Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Good morning. Before we begin to ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today, the hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 444. In the State Capitol or via phone for any Members of the public that will be providing comment via phone or using the moderated telephone service. The call in number is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 131544.

Please call in when the officer of the Bill you'd like to comment on is beginning their presentation. The operator will instruct you and mute your computers. Otherwise, we will hear you twice. We have two bills on the consent calendar today. We do not yet have a quorum. I don't think. No. Okay, so we aren't going to hear those quite yet because we need a quorum to do so. But we will start as a Subcommitee because we have two authors here today already. Three.

Three, Miss. Senator Amlin snuck in too. So I'll call this hearing of the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee to order, and we will move to the first item, which I need to figure out is Mr. Dodd. SB 256.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. SB 256 seeks to modify Prop 70 grant conditions to permit the City of Davis to allow conservation and climate mitigation easements, leases and licenses on eight parcels of land they purchased with grant funding. State law, as passed by the voters under Prop 70, does not allow for the disposition of property secured through the 1988 Bond act without approval from the Legislature.

This Bill would allow the City of Davis to convey easements, leases, or licenses on up to eight of the parcels acquired with the bond funds to the Yellow Habitat Conservancy to establish a habitat Reserve of connected properties for targeted species in the area. It also allows the city to sell, lease or license easements to third parties for storage of carbon derived from carbon sequestration deep underground on up to three of the existing parcels. This authority will not alter the character of the land.

It preserves it as open space consistent with the requirements of the current Bond Act. With me today is Tracie Reynolds from the City of Davis and Lily Mackey representing DTE energy to speak in support.

Thank you. And she's on the phone? Yes. zero, she's there. Come on up. You can join the Senator at the front if you'd like. Yeah. Here in the Assembly, we one big happy family.

Good morning. My name is Tracie Reynolds, and I am the manager of the Open Space program for the City of Davis, and I really appreciate you hearing this Bill. This morning. And as the Senator said, the city hasn't made any decisions about any of these projects at all.

This law would just basically allow us to consider these two projects, one of which is working with the Yolo Habitat Conservancy. The Yolo Habitat Conservancy is implementing their Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, the HCP, NCCP. And part of that implementation is to develop a Reserve of land for the 12 species that they're protecting. And so these properties along the South Fork of Putah Creek are critical to that, in particular for two of those species, the whitetailed kite and Swainson Hawk.

And so they've been interested and have approached me over the years about potentially putting a habitat easement on these lands, mostly to add them, to allow to add them to the Reserve, because they can't officially be in the Reserve unless they have a conservancy conservation easement on them. We haven't been able to do that without this provision. So that would be, we believe, a great addition to the Reserve, these lands. And also it would open up, potentially a revenue source for the city because.

For the maintenance and the enhancement of the riparian corridor on these properties, because the conservancy then would be allowed, if it was part of the Reserve, they would be allowed to help us with the management. The second project, again, nothing has been decided. It's just allowing the city to possibly participate in this larger project to pump carbon under the ground in the Putah sink area. And those three of those properties are on the edge of that area underground, where that storage place would be.

And I will leave it to DTE to say more about that. But anyway, thank you very much and I hope you support the Bill and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. And we do have a quorum, so I'm going to establish a quorum. Let's call the roll.

Bauer-Kahann? Here. Bauer-Kahan, here. Mathis? Alanis? Here. Alanis, here. Bennett? Here. Bennett, here. Dahle? Davies? Here. Davies, here. Friedman? Hart? Here. Hart, here. Kalra? Pellerin? Here. Pellerin, here. Rubio? Here. Rubio, here. Schiavo? Here. Schiavo, here. Villapudua? Ward? Weber? We have a quorum.

Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Any additional witnesses in support?

I'm Lily Mackay. Sorry I didn't come up earlier, but with DTE Energy. Just wanted to say thank you to the Senator for his work on this issue and really appreciate the collaboration with the City of Davis. We are in support and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in support? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, any support or opposition on SB 256?

Thank you for, in support or opposition of SB 256, you may press one and then zero. That's one and then zero for support or opposition. Madam Chair, we have no one in queue.

Great. Then bring you back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Yes, Ms. Pellerin.

So, hi. Thank you. I was reading about the 2020 pipeline explosion in Mississippi, and I'm just wondering if there's any concerns about the safety with the carbon storage on this land.

I think I will defer to the DTE rep on that question.

Okay, thanks. Happy to provide more information, but no, there are no concerns at this time. I can provide your office more information, but I don't have any more currently. Yeah.

I don't think the explosion. I could be corrected, but I don't think the explosion, what you're talking about, was just straight carbon going to the ground. I believe there was other elements in that.

But also, this is 6000ft under the ground, the storage, the old natural gas kind of spongy area where they would be pumping the carbon into. Again, I'm not in on the technicality of how they do the technical details of how they do it, but it is 6000ft underground and there's nothing that's flammable under there that would potentially ignite the carbon.

Yeah. Any other questions or comments? So I will say I want to thank the author for working with Committee on this Bill. I know we put it over so that we could get it right, and I really appreciate that.

I also want to say that we aren't approving any particular project. We're allowing these mints, but will be up to the city to determine the safety for their own residents and assume they will do what is right by the community of Davis. So with that, I need a motion. Thank you. We will call the roll. Oh, do you want to close, Senator?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I'm sorry.

SB 256, motion is do pass to appropriations. Bauer-Kahan? Aye. Bauer-Kahan, aye. Mathis? Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Dahle? Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Friedman? Heart? Aye. Heart, aye. Kalra? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Schiavo? Aye. Schiavo, aye. Villapudua? Ward? Weber? Aye. Weber, aye.

Great, that is out. But we will leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator. Aye would love to entertain a motion on the consent calendar moved by Mr. Bennett, seconded by Assembly Member Rubio. Please call the role. Madam Secretary, did you want to--Oh, yeah, it's SB 371, do pass, and number three, SB 579 Umberg, do pass to appropriations.

Bauer-Kahan? Aye. Bauer-Kahan, aye. Mathis? Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Dahle? Aye. Dahle, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Friedman? Heart? Aye. Heart, aye. Kalra? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Schiavo? Aye. Schiavo, aye. Villapudua? Ward? Weber? Aye. Weber, aye.

Senator Laird? Yeah. Senator Allen left, so we will hear SB 756 by Senator Laird when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Senate Bill 756 authorizes the Water Board staff to obtain inspection warrants for both water rights and water quality violations for unlicensed cannabis investigations, and to participate in unlicensed cannabis site inspections alongside law enforcement with criminal warrants when requested and on approval by a judge.

The problem has been that under current law, the Water Board has to give a 24 hours notice that they're coming in, and if they are going with law enforcement of other agencies, that blows up the search when there are real problems of illegal diversion and use. This Bill would fix that. It's not a drug enforcement Bill. It's an environmental Bill to enforce state water quality. My office work with civil rights and drug decriminalization organizations to address concerns in the Senate.

As a result, the Bill has no opposition. It received unanimous support in the Senate. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any witnesses here in support? Seeing none. Any in opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to the phone line. Oh, we have someone coming up. Sorry, I moved too fast.

I apologize. This is because we are in the middle. So on behalf of California normal, we did have a support, if amended, position. Now, we are neutral on the Bill, and we really appreciate the author's office and everything that you have all done. Our concerns, the remaining concerns, are not strong enough for us to oppose the Bill. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Good work, Senator. Going to the phone lines for any support or opposition on SB 756. Moderator

thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 756, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero for in support or opposition. And, Madam Chair, we have no one in queue.

Great. Thank you. Bring you back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Yeah. Assembly Member Schiavo.

Hi Senator. I just wanted to thank you so much for bringing this forward. I know it's a huge, huge issue in the Antelope Valley which neighbors my district and would love to be added on as a co author, if you have me okay.

At the appropriate time, we will do that.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments or questions, Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 756, motion is do pass to judiciary. Bauer-Kahan aye. Mathis. Alanis aye. Bennett aye. Dahle aye. Davies aye. Friedman. Hart aye. Kalra. Pellerin aye. Rubio aye. Schiavo aye. Villapudua. Ward. Weber aye.

That one has 10 votes. It is out, but we will hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

And Senator Allen was here? He came back, then he left, then he came back. He's in the hall. Okay. Make sure they're a busy man. Senator, thank you for joining us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate it. Pleased to present SB 867 today. I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments. We know that this measure, along with the ones passed by the Assembly, will be the subject of great negotiations between the two houses and the governor's office to finalize what will be put before the voters next year. I know a number of you are working on this.

The legislation, as it is framed here, seeks to provide $15.5 billion for concrete steps to reduce the impacts of rising global temperatures and extreme weather events and invest in necessary preventative measures to protect our state's most vulnerable communities and our natural resources. So while this would be a historical investment, according to our most recent climate assessment, the cost of climate change for the state alone could be more than $113,000,000,000 annually by 2050. So let me just highlight a few of these impacts.

I mean, last year's and this year's extraordinary rainfall, while easing drought conditions, has led to massive floods, devastating communities and ravaging farmlands. While the last three water years were the driest on record, this is the new weather pattern that we have to plan for. Back to back, extremely dry years punctuated by severe storms. And our current systems are simply not designed for this new normal. So we've got to invest now to reshape these systems and just be better prepared.

While this winter was focused on breach levees, atmospheric rivers, a looming snowpack that threatens even more flooding, we know that fire season is now fast approaching. In 2000 and 22,021, California saw the highest and second highest numbers of acres burned, record breaking 4.3 million acres in 2020 and then 2.5 in 2021. And then, of course, frequent coastal flooding exacerbated by sea level rises. Another looming disaster expected to threaten nearly half a million people.

$550,000,000,000 in property, 3500 miles of roads, railroads as well, within the next 80 years. So these threats can't be ignored. And this bond seeks to set a course to reduce the severity of climate change impacts by investing in necessary measures to protect communities and our vital natural resources, while ensuring that we're better prepared to adapt. I have with me today Elizabeth Forsburg with the Nature Conservancy and Adam Quinonez with ACWA to speak here in support of the Bill.

Thank you, Senator, when you're ready. Four minutes between the two of you. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Chair and Members of the Committee, My name is Liz Forsburg and I'm the Director of policy for the Nature Conservancy. Life as we know it is at stake in California. Extreme heat, flooding, sea level rise, and catastrophic wildfires threaten our home. The string of atmospheric river events this past winter cost 1 billion in dollars in damages in January alone.

And they are just the latest evidence that we are failing to protect California from the accelerating impacts of climate change. Despite record breaking state budget, state investment in natural resources has not matched the pace and scale identified need. Without invention, the cost of climate change to California is estimated to reach 113,000,000,000 annually by 2050, as Senator Allen said.

We applaud Senator Allen for introducing SB 867, which will provide a structured investment plan to address the challenges of climate change and provide stable, long term funding for nature based climate solutions. Governor Newsom has issued several reports and Executive orders that have created a roadmap to climate resiliency in California that will help guide and direct investments. The strategic plans also underscore the need for significant funding for climate and nature based solutions.

SB 867 will drive implementation of these plans and finance projects to improve water resilience, protect the state from catastrophic wildfire, sea level rise and extreme heat, and ensure California meets its commitment to protect 30% of biodiversity by 2030. Our state simply can't afford to keep cleaning up after one disaster after the next. We need a serious investment plan in nature based climate solutions now, and SB 867 is the best path to get us there. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Adam Quinonez, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA represents over 460 public water agencies throughout California. I want to thank Senator Allen and Tina and all the staff in his office for all the work on this issue over the last couple of years. I don't need to go over the need too much.

I think we all know what has happened in the last year related to water supply, one of the driest periods on record to historic flooding and rainfall. And what we saw was the state is not prepared to handle that kind of weather. Whiplash, to quote Secretary Crowfoot. And this Bill would invest significantly in a number of key water supply infrastructure categories that would help California become more water resilient.

And I just want to highlight a few of those on the water supply side, things like recycled water and desalination, more groundwater recharge, the inflation adjustment for the Prop one water storage projects. I think that's critically important as well. And funding for conveyance. We know there are a number of conveyance projects throughout the state that are in need of repair and new conveyance potentially to move water for groundwater recharge. But there is also really importantly in this Bill, proposals to rehabilitate existing infrastructure.

So funding for flood protection, including levees and weirs, but then a big component for dam safety, which is critically important. There are a number of high hazard dams throughout California that are in poor condition, and many of them can't be filled to full capacity because they require seismic retrofits. And I think we would all agree that making sure our current infrastructure is as up to date and efficient and able to store as much water as possible is probably critically important.

We would love to see more funding for some of these categories. I know the Senator talked about this being over a $15 billion bond, but the need is extremely great. And so the more funding we can get, the better. Initial polling has been really positive. Voters are really looking at water infrastructure and climate change in a very different way, I think in part because of the year we just saw. And so I think really now is the time to make this big investment in climate change.

As we've seen, it's here. It's not this theoretical idea that's coming down the road. It is here that we need to deal with right now. So with that, I want to thank the Senator and urge an aye vote.

You're right on time. Thank you so much. Other folks in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Beth Olhasso on behalf of Water Reuse, California strongly urge significant investment in drought proof water supplies by investing in recycled water. Thank you.

Good morning. Pilar Onate-Quintana for Yuba Water Agency in support mode. Particularly grateful for the dam safety funding. Hopeful for more on that front. And also Irvine Branch Water District same on dam safety and also hopeful for more on recycled water.

Syrus Devers on behalf of the Los Virginist Municipal Water District in support.

Good Morning, Madam Chair Members Glenn Farrel on behalf of the state water Contractors, we're supportive of the measure. Moving forward. We're really appreciative of the Senator's leadership. We would like to have some further conversations with Senator, the Committee, your colleagues on a standalone chapter or allocation for state water project public benefits, not only with regard to conventional traditional state water project infrastructure, but also energy improvements to help meet the state's grid responsiveness and grid reliability needs.

And if I may real briefly, Madam Chair, also on behalf of Sweetwater Authority Retail water supplier in southern San Diego, county, really appreciative of the author's inclusion of dam safety and recycled water funding, the Committee's amendments on that front as well and encourage consideration of looking at some statutory changes to ensure that disadvantaged urbanized water suppliers are able to compete on the same footing and priority as other disadvantaged communities and groups as well.

Good morning. Jamie Miner on behalf of Santa Margarita Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District and West Basin Municipal Water District, like to echo the comments made by our colleagues from water reuse and ACUA would love to see additional investments for water recycling, but I do appreciate the Bill and wanted to move forward. On behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association, would just like to see a few tweaks to the definition of stormwater capture projects to ensure that the entire universe of projects can be included and also would love to see additional investments just given this time of flood and the need for capture given the patterns in climate change. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the Water Bond Coalition, 70 counties, cities, special districts and nonprofits in northern and Central Coast in rural California. Our priority is the Integrated regional water management planning. We'd like to just see a little bit more funding into that work. In addition, also here on behalf of the California Tahoe Alliance, which is 11 public and private Members up in the Tahoe Basin really thankful for the investments in SB 867 for Tahoe. Would just like to see a specified amount for the Tahoe Environmental Improvement program, which focuses the state's cost share with Nevada and the Federal Government. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, we are support if amended. We love seeing the funding for dam safety as well as water recycling and of course would appreciate a greater allocation if possible. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Members Chris Valencia on behalf of the San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. We also have a support if amended. And we appreciate inclusion for IRWMs, but ask that the funding be brought to 350,000,000 so it brings it in line with Assembly Member Garcia's bond Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of CalDesal, the statewide desal industry, we're supportive of the resources and climate bond package and appreciative of the author's inclusion of funding for desal and greatly appreciate the Committee's amendments to further shape the desal bond language. And we look forward to working with the Senator, the Committee and your colleagues to further expand and increase the funding for desal.

Madam Chair and Members Don Gilbert, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation districts. And we have a support if amended position under the everyone wants more category, we're looking for 1.8 billion little dollars for recycled water. Thank you.

Good morning. Lily Mackay on behalf of San Diego County Water Authority and United Water and thank the author for his work and especially the inclusion of the dam safety funding as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone here in opposition? Seeing none, we will go to the phone line. Support and opposition on the phones moderator. And we're just taking name, position and organization.

Thank you. For support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is support and opposition, one and then zero on SB 867. We will go to line seven. Your line is open.

Erica Romero. On behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, we are in a support, if amended position to include preference language for the use of services of the California Conservation Corps and the Certified Conservation Corps, and at least 125,000,000 for the Certified Community Conservation Corps and the CCC to perform type, resilience and emergency.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 11. Your line is open.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Rico Mastrodonato with the Trust for Public Land. We strongly support the Bill. Moving forward, we need to see funding in the new Green School Yard program at CAL FIRE. We have an urgent need to upgrade K through 12 schoolyards.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line nine. Your line is open.

Hi, this is April Bird. I'm calling on behalf of the California Invasive Plant Council, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association, Outward Bound Adventures, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance and The Wildlands Conservancy in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line eight, your line is open.

Good morning. Annalee Akin on behalf of Mesa Water District in support with our comments aligned with ACUA. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 10, your line is open. Line 10. Do you have us on mute?

Hello, this is Mikayla on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, providing a comment in support of SB 867 and specifically appreciative of the 500 million allocated for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no further support or opposition in queue.

Great. Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Ms. Davies?

Thank you. Good morning, Senator. I don't think there's any question that these are crucial issues that we have to deal with. My concern and question is we look at the water bond we've had for seven years, and although some projects have been taken care of, we've got still looking for water reservoirs, we're looking for water storage. Where do we go in regards to making sure, if the people pass this, that there's accountability, there's transparency, and that they really can see.

When are these projects, what are the projects, when are they going to be done? Is there completion just to make sure that the money is going where it's supposed to? When you look at different bonds, I think that's the biggest concern is accountability and transparency. So we know this needs to be done. How do we ensure that the money will go to projects? These projects will start on time and actually being completed so that the taxpayer dollars are being used where they need to be.

Yeah. So everything always takes too long. I think it's part of why the Governor is so anxious to get this infrastructure package through. Much of it actually focuses on water and speeding up projects. And obviously, as you know, we're all involved in getting that negotiated and finalized, and I certainly feel confident that something meaningful will happen with the Governor on that topic.

I know that something like six of the seven approved projects, the water projects under the previous bond that you mentioned, have received funding for environmental documents and permitting sites. Reservoir is getting the biggest share right now, something like about a third of the funding that's gone out. So there's lots and lots of projects that are underway. And I do think that the Governor is very serious about making sure they happen more quickly, and that's a lot of why we're in this negotiation with him right now.

So as you heard, there's a lot of interest from the water infrastructure folks with regard to this bond. And assuming we get something meaningful through with the Governor, that's going to have some retain key environmental protections, but allow for these projects to get expedited. I think that we'll be able to get these things built in a much quicker way and hopefully also be able to access some federal money that we'll be able to leverage with the state money to get these projects done more quickly.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Nobody in the dais wants more, just everybody in the audience. I want to thank you, Senator, for your leadership on this. It's obviously very hard to make everybody happy. Climate is a crisis, as you are fully aware. I know you've been an incredible leader in this space and continue to be, and this will be a start, right?

I mean, even at $15 billion, California's needs as it relates to sea level rise and resiliency and dam safety and water recycling, especially in the water space, is so, so critical. We know our future is dire, right? In 24 years, the predictions are no more snow in the Sierras. I say it all the time because I think it is the most stark reminder that we need infrastructure to fix the way California's water moves and is stored.

And water recycling, as was mentioned by many people here, is so critical to that, as are many of the things in here, including thank you for your addition of desalination, because I think it is, we are going to need an all of the above approach moving forward, and that will include all the ways that we produce and create water for California, store it and provide it. So appreciate your leadership in the space.

And I look forward to seeing a deal come out of the many bonds that are moving through to ensure California's resilient future. And with that, would you like to close?

And I know that Senator Eggman is coming with... And that's one of the other kind of important parts of the conversation with regards to water. So with that, very much appreciate the conversation. And this is a conversation, and there's lots of negotiations underway. It's obviously very different than a typical Bill in that respect, but certainly continue to value and encourage everyone's input and respectfully ask your vote today here in Committee.

Thank you. And with that, do we have a motion? No. zero, maybe we didn't catch it. Okay. Pellerin moves. And Mr. Bennett seconds. And Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. SB 867 do pass as amended to natural resources. Bauer-Kahan aye. Mathis. Alanis not voting. Bennett aye. Dahle no. Davies not voting. Friedman. Hart aye. Kalra. Pellerin aye. Rubio aye. Schiavo aye. Villapudua aye. Ward. Weber aye.

Thank you so much, Members. Appreciate it.

Thank you. That has eight votes. It is out. But we will leave the roll open for absent Members. Senator Eggman, with the next bond, we'll see how many people want more out of yours, too.

Zero, this isn't the bond. This is flood management. I thank Senator Allen for teeing me up, but then be waiting for it.

We're ready. We're excited.

It's going to be for the Central Valley, so we're going to get some more support over here, am I right? But good morning, and today I am here on a district issue. So after Katrina, I don't know if people remember right, the massive flood, horrifying, and I represent the Stockton-San Joaquin Delta area, so a lot of deltas and levees and potential flooding.

After that, people were afraid of the development we were doing and thought we need to have some protection so they made kind of an arbitrary deadline of 2025 when there had to be adequate progress made on certain levees to be able to have development continue.

Well, as you know, as we've all just heard, water funding is incredibly complicated, both with our federal partners, with our state partners, and then if you have a disenfranchised area, there's not a huge tax base. So trying to put together projects to actually fund the people and the levees that are already there before us can be incredibly complicated.

So since that time, we have made tremendous progress. So this bill specifically deals just with two areas, the Mossdale Tract area to the south of Stockton and then the West Sacramento area. We've narrowed it some more, but to say, let's get rid of that arbitrary 2025, and let's just meet criteria that says we continue to have to meet adequate progress.

So that continues to allow flood protection projects to continue and allows us to continue to partner with our federal partners to be able to get that money down. So it creates a win-win situation, development is able to continue in a good and healthy way, and we protect the people with the levees that we need. And with me here today is Scott Shapiro from SJAFCA to testify.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Scott Shapiro. I'm General Counsel for the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, and we are the flood control improvement agency, if you will, for significant parts of the Stockton metro area, including the Mossdale Tract. I'm also speaking today on behalf of West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency which would benefit from the bill.

These two agencies and areas have been working hard and spending hundreds of millions of dollars, both locally raised and state funds, to continue to advance our projects, but we have a significant benefit of aligning ourselves with a federal process, bringing 65 percent federal cost share into the project which will literally bring billions of dollars into the Central Valley as long as we can align the two processes. This bill would do so.

It would move that arbitrary deadline into a deadline that is associated with a known federal process which is a little bit slower, but which is reliable and does bring a lot of money into the region. I'm happy to answer any questions, and again, thank you, Senator, for your leadership.

We have a motion and a second. Any additional folks in support, please?

Madam Chair and Members, Amy Brown on behalf of the City of West Sacramento. Want to thank the author for her leadership. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning. Karen Lange on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association in support.

Good morning. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Stockton in strong support for the bill, and thank the author for all our efforts on this.

Good morning. Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Artie Valencia with Restore the Delta on behalf of them as well as environmental justice communities in support.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, I paused longer that time because of when I missed that person. We will go to the phone lines. Support and opposition on the phone lines, Moderator, on SB 586.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 586, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support of opposition. And Madam Chair, we have no one in queue.

Thank you. We will bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, I want to thank, um, the author.

I know when I first heard about this, I thought, 'ooh, we're going to wait to protect people from floods,' but then I looked at the language and I want to thank you for both allowing the timelines to move forward to bring those resources in and ensuring that the many people who work in this building that live in West Sac will be protected and others, and those in the communities you represent. So with that, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Senator?

I would just thank you all very much. It's an important district project. We've been hammering at it a little bit, and this is the year to get it done, and the resources are all aligned, and I ask for your aye vote.

Awesome. Thank you. Call the roll.

SB 586: motion is 'do pass to Appropriations.' Bauer-Kahan? Aye. Bauer-Kahan, aye. Mathis? Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Dahle? Aye. Dahle, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Kalra? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Shiavo? Aye. Shiavo, aye. Villapudua? Aye. Villapudua, aye. Ward? Weber? Aye. Weber, aye.

That bill has 12 votes and it is out, but we will leave the roll open for absent Members. And thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much. I'll see you next month.

So, we have one last bill by Senator Grove. Hopefully she is on her way over.

Consent calendar. [Roll call].

That one is out, 13 to zero on the consent calendar.

SB 256, Dodd, motion do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill got 13. It is out.

SB 586. [Roll Call].

That has 14. It is out.

SB 756, Laird, motion is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call].

It has 14. It's out.

SB 867, Allen, do pass as amended to Natural Resources. [Roll Call].

It has 10 Aye votes. It is out. We'll call the roll again on consent for Mr. Mathis.

Consent calendar. Mathis? Mathis, aye. That's 14 to zero.

It has 14 votes.

So SB 256, Senator Dodd, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Mathis? Aye. Mathis, Aye. So it's 14-0.

Hi Senator. Thank you.

So we are going to hear SB 651 when you're ready, Senator.

Thank you. And thank you for your patience. I was in Committee on the other side. It's a long walk in heels. So good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting SB 651, and I'd like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with my office on this Bill. I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments and limit the Bill to only groundwater recharge projects. I know a lot of people had issue with that.

But the bottom line is, in this building, we do things incrementally. Right. And if we can move the football just a little bit so that we can address the groundwater recharge projects through the GSAs, I'm very excited to do so. Even the Governor of the State of California knew there was a problem when we had water issues, and he issued an executive order to address the specific issue. And so, following up on that, we would just like to codify it into law.

We realize that the amendments limit the Bill to just the groundwater recharge portion, but it's a portion that still will allow our GSAs to be able to expedite some of the processes so that we can store the much-needed water that we need in the Central Valley. SGMA requires the groundwater sustainability agencies to adopt groundwater sustainability plans that will reduce pumping to sustainable levels by 2040.

A lot of times in the Central Valley without the surface water allocations, our farmers have gone to pumping groundwater, and many GSAs plan to research the goal to reach this goal by implementing groundwater recharge and surface water projects. Unfortunately, many GSAs have failed to achieve their short-term implementation goals. A huge concern that we have is the Department of Water Resources will take over these plans, but we'll still be in a situation where we won't be able to have access to water.

Given the GSAs and the surrounding some of my district are having the trouble that meeting their goals. I really feel that this is a district Bill. I represent the top three food-producing counties in the world, and although some of you might not have agriculture in your district, we do have. I'm sure you eat the agriculture products that we produce in the Central Valley.

The GSAs believe that SB 651 will help achieve priorities that they've set forth to reach their sustainable yield while not hindering environmental quality. The Bill also is supported by nearly two dozen state and local agricultural and business organizations and water districts. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. And are you here in support? Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, my name is Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the Valley Ag Water Coalition. It represents about 43 agricultural water suppliers in the San Joaquin Valley. When we sat around the rooms and the table nearly 10 years ago, negotiating and drafting and negotiating again the two bills that became the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, we knew that it was going to be a significant challenge to implement that law and to achieve sustainable groundwater management by 2040.

A lot of people at the time felt that 2040 was too far out in the future. But I can tell you now that we are struggling to get toward that date already. This Bill is very important. We're looking at between 500 and 700,000 acres of farmland in the lower San Joaquin Valley being fallowed by 2040. We've got to use all the tools in the toolbox.

Without reliable surface water supply that may be challenged with climate change and variabilities, being able to capture the water that we had this past winter with these groundwater recharge projects is essential. And so we are in strong support of the Bill and would appreciate an Aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody else here in support?

Good morning. Lily Mckay on behalf of United Water Conservation District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen on behalf of various agricultural association, Western AG Processors, United AG, and Nisei Farmers League, in support.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to the Bill?

Good morning. My name is Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club of California, we had an opposed position on this Bill. Really appreciate the work the Committee did in the amendments, and we'll be reviewing them going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Seeing no further opposition in the room, we will go to the phone lines. Support or opposition on the phone lines. Moderator on SB 651.

Thank you. If you're in support of opposition of SB 651, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero if you're in support of opposition. And Madam Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

Thank you so much, moderator. Bringing it back to the dais. Okay, we've a lot of motions and a lot of seconds, so, Senator, that's a good sign. We'll take the motion for Senator Alanis and the second for Mr. Via Pudwell will make it bipartisan. So. Okay. That wasn't a question or comment. Mr. Bennett.

When this Bill was in its broad state, I would have had lots of problems with it. I think that I want to commend the Committee staff for coming up with narrowing amendments that make it possible. I think the issue of groundwater recharge is one that everybody realizes with these recent rains and stuff. So while I have lots of concerns about CEQA streamlining moving forward, I think that CEQA still will be in place here.

It's just that it will move faster, but there will still be the CEQA review. So I will be supporting this as a result of the amendments. I would not have without the amendments.

Thank you, sir.

Vice Chair Mathis.

Senator, thank you for bringing this forward. I know you and I share a lot of the same territory, and your points are solid. Our GSAs have been struggling to get these things done and get these projects done and to meet these goals. And your Bill will help them do so and will help get them to where they need to be. Working with DWR, with the concern of the State Water Resources Control Board having oversight as well.

There's a lot going on, and this will help them get it done and meet those deadlines and meet those goals. So thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none. I want to thank you for working with us, Senator. And I have to say, having had the privilege of serving with you for four years now, I've seen you are not somebody who gives up easily. So, to your point, I know you'll be back on the issue for sure, and I appreciate your seeing that there is a real path here for some CEQA streamlining. With that, we have two motions and a second, so we will call the roll.

Oh, would you like to close senator, I apologize.

No, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you very much for the comments, and specifically, Assembly Member Bennett, with the comments that you had. I realize that the first Bill I brought to you is very broad, but we needed a broad pin to make sure that we addressed all the issues that were facing the Central Valley. Again, the top three food-producing counties in the world, and it is a food security issue.

I mean, this body controls, and this Governor controls the food production in California, and not just the Central Valley, but we have the top seven food-producing counties in the entire world throughout the state, and I think that's significant. But the Central Valley is the one that struggles with the water. We have a lot of our GSPs are really struggling with meeting the goal at 2040. That's just a mere 17 years away.

And believe me, that ball is moving very, very slowly to make qualified plans, and this will help. So I really appreciate your Aye vote.

Now we'll call the roll. I apologize.

SB 651, Senator Grove, do pass as amended to Natural Resources. [Roll Call].

You have 11 votes. Bill's out.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, colleagues.

We are going to keep the roll open for Mr. Kalra.

We will call the roll for Mr. Kalra on the consent calendar and the rest.

Okay. On the consent calendar, Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. That's 15 to zero. SB 256: Dodd. Motion: do pass to Appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. That's 15 to zero. SB 586: Eggman. Motion: do pass to Appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. That's 15 to zero. SB 651: Grove. Motion is 'do pass as amended to Natural Resources.' Kalra? Not voting. Kalra, not voting.

So it's eleven/zero. SB 756: Laird. Motion: do pass to Judiciary. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. That's 15 to zero. And finally, SB 867: Allen. Motion: do pass as amended to Natural Resources. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. That's 11 to two.

Thank you.

And this hearing will be adjourned.