Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

You. Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the Teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 114-7276. I will maintain decorum during the hearing. As is customary, we're holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street Building, and would ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

Would also ask any authors who are free to come join us so that we can present some bills. We have 18 bills on today's agenda. Bills will be heard in file item order, and just as an announcement, file item number 17, AB 1337, by Assemblymember Wicks, has been pulled from today's agenda. It is now a 2 year Bill. We have 6 bills on proposed consent. File item number 9 AB 788. By Assembly Member Petrie Norris. File item number 11 AB 882 by assemblymember. Davies.

File item number 12. AB 923 by Assembly Member Bauer Cahan. File item number 14 AB 953 by Assembly Member Connolly. File item number 15 AB 1159 by assemblymember. Aguar Curry. And file item number 19. AB 1642 by assemblymember Gibson. Since we don't have a quorum and we don't have any authors present, I would ask either of those to come out here. I know there's a lot going on right now, but for now we'll take a recess until that point in time.

But I just wanted to ask any available authors to come to room 2200 to present your bills. Senate, this Committee is now in recess, and we will be starting as a Subcommittee until we establish quorum our first authors here. Exciting stuff. Assembly Member Papan has two bills to present today. File item number 7, AB 754. And file item number 8, AB 755. Assembly Member, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Okay, hold on a second.

Take your time. Otherwise we'd be just waiting here's.

I think I may have left my office without what I need, so hang on. Okay, thanks. The chair. If it's okay with you, I'll start with Assembly Bill 755. My chief will be hustling on that. Sorry about that. So good to be with you. Okay. Assembly Bill 755 requires public utilities to determine how major water users affect system wide costs. Identifying how major water users have driven system expenses will shine an important light on the root cause of rising costs.

The maximum demand for water is often driven by the affluent single family residences, which are notorious for using excessive amounts of water for outdoor irrigation. And while those with smaller meters may proportionately less based on meter size, if they have no need for the new infrastructure, they're subsidizing the cost of water for those that do. To be clear, AB 755 is not focused on the cost of water. AB 755 specifically examines the fixed costs that are driven primarily by unnecessary use.

With me to testify in support of this Bill is Sean Bothwell on behalf of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Good afternoon, Chairman. Committee Members.

Sean Bothwell. Is this your only witness, or do you have two?

I have one. One?

You have two minutes. Thank you.

Sean Bothwell, Executive Director for California Coastkeeper Alliance. So when a family gets their water Bill, there's two parts. There's the variable part that tracks how many gallons you're using, and then there's the fixed part that includes all the infrastructure, operation, maintenance, that type of thing. But when peak demand costs the highest water users, those costs usually are put into the fixed portion of a water Bill.

So what ends up happening is those that can serve usually lower income communities end up actually subsidizing those that have above average water usage. And the research tells us that above average water users are usually affluent households with larger irrigable areas. AB 775 would require public utilities to take a harder look at those that are driving the system costs.

Overall, the Bill does not require rate changes in any way, but it really helps those with less sophisticated rate structures to ensure that low income communities are not subsidizing the more affluent communities. We've been working with the opposition on amendments, particularly around the Proposition 218 liability, and we think we're in a really good place. We might need a few little tweaks here and there, but I think we're in a good place. And with that, I'll ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room wishing to testify in support of this measure? Seeing none, we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 755 here in the room? Excuse me, sir, if you could move sorry. Allow them to speak just fine. Thank you. Trying to be fair and balanced here.

Hi Pilaranyati Quintana for Irvine Ranch Water District. I'm kind of stepping into the Tweener zone here because we are poised to. Remove our opposition to the Bill given the Committee amendments. And we just really want to thank. The author and the sponsor and the. Committee staff for engaging to get us. Into this positive place. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses in opposition here?

Actually, Cyrus Stevers. Also a tweener here for the Los Virgins Municipal Water District and the Coachella Valley Water District. They have letters of opposition, and based on the proposed amendments, they will be removing the opposition and going neutral. Thank you.

Got it. Thank you for your testimony. We'll move on to any other witnesses in the room in opposition or in Tweener position to this Bill. Just limit your testimony to your name, affiliation and position on the measure.

Yes. Danielle Blatset Heiden with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We have an opposed position on the Bill. In print, but we are going to be taking a close look at the amendments when they are in print and we'll be revisiting our position. Thanks to the author and the Committee for all the work.

Thank you.

Adam, Canyuos on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, same position as CMUA.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kathy Vietella with the East Bay Municipal Utility Water District. We have an opposing, less amended position. We appreciate the author and the staff. We are reconsidering our position based on the amendments that come into print. We have a few more issues just to address, but I think we're close. We'll get there.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, also aligned with CMUA. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. Julie Melinowski Ball on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District. The same. Looking to remove our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in the room in opposition, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator. If you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 755, we can begin.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 755, you may press 1, then 0. We will go to line 108. Your line is open.

Yes. Hi Karen Schmelzer representing Levenheim Water Municipal Water District. Opposed position. But with the new amendments coming forward, we will be looking at the Bill and we may be changing our position, but currently we are opposed positions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 97.

Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Good afternoon. My name is Justin Black and I'm a law fellow with Los Angeles Water Keeper. I just want to note that I joined California Coast keeper Alliance as well as my fellow water throughout the state in supporting AB 755. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Thank you to everyone who's testified. We'll bring the discussion back to the Members. Thank you. Do you have any questions or comments?

I have a couple of questions here and I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate the amendments. And I was actually still trying to understand is the real idea that a cost analysis will point out inequities and lead to action, but action is not required.

Correct.

Okay.

And it's now the 10% highest of water users, whether they be commercial or residential. So they're all going to be rolled.

Into and the idea is that it is highly likely that subsets or the entire part of the 90% are subsidizing to 10%. And I saw an analysis that there was a tremendous amount of this that it was believed was related to outdoor urban landscape irrigation. Is that correct?

We shall see.

Okay, well, there are bills in place because I've done them about outdoor urban landscape irrigation. There are ways to tie it. And the one thing is, in Jurassic times, when I was a mayor and we operated a water system, there were these inequities that we tried to address in the rate system.

For example, we equally charged people for the electricity that water delivery generated, but people that generally were in wealthier homes with views paid, there was excessive electricity to pump the water up to them that the people in the flats were subsidizing. So we, as a system, adopted an elevation surcharge so that the actual cost would go to it. And I was just reading this, trying to understand if those were some of the things that you were trying to get at with this analysis.

Yeah, I would think so. I see my witness. I'll defer to his expertise.

Yeah, Senator Laird, I think that's exactly right. There's certain rate structures that are sophisticated, like the ones you just described. There's some that aren't, and don't take that stuff into consideration. There's things like the peak users might need more infrastructure than a low income community because they're driving the demand higher. But sometimes those costs are shared between everyone, even though the low income community might not or household might not be the one pushing for that extra demand and that extra infrastructure.

Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that. That really helps. So look forward to supporting it at 09:00 when we have a you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator Laird. I appreciate it. And I appreciate the fact that Taylor Swift is on tour right now because she brings out the Tweener in a lot of us. But I'm all thank you.

We really need more authors here quickly.

Yes, terrible. I just want to confirm something about pop in. First of all, I appreciate you bringing forward this Bill and your work with our staff on these amendments, and just want to confirm that you will be taking those amendments going forward.

Yes, sir.

Fantastic. With that, would you like to close?

I just respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And we'll present that for a vote at the appropriate time once we have Quorum, which could be at 09:00 p.m., hopefully sooner. Thank you, Assembly Member.

I have 754, which I'm prepared to take if that's--

Yes, you are.

Okay, great. So this one deals with California reservoirs. So California reservoirs play an important role in the state's water supply and are increasingly becoming more essential for managing ecosystems as temperatures continue to rise. The importance of planning for a stable water supply really can't be understated. AB 754 will require urban and agricultural water suppliers who rely on reservoirs to identify a target storage level for the reservoir based upon operational requirements.

Urban water suppliers are already required to produce predictions on the availability of water supply for the current year plus one dry year, should the supplier derive more than 50 percent of its water from a single reservoir. AB 754 takes that requirement a step further by sort of ground truthing those predictions and requiring them to be plotted against actual reservoir levels. When I introduced AB 754, it required mandatory conservation actions based on the target supply curve in response to stakeholder concerns.

AB 754 no longer requires conservation actions based upon reservoir levels. However, the bill does still require this additional piece of data on target reservoir storage levels to be included in a supplier's water supply plan. As we encounter increasing more unpredictable weather patterns, we will need an accurate, holistic picture of our water supply, especially when a supplier relies upon a reservoir for more than half of its supply. We have everything to gain from accurate and verified predictions on our heavily relied upon reservoirs.

We shouldn't be uninformed in a drought. Let's not wait until it's too late, and with me today is Sean Bothwell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance to testify.

Fantastic. You have two minutes.

Right. Again, thank you, Chair, Committee Members. Sean Bothwell, Executive Director for California Coastkeeper Alliance. California's new climate is really weather whiplash. We have extended years of drought followed by intense storms and increased flooding. So we need to learn how to adapt to the new climate and be able to handle these extremes by conserving during wet years so that we can make it through the years of dry years.

However, most communities these days really only conserve when we're in a crisis and don't think long term about future dry years when we do have a wait year like this year. Currently, the law requires communities to create water shortage contingency plans. Those plans consider all types of water supply and demand. This Bill, AB 754, would only really require a new data point, as the Assembly Member mentioned, regarding reservoirs and a supply curve, and we really think that supply curve is an important indicator to the community that if you're not hitting your targets, that the community should consider conservation.

I think of it kind of like your low fuel light on your dashboard in your car. It tells you that something is off and that you should do something to get where you're going. So with that, I'll ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Do we have any witnesses in the room who would like to present #MeToo testimony in support of AB 754? Seeing none, do we have any lead witnesses in the room in opposition to AB 754? Just the one of you? Oh, you have two. Okay. You have two minutes each. You can proceed whenever you're ready.

Alright. Good evening, Mr. Chair and Senator Laird. Adam Quinonez on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies respectfully opposed to AB 754. Appreciate the amendments that were recently taken, but we still have some strong concerns about the bill, specifically the bill that's currently in print could not be implemented by a number of water agencies that rely on reservoirs that they don't own or operate.

Currently, the bill requires that if a water agency relies on any reservoir for more than 50 percent of their water supply, they have to develop the storage curve as was discussed. However, those agencies that don't rely on their--that rely on these reservoirs that they don't own or operate, may not have the information that's required in the bill. The Federal Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Water Resources own and operate many reservoirs throughout California.

This bill would ask local public water agencies to establish a storage curve and targets for those reservoirs, and again, there may be multiple water agencies pulling from a reservoir that they have no control over, but they have to report on and develop targets for that at least seems inappropriate to establish those targets for federal or state agencies.

Further, as we've seen the impacts of climate change on our water systems, water agencies that do own and operate their own facilities need additional flexibility to quickly manage their storage levels, releasing water during times of high flow events, holding water back that's forecast informed reservoir operations that the Legislature, Administration, public water agencies really support, this bill seems to work against that additional flexibility, and for those reasons, we are asking for a no vote.

Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members of the Committee. I'm Kathy Viatella with East Bay Municipal Utility District. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. We appreciate the author's July 3rd amendments that remove the required conservation actions based on the target water supply storage curve. However, those amendments don't go far enough to address our concerns. Our principal concern is with how we operate our system on the Mokelumne River. We have two main reservoirs on the Mokelumne, Pardee and Camanche, which we operate as one system.

We treat them as one system and they operate jointly together, and under AB 754, East Bay MUD would be required to develop a target water supply storage curve for both. So Camanche, just to put a picture in your mind, is below Pardee and operated jointly with Pardee and other downstream reservoirs for U.S. Army Corps of Engineer flood control requirements.

But Camanche is also operated jointly with Pardee to meet our joint settlement requirements that are with the Fish and Wildlife Service and also Department of Fish and Wildlife, and we manage that for cold pool management to benefit the Mokelumne River fishery, which has been successful over the years. The past few winters we have experienced though these dramatic swings in our precipitation and hydrology has been pointed out and we've had to rapidly pivot reservoir operations.

So for example, this year we lowered Camanche to just below half its capacity by mid-May to prepare for this significant snowmelt but we wouldn't say we had a shortage at that time, so we would be measuring against that, and so it could create confusion for our customers. So a target water supply storage curve for Camanche would not necessarily provide the information that would be useful for us in sort of managing our overall total water supply for that system because Pardee could be full.

So for this reason, we remain opposed unless amended to the bill to remove the requirement to develop this target storage curve. Now, if more information is needed to help people understand how we manage our system and we can put that into our water shortage contingency plan, we'd be happy to do so and we look forward to continued conversations with the author's office on that.

Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate that. Do we have any other witnesses in the room who would like to express their opposition in the form of #MeToo testimony? Please limit your testimony to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure.

Yes. Pilar Onate-Quintana for the Yuba Water Agency. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Danielle Blacet-Hyden with the California Municipal Utilities Association. Opposed to the bill.

Thank you.

Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Yeah. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of Contra Costa Water District. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Desert Water Agency, Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company, Rowland Water District, Walnut Valley Water District, Palmdale Water District, Solano County Water Agency, and the Valley Ag Water Coalition in opposition.

Thank you.

I only have one. Lily MacKay on behalf of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright, seeing no other witnesses in the room in opposition, we'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Those wishing to testify should limit their comments to their name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Mr. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify, we can begin in support or opposition of AB 754.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 754, you may press one, and then zero. We will go to Line 115. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. My name is Jaime Neary with Russian Riverkeeper, and we are in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we will go to Line 111. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. You can proceed.

Thank you. My name is Justin Breck and I'm a law fellow with Los Angeles Waterkeeper. I just want to note that we join California Coastkeeper Alliance, our fellow waterkeepers throughout the state and club, in support of AB 754. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to Line 113. Your line is open.

Yes, this is Brandon Dawson on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. Then we'll bring it back to the dais here. Do we have any questions or comments from Members? Oh yes, Senator Laird.

I'm sorry to be sort of a broken record on this, but to the author I was trying to understand what you actually achieved by this. I now realize that if you are single reservoir and you do it, that people already have water storage plans. Incorporating the curve into it is a minor thing. But once again, I have a big frame of reference. I really related to some of the opponents and the multi-use and some of the things that happened there, and there was a huge change in the 2012, 2016 drought on flood releases.

If you can believe it, the Bureau of Land Management, I mean, the Bureau of Reclamation in reservoirs that were 24 percent full in the middle of the drought would release water for flood control, which made no sense whatsoever, and so I'm trying to understand what will come from this. What do you expect if this is enacted that will be the good thing that comes from it?

So I think the most important thing to answer your question relates to preparation. So we limited the bill to water users that get more than 50 percent of their water from a single reservoir because as you heard from our witness, it's time that we really be prepared, especially in these whiplash times. So I have here, coincidentally, East Bay MUD's water shortage contingency plan. So they do one of these every--there for five years, but you must do an assessment every year.

So they're definitely assessing where their water comes from, no matter who owns the reservoir every year. But what we'd like to see is that if you're getting 50 percent, you need to do some planning, and really that planning should be related to the reservoir which you're getting 50 percent. As to the multi-use and the flexibility, fair enough, but the bill we put in language that says 'you must project to the amount to the level that you can reasonably predict outflow.'

And within that we have language in the bill that says, 'the purposes for which the reservoir is operated, you're going to take into account. It may include, but is not limited to water released for instream uses, water supplied for consumptive use, flood control, hydraulic generation and recreation' because we recognize that there may be a multipurpose reservoir out there.

So in requiring this charting so that we are prepared, we have allotted for the multi-use as it relates to whether or not you own the reservoir or not. If you're getting 50 percent of the water you need for your water users, you should be aware of what that reservoir is going to hold for purposes of your customer base, if you will. Sean, did you want to add anything?

I think just one comment.

Certainly.

I mean, I'm willing to let you continue to work on this and I think it needs some work and I'm just thinking, the system that we ran when I was mayor has a reservoir that was over 50 percent of the water source for a region that was twice as large as the city. And we were so attuned to it and we were so planned to it that that exists--this bill, I don't think, would add a single thing to what isn't going on already.

And it comes with education. I mean, we educate our water users that if it's full, you need to take care, but it's not bad. If it's 80 percent, we have two years and we're mostly dry, and so then we just have mandatory things that go on, and if it's at 60 percent, it's extreme mandatory things, and we all just look.

Years ago, I convinced the newspaper to, with the weather, regularly publish exactly what the percent of the reservoir is so that when you educated people, they could make those links. I just didn't see when I read this, what this would do that's new.

Okay, so what it does is it takes where you think you're going to be, and it measures where you actually end up. So if you keep dipping below where you think your reservoir should be to service your clientele, then you need to consider what you're doing. But this is only a data bill. We're not mandating anything in this bill. We just want to see as you make your predictions what is actually happening, and it causes you to reconcile the two. So that's what the bill now requires you to do.

Okay. Which, once again, I think is done already, but it can't hurt for those people that aren't doing it that's--

Right. And usually they're doing total water supply. There isn't necessarily the focus on the reservoir. It's total water supply.

If your reservoir is like 85 percent of your total water supply, you are focused on that reservoir. If it goes dry, people might be able to wash their hands every other day or something or keep their grandmother's favorite plant alive while everything else goes, but it is literally--that's where it is. And so that's why I that's why--

That's why I can't figure out the opposition, quite frankly. I mean, it should be that we're all focused on it. There shouldn't be that big an opposition. We've allowed for the multi-use. We've allowed whether or not you own it or not. We just want to make sure that these coordinates don't surpass each other where it's not safe.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any other questions? Okay, I appreciate you answered the question I was about to ask, which is that this is informational only and simply requires reporting, and I guess I would say we're supporting this bill.

The Chair recommendation is 'do pass to appropriations' in part for the same reasons you articulated: that more information is good and perhaps the opposition's arguments that this is a flawed measure may be right, but it's still more information and I think we can always work to improve the particular metrics that you're calling for here. I know you're going to continue to work on this once it pass--assuming it passes out of this Committee, but with that, would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote and yes, Senator, we will continue to talk.

Thank you so much, and we'll take that up once we have a quorum, which we're inching closer to. We just increased our numbers by 50 percent; thank you, Senator Grove. Okay, seeing Assembly Member Bauer--I'm sorry, what--Bauer-Kahan in the room, you may present--I'm sorry. Okay. I think Bauer-Kahan was in the room earlier. If you don't mind, Assembly Members, that would be great. She has been waiting. So she's ready to present File Item Number 13: AB 1205. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and hopefully with the amendments, this will be speedy for Mr. Bennett. So thank you to the Committee Staff for your hard work on this bill and I want to be clear that I'm accepting the Committee amendments as laid out in the analysis. Would also like to add at her request, Senator Hurtado is a principal co-author to the bill. I know she's not here, but I want to thank Senator Hurtado for her leadership in this area.

I know this is a bill that is incredibly important to her and her community, so her partnership has been really critical in this work. I'm proud to present AB 1205, which requires the State Water Board to conduct a study on the speculation and water profiteering as water is an essential resource that our communities and farms need to survive. We're incredibly fortunate that this year our winter rains gave us the water we needed for the year, but as we all know, droughts are going to be the future of California's water, and so we need to be able to manage it incredibly well.

In addition to the climate change that the news talks about, the news reports have talked about over the past decade different examples of hedge funds and other large institutional investors buying up agricultural land here in California and across the West to market associated water resources from permanent crops with groundwater resources at an unsustainable rate or for export of those water resources.

There appears to be a veritable gold rush by investment funds on surface water and groundwater in this state, and some stand to make a pretty penny on these resources. Given what we are experiencing, increasing water scarcity due to the drought, it's incredibly important that we understand the scope of what is happening to our water resources and we can move in the future to pass good policy based on the information this bill will give us in the future.

So for those reasons, it's incredibly important that we empower the State Water Board to do the research as laid forth in the analysis. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do you have any witnesses here in support? Okay, fantastic. Do we have any witnesses who would like to express their support for this bill in the room? Just please limit your--I guess you can speak if you'd like to.

Not much to say, just say John Bottorff with CleanEarth4Kids.org in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support of AB 1205 in the room, I will move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have two of you today?

I'm just taking two seconds. I'm another tweener. Adam Quinonez on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies. Really appreciate the amendments that we're taking, so we're revisiting our position.

Thank you. Do we have any actual lead witnesses in opposition here today? Seeing none. Okay. Any #MeToo witnesses in opposition or tweeners?

Tweener. Ivy Brittain, Northern California Water Association. Appreciate the author's amendments and we're removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau. Much like the two prior folks, we're pretty comfortable with where the amendments are, so I think we'll probably be removing our opposition as well.

Thank you.

Hi. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce and with the Committee amendments, we will be revisiting our position and hope to remove opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roschen on behalf of various agricultural associations and we align our comments with CalChamber. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Scott Hayman, Chairman of the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority and Council Member for the City of Ridgecrest. We remove our opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Karen Lange on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors. Ditto on hoping to remove our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jack Gualco on behalf of the California Association of Winegrape Growers. The same very position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lily MacKay with San Luis Delta-Mendota. Echo everybody before me. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dominic Di Mare here on behalf of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors and ditto to everything that's been said.

Thank you. Seeing no other lead witnesses in opposition or tweeners, we'll move on to anyone waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Again, those wishing to testify should limit their comments to their name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Ms. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 1205, we can begin.

Thank you. For in support of AB 1205, you may press one, then zero. We will go to line 122.

Viviana Hilario, environmental intern for CleanEarth4Kids.org in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we do have one more while they get their line number. One moment please.

Oh. They took themselves out of queue, so we have no more in queue.

Thank you to all who've testified. Let's bring it back to the Members. Do we have any comments or questions on AB 1205? Seeing none, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

When the time is right, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. So we'll take that up at the appropriate time. Assembly Member Bennett, thank you for waiting patiently here. You have three bills here in front of us today. File Items Number Four: AB 552, File Item Number Five: AB 676, and File Item Number Six: AB 809. Which one would you like to present first?

The same order that you just read there.

Fantastic. You can proceed when ready.

Great. Thank you very much. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee Amendments and thank the Committee Staff. Appreciate their work on this bill. AB 552 will create a regional heavy equipment tool sharing program for farmers. It is one of the real win-win bills that's been out there bipartisan support. Lots of people in favor of it; specifically focused on trying to help small farmers who can't afford to be able to purchase that big heavy equipment.

They may only need it for a few days, so one of the great comparisons people use--it's a little bit like a heavy equipment on a library program. You need it for ten days or you need it for a week in terms of moving forward. So trying to bring down those equipment costs is one of the real keys to try to help keep small farmers profitable, and with that, I have two witnesses here. Anna Larson from the California Climate and Agriculture Network and Jamie Fanous from the Community Alliance of Family Farmers.

Thank you. Each, you have two minutes to present. You can proceed whenever you're ready.

Alright, thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Anna Larson with CalCAN, the California Climate and Agriculture Network, and we are a coalition of eight organizations that represent sustainable and organic farmers and ranchers and advocate for policies to help farmers be more resilient to climate change. So while California leads the country in agricultural production, the number of family farms decreases with each agricultural census due to market pressures and climate change impacts.

More than ever, farmers need support to one: have viable and resilient operations and to help meet state goals and targets related to sustainability as outlined in the scoping plan in 30-by-30 goals. Farm equipment is the highest capital expense for farmers after land, and 75 percent of California's 70,000 farms operate with net farm incomes under 25,000 dollars or with net losses annually.

Therefore, investments in specialized equipment for healthy soils practices or wildfire mitigation strategies such as no-till drills, wood chippers, and compost spreaders in investments in infrastructure are often out of reach, particularly for small and midscale farmers. We've heard that access to equipment is a critical need from the farmers that we work with and from our partners in extension at resource conservation districts and our nonprofit partners who collectively serve thousands of farmers across the state, and many have identified equipment sharing as a solution, but they lack the resources to be able to make that a reality.

We already know that this model works. In Fresno, the UC Cooperative Extension Small Farms team operates an equipment sharing program to help Healthy Soils Program participants use compost. The program is so successful that there's a lot more demand than they're able to currently meet.

Assembly Member Bennett: AB 552 would help programs like Fresno's be able to meet the demand and scale this model across the state to help realize the potential of agriculture to address climate change and support regional food economies. Thanks.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Now we have another witness. You have two minutes.

Fantastic. Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Jamie Fanous. I'm the Policy Director at the Community Alliance with Family Farmers or CAFF. CAFF currently represents over 8,000 small and mid-scale farmers across California, and we've worked about 45 years to serve family-scale agriculture and promote environmental sustainability. In California, over 80 percent of farms operate on less than 180 acres. Nearly three fourths operate on less than 100,000 dollars in annual sales and we're losing at least four small farms a day.

These challenges small farmers face are overwhelming, making the simple act of growing food to feed local communities a nearly impossible task. The realities of the climate crisis, existing supply chains, and food systems disproportionately affect those that are making a livelihood growing food which includes the one in five California farmers who identify as Black, indigenous, and people of color. There are also farmers of CAFF's that aim to serve and engage with every single day and we listen and respond to the most immediate needs and advocate for it like TA.

One of the top priorities we've heard over the years is the need for equitable access to infrastructure and opportunities to work collectively. With rapid consolidation, major market competitors, our farmers know the only way they'll survive is to work collectively, sharing equipment, processing equipment, and crop planning together.

For example, several farmers have their own informal sharing of one or two tools but lack the funds to buy any more capital intensive equipment either via farmer-led technical assistance or the programs that Anna mentioned earlier. These are opportunities to support these small-scale farmers with massive capital intensive tools. AB 552 by Assembly Member Bennett would directly contribute to the creation of thriving regional food ecosystems where small and BIPOC farmers and land stewards can begin to build and strengthen themselves.

Regional economies are essential if we want to ensure the survival of California's smallest and most vulnerable farms, and I urge your aye vote for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room wishing to testify in support of this bill, AB 552? Again, limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Melissa Sagun on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in the room in support, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Do we have anyone in opposition? Okay, we'll then take it over to any witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Again, those wishing to testify should limit their comments to their name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 552, we can begin.

Thank you. If you're in support of AB 552, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 103. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus representing American Farmland Trust and the Carbon Cycle Institute in support.

Thank you. Line 120.

Good afternoon. Gracyna Mohabir on behalf of Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay, thank you to all who testified. I will bring it back to the dais. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Yes, I do. This is a fantastic bill, and I would like to be added as a co-author at the appropriate time. And with that, would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Great close, and we'll take that up when we have Members. Okay. Assembly Member, you have another bill to present: File Item Number Five: AB 676.

You can proceed whenever you're ready.

I do. Thank you very much. Again, we accept the Committee Amendments, appreciate the hard work of the Chair and the Committee Staff on this bill. We have worked closely with the stakeholders on amendments that went into print June 12th, and that helped us remove almost all of the opposition to this bill, and we're committed to continuing to work with the remaining opposition to try to address their concerns.

The fundamental problem that we're addressing with this bill is the fact that the Legislature has never adopted a definition of domestic use of water, and yet we have identified the domestic use of water as the priority use of water in California. It just makes common sense that we ought to have a definition and make it easier for everybody to know what we mean when that's the case.

As the drought was ending, recently we saw water districts embroiled in lots of controversy about what could they prioritize and what couldn't they prioritize and that is what we're trying to address here. We have antiquated regulations and a wide series of court cases requires hiring of an expensive attorney to try to just get a basic answer to the question: what is domestic use of water? And so with that today, we're ready to answer any questions. I do not have any witnesses here.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room who might want to testify in support of AB 676? Seeing none. Do we have anyone in opposition to 676 and your lead witness?

I just have a comment.

Feel free to go ahead. Two minutes.

Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of our urban retail water supplier clients and Valley Ag Water Coalition. We removed opposition with the June 12th amendments. The Committee Amendment, the add paragraph five raises some concerns, so we would like to work with the author and staff to try and tighten that up.

The reference to basically any court decision includes those that aren't published and therefore don't have precedential value, so the amendment makes sense, but we just want to tighten that language up, and we've provided our version of that language to the author's staff and Committee Staff. We'd like to continue to work on that, but we're not asking for a no vote today.

Thank you for that. I appreciate that. Any other witnesses in the room in opposition to AB 676? Alright, seeing none, I will move it to the teleconference line. Again, limit your testimony to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Moderator, if you could prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 676, we can begin.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 676, you may press one and then zero. And we will go to line 104. Your line is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eduardo Martinez with Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips on behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District. Just wanted to thank the author and the Committee Staff for working with us to address our concerns. We're going to be removing our opposition. Also want to thank Senator Padilla for facilitating those discussions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 96.

Hi, this is Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association, and we too are appreciative of the Committee Amendments and are looking forward to working with the author on tweaking them a bit, especially number five. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 91, your line is open.

Hi, good afternoon. Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the City of Corona. Respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, we have no further opposition or support in queue.

Great. Thank you all who testified, and we'll bring it back to the dais again. I just want to say thank you for your hard work on this bill. I think it's an important statement and as you note in your statement earlier, this is important to start defining what the best use of water is. I will also note that our Staff has worked with and will continue to work with you and stakeholders on continuing to find this bill, including the amendment around section number five, but with that, would you like to close?

I really appreciate the flexibility that the Staff has extended to us to allow us to continue to talk about an amendment that the Committee Staff has actually inserted here so that we can potentially come up with language that's acceptable to Committee Staff and all of us as we move forward. So we appreciate Mr. Reeb's comments here today with regards to working on that and we're committed to doing that. Respectfully ask for an aye vote when you have a Committee.

Thank you, Assemblyman. I appreciate it. It's just lonely here. Very lonely. Nobody likes me. Alright, you have one more bill to present, Assembly Member. File Item Number Six: AB 809. You can proceed when ready.

Thank you very much. The California Monitoring Program is an existing program in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. It monitors the production of salmon and steelhead trout and their habitats. AB 809 simply codifies this program to ensure that the critical data collected will allow the state to make the right strategic investments in watershed and fishery restoration and effectively support salmon and steelhead recovery.

Wild salmon and steelhead are on the brink of extinction due to habitat degradation and climate change and nearly all the state's populations are on the California Endangered Species Act. These species are critical to ecosystem health. Recovery plans for endangered species require monitoring to measure the progress, and with me today is Kam Bezdek of CalTrout to testify, and appreciate Cam being here. Thank you.

Thank you. You can proceed whenever you're ready. You have up to two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and honorable Members. My name is Kam Bezdek with California Trout, and we are members of the California Salmon & Steelhead Coalition. We're here to state our strong support and to thank Assembly Member Bennett and his office for his work on AB 809.

So, the Salmon & Steelhead Coalition is a partnership between Trout Unlimited, California Trout, and The Nature Conservancy that collaborates to achieve our shared goals, which include restoring and improving habitat in important salmon and steelhead watersheds in California while also improving water reliability for people. Established in 2011, the California Monitoring Program Plan--excuse me--or CMP, is designed to inform salmon and steelhead recovery, conservation, and management activities. The CMP measures the recovery of endangered anadromous fish species, including Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead.

The population and habitat data collected through this program is used to assess the efficacy of habitat protection and restoration investments, to track and demonstrate the progress of salmon and steelhead restoration and recovery efforts, and to make informed decisions regarding species recovery plans. Additionally, CMP efforts often provide some of the only information on watershed health in remote areas of the state and help inform fisheries management.

Reliable funding of the CMP is necessary to eliminate data gaps, to ensure long term changes in populations can be determined, and to provide certainty to CDFW as they administer this program. The CMP has historically been funded through temporary funds, including federal grants and state bond funding. However, these sources are no longer sufficient to maintain the program's essential monitoring activities.

AB 809 would codify the program and establish a new fund, the California Monitoring Program Fund, to allow the state to appropriate funding directly to the program through the annual budget process. AB 809 will secure more reliable funding for the CMP and therefore ensure its continuous operation and a robust monitoring program for freshwater ecosystems.

We believe that AB 809 will ensure that critical data from the CMP will continue to inform the investments made by the state to support watershed health, fishery restoration, and the recovery of critically endangered salmon and steelhead populations. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses in support here today?

No, we don't.

Alright, do we have any other witnesses in the room who'd like to express their #MeToo support for this bill?

Alex Leumer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and Trout Unlimited in strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. Megan Cleveland with The Nature Conservancy in strong support.

Thank you.

Ivy Brittain with Northern California Water Association in support.

Thank you.

Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support.

Thank you.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters, in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Solano County Water Agency in support.

Thank you. Good to see it. Alrighty, do we have anyone here in opposition? Any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 809, which seems very contentious. No, seeing none in the room. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Let's move this to the teleconference line. Ms. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 809, we could begin.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 809, you may press one and then zero. We will go line 124.

Good afternoon. Abigail Mighell on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right, we'll bring it back to the dais again. My parents almost supposedly named me Samuel, so I very feel like salmon is part of my lineage here. Thank you. Bad joke day. Would you like to close?

Great joke. And appreciate an I vote when you have a Committee.

Thank you. Appreciate your presentations. Assembly Member. All right, we'll move on to our next author. We have Assembly Member Soria in the room here to present file item number 10, AB 830. Assembly Member, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was going to say and Members, but they're all gone. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 830, which intends to create a critical tool for communities like the ones I represent in Merced County. More specifically Planada, Atwater, and McSwain. You guys all saw the tragedy and the devastation that impacted these communities. As you may have recalled, more than 4000 residents were forced to evacuate due to devastated flooding. Many homes were damaged, families lost property that has been hard to replace due to the fact that many of them didn't qualify for federal relief, or relief that wasn't enough to cover all the damages, loss of vehicles, damaged furniture, and a lot of just loss of property. Policies established by AB 830 and then also SB 122, which is one of the most recently negotiated trailer bills highlighted in the analysis, are critical to the future of communities like Planada and the ag. economy our families solely rely on. AB 830 seeks to streamline the permitting processes the permitting process in support of flood more activities when a stream has reached flood monitor or flood stage levels or within the State Water Resource Control Board permitted flows, helping mitigate flooding impacts in times like the ones that we had this past January. This Bill also provides a great opportunity to help meet the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act goals set by our state, and in turn, help improve the quality of water issues also impacting many of these communities. I do want to take a moment to thank the Governor's office and both of these bodies, both legislative bodies or both bodies of this Legislature, for recognizing the importance of providing communities tools to streamline the process of diverting floodwaters into regional water basins. As we learn to adapt to the challenges of climate change, we must meet the moment and adapt to hotter and drier times by ensuring that we can maximize the usage of floodwaters in extraordinary wet years like the one that we saw this winter. Your support today will help us prevent a repeat of a flooded Planada tomorrow and protect vulnerable communities across the state. As expressed to you, Chairman, and other actually Members who are not here today, but are not here right now. But I've been able to speak with I'm committed to work with staff and this Committee to ensure that this Bill truly complements and not conflicts with SB 122 today. With me. I have Mike Jensen from the Merced Irrigation District and Brad Samuelson with water and land solutions. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when your Committee is here. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, you each have two minutes to present and you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Men and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your time this afternoon and thank you for your consideration of this Bill. I'll just briefly say Merced Irrigation District. We are in the San Joaquin Valley. We provide water and power service. Last year we had partnered with the Department of Water Resources, and we actively pursued a Flood-MAR permit that would allow us to recharge groundwater in a critically overdrafted groundwater basin using floodwater during that process. It came to our attention in the 11th hour that we would also need a lake and stream bed alteration permit. I'm going to defer to Mr. Samuelson, who's also here today, about some of the challenges that that would have placed on using the program and where this Bill is headed is trying to alleviate those concerns so that when we do have these floodwaters, that we can take advantage of it.

Thank you. We have another witness in the room. You also have two minutes.

Yes, thank you for your time. I just want to reiterate that the provisions of this Bill would very much help the communities of Lagrana and Planada that the farming community very much need the floodwater and the protection from the groundwater. So thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in the room who would like to express their support? And me too. Testimony.

Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Valley AG Water Coalition in support.

Danielle Blacet-Hyden with The California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Karen Lang. With the Merced County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Alex Biering with California Farm Bureau in support.

Thank you.

Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you. Not even tweeners you guys are in full support this time. Okay? Do we have any witnesses in opposition here in the room today? Lead witness in opposition? Just the one. Fantastic.

Just me.

You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and staff, this is Alex Loomer representing the Centers of Wildlife. And just want to thank you for acknowledging the need to conform with SB 122, the Resources Trailer Bill. I think that's our only issue is just we would support if it if it were opposed, unless it's amended to conform with 122. And just want to flag that AB 830 applies to near flood stage flows, which isn't in the Resources Trailer Bill. And so we just want to be sure that we're working with the author's office to address those inconsistencies.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in opposition to AB 830? Seeing none. We'll move on to any witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Again, limit your testimony to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Ms.. Moderator, if you can please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 830, we can begin.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 830, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. Mr. Chair we have no one in queue.

Thank you, we'll bring it back to the deus, which is me. So I want to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Senator Laird, who I know is very interested in this Bill, but is currently occupied. So why is this Bill needed? If we have the Trailer Bill Language and what specifically is not sufficient in the trailer Bill Language that your Bill is trying to accomplish. This is a four part question. Would your Merced project not be eligible for streamlining under the TBL? And why are we doing a statewide application if you're only trying to target a specific Merced project?

Thank you for all those questions. And I know I had a short conversation earlier today with Senator Laird and I thank you for his interest in this issue. So one, we introduced this Bill early on, right when the challenges in Merced County were happening, obviously with the recognition, as was mentioned by one of the lead witnesses, that there was a challenge in taking advantage of some of the programs that are out there to benefit communities like Merced County. And so the goal really was to not only address the issue for Merced County, but we know that communities across the Central Valley are being challenged with an aquifer that has been over pumped and that there needs to be a conscientious effort to really replenish that groundwater. And we're never going to get there if we don't do more of what is needed, especially in years like this. If you guys would have visited my communities Planada Atwater McSwain down into Larry Lake Basin, I hope folks go out and visit this community because this legislation will help address some of those challenges that the communities that I've grow up in have really been impacted over time, not just the overdrafting the water quality challenges. And I think that this Bill really attempted to do that. I'm grateful that the Governor and that both bodies, the Assembly and the Senate, got together to say, hey, we need to do more. And so I want to be given the opportunity over the coming weeks to work with you guys to really figure out if SB 22 really addresses all the challenges that we have experienced in our area. But that will benefit also when we do this statewide because I do believe that the Central Valley deserves to have a policy that is going to help them essentially meet the sigma goals that this body and the Governor previously put into law. And so we have some very ambitious goals, but we need the tools necessary to be able to meet the goals that we set in the state.

Thank you for that answer. On behalf of Senator Laird, I just want to make some brief comments myself. I think when we first were presented with this Bill, I and our staff had concerns about the significant overlap that this Bill did have with the Resources Trailer Bill as well as how it might impact extensive multiparty negotiations that were taking place. Obviously, both bills relate to the diversion of floodwaters to groundwater recharge in order to avoid damage to infrastructure and property. At this point, my staff feels like they need more time to really parse out what the differences might be. I know that you and your staff have been fully cooperative. And it's for that reason that we are recommending an aye vote today. But we do want to make sure that as this Bill moves forward, that it does not undermine the three way agreement that's reflected in the Resources Trailer Bill, and that if it is to proceed forward, that any amendments necessary will be added as this Bill moves forward. So I know you're also committed to that, but perhaps I should ask that in the form of a question. Are you committed to that? Absolutely, Senator Min, I am fully committed to working with you and your staff to make sure that, again, that it doesn't conflict with SB 122, and that we really work towards efforts to address the challenges that we're both trying to meet. Thank you.

Thank you. And is that your close, or would you like to close?

I would just respectfully ask for an I vote when you have your Committee.

Thank you. So my daughter is going to the Taylor Swift concert in like, a month, and so I feel like there's probably some lyrics about how lonely I feel up here right now. But I am not a Swifty, so I don't know them.

Thank you for seeing us laughing and smiling.

Thank you. And so we have our next Bill to present. Our next authors here, Assembly Member Addis, you have two bills to present, file items number 2 and 3, AB 80 and AB 1407. You can present them in whatever order you'd like.

Great. I'll go with the AB 80 first. So. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, including my friend and coauthor on AB 80, Senator John Laird, who I know isn't here at the moment, but maybe we'll get back and the Committee staff for their thoughtful and thorough analysis. I'm here today to ask for your aye vote on AB 80, which would create an offshore wind science entity within the Ocean Protection Council, or OPC.

So, as you are aware, the federal government leased five offshore wind areas along California's coast in December of 2022. Three off the coast of San Luis Obispo in my district, and then two off the coast of Eureka in Assembly Member woods district. It's critical that we maintain California's strong commitment to ocean and coastal protections while we build offshore wind energy.

And now is exactly the time to move forward by intentionally understanding our ecosystems and wildlife and how offshore wind energy will interact with our natural marine environment. In doing so, we can remain strong stewards of the ocean now and for generations into the future. The AB 80 requires the OPC to create a science entity to coordinate and oversee the scientific research and monitoring that decision makers need ahead of and during development of offshore wind energy.

And it's important to understand how marine life and habitat will interact with offshore wind energy infrastructure as well as development activity. The science entity will follow, collect, and fund scientific research on offshore wind energy and marine environments and make that research available to decision makers and the public. AB 80 also calls for a steering Committee within the OPC that will guide and oversee the science entity's work.

And this steering Committee will be composed of representatives from state and federal agencies, tribes, environmental, nonprofits, EJ, nonprofits, and offshore wind developers. And the idea of the entity and its structure is based on a similar body from the East Coast, which is the Regional Wildlife Science Collaborative for Offshore Wind. So we feel the OPC is uniquely positioned for this work in California.

And before I turn it over to our co sponsors of AB 80 for their testimony, I do want to recognize the strong work on offshore wind from the California Energy Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, and many other state boards and departments. So AB 80 is co sponsored by the NRDC, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis. And I'll turn over to my witnesses Amy Wolfram, senior manager of the California Ocean Policy at Monterey Bay Aquarium, and then Irene Gutierrez, senior attorney from NRDC.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Hello, Chairman. I'm Amy Wolfram, California ocean policy manager at Monterey Bay Aquarium. The aquarium strongly supports AB 80 to establish a West Coast offshore wind science entity. We believe AB 80 is vital for securing the information and science necessary to ensure that offshore wind development off of California's coast is managed in a manner that safeguards ocean wildlife and ecosystems. There is a lot at stake. The California current ecosystem is one of the most biologically diverse and productive regions on the planet.

It supports healthy fisheries and iconic marine life. It provides many important benefits to communities across California. We need more renewable energy to combat climate change. However, floating offshore wind is a relatively new industry, and the potential environmental impacts are not yet known. The offshore Wind Science Entity will improve our understanding and support effective steps to mitigate these impacts. Protecting biodiversity while advancing climate goals.

The science entity created by AB 80 brings together federal and state agencies, the offshore wind industry, environmental organizations, tribes, scientists and experts, and other relevant groups. Experts would work together to identify knowledge gaps and design coordinated research and monitoring plans to obtain crucial information before and throughout wind development. Importantly, this collaboration will increase efficiency, enhance transparency, and help build relationships across sectors essential for the long term success of any offshore wind enterprise. The aquarium is proud to co sponsor AB 80.

Creating an offshore wind science entity will be an integral step to make informed decisions to combat climate change, protect our ocean environment, and protect our environment at the same time. Thank you, Assemblywoman Addis and Senator Laird, who is not here for their leadership, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. You can proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Irene Gutierrez, and I am a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. I strongly support AB 80, which creates a science entity to fully study the effects of offshore wind development and help protect ocean ecosystems. Offshore wind is a crucial tool in fighting the climate crisis, as well as improving state air quality and delivering reliable energy to consumers. And state agencies have done great work in guiding this industry forward, but still more is needed.

The waters off our coast support vibrant ocean ecosystems where protected species like humpback whales and sea otters reside. And they also support a thriving and vital ocean ecosystem, which fishermen and coastal businesses depend on. The floating offshore wind systems that will be used here are new technology, and there are many unknowns about their effects, which could pose significant risks to ocean life.

So what AB 80 does is it creates an independent, nonprofit science entity which brings together key knowledge holders to address data monitoring and research needs. And we've seen this model work well on the East Coast. NRDC sits on the Regional Wildlife Science Collaborative, a similar entity out there, which has just issued its science plan. And we found that this has been a productive effort. It provides a good forum to share knowledge and ensure that outstanding science needs are addressed in an organized and efficient way.

No other state agencies or bodies are doing this work. Now, there's no infrastructure currently in place to evaluate the long term impacts of offshore wind development or develop a plan to address those science gaps and research needs as well as funding needs. And there's a real need for an entity out here in the west to do this work. And we want to make sure that wind in the state moves forward while preserving a healthy and vibrant ocean ecosystem.

We thank Assembly Member Addis, as well as Senator Laird for their leadership on this issue. And we are pleased to support AB 80, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses here in the room to testify in support? Again, me too testimony.

Yes. Thank you. Sheri Pemberton, on behalf of the California State Lands Commission. In support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Brian White on behalf of Offshore Wind California. We're the offshore wind developers and technology companies in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Taylor Thompson, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis as a proud co sponsor in support.

Thank you.

Joshua Imatong, on behalf of Environment California, in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Marquis King Mason for California Environmental Voters and also for Defenders of Wildlife. Thanks.

In support, I assume? Yep. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of my client, the National Wildlife Federation, but also doing a me too for the Environmental Defense Center in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in the room in support, we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing nobody approached the microphone, do we have any witnesses here in opposition? Okay, and I have a quick announcement to make. After this Bill presentation, I have to go take some votes myself. So we'll take a 10 minute recess at that point. After you're done with your presentation. Do you have two bills to present?

Two.

Oh, Jesus. So I apologize.

With the Chair's permission. I can make the second one very quick.

All right, let me see what my staff do. We have any other so, seeing nobody else in the room in opposition, we'll move to anyone waiting to testify via teleconference. Again, please limit your comments, your name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Ms. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 80, we can begin.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 80, you may press one and then zero. We'll go to line 128.

Good evening. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of CALPIRG. In support.

Thank you. 129.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists. In support thank you.

Thank you.

Line 131.

Gabriela Facio with the Sierra Club, California, in strong support.

Thank you.

127.

Pauline Seales, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network. In strong support.

Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais again. I love this Bill. Would love to be added as a co author at the appropriate time. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, we'll do the speed round here on AB 1407, file item number 3, you can proceed when ready.

AB 1407 is the Ocean Life Recovery Act. As we know, kelp, eelgrass, and native oysters form the foundation of diverse nearshore ecosystems that spark complex food webs and are home to a variety of invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, and birds. Unfortunately, there are incredible threats against all three.

AB 1407 effectively begins recovery of California's coastal ecosystem by establishing clear acreage-based definitions for large scale restoration, creating a working group to better facilitate inter-agency coordination, forming an Ocean Restoration and Recovery Fund, and requiring the OPC to establish a kelp, forest, and estuary restoration and recovery framework. We do have witnesses in support. Alexis Jackson from Nature Conservancy and Amy Wolfrum from Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Thank you. You can present when ready. Just would note there's no opposition to this Bill.

Yes, hello, Chairman again. Amy Wolfrum, Monterey Bay Aquarium. We support AB 80 or AB 1407 because it takes steps to address the devastation that California's kelp forests, eelgrass meadows, and native oysters are facing, all habitats that have declined over 90%. We support this Bill because it will clearly prioritize these habitats for restoration, ensure the establishment of science-driven acre-based restoration targets, and accelerate large-scale restoration. Thank you Assemblywoman Addis for your leadership, and Senator Laird for his leadership. And we appreciate the work of your Committee staff to clarify this Bill.

Thank you so much.

Hi, good evening. Alexis Jackson with the Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is in strong support of AB 1407. We feel we have to work more efficiently and with larger spatial scales in order to address the threats at hand. AB 1407 sets a really clear vision around aligning all ocean entities, public and private, and that will help us to leverage additional capacity and expertise and to address challenges that we've had with permitting in the past.

Our oceans are really counting on us to lend nature a hand. We'd like to thank Assemblymember Addis and also Senator Laird for their leadership, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of AB 1407?

Yes, you do. Hi again, Mr. Chair. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of my client, the Ocean Conservancy in support and also offering the support of 5 Gyres Institute, Save Our Shores, and MPA Watch.

Thank you.

Taylor Thompson, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, in support.

Thank you.

Joshua Emmatong, on behalf of Environment California, in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Samantha Samuelsen for Audubon California in support.

Thank you.

Marquis King Mason, in support, with California Environmental Voters and Defenders of Wildlife.

Thank you.

John Bottorff from CleanEarth4Kids.org, in strong support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else in the room in support. Oh, I'm sorry. One more. I see you.

Yusef Miller, CleanEarth4Kids, in full support.

Thank you. All right, now, seeing no one else in the room in support of AB 1407, we'll move on to any witnesses in opposition. We have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll move on to the teleconference. Ms. Moderator, if you could prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 1407, we can begin.

Thank you. For your support or opposition of AB 1407, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 89. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Mary Buxton representing Climate Action California, Climate Reality Project, California Coalition, Climate Reality Project LA Chapter, Climate Reality Project San Fernando Valley Chapter, and the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network. All in strong support of AB 1407. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, line 131.

Gabriela Facio, The Sierra Club California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 139.

Janet McGarry on behalf of 350 Bay Area Action, in support.

Thank you.

Line 140.

Kelly Williams, human health intern with CleanEarth4Kids.org, in strong support.

Thank you.

112. Line 112.

Keith Rootsaert, founder of the Giant Giant Kelp Restoration Project in Monterey, California in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

We'll bring it back to the base. I just had one question for you. Will you be accepting the Committee's suggested amendments?

Yes.

Fantastic. With that, would you like to close?

Respectfully, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll take that Bill up when there's more than just me. Okay.

Good luck today.

All right. Thank you. With that, we'll take a 10 minute recess while I go vote and we'll see you all back here soon, or some of you.

Thank you, Chairman and members. I'd like to start by thanking the committee staff for their hard work and would like to mention that I accept the suggested amendments by the committee. I'm proud to present AB 3, the legislation sponsored by Environment California that's aimed at shaping the upcoming decisions that the state will make regarding offshore wind while assuring that we protect our sensitive marine and coastal environments, cultural resources, and at the same time bring into California the maximum number of high wage, high skilled jobs that will be created by this emerging industry.

Bringing offshore wind online is critical to the state's ability to meet our climate goals. California has adopted ambitious goals for offshore wind, five gigawatts by 2030 and 25 gigawatts by 2045, and the federal government has since issued the first leases off the California coast for floating offshore wind. Offshore wind also has the potential to bring tens of thousands of high-paying and highly skilled jobs over 20 years to the state, including in disadvantaged communities surrounding the state's ports and shipping hubs and throughout California. Meeting our climate and clean energy goals requires multibillion-dollar investments in new and expanded port facilities and transmission, and the state will need to develop this necessary infrastructure in a very short amount of time.

Meanwhile, ports must also be cited or expanded and designed in a way that minimizes impacts to precious cultural resources and sensitive marine and coastal habitats and species. With thorough planning and timeline accountability, California can meet its offshore wind goals in a way that maximizes good-paying and highly skilled jobs by bringing not only Assembly and maintenance but also the turbine and equipment manufacturing to California while assuring the strongest protections for cultural and natural resources.

AB 3 requires that the California Energy Commission conduct a second phase analysis of port alternatives with detailed criteria to guide their analysis to support offshore wind activities and provide specific recommendations to the Legislature and the governor on the best next steps for port development that minimizes impacts to the environment and cultural resources, maximizes jobs, achieves environmental justice goals, and assures that ratepayers are protected.

AB 3 also requires the CEC to assess the feasibility of imposing specific instate job requirements or targets for both manufacturing and assembling offshore wind parts and to assess the impacts on economic growth, our tax base jobs, workforce development, and impacts to ratepayers and give recommendations to both the governor and the Legislature about how to retain the maximum job benefits for Californians, especially underserved Californians.

The bill enjoys the broad support of key stakeholders, including a coalition of environmental groups, labor, including the California Building Trades and the California State Association of Electrical Workers, major ports across the state, and environmental justice advocates. With me here today is Laura Deehan of Environment California, one of the sponsors of the bill, and Mike Monaghan, representing the California Building Trades to provide additional information and assist with questions.

Thank you. You each have two minutes. You can start whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Chairman Min and Members of the Committee. So my name is Laura Deehan, and I'm the state director for Environment California. We work for clean air, clean water to protect our precious open spaces and wildlife in the state. And during the 2021 legislative session, we were really lucky to get to work with Assembly Member David Chiu and also with co-sponsors at the State Building and Construction Trades to sponsor AB 525.

And as a result, really, of the leadership of the Legislature, California is now on track to really go big on offshore wind with really big, ambitious goals, which is great. That's just what we need in order to accelerate our path to a 100% clean energy future. And offshore wind has so much promise for helping us get to that clean energy future.

It can really help us stave off the worst impacts of climate change, and we can do it in a way that really is responsible and that prioritizes wildlife concerns as well. And so we are really proud to sponsor AB 3 and to get to work with Assemblymember Zbur on this really important bill. AB 3 is critical to make sure that we continue to move forward on actually getting offshore wind to be a reality.

There are a few real hurdles still in our path to realizing the potential of offshore wind, and one of those is that we're going to have to completely transform California's port infrastructure. It's an enormous undertaking. If you just envision how enormous these turbines are that we're going to have to launch from our ports, it's going to require major work. And we also are going to need to create this brand-new supply chain. And so in order to make sure we do both of those things, we really need AB 3 to ensure we have that excellent plan in place to take advantage of this opportunity. So thank you. We urge an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Next witness.

Mr. Chair and members, Mike Monagan on behalf of State Building Trades, I'll try to be as exciting and excited as Laura. Most of you know we represent about 500,000 men and women in the construction industry, including 70,000 currently in our state-approved apprenticeship programs. The building trades are poised to provide the workers, the skilled workers, and the trained workers to build the infrastructure of all the stakeholder excuse me. All of the stakeholders and government entities need to keep their eye on the ball.

The goal is not to have platforms. The goal is really to have platforms in the water at 2030 or as soon as possible. The real goal, as Mr. Zbur has pointed out, is getting them online to meet our clean air goals. And we can do that if we are focused and everybody keeps their eye on what's really important. I'd like to thank Mr. Zbur for his accepting this challenge. We ask an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of this bill? Me too testimony, please.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members, Jonathan Clay here on behalf of the Port of San Diego, in support.

Thank you.

Howdy, Marquis Mason with California Environmental Voters and also on behalf of NRDC and in strong support, thanks.

Thank you.

Samantha Samuelsen for Audubon California, in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses in the room in support, do we have anyone here in opposition? All right, no opposition witnesses. We'll move it to the teleconference line. Again, please limit your testimony to Me too testimony. Ms. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 3, we can begin.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 3 you may press one and then zero. Line 110. Your line is open.

Thank you, Chair and members, Mark Isidro on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 138.

Good evening. Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus, representing CALPIRG in support. Thank you.

Line 137.

Good evening. Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, in support for drive up.

Thank you.

Line 104.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Eduardo Martinez with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips on behalf of Brightline Defense Project, in support.

Thank you.

Line 143.

Gabriella with the Sierra Club California, in strong support.

Thank you.

And we have no more support or opposition in queue.

All right, thank you to all our witnesses who testified. We'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have any comments or questions from anyone? Any Members? Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to be back to the committee. I'm going to support your bill today, but I just want to and I've been shouting out from the rooftops about offshore wind. Look, we are moving in a direction that says we're going to do offshore wind, but we really haven't studied the impacts of the environment. I know that there's other countries that are doing this.

And I mentioned this on some of the infrastructure bills earlier about the California coast is different than it is in Norway. And so I'm conscious of the fact that we need to set these goals. We need to figure out where we're going. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to be 100% going to do this. But that's really where the Legislature is heading.

So I just want to again state that we have very deep once we get out further, obviously, there's going to be 2200 windmills to get to 25 gigawatts. It's a lot of windmills out there and it's a lot of infrastructure and it's a lot of things, a lot of moving pieces and I'm very much concerned about the wells and shipping and tribes and all the things that are mentioned in here. Obviously, the workforce is here, they're ready to go do it. They want the jobs.

And I stated on the floor about the environment, folks are moving forward but we really know the impacts and I think that we have CEQA, we have NEPA, we have those opportunities to make sure that we do it right. So we have all the time in the world to get it right and no time in the world to get it wrong.

And I just want to throw that out there again because we are basically saying we're going to go do this and every piece of legislation that comes through is trying to meet that goal of clean air. But there's a lot of other impacts to the environment that we need to focus on as well. So I will be supporting thisbill because I think it's trying to identify some of those things. But I just want to let people know I'm still concerned about the amount of infrastructure we're going to put out in the ocean and we really don't have the technology nailed down yet on what it's going to do the environment.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for bringing the bill forward, Assemblymember, because like my colleague from Beaver said, you know, we're just going to, you know, NEPA, CEQA, it's all been combined and we're moving forward and California is going to put these windmills up offshore. We're not addressing the issues that would have the impact on the environment whales are washing up onshore on the East Coast.

But in all of those discussions and the infrastructure discussions, no one brought up the issue on the ports and about getting that those large massive windmills from our ports and the reconstruction of our ports. So thank you for filling that gap. I think there's others but this is a portion of it that moves in the right direction. So thank you sir, for bringing this bill forward and I'll move the bill if when appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you. We're one Member short of quorum now, unfortunately. Senator.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank you Assemblymember for coming in with big leadership on this issue and a lot of intentionality AB 3 reflects that third bill introduced the entire Assembly session. I think we need to be intentional about our work here and I want concrete outcomes from that 525 report, not just report after report after report. I also don't see anything in here, by the way, that has a CEQA exemption or any reduction in environmental mitigation requirements.

What I do see is just to try to get us not to study these things forever and start to hone in and make some decisions and do it with big coalitions. And Massachusetts beat us to the punch. But that pathway through the Cape Wind Project is not one I think we want to repeat. I think we want to go faster and hopefully get ourselves to a durable grid in a jobs-rich future. So I'd love to be added on as a co-author if it's appropriate.

I would love that.

And when we do have a quorum, I'm happy to move the bill.

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

Yes. So thank you all. I appreciate the comments. One of the things that this bill was intending to do was really try to make sure that we are shaping the direction that we head by making sure that all the appropriate things are being taken into account as we develop our port infrastructure. And if you look at this, I think it's the next step beyond AB 525, in that AB 525 had us studying a lot of things.

This bill actually requires the CEC and other agencies to make some decisions based on some criteria that are in the know. Is the port infrastructure that we're choosing, is it the most environmentally friendly? Does it avoid cultural resources? Does it keep our jobs here in California? We could choose ports that are small and where we actually have to do a lot of the Assembly in other places.

So it's looking at all of those things to try to both keep our jobs here and have the smallest environmental and cultural impact and then have decisions made. I mean, the other option is potentially having a whole host of different ports competing with each other. Luckily, the ports are working together because they understand what the challenge is and they understand that working together is going to provide the best outcome for California.

But this will actually take the next step and will result in a strategy being recommended to the state. And then the CEQA process will begin here in the State of California. The NEPA process we don't have control over. I mean, these things are 3 miles out. The federal government has jurisdiction of the actual offshore wind. But this bill will require that as we're thinking about the port structure and we're thinking about the job impacts, that we actually take all of that into account as we set our strategy. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And we'll take a brief pause here. You can leave whenever you're ready, but.

Thank you very much.

We now have a quorum at what is it? 6:19 p.m. So assistant, please call the roll. We're establishing.

Senator Min. Here. Min, here. Seyarto. Here. Seyarto, here. Allen. Dahle. Dahle, here. Eggman. Eggman, here. Grove. Here. Grove, here. Hurtado. Laird. Limon. Padilla. Stern. Stern, here.

Okay. A quorum has been established. We'll move on, then, to the consent calendar which consists of file items number nine, AB 788, by Petrie-Norris, number 11, AB 882 by Davies, number 12, AB 923 by Bauer-Kahan, number 14, AB 953 by Connolly, number 15, 1159, by Aguiar-Curry, and number 19, AB 1642 by Gipson. Assistant, please call the roll.

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

The consent calendar vote is six, zero. We'll leave that on call. And we'll now go back to file item number one, AB 3 by Assemblymember Zbur. Assistant, please call the, do we have a motion? Motion by Senator Stern, I believe. Right. The motion is do pass is amended to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item number one. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Min aye. Seyarto aye. Allen. Dahle aye. Eggman aye. Grove aye. Hurtado. Laird. Limon. Padilla. Stern aye.

Okay. The vote count is 6-0 on file item number one. We'll leave that Bill open on call before we proceed to our next presenter, Assembly Member Friedman, who I see is here. We'll just go through our bills and we will take a vote. So our next item is file item number two AB 80 by Assembly Member Addis. Do we have a motion? Motion by Senator Stern. The motion is do pass to appropriations, Assistant. Please call the roll.

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

The vote count on that is 4-0. We'll leave that open on call. Our next file item is file item number three. AB 1407 by Assembly Member Addis. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Eggman. Do pass as amended to Appropriations Assistant. Please call the roll.

Senators Min aye, Min. Seyarto aye. Allen. Dahle. Eggman aye. Grove aye. Hurtado. Laird. Limon. Padilla. Stern aye. Senator Dahle aye.

6-1 or 6-0. 6-0. The vote count on that is 60. We'll leave that Bill open on call. Our next file item is file item number four. AB 552 by Assembly Member Bennett. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Stern. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations Assistant. Please call the roll.

Senators Min aye. Seyarto no. Allen. Dahle no. Eggman aye. Grove no. Hurtado. Laird. Limon. Padilla aye. Stern aye.

The vote count on that is four-three. We'll leave that open on call. And I see that Assembly Member Friedman has to leave in a moment, so we'll allow her to present before moving on to our other votes. File item number 16. AB 1322 by Assembly Member Friedman. You can proceed when ready.

Thank you very much. I beg your pardon. Assembly Natural Resources is still in Committee, and I need to go back over there. I really appreciate you, Mr. Chair, and your Committee staff for all of your hard work on this Bill. And we're accepting the Committee and amendments outlined in the analysis. In 2020, the Legislature passed AB 1788 to minimize unintended poisonings from one subset of particularly dangerous rodenticides, second generation anticoagulant rodenicides, by placing a moratorium on certain uses until more comprehensive restrictions were developed.

However, despite that implementation, recent evidence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests that there is still widespread exposure and deaths to wildlife from SGARs, as they're called in other rodenticides. And that's because another subset of rodenticides, first generation anticoagulant rodenticides, includes diphacinone, which is the most frequently detected FJAR in nontarget wildlife. Exposure to this chemical can result in both lethal and lethal and sublethal effects on nontarget wildlife, including severe skin disease and decreased immune system response.

You've seen these animals, I'm sure, in your neighborhoods. I know that we get a lot of calls about what looks to be mange and dead animals in the hillsides in Los Angeles. It looks like this. Basically, the animals that eat prey that's been poisoned by these rodenocides themselves become poisoned, and they hemorrhage out internally from within and die, often a terrible death.

Indeed, P 22 was photographed with this kind of poisoning, and it caused widespread outrage in our community because there's absolutely no need for this carnage to our wildlife. Our Bill requires adding this chemical to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional rodenticide poisoning. And we maintain exemptions to use for public health outbreaks, water supplies, and agriculture. So this is a very measured approach.

It also requires that the Department of Pesticide Regulation enact stronger and permanent restrictions on second generation anticoagulant rodenicides to limit unintentional wildlife poisonings while making it a restrictive material so that your average Joe isn't buying this product at their local Home Depot. Anticoagulant rodenticides continue to result in an unreasonable number of public health incidents, with over 3000 human poisonings in 2021 alone, at least 2300 of those involving children under six years old, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Meanwhile, there are a wide range of safer, more sustainable and cost effective alternatives to these most dangerous chemicals available for use today that don't threaten California's wildlife and our children. Testifying in support this afternoon is Rebecca Gouley, a Smith fellow and a postdoc at UC Davis.

Thank you so much. Before you proceed, would you like to enter those presentations into the record?

Sure.

Okay. We'll take those up for you at the appropriate time and enter them, and you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Just clarifying because it's just me testifying. Do I have the full four minutes?

You can take it, although you're also encouraged to do two if you'd like.

Okay, thank you. Probably going to be four. Okay. Good evening, Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Rebecca Goalie. For the last 10 years, I've been working in conservation biology with a focus on endangered species. And in 2022, I was awarded the David H. Smith Fellowship to investigate the sublethal impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides in golden eagles. In 1972, the EPA discontinued the use of DDT, a heavily applied insecticide, due to the adverse impact this poison was having on our wildlife, including the bald eagle.

50 years later, we're in a similar situation where rodenticides are having adverse and indiscriminate impacts on wildlife, and again, the bald eagle is being impacted. A 2021 nationwide study found that over 80% of bald eagles tested positive for anticoagulant rodenticides. Outside of the second generation anticoagulants already covered in the California Ecosystem Protection Act of 2020, they first known as the most commonly found rodenticide in California wildlife, it's been found in mountain lions, bobcats, kit foxes, great-horned owls, red-tailed hawks and many other species.

And when these poisons don't directly kill the individual, they make them sick and weak. These sublethal impacts can dysregulate their immune function, can reduce their coordination, lead to chronic anemia, increase stress hormone production, can increase parasite and pathogen load. And we now even have evidence of neonatal transfer of rodenticides to young. A 2018 study led by Dr. Fraser at UCLA found that a California population of bobcats had a dysregulated immune function due to rodenticides, one of them being difacenone.

And this led to an outbreak of a parasitic skin infection: mange. This nearly wiped out the entire population. The lethal and sub lethal impacts of rodenticides pose a serious threat to the long term population sustainability of California wildlife and some of our threatened species. Improved sanitation and exclusion practices remain the most effective long term solution for rodent management.

There is a growing market among consumers for these solutions and once done just one time, they are far more cost effective in the long run and prevent this harm of nontarget poisoning, preventing rats from entering our buildings, keeping our areas clean from food waste and debris, maintaining dumpsters and trash cans are all solutions that have long term success in urban settings. Rat fertility control is showing promising results at reducing already established rodent populations.

For example, in a year long birth control study in Washington DC, which is one of the rattiest cities in US. Rat activity was reduced by over 90% across all monitored sites. Outside of managing commensal rodents such as Norway and roof rats, diphacinone is frequently used to control ground squirrels. However, a two year long study in Ventura County found that installing raptor perches and owl boxes was actually more effective and less expensive than poison at reducing the number of ground squirrels.

This approach was so successful that the LA Department of Water and Power just last month removed all rodenticides from their nature preserves in the San Fernando Valley and installed raptor perches instead. There are alternatives. And while some of the proposed options take a more upfront investment, they offer more sustainable and more cost effective solutions over time. Without this Bill, diphacinone will continue to pose a risk to California's wildlife. Thank you.

Thank you. Well under four minutes. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support with Me Too testimony?

Hi, Samantha Samuelson with Audubon, California. In strong support.

Thank you.

Cleanearth4kids.org in strong support.

Thank you.

Emily Garcia with NRDC, in strong support, thank you.

And thank you to all of our witnesses for their patience today. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Do we have one or two? Okay, so you each have two minutes.

In the interest of brevity, I'll be as fast as I can. Dominic Tomara here. On behalf of the pest control operators of California. We're opposed to this Bill for reasons that you've probably all read about. This is not our first hearing, so I'll be quick, which know first, from our perspective, rodenticides aren't the first tool in the toolbox for pest control operators to use. Exclusion, other aspects of pest control have worked, but it is the last line of defense when you have explosive populations.

So removing that tool from the toolbox can have some adverse effects on things like public health. And I know that the belief is that this is also a public health Bill, but there are other considerations, countervailing, counterbalancing considerations about vectors for disease that rats and mice often are hunt. A virus is carried by mice, the plague which is making a comeback in a small way carried by fleas on rats. So those considerations are as well not considered in this particular piece of legislation.

We also believe that DPR is the effective regulator for pesticides here in California, and that they are pointing towards a reevaluation of this material, and that that reevaluation is likely to produce new control protocols for the use of the fastenone in California. And then lastly, I'd say that given the event of climate change, which is a topic that we talk about here in this Legislature a lot, that's going to have an effect on rat populations, where it's going to increase those populations.

We've already seen in Orange County. The Orange County Vector Service request data indicate that in 2021, rat service requests were at their highest record in recorded history in Orange County, and that trend continues here in 2023. So we know that the problem will get worse. And we're not asking for indiscriminate use. We're just asking that trained professionals maintain the tool to be able to control explosive populations of rats. And for that reason, we are opposed.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Taylor Roshan. On behalf of Rise and American Pistachio Growers, I'd like to echo the comments of my colleague and reiterate that DPR has a science based and led process for product reevaluation, registration reevaluation and monitoring, all of which offer the ability for DPR to impose mitigations, use restrictions and cancel products outright if they're unsafe for the public or the environment. But the system only works if we allow it to work, and we trust in the science.

AB 1322 disregards this process, banning difacinone outright, classifying it as a restricted use without scientific justification, and beholding difacinone and S-CARS to an outlier and unattainable standard. We believe even with the Committee amendments, these issues remain the same. Reevaluating diphenone is not predicated on the passage of this Bill.

DPR is already in the process of collecting data to determine if a reevaluation is scientifically warranted and most importantly, or legislatively mandating reevaluation on a case by case basis, which we've seen these year over year, multiple bills a year discredits DPR, the world's most sophisticated pesticide regulation system, and lengthens the queue for reevaluating products that are more relevant for potential wildlife risks. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose. Thanks

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in opposition for me too testimony?

Hi, good evening. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else in the room in opposition, let's move on to the teleconference. For those wishing to testify, please limit your comments to your name, affiliation and position on the measure. Moderator. If you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 1322, we can proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak on AB 1322, please press one, then zero on your phone. And first we have line number 109. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Nicholas Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have line 118. Please go ahead.

Good evening, chair and Members of the Committee Sosan Madanat with W Strategies on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund and strong support thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have line 119. Please go ahead.

Good evening, chair and Members, Nicole Kenyonis on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association, in opposition to AB 1322.

Thank you.

Next we have line 148. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Almira Tanner with Direct Action Everywhere, in strong support.

Thank you.

Next we have line 110. Please go ahead.

Good evening, chair Members Mark EC draw on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have line 144. Please go ahead.

My name is Gabrielle Lakata and I'm a property manager in Berkeley and I'm calling in strong support of AB 1322.

Thank you.

Next we have line 150, 150, please go ahead.

Hello, Tony Tucci, chair for Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, also known as Claw. Thank you. LA County Claw is also in strong support of AB 1322.

Thank you.

Next we have line 132. Please go ahead.

I'm Kitty Jones, a tattoo artist in Berkeley, in full support.

Thank you.

Next we have line 100. Please go ahead.

Lisa Owens Biani on behalf of Raptors are the Solution and Center for Biological Diversity. Strong support.

Thank you.

Line 146. Please go ahead.

This is Kay Gardic at UC Davis in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 153. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Antonelle Rosales and I fully support this Bill.

Thank you.

And that is all we had in queue.

Thank you. And thank you to all of our witnesses for testifying today. With that, we'll bring it back to Members. Do any Members have any questions or comments about this Bill? All right, I just want to make some brief comments. Thank you very much for working with my staff on making addressing, trying to address some of the legitimate concerns raised by opposition.

The amendments that you have agreed to take would remove the 10% threshold and instead require restrictions based on non target wildlife and a declining trend in exposure rates. And I think that helps to make this Bill the right balance between minimizing harm to wildlife while balancing needs for public health and safety. And I just want to confirm you are taking these amendments?

Yes.

Fantastic. And so thank you very much. Would you like to close just that?

Raptors and our cats are some of our most effective ways of controlling the rat population, particularly in our wildlife interface areas. And we're killing them through using these chemicals. And the Bill has really reasonable exclusions. AG is completely exempt from the Bill. Public health outbreaks make it allowable. And so we think that we've struck the right balance and we've seen now when Peep 22 was when there was a Necropsy done on him, he was suffering from anticoagulant poisoning.

We know that this substance is still getting out and pretty much all of the wildlife that we have in these areas is being dying a horrible death and being poisoned because of it. And we can take action today to stop that. And I would urge an I vote.

Thank you. Assembly Member, do we have a motion on this Bill? Okay, motion from Senator Eggman on file item number 16, AB 1322. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Assistant please call the roll.

Senators. Min aye. Seyarto. Allen. Dahle. Eggman aye Grove no. Hurtado. Laird aye. Limon. Padilla aye. Stern.

Thank you.

That vote is 4-1. That Bill will be on call. And before we start with our next presenter and thank you for your patience, Assembly Member. I just wanted to mention my staff and acknowledge them. Today is our last policy Bill hearing of the year and we've been blessed with having a tremendous staff. So I want to recognize to my right, Katherine Baxter, as well as Sandra Sanders. To my left, Catherine Moore. In front of you guys can stand up.

We could give you a round of applause. And Genevieve Wong, thank you for all your hard work in navigating through a lot of different water and natural resources issues. I know it's been tough. But with that, our final bill of the day. Exciting. I'm going to clap. Okay, File Item 18: AB 1631. You can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. I'm glad I have an exciting bill. So thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Senators. Grateful for the opportunity to present AB 1631. So, 30 years is a long time. 30 years ago, the City of Santa Clarita was only three years old and for water appropriation and permits before the Water Board that haven't had a final determination for 30 years, AB 1631 would create a new opportunity to protest unless the board holds a hearing allowing public participation and presentations.

In three decades, new data may have been found or further preservation of nature could become a factor. Dynamics of water have changed drastically in California due to climate change over the last 30 years and ecosystems may be affected by large appropriations of water. This bill allows the community members to provide hydrological data to the Board as to the impact of such projects on their water supply.

Specific to my district, Santa Clarita is one of the last or the Santa Clara River is one of the last natural rivers in Southern California worthy of protection and this bill would allow such discussions at the Water Board about concerns around a proposed project in the district that would be one of the second largest aggregate mine in all of North America.

And we're very concerned about potential contamination of the river because of where the mine is located and how the runoff would go right into the river before it goes through the City of Santa Clarita. Californians who may not have even been born when the project first came before the Board deserve a chance to speak their piece on a project and AB 1631 allows just that. And my witness was not able to come, so that's it.

That's okay. Well, you've done a great job of representing yourself, Counselor. Alright, and do we have anyone else in the room who wants to speak in support of AB 1631?

Hi. My name is Annalee Akin on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and just, in support, thank the author for the bill.

Thank you so much. Alright, seeing no other witnesses in the room in support, I will move to witnesses in opposition. I see one person approaching the microphone.

Thanks Mr. Chair and Members. Scott Govenar on behalf of CEMEX. I know the author referred to plural projects under this bill, but in fact, the bill only applies to one project in the state and that is CEMEX's project in Santa Clarita. They have been suing CEMEX for the past 30 years, then they come to the Legislature and say, 'well, you haven't built it, so now we need to run a bill against it.' Well, they're the cause of that.

But really, I think the analysis does a good job of pointing to a bigger problem. California has no more aggregates. We're out. San Diego, they're all coming in by barge. San Fernando Valley. Mr. Stern isn't here. Less than five years left. So what this bill is, it sets up a scenario where we're making a policy statement, right?

Rather than build these quarries in areas where they're necessary, as recommended by the Department of Conservation, we're going to rail it in, ship it in, and truck it in, often through poor neighborhoods because that's where they're coming from. That's where the ports are, and that's the decision we're making. I don't think it's the right decision, and it's certainly a short term concept. I know the author previously mentioned we'll recycle more. Well, concrete is one of the most recycled products on Earth today.

There's no more recycling to be done. We need this product to build is also referenced in the analysis. Finally, there's the notion of GHGs. Now, the author previously stated--I'm sorry--the proponents previously stated that there won't be an increase in GHG if this measure is passed. According to the Department of Conservation, a round trip between San Fernando Valley and Santa Clarita is 20 miles. The next closest resource is Palmdale. That's an 84 mile round trip.

It's a 76 percent increase in CO2 emissions if this project is not built. So we talk a lot about GHGs in this building, but this is the one bill this year which will explicitly increase GHG emissions. So, for these reasons--since the bill was introduced, the Department did exactly what they're supposed to do. They issued a letter. They're saying they're reopening the notice so the bill isn't necessary, so for these reasons, we ask you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move to the teleconference line. Again, please limit your comments to your name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Moderator, if you could please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 1631, we can proceed.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak on AB 1631, please press one then zero. In one moment as we get line numbers. Once again, to speak in support or opposition of AB 1631, press one, then zero. And first we have line number 147. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Charlie Rea with the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association, and we strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

And line 152, please go ahead.

Good evening, Chair, Committee Members. Masis Hagobian on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita in strong support.

Thank you.

And that is all I have in queue.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for testifying today at the end of a long day, could have been longer, and so we'll bring it back to the Members. Do any Members have any questions or comments? Senator Laird.

I just have a question. Would you respond to the opposition testimony on what was just said?

Sure. So the opposition has been kind of changing their criticisms of the bill depending on which Committee we're at. At one Committee, it was that it's only targeting their project at Appropriations where they want it to have a larger price tag. They said it was going to capture a ton of different projects and so, I'm unclear. I mean, I guess today their testimony is that it's just the one project again because I think that's convenient for where we're at but our understanding is it does only impact the one project.

Regardless of why it's been 30 years, it's been 30 years and the needs of our community when it comes to water have severely changed in the last 30 years and so we think it's important. I mean, we have folks who are raising families in the City of Santa Clarita now who weren't even alive when this project was given an initial permit and so they need an opportunity to be able to weigh in and talk about the needs of the water in our community and make sure that that's protected for families and for community members going forward.

Senator Laird, does that answer your question?

It does, and then I would make a comment which is, in front of this Committee, this has been a bipartisan issue. Senator Wilk had a bill two years ago that was virtually identical, and ironically, it got killed in an Assembly Policy Committee. So the fact that you're starting there was probably a smart strategic move this time.

And we appreciate past support by this Committee.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Do we have any other questions or comments? Senator Grove?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly, are you concerned about the comments that were made by the information that was given to us by the opposition? About 72 percent of GHGs would increase if we have to ship this product in from other countries, other ports. Are you concerned about that at all?

He's speaking in hypotheticals, and so it's very hard to say what the impact is going to be if we don't have a specific project that we're talking about or we don't have a specific source that we're talking about. They already have mines that they're mining out in the Antelope Valley that already are trucking it in and that's happening every day right now. So it's their standard mode of operation currently at this moment.

But it is a true statement that that's the only aggregate facility that we have left ready to build that's going to operate and if we don't produce it here, we'll get it from Canada, Mexico, and other countries. Are we concerned about that at all? I guess I go back to--I represent 70 percent of the state's oil, right?

We decrease oil production here in the state but we import it from Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the GHG emissions that go to transport that oil here is millions and millions of metric tons, which we have very few tons, actually not even tons of carbon emissions producing oil here in our state. So the GHGs goes through the roof when we have policy that exports or imports product.

So I guess my question is, if we don't produce it here under regulatory process that we all oversee, it seems like that would be a better solution for GHGs than importing it from other states or other countries. Is that not true or what's your thought on that?

I think it's a different comparison though because I think here you're talking about GHGs versus a water source, right? And so you're talking about something that can potentially contaminate the water source for the third largest city in Los Angeles and that's a huge health impact. That's a huge lasting impact for that whole region and that--actually the river goes not only through Santa Clarita, but all the way through Ventura County. So I think that it's important to find a balance, right?

Of course, we don't want to be increasing GHGs, but also we need to make sure that the water for these multiple communities that it serves is safe, is clean, is healthy and this really just opens up another opportunity to raise any concerns or questions that you have at the statewide level.

It does not stop the process and the opposition even testified at Water Parks and Wildlife, which I sit on in the Assembly, that they didn't think that this would stop their project, that it's just one more step for them to have to go through but we think it's an important step for them to have to go through when such an important water source is on the line.

Thank you, and I appreciate that. I guess another question that I have with the Chair's indulgence is, doesn't DWR control that process? Doesn't DWR control that process? Don't they have to put together a plan? They can't just go produce this product and not have a plan with DWR or the State Water Agency to make sure that they're complying with everything so what you just said doesn't happen, correct?

I mean, to be honest, this project has gone through a very rocky process because while there's federal permits that have been given, there's also been an effort by Senator Feinstein and other federal leaders to revoke that. I mean, there's a long, sordid history with this specific project, and the land itself is actually owned by the City of Santa Clarita, but the permit of it is federal, and so it was given by the federal entity.

So while there's a process that is going through, there's also been serious concerns about that process at the local level.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Seeing no other questions or comments from the dais. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Stern.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Assembly Member for bringing this forward if it's appropriate to move the bill, but do appreciate the effort here and the scope of this bill. I know we had worked on this in this Committee a few years past with Senator Wilk so I think you've tried to narrowly tailor it without being so narrowly tailored that we're targeting just one single application explicitly and sort of violating those broader constitutional issues.

So I think you've got this bill in good shape and hopefully just air some issues out further and the community can weigh in because like you said, this is a generational issue and so to make these decisions sort of in the dark doesn't make anyone feel right. So I think for even the opponents who want to see their project go forward, they should welcome this kind of scrutiny and I'm hoping--I don't know if they'll view it that way, but I actually think that the sunlight will hopefully just get us some progress here and at least know what we're dealing with. So with that, I'm happy to move the bill.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments from dais, we do have a motion on the bill, but would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Best close. Okay, thank you. We have a motion from Senator Stern. The motion is 'do pass to Appropriations.' Assistant, please call the roll.

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

Okay, the vote count is seven/zero. That bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member, and so we'll return back to the bills we were taking up before and we'll go back to File Item Number Five. Assembly Member Bennett, we need a motion on AB 676. Do we have a motion? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Stern: do pass as amended. Assistant, please call the roll on File Item Number Five: AB 676.

Senators Min? Aye. Min, aye. Seyarto? No. Seyarto, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? Eggman? Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Dahle, no. Dahle? Dahle, no.

Okay, that vote count is six/three. The bill is out. Alright, we'll move on to File Item Number Six: AB 89 by Assembly Member Bennett. Do we have a motion on the bill? We can wait. Okay. Motion by Senator Stern. Motion is do pass to appropriations on File Item Number Six: AB 89. Assistant, please call the roll.

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

Okay, that bill vote is ten/zero. That bill is out. Alright, we'll move on to File Item Number Seven and this is AB 754 by Assembly Member Papan. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Stern. The motion is 'do pass to appropriations.' On File Item Number Seven: AB 754, Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Min? Aye. Min, aye. Seyarto? No. Seyarto, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? No. Dahle, no. Eggman? Aye. Eggman, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye.

Okay, that vote is seven/three. The bill is out. We will move on to File Item Number Eight: AB 755 by Assembly Member Papan. Do we have a motion? Alright, we have another motion from Senator Stern. The motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' On File Item Number Eight: AB 755, Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Min? Aye. Min, aye. Seyarto? No. Seyarto, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? No. Dahle, no. Eggman? Aye. Eggman, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Grove, aye to no. Grove aye to no.

Okay, the vote on that is seven/three. The bill is out. Alright, we will move on to File Item Number Ten by Assembly Member Soria AB 830. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Eggman. Mixing it up here on File Item Number Ten: AB 830 by Assembly Member Soria, Assistant, please call the roll.

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

Okay, the vote on that is ten/zero. The bill is out. Okay, we'll move on to File Item Number 13: AB 1205 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. Do we have a motion? Motion by Senator Stern. The motion is 'do pass as amended.' File Item 13: AB 1205, Assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Min? Aye. Min, aye. Seyarto? No. Seyarto, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? No. Dahle, no. Eggman? Grove? No. Grove, no. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye.

Okay, the vote on that is six/three. The bill is out. Okay, we'll move on to File Item Number 16 and we actually--I'm sorry--we'll go back to the beginning here. We'll go to the consent calendar. So the consent calendar is File Items Number Nine: AB 788 by Petrie-Norris, File Item Number 11: AB 882 by Davies, File Item Number 12: AB 923 by Bauer-Kahan, File Item Number 14: AB 953 by Connolly, File Item Number 15: AB 1159 by Aguiar-Curry, and File Item Number 19: AB 1642 by Gipson. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is six/zero. Allen? Aye. Senator Allen, aye. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye.

Okay, the vote on that is ten/zero and the consent calendar is out. Okay, we'll go back to File Item Number One: AB 3 by Assembly Member Zbur. Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is six/zero with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye.

Okay, the vote on that is ten/zero. That bill is out. Okay, we'll move on to File Item Number Two: AB 80 by Assembly Member Addis and the motion there is 'do pass to Appropriations.' Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is four/zero with Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto?

Which File Item is that?

Two, AB 80.

Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye.

Okay, that vote count is eight/zero. The bill is out. Okay, we'll move on to File Item Number Three: AB 1407 by Assembly Member Addis. The vote count on that is six/zero and the motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is six/zero with Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye.

The vote count on that is ten/zero. The bill is out. Alright, we'll move on to File Item Number Four: AB 552 by Assembly Member Bennett. The motion is 'do pass as amended to appropriations.' Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is four/three with Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting no. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Hurtado? Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Limon? Aye. Limon, aye.

Okay, the vote count on that is seven/three and the bill is out. Alright, we will move now to File Item Number Five. Didn't we do just do Five? I'm sorry, we'll do File Item Number Five--okay--by Assembly Member Bennett, AB 676. The motion is 'do pass as amended.' Okay, so that bill is out already, yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. We'll move to File Item Number 16: AB 1322 by Assembly Member Friedman and the motion is 'do pass as amended to appropriations.' Assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is four/one with Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto? No. Seyarto, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Dahle? No. Dahle, no. Hurtado? Limon? Aye. Limon, aye. Stern?

Stern? Alright, not voting. Okay. The vote on that is six/three and the bill is out and that is our final bill of the day. That was our final bill of the day and so, thank you very much, everybody, for your patience and consideration. Thank you again to our Staff and have a happy recess for those who might practice it. Alright, with that, Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.