Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Please call in when the author of the Bill you'd like to come in on begins their presentation. The operator on the line will give you the instructions placed in the queue. Please eliminate all background noise that includes your live stream or we'll hear ourselves. And with that, we will move to our hearing.

We have two agenda updates. We have one Bill on the consent calendar, which is SB 500 McGuire. We do not yet welcome Mr. Villapudua. We don't yet have a quorum, so we will entertain the motion on the consent calendar when we do achieve a quorum. Also, SB 366 Caballero has been pulled by the author and will be a two year Bill.

I'll now call this hearing of Water, Parks ,and Wildlife Committee to order. We will call the roll for a quorum when we have the chance, but for now, we'll start as a Subcommittee because I see Senator Hurtado is here in the room. Senator Hurtadoo, SB 231.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the committee. I would like to begin by accepting the amendments suggested by the committee in its analysis. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and your committee staff for working with my office on this Bill.

I really have appreciated our conversations over the last couple of weeks and your passion to address water profiteering. And I think you're absolutely right in your efforts, because water is a human right. And as climate change creates more water problems for us, we need to make sure that that right is protected.

And so here we have Senate Bill 231, which requires the Department of Water Resources to adopt key recommendations made by the independent California state Auditor. These recommendations stem from a recently released audit which examined DWR's management of the state's water supply, but specifically SB 231 would require DWR to establish a formal process to annually evaluate the accuracy of its water supply forecast and establish plans to improve those forecasts, adopt a new water supply forecasting model, and implement procedures that address the effects of climate change.

And three, implement a formal policy and procedures for documenting DWR's operational plans for the state's water supply. The Department of Water Resources is also required to address the rationale for its operating procedures. The audit request made pertains to water year 2021, when significant modeling errors by DWR led to the overrelease of hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water from California reservoirs.

Billions of gallons of water were released into the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta at times when it had no positive impact to humans or wildlife. This critical error led to adverse outcomes throughout California as a predicted runoff fell vastly short of expectations. Many disadvantaged and low income communities already struggling with water security faced increased and unnecessary challenges due to DWR's miscalculation, and water on the market saw over 1000% increase.

Like the city of Coalinga, for example, went from paying about $300 an acre foot of water in 2019, to now having to pay over $1,000 an acre foot of water. So it created a bill for the city that could not afford to meet the necessary needs of the community, and they need to pay over a million dollars for that additional water. It is critical that water modeling is as precise as possible in order to meet the demands of wildlife, the environment, and California's residents, especially for those residents and communities overburdened with economic and resource hardships.

SB 231 aims to modify DWR's models and ensure water stays a vital resource in the state for years to come. And I have a witness here with me today, actually via the Teleconference line, mayor of McFarland, Saul Ayon. And also in attendance are Mark Reynardi and Chris Applegate from the Auditor's Office to answer any technical questions related to the audit report.

Thank you, Senator. So moderator can you get Mayor Ayon on the line for us?

Please press 10 and then the operator will open your line.

And Mayor, when you are on the line, I think only the one witness. So you can have four minutes and we're ready when you are.

I think this is them.

Yes. Is that you, Mayor? We can hear you. Oh, no, not you, mayor.

Can you hear us?

I can hear you.

Go ahead.

I think it was just you I was hearing. Moderator.

I don't hear them either. I opened the line of the person that hit 10.

Mayor, you might be muted.

Your line is open. Go ahead. We heard you hit the buttons. Let's try this a different way. I'm going to move them back in. One second. Okay, your line is open. Go ahead.

Mayor, we're going to take support in the room while you figure it out. So if anyone in the room wants to join us at the microphone in support, seeing none, we'll try you again, Mayor. Okay.

Go ahead. Your line is open. It is working.

Okay, so we will go. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition here in the room? No, seeing none. Anybody who wants to me too in opposition in the room? No opposition in the room.

Okay, let's try one more time on the phone lines. Anyone in support or opposition? Moderator and we'll see if the mayor chimes in.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're in support or opposition, please press one, followed by 1, followed by 1. One moment, please. Go ahead.

Hello?

We can hear you. Go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Andres Ramirez, on behalf of the cities of Farmersville, Tulare, and Kingsburg, all in very strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

For any other participants, please press one followed by zero. And I think we've just been joined by Saul Ayon. Would you still like them to speak?

Sure. Be fair.

Okay. Go ahead, Saul.

Okay. Good morning, honorable Chair. Members of the Committee of Californians. My name is Saul Ayon, mayor of the city of McFarland. It's an honor to stand before you today as a representative of the community that's often overlooked and yet vital to the fabrics of our great state. City McFarland, like many other disadvantaged and low income communities, is at the mercy of policies and acts that often seem destined, but have profound effect on day to day lives for all citizens.

Today, I want to talk to you about an issue that's to our community, our region, and our indeed and indeed our entire state. The issue is water. Water is the lifeblood of our communities, filling our agricultural industries, supporting our families, sustaining our very existence. But as we are too aware, water is also a resource under threat. Especially for those on the margin society. The ability to predict, manage, and equally distribute the precious resource is essential.

And that is the reason I wholeheartedly support Senate Bill 231. Senate Bill 231 is not a criticism, but it's rather an opportunity. It's a Bill that aims to further empower the Department of Water Resources DWR with a set of important tools that can enhance effectiveness and accuracy of water management in California.

By establishing an annual process to evaluate and improve water supply forecast, this Bill will enable DWR to anticipate and prepare for future challenges more accurately, particularly those related to climate change. This Bill isn't about pointing fingers, but about building a future together. It's about providing our state's water stewards with the resources and tools they need to better serve all of us.

We understand Department of Water Resources is charged with the monumental tasks managing our state water supply amid an array of ever-evolving challenges. But discrepancies of water management has occurred. It is the people in the disadvantaged communities like McFarland who fill it most. Yet we acknowledge that every challenge provides an opportunity for improvement. Senate Bill 231 is precisely that.--it's an opportunity.

It offers a chance to improve our systems, to better our forecast, and to arm the DWR with the tools and resource it needs to continue to ensure our water security. We recognize that addressing these issues continental tasks. However, by supporting SB 231, we can equip the DWR to effectively combat the impacts of climate change on our water supply.

Accurate data, robust planning, and a responsible action on fundamental existing debts. This is not about looking backwards and assigning blank for past difficulties, but about looking forward and finding ways to make our state management system more resilient and better equipped to fix challenges of the future. Senate Bill 231 is a crucial step towards water security, not just for McFarland, but all California. By passing this Bill, we are safe that we are all in this and we are committed as mayor of McFarland.

Thank you, Mayor. There you are. I think we're losing you. You're cutting in and out a little.

Okay.

Okay. But I think we got it. That was great.

Thank you. I'm glad you could join us. Thank you for your thank you. Oh, is this another support? Come on up.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, seeing no further individuals on the phone lines or in person with support or opposition, bring it back to the dais. Any questions, comments? Mr. Vukudwood, did you

Just wanted to thank the author for all her hard work in this space. I really do appreciate this, and I don't know if it's too late to be added as an author, but I would like to be.

Of course.

Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just reiterate the comments of my colleague. As you mentioned in your opening, we've had the opportunity to have long conversations about water in your community. And it's know learning about the million plus people in the Central Valley in California that don't have access to clean drinking water. And I sat with the Tule River Tribe just last week, and they run out of water every July.

And it is real in California that we have people without access to clean drinking water. It's also to your point, the water rates are going up. And for a lot of Californians, that is going to be a huge burden. And so I really appreciate your leadership, and I think the amount that you care for your constituents and your community really comes through in these pieces of legislation. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. We do not have a quorum, so we will ask for motion when we do. Thank you, Senator.

And I think Senator Allen said he was en route, so hopefully he will be here soon.

Would you like to take more public comment? Madam Chair?

We finished that Bill. The author is gone.

Okay. That's what I thought. I'm so sorry to interrupt, but we're having just a little bit of an audio feed. If you could just turn the microphone down just a little bit. It's coming across really hot for the participants and us.

Okay. Thanks for the feedback.

All. Thank you so much.

You. Well, thank you, Senator Allen for coming over. I know everyone is in 16 places right now.

Journey. It's a journey here. Yes.

So we are now going to hear SB 389 by Senator Allen when he is ready. We'll give him a moment.

Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to be presenting SB 389, which will provide our Water Board with the ability to verify the existence and scope of claims water rights. Let me just start by thanking the opposition for all the folks in the opposition for their diligent engagement on this measure. I'm optimistic that the recent amendments done in collaboration with them resolve their concerns. So I know a number of them are going to be here.

So as you all know, California has a complicated history when it comes to water rights. Those who claim to hold rights prior to the 1914 establishment of what is now the Water Board are exempted from the same scrutiny given to their post-1914 counterparts. And as the state faces increased drought and water shortages, it's become increasingly more challenging for the board that we have tasked with managing overseeing our water system. It's become more challenging for them to approve new diversion applications or to limit orders for reduced usage, given their need to account for diversions that they lack sufficient information about.

So we seek to provide the board with the ability to ask for proof of these rights and relevant information. And with that ability, the board will be able to make more informed decisions which will benefit all holders in the system, regardless of their kind of right. So this Bill is primarily about information gathering.

It is true that information gathered could result in enforcement should it be shown that water has been or is being diverted unlawfully. But the Bill doesn't create any new mechanism. Any enforcement would have to be facilitated through existing tools already granted to the board.

So we're pleased with the progress we've made so far in our negotiations. I do want to give a shout out to my staff for Dylan who's been working really hard on trying to address many of the issues that have been raised with the opposition. I think we're very close to a final resolution, but here to testify in support are Matthew Baker, who's Policy Director for the Planning Conservation League, and also Jennifer Harder, who's a water law professor here at McGeorge Law School.

Thank you. Two minutes each when you guys are ready.

Good morning, Chair. Assembly Members. Thank you, Senator. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning Conservation League, sponsor of the Bill. As Senator said, this is simply intended to provide a tool for the board to better understand and manage the system, reliably, more reliably for all users. There are a million people in California without access to safe drinking water, entire fisheries on the verge of extinction, vast areas of agriculture that have been left dry over much of the last two decades.

We have to do better. And we have to do better with less. 40% of right holders in California and 35% of diversions by volume are held in pre-1914 rights, which, after over 100 years, still continue to be inadequately documented and not adequately understood.

Giving the board the power to verify the validity of these rights and their scope is not punitive, as the Senator said, it is about information gathering and just common sense. To be able to give the board this authority to account for the whole system reliably, we need that accounting as we have increased times of water supply scarcity.

There were a lot of concerns from some parties in the beginning when we started with this Bill, and over the course of the last month since we passed the Senate, we have worked diligently with opposition. We really appreciate the work that the Senator and his staff have done in reaching out to the opposition. We appreciate the work and effort of ACWA and CMUA and other parties that came to the table to get to the language that we have now. And we really think that we have a better Bill for it. So we urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee Members. My name is Jennifer Harder. I'm a water law professor at McGeorge School of Law and a water rights attorney, and I'm here to speak in support of SB 389. I want to thank the Senator and his staff and the Planning and Conservation League for all their hard work.

As the Senator indicated, SB 389 will allow the Water Board to assess whether a water right holder is diverting water lawfully. So I'll explain that for a moment. A water right is defined by specific elements. For example, an appropriate right is limited to a specific quantity of water that may be diverted from a particular river or creek during a specific period of time called a season of diversion.

A riparian right is limited to the riparian land in the riparian watershed. So any water right holder who uses water inconsistently with these and other elements that define their property interest in water are engaging in unauthorized diversion, which is unlawful. And only two entities are in a position to correct such unlawful use the courts and the State Water Board.

However, absent state water board requests, judicial enforcement is rare because it depends on third parties. And the legal tools available to the board do not clearly state that the board's authority to investigate includes pre 14 and riparian rights. This creates legal uncertainty, which is the core reason why unlawful use goes unaddressed.

So SB 389 fixes this problem sensibly by making it crystal clear that the board may investigate those pre fourteen s and riparians. And if the board identifies a problem, as the Senator indicated, it directs the board to use its normal enforcement procedures, which provide due process via notice, hearing and judicial appeal. The key to SB 389 is that it will ensure that any subsequent court challenge the focus of that judicial hearing will be on whether the board properly concluded that the water right holder violated the law and not whether the board had the authority to investigate in the first place.

So we've spent decades and decades arguing over that authority question. This wastes the state resources. Let's focus on the actual problem of how water users are using water and ensuring that everyone complies with the law protects lawful water right holders as well as the people of the state of California. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this Bill? Name, organization, and position, please.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Thank you.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support.

Dennis O'Connor with the Motor Lake committee in support.

Suzanne Hume. Clean Earth 4 Kids. Strong support.

Rebecca Marcus, representing a union of Concerned Scientists, in support.

Cintia Cortez with Restore the Delta in support.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no additional witnesses here in support, do we have principal witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Hi. You could join us if you want to.

I'll be brief. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Kris Anderson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies. Just want to thank the Senator Stafford, Dylan Elliott, the proponents, for all the hard work and discussions that have been put in on this Bill to this point. ACWA's Legislative Committee will be reconsidering our position on Friday in light of the most recent amendments and we'll certainly communicate any update to the committee and obviously the author. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other I guess we'll take tweeners and opposition at this time. Yeah.

Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District. We echo the comments from ACWA and we hope to remove our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Emily Pappas for TID. Also appreciate working with the author. And while we were opposed to the previous version, we're reviewing now, but things look positive. Thank you.

Morning chair Members. Dean Tally with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Just want to say thank you so much to this committee, staff, the author working with us. We're in alignment with ACWA. Thank you.

Thank you; I'm Tall. Alyssa Silhi, Foster City. The cities of Foster City, Mountain View and Corona are in opposition, but in light of the recent amendments, we are reviewing them and appreciate the improvements and hope to have a better position next time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Karen Lange on behalf of the Mayor of San Francisco, London Breed; Solano County; Stanislaus; Tulare; and San Joaquin Counties; and the South San Joaquin Irrigation districts. In opposition to the previous version. Hoping to revisit that position once they get a chance to look at it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the Mayor of Fresno, Mr. Dyer, Kern County Water Agency, Kings River Interest, and the city of Roseville currently in opposition. Appreciate the author's work and we'll be re evaluating that. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer, with Agricultural Council of California. I also appreciate all the hard work of the author and reviewing the amendments. Currently opposed; reviewing amendments. Thank you.

Good morning, Taylor Roschen on behalf of various agricultural associations. We echo the comments of AG council. Thanks.

Good morning. You're going to be hearing a lot of the same things for the next several people. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau and again want to echo the thanks and appreciation for everyone's hard work and reviewing the most recent amendments with the hopes of removing opposition. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Andrea Abergel with CMUA. I want to again echo, thank you very much for your work and diligence working with the opposition. Our legislative committee, similar to ACWA has to reassess our position. We're happy to do that and our Members are reviewing the current amendments. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Bryant on behalf of the Mountain Counties Water Resources Association. Similar comments as the previous people who spoke: At opposed position. We reevaluate our position with the amendments and thank the Senator and committee staff. Appreciate it.

Good morning. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute. Also appreciate all the hard work. We were opposed. We're reviewing the new amendments. Thank you.

Good morning, Annalee Akin on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and Mesa Water District, echoing the comments of Aqua, hoping to review the amendments and remove opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Lily Mackay. On behalf of San Diego County Water Authority, San Luis Delta Madota Water Authority, and United Water Conservation District, echoing everyone else's comments. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And thank you, Senator, and your staff. On behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Orange County Water District and Rancho, California Water District. Shockingly opposed to the former Bill and we'll be reviewing the recent amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one, but one of the senators giving her colleague a hard time, we will move to the phone lines. Moderator, any supporter opposition to SB 389?

Good morning, Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce and based on recent amendments, we will be reevaluating our position. Thank you.

Madam Chair, she stated if you're in support or opposition to Senate Bill 389, please press one followed by zero. Let's go to line 20. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife, in support.

And next is line eight. You are open.

Good morning. Kathy Schaefer, on behalf of the California Coalition of Climate Reality plus Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 14.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Abraham Mendoza. On behalf of the Community Water Center and also Water Foundation, strong support.

Line 19, you are open.

Thank you. Dana Ferreira on behalf of Modesto Irrigation District. We oppose the prior version of the Bill and are still reviewing the amendments and potential impacts. Thank you to the author for the work. Thank you.

And we'll give a final reminder. One followed by zero, if you're in support or opposition to SB 389, please go ahead. Line 16, you, too.

Hi, this is on behalf of California Trout and Trout Limited, and we would like to state our strong support for SB 389. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, we have got cleared the queue.

Thank you. I will bring it back to the dais. Questions? Comments? Seeing none-- Oh, yes, Mr. Bennett?

Absolutely essential. Bill, I think. So I really appreciate the author coming forward with this and the sponsors of the Bill. I think it defies logic to sort of say people have a right and we should ask people to clarify those rights for the benefit of everybody, the people that do have the rights and want to make sure that they are not sort of being disadvantaged by people who are inappropriately claiming those rights. So I really want to congratulate the author for moving this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. And I'll say, I was sitting as I mentioned earlier, I was sitting with some native Californians last week in my office, and I looked around and everybody in the room was either a native person or a woman. And we were talking about pre-1914 rights, and I said not anybody in this room would have been able to have one of these rights because none of us were able to be acknowledged as people or property owners in 1914.

And so I think that we need to constantly remember that's the paradigm we're talking about here, and obviously, no one is trying to blow up the water rights system, but it is really critically important that we understand what's out there, how we use it, and how we manage it, which is all you're trying to do. So I know this has been an incredibly hard Bill to move forward.

I want to commend you for your hard work in getting the tweeners to where they are today. I think it's about time they actually say they're removing their opposition since it's been so long. But that's coming, I assume. So I appreciate you getting there. And with that, we don't have a quorum. We do, we have a quorum. We're going to call the roll. Ms. Friedman walked in.

Bauer-Kahan? Here. Bauer-Kahan, here. Mathis? Alanis? Bennett? Here. Bennett, here. Dahle? Here. Dahle, here. Davies? Here. Davies, here. Friedman? Here Friedman, here. Hart? Here. Hart, here. Kalra? Pellerin? Here. Pellerin, here. Schiavo? Here. Schiavo, here. Villapudua? Ward? Weber?

We have a quorum, and with that would you like to close, Senator?

Yeah, I really appreciate all the hard work that's gone into it. And I know a lot of folks here have been working in this space for quite some time. And I do give a heartfelt appreciation to the opposition for seeing the logic and the value to what we were trying to do and getting to us to a place where we're able to move this forward. So thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Let's call the roll. We need a motion. Motion by Ms. Friedman. Second by Ms. Pellerin. I got so excited we had a quorum, I forgot about the motion.

SB 389 motion is do pass to appropriations. Bauer-Kahan? Aye. Bauer-Kahan, aye. Mathis? Alanis? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Dahle? No. Dahle, no. Davies? Not voting. Davies, not voting. Friedman? Aye. Friedman, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Kalra? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schiavo? Aye. Schiavo, aye. Villapudua? Ward? And Weber?

That Bill is on call. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

And Senator Alvarado Gill, you are next with SB 470. Oh, yeah. And while -- sure, does anyone want to move the consent calendar? Motion by Ms. Friedman, second by Ms. Schiavo. We'll call the roll.

SB 500 by Senator McGuire. Motion is due pass to Appropriations. Bauer-Kahan. Aye. Mathis. Alanis. Bennett. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Davies. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Hart. Aye. Kalra. Pellerin. Aye. Schiavo. Aye. Villapudua. Ward. Weber. Aye.

Perfect. The consent calendar is out, but we will leave the roll open for absent members. When you are ready, Ms. Alvarado.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to present Senate Bill 470. I want to start by accepting the amendments of the committee and to thank the committee staff and chair for all their help in getting us to a great place on this bill. As we're all too aware, the risk of wildfire is top of mind for many Californians. As we rapidly approach fire season, it's important for the state to take steps to enact policies that assist local agencies to mitigate this fire risk. Currently, California has a host of programs that seek to underwrite fuels management to avoid large scale fires.

But there are instances where management is not enough. With the necessary fire suppression infrastructure, such as correct piping size, water mains, and a number of fire hydrants to carry adequate water flow, the Christmas Valley and Myers communities in El Dorado County were able to contain the Caldor fire blaze at the perimeter of the community, and not a single home or life was lost. In fact, the entire community of Christmas Valley was saved. We need more of these stories, where communities persevere through one of the nature's most dangerous extreme weather events. Senate Bill 470 is very modest in its approach, as it seeks to piggyback on an existing program that expands it to allow for grant eligibility for the upsizing of underground infrastructure and hydrant installations to keep pace with risk.

Today I have Kim Boyd with the Tahoe City Public Utilities District to testify in support, and answer any questions that may arise. She will be calling in today.

Thank you, Senator. Moderator, can you get us Ms. Boyd on the phone, please?

Thank you.

Ms. Boyd...

Let's see if this is her. I don't have a name. One second. We didn't have anybody call in on the host number, but I do see somebody queued up. Let's try that.

Great.

Line 22, please. Go ahead.

Hi, this is just First Of Us again. I got cut off the last time with my phone. But we are calling in to actually put in support for ... again for both EnviroVoters and Water Foundation. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Madam Chair, may we double check the call-in number just to make sure.

Can we just call for a 1-0 again? Moderator.

With you. Yeah, I hit 1-0. There's only one line connected right now. So I don't think it's that person.

Ms. Boyd, if you're on, if you could press one, then zero to get connected, that would be great.

Ms. Kim Boyd. I just want to double check that we have the right phone number that we're sending to her. So we have 888-858-7164, with access code 1315447. Is that correct? Okay, thank you.

It's correct. We only have one line connected, and right now, the other participants.

Well, why don't we open that line, see who it is? Yeah, okay, great.

Absolutely. Then we have someone joining right now as well. I think this might be the person.

Ms. Kim Boyd, is that you?

Can you hear us?

I can. Can you hear me?

Yes!

We hear you now. Thank you.

Go ahead. Ms. Boyd. We lost you. The phones are great when they work. They're not great when they don't work. It's like all technology. There you are.

I'm ready.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

Okay, I'm ready to go. Can you hear me?

We can hear you. You could begin. Ms. Boyd, we're waiting for you to begin. You have three minutes.

Your line is open.

Okay. This is Kim Boyd. Do you hear me?

Yes, we hear you, and we'd like you to begin your testimony.

Okay, thank you. Sorry for the trouble there. All right, thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, and thank you, Senator, for your work on -- okay, so you can't hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, great. Oh, my God.

We need you to begin, Ms. Boyd. We can hear you.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Kim Boyd with the Tahoe City Public Utility District. I'm here to speak in support of SB 470.

Okay, Ms. Boyd, we are going to move on. This does not seem to be working. So with that, are there any more witnesses in the room in support? Wait. One second. We're going to turn your mic on. There we go. Go ahead, Adam.

Adam Quinonez on behalf the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Wallach on behalf of the California Tahoe Alliance. In support.

Good morning. Sarah ... on behalf of the El Dorado Water Agency in strong support.

Thank you.

Heidi Hannaman on behalf of the California Special Districts Association, North Tahoe and South Tahoe and Tahoe City PUDs in support. Thank you.

There we go. On behalf of Ms. Boyd.

Jason Bryant. On behalf of the Mountain Counties Waters Resources Association. We're in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses here in opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Let's open the lines one more time just for support and opposition on the phone lines, moderator.

Thank you, Madam Chair, if you're in support or opposition to SB 470, please press 1-0. One, followed by zero. And, Madam Chair, we are getting no participants queuing up.

Great. Bringing it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? A motion by Ms. Dahle and a second by Ms. Davies. Seeing no additional comments. I want to thank you, Senator, for this work. I also represent a high fire zone, and I know how critically important this is to every single person we represent, to do everything in our power to ensure their safety and security and the security of our communities. So I really appreciate this work on behalf of your constituents. I know it will help. And with that, would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank this committee for their support and their feedback. Feedback is great.

Thank you. Great. We have a motion and a second. We'll call the roll.

SB 470. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Bauer-Kahan. Aye. Mathis. Alanis. Bennett. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Davies. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Hart. Kalra. Pellerin. Aye. Schiavo. Aye. Villapudua. Ward. Weber. Aye.

Bill has eight votes, so it is out. But we'll leave the roll open for some members. Thank you, Senator. Senator Ashby. You are up. I just want to thank the senators for all being here and ready to go, it keeps us moving.

All just avoiding judiciary. Just kidding. Kind of. Good morning. Thanks for having me here.

Senator, this air conditioning is so loud. Do you mind moving the mic a little closer?

Sure.

Thank you.

Man, usually nobody tells me I'm not loud enough. That's a new one for me. All right.

Motion by Ms. Friedman and second by Dr. Weber.

All right, let me see if I can move through this quickly. I appreciate you all being here. Thank you.

Thank you. I know we're getting to the end of session and this committee has worked really hard, and I'm really proud to be here today. I'm here to present SB 659, which will allow the Department of Water Resources to establish a target for groundwater recharge capacity. And I am accepting this committee's amendments. The goal will include best practices identified by the department, to protect safe drinking water and a high level of water quality. Important to note that SB 659 does not waive any environmental laws, especially given my last appearance here. Okay. All right. You have to be -- all right, that was a nerd joke. Okay. Yeah, you got it.

That's good -- that was good enough as an audience of one. All right, right now we just need some goal setting. And the bottom line to my notes is that I'm bringing forward a groundwater goal without identifying winners and losers early on, because we need more supply before we do anything else. Sacramento region has done a great job of this over the last 20 years, and it's really allowed the Sacramento area to transfer water to drier parts of the state, which has helped everyone in the state of California. You already know that the aquifers in California have the storage capacity. The surface reservoirs have more storage capacity than the underground storage.

So what we need to do is adapt so that we don't lose the water during snowpack and the increased flood risks, which is what this will allow us to do, by storing more groundwater. The model can be scaled up to increase groundwater levels across the entire state, which is what we're proposing here. And I know this committee, maybe more than any other, knows that having those kinds of resources allow us to not have to touch our lakes and rivers as much, which then protects the ecosystems that we all care so deeply about in our environment here.

So SB 659 is an all-of-the-above strategy. It builds on the success of this legislature's work over the past many years to address climate change and water supply issues. And I ask for your aye vote. I do have a witness with me. This is Bryan O'Jackie. He's from the Regional Water Authority. Smart guy, knows a lot about water, and happy to have him with me.

Thank you. And we're glad you're here in person. That seems to be working better.

Thank you. Yeah, in person is definitely better. As the Senator said, Bryan O'Jackie, I'm with the Regional Water Authority. I will not use my four minutes, we'll be very fast. But I do want to say a couple of things. RWA is comprised of 22 drinking water suppliers in the greater Sacramento area, serving 2 million people. Our mission is to achieve the human right to water for those 2 million people. Our path forward has been defined by climate change, in achieving that goal, and what we have seen in the last 20 years, is that if we capture more water when it's wet and put it in our groundwater basin, then it's there for us when times are dry.

And it's not only there for us, being people, but it's also there for our environmental stewardship. But what we've done here, while it's a great success, we've only scratched the surface of what is possible. And when we take a step back and look statewide, we know that this can and is happening up and down the state. And it can happen at a tremendous scale. Right? So as the Senator mentioned, DWR estimates that there's 20 times the storage capacity in our groundwater basins as there is in our surface water reservoirs combined. And not only that, it's the lowest cost option, relative to many other choices. Right? So here in our region, it's about $300 an acre foot.

It's different prices in other places, but it is an extremely cost effective option. So it can be tremendously scaled up. It is low cost. It helps us actually manage the water in the way that the water would have flowed if we had not put so much infrastructure in place. So it's really a triple bottom line win, right. It's what we need to be doing. And what 659 does is say, "Let's develop a plan to do all of that." As the Senator said, it's not picking winners and losers. And so we're not saying this is how we are going to achieve all those good things.

It's saying, "DWR go tell us how we achieve all those good things," and then hopefully we can move past the contentious issues that you guys all face on a regular basis when we're talking about water. Because what we need to do is, again, capture more water when it's wet, so it's there for all of us when it's dry. Right. We're talking about expanding our ability to manage water effectively. And I will leave it at that. I appreciate the time and your indulgence.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in support? Name, organization and position. Look at that, Senator. Got a lot of fans.

Emily Pappas on behalf of the Eastern Municipal Water District and TID, in support.

Sarah Nocito on behalf of the El Dorado Water Agency, the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange and the California Builders Alliance in support.

Taylor Roschen on behalf of various agricultural associations and Western Ag. Processors in support.

Thank you. Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers and the City of Roseville in support.

Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Sonoma County Water Agency and Sustainable Conservation in support.

Good morning. Kris Anderson, Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Good morning. Tricia Geringer, Agricultural Council of California in support.

Good morning. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute in support.

Madam Chair and members, Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association in support.

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

Good morning. Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento in support.

Thank you. Seeing no additional witnesses here in support. Do we have any opposition in the room? Seeing none. Let's take it to the phone line. Support and opposition on the phone lines, Moderator.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As she stated, if you're in support or opposition of SB 659, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero at this time. One moment, we have one queuing up with an operator. Anybody else? Go and hit 1-0 if you're in support or opposition to Senate Bill 659. Please go ahead, line 28.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Roger Dickinson on behalf of CivicWell, formerly the local government commission, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Nobody else queued up.

Great. Bringing it back to the dais. Questions? Comments? Yeah, Ms. Schiavo.

Just wanted to thank the author for bringing this forward, would love to be added as a co-author. I think this is a really important bill and a really important process for us to undertake as a state. You know, I represent the San Fernando Valley and the Santa Clarita Valley, both of which have incredible opportunity for us to do, you know, water capture, underground storage, in the systems there. And so, looking forward to what this brings and the results, and what we can do in Southern California, where we especially need to make sure we're capturing every drop of water that we can get our hands on. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, well, I also want to thank the author for this bill. I think when I took over as chair of this committee and started my briefings and was told, well, there'll be no more snow in the Sierras in 25 years, but the good news is there'll be flooding. And I said, I don't know that I feel like that's good news, but we're in such dire straits that that was the good news. And I think that what we saw this year was exactly what the scientists were telling us, is we're going to have years of drought and then years of atmospheric rivers, and it is incumbent upon us during those years of plenty, like we had this year, that we take every drop and we store it. And I appreciated, Ryan, the point you made about-

-that we have this underground infrastructure that Mother Nature built us. Right. And I think it's amazing for those that haven't had the opportunity -- Lawrence Berkeley Lab has done an incredible job of mapping that and looking at it from the air and up and down the state. I know you know your underground well, and it is -- there's this beautiful underground storage that we can use. And our ability to do that and to make sure we're doing that efficiently and effectively, I think is really critical to the future of California's water resources.

And so I want to thank you and appreciate your continued focus on making sure that we're protecting the environment in the process -- and the water. You don't want to recharge everywhere. There's some land where that would actually be problematic and would pollute the underground water. So we've got to do it in a way that keeps the water clean but maximizes our storage capacity. And I think this bill will get us there. With that, would you like to close?

I would just say to you all, you sit on this committee, so you already know it's almost impossible to do a water bill without being really controversial. So, it's a big deal to have so many different groups and industries line up and say we like this strategy and pathway forward. I love this bill for that reason.

It's really the vision of RWA and it's actually built off of 20 years of hard work in the Sacramento region, long before I was ever involved, with people who said, "If we store more water we can have more water to share," -- which I love what you said assemblywoman, because that's what it's about in California. That's what the legislature is about. It's about a whole big diverse state with 40 million people and how we can build some infrastructure in certain places that will help everyone. So I think this is a good bill too and I'm glad you do as well.

Thank you. With that, do we have a motion? Yes, we have a motion and a second. We'll call the roll.

SB 659 motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Bauer-Kahan. Aye. Mathis. Alanis. Bennett. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Davies. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Hart. Kalra. Pellerin. Aye. Schiavo. Aye. Villapudua. Ward. Weber. Aye.

Thank you. That has a vote that's out but we will leave the roll open for absent members. Senator Dahle, thank you for your patience. We have a motion by Mr. Vice Chair Mathis, who snuck in to make the motion, and Senator Davies seconds.

Good morning-

That's a good start.

-Chair and members. First I want to just take a brief moment to explain the situation we have. Tried to do a statewide bill last year and wasn't successful. So I narrowed it down to, basically, a Siskiyou County bill. So what we have is spawning salmon in our creeks up there, wild. And we have irrigators who are willing to actually give away their water rights for flows in our streams, but at the same time, when they divert, they don't get the water to their farms. We have theft, we have leakage, and quite frankly, one of the oldest ditches in California.

So what this bill does, is basically, keeps the marijuana growers from driving down the county road, putting their water trucks and sucking out water out of the ditches and leakage. This bill allows us to put the water in a pipe so that we can actually deliver the 70 percent of water, that's remaining, to the water-right holders, to their farm. So that's basically what this bill does. I will accept the amendments that the Chair has offered to make sure that we don't damage folks while we're putting in this pipe. And that's really what the bill does. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator, do we have any witnesses here in support? I don't think I have a primary witness, no.

My primary witness was not able to make it. I actually had one of the ditch owners, water-right holders there, so sorry.

Okay. No, you are a great primary witness, Senator. Any other witnesses in support? Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Let's take it to the phone lines. Moderator, any support or opposition of SB 836?

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you're in support or opposition to SB 836, please press one, followed by zero one, followed by zero at this time. And Madam Chair, nobody is queuing up.

Great. Thank you. Bring it back to the dais. Yes. Ms. Friedman.

Hi, Senator. This is an interesting bill, and it reminds me a little bit of back when I was in local government and people would complain about things their neighbors were doing, or talk about who had to fix what, or whose easement went under whose property. So I'm just curious.

So if someone under your bill would go on somebody else's property and cause damage or be trespassing, sort of legitimately trespassing, I mean, how would you resolve all of that with this? If someone says, "Hey, they're just coming in every day, they're just trying to be a pain," or, "They came on and they destroyed my gate or my fence" -- I mean, it seems like this could open up a lot more of those conflicts than just saying, "You got your property, you have your property. You want to go on their property, you have to get permission. That's it."

Well, first of all, thank you for that question, because I think it's something that we've tried to address several different ways. First off, they are not going to go on their property. They have a right to go only down the canal where the ditch is at. They're not able to go across any other part of the property, which they have that right. So they are going to go down the conduit where their ditch is to-

Is the conduit their property? The other people's property?

Yeah. Well, it's through their property, but it's not -- you have to stay on that parcel where the ditch actually is. You can't cross the property. So let's say you're the third property owner down the ditch, from where the ditch starts -- you can't just cut across their property and go to the ditch. You have to go down the easement of the ditch.

So the ditch has an easement on both sides. That's publicly accessible now?

No, it's only accessible by the people who have the water right.

But I'm saying for all of those other people who have the water rights, it's already publicly accessible, for them?

Yes.

So if it's already publicly accessible, what does this change?

Why do we have a bill?

Yeah.

Because-

It cracks me up how they don't talk about-

Moderator if you can mute yourself?

Like all the farmers. You know when we think of farmers, we think of likr-

Moderator?

Corn and soybeans, and-

I'm hearing you talk about farmers, so if you could just turn yourself off.

Farmers. You know what I mean?

The reason we need the-

It's just funny how they call them farmers.

I think our sergeants can turn it off.

They're not talking about, you know, guys growing food, right?

Moderator. I need you to stop talking or turn yourself off.

That's their number one cash crop.

Moderator?

It's been getting worse. This happened yesterday. It's horrible.

Basically, the reason we are doing the bill is: in California, the law doesn't allow you to put it in a conduit. It allows you to fix the ditch the way it is, but it doesn't allow you to put it in a conduit. That's what we're trying to do, is to make sure that we deliver the water that's actually being diverted at the head of the ditch to the people at the bottom at the end of the ditch. We wouldn't need a bill. We have access. It's a matter of putting it into a conduit, a pipe.

Okay, so would everybody have to agree to putting it in the pipe? If there's a reason, maybe, why the person who's got the canal running across their property, is there a reason why they would not want that to happen?

Well, the original version of the bill we had some opposition from. It turned into a lot -- but no. The people on this ditch want to be able to put it in a pipe, but the law doesn't -- California doesn't allow you to put it into a conduit. It allows you to go in and fix it, allows you to put concrete, but it doesn't allow you to actually put it in a pipe.

Why not?

I don't know. They do it in Colorado. They do it in a lot of other states. And I tried to do a statewide bill to allow this so we could do water conservation, but we got hung up, and so we narrowed it down to just this county.

Is there any environmental reason why you'd want it to stay kind of open water?

Well, I don't know what the other reasons are. I just know that the law doesn't allow that. And that's why we have the bill.

In your bill -- because your district is pretty big, though -- so would this be your entire district that it would...?

No, this is only for Siskiyou County, where the farmers are actually trying to give water to the fish. So if you have 100 percent of your water right, and you give away 30 percent, and by the time it gets to the last guy on the ditch, and there's 50 percent of the water stolen or taken or evaporated or whatever -- they don't get it, so they're losing their water right. So we're trying to attempt to help the fish, at the same time, get what's left available to the farmers that actually have their water right. So they're giving up 30 percent of their water and they want to make sure that the other 70 percent gets to their farms.

So this is one of these bills where this whole situation is so sort of foreign to me, that it's really hard for me to -- first of all, just reading it, try to understand what's happening. And when I first read the bill, I actually had a very different impression of what was going on here. I thought it was sort of a dispute between neighbors kind of thing, or it could be, so I appreciate your explaining it and okay.

Thank you. We're trying to conserve water and help fish.

Did you want to -- Mr. Vice Chair?

Actually, yes, thank you. Senator Dahle, I actually really appreciate this bill, and I wish it would be a statewide thing. Because to your point, for those of us in Ag. areas in dealing with these things, quite often, you do have people that show up and will pump water out or pump water into their field, essentially stealing water. So having it covered prevents that. But to your point, it also prevents evaporation loss, and water is critical. So I wish you well on this bill, and I look forward to it becoming more than just a singular county thing and eventually a statewide thing. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I would just point out that the benefits I see in the bill is that it encourages people to give up some of their water right, and make up for it by not losing something that was already being lost, which is to theft and evaporation. So it's a win for the fish, and it's also a win for the people that are giving up their water rights and actually ending a problem that they have.

Thank you. Can I clarify something, Senator? So as I read the bill, Section C, it just allows someone to go -- is it C? I think it's C. Yeah, two or more landowners -- it allows someone to fix this where it's on, right? Where your pipe crosses someone else's land, to your point. Right. You can go fix that ditch or put it in a pipe or whatever the case may be, but nothing in here seems to keep them to, as you explained to Ms. Friedman, staying in that water right of way. So I guess I'm a little bit confused by -- is that because this doesn't change trespass law? Or what's your basis to say they're going to stay in that right of way rather than trespass onto someone's private property?

So they have the ability to go fix the ditch the way it is, but they cannot just simply -- let's say this line is the ditch, right here. They can't simply just cut across somebody's property and go to the ditch. They have to access the ditch from there and then go down the ditch and fix the ditch.

The bill doesn't say that, I guess, as far as I can tell. So I guess I'm just a little -- that would make me feel so much better, Senator. That's why I'm asking.

Because it becomes somewhat vague when you talk about easement versus prescriptive rights. The ditch has been there for 100 years and there's been different owners. And so it doesn't allow you to cross their property only where you have the ditch, where it's at -- anyway, so -- but what really this bill does is allow you to put it into a conduit. And that's the issue that we have in California, is the law doesn't allow you to put it into a conduit, and we want to put it into a conduit so we actually have less maintenance and we can get the full water right to the actual water-right holders.

Okay, I appreciate that, and maybe you and I should continue this conversation. I won't be supporting it today.

I'd love to take you up to the ditch.

I'd love to see the ditch. But I guess to your point, if my concern here is the private property rights and the ability to cross and trespass into someone's land, which I think may have been Ms. Friedman's concern as well. It sounds like that isn't your intent, but as far as I can tell, the bill doesn't dictate how you get to the repair, that this talks -- or the change to the conveyance. So if we can maybe clarify that, then I look forward to supporting it on the floor. With that, would you like to close?

I would just like to say that in Siskiyou County, where we have -- they're taking out the dams on the Klamath, as you probably are aware, and we also have wild salmon there, and so the irrigators up there have been very proactive in trying to do safe harbor agreements so we can actually protect the fish. And the farmers are willing to give their water rights up as long as they get full allotments. So that's the goal of this bill. It's simply a win-win for everybody. Unfortunately, the state law doesn't allow us to put in a conduit, so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I think we had a motion and a second. Yes. So we will call the roll.

SB 836. Motion is do pass as amended. Bauer-Kahan. Not voting. Mathis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Bennett. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Davies. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Hart. Aye. Kalra. Pellerin. Aye. Schiavo. Aye. Villapudua. Aye. Ward. Aye. Weber. Aye.

That is out with twelve votes. We'll leave the roll open for our one absent member.

Thank you. I'm available if you have questions further, on my bill.

Thank you, Senator. Okay, we will go back through the roll for everyone, starting the consent calendar.

SB 500. Mathis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Villipudua. Aye. Ward. Aye.

Consent calendar is out. 14-0.

SB 231. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Bauer-Kahan. Aye. Mathis. Aye. Oh, shoot. I'm sorry. No, we don't-

We don't have a motion on that one. This is -- yeah, we didn't have a quorum, so we have a motion by Mr. Mathis seconded by Mr. Kalra. No worries.

SB 231. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Bauer-Kahan. Aye. Mathis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Bennett. Aye. Dahle. Aye. Davies. Aye. Friedman. Aye. Hart. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Pellerin. Aye. Schiavo. Aye. Villapudua. Aye. Ward. Aye. Weber. Aye.

14-0. That bill is out.

Okay, SB 389 motion do pass to Appropriations. Mathis. No. Alanis. No. Kalra. Aye. Villapudua. Not voting. Ward. Aye. Weber. Aye. So that's 9-0, that one's out.

Okay, SB 470. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Mathis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Hart. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Villapudua. Aye. Ward. Aye. And that's 14-0.

Okay, consent calendar. SB 659 by Ashby. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Mathis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Hart. Aye. Kalra. Aye. Villapudua. Aye. Ward. Aye. And that one's out, 14-0.

This is SB 836, Dahle. Motion do pass as amended. Kalra. Not voting. Okay, that's 12-0.

Becca, you need to adjourn.

Rebecca.

Oh, sorry.

You need to adjourn. Sorry. I just thought you were-

Oh! This meeting is adjourned.