcguire? Aye.

That vote count. Final vote counts 11-0. That Bill is out. Next item is file item number three, AB 345. The motion is do pass is amended appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Senator McGuire. Aye. Mcguire aye.

Okay, that Bill is out. Did you say 11-0? Next file item is file item number five, AB 560, by Assemblyman Bennett. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

So, Senator Mcguire, the current vote on that is 5-3 and with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting no. Senator McGuire? aye.

That Bill is out. The vote is 63. All right, next item is file item number seven by Assemblyman Bennett in AB 1563. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote on that is 6-4, with Chair voting aye, and Vice Chair voting no. Senator McGuire, aye. McGuire, aye.

That Bill is out seven ayes, four no's. Okay, next item is file item number nine. By Assemblyman Hart, AB 1197. The motion is do pass, as amended, to agriculture assistant. Please call the roll.

Current vote on that is 8-0, with Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto, Senator Dahle, Senator McGuire? Aye. McGuire? Aye.

Okay. That Bill is out 9-0. Next item is file item number 11, AB 682, by Assemblyman Mathis. The motion is do passed appropriations. Assistant,please call the roll.

Current vote is 8-0, with Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto, Dahle. McGuire, aye.

That Bill is out 9-0. Okay, next item is file item number 14, AB 720, by Assemblywoman Addis. The motion is do passed appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 8-0, with Chair voting aye. Seyarto Dahle. Mcguire aye.

That Bill is out 9-0. Okay, next item is file item number 15, AB 748, by Assemblyman Villapudua. The motion is do passed to judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 8-0, with Chair voting aye. Seyarto. Dahle. McGuire aye.

That Bill is out 9-0. Okay. Final Bill is file item number 17 by Assemblyman Wood, AB 1272. The motion is do pass, as amended, to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 7-0, with Chair voting aye. Seyarto. Dahle. McGuire, aye. McGuire, aye.

Okay. That Bill is out 8-0. With that, we want to thank everyone for their patience and cooperation. We have concluded the agenda. Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.